>This was the approach I tried when I was a YEC. It failed miserably (and I
>am embarassed that I ever suggested such a thing today). There is a very
>self-contained observation that the fundamental constants have not changed.
>It lies in the explosion of a star in the large Magellanic Cloud, 169,000
>years ago. This is a modification of another note on the same topic I posted
>earlier. First off, before someone says I believe in a change in c I don't.
>But one can assume such a change and examine how the universe would be
>different. Here is the post.
>The fundamental physical method of timing any event in the cosmos is the
>speed of light. I can show from non-relativistic assumptions that it must
>have been constant.
Thank you for your post. I will read it carefully. The constancy of the
fundamental constants was discussed also in a book by Mehran, I believe (not
very sure), which I read some years back. I did develop a "theory" for the
fine structure constant which was published in The Physical Review and my
expression for the fine structure constant appears in Barrow and Tiplers'
Anthropic Principle. Of course, I have been away from that topic for some
time. I am not sure I understand the above statement of "non-relativistic
assumptions." The constancy of the speed of light is one of Einstein's main
postulates of relativistic mechanics.