Changes

C decay is a theory that postulates that the speed of light (c) gets slower over time. The concept was developed Dr. Barry Setterfield and V. S. Troitskii, based on past measurements of the speed of light. It is described in detail in the paper ''The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time''<ref>[http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/report.html ''The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time'', paper that is the principal subject of this page.]</ref> by Setterfield and Trevor Norman, hosted at Lambert Dolphin's web site<ref>[http://www.ldolphin.org/ http://www.ldolphin.org/]</ref>.

'''C decay''' is a theory that postulates that the speed of light (c) gets slower over time. The concept was developed Dr. Barry Setterfield and V. S. Troitskii, based on past measurements of the speed of light. It is described in detail in the paper ''The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time''<ref>[http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/report.html ''The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time'', paper that is the principal subject of this page.]</ref> by Setterfield and Trevor Norman, hosted at Lambert Dolphin's web site.<ref>[http://www.ldolphin.org/ http://www.ldolphin.org/]</ref>

The paper claims an apparent decay trend that levels off as time goes on.  He speculates on the added consequence of nuclear decay having been faster in the distant past.

The paper claims an apparent decay trend that levels off as time goes on.  He speculates on the added consequence of nuclear decay having been faster in the distant past.

*"Atomic time" is determined by atomic process.  And, very importantly, the speed of light, ''as measured in atomic time'', is unchanged.  This is said to be because "All light comes from atomic processes, and the speed of light is measured in kilometers per second."  The possibility that distance measurements have changed is not considered.

*"Atomic time" is determined by atomic process.  And, very importantly, the speed of light, ''as measured in atomic time'', is unchanged.  This is said to be because "All light comes from atomic processes, and the speed of light is measured in kilometers per second."  The possibility that distance measurements have changed is not considered.

*"Dynamical time" is measured by the Earth's daily rotation or yearly revolution.  It is said to be related to gravity.

*"Dynamical time" is measured by the Earth's daily rotation or yearly revolution.  It is said to be related to gravity.

*Historical measurement of time (and hence of the speed of light) has, in the past, been tied to dynamical time, not atomic time.  This makes sense, because the Cesium clock was invented fairly recently, and, through most of the historical observations, the second was defined as one 86,400^th of the time of the Earth's rotation.

*Historical measurement of time (and hence of the speed of light) has, in the past, been tied to dynamical time, not atomic time.  This makes sense, because the Cesium clock was invented fairly recently, and, through most of the historical observations, the second was defined as one 86,400th of the time of the Earth's rotation.

*Most importantly, the observed decay of the speed of light (discussed below) is due to either the "atomic clock" being faster in the past than the "dynamical clock", or the dynamical clock being slower.  Either way, there were more orbits of an electron per Earth rotation in the past.

*Most importantly, the observed decay of the speed of light (discussed below) is due to either the "atomic clock" being faster in the past than the "dynamical clock", or the dynamical clock being slower.  Either way, there were more orbits of an electron per Earth rotation in the past.

*Setterfield argues that it is the atomic clock that has been speeding up, rather than the dynamical clock slowing down.  The dynamical time scale can't be the one that is changing.  He gives a few reasons for this conclusion:

*Setterfield argues that it is the atomic clock that has been speeding up, rather than the dynamical clock slowing down.  The dynamical time scale can't be the one that is changing.  He gives a few reasons for this conclusion:

*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 20^th 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 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.

*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.

==Miscellaneous Observations==

==Miscellaneous Observations==

While Barry Setterfield appears to be a creationist and Biblical literalist, and has written on those topics elsewhere<ref>[http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/supplement.html ''The Atomic Constants, Light and Time - Supplement; Geological Time and Scriptural Chronology'']</ref>, the principal paper makes no reference to creationism, the Bible, or religion.

While Barry Setterfield appears to be a creationist and Biblical literalist, and has written on those topics elsewhere,<ref>[http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/supplement.html ''The Atomic Constants, Light and Time - Supplement; Geological Time and Scriptural Chronology'']</ref> the principal paper makes no reference to creationism, the Bible, or religion.

Setterfield's statements about radioactive decay rates would fit in with Young Earth Creationists' statements that decay rates have changed, so half-lives have changed, and hence that the methods that mainstream scientists use for dating rocks by examining isotopes is flawed.  But Setterfield actually makes no statement to that effect in this paper.

Setterfield's statements about radioactive decay rates would fit in with Young Earth Creationists' statements that decay rates have changed, so half-lives have changed, and hence that the methods that mainstream scientists use for dating rocks by examining isotopes is flawed.  But Setterfield actually makes no statement to that effect in this paper.

{{reflist}}

{{reflist}}

[[Category: Physics]]

[[Category:Physics]]

[[Category: Relativity]]

[[Category:Relativity]]

[[Category: Science]]

[[Category:Science]]