What Properties Might Light of Millennia Past Have that Today's Doesn't?

The fine structure constant is dimensionless and can be defined in terms of the permeability of free space, the speed of light in a vacuum, the elementary charge and the reduced plank's constant.In a scheme of things where the fabric of space itself is changing by means of the zero point energy, all of the above terms are also changing and changing in a way that keeps the fine structure constant....constant. Since it can be constant with a changing speed of light, no need to conjure up ideas about carbon life being impossible.

I don't care how many times it has been repeated; it is merely your assertion and nothing more. All of the constants are derived from a deeper reality and they don't change alone but in tandem. This tandem change keeps all the ramifications that you insist would happen from happening. I lose interest because you guys have plugs in your ears and I hate all the inenvitable sarcasm that always comes in some people's posts and there is no one that can screen out those posts from my eyes and so I will blow up and get banned. Instead of getting banned, I post until I see the usual sarcasm and condension getting posted and then I scram and don't come back or I start reading other topics.

If changes in the constants would show its effects no matter how the constants change in time, it should be a simple matter for you to show mathematically that there exists no such arrangements of constants that are changing in time that could produce a universe with no known effects. The fact of the matter is that such changes in the constants have indeed produced visible effects on our universe. Those changes are 1.an enormous amount of radioactive decay in a very short time. 2. Starlight that has reached us from a distance that in an amount of time that would be impossible to replicate today. 3. Accelerated plate tectonics that occurred in much shorter time than would be possible with today's rates.

The evidence for all of those things is that the earth is not 4.56 billion years old but orders of magnitude younger than that. All you have to say otherwise is that radiometric dating shows 4.56 billion years, but you cannot prove that radioactive decay has been constant at the rate it has been today. You people are the one who spout claims with no evidence.

Would you please quit lying about me? That isn't the reason I lose my temper. I lose my temper because of all of the sarcasm and insults and condescension and piling on. When you decide to start telling the truth, get back with me, otherwise you are on ignore.

Yes there is. The earth is orders of magnitude younger than 4.56 billions years old, therefore there has been accelerated radioactive decay.

If those claims are unsupported then your claims are just as unsupported. Saying your claims are supported doesn't fly with me.

You cannot have a conversation with someone if they are not listening. It has nothing to do with proper consideration. See how you twist the meanings of my words to your own ends?Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.