From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Thu Aug 08 2002 - 10:35:13 MDT
Damien Broderick wrote:
>...
>
>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
>
>
>
As I parse it: "Since we don't know why the speed of light is variable, we don't know what the limitations on the variability are. So perhaps..." It's not a logical consequence, it's merely pointing out that a logical consequence of the prior threory may need reinvestigation. Seems reasonable, but a pretty weak claim. "May need reinvestigation" is a lot different from "Is probably wrong".
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:57 MST