Light Speed, an alternative theory
James Wood
July 01, 2008
In my previous American Chronicle Ū article discussing my theory on the speed of sunlight, entitled, "The Speed of light and such", I tried to provide an explanation for why sunlight may leave the Sun at less than the accepted constant speed and continue to gain speed to reach the speed that we measure here at Earth, I contend that the speed of light after sunlight passes by the earth would continue to accelerate at a specific calculated rate until it eventually achieves the suggested maximum speed far away in the distant fringes of space. I proposed that the Sunīs able to produce light that does not blast off at the potential maximum speed due to the intense gravitational field near the Sun. I contend that this intense field can be thought of as representing the density of gravity that will continue to get weaker as the sunlight gets farther and farther from the sun. If light moves by expansion, as I have suggested, then the maximum speed will be attained in the area of least gravitational density. I will replay the graph that I offered in the earlier article to better show you what my speed of sunlight contentions are.
Object====Orbit Radius=====OV======OV^2====186624 maximum
In miles=======miles=====miles======minus OV^2
Sun at exit===Equator======271,43===73,682.67====112,941.32 mps
Mercury===35,977,324======29.74=====884.46====185,739.54
Venus=====67,232,237======21.76=====473.49====186,150.51
Earth======92,916,440======18.505===432.435====186,281.56
You will note this is an accurate rendition of light speed here at Earth.
Mars======141,610,227=====14.99=====224.70====186,399.30
Jupiter=====483,612,285=====8.11======65.77=====186,558.23
Saturn=====886,695,015=====5.99======35.88=====186,588.12
Uranus====1,783,953,320====4.22=======17.81=====186,606.19
Neptune===2,794,363,106=====3.37======11.35=====186,612.64
Pluto======3,666,222,305====2.94=======8.64=====186,615.35
Unknown==31,830,914,183=====1========1========186,623.00
Unknown==50,000,000,000====. 6366=====. 4052=====186,623.59
Unknown==200,000,000,000===. 159154===. 39894====186,623.60
The spacers are required to give order due to this being uploaded in txt.
The first question is how I arrived at the maximum speed of Sunlight to be 186,624. It was not totally arbitrary. When using my Sunīs mass-miles number of 31,830,914,183 and dividing it by the mean orbital radius of planets in miles to get the mean orbital velocity squared, as I have shown in another article, I tried to see what the velocity would be of an object at one radius distance from the Sun. 31,830,914,183 / 432,000 = 73,682.67 (as at top of graph). The square root is 271.43. Keep in mind that I spent years manipulating many numbers with hundreds of trial and error efforts. The result, 271.43, looked familiar to me and I recalled that the Sunīs circumference was, 2,714,342.4. When I divided the Sunīs circumference by 271.43, I got 1,000. This meant, to me, that the value had significance relating to the output or other circumstance. My choice was to take the Sunīs radius divided by 1,000 providing 432. I then squared the 432 getting 186,624 miles per second. The rest of the effort is shown in the graph. I rely of the accuracy of the progression as shown in the graph as support for my contention.
When you review the graph you will note that sunlight in the area of Jupiterīs distance from the Sun is alleged to be traveling at 186.588.23 mps. The increase from the area around the Earth as light travels on to Mars and eventually to Jupiter is gradual. I simply used my proposed speed at each planet location for ease of reference. You could pick a point between Mars and Jupiter and run the same formula and you would get the speed of light at that position pursuant to my contention. If we were able to reflect sunlight back to us without distortion then sunlight that traveled back to us from Jupiter would leave Jupiter at about 186,588.23 mps and would be going even faster as it covered the distance of the return trip. That does not happen and the reason, I contend, is that the light at Jupiter has all ready expanded by traveling to Jupiter and can not now penetrate the denser sunlight at each location on its travel back to Earth. The result is that the sunlight gets compressed and when compressed it slows down duplicating the changes that took place as the light traveled form Earth to Jupiter. When we measure the sunlight here at Earth it seems unchanged. I can see no reason why sunlight, if "compressed" on the way out would not be compressed on the way back. Our astronomers compress starlight every day when they focus their telescopes on distant stars. A child with a 4-inch magnifying class can focus, (compress) light to a point and burn paper with it. We do not think about it but if the focus point was 6 inches from the back of the glass we know that for every inch there is a greater degree of compression as we get to the final focus. Also the heat generated by this effort will be greater at each inch of progression. Keep in mind that all measurements of the speed of sunlight or starlight are being made from here on the Earth. When an astronomer is witness to an event thousands of light years from Earth he is seeing the light here, not at the event location. That is essentially the same for all observations of the speed of sunlight made by us here on Earth. With our various space efforts relating to the planet Mars it may be possible to duplicate the experiment using Jupiterīs moon Io. Based on the graph there should be about 118 miles greater speed shown for sunlight in the area between Mars and Jupiter.
