Speed of Light & Creation And God said, Let there be light, and there was light. And God saw that...

Speed of Light & Creation

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was

good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night…. (Genesis 1:3-5)

2011 Speed of Light 1

Speed of Light• The speed of light, “c”, is a “fundamental

constant of the physical universe” as in Einstein’s famous equation, E=Mc2

• “c” occurs in literally hundreds of equations defining all sorts of physical phenomena. It is related to almost every other physical constant in Physics (Plank’s Constant, gyromagnetic constant, radioactive decay constants, etc.)

• According to Einstein, “c” was the only true constant in physics. In the Theory of Relativity, Time, Mass (& Energy), & Space itself are all related through equations with “c” in them.


History• With few exceptions, people of antiquity

(especially Aristotle) believed the speed of light was infinite.

• Galileo and a few others thought the speed of light might be finite and measurable.

• In 1657, Olaf Roemer undertook observations of the occultation of the moons of Jupiter as they orbited the giant planet. After 20 years of observations, he published a paper asserting the speed of light must be finite.

• Since that time, 16 different experimental methods have measured the speed of light.


Roemer’s ExperimentX (Jupiter with 4 visible moons with Galilean telescopes)

O (Earth)

Jupiter year = 12 Earth yearsJupiter day = 10 hoursOrbital Radius = 389,165,000 km (Jupiter has 65+ moons

& 4 rings, but mostwere discovered byfly-by satellites orspace telescopes.)

Orbits of moonsIo = 1.8 dEuropa = 3.6 dGanymede = 7.8 dCallisto = 16.7 d

Earth orbital radius =150,000,000 km

Minimumobservationaldistance “D” =239,165,000 km(778 seconds)Maximum observational distance= 539,165,000 km(1753 seconds)

D

Plot of time of observation for a moon; the distance of observation variation (Earth’s orbital diameter) divided by the time variation gives “c”.

Remember, Roemer was using wooden clocks & the orbital diameters were not well established.

1 cycle = 1.083 years

History (continued)• Since 1930 (& the general acceptance of the

Theory of Relativity), “c” has been accepted as constant & invariant at 3 X 105 km/sec (186,000 miles/sec or 1 foot/nanosecond)

• Since 1960, there have been hundreds of experiments to precisely measure “c”

• In 1971, “c” was established as 299,792 km/s & time was defined by Cesium clock standards; this made the measurement of “c” more difficult because if “c” varies, it also affects the Cesium standard, making variations undetectable unless time if measured by another method.

• 1n 1983, “c” was defined as 299,792,458 m/s based upon precision laser measurements


Background of the Issue• 1n 1977, Barry Setterfield, an undergraduate in

physics, conducted a study of the historical measurements of the speed of light. He was expecting to find a nominal distribution around the established value, perhaps with differences introduced by the methods of measurement.

• Instead, he found that “c” was decreasing over time.• Dr. Alan Montgomery & Dr. David Lambert, intrigued

by Setterfield’s paper, analyzed the data and concluded lightspeed was significantly higher in the historical past.

• The Naval Observatory has been contributing to this issue continuously since 1972, having developed 4 different techniques for measuring “c”.


Naval Observatory Measures


(Precision measures are in meters per second)

299,792,458.xxxx

Modern Measurements (from 1947)


Measurements include uncorrectedinstrument/experimental errors

Modern Measurements (from 1947-1983) with approved corrections


Best-Fit Curve

Notice improvements in experimental error limits

Accepted Values of “c”• 307,500 +/- 5400 km/s (Roemer, corrected) (1677)• 303,430 +/- 750 km/s (Bradley) 1727• 303,320 +/- 65 km/s (Delambre) 1738• 302,220 +/- 620 km/s (Britannica) 1771• 315,300 or 313,300 +/-10,000 km/s (Fizeau) 1849 *• 299,921 +/-13 km/s (Harvard) 1876 (incl. Michelson)• 299,802 +/-15 km/s (Michelson) 1925• 299,794.2 +/-1.4 km/s (Aslakson) 1951• 299,792.5 +/-0.02 km/s (NRC/NBS/IAU) 1967/8• 299,792,460 +/-0.006 m/s (NRC/NBS) 1973• 299,792,458.6 +/-0.0003 m/s (NBS) 1983


* Fizeau was widely published, but his experiments are widely disputed because of gross experimental errors. Other results, 305,650 & 298,000 km/s were not widely published.

Plot of Accepted Values


Implications for the Past• Assuming that the physical processes causing the changes

in “c” are consistent, “c” was at least:– 2.5% faster 300 years ago– 30% faster 2000 years ago– 100% (2X) faster 3000 years ago (600,000 km/s)– 4X faster 4000 years ago (1,200,000 km/s)– Over 10,000,000X faster 6000 years ago (3X1012 km/s)– This is based on a cosecant squared best fitting of the historical

measures; the best fit curve (a hyperbolic curve) was not considered because it becomes infinite somewhat over 6000 years ago (i.e., even faster than the cosecant squared curve)

• All radioactive decay data is grossly overestimating historic age (radioactive decay rates are coupled with “c” such that estimated age from these techniques is inversely related)

• The oldest age of the Universe by radiographic data given the projected “c” in the past is less than 10,000 BC (but it could be younger still).


Best-fit Graph of ‘c’


Flood

The Beginning Abram David

Christ

1st

measure

Ustoday

Cosecant-Squared Function(partial)

(Dr. Alan Montgomery & Dr. David Lambert)

Moses

Best-fit Graph of “c”


Flood

The Beginning Abram David

Christ

1st

measurev

Ustoday

Cosecant-Squared Function(partial)

ORHyperbolic?

MosesAlternatives?

What is causing the change in “c”?Without knowing the mechanism causing the change,

many different functions might describe the pastbehavior of “c”. But a guess at the function can help

to discover the possible mechanism…maybe.

Why is Decay of “c” Controversial?• The best data is based on VERY recent measurements (since 1983 –

older measures are ‘suspicious’). Almost all measurements prior to 1961 need corrections for experimental errors.

• The oldest measurements are only 300 years old (compared to 4500 years of historical time) – this is less than 7% of historical time. The plentiful & most trustworthy day is less than 0.7% of historical time.

• There are disagreements about the best fit curves – is there a better fit that allows for different conclusions (such as small variations or oscillatory behavior) rather than infinite in ‘recent time’?

• The implications are extensive, largely unexplored, and contradict ‘commonly held beliefs’. (Remember, it took 50 years for Roemer’s conclusions to be accepted. This idea was only introduced in 1977.)

• If true, what is causing the decrease in ‘c’?

More About Light: Red Shift

• In studying light, scientists noticed that the Red Shift was quantized.– Hubble thought Red Shift was caused by Doppler shift from the

expansion of the Universe, a remnant of the Big Bang– Quantized Red Shift implies Hubble’s assumption is wrong– Each quanta of Red Shift has been shown to represent a 72 km/s

Doppler-assumed change in “c”; more than 60 steps have been found in 399 data sets (Guthrie & Napier – 1995).

– The Sky Survey of Red Shift showed the values are in concentric shells. This indicates either the Earth is close to the center of whatever causes Red Shift (Dr. Russell Humphreys) or the effect is universally observed regardless of position in the universe.

– Quantized Red Shift also shows that the radius of the Universe is fixed.• Red Shift data disputes the Big Bang assumption, i.e., the primary

cause of Red Shift cannot be due to Doppler shifts (observed Doppler shifts are minor contributions to overall Red Shift)

• Together with the decreasing “c”, Red Shift data shows the Universe is both much smaller and younger than assumed in modern science.


More on Red Shift

• The Red Shift Data is consistent with the Universe being “stretched forth” rather than “banged” into existence. See Job 9:8; 37:18; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; & Zechariah 12:1.

The picture shows the emission linesof Hydrogen (top), Helium, Mercury,and Uranium (bottom). These spectraare shifted toward the red as thesource becomes farther from Earth.[Population 1 stars (such as our sun), have up to 3% heavier elements. Population 2 stars have less than 0.1% heavier elements.](Only about 2% of all stars are Population 1.)

Red Shift means that these emissionare “more red” than expected, making the source to appear to be rushing away from us at high speed (Hubble’s Law). If a stellar object were coming toward us, its spectrum would be Blue Shifted.

Red Shift is Quantized


This is the Red Shift phenomenon. The amount of Red Shift is quantized and is independent of the direction of observation.Computers greatly simplify collecting Red Shift data.

Tifft’s data was very controversial, especially since such large Red Shifts were reported & because it refutes the prime assumption of Hubble’s Law – Doppler shift as the cause.

Tifft’s Data (1972)(repeated with Cocke 1987)

In 1995, Guthrie & Napier sought to disprove Tifft’s report by using the space telescopes& the numerous results of the Sky Survey together with enhanced corrections for local motions. Instead of refuting Tifft, they confirmed his findings, extending the data to 60 Red Shift points & demonstrating that the peaks above are much sharper than expected.

| | - attributable to Doppler(Guthrie & Napier)

Red Shift Implications• Red Shift has been separately confirmed with accuracy using the 21

cm emission line of neutral Hydrogen through radio-telescopes.• Quantized red shift has been observed even with galactic pairs

(galaxies orbiting around each other or colliding with each other) and binary stars (stars orbiting around each other).

• Radio-telescope surveys have confirmed the concentric nature of red shift phenomena around the Earth.

• Red Shift is NOT caused by Doppler from an expanding Universe sourced from a Big Bang

• Red Shift appears to be caused by a stretching forth of the Universe with resultant relaxation of the “stretching tension”. This can be examined through Quantum Mechanics (but is only well explained by Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED), not so well by Quantum Electrodynamics (QED))– QED is the “Standard Model”, SED is relatively new and more

controversial (but it also works better).• If Red Shift is caused by the stretching of the Universe, what is the

implication of Isaiah 34:4 & Revelation 6:14?

Zero Point Energy (ZPE)


6

5

4

3

2

1

0

“X”

Deg

rees

Kel

vin

(sym

bolic

par

ticle

sta

tes)

< Positional Uncertainty >

Zero Point Energy is the energyof elementary particles atabsolute zero (0 degrees Kelvin).

According to Heisenberg's UncertaintyPrinciple, we can only know the position and velocity of a particle toa limited degree of precision.

Because of ZPE, every particle has a velocity even at absolute zero as wellas a definable positional uncertainty.However, molecules are frozen in relationship to each other. The velocityincreases with temperature, but theparticle state changes in discrete steps.These discrete steps in state arequantized states, examined by QuantumMechanics.

Zero Point Energy (ZPE)• ZPE is the residual energy at absolute zero, 0 K (particles must still have motion

& energy even when frozen)• ZPE is driven by Plank’s Constant, “h”, which is inversely proportional to “c”• ZPE upper bound is 10110 joules/cm3 in a vacuum, which is greater than all of

the energy radiated by all of the stars in our galaxy (& perhaps the Universe) (the upper bound has increased over past 100 years)

• ZPE upper bound can be directly measured, & is increasing consistently with the decrease in “c”

• ZPE is basic to quantum electrodynamics (QED), stochastic electrodynamics (SED), & quantum astrophysics

• ZPE may explain the cosmic background radiation (CBR)• ZPE is linked to the existence & behavior of gravity by SED• ZPE considerations predict that if neutrinos have mass, then “c” must be

decreasing with time. In 1998, it was affirmed that neutrinos have mass.• ZPE upper bound changes appear to imply the rate of the expansion of the

universe is increasing rather than decreasing if you apply Big Bang assumptions. However, other experiments & consistent interpretations of the data indicate the universe is “flat” – i.e., neither expanding nor contracting.


Is the Universe Expanding or Contracting (& if so, at what rate)?

• Big Bang creation: it must be expanding.– The rate of expansion must be decreasing because of the mutual

drag of gravity.– Eventually, the rate of expansion could stop & the Universe could

start to implode (fall in on itself) based on its space-time curvature.– All components should be getting farther away from each other.– Light from distant objects should be red-shifted due to Doppler.

• Stretched forth creation: it should be neither expanding nor contracting (i.e., flat).– Components may interact with each other through mutual

gravitational attraction.– Light from distant object should be red-shifted, but not due to

Doppler.• Are there other cosmological alternatives? – maybe, BUT…


Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED)(Why do I care?)

• New (since 1994) theories originating in SED:– Explain the existence of mass based on ZPE flux– Show that ZPE changes give rise to quantized Red Shift in “c”

consistent with the measured values (ergo, Red Shift is not caused by an expanding Universe nor Doppler shift)

– Show how radioactivity arises in atoms, allowing reconciliation of different radioactive decay rates for different elements

– Predict that neutrinos have mass (demonstrated in 1998)– Show that all forces can be derived without inventing non-

observable subatomic particles to mediate singularities in the Standard Model (based on QED)

– Allow a Grand Unified Field Theory (GUFT) reconciling all known forces with observed astrophysical properties (which also requires a creation event of stretching rather than big banging).

– (According to Colossians 1:16-17, Christ is the GUFT)


A History of “c” Based in SED(one of many possible that reconcile a young universe to

radioactive age estimates)

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7

8x1011CVend of Day 1

end of Day 2

1.3x107CV end of Day 4end of Day 3

Average “c” over 1st 4 days of Creation= 4x1011CVUsing these values, radioactive decay rates can be reconciled to be self-consistent (i.e., Carbon, Strontium, Thorium, etc. methods all yield the same, consistent results).The differences in the composition of Population 1 & 2 stars is explained,Population 2 stars will have an apparent age of ~1.4x1012 atomic days (= 3.84 billion years) greater than the population 1 stars. The overall age of the Universe will appear to be nearly 14 billion years.

Population 2 stars created

Population 1 stars (including our sun) created

1.0x107CV end of Day 7

4x CV 2000 years later(Abraham’s time)(Remember 1000 years = 365,000 days)

(Current apparent upper age of the universe is 13.7 billion years.)

“Power of God”

A View of the Universe


ZPE boundary

Perceived Universe(a miniscule bubblewithin God at slightlyhigher energy thanbackground.)

Summary• Data from hundreds of measurements of “c” by 16 methods

& thousands of measures of related physical constants by 25 other methods all show a decrease in “c” over time at statistically significant levels.

• Direct implications (among thousands) include:– Young age of the Universe (<< 12,000 years) (Bible ~6000 years).– Big Bang cosmology is incorrect; stretched forth Universe is more

credible & IAW the Bible.– Size of the Universe is smaller than assumed, and most probably

is not expanding (or contracting) at all. (Relatedly: space-time is not changing.) The increasing rate of expansion (obtained from red shift data assuming a Doppler mechanism) is very wrong.

– Radioactive dating methods are inconsistent with each other unless (1) decreasing “c” & (2) a young Universe is accepted (which means you must also reject evolutionary formation of heavy elements); then, all radioactive data can be brought into agreement.


Summary (2) – on Reconciling Quantized Red Shift Data Across Physics

• 1984, T.C. Van Flandern (U. S. Naval Observatory), “If the Universe had constant linear dimensions, in both dynamical and atomic units, the increase of redshift with distance (or equivalently, look-back time) would imply an increase in “c” at past epochs, or that “c” was decreasing as time moves forward.”

• 1987, Troitskii (Radiophysical Research Institute, Gorky), “The agreement with fundamental physics laws is achieved by introducing the evolution of a number of other fundamental constants synchronously with the variation of the speed of light.”

• (Summary: It only works if the speed of light is decreasing from the beginning. Galactic motion, Einstein Gravitation, & space-time expansion are ruled out.)


More Summary• If “c” is decreasing, all evolutionary models are invalidated & all

assumptions needed for evolution are proven false.– The basis for the evolution of stars & galaxies is disproved.– The basis for the evolution of heavy metals is disproved.– The Big Bang hypothesis is disproved.– The age of the universe is less than 10,000 BC.

• No implication of “c” decreasing contradicts any assertion of the Bible

• Red Shift Cosmology puts Earth (& man) near the center of the Creation.

• Neutrinos with mass (reported 1998) require “c” to be decreasing (& Plank’s Constant to be increasing).

• Ephemeris in atomic clocks, planets, & distant satellites are all consistent with “c” decreasing.


Direct Impacts on the Philosophy of Science

• Assuming that there is no God (& related dismissal of the truth of the Bible) prior to formulating hypotheses have led to false hypotheses & erroneous interpretations of data.– You may not assume that there is no God (His existence is

not directly proved, but He is the most reasonable explanation)

– Hypotheses must be formulated to allow for the existence of God and assumptions must avoid His exclusion.

• A more careful reading of the Bible might lead to more successful hypotheses and experiments (i.e., return to the way science was conducted in its foundation).


If these matters had been known to Charles Templeton, he probably would not haveturned away from the ministry of the Gospel. He was deceived by the untrue &unrevealed assumptions of ‘modern’ science.

Other Philosophical Issues• Competing multiple ‘Universe’ theories.– Foam: (multiple bubbles) on the ZPE ocean– Multiple universes in other dimensions– Universe of universes interconnected by Worm Holes– Inverted Black Holes, etc.

• Ultimate questions:– What is the source of the concept? (Pure imagination)– What evidence is there to support any of these

speculations? (NONE)– What mathematics will support any concept? (NONE)– What connection is there to REALITY? (NONE)– What is the Scriptural Support? (NONE)


Speed of Light & Creation And God said, Let there be light, and there was light. And God saw that...

Documents

Transcript of Speed of Light & Creation And God said, Let there be light, and there was light. And God saw that...