From: kgrossha@radford.vak12ed.edu (Kurt Grosshans)
Subject: Re: Speed of Light
Organization: Virginia's Public Education Network (Radford)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 02:16:27 GMT

Laurie Appleton (Laurie.Appleton@p1.f316.n640.z3.fidonet.org ) writes:
>  JC>     If you could change matter into energy and back to matter again it
>  JC> would be possable to travel the speed of light, right?  Now taceons
>  JC> ( Sorry if the spelling is wrong ) can travel in excess of the speed of
>  JC> light, right?  How do we know that taceons exist, if they have an
>  JC> imaginary rest mass?  If an imaginary rest mass really does exist, it
>  JC> would then be possable to travel back in time, correct?  Now, if you can
>  JC> travel in an excess of the speed of light you could travel in space and
>  JC> and travel farther distances without time on earth getting to far ahead
>  JC> of you, in fact time will end up behind you.
> 
>     All very interesting questions. But then 'science' is
>  changing its view so often that we can be sure that they will
>  find that what they believe today is wrong tomorrow and
>  tomorrow it will be all different!
> 
>    I mean the whole of out current thinking is based in the
>  concept of the BIG BANG, but in the last few years there have
>  been a number of findings and observations that are in conflict
>  with it and we have serious scientific books coming out with
>  titles like;
> 
>    THE BIG BANG NEVER HAPPENED, by Eric J. Lerner, (1992)
> 
>    I guess that many of our science teachers present the
>  speculations about these things with such confidence that many
>  students are beguiled into thinking that they are as good as
>  factual, when that is not the case at all.
> 
>    Still, so long as it stimulates contining research, then
>  sooner or later we  might get it all worked out correctly. The
>  greatest problem is that there are so many scientists who
>  become so attached to their ideas that progress is impeded and
>  some good new ideas are rejected all too quickly because they
>  upset these 'pet and cherished' theories.
> 
>     A case in point is where evidence was presented to show that
>  the speed of light in the past was up to 10^11 faster than it
>  is today.  This, if true, would dramatically conflict with all
>  our current dating systems which give us about 15 billion years
>  as the age of the universe.
> 
>    Now such ages are almost 'sacred' to many scientists and so
>  the matter is dismissed out of hand in SPITE of the
>  experimental evidence that supports it!!
> 
>    I suspect that that book I mentioned, The Big Bang Never
>  Happened, might get a better hearing because it proposes a
>  Universe of no beginning and no end and so there is all the
>  time in the world to play with and allow an even greater range
>  of speculations!!
> 
>    I am sure you will see that this at once solved the problem
>  of whether the Universe is open or closed.  i.e. whether it
>  happened by a ONCE ONLY Big Bang or whether there have been lots
>  of Big Bangs followed by Big Crunches!!
> 
>    I hope that provides some food for thought and further
>  messages!!
> 
>  Laurie
> 
> 
> 
> --  
> uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!3!640!316.1!Laurie.Appleton
> Internet: Laurie.Appleton@p1.f316.n640.z3.fidonet.org

OH PLEASE!!!!!!!

First of all tachyons also follow the laws of physics. i.e.
particles initially traveling below the speed of light can
never attain the speed of light. Those particle traveling above
the speed of light (tachyons) can never travel at or below the 
speed of light. 


If you wish to beleive that the big bang never happened, fine.
Once you have made the statement, try to back it up with facts
("because the bible says so" is not fact). Listing a book by an
author who has written some of the most incredibly trite
science since Aristotle is also not fact.

---
Kurt Grosshans
kgrossha@radford.vak12ed.edu