Maybe I should say Light & Einstein as that is who Sagan is referencing and his theory of relativity. But before I get to the quote to be discussed, allow me to preface my remarks with the following fact. The majority of theoretical physics is based upon an event that never took place. Its calculations, its supposed laws and so on are all figured to adhere to an origin by random events.
Then I have a difficulty accepting the term ‘natural law’ as it implies that galaxies, planets, etc., have the ability to make a choice to violate those rules that govern their behavior.They don’t obviously, so we probably need to describe what we observe in a different light as God established everything and set their patterns according to how he wanted them to work. I decided to split the passage i am addressing into parts for better clarity
#1. Light (reflected or emitted) from an object travels at the same velocity whether the object is moving or stationary: Thous shalt not add thy speed to the speed of light. (pg. 214)
I tend to disagree with this sentiment because in reality, we cannot measure the speed of light from natural sources. By natural sources I mean the sun, stars, etc., because they have emitted a constant light since creation. With no breaks, it is impossible to measure how fast natural light travels. I also disagree with it because the first question that comes to mind is- why not?
What makes light so special that you cannot add more speed to it? it doesn’t have an engine that will blow out nor any other natural fallibility that would breakdown so why can’t light go faster than the scientists have claimed? For me I think it is possible for light to travel faster than secularists say simply because there is nothing stopping light or anything from adding more velocity to its speed. if there is who capped it and how do they have the authority to do so?
Now I am not being a crank here, I am just questioning Einstein’s and others conclusions on light. Something I am allowed to do. And you can’t through the experiment argument after me for all those experiments tell me is that human man has been incapable of inventing or discovering a mechanism that can add speed to light’s movement.
#2. Also, no material object may move faster than light.: Thou shalt not travel at or beyond the speed of light. (pg. 214)
Who says and who died and made them the boss of travel speed? Just because humans have not invented any material objects that cannot travel faster than the speed of light doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist or can’t be invented. This restrictive thinking seems at odds with the original purpose of science. But then why would we need any material object to travel faster than the speed of light? (I can hear the men escaping their nagging wife jokes now)
Humans really do not have the final say in this issue.
#3. Nothing in physics prevents you from traveling as close to the speed of light as you like; 99.9 percent of the speed of light would be just fine. But no matter how hard you try, you can never gain that last decimal point. (pg. 214)
Who says physics has the last word on this topic? There is also nothing in physics which stops you from surpassing the speed of light. It is not the policemen of space travel. Science is so full of itself that it thinks it is the only authority or employment field with the final say on any matter. It isn’t but they like to think they are. Science really has no say in what man can or cannot do, it is a mere tool to help the human to achieve his goal.
#4. For the world to be logically consistent, there must be a speed limit. (pg.214-5)
Why? I am sure Sagan meant to say the word ‘cap’ for the word ‘limit’ implies that it is possible to go faster than the posted speed. The word ‘cap’ implies there is no possibility of going faster. As i told my students, terminology is very important when communicating ideas to others. Then we need to ask ‘why must there be a speed limit?’ Why should we not be able to travel faster than the speed of light if we want to? Higher speeds do NOT make the world to be logically inconsistent.
But of course scientists have this track record of being overly cautious. When the first cars were invented, they thought that terrible things would take place if the vehicle moved faster than 5 m.p.h. There is nothing wrong with objects flying faster than the speed of light, it just means that the artificial scientific limit is in error and unrealistic.
And again, we need to ask who died and left scientists in charge of the universe and its speed?
#5. Otherwise, you could get to any speed you wanted by adding velocities on a moving platform? (pg. 215)
So? What is wrong with that? We do it all the time with cars, trucks, boats, planes and even rocket ships. What do scientists think will happen if someone goes faster than the speed of light? Obviously we cannot know that for no one has invented any object that can do it but should we let the fears of scientists stop our progress?
This whole idea that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light has no real foundation. It is an argument based upon silence or the human lack of ability not something that can be demonstrated. This is the thing though. A group of people have self-appointed themselves as final arbitrators of what can or cannot be done yet possess no real authority that permits them to place these restrictions upon others.
Because most of secular science, not just physics, works from the foundation of a non-existent event, that field cannot produce accurate estimations of what can or cannot be done. It is all secular human thinking, something the secular science uses as a reason to reject the Bible. Their ideas, theories and so on, are as unverifiable as they claim a supernatural God and creation are but for them it is worse because their thinking is not based in the truth or from actual fact.
Stephen Hawkins has been working on a theory that if complete would mean that God is not necessary but his problem is, the theory is not enough to prove that God did not exist or create. He can point to any particle or sub-particle that he wants and give it any number of duties and qualities he desires but that act would not verify any theory he applies that creation too. Why? Because not one of the particles and sub-particles identified today were captured doing the humanly assigned duties credited to them.
No one has even recorded one item in the universe doing what they have claimed it has done in the past. I.E. no one has observed and recorded gravity pulling rocks together and creating a planet or star, then placing it into a very sophisticated and orderly orbit around another heavenly body. In other words, they can never verify their ideas and they demand physical evidence before they will accept supernatural alternatives.
They do not have any physical evidence to prove their theories thus they cannot reject Genesis 1 on that basis. Genesis one is probably as scientific as their secular alternatives because of this lack of physical evidence supporting those different theories.
Over the years, I have begun to consider that Einstein was very wrong in his thinking, just like I consider Hawkins and others to be wrong. it goes back to the foundation of their work. They are not building upon a true event but one conjured up by someone’s over-active imagination.
When we hear scientific experts pontificate on matters pertaining to the universe or origins we need to keep this fact in mind. What foundation are they building upon? The truth or a false event? If it isn’t the truth, and evolution and the big bang are fictitious events, then dismiss what they say and go make your own calculations, do your own research based upon the truth, the Bible for you will get better results.