lew@ihuxr.UUCP (11/22/83)
Having made reference to the "bizarre contentions" of creationists, I think I should back that characterization up with an example. In my opinion, the writings of Barry Setterfield qualify unequivocally. I already posted some analysis of his curve fitting technique. I hope I showed that it was severely flawed, but it was still within the realm of sanity. The same cannot be said for his analysis of the redshift due to his speed of light function. Let me emphasize that I don't think you have to be bonkers merely to entertain the idea that the speed of light has varied in historical time. In fact, the idea of variation of fundamental constants provided sport even for Dirac. Eddington doesn't count because he really WAS bonkers. However, there are still rules to the game. I hope to illustrate that Setterfield becomes so unraveled that it becomes impossible even to discern what game he is playing. A while ago, I posted an analysis of the redshift due to a function, C(t), which was based on the assumption of constant frequency sources. I thought this was reasonable because one would naturally seek to preserve the "world as we know it" to the extent possible, including natural frequencies. Well, Setterfield didn't see it this way and decided to set the wavelength constant by the device of having sources vary in frequency by just the right amount. But how can you get a redshift if you explicitly set the wavelength constant? It is right here that Setterfield goes off the deep end. He decides that the frequency of this constant wavelength (but slowing down) light ray constitutes the frequency in the photon's frame of reference. This he regards as justification for plugging this frequency into the Doppler formula in place of the emission frequency. I contend that it is impossible to rationally criticize a calculation that involves a constant wavelength redshift. But putting that aside, let's see how he deals with the can of worms he opened with the varying emission frequencies. I quote: "As an aside, it might be mentioned that, though frequencies were higher in the past for light from the Sun this does NOT mean that the radiation was more penetrating or dangerous, since that property of the electromagnetic spectrum is solely dependent upon the emitted wavelenght, which is constant for all c. It simply means that more waves of the same length pass by per unit time as the wave is travelling faster. It should be noted, also, that though the human eye operates on frequency, not wavelength, since its frequency receptors (electrons in atomic orbits) are themselves dependent upon the value of c (orbital velocity of electrons is proportional to c - see part 2) it follows that there is no nett [sic] effect, which means that the eye would see the colours just as we see them today." I hope I don't need to point out the insanity of this paragraph. All that I have described here transpires in the first two pages of a twenty page section on the redshift. Needless to say, Setterfield has a field day with the Cosmological redshift and radioactive decay rates. There's not much fun in picking on such scientific bathos, and I'm sorry if I've failed to restrain my derisive tone. So what's the point in picking on him at all? I remind the gentle reader that this kind of material stands a fair chance of being included in Louisana's public school curriculum BY FORCE OF LAW - the Louisana Supreme Court having recently upheld the legislature's right to set curriculum in a ruling on an "equal time for creationism" law. ... but it can't happen heeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrr. (I've been checkin' it out) Lew Mammel, Jr. ihnp4!ihuxr!lew