DANGEROUS “DISCOVERY”

Have you heard of the "atomic clock"?

The atomic clock measures time by the speed of
radioactive decay. And this has given ages of billions
of years for the earth.

But has this ever dawned on you? If light was once
10 billion times faster than now, then radioactive
decay was faster to the same magnitude.

A correction, once made, dates our earth as young!

Latest research threatens not just dating, but other
accepted theories, as well.

Modern physics is now considering a theory that could
throw into confusion virtually all of the accepted
temporal paradigms of 21st-century science, including
the age of the universe and the billions of years
necessary for evolution.

Further, it raises the distinct possibility that
scientific validation exists for a (gasp) literal
interpretation of the seminal passages of Genesis.
Goodbye Scopes trial.

The theory is deceptively simple: The speed of light
is not constant, as we've been taught since the early
1930s, but has been steadily slowing since the first
instance of time.

If true, virtually all aspects of traditional physics
are affected, including the presumed steady state of
radioactive decay used to measure geological time.

It’s an intriguing story – and like many revolutions
in science, it begins with observations that just don’t
fit currently accepted scientific dogma.

HOW THE DISCOVERY OCCURRED

Early in 1979, an Australian undergraduate student
named Barry Setterfield, thought it would be interesting
to chart all of the measurements of the speed of light
since a Dutch astronomer named Olaf Roemer first measured
light speed in the 17th century.

Setterfield acquired data on over 163 measurements using
16 different methods over 300 years.

The early measurements typically tracked the eclipses of
the moons of Jupiter when the planet was near the Earth
and compared it with observations when then planet was
farther away.

These observations were standard, simple and repeatable,
and have been measured by astronomers since the invention
of the telescope.

These are demonstrated to astronomy students even today.

The early astronomers kept meticulous notes and sketches,
many of which are still available.

STARTLED BY THE DISCOVERY

Setterfield expected to see the recorded speeds grouped
around the accepted value for light speed, roughly 299,792
kilometers /second.

In simple terms, half of the historic measurements should
have been higher and half should be lower.

What he found defied belief: The derived light speeds from
the early measurements were significantly faster than today.

Even more intriguing, the older the observation, the faster
the speed of light. A sampling of these values is listed
below:

* In 1738: 303,320 +/- 310 km/second
* In 1861: 300,050 +/- 60 km/second
* In 1877: 299,921 +/- 13 km/second
* In 2004: 299,792 km/second (accepted constant)

Setterfield teamed with statistician Dr. Trevor Norman
and demonstrated that, even allowing for the clumsiness of
early experiments, and correcting for the multiple lenses
of early telescopes and other factors related to technology,
the speed of light was discernibly higher 100 years ago,
and as much as 7 percent higher in the 1700s.

Dr. Norman confirmed that the measurements were
statistically significant with a confidence of more than
99 percent.

Setterfield and Norman published their results at SRI in
July 1987 after extensive peer review.

It would be easy to dismiss two relatively unknown
researchers if theirs were the only voices in this
wilderness and the historic data was the only anomaly.

They are not.

OTHERS AGREE: LIGHT HAS SLOWED

Since the SRI publication in 1987, forefront researchers
from Russia, Australia, Great Britain and the United States
have published papers in prestigious journals questioning
the constancy of the speed of light.

During 2002 and 2003, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at
Imperial College in London, Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge,
Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis
and Dr. John Moffat of the University of Toronto have all
published work advocating their belief that light speed was
much higher – as much as 10 to the 10th power faster – in
the early stages of the "Big Bang" than it is today.

(It's important to note that none of these researchers has
expressed any bias toward a predetermined answer, biblical
or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a
biblical world-view.)

Dr. Magueijo believes that light speed was faster only in
the instants following the beginning of time.

Dr. Barrow, Barry Setterfield and others believe that light
speed has been declining from the beginning of time to the
historic near past.


THE REAL ISSUE

Dr. Magueijo has stated that the debate should not be why
and how the speed of light could vary, but what combination
of irrefutable theories demands that it be constant at all.

Setterfield now believes there are at least four other major
observed anomalies consistent with a slowing speed of light:

1. quantized red-shift observations from other galaxies,
2. measured changes in atomic masses over time,
3. measured changes in Planck's Constant over time,
4. and differences between time as measured by the atomic
   clock, and time as measured by the orbits of the planets
   in our solar system.

Perhaps the most interesting of these is the quantized
red-shift data.

The red shift refers to observations by astronomers of the
light emitted by galaxies.

Early astronomers noticed that galaxies considered to be
most distant from the earth had light spectra shifted
toward the red end of the spectrum.

In 1929 astronomer Edwin Hubble compared the galaxies'
spectra with their presumed distances (calculated using
different methods), and showed that the amount of "red
shift" was proportional to the calculated distance from
Earth.

Hubble and others postulated that the "red shift" was
caused by the velocity of the galaxies as they receded
from Earth and from each other – the farther away the
galaxy, the faster the velocity, the more the observed
Doppler red shift.

Galaxies whose observed light is seen as shifted into the
far red are considered to be moving at amazingly high
speeds away from us.

Hubble’s theory of the expanding universe demands an even
distribution of red-shift data.

Dr. William Tifft, now retired from the University of
Arizona, measured and recorded red-shift data for over
20 years. Dr. Tifft found that the red-shift data were
not random at all, but grouped into quantum bands.

Quantum red-shift data simply does not fit in the
comfortable world of classical physics.

Where it does fit, like it was made for it, is in the
Setterfield Hypothesis.

According to Setterfield and others, declining light
speeds would cause changes in the quantum states of
atomic structure within these galaxies, leading to
quantum shifts in the light emitted – precisely what
Dr. Tifft and others detected.

Setterfield believes that the speed of light was
initially about 10 to the 10th power faster than it is
today.

After the creation of the universe, light speed declined
following a curve approximating the curve of the cosecant
squared.

He believes that light speed reached a point where it is
asymptotic since the mid 1960s.

Though reasonably constant, he believes the speed still
varies in waves – sometimes higher and sometimes lower
than the accepted standard.

Intriguingly, recent observations of the signals received
from the aging satellites Galileo, Ulysses and Pioneer
are also in the category of speed of light anomalies.

An unexplained Doppler frequency shift has been detected
from all of these satellites, even though the satellites'
distances from the Earth are only about 20 times the
distance from the Earth to the Sun – way too close for
a traditional Doppler shift to occur in the
electromagnetic spectrum.

NASA scientists have attempted with little success to
attribute the anomalies to an unknown acceleration.

Setterfield suggests that equally plausible explanations
are variations in c.

RESISTANCE FROM SCIENTIFIC “ELITE”

It’s important to recognize the resistance that the
current hierarchy of science has to the possibility that
light speed may not be constant.

Dr. Joao Magueijo was forced to wait for over a year
between submission of his initial work on varying light
speed and publication. Setterfield, Dr. Tifft, Dr. Paul
Davis, Dr. John Barrow and others have been subjected
to peer review which borders on ridicule.

Dr. Tifft's discussion of red-shift anomalies was
published with seeming reluctance in the Astrophysical
Journal in the mid 1980s with a rare editorial note
pointing out that the referees "neither could find
obvious errors with the analysis nor felt that they
could enthusiastically endorse publication."

After Dr. Tifft's initial publication, several
astronomers devised extensive experiments in attempts
to prove him wrong.

Among them, two Scottish astronomers, Bruce Gutherie
and William Napier from the Royal Observatory in
Edinburgh, observed approximately 300 galaxies in the
mid 1990s.

They found to their surprise confirmation of quantum
banding of red-shift data.

They also had difficulty publishing their data. It has
been reported that the prestigious Journal of Astronomy
and Astrophysics refused publication until an additional
set of observations from 97 other spiral galaxies was
included.

A Fourier analysis of the 302 early data points, and the
subsequent total of 399 data points strongly confirmed
the quantum shifts.

Despite this – and additional observations by Bell in
2003 – many scientists are still reluctant to give up on
the theory that red shifts are solely caused by Doppler
shifts. And have continued to claim that the red-shift
quanta results by Tifft and others are due to sloppy
research or insufficient data.

It's intriguing to note that the first measurement of
light speed by Olaf Roemer in the late 17th century was
an attempt to disprove the Aristotelian belief that light
speed was infinite.

Despite overwhelming and repeatable evidence, over 50
years passed before the scientific hierarchy of the time
accepted evidence which, in retrospect was clear,
compelling and unimpeachable.

The point is this. When something is proved to be true
beyond reasonable doubt, do not expect the scientific
world to automatically accept it.

History shows they will continue to stubbornly resist. 

Did you know that even after modern explorers proved the
earth to be round, a flat earth continued to be taught
in the schools of Europe for the next 200 years!

Why am I doing this now? Because of the tremendous
benefit you will derive from the discovery of what our
planet really was like in the days of our earliest
ancestors.

It is not what you may think.

I just don't want you to miss out on such a shattering
discovery. Here is where you can discover more.

Please go to:
http://www.beforeus.com/first.php