return to GSR home page


We deeply appreciate the work Rinus Kiel has done through the years in studying and understanding Barry's work. Here are the notes from Mr. Kiel's presentation to a conference in Germany.


Studiengemeinschaft Wort und Wissen Folgen
22. Fachtagung Physik/Kosmologie / 21.– 23. November 2008 / Neustadt a.d. Weinstrasse

The Cosmology of Barry Setterfield (Rinus Kiel) // Proceedings

Barry Setterfield

Life and work
In this presentation I request your attention for the work of the Australian/American physicist/ geologist  Barry Setterfield (1942-), who has made a remarkable amount of research, the results of which lead to something that you can cautiously call a new cosmology. Barry Setterfield was born in 1942 in Australia as the son of two Salvation Army officers. Because of their calling Barry moved 17 times in 20 years. He studied physics and geology at the University of Adelaide, but aborted his study after three years because of family and health problems. He made a mineralogical survey about South-Australia for a mining company. He also worked for the ‘Astronomical Society of South-Australia’, and did most lectures about astronomical subjects. And he was member of a project group that looked for the best place for the largest optical telescope in the southern hemisphere. Illness of his father and the care for his feable-minded sister prevented further academic study.

Barry was a Christian, but of the theistic-evolutionistic opinion. In 1979 he obtained a book, that described astronomical anomalies. He became aware of the fact that historical measurements of the speed of light showed a clear decrease. He wanted to research that in order to find out which human and/or instrumental errors caused those improbable outcomes. A few weeks would do, was his idea. But the deviations turned out to be real. Here his life work started, beginning with the research after the historical measurements of the speed of light, but in the mean time extended to many other related subjects. From his study he concluded that earth and universe could not be very old. He had to abandon his theistic-evolutionistic ideas and he became what is called a ‘young earth creationist’.

Setterfield’s motto is: “It is never good science to ignore anomalous data or to eliminate a conclusion because of some presupposition. Sir Henry Dale, one-time President of the Royal Society of London, made an important comment in his retirement speech: ‘Science should not tolerate any lapse of precision, or neglect any anomaly, but give Nature's answers to the world humbly and with courage.’ To do so may not place one in the mainstream of modern science, but at least we will be searching for truth and moving ahead rather than maintaining the scientific status quo”.

The standard cosmological model


    From Red Shift to Big Bang

    1. 1912-1922 Vesto Slipher/Francis Pease:
      redshift nearby galaxies (z = Δλ/λ)
    2. 1923-1924 Hubble: Cepheïds in those galaxies
      leading to: r≈z (r=z/h, distance = redshift/constant
      = Hubble’s law)
    3. Doppler effect: v=z*c (recession speed  = redshift * lightspeed) or: z=v/c → Big Bang.
      or: r=v/H0 (distance = recession speed/ Hubble
    4. But: redshift >0.4: linear relationship lost
    5. So, new redshift formula:

    Critics of this idea:

    1. Malcolm Longair 1995: Hubble should not have done z*c. We hopefully get rid of c. No Doppler effect.
    2. Quasars with z>1:
      Misner, Thorne, Wheeler e.a. 1972: Objects with speed near c lose structure. Impossible, z>1:
      redshift has no gravitational origin.
    3. No Doppler/no gravity, maybe cosmological redshift (fabric of space expands – Misner etc. 1997).
      1. Einstein: fabric is static, galaxies move
      2. Friedman/Lemaître: fabric expanding, photon wavelengths stretched (problems with energy conservation),
        galaxies etc. do not expand (strange restrictions)
    4. Are there other options?


    Problems for Christians with modern cosmology
    When we, as Christians, take the Bible as truth, also on the area of history and the cosmos, then we are being confronted with a number of awkward problems, i.e.:

    How can we explain that radioactive dating outcome, despite all efforts to find different explanations, stubbornly clusters around an age of 4.5 billion years for the earth? Yet there has been good research, f.i. the work of the RATE-group of ICR; they have investigated some of the many presuppositions upon which those methods rest, and have produced serious and convincing objections. Still this argument is being used massively against the idea that earth and cosmos are young.

    If the cosmos is only a few thousands years old, how then can we see the light of objects billions of lightyears away? It has been said that God could have created the light beams together with the light sources. But this is not a very satisfying explanation, because light carries information. Does God deceive us? Also other and sometimes exotic ideas have been proposed, but all are unsatisfying so far. The question remains and is really painful.

    There was light on the first day of creation, but the sun appeared only on the fourth day. Many have decided that Genesis 1(-11) is not to be read in a normal grammatical way, but instead as poetry or even as myth. Unfounded interpretations unfortunately are being read into the biblical text easily, like Howard van Till (1985) does. Let we 'science' dictate our understanding of Scripture?

    Then there are emotional arguments of Christians: they cannot all be wrong, those scientists, can they? It is generally accepted science. And many Christians working in science accept this view, don’t they? Must we not give up our resistance? We place ourselves outside reality, und just keep up rearguard fights. Etcetera.

    Events that lead to the Big Bang mode
    We take our starting point in the events, leading up to the Big Bang model of cosmos origin. We take as a well-known fact that Cepheids are variable stars, whose variation period is a measure of their light output. The relation between light output and light impression here on earth (magnitude) gives the distance. Redshift is the phenomenon that Fraunhofer lines in star spectra do not appear on the expected places, but slightly shifted to the red side of the spectrum. Redshift is expressed in a number giving the relation between {the difference between the measured and the standard wave length} and the standard wave length, so: z (redshift) = {λ (measured) – λ (standard)} /λ(standard). In formula: z  =  ∆λ/λ . Positive = redshift / negative = blueshift.

    • From 1912-1922 Vesto Slipher and Francis Pease on Lowell observatory in Flagstaff, (Arizona USA), measured the redshift of 42 nearby galaxies.
    • In 1923-1924 Edwin Hubble with the new 2.5 m reflector telescope on Mt. Wilson discovered that there were Cepheids in those galaxies, and using them he could establish the distance to those galaxies. When he compared his data with the redshift data of Slipher en Pease, he noticed that the redshift increased with the distance. He then found that the redshift has a fixed relation to the distance. In 1929 he formalized this relation in the so-called Hubble’s Law: r (distance) = z (redshift) / h (a constant), or: z = r x h.
    • Of course they wanted to know the cause of this phenomenon. Soon the interpretation as 'Doppler effect' became favorite: the light waves increase in length, because the light sources (the stars) move away from us. They move progressively faster as the distance increases. And how fast? Easy: z (redshift) was multiplied by c (light speed) giving v (recession speed), in formula: v = z * c, or: z = v / c. Hubble himself has always shown some reluctance to this 'solution'.
    • But the train was on the way now. It was not for long or the idea of an expanding universe popped up: the galaxies at the greatest distance do recede with the largest speed. The Belgian priest Georges-Henri Lemaître (1894-1966) assumed, that somewhere in the past all matter was concentrated at one spot, and expanded from there. He published his ideas between 1927 en 1933 and claimed that they were based upon Einstein’s ideas, although Einstein did not agree, because he supported Fred Hoyle’s ‘steady state’ model of the universe. Lemaître called his idea: ‘hypothesis of the primeval atom’. Fred Hoyle, in a BBC-interview, coined the term ‘Big Bang’ for Lemaître’s idea. This name has since then been used as a kind of nickname. Nowadays the age of the universe is being estimed at about 13.7 billion years.
    • Williams and Hartnett (2005) have listed the problems with Big Bang cosmology. New solutions for those problems are being published all the time. One of those problems concerns the redshift. From a value 0.4 the linear relation to the recession speed has been lost. The adapted equation now reads: z = {[1+(v/c)] / √[1-(v2/c2)]} – 1.

    Criticism and critics
    Of all the critics who have looked for alternatives, I mention only a few:

    • Longair (1995) writes, that Hubble had made a mistake by introducing 'c' and with it also introduced Doppler effect and recession speed. He hopes that we can get rid of 'c'. Meaning: Doppler effect: no!

    • Quasars have been found where z>1. Misner, Thorne und Wheeler (1972) observe that objects approaching light speed lose their structure, they disintegrate. z>1 already reveals that redshift has no relation to gravity.

    • If Doppler is problematic, and if redshift has nothing to do with gravitation, then which possibilities do we still have? Misner et al (1997) see only one option, namely 'cosmological redshift': the fabric of space itself is expanding and carries the galaxies with it. But Einstein has believed that the structure was static (he supported Fred Hoyle's model) and that the galaxies moved within that structure.
      Friedman (1922) and Lemaître (1927) assume cosmological redshift. The photon wave lengths must then also expand, which means that in this special case energy conservation is not maintained. And what about the galaxies? Do they expand also, as well as the atoms? That causes great problems. Or, do they not expand? The question is then: why not? In reality this model is not consistent and very hard to uphold.

    • Are there other options? Is there still a future for the Big Bang? Is the interpretation of redshift as a Doppler effect, which is the very basis of this model, the right one?

    Is the Red Shift quantized?

    • 1912-1922 Vesto Slipher/Francis Pease:
      redshift nearby galaxies (z = Δλ/λ)
    • 1923-1924 Hubble: Cepheïds in those galaxies
      leading to: r≈z (r=z/h, distance = redshift/constant
      = Hubble’s law)
    • Doppler effect: v=z*c (recession speed  = redshift * lightspeed) or: z=v/c → Big Bang.
      or: r=v/H0 (distance = recession speed/ Hubble
    • But: redshift >0.4: linear relationship lost
    • So, new redshift formula:


    William Tifft
    William Tifft of Steward Observatory of Arizona State University in Tucson USA researched redshift value behavior for a number of years (1975-1991 and on).

    Tifft (1975/6+) researched different galaxy types in the so-called Coma cluster, a group of some thousands galaxies in the constellation of 'Coma Berenices' at a distance of about 320 million lightyears. The redshift values there were not smooth, but changed in jumps, or quanta. You could even see bands of equal redshift values moving out through this cluster. A number of years later those bands appeared to have moved away from us.

    The redshift quantum had the value of 36.2, expressed in recession speed (km/sec.), which is an accepted entity in Big Bang cosmology.

    -- Halton Arp (1987) about these results: Not only did the quantization appear in this independent set of very accurate double galaxy measurements, but it was the most clear cut, obviously significant demonstration of the effect yet seen.

    -- Fisher and Tully (1981) publish the results of an extensive investigation into redshift values in a catalog with their findings. The idea behind it was: if only the data base is large enough, the phenomenon will disappear altogether. Their catalog did not show the quantization that Tifft had found. The conclusion was: quantization exit, standard model saved.

    -- Tifft and Cocke (1984) analysed their catalog and concluded that Fisher and Tully had overlooked something: the motion of our own galaxy superimposed a real Doppler effect upon their redshift values. When corrected, the quantization appeared clear and matched Tifft's outcome. Notwithstanding that, many assumed that observation and instrument errors caused the effect, and that it was not real.

    -- Sulentic and Arp (1985) used radio telescopes to measure the redshift of 260 galaxies in more than 80 groups, but for another project. They also confirmed Tifft's results: the quantization is real, not in the instrument, but there in the galaxies!

    Guthrie and Napier

    B.N.G. Guthrie & W.M. Napier set out to save the current model and disprove Tifft’s results. They used hydrogen line redshift data

    •1991: 106 spiral galaxies. Q=37.5 (Tifft 36.2)

    Royal Observatory Edinburgh: more data

    •1992:   89 spiral galaxies. Q=37.2

    •1995:   97 spiral galaxies. Q=37.5

    Astronomy & Astrophysics: referees ask more

    •1996:  117 spiral galaxies. Q=37.5

    •1997: Fourier analysis all 409 surveys. Results:

    --Tifft fully confirmed!! Chance 1:106 / precision 10%


    Guthrie and Napier
    These developments caused a lot of commotion among astronomers and cosmologists. At the beginning of the 1990s Bruce Guthrie and William Napier vom Royal Observatory in Edinburgh undertook an effort to disprove Tifft. They investigated the redshift values of many galaxies and used ‘hydrogen line redshift’ data.

      • In 1991 they published the first results (Schewe & Stein, 1992a): 106 spiral galaxies showed a quantization of 37.5. This was very near to Tifft's outcome (36.2).
      • Edinburgh University asked for more results. Their second investigation in 1992 concerned another 89 spiral galaxies. Outcome: Q=37.2 (Schewe & Stein, 1992b).
      • In 1995 they presented a document to Astronomy and Astrophysics with the results of further 97 spiral galaxies (Q=37.5), but the referees demanded more data.
      • Therefore they went on and looked at another 117 galaxies, but the outcome was the same (Q=37.5). Now the document was accepted, albeit reluctantly.
      • A Fourier analysis of the results for all galaxies showed a clear peak at the value of 37.5. Chance 1:106, precision 10%.
      • Bell and Comeau write (2003), that galaxie groups, researched in the Hubble Key Project, show quantized redshifts matching those of Tifft. It concerned 55 spiral galaxies and 36 type Ia supernova galaxies. When more objects were added, the results became even clearer! Again a confirmation of Tifft's results.

    The results seem to be undeniable: quantized redshift is a really existing phenomenon!


    Some Results of the Investigations of Guthrie and Napier


    GuthrieNapier graph 2

    The results are being expressed as recession
    speed in km per second.

    The peaks in the graphs show where a quantum jump occurs (at multiples of 37.5 km/sec).


    Tifft’s conclusions 1991
    Tifft (1991) concludes his research into quantized redshift with the following statements:

    • Basic value of redshift quantization is 8/3 = 2,67 km/second. The earlier values are simply multiples of this basic value. Setterfield assumes that this basic value also results from the behavior of the vacuum on the Planck length level  (
    • The precision of the most recent measures is 0.1 km/second.
    • The signal to noise ratio is high.
    • Bands with increasing redshift move out from us, even through single galaxies.
    • Galaxies in cluster cores (f.i. in the Virgo cluster) move with high speed, thus smoothing out quantization.

    The conclusion is that quantized redshift may be considered a fact, and that it is dependent on intrinsic properties of the galaxies, like f.i. mass and luminosity.

    Behavior of quantized redshift

    The phenomenon of quantized redshift appears as concentric, sharply separated bands with equal redshift values, moving out from the observer.
    This means that around us there is an increasing area without any redshift, with the exception
    of real Doppler redshift caused by motion of galaxies.

    This does not mean, however, that we live near the centre of the universe, because the same phenomenon appears to all observers throughout the universe.


    In Astrophysics May 2003, Morley Bell:
    • Clusters studied in Hubble Key Project contain quantized redshift in accordance with Tifft
    • 55 spiral and 36 Type Ia supernova galaxies involved
    • Including more objects makes the results even more clear!

    Reactions on quantized redshift

    It is usual that such new insights attract much criticism. This was also the case after 1976, when Tifft published his first results. Many investigations have been executed with the express intent to disprove Tifft. Remarkably, many ended in confirming his research results. Is the cosmological community now convinced that we deal with facts here? Which means that the Big Bang model has come into big trouble. Must we think about new ideas? Let us look at recent reactions.

    1. Since 1998 we meet mainly silence: if we do not mention it, it will probably and hopefully go away.
    2. Nobody tries to deny the clear results any more.
    3. If comments are being given, fear for the status of the Big Bang model is being expressed. How would an alternative look like?
    4. For the rest most ignorant or agnostic reactions (we don't know yet, more research is necessary, maybe other explanations, etcetera).

    I found only one comment, that mentioned Setterfield positively with respect to the redshift issue, and confirmed his analyses, albeit reluctantly.

    Redshift/Distance Relationship

    redshift curve


    Cause of quantized redshift

    There is a great reserve to speak about the cause of quantized redshift. Some are mentioned:
    Is it caused by galaxy clustering, as f.i. Russell Humphreys supposes?

    1. Possibly not, the steps are much too small for that, and
    2. There are several ‘bands’ within certain galaxy clusters.

    Is it maybe a quantum effect? The clear and discrete jumps in the redshift values exclude almost any other interpretation. If so, then it is related to the energy level in the atoms!

    1. They have only discrete values, and cannot have any intermediate value.
    2. If the level decreases then photons of lower energy – redder – are being emitted.
    3. If the level increases then photons of higher energy – bluer – are being emitted.  
    4. The change goes in steps, quanta.

    How can atoms increase their energy level in jumps? This is only possible if the energy level of their environment increases. In the standard quantum model (QED) there is in fact no place for this option, but in the alternative Stochastic Electro Dynamics (SED) it is no problem. In the latter system the so-called zero point energy is a really existing phenomenon. Can this zero point energy be responsible for the quantum jumps?

    stairstep quantization

    Vacuum energy and energy in atoms

    Let's assume that the universe is completely filled with this energy, whose level has increased from the beginning until now, starting with almost zero to a certain maximum, and this increase is going smoothly, albeit not linear.

    The atoms in the universe cannot adapt their energy levels smoothly, but they must wait until a certain threshold level has been reached. Then they adapt their energy levels by a quantum jump. At every jump the emitted light of all atoms in the whole universe will shift a little bit to the blue end of the spectrum. Today that light is very blue, compared with the beginning. But this blue light is our 'standard white'. The earlier emitted light is redshifted in our eyes.

    The zero point field and its effects

      • Which type of universe?
        Before we advance, we have to establish the type of universe we live in. Earlier is already said that quantized redshift does make an expanding universe highly improbable. A contracting universe would show visible blueshift, which is not being observed. Hence, a static cosmos.
        • Narliker und Arp (1993) say that a static, matter-filled cosmos is stable against collapse, even without cosmological constant, but with the condition that the electron mass increases. We will see that this condition is fulfilled.
        • Troitskii (1987) concludes that in a static stable cosmos a change in redshift value also means that other 'constants' change synchronously.
        • Van Flandern (1984) postulates that in a cosmos with constant linear dimensions, dynamically as well as atomically, increasing redshift with distance also means increasing c (light speed).


        What about the Cosmos?

        Expanding cosmos almost impossible

        A static universe?

        Narliker & Arp 1993:
        Static matter-filled universe stable against collapse without Λ, if electron mass increases

        Troitskii 1987
        In a static, stable cosmos varying redshift means also varying other ‘constants’

        Van Flandern 1984
        In a universe with constant linear (dynamic/atomic) dimensions, increasing redshift with distance means also an increasing c.

        We come to a changing c in awhile

        Is the cosmos static? If so, then certain 'constants' should change in rhythm with the redshift. And that is actually the case. We can thus assume that the cosmos is static.

      • Planck’s first theory and quantum mechanics
      • Max Planck published his theory about thermodynamics in 1901, in which he concludes that energy is not produced in a smooth way but in packets named quanta. This theory was very succesful, and has become the factual basis of the 'standard' physics, the quantum electro dynamics (QED).
        Although he did further research in this area, the consequences of that have not been estimated well. In the course of time there appeared four publications, none of which took account of the zero point energy, as found by Planck in 1911. And those documents swung the balance in the direction of the current quantum electro dynamics:
        • Louis de Broglie (1924): Particles can also behave like waves.
        • Born, Heisenberg and Jordan (1925) developed quantum mechanics.
        • Schroedinger (1926) enlarged on De Broglie's ideas and defined the Schroedinger equation.
        • At last Heisenberg (1927) published his 'uncertainty principle'.

    Those four important documents ignored Planck's results from 1911 and thus left the universal energy field out of consideration, although great physicians like Einstein and Nernst took the zero point field serious. This does not mean that the ZPE does not play any role in QED, but it exists there only as a theoretical necessity without a physical reality, via Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

      • Planck’s second theory and the zero point field
        Planck himself was not happy with the quanta he found in 1901. He hoped it to be a temporary entity. But further research into thermodynamics revealed that quanta would be there to stay. In 1911 Planck discovered that in a vacuum, cooled to about absolute zero (-273.15°C), there still remained energy, and not just a bit, but an enormous amount. This energy is temperature independent. Later estimates showed that the energy density is maximum 10114 erg/cm3, really inconceivable. This energie exists as virtual particle pairs. They called this energy 'zero point energy' (ZPE).
        • Einstein (1913) became convinced, but was in doubt later on.
        • Walther Hermann Nernst (1916), a German physician, concluded that this energy has a cosmological origin, and that the whole cosmos is filled with it..
        • In the USA the American chemist Robert Sanderson Mulliken (1925) found deviations in spectral lines of boron monoxyde, which could only be interpreted as effects of the ZPE.
        • Philips engineer Hendrik Casimir defined in 1948 the effect called Casimir effect after him: two flat metal plates, when brought very near together in a vacuum, experience a force, which pushes them together. The explanation is that only virtual particles with decreasing wave lengths can remain between the plates, while in the outside world there are particles with all wave lenghts. And those particles push the plates together. Because those forces are so small, it was not before 1996 that this effect could be demonstrated in the real world.

    While in QED the ZPE is only a theoretical construct, the results of Planck's second research in 1911 lead to an alternative physical theory, named stochastic electro dynamics (SED), in which the ZPE is a real phenomenon. In SED:

      • ZPE is related to the beginning of the cosmos;
      • ZPE is the energy which keeps up matter;
      • several other 'constants' are dependent on the ZPE.


      Static Universe/Zero Point Energy

      Planck 1901:  research thermodynamics à QED system (‘standard’ physics]

      Planck 1911: not satisfied à further research
      -- At absolute zero point (0 degrees K) in vacuum still enormous energy – not temperature dependent
      -- Zero Point Energy (ZPE, name is obvious)
      -- Einstein 1913: convinced
      -- Nernst 1916:  cosmos filled with this energy
      -- Mulliken 1925: proof (spectral lines boron monoxide)
      -- Casimir effect 1948: in 1996 experimentally demonstrated

      Giving rise to SED (alternative quantum model), where:
      -- ZPE is real and connected to the inception of the cosmos
      -- ZPE is the energy that keeps matters going
      -- ZPE value defines the value of other ‘constants’


      • New developments
        In the last decades there have been several unexpected developments, that could be an impulse to solving still existing problems in QED. Some examples:
      • De Broglie noticed (1962) that many researchers consider seriously Planck's second theory from 1911, which means classical theory with an inherent cosmological ZPE. The gravitation problem is at present also still not solved in QED, and variable 'constants' do not find a place there.
      • Nelson (1967) writes: " We shall attempt to show in this paper that the radical departure from classical physics produced by the introduction of quantum mechanics 40 years ago was unnecessary. An entirely classical derivation and interpretation of the Schroedinger equation will be given, following a line of thought which is a natural development of reasoning used in statistical mechanics and in the theory of Brownian motion".
      • Boyer (1975) used classical physics plus ZPE to demonstrate that the fluctuations which ZPE causes on the positions of particles (Zitterbewegung), accurately match those in the standard quantum theory and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
    • The zero point field and the physical ‘constants’
      We already said that the redshift was very high in the beginning, and the ZPE very low. There are relations between ZPE and other entities, which are mathematically defined.
      If ZPE value decreases in the direction of the past, then
      • the redshift value increases (in quanta),
      • the speed of light increases,
      • the radioactive decay rate increases, and,
      • the radioactive radiation energy decreases.




