Top Cosmologists Question Special Relativity.

[Aaron]

Einstein's Biggest Blunder

http://www.documentarymania.com/player.php?title=Einstein Biggest Blunder

At the dawn of a new century, a new theory is being born. It threatens to demolish the foundations of 20th century physics. Its authors are two of the world's leading cosmologists. If they're right, Einstein was wrong. It all began when Andy Albrecht and Joao Magueijo met at a conference in America in 1996. This program began from Newtonian view of the universe then takes you through the General Relativity and the Flatness problem. This leads to the Horizon problem and its solution, the Inflation theory. However modern astronomy doesn't stop here, the Inflation theory has its flaw too, and what happened before the big bang? This can all be answered by changing one thing, the one thing no body dare to question until now.

That one thing is the constancy of the speed of light.

This documentary is being streamed on Netflix.

 

[Aaron]

The Institute of Navigation also calls it into question.

Contrary to the assertion of Special Relativity, the speed of light is not always constant relative to a moving observer.
https://www.ion.org/publications/abstract.cfm?articleID=981

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

So glad you posted this. I stated about a week ago on another thread that we have no way of knowing that the speed of light is always and has always been constant. I made this statement in response to someone claiming the universe is billions of years old due to the starts being millions of light years away.

 

[Smyth]

There are many ways to know the conventional Big Bang theory is false.

Narrator: Yet something set up the Universe in the right way. Some mysterious process made sure that matter and energy had everywhere the same critical density keeping the entire cosmos in perfect balance.

Narrator: Scientists call this the flatness problem.

Dr Joao Magueijo: So this is the flatness problem: it's the fact that the Universe is a bit like a pencil standing on its stick for 15 billion years.

This, for example, is just too unlikely for any skeptic to believe. Theoreticians attempting to defend the Bib Bang have continually create fantastic kludges to save the Big Bang.

 

[TCassidy]

So glad you posted this. I stated about a week ago on another thread that we have no way of knowing that the speed of light is always and has always been constant. I made this statement in response to someone claiming the universe is billions of years old due to the starts being millions of light years away.

Yes, that was a very interesting video. The young cosmologist equating the present day "settled science" of cosmology to balancing a pencil on its sharp end for 15 billion years was an excellent example of what he considers the folly of present day cosmology.

I too especially liked the concept of the speed of light being faster in the past and thus helping to explain some inconsistencies.

But the biggest step was to come right out and say Einstein was wrong. That takes a lot of courage for a cosmologist to say something like that, especially when it moves his cosmology closer to the position held by creationists for millennia.

 

[Aaron]

To prove it one way or another, the Michelson-Morley experiment needs to be set up on the moon. If a null value is the result, then the speed of light is indeed constant.

 

[Jeremy Seth]

Someone connect the dots for me, does this present the possibility that stars could be created ~6000 years ago but now appear to be further as the speed of light has slowed?

 

[TCassidy]

No, it means the light from the farthest stars could be visible on Earth in a time span more compatible with Young Earth Creationism.

 

[Aaron]

Distance estimations beyond 300 light years are problematic, I'm told. No one is saying top cosmologists are letting Creationism get a foot in the door, because that is not happening. But at issue is the viability of Special Relativity, which in no small part was theorized to help explain the null results of the Michelson-Morely experiment. Special relativity assumes the speed of light in a vacuum to be constant, always 186K mps regardless of the speed of the source from which light is being emitted. This requires time, mass and space to be the variables in bodies in motion.

General Relativity already allows for a relative speed of light, which is greatly affected by gravitational fields.

 

[Smyth]

Someone connect the dots for me, does this present the possibility that stars could be created ~6000 years ago but now appear to be further as the speed of light has slowed?

Atheist orthodoxy is that the whole universe appeared from nothing and became practically its current size in in an inconceivably small fraction of a second (I wrote that right). You're better off not trying to build on ideas by those completely insane and ungodly people.

 

[HankD]

It's been about ten years now but Scientific American had a leading Front Page article about "C" perhaps not a constant. Somewhere in my mountains of "stuff" (which my wife calls "trash") it exists, but I don't remember the exact year or volume.

HankD