This proves that the ZPE cannot change with time. Thus debunking the whole theory. Setterfield, wisely, does not mention the above formula.
Let's see if we can explain these proportionalities with our own theory, called Unified Alternative Cosmology (UAC).
It has been demonstrated in Time Dilation that orbital (gravitational) clocks slow down inversely proportional
to the square root of Varying elementary Particle rest Mass (VPM):
$$
\frac{\Delta T}{\Delta T_0} = \sqrt{\frac{m_0}{m}}
$$
Where $T = $ orbital time, $T_0 = $ nowadays orbital time, $m = $ varying elementary particle rest mass,
$m_0 = $ nowadays elementary particle rest mass. There is a difference between the rate at which
gravitational clocks are running and the rate at which atomic clocks are running.
It has been demonstrated in Time Dilation that atomic clocks slow down inversely proportional
to elementary particle mass as such:
$$
\frac{\Delta t}{\Delta t_0} = \frac{m_0}{m}
$$
Where $t = $ atomic time, $t_0 = $ nowadays atomic time.
A lot of features can be derived from the different behavior of atomic clocks and gravitational clocks,
in fact: most of the features concering varying fundamental constants of nature, as investigated by Setterfield.
Actually, the only constant not yet investigated by us is Planck's constant $\,h\,$. So let's do this one.
The dimensionality of Planck's constant $\,h\,$ is, with the atomic clock as the true one - what else could it be:
$$
\left[ h \right] = \left[\mbox{Mass}\right] \left[\mbox{Length}\right]^2 \left[\mbox{Time}\right]^{-1} =
\left[\mbox{Mass}\right] \left[\mbox{Mass}\right]^{-2} \left[\mbox{Mass}\right]^{+1} = \left[\mbox{Mass}\right]^0
$$
And that's it! In our theory, there is a strict separation between gravity and quantum - which is expected to remain so.
The VPM depencence of Planck's constant $\,h\,$ at the atomic time scale therefore is nil: $\,h\,$ is an absolute constant.
The variability of the lightspeed has been discussed separately in C-decay Theories and
C-decay data fit. Especially Conservation of Energy is upheld, but only in the time domain
with orbital clocks. Conservation of Energy is NOT upheld with atomic time.
At 28:00 Barry proceeds with a false quote from Max Planck, as if "h" was a measure of the strength of the vacuum Zero Point Energy (ZPE):
Everybody can check it out whether this is true or false, because there exists an online version of Max Planck's theory:
Where it is noticed that this book is dated 1914, while the reference in Setterfield's monograph is dated 1911. So the book is the most recent one and should reflect Max Planck's most recent insights. Near the end of page 142 it is said that there is "intra-atomic energy even at the zero of absolute temperature", where "intra-atomic" is synonymous to "within an atom or atoms".
Around 42:00 in this presentation Setterfield says:
"Using ZPE, all major results of Relativity can now be attained" ??
That's an outright lie! I have ploughed through that book of his called
Cosmology and the Zero Point Energy,
from cover to cover, and I can assure you that nowhere in Setterfield's work such results can be found.
What I have is seen is copy & paste from the work by Tom van Flandern; smelling like plagiarism.
Dear Barry, take my advice and have a break before trying to challenge the greatest physicist of the past century.
Here comes a nice reference: Reflections on Relativity.
But .. the two are linked with a mathematical formula: wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation are inversely proportional to (varying) elementary particle (rest) mass. We repeat from Length Contraction: $$ \frac{1}{\lambda} = R \left( \frac{1}{n_1^2} - \frac{1}{n_2^2} \right) = \frac{m}{m_0} R_0 \left( \frac{1}{n_1^2} - \frac{1}{n_2^2} \right) = \frac{m}{m_0} \frac{1}{\lambda_0} \\ \Longrightarrow \quad \large \boxed{\lambda = \frac{m_0}{m} \lambda_0} $$ This means that: if elementary particle rest mass increases continuously, then the redshift cannot decrease in jumps. The devil is in the detail.