Truth_Seeker

Thank you very much. You all have been very helpful and given me some great things to think about.

I am trying my hardest to come up with an example of an actual infinite, versus just a potential infinite, without having a platonist rationale. One book I was reading suggested the number of positions that, say, an electron could occupy on a yardstick. I guess it could truly be anything: a ping pong ball and football field, or even a golf ball and a line segment 1 mm longer than the golf ball's diameter. But, my hangup in this, is if there are truly an infinite number of points it could occupy, then how could you roll that ball the entire length of your measure and cover every position if it truly had an infinite number of positions? Like I said, my thinking is more nominalist than platonist, so I'm holding the position that points or numbers would be classified as potential versus actual. Where is my inconsistency? Thanks in advance for any ideas.

Thanks for the information, and thanks for that link as well. There are some links on that webpage that definitely look worth checking out. I had heard about the Norman and Setterfield hypothesis from the 80s, which that direct webpage talks about, and basically how their assertions and data hold no validity at all. But, from what I could see there seems to be a resurfacing of interest in this theory (within the last 3 years or so?), and I didn't know if maybe there was some new evidence in support of it or if it was now being taken more seriously for some reason. Or if it was the same old hypothesis with the same old data that they were still talking about.

Hello to you all, Is anyone familiar with this view? That the speed of light has slowed, perhaps up to 10-30% within the past 2000 years? Most everything I have found on the web indicates that this theory is not embraced by many. Yet, I do know some people who hold to it, so perhaps it is still an ongoing possibility? I admit I have only a surface knowledge of physics, so I was wondering if anyone who actually has an understanding of the field views this as a credible theory. Am I correct in that someone supporting the view that lightspeed is decaying would have to reject the notion that the universe is expanding?