1. Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield, The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time (Box 318, Blackwood, South Australia, 5051: self-published, 1987).
2. Alan Montgomery and Lambert Dolphin, “Is the Velocity of Light Constant in Time?” Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol. 4, September–October 1993, pp. 93–97. [This paper is also found at www.ldolphin.org/cdkgal.html.]
3. Two creationist physicists have claimed that the data shows no statistically significant change in the speed of light. See, for example:
u Gerald E. Aardsma, “Has the Speed of Light Decayed?” Impact, No. 179 (El Cajon, California: The Institute for Creation Research), May 1988.
u Gerald E. Aardsma, “Has the Speed of Light Decayed Recently?” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 25, June 1988, pp. 36–40.
u Robert H. Brown, “Statistical Analysis of the Atomic Constants, Light and Time,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 25, September 1988, pp. 91–95.
Their calculations contain mathematical errors which, if corrected, would support the hypothesis that the speed of light has decreased. I have discussed these matters with each author. The following professional statisticians have verified my conclusions or have reached similar conclusions independently:
Michael Hasofer, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2033, Australia.
David J. Merkel, 11 Sunnybank Road, Aston, Pennsylvania 19014, U.S.A.
Alan Montgomery, 218 McCurdy Drive, Kanata, Ontario K2L 2L6, Canada.
4. M. E. J. Gheury de Bray, “ The Velocity of Light,” Science, Vol. 66, 30 September 1927, Supplement, p. x.
5. M. E. J. Gheury de Bray, “The Velocity of Light,” Nature, 24 March 1934, p. 464.
u M. E. J. Gheury de Bray, “The Velocity of Light,” Nature, 4 April 1931, p. 522.
6. “The biggest challenge to the standard model of galaxy formation could be the number of large galaxies showing the spiral structure in the early universe.” Ivo Labbé, as quoted by Ron Cowen, “Mature Before Their Time,” Science News, Vol. 163, 1 March 2003, p. 139.
7. Ibid.
8. Light beams are considered to be traveling in a vacuum. Light traveling through any substance—such as air, water, or glass—travels at slightly slower speeds.
u In two published experiments, the speed of light was exceeded by as much as a factor of 100 ! The first experiment involved radio signals—a type of light. [See P. T. Pappas and Alexis Guy Obolensky, “Thirty Six Nanoseconds Faster Than Light,” Electronics and Wireless World, December 1988, pp. 1162–1165.] The second report referred to a theoretical derivation and a simple experiment that allowed electrical signals to greatly exceed the speed of light. This derivation follows directly from Maxwell’s equations. The special conditions involved extremely thin electrical conductors with very low capacitance and inductance. [See Harold W. Milnes, “Faster Than Light?” Radio-Electronics, Vol. 54, January 1983, pp. 55–58.]
Other phenomena allow light to travel faster or slower than its normal speed. [See Julian Brown, “Faster Than the Speed of Light,” New Scientist, 1 April 1995, pp. 26–29; Lene Vestergaard Hau et. al., “Light Speed Reduction to 17 Metres per Second in an Ultracold Atomic Gas,” Nature, Vol. 397, 18 February 1999, pp. 594–598; Jon Marangos, “Faster than a Speeding Photon,” Nature, Vol. 406, 20 July 2000, pp. 243–244.] However, these effects do not explain distant light in a young universe.
9. V. S. Troitskii, “Physical Constants and the Evolution of the Universe,” Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 139, December 1987, pp. 389–411.
10. “We have shown how a time varying speed of light could provide a resolution to the well-known cosmological puzzles.” Andreas Albrecht and Joăo Magueijo, “A Time Varying Speed of Light as a Solution to Cosmological Puzzles,” Physical Review D, 15 February 1999, p. 043516-9. [The authors state that light may have traveled thirty orders of magnitude faster than it does today!]
u “It is remarkable when you can find one simple idea [a decaying speed of light] that has so many appealing consequences.” John D. Barrow, Professor of Astronomy and Director of the Astronomy Centre at the University of Sussex, as quoted by Steve Farrar, “Speed of Light Slowing Down,” London Sunday Times, 15 November 1998.
u “If light initially moved much faster than it does today and then decelerated sufficiently rapidly early in the history of the Universe, then all three cosmological problems—the horizon, flatness and lambda problems—can be solved at once.” John D. Barrow, “Is Nothing Sacred?” New Scientist, Vol. 163, 24 July 1999, p. 28.
Each problem Barrow mentions is a reason for concluding the big bang theory is wrong.
11. T. C. Van Flandern, “Is the Gravitational Constant Changing?” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 248, 1 September 1981, pp. 813–816.
12. Caroline Ash and Jesse Smith, “How Many Galaxies are in the Universe?” Science, Vol. 345, 18 November 2016, p. 845.
13. F. Duccio Macchetto and Mark Dickerson, “Galaxies in the Young Universe,” Scientific American, Vol. 276, May 1997, p. 95.
14. Govert Schilling, “Early Start for Lumpy Universe,” Science, Vol. 281, 11 September 1998, p. 1593. [See also E. J. Ostrander et al., “The Hubble Space Telescope Medium Deep Survey Cluster Sample: Methodology and Data,” The Astronomical Journal, Vol. 116, December 1998, pp. 2644–2658.]
15. This problem for conventional astronomy has been quietly recognized for several decades.
16. See Endnote 55 on page 453 and “Starburst Galaxies” on page 445.
17. T. C. Van Flandern, “Is the Gravitational Constant Changing?” Precision Measurement and Fundamental Constants II, editors B. N. Taylor and W. D. Phillips, National Bureau of Standards (U.S.A.), Special Publication 617, 1984, pp. 625–627.
18. “Precision” should not be confused with “accuracy.” Atomic clocks are very precise, but not necessarily accurate. They keep very consistent time with each other, and each atomic clock can subdivide a second into 9 billion parts. This is remarkable precision. But what if this entire global network of atomic clocks is drifting—speeding up or slowing down? Precision, while impressive, is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for accuracy.
19. Kenneth Brecher, “Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source?” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 39, 24 October 1977, pp. 1051–1054.
20. Another question concerns Einstein’s well-known formula, E=mc 2, which gives the energy (E) released when a nuclear reaction annihilates a mass (m). If the speed of light (c) decreases, then one might think that either E must decrease or m must increase. Not necessarily; it depends on how you measure time.
In the universe, time could flow according to either atomic time or orbital time. Under which standard would E=mc 2 be a true statement? Mass-energy would be conserved under both; in other words, the energy or mass of an isolated system would not depend on how fast time passed. Obviously, E=mc2 would be precisely true in atomic time where c is constant, and approximately correct in orbital time, because, today, c is apparently changing very slowly.
Nuclear reactions convert mass to energy. Unfortunately, the extremely small mass lost and large energy produced cannot be measured precisely enough to test whether E=mc2 is absolutely true in orbital time. Even if mass and energy were precisely measured, this formula has embedded in it an experimentally-derived, unit-conversion factor that requires a time measurement by some clock. Which type of clock should be used: an orbital clock or an atomic clock? Again, we can see that E=mc2 is “clock dependent.”
21. William G. Tifft, “Properties of the Redshift. III. Temporal Variation,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 382, 1 December 1991, pp. 396–415.
22. William G. Tifft and W. John Cocke, “Quantized Galaxy Redshifts,” Sky & Telescope, January 1987, p. 19.
23. “Most Distant Galaxies: Surprisingly Mature,” Science News, Vol. 119, 7 March 1981, p. 148.