### Light Speed Reconsidered

Light Speed Reconsidered, by David Barclay

One of the most basic principles associated with our modern physics is the constancy of light speed, which is presently determined to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. And if this principle is ever found to be in error, it will profoundly effect on our perception of Universe.

So it is of some importance that we should consider the possibility that our understanding of light speed is not absolutely certain, but questionable at best.

Without making any biased assumptions we might question the validity of employing two completely different linear terms of reference to determine a third, in respect to the concept of attempting to combine oranges and apples in order to establish the perception of a banana.

On top of this we might question the validity of employing single unit measure in attempting to determine an exact value, as no single unit of measure corresponds to an absolute value. This means that our value of light speed is at best an estimate and an estimate is something less than an exact value.

Also, we assume that light speed is a linear function, in that light travels through space in a manner similar to a train in motion on a track or a plane in motion in the sky. If this is true, it requires the light to be in motion independent of the field in which it exists, which means that the speed of light is different than the motion of the field in which the light is moving.

This of course requires the motion of the light to function independent of the dynamics determining the condition of field, which makes one wonder what it is then that determines the speed of light?

If we consider all the various factors involved in determining the exact speed of light we are forced to conclude that the speed of light must remain static, as it is determined on the basis of two apparently static terms of reference, which includes the duration of one second and the length of one meter.

And on the basis of this we further conclude that it should be possible to determine the approximate age and size of Universe.

2

Oh my goodness, this is a strange state of affairs, as we have gone to great lengths to make such an evaluation seem completely rational and somewhat logical, without considering the possibility that such an idea is less than rational and even less than logical.

Considering we now know that the Universe exists in a dynamic state and is no longer considered static, why on Earth would we persist in attempting to maintain the correctness of an outdated concept?

Would we not consider that the apparent motion of light must also be dynamic and as such must therefore correspond to the dynamic condition of field?

This situation would cause us to realize that the second and the meter could hardly be considered static either, as both of these standards must fluctuate with the condition of field, whereby the speed of light could hardly remain static or even constant over time.

Of course someone could suggest that this is impossible, but the experimental evidence says that it is possible and a proven fact.

How else could you explain the Frozen Light Experiment, where a light pulse is slowed to a full stop and made to vanish only to reappear and regain its original speed?

We are not talking trains and planes here, as you can bring a train to a full stop, but just try making it vanish, reappear and continue under its own steam down the track.

Now we are into the realm of non-linear dynamics without even realizing that we were from the start, as the apparent linear motion of light is in fact due to the dynamic non-linear nature of the field in which it exists, otherwise the light would not be in motion at all.

We have concocted a great story on the basis of some crude assumptions that appear to correspond to linear geometry, but linear geometry was never intended to describe the dimensions of space.

3

So, when we consider the size and age of Universe we must equally consider the terms of reference employed, as we can easily fool ourselves without due consideration and vigilance.

In making reference to billions of light years we are assuming a great deal, as we assume it might be possible to determine the duration of a light year and or the length of a light year, when in fact we are still incapable of determining the exact speed of light other than as a hypothetical exercise involving static terms of reference which are themselves nothing more or less than an abstract invention.

Consequently no meaningful information can be derived from this exercise, as it has no practical application other than to limit our understanding of Universe.

If we consider the Universe in terms of a dynamic non-simultaneous condition remaining relative to the system of reference, we will realize that our observation of distant galaxies, as seen through the Hubble, gives us a clue to the nature of Universe.

In order to take a photograph of an extremely distant galaxy requires that time should be slowed in the direction of our observation and if time is slowed in the direction of our observation it would be impossible for the speed of light to remain constant over the course of billions of years.

If time is isometrically slowed in the direction of deep space and is symmetrically accelerated in the direction of the observer, in relation to a dynamic condition, it would appear the distance is somewhat less than what we presently assume.

It is obvious that the light from a distant galaxy is not in linear motion; otherwise we would be instantly blinded by the light. And if the light is not in linear motion our perception of Universe is equally blinded by our determination to maintain our existing assumptions.

So how big is the Universe and how old is it?

4

The Universe is a dynamic condition of space, time and motion which remains relative to our planet Earth, so the duration of Universe and the size of Universe cannot be determined on the basis of a linear assessment.

One can only photograph a distant galaxy in the context of the non-absolute present moment; consequently the subject of the photograph, which is a distant galaxy, must exist in the same non-absolute moment in which the photograph is taken.

This would indicate that the distance between the observer and the distant galaxy is not a linear expanse of space, which can be measured in terms of meters and or seconds, but corresponds to a differential in field frequency and or a differential in the dynamic (energy) potential remaining relative to the system of reference.

Therefore the lens of the Hubble has modulated the differential of the field remaining relative to its curvature, whereby the distant galaxy has been etched into the photographic medium by means of field frequency distortion corresponding to a potential of resistance associated with a differential in dynamic potential.

The only space existing between the Earth and the distant galaxy corresponds to a differential in dynamic potential and has nothing whatever to do with the linear speed of light, as the space itself is a condition of field which remains relative to the system of reference.

There are no light years or astronomical units per say, there is only a differential in dynamic potential, whereby the field of frequency accelerates in the direction of the Earth and isometrically decelerates into space.

The condition of space is determined by the underlying dynamics of field remaining relative to the system of reference. So as the relative differential in dynamic potential increases so does the Universe continue to expand.

Consequently, if the relative differential in dynamic potential were decreasing the Universe would continue to contract, but in this respect the factor of time would not be reversed, merely slowed toward the system of reference and isometrically accelerated into space.

5

From this we can conclude that the speed of light is a field condition, associated with every system of reference, whereby the speed of light is different for every system of reference and should be considered a relative variable remaining relative to the system of reference.

Our existing concept of light speed, as a constant, defies rational logic and limits our human potential to comprehend the nature of Universe.

For more information go to www.gravitycontrol.org

© 2005, David Barclay & Gravity Control. org

## 4 Comments:

Actually, 299.792.458 m/s is not exact, as it never will as long as you use a finite number of decimals. But you can say that 299.792.458.2 m/s is MORE exact than 299.792.458. 20 cm every second does make a difference.

Roland,

You seem to be missing the point of the exercise, as the speed of light is not exactly this fast or that slow, of course it isn't.

But modern science insists that it is exactly 299,792,458 meters per second.

You say it's possible to make it more exact........what does that mean.....more exact.

No matter how exact you would like to think it might be it is still an approximate value and can never be anything more than that, no matter how many decimal places you use.

The point being made is that light is simply a relative condition of field and does not conform to our linearized perception of space and time, as space is not linearly structured.

Okay, You got two points right.1. Light IS non-linear. It cannot be defined by 'distance' in the linear sense.

2. "

the distance between the observer and the distant galaxy is not a linear expanse of space, ...but corresponds to a differential in field frequency and or a differential in the dynamic (energy) potential remaining relative to the system of referenceWhat is interesting is a rewriting of E=mc2.

c2 is meant to be 'light squared'. When c2 becomes the subject of the equation, it equals Energy divided by matter. In mathematical terms, the speed of light is plus or minus the amount energy divided into the amount of matter related to the speed of light in question.

This would show a slight error in the theory of relativity: 'c' is not really the speed of light, but the degree that the matter becomes illuminated when inundated with energy. ie the more you crank up the juice, the brighter the bulb glows.

There really is no 'speed of light'.

Time itself is not linear. You go into space away from Earth and time goes quicker in relation to those on the ground.

Because velocity equals distance against time. It goes to show the speed of light is only valid on the Earths Surface.

All the geeky stuff I've read here is moot.

Post a Comment

<< Home