Implications for the Age of the Earth


What about the Calculations?

An equation in "plain English"

A Contradiction in the Timeline?


 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.

Setterfield:  Thank 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 a the combined timeline. 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.


NOTE: When the redshift/lightspeed curve is matched to history, it turns out to have an almost exact fit.  We can look at the past ages and see where they fit into the biblical timeline by way of the use of the lightspeed curve. 

The curve showing the lightspeed through time is here.

The results, shown in terms of biblical patriarchal ages, is here.  (BP means "before present")

The second chart is taken from the Old Testament Chronology



 Question:  What does this mean in plain English? "Time after creation, in orbital years is approximately, D = 1499 t2". You state later that the age of the cosmos is approximately 8000 years (6000 BC + 2000 AD). How is this derived from the formula?

Setterfield: This formula only applies on a small part of the curve as it drops towards its minimum. Note that "D" is atomic time. Furthermore, 't' or orbital time, must be added to 2800 bc to give the actual BC date. The reason for this is that 2800 BC is approximately the time of the light-speed minimum.

The more general formula, but still very approximate, is D = [1905 t2] + 63 million". In this formula "D" is atomic time, and once the value for "t" has been found it is added to 3005 BC to give the actual BC date. This is done because the main part of the curve starts about 3005 BC when the atomic clock is already registering 63 million years. Working in the reverse, therefore, if we take a date of 5790 BC we must first subtract 3005. This gives a value for "t" of 2785 orbital years. When 2785 is squared this gives 7.756 million. This is then multiplied by 1905 to obtain 14.775 billion. From this figure is then subtracted 63 million to give a final figure of 14.71 billion. This is the age in years that would have been registered on the atomic clock of an object formed in 5790 BC.

A Contradiction in the Timeline?

Question: "As I was reading information on your site I came across the "Time, Life, and Man" article. However I thought the timeline present didn't match up with other information available. Mainly, Creation Week in that timeline was presented as 14-8 billion atomic years ago, but using radiometric dating today the Earth is thought to be only 4.5 billion atomic years old. This discrepancy seems hard to reconcile."

Setterfield: In reply allow me to state that there seems to be a conceptual error here. The dates we have on the atomic clock for the oldest rocks near the surface of the earth are indeed about 4.5 billion atomic years old. However, these rocks have been intruded from the interior. So the actual atomic age of the earth is greater than 4.5 billion. 

This makes sense from plasma physics. According to plasma physics, Marklund convection in the plasma filaments, out of which the planets were born, ensured that they all started off in a cool and layered state with most radioactive material being concentrated in the lower mantle and core. As radioactive decay went on, this heated the upper mantle material until it became molten and eventually intruded the surface material and metamorphosed it. The 4.5 billion years represents the atomic date at which this metamorphism occurred. In the case of meteorites it is generally conceded that it is the time of the alteration event on the asteroid parent body caused by internal heating (usually attributed to the decay of Aluminum 26) driving the actions of near-surface fluids. In each case, this was some time after the origin of the planet or asteroid parent body. Therefore the date of 4.5 billion years is not the date of solar system formation.

We have evidence of an earlier formation time from our Moon. Apollo 11 moon rocks and soils gave fairly concordant atomic ages which, however, "were unacceptably high".[1] Apollo 14 gave primary ages of of lunar rocks and soils which were "discordantly old" [2]. By the time that the results from Apollo 16 came in the statement was made that "All highland soils yield very discordant ages" [3]. 

They were all discordantly old because of the presumption from gravitational astronomy that the Solar System is 4.5 billion atomic years old. Plasma astronomy allows a slightly different interpretation. In actual fact, the ages given for the most ancient highland regions of the Moon ranged from 2.3 billion up to 8.2 billion atomic years, although some isolated samples extended these limits marginally [4]. A general overview of these dates can be found in Reference [5] where it is stated that the oldest events recorded in moon-rocks ranged from 5.4 billion, through 7 billion and up to 8.2 billion atomic years.

These data were considered to give atomic ages which were "unacceptably high," but only because of the gravitational approach which has the surface molten then solidifying first,whereas the plasma approach allows any metamorphism of surface areas to occur sometime after the actual planetary formation time and after the heating of the interior. 

Thus, from the Moon data, it is possible that the time of formation of the solar system may be as far back as 8.2 to 8.5 billion atomic years, and the metamorphic events that subsequently followed around 4.5 billion years as the planetary interiors heated up do not represent the true atomic age of the Solar System.

