> > Relativity might cover it, with the whole "light travels at a constant speed" thing, but I'm not sure.
>
> Light doesn't travel at a single constant speed; its speed is affected by the medium through which it's travelling. The constant c is the speed of light in a vacuum.

I may not be remembering this well, but I think the idea of relativity and the speed of light has nothing to do with the effect of the medium on the speed of light, but rather the speed of light relative to the speed of motion of the object viewing the light, meaning that if you are in a vacuum and motionless, light travels towards you at a speed of c, but if you move towards the source of the light at a speed of 0.5c, you still perceive light moving towards you at a speed of c rather than 1.5c. Similar rules apply when moving away from a source of light, so moving away at 0.5c, you would still perceive light moving at c.

Again, my math might be a little shaky, but if we were to somehow slow down time, it would seem that this would have the same effect as moving towards the source of the light in terms of perceived speed of light; if time were slowed to half speed, it SHOULD have the same mathematical effect as moving away from light at 0.5c, which I would take to mean that light would still appear to move at c. Since it's all hypothetical, though, it may not apply; slowing down time might break relativity. If it didn't, though, a limit calculation would indicate that light would still move at c as the rate of passage of time approached 0, although I have no proof for what would happen at the boundary condition of the rate of passage of time being 0. I would assume, though, that light would still be perceived as moving at c, since relativity says that even moving at the speed of light, you still see as though you weren't moving at all.

All this is intended only as food for thought. I'd still take my ability to slow time down anyway, unless I knew in advance exactly what would happen if I could stop time.

> Stephen

Don Monkey