dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (09/06/84)
Enough already! The following exchange... > > [Ken Perlow] > > I've heard a real creationist with a real PhD (in something) say that > > the speed of light is changing, and used to be much higher, perhaps > > infinite. His "research" is provably bogus, however. And clearly, > > were the speed of light truly variable, *ALL* of post-Newtonian physics > > would have to be thrown out. Gadzooks--more than that! Do you know > > how many equations "c" figures into? > > [Paul DuBois] > About the speed of light: not to dispute whether it is variable or > not, but the sentiment expressed by Ken above may be characterized, > perhaps, as unnecessarily dogmatic. Not because it affirms a well- > attested phenomenon or fact of the universe, but because it seems > to be based on the idea "if it is does turn out to be variable, > we have to rethink our physics?" Is that unthinkable? ...resulted in the following three replies, all of which seem to imply (especially the last) that I suggested above that c is variable. > [Ethan Vishniac] > The problem with believing that c, the speed of light, is a function > of time, is, as Ken pointed out, that a constant speed of light is > a basic part of our current ideas about the nature of physics. This > ideas have been subjected to a great deal of experimental testing and > so deserve to be taken seriously. If there were any evidence indicating > that c were, nevertheless, a function of time, then this would cause of > a crises in modern physics. This is not bad, this is exciting. Since > there is no such evidence, we can ignore the possibility. > [Dick Dunn] > It's not unthinkable, of course--but if you're going to make a major > upheaval, you'd better have a good reason. The problem with making the > speed of light variable is one of the standard creationist problems > occurring again--an attempt to dodge what we can observe or rewrite what we > see in order to justify a theory, rather than developing the theory from > what we can observe. Science just doesn't work out very well if you do it > backwards. > > Stated differently, what is explained by allowing 'c' to vary? > [Lew Mammel, Jr.] > Let me assure Paul DuBois that I not only considered, but spent undue > hours studying and analyzing "The Velocity of Light and The Age of the > Universe" by Barry Setterfield. > > Please note the tentative way that Paul advanced his suggestion that this > concept is a victim of evolutionary dogmatism. Since I have been (mildly) taken to task three times now, I suppose I'd better respond: I expressly said I was *not* concerned with the question of whether c varies or not. Ok? -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage forever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart. Psalm 119:111