For this question, there is one other point to note from the data and discussion based on the Zero Point Energy presented in the Monograph, "Cosmology and the Zero Point Energy." This more recent analysis of the situation was published in 2013. Around pps. 190-200 the constants involved indicate the maximum age atomically for the end of Creation Week is about 8.4 billion years with a minimum down to about 6.42 billion. These atomic ages, derived via a different approach, are in line with the above discussion.

Your second question reads: 

"As a second but related question, the Sun is dated to be around the same age as the Earth; if that is the case I can't imagine only 0.1 billion atomic years or so passed in the day or two between the first mention of the Earth in Genesis and the start of the Sun shining given the ZPE data. If you could shine some light on either or both of these questions that would be greatly appreciated."

In this case the assumption is made that the atomic age of the sun is 4.5 billion years or so.This is commonly inferred from the ages of meteorites and planetary surfaces. But, as pointed out above, this is not the age of solar system formation, but a later event. However, radio-isotopes provide a different story. Using the Rhenium 187 to Osmium 187 decay, the age of the sun, and Population I stars generally, range from 8 to 11 billion years [6]. Meanwhile, the study of Thorium to Neodymium ratios in stars like our sun has concluded that the minimum age of the sun and similar Population I stars was 9.6 billion atomic years, with a maximum of 11.3 billion [7]. So the range in atomic age for the sun can be anywhere from 8 billion to 11.3 billion years.

Under these circumstances, it would appear that your problem has been resolved as there is more than a 0.1 billion atomic year difference between the two ages. Please get back to me if there are further issues.

[1]. A set of 5 articles by different authors in Science 167 (1970). The articles in order of importance have page numbers which begin with p. 557; then 461; 468; 471 and finally 479.
[2]. M Tatsumoto et al., Proceedings of the 3rd Lunar Science Conference in Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta Supp. 2, Vol. 2, 1531 (1972)
[3]. F. Tera & G.J. Wasserburg, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 17 (1972), p.36.
[4]. P.D. Nunes and M. Tatsumoto, Science 182:916 (30th Nov. 1973). 
[5].Wang et al., Science, 167, pp.479-480, 557,(30 January, 1970)
[7]. Nature, 328, pp.127-131, 9 July, 1987

A response email from the questioner posed the following:

"The clarification helped quite a bit, but there still seems to be a problem ...  In Genesis the Earth is mentioned first on day 3 in particular, with the Sun being mentioned on Day 4. However, according to the dates just mentioned, the Sun appears to be older than the Earth. I was fairly certain the plasma physic model followed Genesis (in the sense that the outermost ring of the filament pinches first, successively moving inward until the center "ignites" into a star), but the dates appear to be the opposite. Once again any clarification would be appreciated..."

Setterfield: You are correct in stating that plasma physics indicates the filament pinches inwards, so the sun lights up last of all. Notice something here. In plasma physics the last step in the process is the lighting of the sun. This means that the material of which it is comprised might be marginally older. So the time of lighting up (the 4th Day) will be the absolute minimum age for the sun rather than the date of the material of which it is composed. That is one part of the answer.

In the second part of the answer we again note that the atomic age determined for the Moon is 8.2 billion years from its rocks and soils. In contrast, the maximum age of the Sun and other Population I stars ranges from 8 billion to 11.3 billion atomic years. So the minimum age in this range, namely 8 billion atomic years, may not necessarily reflect the time that that sun actually lit up. Nevertheless, it gives us a marker as to the earliest possible time for this event. But there is more.

From the Zero Point Energy (ZPE) considerations, the atomic ages of objects from Day 3 have a possible range from a maximum of 11.1 billion to a minimum around 8.46 billion atomic years.Similarly, on the ZPE approach, objects from Day 4 have a range in age from a maximum of 10.2 billion down to 7.78 billion atomic years. 

The radiometric date for the Sun (8 billion atomic years) is therefore within its expected range. However, the Moon from Day 3 is only dating as 8.2 billion compared with an expected minimum of 8.46 billion years. It therefore seems we have not dated the oldest Lunar material available, Therefore it is easily possible that the surface material of the earth-moon system, put in place on Day 3, should be dated a little older than 8.2 billion.

As an outcome of these considerations, it can be seen that the data are not inconsistent with the Biblical statement that the sun lit up and started shining on Day 4 while the surface layers of the earth and moon were complete on Day 3.

I hope that helps. If there are further problems, please get back to me.