• wholookshere@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    So you assume the speed of light is the same between references frames. There not. It’s always the same. The definition of a second changes such that the speed of light is always the same.

    That’s relativity.

    • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Yes, relatively means that light appears to move at c in every inertial reference frame. That doesn’t change how we measure distance in a single reference frame.

      How can a metre bar be measured as a metre when it’s one unit and two units long? We’re measuring the bar in it’s own reference frame each time, so relatively causes no change. Either c increased, or time slowed down to match the expansion of space. Either way, light doesn’t get redshifted by expansion.

      Help me understand, how does light appear to change speed over time in the same reference frame? How do we see a change of distance affect light between galaxies, but not between atoms?

      • wholookshere@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        The reason the speed of light doesn change is because rthe universe bends the rules of time to make it the same. So as the universe expands, the speed of light stays the same because the definition of time changes.

        Like I said. The expansion of the universe isn’t space expanding, it’s the definition of distance that’s expanding. Yes time is being fucked with as part of the expansion. But the universe doesn’t hold distance or time as constant frames to compare to. As speed is only calculated with a frame of reference. Where distance is a little more fundamental to the universe.

        Because the scale is so so much less. Like 73 km/s/Mpc.

        So the rate of something to the scale of 10^-9m, would be somewhere in the order of 10^-25m/s. Which is much much smaller than anything with the attoms itself.

        But the distance is always the same. A meter is still a meter in all points of time. But it’s still bigger.

        • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          And yet you said that a metre bar would be larger yet measure the same. If all the aspects of the universe are expanding in lockstep such that any distance appears constant, then redshift caused by expansion is impossible.

          If the increasing distance between atoms is unmeasurable, then so too must be the increasing distance between galaxies be undetectable.

          LIGO can detect changes of distance on the order of 10⁻²¹, and it should be increasing in effective length by 2×10⁻¹²m/s, yet I don’t see any mention of any large interferometer measuring anything but gravitational waves, and I don’t see any large time-dependent components of LIGOs systemic error data.

          We also can measure the increasing distance of galaxies via redshift, so unless you can explain how light from galaxies is different from the light in a large interferometer, I must conclude that the interferometers aren’t expanding at the same rate as the observed expansion of the universe.

          We aren’t expanding like the universe is expanding.