Replies

Just to enter them into the record:

Here is Setterfield 1987, first peer-reviewed publication of the hypothesis.
Here is Montgomery-Dolphin 1993, improved data-point set and statistical analysis.
Here is Montgomery 1994, similar to previous but with rebuttal of other statistical analyses.
Here is Setterfield 2001, containing the strongest statement of the theory; published in 2002 when reworked.
Here is Setterfield's 2001 explanation of observable consequences of VSL.
Here are Setterfield 2002a, 2002b, and 2002c, the published version of Setterfield 2001.
Here is Dolphin's commentary through 2003 as to the observable consequences of VSL.
Here is Setterfield backup material.
Here is the real datapoint chart, which has not been successfully rebutted, from Bowden 1998:

I checked what is supposed to be Setterfield's 1987 paper to see what he was saying back then on stellar luminosity. It says

REVISED IN LATER PAPER.

He cleary didn't publish it looking like that at the time. The posted link is not what you offer it to be and can't be used as I tried to use it. (That is, to trace the evolution of cDK.) Perhaps I have the real thing on my hard disk somewhere.

You might want to add this paper to your list, Atomic Behaviour and the Red-Shift.

I have an even earlier (1995) version on my hard drive. It's titled "Atomic Behavior, Light, and the Red-Shift." In it, the quantum of c-change is notably different from the value you are using.

THIRD: The specific change in vacuum energy density required for a quantum change in the atom, also changes light-speed by (Delta c) = 331.27 times c(now). Though all atomic particles remain in the same orbit, and orbital radii are invariant, a discrete change in orbital energy results from a (Delta c) increment. All emitted wavelengths of light will change uniformly at that instant.

Well, obviously an earlier version is an earlier version. I merely point out you're going to keep coming back forever pretending to understand that THIS ONE is the real hot poop deal.

I also notice that the earlier papers are more readable. There's a downhill trend in clarity. At some point cDK will lose me to where I can no longer understand what it's saying/you're saying at all.

For propaganda purposes, you can't lose. Propagandists never lose. Their victory is in fact inevitable. "Inevitable victory" is one of the talking points.

For science purposes, there were always too many ad hoc hoops to jump through in cDK and it never worked. Someday I won't understand how it's not working, but that won't convince me that it is working. Maybe it's already happened. I'm confused on a number of points and I don't find my confusion to be an argument for cDK.

In science, to recognized as right, you have to be intelligible. cDK has never had a chance of being right. Reality, the history of the universe, betrayed it before cDK was born. Confronted with this, cDK is going the wrong way on intelligibility. It isn't playing for "right" anymore but for "reasonable doubt."

It will fool the people who want to be fooled.

Your claim that the material you present in Figures 3 an d 4 "had not been successfully rebutted" seemed odd to me once I thought about it.

You're apparently not all that familiar with the history. Setterfield originally drew a curve through selected data points only. Later, forced to include all the data points including those below the line, he drew a squiggly damped-oscillation curve through them. That is, c actually dipped below the modern value but since then rebounded back and forth across the modern value, damping. SPROI-oi-oi-oing!

That was another clue. Figure 3 was either his original curve or he's jumped back to his old one, but the date on the document told me it's the old curve.

A look at Montgomery's Raw Data Table shows Figure 3 to be missing several data points between 1740 and 1780. Some of the missing points are below the drawn curve and one is below the modern value of c.

The "enlargement" in Figure 4 only helps show what the critics were talking about, as it shows an area where the real observations, most of which are not shown on the wide-scale Figure 3, consistently dip below the imposed curve originally drawn by Setterfield.

I believe Figure 3 with it's misdrawn curve is dead meat, not even being defended anymore as of the 1999 release of cDK. You make these announcements with such grandeur and they don't bear up.