The decelerating Speed of Light

[dhchristian]

Since Einstein proposed his theory of relativism, it has been assumed that lightspeed is a constant. Ironically, however, Einstein before his theory of relativity proposed that Light speed was variable, and there are some that still believe this to be the case. The theory is Known as the Variable Speed of Light (VSL).

What this post is, is a purely hypothetical exploration of this theory. Since man has only been measuring the speed of Light for only a 170 years or so (First measured in 1849) And there is no way to measure into the past, so this is purely hypothetical.

This theory was Proposed by a man named Joao Magueijo And is written about in this article. Here is a brief snippet of that just to give you a feel for the article.

Joao Magueijo has now taken this theory one stage further, in collaboration with Niayesh Afshordi, by a detailed examination of the CMB. They conclude that, at an extremely high initial temperature of one trillion trillion degrees Celsius, the speed of light and the speed of matter are both the same and nearly infinite. After an interview with these physicists, one article in The Guardian put it like this:

“Magueijo and Afshordi’s theory does away with inflation and replaces it with a variable speed of light. According to their calculations, the heat of universe in its first moments was so intense that light and other particles moved at infinite speed. Under these conditions, light reached the most distant pockets of the universe and made it look as uniform as we see it today. ‘In our theory, if you go back to the early universe, there’s a temperature when everything becomes faster. The speed of light goes to infinity and propagates much faster than gravity,’ Afshordi said. ‘It’s a phase transition in the same way that water turns into steam’.”

As the universe cooled by expansion below the critical phase transition temperature, the speed of light dropped to its present value, which was maintained ever since. I have not been able to access their published paper as it is only the Abstract which is generally available. As a result, I do not know if Magueijo and Afshordi have involved other constants in their proposed “phase transition.” However, they have done a calculation of what might be expected from their proposal based on the CMB. The position and sizes of the slightly warmer and cooler areas in the CMB have been known for some time. The analysis of the size and distribution of these areas has given rise to a quantity called the CMB “spectral index”. These temperature differences are areas where there are greater or lesser concentrations of matter in the early universe, and their distribution is usually assumed to be the result of the action of gravity. However, Magueijo and Afshordi have calculated what the spectral index would be if their theory held and gravity was much slower than the proposed speed of light. Here is how the article in The Guardian put it:

“Scientists could soon find out whether light really did outpace gravity in the early universe. The theory predicts a clear pattern in the density variations of the early universe, a feature measured by what is called the ‘spectral index’. Writing in the journal Physical Review, the scientists predict a very precise spectral index of 0.96478, which is close to the latest, though somewhat rough, measurement of 0.968.”

http://www.setterfield.org/Early_c.html

 

 The Point here being that Light speed was near infinite at the creation of the universe and is decelerated since then to where it is now. So What does this mean in layman's terms?

One of the most relied upon factors in aging the universe is light years. The assumption is that at a constant rate, the light from distant galaxies would take billions of years to arrive where we are at right now. But with this theory in place, that age would not be the case as the light travelled all or most of that distance almost instantaneously when the universe was created. This is very significant in that this, if true puts doubt into the use of light years to prove the age of the universe. 

The Bible says, God said "let there be light" and there was light instantaneously. The Bible also speaks of the heavens being stretched out after the creation of time, Space and Matter as the article speaks of. What if this is true? What if there comes undeniable proof from this theory or the one the author of the article has postulated (See last paragraph of the Article) that the universe itself is only several thousand years old? 

[JustPassingThru]

Hey bro, good read, ...you might want to check out A. E. Wilder-Smith, a born again brother, ranked 12th most intelligent man in the last century, ...he explains how the speed of light is not constant, ...it actually slows down when encountering a black hole, ...he actually talked with Stephen Hawking and asked him question he couldn't answer and proposed questions he had the answers for that Hawkins couldn't refute or prove wrong.

Lord bless

[The Barbarian]

35 minutes ago, JustPassingThru said:

Hey bro, good read, ...you might want to check out A. E. Wilder-Smith, a born again brother, ranked 12th most intelligent man in the last century, ...he explains how the speed of light is not constant, ...it actually slows down when encountering a black hole, ...he actually talked with Stephen Hawking and asked him question he couldn't answer and proposed questions he had the answers for that Hawkins couldn't refute or prove wrong.

Actually, the speed of light isn't even constant in the atmosphere; it varies by the medium through which it moves.   

