Re: [Fwd: Re: Two Times]
Massie (mrlab@ix.netcom.com)
Mon, 20 Dec 1999 10:49:41 -0800
George Andrews Jr. wrote:
>
> Hi guys;
>
> I thought I would interject a little.
>
> Thanks
>
> Massie wrote:
>
> > Subject: Re: Two Times
> > Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 07:53:38 -0800
> > From: Massie <mrlab@ix.netcom.com>
> > To: Starkja@aol.com
> > References: <0.6124a928.258fa0c5@aol.com>
> >
> > 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.
> > >
>
> Actually it is quite the opposite. The information gleaned from all astronomical
> observations is "from the past" It is the present state of the universe that we are
> ignorant of; e.g., the sun that lights our world is about 8 minutes old and may
> presently be exploding.
************
Well in a technical since we never have any information about the
present including that of the person in the next room. But, with
astronomy, this effect is significant but non-technical sorts seem to
ignore this latency effect. Now, what I was referring to was the
business of testability in the since of an experiment.
*************
>
> >
> > > 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
> >
>
> The physicist that I hang with do not question the speed of light's constancy; only
> its value to the n'th place. In the past, measurement techniques were cruder and
> therefore gave different values. Such is progress.
>
> The speed of an EM wave in a vacuum is a consequence of Maxwell's theory of
> radiation and independent of observer or measurement.
************
Clearly some YEC's hang to a book claiming past measurements indicate
otherwise. The author of this book did not seem to understand error
bars and the word is that he has retreated from this but his book is
still for sale at YEC headquarters INC>
Now, C is a constant according to modern physics and C enters into many
equations and effects. Is C a constant? How would we know if it
changed? Actually, in many ways change would manifest itself, and as
you note above, the time of travel gives us a window into the past.
But, even though I believe that C is a constant, we must be ever
vigilant to the basic assumptions being incorrect. The greatest point
of concern would likely be the very early times of the Big Bang when the
laws of physics might have been something we cannot even guess at.
Bert M.
>
> Chow
> George A.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Name: gandrews.vcf
> Part 1.2 Type: text/x-vcard
> Encoding: 7bit
> Description: Card for George Andrews Jr.