We don't need to know the exact distance something is in order to make observations regarding it.
For instance, if your hypothesis that photons are constantly accelerating is correct, then as light emitting objects are blocked from our sight and reappear (such as having the moon passing in front of them), they would reappear at different intervals.
If this difference is not observed to occur, then I would think we could come to three possible conclusions:
We know that the things we can observe are not all the same distance away from us because there are measurable differences in the amount of spectrum shift. This not only tells us these objects are different distances, it also tells us they are moving at different velocities and in different directions.
If the distance is insufficient for a measurable difference in speed to have built up, then presuming the speed of light is constant is sufficient for us to gain a relatively accurate distance measurement for the observable objects.
This should be a relatively simple experiment to conduct, even from your own backyard, with something as simple as a hobbyist telescope. What do you think?
In reply to Re^3: [OT] A prediction.
by SimonPratt
in thread [OT] A prediction.
by BrowserUk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |