Chap wrote:
So Tobin thinks that DrW's reference to the "constants" in an equation used to derive values for a given quantity implies that DrW thinks that the values derived must be constant.
To illustrate Tobin's mathematical confusion, here is an equation describing a situation involving very elementary kinematics, in which the distance (s) moved by an object under a constant acceleration (a) varies with the time (t) elapsed since the object was at rest:
s = (1/2)*a*t^2
In this equation, (a) is the constant we have to get right if we want to be able to calculate (s) correctly for a given elapsed time (t). But (s) is a variable, even if it was calculated using an equation with a constant in it.
Someone who doesn't get this point has no right to post on questions of cosmological theory as Tobin does.
I agree.
But he just keeps at it.
Actually, the constants I was referring to are even simpler than the one in your example. I was referring to the values for constants that one can look up in the front (or back) of pretty much any physics text book - no pesky calculations required.
Values of the constants such as
c (speed of light in a vacuum) ,
G (gravitational constant), ℏ (Planck's constant) and many more are of fundamental importance in terms of how the universe works.
If Tobin had thought about it, he might have realized that his question about the "equation that governs the expansion of space time" may turn out to simply be a property of the Universe like "
c". This "expansion metric" only applies, as I indicated above, at large (pretty much intergalactic) distances.
In any case, my question was simply whether Tobin thought that the values measured or derived for these constants were wrong.
Apparently Tobin doesn't have a problem with the values for these constants (although I agree with Chap that he might not know what he is talking about in the first place), which makes his belief in man's ability to violate the laws of nature, almost at will, quite disturbing.