Free Republic

And so dies our constitutional right to life.

King George Greer has overruled the leadership of all three branches of government.

I'm not sure how she could have hung on this long without someone doing exactly that. 11 days is a very long time to go without water.

Already posted HERE, please pursue the thread at that link.

Jeb has just given Whittemore the green light to give the red light.

Terri has one hope left: the Sovereign People.

What better crime to be arrested for than giving water to the thirsty?

Unless People Power overcomes at the hospice in Tampa today, it looks like God is letting another victim die for the sins of others.

Messianic Jew Richard Wurmbrand ("Where Christ is Still Tortured", et al.) would say, "How does God fare when his children are still being cruelly killed?"

HOT NEW DEVELOPMENT!

The IRS, which won that round against Schulz after all, is now asking the court to amend its ruling, for the very reason that the court's language empowered Schulz and WND to go boasting. The IRS quoted this WorldNetDaily article in their response. This proves that they think: "The fair and effective administration and enforcement of our tax laws may thereby be significantly impaired" (USA Attorney Cihlar in the motion).

Schulz replied by asking the court instead to amend even more strongly in favor of his own point: to declare IRC enforcement section 7604(b) null and void! Watch for WND to post additional articles on this (free self-coverage).

The real conservative who can be the next governor is state rep Jack Hoogendyk (Rep. Hoogendyk Office, and keep eyes on JackForMichigan.com under construction). Hoogendyk's already announced and in the ring, and he's ready to take on DeVos in the primary if the latter makes up his mind. He is a great leader and previously ran the Kalamazoo crisis pregnancy center. This will be a race to watch.

However, we also have restored another factor of 11 million that the Sun has to swell, since opaque things then are indeed almost as opaque as now and they are getting all the photon energy, not just that tiny momentum. I hope it's clear by now that I don't think opacity does good things when it "works."

The full photon energy increase of 10^7 does not resolve into increased volume of 10^7. Opacity doesn't cause volume increase as the only resolution of the equilibrium. (My earlier example was to illustrate that decreased density would manifest in increased opacity, but as h decreases, density decreases with the square, without changing the volume.) Rather, the decreased density causes both the increased opacity and the increased photon output which registers as an energy increase. You have correctly noted that the mechanisms of absorbing this energy include photoelectric effect and pair production (which appear to be more likely) as well as scattering.

It also means all of the energy and not just the momentum of a given photon is available to knock gas particles across space. That means radiation pressure on free-space objects should have worked 11 million squared times better than now in the first days and in proportion with c squared down the decay curve.

I'm sorry, with the variations in your explanations I'm not sure why this follows. The photon energy increases by 11 million times, not its square; and part of the increase can resolve into increased radiation pressure in equilibrium, while much of it resolves into heat.

If energy output increases only with c, not c^2, I think it will in fact cancel with the slowed-frame effect, because the increased output is similar to the radiometric decay which started this topic. Observations of it would be consistent with both assumptions (constant or variable atomic time). Observational evidence for VSL comes from elsewhere, of which I've provided many examples that I haven't seen answers on. Dark matter is a biggie.

That in turn means that the "opacity" you get by adding a crazy number of "opaque" particles almost isn't opacity at all. The "opaque" particle absorbs the photon, re-emits a photon of almost the same wavelength as before and its own momentum is barely changed. Yes, there's a scattering effect but they're all still going to find their way out. This isn't doing its job.

This one I think an error. Opacity is not obtained by adding opaque particles, but by dissipating more photons by scattering and absorption (so opacity can be caused by lower density). You have described scattering correctly, but particles also absorb photons into their own kinetic energy without re-emitting them. Scattering changes photon trajectories including sending them back inward to cancel other photons; absorption converts them entirely into kinetic energy. Opacity is defined as the coefficient by which scattering and absorption reduce the photon output.

I think you're assuming that all photons "find their way out" as photons. No, they can turn into heat energy which is then convected outward and dissipated into local space; convection is an alternative mechanism to radiation. They can contribute to an increased internal equilibrial radiation pressure. And so on. The excess energy need not remain in the form of light.

The narrative by which you conclude the cancellations is correct in the broad outlines, but I believe the final cancellation is not "a strong gravitational field" but the massive particle's increased velocity, which increases its "resistance to acceleration" by the same degree as your cancellation.

I think this also answers your concerns about whether past radiation pressure process could be observed as different: they wouldn't be any different. If you think there would be an observable major change in radiation pressure please explain that a little better, thanks.

The red portion I take as your acknowledgement that, just as understood in current stellar physics, increasing the opacity of the solar medium will cause the Sun to expand in volume. Of course, it can expand a little, but the 10^7 increase in energy is not all directed to volume expansion, it appears primarily directed into radiation pressure and heat convection to the outer stellar atmosphere.

If you DO balance the books on energy, the emerging photons are infra-infra-infrared. What you mean is, if the sun produces the same amount of energy as now, the photons must have much greater wavelength, completely off the visible spectrum. Well, of course, but we've agreed instead that the sun is producing much more energy in the past than now, and the redshift is only minor and for other reasons.

We really do not observe free energy. Of course, between quantum jumps there is energy conservation. Since the reaction is going that much faster, there is that much more stellar energy, by ordinary means, not "free energy".

The Sun was never that big. Of course it wasn't, the opacity did not resolve into volume. What I said was, all things being equal, lower density resolves into opacity; but within VSL, not necessarily into volume. You seemed to acknowledge later the sun does not bloat like the caricature.

All the stars we ever see are at equilibrium under their current conditions. Of course, and as c gradually changes everything stays in equilibrium. The Stellar History link above suggests the excess energy is partly retained as internal radiation pressure, and partly dissipated by convection and other transfer into heat and kinetic energy.

Opacity makes more photons and redder, not fewer photons. I think you mean, increased opacity with VSL permits more and redder photons (because opacity doesn't "make" photons). Of course it does, my point was that opacity means fewer photons are getting out in balance with more being generated.

We are fusing atoms with a tiny fraction of the mass of modern ones but getting out photons with quite a large fraction of the modern energy. Of course, because the atoms fused have increased velocity and thus the same formation energy, so naturally produce photons with similar energy.

The existence of the datapoints is not in dispute. Of course, and the datapoints show that constant c (or h) is statistically rejected. You can pick your own curve.

The books would balance better if we didn't have [unexplained free energy]. If the math is right, the books do balance better with excess energy. The excess energy should be necessary to retain the same biological effects, not to torch them. Here's some fresh meat to explain that.

The short answer appears to be that the star's excess energy increase of 10^7 (maximally, 10^8) is largely absorbed into internal kinetic energy of the star.

I said that opacity varies with (proportional to) c^2; this is from Setterfield 2001 and is repeated in his Brief Stellar History. Opacity is also the mass extinction coefficient, the rate at which photons are absorbed or scattered. Opacity is dependent on mass density, which varies inverse to c^2.

Without considering VSL, all things being equal, a star 100 times less dense than another (having 100 times more volume) is also 100 times more opaque, because the photons have much more volume to overcome without being dissipated by scattering or absorption. The path out may be less sparsely populated, but there is much more non-escape volume to be deflected to, which increases photon extinction. It appears this opacity must mean 100 times fewer photons will reach the observer, which forces me to conclude the remainder are dissipated into kinetic energy within the larger volume. This is ordinary non-VSL astrophysics derived from this site.

With VSL in play, with c increased by 10, we have a star 100 times less dense without volume change (because space is less granular, higher resolution, and mass and density decrease inverse to c^2). But it also is putting out 10 times the photons moving 10 times as fast. These factors overcome the factor of 100 times fewer photons, so the photon output is the same as the original comparison star. Apparently the opacity (increased photon extinction) means 10 times as many photons are being converted into internal kinetic energy. This energy then appears free to manifest as temperature, volume, pressure, and density compensation.

