If you'll read the paper itself [1], you'll see that the author takes well known equations, replaces some constants with functions of time and tries to draw con

If you'll read the paper itself [1], you'll see that the author takes well known equations, replaces some constants with functions of time and tries to draw conclusions from there. In short, it's bogus. You can read some of the funnier details at [2]. [1] http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.1750 http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.1750 [2] http://badphysics.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/nobang/ http://badphysics.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/nobang/