We know quite well that the greater light gathering of the largest telescopes show us more distant stellar objects. The most distant objects to be seen require the greatest light collecting surface to compress it down to a focus point. This fading of light so it is no longer visible to us here on Earth was a part of Olbersī Paradox. His view was that if the heavens were uniformly full of stars the sky should be white. It is not so the Universe is expanding? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox
It is common sense to some that light fades with the distance traveled. When we look at the night sky with an unaided eye we see only the brightest stars. Use a pair of binoculars and you will see more stars. The present mainstream view is that the photon is mass less and has the same "strength" from all sources. That means that the Pistol Star, estimated to be 1.5 million or 2 million times brighter than our Sun, and equally that much more massive, has the same photonīs our Sun has. This can be thought of in a different way, I think. Suppose that our Sun was the same distance from us as the Pistol Star is. Assume we could keep them both in our field of view. They would need to be separated by a great distance but as to Earth they were equally distant. I want to line up their equators so the nearest edges are exactly the same distance from the Earth. We start by just looking for them but we see nothing. We have a newly invented telescope that permits us to slowly increase the light gathering ability of our scope and we do it. At some point we may see the Pistol Star but not the Sun. They are the same distance but the Sun is just not bright enough to show up. We continue to enlarge our light gathering ability and eventually the Sun is seen. Why is that? I suppose we could round it out and say that we saw the Pistol Star x number of adjustments sooner because that is how much brighter the Pistol Star is than our Sun. I do not feel comfortable on this topic but I must wonder, are we thinking in terms of stronger photons from the Pistol Star or just more of them do to the stars large size. If the photons are all the same why donīt they all run out of steam at the same point in space. In that likelihood we would see both the Sun and the Pistol Star at the same time but the Pistol Star would be brighter due to its extreme size. You may note I have a problem with a uniform photon containing the same energy from all sources. There is no reason for me to contend that the photon has mass because the photonīs lack of mass is well proven scientifically. That is not the same as saying the photon cannot be compressed, like water cannot be compressed, because we compress it every day even though we may not think of it that way. We first gather the light and then we compress it into our eyepiece. All it takes is the proper optics. Try to envision the area at Earth and the curvature of Earthīs orbit circumference as the face of a very large magnifying glass. As light came to the Earth from locations beyond the Earth it would be focused down all the way to the Sun where the focus would end in a similar way to the focus achieved by using a hand held magnifying glass. The source of the compression is gravitation. To my thinking photons on the Pilot Star would be seriously compressed due to the extreme gravity of that star and would therefore be capable of eventually reaching very high speeds and great distances before fading out. I know this will be unpopular. To me it is no different than loading a rocket with a more powerful fuel.
An outgrowth of this theory is that the multitude of different size and masses of the numerous light sources we see from Earth may be sending us their light at different speeds. At present I do not believe that we have a tool or a method to determine if the light we see from afar is traveling at different speeds than we measure here at Earth. We probably will never have such equipment unless we learn something about the nature of light that will serve to distinguish each source. It has been argued in the past that if light traveled at different speeds we would be confused and unable to tell where things are. Dr Carl Sagan, in his, Cosmos series Ū, used a series of bicycles moving around in a small area to demonstrate this point. There are no small areas in space so I do not think that his demonstration was valid. We admit we cannot see the distant Galaxies moving away from us so what difference would it make it the light we see was moving at different speeds? What difference would it make to what we see of these extremely distant objects if their light moved faster than ours? We know, without any dispute, that the light speed here at Earth is fixed at about 186,281.5 mps. We might see the distant objects sooner than otherwise if the light traveled here faster but it would look the same.