So for tonight, I think the excess energy is staying within the star. Perhaps my reading of the Rydberg and c-delta constants was off and these really do relate to dissipating that kinetic energy. Perhaps it is mostly dissipated as internal pressure and heat. Some of it may increase the luminosity by a small factor instead of 10^7. The sun runs at 3.85x10^26 watts, it seems like a factor of 10^7 would spread out comfortably. Here's hoping no foot-in-mouth, perhaps you can explain if this does not seem viable yet.

For other asides, why does less rest mass generate photons with the same energy? Because the photon generators themselves are moving faster and thus have the same energy as before too.

Yes, hc is a constant, my point there is when I was tempted to abandon that thought, I was reminded that hc being constant was observed not theorized.

My incomprehensible paragraph was intended not to explain the excess energy, but the reason the excess energy does not create major redshift, which point you seem to permit.

You make a couple other statements which don't read my meaning quite rightly, but since what you're saying by them is both essentially accurate and not responsive to my position, there's nothing of consequence.

My statement about the datapoint chart was about the datapoints, not the curve. The datapoints show some kind of lightspeed variability at statistically significant levels, and statistical attempts to rebut them have been flawed, while statistical attempts to repeat them have retained significance. I was similarly going to comment on missing points from Ichneumon's chart, but whichever chart you use, whatever data you reasonably select, it ends up rejecting the constancy hypothesis. The oscillation or cosecant-squared curve are not essential to the theory; but statistical rejection of the constancy hypothesis is, and that is what the charts always show. Ordinary plots of refinements of measurement should funnel toward the value from both sides; for c and h they simply do not. (Also Montgomery points out the low 1930s measurements were mostly using stellar aberration and Kerr cells, which gave methodically low numbers, which make datapoints from those methods fit even better when refined.)

But I'm really less troubled by your evidence against VSL, and more that your own methodological dismissals are losing cogency. I accept your explanation that you're just looking for the "divide by zero" and it keeps arising, but your other statements suggest a greater bias than that. You say that changing delta-c illustrates we're "going to keep coming back forever" refining, but refining hypotheses is the essence of science, not its disproof. You see a "downhill trend in clarity" as indicative, but when one moves from statistics about one datum to a whole worldview change, that is expected. You say "propagandists never lose", but your conclusion that the theory is propaganda you seem to hold as equally inevitable. You say "I don't find my confusion to be an argument for cDK", but confusion is not an argument for a theory but an argument against a ready acceptance of old or new theory. You say "to be recognized as right, you have to be intelligible", but Einstein was recognized as right when supposedly only he and Eddington really understood the theory. You say "Messianically delusional", but as a psychologist you should recognize the cult mentality of modern evolutionists. You say "Setterfield is a crackpot", but you seem to wrap a number of methodological and epistemological (and psychological) assumptions into that conclusion. You say "it isn't playing for 'right' anymore but for 'reasonable doubt'", but that's only my reframing as reasonable doubt that you're referring to, and I'm only doing so to find out your open-mindedness. I'm disappointed that you're unwilling to accept even the ordinary proofs that work for juries (citizens, or peer reviewers) as reasonable doubt, such as statistical significance and explanatory power.

Was Montgomery-Dolphin 1993 statistically significant? If not, why and who says? If so, what does that mean? Does VSL answer the rough dozen physics puzzles I've listed above, or not? If not, why and who says, for each case? If so, what does that mean? Rather than review the list, I'll let you pick and choose. Formulating groundbreaking theories is hard work, but if you let that methodologically prevent you from considering them you get stuck with epicycles and caloric and ether. Recall that Copernicus used epicycles too, but his theory was preferred because it had fewer than Ptolemy's, and by Galileo's time there were none. Setterfield has not had his Galileo yet, nor his Huxley. If you want to discuss methodology, please reply to my suggestion that we agree on what constitutes proof, evidence, doubt, simplicity, etc.

