Setterfield discussion continued

[Administrator2]

BARRY SETTERFIELD

To Radiochemist:
You state that I don’t know offhand what differences might be
expected [at the Oklo Reactor Site], but I bet if someone spends time on
this question, it will either prove or disprove Setterfields ideas.

Tim Thompson’s commented later that hence, the higher decay rate of
the past would not leave behind any observational clue that I can come
up with. This, essentially, is the conclusion which was reached in
the late 1980’s and early 1990’s after a discussion on the matter among
a number of people familiar with this phenomena, some of whom were
creationists. Some of this discussion was in the two technical creation
journals (what is now TJ, and CRSQ), as well as on the net, later. One
of my strong opponents on the net, Dr. Mark Kluge, also came to this
conclusion.

To Tim Thompson:
You state I can find no indication in standard nuclear physics that
the decay rate is, or should be, proportional to the speed of light.

I refer you to the 1987 Report, where some details are given about
this. For example, a number of decay equations include Planck’s
constant in the denominator. Since I have shown that Planck’s constant
is proportional to 1/c, this inevitably means that the decay equation
itself is proportional to c.

You also state that the experimental evidence regarding the many
measurements of the speed of light historically is not only consistent
with, but indistinguishable from expected results if the speed of light
were constant with time. This is hardly the case, because there is a
one-sided departure from a constant value for c as we go back in time,
instead of a random scatter around a fixed point. This feature of the
data engendered an intense scientific discussion starting as early as
the 1880’s and extending to the 1940’s. The evident dropping of the
speed of light according to the measurements themselves was discussed in
peer-reviewed journals, private letters, and other articles. The
discussion was stopped dead in its tracks by Professor R.T. Birge, who,
although he had been the person to establish the accepted values for a
number of constants (which showed corresponding changes with c),
suddenly declared in August of 1941 in Reports on Progress in
Physics, vol. 8, pp 90-101, This article is being written upon
request, and at this time upon request. … Any belief in the change of
the physical constants of nature is contrary to the spirit of
science.

I have always been curious as to the impetus behind this statement, as
he was, in fact, the person who was responsible for establishing a
changing series of values for a number of the constants. This seems to
have been negating his previous work, and not many are willing to do
that – especially without explanation. However one of the conclusions
that must be drawn from the series of changing values up to that time is
that the age of the universe itself might be in question, and the
evolutionary timeframe was well enough established at that point so that
this concept could not be permitted. In addition, Einstein’s theories
of relativity had just come to the fore and were actually being
protected. At any rate, the discussion stopped at that point. It was
not resumed in earnest again until 1987 when both the Report authored by
Norman and myself as well as the Troitskii article were published.
Despite howls of protest from a number of camps, the discussion has
recently escalated in secular circles and I, also, have found more and
more evidence for a changing light speed through the history of the
cosmos.

Tim Thompson concludes by saying Indeed, so far as I can tell,
Setterfield’s cosmology has no observational signature, and is in all
cases observationally indistinguishable from the standard cosmology.

This is an admission that the theory is at least in accord with the
data! So why bother? Because there is a conclusion which is being
ignored and needs to be brought to the front. The fact is that this
conclusion ends up agreeing with the traditional reading of Genesis, but
that is not where I started with my research. I started with data, much
of it apparently anomalous where the speed of light was concerned. I
wanted to know what was going on.


To Paul of Eugene:

Your problem with gravitational effects have several causes. First, I
think that I stated explicitly in my previous post to you that on the
most recent work “it is important to remember that gravitational
acceleration is constant in dynamical time.” You have ignored that
statement in your subsequent analysis, relying, instead, on an obsolete
statement by Lambert Dolphin that “Setterfield’s latest work implies
that G itself varies inversely with c to the fourth power.” I thought
that I had posted on Lambert’s web site a list of items that were
revised on the new work and this was one of them. However, even on the
old treatment, which you used, Paul, we had included gravitational
permittivity and permeability terms in all equations which basically
overcomes your problem. You had not looked over that section of the
Report or you would have noted that fact.

On the new approach delineated in the 2001 paper undergoing review, the
quantity “GM” is shown to be constant with no gravitational permittivity
or permeability terms needed. In all the equations dealing with orbiting
bodies, there are several constant quantities plus a “GMm” term on one
side of the equation, where “M” is the mass of the primary body, and “m”
is the mass of the secondary body. This “GMm” term is balanced on the
other side of the equation by an “m” term and some other constant
quantities. Thus the extra “m” term cancels out as it appears on both
sides of the equation, leaving the constant terms unchanged along with
“GM” which is also constant. Thus, there is no change with a variable c
in the dynamical periods of orbiting bodies. Since the gravitational
acceleration “g” includes within it the “GM” term, no change will be
noted in the rate at which objects fall on earth, or elsewhere in the
cosmos for that matter.

As far as Adam “singing” is concerned, Paul, you have given an equation
for the frequency of a tone emitted from a stretched string. You rightly
draw attention to the fact that there is a T/M term on the right hand
side of that equation, and then proceed to draw conclusions because of
the change in M with variable c. However, your analysis is flawed since
the T term represents the tension in the string, and tension is
proportional to force/area. This should alert you to the problem, since
force is proportional to mass M. Thus the term T is also proportional
to M, and so in your equation the quantity T/M is proportional to M/M,
which is constant. Thus frequency, according to that formula, remains
unchanged with varying c, so Adam was well able to hear himself sing
with higher c values.

Finally, as Paul has pointed out, there should be some relationship
between the redshift and lightspeed. However, the analysis given in the
2001 paper undergoing review reveals a different relationship to that
proposed by Paul. An important component in the analysis is the
observation that the redshift goes in jumps, or is quantised. This was
first noted by William Tifft of the Steward Observatory, Arizona, some
25 years ago. In the early to mid 1990’s, Guthrie and Napier of the
Royal Observatory in Edinburgh set out to specifically disprove the
contention, and found the evidence ended up supporting it. Tifft
discovered a basic unit of redshift quantisation of about 2.665 km/s.
Physical analysis indicates a theoretical quantisation value around
2.671 km/s with which light-speed is linked. As it turns out, the
analysis suggests that each basic quantisation unit is linked with a
change in lightspeed of about 60 times its current speed. The exact
value depends upon the value of the Hubble constant, which links
redshift with distance. Thus it is incorrect for Paul to say that
extreme redshift values (or z values) would be expected even for the
Andromeda galaxy. There is also a time-dilation effect, proportional to
the number of redshift quantum jumps, which produces results very
similar to that expected from the application of relativity to distant
objects in an expanding universe. But details about these and related
matters might properly be deferred until the 2001 paper has been
published or put on the net.

Thank you for your patience,

I trust that this helps to clarify the issues that have been raised.

Barry.

 

[Administrator2]

RADIOCHEMIST

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Setterfield: "As far as Adam “singing” is concerned, Paul, you have
given an equation for the frequency of a tone emitted from a stretched
string. You rightly draw attention to the fact that there is a T/M term
on the right hand side of that equation, and then proceed to draw
conclusions because of the change in M with variable c. However, your
analysis is flawed since the T term represents the tension in the
string, and tension is proportional to force/area. This should alert
you to the problem, since force is proportional to mass M. Thus the
term T is also proportional to M, and so in your equation the quantity
T/M is proportional to M/M, which is constant. Thus frequency,
according to that formula, remains unchanged with varying c, so Adam
was well able to hear himself sing with higher c values." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Barry,

If I understand your explanation above correctly, you are saying that
a change in mass, for the stretched string, does not produce a
change in frequency. That is, you admit that the mass would be
different if the speed of light changed, but you are claiming
that the different mass would not produce a change in frequency
of the sound because the mass term is in effect canceled out
in the equation. If that is true, then an experimental change in mass,
with the present speed of light, would also fail to produce a
change in frequency. But we know that this is not true, since
the mass of a string can easily be changed and it does in fact
produce a change in frequency. See a movie of that at the following
web site:
http://demoroom.physics.ncsu.edu/html/demos/336.html


Your rebuttal to Paul amounts to denying the fact that a change in
mass of a string (or vocal chords) can produce a change in frequency.
It seems that your view on this is in direct contradiction to
experimental proof that is easily obtained, as in the movie. I also
point out that the simple equation giving the frequency of a string s
has only Tension, Mass and Length. So can you explain why a change
in mass, in the movie above, produces a change in frequency,
while it would not in Adam's case, if the mass of his vocal chords
changed?

 

[Administrator2]

PAUL OF EUGENE

from Paul of Eugene in reply to Barry Setterfield

Thank you for being gracious enough to reply to my thoughts as expressed earlier. I've been thinking of an observational test for your theory and I'd love to run it by you and see what you think of it. Since your theory calls for speed of light to be at the most extreme early in the life of the universe and then to slow down to its relatively "slow" rate of today over the full span of time since the creation of the universe, and, since you also postulate that the red shift values we see in distant parts of the universe are a manifestation of that effect, it implies that, as time goes by, we should observe the red shift for distant objects to begin to relax over time. There should be, then, some object out there that at one time had a given cosmological red shift and at a later time had a lesser cosmological red shift. I know of no other cosmology other than yours that would make that prediction. I mention this because, in order for predictions to have their full weight, its nice to announce them before the discovery of the affect. I suppose those who push for a universe that eventually collapses would expect to see such a thing over the very long scale of years in excess of the current age of the universe - but collapsing universes are generally ruled out by Richmond's Filter anyway.

In terms of your rebuttals of my objections, I'd like to rejoin them in reverse order. We begin, then, with the unexpectedly low red shift problem that I cited. You recall I used the analogy of the tape recorder that is played more slowly to illustrate the expected affect. I must admit I am completely baffled by your statement that quantization of the light speed change would matter in this regard. In my mind, I picture a speed setting on the tape recorder that is quantized rather than continuous. The tape is slowed down by clicking on ten different steps instead of continuously varying the speed. This makes absolutely no difference to the end result specified, that is, the pitch of the sounds goes down directly in relationship to the speed change, and the songs played take longer in just the same ratio exactly. In fact, actual tape recorders are quantified, in that one must click between preset speed specifications. Yet you merely throw out the notion of quantumization as if that somehow made a difference, with no hint of justification for that completely unrelated idea. Its as if when a man played a tape at slow speed he expected no difference, or less difference, merely because he only has two speeds.

You then tossed in this line: " There is also a time-dilation effect, proportional to the number of redshift quantum jumps, which produces results very similar to that expected from the application of relativity to distant objects in an expanding universe." Time dilation, meaning slowing down of time, would in fact produce more red shift, not less. Relativistic affects are invoked in standard cosmology to help account for the fact that distant objects show red shifts appropriate for a non-relativistic speed that is greater than the speed of light. Time dilation happens instead of faster than light speed, thus preserving light speed as the greatest possible speed in the universe. But this is not going to rescue your theory from the fact that the red shift your theory implies is just flat missing. As far as I can tell from what you wrote, there is no logical connection at all between your words and your conclusion that the slow down mechanism of a slower moving media during playback would somehow vanish. They merely follow each other in the paragraph. Could you kindly connect the missing lines between the dots for me?

Now concerning your remarks about Adam and his singing. When a string is stretched, the cross sectional area is irrelevant. The whole string has one tension and that is what counts for the T factor in the equation. The cross section might matter indirectly, in that a thicker string of the same material as a thinner string will have more mass per linear inch. That is the only factor that matters. Then you assert that force is proportional to M. I think you have overlooked the fact that we are not talking about gravity affecting a mass here; gravity is completely uninvolved in this discussion. The marvelous coincidence that mass and force are always proportionate with gravity is irrelevant. Instead, the force that is providing the tension on Adam's vocal cords is the energy of his muscles. Chemistry is involved, which reverts to the electrical forces between atoms. You have deliberately assured us all how the "e" of e = mc^2 remains the same. I merely take you at your word, and call for Adam's muscles to be able to bring the same energy to bear on providing tension in his time as we do in ours. Whenever you sing various notes, you are not confined to a single note in direct ratio to the mass of your vocal cords! You can vary the energy you bring to bear in the tension. We simply have here another example of your own assertion that the two kinds of clocks, electrical versus "dynamic" (meaning orbital and gravitational dynamics are involved) are diverging. Adam's vocal cords are not at all involved with the "dynamical" clock of gravity dynamics and therefore follow the faster electrical force clock.

Finely, we bring up the issue of G and how it is treated in Adam's time compared to ours. Bear in mind that I am reverting, for the purpose of discussion, to the Newtonian approximation of things, which is good enough to calculate planetary orbits, pendulum swings, and all the things we experience daily, such as how high and how fast we can jump. Underlying the Newtonian approximation is a deeper, quantum and relativistic level that, in fact, provides a better explanation of what is going on; however, the Newtonian approximation works in the realms we experience day by day. Please forgive me for assuming that your web site when I browsed it and found that equation referring to the G constant changing inversely with the power of c to the fourth presented current information. I plead the fact that you yourself referred us all to look at your web site and I went there and found the statement. I believe you have since removed that quote and now the only thing left is the reference you mention now, product GM is stated to remain constant between Adamic time and now.

By the way, you made this statement: "However, even on the old treatment, which you used, Paul, we had included gravitational permittivity and permeability terms in all equations which basically overcomes your problem." Alas, this includes an elementary logical blunder. The gravitational permittivity and permeability terms of which you speak are presumably used to derive the correct Newtonian approximation for G. Once you've used them to make that prediction, you can't use them again to revise what G predicts! In other words, if G predicts the wrong thing, make a better G.

But now that you've realized the unfortunate earlier choice, to leave F completely unchanged by adjusting G by a fourth power factor of the change in c won't do, you've cut back somewhat. You merely adjust it by a 2nd power of c, that is, the same adjustment applied to mass exactly. So here is your current formula for the Newtonian approximation:

Today: F = G(m1 x m2)/d^2

As before, let's set c equal to one, as in one light year per year, today. When it travels faster, c becomes 2, 3, or in Adam's day, one million. Adamic G is represented by G x c^2. Adamic mass is represented by m x c^-2. Gm then would be constant, as you specified.

Adamic: F = ((G x c^2) x (m1 x c^-2) x (m2 x c^-2))/d^2

This results in a weaker force of gravity, in that the two powers of c^-2 are not completely canceled, as when we were adjusting G by the fourth power in your earlier work. Only one of them is canceled, leaving the other to weaken Adamic F.
This weaker force of gravity then results in a falling rock that, in your postulated Adamic seconds, indeed will fall 16 feet in one second. The other factors, which you refer to as "dynamical" time, are also affected. It is possible to construct an earth orbit with a 93 million mile radius and an orbital period of one year.

What you have done, here, is to finally acknowledge the fundamental need to vary the relationship between forces. There are four known fundamental forces; gravity, electro-magnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear. You have varied, for Adam, the force of gravity by making it weaker by c^2. I suppose you could say that really the other forces have grown stronger while gravity remained the same, but the subjective affect for Adam is as if gravity were weaker for him. You are forced to do this in order to assert in any meaningful way that light travels faster. After all, if all forces strengthen or weaken in concert together, we would never notice anything at all! The very thing I pointed out, and which you manage now to avoid. Of course, by weakening gravity like this, you open up another very serious problem for Adam.

We've already mentioned the fact that Adam's vocal chords must resonate at hypersonic frequencies. Because the electro-magnetic force is so much stronger in Adam's day compared to the gravitational force, there are all kinds of implications for Adam's life that are very baaad.

Consider the formula for the average velocity of the molecules of air at a normal temperature. It is possible to calculate the average speed of an ideal gas molecule for a given temperature based on the input of temperature, mass, and air pressure alone. Gravity is not involved at all; the calculation for our present conditions determines, of course, the current speed of sound in air. Adamic life surely involved livable air temperature and pressure. Your theory varies the mass of the air molecules, with the result that the average velocity of the air molecules vastly exceeds the escape velocity of earth's gravity. The energy of heat bangs those less massive air molecules around so much faster. Earth's atmosphere would have to vanish immediately in Adam's day, and even in Abraham's day, when light speed was a mere 10 times its current value.

I'll be very interested in your speculations as to how to save earth's atmosphere in your greatly weakened gravitational universe. Remember, now, no fair invoking relativistic or quantum effects or "permiativity of space" effects. If they adjust the Newtonian constants, you should simply provide better Newtonian constants to begin with.

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

[Administrator2]

BARRY SETTERFIELD

To Paul of Eugene:
Dear Paul,
Some of your problems come from an ignorance of what the 2001 paper
contains. For example, you criticize the time-dilation effect, which I
mentioned “produced results very similar to that expected from the
application of relativity to distant objects in an expanding universe”.
The 2001 paper outlines this clearly and the effect increases with
increasing redshift. However it is NOT a relativistic effect, but
produces results similar to those obtained when relativity is applied to
an expanding cosmos. It is not a cause of the redshift, but an outcome
of the processes that produced the quantised redshift. The effects of
this quantisation have not been considered in the scenarios which you
have presented.

For example, the behaviour of atomic masses with time is like a very
gradually increasing sawtooth function, with a drop occurring at the
quantum jump. Thus the changes in mass, which you have been considering,
Paul, are not nearly as dramatic as you have imagined. Furthermore, the
2001 paper shows that energy is indeed conserved during the quantum
interval. However, at the quantum change, the zero-point-energy
residing in the vacuum crosses a threshold which allows atoms to access
more energy. Thus, at each successive quantum jump, with time
increasing, atoms throughout the cosmos take up a higher energy state.
That is why light emitted from atoms becomes bluer (more energetic) with
each quantum jump as time increases. Put in reverse, it means that, as
we look back in time, light emitted from atoms will be redder in quantum
jumps, because they are in a lower energy state. When all these and
similar developments outlined in the 2001 paper are taken into
consideration, they negate a lot of your criticisms.

However, you are quite correct in your assertion that this model
predicts that redshifts of given objects should drop with time. A drop
of one redshift quantum value should occur after a long interval of
observing time. Indeed, Tifft in Astrophysical Journal Vol. 382, p. 396
ff., (1991) noted that just such an effect had been observed for a
number of relatively nearby objects. Thus this outcome of the model is
in accord with data.

You complain that a quote you previously found on the Lambert Dolphin
website had been removed (quite some time ago in fact), and statements
applying to the new situation as outlined in the 2001 paper are the only
ones left. But this is no different to the way that secular science
works, Paul. As more data comes in and theories are refined, the
presentation changes. Because you have not kept up with the latest
developments, do not criticize the progress. But it is important that
you curtail your criticisms until such a time as you are fully
conversant with the latest results, in this case the 2001 paper and its
implications. You stated in an earlier post that your whole rationale in
this exercise was to “seek to reduce his (Setterfield’s) views to a kind
of reducto ad absurdem – if they are true, they call for ridiculous
things…” While I have played along with your little game for a while,
Paul, my time and energy must have as its priority those who require
answers to genuine questions, and the further development of this work.
Thank you for your input on this topic.

Barry Setterfield.

 

[Administrator2]

JOE MEERT

Barry's claim that Tim Thompson acknowledges that his hypothesis is
a valid explanation for the Universe really missed the point. Indeed,
the
notion that the Universe was created two minutes ago by pink unicorns
using
tachyons and anti-matter and who then later established the physical
laws
attributed to mythical creatures named Newton, Einstein and Bohr also
fits
the observations very well. There are however, better established and
tested ideas for how things happened that are much more efficient in
terms
of predicting physical behavior. It is those ideas that stand the test
of
time. While your idea may not be as ludicrous as Pink Unicorns, it does
not
lead to a better explanation for how things work than the current
models.
Remember, if you want to change the paradigm, you have to explain
everything
the old one did and then go one better. Since your ideas are
unpublished
(and therefore currently unknown to science), you do not yet have a
valid claim of a superior hypothesis. This is the crux of scientific
methodology. New and better ideas replace old ideas via publication and
peer-review. I understand your paper is currently undergoing review.
If, and when it is published, the scientific community will either take
note of the advance and give you due credit or your hypothesis will be
dissected and criticized. We won't know until that time. In the
interim, standard cosmological models are the reigning paradigm.

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[Administrator2]

PAUL OF EUGENE

A thought experiment.

Dispatch an angel with a radio transmitter to the Andromeda galaxy. Have him travel back in time to that moment when the signal he transmits will arrive at earth today. Have him transmit a signal with a wave length of 20 meters for one second. This is in the short wave band and can be received on any standard short wave radio.

Assume this is a Setterfield Physics universe. Thus, light is traveling 600 times faster back at that time. (This is a minimum - see previous post)

Light travels approximately 300,000,000 meters per second today. Light then will be travelling AT LEAST 180,000,000,000 meters per second. Since we are using a wave length of 20 meters, that one second burst of radio transmission will contain 180,000,000,000 / 20 cycles, which is 9,000,000,000 cycles.

We generate the radio signal with enough power to travel between galaxies. Each wave consists of a very large number of photons. You knew that.

I turn on my short wave radio to receive the burst. Today, light is traveling a measly 300,000,000 meters per second. The wave length remains 20 meters. How long will it take for those 9,000,000,000 cycles to sound in my radio receiver?

lessee. One second today at 20 meters would contain 300,000,000/20 or 15,000,000 cycles per second. 9,000,000,000 cycles received would last 9,000,000,000/15,000,000 seconds, which is 600 seconds.

How much did the frequency shift? Lessee. 9,000,000,000 cycles per second divided by 15,000,000 per second. Still equals 600. The frequency shift alone specifies a "red shift" by definition. Any photon energy shifting must accomodate this fact.

Did the photons that make up the radio waves weaken or strengthen? Did they become more numerous or combine into fewer numbers of photons? That doesn't matter at all. These results hold as long as the waves themselves remain and as long as the light speed changes as postulated.

Setterfield underestimates the nature of the dillema his theory faces. Its not about photons. Its about wave lengths and speed and timing and counting waves.

If the media in which the information is sent slows, the information is presented more slowly by exactly that amount. Light from the galaxy in andromeda is manifestedly presented to us at normal, not slowed, speeds. The conclusion is it was generated at the same speed it is viewed.

[ March 03, 2002, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

[Administrator2]

RADIOCHEMIST

I had hoped that Barry would respond to my comments about problems
with the question of Adam's voice but so far he has not. I want
to explain that a little more here, for those who do not have
a background in physics.
Paul of Eugene suggested that if Barry's theory is correct, then it
would have the odd effect of requiring that the human voice would
fail to produce audible sound in the days of Adam. This comes about
because Barry says that the mass of objects was much smaller then,
because in his theory mass must be very much smaller than now, in
order for energy to be conserved. O.K. so far, so good. Maybe mass
was much less in Adam's day than now. But then Paul of Eugene comes
up with a well known equation that relates the frequency of
sound emitted by a string, to the mass of the string. So Paul's
claim is that if Adam's vocal chords had much less mass in
those early day's, then Adam's voice would be at such a high
frequency that he could not be heard. Barry's theory requires
that the mass of objects be many hundreds of times less than now.

The relationship that Paul notes does make sense, because we
all know that the pitch (i.e. frequency) of a stringed instrument
is related to the mass. The low notes on a guitar or a piano
are emitted by the largest strings. Also, the pitch difference
between male and female voices is related to the mass
of the vocal chords, with males usually having the largest vocal
chords and also the deepest voices. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't
it? But now lets consider Barry's defense, made in this thread
a few days ago. He does not dispute the validity of the equation
offered by Paul, but he says that even if the mass was less in
Adam's time, it would not change the frequency of Adam's voice.
But Barry does not provide any mathematical proof of this, nor
does he show any examples by calculation. He merely asserts
that if the mass of Adam's vocal chords were much smaller, it
would make no difference in the frequency. In other words, he
says go ahead and change the mass and what you will observe is
no change in frequency. Well, the lay person does not have
the ability to work through the equation and test Barry's
claim. But there is a way to test his claim visually. I am
giving the link below to a movie of an experiment that shows
how the frequency of a vibrating string changes with a change
in mass.

Before looking at the movie, a few words about frequency and
wave length. What you see in this movie is a string vibrating
with a certain wavelength and frequency. Wavelength is simply
the distance from peak to peak or trough to trough of a wave.
Frequency is the number of waves passing through a point in
a certain period of time. There is a relationship between
frequency and wavelength. Higher frequency corresponds to
shorter wavelength. In the movie below, what you see at
first is a string vibrating at a certain frequency with a specific
wave length. At first you see two humps in the string. Then
the person in the experiment adds weight to the string, which
then reduces the wavelength to one wave for the strings
length. This means that the frequency is lower also. Now when
the person removes the weight, the wave length changes again
to its original value and the frequency increases. This is
Paul's point, which is that as the mass decreases, the
frequency increases. But as I have explained above, Barry's
defense claims that the frequency remains the same, for
a vibrating string, even when the mass changes. It seems
that Barry's theory splits on this rock of a very simple
relationship in physics. It seems to me that Barry is
trapped in a logical fallacy here and a very simple one.
It will be interesting to see how he deals with this
problem, if he can at all. The link to the movie is
given below:
http://demoroom.physics.ncsu.edu/html/demos/336.html

 

[Administrator2]

RADIOCHEMIST

Paul of Eugene suggested that if the change in the speed of light
theory is correct, then it would have the odd effect of requiring
that the human voice would fail to produce audible sound in the days
of Adam. This comes about because the theory says that the mass of
objects was much smaller then, because in Setterfield's theory
mass must be very much smaller than now, in order for energy to be
conserved. O.K. so far, so good. Maybe mass was much less in Adam's
day than now. But then Paul of Eugene comes up with an equation that
relates the frequency of sound emitted by a string, to the mass of
the string. So Paul's claim is that if Adam's vocal chords had much
less mass in those early day's, then Adam's voice would be at such
a high frequency that he could not be heard. Barry's theory
requires that the mass of objects be many hundreds of times less than
now.

The relationship that Paul notes does make sense, because it can easily
be shown that the pitch (i.e. frequency) of a stringed instrument
is related to the mass. The low notes on a guitar or a piano
are emitted by the largest strings. Also, the pitch difference
between male and female voices is related to the mass
of the vocal chords, with males usually having the largest vocal
chords and also the deepest voices. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't
it? But now lets consider Barry's defense, made in another thread
a few days ago. He does not dispute the validity of the equation
offered by Paul, but he says that even if the mass was less in
Adam's time, it would not change the frequency of Adam's voice.

But Barry does not provide any mathematical proof of this, nor
does he show any examples by calculation. He merely asserts
that if the mass of Adam's vocal chords were much smaller, it
would make no difference in the frequency. In other words, he
says go ahead and change the mass and what you will observe is
no change in frequency. Well, the lay person does not have
the ability to work through the equation and test Barry's
claim. But there is a way to test his claim visually. I am
giving the link below to a movie of an experiment that shows
how the frequency of a vibrating string changes with a change
in mass.

Before looking at the movie, a few words about frequency and
wave length. What you see in this movie is a string vibrating
with a certain wavelength and frequency. Wavelength is simply
the distance from peak to peak or trough to trough of a wave.
Frequency is the number of waves passing through a point in
a certain period of time. There is a relationship between
frequency and wavelength. Higher frequency corresponds to
shorter wavelength. In the movie below, what you see at
first is a string vibrating at a certain frequency with a specific
wave length. At first you see two humps in the string. Then
the person in the experiment adds weight to the string, which
then lengthens the wavelength to one wave for the strings
length. This means that the frequency is lower also. Now when
the person removes the weight, the wave length changes again
to its original value and the frequency increases. This is
Paul's point, which is that as the mass decreases, the
frequency increases. But as I have explained above, Barry's
defense claims that the frequency remains the same, for
a vibrating string, even when the mass changes.

It seems that Barry's theory splits on this rock of a very
simple experiment in physics. It seems to me that Barry is
trapped in a logical fallacy here and a very simple one.
It will be interesting to see how he deals with this
problem, if he can at all. The link to the movie is
given below. click on the camera at that web site to
start the movie.

http://demoroom.physics.ncsu.edu/html/demos/336.html

 

[Administrator2]

PAUL OF EUGENE

from Paul of Eugene

The following quote from Barry Setterfield's last post just begs for some cogent comments and I can no longer resist:

"For example, the behaviour of atomic masses with time is like a very
gradually increasing sawtooth function, with a drop occurring at the
quantum jump. Thus the changes in mass, which you have been considering,
Paul, are not nearly as dramatic as you have imagined. Furthermore, the
2001 paper shows that energy is indeed conserved during the quantum
interval. However, at the quantum change, the zero-point-energy
residing in the vacuum crosses a threshold which allows atoms to access
more energy. Thus, at each successive quantum jump, with time
increasing, atoms throughout the cosmos take up a higher energy state.
That is why light emitted from atoms becomes bluer (more energetic) with
each quantum jump as time increases."

Note, first of all, the Setterfield universe gives up on conservation of energy. Setterfield theory cannot succeed if energy is conserved.

Second, note that Setterfield retreats from a full scale transformation of mass along with the full scale tranformation of the speed of light. He explicitely stated, "the changes in mass are not nearly as dramatic as you have imagined".

Since we all know and understand that e = mc^2, and Setterfield has now explicitely declared that m, after all, does NOT reduce in direct proportion to the square of the speed of light, that leaves Setterfield Adamic physics with the one other mystery left. What do we do with all that extra energy?

One thing for sure, Setterfield doesn't push it off onto photons! Instead, he claims that in the past when light was faster yet mass didn't decrease in such a dramatic fashion as his original theory called for, photons were LESS energetic.

If Setterfield persists in these propositions, watch this space for a challenge based on the ability of chlorophyl to use photons to split carbondioxide. It's a two step, photon driven process that only works because the photons have enough energy to do the job. Let Setterfield sap the energy of photons and plant life as we know it will die.

Way back when Setterfield proposed his first versions of the Adamic faster light theory, people at that time, myself included, pointed out the problem of the increased e and what that would imply for Adam's life style. Setterfield claimed to relieve all that by postulating, at that time, that m decreased in direct proportion to c^2, which would leave the same amount of energy after all. We await the new defense to the old, old problem.

Extra energy means things will move faster. Less mass means things will move faster. It doesn't matter which way Setterfield seeks to find salvation for Adamic life in a high c environment, if he retains the mass, he loses on energy; if he retains the energy, he loses on mass. If he splits the difference, he loses on both of them working together. If Adam sings and his vocal cords are only less massive by a factor of a few dozen or so (still a strange experience to envision) then frequency will still go way up because the extra energy of his muscles provides greator tension in his vocal cords and the extra energy of his lungs will provide greater force to the effort. The same considerations apply to how high and how fast he can jump. At every step, Adam is in danger of leaving the planet. The same considerations apply to the speed of air molecules. Whether due to greatly decreased mass or whether due to greatly increased energy or both. Because e = mc^2. Because Setterfield proposes that c was faster by more than a million times in the days of living men.

 

[Administrator2]

RADIOCHEMIST

Barry: "For example, the behaviour of atomic masses with time is like a
very gradually increasing sawtooth function, with a drop occurring at
the quantum jump. Thus the changes in mass, which you have been
considering, Paul, are not nearly as dramatic as you have imagined."

Question for Barry: You seem to be inconsistent with your ideas about
the effect on mass of increases in the speed of light. I believe you
have made some estimates of the speed of light in Adam's day. Using
Einstein's equation, can you calculate the mass of Adam's vocal
chords during his life? Let's assume that the mass of his vocal
chords at the present time, i.e. March 1, 2002 would be 10 grams.
Now my question is what would have been the mass when Adam lived,
a few thousand years ago? This should be a trivial calculation and
I am very much interested in seeing your results. You have waffled
on the question of mass change, having originally implied that it was
quite substantial but now in your words above, you are implying
that it is not so much. Maybe you think Einstein's equation does
not apply. If so, please say so.

I also note that you have not yet commented on the video that
clearly shows that frequency of a string changes when mass is
changed. I note again that this very dramatic effect is something
that you have denied in a previous post. I am eagerly waiting for
your attempt to reconcile this contradiction.

 

[Administrator2]

HELEN

Just a note to let folks here know that Barry will be out of town and unavailable for about another week. Thank you.

 

[Administrator2]

HELEN

Tuesday the 5th of March, Barry gave an invited
presentation to ICR in Santee regarding his recent research. He was received very respectfully and the questions afterwards were solid and gave him a chance to go into more technical detail than a one hour presentation allowed.

The day before one of the geologists at GRI had also met with him for about two hours and there was some very strong agreement between the two regarding geological implications.

He will try to respond to earlier points here in the next couple of days.

Helen

 

[Administrator2]

BARRY SETTERFIELD

I suggest that the confusion that Paul and Radiochemist are experiencing
is of their own making. My comments were quite clear. Within a quantum
interval, the conservation of energy holds. At a quantum jump, with
time going forward, extra energy becomes available to each atom
throughout the cosmos from the Zero-point Energy (ZPE). The data
indicate that the ZPE is smoothly increasing with time, which gives a
smooth change in light-speed, “c”. But because atoms and atomic orbits
behave in a quantised fashion, the smooth increase in the ZPE with time
cannot be accessed until a certain threshold is reached. The reason for
this is similar to a person pushing a table across a floor. When the
person pushes gently, the table does not move. However, once a certain
threshold of pushing has been passed, the table will jerk forwards. In
like fashion, the additional energy from the ZPE will be accessed
simultaneously by each atom throughout the cosmos. All atomic orbits
have then have a higher energy associated with them. Thus the light
emitted from these atoms is bluer, but the blue-ing proceeds in quantum
jumps. Therefore as we look back in time, the light emitted from atoms
will be redder in jumps, as atoms were less energetic.

Note that all atomic orbit energies will scale proportionally. This
negates some of the proposed effects that Paul and Radiochemist have
postulated, including the comment that “if Setterfield saps the energy
of photons, plant life will die.” The ability of chlorophyll to use
photons to split carbon dioxide in a two-step process remains the same
as both bonding energies and photon energies are changed in proportion.

Paul has also stated that "Extra energy means things will move faster. Less mass means things will move faster. It doesn't matter which way Setterfield seeks to find salvation for Adamic life in a high c environment, if he retains the mass, he loses on energy; if he retains the energy, he loses on mass. If he splits the difference, he loses on both of them working together. ”

Paul seems to have missed the point that I try to continue making: all atomic masses and energies were and are scaled proportionately. Therefore he is setting up a straw man situation.

In reply to Radiochemist, yes! Einstein’s equation does apply at all
times. However, at the precise instant of the quantum change there is
only an infinitesimally small change in “c” coupled with a quantum
decrease in “m” of atomic particles. This only means from Einstein’s
equation that if an electron was totally converted into energy, then
that energy is greater before the jump than after because the mass was
greater. This does not mean any change in the validity of Einstein’s
equation, but rather a quantum change in the mass of the electron, which
has nothing to do with Einstein’s equation. Therefore, contrary to what
you assert, you cannot calculate the atomic masses at the time of Adam
from Einstein’s equation. As I said earlier, atomic particle masses
behave in a fashion that resembles a slowly rising saw-tooth function,
with the drop in mass occurring at the quantum jump, following which it
slowly rises with increasing ZPE and decreasing “c”. The equations that
indicate this drop in electron mass at the jump, with time going
forward, are the same ones that indicate the higher orbit energy at the
jump.

Having said that, Radiochemist and Paul need to be instructed a little
further as to what is in the paper undergoing review. It is important
that a distinction be made between the “bare” mass of an atomic
particle, and the “dressed” mass, “m” of that particle, which latter
quantity determines atomic behaviour and is being referred to above.
However, it is the “bare” mass-energy, M, that determines macroscopic
phenomena. This means that gravitational equations can be approached in
two ways; one using “dressed” atomic masses, “m”, the other using the
“bare” mass-energy, M. Both give the same results, but on a macroscopic
scale it is the “bare” mass-energy, M, that is being perceived as mass.
Since this quantity does not change, it effectively means that,
macroscopically, the perceived mass is also unchanging. Consequently, in
macroscopic terms, no change in gravitational phenomena will be
observed, and neither will the mass of Adam’s vocal chords, or the
receptors in the ears of the listeners. To obtain the same results using
“dressed” masses, it should be realized that all such “dressed” masses
scale proportionally, so the effect on the vocal chords is
counterbalanced by the same effect on the receptors in the ears of the
listeners.

In conclusion, I suggest that both Paul and Radiochemist might like to
wait until the review of the paper is complete and the paper has either
been published or put on the web. Then you will see for yourselves what
is really being proposed, as I do not have the time to outline the full
theory here in its mathematical and physical detail.

Barry Setterfield.

[Administrator: edited at the request of the author]

[ March 11, 2002, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

[Administrator2]

RADIOCHEMIST

Barry: "In reply to Radiochemist, yes! Einstein’s equation does apply
at all times. However, at the precise instant of the quantum change
there is only an infinitesimally small change in “c” coupled with a
quantum decrease in “m” of atomic particles. This only means from
Einstein’s equation that if an electron was totally converted into
energy, then that energy is greater before the jump than after because
the mass was greater. This does not mean any change in the validity of
Einstein’s equation, but rather a quantum change in the mass of the
electron, which has nothing to do with Einstein’s equation. Therefore,
contrary to what you assert, you cannot calculate the atomic masses at
the time of Adam from Einstein’s equation. As I said earlier, atomic
particle masses behave in a fashion that resembles a slowly rising
saw-tooth function, with the drop in mass occurring at the quantum
jump, following which it slowly rises with increasing ZPE and decreasing
“c”. The equations that indicate this drop in electron mass at the jump,
with time going forward, are the same ones that indicate the higher
orbit energy at the jump."

Barry, why are you even discussing the mass of the electron at all? The
electron contributes only a tiny fraction, far less than one percent
to the mass of an atom. Let's take Carbon-12 for instance. Carbon has
6 protons and 6 neutrons, plus 6 electrons in the case of neutral
carbon.
Let's compare the mass of the 12 nuclear particles compared to the mass
of the 6 electons. It takes approximately 1830 electrons to equal the
mass of one of the nuclear particles, so you can see that for most
atoms,
the mass of electrons is totally irrelevant in determining atomic mass.
So your argument, based on what you claim happens to electrons, is
totally useles in determining the mass of atomic particles.

Barry: "Having said that, Radiochemist and Paul need to be instructed
a little further as to what is in the paper undergoing review. It is
important that a distinction be made between the “bare” mass of an
atomic particle, and the “dressed” mass, “m” of that particle, which
latter quantity determines atomic behaviour and is being referred to
above. However, it is the “bare” mass-energy, M, that determines
macroscopic phenomena. This means that gravitational equations can be
approached in two ways; one using “dressed” atomic masses, “m”, the
other using the “bare” mass-energy, M. Both give the same results, but
on a macroscopic scale it is the “bare” mass-energy, M, that is being
perceived as mass. Since this quantity does not change, it effectively
means that, macroscopically, the perceived mass is also unchanging.
Consequently, in macroscopic terms, no change in gravitational
phenomena will be observed, and neither will the mass of Adam’s vocal
chords, or the receptors in the ears of the listeners. To obtain the
same results using “dressed” masses, it should be realized that all
such “dressed” masses scale proportionally, so the effect on the vocal
chords is counterbalanced by the same effect on the receptors in the
ears of the listeners."

My comments on the above: Well Barry, I have been in the nuclear
business for 30 years and I have never heard of the terms of "bare"
mass" and "dressed mass". You do not define what you mean by them.
I think you are just indulging in some hocus-pocus here to cover
up your errors on this subject. Perhaps you are talking about the
atom either with its electrons (i.e. dressed) or without its electrons
(bare). If that is the case, then your comments are not meaningful
because the mass is virtually the same in either case. In addition,
in most cases, it is the electrons that determine atomic behavior
and not mass, contrary to your assertion. I note also that you
have previously made the claim that in order for Einstein's equation
to hold, that mass had to be far less in the days of Adam than now.
It seems that you are in full retreat from that claim now.

I want to point out that in one of your previous responses, you made
the remarkable claim that it is due to the nature of the equation
Paul used, that allowed Adam to sing normally. When I pointed out
that your argument, based on the equation, contradicts experimental
observations, as shown in the movie that I mentioned, you bring up
completely different grounds for allowing Adam to sing, without
responding to my points based on the experiment in the movie. You are
a very agile debater I see, and if one argument won't work for you,
you try another without so much as a farewell to your old argument.

But I think you are only getting yourself into more difficulty with
this argument about two types of masses. In fact, there is
nuclear mass and atomic mass, and there is a clear distinction
between the two, even though there is very little difference in
actual numerical values of these two types of masses for a given
atom. In other words, the mass of an atom without its electrons,
i.e. the nuclear mass, is almost the same as the mass of the same
atom with its electrons, which is termed the atomic mass. Your
theory cannot be saved by this difference, however.

On a slightly different issue, I did not mean to imply that it is
possible to calculate the atomic masses in Adam's day by use of
Einstein's equation. However, since you agree that the equation
holds even then, it should be possible to get a ratio of masses
of any object then and now, since the only other thing that is
varying is the speed of light. In other words, if a man's vocal
chords today have a mass of 10 grams, then it should be possible to
calculate the mass in Adam's day, since you already claim that
you know approximately what the speed of light was in Adam's day.
Since E is fixed in the equation; E = M C^2, then M in Adam's day
must be fixed to a much lower level than now for E to remain
constat. Remember it is your claim that E is fixed and C was much
higher then. I am just using your own claims and your own words
to arrive at this conclusion

 

[Administrator2]

JOE MEERT

Radiochemist:

Actually bare mass refers to the mass of the electron were
it not charged. I presume that dressed mass is the sum of the bare mass
+ the mass due to the charge of the electron. The idea (as I understand
it) is that because the charge has energy, it also contributes to the
mass of the electron (E=mc^2). Now, what this has to do with the mass
of an atom, I have no clue since, as you point out, electrons contribute
next to nothing.

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[Administrator2]

PAUL OF EUGENE

From Paul of Eugene

First, let me express my thanks for Barry Setterfield to take time from his busy schedule to discuss these issues in relation to the objections I and others have raised. It is certainly true that he doesn't need to do this, even as Einstein could never reply to every individual who raised objections to his theory of relativity.


Here is the essence of Setterfield's defence against my argument from e=mc^2:


"Paul seems to have missed the point that I try to continue making: all atomic masses and energies were and are scaled proportionately. Therefore he is setting up a straw man situation."

We all know what proportions are. 1/2 is a proportion. 2/4 is a proportion. When scaled proportionately, the ratios stay the same, that is 1/2 equals .5 and 2/4 equals .5 as well.

The equation e=mc^2 can be recast, as every algebra student knows, to e/m = c^2. The e/m, then, becomes a proportion. Setterfield's argument is that these are scaled proportionately together, that is, he declares e/m remains the same.

But the square of c DEFINES the ratio e/m. e/m = c^2! Changing the speed of light - the whole purpose of the exercise - makes them no longer proportionate; indeed, the proportion changes by the SQUARE of the speed of light. This from elementary algebra.

If Setterfield wants to say atomic masses and energies are scaled proportionately and the speed of light also changes, he is not talking e = mc^2. He is talking about some other equation.

The definition of mass in the Einstein equation is simple; the resistance of matter to acceleration. There is no other definition for mass. If something is defined another way, unless it is completely equivalent, it isn't mass.


And Barry has said NOTHING about the observational evidence from nearby galaxies, including the Andromeda Galaxy and the Megellanic clouds. Manifestedly, cepheid variables wax and wane in their theoretical time frames, not appearing slowed in any amount. The same thing is true of supernova decay rates and any other timed phenomenon we are capable of observing. Any media that carries information, if it slows, will replay that information more slowly precisely in accordance with the amount of slowing. Therefore, these results are experimental evidence against ANY variety of light speed change that will provide for a universe out there as young as six thousand years.

 

[Administrator2]

KEVIN KLEIN

In order for Barry's Vc theory to remain consistent with the known laws of the universe, Barry says that the mass of an object varies inversely with the square of c such that:
E = m c^2

remains invariant and energy is conserved.

But there are other types of energy that must also be conserved. In particular, the standard Newtonian equation for kinetic energy:

E = 1/2 m v^2

Since an increase in c requires an exponential decrease in m (in order to satisfy Einstein), that also means that moving objects must increase in velocity (proportional to c) to conserve their kinetic energy.

If we apply these observations to early Earth, we can see that life must have been impossible.

When c was 100 times faster than it is now:

- the Earth had to spin 100 times faster to conserve its angular kinetic energy, therefore a day was only 14.4 minutes long.

- the centrifugal force generated from the high rate of rotation was enough to fling all of the water, rocks, people, cows, and everything else not tied down far into space

- the centrifugal force was probably stronger than the rocks of the Earth itself, causing it to explode into a million pieces

- whatever was left increased its velocity around the Sun (again to conserve KE), increasing the size of the Earth's orbit far beyond the habitable zone and turning the few remaining remnants of the Earth into dead, cold rocks

Ergo...

Either Vc theory is false or we don't exist.

 

[Administrator2]

BARRY SETTERFIELD

I am sorry I was not more specific in my previous post. I had assumed
that Radiochemist and Joe would know that if electron masses are
behaving in the way specified, then all atomic particle masses are
behaving in the same way. So what applies to the electron applies to
all the others as well.
As far as the ‘bare mass’ and ‘dressed mass’ are concerned, Joe is
basically correct. However, another factor also needs to be included in
there. With a changing ZPE, the zitterbewegung adds more energy to the
dressed particle, and this energy has to be included in the ‘dressed’
mass. This also disposes of the other misunderstandings presented by
Radiochemist, including is comments about nuclear mass and atomic mass.

