dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (08/29/84)
> [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? If his research was faked, I'm certainly not going to defend it. That's reprehensible. However, non-creationists occasionally are discovered to have fudged, as well. This sort of thing occurring on either side of the question settles nothing, except that not all scientists (or "scientists", perhaps) are engaged in science. 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? A while back, the "Law of Parity" achieved rather widespread acceptance, didn't it? Yet it turned out to be wrong. Granted, that didn't involve throwing out all of post-Newtonian physics. But to refuse to consider whether 'c' is wrong because that would mean changing our thinking? Really, now. Surely that's not what you really mean, is it, Ken? -- 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
rcd@opus.UUCP (08/30/84)
(From Paul Dubois) > > [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? > > 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?... 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? In what way does that provide us with either better explanation for observed phenomena or better predictability? It doesn't, so we reject it. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...I'm not cynical - just experienced.