Junior Member (Idle past 3642 days)
Re: Soft Tissue Surviving 65 Million Years?
Most physicists are in the dark; dark matter, dark mass etc.
If that was meant as a joke, it wasn't particularly funny. If it was meant as some kind of slam against the field of physics, it was a particularly childish one that relied merely on puerile wordplay instead of substance.
This sentence no verb.
|With regards to the speed of light, are u not up to date with the science?|
Indeed I am, which is how I know that the constancy of the speed of light, both today and for billions of years in the past, has been established by multiple indepedently cross-confirming lines of evidence beyond any reasonable doubt, nor does there exist any serious evidence supporting a contrary position.
If you're unaware of this yourself, or if you have been led to believe otherwise, then it would seem that you're the one who is not currently up to date with the science.
The links in a post earlier in this very thread outline some of the methods and allude to the many studies which have examined the speed of light over time and found it to be constant, not variable: www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Threads.cgi?action=tmi&f=12&t=552 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Threads.cgi?action=tmi&f=12&t=552">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Threads.cgi?action=tmi&f=12&t=552
Those links were specifically dealing with the constantly of nuclear decay rates, but also go into the topic of the constancy of other things, including the speed of light.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 66 by LucyTheApe, posted 05-31-2009 2:39 PM|| ||LucyTheApe has not yet responded|