W.I.R.D.A.R.D. Principle

The W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle stands for, When In Rome, Do As (the) Romans Do. The principle refers to the seemingly casual ease with which light re-adapts it's speed to whatever media it happens to be travelling through.

When light travels through water, it travels at the speed of light in water; conveniently adapted for the local temperature, salinity, and density. When light travels through air, light conveniently adapts to whatever mix of gasses and whatever temperature and pressure light would normally travel in that instance.

Since light is so easily adaptable, the C-R theory speculates that light will easily adapt to any new medium, regardless of past speed memory (if any existed.) In the famous Michelson-Morely experiment, which was reputed to have been the experimental verification or vindication of the theory of relativity, lightspeed was carefully measured by an interferometer.

This interferometer was positioned so that it could be rotated in a full circle. The device was rotated as a candle flame was observed. The experimenters expected the candle flame's appearance to change as the device was rotated. This appearance change was expected because the experimenters assumed there was an ether, or a medium to carry the light.

Because the earth travels around the sun, Michaelson and Morely expected that this speed difference would show-up in the ether, and produce a measurable confirmation of it's existence. Unfortunately, for their part, the ether refused to cooperate and exist. The failure of the experiment to detect any difference in lightspeed in any direction, at any time of the year, night or day caused complete consternation in the world of physics.

The arms of the interferometer were at right angles to each other, and should have picked up the slightest light-speed difference, if any had existed. Experimentally, Michaelson and Morely had shown there was no difference in lightspeeds.

From this, light was interpreted to travel at only one speed in a vacuum, regardless of local motion of the observer. One interesting thing to notice: The candle itself was not moving with respect to any portion of the interferometer. Only the motion of the earth through the supposed ether would have shown-up.

The C-R theory theorizes that the lightspeed of light emitted from distant objects may well be slowed down to whatever fraction of lightspeed the object indicates. For instance, if we have an object redshifted to only 10% of it's original time-speed (or 90% redshifted), then the object's light may only reach us travelling at 10% of lightspeed velocity.

Before the rubber jackets are brought out, and before you (our reader) remind me that, O.K., silly, everybody knows that light can only travel at lightspeed, allow a simple explanation. Legitimately, the skeptical reader will ask: if this, indeed is the case, why hasn't anyone ever measured light at any speed but lightspeed. Simple: use the C-R theory answer, the W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle.

The W.I.R.D.A.R.D. hypothesis:

In every experiment (so far) ever performed upon light, light easily (and instantly?) adapts it's speed to whatever media it happens to be travelling through. When light travels through the glass of an aquarium, it adapts amicably to a characteristic speed for light through that type of glass. Upon entering the water, light again loses it's previous identity, and adapts to lightspeed for water, with compensations for temperature, salinity, depth, and pressure.

Upon entering any solid and transparent object (such as glass), we would expect light to re-acquire it's characteristic speed for that material. Upon exiting the glass, and returning to either air or a vacuum, this light (having a terrible memory) forgets that it ever went slow! We would expect this light to re-acquire it's characteristic speed for air, never remembering any lesser speed in a vacuum.

Assume this instant adaptability (suggestibility) of light is the correct explanation. Note well: the observed facts fit the adaptability assumption like a glove. In most instances, relativity and the C-R theory would yield the same observational experimental data when measuring lightspeeds, with entirely different causes behind each. We should notice that, as long as light passes either through glass, or is reflected off of some non-moving material with respect to us (the observer), we always would expect to measure the speed of light as EXACTLY ="c".

This re-normalization of lightspeed to exactly "c" happens entirely due to the co-incidence of light passing through some fixed, non-moving object with respect to us (as observers). C-R would expect that this re-normalization to "c" should take place even if the "c" entering the solid, fixed object was slowed-down to 10% of real lightspeed. Those "dumb" old photons, even after travelling halfway across the universe at a speed of 10% of lightspeed, would forget how fast (slow?) they really travelled, and resume "our lightspeed" as if they had travelled that speed since they were created.

The C-R vs. Relativity Challenge: Which will win?

This renormalization (to "c") of light-speed hypothesis from the C-R "W.I.R.D.A.R.D." suggests a simple (proverbially speaking) experiment.

We would need access to the near-perfect vacuum of outer space. We could chop-up light using a toothed or slotted disk, to create packets of light. We would use light from a very distant, substantially red-shifted source. By performing the experiment in a nearly total vacuum, before the light was renormalized, we might be able to successfully measure a lesser speed for light.

For control purposes, we would rotate a half disc of plexiglass or glass in between the source and the chopping disk. If the C-R hypothesis is correct, when the plexiglass would serve as the control. Only during this glass-pass, re-normalized half of the time, would we expect to measure light at exactly "c".

Mandatory conclusion of this experiment:

If any velocity for light other than strictly "c" was measured (in a vacuum), we would have to set aside the theory of relativity as partially incorrect in at least one area.

Notice: The C-R theory outlook overall does not hinge on this outcome or this assumption, but a finding in the affirmative would be regarded as a definite plus.