The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

[Aineo]

Darwin's Black Box by Michael J. Behe is a good resource to scientifically defeat Darwinian evolution.

[Non-Christian]

Darwin's Black Box Debunked

In 1996, the Free Press published a book by Lehigh University biochemist and intelligent design advocate Michael Behe called Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. The book's central thesis is that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex" at the molecular level. Behe gives the following definition of irreducible complexity:

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. (p. 39)

Although the argument from irreducible complexity is essentially a rehash of the famously flawed watchmaker argument advanced by William Paley at the start of the 19th century, Behe's book has attracted a great deal of attention from creationists and non-creationists alike.

-continued-

[Aineo]

I have read Behe's response to his detractors and accept Behe's science.

[Non-Christian]

So long as you read both sides, that's cool.

[Aineo]

So long as you read both sides, that's cool.

How can anyone be well informed if they don't read both sides of an issue?

Evolution made sense to materialists in the 19th century but with the advances in science in the last 50 years evolution has lost its scientific foundation. Evolution made sense when it was believed the universe was infinate and eternal but Einstein blew that concept out of contention. And now that the constancy of the speed of light is being questioned the accuracy of formulas where the speed of light is a constant are questionable.

[Non-Christian]

I am not sure that you are interpreting what you are reading correctly. What sources are you referring to when you say that C is not constant? I've noticed that you have brought that up a few times.

[Aineo]

C is the speed of light in formulas and is used as a constant not a variable. Where do I get this? Any good physics textbook can explain it.

[Non-Christian]

C is the speed of light in formulas and is used as a constant not a variable. Where do I get this? Any good physics textbook can explain it.

Perhaps I didn't phrase that right.

I do not believe that the speed of light has changed, please site your sources.

[Non-Christian]

c is fixed and defined for the speed of light in a vacuum.
c is a universal constant and does not vary.

However, to an outside observer, light will appear to travel slower through
other mediums (like air or glass). But really what is happening is the
wavelengths are being stretched, and it is taking more time to travel, but c
remains the same, relative to the light wave itself.

Light cannot exist unless it is travelling at c. It has no mass and only
one speed.
On the other hand, any real object (with nonzero mass) cannot reach c,
because as it approaches c, it's relativistic mass must approach infinity.

Bonus round:
The stretching of wavelengths mentioned above is the cause of prisms and
rainbows. If you take blue light and stretch it, it becomes red.

Light rays (like in lenses) will always take the path of least TIME,
regardless of mediums.

But time does not pass for things at the speed of light. For a light wave
zooming around the universe, it interacts with the entire universe at the
same moment, from its point of view. Chew on that...

[Aineo]

Summary: Is the velocity of light a fixed constant of nature, invariant over time? This page presents the available measurements of c and several statistical studies which suggest that c has decreased in the past 300 years. What other "constants" of physics might prove to be non-fixed? How would a non-constant c affect physical laws? Possible consequences for cosmology and the age of the universe. Responses and comments are solicited.
Constancy of the Speed of Light

I did not say the speed of light is decreasing I said the speed of light is being questioned.

[Ecclesiastes76]

A few fun links:

Upheaval in Physics: History of the Light-Speed Debate

More Turmoil in Physics: Is Light Slowing Down?

Physics and the Bible: Faster Than The Speed of Light

Physics and the Bible: What Is Light?

The Controversy Continues: Speed of Light Slowing Down?

Upheavals in Physics: The Speed of Light Exceeded

[Non-Christian]

None of those articles prove anything. C has not changed and will not change. period.

[Aineo]

None of those articles prove anything. C has not changed and will not change. period.

Science is asking questions and the search for truth. 100 years ago it was assumed the universe was infinate and eternal. Today we know different.

[Ecclesiastes76]

None of those articles prove anything. C has not changed and will not change. period.

Did you even read them? You are starting to sound like someone who closes their eyes shut, plugs their ears, and starts to hum anytime they are shown something they don't like.

[Aineo]

None of those articles prove anything. C has not changed and will not change. period.

Did you even read them? You are starting to sound like someone who closes their eyes shut, plugs their ears, and starts to hum anytime they are shown something they don't like.

What Non-Christian has done is link to a Christian site that is open-minded about this issue and is reporting both sides. Interesting that he could not find a secular site as his rebuttal.

[Nickatwarwick]

Guys.
I want in on this light debate but have got to go away for a week. Don't say anything too interesting while I'm away, and I'll get back to you on it. Just quickly:

Is c changing?

To understand this properly I think it's important to realise just how big a statement this is. The constancy of light in a vacuum is the underlying axiom of 20th century physics. It's hard to explain just how much it would mean if somebody proved it was changing. Name a modern area of physics, and I guarantee that somewhere in the carefully sculpted maths behind it, the constancy of light will have been assumed, explicitly or not. [note by assumed I do not mean forgotten or ignored].

Put it this way. If somebody proved c was changing, it would be the BIGGEST discovery ever made. Almost, but not quite, like proving that 1 + 1 doesn't equal 2. It would be on the national news, and in the international papers. This is why it's hard to put any real faith in the claims of the links you have made. I will however read them when I get back, but the evidence they purport to have uncovered will have to weigh against the incredibly huge amount of proven, fantastically reliable and ultimately beautiful science that requires light's constancy.

Anyway, I don't hold with this "God is changing the laws of Physics as he goes along malarkey". Changing nuclear decay rates and decreasing the speed of light alludes to a God of deception and lies. And this is WRONG.


Oh, and could somebody link to some papers on this subject that have no religious motives? Thanks, and God Bless

Nick

[Ecclesiastes76]

Ah, but God didn't make the laws of physics, man did. It wouldn't be Him lying, it would just be that we thought one thing, then found out another and changed our ideas. Be careful what you say man, calling God a lier because something in science changes sounds like a dangerous claim.

[Jovaro]

Man made the laws of physics? I don't think so.

What man do is describing those laws as good as we can. Who or what or whatever did make the laws is the big question, answered by religion or science e.g.

[Aineo]

Man made the laws of physics? I don't think so.

What man do is describing those laws as good as we can. Who or what or whatever did make the laws is the big question, answered by religion or science e.g.

The laws of Physics have evolved with knowledge. So what we have now is nothing more than what man can comprehend, which is not all that much. Science has yet to describe how life began. What mechanism turned inorganic material into organic material that could reproduce? How did DNA evolve from rocks to what we know is what determines what each animal is composed of and how DNA instructs the cells to become organs, bones, skin, and etc? Random chance or a divine designer?

[Jovaro]

No, the laws of physics are what they are. They have always been the same and will always be the same.

Our description of those laws is changing though.
And indeed, there is very much we don't know about those laws yet.

[Aineo]

No, the laws of physics are what they are. They have always been the same and will always be the same.

Our description of those laws is changing though.
And indeed, there is very much we don't know about those laws yet.

The description of the laws of physics are manmade as are the scientific formulas that are used. You can change the result of any formula by changing a constant to a variable. Stephen Hawkings concept of the universe is based on using negative numbers in his calculations.

What is baffling some scientists is that atomic clocks at sea level and at higher elevations do not keep the same time. Since time and the speed of light are connected can science explain this phenomena?

[Ecclesiastes76]

Yeah, I should clarify that when I said that man made the laws, I ment that they just wrote them down and told people about them, not that I think man is in controll of the laws of physics.

[Jovaro]

Great now we all know what we are talking about.

[tuppence]

The speed of light has been measured as slowing for three hundred years now. A seminal report on this subject was done for Stanford Research Institute International in 1987 by Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman. The paper is on the web here:
http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html

Setterfield's webpage, with a number of his other papers and a discussion section is here:
http://www.setterfield.org/

A quick series of charts showing the measured decreases in the speed of light with references is here:
http://www.setterfield.org/Charts.htm#graphs

At least that should give some data to argue about!

The statistical defense of the work done with the data was published in Galilean Electrodynamics and can be found here:
http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkgal.html

[Jovaro]

Hello there

300 years ago and you think they had an accurate measurement of the speed of light?? Hihi

The historical idea of the speed of light was that it was amazingly fast. Here in an instant. Only later men found out that it wasn't that fast after all.

Really there is no reliable evidence for light slowing down. Try again in 10 years or so.

[tuppence]

The data showing that light speed had been slowing consistently was a major topic of discussion in the peer-reviewed science journals until 1941 when Dr. Birge declared the speed of light constant and that any idea that the constants weren't constant was "against the spirit of science'!

Yup, that's the way to do science, all right. Declare something a fact and ignore the data.

Here are a few charts showing the measurements -- measurements which Birge himself accepted --

http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html#3a
http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html#3b (scroll down a bit to the table)
http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html#3c
http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html#3d
http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html#3e
http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html#3f
http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html#3g
http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html#3h


conclusions in chart form: http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html#3i

In other words, by every method, the speed of light was slowing.

Of course, it's always easier to simply declare it's not true than to check the data. That choice is open to anyone.

[Jovaro]

Take a look at the numbers behind the +/- sign...

[Aineo]

Take a look at the numbers behind the +/- sign...

Even taking the +/- into consideration the meassured speed of light has slowed since 1740 and the +/- are expressed in thousands, so your point is?

[Jovaro]

If you take a close look at the numbers then you will see that C decreases pretty fast (197.4 km/s in about 120 years) when the methods of measuring the speed were not very accurate.
You will also see that the decrease between 1953 and 1983 (when the measurements got more accurate) is less than 0.5 kilometer per second.

I think it is a bit shortsighted to claim that c decreases based on these numbers. Does anyone have the numbers from 1983 till now btw? I am curious what those say.

Aineo, I think you are rather fond of Einstein. I assume you know the formula E=mc^2. Do you understand what it means if c decreases? E will decrease then as well. And we both know that that is not possible since energy can't be destroyed not created.

[Aineo]

Jovaro, you keep bringing up that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, yet assume that energy has always existed. You seem to be ignoring what tuppence has posted, why?

And yes, I understand that according to Einstein's formula that energy and the speed of light are connected. Can you disprove the Theory of Relativity?

[Jovaro]

I do not ignore it. I showed you that it doesn't mean a thing.

It is creative research based on highly questionable numbers.

Didn't you see what I posted earlier? According to the numbers tuppence gave c hasn't decreased more then 0.5 kilometers per second between 1951 and 1983?

In this article you will even find reasons why the measured speed of light would have been "higher" in earlier days.
It also claims that the speed of light is constant indeed.

[Jovaro]

Some more documentation on the subject: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

[tuppence]

Jovaro, first of all TalkOrigins is not famous for its honesty in dealing with the data. It has the primary purpose, and perhaps the only purpose, of trying to debunk creation science. That's fine, but it's not a good reference to use for that exact reason.

In E=mc^2, it is not energy that changes as the speed of light changes, it is atomic mass. That is why I referenced you to Setterfield's charts. He shows, with references, that the atomic mass itself has been shown as increasing at the same time the speed of light has been seen as decreasing.

The data is there.

On the other hand, you have already delcared that you not only do not know the truth but that you have no way of knowing the truth yourself, so I am wondering why you are arguing about this, as though you were aware of the truth of the matter.

[Jovaro]

Jovaro, you keep bringing up that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, yet assume that energy has always existed. You seem to be ignoring what tuppence has posted, why?

-We are quite sure that there is energy around here at the moment. Correct?
-We are also quite sure that according to the laws of physics it is not possible to create or destroy energy. Correct?

This leaves two explanations:
Either the energy was created by a way not accounted for in the current laws of physics (god orso)
Or the energy has always been there.

[tuppence]

The laws of physics are simply what we have discovered, not what we have made up. They were made up by a Lawmaker, the same Creator you deny. The same One who made energy in the beginning.

[Jovaro]

Yea, or not.

[Aineo]

Jovaro, you keep bringing up that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, yet assume that energy has always existed. You seem to be ignoring what tuppence has posted, why?

-We are quite sure that there is energy around here at the moment. Correct?
-We are also quite sure that according to the laws of physics it is not possible to create or destroy energy. Correct?

This leaves two explanations:
Either the energy was created by a way not accounted for in the current laws of physics (god orso)
Or the energy has always been there.

How can something that cannot be created self-exist?

[Jovaro]

Ask God. He is not created but according to you he is pretty much self existing. So I guess he knows the answer.

[Aineo]

Ask God. He is not created but according to you he is pretty much self existing. So I guess he knows the answer.

Which is the whole point of believing in God since science has yet to explain away intelligent design in our universe. God created all that exists out of nothing.

[Jovaro]

Pff, what intelligent design?
You have hardly seen anything of the design, yet you already claim that it is intelligent.

Do you agree with me now that it hasn't been shown that c is decreasing btw?

[Aineo]

Pff, what intelligent design?
You have hardly seen anything of the design, yet you already claim that it is intelligent.

Do you agree with me now that it hasn't been shown that c is decreasing btw?

No. And you don't see intelligent design in the unverse because you don't want to see it.

[tuppence]

Javaro, I have seen enormous amounts of intelligent design in nature! The workings of the cell itself are incredibly intricate and even self-correcting. The pollinization of flowers, the embryo's sustenance and growth, photosynthesis, your circulatory and nervous and digestive systems -- Dawkins himself admits the brain is immeasureably more complicated than a computer (although he claims evolution did it!), and I doubt even you would claim a computer is an accident of electrons and metals! These things and so many more not only exhibit design, but fantastically intelligent design.

Why don't electrons spiral into the nucleus and cause all atoms to disappear in an instantaneous flash of light? Standard quantum physics has no idea why not. But some energy balance in the universe has been created and designed so that what physics says SHOULD happen, doesn't -- and thus we are still here.

Intelligent design? It requires deliberate and constant ignorance and suppression of the truth to deny it in what we see around us.

In the meantime, if c isn't decreasing, what are you going to do with all the data that not only says that c is decreasing, but that associated 'constants' have been measured as changing in conjunction and balance with it? You are not only ignoring, it seems to me, what you see around you, but what brilliant minds in physics and other fields have charted and discussed.

You do seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing without a shred of evidence to back up anything you are saying.

You are proclaiming things you do not seem to know much about and then proclaim that the truth is 'your' truth. Dear fellow (I assume you are a fellow), if, for instance, the speed of light has changed in the history of the universe, that is just as true for you as anyone else. It is either absolutely true or absolutely false. It can't be true one moment or for one person and not true another moment or for another person.

[Ecclesiastes76]

Javaro is a supreme example of The Enemy's ability to cloud the mind of those who are not in Christ. If someone doesn't want to see the truth, they won't, no matter how much you show it to them.

[tuppence]

I hate to disagree with a brother in Christ, but I do believe Javaro is, rather, an example of Romans 1 -- someone who is intentionally suppressing the truth God has shown him in his life. He is preferring the Lie. What is scary is that "Seek and ye shall find" is a two-edged sword. If he is seeking the lie rather than the truth, there will come a time when that is exactly what will be given him and all he will be left with.

[Ecclesiastes76]

I agree with you as well, but I do think that the Enemy steps in and helps push people in that direction until the day they look at Christ and open their eyes for the first time.

A few years ago I would have been argueing right along side of Javaro. My online name used to be Grey, and my signature would have read 'There is no Black and White'. I completely believed that there was no such thing as good and evil, that each person was free to make up their own morals and rules. Well, that idea lead me down a path of distruction, till one day someone got the message through to me and I looked to God. But until that day I looked to God, I do believe that the Enemy was riding my coat-tails and leading me towards distruction.

But now I am Free, Free Indeed.

[tuppence]

He certainly lures them even if he does or doesn't push!

Your story sounds fascinating. Have you got it on the net anywhere?

[Ecclesiastes76]

Nope. I've given some thought to writing a testimoney, but lack the writing skills that my wife has.

(check out her poetry, look for the posts by myself or Suffer.)

[Jovaro]

What are you all talking about that I would be ignoring evidence??

I gave you a link to an article from the mathematics department of the UCR which clearly states that c is constant. It also gives explenations for the higher measured values of c in the past.

The link I gave you to the talk-origins faq tells you the same and is a direct answer to the claims by dr Setterfield.

What is intelligent or not depends on ones viewpoint. A pig probably thinks that mud is proof for extremely intelligent design, while to me it is just sand with water.
For us the world looks extremely intelligent designed, while for something above us, it might all look rather simple.

There are more viewpoints than your own. The trick is to see those.

[Aineo]

There are more viewpoints than your own. The trick is to see those.

The problem with "tricks" is they are illusions, like the fake fossils coming out of China. You can appeal to your experts in regards to the speed of light, but as you have stated on another thread, no one was around who could measure the speed of light 6000 years ago. So what is observed today may not have been the same at that time.

