Author: Robert P.J. Day Title: The Decay of CDecay [Originally appeared in the OASIS News
===============================================================================
Author: Robert P.J. Day
Title: The Decay of CDecay
===============================================================================
[Originally appeared in the OASIS Newsletter, 385 Main Street, Beaverton,
Ontario, Canada L0K 1A0]
"If you propose that the universe and all in it is the product of an act of
creation only 67000 years ago, many people ask  "How is it that objects
millions of light years away can be seen? Surely such light would take
millions of years to reach us." [B. Setterfield, "The Velocity of Light and
the Age of the Universe, Part 1," Ex Nihilo, vol. 4, no. 1, 1981]
The above quote is, to my knowledge, the first salvo by Australian creationist
Barry Setterfield regarding his hypothesis of "cdecay," the notion of the
decreasing speed of light that has been used for years as evidence for a young
universe. Setterfield's hypothesis, while initially embraced by the majority
of the creationist community, received heavy criticism from the scientific
establishment for several years since its introduction in 1981, and was
finally rejected by the creationists themselves after it became such a major
embarrassment that even the San Diegobased Institute for Creation Research
rejected it ( Acts and Facts , June 1988, G. Aardsma).
While the creationist camp would have us believe that the theory of cdecay
represented a viable scientific alternative to uniformity, and collapsed only
under recent, more intense scrutiny, the thrust of this article is to show
that the theory was riddled with massive flaws and glaring contradictions from
the very start, and was kept alive as long as it was solely by wishful
thinking and grotesque deception on the part of its supporters (a sort of
Australian Paluxy River, if you will).
The initial hint of trouble in Setterfield's work is found in his very first
article, from which the quote above is extracted. In addition to Setterfield's
reference to "an act of creation only 67000 years ago," he states that his
novel h of "the observational problems of astronomy and Genesis creation ...".
Setterfield's religious motivation is now clear, and if his revised figure for
the age of the universe just happens to match the nowdiscredited chronology
of Bishop Ussher (about 6,000 years), it would probably not be a coincidence.
As Setterfield states, "The basic postulate of this article is that light has
slowed down exponentially since the time of creation," making it clear that he
intends to show not only a decay in the value of c, but an exponential decay.
After supplying all of 41 selected data points representing measurements of
csince 1675, Setterfield claims to have found the one and only curve that
adequately fits these particular points and that must represent the behavior
of the value of c. In Setterfield's precise words (words that will come back
to haunt him), "There was only one curve tried which fitted the data points
exactly and reproduced all of the observed features.
Its general form is a log sine curve, with a logarithmic vertical axis...".
Note Setterfield's insistence on a unique curve to explain the data, and the
fact that this curve reproduced all of the "observed" features; these claims
become of major import later.
With his "unique" solution for the curvefitting problem in hand, Setterfield
concludes that the date of origin equals that at which the value of c, as
represented by the curve, goes to infinity. To no one's surprise, this date is
given as "4040 B.C. +/ 20 years... the time of creation/fall." It is here
that Setterfield's case descends into absurdities.
Realizing that a simple way to check his work would be to analyze the value of
cduring the last 20 or 30 years (when highly accurate values became
available), Setterfield introduces "the cutoff date beyond which there is a
zero rate of change," and confidently states that, "From these observations it
would seem that beyond 1960 the speed of light had reached its minimum value
and was constant thereafter," thereby denying anyone the chance to perform
their own modern, more accurate measurements.
In order to justify such a convenient property for his unique curve, and
knowing full well the objections such a claim would produce, Setterfield says,
"This conclusion raises the obvious difficulty as to how one verifies a
process which has occurred in the past but is not occurring in the present. To
answer this, we would point out that the curve is solely dependent on actual
observations ...," again emphasizing the dependence on observed values, and
observed values alone.
The above rather questionable mathematical machinations are almost acceptable,
in view of Setterfield's next unbelievable act. Having used some rather
dubious analysis to determine the "unique" curve that must fit the data,
Setterfield then describes the curve as "virtually asymptotic, but a very good
estimate of the actual initial value is given by the curve at one to one and a
half days from its origin."
What Setterfield has done here is to decide that the value of c does not
follow his "virtually asymptotic" curve all the way back to infinity at the
time of creation, but that it levels off at Tplusoneday or so, for no
apparent reason and in blatant violation of his insistence on "observed
values." But Setterfield is not finished yet.