Here's a bonus I just thought up in the shower yesterday. I believe Chandrasekhar's limit would be decreasing with c^2, which means black hole formation would be much less than an evolutionary model would predict, whether from individual stars, galactic cores, or crisis pressures on smaller masses. So I tested this by looking for evidence of unexpected lack of old black holes. Sure enough, Stephen Hawking, the unquestioned authority on black holes, says p. 127 of Brief History 1998: "One would also have expected the density fluctuations in such a [chaotic-boundary] model to have led to the formation of many more primordial black holes than the upper limit that has been set by observations of the gamma ray background"; and p. 115: "Even if the search for primordial black holes proves negative, as it seems it may, it will still give us important information about the very early stages of the universe." Hawking prefers the no-boundary model, which predicts fewer black holes, to the chaotic-boundary model, but his description of it, and his whole drift on black holes, suggests to me he is still uncomfortable with their paucity: "Further predictions of the no boundary condition are still being worked out. A particularly interesting problem is the size of the small departures from uniform density in the early universe", which would cause these old black holes. Don't think I'm painting him as supporting VSL rather than no-boundary interpretation of black hole formation; he's merely saying 1) old black holes are unlikelier than expected and haven't been found, and 2) there are still problems to work out with the no-boundary model in re black hole formation. In sum, another experimentally verified prediction of VSL that I just made up now.

Thanks for your consideration. On both the science and philosophy fronts we are both apparently having some difficulty speaking in each other's language.

The short version is that your response to opacity, when admittedly hasty simplifying statements and light remarks are removed, mostly just restates that excess energy has always been your concern. You have not found in my explanation a sufficient phenomenological narrative to explain why the math works and the excess energy is not a problem. As we both study this, I think we will come up with that explanation together.

But more troubling and as I suspected, you are not answering what you would do if suddenly the evidence appeared to you to conclusively support Setterfield. Instead you compare him to a desperate attorney. For me, before reading Setterfield, I handled old-young-earth questions saying, "I believe young earth, but recognize it is against old earth evidence, so will respect the views of the science leadership establishment as worthy of investigation." After Setterfield (and multiple confirmation by scientists before and after 1987, and my own independent analysis), I can argue, "I believe evidence adduced for old earth actually supports a young earth." However, if Setterfield should fail on a little thing like opacity, I will be happy to concede to the prior position and admit that science seems to falsify the Setterfield version of a young earth, even though I still believe in it for religious and minority-scientific reasons. Are you able to do the same and admit reasonable doubt if the explanations should warrant?

You say we "must at least establish some reasonable doubt that mainstream assumptions of continuity in basic processes of physics are right." That is, you don't reasonably doubt the mainstream yet. As I said, usually statistical significance is accepted as reasonable doubt. Usually greater explanatory power is accepted as reasonable doubt. I forgot to mention Montgomery 1998 added explanatory power by naming three more puzzles of physics answered by VSL: supernova remnants, helium diffusion in zircon, and spiral preservation in galaxies. Perhaps you would like to move to philosophy of science, and establish a standard which you would submit to as proving a given theory. Let's both continue studying and see what enlightenment comes.

Just to enter them into the record:

Here is Setterfield 1987, first peer-reviewed publication of the hypothesis.
Here is Montgomery-Dolphin 1993, improved data-point set and statistical analysis.
Here is Montgomery 1994, similar to previous but with rebuttal of other statistical analyses.
Here is Setterfield 2001, containing the strongest statement of the theory; published in 2002 when reworked.
Here is Setterfield's 2001 explanation of observable consequences of VSL.
Here are Setterfield 2002a, 2002b, and 2002c, the published version of Setterfield 2001.
Here is Dolphin's commentary through 2003 as to the observable consequences of VSL.
Here is Setterfield backup material.
Here is the real datapoint chart, which has not been successfully rebutted, from Bowden 1998:

The Hubble hypothesis has been that redshift is caused by Doppler effect of receding galaxies. The Setterfield hypothesis is that the galaxies are not receding (the universe is not measurably expanding). However, the generally accepted Hubble hypothesis does not explain why the redshifts are quantized in multiples of 2.7 km/s, but the Setterfield hypothesis does, so it scores a point for greater explanatory power. Good question.

Side issue: I do not understand what you are saying you confused. What is the present value of an old photon? We agreed I think that a photon is a photon and its energy will be proportional to its wavelength, other differences cancelling. As you pointed out, the photon energy is constant except for quantum leaps which decrease it, so a 6000-year-old photon now has much less energy than at emission. Originally it was emitted with almost the same energy as today. The old photon was redshifted slightly because decreased h in the past quantumly affected atomic structure, which sent out a shorter wavelength than photons sent today. Therefore we agree the old photon had "almost the same energy as now". I had that wrong at first.

Other side issues: In 447 I should add I may still not be correctly understanding Setterfield's statement at the beginning of Implications, because my simplification of it does not seem now to be precisely stated. For example, I was about to misstep and say theoretically h should not invert c, but once again I was struck that by observation h does invert c. Can hardly argue with that. As my understanding improves, so will my lucidity .... Thank you and Thatcherite for admitting working out the issue (464 and 466) about cancelling faster reaction rates with longer time taken to observe them .... Also, please reread Montgomery-Dolphin 1993 linked in 455 and let me know if you still have objections to the refined data-point statistics and conclusions. I'm sure there is more work since.

Main issue for now: I think you're trying to say there were more photons then, but redder. That's what Setterfield said in at least one paper. (Yes.) The problem is that energy is not conserved if the redshifts are small. Vastly too many photons, only a tiny redshift. We need a factor of 11 million (only you can't do that and not go blind). We have less than two. You are right, the energy of the sum of photons is greatly increased (but I was right, individual photon energy is conserved).

I agree "it's far from clear why" there is low redshift. It appears to me, as one who does not understand much quantum theory, that as the granularity h increases with time, the atomic structure undergoes quantum resettlings, which I regard as compactings. The quantum leaps are suggested by the observed quantized redshifts. When Setterfield analyzes the nature of atomic resettling, he specifies that the redshift times the lightspeed quantum (delta-c) where leaps occur, times the Rydberg quantum number, gives the lightspeed for that redshift. The lightspeed quantum is 63.74c (current value), and I would visualize that the number of quanta contained in any given c corresponds to something like a number of placement positions for the atomic particles (similar to electron orbital shells). The Rydberg quantum number is 72*16*pi^4, which I visualize as corresponding to a number of potential configurations for quantum particle release directions. If all that is correctly stated (unlikely), the narrative explanation for why wavelength redshift only registers about 1.5, when c and frequency and photon count go up 10^7 times, is this: the increased granularity of the universe (its high resolution) permits much more quantum positional ability for both the internal particles of the atom and the wavelengths they emit, so that the wavelengths don't get shorter proportionally. They don't need to get shorter because of increased speed, which is all directed to increased frequency; but they get a bit shorter because the atom that can put out such increased frequency has resettled only slightly more compactly or efficiently. (If all this works out someday we will be ironically calling the quantum of 63.74c-now = 1.91x10^10m/s the "Setterfield constant"!)

Where is the cancellation? The opacity computation doesn't do it for me. I still think "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." Applying your stellar structure source to the changes in stars, it stated that decreasing opacity resolves to decreasing radius and volume, but also that increasing density resolves to increasing volume, so the volume and radius changes cancel and are not a factor. I don't think that the photons are carrying "less light" so that many of them constitute one "optical photon" (neat concept, though). I read that electron scattering is dissipating (all or part of) the photon increase and that may contribute if I knew more about it.

Let me ask it this way. I see that we are both approaching this like a programmer who keeps getting a compiler error on a horrendous function involving tons of parentheses and we both keep trying to add, remove, and rearrange the parentheses trying to find out if any are missing or extra. If your mental compiler should suddenly spit out the result that the syntax was valid (all the parentheses are rightly joined and cancelled), what would be the result? Would the program run, or would some other unforeseen error manifest? I know you're not running Setterfield's work through the gauntlet just to refresh me in physics. Personally, would you prefer the theory to be right or wrong, and what would you do and believe (particularly about the earth's age) if the evidence were conclusive in either case? Have we established sufficient benefit of doubt to establish that there might be another reason for high radiometric dates? Thank you!

And here's my quick takes.

Gas clouds are redshifted to the same degree as nearby stars (0-14), but unlike the Hubble model the shift (from today's observed values) is instantaneous, not Doppler. There is no issue of all useful light being lost by redshift. But to correctly describe the considerations of opacity, gas, and star structure to answer your implied concerns would require more study rather than a flip answer. Thanks again for your patience.

Yes, I waved the chart away quickly because it's an old view of the data. 1) The data was shown not to fit a flatline with 99% confidence, as three data points evidence. This is sufficient for most scientists to admit a tenable start hypothesis. To dismiss some data as "horse-and-buggy" is not scientific whether you or Setterfield does it. 2) We have two modern measurements off from each other by .023 which claim to have only .0003 error; one or both was wrong. This is sufficient for most scientists to admit modern technology does not always measure up to its claims and cannot be relied on for 10 significant figures. 3) Those are just quick examples pulled from web skims. The 1993 report strengthens statistical confidence that the flatline model is, well, flatlined. Quick links:

Setterfield Papers
Response to criticism of 1987 report
Montgomery-Dolphin 1993

Alas, PatrickHenry's article from talkorigins really hurts his case. Suffice to say that if the article is copyright 1997-2003; if it includes a link to its unaddressed rebuttal copyright 2000; if article objects to early 1980s versions of a paper without once mentioning its peer-reviewed 1987 status; and if article objects because the prepublication paper abuses sources: this is what psychologists call projection, combined with inability to retract anything rebutted. There is nothing to rebut that is not rebutted by Setterfield 2000 or Setterfield-Norman 1987 or Montgomery-Dolphin 1993. Embarrassing for Bob Day.

VSL has really matured since I first learned it. Instead of a simple statistical observation of history, it has become a robust predictive model. The key to this change was Setterfield's simplifying the theory, at the top of Implications to the statement that 'all "constants" which carry units of "per second" have been decreasing since the beginning of the universe. Constants with dimensions of "seconds" have been increasing inversely.' ("Decreasing" means as a trend.)

This first seemed fuzzy to me; for example, why would atomic rest mass vary? Well, because mass is measured by acceleration, which requires s^-2, a temporal factor. Now I can see this is the crux and simplicity of the theory.

The reason this step is ingenious is that math is based on reality and so all math formulas end up with precisely correct units that precisely cancel. The first time we ever heard of kg-m^2/s^2 we all sneered, but it works because of the math, which means the explanatory narrative will follow. C is ultimately inverse with t, atomic time, with ct the real constant in case you miss constants. All measurements of time vary together, so all cancellations will work out.

Setterfield is no longer playing the game of which plates to keep spinning and which need to go the other way and which are about to fall. All the plates are spinning smoothly in one stack. When I started I made the same mistake as you, of describing it in narrative to try to explain what is essentially mathematical: this led me to mistake photon energy levels. However, if you track down the equations for whatever phenomenon looks anomalous in VSL, you will find why the cancellation is appropriate. So it would be wrong for me to start pontificating about decreased momentum in photons versus decreased momentum in gases, instead we need to look up the equations.

This also effectively shuts down additional arguments based on cancelling factors. It does invite a different criticism, that the system is now too neat and pat and untestable. I think you can see the problem with that without my belaboring. The prior errors in theory are gone, so if there are no errors in observation in the multiple independent confirmations and multiple enigma resolutions, let's at least encourage others that VSL really is robust now.

Elsie, thank you so much for that encouragement! Have you considered this direct application of the above: the Light who gives Light in John 1:9 is also God and with God in John 1:1-2. "With" is "pros", meaning "facing", which in Hebrew is "lifne": in both cases it is a tactile, personal presence before someone. Now the Ten Words (which are also a creationist screed around #3-4) say you shall have no other gods "before" God, "lifne". Literally, it is: "No other gods for you can stand and face me." But God is the one who can stand and face himself, as John discovered! So here's another Messianic proof for you from the Torah: No god can stand before God, and if one ever does it proves he is God himself. Shalom.

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.