The function i saw placed us on the asympotic side of an exponential decay of speed...which would appear as a small, decreasing speed.
After that, you have to ask if the universe (including your legs), is slowing down relative to it.
Right you are - Sorry about that, I didn't realize the goof 'til after I'd already posted it... At any rate, you have to admit, it's pretty funny :)
And more seriously, it also shows us how crazy things get when we change the speed of light by a factor of a million.
So let me now consider the appropriate case, then - Again, sorry for the confusion, I'd just gotten up wasn't thinking straight.
If we want to deal with light from objects that currently appear to be 10 billion light years away (based on our current estimation of the speed of light in a vacuum), and we want to consider that the light has actually been travelling for only 10,000, the light would need to move a million times faster, not slower.
First question - Is increasing the speed of light by at least six orders of magnitude reasonable / supportable?
Second question - Assuming it is, what happens?
Let's look into that. In order to have the same energy, the radiation currently emitted from stars, in the form of visible light, would need a wavelength a million times longer, in order to make up for the increase in the speed of light.
This means that stars would cease to emit visible light, and instead would emit mostly radio waves!
Let's look at that in a Biblical context (KJV, BTW :).
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
OK, so unless you believe in biblical metaphor and allow for "light" to mean any form of electromagnetic radiation, we're talking about visible light here.
"And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
OK, so not only is the light visible, but it is the same light that gives us day and night - Which, as we all know, comes from the sun, one of many stars. This means that, on the first day of Creation, we have stars that are emitting visible light.
Therefore, the speed of light from then on must have been close to what we know it to be now, or there wouldn't have been any day or night, because our sun would've been emitting almost no visible light, since visible light would've had to have at least a million times more energy then, than it does now.
Unless, that is, you also want to make an argument for arbitrarily changing the nuclear binding energy of all of the atoms in the universe. We can go round and round like this, but it really isn't necessary. Consider:
God must be pretty darn smart, right? Divinely smart, even. So He knew about all of this stuff we're talking about, and more, from day one - He understood the mechanisms behind all the processes in the universe, having created them. But He also knew that, if He went and tried to explain astrophysics to everybody a couple thousand years ago, that it would simply confuse people and obscure His central message. It's like giving a good talk - You want to keep things simple, to the point, and at an appropriate level for your audience. So He uses metaphor to explain what happened. What's the problem?
Since God is, by definition, perfect, He must therefore be the perfect scientist, and be perfectly able to apply the scientific method in all cases. If Dr. Dini wants us to do the same, then, why is this then so problematic?
This doesn't need to be "us vs. them", or one "side" proving the other "side" to be wrong. We really can reconcile the two! The best hypothesis is the most consistent with the moth information. So if we can be consistent with the Bible, as written, as well as with all of our scientific observations, we're all set - And the ideas I'm presenting here should allow us to do just that! I personally find that very cool, as I much would rather live in a world where science and religion need not be enemies. Religion was responsible for saving most of the scientific knowledge we have these days, during the Dark Ages, and thank God! Clearly, there's some value there that we can all agree on :)
Thanks for reading - And for catching my mistake! I appreciate it.
DFS