    The speed of light

    We already discussed redshift. Now the speed of light. During 19th and 20th century is was supposed that the speed of light is not constant, but variable, and more precise: decreasing. That means that the speed of light was higher in the past.
    There had been research, but it did not attract much attention. Einstein had adopted a constant light speed for his relativity theories. This decreased strongly the motivation to start delving into this problem. But, with one notable exception!

    Barry Setterfield's research

      Barry Setterfield published the results of his first research into the speed of light in 1983.
      An invitation from Lambert Dolphin, senior research physicist at Stanford Research Institute, to produce a discussion paper about the subject, lead to a second publication (1987). The results were:

      -- With all methods and instruments used the speed of light had decreased in the past 300 years. A special clear case were the results of the measurements in the Pulkova Observatory in Russia. Those were executed from 1750 to 1935 with the same method (aberration) and with the same instrument. The measurements showed a clear, non-linear decrease, in total larger than 100 km/sec.

      -- A fitting function was looked for, with the use of the method of the least squares. The result was an exponentially dropping curve, asymptotically approaching the y-axis at the time of 8,000-18,000 years in the past. In the mean time those results have been adapted to new findings.

      -- Documentary research revealed that some other 'constants' changed in rhythm with the speed of light, e.g. Planck's constant 'h' and the electron rest mass.

      -- The curve found by Setterfield and the corrected redshift curve are practically identical.

    Dolphin writes in his Preface to this publication: I have learned to sort out new ideas such as these when they appear in print and to pay close attention to a few of them, for it is out of papers like this one that change and progress in science often come.”

    Gerald Aardsma, a member of staff of the ICR (Institute for Creation Research, USA) started a quick action with negative publicity, which among others lead to the consequences that Setterfield  became viewed as 'infected' and that Dolphin with his group was 'released' by Stanford. The same Aardsma – not a professional statician – published a judgment of Setterfield's work, unjustly branded as 'analysis'. This piece of document, still available on the website of ICR, has become a reason for many creationists to denounce Setterfield completely. Since then he is viewed by many as put off. His work has been analyzed thoroughly some years later by Alan Montgomery, a Canadian statistician, who criticized Setterfield on minor points, but accepted his results unambiguously. So far, I do not know of any rejection of Setterfields work which rests on serious analysis.

    Other research results
    Is Setterfield alone in his views? Certainly not! Several investigators have spoken about this theme! Because there is a painful problem in Big Bang, that must be solved, namely that galaxies, even as far as 13 billion light years away, do not show any trace of cosmological evolution, but are fully 'evolved' and adult. Which means that the supposed cosmological evolution should have taken place in 0.7 billion years, being only 5% of the age of the universe. Some examples:

      Victor S. Troitskii of Radiophysical Research Institute in Gorki (Russia) concluded in 1987 as a result of his investigations in the redshift anomalies:

      • The cosmos is static.
      • The speed of light was very high in the beginning, practically indefinitely high, and it has decreased during the life time of the universe.
      • Other 'constants' change proportional/reversely proportional to the speed of light.

      J.W. Moffat in 1993: There must have been a high speed of light in the beginning of the cosmos.

      Andy Albrecht and João Magueijo (1999): Many cosmological puzzles are solved easily if only the speed of light in the beginning was very high.

      John D. Barrow (1999): In a BBC TV-interview he said: "Call it heresy, but all the big cosmological problems will simply melt away, if you break one rule, the rule that says the speed of light never varies".

    Moffat as well as Albrecht, Magueijo and Barrow assume that this high initial light speed has decreased very quickly to the current value; but they have not taken seriously the relation to the other 'constants' as Troitskii did.

    Photons and the zero point field
    This diagram shows why the speed of light was so high in the beginning. Because the ZPF just started to build-up and the amount of virtual particle pairs was very low, the photons had to interact with only a few virtual particles, and so could travel with their very high intrinsic speed. A quick build-up of the ZPF slowed down the photons increasingly, which resulted in a decrease of the speed of light.

    c change

    [note: this picture was taken from a Word file and did not come out quite clearly. The little 'o's represent virtual particles. When there are not many of them, the effective speed of light is high, as shown in the upper, black line. When there are more of them, the effective speed of light is much lower, as demonstrated in the lower series of arrows.]

    Light waves in a decreasing ZPF -- This diagram portraits how an observer on earth experiences the effects of the bands with rightshifted light that moves away from him. Also is indicated that the wave length does not change once the photons have been emitted. Energy conservation is thus maintained.


    Radioactivity and other 'constants'

    Several other nature 'constants' vary in rhythm with the strength of the ZPF.

    Radioactive decay rate
    The radioactive decay rate also depends on the strength of the ZPF, and thus follows the light speed curve, meaning:

    • The radioactive decay rate was very high in the beginning
    • The largest part of the decay has taken place during the creation days and shortly thereafter.
    • But the radiation energy was very low in the beginning and increases inversely proportional to the decay rate, which means that the harmful consequences of this radiation were not different from today's. It also means that heat development was limited.
    • Setterfield assumes that the heavy, radioactive elements were mainly to be found at the inner structures of planets, because of the way they were formed. Through violent movement of mantle material during the flood they have come much closer to the surface.
    • The results of radio dating methods should be corrected in accordance to the decrease curve: 13.7 billion years then shrink easily to about 8,000 years.


    The RATE project
    A few words about the results of the RATE project (radio dating research program of ICR):

    • A high radioactive decay rate in the past is plausible, even if you have serious detailed criticism on the research process.
    • Radiation energy and heat development are big problems.
      • Both have been shifted to the first creation days, because there was no life that could be damaged by it: secondly the flood year was marked as a period with high radioactive decay without harmful consequences because of the thick water layer. What about the period between creation and flood? This is very unlikely.
      • Both problems have been easily solved in Setterfield's model, but Setterfield is unfortunately still out of sight in creationist circle.

    Behavior of other ‘constants’ with respect to the speed of light

    Several historical measurements show that the values of some 'nature constants' change in rhythm with the speed of light.
    Many constants, f.i. the Rydberg Constant, appear to stay constant with changing c. [note: his Power Point slide here was taken primarily from our web page here.]

    But Planck's constant (h) and the electron rest mass increase when light speed decreases. These results are in accord with Setterfield's ideas.

    Recently no changes in the speed of light have been established, which does not mean that c does not change. The cause is that c is being measured by means of cesium atomic clocks, but those clocks change their rate in accordance with the speed of light. Even a doubling of the speed of light would not be detected by those clocks.

    Consequences of this concept

    If we recapitulate Setterfield's work, then we see:

      A static cosmos, maybe somewhat oscillating, in which the data of

      Zero point energy (ZPE)
      Quantized redshift,
      Radioactive decay rates, and
      Speed of light,

      all point to one and only one consequence:

    How has it all begun?

    Here we leave the realm of science and make a boundary crossing. The origin, the beginning of the heavens and the earth is closed for our eyes and our mind. Has God spread out the heavens, as the Bible tells us? Let us look and think with reverence and restraint.

    Could it have happened this way?

      -- The cosmos came into being on Gods word of power. And then what?
      -- The structure of the cosmos has being loaded with a tremendous energy
      -- An enormous inflation takes place, absolutely incompatible with Big Bang
      -- In this cosmic structure large amounts of 'Planck Particle Pairs' (PPP) come into being
      -- The inflation causes separation and turbulence of the PPPs
      -- Separation induces secondary electrical fields, turbulence induces secondary magnetic fields, both together build up the zero point field (ZPF)
      -- The amount of (virtual) particles is small in the beginning, but increases very fast

    How can we imagine the formation of galaxies, stars and planets?

      -- The new plasma theory allows fast formation of galaxies; this theory can be tested in the laboratory.
      -- Galaxy cores (type II stars) light up very fast (at the first creation day?)
      -- Stars in the galaxy arms (generally type I) light up after 3-3.5 days. Our sun is thus being created and will give light on the fourth day.
      -- Planets in a solar system are being formed from the outside to the center, while the iron cores increase proportionally, in order that the most inner planets have the relatively largest iron cores; the central (mostly largest) mass forms to a star, and needs therefore some time to light up.

    Of course this is mostly speculative and it demands much further research. The work of the Creator in His work of creation will always stay concealed and impassable for our scientific investigations.

    But I believe that with plasma theory far-reaching innovations have become possible in cosmology. We have the opportunity to reject old and inadequate models and make a giant jump forward.


    Big Bang with its billions of years and many serious problems should not be the favored model for Christians, working in science:

    -- Many generally accepted scientific data point to other and more fruitful alternatives.
    -- The new plasma theory is much promising and opens a lot of new opportunities.
    -- Barry Setterfield's work has made much information easily accessible for both professional and layman. Moreover he has taken the trouble to build up a consistent cosmological model using these data, which has withstood all serious criticism so far. In addition to that, he is steadily adapting and expanding his model, as soon as new data comes available.

    I strongly recommend you to seriously study this work, and ignore the emotional, unfactual and unjustified rejection by many creationists. It is my conviction that here we have to do with revolutionary developments, which can lead to a totally new understanding of the cosmos.
    And I hope that finally justice will be done to this brother in Christ.


