sharp@aquila.UUCP (09/10/84)
Sorry for my brief absence: no reasons. As has already been covered, the gentleman responsible for the argument is Australian Barry Setterfield. The fact that the different values for c as measured by experimental physicists over the years have varied by more than the error bars is a well-known phenomenon in experimental sciences of all kinds: internal estimable errors are usually smaller than external, systematic errors, which are very difficult to evaluate. Thus, almost all published error bars will be underestimates. [BTW, I'm surprised no-one has done the same with the estimates of the gravitational constant G, which vary even more.] As has also been mentioned, many other creationists have trouble with Setterfield (e.g. the 1983 National Creation Conference). My reference to an alternative curve-fit, which, instead of agreeing with 4004 BC, shows that the Universe was created in 431 AD (my memory being slightly faulty about the date !!), comes from an Australian magazine "The Skeptic" (yes, another of those). For further details, I imagine one would have to write to The Australian Skeptics, Box 1555P, GPO Melbourne 3001, Australia. And, no, I don't mean to suggest that other scientists do not make mistakes like this one (inappropriate extrapolation). But you just try publishing such a blunder in a reputable journal !! -- Nigel Sharp [noao!sharp National Optical Astronomy Observatories]