Everybody ready? This re-edit makes changes in bold, including correcting my initial more speculative hypothesis which VadeRetro showed was still incomplete and which I admitted was experimental and falsifiable. I hit paydirt by Googling "redshift definition" and, wouldn't you know, setterfield.org came up in the top five. He also is #1 for "atomic orbit energy". The details we seek are in Atomic Quantum States, Light, and the Redshift (corrected), with VR's concerns particularly addressed extensively in 6.2-6.3. The answers really are in there, and I am continuing to trust VR really wants them, as stated in 2000. It is clear that Setterfield and VR and I all made mistakes; so did Einstein in early formulations of his controversial theory, which allowed Hilbert to beat him to some crucial equations. But I stated succinctly every value which is varying with c, and logically followed those values through the argument (with corrections below). It was hard for me to model too, but I didn't let that stop me. It is just as falsifiable as anything else.
In this paper's model, lightspeed c (usually) decreases as some function of time, its frequency f decreases with c, other particle velocities v decrease with c, Planck's "constant" h increases inverse to c, the zero-point energy density U increases inverse to c, atomic rest mass m increases inverse to c^2, gravitational "constant" G decreases with c^2, permittivity epsilon and permeability mu increase inverse to c, opacity kappa decreases with c^2, and other minor values are similarly proportional.. I think that's everybody. These are continuous functions, but also lead to quantum changes in atomic structure. Certainly that's a lot to digest at once (and give them credit: even more so to discover all at once), but these are all fair effects of c variability. Setterfield reports that Mermin and Singh deduced relativity via Lorentz transformation completely independent of variability in c, so Einstein remains intact. Now, heeding VadeRetro's call to please use extreme caution:
1) Sunlight: First VR correctly observes that over time, the energy of a photon is conserved (except at quantum leaps, which can be ignored here): The per-photon energy changes are a wash. Then VR correctly observes that in the past, the total energy from all photons should have been much lower: The energy of each photon has to go a lot lower or Adam is in trouble. Here I must admit being mistaken about the cancellation coming from lower individual photon energy in the past, because I confused the present low value of old photon energy with its past high value, which does appear identical to the present high value of new photon energy. An old photon would have much less energy now, but be emitted much more often, than a new photon, but in both cases the energy is conserved. That means the photons observed now from the remote edge of the universe have much less energy than the photons from our sun now. However, the cancellation must come from the totality of photons if it exists, rather than from individual photons.
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 as measured now is appropriately lower in the past, inverse to c rising. But if photon energy in the past was the same at emission as it is now, VR's objection is not yet answered.
Setterfield's solution to this objection in 6.2 is to calculate the overall luminosity of the star to see if it is truly greater with c or if factors cancel. Using Chandrasekhar's and Schwarzschild's different luminosity formulae (equations 72 and 74), he finds that assuming a constant nuclear reaction rate, luminosity varies both with c and inverse to kappa (opacity), which varies with c^2. But the nuclear reaction rate itself also varies with c. Thus (c/c^2)c cancels in both cases and luminosity is conserved.
However, a narrative explanation of why opacity should vary with c^2 would be desired to accompany the mathematical demonstration. It turns out the atomic rest mass being much lower, varying inverse to c^2, implies equally low density, which is a factor in greater opacity. That is, the decrease in density lowers the luminous energy by two factors, which are cancelled by the increase in lightspeed and the increase in total photon output. This cancellation, with the resultant only mildly redshifted sunlight, proves that conserved energy flux is the result of both independent accepted luminosity formulae. If section 6.2 in the link does not answer this question, further explanation can be found.
Wavelength, however, varies for another reason and causes the mild redshift: c rising causes quantum shifts in atomic orbital states which output longer waves. Observers had interpreted these as Hubble redshifts. VR is quite correct that: We appear to need a factor of something like 11 million; we have a factor of two.
Setterfield's explanation of this runs through the paper. To put it in one sentence, if you calculate backwards from Setterfield's resultant 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. (C-now means 3x10^8 m/s.) At this point, I can freely admit these explanations are new to me and healthy doubt is still in play. Anyone can play math and write 100 equations until they get the right set of numbers, and I empathize with those who accuse Setterfield of such. But this is not like someone who sees feng shui everywhere. Absent better explanation, I see no reason to doubt that he invokes these multipliers in good faith. The Rydberg number he derives from considerations of zero-point energy crossing at the quantum jumps; and the delta-c, of which c is an integral multiple at quantum jumps, is calculated from observation.of where the redshifts are quantized.
Alternate explanations are welcome, but the benefit of doubt would accord Setterfield the victory of retaining both an equal amount of light energy (luminosity) with 10^7 times the protons, and a redshift in wavelength of only the observed values of 0-14. (Incidentally, since 1.5 redshift equates to 10^7 increase in c, the 14 redshift corresponds to a maximal c increase of only 10^8 at the big bang, which Setterfield places plausibly at 8000 years ago and makes bigger than even evolutionists think.) The sun's output is quite sufficient to retain plenty of visible light, redshifted, even if today's visible light all became infrared. The output gain is consistent with the dampening loss due to opacity, and Setterfield's "proportionately more photons" harmonizes with Fryman's "amount of light is not increased".
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.
3) Alpha particles: In relation to reactions, after repeating a reference to the wavelength issue addressed above, VR admits, a bit impressed: Because of the speeds involved, however--and the careful design of this theory--the reactions happen faster so the energy flux is the same. (Ta-dah!) If the only objection is the neatness, we can probably pass that item. Atomic rest mass being tremendously less does not affect most reactions, including weight, because all the masses retain the same relative values. Atoms with mass reduced (with c^2) are propelled more often (with c) and at greater speed (with c), resulting in identical energy flux: good math does have a way of looking carefully designed.
After weighing factors, VR agrees the decay products should also fly faster when the nucleus breaks down, which is to say that particle velocity v varies with c. This appears a concern because although particles are sped up, planets are not. As to where to draw the line, this is the presently unanswered physics question of reconciling gravity and nuclear force. It appears the line is legitimate, because planets still accelerate according to Gm, regarded as a true constant, even if their particles are internally moving much faster than now.
Since v increases with c, VR sees loads of more particles multiplied by loads of more velocity: radiation energy increasing with c^2. He then cancels the lost mass of the particles against the lost mass of the permeated medium and retains energy increase with c^2. However, Setterfield explains the correct additional cancellation factors are the retarded absorption rates due to the increased particle velocity, and the increased velocity of the permeated materials (which produces the same decay result independent of c); that is, energy flux remains constant as it does with sunlight but in a different way.
4) Zero-point energy: ZPE effects, which I can freely admit not really understanding, are questioned in an aside. VR seems concerned that the "missing mass" violates conservation, but this is easily accounted by VR's own analysis and quote that more energy is being fed into the universe from the vacuum. Movement of energy from the vacuum to increased mass conserves it. After debunking ZPE junk science, VR concludes with the comparison that VSL also requires belief in "crazy hoops", "ugly and overly complex". Well, maybe.
For me, substantial changes, as Roemer's finite lightspeed or Einstein's relative time required physicists to make over decades, are certainly justified by vastly improved predictive models. For me, a chain of assumptions, when consistent with each other, are worth pursuing if the resultant is ultimately simpler. VSL stated simply is letting all atomic-time-related constants vary proportionally. When considered, it answers many nagging physics questions: first, the statistically significant variation in observed measurements of these constants; then, resolution between old clocks (particularly radiometric dating) and young clocks; resolution between historical perception of youth and modern skepticism; quantized redshifts; the rapid homogenization during the forming of CMB; speed of gravity questions; conflict between Tolman surface brightness and Zwicky surface brightness (Setterfield seems to like that one); and resolution of the hypothetical "dark matter" or "dark energy" necessary to maintain gravitation in the uniformitarian model. To perform one more cancellation, the simplicity benefits outweigh the complex difficulties. RadioAstronomer was linking mirror matter and stranger things to explain the Pioneer anomalies, but VSL is simpler and clearer than all of them: the acceleration decreased because lightspeed, the measurement tool, did also. Wouldn't you prefer to answer these haunting questions, rather than go on fighting because it might imply a scary reponsibility to a personal God?
Thanks for your patience, this was written for me as much as for anyone. VadeRetro, I have high hopes, please let me know what you think. The real question for each of us is: what evidence would and would not change our cherished beliefs? I have a single absolute commitment to God as he reveals himself and to no one else. I seek to subject any belief whatsoever to God's final judgment rather than retain it as immutable in itself. No theory is ultimate except the axioms. This is the scientific method, and God is the best Axiom.
As I was starting to guess already, he's canceling luminosity with opacity. I don't really believe that works. Opacity can't permanently eat the energy. Maybe he's using opacity to turn--I don't know, 1000? 100?, 11,000,000?--infrared photons into one optical photon, but I doubt even that works. If nuclear reactions emit redder photons, why don't hot gasses?
I get into this and all I can do is shake my head over the hoops religious zealots will try to jump us all through so they don't have to admit difficulties.
I was indeed impressed, but it was not in as good a way as you seem to think.
Thanks for the additional information!
Still doesn't make him right. His hypothesis would have light speeding up with time instead of slowing down. Why don't you use that noodle.