What I was presenting in my last post was the proposition that there
were two ways of looking at mass. The way we see it in our everyday
lives is gravity-related. But when you go down to the size of atomic
masses we are not dealing with gravity. So mass must be measured a
different way. At this level, mass is determined by the action of the
zero point energy on subatomic particles. The greater the ‘jitter
motion,’ or zitterbewegung, the greater the dressed mass. The increased
zitterbewegung comes as a result of an increase in the ZPE.

Radiochemist does not seem to have digested the information that, even
though E = mc^2 is still valid at all times, there is a discrete change
in the ‘dressed’ mass of electrons (and other atomic particles) at the
quantum jump because extra energy has been supplied by the ZPE to
subatomic particles from outside. At the instant of the quantum jump,
light-speed, c, does not change. Therefore, if the electron were to be
annihilated to energy, the energy of that annihilated electron would be
different after the jump than before. Einstein’s equation is still
correct, but because the annihilated mass is different, so, too, is the
value of the resultant energy. From this discussion, it should also be
obvious that the annihilation of mass in Einstein’s equation occurs at
the atomic, not macroscopic level. It is for this reason that the
astronomy texts on my shelves discuss the energy given off by the sun in
terms of atomic masses, rather than macroscopic masses as Paul implies.

When stating that E was fixed, I usually took care to say that this was
the case within the quantum interval. You seem to be surprised by this
quantum jump process, but if you had really examined the relevant items
on my web site, you would have found reference to the process there.
Thus I had assumed that Radiochemist and Paul would realize from these
recent articles that the conservation of energy was maintained in the
interval, but a discrete change in mass occurred at the jump, along with
energy changes for the whole atom.

As far as Adam’s vocal chords are concerned, macroscopically there is no
change in mass since the ‘bare’ mass-energy of all particles remains
unchanged, and this is what is reacting gravitationally. If Adam’s vocal
chords were put on a beam balance and weighed, they would register the
same value then as now. I pointed out that if you wanted to do things in
terms of ‘dressed’ masses, then the ‘dressed’ mass of Adam’s vocal
chords maintained the same relationship to the dressed masses of the
apparatus inside the ear of the listeners. Consequently, because
everything was scaling in proportion, Adam could still be heard singing,
even on that approach.

I hope that clarifies the situation.

Barry Setterfield.

 

[Administrator2]

PAUL OF EUGENE


Barry's recent post contains the following

"From this discussion, it should also be
obvious that the annihilation of mass in Einstein’s equation occurs at
the atomic, not macroscopic level. It is for this reason that the
astronomy texts on my shelves discuss the energy given off by the sun in
terms of atomic masses, rather than macroscopic masses as Paul implies. "

For the record, the energy given off by the Sun is actually lost as macroscopic mass. Dressed mass in atomic particles manifests itself macroscopically in resistance to acceleration, and in responding to gravitational fields. That's why they call it mass. Since Barry has previously indicated that the ratio e/m is the same in Adam's day as it is today, then he has by that very fact indicated c was the same in Adam's day as it is today, because c = sqr(e/m). That strange looking equation is actually merely a transformation of e = mc^2, for those of you who haven't had algebra yet.

 

[Administrator2]

RADIOCHEMIST

Barry:"From this discussion, it should also be obvious that the
annihilation of mass in Einstein’s equation occurs at the
atomic, not macroscopic level."

Barry,
Your writing is often obscure. I don't know what you
mean by the above. Einstein's equation implies that mass, whether
atomic or macroscopic, has an energy equivalent. I understand what
Einstein means, but what do you mean by your above comments? It
seems to me that it does not matter whether mass is converted
to energy on the atomic scale or on the macroscopic scale, the
equation of Einstein still gives the energy equivalent.

Actually the annihilation of mass, in fission and other atomic
reactions, always occurs at the atomic level, but the sum total
of atomic reactions can have results on a macroscopic scale, as
happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So when you state that
annihilation of mass does not occur at the macroscopic level,
that is a muddy sort of statement that imparts no information to
me. Actually I can read an entire post of your and it does not
make much sense to me. I understand the words and what you are
trying to say, but it does not connect with nuclear physics as
I know it. I don't see enough common ground with the physics in
your statements to persuade me that what you are claiming is
correct.

Barry: "As far as Adam’s vocal chords are concerned, macroscopically
there is no change in mass since the ‘bare’ mass-energy of all
particles remains unchanged, and this is what is reacting
gravitationally. If Adam’s vocal chords were put on a beam balance
and weighed, they would register the same value then as now. I
pointed out that if you wanted to do things in terms of ‘dressed’
masses, then the ‘dressed’ mass of Adam’s vocal chords maintained
the same relationship to the dressed masses of the apparatus inside
the ear of the listeners. Consequently, because everything was
scaling in proportion, Adam could still be heard singing,
even on that approach."

My comments: Barry, this is a very interesting discussion and I
hope you will continue explaining this to me. Perhaps you realize
that you are so far on the frontiers of physics that most ordinary
scientists like me have a hard time with what you are saying.

I think that
if you are to be convincing to the scientific community, you will
have to provide solid proof of your claims. Therefore, please
perform some actual calculations, to show us the following:

1. How, if Adam's vocal chords had the same mass as now, how the
following could be possible simultaneously:

a. Energy in Einstein's equation can be conserved and

b. the speed of light can be greatly different from now. You make
several claims above that merely involve words. Anyone can say
anything, but that is quite different from showing it with the
hard evidence of calculations.

Barry: "What I was presenting in my last post was the proposition that
there were two ways of looking at mass. The way we see it in our
everyday lives is gravity-related. But when you go down to the size
of atomic masses we are not dealing with gravity. So mass must be
measured a different way. At this level, mass is determined by the
action of the zero point energy on subatomic particles. The greater
the ‘jitter motion,’ or zitterbewegung, the greater the dressed mass.
The increased zitterbewegung comes as a result of an increase in the
ZPE."

I don't accept the claim above, Barry. Please provide a quote from
a recognized physics textbook supporting your claim that there is
a different way to calculate mass. Or, as an alternative, show us a
calculation of the mass of Adam's vocal chords, according to the
alternative method of calculating mass. In other words, if Adam's
vocal chords were 10 grams in our everyday routine way of measuring
mass, how many grams would that be in your alternative way of
measuring mass? Your paragraph above is very similar to Helen's
claim of a few months ago about mass, that it is a form of volume.
I asked Helen at least 4 or 5 times to provide a reference for that
and although she provided some references, none of the references
supported her claim. Therefore what I am asking of you is to provide
not only a reference, but a quote from the reference.

When pressed on this issue, you have tried to find a way out by
saying that there are two definitions of mass, one that changes
when the speed of light changes and one that does not. Very well,
is this your unique claim, or does any reputable authority in the
world of physics agree with you? If such persons exist, who are
they?