In article <3d356feb.4065751 at news1.lig.bellsouth.net> JDay123 at BellSouth.com (Jd) writes:
<om> <aeFY8.63584$P%6.4257989 at news2.west.cox.net> <3d333c95.21227708 at news.freeserve.net> <rRJY8.63879$P%6.4315616 at news2.west.cox.net> <3d34aba2.6536056 at news.freeserve.net>
<X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
<Lines: 18
<X-Complaints-To: abuse at usenetserver.com
<X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
<X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
<NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:49:19 EDT
<Organization: WEBUSENET.com
<Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:05:08 GMT
<Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.feminism:720555 bionet.neuroscience:32602 soc.men:970493 alt.education:37717 alt.religion:56565
<
<In alt.education Re: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's,
<Angilion wrote...
<
<>Then there are the other forms of dating, which can date back
<>much further. If humans only existed 3000 or maybe 6000 years
<>ago, who was making stone tools 600,000 years ago? Or are
<>those dating methods incorrect by a factor of 100? If so, why?
<>And what about the humanoid skeletons dated as old as
<>7 *million* years?
<
<Reverse time travel. Think about it... a time traveler traveling at
<the speed of light comes back younger than everyone he'd left.
Pedantic point: but he does not come back at a point in time
earlier -- for that locale -- than the one he left at. He
has still aged, relative to the younger him who climbed on board,
just not so rapidly as those he left behind (more precisely, those who did
not experience the accelerations he did, so we don't get the
twin paradox)
<Looking back into an exponentially expanding universe is time travel
<in reverse.
<
Quite true. Though I'm not sure about the "exponentially", or even
that "expanding": that's the Really Big Question at this point.
But we definitely are looking into the past.
<Jd
<
<
<
