<div><span class="000482100-08032007"><font face="Palatino Linotype">E=MC<font size="3">² is kinda shot in the but when the C is no Longer C.</font></font></span></div><div><span class="000482100-08032007"><font face="Palatino Linotype">Kinda like a prophet who is wrong. All creditability is gone.</font></span></div><div><span class="000482100-08032007"><font face="Palatino Linotype">I wonder what all this variable constant does to the whole Carbon Dating method?</font></span></div>
Jesse
It does nothing at all to carbon data and people have known for years that there is evidence that some of the physical "constants" are changing. However the changes are quite insignificant.
Lindsay
<h6><span class="609235800-09032007">With all due respect,</span></h6><h6><span class="609235800-09032007">I was taught that C is "Constant".(i.e., the speed of light)</span></h6><h6><span class="609235800-09032007">If Human endeavors have discovered that the speed of light is variable, then it stands to reason that formulas, using that constant as a basis in fact, are open to being questioned as unreliable, or, in other words, not 100% accurate, or in more direct words, flawed. If the Speed of Light, is a variable, even slightly( unlike the post that this addresses), then it stands to reason, the time a certain carbon reaches its' half life, is also a variable.</span></h6><h6><span class="609235800-09032007">Basically, the passing of time is not constant, and his it's fast periods, and it's slow periods. </span></h6>
Jesse
<p>We are taught many things but not all of them are correct. C has been suspected to vary a little for a long time, though it is not accepted by mainstream physics of course. It is pretty effectively constant for all purposes. C is the speed of light in a vacuum - these experiments work in different environments so do not in fact have anythign to do with C at all. </p>
Lindsay