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

It's your theory, I have no idea what would happen as c lessened. Here's the equation again: Is it part of your theory that as c decreased energy would have remained constant? If so then reducing c would have reduced wavelength, which *would* be a blueshift.But c is a constant because it is a function of the fine structure constant, and significant changes in that constant would have widespread effects on the nature of our universe, effects that we have not observed. One of the effects would be that carbon based life forms could not exist, mainly because carbon could not be produced by stars, but since we're here the fine structure constant must have been pretty much the same when life first began as it is today. Frequency is the inverse of wavelength. You've just used two ways of referring to the same thing to reach two different conclusions, and if you're keeping energy constant then you've got it backwards because increasing c means frequencies must be lower and wavelengths longer.But whatever the actual details of your ideas, they're just pointless speculation because there's no evidence for any of them.--Percy

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 )

I think this is begging the question. Frequency and wavelength are inversely related given that the propagation velocity is constant. Edited by NoNukes, : remove erroneous stuff.

But if he's holding energy constant (which he didn't specify but I was trying to respond to his questions and so needed to assume something constant) then frequency and wavelength are still kind of locked together. If energy is not held constant then I think you're right.AbE: After thinking about this a bit more I realized that holding the energy constant would also hold the frequency constant, so varying c while keeping energy constant would vary the wavelength.--PercyEdited by Percy, : AbE.

Well, what you wrote was: "It could not have possibly taken 14 billion years. It is known as the horizon problem." Which does implicitly assume that the I.H. is false, because if it's true the radiation could have become uniform in the given time. If it comes to that, it also implicitly assumes that the speed of light can't vary.

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?

And non-existent. Perhaps that's the most interesting thing about it.

Are you referring to your Message 62? The one with the bare link? Have your read the Forum Guidelines:

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

Anyway, so what did you say in Message 62: 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?Or were you maybe referring to the one sentence I didn't quote from the longest paragraph in your Message 60, the only one that continued your line of argument: Given that everything you were saying was speculation in the absence of information, why do you feel it was necessary to respond to this part of the speculation?My Message 61 attempts to discuss the implications of yours ideas while pointing out that you're fairly non-specific, like not specifying whether you're keeping energy constant. I also pointed out the problems introduced by significant changes in c, which would require significant changes in the fine structure constant, making life in our universe impossible. Maybe you'd like to address that.You have a tendency toward brevity. Next time you would like a response from anyone about something, specify which part of which message so people don't have to scramble around answering multiple messages because they don't know which the heck part of which message you're talking about.--Percy

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)

I have no idea what your position is. Why did you ask us questions about c changing?

Asking questions which you may never have asked yourself?

Perhaps you shoould have asked if we had considered the possibility of a change in c?The answer to that question is yes.

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.