I never said rules were different depending on where you are...
You did when you said we couldn't know what photon are doing billions of years ago. That also implies distance. It takes an exact and artificial environment to have a photon stand still. So the photons must be moving.
but relativity (as in it's strictly relative to our finite view) kicks in when you think that light could be emitted and die off after a period of travel.
I've read that photon will decay eventually. A photon lifespan is mind numbingly large though. Its explanation was over my head, so I would defer that to an expert. I don't understand the first part. So light can be traveling and emit more light is what your saying? I don't want to reply until I know what your asking.
We possibly can't see it or assume that the universe is only so big because we cannot technically observe it happening.
We can't. There an event horizon and particle horizon. These beyond the event horizon are independent to us. The particle horizon, iirc is condition on how the universe is for the intervening distance to be crossed.
Light speed could be a constant from our POV like the car traveling past you on the highway is traveling twice as fast as you. You also have to precision. If light speed is slowing or speeding up at minute fractions, we may never observe it because we lack the tools precise enough to measure it.
It's also all about your point of view and I think our point of view is still miniscule even though distance in space is calculated in the time it takes for perceived light to travel. For all we know, that red star off in the distance is not the edge of the universe, but the beginning of a something that refracts that light. Hell, as far as I know, aether could be real and that's what's causing the close stars to appear blue and the far red shift to happen.
Yeah, I know attempts have been made to detect it and I've read many... many scientific theories (theories!) on all aspects of our universe, but I still think we lack the ability to measure the "big picture" and assuming that there was a big bang that caused all and solves all answers is a bit naive.
What does the word theory mean to you, because you use in similarly to light hearted guess.
And we dont lack the ability to measure the big bang. The background radiation predicted by the big bang model was found out by accident. We have quite the complete radiometric map of this energetic space. Its current fits in very well that understanding. Its a well reasoned and supported explantion. It also very good that the big bang isn't used for an explanation of everything. Because its not.
I don't believe the big bang was the beginning, the end, or the middle. It may have happened, it may not. And I don't believe a wizard in the space did it all either.
Well, as for the big bang. Yes, it indeed fact did happen. There very little doubt about that. As for it to be the start or end. We don't know. It probably wasn't. Though what ever if anything that happen before the big bang means little to us, as its ineffectual.
Also, if you like to believe that one formula solves all, then why do Einstein's theories bump up against Quantum theory? Why do Atoms behave different from Planets?
It's sort of like how we don't know the true value of PI. We can make measurements with an estimated value of such and get a close estimate, but until we can find that last digit of PI, we can never know it's true properties. Light speed is an estimated value. There's no precise number to define that speed. Who's to say it's truly constant?
Well, I don't believe there one formula. Science isn't a matter of belief. It is not a matter of faith. That asinine. There lots. And lots of model. If I want to look how stars and planets are formed, I don't go to general relativity, I go nebula star formation theory.
Light is not an estimated value. It been measured by many poeple, a lot of times, each new measurement more and more finite then the last. Each one confirming the last one taken.
Science says Light is Constant, everywhere at every time. As per its assumptions. With these assumption the application of c being constant have given fruits of knowledge. Assuming the rules are the same everywhere every time, seem to work out very well. Of course like all things within science if these assumptions no longer work, then they will be changed.
It does not come to this conclusion lightly. In fact the measurement of light, was an endeavor that took over a hundred years, if I recall correctly.
And even considering aether explanation, abysmal understanding.