[Dimensio]

You might also mention two problems with "lightspeed decay", as creationists call it. First is that it is based upon incredibly flimsy evidence -- specifically, it takes specific measurements of the speed of light since it was first measured through to 1965 and points out how the measurement steadily decreased. Nevermind that the measurements were upper limits and that the means for calculating lightspeed became more and more accurate since it was first measured. I don't know if they selectively omit measurements that don't fit nicely on their "decay" curve, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Second, lightspeed slowing down over the last thousand years would have SEVERE consequences. If you can't think of what they might be, consider that E=mc^2

[Clinging Bitterly]

>> Nevermind that the measurements were upper limits...

Thank you. That little bit puts the lie to it.

Glad to hear you and all the other more learned ones chime in on this. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable and competent in my field, but this ain't it.

When you want to know about nuts & bolts I hope I can be as informative.

Dave in Eugene

[Ichneumon]

Second, lightspeed slowing down over the last thousand years would have SEVERE consequences.

And on top of that, it would be easily detectable. Measurements of the speed of light a few years apart with modern instruments (which can measure the speed *very* precisely) would show measurable changes in the speed, if it were "decaying" as rapidly as some creationists assert. No such change has been detected -- the natural speed of light appears rock-steady by all tests.