Jovaro, here is a response to a question similar to yours which will be up on our webpage today or tomorrow, depending on my time. It is from Barry:
Concerning your two questions: They are both dealing with the concept of mass and energy. You quote Einstein’s equation E=mc^2 as the basis for the discussion. And then you give an example of a penny (or coin), its mass and its energy on the basis of that equation. It is at this point that a correction needs to be made.
In 1929, Professor R.T. Birge pointed out that the rest mass of an electron as measured in the atomic environment was considerably different from the rest mass as measured by mass spectrometers in a macroscopic environment. He commented, “The figures thus point to the startling conclusion that 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 would appear that there is some general error in the equations of the quantum theory of atomic structure.” (R.T. Birge in Reports in Progress on Physics, vol. 1 No. 1 pp 47-48 )
In 1960, the same problem was still evident. Professor R.H. Dicke pointed out in an article in the American Journal of Physics that there is a difference between the inertial mass of atomic nuclei and the mass of the same nuclei measured in an atomic environment using E=mc^2. This led Dicke and Brans to formulate a theory of gravity which, for a while, rivaled that of general relativity. His theory was ultimately disproved on the basis of a prediction which was not fulfilled, but the discrepancy which he noted in the data remained.
More recently, Audi and Wapstra, in 1995, noted a continuing discrepancy in the masses of atomic nuclei when measured by inertial means compared with the nuclei of the same elements measured in the atomic environment using E=mc^2. This is discussed briefly in Nuclear Physics A, vol 595, pp 413-415, in the major article entitled “The 1995 update to the atomic mass evaluation.”
It is becoming apparent that masses measured macroscopically via inertia are showing different results than when measured atomically. This appears to be a consistent trend over the last 70 years or so. Since, as Dicke points out, “the inertial mass is given by the energy of the system”, it seems that macroscopic, or inertial, means of measurement are measuring a quantity that is related to the total energy of the system. An examination of the relevant equations using the ZPE/lightspeed approach shows that this quantity will remain constant. By contrast, atomic measurements of mass are measuring mass in terms of Einstein’s equation which, in some instances, is called the Q value mass.
It seems, then, that macroscopically, we’re measuring a different quantity as mass than we are atomically. Because macroscopic measurements are measuring the total energy of the system, this would not be the ‘m’ in Einstein’s equation, but would involve more than that. It is actually a measurement of E. And since E stays constant, we would not expect any change here. This means that macroscopically, mass remains unchanged. However, when measured in the atomic environment, the quantity ‘m’ in Einstein’s equation has been shown as varying, and in such a way that the total energy of the system remains constant with a change in light speed. Thus ‘m’ in the atomic environment varies as 1/c^2. This can be seen on the graphs posted here:
http://www.setterfield.org/Charts.htm#graphs – scroll down to the last of the three graphs. The references for these measurements are posted below it.
In other words, the mass of the kilogram bar in Paris or the mass of a coin or the mass of the earth itself will remain unchanged under changing light speed conditions. This matter is going to be the subject of a paper which is currently in progress.
Thank you for your letter, and I hope this explains things a bit.
twohumble, you present a challenge and then avoid answering the response. This is because all you can do is make claims you have heard. You have clearly NOT read the material I linked to you regarding the handling of the data in the 1987 report. Here is material by a senior physicist from SRI International (now retired) and a professional statistician (not yet retired). I doubt, from the tone of your posts you will take the time to examine it, but if I am wrong, again here is the link:
http://www.setterfield.org/data.htm
You claim you prefer other people and other ideas. That is, of course, your perogative. But the Bridgman material is patently faulty, some of which Barry pointed out. Morton is an ex-YEC who knew the geologica record does not support a 'one flood did everything' model. We agree with him. However he seems a bitter man now dedicated to fighting everything to do with the YEC model as presented by ICR and AiG. We are not in that camp. We believe the Bible and find the data supports it completely.
Ross is another person you mentioned as seeing and liking. He is easy to like. He is, however, dishonest in his material and presentations. Here are some evidences collected by Lambert Dolphin, physicist, to support that. The last link is Ross' reaction to Dolphin's mention of the Setterfield work when Ross and Dolphin were talking together and later.
http://www.ldolphin.org/educator.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/donohue.html
from here, http://www.ldolphin.org/bolton.html
we find this from a Ph.D in zoology:
In his publication Facts & Faith, Spring, 1993, there is a personal letter by Dr. Ross concerning those who criticize his ministry, in which he says, "Men with little or no formal training in the sciences or theology dogmatically contradict the science and theology of someone [himself] who has done postdoctorial research (in astronomy) at Caltech and has served for many years on the pastorial staff of a well-established evangelical church. Why do my attackers never check with people who know me personally?"
As to the implication that opposition is only from the unqualified, he must be aware of critical articles by qualified scientists at the Institute for Creation Research at El Cajon, California, 32 as well as others. As for myself, I have a Ph.D. in Zoology, taught at the college level for more than twenty years, have written extensively on the creation evolution issue including a book that went through thirteen printings, spoken in churches, schools, and conferences coast to coast in the U.S. and Canada, and been repeatedly on the radio and TV. But errors may be pointed out by anyone knowledgeable enough to defect them, whether professional scientist or housewife
He told me his blunders are a thing of the past so I tried to obtain recent tapes, hoping to be able to substantiate this. But he informed me he discussed this with his staff and it was decided I should be denied access to the tapes of his latest graduate course for Simon Greenleaf University. Their opinion was that my "reason for wanting the tapes is not to learn more about the latest discoveries proving the existence of the God of the Bible and the accuracy of the words of the Bible, but rather to discover new errors and mistakes [he] might have made while speaking." They added that "they are ready and willing to change their decision given some evidence of change of attitude on [my] part."
If it were merely a matter of many scientific blunders, there would be little value in writing an article to point them out. But when associated with the Bible and a theology of salvation through observing nature, as well as promoting theistic evolution or progressive creationism, these things need to be told.
An especially competent scientist who is a creationist tells me this article is too long. He says the naive followers of Dr. Ross will forgive him readily for his scientific mistakes and there is no need to mention so many of them, for "his errors are innumerable, and you could spend the rest of your life recounting them."
Another Christian critic makes the following evaluation. "Part of his benevolent image is that he remains cool under fire, a gentleman to the death, so to speak, one who is always kind to his sharpest critics as to his closest friends. He's magnificent at this. I've seen him and been totally impressed by his gracious good manners and kind concern for those who oppose him. In other words, he understands the psychology of argument, and that's why he scores big on the logic of argument. He appears to be logical, and to many people this appearance passes for logic itself."
In my experience with him by correspondence, on the phone, and meeting him personally, I have always found him courteous and calm and never excited or angry about anything.
Evolutionary theory is in conflict with basic Christian doctrine. If evolution is true, we are improved animals instead of fallen sinners in need of redemption. If evolution is true, we have no need of the Savior, there is no occasion for the Redeemer.
and this is from a Ph.D. in astronomy: http://www.ldolphin.org/ross-faulkner.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/rossnotes.html
In other words, Ross is not only untrustworthy, but unbiblical.
twohumble, you need to choose more experts than these.
Or, of course, you can always choose to do some of your own research and check the data.
That's what Barry has been doing for the past 25 years.