Light Speed and Other Puzzling Data That May Support a Recent Creation

tonight tomorrow at the at the workshop session I hope to share some data with you and show you where it leads and the result is that this data ends up giving us a very young universe are very young creation I've been involved in this research for about 26 years now and I've learned that God doesn't lie in his creation and so the data that we get from the created order around us can be trusted so what I want to do tonight is to start with some basic physics now don't let that scare you and my wife has been training me to talk in simple English and she's still succeeding and I have still a long way to go but we'll do the best that we can and tomorrow in the three hour session there will be other fields that I'll be talking about in astronomy and geology and so on with the young universe in a young earth so in this first session I hope to be putting together some pieces of a puzzle rather like a detective looking for clues the clues indicate that at least far there are at least five anomalies that can't be readily explained by current theories as they stand now what do I mean by anomaly let's think that we've got some sort of theory to work and then some data comes in which disagrees with it this is totally discordant what are you going to do throw out the data or throw out the theory this is an anomaly you've got theory and data not in agreement with each other well for example if you had a theory that all dogs were white and a black black dog came along what are you going to do you're going to either accept the data but black dogs do exist or are you going to change the theory and change the theory or are you going to throw the data away and say no whatever happens my theory is correct and all dogs are white well that's the sort of option that science has today God didn't lie with his creation and so as a consequence we can the data that we get from the created order with some sort of courage knowing that God can be trusted so okay the clues that we're talking about indicate there are at least five anomalies which can't be readily explained by current theories as they stand we'll discover that these five anomalies current that currently accepted theories can't explain currently accepted the ideas can't explain lead in fact to a new cosmology what do I mean by cosmology well it's a study of the universe and what has happened and when and how and why so as we have a look at these five anomalies it turns out that we can develop a new cosmology a new way of looking at the universe a new way of looking at astronomy in geology and physics and so on and we find that this inevitably leads to a young creation in this session we want to examine some of these anomalies and some of the controversy or controversies you'd like to say over here I come from a different country as you've probably gathered by my speech I feel a bit like a Peter there at the fire warming himself just before the crucifixion and the the maid says to him your speech betrayeth II so okay so as we have a look at all of these five anomalies it turns out that there is one basic cause any one in itself would indicate that our theory is faulty but we actually have five or at least five to deal with the five anomalies together give us primer facie evidence that science has missed some key item in their understanding of the cosmos and when this item is affected into their thinking a new cosmology develops which gives us a young universe this cosmology is a reassessment of astronomical and geological evidence and the timescales used and it's going to be discussed in the workshop sessions tomorrow so for this first session we need to familiarize ourselves with the five areas of current theory which are inadequate we note to begin that the Hubble Space Telescope supplied a lot of new data and has overturned many ideas as a consequence big bang math have added never had to add parameters which they never expected to have to add in order to get agreement between data and theory in addition some observation have shown that the further out we go the more problems we have with the with the math with the Big Bang data now because the math they have it standing at the moment fails to explain what we're actually seeing out there so there's actually a different formula which agrees with the data out there and this is a warning sign that there is a theory in trouble here so we need to reassess Big Bang modeling now scientists are not liars they try to look for the best fit for the evidence and the evidence does he seem to indicate an expanding universe but the Bible was way way way ahead of them because at least 12 times in the Bible we're told that God created the heavens and then stretched them out well let's look at the evidence that they found which led them to their theory of the universe and we call it the Big Bang today a Big Bang or a big expansion and as it turns out this evidence or a lot of it has been misinterpreted and they've got themselves into a lot of bother as a result the whole idea of the Big Bang started in the late 1920s with the discovery of the redshift of light from distant galaxies now some of you may not be familiar with the the redshift it would take a moment to explain as you take light from us from the Sun and put it through a prism it breaks up into the seven rainbow colors that you're all familiar with the rainbow does this automatically for us the Lord has worked that in a very beautiful way now as you have a look at these this color spectrum as we call it you have a look at these these colors in detail you find that there are sets of dark lines on them and these dark lines come from various elements that we have in the Sun each element has its own set characteristic set of dark rather like a barcode a