Thanks for the kind words.
I’d probably have to spend about 5 hours a week for the next year to feel comfortable again with the basics. I find it more personally fulfilling than getting into some of arguments I’ve gotten into on the internet.
Right now biology has been my focus because it is ripe for the harvest in terms of creation models, but cosmology is the final frontier.
What is obvious is so many of the VSL cosmologies are designed to solve the Big Bang problems like Dark Matter, and Inflation! And there are so many VSL cosmologies, and like the YEC/YCC cosmologies, they all can’t be right as a matter of principle! So all the investment in all the hard math, at least 90% (figuratively speaking) is all for naught.
I remember the professor authorizing us to use Wolram Mathematica, and it was comical all the profound looking,multi-page equations it would churn out that would have take years to solve in the pre-computer era.
Magueijo did actually mention in passing and interesting data point regarding the pioneer anomaly. That one is worth pursuing more because it is an actual physical data point decoupled from the Big Bang.
Also some of the VSL cosmologies are Universal/Cosmological/Isotropic changes to c. I’m interested in LOCALized changes to c, and there may or may not be Earth-bound examples of that – that’s why I’ve both studied and tried to reconstruct interferometers. I’ve gone back and looked also at Ron Hatch’s work – very interesting.
I’m not comforatable with changes to h (Planck’s constant), and that will immediately break YEC/YCC cosmologies as that affects chemistry and the atomic “radius” – Not Good. Isotropically variable c affects stellar fusion rates, that could blow up the stars. Not good either. So the best variable c would be one that is spatially variable at long distances from gravitational sources like stars and the sun.
Dewitte’s Belgacon experiment did suggest a direction dependent light speed. Cahill re-built several interferometers which claim success, but I’m skeptical, but Dewitte’s experiment and reconstructed Michelson interferometers by other researchers look promising.
Hatch claims his filter shows the Einsteinian relativity is flawed, and that some sort of neo-Lorentzian relativity might be better. The problem for me is uncoiling all the math and literature, but I’m having to re-learn some of the basics of Einstein’s GR, much less some of the VSL and neo-Lorentzian variants!
I’ll post some of the data on neo-Lorentzian theories, the best starting with Hatch.
Also, I’m going have to shop around for physics discussion boards where I can post equations and get some help understanding them, starting with equation (1). I once had a good handle on it, but that was years ago before I started studying biology.