You insist that the speed of light is constant and absoulte truth, yet you deny any aspect of science you don't want to accept since we don't know the conditions of the world in the past.

So your truth is subjective and there are no absolutes unless you choose to believe that what you believe is absolutely true?

[Jovaro]

Now things are getting complicated.

The contancy of c is might be an absolute truth, but I think that it is. So my personal truth is that c is constant. I do keep in mind that I might be wrong.
Good science however shows that that is unlikely.

You make a false comparison between things I name that may have been different in the early days of the world and c.

I name things like generations. The time for one generation can be quite different among different kind of animals. We know that because it is like that today. 20 minutes for bacteria and about 20 years for us?
With this information we know that it is possible for the time for one generation to vary.

There is no such information about c. It would make no sense at all for c to vary according to the accepted laws by Einstein, and there is no proof for variations.

Of course c could have been higher or lower in the past, but there is no reason to assume that.

Hence the difference between the things I name and c.
My truth is therefore not subjective either.

[Aineo]

Of course c could have been higher or lower in the past, but there is no reason to assume that.

Hence the difference between the things I name and c.
My truth is therefore not subjective either.

However, the assumption that c is constant and has never varied is used in physics by definition, not by observation over extreme periods of time. 1 + 1 = 2 is by definition, not because it can be empirically proven. Man invented math so what we view as constants are inventions of man. Calculas was invented by Newton to explain his theories.

[Jovaro]

1+1=2 can't be emperically proven.

The value of c can be emperically proven. And the constancy has been proven over a small amount of time. There is no reason to assume that it hasn't been constant in the past.

Your comparison of c with 1+1=2 is false.

[Aineo]

1+1=2 can't be emperically proven.

The value of c can be emperically proven. And the constancy has been proven over a small amount of time. There is no reason to assume that it hasn't been constant in the past.

Your comparison of c with 1+1=2 is false.

The reproduction of bacteria match your criteria for accepting c as constant by definition. There is no reason to accept one and reject the other unless it violates a personal prejudice. In fact the reproduction of bacteria can be empirically proven while the speed of light cannot, at least according to you and those who refuse to accept what some highly qualified scientists have observed.

[Jovaro]

You are a bit stubborn aren't you?

I gave you evidence from very reliable sources that your highly qualified scientists were wrong.

"The above quote is, to my knowledge, the first salvo by Australian creationist Barry Setterfield regarding his hypothesis of "c-decay," the notion of the decreasing speed of light that has been used for years as evidence for a young universe. Setterfield's hypothesis, while initially embraced by the majority of the creationist community, received heavy criticism from the scientific establishment for several years since its introduction in 1981, and was finally rejected by the creationists themselves after it became such a major embarrassment that even the San Diego-based Institute for Creation Research rejected it (Acts and Facts , May 1988, G. Aardsma)."

From: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

[Aineo]

Yes I am stubborn.

Evolutionists continue to hold onto a theory in jeopardy because they refuse to see intelligent design in our universe and this after highly respected scientists in disciplines that cover the entire spectrum of science can show in their own disciplines that evolution is a myth. Even Einstein did not discount the concept of a higher power.

Here is a footnoted article that counters the one you posted from Talk Origins:

http://www.ldolphin.org/cdk-helen.html

When science refuses to even consider what respected scientists are observing science ceases to be science and verges on religion.[/quote]

[Ecclesiastes76]

If c is constant, why is it that Mercury seems to now be going around the Sun faster? See, ever since we moved to an atomic clock (based on the speed of light), Mercury has been moving a little bit faster each year. We know this is impossible, because there is no energy to cause that to happen. And prior to our moving to an atomic clock, Mercury was just fine, but then again, we used a clock based on our own movement around the sun.

[Jovaro]

From here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE411.html

Setterfield chose 120 data points from 193 measurements available (see [Dolphin n.d.] for the data), and the line of best fit for these points shows the speed of light decreasing. If you use the entire data set, though, the line of best fit shows the speed increasing. However, a constant speed of light is well within the experimental error of the data.

How can Setterfield expect from us to take his work serious with this kind of research??

Some more from the same source:

If Setterfield's formulation of the changes in physical parameters were true, then there should have been 417 days per year around AD 1, and the earth would have melted during the creation week due to the extremely rapid radioactive decay. [Morton et al. 1983]

As to Mercury going faster: Perhaps the distance of Mercury from the sun changed?

[Non-Christian]

You do realize that it doesn't matter if c changes, right? C is the speed limit, it doesn't matter if it's 55 MPH or 299,792,458 m/s. c is a concept.

[Aineo]

You do realize that it doesn't matter if c changes, right? C is the speed limit, it doesn't matter if it's 55 MPH or 299,792,458 m/s. c is a concept.

c is a function used in formulas used to establish the laws of physics. Have you taken algebra or any higher math classes?

[Non-Christian]

You do realize that it doesn't matter if c changes, right? C is the speed limit, it doesn't matter if it's 55 MPH or 299,792,458 m/s. c is a concept.

c is a function used in formulas used to establish the laws of physics. Have you taken algebra or any higher math classes?

Yes, I have. in the equation E=mc^2, explain to me what difference it makes if the value that c represents changes. E will still equal mc^2.

[Aineo]

Energy equals the mass times the speed of light squared.

Mass = 100
C = 100
Now solve for E.
E would equal 1,000,000

Next change c to 50.
E will change to 250,000.

This is simple algebra.

[tuppence]

ICR's Aardsma wrote that article over the objections of two men who were familiar with Barry Setterfield's work and saw the Aardsma was condensing the graph so much as to erase data point differences, among other things. When this was shown to him, he disregarded the comments and submitted his article to ICR anyway.

Responses to Aardsma were published in Galilean Electrodynamics, authored by Lambert Dolphin, a physicist, and Alan Montgomery, a statistician. In the meantime, Setterfield has also responded to the nonsense on Talk Origins. The links are below:

http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkgal.html

http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkalan.html

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_bs_02.asp (the response to Talk Origins)


One note, Aineo, in Einstein's equation E=mc^2, it was shown in the 1987 paper that m is proportional to 1/c^2, so that with all changes in c, energy is conserved. http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html#4b

The data shows that this is, in fact, the case, and not simply a theory pulled out of thin air. Again I would refer you to the charts here:
http://www.setterfield.org/Charts.htm#graphs

God bless.

[Aineo]

Tuppance, thank you for the explanation. Higher math and the philosophy of physics is beyond me until it is explained in language I understand.

[Jovaro]

One note, Aineo, in Einstein's equation E=mc^2, it was shown in the 1987 paper that m is proportional to 1/c^2, so that with all changes in c, energy is conserved. http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html#4b

You have to be kidding me!!

Woohahahahaha, this Setterfield guy is the biggest joke I have seen in a long time.
m proportional with c. Hahahaha, what a joke The relation between c and m is this: m = E/c^2
Since the amount of energy in the universe can not be changed you might swap it with 1 and that makes m proportional with 1/c^2. But only if the total amount of E does not change!!

If c changes, the entire mass of the universe changes with it, just to keep a formula Setterfield can't go round intact.

This is the biggest nonsense I have ever heard.

And his response to the so-called nonsense on talk-origins is just as laughable. All he says about it is that it is that all the critic is on his work before the article. He doesn't do anything to claim that this critic is wrong.

Setterfields report from 1983 is a joke, and you tuppence are making yourself look like a fool by holding on to it.

[Aineo]

Where did you get your degree in physics?

Photons don't have mass, but they do have energy--and as Einstein famously proved, mass and energy are really the same thing. So photons have momentum--but what exactly is a photon? For centuries, a heated debate went on as to whether light is made up of particles or waves. In some experiments, like Young's double slit experiment, light clearly showed itself to be a wave, but other phenomena, such as the photoelectric effect, demonstrated equally clearly that light was a particle.
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/qu ... oglie.html

This explanation puts a whole new perspective on E=mc^2. What Einstein is telling us is that energy and the mass X light speed squared are equal. So the universe has a finite amount of energy that is equal to the speed of light and the mass of the atoms that compose our universe, so while energy is a constant, mass and light speed can be variables and the equation still works.

So if E = 1,000,000 and m is 100 that makes c 100. However if c is 50 then m is 400. Makes sense to me.