gentleman has its own barcode or spectral the spectral lines if you like so that when we look at a star a distance down we pass its light through a prism and we get this barcode there's spectral lines we know exactly what elements are there in that star so when we look at distant galaxies we get spectral lines from all of the stars and the important point is that the further out we look in space the further down towards the red end of the spectrum all these dark lines are shifted and we call this the redshift and here we have an illustration of what is happening I think they've taken the line of calcium here here's the double line there here's our laboratory standing up here on earth for these dark lines notice on this galaxy the lines are shifted down this way a little more it's further away on this one it shifted a little bit more because the galaxy is further away again and on this one look how far it's shifted from the laboratory standard which is way back here this is a very very distant galaxy and those spectral lines those dark lines are shifted down towards the red end of the spectrum the lower the lower energy end very very significantly now the graph of red shift against distance is standard that shows that the red shift increases with distance in a very precise way thanks we don't here's the red shift distance graph what we have here is the red shift coming up along here compared to distance along here one indicates the origin of the cosmos so see how the red shift is getting progressively greater and greater and greater vary significantly so The Closer that we get to the origin of the cosmos now recent observations by the Hubble Space Telescope show that the graph was actually steeper than expected early on it was coming up like this what does the graph mean well it means the further away a galaxy the greater is the redshift now they needed to explain why the redshift was in existence and what they did was to talk about the stretching of the universe astronomers thought initially that it was something like a Doppler effect you're familiar with this as you on the highway there and a police car comes screaming up behind you with its siren going the pitch drops as it passes you and you sort of heave a sigh of relief and the pitch drops and so you've got a longer wavelength coming to you as the police car is racing away an astronomers thought okay the same thing is happening with life these galaxies are actually racing away from us and the light waves are therefore stretched in the same way as the the the pitch of the siren drops and so the redshift values increase with distance and so if the Doppler approach was followed and implied that the cosmos was expanding faster at greater distances along here therefore the cosmos expanded faster in the past and got slowed down by gravitational forces you can understand that if the galaxies were initially racing away and then you have gravity tending to slow this process happening well Edwin Hubble of the Hubble Space Telescope Fame questioned this explanation of the redshift in 1929 he suggested it initially but he also questioned it he you see the problem was that the redshift are simply numbers like 1 3 or 2.5 4 7 something like that they're simply numbers but the redshift that you find over over here these are the numbers these are the numbers but what you found on that other diagram that we had with the the spectral lines being shifted you actually had a velocity they're talking about the rate at which these galaxies are moving away and velocity is measured in kilometres per second or miles per hour or something like that but the redshift is simply and number one to three point five four whatever so there was a problem Hubbell was not necessarily sure that it was valid to put velocity values against such such numbers but many others accepted the explanation but there have always been some astronomers who have questioned the explanation but the majority accepted it now while most agreed that this was the interpretation of the redshift that is that the galaxies were racing away another approach to the data was achieved with the same result a new mathematical basis for the expanding universe was formulated by gentlemen called the maître in 1931 it was an extension of Einstein's relativity Einstein's approach was that you had a static cosmos in which the galaxies were racing away from each other in which year the galaxies were moving through it the universe was itself was not expanding but the galaxies were moving the problem was that some of these galaxies at the frontiers of the cosmos must have been moving pretty close to the speed of light this meant that they there'd be such forces operating on them that they disrupt and the the Lemaitre approach was different he said that the fabric of space-time itself was actually expanding and as a consequence the redshift would follow because what would happen is that a light wave in transit through space as space expanded the light wave would get stretched to become longer and longer the longer it was actually traveling through space and so this proposed that the light wave of stretched in transit is the fabric of space expanded therefore you can get a redshift this way now this approach is generally accepted by many scientists but not all the Doppler expansion explanation has been promoted by the popular press and some astronomers still hold to it but the interesting thing is that the math and the equations are still basically the same a matter which approach you have so the problem has arisen with the new Hubble Space Telescope results because they only work if the expansion rate has actually increased with time not decreased this took them by surprise no other neither approaching predicted this result initially this was an entirely new development which had to be factored into their equations but either way the redshift was the foundation on which the Big Bang was built and the redshift equations as I said are the same in both cases but a problem surface to both approaches in 1976 it's been with us ever since this problem through an entire monkey wrench into the whole idea of this Big Bang both approaches predict that there would be a smooth change in redshift with distance something like a car with you if you have your your foot down on the accelerator of a steady level the car smoothly accelerate for that speed increasing increasing increasing steadily until you reach yeah a stable speed well another idea is that if you have an Apple falling from a tall tree the speed gradually builds up until the Apple hits the ground well as it turns out the redshift doesn't do that instead it appears to go in a series of jumps it's quantized you have quantities which are there in clumps so what happens is something like if we go back to our car the car if you have your foot on the accelerator would travel at five miles an hour five miles and ever suddenly it would jump to 10 miles an hour 10 miles an hour 10 another jump 15 miles an hour 15 another jump 20 it doesn't happen like that out there with our car it would be the same with the Apple if that fell from the tree three miles an hour seven miles an hour 10 miles an hour and it doesn't work like that you can see the sort of problem that astronomers are getting themselves into so this jump is what this group these groups of measurements is called a quantization well naturally the finding was highly disputed the more measurements that occurred the trouble was the more it appeared it all started with William Tift a professional of astronomer over in Arizona back in 1976 and astronomers were aghast at this development because it threatened the whole base on which the Big Bang was was resting they expected it would be easy enough to disprove the redshift quantizations simply by getting more measurements here they were saying ok we're not going to throw out our theory we're going to question the data to start with in 1991 an extensive redshift survey was published by Fisher and Tully and the redshift did not appear to be clumped as tifton suggested they were and the stronger was briefed up read the sigh of relief and said see there we are our problem is not really there we just needed more data and then it was discovered in 1984 that if you subtracted from that data the actual motion of the solar system through space it turned out that all redshifts right across the whole sky were going in jumps they were quantized in 1985 well of course this this was unacceptable in 1985 to astronomers cementec an app we're not expecting to find any redshift quantization in their measurements as it instead it turned up in their study of 260 galaxies they were looking for something entirely different and the redshift quantization turned out in the mid 1990s Guthrie and Napier set out to disprove it and then supporting it with 399 galaxies they had difficulty in getting some of their work published as a result of this now here is a Guthrie in a few years graph you have distances out here and along here you actually have these are measured in velocities kilometres per second and notice here you have systemic piece where you have the redshift is at a stable level then there's this trough here whether there's no change the redshift then another change there another change there and so on and one astronomer pointed out rather boldly and said rather courageously one can see that glance how accurately the troughs and peaks of redshift mark March metronomic ly outwards from zero to over 2,000 kilometres per second on the 5th and 7th of May in 2003 there were two abstracts in Astrophysical Journal by Morley Bell who announced further evidence the second abstract read in part evidence was presented recently suggesting that galaxy clusters studied by the Hubble key project may contain contain quantized intrinsic redshift components that are related to those reported by Tift in other words he's seeing the same thing as tiff saw here we report the results of a similar analysis using 55 spiral and 36 type 1a supernovae galaxies we find that even when more objects are included in the sample there is still clear evidence that the same quantized intrinsic redshifts are present Wow the issue of the redshift quantization refuses to go away even though astronomers are still arguing in fact it's given astronomers a bad name they throw out the data and they wanted to maintain their theories they is a story which goes something like this the head astronomer the head astronomer came in from a university to the head mathematician in the university and he said I've just made a marvelous mathematical discovery I've said the mathematician skeptically what is it I said the astronomer it turns out that all odd numbers are prime all said the mathematician yes of the astronomer ones an odd number is prime threes an odd number its prime fives an odd number its prime sevens not done as prime 11 is an odd number and its prime 13s an odd number and its prime just the minutes of the mathematician what about nine you can divide that by three all said the astronomer that is just observational error okay well this whole idea of the quantized redshift is fatal to both current versions of universal expansion because it requires that expansion to go in jumps there's other evidence that the red rich of quantization is not a speed or a velocity as you have a look at the Virgo cluster of galaxies for example you find a wrench of quantization right throughout the Virgo cluster except in the very center and there in the center the motions of galaxies are so high that it starts to wash out the quantization so okay this means that