So, for a long time I have suspected the big bang not to have happened. I have many reasons for this but of course the one that really stands out is a universe appearing from nothing out of no where.
I believe the universe to be infinite and whilst Hubble and his red-shift theories suggest an explosion, I have my doubts as that actually having happened.
So what aroused my suspicions. The first was a fairly incoherent TED talk by a hippy wearing no shoes and much of what he said was stupid. But he said one thing that made me check ... the speed of light is not constant.
I mean, I had to check. its c, right? Its a constant. 299,792,457m/s
Now, further investigation says other eminent scientists have had the same suspicion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_lightand
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html#.VIX133lybcsIt seems the speed of light has been gradually slowing down.
Recorded measurements show it slowed quite a bit between 1928 and 1945 and then recovered before gradually declining again.
http://www.magicdave.com/ron/Does%20the%20Speed%20of%20Light%20Slow%20Down%20Over%20Time.html(Yes the factor of error is outside of explanation for a constant).
Now back to the hippy. He suggested there are no laws of the universe. Merely habits. The universe tended towards habits but did not have fixed rules. Big G is another constant but does that move? In fact how can any of these things be constant?
Scientists have used the dogma of the speed of light being a constant for so long now, I suspect its ruining future discovery. In 1976 they fixed the metre to the speed of light ... and since then the speed of light has become fixed ... because the bloody metre changes instead. It has stopped our ability to measure light's speed. And of course we have m/s. And time isn't fixed either. That changes with relativity and gravity and all kinds of things.
So, Thork's hypothesis.
First, I think the speed of light is slowing down, because time is speeding up and a photon has to travel further in the same space of time to remain constant. It would make sense to me that time is a function of the size of the universe and as the universe expands, time alters itself. Its already sensitive to gravity and relativity. As the universe gets bigger time has to alter. For a start, the universe becomes less dense. And this helps bend all the other constants too.
Now if I extrapolate back time slows and slows and slows until it is at zero. ergo the universe never did bang, it has always been there. The further you go back, the longer you have to wait to go back more. The age of the universe is infinite. And going forward if you could go a trillion years into the future time would be so fast that you'd have to say linearly the universe was only a second old. Further forward, the universe came and went in the blink of an eye. All things are relative so it must not be treated linearly ... the universe must have always been. And it didn't take 380,000 years for the first stars. That's linear time. It likely took longer than all the time since.
Dark energy cannot be explained at the moment. But what if that is the propagation of this information at light speed through the universe. A kind of communicative friction changing the numbers and causing the effects we observe? All down to expansion stretching the universe's parameters. And that physics at the centre of the universe is different to the edges? That time is slower near the centre than the edges as it takes so long to communicate those new parameters back to the centre being as they can only do this at light speed. So measuring Doppler shift etc to gauge the universe is pointless and you can't know how much time and light speed varies between two points.
In short, I stumbled across an interesting fact ... light speed changes and I wondered how that might change things. What are your thoughts?