Other side issues: In 447 I should add I may still not be correctly understanding Setterfield's statement at the beginning of Implications, because my simplification of it does not seem now to be precisely stated. For example, I was about to misstep and say theoretically h should not invert c, but once again I was struck that by observation h does invert c. Can hardly argue with that. As my understanding improves, so will my lucidity .... Thank you and Thatcherite for admitting working out the issue (464 and 466) about cancelling faster reaction rates with longer time taken to observe them .... Also, please reread Montgomery-Dolphin 1993 linked in 455 and let me know if you still have objections to the refined data-point statistics and conclusions. I'm sure there is more work since.
Main issue for now: I think you're trying to say there were more photons then, but redder. That's what Setterfield said in at least one paper. (Yes.) The problem is that energy is not conserved if the redshifts are small. Vastly too many photons, only a tiny redshift. We need a factor of 11 million (only you can't do that and not go blind). We have less than two. You are right, the energy of the sum of photons is greatly increased (but I was right, individual photon energy is conserved).
I agree "it's far from clear why" there is low redshift. It appears to me, as one who does not understand much quantum theory, that as the granularity h increases with time, the atomic structure undergoes quantum resettlings, which I regard as compactings. The quantum leaps are suggested by the observed quantized redshifts. When Setterfield analyzes the nature of atomic resettling, he specifies that the redshift times the lightspeed quantum (delta-c) where leaps occur, times the Rydberg quantum number, gives the lightspeed for that redshift. The lightspeed quantum is 63.74c (current value), and I would visualize that the number of quanta contained in any given c corresponds to something like a number of placement positions for the atomic particles (similar to electron orbital shells). The Rydberg quantum number is 72*16*pi^4, which I visualize as corresponding to a number of potential configurations for quantum particle release directions. If all that is correctly stated (unlikely), the narrative explanation for why wavelength redshift only registers about 1.5, when c and frequency and photon count go up 10^7 times, is this: the increased granularity of the universe (its high resolution) permits much more quantum positional ability for both the internal particles of the atom and the wavelengths they emit, so that the wavelengths don't get shorter proportionally. They don't need to get shorter because of increased speed, which is all directed to increased frequency; but they get a bit shorter because the atom that can put out such increased frequency has resettled only slightly more compactly or efficiently. (If all this works out someday we will be ironically calling the quantum of 63.74c-now = 1.91x10^10m/s the "Setterfield constant"!)
Where is the cancellation? The opacity computation doesn't do it for me. I still think "the decrease in density lowers the luminous energy by two factors, which are cancelled by the increase in lightspeed and the increase in total photon output." Applying your stellar structure source to the changes in stars, it stated that decreasing opacity resolves to decreasing radius and volume, but also that increasing density resolves to increasing volume, so the volume and radius changes cancel and are not a factor. I don't think that the photons are carrying "less light" so that many of them constitute one "optical photon" (neat concept, though). I read that electron scattering is dissipating (all or part of) the photon increase and that may contribute if I knew more about it.
Let me ask it this way. I see that we are both approaching this like a programmer who keeps getting a compiler error on a horrendous function involving tons of parentheses and we both keep trying to add, remove, and rearrange the parentheses trying to find out if any are missing or extra. If your mental compiler should suddenly spit out the result that the syntax was valid (all the parentheses are rightly joined and cancelled), what would be the result? Would the program run, or would some other unforeseen error manifest? I know you're not running Setterfield's work through the gauntlet just to refresh me in physics. Personally, would you prefer the theory to be right or wrong, and what would you do and believe (particularly about the earth's age) if the evidence were conclusive in either case? Have we established sufficient benefit of doubt to establish that there might be another reason for high radiometric dates? Thank you!
I don't know much about this subject, but isn't the red shift caused by the Doppler effect and not by a slowing of light?
The way you keep saying this doesn't work for me. The photon in flight at a quantum jump is more or less unaffected. hc is a constant (I think!) and lambda will not change. Perhaps you think its energy drops because c has gone down by some amount and h (which moves in such a way as to cancel) doesn't matter anymore since it was used to determine emission properties. If that's what you mean, I don't buy it. "h" wouldn't be in there if it were only a property of the emitting body and not of the photon. It's in there because h matters not only at emission but at absorption. The photon is the same photon. The rules for how it is emitted and absorbed are supposedly transparent to the quantum jumps.
Perhaps we're talking past each other, so I'll try restating in different terms. A photon in flight will after a quantum jump look "redder" than a photon emitted by the same process after the jump, yes. It will have the energy implied by its wavelength, however. The relationship of photon wavelength to energy does not change as I understand it. The relationship of c to energy is of course variable, as c is changing like mad in ways canceled by changes to h.
Therefore we agree the old photon had "almost the same energy as now". I had that wrong at first.
Which is still baffling because there's less mass (apparently a lot less) available to generate the photons. But maybe you answer this down the post where I haven't read yet.
Other side issues: ... For example, I was about to misstep and say theoretically h should not invert c, but once again I was struck that by observation h does invert c.
At least in earlier versions of the theory, it was explicitly stated that hc was a constant. As you go back in time, h gets tinier. I haven't noticed that as changed but perhaps need to recheck.
You are right, the energy of the sum of photons is greatly increased (but I was right, individual photon energy is conserved).
I tingle with anticipation.
I agree "it's far from clear why" there is low redshift. It appears to me, as one who does not understand much quantum theory, that as the granularity h increases with time, the atomic structure undergoes quantum resettlings, which I regard as compactings... [Long, long snip]... (If all this works out someday we will be ironically calling the quantum of 63.74c-now = 1.91x10^10m/s the "Setterfield constant"!)
Between how that paragraph is almost incomprehensible and per your own estimation likely wrong, I'm going to regard the large excess energy of photon emission as "unexplained free energy." The books would balance better if we didn't have it. I'm sure it's there simply so Adam won't be blind as I objected in my 2000 paper and likely others have done before. Anyway, we've established that it's there.
But since it's there we have all these excess photons just so we can shorten radioactive half lives inversely with c. (Or whatever exactly is being done to recruit radiometric dating to the Young Earth side of things.) We didn't really have to do THAT, either, except it must have been just too tempting. So the photons are only redishifted by 1.5 but, Gads! We have scads!
I still think "the decrease in density lowers the luminous energy by two factors, which are can-celled by the increase in lightspeed and the increase in total photon output."
I missed this earlier. Yes, if the Sun blows up really big, it gets less dense and the fires cool and it maybe shrinks a bit. In real life changes don't happen that fast in the first place so there's probably no need for the rubber band to yank it back.
Also, to the extent that lower density turns down the wick on the solar lamp, your attempts to make the Sun look old by burning up an excess of nuclear fuel are damped by just as much. How far there do you want to go?
I wish to remind you of the size of your energy excess from the photons. It is in the millions because you are aging the Sun and Earth billions of years in mere hundreds. You can do this or not do it, but any way you go there's a very high hurdle. For now, you're biting the bullet and doing this.
Any compensation for the huge magnitude of the excess energy introduced by high reaction rates needs to be as big as the problem. But changes on a similar scale in density or opacity or some other mundane property would be ... just nuts. Your presentation is polite and ever-so earnest, but you are not so much addressing this as descending into shuck, jive, and double-talk.
Are you saying the sun is a million times less dense, or a million times more opaque? OK, increasing opacity will create decreases in density. Maybe half a million times less opaque and half a million times less dense? There's a big problem here to get rid of.
Applying your stellar structure source to the changes in stars, it stated that decreasing opacity resolves to decreasing radius and volume, but also that increasing density resolves to increasing volume, so the volume and radius changes cancel and are not a factor.
Volume and radius on a sphere are going to change in concert. The formula is
V = (4/3)pr3.
Never mind that. The density/opacity relationship is what I thought you might be referring to. (Note that I'm just commenting as I read along here.)
These kind of "compensating factors" are on the wrong scale to help you. You can't blow the Sun up a million times as big. The Earth is too close.
I don't think that the photons are carrying "less light" so that many of them constitute one "optical photon" (neat concept, though).
I don't know what you're saying. I once speculated that the opacity was being invoked to somehow blueshift a whole lot of red photons into one blue one, but we've established you don't need that--the photons aren't so very red--and opacity doesn't do that. It works the other way. It absorbs a lot of photon energy, turns some of it into mechanical motion, and ultimately outputs a higher number of redder photons. You still have the same amount of energy to deal with. A star is going to be at some kind of equilibrium.
I read that electron scattering is dissipating (all or part of) the photon increase and that may contribute if I knew more about it.
You can't scatter the energy away in such a way that it isn't ultimately being radiated outward. This is wrong and naive.
The above is just a first reaction and I'm still digesting a lot of material. I'll probably be revisiting this for days yet.
Personally, would you prefer the theory to be right or wrong, and what would you do and believe (particularly about the earth's age) if the evidence were conclusive in either case? Have we established sufficient benefit of doubt to establish that there might be another reason for high radiometric dates? Thank you!This theory is never going to be wrong until Setterfield is dead. He has been reissuing it every 3-6 years since 1981 to make it "right."
It is very hard, increasingly so through the years, to understand what it is even saying, much less to model with it. It is important to Setterfield and perhaps to you that it never be wrong. If it cannot be right, it must at least establish some reasonable doubt that mainstream assumptions of continuity in basic processes of physics are right.
A defense attorney clawing desperately for reasonable doubt can start to invent some pretty silly stories. "My client could have a twin brother with the same DNA! Even my client wouldn't know it if his mother decided not to tell him. The prosecution has not proved otherwise. Someone else could have driven my client's car into that mud to leave those tire tracks. The prosecution has not proved otherwise. A thief could have stolen the tires, put them on his car, committed the murder, and then put the tires back on my client's car to frame him! The prosecution has not proved otherwise. That 12-year-old girl might have attacked my client! The prosecution has not addressed this possibility at all."
There's a stream of increasingly silly stories coming out of cDK. The answer is Occam's Razor.