Oh, this is a good one and I'm glad you brought this up. I can't believe that anyone with the least bit of critical-thinking ability can't see right through this claim. But, I'll play along.
Please tell me how SN1987A has 'refuted' a declining speed of light and I will demonstrate just how weak your supposed 'informed' thinking really is.
Thank you for "playing along" with my limited critical thinking abilities. :-)
One does not even need the supernova or any experiments to toss out the embarassing theory of light decay. You only need a simple thouht experiment. Think of the implications of light starting out rapidly from a distant object and then slowing down as it approached the earth. Newer light leaving the object would start out even more slowly, and slow down even further as it approached the earth. Thus, we would see distant events in slow motion. We don't. Therefore, the theory is false.
Supernova 1987A confirmed scientist's predictions on supernova behavior. However, I look forward to you demonstrating to me "just how weak [my] supposed 'informed' thinking really is." Here are some slightly more technical explanations of how Supernova 1987A destroyed the theory of light decay:
Supernova 1987A Refutes 6000 Year Old Universe
The Distance to Supernova SN1987A and the Speed of Light
The Distance to Supernova SN1987A and the Speed of Light
Analysis of the Variable Lightspeed (c-Decay) Theory of Barry Setterfield
The mainstream scientific community, of course, remained oblivious to this challenge to orthodox physics. Setterfield says he submitted a later paper on the cosmological redshift to four scientific journals, who rejected it because of its speculative character, Setterfield’s lack of institutional affiliation, and because one of his references was a university text rather than an original research paper. He has published nothing in mainstream refereed journals. All of his writings are online or in creationist journals.
As we shall see, neglect of Setterfield’s work by the scientific community is appropriate because it is obviously and outrageously incorrect.
Setterfield now lives in California with his wife Helen, who assists him in promoting and explaining his ideas. He is still actively involved with heterodox astronomy and physics, incorporating newly-announced research results into his theoretical framework and awaiting the day when the scientists of the world open their minds and acknowledge his remarkable discoveries. From his life story and public activities, Barry
Setterfield can be judged to be a man of powerful religious conviction, deep family ties, and inquiring spirit. His claims would change the world if they were true. It would be tempting to leave him and his theories alone, but he has unfortunately put himself in the position of misleading large numbers of sincere people with ideas that put them on a collision course with scientific truth.
You aren't trying to back out on me now are you? You said, ""It (cdk) has also been refuted observationally by Supernova 1987A."
"You only need a simple thouht experiment. Think of the implications of light starting out rapidly from a distant object and then slowing down as it approached the earth. Newer light leaving the object would start out even more slowly, and slow down even further as it approached the earth. Thus, we would see distant events in slow motion. We don't. Therefore, the theory is false."
You are trying to back out of your statement! I knew you would. You should be completely embarrassed by your 'thought experiment' statement above as it requires the speed of light to be different in spatially separated parts of the universe in order to be valid. Once you make that assumption, you simply cannot make any statement of 'proof' about the speed of light anywhere in the universe. Either that or you didn't understand (or chose to misrepresent) what Setterfield was telling you. Still don't have those critical-thinking skills do you? Do you think it might be the result of believing a lie?
The links you provided commit the same colossal error that you do. That of first assuming a constant speed of light and then claiming that using that assumption to 'define' observational evidence 'proves' a constant speed of light. That's circular-thinking at it's best and is a pretty small circle, even for you.
"It would be tempting to leave him and his theories alone, but he has unfortunately put himself in the position of misleading large numbers of sincere people with ideas that put them on a collision course with scientific truth."
You are others of your 'faith' are the ones who are misleading large numbers of sincere people with ideas that put them on a collision course with Biblical truth. That you appeal to scientific 'truth' when science is not even interested in *truth* shows how much of a deceiver you are. I see you.
Tell me Mikey. How does the distance to an object have anything at all to do with the age of the universe? It's akin to claiming that, "I can prove that it's 1,000 miles to New York City and this proves that the universe is more than 6,000 year old." When did a meter-stick become a calendar? Are you so incredibly incapable of critical-thinking that you can't make that simple distinction?
The claim that SN1987A falsified cdk is complete nonsense and shows how you and others of your faith in 'scientific truch' have zero critical-thinking skills.