    References for these proceedings

    2.1. Problems for Christians with modern cosmology
    Van Till HJ (1986) The Fourth Day – What the Bible and the Heavens Are Telling Us about Creation (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, Grand Rapids USA)
    Williams A & Hartnett J (2005) Dismantling the Big Bang. (Master Books, USA)

    2.3. Criticism and critics
    Longair MS (1995) The Physics of Background Radiation. (In Binggeli B & Buser R  [editors] The Deep Universe. Springer, Berlin).
    Misner CW Thorne KS & Wheeler JA (1973). Gravitation 273. (Freeman & Company, USA).
    Misner CW Thorne KS & Wheeler JA (1973). Gravitation 767. (Freeman & Company, USA).
    Friedmann A (1922) Zeitschrift fur Physik 10, 377.
    Lemaitre G (1927) Annales Société Scientifique Bruxelles A 47, 49.

    3.1. William Tifft
    Tifft WG (1976-1977) Discrete States of Redshift and Galaxy Dynamics (3 Artikel). Astrophysical Journal 206, 38-56 / 211, 31-46 / 211, 377-391
    Arp H (1987) Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies. (Interstellar Media, Berkeley, Ca USA).
    Fisher JR & Tully RB (1981) Astrophysical Journal Supplement 47, 139.
    Tifft WG & Cocke WJ (1984) Gobal Redshift Quantization. Astrophysical Journal 287, 492-502.
    Arp H & Sulentic J (1985) Astrophysical Journal 291, 88.

    3.2. Guthrie and Napier
    Schewe PF & Stein B (1992a). Physics News Update 61. (American Institute of Physics).
    Schewe PF & Stein B (1992b). Physics News Update 104. (American Institute of Physics).
    Guthrie BNG & Napier WM (1996). Astronomy and Astrophysics 239, 33.

    3.3. Tifft’s conclusions 1991
    Tifft WG (1991) Properties of the Redshift. Astrophysical Journal 382, 396.

    3.4. Behavior of quantized redshift
    Bell MB & Comeau SP (2003) Further Evidence for Quantized Intrinsic Redshifts in Galaxies: Is the Great Attractor a Myth?. Astrophysical Journal Mai 2003 (Auf Internet

    4.1. Which type of universe?
    Narliker J & Arp H (1993). Astrophysical Journal 405, 51.
    Troitskii VS (1987). Astrophysics and Space Science 139, 389.
    Van Flandern TC (1984) Precision Measurements and Fundamental Constants II (National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 617, B. N. Taylor & W. D. Phillips eds).

    4.2. Planck’s first theory and quantum mechanics
    De Broglie L (1924) Recherches sur la théorie des quanta (Masson, Paris, 1963).
    Born M, Heisenberg W & Jordan P (1925) Zur Quantenmechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik 34, 858-888.
    Schroedinger E (1926) Un Undulatory Theory of the Mechanics of Atoms and Molecules. Physical Review 28(6), 1049-1070
    Heisenberg W (1927) Uber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik 43, 172-298

    4.3. Planck’s second theory and the zero point field
    Einstein A &Stern O, (1913) Annalen der Physik 40, 551
    Nernst WH (1916) Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft 4, 83

    Mulliken RS (1925) The Isotope Effect in Band Spectra, II: The Spectrum of Boron Monoxide. Physical Review 25(3), 259-294.

    4.4. New developments

    De Broglie L (1962) New Perspectives in Physics. (Basic Books Publishing Co, NY, USA).

    Nelson E (1967) Dynamical Theories of Brownian Motion. (Princeton University Press).

    Boyer TH (1975) Random electrodynamics: The theory of classical electrodynamics with classical electromagnetic zero-point radiation. Physical Review D 11(4), 790-808

    5.1. Barry Setterfield’s research on light speed
    Setterfield BJ & Norman T (1987) The Atomic Constants, Light and Time.
    (On Internet:
    Aardsma GA (1988) Has the Speed of Light Decayed? On Internet:
    Montgomery A & Dolphin L (1993) Is the Velocity of Light Constant in Time? Galilean Electrodynamics
    4, 5. On Internet: (article:)
    (data) .

    5.2. Other research results
    Troitskii VS (1987). Astrophysics and Space Science 139, 389.
    Moffat J (1993) Superluminary universe: a possible solution to the initial value problem in cosmology. International Journal of Modern Physics D 2:3, 351-366.

    Albrecht A & Magueijo J (1999) A time varying speed of light as a solution to cosmological puzzles. Physical Review D 59:4, 3516.

    Barrow JD (1999) Cosmologies with varying light speed. Physical Review D 59:4, 3515.

    6.2. The RATE project
    Vardiman L et al. (2005) Radioisotopes and the age of the earth I/II. (ICR, El Cajon, USA).


    Rhoon, November 2008                           Rinus Kiel


    return to GSR home page