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:
[url=http://www.setterfield,org/Charts.htm#graphs]http://www.setterfield,org/Charts.htm#graphs[/url]
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.