Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Akinbo Ojo: on 5/17/14 at 11:28am UTC, wrote "In many theories, the Sun perturbs the values of the constants by a...

Tim Golden BandTechnology.com: on 7/22/10 at 0:40am UTC, wrote Isn't 10E-17 good enough precision? Well, maybe 10E-23 is better, but the...

dan winter: on 4/12/10 at 5:41am UTC, wrote If time is defined by the period of rotating charge, then synchronicity is...

amrit: on 4/6/10 at 6:21am UTC, wrote Dear friends, we can not test time in the universe as universe is...

paul valletta: on 3/25/10 at 10:52am UTC, wrote Why is it we cannot observe an Electron, but can assign it a charge value?...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/23/10 at 11:27am UTC, wrote Hello, You are welcome. I think Fqxi can help you for the post. Best...

Xinwei : on 3/23/10 at 6:43am UTC, wrote Hello dear Steve, Thank you let me come here. I am sorry, I do not know...

Anonymous: on 3/22/10 at 16:56pm UTC, wrote Dr Huang, Have you tried submitting your paper to www.arxiv.org, so that...



FQXi FORUM
August 17, 2017

ARTICLE: Testing Times for Nature's Constants [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

paul valletta wrote on Mar. 25, 2010 @ 10:52 GMT
Why is it we cannot observe an Electron, but can assign it a charge value? Rubbing two different structures together creates charge, is it the Electrons pushing out the charge or is it pulling in the charge?

I think the problem lay in frictional charge being more applicable in the distant past Universe, Electrons fighting thier way in and out of compressed matter would aquire certain charge values, in an ever expanding Universe all forms of friction decreases?

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 6, 2010 @ 06:21 GMT
Dear friends,

we can not test time in the universe as universe is timeless. X 4 = i x c x t is spatial too. Galaxies, stars, we human beings and sub-quantum particles move in space only and not in time. Time is run of clocks in timeless universe. There is no physical time behind the run of clocks. We measure with clocks material change i.e. motion of the timeless universe. We experience material change i.e. motion through the inner linear psychological time “part-present-future” that is based on neuronal activity of the brain: we “see” all running in time although we can not perceive time in the universe, we c an perceive only change i.e. motion.

See more on articles attached.

Yours Amrit

attachments: Physical_Time_Is_Run_Of_Clocks__Quantum_Dream.pdf, Observer_is_a_function_of_Fourdimensional_Timeless_Space__for_WEB.pdf

report post as inappropriate


dan winter wrote on Apr. 12, 2010 @ 05:41 GMT
If time is defined by the period of rotating charge,

then synchronicity is defined by efficiency

of charge transfer.

Charge transfer efficiency can be shown

to be optimized by golden ratio perfected

fractality, in the form of phase conjugation.

My original Equation evidence at

www.goldenmean.info/coincidence

Planck time - times golden ratio predicts:

hydrogen

solar year

venus year

!

fractality in time..

Summaries at

www.goldenmean.info/selforganization

The experiment:

show that charge transfer between oscillating

capactive circuits increases slightly

when they are place at

golden mean ratio IN TIME!

Significant evidence of the golden mean

ratio at the root TIME

in link 1 above

and at the root of quantum physics

in link 2 above

dan winter

danwinter@fractalfield.com

report post as inappropriate


Tim Golden BandTechnology.com wrote on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 00:40 GMT
Isn't 10E-17 good enough precision?

Well, maybe 10E-23 is better, but the first is good enough to me.

In terms of where to seek change in alpha; I'd guess that it will be out of the planetary plane: one satellite did go there, but no anomalies were reported as far as I know. Go North!

- Tim

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on May. 17, 2014 @ 11:28 GMT
"In many theories, the Sun perturbs the values of the constants by a factor roughly proportional to the Sun's Newtonian gravitational potential, which scales as the inverse of distance, r, between the Earth and the Sun. Since r fluctuates annually, reaching a minimum at perihelion in early January and a maximum at aphelion in July, the values of the constants, as measured here on Earth, should...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.