I read Discover, Popular Science and Scientific American regularly, and two articles from two of those magazines (I forgot where they came from, which is going to make this statement harder to sound convincing)
One article described MOND: MOdified Newtonian Dynamics, which (I remember as having been) stated (as) that Newton’s Second Law (F = MA) might not work for very small accelerations, like 10^-6 M/s/s (galactic spin)(might be ^-16, can’t remember, but it was very small), which would fix all this ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ talk that’s going on. They had a curve that showed MOND vs Law #2 and the like. The interesting part was that they said that if an object at the time of the big bang that had an acceleration of this amount, by modern times it would have attained the speed of light.
Now here’s where it gets interesting: the other article in the other magazine was talking about the new Variable Speed of Light theory that said…
Crud. I forgot. I knew I should have written this down sooner.
…I believe that it said the speed of light was slower earlier in time, but I forget what they were explaining in the article. I believe it had something to do with reletivity and extrasolar travel.
In any case, at the time I came up with my theory combining them- I’m not sure how to phrase this, so bear with me. Perhaps the statement “an object at the time of the big bang that had an acceleration of this amount, by ______ time it would have attained the speed of light” is always true. Because I can’t remember the exact values, call the acceleration X. After, say, one second, the speed of light was X m/s, and after 5 seconds it would be 5X m/s. This would mean that the speed of light is speeding up very, very slowly.
If anyone could find the origional articles I’m refering to, I’m sure they would help my case (or destroy it, depending on my memory). I beileve MOND came from Discover and VSL came from PopSci.
Any takers? Think I’m insane? I’m not sure anymore.
Unrelated: I’m no scientist, but Dark Matter seems like a silly idea to me. Simpler is better: (a) 80% or our universe is invisable and undectable, or (b) our physics formulas are wrong? Sure they work when throwing things or pushing people out of buildings, but on the galactic scale MOND just makes more sence. To me, anyway.