How Do Atomic Clocks Differ from Orbital Clocks in Measuring Time?

[Huckleberry]

I must be confused about the differences between atomic clocks and orbital clocks. Here is what I read on one site. http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/redshift.html

The run-rate of atomic clocks is governed by atomic frequencies. It therefore follows that these clocks, in all their various forms, run at a rate proportional to c. The atomic clock is thereby c-dependent, while the orbital or dynamical clock ticks independently at a constant rate.

The faster the velocity of light, the faster an atomic clock beats. I can undertand that. Dynamic clocks run independently, but since the velocity of light affects how we perceive time wouldn't 1 second appear to be one second to us regardless of the velocity of light? I think there is an error in how I am understanding atleast one of these clocks.

The reason I would like to know this is because of some information I was reading on a site explaining the implications of a non-constant velocity of light. I thought I was grasping it until I came upon this question.
http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkconseq.html

Question: Has anyone done the calculations, based on your theory of changing speed of light, to see if the radiometric dating of fossils and rocks goes from the current value of billions of years down to thousands of years? Is it available on the Internet? Can you please give me a summary? Thank you.

ResponseThank you for your request for information. Yes, the calculations have been done to convert radiometric and other atomic dates to actual orbital years. This is done on the basis outlined in our Report of 1987 and the new paper just undergoing peer review. Basically, when light-speed is 10 times its current value, all atomic clocks ticked 10 times faster. As a consequence they registered an age of 10 atomic years when only one orbital year had passed. For all practical purposes there is no change in the rate of the orbital clocks with changing light speed. The Earth still took a year to go around the sun.

Now the redshift of light from distant galaxies carries a signature in it that tells us what the value of c was at the time of emission. The redshift data then give us c values right back to the earliest days of the cosmos. Knowing the distances of these astronomical objects to a good approximation, then allows us to determine the behaviour of light speed with time. It is then a simple matter to correct the atomic clock to read actual orbital time. Light speed was exceedingly fast in the early days of the cosmos, but dropped dramatically. At a distance of 20 billion light years, for example, the value of c was about 87 million times its current value. At that point in time the atomic clocks were ticking off 87 million years in just one ordinary year. When the process is integrated over the redshift/cDK curve the following approximate figures apply.

1 million years before present (BP) atomically is actually 2826 BC with c about 70,000 times c now.

63 million atomic years BP is an actual date of 3005 BC with c about 615,000 times c now.

230 million atomic years BP is an actual date of 3301 BC with c about 1.1 million times c now.

600 million atomic years BP is an actual date of 3536 BC with c about 2.6 million times c now.

2.5 billion atomic years BP is an actual date of 4136 BC with c about 10.8 million times c now.

4.5 billion atomic years BP is an actual date of 4505 BC with c about 19.6 million times c now.

15 billion atomic years BP is an actual date near 5650 BC with c about 65.3 million times c now.

20 billion atomic years BP is an actual date near 5800 BC with c about 87 million times c now.

I understand that as the velocity of light changes that the level of atomic activity changes as well. This would have an effect on radiometric measurements. But how am I supposed to interpret this data?!?
Is this saying that fossils from 63 million years ago are actually from 3005B.C.
Hmm, maybe I was born yesterday or is that tomorrow?
What is a simpler way for me to understand this?

Would a steady rate in the deceleration of light create an exponential curve in atomic activity?

Here is another site that examines the work of the original experiments.
http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkgal.html

 

[DaveC426913]

OMG, that's so clever/funny/desparate.

Someone is attempting to reconcile the 20Gy age of the scientific universe with the 6000y age of the biblical universe by proposing a vast (vast!) rate of change of the speed of light over history.

 

[Huckleberry]

So I am right that this is what the article is claiming?
Some help with how atomic clocks function compared to dynamic clocks would allow me to begin to form an opinion. I was under the impression that since the speed of light affects time then dynamic clocks would also be affected by that time and the dinosaurs that died 65 million years ago actually died 65 million years ago.
Is the math even right for the deceleration of light to determine those dates? Do these articles have any credibility?

 

[Evo]

moved at your request Huckleberry.

 

[Huckleberry]

Thanks again Evo. You're the best

 

[Chronos]

When you see Setterfield, run, don't walk to the nearest exit. He is a certified crackpot.

 

[Nereid]

This TalkOrigins page might help you Huckleberry ...

While you can probably work out some of the more obvious flaws in crackpots like Setterfield's ideas, it's nice when you can find somewhere with the results of someone else's hundreds of hours of debunking

 

[Huckleberry]

Science and religion is a dangerous dichotomy. It does appear as if Setterfield's religious beliefs have clouded his scientific objectiveness.To make such a claim Setterfield's evidence would have to be irrefutable and it does not appear to be so. Thanks for the site Nereid. I feel as though I have just stepped mistakenly into the deep end of the pool.

 

[KingNothing]

This TalkOrigins page might help you Huckleberry ...

While you can probably work out some of the more obvious flaws in crackpots like Setterfield's ideas, it's nice when you can find somewhere with the results of someone else's hundreds of hours of debunking

TalkOrigins has to be one of the best and clear debunking sites there is.