Speed of Light

Your understanding is not correct. As an example Roemer produced an estimate of the speed of light in 1670 by measuring the discrepancies in the observed positions of one of Jupiter's moon (Io). Neither the source of the light (the sun) or the reflecting object (Io) were accessible to Roemer.

What is necessary to measure the speed of light, is a distance to traverse, and an indication of the time for traversing that distance. The distance need not include the point of transmission.

Further, it is impossible to measure the speed of light by measuring the energy of a photon because photons always travel at the same speed. So the fact that there are multiple sources of red-blue shift is irrelevant.

Surely, eh? So what would be the mechanism for dark matter to affect the development of a star?

If you are interested in how the distance to astronomical objects are determined I recommend the following wikipedia article as a start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder

And you aren't working on anything like a "theory".

Dark energy and dark matter don't have appreciable gravitational effects over such small distances. Motion within the solar system acts essentially according to Newtonian mechanics, taking into account only gravity as produced by ordinary matter.

You are making this stuff up. For example...

No that is not how we determine or know the distance to Jupiter, Io, or the Sun.

We don't need to know the location of the transmitter (sun). What is important in Roemer's experiment is knowing the difference in distances between Jupiter and earth at different times.

I ask again what is the purpose of these flights of fancy. You are making up stuff to explain what exactly? I raised the issue that we have evidence that the speed of light was consistent with its current value at a time 160000 years in the past. Carbon dating is only used to estimate dates that are within the last 50,000 years or so, which is sufficient to debunk at least some creationist estimates for the age of the earth. So when is this step change in the speed of light supposed to have happened?

Show me the math. This looks like complete nonsense.

If the speed of light were larger then the Lorentzian effects would be less as viewed from our frame of reference. If the speed of light were infinitely great, there would be no Lorentzian relativistic effects at all. After all time-dilation and length contraction effects are related to v/c.

Besides all that, have you forgotten that you are postulating a single step increase in the velocity of light? If there is no dependency of red shift with distance, and the explanation were as you suggest, we would expect to see a single value for red-shift for all distant objects. Is that what observation reveals?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Not that there is anything wrong with a Eureka moment in the bath.

Every time I read these phrases, the content nags at me, and finally I had to post. "c" is the speed of light in empty space. If there is a coincidence, it is that "outer space" behaves like empty space. It is not a coincidence that photos travel at the speed of light.

I agree with your point about the speed of light in empty space being a fundamental property of the universe.