Re: Setterfield's c-decay and the frequency of light

From: Shepherd Moon (shepherdmoon_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 12/02/04 

Date: 2 Dec 2004 09:34:36 -0800

dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message news:<slrncqst0j.7oj.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
[...]
> >My opponent's contention (or rather his explanation of Setterfield's
> >contention) is that although photon energy remained the same as c
> >decayed, the frequency changed while the wavelength remained the same,
> >which is balanced out by the speed of light's changes.
>
> Your opponets contention doesn't even make physical sense. The
> energy is give by,
>
> E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2
>
> p = \hbar k and E = \hbar w
>
> w^2 = (ck)^2 + (mc/hbar)^2
>
> Since k = 2\pi/wavelength, the only way that the frequency and wavelength
> could have a different relationship is if light has a mass. If light has
> (had) a mass, charge isn't (wasn't) conserved. That contradicts the fact
> that the universe appears to be electrically neutral on a large scale
> and non-conservation of charge has never been observered.
>

This is the kind of calculation and implication I was looking for.
Thanks. However, read on below.

> >My question here has two perspectives, physical and logical:
>
> A logical argument is useless against a creationist. If logic were
> involved, there would be no argument in the first place. Your best bet
> is to choose a different religion to advocate, since he could presumably
> understand the basis for your argument at which point, you would see
> precisely what his reasoning is without all of bull*** that serves as
> a cover for personal religious dogma.

Some of you may know how every so often there are stories posted to
talk.origins where a creationist converts and recants creationism when
he or she discovers all the problems with the lies and distortions of
creationism.

Well, the replies to my post have made me go through some similar
thoughts of my own. I'm not a creationist, but for the past three
years I have been debating creationists thinking that I was fighting
the good fight and doing what I could even though I was a layman and
couldn't fight the fight by earning a Ph.D. in physics in a few
months.

However, now I am starting to doubt this strategy. In my initial foray
into a creationist group, I was outnumbered, and right away I noticed
the vast gap between what they considered common sense and evidence
and what I did. Needless to say, I was quickly branded as an "NE"
(naturalistic evolutionist) and pounced on with an endless stream of
arrogance, condescencion, and hostility. Then, when I had the temerity
to challenge the behavior of the moderator in being so one-sided, I
was banned from the group.

Looking back on that incident, I realized I was partly to blame for
allowing my irritation to get the best of me in my responses. I also
rejoined the group under another pseudonym (which was forbidden) and
was banned permanently after I revealed myself in an exchange that was
being carried on about me.

Next I joined another creationist group, the one I have been at since,
and am seeing the same pattern of arrogance, condescension, and
hostility. Ironically, I was booted from the first group for breaking
rules that the moderator said he had set up to keep the list civil.
What he meant was to keep it civil for creationists, a double standard
I now see in the group I'm currently in.

The responses you've made to my post about Setterfield have made me
realize that I need to leave these debates with creationists and join
real discussions about physics, because I see that I am wasting my
time with them and not using that time to learn something useful.

I'm not saying that there isn't arrogance, condescension, and
hostility in physics too, but there can't be any more than in the
creationist groups and anyway, my irritation at such behavior in
creationist groups is probably partly exacerbated by my lack of formal
knowledge to fight back with. And it also may mean that it is time for
me to stop deriving so much of my self-esteem from being in this
"cause" -- I'm sure there are many creationist people who are
otherwise decent folks just as there are many physicists who are
jerks. And just because I rally for the cause of science against
creationists doesn't mean I get any personal benefit from science as a
result. Science is just about learning and I should approach it that
way and not invest so much personal ego energy in it.

Furthermore, because I'm not going for a doctorate, I don't have to
worry about career politics or anything like that. I just have grown
tired of spending hours researching information only to have a
creationist spit back insults about how evolutionists don't know basic
math or that evolution is just another religion or that there is
"scientific evidence" that homosexuality is a "disease-ridden
lifestyle" and on and on and on. Perhaps it is because it is easy to
get lost in the creation-evolution debate that I forget how much time
I waste arguing against intolerant, word-twisting, irrational people.

I guess sometimes I worry that if someone isn't standing up to them
then they will continue to recruit more people to become intolerant,
word-twisting, and irrational. In some ways you have to see some of
the stuff they write to believe it. But perhaps it is time to leave
that struggle to others who wish to pursue it, or maybe to move on to
real learning and more valuable uses of my free time.

Thanks again for your comments.

Regards,
Shepherdmoon

Quantcast