A Rational Cosmology: Why There is No Inherent Limit to Motion in the Universe

We have previously refuted Einstein's mistake in asserting that no absolute motion could exist aside from the "motion" of light, to which every other motion is relative For the second Einsteinian fallacy, that nothing can "travel" faster than light, a logical refutation will, again, suffice.

It has been shown that light does not "travel." Light and motion are quite distinct phenomena, each independent of the other. Thus, the fact that the relationship of light exhibits a fixed nature in specific media, as it logically should, has absolutely no bearing on what motion may or may not occur on behalf of entities.

Just as time is independent of mass, so is motion independent of light. The fact that an entity weighs two kilograms does not limit how long it can exist. Neither does the fact that an entity can emit light to affect a target entity 3*10⁸ meters away from it in one second at least exclude that entity, or any other entity in the universe, from moving at rates as large as their natures allow.

It ought to be recalled that the universe has no inherent qualities or relationships qua universe. Thus, it also cannot have "built-in limitations" on the behaviors of entities, except as ordained by the particular natures of the entities involved.

An entity's mass, volume, or spatial expanse can conceivably limit how fast it can travel. Every entity in existence has limitations on its motion, defined by the constituent qualities of that entity and the medium through which it travels. However, there can be no limitations on how fast anything can move aside from that thing's own capacities and surroundings.

Thus far, all the entities observed in the universe have not been able to reach rates of motion anywhere near the alleged "speed of light," because their natures restrict them to this extent. Not even human technology has yet produced entities capable of attaining velocities a small fraction of 3*10⁸ meters per second.

Therefore, Einstein's suggestion seems outwardly plausible, because it has not yet been empirically disproved. But such a support for it is specious, since, simply because an idea has not been empirically demonstrated false, does not imply that it has been proved conclusively.

Indeed, the day on which man designed the first machine to exceed the alleged "speed of light" would be a glorious day that would conclusively refute Einstein's view on this issue. Whether or not this will happen is an open question. Here, we can only conclude that it is not impossible for such a machine to be invented.

Read other parts of "A Rational Cosmology" by clicking here.