[Aineo]

Tuppence, first of all welcome to JCF, I don’t know if anyone has taken the time to welcome you to our board, but you have contributed much, at least to my, understanding of physics.

Now, lets see if this dumb bean counter can express E=mc^2 in a layman’s terms.

If E was constant at the moment of the Big Bang then since there was no mass c^2 had to equal E. This means that in order to achieve m, c must decay or slow down. As more m is converted from E, c of necessity must continue to decay. When astronomers observe a red shift in a distant star system they are not seeing star systems moving away from us so much as c changing speed as m increases or decreases as more stars form or increase in mass or explode converting their mass to heat and light.

Is the above accurate?

So if the Big Bang is a viable theory and Einstein's theory is true, then our universe is young and a scientific explanation of God is not only possible but demanded by the evidence. Since God is spirit and does not have any mass then He is the only entity that could have "pushed the button" that created all that is seen and unseen.

The implications of c being a variable are mind blowing. No wonder so many scientists, evolutionists, and atheists refuse to consider that c is a variable. All the assumptions of science would then be absolutely wrong and evolution has lost the enormous amounts of time required for life to have evolved on this planet since our perception of time is also tied into the speed of light.

This puts a whole new and intriguing spin on “I am the light of the world.”

Jovaro, I think you do not understand the differences between the Bohr and Schrodinger models of the atom. According to my reading on the subject we can use Newton’s laws of gravity and Einstein’s theory of relativity as a comparison. Newton’s work on gravity is accepted as true, however Einstein’s relativity is a more accurate description, this does not negate Newton. I can understand Newton but Einstein is way over my head. The same can be said of the atom models, I can visualize Bohr’s model but Schrodinger’s model requires a better understanding of science, the later does not negate the former.

[Jovaro]

No, it doesn't work that way.

You can transfer matter into energy and in theory energy into matter.

Matter suddenly weighing less makes no sense at all.
Tuppence said that it is not things we see like tables that change in weight, but electrons. Perhaps she doesn't realise that there are billions and billions of electrons in a table, so it is the table changing in weight.

The whole concept is too ridiculous for words.

Light travels slower, so I am getting heavier???
Perhaps that is even the source of the weightproblems in the western countries nowadays??

[tuppence]

I have almost no time left this morning but the mass of an electron has nothing to do with the weight of the table. They are two entirely different things. The weight of something is determined by the gravitational force exerted on it. The mass of an electron is determined by, literally, how much jiggling it does, or how much space it appears to be taking up.

You need to understand the differences in the concepts of these two types of mass measurements, Javaro.

Any elementary physics text should be of help here.

If you are getting heavier, it is because of eating too much and exercising too little, not because of changes in atomic rates and masses.

Thank you for the welcome, Aineo. I'll try to get to your post in a bit. You deserve more than the quick and dirty explanation I have time for right now.

[Jovaro]

Mass is mass
I am build out of protons, neutrons and electrons. All of those have a certain mass. If you add up the masses of all the protons, neutrons and electrons in my body you will get my mass.

If electrons get heavier so will my body.

You can call me stupid if you want to, but that is the way it is.

Weight is actually a force indeed. You can calculate your weight by using the formula F = m * g

Where m is your mass and g the gravitational acceleration of the thing you are living on. In our case earth.

The word mass is often used wrong for weight. If I say that my weight is 58 kilos I am wrong. My mass is 58 kilos which makes my weight 58 * 9.8 newton.

Perhaps you were mixing those 2 up when you replied to me?

[tuppence]

Let me know when you have some concept of elementary physics.

[Jovaro]

If you would do the same?

[tuppence]

In response to some comments, it might be fair to state that there has developed an entirely new branch of physics over the last 40 years. This is called Stochastic Electro-Dynamics or SED physics.

This branch of study is exploring the role played by the energy intrinsic in the vacuum, called the Zero Point Energy (ZPE). Research in the SED physics line is turning up new answers to old problems, and allows an easy visualization of some otherwise esoteric mathematics. Included in this are revised concepts of mass. These concepts are based on the action of the ZPE on charged point particles such as electrons and quarks (which make up protons and neutrons). This approach was initiated by de Broglie and Schroedinger, and the initial introduction to the ZPE was paved by the work of Planck back in 1911.

The ZPE exists as an electromagnetic waves that are intrinsic to the structure of the vacuum. When these waves impact on a charged, massless particle such as an electron, it causes the electron to dance about. New Scientist for 3 February 2001, page 24, puts it this way. "So de Broglie and Schroedinger proposed that an electron is actually a point-like charge which jitters about randomly within a certain volume.... Haisch and Rueda believe that ... the electron's jitter is ... just like the Brownian motion of a dust particle bombarded by molecules in the air. 'Random battering by the jittery vacuum smears out the electron', says Haisch. ... 'A massless particle may pick up energy from [the jittering caused by the ZPE], hence acquiring what we think of as rest mass'." In fact the article concludes by saying that "If this were the case, all three facets of mass would be different aspects of the battering of the quantum vacuum."

Further work on this suggests that mass at the atomic level arises from the the motion of the charged point particles within a certain volume, while at the macroscopic level, we measure mass by the total energy content of the system. Gravity is also readily explicable by the action of the ZPE on charged point particles, but enough has been said to assure you all that my original comments were not without scientific basis. Further reading on this matter can be found from the California Institute of Physics and Astrophysics (CIPA) on their website is at
www.calphysics.org/inertia.html

Thanks again for your comments. I have written this on behalf of my wife, 'tuppence' who is very adept at explaining some parts of physics in layman's language. She has a decent grasp of the subject and until you do, I suggest you pay a little more attention to what is being said here.

[Jovaro]

Thank you for that information, as you perhaps understand this entirely new brand of physics hadn't made it to my science book 3 years ago. That book clearly stated that electrons have a mass, however very small.

Thanks again for your explanation.

[tuppence]

It's not new. It is classical physics -- the physics before quantum-- which is based on data. All it has done is add the ZPE.

Quantum physics, which is what is taught now, is not based on data, but, to a large degree, on mathematical constructs.

Since you mentioned "science book", I assume you do not mean a physics text. There I am sure you would have learned about classical physics, although you are right about not having learned what is currently being discovered about the electron.

[tuppence]

Now, lets see if this dumb bean counter can express E=mc^2 in a layman’s terms.

If E was constant at the moment of the Big Bang then since there was no mass c^2 had to equal E. This means that in order to achieve m, c must decay or slow down. As more m is converted from E, c of necessity must continue to decay. When astronomers observe a red shift in a distant star system they are not seeing star systems moving away from us so much as c changing speed as m increases or decreases as more stars form or increase in mass or explode converting their mass to heat and light.

Is the above accurate?

Hi! Its Tuppence's husband here. You are doing a good job overall Aineo, but the above is not quite accurate. Do not despair, however. Let me see if we can get this clarified a bit.

There is an energy in the vacuum which is intrinsic to the fabric of space called the Zero Point Energy (ZPE). You will recall that when you stretch a rubber band or inflate a balloon, energy is put into the fabric of the rubber band or balloon. We all know this energy is there because, when we were younger, we would sometimes aim the rubber band and hit someone in the room with it!

Now upgrade this idea from rubber bands and balloons to the fabric of space. At least 12 times, the Scriptures state that God created the heavens and stretched them out (always in the past tense and in the context of Creation Week). Science largely agrees with this and talks about cosmological inflation during the earliest moments after the inception of the universe. This process put energy into the fabric of space, and this energy ultimately appears as the ZPE. I say ultimately, because the ZPE built up with time, even after the stretching process was complete. There is a physical reason for this which is outlined well in the Journal of Theoretics article entitled "The Redshift and the Zero Point Energy" by Barry Setterfield and Daniel Dzimano, and is found here: http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Link ... Setter.pdf


This article points out that when the mathematical features of the process involved are worked through, you end up with a mathematical equation for the behaviour of the ZPE with time that has the same form as the equation of the redshift/distance or equivalently the redshift/time. This shows that the redshift is not due to the expansion of the cosmos, but rather due to the increase in the strength of the ZPE with time. The mechanism and the math are worked through in the above article. As the ZPE increases with time, so, too, does the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of free space. Since lightspeed is inversely related to both quantities, then it follows that an increase in the ZPE, and consequent increase in the vacuum permittivity and permeability, will necessarily mean that lightspeed drops with time. The mathematical form of that drop will be the inverse of the equation that the ZPE is following for its increase. Thus the form of lightspeed decay is fixed as being the same form as the behaviour of the redshift.

Now the redshift of light from distant galaxies has usually been ascribed to the expansion of the cosmos. However, the evidence provided by the quantized redshift indicates that the redshift cannot be due to either the motion of galaxies away from us, or from the expansion of the fabric of space. In both cases the quantization would be wiped out; we see examples of this in the Virgo supercliuster of galaxies. There, galaxies close to the centre of gravity of the cluster are moving fast compared with those further out. This actual motion destroys the quantization.

How then does the increase in redshift with distance come about from an increasing ZPE? An important clue was provided in May of 1987 by Hal Puthoff. In an article in Physical Review D, Vol.35:10, pp.3266ff. Puthoff demonstrated that atomic orbits are maintained by the ZPE. Classical physics states that an electron orbiting a proton should be emitting radiation and spiral into the nucleus and the whole structure disappear in a flash of light.

Well, we all know this does not happen, and when a quantum physicist is asked why it does not happen, he states that on quantum theory and by quantum laws, electrons do not radiate energy when they are in their stable orbits. When asked why they do not, and what these quantum laws describe as a physical phenomenon to overcome the problem, there is usually no satisfactory answer forthcoming, except an appeal to quantum mechanics.

Puthoff took a different approach. He accepted the results of classical physics, but added in the results from the presence of the ZPE. When this was done, it turned out that the energy lost by the elecctron was balanced by the gain of energy from the ZPE. The situation was similar to a child on a swing being given resonant pushes by an adult. Someone else put it this way: If an electron orbits too far out from the nucleus, the energy that it loses is greater than the energy it gains from the ZPE and so it moves inwards. If the electron orbits too close in to the nucleus, it gains more energy from tyhe ZPE than it loses and moves out to a stable position. Puthoff stated that without the ZPE, every atom in the universe would undergo instantaneous collapse. The ZPE therefore supports all atomic structures throughout the cosmos.

The next step is a logical one. If the ZPE supports all atomic orbits, and the strength of the ZPE increases with time, then all atomic orbits will also increase in energy with time. But light emitted from those more energetic atoms will be bluer. Therefore, as we look back in time, we look back to a region of space where the ZPE is systematically lower than now, and hence the light emitted from those atoms will be redder than our laboratory standard. The actual relationship is derived in the above URL.

So if the Big Bang is a viable theory and Einstein's theory is true, then our universe is young and a scientific explanation of God is not only possible but demanded by the evidence.

Yes Aineo! The curve for the behaviour of the ZPE is related to the curve of the redshift/distance and also the curve of lightspeed/time. It also is related to the curve of atomic clock rates compared with dynamical time. Dynamical time is just orbital time, the time it takes the earth to go around the sun. This is unaffected by the increase in the ZPE. But atomic clock rates, including the dates obtained from carbon 14, or uranium/thorium/lead dates are all affected by this process. Atomic clock rates all effectively have a lightspeed term in their numerator. Thus, if lightspeed is 10 times its current speed, atomic clocks ticked off 10 years in one ordinary year. Back in 1984 Van Flandern of the US Naval Observatory in Washington completed a study of the rate of ticking of atomic clocks compared with the dynamical (orbital) standard. Atomic clocks turned out to be slowing. A report on this can be found in National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 617 for 1984.

Since atomic clocks are all ticking at a rate proportional to lightspeed, c, it follows that, knowing the equation that c and the redshift have followed, it is then possible to convert dates on the atomic clock to dates on the orbital clock. When this is done,it turns out that the three major catastrophes in the geological record correspond to the three catastrophes recorded in Genesis, and the patriarchal time scale recorded there is very much in accord with the correction applied by the lightspeed curve.

The implications of c being a variable are mind blowing. No wonder so many scientists, evolutionists, and atheists refuse to consider that c is a variable. All the assumptions of science would then be absolutely wrong and evolution has lost the enormous amounts of time required for life to have evolved on this planet since our perception of time is also tied into the speed of light.

Nevertheless, the subject is still being discussed. In 1999 in Physics Review D, Albrecht and Magueijo wrote a major article pointing out that many astronomical problems would be resolved if lightspeed was higher at the inception of the cosmos than it is now. The figure that they suggested was of the order of 10^60 times higher. The redshift data indicate more of the order of 10^10 or 10^11 higher as a maximum. However, Albrecht and Magueijo porpose that lightspeed then dropped to the current value very shortly afterwards. But John Barrow of Cambridge proposed the drop over the lifetime of the universe in a separate article in the same issue of the journal. This is in line with the proposal discussed above. I had the chance of talking with Dr. Albrecht a couple of years ago, and pointed out that lightspeed did not need to drop so soon after the incpetion of the cosmos if energy was conserved. His response was that if energy was conserved, they could not achieve all that they hoped to achieve theoretically. This raises the question of whether research is being data driven or theory driven.

Jovaro, I think you do not understand the differences between the Bohr and Schrodinger models of the atom. According to my reading on the subject we can use Newton’s laws of gravity and Einstein’s theory of relativity as a comparison. Newton’s work on gravity is accepted as true, however Einstein’s relativity is a more accurate description, this does not negate Newton. I can understand Newton but Einstein is way over my head. The same can be said of the atom models, I can visualize Bohr’s model but Schrodinger’s model requires a better understanding of science, the later does not negate the former.

Just a couple of comments here may help Aineo. I give a quote from "Fundamentals of Modern Physics" by R. M. Eisberg, p.137 (John Wiley and Sons, 1967). Eisberg states "...the old [Bohr] theory is still often employed as a first approximation to the more accurate description of quantum phenomena provided by quantum mechanics. The reasons are that the old [Bohr] theory is often capable of giving numerically correct results with mathematical procedures which are considerably less complicated than those used in quantum mechanics, and that the old [Bohr] theory is often helpful in vizualizinmg proceses which are digfficult to vizualize in terms of the somewhat abstract language of the theory of quantum mechanics."

This procedure was adopted by Puthoff in his formulation of the work with the ZPE and the stability of the atom, but then he went on to point out that the same result would have been obtained using the Schroedinger model, and he then quantified his statement. It is also a fact that using the Bohr model along with the ZPE allows much simpler calculations, and ease of understanding what is happening. Indeed, SED physics holds the potential to reproduce the results of quantum mechanics using entirely classical concepts provided the Zero Point Energy (ZPE) is included in the modelling.

I guess that covers the subject for now.

Thanks for wading through this.

With best regards

Husband of "Tuppence"

[Aineo]

Thank you for the explanation. I think I understood most of what you shared, but I will have to read it again in order to fully comprehend what you shared.

I have a feeling that some theoretical science is similar to "creative accounting"; you can make numbers show what you want them to show. But just as creative accounting gets people in trouble so does theoretical science when the numbers are juggled.

What is really fascinating to me is how science confirms the accuracy of a book written centuries before man attempted to explain our universe by science.

[Jovaro]

There is one thing I do not get though.

There is an enormous bunch of electrons in the chair I am sitting at. If the mass of those electrons is not constant, how can the mass of the chair be constant then?

I am not sure which word (physics/science) is the right word for the classes I followed. We called it Natuurkunde

[tuppence]

Javaro, every electron 'jiggles.' They are not stationary. The mass of any electron is determined by the amount of space its jiggling takes up. If you heat up your chair, all the atoms are moving faster, and thus the chair, atomically, has 'gained mass'. But as far as you are concerned there is no difference except in what you feel regarding the tempeerature. You see no change in mass.

The Zero Point Energy has been measured as increasing with time. That has been measured by measurements of something called Planck's Constant. The chart showing that in a simple form, but with references, is here:
http://www.setterfield.org/Charts.htm#graphs (it's the middle graph)

This means that there is a reason for the electrons to be taking up more space with their 'jiggling' -- they are becoming more battered by a higher ZPE and thus their motion is more violent. Atomically, this gives them greater mass.

But that does not affect the construction of the atom itself or its electromagnetic properties which cause the binding to other atoms and molecules which eventually make up your chair. It is that combination of atoms and molecules together which must be moved to determine the mass of your chair. The fact that the components on such a small scale may be moving, or jiggling, a little faster or slower does not affect the matter of the entire chair. The amount of matter making up the chair is defined as mass. The amount of movement taking place within that matter does not affect the amount of matter itself, as long as we don't have something like spontaneous combustion!

One way mass measured on the atomic scale is a matter of space -- how much space does that jiggling point-charge take up? That is defined as its mass. There is another way of measuring the mass of an electron, and that has to do with its own total energy. This is a constant, as the jiggling is a result of the battering from the outside by the ZPE.

While the "eneergy mass" stays constant, the "jiggling mass' can increase or decrease without affecting the fact that the atom it is in stays stable, and connected with other atoms (or not) the same way. It is this matter of connections which make up your chair, and you, and not how much any electon is battered by the ZPE.

This is why we have been able to measure the mass of the electron as increasing in terms of volume of space taken up (by the jiggling effect), but that mass as you and I deal with it on a daily basis remains unchanged.

I hope that helps.

Oh, I believe that 'natuurekunde' is a general science course.

[Jovaro]

I am sorry but I still don't understand.

My dictionary said natuurkunde is physics btw.

The unit for mass is the kilogram right? According to the SI?

So mass can be expressed as a number of kilograms.

I would think that if an atom jiggles more it is having a bigger volume. And because of that a lower density. Less kilograms per meter^3. But a change in mass???

I just reread what you posted earlier and I read that an electron is a massless particle? That is new to me as well. The combination particle and massless sounds a bit weird to me.

A quick google search on the web finds site that all claim that an electron has a mass of about :

The electron has a negative electric charge of -1.6 × 10-19 coulombs, and a mass of about 9.10 × 10-31 kg (0.51 MeV/c2), which is 1/1800 of the proton mass.

I fail to understand that if the mass (expressed in kg) of all electrons in my chair changes, that the chair doesn't change in mass expressed in kg.

[webmaster]

I fail to understand that if the mass (expressed in kg) of all electrons in my chair changes, that the chair doesn't change in mass expressed in kg.

Does light have mass?

[Jovaro]

Good question. Nobody knows for sure what light exactly is, but it is assumed that light is massless or has an extremely small mass.

I would like to emphasize that this is only an assumption, there is no evidence whatsoever.

[Aineo]

Good question. Nobody knows for sure what light exactly is, but it is assumed that light is massless or has an extremely small mass.

I would like to emphasize that this is only an assumption, there is no evidence whatsoever.

How about light being both a wave and particles?

Wavelike Behaviors of Light
More about light.

[tuppence]

Hi! Its the 'Husband of Tuppence' here again. It seems that Jovaro is still confused about mass. Let's see if it is possible to clarify some concepts.

In 1960 Robert Dicke pointed out in American Journal of Physics that masses of single atoms measured by mass spectrometers were different from the masses of those same atoms measured by what was called the Q value method. This Q value was obtained by measuring masses of these atoms in an atomic environment via nuclear interactions that gave mass, m, from E/c^2 in Einstein's relation. By contrast, the mass spectrometers were measuring mass by inertia in a macroscopic fashion. Dicke noted that the discrepancy between the two types of mass became worse with more complex atoms. In 1995 the discrepancy in the data by the two methods was still an issue.

However, another anomaly from masses had been noted much earlier. This anomaly was detailed in August of 1987 by Norman and Setterfield in their Report entitled "Atomic Constants, Light, and Time." There, the values of mass of the electron in its atomic environment measured by several different methods revealed the increase in the mass of the electron with time. This was reflected in the officially declared values of electron rest mass which also increased with time. The graph of those values is found here:

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

By contrast to these measurements of the electron in its atomic environment, there has been no change in the measured mass of the standard kilogram cylinder, which is a macroscopic measurement. So electron and other atomic particle masses measured in the atomic environment have been increasing, but the mass of the macroscopic kilogram cylinder has remained unchanged.

The anomaly is a real one, and the effort to get to the bottom of the problem has taken many turns. Dicke's own solution was partially successful for a while, but then was abandoned as other data did not support his proposal. Since then, SED physics has been developing and is suggesting a line of enquiry that is currently viable. The answer involves the Zero Point Energy (ZPE) and the massless point charges, that is electrons and quarks, that make up all matter.

On SED theory, mass is acquired in the atomic environment by the jiggling of these massless point particles by the battering waves of the ZPE. The motion of the point particle such as an electron or quark has a resonant frequency which is partly determined by the speed of light, c, which is the velocity of the impacting waves of the ZPE. Therefore, if the speed of light was lower, the resonant frequency is also lower. Obviously, another factor is the strength of the ZPE which is represented in the relevant equations by Planck's constant, h. The final important factor is the damping constant of the system. In a similar way, there is a damping constant for a ball bearing oscillating on the end of a long vertical spring and immersed in a pot of oil. It turns out that this damping constant is proportional to the strength of the ZPE. That is to say it behaves in the same way that h does. This means that as lightspeed drops, the value of the damping constant increases.

When these factors are all put together, as has been done by Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff, it turns out that, as the strength of the ZPE increases, Planck's constant, h, increases; lightspeed, c, decreases; and the jittering of the charged point particles increases, so their mass increases. However, even though the jittering of the charged particle is greater, the speed at which it occurs has dropped as lightspeed has dropped. Therefore, with the increase in the strength of the ZPE, the equations are such that the total energy of the point particle system remains unchanged. It appears to be this energy-dependent quantity that we measure as mass macroscopically by our mass spectrometers and kilogram cylinders. By contrast, the Q value masses are dependent upon the strength of the ZPE acting on the point particle.

It seems that mass spectrometers and most other methods of measuring mass may not be measuring mass in the commonly understood sense, but instead is measuring a quantity dependent upon the total energy content of the system. The comments of Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff seem to emphasize this very point. They note that "To interpret Einstein's equation E = mc^2, we would say that mass is not equivalent to energy. Mass IS energy" [their emphasis]. They elaborate that "the kinetic energy associated with the ZPE-driven [jitter motion] is what provides the energy for the E = mc^2 relation. The real stuff is the energy, E, and as with inertial mass, it is only our (obstinate) habit of believing that matter must possess mass that leads to our insisting that there must exist a right hand side to this equation, namely mc^2. In reality (perhaps) there is no mass, just the energy, E... In a sense this does away with the need for a veritably magical transmutation of energy into matter, or matter into energy. In this view we never get energy by destroying matter. We get energy by liberating some or all of the kinetic energy that the quantum vacuum puts into the [jitter motion] of what are really massless quarks and electrons." Further discussion on this matter can be found at:

http://www.calphysics.org/questions.html.

Of course, when the first measurements were made of these two different forms of mass, they were equated to each other. As time progressed, and the strength of the ZPE changed, the two different measurements began to give divergent results. It was this divergence that Dicke picked up in 1960.

I hope this has been of help.

[tuppence]

In line with the original topic of this thread, this article:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0408/24meteorite/

regarding ideas about the evolutionary origin of life is interesting. Phosphorus is essential to life, but there is not enough of it occuring naturally on earth to give the evolutionists a break. So they have turned to meteorites as the source of the phosphorus.

All that is well and good except for one tiny little thing: life is not a series of elements. Life is a process that uses the elements. You cannot combine the elements and get the process to start spontaneously, although heaven (and many of us here on earth) knows they have tried!

The process was imposed on the elements. It was called creation.

[Jovaro]

If I get this correct then mass in a microscopic way is changing, but in a macroscopic way it is not?

So if that is the case, the total amount of mass in the Universe is not changing and therefore there is no reason to believe that c is changing with it?

[Aineo]

If I understand this correctly some of the mass in light is being transferred to other atoms, so light speed is decaying as other objects gain mass.

[tuppence]

If I get this correct then mass in a microscopic way is changing, but in a macroscopic way it is not?

So if that is the case, the total amount of mass in the Universe is not changing and therefore there is no reason to believe that c is changing with it?

Jovaro, you are partly right here. There is a difference between atomic and macroscopic mass. Einstein's equation has proven true on the microscopic scale, but not on the macroscopic scale.

However, the data show that c has changed dramatically in the past and may still be changing now. The curve of change appears to be the same as the redshift curve: http://www.setterfield.org/cdkcurve.html The math demonstrating these curves to be the same can be found here:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Link ... Setter.pdf

The fact that h and m have both been shown as changing in correlation to c is further evidence that c is not a constant.

Aineo wrote

If I understand this correctly some of the mass in light is being transferred to other atoms, so light speed is decaying as other objects gain mass.

