lew@ihuxr.UUCP (Lew Mammel, Jr.) (12/08/83)
Barry Setterfield supports his decaying speed of light thesis in part with the measurement of Ole Roemer around 1670 or so. Setterfield claimed that modern analysis of Roemer's data gave a value .5% higher than today with an expected error less than .5% (he based this small error on the existence of clocks that could measure time to within 1 sec) He supported this claim with a reference to Sky & Telescope. That reference turned out to be a "Newsnote" which announced a paper in the Astronomical Journal. It quoted the authors : "We conclude that the velocity of light did NOT differ by 0.5% in 1668 to 1678 from the current value." (emphasis mine) Turning to the actual paper, one finds that the .5% was the authors' error estimate. They stated, "The best fit occurs at zero where the light travel time is identical to the currently accepted value." The title blurb mentions an rms deviation of 118 seconds (This is inconsistent with their .5% error. I've critiqued this article in net.astro, but that's beside the point here.) I verified numerically that Setterfield simply multiplied "C" by 1.005 to get his "Roemer value". I note that Larry Bickford came forth with some philosophical quotes from Morris's "Scientific Creationism". He didn't comment on my accusation of the intellectual (at least) dishonesty in that work. He would rather deal in the superficiality of high sounding phraseology than wallow in the mud trying to defend the dishonesty and illogic that become apparent when one gives even the slighest attention to the "scientific" portion of these creationist works. armed and armored in steel ... Lew Mammel, Jr. ihnp4!ihuxr!lew