Replies

VR's solution is: To lower the energy of a photon, you have to lower its frequency. The inverse way of looking at that is to say you have to increase its wavelength. This seems mistaken, because frequency is in s^-1 and wavelength is in m, so they are not inverse with c variable. Frequency varies with c and lowers the energy appropriately, but wavelength is not changed; that is, light moving slower with the same wavelength will have fewer pulses per second. Thus photon energy is appropriately lower in the past, inverse to c rising.

That's a wrinkle that I missed concerning what happens in transit to a photon when a quantum jump occurs. The energy is lowered but the wavelength is constant. Actually, though, that's just another way of saying something I did catch: lowering c is one way to lower the energy of a photon if you're playing with E = hc/l. Playing with l is another.

As you go on to note, there is still a problem if the sun is cooking off 11 million times as fast 6,000 years ago. There are 11 million times more photons than now. Just as you are sneaking up on my long-awaited answer, however, you seem to descend into "Mumble! Mumble! Mumble!" "Hand wave! Hand wave!"

Setterfield's explanation of this runs through the paper. In summary, if we take the observed redshift z=~1.5, multiply by the quantum delta-c of 63.74 c-now (equation 119), and multiply by the Rydberg quantum number 1152pi^4 (equation 86), you get the range of 11 million c-now.

Hello!? You're breaking up!

What observed redshift? I want to know how the universe and Earth could have been inhabitable 6,000 years ago. We're being barraged with photons. Barraged! Or are we? If we aren't, why does Setterfield claim that cDK accounts for the apparent radiometric ages of the Sun and Earth? That's my main question. Did you understand it? Do you think you answered it? Why don't I have an answer?

At this point, I can freely admit these explanations are new to me and healthy doubt is still in play.

Don't know about healthy, but doubts no doubt abound.

2) Observed time: Here VR briefly seems to raise more of a personal than a scientific concern: Yet here's Adam living and aging like a live-fast-die-young bacterium. I don't follow the speculative chain. We agree that nucleons and electrons are sped up by factor of 10^7, but I can't make it follow that Everything electrical or chemical is speeded up with c or that aging will "fly". I don't know whether weaker chemical bonds are a valid answer, they may be a mistake of Fryman; but it seems like VR should expand on why these effects are so certain. Electrons are "flying" at incredible speed around nuclei now without doing any damage.

I certainly never claimed to be certain of my modeling of anything Setterfieldian. Rather the opposite, I don't see how anyone can model that mess. That seems to comfort you, that so far no one can absolutely definitively prove you wrong, since the whole thing is such an unGodly (Sorry!) muddle.

It doesn't work like that in science. To be useful you need to be clear. To be right, you need to be clearly right, or at least the most clearly right so far.

However, I believe the correct additional cancellation factors are the decreased energy of each particle (previously discounted by VR)...

I have to insist on what I already explained. Whether the body is Adam's or Snapshut the pre-dynastic Egyptian's, that body is just as much lighter as any flying particle, every atom in proportion. The flying particles have less mass, but the organic molecules they bang into in somebody's body have less mass so the collision has just as much potential for damage on a per particle basis. And there might be 11 million or 11 million squared--I forget--more particles flying. That would be bad.