Questioning Science

Much of our modern science is based on our assumed understanding of light speed, in relation to our perception of light being capable of moving from here to there in a manner similar to a train or bus.

This assumption leads us to believe that light travels across the universe at the speed of light.

In this respect we observe the universe expanding at an accelerating rate of expansion, where we have observed the perimeter of the visible universe to be expanding at or very close to the speed of light.

If the visible outer boundary of universe is expanding at the speed of light it would be impossible for our scientists to observe that expansion, as the observed light of such distant galaxies would never reach us.

On the other hand…if the universe, the observable universe, exists in a simultaneous state it is completely unneccessary for light to be in motion or to have an actual speed.  And this would seem to be the case.

We have convinced ourselves it should be possible to evaluate a dynamic universe on the basis of static terms which we employ to determine the speed of light being the time light takes to travel a distance of one meter in a vacuum…which is 1/299,792,458ths of a second.

And from this we determine the size and age of universe on the basis of light traveling at a constant rate of speed over the course of billions of years.

This would be a laughable situation if it were not quite so serious, but here we are in the 21st century still clinging to our out dated quaint ideas of a universe structured and functioning on the basis of our existing economy, in relation to those values employed for the purpose of trade and commerce.

The constancy of light speed is based on the universe existing in a static state, while the speed of light is determined on the basis of a linear perception of space and time.

Is it any wonder we are having a problem finding viable solutions to the energy crisis when we approach the natural order of universe from a contrary point of view?

How we think the universe should work and how it actually functions are two different things, but it appears there is little interest or desire to apply a bit of basic logic to the problem.

It is time to re-evaluate our perception of universe and the basic assumptions of science.  It is impossible for light to be in linear motion in the manner of a train or bus…or a rocket for that matter.  Light itself does not move in a linear manner nor can light be regulated by a speed limit determined by the apparent motion of light itself.

Science must be based on something more than smoke and mirrors, yet the basis of our modern physics is based on a slight of hand demonstration.  Because there is a slight delay in light observed in a series of mirrors that time gap is assumed to allow for the determination of speed, as in meters per second etc.

Only on the basis of a static universe should such a thing be possible and even then it would be impossible as a static universe would be unchanging and nothing would happen.

Employing static terms to define the form and function of universe is not very helpful.  But taking it one step further and determining light to be in linear motion is crippling our ability to formulate a viable energy program capable of driving the world’s economy.

We have no idea how old the universe might be and we have no idea how big or vast the universe might be, yet we appear certain to accept our assumptions as facts.

It is time to stop assuming and get on with the job of getting it right.