From: rrllff@yahoo.com   
      
   On Sunday, August 25, 2013 4:47:35 PM UTC-4, Brian Blandford wrote:   
   > On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 1:21:13 PM UTC+1, Helpful person wrote:   
   >    
   > > I've often wondered about the effect of assuming that the "constants" are   
   not truly constant.   
   >    
   > Richard:   
   > I have been reading Rupert Sheldrake's remarkable "The Science Delusion"   
   (Coronet 2012). One of his ten challenges is just that - what we call a   
   "constant" may be anything but. He cites variations in measurements of G and c   
   (sadly c is now *defined* as    
   a constant because of the definition of the second, but that's another story).   
   Also talks about crystallisation anomalies.   
   >    
   >    
   >    
   > Brian   
   >    
   > Ancient and Modern Optics   
      
   Brian,   
      
   I just looked at the book on line.  Looks very interesting and seems to follow   
   a viewpoint I've had for many years.  Must buy it.   
      
   I agree that most scientific theories have been developed on postulates that   
   may, or may not, be correct.  However, it is difficult to see a better way   
   forward.  The problem (as I see it) is that these postulates do not seem to be   
   questioned often enough.   
      
   In addition (from a personal viewpoint) as theoretical physics is a field that   
   left me behind many years ago, I find it frustrating that extrapolations by   
   the "scientific press" are usually presented as facts.  We need another Carl   
   Sagan or James Burke    
   to examine the question "What if?".   
      
   Richard   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)