What Properties Might Light of Millennia Past Have that Today's Doesn't?

Actually, he’s not saying that it is a conspiratory theory, he’s saying it has no evidence. Different things. Creationists also use the inflation model. It just does not have the evidence to support it. Not in the kind being described.

Actually, he’s not the only one who thinks so. Open Letter on Cosmology Many well regarded cosmologists think the same. Etc. Halton Arp.... (I don’t have to go through their names)

JonF, isn’t the energy directly related to the speed? As in E=mc^2?Percy, I’m just saying that it is observed that the Universe is expanding. Therefore, if light from those clusters that are receding are losing energy (if they lose energy I think they would lose luminosity (correct me if I’m wrong, but this is one of the first times that I’ve heard of tired light.), we would not see it.I said so in my first post, but no one seemed to notice that.Anyway, I read up in the wikipedia article about tired light. It doesn’t seem to make sense to me.

I'm not saying the Inflationary Hypothesis is false. It isn't because there are no disproven predictions, that I can see anyway. It just has many unproven predictions. If the speed of light is variable, why can it ONLY be 14 billion years, why can't it go above c?

I'm not actually using it as evidence for creation. Which would require a different thread.

I thought that was the photoelectric effect? Yeah, I know the equation. Sorry bout the mixI thought wrong about the luminosity...correcting in progress. Ummm...Ok. I understand what you're saying about redshifts,Ok, if light was faster in the past and slowed down, (it has to have been, it could not have been slower) would not the light disappear from view as the c was reduced? Would not it, in such a case, show blueshifts?
If the speed of light was much greater in the past, either the frequencies were higher due to higher excitation energies of the sources or the received wavelengths are shortened by the Doppler effect. In either case, referenced against standard sources on Earth, such light would appear blueshifted.(This last is taken from an article by John Hartnett. I do understand what he's saying, and I do understand what you're saying. I just mixed up the luminosity part (I was reading an article on luminosity of Ia Supernova, my bad))

Technically, it's all just speculation. VSL has not been observed. Has it? (More details: A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem - creation.com )

Your misrepresentation is rather interesting. The problem is the horizon problem. The solution offered, which has no evidence, is the Inflationary Hypothesis. Two different things, my dear Dr.

Um, Percy, I gave you more information on the subject. Did you read it?

quote:

---

You concede it's all just speculation and state that VSL (Variable Speed of Light) has not been observed. What is there to respond to?

---

You see, I’ve never been a supporter of VSL in the first place.Yes, I know I’ve not been specific, Thanks for the tip. Brevity is good. In some cases. Anyway. I’m keeping enerrgy constant,. (For this case, it would be just only be c that is changing. I no longer support the idea of c changing, by the way. I used to, in other forums)

Asking questions which you may never have asked yourself?

Wait a minute. I don't ask questions which you already ask. There has been such consideration. It goes back a long way.

Oh, it is real. You mixed up the horizon problem and the solution. I pointed that out to you. You ignored it. Perhaps that's the most interesting thing about it.

No, Alfy, observations are consistent with an expanding universe. http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/astro/universe/universe.asp Not only is it expanding, the expansion is also accelerating Accelerating expansion of the universe - Wikipedia