Speed of light and anisotropy (variation in light speed inbound and outbound) and the consequences.
Speed of light and anisotropy (variation in light speed inbound and outbound) and the consequences.
If true, Relativity, the Big Bang and modern cosmology are entirely rubbished. As if they were not already.
(Link)
Introduction
Previous posts discussed how the speed of light was computed to be 300.000 km per second. These are largely mathematical exercises and are incomplete. According to this accepted theory, the speed of light is about a billion miles per hour. Does anyone really believe you can measure such a speed? I don’t and the reasons are given below.
Many scientists also agree that measuring such a speed is impossible. A billion miles per hour is simply an unimaginable, untraceable velocity. If the speed of light is inconstant, which it most certainly is, and if the vacuum of space does not exist which it most certainly does not; and if we can’t really measure a beam of light moving away from us to be one billion miles per hour which we can’t, modern cosmology and physics are entirely rubbished. Worldviews would be ravaged. Entire groups of people would be lost and forlorn, their religiosity, if not their entire existence called into disrepute.
Light is not a constant speed
We have argued on this substack (quite correctly), that the speed of light as experimentally proven by Sagnac, gyroscopes and satellite emissions, can never be a constant velocity. Many in mainstream physics know this and some are courageous enough to publish their doubts, putting their careers at risk. An example is B. Koberlein who expressed his scepticism in Universe Today and admitted we cannot measure the speed of light, even if we use the discredited philosophies and maths of Relativity. If the speed of light is wrong, the entire ‘long age’ history of our universe needs a complete reconsideration.
“several physicists have pointed out that while relativity assumes the vacuum speed of light is a universal constant, it also shows the speed can never be measured. Specifically, relativity forbids you from measuring the time it takes light to travel from point A to point B. To measure the speed of light in one direction, you’d need a synchronized stopwatch at each end, but relative motion affects the rate of your clocks relative to the speed of light. You can’t synchronize them without knowing the speed of light, which you can’t know without measuring. What you can do is use a single stopwatch to measure the round-trip time from A to B back to A, and this is what every measurement of the speed of light does.”
What does the above mean?
In Relativity, the maths-wizard Einstein simply calculated the round-trip speed of light, based on circular reasoning and assumptions, and divided it by two. Simple enough. But that is of course false and unscientific. We can never prove the round-trip speed because within Relativity theory we have the tautology mentioned above. I cannot synchronise the ‘clocks’ to measure the inbound and outbound light beams without assuming first what the speed of light is. If the speed of light varies, which it obviously does, how can I measure the incoming and outgoing speeds?
Instantaneous can be measured?
Measuring light is problematic especially at speeds which may approach or exceed 1 billion miles per hour. What if the speed of light is greater than 1 billion miles per hour? What if light has varied in velocity over time? The Big Bang certainly believes that to be true as it evokes ‘inflation’ to explain the ‘early’ expansion of the universe.
But as Galileo noted, light transmission in reality is simply ‘instantaneous’ and he declined to put a number on the velocity. He knew you can’t measure such speed. Further, if light does vary by time, direction and by media, we have what is called ‘anisotropy’. Further we cannot measure light moving away from us without a clock or reference. This is a problem that ‘The Science’ simply ignores.
Many physicists however, do understand the problem. In a recent paper it is offered that the anisotropic reality of light would completely change Relativity’s contention that there is a length contraction in the direction of travel and a time dilation as you increase velocity. Previous posts have discussed why length contraction is false and that time dilation may exist as a consequence of gravity but would obviously be impacted by the speed of light. But even if you disagree and accept that both length contraction and time dilation are valid, it does not help the Relativist in regards to ‘time’ or the speed of light.
“The team considered the effects of anisotropic light on a simple relativistic model known as the Milne universe. It’s basically a toy universe similar in structure to the observed universe, but without all the matter and energy. They found that the anisotropy of light would cause anisotropic relativity effects in time dilation and cosmic expansion. These effects would cancel out the observable aspects of a varying light speed. In other words, even if the universe was anisotropic due to a varied speed of light, it would still appear homogeneous.”
The simple Milne model eschews the ‘ether’ which exists. Even ignoring the ‘ether’ the Relativity model does not work. It is obvious that we cannot tell if the universe has a homogenous (isotropic), or heterogenous (anisotropic) effect of light speed. For example how can we prove that light does not approach the Earth at a far faster rate than it leaves us? We can’t and therefore we simply don’t know.
(Milne’s model, based on Copernican assumptions)
If the inbound speed of light is different than the outbound speed and I pull an Einstein and simply divide by 2 to get an average speed, it tells me nothing. If the inbound light speed is twice as fast as the outbound, I wouldn’t know, yet all my calculations about the universe – its size, its age, its ‘early history’ would be wrong. To an observer on Earth the average ‘round trip speed’ means that the universe looks the same no matter which model we use.
This is the akin to the problem we outlined when discussing the Copernican versus the Tychonic models of planetary motion. As Einstein knew, the Tychonic explanation fully and scientifically explains celestial phenomena. Copernicanism is therefore just another theory. So it goes with theories about light speed.
“If the speed of light varies with its direction of motion, then we would see the universe in a different way. When we look at distant galaxies, we are looking back in time because light takes time to reach us. If distant light reached us quickly in some direction, we would see the universe in that direction as older and more expanded. The faster light reaches us, the less “back in time” we would see.”
If light speed is faster coming to us, then the ‘age’ of the light emission sources is much less than we now assume. We can infer that that the anisotropic speed of light could still present an incorrect isotropic view of the distant cosmos. This is because we have no way to measure the speed of light away from us, or even to us without making gross assumptions as Einstein did in Relativity (which he purloined from 3 centuries of work on the same subject).
The Age Conundrum
Relativists can certainly ask: ‘why do we see the light of distant galaxies that appear to be billions of light-years away?’ A rejoinder is that we have no way to confirm if light speed is anisotropic or isotropic. If the one-way speed of light is completely arbitrary, and can never be calculated by measurement, and if we cannot measure light moving away from us with any accuracy whatsoever, I can create a physical model which will input the speed of light as a free parameter in my code. This is entirely legitimate. I can make an informed choice of a radial speed for light, and build models, based on parameter assumptions to generate different ages of the universe and perforce the Earth.
This is after all what ‘The Science’ has done to produce the long ages of the universe. By using their own methods anyone can calculate, quite cogently, a far younger age of the universe. They might well be wrong, but given that we don’t know the speed of light, you would not be able to disprove their output.
Bottom Line
We know that in reality the speed of light is not a ‘law’, and that it cannot be measured properly. Let us assume that the radial speed of light to the Earth was nearly infinite or far quicker than a billion miles per hour. The universe would look old, but it would be young. If we use Relativity’s own equations around ‘time dilation’, the more distant galaxies would obviously look older than those closest, yet they would be of a similar age. If the speed of light is unprovable and the measurements are based on models with parameters used in algorithms, the above is entirely plausible and scientific even using Relativity’s own maths, a paradigm long overdue to be replaced.
We simply don’t know what the real speed of light is, or how it truly varies over time and distance. Because of this fact, we don’t know the age of the Universe, based as they are on light year calculations containing many assumptions which can be challenged.
[Note: ‘Dark Matter’ which cannot be found, is probably another name for the ‘ether’ or the fact that space is full of particles, fluctuations, energy and mass. The ether might hold the secret as to why the universe including planetary rotations and orbits are stable. It also explains why light travels at different speeds as demonstrated by Sagnac and many others. The ether is of course anathema to ‘The Science’ but that is what ‘Dark Matter’ probably is. The existence of the ether by itself, whatever you want to call it, disproves Special Relativity of course.]
References
Martin Gardner: Relativity Simply Explained, Dover Publications, Inc., Mineola, New York, 1997
Albert Einstein: The Meaning of Relativity, With an introduction by Brian Green, Princeton University Press, 1921
Carlo Rovelli: Tidens Orden (L’ordine del tempo), Gyldendal A/S, 2020
Sean Carroll: Spacetime and Geometry, An Introduction to General Relativity, Pearson Education Limited, 2014.
Brian Cox & Jeff Forshaw: Why Does E=mc2? (And Why Should We Care?), Da Capo Press, 2009 [-> note E=mc2 is wrong]
