And when did the speed of light drop to it's current value, then? And how old are the remnants we do see? Are you going to assume that since the speed of light can vary, gas shooting across interstellar space can chose to exceed it?

Think about this; we can see a nebula that's been shooting out from the original supernovae for 20,000 years. We can measure the current velocity of that gas via Doppler shift. So, what, was the gas traveling faster than light for the first thousand years, just so it could get to where we see it now?

Speed of light also does damned all for intrinsic brightness, or the cycle of wolf-rayet stars, or the mass/spectrum/luminosity relationship of main sequence stars.

And speed of light also can't save you from parallax. Admittedly, that only gets us 100 LY or so these days, but that's good enough to show the other parts of the stellar distance scale are working right.



But let's look at that speed of light change again. If the speed of light were changing at a steady rate, we'd observe it now. We measure it FAR too finely to miss a gross change. And with anything less than a gross change, it ain't gonna compact 20,000 years of light into 6,000 years.

Oh, and there's another little problem. Put a star 6,000 LY away. The light it emitted 6,000 years is shining on us now. Now speed up light in the past, so the light it emitted 9,000 years ago is ALSO shining on us? You see the problem, perhaps? The star is now TWICE AS BRIGHT!



Humphries, for all his faults, is a lot smarter than that. (He did make a bunch of unfounded assumptions, then looked at the wrong part of an old catalog, but one can't blame him for stopping at what supported what he wanted to believe and not looking more closely at his math or his sources. Oh, wait. He has a degree and purports to be a scientist. One CAN.)