Astronomers use the spectrograph to discern many things about the light we see. Mineral content, the gases contained in a planets atmosphere with the all-important spectrum analysis. This tool shows most light to be red-shifted and interpreted to be from a source that is going away from us. This is the means by which they decide that the objects are moving away from us. They do not see stuff flying away from us; they interpret the light spectrum from the source in order to make that determination. This is the measure of the red shifted light that is compared to the Doppler effect. Dr. Hubble gave us this measure. The idea being that the sound of a train whistle changes while the train is approaching compared to when it is leaving us. This in turn is based upon the length of the sound waves, and for light, the light waves. You may think of a sound wave being stretched because the departing train is going away whereas the approaching train has sound waves that are being compressed. That is essentially the basis for the idea. Red shifting of the light spectrum is considered to represent stretching of the light wave or particle. This is one of the most important conclusions that astronomy has made because it plays a part in many other theories, the expansion of the Universe, being one of the most important. I am not going to discuss theories relating to the so-called Big Bang or an expanding Universe.
I do feel that a discussion of the speed of sunlight requires evaluation of the method used to determine what light is doing. The present approach uses the degree of the Red Shift to confirm that the Galaxy is going away from us by the degree the sunlight is Red Shifted. There is good reason why my view here will have a serious conflict with current scientific thinking. I went to Wikipedia to see what was recent on the Red Shift of light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/gravitational_redshift.
The article was a little too long to quote here so I will just touch on it. The point seems to be that gravitation will affect light under some conditions and can be a cause for a Red Shift in the light. They talk about the light traveling "uphill" or "down hill" and I am not sure exactly how that relates to my views. To me, uphill is going from least resistance to greater resistance and going down hill is the reverse. For my purpose it is enough to find that there is support for the contribution of a dense gravitational field to the manner that light can be shifted towards the red end of the spectrum.
Letīs make a hypothetical wherein we found that the degree that sunlight from afar was Red Shifted was due to the speed at which that light entered the Sunīs gravitational field. In that scenario the more Red Shifted the light was the greater was the original speed of the light and the more potential compression of the light. This is explained by the faster the light the more pronounced the speed reduction here at Earths Sun. When we check the light in the spectrograph we may find that the Red Shift is present not related to Galaxies racing away from us but as a result of light racing towards us. This explains why light of greater speeds sustained greater compression as part of the speed reduction than did slower traveling light. The closer the speed of approaching light was to our local speed zone then the least compression would be called for. When I first pondered this unusual situation I was compelled to wonder what would happen to sunlight approaching us that was slower than our measured speed of light here at Earth. At first it might seem it could be Blue Shifted. But I think that result is most likely related to sunlight sources producing light equivalent to our speeds. My view, for which I can offer no proof, is that light from a weak nearby Star may not be seen by us at all, here on Earth, if it traveled at less than 186,200 mps, because the compression process would leave nothing left over for us to see. If we had a Hubble telescope in orbit around Uranus or in an orbit around the sun that winds its way between Uranus and Neptune we may possibly see that we have more neighbors than we thought possible, like other small Solar Systems, whose light we were never aware of.
This part of my theory will be difficult to accept due to its strangeness and because it is so far removed from the mainstreams well established beliefs.
Letīs go back over it a little. If some of the Red Shifting of sunlight from far off galaxies is due to compression or refraction of the light when it enters the Sunīs gravity, then we may argue that there would be no compression if the light were not expanded more than the light here, wherein the probable expansion is a factor of the light speed. I previously offered the contention that the farther light travels from the source the faster it travels although the speed rate diminishes. The part played by distance was already discussed. While all sources of light will have a potential degree of photon density, depending on the mass of the source, we do not have a tool yet by which to measure any potential differences except possibly by means of the current spectrograph that is used to measure the Red Shift. I am aware that my few speculations herein are totally foreign to the current established scientific views of physics. You would reasonably require me to provide proof for my contentions and I have tried to do so. You may compare the proof that current physics offers for the mainstream conclusions with what I allege.
The speed of light is measured here at Earth and we use that as the fact for the speed of light everywhere. Is that a broad jump or not? If current physics cannot tell us why light travels at the specific speed and I can offer both a reason and a mathematical example my view is worth consideration. If all things we know about life, such as gravitation, the apparent ability of the photon to store immense amounts of energy and our knowledge in general that all such energy storage is a variable dependent on the source of the original energy available; we should give serious consideration to the prospect that all photons are not created equal, as I have suggested. Other conclusions of current physics may require reappraisal beginning with the current view that Red Shifted light from distant sources is a measure of the speed of Galaxies moving away from the Earth. I know that these conclusions of mainstream science are considered sacred but I offer my views with full respect for current established views. All areas of science should be reconsidered routinely before they are so ingrained and used as the basis for other theories that they are considered beyond our ability to question them.
For the limited areas discussed in this essay I think it is fair to say I have offered as much proof as can be expected in an area where otherwise there is little proof for any other currently accepted theory on the speed of light.
Object====Orbit Radius=====OV======OV^2====186624 maximum
In miles=======miles=====miles======minus OV^2
Sun at exit===Equator======271,43===73,682.67====112,941.32 mps
Mercury===35,977,324======29.74=====884.46====185,739.54
Venus=====67,232,237======21.76=====473.49====186,150.51
Earth======92,916,440======18.505===432.435====186,281.56
You will note this is an accurate rendition of light speed here at Earth.
Mars======141,610,227=====14.99=====224.70====186,399.30
Jupiter=====483,612,285=====8.11======65.77=====186,558.23
Saturn=====886,695,015=====5.99======35.88=====186,588.12
Uranus====1,783,953,320====4.22=======17.81=====186,606.19
Neptune===2,794,363,106=====3.37======11.35=====186,612.64
Pluto======3,666,222,305====2.94=======8.64=====186,615.35
Unknown==31,830,914,183=====1========1========186,623.00
Unknown==50,000,000,000====. 6366=====. 4052=====186,623.59
Unknown==200,000,000,000===. 159154===. 39894====186,623.60
The spacers are required to give order due to this being uploaded in txt.
The first question is how I arrived at the maximum speed of Sunlight to be 186,624. It was not totally arbitrary. When using my Sunīs mass-miles number of 31,830,914,183 and dividing it by the mean orbital radius of planets in miles to get the mean orbital velocity squared, as I have shown in another article, I tried to see what the velocity would be of an object at one radius distance from the Sun. 31,830,914,183 / 432,000 = 73,682.67 (as at top of graph). The square root is 271.43. Keep in mind that I spent years manipulating many numbers with hundreds of trial and error efforts. The result, 271.43, looked familiar to me and I recalled that the Sunīs circumference was, 2,714,342.4. When I divided the Sunīs circumference by 271.43, I got 1,000. This meant, to me, that the value had significance relating to the output or other circumstance. My choice was to take the Sunīs radius divided by 1,000 providing 432. I then squared the 432 getting 186,624 miles per second. The rest of the effort is shown in the graph. I rely of the accuracy of the progression as shown in the graph as support for my contention.
When you review the graph you will note that sunlight in the area of Jupiterīs distance from the Sun is alleged to be traveling at 186.588.23 mps. The increase from the area around the Earth as light travels on to Mars and eventually to Jupiter is gradual. I simply used my proposed speed at each planet location for ease of reference. You could pick a point between Mars and Jupiter and run the same formula and you would get the speed of light at that position pursuant to my contention. If we were able to reflect sunlight back to us without distortion then sunlight that traveled back to us from Jupiter would leave Jupiter at about 186,588.23 mps and would be going even faster as it covered the distance of the return trip. That does not happen and the reason, I contend, is that the light at Jupiter has all ready expanded by traveling to Jupiter and can not now penetrate the denser sunlight at each location on its travel back to Earth. The result is that the sunlight gets compressed and when compressed it slows down duplicating the changes that took place as the light traveled form Earth to Jupiter. When we measure the sunlight here at Earth it seems unchanged. I can see no reason why sunlight, if "compressed" on the way out would not be compressed on the way back. Our astronomers compress starlight every day when they focus their telescopes on distant stars. A child with a 4-inch magnifying class can focus, (compress) light to a point and burn paper with it. We do not think about it but if the focus point was 6 inches from the back of the glass we know that for every inch there is a greater degree of compression as we get to the final focus. Also the heat generated by this effort will be greater at each inch of progression. Keep in mind that all measurements of the speed of sunlight or starlight are being made from here on the Earth. When an astronomer is witness to an event thousands of light years from Earth he is seeing the light here, not at the event location. That is essentially the same for all observations of the speed of sunlight made by us here on Earth. With our various space efforts relating to the planet Mars it may be possible to duplicate the experiment using Jupiterīs moon Io. Based on the graph there should be about 118 miles greater speed shown for sunlight in the area between Mars and Jupiter.
We know quite well that the greater light gathering of the largest telescopes show us more distant stellar objects. The most distant objects to be seen require the greatest light collecting surface to compress it down to a focus point. This fading of light so it is no longer visible to us here on Earth was a part of Olbersī Paradox. His view was that if the heavens were uniformly full of stars the sky should be white. It is not so the Universe is expanding? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox
It is common sense to some that light fades with the distance traveled. When we look at the night sky with an unaided eye we see only the brightest stars. Use a pair of binoculars and you will see more stars. The present mainstream view is that the photon is mass less and has the same "strength" from all sources. That means that the Pistol Star, estimated to be 1.5 million or 2 million times brighter than our Sun, and equally that much more massive, has the same photonīs our Sun has. This can be thought of in a different way, I think. Suppose that our Sun was the same distance from us as the Pistol Star is. Assume we could keep them both in our field of view. They would need to be separated by a great distance but as to Earth they were equally distant. I want to line up their equators so the nearest edges are exactly the same distance from the Earth. We start by just looking for them but we see nothing. We have a newly invented telescope that permits us to slowly increase the light gathering ability of our scope and we do it. At some point we may see the Pistol Star but not the Sun. They are the same distance but the Sun is just not bright enough to show up. We continue to enlarge our light gathering ability and eventually the Sun is seen. Why is that? I suppose we could round it out and say that we saw the Pistol Star x number of adjustments sooner because that is how much brighter the Pistol Star is than our Sun. I do not feel comfortable on this topic but I must wonder, are we thinking in terms of stronger photons from the Pistol Star or just more of them do to the stars large size. If the photons are all the same why donīt they all run out of steam at the same point in space. In that likelihood we would see both the Sun and the Pistol Star at the same time but the Pistol Star would be brighter due to its extreme size. You may note I have a problem with a uniform photon containing the same energy from all sources. There is no reason for me to contend that the photon has mass because the photonīs lack of mass is well proven scientifically. That is not the same as saying the photon cannot be compressed, like water cannot be compressed, because we compress it every day even though we may not think of it that way. We first gather the light and then we compress it into our eyepiece. All it takes is the proper optics. Try to envision the area at Earth and the curvature of Earthīs orbit circumference as the face of a very large magnifying glass. As light came to the Earth from locations beyond the Earth it would be focused down all the way to the Sun where the focus would end in a similar way to the focus achieved by using a hand held magnifying glass. The source of the compression is gravitation. To my thinking photons on the Pilot Star would be seriously compressed due to the extreme gravity of that star and would therefore be capable of eventually reaching very high speeds and great distances before fading out. I know this will be unpopular. To me it is no different than loading a rocket with a more powerful fuel.
An outgrowth of this theory is that the multitude of different size and masses of the numerous light sources we see from Earth may be sending us their light at different speeds. At present I do not believe that we have a tool or a method to determine if the light we see from afar is traveling at different speeds than we measure here at Earth. We probably will never have such equipment unless we learn something about the nature of light that will serve to distinguish each source. It has been argued in the past that if light traveled at different speeds we would be confused and unable to tell where things are. Dr Carl Sagan, in his, Cosmos series Ū, used a series of bicycles moving around in a small area to demonstrate this point. There are no small areas in space so I do not think that his demonstration was valid. We admit we cannot see the distant Galaxies moving away from us so what difference would it make it the light we see was moving at different speeds? What difference would it make to what we see of these extremely distant objects if their light moved faster than ours? We know, without any dispute, that the light speed here at Earth is fixed at about 186,281.5 mps. We might see the distant objects sooner than otherwise if the light traveled here faster but it would look the same.
Astronomers use the spectrograph to discern many things about the light we see. Mineral content, the gases contained in a planets atmosphere with the all-important spectrum analysis. This tool shows most light to be red-shifted and interpreted to be from a source that is going away from us. This is the means by which they decide that the objects are moving away from us. They do not see stuff flying away from us; they interpret the light spectrum from the source in order to make that determination. This is the measure of the red shifted light that is compared to the Doppler effect. Dr. Hubble gave us this measure. The idea being that the sound of a train whistle changes while the train is approaching compared to when it is leaving us. This in turn is based upon the length of the sound waves, and for light, the light waves. You may think of a sound wave being stretched because the departing train is going away whereas the approaching train has sound waves that are being compressed. That is essentially the basis for the idea. Red shifting of the light spectrum is considered to represent stretching of the light wave or particle. This is one of the most important conclusions that astronomy has made because it plays a part in many other theories, the expansion of the Universe, being one of the most important. I am not going to discuss theories relating to the so-called Big Bang or an expanding Universe.
