Posted on 08/01/2004 12:25:39 PM PDT by wagglebee
The theory of evolution requires unfathomable lengths of time – eons ... billions and billions of years.
Even with all that time, it's still hard to imagine how complex biochemicals such as hemoglobin or chlorophyll self assembled in the primordial goo. But to those of us who question the process, the answer is always the same. Time. More time than you can grasp – timespans so vast that anything is possible, even chance combinations of random chemicals to form the stunning complexities of reproducing life.
Modern physics is now considering a theory that could throw into confusion virtually all of the accepted temporal paradigms of 20th-century science, including the age of the universe and the billions of years necessary for evolution. Further, it raises the distinct possibility that scientific validation exists for a (gasp) literal interpretation of the seminal passages of Genesis. Goodbye Scopes trial.
The theory is deceptively simple: The speed of light is not constant, as we've been taught since the early 1930s, but has been steadily slowing since the first instance of time.
If true, virtually all aspects of traditional physics are affected, including the presumed steady state of radioactive decay used to measure geologic time.
It's an intriguing story – and like many revolutions in science, it begins with observations that just don't fit currently accepted scientific dogma.
Early in 1979, an Australian undergraduate student named Barry Setterfield, thought it would be interesting to chart all of the measurements of the speed of light since a Dutch astronomer named Olaf Roemer first measured light speed in the late 17th century. Setterfield acquired data on over 163 measurements using 16 different methods over 300 years.
The early measurements typically tracked the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter when the planet was near the Earth and compared it with observations when then planet was farther away. These observations were standard, simple and repeatable, and have been measured by astronomers since the invention of the telescope. These are demonstrated to astronomy students even today. The early astronomers kept meticulous notes and sketches, many of which are still available.
Setterfield expected to see the recorded speeds grouped around the accepted value for light speed, roughly 299,792 kilometers /second. In simple terms, half of the historic measurements should have been higher and half should be lower.
What he found defied belief: The derived light speeds from the early measurements were significantly faster than today. Even more intriguing, the older the observation, the faster the speed of light. A sampling of these values is listed below:
In 1738: 303,320 +/- 310 km/second In 1861: 300,050 +/- 60 km/second In 1877: 299,921 +/- 13 km/second In 2004: 299,792 km/second (accepted constant)
Setterfield teamed with statistician Dr. Trevor Norman and demonstrated that, even allowing for the clumsiness of early experiments, and correcting for the multiple lenses of early telescopes and other factors related to technology, the speed of light was discernibly higher 100 years ago, and as much as 7 percent higher in the 1700s. Dr. Norman confirmed that the measurements were statistically significant with a confidence of more than 99 percent.
Setterfield and Norman published their results at SRI in July 1987 after extensive peer review.
It would be easy to dismiss two relatively unknown researchers if theirs were the only voices in this wilderness and the historic data was the only anomaly. They are not.
Since the SRI publication in 1987, forefront researchers from Russia, Australia, Great Britain and the United States have published papers in prestigious journals questioning the constancy of the speed of light.
Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial College in London, Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat of the University of Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was much higher – as much as 10 to the 10th power faster – in the early stages of the "Big Bang" than it is today. (It's important to note that none of these researchers have expressed any bias toward a predetermined answer, biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a biblical worldview.)
Dr. Magueijo believes that light speed was faster only in the instants following the beginning of time. Dr. Barrow, Barry Setterfield and others believe that light speed has been declining from the beginning of time to the historic near past.
Dr. Magueijo recently stated that the debate should not be why and how could the speed of light could vary, but what combination of irrefutable theories demands that it be constant at all.
Setterfield now believes there are at least four other major observed anomalies consistent with a slowing speed of light:
1. quantized red-shift observations from other galaxies,
2. measured changes in atomic masses over time,
3. measured changes in Plank's Constant over time,
4. and differences between time as measured by the atomic clock, and time as measured by the orbits of the planets in our solar system.
Perhaps the most interesting of these is the quantized red-shift data.
The red shift refers to observations by astronomers of the light emitted by galaxies. Early astronomers noticed that galaxies considered to be most distant from the earth had light spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. In 1929 astronomer Edwin Hubble compared the galaxies' spectra with their presumed distances (calculated using different methods), and showed that the amount of "red shift" was proportional to the calculated distance from Earth.
Hubble and others postulated that the "red shift" was caused by the velocity of the galaxies as they receded from Earth and from each other – the farther away the galaxy, the faster the velocity, the more the observed Doppler red shift. Galaxies whose observed light is seen as shifted into the far red are considered to be moving at amazingly high speeds away from us.
Hubble's theory of the expanding universe demands an even distribution of red-shift data.
Dr. William Tifft, now retired from the University of Arizona, measured and recorded red-shift data for over 20 years. Dr. Tifft found that the red-shift data were not random at all, but grouped into quantum bands.
Quantum red-shift data simply does not fit in the comfortable world of classical physics.
Where it does fit, like it was made for it, is in the Setterfield Hypothesis. According to Setterfield and others, declining light speeds would cause changes in the quantum states of atomic structure within these galaxies, leading to quantum shifts in the light emitted – precisely what Dr. Tifft and others detected.
Setterfield believes that the speed of light was initially about 10 to the 10th power faster than it is today. After the creation of the universe, light speed declined following a curve approximating the curve of the cosecant squared. He believes that light speed reached a point where it is asymptotic since the mid 1960s. Though reasonably constant, he believes the speed still varies in waves – sometimes higher and sometimes lower than the accepted standard.
Intriguingly, recent observations of the signals received from the aging satellites Galileo, Ulysses and Pioneer are also in the category of speed of light anomalies. A unexplained Doppler frequency shift has been detected from all of these satellites, even though the satellites' distances from the Earth are only about 20 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun – way too close for a traditional Doppler shift to occur in the electromagnetic spectrum. NASA scientists have attempted with little success to attribute the anomalies to an unknown acceleration. Setterfield suggests that equally plausible explanations are variations in c.
It's important to recognize the resistance that the current hierarchy of science has to the possibility that light speed may not be constant. Dr. Joao Magueijo was forced to wait for over a year between submission of his initial work on varying light speed and publication. Setterfield, Dr. Tifft, Dr. Paul Davis, Dr. John Barrow and others have been subjected to peer review which borders on ridicule.
Dr. Tifft's discussion of red-shift anomalies was published with seeming reluctance in the Astrophysical Journal in the mid 1980s with a rare editorial note pointing out that the referees "neither could find obvious errors with the analysis nor felt that they could enthusiastically endorse publication."
After Dr. Tifft's initial publication, several astronomers devised extensive experiments in attempts to prove him wrong. Among them two Scottish astronomers, Bruce Gutherie and William Napier from the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh observed approximately 300 galaxies in the mid 1990s. They found to their surprise confirmation of quantum banding of red-shift data.
They also had difficulty publishing their data. It has been reported that the prestigious Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics refused publication until an additional set of observations from 97 other spiral galaxies was included. A Fourier analysis of the 302 early data points, and the subsequent total of 399 data points strongly confirmed the quantum shifts.
Despite this – and additional observations by Bell in 2003 – many scientists are still reluctant to give up on the theory that red shifts are solely caused by Doppler shifts and have continued to claim that the red-shift quanta results by Tifft and others are due to sloppy research or insufficient data.
It's intriguing to note that the first measurement of light speed by Olaf Roemer in the late 17th century was an attempt to disprove the Aristotelian belief that light speed was infinite. Despite overwhelming and repeatable evidence, over 50 years passed before the scientific hierarchy of the time accepted evidence which, in retrospect was clear, compelling and unimpeachable.
In this case, between 1999 and now it has been observed that the fine structure constant may have changed over time. This has caused even the prestigious CERN to speculate that the speed of light may have changed slightly but significantly over time.
The importance of a such a change in the speed of light (in my view) is not that it would reconcile the age of the universe v Scripture. Relativity already reconciles that quite nicely – e.g. six days at the inception space/time coordinates are equivalent to approximately 15 billion years at our space/time coordinates. (Age of the Universe).
Rather, to me, the importance of a change in the speed of light is that it points to negative gravitational pressure. IMHO, negative gravity is the best explanation for dark energy – following the geometry of space/time (relativity) it would be a space/time “outdent” causing acceleration of the universe which we observe. IOW, solving the question of a variable fine structure constant may also help solve the question of dark energy.
And there’s more…
One mainstream science speculation concerning the fact that gravity is so very small compared to the other forces is that gravity is trans-dimensional. Support for negative gravitational pressure also adds support to this view and a break from the compactification of extra dimensions under the Kaluza-Klein model, i.e. if gravity is trans-dimensional then there exists higher dimensionality.
In sum, although fringe science reads mountains into anomalous observations – it accomplishes two important things for my purpose as a science consumer: 1) it emphasizes the parts of the puzzle which do not yet fit, and 2) it speculates on metaphysical importance.
xzins, you asked:
Moreover, general relativity expanded this 4D block understanding to show that gravity warps space/time. IOW, in the presence of intense gravity (e.g. a black hole) time runs much slower and conversely, in negative gravity, much faster.
But getting back to special relativity and your specific question, the implications of acceleration in the space/time continuum (relative time passing) can be seen on the chart at the bottom of this webpage on the space/time wheel.
With regard to this discussion however, a small change in the speed of light as suggested by CERN, AIP et al would have major implications but only on astronomical scales.
"neither could find obvious errors with the analysis nor felt that they could enthusiastically endorse publication."
= We don't like what you are saying, but have been unable to proove you worng.
If the speed of light IS slowing down over time, perhaps time elasped faster in the past than in the present, and comparing events which occurred in the remote past with the present cannot be done by simple mathematics.
Einstein proved time isn't absolute anyway. This is another way of viewing its variability by another factor.
Thank you for your time, AG.
I was correct....I need far more background.
Lot's of time on earth with a constant speed of light. Speed that up and I'd suspect that you'd have an even greater time gap.
Good points.
Coupled with Alamo's suggestion that time elapsed on earth would be different than time elapsed at the edge of the universe, the light/day idea certainly deserves more than passing thought.
Now that both you and RA have said the same thing, prepare to be accused of being part of a VAST SCIENTIFIC CONSPIRACY to thwart the "truth"....
"Ooooooo; it's a conspiracy! Waaaaa!"
And thank you so very much for your reply, xzins! You are correct, xzins, that a change in acceleration effects relative time passing.
For some, Genesis is heavy with metaphors while others read it quite literally applying only to earth. And for others, it is somewhere between these two.
Personally, I read Genesis as the creation account for both heaven and earth because of Gen 1:1 and the placement of the tree of life in Genesis 2 and Revelation 2. So many of the cause/effect objections are moot (grass before planets, days before solar systerm) to my view.
Also, for me, relativity reconciles creation week quite nicely with the observed age of the universe (and earth). For Lurkers, the link on post 101 explains this in more detail.
I hate to say this, but NASA scientists are not in a stir. You should be careful of what Chuck Missler writes, too. When he veers into science, he doesn't know what he's talking about.God gave us the special revelation of the Bible. He also gave us the general revelation of His creation. Why are you so eager to say that God's creation isn't what it appears to be?
Ice cores have annual layers similar to the rings on a tree and we've drilled ice cores that go back 160,000 years. Either God lied to us by creating ice cores that appear falsely old or the earth is at least 160,000 years old.
Thank you. Every Christian is okay with the fact that the universe is billions of light years in size, which implies that God is not limited by distance. However, a small minority wrongly believe that the universe is less than 10,000 years old and cannot be any older, thus limiting God with time.First of all, the Bible nowhere says or even implies that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. I've argued that before and am not going to do it again -- those who are interested can do a search.
Second, God is not limited by time or space because He is not outside of time and space. When I read a book on the history of England I can turn from a page dealing with the earliest Roman occupiers to a page dealing with Winston Churchill in a split second. That's because I'm outside the book and don't have to read events in the book as they happen in real time -- it doesn't take me 2000 years to get from the chapter about Julius Caesar to the chapter about World War II. A billion years is nothing more to God than the time it takes me to move from an early chapter to a late chapter.
Yes, and there will be posts soon saying that I'm not a real Christian or that I'm choosing to believe man's word instead of God's word.
Actually that would be only on the edges, ballons and universes arent flat.
Matt 19:4-6
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (emphasis added)
Jesus quotes from Genesis 1:27 "male and female created he them." and Genesis 2:24 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
In fact Jesus adds the qualifier "at the beginning" in Matthew 19:4 that is not in the Genesis text, which would tell me He believed Adam and Eve were created at the beginning. In Genesis 2 Adam and Eve were named and Jesus doesn't hesitate to put together day 6 in Gen 1 and the added detail of day 6 in Gen 2.
If you want to say that Jesus' quoting the text describing Adam and Eve being at the beginning not once but twice in Matt 19:4 and 19:8 would lead me to believe He was just quoting from a fanciful story, I refuse. Who needs Jesus if the first man didn't fall, and sin just somehow crept up on us through evolution. We might as well toss out all of Paul's writings about the original sin of Adam.
Here are a few questions I have regarding theistic evolution.
Gen 1:27
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Is the image of God a one celled creature, without any creative abilities? And this:
Gen 2:5
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Not a man to till the ground? Hmmm? And this:
Gen 2:7
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
An amoeba with a "living soul"? And this:
Gen 2:18
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Alone doesn't sound like evolution. And this:
Gen 5:5
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
And the myth died at a specific age? And this:
1 Chron 1:1
1 Adam, Sheth, Enosh, 2 Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered, 3 Henoch, Methuselah, Lamech, 4 Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
The myth shows up again?
Jude 1:14
14And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
New Testament confirmation of the specific genealogy of Adam.
Acts 17:11
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
The ultimate measuring stick!
Why wasn't this thread posted in the Religion Forum?
Forum entanglement placemarker.
I never said that Genesis was a fanciful story -- you're putting words in my mouth. I believe that it's a literal story. However, I also believe that young-earth creationists are putting a time constraint on Genesis that definitely isn't there.As just one tiny example, how do you explain ice cores -- with layers like tree rings to indicate each year's snow fall -- that show 160,000 years of winters? I don't believe that God has lied to us through His creation, yet you are implying that He has if you claim (un-Biblically) that the earth is less than 160,000 years old.
Setterfield teamed with statistician Dr. Trevor Norman and demonstrated that, even allowing for the clumsiness of early experiments, and correcting for the multiple lenses of early telescopes and other factors related to technology, the speed of light was discernibly higher 100 years ago, and as much as 7 percent higher in the 1700s. Dr. Norman confirmed that the measurements were statistically significant with a confidence of more than 99 percent.
303,320 / 299792 * 100%-100 = 1.1768% higher
Thanks, Understood that...I was thinking relative position to each other, like on the skin of a balloon...I must be using an old outdated concept/model.
Thanks...very interesting web site. :))
How come NASA scientists can not come to agreement on Red Shift? Many theories,no definitive answers.Once light slows to 10 to -28(presently believed to be -10 and declining)our 6000 years of man adds up in that unit of measure.Ready to begin the millenium rule.You will read more in the coming year by some fantastic work of Israeli quantum scientists.Sit back and watch the show.Patience my friends,patience.
There is no baby here, only bathwater. The changes suggested by Setterfeld lead to observational consequence that do not occur. (Not to mention Setterfeld's ignoring the systematic errors of early observations.)
I can think of four simple observational consequences. First, the polonium halos in rocks would not be sharp, but fuzzy had the speed of light changed. This is not observed. Second, the Lyman alpha forest would not consist of sharp lines, but rather blurs. Third, there would be chromatic aberration as different wavelengths would be refracted differently as the speed varied. This is not observed. Fourth, SN1987a observations do not indicate any light speed changes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.