Replies

It was settled science that the speed of light was fixed. Now, they're saying that it was faster earlier in history and is slowing down. I first read about serious problems with Einstein's theory from alternative science folks, like Petr Beckman and others. Beckman and the other's were denounced by the "settled science" folks in what can only be described as theological terms.

You even said that it was unknown, why the ozone hole didn't show up elsewhere in the atmosphere. Now, you're jumping on me for bringing up the unknowable and accusing me of not believing in atoms. We're getting a little testy, aren't we?

"The radiation you get on a plane is cosmic radiation, which is different from UV radiation."

Well, d'oh, I wrote "background radiation" not UV. Isn't cosmic radiation also background radiation?

Why are you so emotionally tied to this ozone hole theory? To me, it's more a political campaign than science, just like Global Warming, AIDS in Africa, gun control and second-hand smoke. I'm going to remain very skeptical of this, until these scientists make a huge effort at honesty and cleaning out their stables of the political activists. You haven't given me a good reason to change that attitude.

Now, they're saying that it was faster earlier in history and is slowing down.

Who are 'they?' There may be a few people who have theorized a changing speed of light, but there is no proof for it.

You even said that it was unknown, why the ozone hole didn't show up elsewhere in the atmosphere.

To the best of my knowledge, scientists working in the field are still refining their models for why there is a hole. But what do you care what they say anyway? You regard all scientists as political lackeys who can't or won't find the truth.

Isn't cosmic radiation also background radiation?

Cosmic rays are considered background radiation, along with the radioacive decay of normally occuring materials. They are mostly made up of atomic nuclei. UV rays are a form of light, made up from photons. They are dissimilar.

Why are you so emotionally tied to this ozone hole theory? You haven't given me a good reason to change that attitude.

I'm not emotionally tied to this theory. I do get upset to see what appear to be reasonable people think that they know more about an obscure scientific subject than a dozen universities full of researchers. You discount science as being 'clintonized', 'paid of by DuPont', dishonest, etc. Your cynicism is so profound that I can't see any argument that could convince you otherwise. Like the creationists, you choose to believe whatever you want, divorced from the physical and scientific realities. Fine.