I do feel that a discussion of the speed of sunlight requires evaluation of the method used to determine what light is doing. The present approach uses the degree of the Red Shift to confirm that the Galaxy is going away from us by the degree the sunlight is Red Shifted. There is good reason why my view here will have a serious conflict with current scientific thinking. I went to Wikipedia to see what was recent on the Red Shift of light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/gravitational_redshift.
The article was a little too long to quote here so I will just touch on it. The point seems to be that gravitation will affect light under some conditions and can be a cause for a Red Shift in the light. They talk about the light traveling "uphill" or "down hill" and I am not sure exactly how that relates to my views. To me, uphill is going from least resistance to greater resistance and going down hill is the reverse. For my purpose it is enough to find that there is support for the contribution of a dense gravitational field to the manner that light can be shifted towards the red end of the spectrum.
Letīs make a hypothetical wherein we found that the degree that sunlight from afar was Red Shifted was due to the speed at which that light entered the Sunīs gravitational field. In that scenario the more Red Shifted the light was the greater was the original speed of the light and the more potential compression of the light. This is explained by the faster the light the more pronounced the speed reduction here at Earths Sun. When we check the light in the spectrograph we may find that the Red Shift is present not related to Galaxies racing away from us but as a result of light racing towards us. This explains why light of greater speeds sustained greater compression as part of the speed reduction than did slower traveling light. The closer the speed of approaching light was to our local speed zone then the least compression would be called for. When I first pondered this unusual situation I was compelled to wonder what would happen to sunlight approaching us that was slower than our measured speed of light here at Earth. At first it might seem it could be Blue Shifted. But I think that result is most likely related to sunlight sources producing light equivalent to our speeds. My view, for which I can offer no proof, is that light from a weak nearby Star may not be seen by us at all, here on Earth, if it traveled at less than 186,200 mps, because the compression process would leave nothing left over for us to see. If we had a Hubble telescope in orbit around Uranus or in an orbit around the sun that winds its way between Uranus and Neptune we may possibly see that we have more neighbors than we thought possible, like other small Solar Systems, whose light we were never aware of.
This part of my theory will be difficult to accept due to its strangeness and because it is so far removed from the mainstreams well established beliefs.
Letīs go back over it a little. If some of the Red Shifting of sunlight from far off galaxies is due to compression or refraction of the light when it enters the Sunīs gravity, then we may argue that there would be no compression if the light were not expanded more than the light here, wherein the probable expansion is a factor of the light speed. I previously offered the contention that the farther light travels from the source the faster it travels although the speed rate diminishes. The part played by distance was already discussed. While all sources of light will have a potential degree of photon density, depending on the mass of the source, we do not have a tool yet by which to measure any potential differences except possibly by means of the current spectrograph that is used to measure the Red Shift. I am aware that my few speculations herein are totally foreign to the current established scientific views of physics. You would reasonably require me to provide proof for my contentions and I have tried to do so. You may compare the proof that current physics offers for the mainstream conclusions with what I allege.
The speed of light is measured here at Earth and we use that as the fact for the speed of light everywhere. Is that a broad jump or not? If current physics cannot tell us why light travels at the specific speed and I can offer both a reason and a mathematical example my view is worth consideration. If all things we know about life, such as gravitation, the apparent ability of the photon to store immense amounts of energy and our knowledge in general that all such energy storage is a variable dependent on the source of the original energy available; we should give serious consideration to the prospect that all photons are not created equal, as I have suggested. Other conclusions of current physics may require reappraisal beginning with the current view that Red Shifted light from distant sources is a measure of the speed of Galaxies moving away from the Earth. I know that these conclusions of mainstream science are considered sacred but I offer my views with full respect for current established views. All areas of science should be reconsidered routinely before they are so ingrained and used as the basis for other theories that they are considered beyond our ability to question them.
For the limited areas discussed in this essay I think it is fair to say I have offered as much proof as can be expected in an area where otherwise there is little proof for any other currently accepted theory on the speed of light.
Print
Email
