"David Thomson" <google@volantis.org> wrote in message
news:1124840052.990952.228590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Not in any other material.

We were never talking about any material to begin with.

No material was stated. You stated the speed of light is invarient
otherwise SR is falsified.

What evidence do you have that a variable speed of light *will* be
fully proven?

The same evidence you have that it will never be fully proven.

The evidence, as it currently stands, tells us that the speed of light
is always the same. I don't have to worry about the future, you do.

There is no worry, either way it makes no different to my thoughts.

Which is why it has no dimensions.

No dimensions means no physical reality. If the fine structure has any
reality at all, it is non-material reality. See, I was right to begin
with.

I never doubted you. The fine structure is simply a way of describing the
relationship between forces. Saying it would ever have a material reality
is like saying the word cousins has a material reality.

There is no proof that the relative strength of the forces
have changed over time. It is merely an interpretation of the data for
physicists who absolutely refuse to accept the explanation of a
non-material Creator of the physical Universe.

Nonsense. If the fine structure constant was different than the
relationship
between your immutable forces was different.

But that's the whole point, isn't it? The fine structure has not been
measured to have changed at any time. You're working from speculation
and not from fact.

Again, although I dislike New Scientist as a reference source this is one
of the first Google.co.uk showed me: