Is the Speed of Light, SoL, subject to entropy? If not, why should it be an exception? The value for the SoL was arbitrarily fixed despite differing measurements over time. Actually, it was fixed because of those differing measurements. Why was it fixed? Was it because the prevalent view of physics (a set of theories/models) required it to be fixed? The meter was defined against the speed of light[i]. The speed of light was defined against the length of a meter[ii] and the duration of a second[iii]. The definition of a second is dependent on the SoL being a constant. Is this process scientific? Was this done in the interest of science and in accordance with the scientific method?

Observations indicate the SoL has decreased over the last few hundred years since its value was first measured. Despite the crudeness of early measurements, the statistical view of the various measurements indicates a SoL that is slowing. The trend of the various measurements and the questions above warrant scientific investigation.

This graph shows some of the prominent measurements in km/s against date. The vertical lines show possible error in measurement. No matter how this data is presented, any trend line will show the SoL decreasing.

Despite the need for investigation – no public investigation exists and none is planned. Rupert Sheldrake[iv], as stated in his TED[v] banned video[vi], did look into this and found significant discrepancies in the various measurements of the SoL. Chief among these discrepancies was a sudden drop in the SoL of 20km/s from 1928 to 1948 at which time it recovered to generally the values we see today. Sheldrake took his questions to the head of Metrology[vii] at the National Physical Laboratory, NPL, in Teddington, Middlesex, UK. Sheldrake was told that he stumbled upon the most embarrassing episode in the history of Metrology. Sheldrake asked if scientists were, then and now, fudging the numbers to obtain consistency. It was decided that the term ‘intellectual phase-locking’ was preferred over ‘fudging’.

Sheldrake states there are problems with other ‘constants’ as well; g for example. Here is the answer to the question of why these discrepancies are not investigated; anyone who raises the issue is attacked and discredited. Rupert Sheldrake and Dr. Barry Setterfield are examples.

Some, Dr. Barry Setterfield[viii] et al, have looked at the SoL values and have observed that the curve is currently asymptotic and may be similar to the function cosecant squared. This is a gross simplification of his scholarly work and his work merits study[ix]. These observations should be simple enough to check out since we can measure the SoL more and more accurately virtually every day.

There is yet another physical observation that should make us want to investigate our assumptions concerning the SoL. The debris of the ‘big bang’ is accelerating away from us. This should be impossible – remember when we were told that the universe will eventually collapse back onto itself due to gravity? The 2^nd derivative of the edge of the universe is positive – it is moving away from us at an ever-increasing speed – the universe will never collapse back on itself, which defies gravity. This fact turned our view of the universe upside down, and scientists are scrambling for answers as long as they do not have to address their decision to make the SoL a universal constant.

Here is what we know:

· The edge of the universe is apparently (and unexplainably) accelerating away from us.

· The universe edge appears to be about 13,800,000,000 ‘light years’ away.

· At virtually any value of acceleration, the universe edge has exceeded the speed of light many times over. For example, using the figure for g (the acceleration of gravity ‘here’) and assuming the SoL is constant, the speed of light is exceeded in just under one year.

Questions:

· What is the current value of the universe edge acceleration? It can be measured so why is the value so hard to find? For example, find the value on Google.

· What is causing this red-shift; we assume it is acceleration but could there be another reason?

· Is the acceleration of the edge of the universe changing, (is there a 3^rd derivative or jerk[x])?

· Is there a common ubiquitous force throughout the universe that causes this acceleration or is it a yet to be discovered particle or particle property waiting in some antechamber for us to discover? Observations in the variation of g support an affirmative answer to this question and demand a theory.

· Does dark energy/matter exist or is it just 21^st century Phlogiston?

· What is Relativity really? For that matter, what is gravity really?

· If we can not independently define length and time then how can we assume we are correct in setting interdependent values?

· Science has made assumptions? Should these assumptions be questioned? The scientific method says ‘Yes’.

· Is the apparent slowing of the SoL quantized? 1928 to 1948 measurements might support this supposition.

· If we measure distance and time in ‘light years’ and the SoL is not a physical constant, and its change per unit of time is not constant, then what does that do to our measurements and assumptions?

These are valid questions that demand investigation. If science were scientific then scientists would be all over these questions with an open mind; they are not. Scientists are, for the most part, developing theories and explanations that support their prior assumptions without regard for scientific fact. Scientists who would question the speed of light and its ramifications are labeled and ostracized. Science has returned to a new ‘Dark Age’. These ‘Dark Age’ scientists, most scientists who publish today, are ‘science deniers’. What or Who are they afraid of . . . and who drives them away from science?