Higher decay rates would have burned the planet?

2 views
Skip to first unread message

dysfunction

unread,
Sep 2, 2006, 11:12:56 PM9/2/06
to
I have heard it said that, if radioactive decay rates were so high in
the past that the amount of decay we see now could have occured in only
6,000 years, the Earth would be so hot it could not support life. Is
this statement true, and if so, can someone link me to a source that
demonstrates calculations supporting this?

Free Lunch

unread,
Sep 2, 2006, 11:15:05 PM9/2/06
to
On 2 Sep 2006 20:12:56 -0700, in talk.origins
"dysfunction" <migh...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1157253176.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:

How much do you understand about physics?

dysfunction

unread,
Sep 2, 2006, 11:29:07 PM9/2/06
to

Highschool level. I guess math isn't really necessary, just a reputable
source, explaining in at least _some_ depth how it was arrived at.

Stuart

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 12:01:57 AM9/3/06
to

The terrestrial heat flow is ~10^13watts or on the order of 70
milliWatts per square meter. The majority of that is due to radio decay
of K and U isotopes which have half-lifes of (~ 1billion years K40)
(4.5 Billion years U238).

If the creationists are correct and radio-decay occurred at a much
faster pace, the terrestrial heat flow would be thousands to millions
of times larger. That means the terrestrial heat flow in a YEC scheme
would be on the order of hundreds to many thousands of Watts per square
meter.

An active volcano doesn't even come close to that.

So "Eden" would be radioactive and hot as hell.

Any questions?

Stuart

Timberwoof

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 12:25:38 AM9/3/06
to
In article <1157256117....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Stuart" <bigd...@aol.com> wrote:

> dysfunction wrote:
> > Free Lunch wrote:
> > > On 2 Sep 2006 20:12:56 -0700, in talk.origins
> > > "dysfunction" <migh...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > > <1157253176.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
> > > >I have heard it said that, if radioactive decay rates were so high in
> > > >the past that the amount of decay we see now could have occured in only
> > > >6,000 years, the Earth would be so hot it could not support life. Is
> > > >this statement true, and if so, can someone link me to a source that
> > > >demonstrates calculations supporting this?
> > >
> > > How much do you understand about physics?
> >
> > Highschool level. I guess math isn't really necessary, just a reputable
> > source, explaining in at least _some_ depth how it was arrived at.
>
> The terrestrial heat flow is ~10^13watts or on the order of 70
> milliWatts per square meter. The majority of that is due to radio decay
> of K and U isotopes which have half-lifes of (~ 1billion years K40)
> (4.5 Billion years U238).

I think you mean K and U isotopes *that* have half-lives of ~1BY and
4.5BY respectively. There are other isotopes of these elements that have
much shorter half-lives, which becomes important in a moment. (I don't
often come across a sentence whose meaning changes depending on whether
'which' or 'that' is used, so having found one, I have to point it out.
In this case, using 'which' would indicate that all isotopes have a
particular half-life; using 'that' means you're only talking about the
ones that do have particular half-lives. :-)

> If the creationists are correct and radio-decay occurred at a much
> faster pace, the terrestrial heat flow would be thousands to millions
> of times larger. That means the terrestrial heat flow in a YEC scheme
> would be on the order of hundreds to many thousands of Watts per square
> meter.
>
> An active volcano doesn't even come close to that.
>
> So "Eden" would be radioactive and hot as hell.
>
> Any questions?
>
> Stuart

dysfunction, recall that radioactive decay depends on the strengths of
the strong and weak nuclear forces as well as on how unstable a given
nucleus is. The more unstable it is, the more easily the repulsive
forces of all those positively charged protons can overcome the
attractive forces of the weak and strong nuclear forces. So one way to
accomplish a higher rate of radioactive decay would be to decrease the
strength of the strong and weak nuclear forces.

But that has some unfortunate results. First off, nuclear fusion as goes
on in stars would happen at a very different rate, and the whole
universe would look very, very different than it does now. Second, even
if somehow all the same elements could have been created, many more if
not all of their isotopes would be naturally radioactive. For instance,
carbon-12 is not normally considered radioactive, but Carbon-14 is. With
certain changes to the strength of the nuclear forces, carbon-12 would
become radioactive. So would oxygen and nitrogen, and many other
elements necessary for life.

And since there is no evidence from astronomy that the strength of the
nuclear forces has changed in the past, there's little scientific
foundation for any claim that it did.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.

Perplexed in Peoria

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 1:10:37 AM9/3/06
to

"dysfunction" <migh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1157253176.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Why would a YEC even want to claim that? Clearly God could have
created the Earth 6000 years ago so that it looked 4.5 billion
years old. If that solution is unsatisfactory (perhaps because
it suggests a deceptive God), then how is the claim that God
has been fiddling around with radioactive decay rates (to cause
the same deception) any better?

Bobby Bryant

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 1:59:02 AM9/3/06
to
In article <httKg.20406$kO3....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,

"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
> "dysfunction" <migh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1157253176.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> I have heard it said that, if radioactive decay rates were so high in
>> the past that the amount of decay we see now could have occured in only
>> 6,000 years, the Earth would be so hot it could not support life. Is
>> this statement true, and if so, can someone link me to a source that
>> demonstrates calculations supporting this?
>
> Why would a YEC even want to claim that? Clearly God could have
> created the Earth 6000 years ago so that it looked 4.5 billion
> years old.

And given the lack of constraints on God's capabilities, he could have
created it *yesterday*, such that it *really*was* 6,000 years old.


> If that solution is unsatisfactory (perhaps because it suggests a
> deceptive God), then how is the claim that God has been fiddling
> around with radioactive decay rates (to cause the same deception)
> any better?

--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada

Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.

Cubist

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 2:06:03 AM9/3/06
to

Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> "dysfunction" <migh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1157253176.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > I have heard it said that, if radioactive decay rates were so high in
> > the past that the amount of decay we see now could have occured in only
> > 6,000 years, the Earth would be so hot it could not support life. Is
> > this statement true, and if so, can someone link me to a source that
> > demonstrates calculations supporting this?
>
> Why would a YEC even want to claim that?
Because it clearly demonstrates that Mainstream Science Got It
Wrong. Why else does *any* YEC *ever* make *any* sciencey clains?

>Clearly God could have
> created the Earth 6000 years ago so that it looked 4.5 billion
> years old. If that solution is unsatisfactory (perhaps because
> it suggests a deceptive God), then how is the claim that God
> has been fiddling around with radioactive decay rates (to cause
> the same deception) any better?

Do not make the mistake of presuming that YECs give two wet farts in
a hurricane about secular fripperies such as Intellectual Coherence.
YECs *know* that they are right, and mainstream science is wrong.
Everything else is a trivially unimportant detail.

Thurisaz the Einherjer

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 2:17:29 AM9/3/06
to
dysfunction:

Radioactive decay produces heat. There's quite some radioactive stuff deep
inside the earth and it contributes to the temperature on our planet. Not
that much if memory serves, compared to solar heating, but there is an
influence.
The decay of all that stuff in a few millennia instead of several billions
of years would of course have generated all that heat much faster too. I
leave it to you to imagine the consequences.
I don't remember the exact URL, but I'm pretty sure this is dealt with
somewhere on www.talkorigins.org/indexcc.

--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."

My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus

Bobby Bryant

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 2:27:13 AM9/3/06
to
In article <1157253176.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,

Let's see... all the thermal energy actually generated in 4.5 billion
years released in a compressed time span of 6,000 years... that's a
speed-up by a factor of 750,000,000.

Bobby Bryant

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 2:33:14 AM9/3/06
to
In article <edds1p$vlg$7...@online.de>,

Thurisaz the Einherjer <MAILTOc...@carcosa.de> writes:
> dysfunction:
>
>> I have heard it said that, if radioactive decay rates were so high in
>> the past that the amount of decay we see now could have occured in only
>> 6,000 years, the Earth would be so hot it could not support life. Is
>> this statement true, and if so, can someone link me to a source that
>> demonstrates calculations supporting this?
>
> Radioactive decay produces heat. There's quite some radioactive stuff deep
> inside the earth and it contributes to the temperature on our planet. Not
> that much if memory serves, compared to solar heating, but there is an
> influence.
> The decay of all that stuff in a few millennia instead of several billions
> of years would of course have generated all that heat much faster too. I
> leave it to you to imagine the consequences.
> I don't remember the exact URL, but I'm pretty sure this is dealt with
> somewhere on www.talkorigins.org/indexcc.

