Re:Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dar...
by mdturnerphys on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @01:12AM
(#21977405)
I asked Ann Nelson (look her up) this when I audited her cosmology class in grad school, thinking I'd come up with a great new idea. She said yes, it's equivalent to the speed of light changing, and then moved on.
Re:Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dar...
by simonh on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @01:12AM
(#21977406)
Bear in mind that time is not universal. For the speed of light to change over time, it would change at different rates for observers in different reference frames, and this difference would be measurable.
As to the previous question about relative size. If the universe doubled in size, the objects within it such as atoms don’t also double in size. Gravity and the atomic forces don’t change, so eg the size of stable electron orbits or planetary orbits don’t double in size.
Re:Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dar...
by bananabreakfast on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @12:53PM
(#21982494)
Not exactly. Remember, we're not timing the light's transit. We're observing a redshift of it's frequency which could not be caused by c simply decreasing over time.
Re:Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dar...
by pedrosorio on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @02:16AM
(#21977754)
Relativity probably doesn’t work this way at all, but if light did actually slow down, would it be perceived by us as light moving at the same speed across a greater distance?