It is commonly accepted that light moves at an approximate speed of 186,282 miles (299,792 kilometers) per second, and this constancy has played no small role in our understanding of natural physics. In one of the most famous equation in the history of science, E = mc2, Einstein proposed in his Theory of Special Relativity that c is the maximum speed at which all matter and information can travel in this universe, and it is the absolute speed at which all massless particles can move within a vacuum. It is, for all intents and purposes, the constant cosmic speed limit. What we must consider however is whether or not this has always been the case.

In spite of the mainstream assertions that light has remained unchanged since the beginning, there have been several notable researchers who have suggested that the constancy of light speed may not in fact be as stable as the community at large would have us believe. Such research can be found in the work of the physicist Barry Setterfield and the mathematician Trevor Norman, who, after analyzing several hundred years worth of experimental measurements regarding the speed of light, declared that that long-reigning cosmic constant may in fact be slowing down! 1

Could it be that the information Setterfield and Norman based their work on was inherently faulty from the start, with newer measurements being more accurate due to refined collection techniques? Skeptics, and there are many, have made such claims, yet the fact of the matter is that, though individual measurements over those years may have been limited in their ability to acquire precision data, the averages of those measurements seem to suggest a dynamic flow when examined. That realization fosters even more intrigue when considering the work of the mathematician Alan Montgomery, who concluded that, given the rate at which the velocity of light appears to be decaying, a statistical model could be produced which effectively plots the speed of light as it was formerly.

The results of that curved model suggested that light may have traveled as much as 30% faster at the time of Christ, some 2,000 years ago, twice as fast a thousand years prior in the time of King Solomon, and as much as four times as fast around 3,000 BC. Continuing to plot the curve even further back, extrapolation of the data suggests that prior to 3,000 BC light moved some 10 million times faster than it does today! 2 If true then light from even the furthest reaches of space could have reached us then in no time!

Now, a word of warning: as we continue on, the familiar and comfortable will rapidly fall away, and in doing so it quickly becomes abundantly obvious that reality plays differently out there amongst the stars, with physics and the laws of nature working on such a scale as to reveal intricacies of their functions that never rightly come into play here on the surface of our little planet. That said, take heart as we touch on a few issues, and take caution not to dismiss the miraculous simply because it seems too foreign to trust…

First, identifying the speed of light may not be as simple a prospect as we expect. As Einstein suggested, the speed of light as we know it may only be so due to our perception of it, and that there may in fact be alternative ways of measuring its speed which yield far different results than what we would expect. A typical analogy involves the connection between inches and centimeters, as though both are used to measure distance, and do so accurately, they are in fact solely human conceptions that have no actual bearing on the real world. As such, light may travel at different speeds depending on the direction which one measures it. Thus, the vast distances which light must travel across the universe to reach us could conceivably be a non-issue. 3

An alternate consideration concerning the speed of light involves the path that it may take on its journey across vast distances. The universe may possess a shape that lies technically beyond what we can observe with our senses, and may even exist beyond what we can accurately judge with our most sensitive equipment.

The whole matter, essentially a metaphysical suggestion, is one of dimensional insight and spatial geometry, with the traditional, straight-line perception (Euclidean) of the universe standing in contrast with an alternate, curved geometry. The curved variation has been proposed in several forms, including that of a positively-curved spherical (or elliptic) geometry and conversely that of a negatively-curved hyperbolic geometry, and each form, including that of a flat, Euclidean geometry, have been postulated in variations that are unbounded (infinite in size) and bounded (finite in size).

In regard to the matter at hand, we are considering the implications of a bounded hyperbolic (Riemannian) universe, negatively curved and of finite dimensions. While the particulars of the matter are far too complex to relate here in any detail, in summary it should be noted that, based on the observations of over two dozen binary star systems, some have suggested that light may in fact travel along curved Riemannian paths through deep space. 4 The implications of such a thing, if real, would mean much for the speed of light.

How exactly the transmission of light across Riemannian curves affects its speed comes down to a mathematical formula: S=2R tan-1(r/2R). As intimidating as that equation appears to the unfamiliar eye, the point is that a ratio exists between a given distance in Euclidean space and the radius of the curvature of Riemannian space, and if accurately applied, the equation indicates that light travels dramatically faster around the curved space, with ever faster speeds being generated the further the distance traveled. As such, shorter distances would hardly register as any different than those of traditional Euclidean distances, yet, as an effect of this ratio, a distance anchored far within the realm of infinity would reach us on our humble planet in less than sixteen years!

Traditional Euclidean Distances (in light years) vs. Riemannian Distances (in true years)

1 = .997 years

4 = 3.81 years

30 = 12.5 years

100 = 14.7 years

1,000 = 15.6 years

10,000 = 15.7 years

Infinity = 15.71 years

Is this line of thought trustworthy? Can we put any more faith into it than the theoretical models supplied by an enthusiastic and persistent mainstream? For the time nothing is certain, but newer data has indicated that such a curvature in the shape of space may not be as its supporters expect. Whatever the true nature of that matter, there are in fact an abundance of localized curvatures which very few dispute, and their presence too is well worth a mention here.

– This was an excerpt from “*Remnants of Eden: Evolution, Deep-Time, & the Antediluvian World*.” Get your copy here today. God bless! –

**References:**

- Missler, Chuck, “More Turmoil in Physics: Is Light Slowing Down?,” March 1995, Koinonia House, Inc, http://www.khouse.org/articles/1995/58/, retrieved September 20th, 2015
- Ibid
- Lisle, J., “Distant Starlight: The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention,” Answers Magazine, posted on answersingenesis.org May 25, 2011, accessed March 12, 2015
- Slusher, Harold S., “Travelling of Light in Space,” Age of the Cosmos (San Diego: ICR, 1980), pp 25-37

Subscribe to the blog here at WordPress, like us on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter at @FOUNDRY_4

*FOUNDRY4 is a proud member of the International Association for Creation*