0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Which doesn't imply a variation in c.
If we insist that speed of light in vacuum is constant while also accepting that space is stretching, it implies that we also need to stretch the time by the same amount. So far, I haven't found any source for the latter.
If we insist that speed of light in vacuum is constant while also accepting that space is stretching
As such, it will take ever-so-slightly longer than one second for light to travel that distance because it can only travel 299,792,458 meters in one second.
It takes light one second to travel 299,792,458 meters. Of course, over the course of one second, a portion of space of that distance will expand to be ever-so-slightly longer than 299,792,458 meters. As such, it will take ever-so-slightly longer than one second for light to travel that distance because it can only travel 299,792,458 meters in one second.
That doesn't follow. It takes light one second to travel 299,792,458 meters. Of course, over the course of one second, a portion of space of that distance will expand to be ever-so-slightly longer than 299,792,458 meters. As such, it will take ever-so-slightly longer than one second for light to travel that distance because it can only travel 299,792,458 meters in one second.
and a meter is defined as the distance that light travels in one somethingth of a second
because only when light is right next to an observer can he measure its speed? which will then be c.
I think I can compress ES's post to a short line.