The Laws of the Universe

Hespera said:

... what am I to you?

Click to expand...

I am curious to know why are you so agitated, unless my observation of your verbal presence in cyberspace is wrong.

And also I understand why the great debate, or "debate" if you prefer, amongst legalistic Americans on this subject, especially since religious people are trying to outlaw the teaching of evolution in school.

To non Americans this is ridiculous, the law do not make anything more or less true, and the child will know many many things, good and bad, right and wrong, true and false, whatever the law maybe.

And it just makes for better education if a child is more fully exposed to a wide range of ideas and thoughts and worldviews, from the mainstream, current orthodoxy, to the loony and the fringe, even legal and illegal - thats ridiculous isn't it: illegal thoughts - and equipping him with the tools for coping and living with such contradictions and inconsistencies, unknowns and unknowabilities, and knowing how to separate the practical from those not so, and the various means of knowing, and so on and so on.

For who knows, right?

Nostromo said:

I'm sure you're just gasping to walk me through the equations.

Click to expand...

It’s a simple equation. In the electric model of the universe EM fields is the dominant force. Gravity is secondary. EM fields can overcome gravity resulting in a change in a planet’s orbit.

Are you kidding me? I suppose your alternative model has a little section for making physical constants different by just the right amount at one particular place and time in order to solve a specific problem.

Click to expand...

Actually the electric model makes everything different from the big bang model.

There wouldn't be a problem if you didn't take everything the religious and/or anti-science crowd say as absolutely true without checking it first.

Click to expand...

Anti-science? My claims are scientific. You just happen to disagree with them.

Comparing dinosaur biomechanics with human lifting capabilities is pretty silly, perhaps you've already seen it, but there's a rough counter to the claims at:
Sauropods, Elephants, Weightlifters: Structural Issues

Click to expand...

To each man his own evidence I suppose.

I almost wish we could just go back to "goddidit".

Click to expand...

So you don’t agree that life is more likely to develop near brown dwarf stars than near stars like our sun? or that the earth was possible captured by our sun? These are all scientific claims. Goddidit is not necessary.

sandwiches said:

I had a longer reply for you but seeing your response above with "dust," I can see this is another game where you'll simply ignore the evidence, move the goalposts, be purposefully obtuse, or keep claiming that the evidence isn't enough. SharpSolaris already gave you some clear evidence. We can measure their movements, speed, etc and we can see that gravity works the exact same way today as it did 23 million years ago.

Click to expand...

You guys like to talk a lot about “seeing” gravity in deep space despite the fact that you don’t “see” enough mass to account for it.

Hespera said:

did you just try looking yourself for some commentary on this guys ideas?

Click to expand...

A simple Google search will reveal that there are others who agree that dinosaurs require a different gravity from our own. Science & Technology is another one of those websites.

And the kind of megafauna and megaflora that existed in the earth's past also points to the conditions back then (earth’s atmosphere and gravity) as being different from what they are today. Doesn't life evolve as a result of a change in the environment? Why not gravity?

Hespera said:

do you know why you guys love the fringe / nutcase guys so much, like the hydroplate guy? maybe you can explain it.

Click to expand...

Maybe it's because Jesus and Christianity was once on the fringe -- but not anymore.

For those who think only nutcases and loonies think physical constant may not be constant all the time consider this: the wiki entry on Varying Speed of Light (Can't post links yet! ), ie if you have not already done so. There you have luminaries like Dirac way back in 1937 already thinking such thoughts.

And to quote:

... Richard Feynman showed in his famous lectures that the gravitational constant most likely could not have changed this much in the past 4 billion years based on geological and solar system observations (although this may depend on assumptions (emphasis mine) about the constant not changing other constants).

Click to expand...

We just have to work all the more harder and not make simplifying assumptions, and vast indeed will be the implications!

And the speed of light being faster in the past is exactly as I wrote earlier, namely that it could do away with inflation in the so-called "horizon problem" in cosmology, a patently unfalsifiable theory or conjecture, totally without evidence, really more band aid than science at all.

I think it is a good thing that we have nutcases and loonies in this world, don't we?

Doveaman said:

You guys like to talk a lot about “seeing” gravity in deep space despite the fact that you don’t “see” enough mass to account for it.

Click to expand...

That's a good one. It is called "Dark Matter" that if current notions of gravity are true, have to account for as much as 3/4 of matter*. To me that is just another way of saying we are almost completely in the dark. Dark matter indeed!

