Changes

*The error bars for the more recent observations are much better, but an interesting phenomenon can be seen in the data around 1920 to 1940.  ''The data show fairly small error bars, and values that are consistent with each other and consistently below the modeled function.''  That is, data can be seen clustered ''away from'' the modeled curve.  This should not be.  Elementary data modeling is now taught in high-school math and computer science classes.

*The error bars for the more recent observations are much better, but an interesting phenomenon can be seen in the data around 1920 to 1940.  ''The data show fairly small error bars, and values that are consistent with each other and consistently below the modeled function.''  That is, data can be seen clustered ''away from'' the modeled curve.  This should not be.  Elementary data modeling is now taught in high-school math and computer science classes.

*The graph becomes completely flat at around 1960.  In fact, the graph after that appears to have been drawn with a ruler, while the graph before that appears to have been drawn, with a different pen, using a curve template.  No explanation is given for why this total flattening happened.

*The graph becomes completely flat at around 1960.  In fact, the graph after that appears to have been drawn with a ruler, while the graph before that appears to have been drawn, with a different pen, using a curve template.  No explanation is given for why this total flattening happened.

*No explanation is given for the amazing coincidence that, after declining for millenia, the speed of light stabilized just at the time (late 20th century) when scientific technique had reached the point that it could be measured accurately.  Setterfield does not speculate on whether the speed of light will increase, stay the same, or start decreasing again in the future.

*No explanation is given for the amazing coincidence that, after declining for millennia, the speed of light stabilized just at the time (late 20th century) when scientific technique had reached the point that it could be measured accurately.  Setterfield does not speculate on whether the speed of light will increase, stay the same, or start decreasing again in the future.

*Jay Wile, in his book ''Exploring Creation With Chemistry'',<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Chemistry''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref> warns against the folly of extrapolating far beyond the range of the available data.  Yet Barry Setterfield extrapolates, from just a few hundred years of observations, deep into cosmic time to reach his conclusions about, for example, radioactive decay rates.

*Jay Wile, in his book ''Exploring Creation With Chemistry'',<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Chemistry''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref> warns against the folly of extrapolating far beyond the range of the available data.  Yet Barry Setterfield extrapolates, from just a few hundred years of observations, deep into cosmic time to reach his conclusions about, for example, radioactive decay rates.

Since <math>f(d)\,</math>, given above, is the (changing) ratio between the "atomic" and "dynamical" time scales, it is possible to integrate this to get the actual correspondence.  It is <math>a(d) = d + \frac{d^{3.6}}{1500*2.6*299800}</math>.  That is, for a given "dynamical" time (expressed in years before 1980) <math>a(d)\,</math> is the corresponding "atomic" time.  For example, Setterfield's relationship seems to indicate that events that happened 1000 years before 1980 (that is, in 980 AD) according to the "dynamical" clock that people generally use, would have happened 1054 years before 1980 as measured with a Cesium clock.  Events that happened in 4000 BC on the "dynamical" clock (that is, 5980 years before 1980) would have registered 37746 BC on a Cesium clock.

Since <math>f(d)\,</math>, given above, is the (changing) ratio between the "atomic" and "dynamical" time scales, it is possible to integrate this to get the actual correspondence.  It is <math>a(d) = d + \frac{d^{3.6}}{1500*2.6*299800}</math>.  That is, for a given "dynamical" time (expressed in years before 1980) <math>a(d)\,</math> is the corresponding "atomic" time.  For example, Setterfield's relationship seems to indicate that events that happened 1000 years before 1980 (that is, in 980 AD) according to the "dynamical" clock that people generally use, would have happened 1054 years before 1980 as measured with a Cesium clock.  Events that happened in 4000 BC on the "dynamical" clock (that is, 5980 years before 1980) would have registered 37746 BC on a Cesium clock.