Re: concordism/time

From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Wed Jan 12 2000 - 07:22:56 EST

  • Next message: Massie: "Re: concordism/time"

    Adam Crowl wrote:
    >
    > Hi ASA
    >
    > Dick, I think you might've over-reacted. I don't think Jim's espousing
    > Setterfield lunacy. Some research does indicate a higher velocity for c in
    > the far, far past during the very hot and tiny phase of the Big Bang. By the
    > time nucleii had formed it was down to its current value.

            What is this research? The claim is a bit puzzling since if relativity
    is correct, c is simply a conversion factor between two units (km & sec) for measuring
    intervals, so that having it change would be a little like the number of feet in a
    mile changing.
            (As I think I've noted before: Relativity does _not_ actually require
    that light travel at speed c & if photons have a rest mass it won't. But that
    wouldn't have any effect that I can think of in the early universe.)
                                                    Shalom,
                                                    George

    George L. Murphy
    gmurphy@raex.com
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 12 2000 - 07:27:48 EST