What About Gravity?
Setterfield: Thank you for your encouragement – it is appreciated. Like you, when I first accepted Christ as my personal Saviour, I was a theistic evolutionist, and the Lord had to take me down a long route to get me to see His Truth in His way. In fact it was the evidence from the changing speed of light – the hard data – that finally converted me to His way of thinking on the matters of science.
Your basic problem appears to be with the Zero Point Energy (ZPE). Let me put it to you in this way. If I stretch a rubber band or blow up a balloon, I am investing the fabric of the balloon with energy. This energy becomes apparent if I release the rubber band and it flies across the room – fast at first, then slows to a stop. In a similar fashion, when God stretched out the heavens (stated 12 times in the Old Testament) He invested the fabric of space with an energy, the Zero Point Energy. The precise mechanism whereby the vacuum obtained this energy is discussed in “Exploring the Vacuum.” Because of the mechanism involved, the ZPE has built up with time. This increase in the ZPE has given rise to the slowing speed of light, the quantized redshift of light from distant galaxies, slowing atomic clocks etc. The other point that needs to be mentioned for the sake of clarity is that the ZPE is basically a form of electromagnetic energy.
You ask specifically how gravity can slow the rate of ticking of atomic clocks. You mention different velocities for clocks in Greenwich and Colorado as being a possible cause for the time difference. Actually, the velocity differences are small enough as to have no major effect on the run rate of the two clocks. The main effect is that they are at different levels in the gravitational field of the earth. This is the problem. Now I am going to come at this from a slightly different angle from that of Einstein, since I have an article, General Relativity and the Zero Point Energy, which shows how all Einstein’s predictions from relativity can be reproduced exactly by a consideration of the ZPE. In other words, the ZPE allows a unification of a number of different effects, including gravity, all in one basic cause. Do not let this terrify you -- it actually simplifies things! I will now see if I can get a couple of important concepts across before I explain myself more fully.
The ZPE is the controlling factor in these phenomena. It can be shown that the rate of ticking of atomic clocks is dependent upon the strength of the ZPE. When the strength of the ZPE is greater, then all atomic processes, including the rate of ticking of atomic clocks, is slower. The reason why atomic clocks tick more slowly when the ZPE is stronger will be mentioned a little later. This means that, as the strength of the ZPE built up over time after Creation, atomic processes slowed down. This in turn means that atomic clocks ticked much faster in the past. Since radioactive decay is essentially one form of atomic clock, this means that radioactive decay processes were also faster in the past. As a consequence, everything dated by radioactive decay methods seem very much older than they really are.
The next point you need to know is that the ZPE is stronger around massive objects. Again the reason why will be dealt with in a moment. But here is the basic concept. Wherever there is matter or mass, there is a local increase in the strength of the ZPE. The ZPE strength obeys the same rules as we have for gravitation. Therefore, around massive bodies like the earth or the Sun, the increased strength of the ZPE causes atomic clocks to slow down. The further out you are from a massive body, the less will be the strength of the ZPE until it reaches its cosmological value in empty space devoid of matter. Therefore, because Greenwich and Colorado are at different levels in the gravitational field (and local concentrations of mass such as mountains also affect things), the clocks will tick at slightly different rates. Similarly, the clocks of the Global Positioning System are in orbit – further out from the earth, so that the strength of the ZPE is also lower out there than on the earth’s surface. Therefore these GPS clocks need a correction for this ‘gravitational field’ effect. This is in addition to the velocity correction.
Let’s consider why the ZPE increases around massive objects. Physicists today view mass as arising from charged, massless point particles. The problem that modern physics has is how a massless charged point particle acquires mass. The approach using the ZPE is useful here. The electromagnetic waves of the ZPE “sea” in which all point particles are immersed impinge on these particles and cause them to dance around in what is called the zitterbewegung, which is German for “jitter motion.” Because the waves of the ZPE are moving at the speed of light, and the point particles have no mass, they are battered around by the waves of the ZPE at very close to the speed of light. This motion has an energy, effectively a kinetic energy or energy of motion. We know from Einstein’s relationship that energy and mass are inter-convertible. Thus the jitter motion effectively imparts mass to those massless particles. It can be shown mathematically that the mass acquired by this mechanism is equal to the mass expected from more usual considerations. Because I mentioned the fact of charged particles, it may be thought that neutrons would not be considered in this exchange. However all matter, even neutrons, is considered to be made up of quarks, which are charged. Therefore, all mass can be accounted for by this mechanism.
Now what about the attractive force we call gravity? According to classical ideas, oscillating charges such as those making up matter, emit secondary electromagnetic fields due to their movement. These fields have recently been shown to have an attractive property on all charges in the vicinity (See the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics for further information on this). It does not matter whether the charge is positive or negative, the attractive property is the same. This attractive force has been identified as gravity. It has the same magnitude and obeys the same laws. Therefore, a gravitational field is simply these secondary electromagnetic fields associated with the oscillating or jittering point particles. These secondary fields locally boost the strength of the ZPE which in turn slows down atomic clocks and reduces the speed of light. In fact this mechanism can account for all the effects proposed by Einstein in General Relativity. But to do that, Einstein used elaborate tensor equations and the concept of a curved geometry for space-time. As it turns out, the same results can be obtained by using high school mathematics when the ZPE approach is adopted, and no curved geometry is necessary.
Finally, an explanation is needed as to why atomic clocks slow when the strength of the ZPE is greater. As mentioned above, radio-decay processes are one form of atomic clock. In each radioactive decay equation there is either a term for the speed of light, c, or Planck’s constant, h. Planck’s constant was defined by Planck in 1911 as being a measure of the strength of the ZPE. We have found that hc is invariant, meaning that h will always be proportional to 1/c and c will always be proportional to 1/h. Therefore, when the ZPE is stronger, the value of c is smaller and h is greater. But c always appears on the numerator of these equations while Planck’s constant, h, appears on the denominator. Therefore, whichever term is used, the factor related to the strength of the ZPE effectively appears in the denominator of each decay equation so that as the strength of the ZPE increases, the decay rate slows down. In a similar way all other atomic clock rates can be shown to be ZPE dependent.
I hope that clarifies your thinking.
Setterfield: You asked about the speed of gravity as compared to the speed of light, on the basis of Van Flandern’s work. It is certainly true that on an electromagnetic origin for gravity one would expect the speed of gravity to be the same as the speed of light. This is the viewpoint of standard relativistic physics, and it is at this point that Van Flandern has found intense opposition to his work. However, there may be a means of harmonizing the two approaches. The speed of light is determined by the number of virtual particles in existence at any one time in a given volume of space. They act as ‘hurdles’ to photons in transit, since they absorb and them re-emit the photon, which takes a very tiny amount of time, but nevertheless still takes time. It would seem that between virtual particles the photon travels at the speed it originally had in the beginning. Thus, the virtual particles are the reason for the slowing speed of light, not any sort of ‘tired light.’
By contrast, gravitational waves (assume they are waves, and that they exist as such) would be of extremely long wavelengths. As a consequence, the virtual particles would not act as a barrier to them any more than dust particles act as a barrier to infrared light. Therefore it may well be that if gravitational waves exist, their speed will be that of the original speed of light and not the speed of light now.
I hope that helps a bit. Keep in mind that gravitational ‘waves’ have not yet been identified! They are still looking.
Question: What is the effect of gravity on light?
Setterfield: First of all, we need to understand what gravity is. We think of it as the attraction of one MASS to another, but it is rather the effect of electromagmetic fields sent out by charged particles in motion (due to the battering of the ZPE). Thus, the denser the mass, the more charged particles are there, the more motion they exhibit, the denser the electromagnetic field. This is the attractive force we perceive as gravity. As a result, this greater electromagnetic field will produce a greater number of virtual particles at any one time in any given volume. Thus light is slowed even more in these areas and we then see it as gravity 'bending' light. What we are actually seeing is light which is slowed more than normal in local denser fields of the ZPE.
Setterfield: According to SED physics, gravity itself is the result of a secondary field of energy generated by the ‘jiggling’ of subatomic particles – which itself is a response to the zero point energy which surrounds them. This secondary field effectively increases the strength of the zero point energy in that area, which in turn gives rise to a local increase of virtual particles. This increase results in a localized slowing of light which we see and interpret as gravity bending light.
Setterfield: Yes, see the above. I am currently researching material which is already in the scientific journals about this.
Setterfield: Yes, it does. But the amount is very small. Even with the sun, the amount of bending of the light is relatively small.
Setterfield: The simplest way to explain it is that in the case of a black hole, the secondary electromagnetic fields which are perceived as gravity would be so strong that light would be bent into a circle, and hence not escape. What should be mentioned here, however, is that black holes are only theoretical constructs in the gravitational model of the universe. They have not been seen. By way of contrast, plasma physics does explain the bright, dense centers of galaxies in a way that can be replicated in labs here on earth. My paper, A Plasma Universe With Changing Zero Point Energy, helps explain this.
Setterfield: No one has asked this question yet! But as far as I am aware, gravity does not change. This is why the Lord told us in Genesis 1:14 to use the sun, moon, and stars as timekeepers. Gravity may be a weak force in comparison to others, but it is constant.
There are a number of physical quantities which are unchanged -- things like the fine structure constant. But gravity is the big one. Some combinations of atomic quantities result in unchanged totals. For instance, the speed of light can and does change. Planck's Constant can and does change, but the two multiplied together produce the same result at all times. It is something like 1 x 20 = 20 and 2 x 10 = 20 and 4 x 5 = 20. In the same way, some quantities, although they themselves can change, are so connected to other quantities that they change synchronously, so their product remains constant.
I hope that helps a bit.
Setterfield: While we agree with Gray that gravity is actually an electromagnetic phenomena, we disagree as to the mechanism involved. Gray's model is as follows:
The explanation given by T. Staples Gray is definitely different from the usual SED explanation. The SED explanation is, however, of an electromagnetic effect. Let be briefly explain it this way.
I hope this clarifies your thinking. Get back to me if there are any problems.
Setterfield: That is a good question. After all, if the gravity long ago were less, the consequences would extend far beyond the dinosaur question. It certainly would have made construction of the giant megaliths like Stonehenge more manageable. The consequences extend even further. Gravity and mass are related. If gravity (or mass) were different such that easy transportation of massive bodies was possible, whether by humans or the locomotion of massive beasts, this also means that events such as the movement of tectonic plates and the division of continents in the days of Peleg (Genesis 10:25) would also have been much more easily accomplished. This would considerably lessen the potential problems associated with that event. And so the list could go on.
However, if gravity or masses were less in the past, then the gases in our atmosphere would have higher intrinsic velocities. This would mean that molecules and atoms would escape from our original atmosphere at a prodigious rate. Thus the atmosphere we have today would be a mere fraction of what we had initially. This problem has been used as an argument in the past against the proposal that gravity or mass has changed. There are other related problems. But that is sufficient to give you a feel for the situation.
As for an answer to your question regarding the situation with regard to the Zero Point Energy model, some things need to cleared up first. It is generally assumed that if subatomic masses are increasing in size then, generally, masses as measured by gravitation must also be increasing. This assumption is incorrect as the word “mass” refers to two entirely different things on a subatomic level vs. a gravitational level. First, the action of the Zero Point Energy waves in jiggling massless subatomic particles is known to produce mass as a result of the kinetic energy from the jiggling. This kinetic energy has a mass-equivalent as shown by the famous equation of mass-energy conversion, E = mc2. Therefore as the ZPE built up in time, subatomic masses increased. In the past subatomic masses were lower. This has been proven experimentally true since such measurements were made about 1920 or so.
This is also explained in the Setterfield Simplified article on "Mass and Gravity". There is a simple equation which explains the difference between gravitational mass and subatomic mass.
M is gravitational mass, like your chair, or table or you.
It is usually assumed that m* can be dismissed as simply functioning as what is called a “damping” constant in the mathematical equations. It is therefore usually ignored. Because they ignore the intrinsic mass, it is thought that the behaviour of gravitational masses (M) follow the behaviour of the subatomic masses (m). However, when behaviour of the instrinsic mass (m*) is taken into account, it is found that m and m* have an inverse relationship, which means that as one goes up the other goes down in proportion. The result is that M, or gravitational mass, remains a constant.
Whether or not the intrinsic mass of the charge is considered, it can be shown that gravitational acceleration, or the pull of gravity (the rate at which objects fall), will remain fixed due to mutually cancelling terms. In a vast simplification of how these terms cancel, the Newton Gravitational Constant, G, (the attraction between any two bodies) is in inverse proportion to the standard subatomic mass, m, (the “jiggle mass” only). Or Gm is a constant. Thus the time it takes the earth to orbit (or "fall") around the Sun would remain unchanged.
Let’s suppose that lower subatomic masses led to lower gravitational masses, as many currently assume. With lower masses, heavy objects would be easier to lift, as mentioned in the first paragraph. Dinosaurs would no longer have a weight problem and plate tectonics could occur with relative ease. It should be said, however, that the Bible does mention in Job that the two large beasts referred to there are both associated with water, and water may well have provided the necessary buoyancy for them in terms of movement. As far as plate tectonics is concerned, lighter masses means the plates would move more easily and earthquakes would be much more frequent. However, as also mentioned, the earth would have experienced a drastic change in atmosphere.
The question is which option do we choose? If we choose the option with all gravitational phenomena remaining constant including gravitational masses, then the problems with our atmosphere and related issues disappear. If the other option is taken with gravitational masses following subatomic masses and increasing with time, then the problems of the dinosaurs, the megaliths and plate tectonics are resolved. Which do we choose?
The basis on which I chose to take the constant gravitational masses option was from data. Throughout, I have tried to let data lead to theory. The observational evidence is that subatomic masses were increasing with time. However, gravitational masses, such as the standard platinum-iridium bar held in Paris, have remained unchanged since late in the 19th century, despite measured changes in subatomic masses. As a result, I followed that option in Cosmology and the Zero Point Energy. I could be wrong in doing that. There may be some explanation why the standard platinum-iridium bar shows no changes, but as yet that has not been followed through. The alternative approach is to ignore that evidence and follow the line of suspicion from the dinosaurs, the megaliths and plate tectonics. It is a valid option in the ZPE gravity scenario, but it does open up other problems.
So in summary, there is a potential answer to your problem of data from the distant past, but I have followed the path where recent data have suggested another course. Whether I am right or wrong in this is yet to be determined. However, I am certainly ready to change my opinion if there is sufficient evidence to back it up.