This is not actually right. Light photons have no mass. While both the speed of light and the gain in mass of electrons happen due to the same cause, they are not in a cause and effect relationship themselves.

Light speed has slowed due to the increase of something called 'virtual particles.' In light of Einstein's famous equation, we know that energy and mass are interchangeable on an atomic scale. In fact, there are some very interesting articles in the past twenty years or so which are arguing that there really is no such thing as mass per se, but that electrons and other subatomic particles are actually 'point charges'. Whethere or not this is true, an increase in time of the Zero Point Energy (as measured by Planck's Constant) also means an increase in the number of electron-size particles, called virtual particles, in any given volume of space at any given time. These particle pairs (negative and positive) flash into and out of existence incredibly rapidly. But when a photon of light hits one it is absorbed just as though it had hit the wall of the room you are in. However, unlike the wall, that virtual particle will flash out of existence almost immediately and thus release that photon to continue its trip at the same speed at which it originally started. In other words, the light photon gives up no energy, but the time it took to be absorbed and then re-emitted by the virtual particle did cause an ever-so-slight delay in its trip. The more virtual particles there are in its path, therefore, the longer it will take it to arrive at its destination.

So, in a funny way, the speed of light has never slowed (although its speed between virtual particles is incredibly faster than we actually measure the speed of light as being), but through time it has required longer and longer to reach its destination due to the increasing number of virtual particles in existence at any one time -- and they are a result of the increase in the Zero Point Energy in space.

This Zero Point Energy is also the cause of the gain in mass of electrons over time. The higher the ZPE, the more the electrons get battered around (the word for this is 'zitterbewegung') and thus the more space they occupy in their journies about the nucleus. Their charge does not change, but they are jittering more, and thus taking up more space, which is translated by our measurement devices as having greater mass.

[Jovaro]

Ahhhh, now it is starting to make sense.

Thanks tuppence

[Jovaro]

I hope you don't mind asking, but where does this increase of virtual particles come from? I assume they do not come out of nothing so there must be a source?

[tuppence]

Hi Jovaro

Its the 'Husband of Tuppence' here. Tuppence is sound asleep getting a well-earned rest. She has been working very hard and under a lot of pressure over the last 8 weeks or so.

As for your question, yes, there is a source for the virtual particles. You will recall that Tuppence pointed out that Einstein's equation meant that matter and energy were inter-convertable. The energy that is being turned into matter in this case is the Zero Point Energy, which is intrinsic to the vacuum. This energy allows the local manifestation of virtual particle pairs in the vacuum, like electron-positron pairs or positive and negative pions. In fact there is a whole zoo of virtual particles in the vacuum. These virtual particle pairs briefly flit into and then out of existence.

The number of virtual particle pairs of various types fliting in and out of existence in a cubic centimetre at any given time is immense. But that number is dependent upon the strength of the ZPE. As the strength of the ZPE increases, there is more intrinsic energy per cubic centimetre in the vacuum. Therefore the number of virtual particles per cubic centimetre also increases. As the number of virtual particles per cubic centimetre increases, so, too, does the number of hits on virtual partilces by photons of light as they travel through the vacuum. The more hits, the slower light appears to travel over a given distance. Its rather like a runner going over hurdles; the more hurdles, the slower the runner's time over a fixed distance.

In anticipation of the next question you may ask, there is a good scientific reason why the strength of the ZPE builds up with time. It is discussed fully towards the close of the Setterfield/Dzimano article published by the Journal of Theoretics entitled "The Redshift and the Zero Point Energy", which has already been linked by Tuppence in an earlier post. If you need some guidance in getting through it, I think we probably understand enough of it to give you some help.

[tuppence]

My husband was doing some research for someone else today and came across the interesting quote which has to do with this whole subject and the confusion about mass. This quote is from an article by Raymond Birge, in his article "Probable Values of the Physical Constants" as published in Review of Modern Physics, vol. 1, 1929 p. 48. Is this too old? Don't worry, the same problem was found by Dicke in the American Journal of Physics, vol 28 no. 4, pp 344-347, 1960. There has been more discussion in physics journals about this 'problem' continuing. Here is Birge's account:

Now the last two results constitute measurements of e/m for electrons inside of an atom, based upon the quantum theory of atomic structure. The first result is the measurement of e/m for electrons in free space. The figures thus point to the startling conclusion tha the e/m of an electron is less when it is inside an atom than when it is outside. If this conclusion seems unacceptable, then it wouild appear that there is some general error in the equations of the quantum theory of atomic structure. The final alternative is that there is some unnown general error in all the deflection experiments. No matter what may be the cause of the discrepancy, the very fact of its existence appears to the writer to be of profound significance. Under the circumstances, it seems to be necessary to assume two different values of e/m, one to be used in all cases involving atomic structure, and the other involving free electrons.

This won't make sense to most here probably, but there may be something of help in the quote to anyone who has been following this thread.

[spunky]

first off i have a very limited understanding of physics and you completely lost me with the mass thing but about light... if Einstein theory about space being curved is correct couldn't light hit a pocket or fold and speed up significantly or decrease when encountering the gravitational forces of other planets.. and if it does wouldn't that affect the appearance of c being constant.... Also about the decreasing speed of light. If the second law of Thermodynamis is correct and all things degrade over time then it's perfectly logical to assume that this applies to light as well.

[tuppence]

Hi Spunky,

The subject is a bit complicated. Let me take the last part first. Light speed does not become degraded or 'tired.' It is the same as it has always been (much faster than currently measured) in between virtual particles. But the more virtual particles there are to absorb and then re-emit the light photons, the longer it will take that light to reach its destination.

About thermodynamics. That is not a good argument to use in a number of cases. First of all, thernodynamics itself has to do ONLY with a closed system and the heat distribution within it. Its name means 'the dynamics of heat.'

The argument you might want to use, but very carefully (I suggest studying about it a little first) is the more general tendency of the universe toward a higher state of entropy. That means things in general are becoming more and more DISorganized. However it is quite possible -- and it does happen -- for a temporary decrease in entropy to occur, meaning some area can get MORE organized. This, however, always happens at the expense of even greater disorganization someplace else. Thus, the net product is entropy. The evolutionist claim is that entropy has been decreasing continuously in life forms for about 4 billion years -- or that life foms have become more and more organized (from one-celled to multicelled to highly complex multicelled, etc.). THIS is what is denied by everything we know in physics, and biology, too.

There are 'moments' of spontaneously decreasing entropy from what we can see, but this is always temporary, and the general and net trend is always towards more entropy, or more disorganization. So don't use the 'thermodynamics' argument because it is essentially an ignorant one. If you want to deal with this area at all, talk about increasing or decreasing entropy. You are on firmer footing there.

Now, finally, about space being curved. That is a mathematical construct only. We do not see evidence of that in reality. In reality, what we have seen from Hubble and other telescopes is a surprisingly general 'flatness' to the universe.

Light speed itself depends on the 'thickness' of the medium through which is must pass. You can see this with a straw in a glass of water. It appears to be broken, or offset, at the surface of the water. This is due to light needing more time to get through the water than through the air. The only places in the universe where we see 'thicker' mediums are near large objects. And here, because of the presence of secondary virtual particles related to activity in the area of the large body, we see light slowing a bit and deflected a bit before it passes the large object.

Hope that helps a bit.

Tuppence

[spunky]

It does thanks!

[Jovaro]

Took a while before I replied here, but I have been doing a little research on virtual particles and their effect on light speed.

Well actually I didn't research it myself, quantum mechanics isn't that easy to understand, but I checked the theory of the virtual particles on the physicsforum.com

You might be surprised but the general opinion on the theory is that it is completely rubbish.

I will quote some replies.

OK, I think I can't take this much longer without sticking my nose into this.

The question here isn't what occurs, the question is HOW LIKELY is this to occur? If I have a vase that has been broken into a thousand pieces, and I throw these onto the floor, what is the likelyhood that it will recombine back into that vase? If you asked this person on that other silly forum this, he/she would not hesitate to say that this isn't likely to happen. Well then, how likely does he/she thinks a photon, in the visible range, would collide with a zero-point field that created a virtual particle? If it is THAT likely that it has cause a significant slow-down in light that the age of the universe has changed from 15 billion to tens of thousand of year, then guess what? Our universe would be OPAQUE! It will be filled with a continual collision of photons with virtual particles!

