Is Science Mainly in the Dark About Light?

[Richard Aberdeen]

Modern scientists have discovered that light slows down about 40% when passing through a diamond. Because space itself is made of a "fabric" and is not completely void, the fabric of space itself may alter the speed of light. Light's speed may also be altered gravitationally when passing stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies (as compared to darker "void" areas of space) and, light may be slowing down or as more likely the case, speeding up as the universe itself expands.

It may be true that the speed of light is constant in a complete vacuum, but otherwise light's speed might be altered by whatever it passes near or through. Thus, current estimated star distances may be off, as well as the current estimate of 13.81 billion years for the age of the universe. The speed of light may not even be constant in a complete vacuum. Either way as the history of science clearly demonstrates, virtually all of modern science theory may be slightly off or way off the mark of what is actually correct, from a true universal and beyond (logos) perspective.

A scientist at Princeton University has proposed that so-called "universal laws" may not be universal; such laws, if they do exist, may be dependent on one's position in the universe and, may differ throughout the cosmos. Theoretically, this is because the twisting and bending of space/time itself differs depending on one's position in the universe. Many researchers today openly challenge any assumption of universal laws, including a top NASA scientist.

The distribution of matter throughout space isn't uniform and also, a planet nearer the center of a galaxy resides in a considerably more densely crowded region than a planet located closer to the edge. As such, the twisting of the fabric of space/time itself could theoretically vary significantly enough to alter one's perception of universal laws. Assuming of course, that there is any such thing as a "universal" law, which modern science has no way of verifying with any reasonable certainty.

Historically, scientists are want to invent concepts and reference points of convenience based on the current knowledge of their times, rather than learning from the past experience of earlier peers who have often been fundamentally wrong. So-called "dark energy" is a good example, as well as mainstream insistence prior to Edwin Hubble of there being only one Milky Way galaxy in a static eternal universe. And one of the worst examples being the Ptolemaic theory of an earth-centered solar system, which outlasted Darwinian theory by many centuries.

Some scientists today believe the universe is designed according to pi and the golden ratio, both irrational numbers. If true, then the speed of light may long remain an approximation, along with the rest of what human beings call "science". Assumptions of "dark energy" and "dark matter" are merely inventions propping up current theories, necessary for such theories to be accurate. This is not how what is called "science" is normally applied.

Various scientists suggest other reasons why the speed of light might not be constant, including the fact that measurements for light's speed taken several generations ago seem to be somewhat different than currently calculated as being today. It should also be noted that the speed of light as calculated remains an approximation, rather than an exact measurement (approximately 299,792,458 meters per second or 186,282.397 miles per second).

Some researchers have proposed the speed of light may have been much faster in the early universe and, that light slowed down over time as density increased. Yet another suggestion is that light might actually be speeding up as the rate of universal expansion increases. And of course, most students are familiar with modern claims that photons behave like both a particle and a wave. Essentially here in the 21st Century, one might conclude that science in many ways remains in the dark concerning the truth about light.

As some scientists have publicly stated, if the speed of light is not constant, there may be no such thing as "dark energy" and, all current theories of gravity, light, universal evolution and practically everything else may be a little off to way off the mark. Newton's theories conclusively demonstrate, that just because a theory seems to work well within our earth-bound experience, this does not prove that the theory is accurate from a larger perspective.

The Speed of Light May Not Be Constant
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/spe ... -after-all

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Richard Aberdeen in post #1]

If it is determined that modern science is incorrect about the speed of light, then such an outcome should be celebrated as a win for science because it has allowed us to identify and rule-out yet another false claim. This is how science functions to reliably advance our understanding.

Would you prefer unfalsifiable claims about light that cannot be tested for us to know when they are not true?

[Richard Aberdeen]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #2]

I think you miss the point of my article. Many people assume science knows a lot. According to many scientists themselves, scientists don't know hardly anything at all, compared to what they don't know and have yet to learn.

What humans call "science" often changes its mind. Today there is considerable debate among scientists among the most fundamental things, including gravity, light and water. James Web has essentially openly displayed to the world how inadequate modern "science" actually is. Web has left in its wake considerable doubt about modern theory of practically everything.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson more than once has publicly stated "science is what is true." This is an obvious lie, as his ridiculous claim of "totally unguided processes", as if anyone on earth could possibly know that. This statement is completely hypocritical, in light of the fact he also claims that science doesn't know how life came to be. If science doesn't know, this does not equal "totally unguided processes." Rather, it just means Darwinism can't explain the origin of life, which Darwin himself freely admitted.

What is true does not change; only human perception of what is true changes and, science changes with the winds of new evidence.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #2]

I think you miss the point of my article. Many people assume science knows a lot. According to many scientists themselves, scientists don't know hardly anything at all, compared to what they don't know and have yet to learn.

What humans call "science" often changes its mind. Today there is considerable debate among scientists among the most fundamental things, including gravity, light and water. James Web has essentially openly displayed to the world how inadequate modern "science" actually is. Web has left in its wake considerable doubt about modern theory of practically everything.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson more than once has publicly stated "science is what is true." This is an obvious lie, as his ridiculous claim of "totally unguided processes", as if anyone on earth could possibly know that. This statement is completely hypocritical, in light of the fact he also claims that science doesn't know how life came to be. If science doesn't know, this does not equal "totally unguided processes." Rather, it just means Darwinism can't explain the origin of life, which Darwin himself freely admitted.

What is true does not change; only human perception of what is true changes and, science changes with the winds of new evidence.

It seems that you have a problem with the way some few people communicate about science, but you want to hold the science itself accountable instead of those individuals. I've already explained to you how science actually functions, and nothing in your response disputes my explanation. So, I will presume you have no real objection to anything I've posted and are just interested in complaining about the way some few other scientists have communicated their ideas.

[The Barbarian]

This issue about the speed of light (which has long known to be affected by travel though substances) is that if it was significantly faster in the past, the increased rate of radioactive decay (which is tied to the speed of light) would have been so much greater as to be lethal to life on Earth.

[Richard Aberdeen]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #4]

What you explained is how science is supposed to function. Many actual scientists are biased and some extremely biased, especially regarding Neo Darwinism, which is very much in error based on the modern known evidence. For example, there is zero evidence that the precise detailed information required for life ever has, ever will, or ever could randomly evolve. Every experiment conducted to prove that information evolved by chance, has spectacularly failed and proven the opposite, that even a short language sentence or short strand of computer code, will not ever randomly exist unto itself, given even an infinite amount of time. Information requires Intelligence, based on ALL the modern evidence.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #2]

I think you miss the point of my article. Many people assume science knows a lot. According to many scientists themselves, scientists don't know hardly anything at all, compared to what they don't know and have yet to learn.

Then these people need to be corrected because science is a method. This method that we call science doesn't know things.

With that out of the way, can you think of a better method for arriving at truths then the method we call science? If you can, we should all know about it. If you can't, then you are just complaining that our best method isn't good enough for you.

[Clownboat]

What you explained is how science is supposed to function. Many actual scientists are biased and some extremely biased

This is what makes the scientific method so great. A person can be biased, but if they are doing the method we call science correctly, the bias is accounted for.

especially regarding Neo Darwinism, which is very much in error based on the modern known evidence. For example, there is zero evidence that the precise detailed information required for life ever has, ever will, or ever could randomly evolve.

I find this complaint very odd. You complain about Neo Darwinism, but then fail to talk about Neo Darwinism and instead complain about abiogenesis.
The populations of animals change over time is evolution and is factual. How life first began on this planet is abiogenesis and is currently unknown. Perhaps you are not the best person to offer a critique about the scientific method?

Every experiment conducted to prove that information evolved by chance, has spectacularly failed and proven the opposite, that even a short language sentence or short strand of computer code, will not ever randomly exist unto itself, given even an infinite amount of time. Information requires Intelligence, based on ALL the modern evidence.

This doesn't seem to be the case.
Information does not strictly require intelligence to exist. Intelligence is required to interpret, organize, and give meaning to it though.
Processes such as tree rings, the atomic composition of stars, or random thermal noise have physical information without needing an intelligent creator.

Do you now understand what makes the scientific method the best method we currently have or can you argue for a better method?
Do you now understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis?
Do you now understand that information doesn't require intelligence?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #4]

What you explained is how science is supposed to function.

What I explained is how science consistently functions. Your reference to the way that a couple of popular communicators have described their understanding of a scientific topic in colloquial terms does not demonstrate an error in the science itself.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #4]
Many actual scientists are biased and some extremely biased, especially regarding Neo Darwinism, which is very much in error based on the modern known evidence.

The Theory of Evolution and all its underlying scientific claims are falsifiable. As was previously explained, by rigorously attempting to falsify those hypotheses, scientists are able to mitigate for the possibility of bias. So, your concern about bias was already accounted for and resolved by the scientific method's falsifiability requirement.

Does your method for evaluating claims have a falsifiability requirement, or would you prefer the proposed hypotheses be unfalsifiable?

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #4]
For example, there is zero evidence that the precise detailed information required for life ever has, ever will, or ever could randomly evolve. Every experiment conducted to prove that information evolved by chance, has spectacularly failed and proven the opposite, that even a short language sentence or short strand of computer code, will not ever randomly exist unto itself, given even an infinite amount of time. Information requires Intelligence, based on ALL the modern evidence.

I'm unaware of a scientific hypothesis claiming that the precise detailed information required for life had randomly evolved by chance. Please reference a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal article that features such a hypothesis. Also, to amplify and repeat Clownboat's point, your objection quoted above is not against neo Darwinism but the speculative idea of abiogenesis.

Furthermore, as was previously explained, a scientific experiment is not designed to "prove" a hypothesis is true but to try and produce the evidence the scientist's would expect to find if the proposed claim is false. Again, I realize some science communicators tend to describe that process as an attempt to "prove" a hypothesis is true, but this is just an unfortunate use of colloquial language that often unintentionally facilitates a misunderstanding about how science actually functions.