Replies

Yeah, that's all fine and dandy. You tell me where Dolphin and Montgomery are incorrect in their review of Setterfield's statistics in Galilean Electrodymamics. Its so interesting that you can dismiss it, and yet there has been no credible credentialed refutation of their evaluation to date.

Moreover, I suggest that you review Montgomery's own investigation of the existing data on the subject.

Now it is quite clear to those with rudimentary physics knowledge, that the product of wavelength and frequency is that of C. If C is decreasing, then either or both of the multiplicands would need to be changing also. However, if one uses data obtained from Cephid variables, no change in wavelength can be observed. From this one can infer that the frequency must alone must be changing. That assertion is made by myself, because the amplitude of the waveform is immaterial (with regard to the issue of the speed of light i.e. c) to the established classical physics of electromagnetic radiation as we know it today.

Present evidence where this is not happening (the frequency is changing), and at the same time explain the quantized red-shift phenomenon.

By the way, C.L. Strong must be an actor or singer, quoted on CNN to make such a statement in Scientific American, don't you think? /tongue-in-cheek

Here are the actual data, a "master set" and a selected "best measurements" set. My question is "Who came up with those error bars for each method?" (Some of the earliest ones look suspiciously small to me.) Supposedly, those tables started all this.

Now it is quite clear to those with rudimentary physics knowledge, that the product of wavelength and frequency is that of C. If C is decreasing, then either or both of the multiplicands would need to be changing also. However, if one uses data obtained from Cephid variables, no change in wavelength can be observed. From this one can infer that the frequency must alone must be changing. That assertion is made by myself, because the amplitude of the waveform is immaterial (with regard to the issue of the speed of light i.e. c) to the established classical physics of electromagnetic radiation as we know it today.

You guess wrong. Setterfield has far more than frequency changing with the changes in c. The number of photons being emitted from the sun declines, but the photons shorten in wavelength, becoming more energetic. The inverse relationship between frequency and wavelength is retained, but Planck's "constant" changes. The idea is to keep the amount of energy being emitted from the sun and the earth a constant. It's a mess. I looked hard at it once, as described here.

Now it is quite clear to those with rudimentary physics knowledge, that the product of wavelength and frequency is that of C. If C is decreasing, then either or both of the multiplicands would need to be changing also. However, if one uses data obtained from Cephid variables, no change in wavelength can be observed. From this one can infer that the frequency must alone must be changing.

Another point here. Take a light wave today. Its speed c is a product of its wavelength and frequency, since you can think of it as a little sine wave flying by you with peaks and valleys. Each peak/valley pair going by is a "cycle." The "cycles-per-second" (frequency) times the physical length of a cycle must yield the overall speed of the stream of ups and downs.

Now imagine it's a Barry Setterfield universe and it's 6000 years ago. The stream is flying by 11 million times faster than the modern value. Your proposal is that the wavelength of the light is unchanged. That forces the frequency up (way up), making all the solar photons ultra-blue. (Probably gamma ray but I'm too lazy to check.)

In fact, Setterfield went the other way, deciding that solar photons are redder, not bluer. (This happens because all the photon generating reactions are operating with less mass. The universe is light as a feather but you can't tell because gravity is very much stronger than now.)

Anyway, your version still has the same problem as Setterfield's. If Adam is in the Garden of Eden on Day 6, he can't see the solar photons. His eyes are tuned to the wrong part of the band. He's blind. And he's cooking.