Don, I will be thankful to find a good blt, and I hope the Nobel committee does take-out.

One of the Sci-Fi books I came to really enjoy--after about a half dozen readings--was Blish`s `Cities in Flight.` I expect you`ve read it. The book--well, a collection of four shorter novels--posits that time itself will come to an end. Were it not for time, I expect we would be able to answer or at least intelligently understand the dimensional puzzle that seems to cause us all so much difficulty (perhaps I should say causes me so much difficulty).

We tend to accept light`s speed as a constant, but as you (and GfS (another sharp cookie)) noted, we have no choice about that. I think we do however have the option of ignoring light`s speed because it may not be applicable to an understanding of this thing we call reality. If indeed time IS slowing, then light will change nothing other than the development of the negative. We use time to measure the speed of light, but IF time is distorting, then what we measure using it is getting distorted, too. Make any sense to you?