Andreas, you are probably not aware that I am Mrs. Barry Setterfield. Before we were married, I was his editor. I have worked with a number of scientists from all sides of the creation/evolution coin. Something that impressed me about Barry LONG before we even became friends was that he was approaching the subject he was working with data first. He is the ONLY scientist I know who has done that. Most, on both sides of the question, do what is being done by so many here: theory first and then cram the data in as well as it can be crammed.
So I can personally vouch for the Setterfield material. I personally have examined it. I have spoken at length with the people who have also examined it. We were invited to speak at ICR over a year ago and are still in conversation with a number of them. Barry has been invited to speak to physicists all over the world and a number of them travel hundreds and even thousands of miles to talk to him here at our home.
So until YOU know what you are talking about, it's time to study. And if you are trying to indicate that the folks in the 19th and early 20th century were using atomic bases for measurements you are slightly crackers. You need a little history of math, astronomy, and physics under your belt.
In the meantime, the references on the chart page have not been 'interpreted' at all. The measurements as accepted by the secular professional physics community in the years indicated are simply put on the graphs. That's it. Not special measurements, but the accepted measurements.
And yes, as a matter of fact, a lot of what we think we know in modern physics is indeed wrong. There is a lot that is currently being questioned in the physics journals. There is a lot going on, and it is very interesting and intriguing for those who are keeping up.