Comments on: Why the Big Bang needs VSL theory http://smartaxes.com/blog/2007/06/01/why-the-big-bang-needs-vsl-theory/ Sat, 01 Nov 2008 07:12:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: scordova http://smartaxes.com/blog/2007/06/01/why-the-big-bang-needs-vsl-theory/comment-page-1/#comment-608 scordova Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:30:10 +0000 http://smartaxes.com/blog/2007/06/01/why-the-big-bang-needs-vsl-theory/#comment-608 Please Note: <a href=http://smartaxes.com/blog/2007/08/06/attention-young-cosmos-has-moved/ rel="nofollow">ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED! </a> Salvador Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

]]> By: Salvador T. Cordova http://smartaxes.com/blog/2007/06/01/why-the-big-bang-needs-vsl-theory/comment-page-1/#comment-163 Salvador T. Cordova Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:21:10 +0000 http://smartaxes.com/blog/2007/06/01/why-the-big-bang-needs-vsl-theory/#comment-163 Here is a comparison contrast of CDK theory and the VSL theories of Davies, Albrecht and Magueijo, and Moffat <a href=http://www.setterfield.org/history.htm#others rel="nofollow">VSL theories by other scientists</a> contrasted with CDK. Here is a comparison contrast of CDK theory and the VSL theories of Davies, Albrecht and Magueijo, and Moffat

VSL theories by other scientists

contrasted with CDK.

]]> By: Helen Setterfield http://smartaxes.com/blog/2007/06/01/why-the-big-bang-needs-vsl-theory/comment-page-1/#comment-160 Helen Setterfield Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:14:14 +0000 http://smartaxes.com/blog/2007/06/01/why-the-big-bang-needs-vsl-theory/#comment-160 This possible observed change in the fine structure constant is, first of all, so small that it may well be due to observational or instrumental error. Secondly, you will notice than in the equations you see h, Planck's constant, coupled with c, the speed of light. Together, as hc, they are invariant. That is because c = 1/h and vice versa. So although there has been a change in the speed of light (and an observed inverse change in h) the possible change in the fine structure constant has nothing to do with any possible change in either c or h. from Barry: Any proposed changes in the speed of light due to variations in the fine structure constant must be reflected in simultaneous changes in h at the least and possibly other changes in other 'constants' as well. One cannot isolate simply c as being responsible for a possible change in alpha. This possible observed change in the fine structure constant is, first of all, so small that it may well be due to observational or instrumental error. Secondly, you will notice than in the equations you see h, Planck’s constant, coupled with c, the speed of light. Together, as hc, they are invariant. That is because c = 1/h and vice versa. So although there has been a change in the speed of light (and an observed inverse change in h) the possible change in the fine structure constant has nothing to do with any possible change in either c or h.

from Barry: Any proposed changes in the speed of light due to variations in the fine structure constant must be reflected in simultaneous changes in h at the least and possibly other changes in other ‘constants’ as well. One cannot isolate simply c as being responsible for a possible change in alpha.

]]>