Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

The fine structure constant has been proven not to be equal in all parts of the universe, so you can scrap that one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, it has not been proven to be unequal. Please post a link.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

With pleasure. Be right back

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=103869

 

As you will observe, now, there is damning evidence to suggest it is not at all constant.

 

First of all, can't you find a better source than a piece in the New Economist? I thought this is what you're referring to.

They are comparing observations by a radio telescope looking south with observations by an optical telescope looking north and finding a one thousandth of a percent difference. When the same ansitropy is found in an RT looking north and an optical telescope looking south, I'll pay attention.

 

I think that's what you call sticking your head in the sand.

Look, I told you it has been shown to vary, you disgareed. I then show you evdience of this, and you complain about the publishing agency.

I think you should accept these men have been working on this project a lot longer than you or I possibly ever will, so deserve a little respect for their remarkable discovery.

 

The complaint about where it was published was beside the point, other than it was a simple piece with no detail at all. Just your speed I'd imagine.

As I said, when the same anistropy is found using the same type of observation, I'll pay attention. Until then, I find the presented evidence, (and I've read far more detailed accounts than you rely on), at best equivocal.

 

You are right, I find simplicity much more illustrious. How silly of me

''"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.''

Einstein


Look, you can believe what you want. But I think the evidence speaks for itself.

 

But you reach simpler.

 

You're making yourself out to be a bit of a fool here. Anyone can see these cheap verbal attacks are nothing but to deter attention from the fact you were proven wrong above.

 

Proven wrong? Are you serious? As I said, I don't like the two different data sources being compared. Show me the same anistropy with the same method of observation, and I'll except the results as valid.

 

Very serious, when weighing in the facts. Those facts being, the doctor is clearly an expert of his field, where nearly a decade ago he also discovered the same facts on over 70 quasars.

In a process of using two telescopes and re-analysing his evidence, he just conluded the same result. The fact he has concluded the same result with a different yet better telescope is but a prevailing fact that we are dealing with someone who is vigorous and is unlikely to have made the mistakes you are expecting.

Not to mention you don't just ''say these things'' knowing fine well the dangers of an academic slaughtering.

 

So your argument is that you are accepting authority and and that constitutes your version of proof.

Ah, so his vigor contributes to his authority role for you.

You've got quite a low threshold of acceptance.

 

Physics can be wrong, so I will leave it for you as an exercise to prove it wrong.

Until then, I have a job to go to, and much better things than to rant on about the interpretation of someones thorough investigation.

 

One experiment using two different measuring devices isn't conclusive evidence and they even say so in their papers on the subject.

WE haven't proven anything yet though we should be open to the possibility we don't know it all quiet yet. More data I suspect more likely will show there was a problem in comparing the two sets of data or the process itself.

 

But GD didn't read the papers, he read the article in The New Economist.

 

That paper was beyond dumb. The experimental measurement indicated the fine structure constant changed over time and the change depended on direction. At least they said there was a possibility the experimental model was flawed [the 'further confirmation required' disclaimer]. No kidding. I have it somewhere but it's a stupid read. Should be interesting to see the citation base. You can link the paper at the bottom of this article.http://www.physorg.com/news202921592.html

 

See fantastic photo of lead on lead collision that reproduced the initial quark/gluon soup stage* of the Big Bang here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2645005&postcount=337

-----------
* a temperature millions of time hotter than the center of the sun like when the universe was less than 10E(-6) seconds old.

 

Dear Gentle Readers,

There is now evidence for some billions of earth-size planetary objects.
Should there be other sentient beings, much-like ourselves that are experimenting with ever-higher energies such as we are now doing at CERN, there should come a point in this history when a transition towards de Sitter space is made thus releasing the energy for of a Type Ia Supernova on our planet our solar system and a host of near-by stars. In the length of time of this thread's existence no refutation of this postulation has been given.

The time intervals here extant are those found in modern cosmology.

Every best wish,

Yours sincerely,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation