Re: concordism/time

From: Massie (mrlab@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Wed Jan 12 2000 - 08:11:36 EST

  • Next message: Moorad Alexanian: "Re: concordism/time"

    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