To: stop_killing_unborn_babies
The speed of light is speculated to change one part in 2x10^23 parts IF they can prove the fine constant changed. Even then, at the distances that are in the single paper, this doesn't affect the flow of time and the distances.
The rate of decay of an isotope is not going to change for a sample. I agree leaching can be a problem on the microgram scale, but for large quantities, it doesn't change. It would be similar to 5 moles (6x10^23 atoms) of lead weighing anything other than 14 ounces.
285 posted on
08/30/2004 1:32:11 PM PDT by
Dominick
("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
To: Dominick
The speed of light is speculated to change one part in 2x10^23 parts IF they can prove the fine constant changed. Even then, at the distances that are in the single paper, this doesn't affect the flow of time and the distances.I agree the jury isn't in yet, but Paul Davies and others have initial calculations that lightspeed was possibly 1000X faster in the not too distant past. That would affect distance and time flow considerably.
It would be similar to 5 moles (6x10^23 atoms) of lead weighing anything other than 14 ounces.
Seems you are leaving out gravity and electromagetism there.
To: Dominick
In other words, even though there is absolutely no reason to assume that the rate of decay has ever changed...Of course that was said because a constant rate fits the agenda. quite a bit of evidence that it is constant
It may be constant from the time of it's first reading. Does that mean that the atomic clocks that have slowed down prove time is slowing down?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson