Difference between revisions of "C decay"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Conservative (talk | contribs) (consensus is argument that liberals use in science and it is illogical. Voting is not empirical science. Remember, Galileo?) |
("Overwhelmingly rejected" is not the same as being "wrong". If I simply wanted to say that it is wrong, I wouldn't have put this much effort (and a lot more to come) into the article.) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The paper claims an apparent decay trend that levels off as time goes on, and which has the added benefit of accelerating nuclear decay. | The paper claims an apparent decay trend that levels off as time goes on, and which has the added benefit of accelerating nuclear decay. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This theory is overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community. | ||
The data are summarized in two graphs. | The data are summarized in two graphs. | ||
Revision as of 20:25, February 29, 2016
C decay is a theory that postulates that the speed of light (c) gets slower over time. The concept was developed Dr. Barry Setterfield and V. S. Troitskii, based on past measurements of the speed of light. It is described in detail in the paper The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time[1] by Setterfield and Trevor Norman, hosted at Lambert Dolphin's web site[2].
The paper claims an apparent decay trend that levels off as time goes on, and which has the added benefit of accelerating nuclear decay.
This theory is overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community.
The data are summarized in two graphs.