motion is not giving you the redshift is rather washing out what you've already got even worse they found that some rich if quantum changes cut right through the middle of some galaxies what does this mean well it means that if the redshift is is a motion or it is a velocity it means that your galaxies are going to be split in two and they should be disrupting this isn't happening okay well if the redshift is not due to space expansion and it's not a philosophy the whole basis for the Big Bang is called into question and all this places astronomers in the in a dilemma do you want to uphold a model a theory or really find out what's going on this anomaly and the failure of the math and Heist redshifts is a sign of a theory in trouble is there an alternative well yes there is is actually a very viable alternative and we'll be discussing this in the in the workshop sessions tomorrow as it turns out light emitted from atoms and galaxies will actually give you the same formula and the the problem that you have with the mathematically at high redshift can be overcome rather readily what it means is that atomic orbit energies were gave rise to redder light back in the early days of our cosmos in other words the orbit energies were a little bit lower than what we have today and there's a reason for that and this reason comes down to the basic reason why we have these anomalies so this approach directly relates to the explanation for the other four anomalies in the young universe so the problem with the redshift is one of the five anomalies that present theories can't account for but they are all easily explained if one additional piece is added to the puzzle let's list off the five anomalies five anomalies with one cause I've already mentioned the quantization of the redshift that's just one down the bottom here and we've already discussed and we'll explain some of the others in there in detail scientists have been examining the sizes and behavior of atoms and atomic particles and I've assumed that they've always behaved in the same way that they're doing today and these behavior patterns have been formulated in in terms of constants atomic constants because they're describing or meant to describe atomic behavior as it turns out some of these atomic constants aren't constant at all we have decreasing values of the speed of light we have increasing values of Planck's constant and we'll talk about this in a minute there's a increasing values of atomic masses and slowing atomic clock rates these five anomalies are all children of the same parent they all have one thing in common the key is biblical it gives a new cosmology a young universe a young earth and it will be explained in the workshop but for now let's refocus our minds on these other four anomalies that present the problems the theories can't account for and we start with the speed of light the speed of light we have here as the shorthand mathematical shorthand is the letter C so if I lapse into mathematical shorthand and say that C has changed you know that it's actually the speed of light that's changed okay the declining speed of light was a major topic of discussion in the scientific journals from the mid 1800s until 1941 as an example the astronomer mej Guri Debray quote was quoted in the journal Nature on the 4th of April 1931 that's saying and I quote if the velocity of light is constant how is it that invariably new determinations give values which are lower than the last one obtained there are 22 coincidences in favor of a decrease of the velocity of light well there is not a single one against it in the 350 years of the measured values of the speed of light 16 different methods have been used and there have been a hundred and sixty-four different determinations of its value it is generally true with some exceptions that the measured speed kept decreasing and this was the cause of the scientific comment and it was true even when the same method were used or the same equipment was used by the same person many years later in fact we've got 17 examples of this the light of the measurement by the same equipment the lower was the value of the speed of light in 1980 in 1886 Simon Newcomb in the journal Nature published and made the 13th commented that the values of the speed of light obtained by the methods used around 1740 were consistent among themselves but placed the value of the speed of light around 1% greater than what they were in the 1880s in 1941 the physicists are tea birds who kept track of all the values of these atomic constants spoke of the speed of light values obtained by a variety of methods in the mid eighteen hundreds ironically some of these methods were used by Newcomb and birch acknowledged in his in the journal reports on progress in physics that quote these older results include the ones that Nukem got these older results are entirely consistent among themselves but their average is nearly a hundred kilometres per second greater than that given by the eight more recent results here are astronomers and physicists who do not believe in a change in the speed of light saying well the measured values in fact have dropped with time about that time the physicist Annie Dorsey's stated as is well known to those who are acquainted with the several determinations of the velocity of light the definitive values successively reported having general decreased monotonous ly so there was a systematic trend downwards in the measured values of the speed of light that couldn't be denied and there's a great deal of discussion about it in these scientific journals back in those days and over 50 articles in one top journal alone the discussion was all the more impressive because the speed of light was generally held to be a constant the problem was that if the speed of light was changing it was going to be potentially disruptive to the new physics that was developing and it was more particularly the case in some atomic constants were also changing whereas others were constant the reasons why were unclear berge who was the keeper of the constants as I mentioned him earlier he kept track of these variations right up until 1941 August of 1941 then something strange happened he wrote an article he reports on progress in physics on the general physical constants quote with special reference to the speed of light the introductory paragraph read in part listen to this this article is being written upon request and at this time his emphasis upon request a belief in any significant variability of the constants of nature is faithful to the spirit of science as science is now understood this closed the whole discussion all the changing values of the atomic constants and the speed of light okay they're not changing at all ignore the data will run with the theory all the constants were declared constant and physics was not going to be sidetracked their theory was going to be intact so the issue was now buried but it was not dead the trend in the atomic data continued this way of doing things is not science it's not at least it's not good science science should look at the data why was bird so upset back in 1941 well if C was high if the speed of light was higher it inevitably led to a chain of reasoning which showed that there was not enough time for evolution and to mock tomorrow we'll show you that how this all works but for now they knew that evolution had to happen and so the speed of light had to be constant I started investigating the changing atomic constants and especially the speed of light back in 1980 in early 1997 we had a an invitation to write a major white paper on the atomic constants for internal review at Stanford Research Institute international yes our international it resulted in a 90 page report the atomic constants light and time co-authored with Trevor Norman and myself all told there were 638 measurements of 12 atomic quantities by 41 different methods published jointly by SRO International and Flinders University in August of 1997 the data trend was compelling the professor of statistics at Flinders University gave us 100 percent support and asked us to prepare a seminar on because the whole math department was very very excited with what we were doing and around about December of that year in December 87 vs troitskiy from Russia published in astrophysics and space science the evidence that there was a decline in the speed of light over the lifetime of the cosmos and associated atomic constants were also varying pardon me this was similar to what we get reported and then someone contacted SR I international and Flinders University and said are you aware of the fact that this research leads to a young universe and is against the theory of evolution I was banned from the math department at Flinders University my coworker Trevor Norman eventually lost his job at Flinders University because of this in 1993 a Canadian statistician Alan Montgomery and the u.s. physicist Lambert dolphin examined all the statistical criticisms which were coming in since 1997 and re-examined the data trends in the 87 report they published a statistical analysis in a peer-reviewed journal which has never been refuted what was the conclusion the conclusion was that there the analysis gave full support to the data trends that we had outlined in our 87 report since then a variation in the speed of light has almost become a respectable idea among some astronomers and cosmologists for example Moffat in on the 1990s and all Brickton Magoo Joe in 1999 John Barrow in 1999 and many other astronomers stated that many astronomical problems would be resolved if you had a very high value for the speed of light at the inception of the cosmos Paul Davies followed this up in 2002 and there's been over 50 articles about this ever since one problem they have adopted what they call a minimalist approach this means that they're varying the speed of light and only other things that are absolutely necessary they are not conserving energy in the process and here's where the problem comes in if you're not conserving energy in the equation e equals MC squared M is constant C is going sky-high so the energy from any given reaction must also be going sky-high the work that we had done in the report in 87 and I spent months on this trying to find out what was happening that some quantities were going up others were going down some went part way I juggled my equations around it turned out that this whole thing only worked if energy was being conserved in the process so that as the speed of light went higher atomic masses were lower and so you actually had a position in which it wasn't a minimalist position but it was a position in which energy was conserved and you find that all of your physical and chemical processes remain in balance these guys are not doing that and I hadn't typed the chance to talk with Professor Albrecht at Davis a few years ago just after his report came out and I said to him why are you dropping the speed of light dramatically shortly after the beginning of the cosmos he said well we couldn't get the data to agree with other constants if we didn't do that I said it will work if you conserve energy in the process instead of adopting this minimalist position he said yes he said we looked at that but he said if we conserve energy we could not achieve what we wanted to do with our theory okay they're not running with the data they're running with the theory so okay so with this work which we did in 1987 with not isolated the basic cause what we had was a reason why things were behaving the way that they had but we only just would only have one part of the puzzle and