 

[dhchristian]

12 hours ago, JustPassingThru said:

Hey bro, good read, ...you might want to check out A. E. Wilder-Smith, a born again brother, ranked 12th most intelligent man in the last century, ...he explains how the speed of light is not constant, ...it actually slows down when encountering a black hole, ...he actually talked with Stephen Hawking and asked him question he couldn't answer and proposed questions he had the answers for that Hawkins couldn't refute or prove wrong.

Lord bless

Thanks, I will look into his stuff.

Incredible man, One of few to Hold three doctorates. 

A. E. Wilder-Smith was one of few scientists in the world to have three earned doctorates. He obtained his first Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at the University of Reading, England in 1941. A research scientist during the war, he subsequently became a fellow of the University of London, and then director of research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company. After becoming a full professor at the University of Geneva, he earned a second doctorate in pharmacology there, and later, a third in pharmacological sciences at ETH, a senior university in Zurich, Switzerland. In addition, he was a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry and a NATO three-star general!

Dr. Wilder-Smith was not only an expert on chemotherapy, pharmacology, organic chemistry, and biochemistry, but a gifted teacher and popular public speaker. As a convert from atheism himself, he did not shy away from entering the lions’ den of the evolutionary establishment. At a time when communism was strong and evolutionary science reigned with unchallenged bravado, he was like a Daniel with seemingly divine power to shut his opponents’ mouths. Once, in a manner reminiscent of Paul turning the Pharisees and Sadducees against each other (see Acts 23), he got the better of a hostile audience of Finnish and Russian students by referring to a word that meant one thing in Finnish and another in Russian. The Finns, who despised the Russians, were incensed to hear him claiming this word had the Russian meaning, but the Russians agreed with him. As they were shouting at one another, the English jumped in and argued that the word was a meaningless syllable. Thus the professor made his point effectively: without a language convention, a sequence of letters carries no information. Dr. Wilder-Smith confronted communists with scientific arguments that undermined their political philosophy. God only knows how much his work contributed to the eventual demise of communism, but it certainly affected numerous individual communists.

https://crev.info/scientists/a-e-wilder-smith/

[Uber Genius]

It was an interesting and well-written post but my first reaction is:

Ah, the ole "Appearence of age," gag.

There have been hundreds of cosmological models thrown in the trash can over the last 100 years. While we want to understand our world to the best of our abilities, why grasp at straws in order to shore up a YEC model? 

If Paul is correct in Romans 1 in saying that all humans know of God as a result of God's creation, the things they have SEEN, do we really want to insert the inference that, God messes with our perception of the world by giving false appearances of the things he has created? Seems a little self-refuting.

Why not say, "3500 years ago or so, scholars agree that the Genesis account of creation differs starkly from its Mesopotamian counterparts. That God appears to be the sole source of all created things. Further that man is a special creation having God's ability to know moral truths, and have agency. Finally, scholars differ on whether that process occurred in a literal 6-day period or over a longer period."

Since there are 40 or so separate proofs for Big Bang cosmology why pin one's hopes on falsifying 125 years of science regarding the nature of time?

And would that solve the internal textual problems the YEC view has? 

[dhchristian]

6 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

Since there are 40 or so separate proofs for Big Bang cosmology why pin one's hopes on falsifying 125 years of science regarding the nature of time?

The concept of Aether was believed to be true by science from the time of Isaac Newton in the late 1600's to the early 20th century when it was finally disproved by the Michelson Morly experiment in 1887. So that theory had a 200 year history with many prominent scientists believing it true. I Believe the same is true of the Speed of light being a constant as well, and these experiments will prove this once and for all. Then You will have only a 125 years of scientists being proved wrong, Einstein among them, Just Like Isaac Newton was proved wrong about Aether.

Not sure what you mean by the "Mesopotamian counterparts"?

If You are saying that I need to say I am trying to prove YEC then I am guilty as charged and have not been hiding that fact. I Want to tell you why I am saying this.... (Going out on a limb here so bear with me). The Lord showed me some time ago what the meaning of Revelation 12 is in parts.

 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. (12:15)

When I read this verse he showed me that this flood was not a flood of water but a flood of attacks on the Word of God, and the truth and validity of the accounts therein. Parts of this are the attacks from the scientific evolutionist community and other parts are from "scholarly" attacks on the Word of God itself that is coming from within academia, such as all the translation and codex errors that are bringing doubt on the Word of God.

He also showed me that The Earth helping the woman in the next verse: And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. (12:16)  Was a series of Series of counter proofs to that flood of attacks that negates all of these attacks. I Have been showing some of these counter proofs on the post I did on Noah's flood, and the one from genetics is astounding when one comes to see this with Biblical glasses. So for example, Islamic scholars have long attacked the Word of God we have as being errant. They say that it has been altered through the centuries and is unreliable. Well the finding of the dead sea scrolls pretty much put a kabash on that attack by the Muslim apologists as Intact scrolls of the Book of Isaiah were found that were virtually the same as the translations we have today thus dispelling this attack. This is Just one example of many counter proofs coming from the earth that "swallows" the flood of attacks against the Woman.

Now when You go to Rev. 13, and the section on the false prophet and it is said of Him that he "Spake as a dragon" Well, here in chapter 12 we see the dragon having a flood come out of his mouth and we will expect that from the FP as well, only he will be a religious figure head attacking the Testimony of Jesus.

    

[Uber Genius]

I am not denying that there have been false theses held for centuries. I am denying the likelihood of certain foundational theories such as the second law of thermodynamics, or speed of light. Remember that I argued from 100 years of modern discovery, a time where we have created supercolliders and broad spectrum telescope, and where falsifiability is very possible. 

How are you examples of ether analogous?

I suggested over forty different sources of experiment all of which could have falsified big band cosmology. 

So your claims don't appear to be analogous at all. But I grant that all scientific knowledge is provisional, but some is just a hypothesis that is hardly testable or untestable, others such as our understanding of the strong and weak nuclear forces, are unlikely to change. 

[Uber Genius]

On March 2, 2020 at 6:08 PM, dhchristian said:

Not sure what you mean by the "Mesopotamian counterparts"?

There are creation accounts dating back 1500 years before the Genesis account. These are largely from the Mesopotamian regions (SE Turkey travel SE to the Persian Gulf via the Euphrates 100 miles north and south of that river.) Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian, Babylonian cultures. 

[Uber Genius]

On March 2, 2020 at 6:08 PM, dhchristian said:

If You are saying that I need to say I am trying to prove YEC then I am guilty as charged and have not been hiding that fact. I Want to tell you why I am saying this.... (Going out on a limb here so bear with me). The Lord showed me some time ago what the meaning of Revelation 12 is in parts.

I'm just jumping in here after a sabbatical. So i didn't know your view. Further, I am a believer that God can reveal things to us personally through the work of the HS. 

However, when I'm arguing for a view I try to argue from premises on which my opponents tend to agree with me.

example:

P1 anything that begins to exist has a cause outside of itself

P2 the universe began to exist

from 1 and 2 

therefore the universe has a cause outside of itself.

science agrees with both premises generally. Philosophy agrees with both as well. Therefore when engaging atheists from either field I am able to gain agreement for my premises and proceed to my argument that the cause of time, space, matter, energy, the laws of physics (which define our universe) must transcend those elements. Only abstract objects or God fit the transcendent cause category. Abstract objects are causally effete. Therefore God is the cause of the universe.

 

when we incorporate extreme minority views such as light NOT being a constant, we are already somewhat on our back foot. When we argue from personal revelation, again we may be correct but our argument will be uncompelling.

 

 

[dhchristian]

4 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

science agrees with both premises generally. Philosophy agrees with both as well. Therefore when engaging atheists from either field I am able to gain agreement for my premises and proceed to my argument that the cause of time, space, matter, energy, the laws of physics (which define our universe) must transcend those elements. Only abstract objects or God fit the transcendent cause category. Abstract objects are causally effete. Therefore God is the cause of the universe.

 

when we incorporate extreme minority views such as light NOT being a constant, we are already somewhat on our back foot. When we argue from personal revelation, again we may be correct but our argument will be uncompelling.

I Am not here to engage atheists, I am here to glorify God, and to edify fellow believers that have been beaten over the head with the so called settled science of the age of the universe. Obviously I will take some heat for the views expressed here from those who worship in the realm of scientism And cannot grasp what is being said here and the purpose of it. 

BTW, there was also a time when Christianity was a "minority view" as well, and being in the minority, yet fully in line with the literal interpretation of the Genesis account is where I would rather stand. Even when the truth is a Minority view we must hold onto it. Truth is not always in the hands of the Majority view.