In Newtonian physics, space and time are constant, but the speed of light is relative. So OneWindgedShark, when you added the two speeds of light, you were using Newtonian physics.
But from experiments in measuring light, we know that the speed of light is constant for all observers, regardless of their frame of reference or the source of the light. So Einstein in his theory of relativity simply stated the results of observation: space and time are relative, but the speed of light is constant. So Magnum44, are are mostly correct, and time does slow as you approach the speed of light. But infinite limits can only be approached; you can never get there.
>In Newtonian physics, space and time are constant, but the speed of light is relative. So OneWindgedShark, when you added the two speeds of light, you were using Newtonian physics.
>
>But from experiments in measuring light, we know that the speed of light is constant for all observers, regardless of their frame of reference or the source of the light.
Yes, and if you add two constants together you get twice that constant. You HAVE to do this if you are measuring the expansion (either from the ‘center’, or ‘outside’) of that said universe in that said dimension. At no point is there ever any object in the model which exceeds the speed of light, in fact because the only objects ARE photons the only objects ARE traveling at the speed of light; the expansion is a concept, not an object.
>So Einstein in his theory of relativity simply stated the results of observation: space and time are relative, but the speed of light is constant. So Magnum44, are are mostly correct, and time does slow as you approach the speed of light. But infinite limits can only be approached; you can never get there.
What of light? That is, by definition, traveling at light-speed. I fail to see how considering light itself can invoke slower-than-light arguments/rules.