[Fwd: Re: Physical constants]

From: Massie (mrlab@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Wed Jan 12 2000 - 12:08:41 EST

  • Next message: Adam Crowl: "Re: Physical constants"

    attached mail follows:


    Kamilla Ludwig wrote:
    >
    > Since when is Chuck Missler a scientist? Or are you referring to him because
    > he quotes scientists?
    >
    > James W Stark wrote:
    >
    > > Speak for yourself Bert. The whole community of scientists does not insist
    > > that the speed of light is a constant over time. Some are bold enough to
    > > challenge the status quo. For starters read John D. Barrow's article in New
    > > Scientist, 24 July 1999 at
    > >
    > > http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19990724/isnothings.html
    > >
    > > Then read Speed of Light Slowing Down by Chuck Missler at
    > >
    > > http://ldolphin.org/speedo.html
    > >
    > > Personally, I take an agnostic but open position. The status quo needs to
    > > change. It is too set in its dogmatic claims. This is a problem in science
    > > as well as religion.
    > > Jim Stark
    ****************

    I just breifly reviewed the Barlow article and several features appear:

    First, this is serious speculation by a serious scientist.

    Second, he proposes that the laws of physics were different at the very
    early times in the universe. Not a new concept but now it is more
    specific.

    Third, among other things he proposes to solve the thermalization
    problem of the universe by a high value for C.

    Fourth, he is seriously seeking observable to support his theory.

    Fifth, the next generation of telescopes NASA will fly should bring
    forth a lot of data on early times and I think we may just have to wait
    for the data to work this out.

    Sixth, this is not the business of C being slow to gain the six 24 hour
    days of Genesis. His universe is not six days old plus 6,000 years.

    Seventh, his speculation does not really mean a break down of modern
    physics. It is really about very early times where it is already felt
    that the laws of physics may be different. To investigate this in the
    laboratory we would need a particle accelerator that would be perhaps as
    large as the galaxy and look what happened when we tried to build one
    only only the size of a small Texas town. Thus, we are left with
    obervations of early times which we need anyway and will be obtaining
    when NASA flies the NGT*--about five years from now I would think.

    Bert M.

    *The NGT should be about 6 meters in diameter as compared to the HST
    which is about 2 meters. It will be designed for near infrared
    operation so that the high red-shift galaxies can be observed. This
    gets us back in time to look at the protogalaxies kinda. Actually, the
    next telescope after this, OPTIMA, which is projected at 20 meters and
    for deep infrared is really to protogalaxy machine.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 12 2000 - 12:15:23 EST