web metrics

Over a decade ago, an Australian physicist named Setterfield reviewed the history of the determinations of the speed of light and the physical constants which are tied to the speed of light and concluded that said speed was much higher at the time of creation than it is now. Needless to say, that has not set well in many religious circles (evolutionists have, as a whole, ignored the issue). Actually, the evidence appears real but, unfortunately, it is not really strong. You see, according to Setterfield, the speed of light stopped decaying in 1963.

Now Hugh Ross, the Grand Dragon of theistic evolutionists, assailed Setterfield's work on the basis that it violates the law of conservation of energy. In his research on Hugh Ross's baseless claims, Dr. Bolton Davidheiser asked whether or not Ross is right in his charge. At issue is the famous E=mc2 of the late, lamented Albert Einstein. My response (reworded somewhat from the original) follows:

E=mc2 was not original with Einstein as it had been derived by a handful of physicists, including Maxwell, before him.

Ross's objection is a half-truth. Setterfield has always insisted that energy be conserved and uses that law to relate other constants to the speed of light. So Ross's objection has nothing to do with Setterfield's model. Now, since energy is conserved, if c increases, then the effective mass must decrease. This is not as unreasonable as it may at first appear since the speed of light is a property of the permitivity and permeability of space which also relates to electric charge and could, via Barnes's feedback model of the electron and proton, define mass-energy. So Ross is misrepresenting Setterfield's position with a too-simplistic argument. Typical of an evolutionist, I'm afraid.


Tom Willis of the Creation Science Association of Mid-America, Cleveland, Missouri, had some questions about our book, Geocentricity. Particularly, he deplored the lack of clear models for such things as the geostationary satellite and the Foucault pendulum. Are there any everyday type analogies which can serve to illustrate the geocentric model for such things? My response:

Your criticism of my analogies is fair. Unfortunately, there are no every-day analogies for things like the geostationary satellite and the Foucault pendulum: we don't see orbits in our day-to-day activities because the force of gravity is too weak on such a scale. About the only thing which can be done, and time is the biggest constraint, is to present a series of video animations. Dirk Gastaldo started doing some last year but he's been bogged down in work, too.

Since the book was written there is a parable I've come across which may serve for the stationary satellite. The moon always keeps the same face to the earth. Suppose that we lived on the moon. From our lunar (selencentric) perspective we see the stars rotate about us once every 27 earth-days, and the earth exhibits the same phase (e.g., new earth) every 29.5 earth-days which is the time it takes the sun to “circle” the moon. But the earth is always hovering in the same position in the sky. A Selenic Copernicus decides that the moon rotates with a period of 29.5 earth days and that the moon orbits the sun.

Now we know that what goes up must come down. From that latter observation a Selenic Newton formulates the laws of gravity and discovers that the earth is 57,900 miles from the moon, the distance at which an object orbiting the moon has a period of 29.5 days.1 Later, a Selenic geocentrist named Bouw proposes that the earth is really at the center of the earth-moon system, that it is more massive than our home, the moon, and that the earth is really 230,000 miles away. “But,” the objection sounds, “if that were so, then the earth and moon would long ago have parted company since at a distance of 230,000 miles from the moon the escape velocity is 8 cm/sec,2 whereas a period of 29.5 days would give a speed of more than 91,000 cm/sec!3 The earth would be going more than 10,000 times too fast to stay near the moon! Bouw counters with the claim that his critics are using the wrong coordinate system, that they are not tying it to the earth as they should but still coordinate to the moon. He claims that Barbour and Bertotti have showed that, as per Ernst Mach, the moon, the earth, an atom, the sun; any place can be taken as the center of the universe and a physics can be derived which will account for all the phenomena.

The point of the story is that if in a geocentric system the geostationary satellite must fall to earth, then by the same token, in the selencentric system the selenstationary earth should fall to the moon. So why doesn't the earth fall to the moon?

“Ah,” the heliocentric critic says, “because the moon goes around the earth and not the other way around.” Bouw smiles and opens his arms: “Welcome, fellow geocentrist!”

I don't know if that illustration helps or not. As for the Foucault pendulum, I suppose illustrations using magnets may do something. For example, suppose we consider a sphere made up of magnetized wedges with all their south poles glued to the center of the sphere, so that the surface is all north pole. This will act slightly like a magnetic monopole and will act like an attracting force to a south pole without inducing a spin. Now suppose that the sphere is hanging from a gallows-like affair inside a hollow sphere made up of plastic with scattered magnetic wedges (like the universe is made up of scattered stars) glued to the plastic so that their south poles are all pointing toward the center of the sphere. When the large sphere does not rotate, the pendulum monopole will swing back and forth and may even come to rest off vertical from the platform if there are more magnets on one side of it than on the other. (The same is true in the gravitational case.) Now suppose that the sphere spins. In that case the passing magnets will drag the monopole with them in its swing. Before long the plane of the monopole's swing will rotate in unison with the sphere. The problem with the model is that the magnetic field varies as the inverse cube while gravity is inverse square, so there is a basic difference in how they behave.


The following letter came from Minnesota in response to J. Timothy Unruh's comet collision “scale model.”

The Jupiter article (p. 5, Fall '94 issue) by J. Timothy Unruh is puzzling. What is he attempting to express, especially in the final three paragraphs? He uses such terms as “sensationalized” and ”melodramatic media.” To me, a fireball greater than Earth's diameter is a major astronomical event in our solar system.

His use of a model, as you must suspect, is utterly misleading. By the same kind of pathetic reasoning we might conclude that automobile collisions are mere products of our imaginative news reporting, in view of the fact that small scale-model vehicles aren't even dented at similarly down-scaled velocities. The energies do not vary linearly, but by the fifth power of the scale (by my reckoning). What does or does not happen with a grain of sand impacting a 74- foot Jupiter model at 1/3 inch/sec is irrelevant…unless multiplied the 5th power of the scale [which amounts to (6.336x104)5]. Even that does not adequately convey the reality of the collision.

Mr. Unruh responds:

My purpose in writing the article was basically threefold: First, I felt that the model, which was intended to be the focal point in the article, was useful in providing a layman's grasp on the overall scale or magnitude of the event, although I realize it was not an exhaustive model, especially in terms of the mass-velocity-energy equation, as you have so deftly pointed out. Almost all of what I had been hearing about the event was media hype. One headline in particular which said, “Jupiter engulfed in giant fireball” gave the distinct impression that Jupiter was being consumed. I thought that the model would help bring the event more into a true astronomical perspective. Secondly, up until the time of the impacts almost everyone I had talked to, including avid astronomers, expressed that they didn't really expect to see anything at all. To everyone's surprise the aftermath of the collisions were visible not only from world class mountain top observatories but through telescopes as small as three inches in aperture from big city backyards. In fact, I was able to make video tape images of Jupiter, myself, which clearly showed the impact marks.

Furthermore, the marks remained clearly visible for some weeks after the collision events. There were other “surprises” as well, the discussion of which was beyond the scope of my short treatise. Finally, the magnitude of the impacts themselves very clearly exceeded all expectations. I still have the “major league” newspaper clippings that express this, which is the point I was making at the end of my article when I said “Scientists themselves remain startled”. As far as I could see little of this was really anticipated.

Astronomy, unlike other sciences, does not allow us much close hand observation and experimentation. It is a science whereby we observe, as best we can, from afar and I think in spite of all the technology we have at our disposal there is a great realm of uncertainty in astronomy. Articles of current interest on astronomy that occasionally appear in print betray this fact when words like “theory”, “estimated”, ”scientists believe — based on”, etc., etc., are used. In spite of temptations to the contrary usually they are honest enough to stay away from expressions that claim absolute fact, although, unfortunately not always. In writing the article I had no anticipation that anyone would read any kind of joke, trick, or riddle into it. In fact you are the first to raise the question. It was intended to be as straight forward and as ”un” read-between-the-lines, for that matter, as possible. Perhaps this reflects a deficiency of such a brief writing. I think your issue regarding the mass-momentum-energy relationship is a valid concern and is an issue in which I myself grappled with at length and which probably could have been addressed in a little more detail in my article. One engineer with whom I discussed this matter and the model in this con text did see, as I saw, that the “damage” seemed to be excessive in proportion to the object's size. Otherwise no one else that I have encountered “out there” other than yourself seems to have really given it a careful look.

Experiments in mass-velocity-energy relationships have never been conducted on a cosmic scale by man, of course, so he is limited basically to studies of ballistics, and these have usually been applied to impacts on the Moon and Meteor Crater in Arizona, etc. The assumption that the M-V-E equation is as consistent at the upper end as well as the lower end, as the inverse square law of light intensity is taken to be as it has to do with stars, might lead to endless debate. I don't claim to be a physicist or mathematician, so you will have to forgive me for my deficiencies there, but I am still convinced that the magnitude of the event was a big surprise to most scientists and astronomers even so far as touching the aforementioned “equation” and that was part of my thesis. Others who read my article have agreed. Even the scientists, armed with their letters, equations and technology did not, and could not, predict the outcome beforehand!

I hope this helps clarify the misunderstandings you had in regards to what I was attempting to express in my article. Again, thanks for your interest. My best wishes to you and yours for this season, '95, and after!


It being the chiefe project of that old deluder, Satan, to keepe men from the knowledge of the Scriptures as in former times, keeping them in an unknowne tongue, ….
        — Old Deluder Satan Law of Connecticut and Massachussets, 1642

(Like Hebrew and a dead form of Greek, or Latin, or long-lost “originals” which no one alive today has ever seen.)


1 The law of gravity is F=GMm/R2 where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the moon, m is the mass of the earth, and R is the earth-moon distance. The problem is to solve for R, the unknown distance to the earth. The approach is as follows:

The centripetal force = the centripetal acceleration times the mass and that must equal the force of gravity. I.e.,

m v2/R = GMm/R2

Note that the earth's mass, m, and one R cancel. We don't know the orbital speed, v, or the distance R, but there is a relationship between the two, namely, v = R w so that, after cancelling, we can rewrite this equation as:

R2 w2 = G M / R.

Now there is a simple relationship between the angular velocity, w and the orbital period, P:

w = 2 p / P
and we write:
R3 = G M P2 / 4 p2.

This equation is solved for R with M = 7.37 x 1025 gm, P = 2.55 x 106 sec and G = 6.67 x 10-8 cm3/ gm sec2. The result is R = 9.32 x 109 cm = 57,900 miles.

2 Solve above for v.

3 2 p D / P, where D is the geocentrist's earth-moon separation of 230,000 miles).

Translated from WS2000 on 4 September 2005 by ws2html.