IIRC, Kelvin calculated that the earth was 100,000,000 years old on
the basis of cooling. But he didn't know about radioactive decay.

Assuming his calculations were otherwise correct, the earth would have
cooled down to its current temperature 4.4 billion years ago, in the
absence of radioactivity.

Manny Feld

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 7:09:41 AM9/3/06
to
Cubist wrote:
>
> Do not make the mistake of presuming that YECs give two wet farts in
> a hurricane about secular fripperies such as Intellectual Coherence.
> YECs *know* that they are right, and mainstream science is wrong.
> Everything else is a trivially unimportant detail.

Then why do they use printing presses and computers if mainstream
science which grounds ALL our technology is wrong? Do you detect a lack
of consistency here?

Manny Feld
>

The Last Conformist

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 7:45:27 AM9/3/06
to

That's a trivially unimportant detail.

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 7:49:48 AM9/3/06
to
Stuart wrote:
> Any questions?

I'm not sure of the precise details of the creationist claim and the
rebuttal.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html has for the latter,
"Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would
have produced enough heat to melt the earth (Meert 2002)." This points
to,
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htm

But I still don't get it. However, I suggest that either of two
proposals, if correct, disposes at once of the claim - leaving aside
that the claim is ludicrous, and anyway it actually is possible to
observe radioactive elements in outer space, in the spectra of
supernova star remnants, decaying as predicted. The proposals:

1. If uranium-bearing rocks were only formed 6000 years ago, the amount
of uranium that they have lost by fission in that time would have
melted the rock.

2. If the entire planet was only formed 6000 years ago, the amount of
uranium that it has lost by fission would have melted the surface,
which is not reported to have happened between creation and now, and
would not be survivable, unless gopher would is /really/ tough, and
fireproof.

This does need checking.

It would be a relatively futile exercise to calculate a reasonable
minimum age of the earth under conditions of accelerated radioactive
decay that does not violate certain reasonable constraints, not only
that most of the surface remains solid, but that the sea doesn't boil.
In fact, sustainability of human life looks like a good constraint for
the argument. So... how does 50 Celsius sound?

I haven't ruled out a miracle, of course - God said to the molecules
"Be still" and the earth froze - but the creationists evidently were
arguing for a not-fully-miraculous young earth, so they lose.

Jim Willemin

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 8:10:26 AM9/3/06
to
Timberwoof <timberw...@infernosoft.com> wrote in
news:timberwoof.spam-11...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net:

[SNIP]


>
> dysfunction, recall that radioactive decay depends on the strengths of
> the strong and weak nuclear forces as well as on how unstable a given
> nucleus is. The more unstable it is, the more easily the repulsive
> forces of all those positively charged protons can overcome the
> attractive forces of the weak and strong nuclear forces. So one way to
> accomplish a higher rate of radioactive decay would be to decrease the
> strength of the strong and weak nuclear forces.
>
> But that has some unfortunate results. First off, nuclear fusion as
> goes on in stars would happen at a very different rate, and the whole
> universe would look very, very different than it does now. Second,
> even if somehow all the same elements could have been created, many
> more if not all of their isotopes would be naturally radioactive. For
> instance, carbon-12 is not normally considered radioactive, but
> Carbon-14 is. With certain changes to the strength of the nuclear
> forces, carbon-12 would become radioactive. So would oxygen and
> nitrogen, and many other elements necessary for life.
>
> And since there is no evidence from astronomy that the strength of the
> nuclear forces has changed in the past, there's little scientific
> foundation for any claim that it did.
>

Timberwoof, this is a very nice, clear, succinct, and (at least to me)
understandable explanation. It raises the novel point that conditions
which would signiicantly increase decay rates of presently radiaoctive
isotopes would also result in many other (presently stable) isotopes
becoming radioactive. Of course, if this occurred it would certainly
increase the amount of heat released during the 'rapid decay' phase of
history.

Dysfunction, one can make an estimate of the surface temperature of a body
given the surface heat flow using the Stefan=Boltzmann relation for black-
body radiation: Q/A = sTE4, where Q/A is the heat flow in watts per zquare
meter, s is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.67 x 10E-8), and TE4 is the
absolute (Kelvin) surface temperature raised to the fourth power.
Now, to plug in and crunch: to get the observed amount of decay in 6,000
years, we need to accelerate the decay rates by about 750,000 times
(4,500,000,000/6,000 is 750,000). That means the average heat flow would
be increased by some 750,000 times; if the current heat flow is 70 mW/sq.
meter, then the average heat flow for a 'rapid decay' model would be just
750,000 x 0.070 or a little more than 50,000 Watts/sq. meter. Plugging
into the S-B relation, we have 5 X 10E4 = 5.67 x 10E-8 TE4, or
T E4 = 0.88 x 10E12; taking fourth roots we get
T (degrees Kelvin) = 0.96 x 10E3 = 960 degrees K; subtracting 273 to get
Celsius, we get T = 687 degrees C surface temperature. This is very close
to the temperature of molten granite (though much cooler than molten
basalt, which is about 1200 degrees C). Now, this is an estimate of the
*average* surface temperature over the last 6,000 years, assuming that the
increased radioactive decay rates necessary for a young earth creationist
position ended yesteday. Knowing that the earth's surface has bees
somewhat cooler than molten granite for at least the last 3,000 years means
that the earth's surface temperatures during the 'rapid decay' phase
postulated by YECs must have been considerably higher. However, a minimum
ballpark estimate of earth surface temperature of about 700 degrees C means
the continents (at least) would be partially molten.

Jim
"Value nothing but truth, compassion, and love"

Stuart

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 12:54:37 PM9/3/06
to

Robert Carnegie wrote:
> Stuart wrote:
> > Any questions?
>
> I'm not sure of the precise details of the creationist claim and the
> rebuttal.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html has for the latter,
> "Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would
> have produced enough heat to melt the earth (Meert 2002)." This points
> to,
> http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htm
> > But I still don't get it. However, I suggest that either of two
> proposals, if correct, disposes at once of the claim - leaving aside
> that the claim is ludicrous, and anyway it actually is possible to
> observe radioactive elements in outer space, in the spectra of
> supernova star remnants, decaying as predicted. The proposals:
>
> 1. If uranium-bearing rocks were only formed 6000 years ago, the amount
> of uranium that they have lost by fission in that time would have
> melted the rock.
>
> 2. If the entire planet was only formed 6000 years ago, the amount of
> uranium that it has lost by fission would have melted the surface,
> which is not reported to have happened between creation and now, and
> would not be survivable, unless gopher would is /really/ tough, and
> fireproof.

Ah, but the extreme heat created the vapor canopy !

<snip>

Stuart

dysfunction

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 1:04:00 PM9/3/06
to

No, thanks a lot to everyone who answered. I had forgotten about the
evidence supernovas provide for constant decay rates, as well.

Gary Bohn

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 1:57:16 PM9/3/06
to
"Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
news:1157284187.9...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:

What I find funny about all this is those same Creationists who point to
a change of constant to increase decay rates are the same ones who point
out the narrow range of possible constant values which support life.

On one hand they want us to wonder at the current values of those
constants and how designed to support life they appear to be but then
turn around (they seem to do the 'turning around bit all too frequently)
and claim those constants were different in the recent past while still
supporting life.


--
Gary Bohn

Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
bible.

Von R. Smith

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 4:43:18 PM9/3/06
to

Bobby Bryant wrote:
> In article <httKg.20406$kO3....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> >
> > "dysfunction" <migh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1157253176.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> I have heard it said that, if radioactive decay rates were so high in
> >> the past that the amount of decay we see now could have occured in only
> >> 6,000 years, the Earth would be so hot it could not support life. Is
> >> this statement true, and if so, can someone link me to a source that
> >> demonstrates calculations supporting this?
> >
> > Why would a YEC even want to claim that? Clearly God could have
> > created the Earth 6000 years ago so that it looked 4.5 billion
> > years old.
>
> And given the lack of constraints on God's capabilities, he could have
> created it *yesterday*, such that it *really*was* 6,000 years old.

And there is always the "Next Thursday"-ism argument that God won't
actually create the universe until *next* week, and our apparent
experiences of what is happening now are just implanted memories that
we will be recalling next week.

Bobby Bryant

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 5:32:39 PM9/3/06
to
In article <Xns9833799CE...@130.133.1.4>,
Gary Bohn <gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> writes:

> What I find funny about all this is those same Creationists who
> point to a change of constant to increase decay rates are the same
> ones who point out the narrow range of possible constant values
> which support life.
>
> On one hand they want us to wonder at the current values of those
> constants and how designed to support life they appear to be but
> then turn around (they seem to do the 'turning around bit all too
> frequently) and claim those constants were different in the recent
> past while still supporting life.

Creationist arguments are almost always _ex vacuo_.

Scientists build up theories by means of multiple supporting lines of
evidence, but almost every creationist claim stands on its own, often
to the point of conflicting with other claims offered by the same
advocate.

Bobby Bryant

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 5:35:20 PM9/3/06
to
In article <1157316198.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,

Like the Song of the Whatsits before Ilúvatar. We're just singing it
right now; we'll have to act it out come Thursday.

Timberwoof

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 6:52:11 PM9/3/06
to
In article <Xns9833532591FBFji...@216.196.97.142>,
Jim Willemin <jimwi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Knowing that the earth's surface has bees
> somewhat cooler than molten granite for at least the last 3,000 years means
> that the earth's surface temperatures during the 'rapid decay' phase
> postulated by YECs must have been considerably higher. However, a minimum
> ballpark estimate of earth surface temperature of about 700 degrees C means
> the continents (at least) would be partially molten.

How long would it have taken for the Earth's surface to cool off enough
for us? How would the elevated temperature have affected the atmosphere?
I imagine that light elements dissolved in rocks would have outgassed
and left traces.

Bury Setterfield

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 7:41:11 PM9/3/06
to

Dysfunction is correct. The amount of energy released by cramming more
than 4 billion years' worth of radioactive decay into a mere 6000 years
would melt the earth's crust, provided that the energies of those
accelerated decays were the same as those we observe today. This has
led Barry Setterfield (BS), one of the very most eminent of all
creation scientists to have emigrated from the Land Down Under to
southern Oregon, and one of the top two husbands ever of the former
Helen "Penny" Fryman, to come up with a theory in which the speed of
light, Planck's constant, the Gravitational constant, particle masses,
and whatever else might be necessary on an ad hoc basis, to change with
time in such a way that radioactive decay rates, when measured i terms
of "atomic time" were the same rate in the past as they are now, but in
terms of "dynamic time" were much faster in the past. . Everything's
supposed to happen the same way as now when one uses "atomic time",
except, of course, when that would cause the earth to boil, or lose its
atmosphere, or something yucky. However, everything is explained by
time-varying constants when you use dynamic time.

Dynamic time seems to be the time used for gravitational phenomena.
Atomic time is slowing down relative to dynamic time. Therefore,
radioactive decay in the past was faster when viewed using dynamic
time. BS insists that we can use the usual laws of physics as long as
we restrict ourselves to atomic time. That should mean that the
energies of radioactive decay events, should be constant, as long as we
take care to ensure that our standard of energy measurement uses atomic
time, rather than atomic time. However, that's not what BS theory
actually predicts. BS theory always predicts results agreeing with an
age for the earth, the universe, life, and everything of on the order
of 10,000 years (dynamical time), although BS concedes that Carl Sagan
was right about billions and billions of years, as long as Sagan was
using atomic time.

You see, dynamic time is measured by the number of revolutins the earth
has made around the sun, which is determined by gravitational forces.
Both radioactive decay and chemistry (and therefore fundamental
biological processes) are supposed to go on as usual if we use atomic
time, meaning that the ratio of a mean human lifetime to the mean time
of decay for a particular atom should be fixed. So if radioactive decay
were faster in the past, it would follow that humans lived
correspondingly shorter lives (as measured by the number of revolutions
the sun made around the sun). That, however, would be completely
opposite the empirical evidence of Genesis, which asserts that people
might have lived up to 969 years of dynamical time. There's some reason
in BS theory why that doesn't happen, but it'll never make any sense.

BS theory is one rich in predictive power. One might have thought that
a theory messing with our scales of time, mass, and fundamental
constants would have stopped long enough to figure out what is supposed
to replace Newton's Laws of Motion, but again you'd be wrong in your
expectations. BS theory has managed to do all that it does without ever
deciding what the BS equations of motion should be. It thus exceeds all
expectations yet again.

More recently BS has explained to us how his theory is compatible with
Special Relativity. When challenged, he replied that Special Relativity
was wrong, although BS has shown that his theory is compatible with SR
anyway. BS theory, according to its author, is also compatible with
something called LR, which is short for Lorentzian Relativity. H.
Lorentz was an eminent Dutch physicist of about a century ago who
published, before Einstein, the equations used to transform between
inertial coordinate systems in Special Relativity. (Lorentz's premises
were somewhat different from Einstein's.) Lorentz's relativity actually
involved something called the Lorentz Contraction, which is also part
of standard Special Relativity. However, the modern incarnation of LR
espoused by BS doesn't have Lorentz Transformations. I hope none of
this discourse on BS theory confuses you.

Bury Setterfield

.

Bury Setterfield

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 7:57:41 PM9/3/06
to
Robert Carnegie wrote:

> But I still don't get it. However, I suggest that either of two
> proposals, if correct, disposes at once of the claim - leaving aside
> that the claim is ludicrous, and anyway it actually is possible to
> observe radioactive elements in outer space, in the spectra of
> supernova star remnants, decaying as predicted.

That doesn't quite refute BS theory, which claims that the speed of
light (measured using dynamical time, but not atomic time) was faster
in the past than it is now, and that the rates of radioactive decay
were faster in the past in the same proportion.

Suppose, to use a numerical example, that the half-life of some
particular isotope's decay is currently 10 years. Suppose further that
when a supernova exploded sometime in the past, that the half life was
only 2 years. So the rate was 5 times faster than it is now, but
according to BS theory, the speed of light was also 5 times faster in
the past. Suppose that at time 0 there is a certain amount of the
radioactive isotope. Then two years later there is only half as much,
and the light absorbed (or emitted, as the case may be) by atoms of
that isotope is reduced by half. But the light from two years ago has
traveled 5 times the (now current) speed of light. It has traveled 10
light years. In its travel from the distant supernova to the earth the
light will slow down, but uniformly over all of space. The light won't
spread out. So the light emitted over a two year period will arrive on
earth over 10 years, and we will observe a 10 year half life of the
isotope in question. Thus this result is not inconsistent with BS
theory.

Bury Setterfield

_Arthur

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 8:09:50 PM9/3/06
to
The argument that the speed of light was higher 6000 years ago, in a
naive attempt to explain why we see stars in the night sky way more
distant than 6000 light-years, also has an impact on the energy output
of radioactive decay.

Remember Al's E=MC2 equation ? If C was higher than today, 6000 years
ago, the energy output of radioactive decay would have been _MUCH_
higher, by a square factor. Once again, hot enough to melt and vaporize
rock.

Bury Setterfield

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 8:24:53 PM9/3/06
to

_Arthur wrote:
>
> Remember Al's E=MC2 equation ? If C was higher than today, 6000 years
> ago, the energy output of radioactive decay would have been _MUCH_
> higher, by a square factor. Once again, hot enough to melt and vaporize
> rock.

What if masses were inversely proportional to c^2?

Bury Setterfield

Bobby Bryant

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 8:28:39 PM9/3/06
to
In article <1157327860.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,

IIRC we have observed light from a supernova both directly and via a
bounce off interstellar matter at a great distance from it, and the
measurements are consistent with real physics, but not with
creationist fantasy physics.

Bobby Bryant

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 8:35:48 PM9/3/06
to
In article <1157326870.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,

Essentially we're supposed to mark our timelines with the tics further
apart as you move to the left.


> You see, dynamic time is measured by the number of revolutins the earth
> has made around the sun, which is determined by gravitational forces.
> Both radioactive decay and chemistry (and therefore fundamental
> biological processes) are supposed to go on as usual if we use atomic
> time, meaning that the ratio of a mean human lifetime to the mean time
> of decay for a particular atom should be fixed. So if radioactive decay
> were faster in the past, it would follow that humans lived
> correspondingly shorter lives (as measured by the number of revolutions
> the sun made around the sun). That, however, would be completely
> opposite the empirical evidence of Genesis, which asserts that people
> might have lived up to 969 years of dynamical time. There's some reason
> in BS theory why that doesn't happen, but it'll never make any sense.

Maybe the ages are given in dog years, or perhaps mayfly years.

> BS theory is one rich in predictive power. One might have thought that
> a theory messing with our scales of time, mass, and fundamental
> constants would have stopped long enough to figure out what is supposed
> to replace Newton's Laws of Motion, but again you'd be wrong in your
> expectations. BS theory has managed to do all that it does without ever
> deciding what the BS equations of motion should be. It thus exceeds all
> expectations yet again.
>
> More recently BS has explained to us how his theory is compatible with
> Special Relativity. When challenged, he replied that Special Relativity
> was wrong, although BS has shown that his theory is compatible with SR
> anyway. BS theory, according to its author, is also compatible with
> something called LR, which is short for Lorentzian Relativity. H.
> Lorentz was an eminent Dutch physicist of about a century ago who
> published, before Einstein, the equations used to transform between
> inertial coordinate systems in Special Relativity. (Lorentz's premises
> were somewhat different from Einstein's.) Lorentz's relativity actually
> involved something called the Lorentz Contraction, which is also part
> of standard Special Relativity. However, the modern incarnation of LR
> espoused by BS doesn't have Lorentz Transformations. I hope none of
> this discourse on BS theory confuses you.

No, the lack of substance makes it easy to digest.

Timberwoof

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 9:10:27 PM9/3/06
to
In article <1157329493.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
"Bury Setterfield" <mdk...@msn.com> wrote:

Then Newton's laws fly out the window and the Earth flies out of orbit.
That begins to ask for way too much. Why would God screw with the basic
physical constants like that?

Gary Bohn

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 9:48:15 PM9/3/06
to
bdbr...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote in
news:XRHKg.5892$yO7....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

That is also the way the rabble attacks the SToE. They isolate different
portions of evolution, pretend to debunk that, then claim the entire
theory stone cold dead.

If disproving a complex idea was so easy they *should* be very worried
about the Bible.

Bury Setterfield

unread,
Sep 3, 2006, 10:49:10 PM9/3/06
to
Timberwoof wrote:
> In article <1157329493.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> "Bury Setterfield" <mdk...@msn.com> wrote:
> > What if masses were inversely proportional to c^2?
>
> Then Newton's laws fly out the window and the Earth flies out of orbit.
> That begins to ask for way too much. Why would God screw with the basic
> physical constants like that?

Well yes, if you want to be a literalist about Newton's laws. And of
course BS has never published his modifications of Newton's Laws.
However, it isn't hard to find modifications of Newton's Laws in the
world of c-decay, and which reduce to the familliar Newton's Laws in
the special case of constant c. For Example:

Setterfield's First Law (Note: BS has never published any of these
proposed Setterfield's Laws of Motion. But then again, I've contributed
more to BS theory than BS.)

: For a freely moving body experiencing no force, the product of its
linear momentum and the speed of light is constant. That is, mvc =
constant. If m is inversely proportional to c^2, then this implies that
v/c is constant for a free particle.

Setterfield's 2nd law:

d(pc)/dt = cF

Note that this also reduces to the familliar Newton's 2nd law in the
limit of constant c. It also reduces to Setterfield's 1st Law of motion
in the case of F = 0.

Setterfield's 3rd Law. Actually, as originally noted by Daniel Bernouli
sometime during the 18th century, Newton's 3rd Law is really two laws,
the conservation of linear momentum, and conservation of angular
momentum. In the BS world those laws have to be changed to conserve pc
and Lc respectively. .

Bury Setterfield , autnor of Principia Mathematica Philosophia
Naturalis taurus fex

josephus

unread,
Sep 4, 2006, 1:54:13 AM9/4/06
to
Bury Setterfield wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:
>
>>In article <1157329493.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Bury Setterfield" <mdk...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>What if masses were inversely proportional to c^2?
>>
>>Then Newton's laws fly out the window and the Earth flies out of orbit.
>>That begins to ask for way too much. Why would God screw with the basic
>>physical constants like that?
>
>
> Well yes, if you want to be a literalist about Newton's laws. And of
> course BS has never published his modifications of Newton's Laws.
> However, it isn't hard to find modifications of Newton's Laws in the
> world of c-decay, and which reduce to the familliar Newton's Laws in
> the special case of constant c. For Example:
>
> Setterfield's First Law (Note: BS has never published any of these
> proposed Setterfield's Laws of Motion. But then again, I've contributed
> more to BS theory than BS.)
>
> : For a freely moving body experiencing no force, the product of its
> linear momentum and the speed of light is constant. That is, mvc =
> constant. If m is inversely proportional to c^2, then this implies that
> v/c is constant for a free particle.

lets see Lorentz contraction is (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) this function does
not relate to MASS. if I am traveling at 1/2 C then (1-
(1/4)c^2/c^2)*(1/2) collecing and reducing. (1-1/4)^)1/2) ==
(3/4)^(1/2) squroot of 3 divided by 2. this is the correction at that
velocity.
The Lorenz contraction is the solution to the problem of michealson and
Morely.s ether experiment. by increasing the value for C it will
cause the metric of the space to be FLAT. accelerations will be large.
gravity will be reduced. changing the velocity for C will cause most
quantum mechanics to fail. the calculations would be excactly and
precisely wrong.

E=Mc^2 M =v/c
E= v*c That is a net loss of Energy. It has profound implication in
quntum mechanics,


>
> Setterfield's 2nd law:
>
> d(pc)/dt = cF
>
> Note that this also reduces to the familliar Newton's 2nd law in the
> limit of constant c. It also reduces to Setterfield's 1st Law of motion
> in the case of F = 0.
>
> Setterfield's 3rd Law. Actually, as originally noted by Daniel Bernouli
> sometime during the 18th century, Newton's 3rd Law is really two laws,
> the conservation of linear momentum, and conservation of angular
> momentum. In the BS world those laws have to be changed to conserve pc
> and Lc respectively. .

I guess I dont understand this.

F=MV^2 that is kenetic energy for a mass in motion. in mathematical
terms conservative means that it can be integraded over a domain ie has
a central force. there is no differece between angular momentum and
linear momentum. The math is the SAME.


In an orbit the energy exchanges bewteen potential and kinetic but that
total energy is a CONSTANT.

1. a msss at rest remains at rest
2. a mass in motion stays in motion until changed by some force.
3 work is defined as moving a mass from A to B.

orbits get wanky if the ENERGY is not constant. and C defines the ENERGY
exchange.

By changing the quantum constants. you get a universe that cannot
sustain life or matter.

the sophistry has to do with changing the meanings of words.
josephus

chris.li...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 4, 2006, 3:07:21 AM9/4/06
to
I would like to nominate Timberwoof's and Jim's posts as co-posts of
the month. They add a nice touch to the radio-decay problem. Seconds,
please?

Chris

Ron O

unread,
Sep 4, 2006, 8:05:08 AM9/4/06
to

Nice touch on Setterfield's name. I give extra loki points for that.

Ron Okimoto

Bury Setterfield

unread,
Sep 4, 2006, 10:03:32 AM9/4/06
to

josephus wrote:
for a free particle.

> The Lorenz contraction is the solution to the problem of michealson and
> Morely.s ether experiment. by increasing the value for C it will
> cause the metric of the space to be FLAT. accelerations will be large.
> gravity will be reduced. changing the velocity for C will cause most
> quantum mechanics to fail. the calculations would be excactly and
> precisely wrong.

Well, according to BS at http://www.setterfield.org/relativityandc.html
and http://www.setterfield.org/tworelativities.html BS theory is
compatible with SR. However, He also says that SR is wrong, and claims
that the real solution to the MM experiment iis some sort of aether
drag. (BS follows Tom van Flandern in this.) Anyway, that's what BS
says about BS theory.

But anyway, I don't see what increasing c has to do with breaking the
MM experiment. The MM experiment is done at some particular time, and
one uses whatever values of v and c are appropriate for that time. One
gets the right Lorentz Contraction for that time.

> E=Mc^2 M =v/c
> E= v*c That is a net loss of Energy. It has profound implication in
> quntum mechanics,

No. M = v/c doesn't make any sense at all, and not even BS has said
such a thing. (Check your units!) I don't know where you think you got
that from. Setterfield's 1st law is that for zero force pc = mvc =
constant. So if m is inversely proportional to c^2, then this implies
that v/c is constant.


> F=MV^2 that is kenetic energy for a mass in motion. in mathematical
> terms conservative means that it can be integraded over a domain ie has
> a central force. there is no differece between angular momentum and
> linear momentum. The math is the SAME.

No, I used F for force. However, you can easily see that at low speeds
compared to the instantaneous value of c (nonrelativistic motion)
energy is conserved.

Consider

E = T + U (Kinetic + Potential).
= Mv^2/2 + U(x)

dE/dt = dK/dt + dU/dt
= d/dt ((Mv)^2c^2/2MC^2) + (dU/dx)(dx/dt)
= d/dt((Mv^)2*c^2)/2MC^2 - Fv (since MC^2 is constant)
= d/dt((pc)^2)/2MC^2 - FV
= (pc)/(Mc^2)*(d(pc)/dt) - Fv (chain rule)
= (Mvc/(Mc^2)) *cF - FV (Setterfield's 2nd Law)
= vF - Fv
= 0.

So BS theory, with my unauthorized Setterfield Laws of motion, does
lead to conservation of mechanical energy. (It is not hard to
demonstrate this in more than one dimension, but I shall not do so
here.)

Von R. Smith

unread,
Sep 4, 2006, 10:14:00 AM9/4/06
to


Then the original problem remains exactly the same: you are still
trying to dissipate the same quantity of energy a million times as
fast, with the resulting cosmic cookout. Invoking Setterfield merely
pulls the magnitude of the problem back down to the quantities Jim and
Timberwoof described earlier.

Bury Setterfield

unread,
Sep 4, 2006, 11:50:37 AM9/4/06
to

No, you haven't yet articulated the problem with BS theory. In BS
theory, not only does mass depend upon the speed of light (always using
gravitational or "dynamical" time), but so will the rates of chemical
and nongravitational physical processes. That includes heat diffusion.
So in BS theory you have 4.5 billion atomic years of radioactive decay
squeezed into 10000 gravitational years, but you also have 4.5 billion
atomic years of heat conduction squeezed into 10000 dynamical years.

You see, according to BS theory heat diffusion was faster in the past
when viewed in terms of dynamical time. Not only that, but rates of
chemical processes would have had to be increased when viewed in
dynamical time. And that means that human lifetimes, governed
ultimately by rates of chemical processes, would have been about the
same as now when viewed with atomic time (ignoring our superior
medicine and diet) as in the past when the speed of light was faster
(using dynamical time). So according to BS theory human life spans in
the past would have been shorter than they are now (by many orders of
magnitude in the time of Adam) when measured in terms of dynamical time
(the number of times the earth goes around the sun per human life
time.)

This is, as I have noted previously, contrary to the "empirical"
evidence of the book of Genesis which claims unambigulusly that human
lifetimes in the distant past were much longer (up to 969 years) than
they are currently. Thus BS theory fails to be a serious creationist
theory.

You can also find absurdities in BS theory when you consider mixed
gravitational and nongravitational phenomena. Bridfly, since in
dynamical time planetary and lunar orbital periods are constant, then
in dynamical time gravitational acceleration must also have been
constant over the eras. So in terms of atomic time it was much less in
the past. It should vary inversely as c^2. But chemistry was the same
in Adam's time, using atomic time, so he was as strong as a modern
human. Had there been tall buildings in Adam's time, Adam would have
been able to leap them in a single bound, although he would have been
unable to stop a speeding locomotive.

However, there may be a counter-argument that would have prevented Adam
from accidentally jumping off of the planet with a speed greater than
the then gravitational escape velocity. According to BS theory the
temperature of the earth would have been about what it is now (in order
for physiological chemical reactions to occur, it would have to be. )
I'm now talking about atomic time. Anyway, that would mean that mean
kinetic energies of translation of atmospheric molecules would have
been the same as now. Further, since using atomic time masses are
constant, that would mean that the same distribution of molecular
velocities would hold, then as now. Unfortunately that would mean that
the typical velocity of an atmospheric molecule would have exceed the
gravitational escape velocity, and most of the atmosphere would escape.
So Adam wouldn't be able to breathe, and would almost certainly be
unable to leap tall buildings in a single bound, let alone jump off the
planet.

II cannot say that this saves BS theory, but it at least doesn't fail
on account of a boiling terrestrial surface.

Bury Setterfield, author of Principia mathematica Philosophia Naturalis
Taurus fex

ges...@boundvortex.com

unread,
Sep 4, 2006, 12:48:16 PM9/4/06
to
<<I don't often come across a sentence whose meaning changes depending
on whether
'which' or 'that' is used, so having found one, >>

And you still haven't, since your sentence is just as ambiguous as his.
"That" and "which" are used interchangeably by most poeple. If you
have some important point to make that will rely on some distinction
between the words that isn't shared by your audience, you'd better pick
a more explicit way to do it.

Von R. Smith

unread,
Sep 4, 2006, 12:50:51 PM9/4/06
to

Ah, yes. I had forgotten that Setterfield also posits changes to other
constants, like h. Since he stipulates elsewhere that hc is always
constant, and since Stephan-Boltzman goes to h^-3*c^-2, that means it
increases by the same factor of c. Amazing what you can do when you
can keep making up changes to more and more constants.


> And that means that human lifetimes, governed
> ultimately by rates of chemical processes, would have been about the
> same as now when viewed with atomic time (ignoring our superior
> medicine and diet) as in the past when the speed of light was faster
> (using dynamical time). So according to BS theory human life spans in
> the past would have been shorter than they are now (by many orders of
> magnitude in the time of Adam) when measured in terms of dynamical time
> (the number of times the earth goes around the sun per human life
> time.)
>
> This is, as I have noted previously, contrary to the "empirical"
> evidence of the book of Genesis which claims unambigulusly that human
> lifetimes in the distant past were much longer (up to 969 years) than
> they are currently. Thus BS theory fails to be a serious creationist
> theory.
>
> You can also find absurdities in BS theory when you consider mixed
> gravitational and nongravitational phenomena.


Like Cepheid variables?

snip rest

carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu

unread,
Sep 4, 2006, 1:21:29 PM9/4/06
to
Bury Setterfield <mdk...@msn.com> wrote:

[...]


> II cannot say that this saves BS theory, but it at least doesn't fail
> on account of a boiling terrestrial surface.

It does, near enough, though for a somewhat different reason.

Stars, including the Sun, rely on a balance between gravity and
nuclear and electromagnetic forces, and are very sensitive to
their ratios. Setterfield gets by when he considers these
interactions separately, but as you've said, he's in trouble
when both are important.

Given Setterfield's various changes in constants, it's not hard
to show that the luminosity of a star goes as c^{-7}. A nice
source for the basic dependences in Barrow and Tipler's book,
_The Anthropic Cosmological Principle_, especially chapter 5.
One may argue with the authors' philosophical conclusions -- many
have -- but their description of the basic physics is fine, and
is clearly explained.

Now, the mean temperature of the Earth goes as (L/sr^2)^{1/4},
where R is the radius of the Earth's orbit, and s is the
Stefan-Boltzmann constant. s is proportional to 1/(h^3c^2), so
in Setterfield's proposal it varies as c (since hc is supposed to
be constant), while R is supposed to be constant. Combining this
with the results for L, we find that the Earth's mean temperature
should therefore vary as c^{-2}.

The current mean temperature of the Earth is about 288 K. A
5% increase in c would, in Setterfield's proposal, mean about
a 9% decrease in temperature, to 261 K, or -12C. A 10% increase
in c would lower the Earth's mean temperature to -35C. Similarly,
a 5% decrease in c would increase the Earth's mean temperature
to about 46C, and a 10% decrease would increase the temperature
to 83C. In one of his papers, Setterfield proposes that the speed
of light was about 11% lower at 1000 BC than it is now. That
would give the Earth a temperature of 91C -- not quite boiling,
but pretty damn hot.

For larger changes in c -- and they don't have to be much larger
-- Setterfield's proposal would mean no stars at all. The minimum
number N of nucleons (protons and neutrons) needed for a star to
``ignite,'' in Setterfield's model, goes as c^3. The present value
of N is a few percent of the number of nucleons in the Sun. Thus
in Setterfield's model, an increase in c by a factor of a little
more than 2 will turn off the Sun.

Steve Carlip

Friar Broccoli

unread,
Sep 4, 2006, 2:37:37 PM9/4/06
to
Bury Setterfield wrote:
> Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
> > But I still don't get it. However, I suggest that either of two
> > proposals, if correct, disposes at once of the claim - leaving aside
> > that the claim is ludicrous, and anyway it actually is possible to
> > observe radioactive elements in outer space, in the spectra of
> > supernova star remnants, decaying as predicted.
>
> That doesn't quite refute BS theory, which claims that the speed of
> light (measured using dynamical time, but not atomic time) was faster
> in the past than it is now ...

Since I frequently use the "how did light from Andromeda get
here in 10,000 years" argument, refuting this claim simply is
important to me.

The line I usually use is that light from the edge of the
universe shows few absorption lines for heavy elements,
(although since it passes through many intervening gas clouds
(an average of about 15) it does show a series of blocks of
absorption lines with the ones created nearby having absorption
lines for heavy elements, where such absorption occurs at low
frequencies.)

(Since no one has ever seriously challenged me on this, there is
probably much that I do not understand or have overlooked.)

Has Setterfield dealt with this observational problem?

Cordially;

Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com

--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------

Stuart

unread,
Sep 4, 2006, 5:17:16 PM9/4/06
to

Friar Broccoli wrote:
> Bury Setterfield wrote:
> > Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >
> > > But I still don't get it. However, I suggest that either of two
> > > proposals, if correct, disposes at once of the claim - leaving aside
> > > that the claim is ludicrous, and anyway it actually is possible to
> > > observe radioactive elements in outer space, in the spectra of
> > > supernova star remnants, decaying as predicted.
> >
> > That doesn't quite refute BS theory, which claims that the speed of
> > light (measured using dynamical time, but not atomic time) was faster
> > in the past than it is now ...
>
> Since I frequently use the "how did light from Andromeda get
> here in 10,000 years" argument, refuting this claim simply is
> important to me.
>
> The line I usually use is that light from the edge of the
> universe shows few absorption lines for heavy elements,
> (although since it passes through many intervening gas clouds
> (an average of about 15) it does show a series of blocks of
> absorption lines with the ones created nearby having absorption
> lines for heavy elements, where such absorption occurs at low
> frequencies.)
>
> (Since no one has ever seriously challenged me on this, there is
> probably much that I do not understand or have overlooked.)
>
> Has Setterfield dealt with this observational problem?

Doubt it. Considering that Andromeda is blue shifted, his tired light
theory doesn't make sense here.

Stuart

Glenn Shaw

unread,
Sep 4, 2006, 7:17:12 PM9/4/06
to
"chris.li...@gmail.com" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1157353641....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:

> I would like to nominate Timberwoof's and Jim's posts as co-posts of
> the month. They add a nice touch to the radio-decay problem. Seconds,
> please?

Seconded. :)

--
Glenn Shaw • Indianapolis, IN USA
To reply by e-mail, remove "nospam" and swap "cast" and "net"

Timberwoof

unread,
Sep 4, 2006, 11:09:48 PM9/4/06
to
In article <1157353641....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
"chris.li...@gmail.com" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would like to nominate Timberwoof's and Jim's posts as co-posts of
> the month. They add a nice touch to the radio-decay problem. Seconds,
> please?

Thank you, Chris. That's two nominations in two months for me. I must be
doing something right. :-)

Bury Setterfield

unread,
Sep 4, 2006, 11:19:54 PM9/4/06
to
Thanks for the wonderful post!

I do have *The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" on my bookshelf and
found it a wonderful read when in graduate school, and I remember
reading those order of magnitude calculations of various astrophysical
parameters in terms of fundamental physical parameters. It might also
be worthwhile to contrast their treatment of the anthropic principle
with that of intelligent design by current-day proponents of that
movement. The anthropic principle was condemned in its day as being
unscientific or even antiscientific, and perhaps rightly so. But I
think that considering the fringy scientific nature of the anthropic
principle, B & T did an overall fine job of exposing an audience of
general physicists to that difficult, if fringe, subject. If they did
not compel one to take it entirely seriously, at least they made it
clear that one couldn't dismiss it out of hand. But the modern ID
movement has no book remotely comparable...

> For larger changes in c -- and they don't have to be much larger
> -- Setterfield's proposal would mean no stars at all. The minimum
> number N of nucleons (protons and neutrons) needed for a star to
> ``ignite,'' in Setterfield's model, goes as c^3. The present value
> of N is a few percent of the number of nucleons in the Sun. Thus
> in Setterfield's model, an increase in c by a factor of a little
> more than 2 will turn off the Sun.

Maybe that's why light was created on the first day, but the sun began
to shine only on the 4th. With the higher speed of light the first 3
days there weren't enough nucleons in the sun to ignite it. That could
be one of BS theory's greatest triumphs!

Bury Setterfield, author of Principia Mathematica Philosophia Naturalis
Taurus Fex

Walter Bushell

unread,
Sep 5, 2006, 11:19:05 AM9/5/06
to
In article <1157326870.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Bury Setterfield" <mdk...@msn.com> wrote:

> Dysfunction is correct. The amount of energy released by cramming more
> than 4 billion years' worth of radioactive decay into a mere 6000 years
> would melt the earth's crust, provided that the energies of those
> accelerated decays were the same as those we observe today. This has
> led Barry Setterfield (BS), one of the very most eminent of all
> creation scientists to have emigrated from the Land Down Under to
> southern Oregon, and one of the top two husbands ever of the former
> Helen "Penny" Fryman, to come up with a theory in which the speed of
> light, Planck's constant, the Gravitational constant, particle masses,
> and whatever else might be necessary on an ad hoc basis, to change with
> time in such a way that radioactive decay rates, when measured i terms
> of "atomic time" were the same rate in the past as they are now, but in
> terms of "dynamic time" were much faster in the past. . Everything's
> supposed to happen the same way as now when one uses "atomic time",
> except, of course, when that would cause the earth to boil, or lose its
> atmosphere, or something yucky. However, everything is explained by
> time-varying constants when you use dynamic time.

BS theory is well named then.

--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any
charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his
peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totali-
tarian government whether Nazi or Communist." -- W. Churchill, Nov 21, 1943

Robert Grumbine

unread,
Sep 5, 2006, 11:25:59 AM9/5/06
to
In article <edhnap$k6s$2...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu>,
<carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:

[snip]

>For larger changes in c -- and they don't have to be much larger
>-- Setterfield's proposal would mean no stars at all. The minimum
>number N of nucleons (protons and neutrons) needed for a star to
>``ignite,'' in Setterfield's model, goes as c^3. The present value
>of N is a few percent of the number of nucleons in the Sun. Thus
>in Setterfield's model, an increase in c by a factor of a little
>more than 2 will turn off the Sun.

... so all he needs to do is rejuggle his curves such that c passes
through that point on the day God said 'let there be light', and turned
on the sun.

The 91 C temperature you figured in the snipped part can be accomodated
by the vapor canopy. (You left out albedo from your calculation,
which can be juggled arbitrarily by YECs to cancel any excesses in
insolation.)

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Sep 5, 2006, 11:30:58 AM9/5/06
to
Bury Setterfield wrote:
> _Arthur wrote:
> >
> > Remember Al's E=MC2 equation ? If C was higher than today, 6000 years
> > ago, the energy output of radioactive decay would have been _MUCH_
> > higher, by a square factor. Once again, hot enough to melt and vaporize
> > rock.

I was going to ask "Why?", but I don't want to.

> What if masses were inversely proportional to c^2?
>
> Bury Setterfield

At this point, perhaps the bible verses where God explains how much he
hates people who give false measure and put their thumb on the scale,
and what specifically he intends to do to them, become relevant. I
mean, would he say that, if he was a cheat himself as well?

Mind you, I don't recall if he specifies "weight" or "mass"...

carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu

unread,
Sep 5, 2006, 7:48:49 PM9/5/06
to
Robert Grumbine <bo...@radix.net> wrote:
> In article <edhnap$k6s$2...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu>,
> <carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:

> [snip]

>>For larger changes in c -- and they don't have to be much larger
>>-- Setterfield's proposal would mean no stars at all. The minimum
>>number N of nucleons (protons and neutrons) needed for a star to
>>``ignite,'' in Setterfield's model, goes as c^3. The present value
>>of N is a few percent of the number of nucleons in the Sun. Thus
>>in Setterfield's model, an increase in c by a factor of a little
>>more than 2 will turn off the Sun.

> ... so all he needs to do is rejuggle his curves such that c passes
> through that point on the day God said 'let there be light', and turned
> on the sun.

> The 91 C temperature you figured in the snipped part can be accomodated
> by the vapor canopy. (You left out albedo from your calculation,
> which can be juggled arbitrarily by YECs to cancel any excesses in
> insolation.)

There's also the problem of planetary stability. With Setterfield's
choices of time dependence, the radius of a planet varies as c^3.
So a 10% decrease in c would shrink the Earth 30%, something that
would have presumably been noticed.

(Then again, maybe there was a sudden decrease at the time of the flood...
Before then, c was 10% larger than its current value; the temperature
of the Earth would have been -35 C, except that the vapor canopy led to
a huge greenhouse effect. Hey, being a creationist can be fun -- it's
nice to not have to worry about pesky things like evidence!)

Steve Carlip

Bury Setterfield

unread,
Sep 5, 2006, 9:38:47 PM9/5/06
to
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> There's also the problem of planetary stability. With Setterfield's
> choices of time dependence, the radius of a planet varies as c^3.
> So a 10% decrease in c would shrink the Earth 30%, something that
> would have presumably been noticed.

Are you sure about that? Mu understanding of current-day BS theory is
that

c ~ c^1

h ~ c^-1

All masses, m ~ C^-2, although I've read confused and confusing
rumblings about different kinds of masses behaving differently.

G ~ c^2

Fine structure constant ~ c^0, although it might vary slowly with time.
Don't ask me why.

Therefore e^2/epsilon_0 ~ c^0.

The strong and weak coupling constants ~ c^0

Since there is then no c-dependence in any term in the Schroedinger
Equation for electrostatically-interacting particles, it follows that
atomic radii are c-independent. And since Gm is c-independent, the
acceleration of a planet is also time-independent, so its period is
constant, which seems to be the basis of BS preferring dynamical time
to atomic time. So If atomic and molecular radii are constant, I'd
think that planetary radii would be so also, although under the
effectively-weak gravity of the past one wonders what held the planets
together.

On the other hand, stellar radii probably must be larger, but I haven't
worked that out. Still, a factor of 200 increase of the sun's radius
has poor Adam & Eve cooking within the sun,

Bury Setterfield, author of Principi Mathematica Philosophia Naturalis
Taurus Fex

carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu

unread,
Sep 6, 2006, 1:36:22 PM9/6/06
to
Bury Setterfield <mdk...@msn.com> wrote:
> carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>> There's also the problem of planetary stability. With Setterfield's
>> choices of time dependence, the radius of a planet varies as c^3.
>> So a 10% decrease in c would shrink the Earth 30%, something that
>> would have presumably been noticed.

> Are you sure about that? Mu understanding of current-day BS theory is
> that

> c ~ c^1

> h ~ c^-1

> All masses, m ~ C^-2, although I've read confused and confusing
> rumblings about different kinds of masses behaving differently.

> G ~ c^2

> Fine structure constant ~ c^0, although it might vary slowly with time.
> Don't ask me why.

> Therefore e^2/epsilon_0 ~ c^0.

> The strong and weak coupling constants ~ c^0

Right, that's my understanding as well.

> Since there is then no c-dependence in any term in the Schroedinger
> Equation for electrostatically-interacting particles, it follows that
> atomic radii are c-independent.

No -- there's a dependence on masses, and these vary.

> And since Gm is c-independent, the
> acceleration of a planet is also time-independent, so its period is
> constant, which seems to be the basis of BS preferring dynamical time
> to atomic time.

Right; but the gravitational force goes as Gm^2, which varies as m.

I don't have Barrow and Tipler handy at the moment, but looking
at my post from a few years ago where I worked this out
(groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e7ae80158cdc5c60?hl=en&),
section 5.3 of Barrow and Tipler has planetary radii going as
(a_G)^{-1/2}(m_e)^{-1}, where m_e is the mass of an electron and
a_G = G(M_p)^2/hc. This gives an overall dependents of m^{-3/2},
or, given that m ~ c^{-2}, a dependence of c^3.

Steve Carlip

Cygnus X-1

unread,
Sep 6, 2006, 5:53:20 PM9/6/06
to
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 21:38:47 -0400, Bury Setterfield wrote
(in article <1157506727....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>):

> carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>> There's also the problem of planetary stability. With Setterfield's
>> choices of time dependence, the radius of a planet varies as c^3.
>> So a 10% decrease in c would shrink the Earth 30%, something that
>> would have presumably been noticed.
>
> Are you sure about that? Mu understanding of current-day BS theory is
> that
>
> c ~ c^1
>
> h ~ c^-1
>
> All masses, m ~ C^-2, although I've read confused and confusing
> rumblings about different kinds of masses behaving differently.
>
> G ~ c^2
>
> Fine structure constant ~ c^0, although it might vary slowly with time.
> Don't ask me why.
>
> Therefore e^2/epsilon_0 ~ c^0.
>
> The strong and weak coupling constants ~ c^0
>
> Since there is then no c-dependence in any term in the Schroedinger
> Equation for electrostatically-interacting particles, it follows that
> atomic radii are c-independent.

Actually, the mass change does create a c-dependence in atomic radius
in a simple Bohr-type analysis. Atoms are held together as a *balance*
of forces. While the electrostatic force won't change, the electron
mass does, which alters the balance. (see paper on my site)

> And since Gm is c-independent, the
> acceleration of a planet is also time-independent, so its period is
> constant, which seems to be the basis of BS preferring dynamical time
> to atomic time.

However, if the equation from your earlier post

d(pc)/dt = cF

is correct, note that in central-force problems, there will be a force
tangential to the motion - which will act as a drag or thrust to an
orbiting body. Will definitely alter planetary orbits during times
when cdot/c is large. In some of Setterfield's models, cdot/c can be
>0 or <0 depending on the time.

> So If atomic and molecular radii are constant, I'd
> think that planetary radii would be so also, although under the
> effectively-weak gravity of the past one wonders what held the planets
> together.
>
> On the other hand, stellar radii probably must be larger, but I haven't
> worked that out. Still, a factor of 200 increase of the sun's radius
> has poor Adam & Eve cooking within the sun,
>
> Bury Setterfield, author of Principi Mathematica Philosophia Naturalis
> Taurus Fex
>

Tom
--
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1
cygn...@mac.com
"They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated.
Only knowledge is dangerous." --Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah"

Bury Setterfield

unread,
Sep 6, 2006, 11:02:49 PM9/6/06
to

carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:

> No -- there's a dependence on masses, and these vary.

Yeah, but the coefficient is h_bar^2/2m. Since h_ba4 ~c^-1 and m ~
c^-2, there's no c-dependence in h_bar^2/2m. And at least insofar as
gross structure is concerned the potential contains only the constant
e^2/epsilon_0. So there are still no time-dependent terms in the
"time-independent" Schroedinger equation in the BS world hence the
energy eigenvalues are really time-independent, not even changing
slowly with time.

> > And since Gm is c-independent, the
> > acceleration of a planet is also time-independent, so its period is
> > constant, which seems to be the basis of BS preferring dynamical time
> > to atomic time.
>
> Right; but the gravitational force goes as Gm^2, which varies as m.
>
> I don't have Barrow and Tipler handy at the moment, but looking
> at my post from a few years ago where I worked this out
> (groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e7ae80158cdc5c60?hl=en&),
> section 5.3 of Barrow and Tipler has planetary radii going as
> (a_G)^{-1/2}(m_e)^{-1}, where m_e is the mass of an electron and
> a_G = G(M_p)^2/hc. This gives an overall dependents of m^{-3/2},
> or, given that m ~ c^{-2}, a dependence of c^3.

I take the point, but I'm not sure it applies here. I don't have my
Barrow and Tipler handy either, but presume that they are trying to
find stability criteria for planets. If the gravitational force is too
weak relative to all of the rest of geology, then the planet tends to
fall apart. but on what timescale? BS theory doesn't need stability
over geological time..

Bury Setterfield, author of Principia Mathematica Philosophia Naturalis
Taurus Fex

Bury Setterfield

unread,
Sep 6, 2006, 11:30:47 PM9/6/06
to

Cygnus X-1 wrote:
> Actually, the mass change does create a c-dependence in atomic radius
> in a simple Bohr-type analysis. Atoms are held together as a *balance*
> of forces. While the electrostatic force won't change, the electron
> mass does, which alters the balance. (see paper on my site)

Well, in the Bohr atom you'll still get the energy levels as being
equal (up to a numerical factor of something like a half) to alpha^2 *
m* c^2, where alpha is the fine-structure constant, m the mass of the
electron (or its reduced mass, if you prefer.) But since masses go as
c^-2, the energy will be independent of c. (One gets the same result in
the Schroedinger equation.)

> > And since Gm is c-independent, the
> > acceleration of a planet is also time-independent, so its period is
> > constant, which seems to be the basis of BS preferring dynamical time
> > to atomic time.
>
> However, if the equation from your earlier post
>
> d(pc)/dt = cF
>
> is correct, note that in central-force problems, there will be a force
> tangential to the motion - which will act as a drag or thrust to an
> orbiting body.

I think that's right for gravitational problems. I don't see the basis
for it in other central-force problems. In the gravitational case of a
circular orbit, BS theory requires the angular velocity to be constant.
That means, for m ~ c^-2, that there would have to be some hitherto
unsuspected tangential component to th gravitational force!

Of course the equations of motion aren't really part of BS theory
because BS didn't propose them himself. He hasn't gotten around to such
fundamental results, being too busy predicting the cosmological
ramifications of his theory to attend to such elementary chores. But I
did suggest those laws of motion in good faith. I can't find anything
better, or more in the spirit of BS theory.

One of the consequences of the laws of motion that I have proposed is
the conservation of the product of angular momentum and c for systems
of particles truly interacting via central forces. (So pc and Lc are
conserved, rather than the familliar p and L.I would think that should
make BS happy, since angular momentum is quantized in units of h_bar
and hc is strictly constant in his theory. So LC is a good quantum
number, and it's satisfying to a BS theorist that such a good quantum
number actually corresponds to a classically-conserved quantity.

Bury Setterfield Author of Principia Mathematica Philosophia Naturalis
Taurus Fex

Tracy P. Hamilton

unread,
Sep 7, 2006, 11:53:02 AM9/7/06
to

carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> Robert Grumbine <bo...@radix.net> wrote:
> > In article <edhnap$k6s$2...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu>,
> > <carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> >>For larger changes in c -- and they don't have to be much larger
> >>-- Setterfield's proposal would mean no stars at all. The minimum
> >>number N of nucleons (protons and neutrons) needed for a star to
> >>``ignite,'' in Setterfield's model, goes as c^3. The present value
> >>of N is a few percent of the number of nucleons in the Sun. Thus
> >>in Setterfield's model, an increase in c by a factor of a little
> >>more than 2 will turn off the Sun.
>
> > ... so all he needs to do is rejuggle his curves such that c passes
> > through that point on the day God said 'let there be light', and turned
> > on the sun.
>
> > The 91 C temperature you figured in the snipped part can be accomodated
> > by the vapor canopy. (You left out albedo from your calculation,
> > which can be juggled arbitrarily by YECs to cancel any excesses in
> > insolation.)
>
> There's also the problem of planetary stability. With Setterfield's
> choices of time dependence, the radius of a planet varies as c^3.
> So a 10% decrease in c would shrink the Earth 30%, something that
> would have presumably been noticed.

Well, that just proves Genesis!
Gen 6:4 sez:
"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,
when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare
children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of
renown."

The reason that they were giants is that compared to the smaller earth,
men
were larger!

Not only that, but that explains why now we have PYGMIES and DWARFS!
(obscure creationist reference)

> (Then again, maybe there was a sudden decrease at the time of the flood...
> Before then, c was 10% larger than its current value; the temperature
> of the Earth would have been -35 C, except that the vapor canopy led to
> a huge greenhouse effect. Hey, being a creationist can be fun -- it's
> nice to not have to worry about pesky things like evidence!)

That is where the flood water went - the earth got bigger, so the water
wouldn't
cover it completely any more.

Tracy P. Hamilton
>
> Steve Carlip

Earle Jones

unread,
Sep 7, 2006, 7:12:37 PM9/7/06
to
In article <1157326870.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Bury Setterfield" <mdk...@msn.com> wrote:

[...]

> Bury Setterfield

*
Sounds like a good idea.

earle
*

Cygnus X-1

unread,
Sep 7, 2006, 7:33:07 PM9/7/06
to
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 23:30:47 -0400, Bury Setterfield wrote
(in article <1157599847.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>):

>
> Cygnus X-1 wrote:
>> Actually, the mass change does create a c-dependence in atomic radius
>> in a simple Bohr-type analysis. Atoms are held together as a *balance*
>> of forces. While the electrostatic force won't change, the electron
>> mass does, which alters the balance. (see paper on my site)
>
> Well, in the Bohr atom you'll still get the energy levels as being
> equal (up to a numerical factor of something like a half) to alpha^2 *
> m* c^2, where alpha is the fine-structure constant, m the mass of the
> electron (or its reduced mass, if you prefer.) But since masses go as
> c^-2, the energy will be independent of c. (One gets the same result in
> the Schroedinger equation.)
>

Opps! I see I forgot to scale Planck's Constant for the quantum
condition in section 5.5.3 of my paper. Need to fix that. The problem
with working too much with computational math is one seems to loose the
algebraic skills.

Where's my peer reviewer! ;^)

How do you define 'truly interacting by central forces'? Technically,
even objects in linear motion have an angular momentum around arbitrary
origins that is conserved. The classical momentum scales as c^-2 which
creates problems when the quantum and classical levels can interact
(section 4.2).

And I would appreciate your feedback on my c-decay analysis. I believe
I include an analysis (supernovae reflection timing, section 2.4) that
seems to trace back to your posts prior to 2000. So many parts of that
work are based on hints/ideas from this group that I just filled in the
details. I want to make sure the proper people get credited.

Cygnus X-1

unread,
Sep 7, 2006, 8:32:15 PM9/7/06
to
Actually, I just heard a new one from an e-mail correspondent.

That Setterfield claims that atomic objects (electrons, etc) have
masses varying as c^-2 while macroscopic objects (people & planets) are
constant as c changes.

This is a new one!

Anyone got a reference for this on Setterfield's site perhaps??

Is G still varying so GM is no longer constant (screwing up his
definition of dynamical time scale).

Perhaps he doesn't believe macroscopic objects are made up of atomic
objects???

I'm reminded of comedy routines with a bumbler (Mr. Bean perhaps?)
tries to put up wall paper or some other construction project and the
repair of one mistake is repeatedly thwarted by side effects of his
actions that he fails to anticipate.

Bury Setterfield

unread,
Sep 8, 2006, 12:53:21 AM9/8/06