Again, as in the bastardization of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, this is a bastardization of basic QED/QFT by people who are simply taking a superficial idea of it and applying it blindly to suit their cause. Considering that no physicist in their right mind would give the seal of approval for their use of such basic physics principle should immediately rings warning bells.

This is rubbish in QED and QFT in general. Virtual particles are a mathematical artifact that allow us to do computations to high accuracies. They have no physical existence, and they can only appear in a Feynamn diagram that represents an interaction. The movement of a free particle is not affected by these vaccum fluctuations.

Don't worry about the explanations they can claim to have to backup their philosophy. It is either simply wrong, or the entire physics community is. Even if such an effect could exist, it would have to be very tiny. The vacuum fluctuations can only induce small corrections.

Also, the far cosmos looks younger. They can certainly not account for three major achievements of the Big Bang theory : the Cosmological Microwave Background, the relative abundance of elements, and the Hubble law. See here for instance.

This sounds very, eeuuhh, strange

Let me explain these virtual particles (photons can also be virtual).These particles are NOT real and you will never observe them. Then why do they "exist"? Well, they were invented by great minds in order to describe interactions between real physical particles like protons or neutrons...

The theory in which they were implemented was the Quantum-Electro-Dynamics or QED.

You also need to know that sometimes virtual particles can become real when there is enough energy available to give them "some reason to exist". The uncertainty-principle of Heisenberg states that when there is a lot of energy, they can become real for a very short while. In Quantummechanics the principle of energy-conservation can be violated for a very short while and this gives you also the reason why you need a lot of "external" energy in order to make virtual particles real. In classical physics this is not possible because energy must be conserved when a specific kind of forces are considered (like gravity)

Virtual particles are not "built" out of zero-point energy, they are just a way of describing interactions and that is all. And a photon itself will not interact with a virtual particle unless this photon is considered to be the virtual particle itself. i mean this : the attraction between an electron and a proton for example can be described in terms of virtual photons. It is them virtual photons that are the force-carries that mediate this Electromagnetic interaction. Two virtual photons can interact via the socalled polarization-insertion of QFT. But let's not get into that.

Is that enough for you to throw it in the rubbish basket? In addition I would like to give twohumble's post in the Age of the Earth topic.
http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic.php?p=41740#41740

[tuppence]

Here is a little more for you to digest in the way of virtual particles. I think these references might be just a tiny bit more authoritative than a forum discussion:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Q ... icles.html

http://www.upei.ca/~physics/p221/pro99/ ... irtual.htm

http://pdg.web.cern.ch/pdg/cpep/unc_vir.html

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics ... ticle.html

There are a ton more webpages from the Quantum Electrodynamic models.

Here are some from the Stochastic Electrodynamic models:

http://www.calphysics.org/rindler.html

also

"SCIENCE, VOL. 263, FEB. 4, 1994, PHYSICS, 'INERTIA: DOES EMPTY SPACE PUT UP A RESISTANCE?"'

There are possible changes in the mass of an electron, when it is exposed to powerful laser beams. Also, the Heisenburg uncertainty principle, limits the accuracy of meaning for both position and momentum, at the same time. In the vacuum, in a short period of time, a particle and an antiparticle can appear and disappear without notice. This affects slight shifts in the spectrum of hydrogen, creates electrical noise in semiconductors, and also creates inertia.

With a speed in a quantum sea of virtual particles, everything is the same in all directions, according to Paul Davies, and William Nurah, in the mid 70s. When accelerating through it, theory predicts a sea of heat radiation. But this is heat to small to measure.

Stochastic electrodynamics (SED), uses zero-point-energy to explain bizarre quantum effects, without the need for a complex quantum theory. Inertia results from a Lorentz force that deflects a charged particle, moving through a magnetic field. Also, charged subatomic particles, in objects, feel the Lorentz force. The larger the object, the more particles it contains, resulting in a stronger resistance of inertia. In the casimir effect, the distortion in the quantum vacuum, produces attractive forces between two plates. An experiment with the Stanford linear accelerator, using high energy electrons, caused an intense electromagnetic field to be experienced, as electrons entered a laser beam. The electrons interacted with the quantum vacuum's own field.

and

"CAN THE VACUUM BE ENGINEERED FOR SPACEFLIGHT APPLICATION? OVERVIEW OF THEORY AND EXPERIMENTS", H.E. PUTHOFF, NASA BREAKTHROUGH PROPULSION PHYSICS WORKSHOP, AUG 12-14, 1997, NASA LEWIS RESEARCH CENTER, CLEVELAND, OHIO.

Zero-point-energy plays a role in the inhibition of spontaneous emission. The space-time metric is related to zero-point-energy, curved space, and distorted geometry, most according to Einstein. Quantum theory was needed for zero-point-energy. In the quantum vacuum of empty space, particles appear and disappear. It is a virtual plasma with fields continuously fluctuating about their zero baseline values. This is zero-point-energy. It remains active at absolute zero temperature.

There is a casimir pinch effect in non-neutral plasmas. This process is reflected in the K.R. Shoulders invention. Sonoluminesance involves bubbles collapsing, in an ultrasonically driven fluid, which results in an intense sub-nanosecond burst of light radiation. In heavy water, heat is generated by this process, that is like micro-fusion. Resonant dielectric spheres, detuned slightly from each other, may lead to the best frequency downshift of the more energetic, high frequency components of zero-point-energy, becoming easier to handle.

Micro-cavity techniques could perturb the ground state stability of atomic hydrogen. A non-radiating ground state may be caused by dynamic equilibrium. Radiation is emitted with an accelerated atomic hydrogen atom in its ground state. The ground state becomes compensated by absorption of zero-point-energy.

It might be possible to generate energy by using micro-cavity quantum electrodynamics. Excited atoms pass through casimir cavities, between the frequency of the atoms excited by their ground state. Spontaneous emission times become lengthened by a factor of ten. Dr. Puthoff's method to release pent up energy between these states, is patent pending.

Zero-point-energy may power up accelerating protons in a cryogenically cooled, collision free, vacuum trap. This could extract energy from zero-point-energy vacuum fluctuations.

According to Sakharov, general relativistic phenomena can be seen in the induced effects brought about by changes in zero-point-energy, due to the presence of matter. The causes for gravity and inertia are different, but the effects are similar. The measure of resistance of a body being accelerated by a distant gravitational field, has the same value, as the gravitational attraction between two bodies. Both are determined by their relationships to vacuum fluctuations. Mach's principle attributes inertia to acceleration relative to the masses of the Universe, caused by the masses. In zero-point-energy model, uniform motion doesn't experience a drag from Lorentz-invariant vacuum fluctuations in perfect balance. But an accelerated body meets a resistance force proportional to the acceleration, relative to the fixed stars. It is a vacuum fluctuation relationship to zero-point-energy with distant matter structure. Gravitational and inertial masses can be altered.

and this is a pretty good article in real, understandable English:
http://www.calphysics.org/haisch/science.html


In closing, I STRONGLY suggest you don't try to glean just the information you want from others, but actually do a little research yourself. The web is not a bad place to start...get the the URL's with a little more substance than a forum, though.

[Jovaro]

As you perhaps fail to understand, is quantum physics absolutely not basic science, and very hard to understand. It would take me months if not longer to grasp the basics.
So I ask people who do know how quantum mechanics works, they give arguments why virtual particles can not significantly slow photons down.

Why don't you respond to these arguments?

One was that if light is really being slowed down by virtual particles popping in and out of existance, there would have to be sooo many particle pairs that we should be able to see them.
We don't.

I'll have a look at the sources you gave and see if I have the time to investigate them.

[Jovaro]

Here is something for you first, I already gave this link before, but now I found something interesting about it. The source is the same as your link on the virtual particles.

Follow your own link: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html
and then click the link at the top of the page saying Physics FAQ.
In this Physics FAQ you will see the link to the article about the virtual particles again. You will also see a link to an article with the name:
Is the speed of light constant?
If you read this article you will find out why the values of c were measured higher in the past. You will see in the conclusion that the speed of light has not changed.

Interesting isn't it? There are actually good explanations why the values for c were higher in the past and it has nothing to do with a higher speed!!

[Jovaro]

Did you notice that none of your links says anything about real photons having anything to do with virtual particles?

Or that real photons interact with virtual particles and that this would take time?

I googled on that a while ago, but without any results.
Perhaps you have some sources for me?