Hello,

I hope you will bear with me as a non-specialist in search of help.
Could someone read the following and recommend references or ways to
approach this problem, quantitatively if possible?

Thanks in advance for any help,
Shepherdmoon

Here goes -- I hope my summary is accurate, but please correct if
needed:
As some of you may know, there are some people, known as young-earth
creationists (YECs), who believe that the universe was created 6,000 to
10,000 years ago. That proposition creates what is known as the
starlight problem -- if the universe is really young, then all of the
starlight from distant places should not have reached us yet. Two
general YEC "solutions" to the starlight problem are (1) that the
universe is really a lot smaller than it seems and (2) that light has
moved a lot faster in the past to make up the distance.

As far as I have read, (1) is as close to being indefensible as any
argument can be in the contentious world of creation-evolution debate.

One particular YEC, however, is Barry Setterfield. He argues (2) above
under the name of "c-decay." Specifically, he claims that the speed of
light was originally very high (millions of times its present value),
and decreased rapidly everywhere in the universe. The result, according
to Setterfield, is that the universe can be young but appear old due to
the decay in c.

One of the tricky parts of Setterfield's argument is that he claims
that c decays according to an inverse logarithmic curve that flattened
out just about the time that the value for c was defined in the 1960s
-- the upshot is that he claims c is no longer decaying in any way that
we can detect.

Such undetectable decay is suspiciously convenient. But my point here
is to accept Setterfield's claim at face value and then see whether it
is possible, based on known physics, for the speed of light to change
everywhere in the universe at the same time. To me, that would appear
to violate the principle of relativity of simultaneity, that there is
no such thing as absolute time or any way of something happening
everywhere in the universe at the "same time."

A helpful person in the talk.origins newsgroups tried to explain how
Setterfield might work around this apparent contradiction, but I
couldn't quite follow the details (see below).

It seems to me that either there is absolute simultaneity or there
isn't. If there isn't -- as the following quotation states -- then I
don't see how the speed of light can change "everywhere in the universe
at the same time."

---
Absolute simultaneity refers to the hypothetical coincidence of two or
more events in different points in space for all observers in the
universe. It is shown in the theory of relativity that there may be
always observers for whom simultaneity won't correspond to the same
moments in time and therefore simultaneity is always relative. The
theory of relativity doesn't allow the existence of such time because
of non existence of absolute simultaneity.
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_simultaneity

If c can't change everywhere at the same time, then if c varies over
time in our universe, shouldn't we see results of c changing
inconsistently depending on the frame of reference?

Shouldn't there be some visible or quantifiable differences between the
constant c case and the decaying c case? Or some way of demonstrating
mathematically or with supporting observations that c decay cannot work
for this reason?

For example, is it possible that in some frames of reference, an
observer would measure c as increasing while an observer in another
frame would measure c as decreasing? And would demonstrating such an
apparent contradiction be enough, or is there some way in relativity
theory to make this c-decay argument work, at least in principle?

Here is what the person in talk.origins said, by the way. I'm curious
to know what it means in layman's terms and if it is in fact correct
that this simultaneity objection is not a "killer" for c-decay.

---
Okay, here's a better response, though not definitive.

I think your example translates into language of the invariant
interval. Let's generalize it to

dx^2 - c^2*z^2*dt^2 = interval 0 spacelike (simultaneity possible)
= 0 lightlike
0 timelike

where I use z(tau) for a dimensionless parameter for change in speed of
light so z=1 today and z1 in the past.

In general, z will not be the same on each end of the interval dt=t2-t1
so the interval above can't really work. I believe your simultaneity
example translates into events that, over time, can change from a
timelike to spacelike interval as z decreases.

I think this is an interesting observation but not necessarily a killer
for c-decay. It might be possible to redefine the interval replacing
z(tau) with z(t1,t2) such that it reduces to unity in appropriate
limits, giving the form we use today.

Then there is the question of how large a dx & dt have we tested
experimentally. Can we demonstrate that no observers have experienced
the timeline to spacelike changeover?
---



See also:
Young Earth creationism
http://tinyurl.com/jhco7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Setterfield

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-decay

Shepherd Moon wrote:
As some of you may know, there are some people, known as young-earth
creationists (YECs), who believe that the universe was created 6,000 to
10,000 years ago. That proposition creates what is known as the
starlight problem -- if the universe is really young, then all of the
starlight from distant places should not have reached us yet. Two
general YEC "solutions" to the starlight problem are (1) that the
universe is really a lot smaller than it seems and (2) that light has
moved a lot faster in the past to make up the distance.

Neither solution seems any better than simply rescaling your time coordinate
to put the big bang at any desired year in the past. I mean, once you start
mucking around with the bases of physical measurement, how do you even
decide what a year is any more?

But my point here
is to accept Setterfield's claim at face value and then see whether it
is possible, based on known physics, for the speed of light to change
everywhere in the universe at the same time.

It is possible for things to happen simultaneously everywhere in the
universe without violating locality. The universe (at least the part we can
see) is almost exactly homogeneous, so the conditions necessary to cause
some change will tend to occur everywhere independently. Star and galaxy
formation is an example. The inflationary epoch is also supposed to have
ended this way.

And there is a distinguished cosmological time scale, which can be defined
in terms of processes like galaxy formation that happen in the same way
everywhere. The age of the universe is stated in terms of this common time
scale. The big bang breaks the reference frame symmetry of special relativity.

The real problem with young-earth creationism is that there are a bunch of
independent lines of evidence that all point to a universe that's billions
of years old, and all of these have to be explained away by different,
ad-hoc arguments. It's presumably within the power of an omnipotent god to
carefully deceive us in this way, but in that case I'd expect the god to do
a good enough job that there'd be no evidence for young-earth creationism at
all. (Which appears to be the case.)

A much cleaner solution is to simply suppose that God created an adult
world, with light already in transit, just as he supposedly created an adult
Adam and Eve. (With navels, naturally.) I'm surprised that there are any
young-earth creationists who try to argue otherwise.

If c can't change everywhere at the same time, then if c varies over
time in our universe, shouldn't we see results of c changing
inconsistently depending on the frame of reference?

That depends on the details of the theory. It might be internally
inconsistent, but it needn't be. You're probably thinking of global inertial
frames, with planes of simultaneity extending all the way across the
universe and back in time, but there's no such thing in general relativity.

(And one needn't introduce such things in special relativity either, and I
think they shouldn't be introduced, because it's then hard to unlearn them
when you move on to general relativity, especially because many people never
move on and therefore never learn things the right way, and many of those
people write books and Wikipedia articles on the subject; but I digress.)

Here is what the person in talk.origins said, by the way. [...]

I think your example translates into language of the invariant
interval. Let's generalize it to

dx^2 - c^2*z^2*dt^2 = interval 0 spacelike (simultaneity possible)
= 0 lightlike
0 timelike

where I use z(tau) for a dimensionless parameter for change in speed of
light so z=1 today and z1 in the past.

This works fine, but it's not a different cosmology, just a coordinate
relabeling of the same old cosmology, which is what I was talking about in
the first paragraph of my reply. The function z(t) just converts between the
usual t coordinate and the rescaled t coordinate.

In general, z will not be the same on each end of the interval dt=t2-t1
so the interval above can't really work. I believe your simultaneity
example translates into events that, over time, can change from a
timelike to spacelike interval as z decreases.

I don't know what this means. I don't think it makes sense.

I think this is an interesting observation but not necessarily a killer
for c-decay. It might be possible to redefine the interval replacing
z(tau) with z(t1,t2) such that it reduces to unity in appropriate
limits, giving the form we use today.

z can't be a function of more than one time variable, at least not in the
framework of general relativity.

Then there is the question of how large a dx & dt have we tested
experimentally. Can we demonstrate that no observers have experienced
the timeline to spacelike changeover?

This also appears to be meaningless.

-- Ben

Dear Shepherd Moon:

"Shepherd Moon" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hello,

I hope you will bear with me as a non-specialist in search
of help. Could someone read the following and
recommend references or ways to approach this problem,
quantitatively if possible?

Thanks in advance for any help,
Shepherdmoon

Here goes -- I hope my summary is accurate, but please
correct if needed:
As some of you may know, there are some people,
known as young-earth creationists (YECs), who believe that
the universe was created 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.

Right. Science is bent to the needs of their faith. Nothing you
can say will dissuade them.

That proposition creates what is known as the starlight
problem -- if the universe is really young, then all of the
starlight from distant places should not have reached
us yet. Two general YEC "solutions" to the starlight
problem are (1) that the universe is really a lot smaller
than it seems and (2) that light has moved a lot faster in
the past to make up the distance.

Another option, supported by the Bible, is that light was created
en route, as if the Universe had existed for all that time. The
Bible makes reference to not looking to the stars (or naming the
stars, or some such). After all, there are dinosaur fossils,
that could not possibly have formed in 10,000 years. There are
ice records in Antarctica that go back 400,000 years.

As far as I have read, (1) is as close to being indefensible
as any argument can be in the contentious world of
creation-evolution debate.

One particular YEC, however, is Barry Setterfield. He argues
(2) above under the name of "c-decay." Specifically, he
claims that the speed of light was originally very high
(millions of times its present value),

You will find similar under arxiv.org, searching for
VSL cosmology
.... only these describe variable light speed for a very brief
period 13-14 Gy ago.

and decreased rapidly everywhere in the universe. The
result, according to Setterfield, is that the universe can be
young but appear old due to the decay in c.

One of the tricky parts of Setterfield's argument is that
he claims that c decays according to an inverse
logarithmic curve that flattened out just about the time that
the value for c was defined in the 1960s -- the upshot is
that he claims c is no longer decaying in any way that
we can detect.

What he documented on his many pages, is the changes and
improvements of the standard of length, the standard of time, and
the methods of transferring those standards to experimental
measurements.

For example, the time standard was worked out really well in the
early 1940s, and between 1940 and 1960, there was a detectable
increase in length of the *length standard* of 1 part in 10^8.
After 1970, a similar rod was setup, and a rod of steel. The
alloy rod got longer by 1 part in 10^8, and the steel rod got
shorter by 1 part in 10^8. Imagine where Setterfield would have
been had the international community chosen a steel length
standard?

Such undetectable decay is suspiciously convenient. But
my point here is to accept Setterfield's claim at face value

Why?

and then see whether it is possible, based on known physics,
for the speed of light to change everywhere in the universe at
the same time. To me, that would appear to violate the
principle of relativity of simultaneity, that there is no such
thing as absolute time or any way of something happening
everywhere in the universe at the "same time."

All macroscopic communication occurs at c. However, all quantum
processes are entirely timeless and spaceless. Only in large
populations of quantum events does space and time "fall out".

A helpful person in the talk.origins newsgroups tried to
explain how Setterfield might work around this apparent
contradiction, but I couldn't quite follow the details (see
below).

It seems to me that either there is absolute simultaneity or
there isn't. If there isn't -- as the following quotation
states --
then I don't see how the speed of light can change "everywhere
in the universe at the same time."

That is one of the reasons the VSL cosmologies I mentioned above
toy with the idea of "infinite c" just after the Big Bang. To
make sure the Universe is homogenious.

Do not argue with those of "faith". Eventually they come into
power, and place you on the rack. Better to share the facts as
we know them, and let them listen to the "still, small voice" of
reason. If they cannot hear that voice over their religion, they
certainly cannot hear you.

David A. Smith

Shepherd Moon wrote:
Hello,

I hope you will bear with me as a non-specialist in search of help.
Could someone read the following and recommend references or ways to
approach this problem, quantitatively if possible?

Thanks in advance for any help,
Shepherdmoon

Here goes -- I hope my summary is accurate, but please correct if
needed:
As some of you may know, there are some people, known as young-earth
creationists (YECs), who believe that the universe was created 6,000 to
10,000 years ago. That proposition creates what is known as the
starlight problem -- if the universe is really young, then all of the
starlight from distant places should not have reached us yet. Two
general YEC "solutions" to the starlight problem are (1) that the
universe is really a lot smaller than it seems and (2) that light has
moved a lot faster in the past to make up the distance.

No Witnesses availible.


As far as I have read, (1) is as close to being indefensible as any
argument can be in the contentious world of creation-evolution debate.

One particular YEC, however, is Barry Setterfield. He argues (2) above
under the name of "c-decay." Specifically, he claims that the

speed of light


Three hundred million meters per second.

"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node50.html

was originally very high (millions of times its present value),
and decreased rapidly everywhere in the universe. The result, according
to Setterfield, is that the universe can be young but appear old due to
the decay in c.

No evidence of that. The mass of the electron seems to
determine the speed of lighT.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html


One of the tricky parts of Setterfield's argument is that he claims
that c decays according to an inverse logarithmic curve that flattened
out just about the time that the value for c was defined in the 1960s
-- the upshot is that he claims c is no longer decaying in any way that
we can detect.

Such undetectable decay is suspiciously convenient. But my point here
is to accept Setterfield's claim at face value and then see whether it
is possible, based on known physics, for the speed of light to change
everywhere in the universe at the same time. To me, that would appear
to violate the principle of relativity of simultaneity, that there is
no such thing as absolute time or any way of something happening
everywhere in the universe at the "same time."

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rgs/alice-VII.html


A helpful person in the talk.origins newsgroups tried to explain how
Setterfield might work around this apparent contradiction, but I
couldn't quite follow the details (see below).

It seems to me that either there is absolute simultaneity or there
isn't. If there isn't -- as the following quotation states -- then I
don't see how the speed of light can change "everywhere in the universe
at the same time."


Einstein and the twin didn't have cable television.
What if the both twins watched Dr. Who on equal
lengths of cable ?



---
Absolute simultaneity refers to the hypothetical coincidence of two or
more events in different points in space for all observers in the
universe. It is shown in the theory of relativity that there may be
always observers for whom simultaneity won't correspond to the same
moments in time and therefore simultaneity is always relative. The
theory of relativity doesn't allow the existence of such time because
of non existence of absolute simultaneity.
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_simultaneity

If c can't change everywhere at the same time, then if c varies over
time in our universe, shouldn't we see results of c changing
inconsistently depending on the frame of reference?

Shouldn't there be some visible or quantifiable differences between the
constant c case and the decaying c case? Or some way of demonstrating
mathematically or with supporting observations that c decay cannot work
for this reason?

No...



For example, is it possible that in some frames of reference, an
observer would measure c as increasing while an observer in another
frame would measure c as decreasing? And would demonstrating such an
apparent contradiction be enough, or is there some way in relativity
theory to make this c-decay argument work, at least in principle?

Here is what the person in talk.origins said, by the way. I'm curious
to know what it means in layman's terms and if it is in fact correct
that this simultaneity objection is not a "killer" for c-decay.

No... that is Peter Pan.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html


---
Okay, here's a better response, though not definitive.

I think your example translates into language of the invariant
interval. Let's generalize it to

dx^2 - c^2*z^2*dt^2 = interval 0 spacelike (simultaneity possible)
= 0 lightlike
0 timelike

No... Look at the imaginaries in the formula:
http://www.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/...edoflight.html


where I use z(tau) for a dimensionless parameter for change in speed of
light so z=1 today and z1 in the past.


That isn't even math.




In general, z will not be the same on each end of the interval dt=t2-t1
so the interval above can't really work. I believe your simultaneity
example translates into events that, over time, can change from a
timelike to spacelike interval as z decreases.

I think this is an interesting observation but not necessarily a killer
for c-decay. It might be possible to redefine the interval replacing
z(tau) with z(t1,t2) such that it reduces to unity in appropriate
limits, giving the form we use today.

Then there is the question of how large a dx & dt have we tested
experimentally. Can we demonstrate that no observers have experienced
the timeline to spacelike changeover?

Observers of light are nearfield participants.

"Incident Wave Impedance"
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node50.html
"Visualizations"
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm


Learn about light:
Course taught
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching.html

Sue...



---



See also:
Young Earth creationism
http://tinyurl.com/jhco7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Setterfield

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-decay

Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
[snip]

It is possible for things to happen simultaneously everywhere in the
universe without violating locality. The universe (at least the part we can
see) is almost exactly homogeneous, so the conditions necessary to cause
some change will tend to occur everywhere independently. Star and galaxy
formation is an example. The inflationary epoch is also supposed to have
ended this way.

And there is a distinguished cosmological time scale, which can be defined
in terms of processes like galaxy formation that happen in the same way
everywhere. The age of the universe is stated in terms of this common time
scale. The big bang breaks the reference frame symmetry of special relativity.


Thanks. That's not what I wanted to hear, but if it is true that things
can happen simultaneously everywhere in the universe without violating
locality, then it seems like the simultaneity objection for c-decay
doesn't work.

The real problem with young-earth creationism is that there are a bunch of
independent lines of evidence that all point to a universe that's billions
of years old, and all of these have to be explained away by different,
ad-hoc arguments. It's presumably within the power of an omnipotent god to
carefully deceive us in this way, but in that case I'd expect the god to do
a good enough job that there'd be no evidence for young-earth creationism at
all. (Which appears to be the case.)


Perhaps in that case another approach might work. Setterfield's
argument is based on needing a lot of other constants to change --
Planck's constant, and so on -- and by certain amounts. For example, I
have read that the fine-structure constant and the gravitational
constant figure in Setterfield's arguments. But if the constants don't
change, or don't change as much as they need to in order to compensate
for what Setterfield claims, then his argument would seem to fail.

Is there a source to find out, based on observations, by how much the
major physical constants (besides c) could have changed in the past?

A much cleaner solution is to simply suppose that God created an adult
world, with light already in transit, just as he supposedly created an adult
Adam and Eve. (With navels, naturally.) I'm surprised that there are any
young-earth creationists who try to argue otherwise.

You'd be surprised at a lot of things they say. For example, the ones I
debate argue that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that AIDS is a "behavioral
disease."

However, I think it is important to confront these people. I don't
think ignoring them is going to work in the long run. You can look at
the current political climate in the U.S. to see why.

Perhaps, though, I don't know enough of these various topics to zero in
on the problems with their arguments. But it is good to see someone do
it.



If c can't change everywhere at the same time, then if c varies over
time in our universe, shouldn't we see results of c changing
inconsistently depending on the frame of reference?

That depends on the details of the theory. It might be internally
inconsistent, but it needn't be. You're probably thinking of global inertial
frames, with planes of simultaneity extending all the way across the
universe and back in time, but there's no such thing in general relativity.


That's flattering, but I don't know enough relativity to be thinking of
any of that. I just wanted to know whether it is possible for c to
change everywhere in the universe at the same time. It sounds like it
is not impossible, at least not within the framework of the theory.
Whether that change is consistent with other observations (measurements
of constants, light from pulsars, etc.), may be another issue. But it
looks like simultaneity objections won't work regarding the change in c
itself.

(And one needn't introduce such things in special relativity either, and I
think they shouldn't be introduced, because it's then hard to unlearn them
when you move on to general relativity, especially because many people never
move on and therefore never learn things the right way, and many of those
people write books and Wikipedia articles on the subject; but I digress.)


I'm sure Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a highly authoritative source,
but it's not that bad. It is a good starting point for many topics.

[snip]


I think this is an interesting observation but not necessarily a killer
for c-decay. It might be possible to redefine the interval replacing
z(tau) with z(t1,t2) such that it reduces to unity in appropriate
limits, giving the form we use today.

z can't be a function of more than one time variable, at least not in the
framework of general relativity.


Wait -- does this imply that this kind of redefinition isn't possible,
and so can't be used to claim that c can change everywhere in the
universe at the same time?

[snip]

Regards,
Shepherdmoon

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Shepherd Moon:
[snip]

Hello David,

Here goes -- I hope my summary is accurate, but please
correct if needed:
As some of you may know, there are some people,
known as young-earth creationists (YECs), who believe that
the universe was created 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.

Right. Science is bent to the needs of their faith. Nothing you
can say will dissuade them.


That may be true, but I think they need to be confronted. These people
will not go away; I don't think ignoring them is going to work. I want
to know as much as I can about why their arguments are wrong -- and
even though I'm sure they are wrong overall, there may be instances
where they are not**, so I want to fight the right battles.

**This is not to say that they are totally right in those instances,
either, but rather that they may use bits of science that are right and
use them for the wrong reasons or in the wrong cases. It would be
foolish to argue against a YEC on a point that is actually correct,
only because a YEC is stating it.

That proposition creates what is known as the starlight
problem -- if the universe is really young, then all of the
starlight from distant places should not have reached
us yet. Two general YEC "solutions" to the starlight
problem are (1) that the universe is really a lot smaller
than it seems and (2) that light has moved a lot faster in
the past to make up the distance.

Another option, supported by the Bible, is that light was created
en route, as if the Universe had existed for all that time. The
Bible makes reference to not looking to the stars (or naming the
stars, or some such). After all, there are dinosaur fossils,
that could not possibly have formed in 10,000 years. There are
ice records in Antarctica that go back 400,000 years.


OK, but that's assuming that radiometric dating works. YECs have all
kinds of arguments about why it doesn't work. I suppose that would be a
whole other area I need to study in order to address those arguments.

As far as I have read, (1) is as close to being indefensible
as any argument can be in the contentious world of
creation-evolution debate.

One particular YEC, however, is Barry Setterfield. He argues
(2) above under the name of "c-decay." Specifically, he
claims that the speed of light was originally very high
(millions of times its present value),

You will find similar under arxiv.org, searching for
VSL cosmology
... only these describe variable light speed for a very brief
period 13-14 Gy ago.


Thanks.

and decreased rapidly everywhere in the universe. The
result, according to Setterfield, is that the universe can be
young but appear old due to the decay in c.

One of the tricky parts of Setterfield's argument is that
he claims that c decays according to an inverse
logarithmic curve that flattened out just about the time that
the value for c was defined in the 1960s -- the upshot is
that he claims c is no longer decaying in any way that
we can detect.

What he documented on his many pages, is the changes and
improvements of the standard of length, the standard of time, and
the methods of transferring those standards to experimental
measurements.

For example, the time standard was worked out really well in the
early 1940s, and between 1940 and 1960, there was a detectable
increase in length of the *length standard* of 1 part in 10^8.
After 1970, a similar rod was setup, and a rod of steel. The
alloy rod got longer by 1 part in 10^8, and the steel rod got
shorter by 1 part in 10^8. Imagine where Setterfield would have
been had the international community chosen a steel length
standard?

Such undetectable decay is suspiciously convenient. But
my point here is to accept Setterfield's claim at face value

Why?


To see the implications of his logic. As I said before, I don't think
ignoring YECs is going to work. They appear to be a stubborn and
determined lot. So it seems that it would behoove those who support
science education to know the YEC arguments and have ways of rebutting
them efficiently.

and then see whether it is possible, based on known physics,
for the speed of light to change everywhere in the universe at
the same time. To me, that would appear to violate the
principle of relativity of simultaneity, that there is no such
thing as absolute time or any way of something happening
everywhere in the universe at the "same time."

All macroscopic communication occurs at c. However, all quantum
processes are entirely timeless and spaceless. Only in large
populations of quantum events does space and time "fall out".


OK, but I'm not clear here. If all all quantum processes are entirely
timeless and spaceless, does that mean that c can change everywhere at
the same time, or not?

A helpful person in the talk.origins newsgroups tried to
explain how Setterfield might work around this apparent
contradiction, but I couldn't quite follow the details (see
below).

It seems to me that either there is absolute simultaneity or
there isn't. If there isn't -- as the following quotation
states --
then I don't see how the speed of light can change "everywhere
in the universe at the same time."

That is one of the reasons the VSL cosmologies I mentioned above
toy with the idea of "infinite c" just after the Big Bang. To
make sure the Universe is homogenious.

Do not argue with those of "faith". Eventually they come into
power, and place you on the rack. Better to share the facts as
we know them, and let them listen to the "still, small voice" of
reason. If they cannot hear that voice over their religion, they
certainly cannot hear you.


That is a good plan in the abstract, but in practice one needs to
debate with them or not debate with them. I'm sure there are principled
arguments supporting both approaches. As far as I'm concerned, though,
I want to do everything I can not to give YECs a free pass to make
inroads on others who may fall for their arguments.

Regards,
Shepherdmoon

Dear Shepherd Moon:

"Shepherd Moon" wrote in message
oups.com...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Shepherd Moon:
[snip]

Hello David,

Here goes -- I hope my summary is accurate, but please
correct if needed:
As some of you may know, there are some people,
known as young-earth creationists (YECs), who believe that
the universe was created 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.

Right. Science is bent to the needs of their faith. Nothing
you can say will dissuade them.

That may be true, but I think they need to be confronted.
These people will not go away; I don't think ignoring them is
going to work.

That is in fact the case, however. They thrive on attention.
Any stroke, positive or negative, serves to build their case.

I want to know as much as I can about why their
arguments are wrong -- and even though I'm sure they
are wrong overall, there may be instances where they
are not**, so I want to fight the right battles.

**This is not to say that they are totally right in those
instances, either, but rather that they may use bits
of science that are right and use them for the wrong
reasons or in the wrong cases. It would be foolish to
argue against a YEC on a point that is actually correct,
only because a YEC is stating it.

Gird your loins all you want. They will yammer, reproduce, die,
and yield even more ignorance. You will be buried under the
flood. There is a way to direct those that want to know the
truth, but "facts" is not the way to reach them.

That proposition creates what is known as the starlight
problem -- if the universe is really young, then all of the
starlight from distant places should not have reached
us yet. Two general YEC "solutions" to the starlight
problem are (1) that the universe is really a lot smaller
than it seems and (2) that light has moved a lot faster in
the past to make up the distance.

Another option, supported by the Bible, is that light was
created en route, as if the Universe had existed for all
that time. The Bible makes reference to not looking to the
stars (or naming the stars, or some such). After all, there
are dinosaur fossils, that could not possibly have formed in
10,000 years. There are ice records in Antarctica that go
back 400,000 years.

OK, but that's assuming that radiometric dating works.

No, the layers of ice are formed, and include, detritus from
entire seasons of growth elsewhere. It *is* a continuois
400,000+ year fossil record.

YECs have all kinds of arguments about why it doesn't
work. I suppose that would be a whole other area I need
to study in order to address those arguments.

The point is, they ignore what they don't want to hear.

As far as I have read, (1) is as close to being indefensible
as any argument can be in the contentious world of
creation-evolution debate.

One particular YEC, however, is Barry Setterfield. He argues
(2) above under the name of "c-decay." Specifically, he
claims that the speed of light was originally very high
(millions of times its present value),

You will find similar under arxiv.org, searching for
VSL cosmology
... only these describe variable light speed for a very brief
period 13-14 Gy ago.

Thanks.

You are welcome.

and decreased rapidly everywhere in the universe. The
result, according to Setterfield, is that the universe can
be
young but appear old due to the decay in c.

One of the tricky parts of Setterfield's argument is that
he claims that c decays according to an inverse
logarithmic curve that flattened out just about the time
that
the value for c was defined in the 1960s -- the upshot is
that he claims c is no longer decaying in any way that
we can detect.

What he documented on his many pages, is the changes and
improvements of the standard of length, the standard of time,
and
the methods of transferring those standards to experimental
measurements.

