Thanks, Aineo.
twohumble, first of all, it's not Barry's data! It's a collection of all the light speed measurements for several hundred years! ALL of them. To say you disagree with the data is ridiculous. Data is data is data is data. If you let it speak for itself, the speed of light has slowed in the past and is still slowing somewhat now.
As far as the Bridgman paper goes, he and Barry had a lengthy exchange about the time this paper came out or a little after. Bridgman has an awful lot of material very misconstrued. For example, his treatment of the redshift shows that he simpy did not understand what Barry was doing. He said (equations 32-38, p. 17) "Opps! The received wavelength is the same as the emitted wavelength! There is no redshift!" (Emphasis is his)
Barry's comment as he sits here: This is absolutely correct! The varying c model requires that the received wavelength is the same as the emitted wavelength. The redshift comes from the lower energy of atomic orbits of the emitter atoms. The instrinsic wavelength from these atoms is redder because of the lower energy of the atomic orbits, as you go further back in time, which, in turn, is the result of a lower strength of the ZPE. In other words, Bridgman has either not understood what I was talking about, which seems incredible, or else he has been deliberately misleading. This is just one example from his paper.
Bridgman is trying to claim, in his paper and other places that the redshift should be due to the changing speed of light, but that is not the case at all. He has entirely misrepresented the Setterfield hypothesis.
Back to Helen: Some of Barry's responses regarding Bridgman's work may be found on this page, under Pulsars:
http://www.setterfield.org/AstronomicalDiscussion.htm
twohumble, at the risk of being reprimanded, I have to say that the gist of your responses appears to me to run along the lines of "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts."