Faster than the Speed of Light
by Arthur "Art" Ryan
In his book, “Faster than the Speed of Light”, Joao Magueijo
claims that, at one time, the speed of light was much faster than
it is currently. This theoretical physicist postulated that, at
and/or shortly after the Big Bang, the speed of light was
unimaginably faster than today. This scientific heresy was
conceived to explain the complex mysteries of the origin of the
universe. Magueijo should be applauded for challenging widely
accepted theories and even stepping out on a limb to say that
Albert Einstein may have been wrong.
This physicist does provide a compelling argument at great risk
to his career. His theory provides a plausible answer to some of
the early universe-forming problems. Yet, his theory creates new
anomalies as it is deals with others. First and foremost is –
“What causes the speed of light to later slow down?”
At the very beginning, in the relatively immediate time
following the Big Bang, it is easy to imagine a light speed that
could have been much faster. However, in this birthing phase of
the universe, it is doubtful that objects could have coalesced in
space and developed enough gravitational strength to later slow
the speed of light. And, if these neophyte bodies did possess this
great influential strength, what happened to that strength?
Another issue that would need to be looked at is, if gravity
was not the influence on light speed in this early universe, what
was?
So, we don’t have the answer to these questions concerning the
early phase of our universe, therefore we need to look at the
speed of light and those things that influence it now. Note: I am
not saying that Joao Magueijo is wrong about the speed of light in
the early years of our universe. I am saying that if the speed was
much faster then and slowed – then it should be still slowing now.
Interesting thought!
From the point of view of a simple, mechanical-minded person –
Cause and Effect reigns supreme over every theory. For every
phenomenon (effect) there was something that influenced it
(cause). Often the effect will become the cause of yet another
effect. Thus, whenever an event is described, you must address its
cause. Then you must look into the effects that will result from
that event. This must be repeated until an end-product has
materialized. The end-product in this writing is the speed of
light and universe that we can see and test now. Failure to do
this will result in a rejection of the basic theory.
Now, at this point, you may be thinking that this is the end of
this posting. Take a poke at Joao Magueijo, like most all of his
peers, and then run. No way! I happen to agree with him that the
speed of light is variable. I, however, am not at risk for a loss
of my livelihood. I can state, like I believe Magueijo wanted to,
that the speed of light has and still can be changed. There you go
– said it. The speed of light is not a constant. Here is why I
have come to this conclusion:
1. We can see the moon! This very basic truth is only possible
because the light has impacted the surface of the moon and
reflected back towards us. For this to happen, the light has to
slow to zero at the point of impact. Otherwise we would be unable
to see the moon. Any forward momentum would result if the light
passing through. A stealth moon is not realistic with our current
scientific knowledge or technology, so before the light could
reflect off of the surface of the moon and return to an extremely
high rate of velocity, it had to come to a stop.
2. Water can eventually prevent light from reaching extreme
depths. Diffusion or stoppage due to passage through or contact
with matter is the cause of this. Many of you will immediately
state that this doesn’t count. The water is not in a vacuum. True,
but I am using this as an example of outer space that is
supposedly a vacuum (future topic). Outer space is filled with
debris and gasses that would act just like the matter in water.
This earthly example is just to draw a comparison for light
interacting with matter.
3. Having addressed space debris and gasses, I now draw your
attention to the posting on my blog
(
http://sciencedoubt.blogspot.com ) entitled “Redshift –
Hubble Could Have Been Wrong?” The David Effect described there
also influences the speed of light. After all, ultraviolet and
infrared light move at different wavelengths and thereby cover
different distances during any given time. This is the basis for
measuring red or blue shift to determine travelling direction or
distance of stars and galaxies.
4. Light’s interaction with black holes is very interesting.
Theoretically, a black hole has gravity so strong that not even
light can escape it. This is an accepted train of thought in the
science community. Therefore; after, a star enters the event
horizon of a black hole its light bends back into the hole. The
light fails to achieve escape velocity due to the immense strength
of gravity in the black hole. This is much like throwing a ball
into the air here on Earth. The ball rises while it still has
upward velocity then it stops. However, that is not the end of the
process. The ball then begins to gain downward velocity due to the
gravity. Given enough space before impacting the Earth the ball
could achieve speeds in excess of that which it had on the way up.
The ball could reach a speed described as Terminal Velocity. It
would then be safe to imagine (I don’t like the word: Assume) that
the same effect would be found with regard to light falling into
the black hole. This could also be extended to light emitted from
a star that has not yet passed through the event horizon. Light
emitted from a star in the direction of the black hole would then
be accelerated. A speed of light in excess of the constant is
achieved.
5. The last example I will discuss is that of light bending
around a large gravitational body, such as our sun. Imagine, if
you will, the lift characteristics of an aircraft wing. Wind is
divided at the leading edge of the wing. Wind passing over the
wing covers more surface area than the wind passing under the
wing. For the separated elements to remain in the same relative
space together, the wind taking the long route has to move at a
faster rate than the wind that travels the shorter route. This is
how lift occurs. I am not trying to say that light has lift (maybe
it does have some sort of influence on the body). I am saying that
in order for side by side light particles/rays to pass around this
type of body and rejoin each other on the other side, the two
light particles/rays would have to travel at different speeds.
With the above (hopefully clearly) addressed, the theory of
variable speed of light becomes realistic. These examples are
elementary, yet provide for the strong probability that the speed
of light is not a constant regardless of the presence of a vacuum
or not. While some scientists may continue to argue against a
constant speed of light, they would have to do it at the risk of
saying Einstein was wrong in his theory of general relativity. His
theory is the support for the influence of gravity on light after
all. So, does that mean e=mc2 is wrong?
Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific
Speculation
by Joao Magueijo
I don’t think so, at this time, because the amount of energy
released by matter may be affected by the localized speed of
light. I will have to think about this for later. I will just
close this posting by stating that Einstein spent his final days
of life working to find the answers to the doubts he had in his
own theories. He thought he could be wrong, so why shouldn’t we.
Copyright by Art Ryan
Presented with permission of the author
Articles by Art Ryan
Don't miss other articles by the author:
Art Ryan's official
website: www.sciencedoubts.com
and his Blog:
http://sciencedoubt.blogspot.com/
About the Author
Arthur “Art” Ryan is an independent researcher and
author, who is a full-time employee supporting a major railroad
and a small business owner of a process engineering consulting
company, that enjoys all manner of things science. He is a
baseball and football fan, who values his privacy and therefore
writes under a pseudonym.
His book concerning Earth Changes is called “Are We
Worth Our Salt?” which can be purchased through Lulu by visiting
http://stores.lulu.com/arthurryan or
Amazon and may be procured at you local Barnes and Noble
store.
Art accepts constructive criticism about his ideas
and welcomes evidence that support or dispute his thoughts.
Questions and comments can be addressed to Art through his
official website
www.sciencedoubts.com
At his site, Art has opened a controlled, closed
forum where intellectuals, professionals, academics, and aspiring
amateurs can express their thoughts, findings, and alternate
theories under pseudonyms; thereby avoiding possible damage to
their careers or loss of existing funding. This site is to be
driven by its users and will grow to fit the need. Those
interested in writing on Science Doubt are invited to review the
“Outstanding Questions” and “News Articles” sections for topic
ideas or to contact the editor about your own.
 |
Are We Worth Our Salt?
Have you ever wondered what is behind some of the World's
mysteries? Do you ponder Earth changes and natural climate
swings? If so, this is a book for you. Addressed herein is a
primary thought that when first published by another author
"electrified" Albert Einstein.
Yet, a cause for the theory was not previously given. This
book will show the process steps needed to bring it to
culmination. A cause and effect approach will be brought
into play to solve this dramatic puzzle. Our Civilization is
on the line and it requires your assistance to save it. Are
you up to the challenge?
Also available here:
http://stores.lulu.com/arthurryan
ISBN 978-0-6152-1270-8
ID: 2469512 |
Related Links:
|
