Starkja@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 12/19/1999 10:02:37 PM, Bert wrote:
>
> <<Jim
>
> Yes we cannot for certainly know the past because we cannot perform an
> experiment
> on the past. Thus, only laws are testable not past events.
>
> However, we believe in interpretations of past events becuase of current
> observations and prior experiences. The medical examiner believes the body is
> only a certain time since death based on prior knowledge of the rate of
> temperature drop after death.
>
> The Big Bang theory fits a lot of observables. That is it predicts the
> element
> abundances etc. There are problems and everything does not fit so likely the
> basic theory will survive but in a highly modified form.
>
> Thus, I would urge that you accept that well tested theories such as General
> Relatively (really a theory about gravity) can be projected backwards. This
> is
> not science fiction but scientific projections based on a lot of observations.
> >>
> OK, I have no problem with projections from equations to estimate the past,
> especially when it allows further experimental work. I do question the
> projection of what might happen if observers are presumed to move near the
> speed of light. I do not think equations are that good for estimating truth.
>
> Besides more and more physicists are questioning the speed of light, itself.
> It may have been much faster in the past.
> Jim
***********
NO. This is NOT about the Special Theory of Relativity which is about
time dilation with motion. This is about the General Theory of
Relativity which is about time dilation driven by intense gravity
fields.
There is not any motion involved.
Physicists, including this one, always question basic assumptions. To
say physicists question the basic measurements about the speed of light
is like saying physicists are physicists. There is a little speculation
amoung the community about C but nothing serious.
Bert M