*even 90-99% it is said elsewhere.

Delphiki said:

Nonsense? This is "no duh" level elementary knowledge. If there was too much or too little gravity in the past, the moon would have never found orbital equilibrium with the earth and either would have become part of earth or escaped far from earth respectively.

Click to expand...

Absurd. You imagine a moon wandering around, in some uncreated universe, with no laws governing it. No one says that.

If the universe state and forces and laws changed, then all bodies would have to adjust to the new realities. Let's take a wild example, just for an illustration. If the sun were twice as far away,and the former space and laws resulted in about as much heat ending up on earth, then gravity had little to do with it. If that sun revolved around the earth while the earth also slowly rotated, resulting in day and night and seasons....then the ancients would be right in their idea that the sun revolved around us. Now if the laws changed, and the earth and sun drew closer, and the earth started to revolve, why, it may rip the planet like a baseball, and be a mechanism for rapid continental change....so many possibilities to explore, rather than be stuck in the mud with your same state projections. Science is so cultishly close minded.

How it actually was we do not know. All science has done is use present laws, and used them to explain all things!

If, at any time the gravity in the universe was different, then the solar system itself would be very different.

Click to expand...

So? Who says it wasn't!??

Too much gravity would have greatly accelerated the age of the sun,

Click to expand...

No. It's age remains the same...6000 plus years old, and no changes in laws change the actual age.

too little would have made it's radius too big and would have caused it to consume Mercury and possibly Venus (depending on how much of a difference we're talking about here).

Click to expand...

Rubbish. You mean IF we were in our present state with our laws and forces. Since we do not know that, it is meaningless. If the laws were different, then the proper balance would have existed.

If gravity was weaker long ago, the earth might not even have water, or the same atmosphere it does now, without the pressure required to hold some of the lighter elements to the earth and not blown off by the solar wind of the much bigger, redder, sun. This is even if stars would be able to form together AT ALL.

Click to expand...

In box thinking. You mean IF our laws applied, and nothing else, and gravity or etc changed within that framework....we would have disaster..meaningless.

Sure, you could say that ALL of the fundamentals of the universe might have changed proportionately, but that wouldn't make any difference in anything,

Click to expand...

Oh yes it does!

especially not change any of the evidence we have today, and especially not as we understand the past from our perspective. It would be the exact same as if they didn't change at all, and all the same physics that apply now would still have applied then.

Click to expand...

Gibberish...

Doveaman said:

It’s a simple equation. In the electric model of the universe EM fields is the dominant force. Gravity is secondary. EM fields can overcome gravity resulting in a change in a planet’s orbit.

Click to expand...

Odd then that our current theories of gravitation explain the Earth's orbit very well, and EM accounts for approximately zero of that.

Regardless of what you imagine caused a reduction in "gravity", you would still have the problem of the attraction between the Earth and the Sun being reduced by that amount, and that would alter our orbit.

Anti-science? My claims are scientific. You just happen to disagree with them.

Click to expand...

No, you start with an idea and then hunt around for opinions which support it, and ignore an evidence which indicates you're wrong. That's not scientific in the slightest.

To each man his own evidence I suppose.

Click to expand...

You see what I mean? The evidence is the evidence, you don't get to pick and choose it to suit your opinion.

So you don’t agree that life is more likely to develop near brown dwarf stars than near stars like our sun?

Click to expand...

I don't have any information about how likely it is that life will develop under certain circumstances. A few months ago you were telling us that abiogenesis was nonsense, now you're talking about how much more or less likely it is to happen near brown dwarves?

What I disagreed with was you mentioning Saturn as a former brown dwarf, despite it needing to be at least 30 times more massive to be classified as such. I think I just read the page where you got this idea, and I'm not surprised to see that there isn't a scrap of evidence offered in support of it.

or that the earth was possible captured by our sun? These are all scientific claims. Goddidit is not necessary.

Click to expand...

They're all hypotheses, and when you have something resembling evidence people might take them seriously.

dad said:

Absurd.

Click to expand...

It's absurd because it didn't happen. I'm not the one that believes the laws of the universe have changed. You are.

You imagine a moon wandering around, in some uncreated universe, with no laws governing it. No one says that.

Click to expand...

You think the laws of the universe have changed. If they did, the moon wouldn't be there, without enough gravity to hold it in orbit.

If the universe state and forces and laws changed, then all bodies would have to adjust to the new realities.

Click to expand...

In which case, you're saying all the other laws would have had to adjust to compensate proportionately... which is exactly the same as not changing at all -- just like I said.

Let's take a wild example, just for an illustration. If the sun were twice as far away,and the former space and laws resulted in about as much heat ending up on earth, then gravity had little to do with it. If that sun revolved around the earth while the earth also slowly rotated, resulting in day and night and seasons....then the ancients would be right in their idea that the sun revolved around us. Now if the laws changed, and the earth and sun drew closer, and the earth started to revolve, why, it may rip the planet like a baseball, and be a mechanism for rapid continental change

Click to expand...

All of which there is no evidence for you example at all, nor anything like it.

....so many possibilities to explore

Click to expand...

Just not the possibilities that we directly observe and have evidence for, right?

, rather than be stuck in the mud with your same state projections. Science is so cultishly close minded.

Click to expand...

I will give you that the method is very closed-minded from anything that doesn't have any sort of reason or evidence to support it.

How it actually was we do not know. All science has done is use present laws, and used them to explain all things!

Click to expand...

What exactly is wrong with that when there is absolutely nothing to indicate otherwise?

So? Who says it wasn't!??

Click to expand...

If the laws of the universe changed, then the solar system can't be as it is now, because as it is now requires the same laws governing the universe as they do now to have been there in the past. It's as simple as that.

No. It's age remains the same...6000 plus years old, and no changes in laws change the actual age.

Click to expand...

Increased gravity would accelerate the fusion process in the sun with the same mass and burn it out quicker. Remember: this is changing one law (gravity). The Newtonian laws, relativity, and all the others are the same in this example. If you change ALL the laws of the universe in this example proportion to each other, then it's the same as none of the laws ever changing.

Rubbish. You mean IF we were in our present state with our laws and forces. Since we do not know that, it is meaningless. If the laws were different, then the proper balance would have existed.

Click to expand...

That's not what the evidence shows. The current position of everything, the velocities of orbits, the rate of expansion, EVERYTHING fits if the same physical laws that apply now have always applied.

In box thinking. You mean IF our laws applied, and nothing else, and gravity or etc changed within that framework....we would have disaster..meaningless.

Click to expand...

You would have to. Because.. and I'll say it again.... If you changed ALL the laws of the physical universe to the right proportions to arrive at everything being at the current state as it is now, then it's the same as the laws have never changing at all.

Think of it this way:

You're in a blue car going 45 MPH toward New York. A red car passes you at 60 MPH. An hour after it passes you, it is 15 miles ahead of you. You're also 100 miles from New York

is it possible to end up 100 miles from New York with the red car 15 miles ahead of you if you change one variable? Let's say you were going 55 MPH. Then when the red car passes you at 60 MPH, it's only 5 miles ahead of you an hour later. You're 90 miles from New York... which is different.

In order for everything to look like the results of the first scenario after changing something, you have to change everything in proportion to each other:

You are now going 55 MPH, the red car has to go 70 MPH, and the environment around you has to travel 10 MPH in your same direction as well. Which is NO DIFFERENT than a stationary environment, you going 45MPH and the red car going 60 MPH.... Because once you adjust EVERYTHING, there is no difference detected from our observation.

Changing all the laws of the universe to end up with how we see it now requires that you change all the laws in proportion to each other -- which is the same as not changing them at all.

Now, if you want to say the blue car is 13 Godzillas and the red car is a tesseract that eats only red potatoes, then you're going to be in no position to call science "fairytale".

Oh yes it does!

Click to expand...

Not if the result is simply ending up with the universe as we know it now. The earth is where it is due to the never changing laws. If it was anywhere else, it wouldn't have been able to sustain life.... "Oh?" you say "but the laws were different to accomodate our life as well!" you might say? Okay.. then all the other laws of the universe would also have to change proportionately... and like I've iterated many times.... oh, never mind. If you can't get it by now, then you might as well die an imbecile.

Problem is, I completely understand what you're trying to say -- it's that YOU don't understand what you're trying to say.

LanceCohen said:

I am curious to know why are you so agitated, unless my observation of your verbal presence in cyberspace is wrong.

And also I understand why the great debate, or "debate" if you prefer, amongst legalistic Americans on this subject, especially since religious people are trying to outlaw the teaching of evolution in school.

To non Americans this is ridiculous, the law do not make anything more or less true, and the child will know many many things, good and bad, right and wrong, true and false, whatever the law maybe.

And it just makes for better education if a child is more fully exposed to a wide range of ideas and thoughts and worldviews, from the mainstream, current orthodoxy, to the loony and the fringe, even legal and illegal - thats ridiculous isn't it: illegal thoughts - and equipping him with the tools for coping and living with such contradictions and inconsistencies, unknowns and unknowabilities, and knowing how to separate the practical from those not so, and the various means of knowing, and so on and so on.

For who knows, right?

Click to expand...

I am curious to know why are you so agitated, unless my observation of your verbal presence in cyberspace is wrong.

Click to expand...

Im not, so, i guess that just says whatever it says, that you think you see it.

To non Americans this is ridiculous, the law do not make anything more or less true, and the child will know many many things, good and bad, right and wrong, true and false, whatever the law maybe.

Click to expand...

As an immigrant i do have a perspective on this that many americans dont. The anti intellectual countercurrent in American life is a dangerous thing. a grave cultural weakness.

And it just makes for better education if a child is more fully exposed to a wide range of ideas

Click to expand...

In general that is true. i dont have much use for the usual sorts of ways religion is taught, the blind faith stuff, the superstitions. i dont have much use for the way science is taught, the memorizing of what is presented as "fact' by teachers who just memorized things themselves.

Nostromo said:

Odd then that our current theories of gravitation explain the Earth's orbit very well, and EM accounts for approximately zero of that.

Click to expand...

Well, the fact that the sun is an electrically charged body that generates current flows means that the EM is not exactly zero. And I did say gravity plays a secondary role and the EM a primary one.

Gravity may explain the orbits of planets in a solar system but it certainly does not explain the orbits of stars in a galaxy or the orbits of galaxies in a cluster, hence ad hoc dark matter in invoked.

Regardless of what you imagine caused a reduction in "gravity

Click to expand...

When I said “reduction” I meant it was not what it is now. For all we know it could have started off low then gradually rose to 1g.

you would still have the problem of the attraction between the Earth and the Sun being reduced by that amount, and that would alter our orbit.

Click to expand...

If the earth was captured then we would expect that its orbit would have been altered at some point. In an electric universe altered orbits is not a problem since EM fields is the dominant force.

No, you start with an idea and then hunt around for opinions which support it, and ignore an evidence which indicates you're wrong. That's not scientific in the slightest.

Click to expand...

The idea was based on what I already knew to be scientific. I started by posting one example. There are many scientists who agree gravity is not a constant, but in your big bang model it has to be so otherwise your model falls apart.

You see what I mean? The evidence is the evidence, you don't get to pick and choose it to suit your opinion.

Click to expand...

Well it only goes to show that not all the expert scientists agree on what is evidence, so why should we?

I don't have any information about how likely it is that life will develop under certain circumstances. A few months ago you were telling us that abiogenesis was nonsense, now you're talking about how much more or less likely it is to happen near brown dwarves?

Click to expand...

Any ideas about the "initial cause" of the formation of life that does not acknowledge God as creator is nonsense.

There are scientists who claim Saturn was once a brown dwarf star and that prehistoric lifeforms (megafauna and megaflora) were more likely to have developed near a brown dwarf star rather than near our sun, and that earth was eventually captured by our sun.

The exact "initial cause" (God) behind the development of that life is not the issue here. The issue here is that the conditions were conducive for that life to develop and grow. Therefore my statement was based on scientific claims even if those claims are eventually shown to be false.

Now as for Adam and Eve, they would have been formed on earth near our sun, as the Bible indicates. So if scientists are correct about the earth being captured then Adam and Eve (and all present life on earth as we know it) would have been formed after the capture.

What I disagreed with was you mentioning Saturn as a former brown dwarf, despite it needing to be at least 30 times more massive to be classified as such. I think I just read the page where you got this idea, and I'm not surprised to see that there isn't a scrap of evidence offered in support of it.

Click to expand...

Stars are composed of plasma (ionized gas). When two charged bodies like stars come is close contact with each other this will result in electrical discharges in the form of flares that will blow material off the stars similar to how material is blown off a comet. This would explain the reduction in size of Saturn and may also explain the extinction of prehistoric life forms here on earth if indeed the earth once orbited Saturn as a dwarf star.

