That c might be slowing does not mane (of course) that the "falt earthers" are right. Far from it. However, it will be used as a club in the creationist-evolution debate
eric
--- Ian Murray <seamus2001 at attbi.com> wrote:
> [that stoner CS Pierce wouldn't be suprised....The
> NYT article on
> John Barrow's research is in the archives....]
>
> The truth is relative
>
> Einstein's theory may have to be turned on its head,
> but that's
> nothing new for science
>
> Martin Gorst
> Saturday August 17, 2002
> The Guardian
>
> It was a striking claim. If the group of scientists
> who asserted
> that light has slowed down were right, it would have
> been a blow to
> one of the cornerstones of modern science. Ever
> since Einstein
> devised his special theory of relativity, scientists
> have held that
> the speed of light in a vacuum is an absolute
> constant. Now it seems
> his most famous equation, E=mc<+>2, may no longer
> hold true.
>
> However, far from being shocked by last week's news,
> the scientific
> community is taking it in its stride. If Einstein
> did blunder, then
> in one respect it's nothing new. Scientists have
> been getting it
> wrong ever since Aristotle proposed that the sun
> revolves around the
> Earth. It's what scientists do. Getting it wrong is
> practically part
> of the job description.
>
> The history of science is littered with
> distinguished names who made
> mistakes. The study of light, alone, reveals a rich
> catalogue of
> misconception. Kepler thought that light travelled
> with infinite
> velocity - not true. Galileo believed it would be
> possible to
> measure its speed by quickly covering and uncovering
> lanterns - not
> a chance. Newton claimed that light speeded up when
> it passed
> through a denser medium - quite the opposite.
>
> But there is a huge difference between these almost
> commonplace
> errors and this latest news. The belief that the
> speed of light is
> constant has been accepted as an intrinsic truth for
> nearly a
> century. It is part of the modern paradigm. Even the
> first hint of
> its downfall is big news.
>
> But we should be clear about what we are seeing
> here. Even if the
> speed of light has changed, we are not about to see
> the downfall of
> an absolute truth. Despite the assertions of some
> teachers,
> scientific theories are not absolute truths; they
> are just
> descriptions of the world, some of which fit better
> than others.
> Einstein's theories fitted the evidence available at
> the time. If
> new evidence arrives which proves him wrong, then
> scientists just
> get on with the job of devising a new theory.
>
> Nor is this process anything new. Cherished beliefs
> about how the
> world works, often held by large numbers of people,
> have crumbled
> before. Scholars in 17th-century France clung to a
> world-view based
> on the philosophy of Descartes. In their universe
> the stars lay at
> the centre of swirling vortices and the planets
> moved through an
> ether. When Newtonian mechanics arrived, with its
> assertion that
> space was a vacuum and its description of gravity,
> it blew their
> ideas away.
>
> In Victorian times, an erroneous consensus emerged
> about the age of
> the earth. The influential physicist Lord Kelvin
> asserted that it
> was 100 million years old. Such was Kelvin's
> reputation that other
> scientists fell over themselves to agree. Almost all
> geologists
> concurred, and even the naturalist Alfred Russel
> Wallace - who would
> have preferred a much older planet to support his
> theory of
> evolution - fell into line. However, within 30 years
> the consensus
> was shattered. Rutherford discovered that the age of
> rocks could be
> found by measuring their radioactivity. Today
> geophysicists put our
> planet's age at 4.5 billion years.
>
> In comparison, Newton's physics had a good run for
> its money. It
> held sway for 200 years - about as long as the gold
> standard, which
> he also set. It was finally superseded when Einstein
> produced his
> new description of the universe: the theory that may
> now be under
> threat.
>
> The possibility of tearing up one of science's holy
> texts is
> something that makes working in science an exciting
> and vibrant
> activity. It distinguishes it from the arts. Once a
> painting is hung
> in a gallery it is revered for perpetuity; once an
> equation is
> proved wrong, then, however much it was once
> regarded, it is
> discarded and forgotten. The possibility that
> someone can overturn
> an icon as famous as E=mc<+>2 is startling to the
> outside world.
> It's as if Damien Hirst was let loose in the
> National Gallery to
> paint over an old master. Yet in science, such
> change is natural and
> applauded. In his middle age, Darwin expressed the
> hope that when he
> was older he wouldn't stick too rigidly to his views
> should they be
> challenged by a younger generation.
>
> But in the distant past, natural philosophers were
> far too often
> unwilling to look for new evidence which might prove
> an old theory
> wrong. For 2,000 years doctors practised a medicine
> based on the
> ancient Greek idea of the four humours. They trusted
> their text
> books, rather than their own eyes. Even when the
> anatomy diagrams
> disagreed with what they saw in their patients, they
> were unwilling
> to accept that they were wrong. Today's scientists
> have no such
> respect for tradition. They are looking to challenge
> old theories,
> and actively seek out the evidence they need to do
> it.
>
> The fact that the constancy of the speed of light is
> now being
> challenged, and by astronomy, should come as no
> surprise. As ever,
> astronomy is at the frontier of science. Like the
> wild west, this
> frontier is a lawless place; it's inhabitants hold
> no respect for
> rules - even ones laid down by Einstein. Armed with
> improved
> telescopes, they are now able to see further into
> the cosmos, and
> with greater detail, than ever before. It has given
> them a new
> confidence. In the past, when their observations
> didn't fit the
> theory, they were inclined to disbelieve their
> results. Now they are
> more likely to accept what they see, and challenge
> the theory. As
> early as 1999 some physicists realised that they
> could solve several
> of the outstanding problems in cosmology if they
> accepted that the
> speed of light has changed. If the new evidence
> proves correct, and
> light really has slowed down, it won't be a
> disaster; it may
> actually solve more problems than it raises.
>
> On the other hand, if the varying speed of light
> remains
> unexplained, it will be in good company. There is
> much
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com