it turns out that when the basic causes in place all five anomalies are explained and the speed of light is only just one effect although a very important one but it was not the primary cause of the five anomalies so we come back to the actual fact that the speed of light has been measured as slowing and in summary we have this graph of the speed of light behavior from Berge yes birds this Burgess graph this is how the speed of light behaved according to Burge his best possible values so okay so all the data is in the report and that's available on our website and Montgomery Dolphin articles on statistics also demonstrate the reality of this drop by the various methods okay can we have the next slide so we don't what we have here on this slide is another physical quantity called the Redbird constant in which all five or all four of these are five quantities are actually vary in such a way that their variations cancel out look what happens to the result here you have effectively a straight line a constant value you've got a couple of outliers here you have a scatter around the average position this is the sort of thing you should be expecting with the speed of light and all the other data that we've been questioning it should be looking like this but it doesn't in fact it comes down or it goes up or whatever so the third anomaly the third anomaly is Planck's constant H now Planck's constant measures a special kind of radiation in the universe and we'll talk more about that later but it's been defined as a constant but nevertheless as you have a look at these values they've been increasing with time these of the officially recommended values the Planck's constant H HS the mathematical shorthand see how the recommended values have varied over time these values were determined by a scientific committee which had examined all the measurements and these are the best possible statistical value the recommended value carries the weight of scientific Authority so the graph shows how this value has changed notice something here because we'll pick this up a bit later it starts it seems to peak around about 1970 and then perhaps a change in direction keep that in mind okay now the officially let's have the next graph sweetheart the officially recommended values of Planck's constant over the electronic charge is this one again we've got Planck's constant look at the similarity of this graph to the one that we had for Planck's constant although H over E that Planck's constant over the electronic charge is measured by an entirely different way of doing things but nevertheless you still have this increase which peaked around about 1970 and seems to be tapering off okay the experimental values show that Planck's constant has been steadily increasing one reviewer of the report that we issued back in 1987 had this to say this he said that the instrumental resolution may in part explain trends in the figures but I admit that such an explanation does not appear to be quantitatively adequate and in 1965 JH Sanders in the physical in the fundamental atomic constants on page 13 pointed out quote that the increasing values of Planck's constant can only partly be accounted for by improvements in rent instrumental resolution and changes in accepted values of other constants in other words this increase in H in Planck's constant is anomalous current theory cannot account for this the point is that Planck's constants being measured as increasing with time but as it turns out Planck's constant times the speed of light it's an absolute constant even as astronomically it means that the speed of light and Planck's constant are inversely related via this common cause when one goes up the other goes down and it turns out there's an extremely good reason why it turns out also that Planck's constant is a direct measure of this basic cause the fourth anomaly is atomic rest masses and the behavior atomic particles some atomic processes of be measured is changing not just Planck's constant in the speed of light an important example is also directly relate to the basic cause and that's atomic masses atomic rest masses or electron rest masses not we've got electron rest masses measured here but it also applies to all other atomic particles again the graph shows atomic masses rising to 1970 and then flattening out just like Planck's constant didn't we need to know why they're doing this and we'll discover there's a very viable reason why these quantities are bearing in the way that they do the fifth and final effect of the one basic cause is the rate of ticking of the atomic clock now the atomic clock is based on the right of movement of particles within the atom remember God said in Genesis 1:14 that the Sun Moon and stars were given to us to be four signs for seasons for days and for years in other words the Sun Moon and stars were to be our time measure we had an orbital clock the time takes the earth to go around the Sun once this is God's time measure as it turns out with the math and everything which has been done with this work this clock is ticking at a constant rate it does not change with all the other changes that we've been talking about even giving them the basic reason for these changes science however in the last part of the 20th century took the atomic clock as its measure of time because I could get very very small divisions of time you get electrons whirring around atoms very very fast so you get small divisions of time you can chop this thing out and it has been assumed that radioactive dates from the atomic clock are the same as orbital dates they are assuming that the atomic clock is ticking at a constant rate well a comparison in orbital time and atomic time was done from 955 to 1981 and published by dr. Thomas Van Flandern of who was at the US Naval Observatory in Washington