Speed of Light

I should say that in modern physics, especially after relativity, c is not considered a fundamental constant. This is because c can be eliminated from equations by a simple change of units. More correctly however c arises because human being measure time and space differently.
We measure the x,y,z coordinates with one unit, meters and the t coordinate with completely separate unit, seconds. Both should really be measured with meters. A second is just 300,000,000 meters in time.However if we keep our standard units equations have to be fitted with a factor, c = 300,000,000 m/s, in order to account for this mismatch of units.The only physically real parameter associated with light is alpha, the fine structure constant, measuring how much light couples to matter. There has yet to be an experimental test or cosmological observation which shows statistically significant variation in alpha. Also if alpha varied, there should be an alpha particle, which we should have detected already if it existed, but we haven't.

A different alpha particle, you meant to say?'Course, you real physicists likely don't regard two protons bound to two neutrons as a particle, anyway. More like a dozen?

Ah, yes! You're right of course. I could say a fine-structure particle. Alpha is often called the fine-structure constant.The reason for this particle is that if something is no longer just a number, if it has different values at different points in space and time, then it is a field. And under quantum mechanics all fields are associated with particles. Actually that question has two different answers!Firstly an alpha particle could be considered a collection of twelve quarks as you said.However quarks don't actually exist at the current temperature of the universe. Quarks only existed early on in the universe's history. When we say that the proton is made out of quarks we actually mean that if the universe became extremely hot again the proton would become three quarks, it's not actually made out of them. It also acts a lot like it's a collection of three quarks in certain experiments. However technically there are no quarks inside a proton.

Because one, cosmological redshift has nothing to do with the Doppler Effect - as we measure "nearby" Galaxies. It is purely a quantum mechanical and electrodynamic effect in plasma - 99% of the universe.A New Non-Doppler RedshiftIt is that medium through which light travels, and is certainly not magical bending, expanding, accelerating nothing (spacetime).Do not be swayed by believers in magic Fairie Dust.

They also like to say a neutron is composed of three quarks. Yet upon decay a solitary neutron becomes a proton (3 quarks) an electron and an antinuetrino (3 more quarks and another proton and electron)????And we have yet to "see" an electron - but just what appears as a "cloud" of particles, in whatever area of the orbit we look.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

Hi JustATruthSeeker,Instead of posting off-topic messages here and elsewhere, could you please take your electric universe discussion to the thread you were using last year: The cosmic conspiracy. Thanks.To everyone else: please, no responses to JustATruthSeeker in this thread.

Can't resist: No, they don't Electrons and antineutrinos are not composed of quarks in any theory.

Unless you have an actual working model of anything, I'd advise you take your outdated, gas light era theories to another forum - one that deals with Fairie Dust, because frankly - that's all you got.You and I both know it's because you understand this is a battle you have already lost - and that's why you want silence, because Fairie Dust can't handle the light of day.Because the only thing off-topic is your comment, since my response dealt directly with the original post. If you can't answer it without resorting to magic fairie Dust, don't blame me for your lack of science.

You justy showed you lack any knowledge when it comes to particle physics, so why are you even commenting?Neutron - WikipediaAccording to particle physics, the electron is an elementary particle and contains no quarks.Electron - WikipediaReally, learn your science first. Would of took you 10 seconds to look that up, 5 seconds more than it took you to waste my time with that incorrect post.

Hi JustATruthSeeker,I'm not a participant in the discussion. I don't have a position on the topic. I'm moderating, not discussing.It is the practice here at EvC Forum to request that members who have one answer for everything to confine their advocacy for that answer to a single thread. You appear to be a member who has one answer for everything, namely the electric universe. Therefore I'm asking you to confine your participation to the The cosmic conspiracy. thread. Or you can propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics and I will review your proposal as quickly as practical.

It has an answer to everything, because 99% of the universe is in the plasma state. Instead, you want to treat it like solids, liquids and gasses, which plasma behaves nothing like, and then complain when rational people don't accept your Fairie Dust. All because you refuse to treat plasma like plasma. So now who is ignoring the reality?But I'll tell you what. Why don't you show me one single plasma experiment in the laboratory, where they ignored those electromagnetic forces? Just one????That's what I thought, so perhaps you should confine those Fairie Dust theories where they belong, in the era of gas lights.Did you ever stop to wonder why you require 95% Fairie Dust outside the solar system? It's because the solar system is composed of solids, liquids and gasses - and the galaxy is composed of plasma. So why do you insist we only consider gravitational theories when no Plasma Physicists in the world considers it all all?It isn't that the gravitational theories that describe the behavior of neutral matter - solids, liquids and gasses (planetary systems) are incorrect, they simply do not apply to a plasma universe.The sooner you accept the reality of plasma physics, the sooner we can get rid of all that Fairie Dust for treating plasma like solids, liquids and gasses; when you sure can't show one single solitary laboratory experiment where any scientists has ever done so. Just cosmologists, where plasma physics in a universe 99% plasma is not even required reading. Go figure.But you mean answers for everything like mainstream claims to have???? So I guess they belong right there in that thread as well?????

If you want to get on the right track, you first must put their View Masters down and ignore that Fairie Dust.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eojmYTbumZ8Because redshift has nothing to do with cosmological expansion.A New Non-Doppler RedshiftBecause cosmologist's still insist on applying gravitational theory to plasma behavior - despite the fact that not one single plasma physicist in any laboratory does so.Because they apply the wrong physics to 99% of the universe - plasma - they require those 95% ad-hoc assumptions.Parallax is only good for 200 parsecs (652 ly), of which both redshift and blue shift is observed. Beyond this they use only their incorrect belief in redshift to determine distances. It is plasma density and charge which causes redshift through bremsstrahlung.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFFl9S39CTMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb_EWnXCu2w

Hi JustATruthSeeker,I'm requesting again that you confine your participation about the electric universe to the The cosmic conspiracy. thread. The next post you make about the electric universe to any other thread will result in your suspension.