How would you distinguish an universe where the, ahem, King's lower extremities grow and everything else stays the same from one where the King's lower extremities stay the same and everything else shrinks? (This is essentially the same point as that of this post but for scaling rather than rototranslations.)
(Well, the last time I had this discussion IIRC I initially had John Baez on my side then the person I was arguing against managed to convert him via private e-mail, but I couldn't understand what he said she said to him.)
How would you distinguish an universe where the, ahem, King's lower extremities grow and everything else stays the same from one where the King's lower extremities stay the same and everything else shrinks?
Why would I want to?
My point being, you are not under any obligation to define the meter in terms of the speed of light when you are discussing a possible change in the speed of light. You are attempting an argument by definition, and rather a silly one. Define the meter in a way that's convenient to what you're trying to do, and have done.
New Salt Compounds Challenge the Foundation of Chemistry
The title is overblown (it depends on what you think the foundation is), but get a load of this:
And here's the philosophical bit:
The obvious example of local truth is relativistic effects being pretty much invisible over the durations and distances that are normal for people, but there's also that the surface of the earth is near enough to flat for many human purposes.
Any suggestions for other truths which could turn out to be local?