he said as the conclusion to his study the number of atomic seconds in an orbital interval is becoming fewer presumably if the result has any generality to it this means that atomic phenomena are slowing down with respect to orbital phenomena getting the drift of this the atomic clock is slowing with time it means it was ticking fast in the past so it means that you're radioactive dates are systematically too old since then many astronomical observatories around the world have noticed this discrepancy and the slowdown up to 1970 again was picked up an atomic clock started to run faster than that now thanks sweetie this is the graph of the right of ticking of the atomic clock compared to our orbital dates look at this the atomic clock is slowing slowing slowing again down to about 1970 and then it is starting to go up again something strange is happening here this atomic clock rate follows the same pattern as the Lightspeed curve had bottomed out around 1970 the slowdown to 1970 increased after that and radioactive clocks are similar and the decay rates because decay rates are governed by the same factors we're getting close to the end here so hanging just a bit longer the C measurements now can be used the seat the way that C is measured now the speed of light is measured now is by using atomic clocks but wait a minute that atomic clock was slowing that atomic clock was slowing and the speed of light was slowing if you're measuring a slowing speed of light with a slowing atomic clock you're not going to notice any difference okay it's like having defined your second as somewhat longer and so your minute is going to be inevitably longer as well so here's where we have a problem one is moving lockstep with the other so see the CIE measurements that we obtain now can't detect changes in the speed of light because the atomic clocks moving lockstep with them now even birds noticed this back in 1934 he is a very canny individual he found that wavelengths of light didn't change when the speed of light did and he concluded if the value of the speed of light is actually changing with time but the value of wavelength in terms of the standard meter shows no corresponding change then it necessarily follows that the value of every atomic frequency must be changing atomic frequencies of the rate at which the atomic clock is moving or how fast atomic particles are moving within the atom so all atomic clocks ticking a rate proportional to the speed of light and the graph of the speed of light behavior is basically the same as the rate of ticking of the atomic clock and since atomic clocks including radioactive clocks around faster in the past radiometric ages are not orbital ages the number of times the earth has gone around the Sun is not the same as the number of ticks on the atomic clock the two things are measuring time in a different way their years are not the same atomic clock the radiometric clock give ages which are systematically too old and in the workshop tomorrow we'll be talking about the mathematical correction that we can apply to the atomic clock and when we do that it turns out that all of your radiometric ages all of the immense astronomical and geological ages can fitted into a framework in which we have in the scriptures and the time problem is resolved so in summary five separate anomalies are involved or behaving synchronously they all have one basic cause well what is the common factor in all of these anomalies let's go back to the Bible remember how we said initially that God created the heavens and stretched them out one statement in the Bible occurs 12 times it's important enough if we take the Bible that's saying something even once the fact we have a number of examples here we told in isaiah 42:5 the Seth the Lord God who created the heavens and stretched them out or Jeremiah 1012 God has made the earth by his power established the world by his wisdom stretched out the heavens at his discretion well Zechariah 12:1 thus saith the Lord who stretched out the heavens laid the foundation of the earth and formed the spirit of man within him it's always in the context of creation a week and usually in the past tense and the Hebrew action in implied in all of that is that it's completed an action so the first point to note from this is the expansion of the universe is already completed in other words the universe is not expanding now it was completed at the end of creation week in other words we have a static cosmos now this disagrees with majority astronomical opinion but there is a number of minority astronomers who hold that we do have a static cosmos such as Malecha and up in 1993 they pointed out that a static cosmos will be stable and will not collapse but there will be slight oscillations of the cosmos and we'll talk about this in detail tomorrow but that is why we have this change in direction for the atomic constants in 1970 and this is in full agreement with the Bible full agreement with the quantized redshift and other observational evidence of dimension later but let's return to the scriptural statement that God expanded the heavens how does this cause the five anomalies that we've mentioned to understand we need to dig just a bit deeper and let's see what's happening as the vacuum of space was stretched out if I take a rubber band and stretch it so I can hit the person in the back seat there I've actually added energy to the fabric of the rubber band if I blow up a balloon and let it go you know what happens I put energy into the fabric of the balloon when God expanded the heavens he put energy into the fabric of space the vacuum of space in the same way that energy has gone into the fabric of the balloon or the rubber band but isn't space empty next one love isn't space empty not really if you take a sealable container the 18th century view was that if you pump out all solids liquids and gases here's your vacuum pump you pump all solids liquids and gases out of your chamber you should have a perfect vacuum well in the 19th century it was realized that there's going to be some temperature radiation in here so if you have a refrigerator unit they're putting in and cool the container down to absolute zero that is zero degrees Kelvin about minus 273 degrees fairness or about minus 460 degrees Fahrenheit you would then expect that you would have a perfect vacuum but instead can we go just a bit further love thanks instead it times that there's an intrinsic energy in the fabric of space it's called the zero-point energy because it was there even at Absolute of temperatures zero Kelvin Robin met Robert Matthews in New Scientist 4 1995 described it as follows the zero-point energy the ZPE is a turbulent sea of randomly fluctuating electromagnetic fields or waves at the macroscopic level of level that you and I are used to space is smooth or even featureless but at the level of atoms it's like a seething vacuum like the spray around the bottom of a waterfall many physicists have calculated the energy in one cubic centimeter of the vacuum and a corner word it's absolutely gianormous let me give you a feel for this here's one cubic centimeter at home I have lights which run from electricity rated about a hundred and fifty watts the Sun radiates at two million million million million times greater than that in our galaxy there is something like a hundred and fifty billion stars all radiated approximately that rate if you had all of our galaxies of stars radiating at that rate for 1 million years that is the energy in one cubic centimeter of free space and that is maintained for 20 billion light years in every direction this is the energy that God has put into the fabric of space as a result of his stretching the zero-point energy it's absolutely gianormous it's incredible and back in 1911 Max Planck demonstrated that Planck's constant H is a measure of the strength of the zero-point energy and that energy has been proven to exist experimentally it's called the Casimir effect as you bring two metal plates close together in a vacuum you find that there is a force tending to collapse the plates together what is happening is that as you bring those plates together in a vacuum you are effectively excluding those wavelengths of the zero-point energy which will not fit exactly between those plates and that excluded radiation those excluded wavelengths are exerting a pressure on those plates which is collapsing them so the closer the plates get together the stronger the force it's been measured to within 1% accuracy in 1997 and 1998 by Lamoureux and some very beautiful experiments that were done incidentally sailors noticed the same effect when they're on the ocean if they bring two boats closer together than one ocean wave length apart boats tend to collide so the Casimir force is a very strong at molecular distances and attracts and gives an attractive force between molecules the zero-point energy manifests as noise in the electronic circuits which limits amplification of signals it also is the reason why you need pressure to solidify liquid helium well how if the CP is there why don't we notice this all-pervasive bath of electromagnetic radiation for the same reason that we don't notice the 15 pounds per square inch pressure on every part of our body due to the atmosphere that pressure is balanced inside and out and I can touch penny with the largest touch of the hand it's nowhere near 15 pounds per square inch but she notices that difference in pressure and so it's only a difference that we get between this background zero-point energy anything over and above that is noticeable but there's another important puzzle to solve if God said he stretched out the heavens and gave rise to the cpe as we had with the balloon and the rubberband we've already noticed that Planck's constant H is measured as increasing with time this means if we take the values of agents face value that the ZPE strength must have increased with time one might ask why well there's a very good reason why and we'll return to this aspect of the topic in the workshop session but for now let me give you a rough analogy if you put a cold plate of food into a hot oven it takes a while for the food to build up to the temperature of the oven as the ZPE builds up with time for the same reason the energy that was put into the fabric of space takes a while to manifest as the zero-point energy so the cpe builds up with time and as it does so the properties of the vacuum alter light speed slows down for reasons we'll give you tomorrow atomic clock slowed down for reasons we'll give you tomorrow Planck's constant and atomic masses increase for reasons we'll give you the morrow and the redshift remember where we started the redshift actually decreases with time it works with simple math it works intuitively it works biblically it accounts for all the data nothing has to be thrown out we don't have need to invent dark matter dark energy missing mass or anything like that to support an invented failing Theory so tomorrow we'll put it all together in the workshop session and the time scales involved compared to the orbital period of time that we're used to measuring the atomic times we can actually supply a correction to these atomic dates and when you do a new cosmology emerges which allows us to harmonize astronomy and geology with the Bible thank you very much you

Channel: Northwest Creation Network

Views: 42,265

Rating: 4.3214989 out of 5

Keywords: creation science, light speed, young earth creationism, Speed Of Light, Creationism (Religion), apologetics

Id: dKgXe72_Kbk

Length: 57min 59sec (3479 seconds)

Published: Tue Jul 09 2013