Slowdown Due to Changing Speed of Light

we're having trouble with it, too. Let me put our Word copy up on the site. Give me a few minutes....

 

OK, it's up under "our copy"

http://www.setterfield.org/homecopy.htm

 

Thanks for that much, Helen. I did find some reference to cepheid variables. I don't view it as an adequate response and will comment later (surprise! surprise!) but I did not find anything about galactic rotation. Has Barry every posted anything as to why we fail to see galactic rotation slowing with time/distance due to being seen by light that has slowed since it was generated by the galaxy?

 

Barry

I'm a little slow. You saying that it is just happenstance that c is the conversion factor between mass and energy?

Or that total of mass+energy isn't constant?

If C is slowing then isn't the total mass+energy decreasing? If the universe is a closed system then where goest the excess mass+energy?

 

This is Helen. Energy is held constant. Atomic mass has been measured as increasing through time. Here are some graphs and the references below. The c measurements are via Raymond Birge who was the physicist who was keeping track of these things the first half of the twentieth century (UCB). Hope this helps.

http://www.setterfield.org/Charts.htm#graphs

 

From Barry:

First of all there is a difference between periodicity and quantization. Periodicity is talking about grouping on a large scale, whereas quantization is talking about small scale effects.

Studies by Narliker and others have been looking at large-scale groupings in quasars and very distant objects. Sometime earlier an equation for this had been worked out and presented in some of their papers. By contrast, Tifft and Guthrie and Napier had been looking at steps in the redshift between galaxies and in clusters of galaxies which are of the order of about 36 kilometres a second or smaller. At the distance of quasars, this is such a small division as to be essentially undetectible.

It should be noted that the article referenced above is dealing with very distant objects and quasars. The periodicity referred to in that article is the sort of periodicity that Narliker and others had purported to have picked up. This is not the quantization of the redshift picked up by Tifft. You have confused the two. And article by Morley Bell in, I think, Oct. of 2003 pointed out that when galaxies whose redshift differences can be measured to an accuracy of 36 kilometres a second or less are studied, the redshift quantization becomes apparent.

At any rate, please do not confuse redshift quantization with the periodicity as talked about in the article you read. The latter is a large scale effect and the former a small scale one. As a consequence, the further out you go, the less accurate the redshift measurements. This is partly due to the movements within the quasars themselves. They are so active that you cannot pick up the difference between the distant quasars (and their associated galaxies) the way you can between the closer galaxies. Therefore it is no wonder that, in studying the most distant objects as this article reported on, that no periodicities could be picked up. One must come in a bit closer to pick up the changes in measurements.

As you may have noted in my article "The Redshift and the Zero Point Energy", on page 6 if you print it out,

"The outcome of the most accurate studies by Tifft indicates a possible basic redshift quantization of about 8/3 km/s with a claim by Brian Murray Lewis that the reshift measurements used had an accuracy of 0.1 km/s at a very high signal to noise ratio. Tifft demonstrated that higher redshift quantum values were simply multiples of this basic figure. More recently, on 5th and 7th May 2003, two Abstracts appeared in Astrophysics authored by Morley Bell. The second Abstract read in part: "Evidence was presented recently suggesting that [galaxy] clusters studied by the Hubble Key Project may contain quantized instrinsic redshift components that are related to those reported by Tifft. Here we report the results of a similar analysis using 55 spiral ... and 26 Type Ia supernovae galaxies. We find that even when more objects are included in the sample there is still clear evidence that the same quantized instrinsic redshifts are present..."

The recent work referenced by UTEOTW in no way invalidates Morley Bell's results. They are talking about two different things.

 

A rough plot of the mapped periodicities of about 200,000 galaxies can be seen here:
http://www.sdss.org/news/releases/galaxy_zoom.jpg

Please also note a correction in the above:

Therefore it is no wonder that, in studying the most distant objects as this article reported on, that no periodicities could be picked up. One must come in a bit closer to pick up the changes in measurements.


SHOULD read

Therefore it is no wonder that, in studying the most distant objects as this article reported on, that no quantizations could be picked up. One must come in a bit closer to pick up the changes in measurements.


The claim has been made that because periodicities cannot be picked up at large distances, the quantization therefore does not exist either. This is confusing the two things. As the URL shows, however, periodicities have been picked up, but, again, this has nothing to do with the reality of the quantization of redshift measurements. These can even be picked up between galaxy pairs.

 

UTEOTW, I often wondered if the quantization effect could have been due to some software rounding off affect in the software used to evaluate the survey data. Your post up there mentions a "window function". Would they have been talking about something along that line?

 

I've been drawing a blank screen on the link. I'll try from home instead of office.

 

UTE, Barry is answering, I'm typing.

1. The mention of periodicity and quantization being the same was used in this reference to a time when the words were mis-used and Barry was clarifying the issue. The paragraph of his paper in question is as follows:

One final piece of observational evidence may help settle the matter. Tifft, Arp and others have pointed out that the quantized redshift means that the actual velocities of galaxies in clusters are very low.21, 36 It is only at the very centers of clusters that high velocities would be expected. This was borne out by evidence mentioned at the Tucson conference on quantization in April 1996. Observations of the Virgo cluster have shown that in the innermost parts of the cluster “deeper in the potential well, [galaxies] were moving fast enough to wash out the periodicity.” 32 Here, “periodicity” is the quantization by another name. In other words, if galaxies have a significant velocity, it actually smears out the quantization. As a consequence, these quantization results reveal that redshifts are not basically due to galaxy motion at all, but must have some other primary cause, with Doppler effects from motion being secondary.

In their correct usage, periodicity and quantization are two different things. Periodicity makes it look as if there are 'shells' of redshift around the earth, as the URL posted above shows.

2. Regarding Arp and quasar redshifts apparently associated with galaxies: Arp's position is that if you have a galaxy and a quasar in the same field of view, the quasar must have been emitted from the galaxy. Therefore he has a redshift problem. More particularly, an occulting bar put across the quasar allows the galaxy around the quasar to be seen. This means that the quasar is, in fact, a distant galaxy, and not an object associated with a nearby galaxy. Arp and other astronomers have been arguing about his ideas here for more than twenty years. I disagree with Arp on this point and do not consider the quasars to have been emitted from the galaxies simply because they are in the same field of view. The more distant quasars should show a greater redshift, and they do.

The periodicities picked up in quasars involve a large redshift change. Quantization is a small redshift change between neighboring galaxies, or galaxies in a cluster.

3. I did not publish in Galilean Electrodynamics. Why it was their journal of choice, I don't know. As far as my feelings about relativity are concerned, I refer you to some of the works by physicists involved with SED physics. These physicists point out that there is an alternative approach using the Zero POint Energy in which the same predictions have been made as those in relativity, but from an entirely different basis. I feel that the SED approach is probably more viable than the standard relativity approach, since it actually has a physical mechanism to bring about these effects. Thus I would venture that while most of its predictions are correct, relativity itself is not necessary, as those same predictions can be arrived at from the separate starting point using the ZPE.

I sugggest that you have a look at the CIPA (California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics) website for some of this material.

These comments also apply to quantum mechanics, which SED physics has shown can be explained in terms of the ZPE rather than abstract quantum phenomena. This can also be seen on the CIPA website as well as in my article "Exploring the Vacuum."

4. I agree that the periodicity that was checked from the Sloan survey may not, in fact, exist. This, however, does not invalidate quantization, which is a small-scale thing. You cannot pick up quantization at large-shifts, simply because the red shift is so high.

5. The problems with rounding off and data selection were avoided by Tifft and some of the others, who investigated quantization, by using adjacent galaxies. Doing that, you are simply comparing one redshift with another and you do not have to take into account the motion of the earth or movement of the solar system through space or anything else. It is a straight comparison. It is out of this type of comparison that quantization becomes very obvious.

 

You're exactly right on the redshifts used; I culled this quote from the document

 

In an earlier post I mentioned finding ONE reference to Cepheid variables in all of Barry's web site and if there is another reference, Helen can no doubt point me there. But heres the precise document where I found it:

http://www.setterfield.org/AstronomicalDiscussion.

There are questions highlighted in blue and to help the curious reader, note you can find the quote in response to this question - so scan for this question and the quote is in its answer.

And now, here is the quote by Barry himself; in which he justifies the failure of seeing Cepheid variables cycle more slowly with increasing distance.

In Barry's cosmology, light speed travels millions and millions of times faster a few thousand years ago and slows to its current value today and this allows us to see distant parts of the universe in spite of the vast distances light must traverse within the constraints of about 10,000 years for the history of the universe.

In order for light speed differences to be measurable, the Setterfields posit that gravitationally derived motions do not change over the same period of time. They measure light speed against gravitationally derived clocks, claiming they differ in the past.

For example, the earth is assumed to orbit the sun only about 10,000 times since the creation of the universe although light comes to us from billions of light years distance since the creation of the universe. You see that gravity vs light speed will have changed drastically during that time for this to be true.

So as we look at the great galaxy of andromeda, about 3 million light years away (it is really the closest full sized galaxy) we are able to see Cepheid variable stars and measure their periods.

Even for such a nearby galaxy it is apparent that if we are seeing it now and it was only there 10,000 years ago and not earlier, light must have been traveling very much faster indeed when generated just by that nearby galaxy. Many thousands of times faster, at a minimum, the very light by which we see it today.

Now the slowing of that light would necessarily slow down everything we see by that slowed down light. Barry himself conceded in the quote above that slow down affects would be something to expect.

And remember, Barry's cosmology proposes that gravitational motions, such as the earth rotating the Sun, would have been originally performed at their currently observed rates.

You all see how he attributes the timing of Cepheid Variable waxing and waning to purely atomic forces, most certainly NOT gravitational forces, that are locked into performing proportionately with the speed of light. This is his rational for their failure to show any slow down effect. But it is there he has made a fatal mistake in his description of the Cepheid light cycle.

Imagine a ball dropped from a height until it hits a spring that bounces it up again. We can suppose the spring might be stiff and fast or it might be somewhat looser and therefore a little slower in its action; but if the ball falls from a height, reaches the spring, and then is pushed back up by the spring, we don't expect the stiffness or looseness of the spring to have a great deal of affect on the timing of the bounces. Why? Because most of the time, the ball is in the air away from the spring, and it is rising, then falling, under the influence of gravity.

It is exactly the same with Cepheid Variables. The "ball" of our little thought experiment is replaced with the outer shell of gases of the start. The "spring" is replaced with the periodic explosion that takes place when the outer shell all collapses and, falling onto the star, heats up enough to release some nuclear energy. This energy then, goes into heating the gases and they bounce away from the stellar surface.

It is at this time that gravity takes a hand, the one force that Setterfield can never allow to have a change in the timing of its affects. Under gravity, the gas shell slows as it rises from the star, falls again, until it again impacts the stellar surface.

Setterfield's reply, quoted above, completely ignores the gravity timed portion of the Cepheid variable cycle. For this reason, it is woefully inadequate in defending his theory against the well known observation that Cepheid Variable stars continue to wax and wane with the same frequencies as far out as we can observe them, and, thanks to the Hubble telescope, we can observe them in other, more distant (and therefore even more problematical for Setterfield) galaxies.