They're all hypotheses, and when you have something resembling evidence people might take them seriously.

Click to expand...

Since your big bang hypothesis is dominated by gravity and you don't have enough "evidence" to account for all that gravity then there is no reason for people to take you seriously.

To Him who considers something to be evidence to him it is evidence. To Him who does not consider something to be evidence to him it is not evidence. No wonder you expert scientists can’t get along.

Doveaman said:

Since your big bang hypothesis is dominated by gravity and you don't have enough "evidence" to account for all that gravity then there is no reason for people to take you seriously.

Click to expand...

What you fail to understand is that there is still plenty of evidence to support the Big Bang. What you just said is akin to "I didn't see any combustion going on under the hood of my running car, so cars can't go anywhere."

Delphiki said:

It's absurd because it didn't happen. I'm not the one that believes the laws of the universe have changed. You are.

Click to expand...

God has something else to say. Why would anyone believe you? Fact is you do not know, and science sure doesn't.

You think the laws of the universe have changed. If they did, the moon wouldn't be there, without enough gravity to hold it in orbit.

Click to expand...

Crazy talk. God is not stupid. When He changes stuff, it is planned, and a work of art. The reason for the change was no to destroy man or the moon, or earth etc. That would have been easy as pie. If you notice spirits no longer live with man directly and marry women? Our lifespans are shorter, so we have less time to grow really really wicked?..etc. It was a precision operation, not some random fluke, as science always portrays.

If other forces were present in the former state, that either balanced or replaced gravity, then it is foolish to try to give gravity all the glory and credit.

In which case, you're saying all the other laws would have had to adjust to compensate proportionately... which is exactly the same as not changing at all -- just like I said.

Click to expand...

False. You seem to envision present laws are what was here TO BE CHANGED .. no! We ARE the change. What changed was not what we have now. It was not our light slowing or speeding up, or our gravity being weaker etc etc!

Look at Jesus after He rose from the dead. He could still walk and eat, but He also could pass through solid matter, and fly, and disappear, etc etc. So the change involved the spiritual, not just a reconfiguration of the dead physical material!

Just not the possibilities that we directly observe and have evidence for, right?

Click to expand...

Your observations from inside this state are well and good...here.

I will give you that the method is very closed-minded from anything that doesn't have any sort of reason or evidence to support it.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Since it ONLY deals in the physical universe and laws, that is an admission of being unable to know anything else.

What exactly is wrong with that when there is absolutely nothing to indicate otherwise?

Click to expand...

Look, science has done mental gymnastics running same state scenarios trying to explain the moon. The sick joke that they now hold up as their best guess is nothing short of a series of miracles... grasping at pixie dust!

Since you do not know what the state was and laws, it is wrong to base God opposing models on it.

If the laws of the universe changed, then the solar system can't be as it is now, because as it is now requires the same laws governing the universe as they do now to have been there in the past. It's as simple as that.

Click to expand...

The system NOW uses our laws, no surprise there! Of course. At least as far as man can tell. The interior of the earth we do not know, for example, nor the sun. If the package of laws and forces that governed the moon and planets..(see postscript on this!) changed, and only our laws were left, then we would end up..where? Right here of course! All you are saying is that the moon and sun and earth coulld have been amazingly different with different laws in place.


ok,,postscript......planets: ___ Do we even know that the planets were here in our area before the flood? The moon and sun, yes we know they were near..

Increased gravity would accelerate the fusion process in the sun with the same mass and burn it out quicker.

Click to expand...

Except that the sun does not work the way you thought! That is all mental speculation, guesses, theory...etc. In fact, the sun is slated to behave in ways that are impossible if your theories were right. Your misconceptions are just a flash in the pan of time.


Shortened for brevity sake ..will try to look at the rest later...

dad said:

God has something else to say.

Click to expand...

Well then He'd better come along and say it -- Surely by now He must be pretty annoyed with the parade of simpletons presuming to speak on His behalf.

Nathan Poe said:

Well then He'd better come along and say it -- Surely by now He must be pretty annoyed with the parade of simpletons presuming to speak on His behalf.

Click to expand...

Thats nice. Don' t mind if I bump up some content above this spam...

Delphiki said:

It's absurd because it didn't happen. I'm not the one that believes the laws of the universe have changed. You are.

Click to expand...

God has something else to say. Why would anyone believe you? Fact is you do not know, and science sure doesn't.

You think the laws of the universe have changed. If they did, the moon wouldn't be there, without enough gravity to hold it in orbit.

Click to expand...

Crazy talk. God is not stupid. When He changes stuff, it is planned, and a work of art. The reason for the change was no to destroy man or the moon, or earth etc. That would have been easy as pie. If you notice spirits no longer live with man directly and marry women? Our lifespans are shorter, so we have less time to grow really really wicked?..etc. It was a precision operation, not some random fluke, as science always portrays.

If other forces were present in the former state, that either balanced or replaced gravity, then it is foolish to try to give gravity all the glory and credit.

In which case, you're saying all the other laws would have had to adjust to compensate proportionately... which is exactly the same as not changing at all -- just like I said.

Click to expand...

False. You seem to envision present laws are what was here TO BE CHANGED .. no! We ARE the change. What changed was not what we have now. It was not our light slowing or speeding up, or our gravity being weaker etc etc!

Look at Jesus after He rose from the dead. He could still walk and eat, but He also could pass through solid matter, and fly, and disappear, etc etc. So the change involved the spiritual, not just a reconfiguration of the dead physical material!

Just not the possibilities that we directly observe and have evidence for, right?

Click to expand...

Your observations from inside this state are well and good...here.

I will give you that the method is very closed-minded from anything that doesn't have any sort of reason or evidence to support it.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Since it ONLY deals in the physical universe and laws, that is an admission of being unable to know anything else.

What exactly is wrong with that when there is absolutely nothing to indicate otherwise?

Click to expand...

Look, science has done mental gymnastics running same state scenarios trying to explain the moon. The sick joke that they now hold up as their best guess is nothing short of a series of miracles... grasping at pixie dust!

Since you do not know what the state was and laws, it is wrong to base God opposing models on it.

If the laws of the universe changed, then the solar system can't be as it is now, because as it is now requires the same laws governing the universe as they do now to have been there in the past. It's as simple as that.

Click to expand...

The system NOW uses our laws, no surprise there! Of course. At least as far as man can tell. The interior of the earth we do not know, for example, nor the sun. If the package of laws and forces that governed the moon and planets..(see postscript on this!) changed, and only our laws were left, then we would end up..where? Right here of course! All you are saying is that the moon and sun and earth coulld have been amazingly different with different laws in place.


ok,,postscript......planets: ___ Do we even know that the planets were here in our area before the flood? The moon and sun, yes we know they were near..

Increased gravity would accelerate the fusion process in the sun with the same mass and burn it out quicker.

Click to expand...

Except that the sun does not work the way you thought! That is all mental speculation, guesses, theory...etc. In fact, the sun is slated to behave in ways that are impossible if your theories were right. Your misconceptions are just a flash in the pan of time.


Shortened for brevity sake ..will try to look at the rest later...

dad said:

Thats nice. Don' t mind if I bump up some content above this spam...

Click to expand...

I've been waiting years for you to do that...

<checks the rest of your post>

...looks like I'll wait a little longer.

Delphiki said:

What you fail to understand is that there is still plenty of evidence to support the Big Bang. What you just said is akin to "I didn't see any combustion going on under the hood of my running car, so cars can't go anywhere."

Click to expand...

Big Bang model isn't going anywhere. It's just an illusion of going somewhere caused by dark-magic.

Doveaman said:

You guys like to talk a lot about “seeing” gravity in deep space despite the fact that you don’t “see” enough mass to account for it.

Click to expand...

Doesn't change the fact that we can unequivocally see that the universal laws have been the same for as long as the Earth has been around.

LanceCohen said:

For those who think only nutcases and loonies think physical constant may not be constant all the time consider this: the wiki entry on Varying Speed of Light (Can't post links yet! ), ie if you have not already done so. There you have luminaries like Dirac way back in 1937 already thinking such thoughts.

And to quote:


We just have to work all the more harder and not make simplifying assumptions, and vast indeed will be the implications!

And the speed of light being faster in the past is exactly as I wrote earlier, namely that it could do away with inflation in the so-called "horizon problem" in cosmology, a patently unfalsifiable theory or conjecture, totally without evidence, really more band aid than science at all.

I think it is a good thing that we have nutcases and loonies in this world, don't we?

Click to expand...

Call me when you get your evidence. Better yet, publish your findings and have the scientific community dissect and examine them and then we'll talk. Until then, we'll go with what's worked and works.