Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

I copied the article until the mention of the fine structure constant. The article is in PDF form, so the formatting doesn't translate well into HTML, at least with the tools available to me right now.

In the past I have postulated that the speed of light is not a constant due to some physics findings that suggest the Fine Structure Constant is variable.

This appears to be a classic questioning of the current paradigm, so even Alamo-Girl would expect hostility.

1 posted on 06/12/2009 11:25:41 PM PDT by Kevmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]

To: Kevmo; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; GodGunsGuts; neverdem; ShadowAce

Pinging Alamo-Girl due to prominent mention, and because she’s one of my favorite freepers.

To: GodGunsGuts; betty boop; metmom; LeGrande; editor-surveyor; MHGinTN; TXnMA
Any thoughts on the Cosmologists who question the Big Bang (and what would seem to be the fanatical persecution of the same)?

Cosmic measurements since the 1960’s have ever been tested against the big bang/inflationary universe model. And because the model has held up to all those tests, most scientists accept the big bang/inflationary universe model. And no doubt the peer-reviewers would be extremely skeptical of theories which cannot explain away that ever increasing volume of measurements.
Hostility may follow, but I doubt to the extreme of the Intelligent Design issue.

There is a difference.

Evolution biology is a historical science much like anthropology, archeology and Egyptology. They do not have a complete record to view - i.e. not every thing that ever lived left a fossil and an artifact. So in these disciplines, the theory is the paradigm to explain the quantization of the historical continuum and is “the” test for any evidence which accumulates thereafter. Intelligent Design questions the paradigm per se claiming that “certain” features are best explained by an intelligent cause.

One could argue that physical cosmology is a historical science as well. But physical cosmology proposes many blueprints (theories) which fit the physical evidence. However, unlike evolution biology, there is no single paradigm theory for physical cosmology. Theories include imaginary time, multi-verse, multi-world, ekpyrotic, cyclic and many more. The “paradigm” in that field consists of this universe’s physical laws, physical causation and physical constants themselves.

However, if a scientist questioned that paradigm, e.g. denied the second law of thermodynamics, he might expect not only extreme skepticism but hostility as well.

In his fascinating essay, Refereed Journals: Do they ensure quality or enforce orthodoxy?, Tipler questions whether revolutionary theories (e.g. relativity) would have ever made it through the peer review process.

That is an interesting question because truly whenever a scientist assails a paradigm as opposed to a theory, he effectively attacks the entire discipline and therefore should expect the defense to include self-righteous indignation.

Conversely, as cosmologist Delaporte once noted (paraphrased): science has grown so large and become so specialized that there are precious few big thinkers these days. Or to put it another way, there are precious few scientists who are truly qualified to peer review a revolutionary theory.

I do understand the value of peer review however I strongly aver that every scientist should have an outlet for his theories, no matter how revolutionary they might be - and that he should never be punished for thinking outside the box, i.e. the paradigm.

The Founders should have specified “Freedom of Thought” instead of letting it be inferred from “Freedom of Speech.” However, in their defense, they probably did not anticipate the pervasive “political correctness” of today’s world.

A final point: the big bang theory itself is the most theological statement ever to come out of modern science (Jastrow.) Genesis 1 and John 1 both declare “In the beginning.”

All physical cosmologies require space and time for physical causation. In the absence of time, events cannot occur. In the absence of space, things cannot exist. None can obviate the need for God the Creator, the First Cause of “all that there is” who is neither time bound nor space bound, uncreated.

No matter how far back they theoretical push the historical record (e.g. multi-verse theories) - they are always relying on space and time for physical causation. Without speaking of God, they can never say how much less why there is something instead of nothing at all.

When my brothers and sisters in Christ theologically question the big bang, they are discounting this important argument. Nevertheless, we must all declare the Truth as we have received it.

I agree with Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder - God’s revelation in Scripture and in Creation agree when one considers relativity and the big bang/inflationary model. From the inception of this universe to now, six days have elapsed relative to the inception - though from our space/time coordinates, billions of years have elapsed. The two are not mutually exclusive, they are relative. Or to put it another way, Genesis 1 is written from the Creator’s perspective - not the perspective of a creature. In my view, the perspective of Scripture does not change to man’s until Adam is banished to mortality.

9 posted on Friday, January 23, 2009 10:20:39 AM by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

2 posted on 06/12/2009 11:28:23 PM PDT by Kevmo (So America gets what America deserves - the destruction of its Constitution. ~Leo Donofrio, 6/1/09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All; y'all; no one in particular; et al

The Roland De Witte 1991 Detection of Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves

Authors: Reginald T Cahill (Flinders University)
(Submitted on 21 Aug 2006)

In 1991 Roland De Witte carried out an experiment in Brussels in which variations in the one-way speed of RF waves through a coaxial cable were recorded over 178 days. The data from this experiment shows that De Witte had detected absolute motion of the earth through space, as had six earlier experiments, beginning with the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887. His results are in excellent agreement with the extensive data from the Miller 1925/26 detection of absolute motion using a gas-mode Michelson interferometer atop Mt.Wilson, California. The De Witte data reveals turbulence in the flow which amounted to the detection of gravitational waves. Similar effects were also seen by Miller, and by Torr and Kolen in their coaxial cable experiment. Here we bring together what is known about the De Witte experiment.

Comments: 10 pages, 5 figures
Subjects: General Physics (physics.gen-ph)
Journal reference: Progress in Physics, vol 3, 60-65, 2006
Cite as: arXiv:physics/0608205v1 [physics.gen-ph]

Submission history
From: Reg Cahill [view email]
[v1] Mon, 21 Aug 2006 01:16:05 GMT (156kb)

3 posted on 06/12/2009 11:36:08 PM PDT by Kevmo (So America gets what America deserves - the destruction of its Constitution. ~Leo Donofrio, 6/1/09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kevmo

Anisotropy definition according to Wikipedia: is the property of being directionally dependent, as opposed to isotropy, which means homogeneity in all directions. It can be defined as a difference in a physical property (absorbance, refractive index, density, etc.) for some material when measured along different axes. An example is the light coming through a polarizing lens.

4 posted on 06/12/2009 11:44:52 PM PDT by jonrick46 (The Obama Administration is a blueprint for Fabian Socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All; y'all; et al

Conclusions ...
It also means that this 3-space is a dynamical system and the internal dynamics for this 3-space have already been determined [1], and which has lead to a new explanation for gravity, namely that it is caused by the refraction of either EM waves or quantum matter waves by the time dependence and inhomogeneities of the flow of the substructure of this 3-space.
***I favor the refraction of EM Waves. This would suggest that SubQuantum Kinetics is close to the target and it would explain the Befield Brown Electrogravitics Effect and the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

* H.E. Wilhelm (University of Utah) ^Ö Explanation of Anomalous
Unipolar Induction in Corotating Conductor-Magnet Arrangements by
Galilean Electrodynamics
W. Ehrenberg and R. W. Siday, Proc. Phys. Soc. London, B62, 8 (1949)
Ten years earlier than Aharonov and Bohm, Ehrenberg and Siday
formulated the science of electron optics by defining the electron
refractive-index as a function of electromagnetic potential. Near the
end of their paper, they discuss “a curious effect”, which is exactly the
Aharonov-Bohm effect. On the two sides of a magnetic flux, the vector potential has
different values. This means a different refractive index for two
geometrically equivalent paths. This difference in refractive index
would cause an observable phase shift.


Liu’s theory predicts that the electromagnetic potential acts like
a kind of “refractive index” to wave propogation, and is similar in
some respects to what was predicted in the earlier paper on electron
optics by Ehrenberg and Siday in 1949. The result is that in some
circumstances an electromagnetic potential causes a change in wavelength,
and in other circumstances causes a change in phase (AB effect). An effect
on wavelength would be manifested as a change in the envelope of the
interference pattern, rather than merely a shift in the pattern. In Liu’s
theory an exchange of energy and momentum becomes possible. His theory
is relatively easy to test and verify, but oddly or not, no one has yet
done so. Maybe because we already “know” it can’t be true?


11 posted on 06/13/2009 12:50:14 AM PDT by Kevmo (So America gets what America deserves - the destruction of its Constitution. ~Leo Donofrio, 6/1/09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kevmo

I love Free Republic for the breadth of its content. Every day there is something that opens my mind to something new to me.

16 posted on 06/13/2009 6:46:04 AM PDT by Malesherbes (Sauve Qui Peut)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kevmo; AdmSmith; bvw; callisto; ckilmer; dandelion; ganeshpuri89; gobucks; KevinDavis; ...
Lazy Saturday.
The need to detect any anisotropy has challenged physicists from the 19th century to the present day, particularly following the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887. The problem arose when Maxwell in 1861 successfully computed the speed of light c from his unified theory of electric and magnetic fields: but what was the speed c relative to? There have been many attempts to detect any supposed light-speed anisotropy, and... there have so far been 8 successful and consistent such experiments, and as well numerous unsuccessful experiments, i.e. experiments in which no anisotropy was observed... The key point here is not whether the predicted Special Relativity effects are valid or invalid, for the experimental evidence is overwhelming that these predictions are valid, but rather whether the Lorentz or Einstein interpretation of Special Relativity is correct... the issue is whether the Special Relativity effects are caused by absolute motion of systems through a dynamical 3-space, or whether we have no 3-space and only a four-dimensional spacetime. So the question is about whether or not the 3-space can be detected by means of the anisotropy of light, since in this interpretation the speed is c only relative to this space locally. This comes down to the issue of whether 3-space or spacetime actually exists, not whether the local Special Relativity effects are valid or not. As already stated there is overwhelming evidence from 8 experiments that the speed of light is anisotropic, and with a large anisotropy at the level of 1 part in 10^3: so these experiments show that a dynamical 3-space exists, and that the spacetime concept was only a mathematical construct - it does not exist as an entity of reality, it has no ontological significance.
Thanks Kevmo.

· String Theory Ping List ·
Sorry we re open
· View or Post in 'blog · Join · Bookmark · Topics · post a topic · FR page layout · Google ·

20 posted on 06/13/2009 2:50:07 PM PDT by SunkenCiv ( Jan 3, 2004__Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kevmo

Interesting science bump.

22 posted on 06/15/2009 12:35:01 AM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's called the "Statue of Liberty" and not the "Statue of Security." For a reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson