sharp@aquila.UUCP (09/01/84)
First off, speed of light. Plenty of people have speculated about a change in c with time, for a variety of reasons. The commonest reason for trying this change is that Einstein didn't (same with changing gravitational constant). The basic argument against it is that we can make sense of the Universe without this hypothesis. This may not be considered valid by some, but in order for it to make sense, the speed of light would have to change in such a way that time, as perceived by other mechanisms, does not change (i.e. if you change the scale of time so as to change c, you also change our scale of time, and the Earth is still a subjective 4 billion years): i.e. a change which makes no difference is not a change. Careful scientific discussion of such hypotheses does exist, and the name which comes to mind immediately is Canuto. Try a literature search on his name (I may be wrong, although he definitely does time-varying G). HOWEVER. The recent creation-supporting argument about how c was 0 (or is it infinite ?) at the "right time" (4004 BC or thereabouts) is a completely different kettle of fish. What this person has done is to take the published experimental values of c, over the years from the first proof that c was not infinite, and plot them against time. He has then fitted a curve (I don't know the exact form, but I suspect a low-order polynomial) and extrapolated it. All of you who do any data-fitting will instantly realise the fallacy. In fact, counter-arguments have already been presented, which fit a different form of curve, which approximates the data equally well, but has the opposite behaviour (i.e. if his c goes to 0, theirs goes to infinity, and vice versa). This "science" is therefore definitive rubbish without even a veneer of truth. Near-death. The best article I know about all of this controversy is by James E. Alcock, in the Sceptical Inquirer, vol 3 no 3, spring 1979 pp25-40. In general, I recommend the Sceptical Inquirer, Box 29, Kensington Station, Buffalo, NY 14215 for any and all such issues. Although they do occasionally lean too far to the cynical dismissal of bizarre phenomena, the articles generally give a very balanced and very well-researched view of all "fringe" topics, and they are usually the only source of the opposition view. After all, the National Enquirer does not publish "UFO proved a fake" articles, even if they were responsible for the original "scare". [PS I've given the subsription address: $16.50 a year (4 issues) ] Basically, the near-death stuff is easily interpreted as simple dreaming. This is the sceptical view. However, since you cannot prove any of this, the "proof of a soul" view will persevere. I think it's currently an undecidable issue, and should therefore not be held as proving anything. -- Nigel Sharp [noao!sharp National Optical Astronomy Observatories]