He then proposes that this value does not just remain constant from time zero
for the first day and a half until it encounters his magic curve, but stays
fixed for several days thereafter, extending PAST the curve. As justification
for this proposal, Setterfield abandons science entirely and descends fully
into Christian apologetics, stating, "I will assume that this value held from
the time of creation until the time of the fall, as in my opinion the Creator
would not have allowed it to decay during His initial work." Given
Setterfield's hypothesis that the speed of light begins significantly below
the curve, then extends beyond and above the curve, one wonders what the
purpose of the curve is in the first place.
The question of why Setterfield is so anxious to mutilate his solution as
described above is answered in the next paragraph, "Integration over the curve
shows that the initial problem of light travelling millions of light years in
only 6000 years, is solved ... The total distance travelled ... would be about
12 x 10^9 light years." Again in violation of his insistence on satisfying
only the observed values, Setterfield now requires that the area under the
curve represent an approximation to the commonlyaccepted age of the universe,
another contrived property that he will later use to reject alternate curves
that fit his particular data at least as well as his own solution.
It is not hard to see that Setterfield is capable of producing almost any area
under the curve he wishes, by choosing a time during the first "creation" week
to produce his constant value for the week; in his case, the arbitrary choice
of one and a half days after creation produces the value he needs.
The final blow to Setterfield's credibility is his statistical analysis of the
results, given in Appendix 3, in which he discards 3 of the 41 data points
shown in an earlier table, and claims a coefficient of determination, r^2, of
"1 to nine significant figures, indicating a near perfect fit to the data"
(emphasis added). As anyone with even the most basic knowledge of analysis
will know (and as Setterfield will later learn the hard way), a coefficient of
determination of 1 can only be realized if the data points lie precisely on
the curve in question, yet Setterfield shows a pathetic ignorance of this fact
by following the above claim with, "All told, 17 values were above the curve
and 21 below, the r^2 value indicating a perfectly balanced distribution of
the cluster of points as well as close proximity to the curve."
In fact, as Setterfield openly admits, not a single data point of the 38
considered lay on the curve, yet this does not prevent him from claiming a
perfect correlation.
The reaction to the many howlers listed above from Setterfield's initial
article was depressingly predictable; creationists fell over themselves
praising the work, while the scientific community practically wet themselves
in hysterical laughter, then proceeded to give Setterfield's research the
shellacking it so royally deserved.
A letter to the editor in the very next issue of the journal asked, "Have
statistical tests [e.g. X^2] been applied to the fit of the data to the
postulated curve of decrease in the velocity of light? If so, with what
result?" Assuming that the X^2 value mentioned is actually the statistical
"chisquared" measure, the question is actually rather meaningless.
Rather than recognizing this, Setterfield responds that, "X^2 is the same as
r^2 in the article," which it most certainly is not. Setterfield then
emphasizes the same statistical nonsense contained in the original article
with, "This r^2 is the 'Coefficient of Determination' which tells how
accurately the proposed curve fits the data. If the fit is perfect the value
of r^2 is 1.000000000," which is of course utter rubbish since not a single
point actually lay on the curve.
Setterfield provides some unintentional hilarity by adding, somewhat
gratuitously, "The DEC 10 computer at Flinders University decided that the
published curve had an r^2 value of 1.000 to nine significant figures. I am
therefore satisfied that the postulated curve fits the observed data beyond
any doubt."
As a doctoral student in computer science, I must admit to some amusement
regarding the image of a computer "deciding" what the correct answer is when
this answer is so obviously wrong. Perhaps it really is the computer's fault
after all. Bad computer, baaaaaaad computer. (As a side note, the other half
of the page containing the above describes the genetic variation in dogs as
"devolution, a downward trend in efficiency," and concludes that, "The fall
affected dogs and man. [Romans 8:2021]" One has to wonder whether the poor
dogs should be held responsible for original sin. But I digress. Onward.)
After several critical letters to the editor regarding Setterfield's work,
stressing particularly the suspicion of carefully selected data, Setterfield
was finally forced into some damage control. In vol. 5, no. 3, Setterfield's
article, part two (b) has the revealing subtitle, "Using all measurements of
c."
Having taken quite a pounding until then regarding his statistical analysis,
Setterfield begins by defining his 'Coefficient of Determination,' r^2, and
its relation to the standard correlation coefficient. He follows this up by
again (correctly) explaining the significance of an r^2 value of 1, but
finally twigs to the many objections by adding, "It was subsequently noticed
that [the r^2 value] had been obtained at an incorrect point in the computer
programme, and a check gave the value as r^2 = 0.99+ which appeared in the
International Edition."
(This value, unfortunately for Setterfield, turns out to be wrong as well. In
a later publication of the same journal, Setterfield again revises his value
of r^2 downward to 0.986 based on, of all things, correspondence from readers
who calculated it for themselves. In all, five different values for r^2 were
published.)
