Re: Inconstant Moon and Stars

From: Damien Broderick (d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Thu Aug 08 2002 - 00:44:49 MDT


At 01:59 AM 8/8/02 EDT, the Spudster wrote:

> Are we really so preoccupied or jaded that this "development" seems
>unimportant?

I read it in the Age this morning, where the story you cite ends (inevitably):

>The quasar light began its journey to Earth 12 billion years
>ago when the universe was in its early stages, and passed
>through gas clouds that left an imprint called the fine structure
>constant. This was about one-millionth smaller than it should have been.
>
>Don Melrose, head of the school of physics at the University of
>Sydney, cast doubt on the theory, saying the raw data from the
>quasar light was probably wrong.

Paul's quoted as saying:

>The discovery also meant faster-than-light travel, which is
>prohibited by the law of relativity, may be possible, Professor
>Davies said.

which doesn't seem to me to follow at all, at all. If you need the ancient
cosmos to be in some kinda compressed state for c to be faster, I don't
think you'd be able to wiggle it now to skin thru faster. (BTW, this
general notion is embedded in TRANSCENSION, which gives something like 2
billion years as the age of the universe for just these kinds of reasons,
hee hee.)

Here's a sidebar:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/07/1028157961167.html

Damien Broderick



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:57 MST