Re^2: [OT] A prediction.

Given A and B are at a fixed distance, then if the light coming from A arrives at B sooner today than it did yesterday (which it would because it's traveling faster), then A will seem closer to B than it did yesterday.

Ignoring that the ratio between one day and 13 billion years is such that we wouldn't be able to detect the difference on human life scales, even if we had some means of calibrating the measurement; what is a "fixed distance"? Given, as you said, "we no longer have a standard for distance".

But what if the speed of light was proportional to the expansion of the fabric of space-time?

In the end, there's little point in arguing it; because there is (yet) no mechanism to test the theory.

But that's true for a whole bunch of other stuff also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I knew I was on the right track :)

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Comment on Re^2: [OT] A prediction.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: [OT] A prediction. by RonW (Parson) on Apr 07, 2016 at 23:47 UTC
But what if the speed of light was proportional to the expansion of the fabric of space-time? Then I don't think we'd be able to measure that.	[reply]
Re^4: [OT] A prediction. by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 08, 2016 at 00:02 UTC
We can't measure Dark Matter or Dark Energy; it hasn't stopped us inferring their existence; or postulating theories based up them.	[reply]