Tuesday, September 16, 2008


(Talk of a certain theory has reached so many forums that one can't keep track of them all. This comes from the solarcycle24 forum.)

Faint Sun Paradox

ENOUGH wrote:

One major issue that leaves a lot of issues hanging is the Faint Sun Paradox. Here is one of the latest papers dealing with an explanation. Have not seen anything on this board about topic and am looking for comments.



SOLOMON wrote:

If space itself is expanding (negative energy) and not just the distance between things, then the apparent speed of light might be changing. One small problem, we have not been able to measure any shift.
How about taking some of these topics to the new board?!

ENOUGH wrote:

I have been playing with the new board and trying to decide when to jump. In a way I hate losing the old threads. The Faint Sun Paradox has left no one satisfied. The AGW has not even jumped on it. The three most popular ways around it that I am aware of:

1. GM=tc^3 from the link originaly posted.

2. Cosmic Rays and Solar Wind

3. And of course massive green house gas levels early in the lifes history.

Will cross post in the up coming days

(SO, we have the leading theory for explaining the "Faint Young Sun." Numbers 2 and 3 are barely theories at all, but rely on inferrences of gas. As they say at Fighter Weapons School, "No points for second place!")

(Now to a thread about the Speed of Light. )


speed of light is decreasing.

how did i find this?

one lady/woman had this written on her "about me" in her blog -

Full-time researcher in cosmology. Before graduating I learned that the speed of light is slowing down and came up with the GM=tc^3 equation, which most physicists still can't explain. More recent work seeks Black Holes in some very unexpected places. I enjoy exploring a strange world and unusual forms of life.

I thought she was joking until I saw this - http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/einstein/talks/aspauthor2004_3.pdf

The above link is an abstract and is in PDF..and was given as a talk to Stanford Univ. just to say that I'm not joking.



It is certainly not crank physics - Riofrio is a respected physicist - but it's not something I've come across before. I've cleaned up a paper by Riofrio on the matter (it was graphics and nasty - I've OCRd it and tidied it up a bit).

There is also an article where she explains the theory in more accessible language...


(The virus is spreading!)



Post a Comment

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page