Brandstater review of Setterfield and Setterfield's response--Cosmology, Creation and Time (revised version)


Cosmology, Creation, and Time

by Dr. B. Brandstater

RE: ABSTRACT - Cosmology, Creation and Time (revised version)

An earlier contributor (June 22) sounded a plea that for me was right on target: We are in urgent need of new paradigms. The old ones have led us, and our church, into an impasse, an abyss between two incommensurate worlds. On one hand, the biblical earth history, of creation-plus-catastrophe, is clear and consistent from Genesis to Revelation; there is not enough room for an abyss-bridging re-interpretation. On the other hand, the inflationary big bang cosmogony has gained strong observational support; in mainstream astronomy it is the only serious model.

If God's two books [Bible & Nature] are ever to agree, something has to give. I cannot ignore this impasse, though some may do so. I cannot honestly invoke Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria", and live resignedly with one foot on either side of the abyss. We are not only justified, we are obliged, to ask: How much room is there to re-evaluate, to question, the "received" paradigms of today's science? Is today's science as solid as our academicians insist, or can we still hope for a paradigm-shifting breakthrough?

I suggest there is more room than this abstract indicates. For me, it represents an old established paradigm. Cosmology, Creation and Time tells a familiar story of cosmic beginnings which is close to current orthodoxy. And it tells it well. Carl Sagan would be proud·..until he got to talking about creation week. This account of an old universe is usually linked with an old-earth, old-life story of origins, with all its evolutionary baggage. But our author here may be advocating an old-earth-but-young-life construct, long favored in many Adventist circles, and recently been brought into renewed prominence by Gorman Gray. (Similar views are expressed in a 1986 book Earth, Fire and Sea by Russell Mixter: Baldwin Manor Press.)

My feeling is that if we are earnest about bridging our cognitive abyss, this conference is a time to break away from established paradigms, to challenge the prevailing wisdom. The old box is comfortable, but we need to escape from its strict confinements. So I wish this paper could include some of the uncertainties, even the outright skepticisms, about the big bang, that do exist in significant segments of today's scientific community. Only then will we feel free to entertain new, perhaps dangerous, breakthrough ideas.

To help open our minds, here are some examples. They are serious, and come from responsible and highly credentialed scholars. First I refer to a substantial book on my shelf by plasma theorist Eric Lerner, titled The Big Bang Never Happened (Random House). In the words of one review, it "forcefully demonstrates that the prevalent understanding of the cosmos is little more than a myth". A cosmologist and researcher calling the expanding universe a myth? And Lerner is not alone. Amongst dissident scientists none is better known than the famous late Sir Frederick Hoyle, who first coined the term "big bang", and advocated a static model for the universe, not an expanding one. Another independent thinker is astronomer Halton Arp, whose research at Mt. Palomar and in Europe has led him to deny the expansion interpretation of the redshift. He calls for a radical revision of the standard inflationary big bang model. So there IS room to question the big bang story, told by strict naturalists, in which the whole universe exploded out a tiny cosmic egg. Perhaps the Creator acted in some such manner in the beginning, in a vast fiat creation event that did involve a stretching, an expanding, of the fabric of time and space. Of course that's conjecture. But we do need words to describe God's version of the big bang, and the Bible does speak, in several places, of God "stretching" out the heavens. Whatever events took place, they oblige us to use the word "supernatural". What creationists can affirm is that "He spake, and it was done·." In contemplating those very first moments in time, when God "commanded and it stood fast", it is easier for me to believe in those raw acts of the Eternal Almighty Word than to believe in the physicist's imagined "quantum fluctuation in a space vacuum".

Challenges to orthodoxy do not end with the big bang. Some very sacred cows in physics are now being reexamined. Even quantum mechanics, that has ruled physics undisputed since the early 20th century, has been recently called into question by Carver Mead, grand old man of physics, student and collaborator with Richard Feynman, inventor of the laser, and regarded as Silicon Valley's physicist-in-residence and leading intellectual. He is said to be emerging as "the boldest theoretical physicist of the 21st century".

In his recent book Collective Electrodynamics (MIT Press) Mead declares (referring to some obscure and counter-intuitive aspects of quantum theory) that "physics that does not make sense, that defies human intuition, is obscurantist; it balks thought and intellectual progress". He revisits the historic debate between Niels Bohr and Einstein, turns back the clock, and awards the victory to Einstein. While quantum theory yields good answers, and has led to some great scientific advances, it remains a mathematical model. It should not be looked upon as a description of what actually exists. Mead declares that "the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics." ( Quote is from Mead's interview with American Spectator.) Mead is calling into partial question the validity of a foundational portion of today's physics. Surely that opens the possibility for a changed paradigm, for a Creator's role in the quantum universe of the infinitely small, and even perhaps a material basis for indeterminancy and for man's freedom of will and choice.

If we are hunting for sacred cows, none seems safer than Einstein and his relativity theories. Yet in today's open season, even Einstein is not untouchable. In April of 2003, Paul Davies, renowned professor of natural philosophy at Sydney's Macquarie University, wrote: "According to ·.London-based Joao Magueijo, cracks are appearing in Einstein's theory of relativity, the cornerstone of our present understanding of space, time and gravitation." Commenting on recent satellite observations of Cosmic Background Radiation, Magueijo puzzled over the data, and concluded that "perhaps light traveled much faster in the past." (Davies). Yet "constancy of the speed of light is central to the theory of relativity and the other areas of modern physics that this theory penetrates. Physicists will give up this key set of ideas only after a bitter struggle." In his book Faster Than the Speed of Light Magueijo describes just what a struggle he had personally in convincing his colleagues to take the varying speed of light (or VSL) theory seriously.

This work of Magueijo had surprising support from John Webb in Sydney, who came up with quasar observations that suggested a small change in the fine-structure constant. Small, but potentially very significant. Davies goes on to ask: "Is it now Einstein's turn to be toppled?·..The idea that the speed of light might vary from time to time, or even place to place, isn't new·. ..The work of Magueijo and other could herald the start of a major shake-up in physics·.."

Let's pause to think what this means. When men of the stature of Magueijo and Paul Davies are entertaining the possibility of an inconstancy in lightspeed, we do ourselves a disservice if we lightly brush aside the proposals of Setterfield, and others who support him, that the speed of light has slowed down since the beginning of the cosmos. It was a courageous act for Setterfield and Norman to publish their Report in 1987 : The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time. (The Report can be found on the Web at: <> To propose any change in a fundamental constant of nature seemed at the time to be preposterous. Most scientists, including critics in creationist ranks, still reject theories of Vc (varying speed of light). But since I first became aware of them in 1989, I have remained cautiously open because they offer some unique answers for Bible-respecting cosmologists.

Are they right? I don't know. But in recent years Setterfield has greatly refined and strengthened his account of cosmic and earth history. If the theory is only partly right, in principle, if physical constants have indeed changed, then we have the basis of a radical new cosmic paradigm.

Returning to the paper under discussion, it is to be expected that the author, himself an accomplished astronomer, must stay within the bounds of safe orthodoxy. But I repeat my plea: We need to break loose from long established thought structures and conceive of a new paradigm, a new reality. Perhaps we should call it the ultimate reality, which is God's reality, the genuine complete whole, of which our humanly perceived reality is only a subset.

When God created the material universe, time, and planet earth, He was operating within His reality, which is beyond our grasp. Yet that reality is even more ultimately real than the one we know and trust. It is a reality in which the assembled disciples in the closed Upper Room could suddenly find Jesus standing among them. It was a reality in which Phillip, after baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch, could suddenly vanish and be found far away in Samaria. And it is a reality which you and I recognize every day, when, with a hundred other scholars, we pause before a meal and silently offer thanks to God for the food. By our actions we are declaring our confident belief that God, in His reality, can actually discern our very thoughts, decode them mysteriously, and respond to our unspoken messages of thanksgiving.

I look forward to hearing the full paper Cosmology, Creation and Time. No doubt it will be illuminating for me, and most of us who are not astronomers. But I am an avowed supernaturalist, hoping to catch insights into God's reality. It is in the light of that reality, surely, confronted by His divine omniscience, that we will find the long-sought bridge that conveys us across the abyss now separating our two incommensurate worlds. We know there ARE answers; we just have not looked long enough, or with enough openness of mind.

Even as we celebrate the accomplishments of science, we must remind ourselves: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts··..saith the Lord." And recognizing that other, vaster reality, Shakespeare made Hamlet say something similar: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dream't of in your philosophy." ---review by Bernard Brandstater


RE: response to A Creation-Based Cosmogony [August 5]

When some comments and questions turned up in response to my abstract, I forwarded them to Setterfield, and he has just sent me a fairly detailed response, which is attached hereto. If any part of them is of sufficient general interest, feel free to use this material as you wish. (B. Brandstater)


<<<First, I want to commend the author for bringing the work of these three scientists (Humphreys, Gentry, Setterfield) to the attention of the conference attendees. He has accepted a challenging task, for the three scientists approach the cosmological issues quite differently. Second, I believe a fair and open hearing of these three is warranted. Each has been promoted through independent channels. Hearing them together will help attendees compare and contrast them.

Third, for the SDA church to review these views critically, someone must champion the cause. I am reminded that the best way to dispel a rumor is to take it seriously; but if ignored or denied the rumor persists. Similarly, the three independent cosmological theories the author reviews should be taken seriously, recognizing that each theory "has its supporters and its detractors."

Because the author has written such an extensive abstract, it is easy to probe many issues that may already be discussed more completely in the full paper. Thus the observations below should be taken as a guide to the questions and issues this reviewer feels are pertinent.

Humphreys ÷ We need to know what tests are possible to evaluate the model. Why should we believe that Earth experienced the time dilation Humphreys conjectures? Would it not apply to other planets in our solar system, such as Mars, for instance?

Gentry ÷ That the red shift can be attributed to gravitational effects is not new. What does Gentry wish to achieve by opting for the static space-time universe of Einstein? In particular, what is Gentry's concept of creation in a universe that has no beginning or end?

The question of the unaccounted energy conservation needs to be carefully explained. Is it related to the issue of dark matter, a problem already under review (and not ignored) by cosmologists using the standard big bang model?

Setterfield ÷ His approach, much more comprehensive than the others, depends on the validity of variable (slowing) light speed, which mainstream science has not yet recognized as fact. This debate needs to be recognized. The evidence for the reduced light speed is not compelling, though there are hints of its possibility in the 300-year data cited.

>>> Though "not yet recognized as fact", mainstream science is seriously discussing the possibility. The issue of light-speed in the early cosmos is one that has received some recent attention. The Russian physicist V. S. Troitskii from the Radiophysical Research Institute in Gorky published a twenty-two page analysis in December 1987 regarding the problems cosmologists faced with the early universe [V. S. Troitskii, Astrophys. & Space Science 139 (1987), 389]. Troitskii's suggested solution involved the changing speed of light over the lifetime of the cosmos in association with some synchronously varying atomic constants. His solution included the idea that, at the origin of the cosmos, light might have traveled at 1010 times its current speed. He also concluded that the cosmos was static and not expanding.

In 1993, J. W. Moffat of the University of Toronto, Canada, published two articles suggesting a high value for c during the earliest moments of the formation of the cosmos, following which it dropped rapidly to its present value [61. J. Moffat, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 2 (1993), 351; J. Moffat, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 23 (1993), 411]. Then, in January 1999, a paper by Albrecht and Magueijo (hereafter referred to as the A-M paper), entitled "A Time Varying Speed Of Light As A Solution To Cosmological Puzzles" [A. Albrecht and J. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. D 59:4 (1999), 3515; astro-ph/9811018, 2 November (1998)], received some prominence. These authors demonstrated that a number of serious problems facing cosmologists could be solved by a very high initial speed of light.

Like Moffat before them, Albrecht and Magueijo isolated their high initial light-speed, and its proposed dramatic drop to the current speed, to a very limited time during the early moments of the cosmos. However, John D. Barrow, of the University of Cambridge took this concept one step further in a paper published simultaneously with the A-M paper. He proposed that the speed of light has dropped from the initial value proposed by Albrecht and Magueijo (some 1060 times its current speed) down to its current value over the lifetime of the universe [J. D. Barrow, Phys. Rev. D 59:4 (1999), 043515-1].

The A-M and Barrow papers discuss a possible alternative to inflationary cosmology. Whereas inflationary models rely upon a modification of the matter content of the universe to drive the superluminal expansion, the A-M and Barrow papers rely on a change in the speed of light for the early cosmos. The models in both these papers seek to provide solutions to the horizon, flatness, and cosmological constant problems in the Standard Big Bang model of the universe. These results were summarised in one sentence by an editorial comment to another article by Barrow [J. D., Barrow, New Scientist 24 July (1999), p. 28]. It read: "Call it heresy, but all the big cosmological problems will simply melt away, if you break one rule, says John D. Barrow ö the rule that says the speed of light never varies."

Importantly, both the Barrow and A-M papers use a principle of "minimal coupling" to determine the effects of changing c on other atomic quantities, and rarely rely on the observational evidence. By contrast, the model presented here is more experimentally oriented and primarily concentrates on the observational evidence of what happened to the cosmos after its origin and the ongoing behaviour of the atomic constants. Despite the different approaches, however, all these papers provide a framework for examining the effects of c-decay on the behaviour of the cosmos since its origin. Other more recent papers discussing variable speed of light theories include those by Clayton & Moffat, Phys Lett. B506 (2001) 177-186; Ian Drummond, Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 043503; Bassett, Visser et al Phys Rev. D62 (2000) 103518; J. Ellis et al, Astrophys. J. 535:139-151 (2000); J. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 043502; and that is only a selection. It has also been discussed by Paul Davies in New Scientist, 8 August, 2002 and in Nature, 418:602 (2002), as well as other references. The point is that the idea of variable speed of light is becoming a serious topic among scientists in the recognized journals.

<<<"Apparently Setterfield shares a similar position on the meaning and implications of the biblical phrase "·he stretched out the heavens·" as does Hugh Ross. Perhaps the author will elaborate on this, as Ross's position is well-known, but he "stretches" the textual meanings more than seems warranted by the texts themselves."

>>> Hugh Ross accepts a full Big Bang explanation for the origin of the cosmos. Setterfield doe not go along with Big Bang cosmology but points out that the stretching of the heavens is an important concept which ultimately gives rise to the Zero-Point Energy that pervades the vacuum. In much the same way that the stretching of a rubber band or the inflation of a balloon invests the fabric with energy, so, too, does God's stretching of the heavens. This energy from the stretching, the Zero-Point Energy (ZPE) arises in the following way.

The 1st important component in the puzzle is the role played by turbulence or vorticity. Expansion results in turbulence, but it is a 3 stage process -- (1) Vortex formation originally (2) Persistence of turbulence after the initial conditions have passed -- (3) decay of vortices. Same effects are noted with aircraft. For example the Boeing 777 has massive vortex formation with long persistence times of the order of 5 minutes. As such it poses a danger to following aircraft.

2nd piece of information comes from Einstein. As expansion occurs, energy is fed into the vacuum. Einstein demonstrated that matter/energy are interconvertable. The Expansion energy formed the smallest particles possible. They are called Planck Particles. PP come in pairs positively and negatively charged since space is electrically neutral. PPP are so small that if an electron was the size of the Golden Gate Bridge, Planck Particle Pairs would be smaller than a speck of dust. Note: Turbulence in a bath of water does NOT produce particles because it simply is not energetic enough! Let's return to the stretching out of space and try and visualize what's happening. Carl Gibson from the University of California at San Diego examined the role of turbulence and PPP with expansion of the vacuum.

At a Conference presentation in 2001 he discussed the formation of PPP in a cascade resulting from expansion conditions. Initially, the expansion energy went into the production of PPP. He pointed out that once a few PPP formed, the rapid expansion imparted separation and spin and intense vorticity to the PPP. Gibson established that once any PPP were present, energy from the vorticity would production more PPP. So turbulence among PPP from stretching or expansion will generate more PPP. Once stretching ceases, the turbulence continues until all the energy is used in PPP production. So even after the initial expansion ceased, during persistence & decay stages, the number of PPP increased. Essentially, the energy from expansion generates PPP, the smallest possible objects in quantum vacuum. The separation & spin of PPP generated some electric/magnetic fields, the EM fields of the initial ZPE. But the opposite charges making up the PPP attract and combine various ways. When they do combine, their energy is given off as electromagnetic energy. As recombination process proceeds, more E/M energy produced, so the strength of the ZPE builds up. So energy fr. stretching space during Creation Week was converted to PPP, which then recombined to give the E-M energy of the ZPE. Thus the strength of the ZPE increased after expansion & turbulence ended. The important mechanism whereby PPP give rise to ZPE is recombination. Potential Energy of stretching became Kinetic Energy - via production PPP and then their recombination gave the electromagnetic waves of the ZPE.

NOTE: There is a difference between the Scriptural statement and that of the Big Bang which is worth noting. The Hebrew statements all have the expansion in the context of Creation Week and are always in the past tense according to Dr. Bernard Northrup and others. This means that the expansion ceased at the end of Creation Week, and that the universe has been static ever since. Narliker and Arp demonstrated back in 1993 that a static universe containing matter would be stable against collapse [J. Narliker and H. Arp, Ap. J. 405 (1993), 51].

<<<It's not clear how a rising Zero Point Energy would raise the energy level of atomic light emitters throughout the universe (emphasis mine). Is this a simultaneous occurrence? If so, wouldn't this obliterate the very effect Setterfield wishes to account for÷Îremote galaxies' that Îemitted redder light.'

>>> There are several aspects to this question. First, how the ZPE would raise the energy level of atomic light emitters; second, why this is a simultaneous occurrence; and third, why this does not obliterate the redshift we are seeking to explain.

First, the ZPE maintains all atomic structures across the cosmos. This was demonstrated by Puthoff in 1987. Electrons in orbit around their parent nucleus are continually radiating energy, and should thereby spiral rapidly into the nucleus and the whole structure would disappear in a flash of light. Well, that does not happen. But when you ask quantum physicists why it does not happen, they will say because of Bohr's quantum condition; electrons do not radiate energy when in set orbits. But when you ask why they do not radiate energy, or what is the physical mechanism which prevents the energy radiation, you will be told that on quantum theory electrons just don't. You gain the impression that something is not quite right, because all classical electrodynamics indicates that this energy radiation should occur. Puthoff demonstrated that the energy lost by an electron radiating as classical theory indicates, is gained from the ZPE, so the ZPE maintains the electron in its orbit in the same way that a child on a swing receives resonantly times pushes from an adult that keeps the swing going.

Puthoff's Abstract read in part: "the ground state of the hydrogen atom can be precisely defined as resulting from a dynamical equilibrium between radiation emitted due to acceleration of the electron in its ground state orbit and radiation absorbed from the zero-point fluctuations of the background vacuum electromagnetic field."

In other words an electron can be considered to be continually radiating away its energy, but simultaneously absorbing a compensating amount energy from the Zero-point sea in which it is immersed. It has been established by Puthoff, Boyer, Claverie & Diner that this balance gives rise to stable orbits. An important statement was made by de la Pena summarizing research of these physicists: "if one considers circular orbits only, then one obtains an equilibrium radius of the expected size [the Bohr radius]: for smaller distances, the electron absorbs too much energy from the [ZPE] field · and tends to escape, whereas for larger distances it radiates too much and tends to fall towards the nucleus." In other words, as Puthoff commented, without the ZPE every atom in universe would undergo instantaneous collapse.

The second point is why atoms should take up a new energy state simultaneously throughout the cosmos. It should be discernable from the foregoing that an increase in the ZPE will require atoms to take up a higher energy structure. Since atomic processes are quantised, or go in jumps, there is a requirement for the ZPE to increase beyond some threshold value before the atom can access the new energy available. This may be considered in terms of moving a massive object. There is a threshold of energy input required before such a massive object will move. Therefore, once the ZPE builds up beyond the threshold, every atom in the universe will simultaneously take up the new higher energy state, and so emit bluer light. This happens simultaneously throughout the cosmos since the ZPE is all-pervasive and its strength is uniform on a universal scale. The reason for this will be discussed below. Therefore, when its strength uniformly increases cosmologically to a threshold value, every atom in the cosmos will take up a new, higher energy structure for its electron orbits.

The third point follows on from this. The simultaneity of atomic responses is not conveyed to us instantaneously. Light takes time to travel. As we look out into space, we look back in time. And as we look further out in space, and hence further back in time, we see atoms in successively lower energy states and hence they are emitting light which is redder. Because the process of energy change happens in jumps, so the redshift will also happen in jumps, just as Tifft and others have noted.

<<<Also, such simultaneous change of atomic energy states implies communication of information at a rate greater than the speed of light no matter what its value at the moment. I hope the author can clarify Setterfield's intention here.

>>> The simultaneous change in atomic energy states throughout the cosmos does not imply the communication of information at a rate greater than the speed of light. Instead, consider a balloon being inflated. At any given moment, the fabric of the balloon has a uniform tension acting on it from the inflation process. This means that there is a tensional energy in each square millimetre of the fabric of the balloon that is uniform throughout the whole structure. When the heavens, the cosmos, were expanded, this expansion energy gave rise to Planck Particle Pairs (PPP), the smallest objects that can exist. Because the expansion energy was uniform, the distribution of the PPP was also uniform throughout the vacuum, in huge quantities per cubic centimetre. Once the expansion ended, these positively and negatively charged pairs started to recombine. Upon recombination, energy is released in the form of electromagnetic waves that give rise to the ZPE. There is a law that governs the rate of recombination for such particles. Since particle numbers were uniform in every cubic centimetre of the cosmos, the statistical recombination rate will also be uniform, so the build-up of the ZPE will be uniform as well. Thus the strength of the ZPE builds up uniformly across the cosmos. And because atomic structures are the same on a universal scale, when the ZPE reaches its threshold value, all atoms will take up the higher energy condition. There is thus no breakdown in causality, and information does not have to travel faster than light for all the cosmos to respond simultaneously.

<<<I am not familiar with the expression "Second Equation governing the Bohr Atom." What is the second equation? The Bohr model for hydrogen is no doubt what is meant by "Bohr Atom," but this model included a quantum condition. So it is not clear what is meant by "·a quantum condition is imposed on the Second Equation." The author should clarify this.

>>> There are two equations governing the behaviour of the Bohr atom. The first equation relates to the angular momentum of the electron in its orbit. This is the equation that Bohr placed his quantum condition on. This is the one with which most people are familiar. However, in order to describe the behaviour of electrons in their orbits, Bohr also needed an equation describing the kinetic energy of the electron. This equation Bohr left untouched. However, when this second equation has a quantum condition placed upon it, the observed size of the quantised redshift is reproduced.

<<<The clustering of redshift in light from distant galaxies would also indicate their distances are clustered. That this should be so is compatible with the recent discovery of structure in the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is evidence for the "seeds" that enabled the initial clumping and coalescing of matter into the stars and galaxies we see today. Matter is not uniformly distributed in space, so distances are not necessarily smoothly distributed either. Rather than being at odds with Big Bang cosmology, this observed structure strengthens it. Thus it's not clear how Setterfield can claim the "clusters" of red shifts are Îincompatible with the standard big bang.'

>>> The clustering of galaxies is a different effect to the quantised redshift. There is indeed clustering on a large scale throughout the cosmos, and it may indeed have its signature in the microwave background, even though there is a very viable alternative explanation for the origin of this background. It is important to note that the redshift behaviour in question was initially recorded for galaxies WITHIN a single cluster (the Coma Cluster and then our Virgo supercluster). Thus the coarse clustering of galaxies has nothing to do with this redshift effect which is at a much finer level. In addition, further work revealed that the redshift effects were easily picked up between pairs of galaxies, and this comprised a large body of observations. Then it was noted that the redshift changes cut across individual galaxies. Therefore, the clumping together of galaxies is not an explanation for the redshift effects being discussed here. These effects are entirely anomalous and there is nothing in the Big Bang proposition that can account for it. When this is coupled with the four other anomalies that, by contrast, can be accounted for by an increase in the ZPE with time, namely 1) the measured increase in values of Planck's constant h; 2). the measured decrease in lightspeed c; 3). the measured increase in atomic masses; 4). the observed slowing of atomic clocks; then this whole approach takes on some significance.

<<<For both Humphreys and Setterfield the amount of change needed in either time dilation (Humphreys) or light speed (Setterfield) is enormous, far greater than the faint hints of such change indicated by 300 years of light speed measurements. What other evidences do these theorists cite in support of their extreme position about the speed of light, besides the utility of that belief in advancing their cosmology?

>>> In the first place, there exist the 5 anomalies mentioned above that the current Big Bang paradigm cannot account for. All these anomalies are explicable in terms of an increasing ZPE. It is important to note here that the approach with the increasing ZPE also gives us evidence back to the origin of the universe through the redshift. The redshift, the speed of light and the rate of ticking of atomic clocks are directly related to each other via the ZPE; they are each children of the same parent. What has happened to one has happened to the other two in direct proportion.

Therefore, the redshift data also give data on the value of lightspeed and the rate of atomic clocks at the moment of emission by those distant galaxies. This means that we can determine lightspeed and atomic clock rates back to the frontiers of the cosmos. In addition, the equation that describes the behaviour of the redshift is the same equation that governs the behaviour of lightspeed, and the rate of ticking of atomic clocks.

At this point, it might be objected that the redshift equation is a relativistic Doppler formula related to the recessional motion of distant objects. As such, it might be argued that this equation cannot be used in a non-expanding universe. The answer to this has been found only in the last week. The redshift, the decrease in lightspeed, and the rate of ticking of atomic clocks are all dependent upon the ZPE which is the result of the recombination of PPP. Importantly, there is a law that governs the rate of recombination in these circumstances. When the necessary parameters are fed into the relevant equation, it turns out that the form of that equation is almost exactly the same as the Doppler formula. However, its derivation had nothing to do with galaxy motion, but rather with recombination phenomena.

Therefore, there is a basic formula describing the behaviour of the ZPE that also describes the behaviour of Planck's constant and atomic masses, while its inverse describes the behaviour of the speed of light, the rate of ticking of atomic clocks, and the behaviour of the redshift. Furthermore there is a basic reason for that formula that is logically consistent with original universal expansion as mentioned twelve times in the Scriptures. I trust that this answers the enquirer.

Barry Setterfield -- 8th August 2003.

Posted 8/17/03.