For example, the time standard was worked out really well in
the
early 1940s, and between 1940 and 1960, there was a detectable
increase in length of the *length standard* of 1 part in 10^8.
After 1970, a similar rod was setup, and a rod of steel. The
alloy rod got longer by 1 part in 10^8, and the steel rod got
shorter by 1 part in 10^8. Imagine where Setterfield would
have
been had the international community chosen a steel length
standard?

Such undetectable decay is suspiciously convenient. But
my point here is to accept Setterfield's claim at face value

Why?

To see the implications of his logic. As I said before, I don't
think ignoring YECs is going to work. They appear to be a
stubborn and determined lot. So it seems that it would
behoove those who support science education to know the
YEC arguments and have ways of rebutting them efficiently.

Already done...
http://www.talkorigins.org/

It doesn't help.

and then see whether it is possible, based on known
physics, for the speed of light to change everywhere
in the universe at the same time. To me, that would
appear to violate the principle of relativity of
simultaneity, that there is no such thing as absolute
time or any way of something happening everywhere
in the universe at the "same time."

All macroscopic communication occurs at c. However,
all quantum processes are entirely timeless and
spaceless. Only in large populations of quantum events
does space and time "fall out".

OK, but I'm not clear here. If all all quantum processes
are entirely timeless and spaceless, does that mean that
c can change everywhere at the same time, or not?

I would say yes. Expansion is everywhere the same, in that equal
distances are equally red shifted. This involves star systems
that are proceeding to fall over the Rindler horizon from each
other. If "the current rate of expansion" is communicated
everywhere at once, why not the "current value of c"?

A helpful person in the talk.origins newsgroups tried to
explain how Setterfield might work around this apparent
contradiction, but I couldn't quite follow the details (see
below).

It seems to me that either there is absolute simultaneity or
there isn't. If there isn't -- as the following quotation
states --
then I don't see how the speed of light can change
"everywhere in the universe at the same time."

That is one of the reasons the VSL cosmologies I mentioned
above toy with the idea of "infinite c" just after the Big
Bang.
To make sure the Universe is homogenious.

Do not argue with those of "faith". Eventually they come into
power, and place you on the rack. Better to share the facts
as
we know them, and let them listen to the "still, small voice"
of
reason. If they cannot hear that voice over their religion,
they
certainly cannot hear you.

That is a good plan in the abstract, but in practice one needs
to
debate with them or not debate with them. I'm sure there are
principled arguments supporting both approaches. As far as I'm
concerned, though, I want to do everything I can not to give
YECs a free pass to make inroads on others who may fall for
their arguments.

Your choice.

I find that YECs, to use your phrase, are so lousy at
instruction, that the very first challenge their disciples face
leaves them completely without any ability to cope. So their
rote learning falls apart and they choose one of two paths:
1) they blindly follow the YEC path anyway (like good little
soldiers), or
2) they become like you, and become devout anti-YEC.

If they chose YEC in the first place, they did so because it was
emotionally satisfying to them. Does what you offer, offer
emotional satisfaction? I think it requires the person to think
about the very ground they stand on. Not many people find
emotional satisfaction in using their brains to think, and
placing themselves in perspective.

I am glad you do. I think you are Don Quixote, and I respect
your intent. I hope it brings you some satisfaction.

Good luck.

David A. Smith

Sue... wrote:
[snip]
As some of you may know, there are some people, known as young-earth
creationists (YECs), who believe that the universe was created 6,000 to
10,000 years ago. That proposition creates what is known as the
starlight problem -- if the universe is really young, then all of the
starlight from distant places should not have reached us yet. Two
general YEC "solutions" to the starlight problem are (1) that the
universe is really a lot smaller than it seems and (2) that light has
moved a lot faster in the past to make up the distance.

No Witnesses availible.


This answer is not helpful. There are lots of times and places where no
(human) witnesses are available, but science is still able to research
what happened. In fact, YECs use the "no witnesses available" argument
*against* evolution by saying that no one saw humans evolve from other
primates, or no one saw the earth form, or no one saw life begin, etc.


As far as I have read, (1) is as close to being indefensible as any
argument can be in the contentious world of creation-evolution debate.

One particular YEC, however, is Barry Setterfield. He argues (2) above
under the name of "c-decay." Specifically, he claims that the

speed of light


Three hundred million meters per second.

"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node50.html


Thanks. I couldn't follow the math at all, but I could follow some of
the text. Could you explain a little more about how this is relevant to
whether or not c can change everywhere in the universe at the same
time? That's what I'm trying to figure out.


was originally very high (millions of times its present value),
and decreased rapidly everywhere in the universe. The result, according
to Setterfield, is that the universe can be young but appear old due to
the decay in c.

No evidence of that. The mass of the electron seems to
determine the speed of lighT.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html


Sorry, I couldn't follow the explanation there. Perhaps I am in over my
head.

By the way, might this article be relevant?

Varying c cosmology and Planck value constraints
D. H. Coule
Mod. Phys. Lett. A 14(35), 2437-2446 (1999)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9811/9811058.pdf


One of the tricky parts of Setterfield's argument is that he claims
that c decays according to an inverse logarithmic curve that flattened
out just about the time that the value for c was defined in the 1960s
-- the upshot is that he claims c is no longer decaying in any way that
we can detect.

Such undetectable decay is suspiciously convenient. But my point here
is to accept Setterfield's claim at face value and then see whether it
is possible, based on known physics, for the speed of light to change
everywhere in the universe at the same time. To me, that would appear
to violate the principle of relativity of simultaneity, that there is
no such thing as absolute time or any way of something happening
everywhere in the universe at the "same time."

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rgs/alice-VII.html


That link is to a chapter from Alice in Wonderland. Sorry, I don't get
the connection. Could you elaborate?



A helpful person in the talk.origins newsgroups tried to explain how
Setterfield might work around this apparent contradiction, but I
couldn't quite follow the details (see below).

It seems to me that either there is absolute simultaneity or there
isn't. If there isn't -- as the following quotation states -- then I
don't see how the speed of light can change "everywhere in the universe
at the same time."


Einstein and the twin didn't have cable television.
What if the both twins watched Dr. Who on equal
lengths of cable ?



Sorry, I don't follow.


---
Absolute simultaneity refers to the hypothetical coincidence of two or
more events in different points in space for all observers in the
universe. It is shown in the theory of relativity that there may be
always observers for whom simultaneity won't correspond to the same
moments in time and therefore simultaneity is always relative. The
theory of relativity doesn't allow the existence of such time because
of non existence of absolute simultaneity.
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_simultaneity

If c can't change everywhere at the same time, then if c varies over
time in our universe, shouldn't we see results of c changing
inconsistently depending on the frame of reference?

Shouldn't there be some visible or quantifiable differences between the
constant c case and the decaying c case? Or some way of demonstrating
mathematically or with supporting observations that c decay cannot work
for this reason?

No...



Could you elaborate?


For example, is it possible that in some frames of reference, an
observer would measure c as increasing while an observer in another
frame would measure c as decreasing? And would demonstrating such an
apparent contradiction be enough, or is there some way in relativity
theory to make this c-decay argument work, at least in principle?

Here is what the person in talk.origins said, by the way. I'm curious
to know what it means in layman's terms and if it is in fact correct
that this simultaneity objection is not a "killer" for c-decay.

No... that is Peter Pan.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html


Good link. Thanks.


---
Okay, here's a better response, though not definitive.

I think your example translates into language of the invariant
interval. Let's generalize it to

dx^2 - c^2*z^2*dt^2 = interval 0 spacelike (simultaneity possible)
= 0 lightlike
0 timelike

No... Look at the imaginaries in the formula:
http://www.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/...edoflight.html


I kind of followed the explanation at that link. It was a very
fascinating point. But how does it show the bit above to be wrong? Do
the imaginaries mean that absolute simultaneity of changing c is
impossible?


where I use z(tau) for a dimensionless parameter for change in speed of
light so z=1 today and z1 in the past.


That isn't even math.




In general, z will not be the same on each end of the interval dt=t2-t1
so the interval above can't really work. I believe your simultaneity
example translates into events that, over time, can change from a
timelike to spacelike interval as z decreases.

I think this is an interesting observation but not necessarily a killer
for c-decay. It might be possible to redefine the interval replacing
z(tau) with z(t1,t2) such that it reduces to unity in appropriate
limits, giving the form we use today.

Then there is the question of how large a dx & dt have we tested
experimentally. Can we demonstrate that no observers have experienced
the timeline to spacelike changeover?

Observers of light are nearfield participants.

"Incident Wave Impedance"
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node50.html
"Visualizations"
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm


Thanks for the links. But what are "nearfield participants," and does
the fact that observers of light are nearfield participants mean that
absolute universal simultaneity is possible for a changing value of c?

Learn about light:
Course taught
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching.html

[snip]

Regards,
Shepherdmoon

Dear Shepherd Moon:

"Shepherd Moon" wrote in message
oups.com...
Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
....
The real problem with young-earth creationism is that there
are a bunch of independent lines of evidence that all point
to a universe that's billions of years old, and all of these
have to be explained away by different, ad-hoc arguments.
It's presumably within the power of an omnipotent god to
carefully deceive us in this way, but in that case I'd expect
the god to do a good enough job that there'd be no
evidence for young-earth creationism at all. (Which
appears to be the case.)

Perhaps in that case another approach might work.
Setterfield's argument is based on needing a lot of other
constants to change -- Planck's constant, and so on -- and
by certain amounts.

The fine structure constant has been shown to have changed by
less than 1 part in 10^8 since the CMBR was emitted. This places
a limit on how c can change with respect to other constants.
That is why he looked at other constants.

For example, I have read that the fine-structure constant
and the gravitational constant figure in Setterfield's
arguments. But if the constants don't change, or don't
change as much as they need to in order to compensate
for what Setterfield claims, then his argument would
seem to fail.

If c changed, they did too.

Is there a source to find out, based on observations, by
how much the major physical constants (besides c)
could have changed in the past?

I'd recommend a good search on:
"dimensional analysis"
"buckingham pi theorem"

A much cleaner solution is to simply suppose that God
created an adult world, with light already in transit, just
as he supposedly created an adult Adam and Eve. (With
navels, naturally.) I'm surprised that there are any
young-earth creationists who try to argue otherwise.

You'd be surprised at a lot of things they say. For example,
the ones I debate argue that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that
AIDS is a "behavioral disease."

Religious science. Or more likely "God's retribution" and they
simply wait for the person to die of their "sins".

However, I think it is important to confront these people.
I don't think ignoring them is going to work in the long
run. You can look at the current political climate in the
U.S. to see why.

Bush won't be stopped by facts, or hadn't you noticed that?

Perhaps, though, I don't know enough of these various
topics to zero in on the problems with their arguments.
But it is good to see someone do it.

If c can't change everywhere at the same time, then
if c varies over time in our universe, shouldn't we see
results of c changing inconsistently depending on
the frame of reference?

That depends on the details of the theory. It might be
internally inconsistent, but it needn't be. You're
probably thinking of global inertial frames, with planes
of simultaneity extending all the way across the
universe and back in time, but there's no such thing in
general relativity.

That's flattering, but I don't know enough relativity to be
thinking of any of that. I just wanted to know whether it
is possible for c to change everywhere in the universe at
the same time. It sounds like it is not impossible, at
least not within the framework of the theory. Whether
that change is consistent with other observations
(measurements of constants, light from pulsars, etc.),
may be another issue. But it looks like simultaneity
objections won't work regarding the change in c itself.

c establishes size in relativity (and in the world around us).
Unfortunately, this makes all observations self-consistent.

(And one needn't introduce such things in special
relativity either, and I think they shouldn't be introduced,
because it's then hard to unlearn them when you move
on to general relativity, especially because many
people never move on and therefore never learn things
the right way, and many of those people write books
and Wikipedia articles on the subject; but I digress.)

I'm sure Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a highly
authoritative source, but it's not that bad. It is a good
starting point for many topics.

Yet the YEC input to it too...

[snip]

I think this is an interesting observation but not
necessarily a killer for c-decay. It might be
possible to redefine the interval replacing
z(tau) with z(t1,t2) such that it reduces to unity
in appropriate limits, giving the form we use today.

z can't be a function of more than one time variable,
at least not in the framework of general relativity.

Wait -- does this imply that this kind of redefinition isn't
possible, and so can't be used to claim that c can
change everywhere in the universe at the same time?

No, it simply means that *in general relativity* it can't be
done. A YEC can change a whore into a virgin, or at least into
the wife of Jesus.

I'd look into reading a little bit of "Stranger In A Strange
Land" by Robert Heinlein, before you carry on too much further.
Something about bears and bald heads... Seems to me, if you can
point out that the Bible is not to be taken entirely literally
throughout, the "child's bedtime story" that is Genesis then no
longer requires that creation occur in 10,000 may-years.

In other words, go after the YEC postulates, not shield to
shield.

David A. Smith

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Shepherd Moon:
[snip]

Hello David,

Another option, supported by the Bible, is that light was
created en route, as if the Universe had existed for all
that time. The Bible makes reference to not looking to the
stars (or naming the stars, or some such). After all, there
are dinosaur fossils, that could not possibly have formed in
10,000 years. There are ice records in Antarctica that go
back 400,000 years.

OK, but that's assuming that radiometric dating works.

No, the layers of ice are formed, and include, detritus from
entire seasons of growth elsewhere. It *is* a continuois
400,000+ year fossil record.


Ah, I see. This is not radiometric data but a set of actual ice layers.

Answers in Genesis has an answer for this one, too, but it appears to
be extremely weak.

Cold comfort for long-agers
http://tinyurl.com/mm2p8

The article claims:

"Second, the use of climatic cycles from the astronomical or
Milankovitch ice age theory (Ross's second and fourth indicator
above) is an exercise in circular reasoning.5 Both the Greenland and
Antarctic ice cores are tuned to the deep-sea cores, which are dated
assuming the astronomical or Milankovitch ice age theory...."

I need to read more about these ice cores, but it seems, at least at
first glance, that YECs don't have any good comeback for the Antarctic
ice cores. Aside from trying to lump together the Greenland and
Antarctic ice cores (apparently the YECs have a lot more to say about
the Greenland ice cores), there is not much in the above article about
Antarctica. For example, even though the article above was written in
2005, it doesn't cite what I think is the main article about the Vostok
ice cores, which was publishd in 1999:

Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the
Vostok ice core, Antarctica
Nature 399, 429 - 436 (03 June 1999); doi:10.1038/20859

Thanks for telling me about this dating method, though. It's very
interesting. Here's a nice compilation of the many different
measurements and how even the most conservative yield a minimum age for
the earth of at least 110,000 years (ice layers in Greenland) using the
ice core method.

Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III
http://tinyurl.com/qlcnt

---
6 measurements at 1934 m

* 136,758 years (Sowers) last datum
* 141,804 years (Lorius)
* 137,725 years (Jouzel-1)
* 135,018 years (Jouzel-2)
* 140,243 years (Waelbroeck)
* 135,507 years (Petit)

Average = 137,842 years +/- 3,393 (2.5%)

5 measurements at 2082 m

* 164,433 years (Lorius) last datum
* 155,785 years (Jouzel-1)
* 150,957 years (Jouzel-2)
* 152,239 years (Waelbroeck)
* 151,721 years (Petit)

Average = 155,027 years +/- 6,738 (4.3%)

4 measurements at 2757 m

* 261,787 years (Jouzel-1) last datum
* 242,235 years (Jouzel-2) last datum
* 243,004 years (Waelbroeck) last datum
* 237,975 years (Petit)

Average = 246,250 years +/- 11,906 (4.8%)

1 measurement at 3310 m

* 422,766 years (Petit) last datum

Average = 422,776 years
---

[snip]

If they chose YEC in the first place, they did so because it was
emotionally satisfying to them. Does what you offer, offer
emotional satisfaction? I think it requires the person to think
about the very ground they stand on. Not many people find
emotional satisfaction in using their brains to think, and
placing themselves in perspective.

I am glad you do. I think you are Don Quixote, and I respect
your intent. I hope it brings you some satisfaction.

Good luck.



Your point is well taken. I probably am being a bit quixotic, plus it
is fun for me as a hobby. I'm sure it would be less fun if I were a
scientist for a living. But I appreciate that you respect my intent.
I'm just trying to do my part to "fight the good fight," as they say. I
hope I can do more good than harm as I try to do so. :-)

Regards,
Shepherdmoon