Speed of light not a constant

English: The Antennae Galaxies in Collision, H...It was only a matter of time I suppose, that another scientific explanation of the cosmos would emerge which accepts the theory that the speed of light has not been constant over time. Barry Setterfield’s work over the past 30 years has largely been rejected by the scientific community, due to it’s ties to the Biblical account of creation and the stigma attached to young earth/young cosmos theories. However, a new theory has emerged which too acknowledges what Setterfield has been saying all along. The speed of light is not constant. In fact, it used to be much, much faster.

Now, the first thing to note here is that Creationists welcome the idea of the possibility of a beginning, or a prior nothingness. Atheists, however, struggle to explain how nothing can ever produce something. It’s philosophically a hurdle that cannot be overcome. The conundrum leads inevitably to a demand by atheists, or scientists who aim to explain reality without a creator, that something has always been. Creationists, on the other hand, see no reason not to believe in the possibility of nothingness prior to a Creator creating the first something.

This is no doubt the reason behind the scientific community’s early rejection of the derogatorily named “Big Bang” theory. As Setterfield points out,

When the concept of an expanding universe entered the secular scientific arena, it was ridiculed. It was condescendingly nicknamed the “Big Bang”, even though the idea did not include any kind of explosion. It was rejected as being too close to the “silly ideas” of the Bible. Since the Bible was ‘clearly’ mythology, there was no way the truth of the cosmos could be allowed to come anywhere near what the Bible said happened.

Science has longed for an explanation of the cosmos that does not require a beginning ever since. Of, course for decades now we’ve all been lead to believe that the Big Bang occurred and that over billions of years the cosmos evolved and now, here we are. But all the dating that has been done in modern physics and geology are based on a measuring stick that is being revealed to be about as useful as a ruler made out of a rubber band.

The atomic clock, as it turns out isn’t a constant. It does not match the passage of time when compared to the earth’s orbit around the sun. Measuring time by examining the earth’s orbit around the sun is called Dynamical Time. In fact, Setterfield explains that at the beginning of the cosmos, the atomic clock clicked off millions of years in what amounted to a single year measured in DYNAMICAL TIME. The speed of light at Creation was much faster. Since the speed of light is tied to all atomic processes in the cosmos, when one attempts to assign a length of time that has passed using the current slower speeds of atomic processes, the result will be a much larger time-frame than what Dynamical time would reveal.

I can’t possibly explain Setterfield’s findings in a way that would do them any justice. If you are interested in learning more I suggest you visit http://www.setterfield.org

Let me refocus here and get back to the point of this article. Just like Georges Lemaître was ridiculed upon his proposal of the Big Bang theory, Setterfield has also been rejected by the scientific community as a result of his assertion that the speed of light is not constant over time.

This concept now seems to be coming into fashion with a new theory of the cosmos from Wun-Yi Shu at the National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan. Atheists will now rejoice in Shu’s theory, for rather than leading to the conclusion that the cosmos is young, as Setterfield’s work does, he accepts the data that shows the speed of light has not been constant over time and does away with that pesky idea of a “beginning” put forth by Creationists and the Big Bang by asserting that the cosmos, you guessed it, has no beginning and no end. You can read more about Shu’s proposal here.

Shu is still proposing that the universe is expanding, which Setterfield has shown not to be the case, via some pretty compelling evidence. It would certainly be interesting to hear these two theories, based on a fluctuating speed of light, debated by these two men.

So, is the scientific community now ready to face the evidence of a fluctuating speed of light? Atheists have less a reason to deny it now so I presume we’ll see this theory gain more traction. Perhaps the discussion will now revolve more around the facts and less around engrained dogma’s within the scientific community.

See also…

  • Gerd Leuchs and Luis Sánchez-Soto, from the Max Planck Institute for the Physics of Light in Erlangen, Germany
  • Marcel Urban of the Université du Paris-Sud
  • Joao Magueijo
  • Victor S Troitskii
  • JW Moffat
  • John D Barrow
  • John Webb
  • Paul Davies of Sydney’s Macquarie University
  • Tamara Davis of the University of New South Wales
  • Charles Lineweaver of the University of New South Wales

Related Articles…


4 thoughts on “Speed of light not a constant

  1. You know black hole theory was rejected by jews because it supported atheism. Take that!

    See, I can put words in the mouths of my opponents and weave a story in which “my” side has an imaginary victory and is fictionally oppressed too.

  2. So you deny c-decay? Is that the story scientists are “weaving” lately? Are they just creating something out of nothing? Is that a stupid thing to do? The scientific community supported Setterfield’s work until it became apparent to them what it meant.

  3. Since 1983 the accepted value of the speed of light (c) is huge: 299792.458 km. per second in vacuum, so what is the distance should be covered by the speed of light in a day, it is an out of imagination value, no distance on the surface of earth is suitable, it necessitates to be described; an astronomical measure by the motion of a celestial objet with a known motion, hence the moon is the choice; because it is the nearest celestial object and its motion around earth is known well.
    In Physics; the light and all physical forces in nature have a unified uppermost magnitude of speed, in vacuum, i.e. in a system of motion isolated from any outside effect. So, to use the E-M system as a measure in a Balanced Equation with light; it should be isolated also from any outside effect, i.e. as it was reckoned before that earth has no motion around sun, and the moon is devoid from the variation ratio in distance; that cannot be detected by the naked eye.
    By using the isolated E-M system as a measure to the distance covered by the speed of light in a day; the motion should be relative to a far star, hence the moon’s mean orbital velocity should be analyzed in the original direction after a cycle; and the rotation period of the earth (a sidereal day) is considered, which is: 86164.09966 seconds. According to NASA; the moon’s average orbital velocity is about: 1.023 km./ seconds (Revised 08-01-2014)4, By calculation using the value: 1.022794272 (about 1.023) km./ seconds; the distance covered by the speed of light in a day is comparable to the distance covered by the moon in 1000 lunar years (12000 cycles), as the lunar year is considered in the lunar calendar since ancient times as 12 cycles of the moon around earth.

    The average moon’s velocity is: 1.022794272 km./ seconds, the basic ratio is: 0.8915725423; so the basic moon’s velocity is: (1.022794272 × 0.8915725423) = 0.9118952893 km./ seconds. The moon’s revolution period (T’) is: 27.32166088 mean earth days = 27.32166088 × 24 × 60 × 60 = 2360591.5 seconds, hence the length of the basic moon’s orbit (L’) after one cycle = v’ × T’ = 0.9118952893 × 2360591.5 = 2152612.269 km., the lunar distance in 12000 cycles = 2583134723 km., then the speed of light in vacuum is: 2583134723/ 86164.09966 = 299792.458 km. per second, which is the exact known and accepted value in Physics for speed of light in vacuum since 1983.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s