Re: Syncronized atomic clocks
From: Pyriform (nobody_at_nowhere.com)
Date: 06/10/04
- Next message: Uncle Al: "Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force"
- Previous message: Uncle Al: "Re: New Way to Factor"
- In reply to: Sam Wormley: "Re: Syncronized atomic clocks"
- Next in thread: Sam Wormley: "Re: Syncronized atomic clocks"
- Reply: Sam Wormley: "Re: Syncronized atomic clocks"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 23:50:57 +0100
Sam Wormley wrote:
Be careful who you are quoting, Sam. If memory serves, Barry Setterfield
is a proponent of "Cdk" (C-decay - geddit?)- the notion that the
velocity of light was *much* higher in the past, and has only (rather
conveniently) tailed off asymptotically in recent years to give the
apparently constant value we now measure. He believes this for religious
reasons, in order to arrive at a suitably biblically young Universe in
the face of all the apparent evidence to the contrary. It still doesn't
work, of course, but that's faith for you.
The clue is here, from your quote:
> Until recently, that
> finite speed has been generally been considered a fixed
> and immutable constant of the universe in which we live.
- Next message: Uncle Al: "Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force"
- Previous message: Uncle Al: "Re: New Way to Factor"
- In reply to: Sam Wormley: "Re: Syncronized atomic clocks"
- Next in thread: Sam Wormley: "Re: Syncronized atomic clocks"
- Reply: Sam Wormley: "Re: Syncronized atomic clocks"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]