pdf (1 page)

The pdf posits that the speed of light of the universe is c ∝ t^(-0.8), where t drops to 0 as time flows.

As our speed of light is a constant, our flow of time speeds up. On the other hand, photon's frequency remains the same to conserve energy in the universe.

The result is that comoving distance is D ∝ (1+Z)^(0.25) - 1

This linear relation agrees with the Pantheon+SH0ES data.

What do you think?

3 hours ago, TouCon99 said:

As our speed of light is a constant, our flow of time speeds up.

How do you define a “speed of time”? This seems like a fairly meaningless concept to me. Can you give an unambiguous mathematical definition for this?

3 hours ago, TouCon99 said:

On the other hand, photon's frequency remains the same to conserve energy in the universe.

I should note here that in non-flat space times, energy-momentum is conserved everywhere locally, but there is no global law of conservation.

Moderator Note

Material for discussion needs to be posted, not linked to. This shouldn't be a problem for a 1-page document

7 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

How do you define a “speed of time”?

Let's say our speed of light is C, and the speed of light of the universe is 2C. After 1 second of the universe has past, light would have traveled 2C, and 2 seconds would have past for us.

7 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

in non-flat space times, ... there is no global law of conservation

Since our speed of light have to be a constant, there is no time-symmetry, and no global law of conservation.

However, since the speed of light of the universe do not have to be a constant, there is time-symmetry in the universe, and photon's energy should be conserved.

1 hour ago, TouCon99 said:

Let's say our speed of light is C, and the speed of light of the universe is 2C.

Can make neither head nor tail of this. What does "speed of light of the universe" mean and how is this different from the speed of light? Aren't we part of the universe? Isn't C a constant?

On 11/30/2025 at 7:33 AM, Markus Hanke said:

I should note here that in non-flat space times, energy-momentum is conserved everywhere locally, but there is no global law of conservation.

I've been saying this for several years on these forums (also others like @MigL or @swansont, and probably others still).

My words then were "energy is only a useful concept in small patches of ST":

For the benefit of OP, here's a nice video by Veritasium explaining it:

Long times are also "big patches of space-time", which fits the leading example by Veritasium.

Very, very, very misunderstood concept, that of energy. Sigh!

Only when the system is Lagrangian and the context is time-independent does something like an energy arise. Otherwise... not.

Edited December 2Dec 2 by joigus
minor addition

5 hours ago, TouCon99 said:

Let's say our speed of light is C, and the speed of light of the universe is 2C

I’m sorry, but this makes even less sense. We evidently are a part of this universe, so there’s no “our” vs “the universe’s” speed of light. There’s only one c, which is the same everywhere (AFAWCT).

6 hours ago, joigus said:

I've been saying this for several years on these forums (also others like @MigL or @swansont, and probably others still).

My words then were "energy is only a useful concept in small patches of ST":

For the benefit of OP, here's a nice video by Veritasium explaining it:

Long times are also "big patches of space-time", which fits the leading example by Veritasium.

Very, very, very misunderstood concept, that of energy. Sigh!

Only when the system is Lagrangian and the context is time-independent does something like an energy arise. Otherwise... not.

Ugh, that looks like something one might see in a medical textbook on venereal disease.😆

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Ugh, that looks like something one might see in a medical textbook on venereal disease.😆

LOL.

+1

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

Ugh, that looks like something one might see in a medical textbook on venereal disease.

I must say I haven't leafed through many of those, but I get the picture... YT thumbnails can be pretty awful.

But Veritasium's content is worth the aesthetic displeasure.

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

What does "speed of light of the universe" mean and how is this different from the speed of light?

1 minute ago, Markus Hanke said:

there’s no “our” vs “the universe’s” speed of light

We are a part of the universe.

The speed of light of the universe can vary, but our speed of light is always a constant, because the rate at which we change in the universe is tied to the speed of light of the universe.

4 hours ago, joigus said:

energy is only a useful concept in small patches of ST

Since the speed of light of the universe is not a constant, it is not ST, and there is time-symmetry.

1 hour ago, TouCon99 said:

Since the speed of light of the universe is not a constant, it is not ST, and there is time-symmetry.

What time symmetry? Translational? Reparametrisations? Inversions? Combinations of some/all/a few of those?

You see, "time symmetry" doesn't mean anything in and of itself.

14 hours ago, TouCon99 said:

The speed of light of the universe can vary

Evidence?

This claim is not consistent with any of the data available to us, which shows that speed of light in vacuum is an invariant. See here for example.

14 hours ago, TouCon99 said:

but our speed of light is always a constant

The speed of light isn’t constant, it’s invariant. That’s not the same thing.

13 hours ago, joigus said:

What time symmetry?

It is about the frequency of photon.

44 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

The speed of light isn’t constant, it’s invariant.

It is also a constant.

43 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

This claim is not consistent with any of the data available to us, which shows that speed of light in vacuum is an invariant.

It is consistent.

It should not be applied to multiple frames at the same time, because different frames have different time-dilation.

1 hour ago, TouCon99 said:

It is about the frequency of photon.

Again: What time symmetry? I'm not asking what it is about, but which particular transformation you are thinking of.

Eg, Lorentz transformations are about space and time, but they are a very specific type of symmetry.

We need you to be more specific.

9 hours ago, TouCon99 said:

It is also a constant.

It is a constant only within the same medium, but it is always invariant.

9 hours ago, TouCon99 said:

It is consistent.

I’ve already provided a link to show that the experimental and observational data available to us is inconsistent with the notion of a spatially varying speed of light. You can’t just ignore that and claim the opposite.

Let’s think about this for a moment (it’s not like no one has ever considered this before). Ordinary cosmological redshift is due to the expansion of spacetime between the emitter and the observer; it is not a local effect. Therefore, all spectral emission lines of distant sources are shifted by the exact same amount, preserving the overall spectral pattern. This is what we observe.

The same is not true for a c that varies with location, because also the fine structure constant directly depends on c, so it would change as well - and as it so happens, the relative energy level splittings in atoms scale with \(\alpha^2\). This means that a varying speed of light would lead to different spectral lines getting shifted by different amounts, so the overall pattern is not preserved - in direct contradiction to what we actually observe.

So no, these two effects do not produce the same results, and observation tells us clearly which one actually applies.

On 12/4/2025 at 6:49 AM, joigus said:

which particular transformation you are thinking of

The identity transformation of the frequency of photon as it moves through the universe.

On 12/4/2025 at 3:27 PM, Markus Hanke said:

data available to us is inconsistent with the notion of a spatially varying speed of light

Our speed of light is not spatially varying.

The speed of light of the universe is increasing, but it is not detectable, "because the rate at which we change in the universe is tied to the speed of light of the universe."

5 hours ago, TouCon99 said:

The speed of light of the universe is increasing, but it is not detectable, "because the rate at which we change in the universe is tied to the speed of light of the universe."

This doesn’t make any sense at all. If only the speed of light changes, no matter in what way exactly, then this will be detectable, because it will have an effect on certain other fundamental constants. For example, the fine structure constant as locally measured by us would have been different in the past compared to what is now, which would be obvious in a number of ways, most notably in natural fission reactors such as Oklo.

And “rate at which we change in the universe” is not a well-defined term. What is it that changes exactly, and with respect to what does it change? You have to be a lot more precise.

43 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

If only the speed of light changes, no matter in what way exactly, then this will be detectable

Our speed of light is not changing.

30 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

And “rate at which we change in the universe” is not a well-defined term

"Let's say our speed of light is C, and the speed of light of the universe is 2C. After 1 second of the universe has past, light would have traveled 2C, and 2 seconds would have past for us."

You’re just repeating the same meaningless stuff over and over again.

Moderator Note

This is too hand-wavy to meet the requirements of speculations, and if all you’ve got is repeating the same vague claims there’s no point in continuing. Closed.