At this point, one might almost give Setterfield the benefit of the doubt and
accuse him only of gross incompetence and mathematical illiteracy, but the
saga does not end just yet. A cursory examination of Setterfield's data on
which his curve is based reveals that the exact formula for the curve is
heavily dependent on two values from the 17th and 18th century, and it
behooves us to ask just how much confidence we can place in values this old,
or whether Setterfield has even recorded the values properly.
The very first value in his table, dated 1675, is credited to Romer and is
listed as 301,300 plus or minus 200 km/sec. According to Setterfield, "'Sky
and Telescope' June '73 45:353 gave Romer's 1675 value after reworking a
selection of his data. The result was 0.5% above the current value i.e.
301,300. Froome & Essen placed it higher. The minimum value was used." The
first question is how, given two conflicting values, Setterfield could
arbitrarily choose between them, or whether he should choose either of them.
The next issue is considerably more serious.
The referenced article in Sky and Telescope is actually a short summary of a
full article by Goldstein, Trasco and Ogburn in the Feb. 1973 issue of
The Astronomical Journal.
Why Setterfield chose not to refer to the original article is unclear, but
there is little doubt that this is extremely unprofessional behaviour,
although this is insignificant compared to what one finds upon reading the
original article. After considerable mathematical analysis, the three authors
conclude, "... we estimate that the difference between light travel time three
hundred years ago and today's value is less than 0.5%" (emphasis added). In
fact, the authors plot a set of residuals against light travel time and state,
"The best fit occurs at zero where the light travel time is identical to the
currently accepted value value," completely contradicting the value in
Setterfield's table. In short, the 1675 value is completely fictitious and is
based on deliberate misrepresentation.
Precisely this accusation was made by a Mr. R. Holt in a letter to the editor
in the vol. 1, 1984 issue of the creationist journal EN Tech. J. (apparently
an abbreviation for Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, although every effort is
made to conceal this). Holt minced no words and described the 1675 value as
"not only erroneous, but entirely unsupported by his references and contrary
to the actual data." Setterfield's response was that the reference "... was
NOT a direct use of the Goldstein et al result." If this is true, what was the
point of using an indirect reference to the article in the first place, if not
to use its results?
Setterfield further justifies the value with, "What was done was to take the
Froome and Essen value of 303,000 km/sec with its error margin of 2,000 km/sec
and the error limit of the Goldstein et al reworking of 1,500 km/sec above
the present value and reconcile the two authorities by taking the common
ground of 301,000." Ignoring the fact that the original value is listed as
301,300, and NOT 301,000, this method clearly has no value whatever, and
completely avoids the fact that the Goldstein conclusion is that the value of
c has NOT changed. How the Goldstein paper can be used in support of a value
of c 0.5% higher than the current value is a total mystery, and testifies to
Setterfield's lack of integrity in his research.
There is little doubt that the above glaring flaws and outright dishonesty on
Setterfield's part would cause the immediate rejection of his material by any
reputable and wellrefereed journal, and it seems unnecessary to continue the
dissection. There is, however, one final issue that deserves some mention.
Although the final blame for the early work must rest ultimately with
Setterfield, it seems that the editors of the Australian creationist journal
Ex Nihilo are not without fault as they seem to be just as capable of
misrepresentation as the authors of the articles they publish. A rather
blatant example of this is found in vol. 6, no. 4 of the journal, on a page
entitled "on what's being said about Barry Setterfield's work on the Speed of
Light."
Amidst glowing reviews from noted creationists such as Thomas Barnes, Walter
Brown and Setterfield's collaborator Trevor Norman, there are two testimonials
from Dr. Barry Tapp and Dr. Peter Cadusch, both faculty members at institutes
of technology in Australia. While the quotes attributed to them appear to
represent positive support for Setterfield's work, inspection of the original
letters to the editors show that they are based on a ludicrous
misrepresentation of both individuals.
Tapp is quoted as stating that, "The values of c determined between 1870 and
1940 do show a definite decay patterning." In fact, Tapp's exact words were,
"The values for 'c' determined between 1870 and 1940 do however appear to show
a definite 'decay' patterning." It is already unconscionable that the editors
cannot seem to faithfully reproduce a single line of text.
The case of Cadusch is far more serious. Cadusch is quoted as saying,
"Despite extensive reworking and analysis, these determinations [of c prior to
1940] cannot be harmonised with today's values." The accuracy of this quote
is so poor, it is laughable. Cadusch's actual words, as given on p. 81 of
that issue, are, "The sudden change of measured c after the war has already
been commented on, and current feeling seems to be that, despite extensive re
working and reanalysis, prewar determinations are now mainly of historical
interest."
EMail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank
