What do you do with the fact that atomic time is changing in relation to orbital time?
Or that the red shift we absorb is actually quantised?
If Earth is near the centre of the universe time will go differently than objects at the edge of the universe. Many ungodly scientists have conceded that the speed of light is not constant.
first of all lets look at the idea the the red shift that occurs in light that we receive from faraway galaxies is quantized. to be fair lets look at the idea of quantization. this is an idea that there is a base discrete amount in any unit of measurement of which no smaller amount can exist. light under the photon model is quantized.
here when you refer to quantization of the redshift you are referring to the fact that in some studies it has been found that the redshift is represented as a multiple of a certain number. this indicates either distance is quantized, which is seemingly unrealistic, or our understanding of redshift is false, which would indicate that the big bang model is incorrect.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/..._paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
this study is what im sure you meant to reference, however there are obvious flaws that can be found in his derivation of 72km/s as an interval of redshift.
in the preface of one of the leading proponents of this idea the basis of his research is based on the lack of evidence for dark matter.
the study was published in 1995, 14 years ago. the below link highlights some of the compelling evidence for dark matter. Tifft might not have even undertaken the study today.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...=1067350&md5=19f0e3bf116dabe0d01c7c8bf0f447cb
now onto more of the technical flaws in the theory.
citing some recent studies by reputable scientists:
In 2002, Hawkins et al. found no evidence for a redshift quantization in the 2dF survey and found using Napier's own guidelines for testing redshift periodicity that none, in fact, could be detected in the sample:
.. used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, [..] and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency. "[6]
and the slight quantization observed is shown through 3d representation to be a geometrical phenomenon. it does not indicate a problem with hubbles law v=HD.
Secondly i have not seen evidence that many ungodly scientists have accepted that light is slowing down. i have of course researched Barry Setterfields ideas which can be found here:
http://www.setterfield.org/
a link i already posted can be found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html
now the following link lists some above points that are not rebutted at all in a response given by Barry here:
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_bs_02.asp
the first issue not addressed in the response:
the publication of FIVE different r^2 values, which as im sure you know reference the accuracy of data points as they pertain to the best model. over the course of several revisions this was changed from 1.0000000 to .986, a significant change.
the second issue is the graph itself. he asserts the speed of light decreases exponentially as time progresses from zero. however in the first few days he asserts it must not change as God wouldnt let it decay as he worked. the points proceed to cross the modeled regression to the right and then magically join back up.
a quote "I will assume that this value held from the time of creation until the time of the fall, as in my opinion the Creator would not have allowed it to decay during His initial work."
so mathematically the graph bears no logical footing.
now none of this is really shocking, some manipulation of r values that were false and a belief in his faith that he used to model his graph.
the basic fault is that to plot the changing c value he used points from the 1600s. not only that he used WRONG values from the 1600s.
http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...er=YES&page=122&epage=122&send=PRINT&ext=.pdf
please note the error involved in the first table in this study.
in short he used a study in which the following was concluded
"The best fit occurs at zero where the light travel time is identical to the currently accepted value value."
reworking data is one thing, but setterfield actually used the data to false ends and his first value is inaccurate.
Finally please read the last two paragraphs of the second of this article:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html
