Physics looks for new Einstein as nature rewrites laws of universe

Rereading Dolphin's "Consequences of CDK" page, I came upon Setterfield's ingenious escape from the 1987A problem. It seems the arrival "frame" rate slows when c slows, so what happens out there very quickly seems to be happening in slow motion when we view it with slow light.

However, there is one factor that negates this conclusion for both these features of SN1987A. Let us accept, for the sake of illustration, that c WAS equal to 10c now at the LMC at the time of the explosion. Furthermore, according to the c decay (cDK) hypothesis, light-speed is the same at any instant right throughout the cosmos due to the properties of the physical vacuum. Therefore, light will always arrive at earth with the current value of c now. This means that in transit, light from the supernova has been slowing down. By the time it reaches the earth, it is only travelling at 1/10th of its speed at emission by SN1987A. As a consequence the rate at which we are receiving information from that light beam is now 1/10th of the rate at which it was emitted. In other words we are seeing this entire event in slow-motion. The light-intensity curve may have indeed decayed 10 times faster, and the light may indeed have reached the sheets 10 times sooner than expected on constant c. Our dilemma is that we cannot prove it for sure because of the slow-motion effect. At the same time this cannot be used to disprove the cDK hypothesis. As a consequence other physical evidence is needed to resolve the dilemma. This is done in the forthcoming paper where it is shown that the redshift of light from distant galaxies gives a value for c at the moment of emission.
By way of clarification, at NO time have I ever claimed the apparent superluminal expansion of quasar jets verify higher values of c in the past. The slow-motion effect discussed earlier rules that out absolutely. The standard solution to that problem is accepted here. The accepted distance of the sheets of matter from the supernova is also not in question. That is fixed by angular measurement. What IS affected by the slow motion effect is the apparent time it took for light to get to those sheets from the supernova, and the rate at which the light-rings on those sheets grew.

I spent some time diagramming for myself what Setterfield is saying, imagining 11 million times c instead of 10. Yes, it sort of works so far as I can tell. The physical separation, not the time interval, between light pulses is conserved across these mythical jumps in c. So CDK, at least in this proposed test, is like the proposition that you have a little green elf behind you that vanishes whenever you turn around to look at it.

In other words, of what use is a bizarrely complicated, borderline-magical system which is designed to affirm one particular religion's creation myth and to as far as possible be irrefutable by observation?

In other words, of what use is a bizarrely complicated, borderline-magical system which is designed to affirm one particular religion's creation myth and to as far as possible be irrefutable by observation?

If it is not capable of refutation, it is not falsifiable.

If it is not falsifiable, it isn't a scientific theory.

If it isn't a scientific theory, why are we even discussing it?

If it isn't a scientific theory, why are we even discussing it?

Because, vile unbeliever, if you don't accept it, you will not enter Paradise.
</Taliban mode off>

Among the ideas facing revision is Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same - 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe.

Please show this to your brother...