Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,795
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 48:
Line 48: + + + +
reply
::::::::::: 2), the standard view of the Big Bang is that it began as energy, and that during the time after the Big Bang matter and the elements as we know them came into existence. Once the elements existed, there is no reason to think that their rate of decay was ''different''. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:39, 26 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::::::: 2), the standard view of the Big Bang is that it began as energy, and that during the time after the Big Bang matter and the elements as we know them came into existence. Once the elements existed, there is no reason to think that their rate of decay was ''different''. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:39, 26 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::: In reply to (1), I expect faster motion when the energy is higher and/or the time is closer to the starting point. For example, I expect the velocity of a batted ball or thrown football to be faster just after being hit or released than later in time. I would never expect the rate of movement observed for the San Francisco peninsula today to have been forever constant in the past. I would expect that movement rate to have been higher in the past. Wouldn't you?
:::::::::::: In reply to (2), I cannot imagine a point of discontinuity in the history of the world ''after'' the creation or Big Bang. I would expect that the elements formed as part of a continuum, and that their decay rate would have been continuously changing also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:49, 26 June 2009 (EDT)