3 ms·
I haven't read the original paper, but my assumption is that if their model suggests the universe is much older and that things like light speed actually decay
by abakker 2y ago
I haven't read the original paper, but my assumption is that if their model suggests the universe is much older and that things like light speed actually decay over distance, then maybe they are suggesting that some of the other constants of the universe are also decaying leading to the different observed rotations. But, I'm not a physicist.
- slowmovintarget 2y agoSpeed of light decay should be fairly easy to disprove. Anything that contradicts Special Relativity requires an exceedingly compelling argument or preponderance of evidence in favor, and Tired Light does not have it.
- abakker 2y agoI'm not a physicist, but, why should this be fairly easy to disprove? The person proposing this theory seems relatively informed and obviously still published, so it's obviously not trivial. My (naive) assumption reading the article was that he wasn't proposing that a photon loses velocity over long distances, but that the value C was not constant on a multi-billion year time horizon. I don't see an easy way to prove that it is not changing if the rate of change is functionally unobservable. But, maybe I am way too uniformed to speculate on this.
- wtcactus 2y agoBut we observe this everywhere, even in the Andromeda galaxy, so, universe age is not a factor for the rotation curve of galaxies.