George Murphy wrote:
>
> 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/
****
Since photons do not have a rest mass the ration of their mass at C and
at zero is infinity. Bert M.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 12 2000 - 08:13:40 EST