Stephen Hawking wrote a book called "A Brief History in Time." You probably are more familiar with him as the smart guy in the wheelchair who uses computers to talk.
The whole book is based on 2 key premises. That there is nothing faster than the speed of light and the speed of light is a constant. I am not claiming to be on his level. I didn't even understand half the book...(the half after he summed up Einstein and co). He is a genius, and should be treated as such.
But I think his whole argument is wrong. If one premise is wrong, the argument is wrong. How can he say nothing is faster than the speed of light?
- How about darkness? Darkness has to be at least as fast as the speed of light.
- How about anything we don't know about yet. How can he base his whole argument on a premise that contains the word "nothing"? Extreme words in a premise are begging to be wrong.
- Light is a wave. Anyone familiar with an osciliscope or car/home audio knows that waves lose their power over distance. Hawking/Einstein claimed that the speed of light was a constant...how can it be a constant if it loses its speed? (think this is too easy to be true...create your own wave by throwing a penny in a pond...notice that the ripples are less the further away you go). Thus the speed of light is not even as fast as the speed of light. If this simple observation is correct than I have just proved Einstein's theory of Relativity wrong (E=MC^2)
So what's the point? The point is be skeptical. Just becausewe are taught it doesn't make it so. Just because its in print, doesn't make it so.