Rule 15: Elephant hurling, such as providing a barrage of citations to give the illusion of weighty evidence.
Let's deal with Calypsis' elephant hurling first.... if it is not elephant hurling, Calypsis should explain why he produces 4 references to one scientific paper and 2 references that are actually the same article.
Numbers added by Pi for reference purposes .....
- Speed of light not so constant after all | Science News
https://www.sciencenews.org/.../speed-light-not-so-constant-aft... - Similarto Speed of light not so constant after all | Science News
Jan 17, 2015 ... Even in vacuum conditions, light can move slower than its maximumspeed depending on the structure of its pulses.
- Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicists Say | ...
www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html - Similarto Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicists Say | ...
Apr 27, 2013 ... The speed of light may not be constant, a possibility that could have broad implications for fields of cosmology and even astronomy, say ...
- Speed of Light May Not Be Constant : Discovery News
news.discovery.com/.../speed-of-light-einstein-physics-130428.h... - Similarto Speed of Light May Not Be Constant : Discovery News
Apr 28, 2013 ... The speed of light is constant, or so textbooks say. But some scientists are exploring the possibility that this cosmic speed limit changes, ...
So if you won't take heed to any of your comrades in accidentalism then it is little wonder that you won't believe us.
Item #4 was already addressed in post #16. I will only add that Calypsis cites the source as saying: "we would then take c to be the upper limit on the speed of light" (Emphasis Pi's). If, as the paper states "c" is an upper limit, this means the paper is of no use to YEC because YEC needs light to be faster, not slower.
Items #1, 7, 8, and 9 all reference the same paper which can be found here: http://arxiv.org/ftp...1/1411.3987.pdf
Article 7 points out this research deals with the slowing of light .... which only means it takes longer for light to reach us. But how much slowing are we talking about? Article 7 says: "The slowing occurs at a rate of about one part in a hundred thousand." That would mean light from galaxies 12 billion light years from Earth will actually need an extra 120,000 years to reach us. This isn't exactly the kind of change that is going to help YEC.
Items #2 and 3 are actually the same article by Jesse Emspak published in two places.
As Calypsis points out the article says: "The speed of light may not be constant .... some scientists are exploring the possibility that this cosmic speed limit changes" (Highlight Pi's)
In the text of the article, we find the extent of these changes....
"....the amount of time the light takes to cross a given distance should vary as the square root of that distance, though the effect would be very tiny — on the order of 0.05 femtoseconds for every square meter of vacuum. A femtosecond is a millionth of a billionth of a second....." (Pi comments, this is 50 billionths of a billionth)
We also find these results are far from accepted....
"... Jay Wacker, a particle physicist at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, .... "It's a very interesting question [the speed of light]," he added, but the methods used in these papers are probably not sufficient to investigate it."
Setting aside the tentative and disputed nature of this variation, and evaluating its impact if it is true....
First: This is a "variation" in the speed of light. This means it may speed up or slow down so the difference would be plus or minus 50 billionths of a billionth of a second per meter. Since this is a "variation," it will tend to cancel out over time.
Second: Let's go to the extreme and stack this variation all one way. There is a time difference of 50 billionths of a billionth of a second per meter. Light would need to travel 2x1016 meters to reach a difference of one second. Using the current speed of light this would mean a difference of one second every 66.7 million seconds. That's one second every 2.11 years.
The difference over 12 billion years would be 5.68 billion seconds or 180 years.
That leaves Wikipedia articles 5 and 6. Aside from the fact this is the kind of discussion where the YEC here would disparage Wikipedia as a source.....
Here's the full paragraph for Calypsis' citation in article 5:
"Paul Davies and collaborators have suggested that it is in principle possible to disentangle which of the dimensionful constants (the elementary charge, Planck's constant, and the speed of light) of which the fine-structure constant is composed is responsible for the variation. However, this has been disputed by others and is not generally accepted."
I'm not sure exactly what Calypsis' point is, but something that is "suggested ... in principle possible" and is "disputed by others" doesn't seem a strong argument. It is worth note this is the same Paul Davies who I pointed out had determined the speed of light when it left galaxies 12 billion light years from Earth was within 0.001% of the modern accepted value. (Published in the journal Nature in August, 2002)
For article 6, the span of his ellipsis is virtually the entire article. He will need to explain how jets travelling at less than the speed of light is a problem.
I think it has been shown that the "weighty evidence" provided by Calypsis "barrage of citations" isn't all that big a deal. The first thing we found was that the nine were actually five.
Of the five, one supported what I've been saying; one discussed the speed of light varying in the wrong direction; one discussed a possible variation that if it were stacked in one direction amounts to only a couple hundred years in twelve billion; and the two Wiki articles that don't seem to amount to much.
Notice, I did not "dis" the articles. In fact, I will "take heed" to each and every one of them (except the Wiki articles)... I'm fine that light has varied in such a way it may have taken an additional 120,000 years to reach us from distant galaxies. It doesn't bother me at all that light may be as much as 180 years faster over a period of 12 billion. And I'm absolutely delighted that one of Calypsis' references is in full agreement with everything I've said.