Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
One of the things that help us in the determination of cosmological
age, and all scientific endeavors is that most things end up fitting
together pretty well. Atomic decay tends to mesh together with
determination of the age of artifacts. It proved itself on items of
known age. The concept simply works. That's just one example.

Actually, there is an unexplained time drift between atomic
decay and Bristle Cone Pine rings that can be explained if
seconds are getting shorter.

You do know that the length of Days has changed and continues to
change? I sat through a wonderful presentation by a scientist on the
changing length of days that he thinks is possible to prove through
"microgrowth rings" in fossils. You need very well preserved fossils to
look at this, and he presented some pretty compelling evidence, but
stopped short of saying "this is how it is" Scientists - go figure! ;^)


That isn't religion, it fits in with what we do know about physics.

And of course, that is in the present space-time. But using
a localized present space-time standard to obtain an absolute
value for something that existed far outside of that present
localized space-time just doesn't "fit". For all we know, the
first half of the existence of the universe consumed all of
one second of space-time as it existed way back then.

I would never present anything as absolute.


What is the length of time that it takes for one entangled
particle to have an affect the other when they are a million
miles apart?

Darn good question, Cecil. Doesn't seem like there should be any, but
apparently if we know about one, the other is affected too.

- 73 de mike KB3EIA -