To: VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Physicist; LogicWings; Doctor Stochastic; ..
Science list ping (an elite subset of the Evolution list). List details are in my freeper homepage. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.
posted on 06/30/2004 1:38:39 PM PDT
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
Lower? Wasn't it supposed to have been faster 6000 years ago?
To: PatrickHenry; Physicist
Now they've done it. I have to go back and review all this Sommerfeld stuff...
And didn't Einstein originally just assume the speed of light as a constant?
"A varying speed of light contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity, and would undermine much of traditional physics." I'm no physicist, but that assertion seems a stretch because if the 'constant is sliding upward, the relative 'whole-universe' relationship would be the same at any given temporal point. Am I confused or what?
posted on 06/30/2004 2:07:48 PM PDT
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson