|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:30 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:50 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:49 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:44 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:25 pm
|
|
|
|
The best argument against it that I can come up with is that the speed of light is based of various physical properties of the universe, and that it can only change if those properties changed. They have never been observed to change as far as I know, and if they had, there should be tell tale signs that they have.
Essentially we would have to compress a large amount of happenings into smaller time periods, such as the entire history of nuclear decay of atoms... which would mean that there should be traces of higher than expected radiation in history, especially considering that this should result in lethal amounts of radiation being released, and even tiny amount of uranium going nuclear. That's the main issue with any proposed ad hoc explanations like this.
I would also point out that the source for this is a minority view, and has not been published in a peer reviewed journal, so it's reliability is questionable at best. Claims of a bias in science, or of scientific dogma, can be dealt with in the usual way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|