[Lawgvr1955]

That is very close, but take the lap years into consideration then the length of the year is 365.242198 days and not 365.

If you want to be that accurate you shouldn't use 186,000 miles per second. I believe the speed of light is closer to 186,284 miles per second. Plus there is some controversy whether the speed of light has remained constant throughout time.

http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkconseq.html

[petuniasevan]

controversy whether the speed of light has remained constant throughout time

That would sure louse up Einstein's equation E=mc² showing energy corresponding to a mass "m" at rest. "c" is the speed of light. "E" is the total energy of a freely moving particle. If mass disappears (like in a nuclear reaction) the equivalent energy must appear. If light speed changes, so do nuclear reactions. Stars run on nuclear fusion. This presents a problem...if the speed of light were slower in the past, fusion would have been less energetic. Stars might not have even gotten "started".

All this presents a conundrum, unless Einstein's theory is seriously flawed. It has held up so far under many years of rigorous high-energy physics tests.

[RadioAstronomer]

If you want to be that accurate you shouldn't use 186,000 miles per second. I believe the speed of light is closer to 186,284 miles per second. Plus there is some controversy whether the speed of light has remained constant throughout time.

Nope! The speed of light is a constant (in a vacuum). 299,792,458 meters per second. And no, it is not slowing down.