Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Atomic clocks / Dynamic clocks?

  1. Apr 14, 2005 #1
    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 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.
    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 :surprised 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.
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 14, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
  4. Apr 14, 2005 #3
    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?
  5. Apr 16, 2005 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    moved at your request Huckleberry.
  6. Apr 16, 2005 #5
    Thanks again Evo. :wink: You're the best
  7. Apr 17, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    When you see Setterfield, run, don't walk to the nearest exit. He is a certified crackpot.
  8. Apr 17, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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 :approve:
  9. Apr 17, 2005 #8
    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.
  10. Apr 25, 2005 #9
    TalkOrigins has to be one of the best and clear debunking sites there is.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook