[Advanced Creation Science]

[Pictured from left to right: (Nobel Laureates) Michelson, Einstein, Millikan]

Decreasing speed of light models postulate some sort of exponential decay. As time moved forward, the changes became less and less, but they were noticed:

“If the velocity of light is constant, how is it that, invariably, new determinations give values which are lower than the last one obtained … There are twenty-two coincidences in favour of a decrease of the velocity of light, while there is not a single one against it.”

M. E. J. Gheury de Bray, “The Velocity of Light,” Nature, 24 March 1934, p. 464.

M. E. J. Gheury de Bray, “The Velocity of Light,” Nature, 4 April 1931, p. 522.

We notice this phenomenon even in the measurements by Nobel Laureate Albert Michelson:

year: speed of light

1878.0: 300,140 ± 480

1879.5: 299,910 ± 50

1882.8: 299,853 ± 60

1924.6: 299,802 ± 30

1926.5: 299,798 ± 15

Setterfield notes:

The persistent downward trend in the measured value of c was noted by de Bray after Michelson’s 1924 series results became available. As a result, he wrote to the Editor of Nature on the 20th December, 1924, and to l’Astronomie in France on January 23rd, 1925, calling attention to the trend.56 In the latter case, he predicted a lower value for Michelson’s next determination, which was in the process of being prepared. In the event his prediction was justified. As a result of that circumstance, the Editor of Nature, having ignored his earlier calls, decided to publish de Bray’s next offering, which opened up the discussion in the scientific literature throughout the late twenties, the thirties and into the early forties.

But if we have exponential decay so extreme that today the decay is practically immeasurable by our best instruments, what evidence can we look for?

The decaying speed of light will result in an increasing slow motion effect in the observation of binary star systems that are farther and farther away. There is one qualification, the binary stars must not be pulsators mistaken to be true binaries. Many supposed “eclipsing binaries” are not true binaries. The disproportionate number of “eclipsers” to spectroscopic binaries is clue that “eclipsing binaries” may not be true binaries.

If we can get good distance measurements in the future using parallax (as opposed to standard candles) we can make a survey of binaries farther and farther away. What happens when we search for spectroscopic binaires far away? Why they aren’t there! Or at least the doppler returns are too small to allow detect the velocity!!!

Dr. Walter Brown (PhD MIT) writes:

A Critical Test. If the speed of light has decreased a millionfold, we should observe events in outer space in extreme slow motion. Here is why.

Imagine a time in the distant past when the speed of light was a million times faster than it is today. On a hypothetical planet, billions of light-years from Earth, a light started flashing toward Earth every second. Each flash then began a very long trip to Earth. Because the speed of light was a million times greater than it is today, those initial flashes were spaced a million times farther apart than they would have been at today’s slower speed of light.

Now, thousands of years later, imagine that throughout the universe, the speed of light has slowed to today’s speed. The first of those light flashes—strung out like beads sliding down a long string—are approaching Earth. The large distances separating adjacent flashes have remained constant during those thousands of years, so the moving flashes slowed in unison. Because the first flashes to strike Earth are spaced so far apart, they will strike Earth every million seconds. In other words, we are seeing past events on that planet (the flashing of a light) in slow motion. If the speed of light has been decreasing since the creation, then the farther out in space we look, the more extreme this slow motion becomes.

About half the stars in our galaxy are binary. That is, they and a companion star are in a tight orbit around their common center of mass. If there is a “slow-motion effect,” the apparent orbital periods of binary stars should tend to increase with increasing distance from Earth. If the speed of light has been decreasing, the Hubble Space Telescope may eventually find that binary stars at great distances have very long orbital periods, showing that they are in slow motion.

Walter Brown

Using Dr. Cheesman’s Dilation (slow down) formula, I realized that binary stars within globular clusters should be practically frozen so as to appear like they don’t orbit each other. For example, the dilation factor for the M3 globular cluster (see below) would be in the ball park of 60, that means everything there will appear 60 times slower.

True binary stars (as measured by doppler spectroscopy not pulsation as is done with supposed eclipsers) should appear dead frozen or apparently non-existent the farther out we look. And indeed that is what we find:

Binary stars in globular and open clusters

They have examined 111 stars in M3 and some dozens more in M5, 10, 15, 22, and 92. None (apart from known pulsational variables) shows radial velocity variations of more than about 1 km/sec on a time scale of several years.
…
The conclusion that the giant populations in at least some globular clusters are grossly deficient in binaires relative to the field [close to us] is apparently inescapble.

Has there been any survey of binary star populations versus distance? We get some hint that there is an anomaly the farther out we look. This isn’t the greatest read on the subject, but its a start What a local sample of spectroscopic binaries can tell us about the field binary population

Finally, consider again this classic equation of physics:

where t = time, D(t) = distance at time t, and v(t) = instantaneous velocity at time t.

For constant speed v(t) = v. Suppose the universe is 13.5 billiion years in radius/diameter (ok, in non-Euclidean relativistic geometries the notion of a “sphere’s” radius/diameter and geometry are different than our common notions in Euclidean space, in big bang non-Euclidean cosmology: “radius” = “diameter”), We would expect that what we observe far will be delayed by

Time = (observed age difference) = Distance / Speed of Light

Plugging in mainstream nubmers we ought to see an age difference in stars of up to 13.5 billion years, and thus an age difference between the nearest star and farthest star of 13.5 billion years. To illustrate in terms of analogy, figurateively speaking we should see this age progression in stars from near to far if the speed of light were constant (going from left to right where the left side represents near stars and the right side is symbolizes far stars):

Now if v(t) in the past were much faster, say 10^12 times today’s current speed of light, we can see the above formula

Time = = (observed age difference) = Distance / (Today’s Speed of Light * 10^12)

This implies there should be negligible time delay in observing near and far stars. Granted, this is a constant speed simplification, but accounting for variable speed should yield materially the same conclusion, namely, little or no difference in age should be seen. Indeed somthing like this (figuratively speaking) should be seen:

And that is what we see! This is exactly the problem facing cosmologists, the appearance of age homogeneity!!!!

Dr. Walter Brown (PhD MIT)

Evolutionists now admit that galaxies cannot evolve from one type to another. There are also good reasons natural processes cannot form galaxies. Furthermore, if spiral galaxies were billions of years old, their arms or bars would be severely twisted. Because they have maintained their shape, either galaxies are young, or unknown physical phenomena are occurring within galaxies. Even structures composed of galaxies are now known to be so amazingly large, and yet relatively thin, they could not have formed by slow gravitational attraction. If slow, natural processes cannot form such huge galactic structures, then rapid, supernatural processes may have.
….

Figure 161: Hubble Deep Field North. The Hubble Space Telescope, searching for evolving galaxies in December 1995, focused for 10 continuous days on a tiny patch of sky, so small when viewed from Earth that a grain of sand held at arm’s length would cover that area. This picture of that tiny patch of sky is called Hubble Deep Field North. Most objects in it are not isolated stars, but galaxies, each containing billions of stars. Of the 3,000 galaxies photographed that emitted enough light to measure their redshifts, which presumably measure distance, all seemed surprisingly mature. As stated in Scientific American, “the formation of ‘ordinary’ spiral and elliptical galaxies is apparently still out of reach of most redshift surveys.”16 Moreover, fully formed clusters of galaxies, not just galaxies, are seen at the greatest distances visible to the Hubble Space Telescope.17 In 1998 and 2004, similar pictures—with similar results—were taken.

Think about this. There is not enough time in the age of the universe (even as evolutionists imagine it, times a billion) for gravity to pull together all the particles comprising clusters of galaxies.18 (As explained under “Galaxies” on page 30, clusters of galaxies cannot form, even granting all this time.) Because the most current studies show fully-formed galaxies even farther away than those shown above, creation becomes the logical and obvious alternative. We may be seeing galaxies as they looked months after they were created. Vast amounts of time are no longer needed.

Figure 162: Spiral Galaxies. The arms in these six representative spiral galaxies have about the same amount of twist. Their distances from Earth are shown in light-years. (One light-year, the distance light travels in one year, equals 5,879,000,000,000 miles.) For the light from all galaxies to arrive at Earth tonight, the more distant galaxies, which had to release their light long before the closer galaxies, did not have as much time to rotate and twist their arms. Therefore, farther galaxies should have less twist. Of course, if light traveled millions of times faster in the past, the farthest galaxies did not have to send their light long before the nearest galaxies. Spiral galaxies should have similar twists. This turns out to be the case.

Amen!