Aye-yay-yay!
You are trying to back out of your statement! I knew you would. You should be completely embarrassed by your 'thought experiment' statement above as it requires the speed of light to be different in spatially separated parts of the universe in order to be valid.
I didn't back out of anything. I provided you easy-to-understand links to sites that completely destroy Setterfield's theory. All I did was add my own common-sense rebuttal to Setterfield's theory. I did this for your benefit, I might add, so I don't know why you chose it as an oppoturtunity to, um, stretch the truth.
I mentioned nothing about requiring the speed of light to be different in spatially separated parts of the universe. If you thought that, then that's a complete misunderstanding on your part. I merely told exactly what would happen if Setterfield's theory were true.
If Photon A leaves Point X at 1:00 PM and Photon B leaves Point X at 2:00 PM, then according to Setterfield, the speed of Photon A in transit has decayed to the same speed that Photon B had at the instant it left Point X one hour later.
Let's assume that the speed of light has decayed by 50% during that one hour. Since Photon A initially started out moving faster, it would appear to arrive at any point in the universe two hours earlier than Photon B.
If Setterfield's theory were true, an observer would have the illusion that that time has slowed down -- more so for distant objects than close-by objects. We are not seeing things in slow motion; therefore, Setterfield's theory is disproven by common sense, without even having to resort to the use of mathematical equations.
The links you provided commit the same colossal error that you do. That of first assuming a constant speed of light and then claiming that using that assumption to 'define' observational evidence 'proves' a constant speed of light. That's circular-thinking at it's best and is a pretty small circle, even for you.
You are quite wrong on that point. Yes, the writers believe in a constant speed of light, which is what all observations show. However, the results of observing the behavior of Supernova 1987A do not depend upon a constant speed of light. However, a decay in the speed of light, as posited by Setterfield, would have yielded different and unexpected results for the observations. We did not see any results that contradicted a constant speed of light. We also know by several different experimental techniques that Supernova 1987A is about 168,000 light years away.
The experimental observations of Supernova 1987A allowed scientists to use simple trigonometry to calculate the distance of Supernova 1987A as well as other properties. Supernova 1987A behaved exactly according to standard scientific understanding. The observations completely refuted Setterfield's beliefs.
Check out this talk thread about Setterfield's claims versus the observation of Supernova 1987A. Setterfield wants to add even more layers of cake to his claim of a decaying speed of light. Note that this thread mentions Occam's Razor just as I did earlier.
In fairness to you, I have to mention that other scientists have proposed a change in the speed of light as a solution to problems of the Big Bang theory, without the incorporation of the theory of inflation. Albrecht and Magueijo proposed a similar theory to Setterfields's for the very, very early universe -- albeit much more rational and sophisticated -- in 1999. See here, too, for a further listing.
Don't mistake these theories as any kind of support or proof of the nutball theory supported by Setterfield. The arguments are purely theoretical and would have been applicable only for a brief instant in the first milliseconds of the universe. They would no doubt be horrified at Setterfield's theory, and rightly so.
Here's another pretty good article written in layman's terms. It says exactly what I've said: if one accepts YEC, then it follows that God is lying to us through his creation.
Tell me Mikey. How does the distance to an object have anything at all to do with the age of the universe?
We've just been talking about it, Danny. The speed of light is but one indicator of how far away an object is. You might also want to look into things like Cepheid variables and pulsars. All are in agreement with one another and all support the fact of an old universe.
Work with me, please. I don't dislike you. I wish you would work harder to try and understand these things. You obviously did not read the links I sent you, just as you ignored my word study. Read them. If your critical thinking ability is so much better than mine, you should be able to point out problems. If you have a problem, point out the problem -- don't just call me "incapable of critical-thinking."
With one exception, I have always provided you with links to YEC rebuttals that you don't need a science degree to understand. I have two hard-science (chemistry and chemical engineering) degrees from nationally-recognized and respected universities. I have a whole career's worth of experience interpretating science regulations for attorneys, working with scientists, and implementing novel techniques for water treatment (we're talking many, many millions of dollars over the past 20 years). I'm perfectly capable of going so scientific on you that you wouldn't understand a single sentence, though people like TXnMA would have no problem.
I'm a scientist, and I found it hard to follow what Setterfield claims. Not because it was complicated, but because he jumps around, ignores problems, and does not write in an orderly flow. I re-read one of the articles that I think I sent to you earler and it had the same thing to say:
This completes our overview of Setterfield’s main ideas, insofar as they can be understood from his publications. However, his work unfortunately contains many ambiguities and contradictions, which can interfere with attempts to understand, not to mention critically evaluate, his work.Again, work with me, not against me. I'm open-minded to a young universe; it's just that the facts don't fit with the theory. You're going to have to do more than point to Setterfield's nonsense and accuse me of not being able to think critically.
You provided no such thing but don't have the sense to recognize it. Aye-yay-yay!
"All I did was add my own common-sense rebuttal to Setterfield's theory. I did this for your benefit, I might add, so I don't know why you chose it as an oppoturtunity to, um, stretch the truth."
You don't even realize that your 'common-sense' rebuttal was completely invalid. I might have known you would manufacture an opportunity to, um, stretch the truth.
"I mentioned nothing about requiring the speed of light to be different in spatially separated parts of the universe. If you thought that, then that's a complete misunderstanding on your part. I merely told exactly what would happen if Setterfield's theory were true."
OMG, you really don't realize that your story was only valid if c was different in spatially separated parts of the universe. Wow.
"If Setterfield's theory were true, an observer would have the illusion that that time has slowed down -- more so for distant objects than close-by objects. We are not seeing things in slow motion; therefore, Setterfield's theory is disproven by common sense, without even having to resort to the use of mathematical equations."
You clearly don't understand Setterfield's theory. Probably because you rely on others to tell you what to believe. If you would just think, you would realize that the distance between any two photons never changes and will always be seen in relation to the current value of c. Since c is related proportionately to atomic processes, distant atomic processes will always be observed in terms of the current value of c, even if c was higher in the past.
You cannot claim nuclear meltdown from a higher c on the one hand and then turn around and claim slow-motion on the other. You are confused again.
"You are quite wrong on that point. Yes, the writers believe in a constant speed of light, which is what all observations show."
Yes, they assumed the constancy of the speed of light and then claim that proves the constancy of the speed of light. That's a very small logical circle, even for you.
"However, the results of observing the behavior of Supernova 1987A do not depend upon a constant speed of light. However, a decay in the speed of light, as posited by Setterfield, would have yielded different and unexpected results for the observations. We did not see any results that contradicted a constant speed of light."
Nope. Wrong again. Atomic processes vary according to c. Higher c and faster processes go hand-in-hand. As c slows, the time required for light to travel the distance between the two events slows and you always see the events at an atomic process rate consistent with current c. That's what you don't understand.
"We also know by several different experimental techniques that Supernova 1987A is about 168,000 light years away."
You don't understand that the light-year is being used as a measure of distance, do you? The term 'light-year' is being used to express a distance in terms of meters. The distance to SN1987A is x meters. This says nothing whatsoever about the time that has elapsed since it occurred. For that you need to assume a constant speed of light. But once you assume that, you cannot then claim to have proved it. Again, a very small diameter circular-thinking exercise.
"Check out this talk thread about Setterfield's claims versus the observation of Supernova 1987A. Setterfield wants to add even more layers of cake to his claim of a decaying speed of light. Note that this thread mentions Occam's Razor just as I did earlier."
For a guy who supports a model that is 96% invisible by definition, I don't see that you have any advantage.
"We've just been talking about it, Danny. The speed of light is but one indicator of how far away an object is. You might also want to look into things like Cepheid variables and pulsars. All are in agreement with one another and all support the fact of an old universe."
Again, Mikey. You must assume the constancy of c in any of those arguments, and once having assumed it, the argument proves nothing. Why is that little circular-thinking exercise so attractive to you? The sad results of believing a lie?
"I'm a scientist, and I found it hard to follow what Setterfield claims. Not because it was complicated, but because he jumps around, ignores problems, and does not write in an orderly flow. I re-read one of the articles that I think I sent to you earler and it had the same thing to say:"
Except you aren't reading Setterfield. You keep posting what other people say about Setterfield, not what Setterfield says himself. Of course, now that I have said that, I fully expect you to claim that you now have read him and have come to the same opinion. Just a guess based on your previous history.
"Again, work with me, not against me. I'm open-minded to a young universe; it's just that the facts don't fit with the theory. You're going to have to do more than point to Setterfield's nonsense and accuse me of not being able to think critically."
I am working with you. You keep falling into that same small circular-thinking trap of assuming constant c and claiming this proves constant c over and over and over and I keep trying to drag you out of it. Between that and switching between claiming that a higher c affects atomic process and then pretending that it wouldn't and we should see things in slow-motion, you are going to have to do more than accuse me of not working with you.