I completely agree and this is why algebraic equations are so useful as they allow for the insertion of any numerical “value” .
This is why I always recommend Roger Antonsen’s lecture at Ted’s. It is simple and entertaining, but on some reflection it contains some deep truths that do inform the casually interested person on the remarkable utility of mathematics in understanding the natural world.
I see no difference… 
Perhaps if you were to try to change your perspective (perAntonsen’s lecture that you posted) on the speed of light and relativity you would gain more understanding.
Perhaps you didn’t notice. I was looking at it from a different perspective… tsk…tsk… 
It was a little humor! But you need to pay closer attention!
martin-peter-clarke
What adjective would you derive from polydactyly?
Variety of Pterodactyls? Or a pterodactyl menage-a-trois
So, we seem to agree on this. How do we square that agreement with your next statement.
What perspective would you recommend changing that doesn’t come in conflict with the part we agree on?
I did notice the upside down smiley face. I guess because I didn’t see the significance of Lausten’s “what if 6 turned out to be 9?” I didn’t see the humor in your comment. Sorry, I would have laughed if I had known.
Many (shall I say most) people get their perspective on science topics from someone with tenure. One doesn’t get tenure by disagreeing with the establishment. Those with tenure have a vested interest in maintaining the myth that science, especially physics, is so complex that it is way beyond the ability of mere mortals to understand.
I suggest that questioning the establishment is a great step towards changing one’s perspective. Of course one will get flack, and usually a lot of it, when he admits that he canot see the professor’s new clothes. We do indeed agree that the natural world is just what it is. All one has to do to understand light and relativity is to believe it really isn’t rocket science and just look at it.
Einstein didn’t need to get a revelation while he was in prison on some island or while walking down a road. I don’t believe he had a revelation at all; I believe he just looked at the world in front of him and figured it out. Anyone can figure it out just using some rather simple geometry and math; genius is not required.
That is the advantage of being able to see reality from different perspectives… 
I played the Emperor’s bookkeeper in 4th grade, so I know the story.
The child in that little tale is the voice of science and reason
Actually, he did get his idea of Relativity from reading some fictional books.
And as it turns out, the ideas in several stories may have provided inspiration for some of Albert Einstein’s theories. What’s more, Einstein used stories to explain complex concepts to lay audiences.
In particular, he relied on the fiction of writers named Felix Eberty and Aaron Bernstein. “He recalled devouring Bernstein’s work, in particular, ‘with breathless attention,’ and it may have inspired one of the conjectures that led to his special theory of relativity,” writes Jimena Canales in The New Yorker .
In his 1846 story “The Stars and World History,” Eberty speculated on what might happen if humans could travel faster than the speed of light. He also wondered what would you would see if you observed events that had unfolded on Earth from a faraway star. You might, he wrote, “see the earth at this moment as it existed at the time of Abraham.”
As for Bernstein, he wrote about a great cosmic postal service for which the past and the present were outdated concepts. If you traveled faster than light, you could deliver mail to historical figures. https://www.inc.com/ilan-mochari/albert-einstein-surprising-source-inspiration.html#
Red shift at that scale is due to the accelerating expansion of space itself. The energy of photons is conserved depending on static frame of reference. Move with regard to the photon and its frequency changes. Nothing, no energy, is dissipated from a photon by it just tootling along forever.
This all happens inside the universe.
The question is if “universal expansion” itself is restricted by “c”.
There is nothing outside the universe to restrict expansion other than a purely permittive nothingness.
I am not aware of any connection between c and the increasing scale factor of the metric, i.e. the expansion of space, which accumulates over time faster than light, ‘galaxies that are farther than the Hubble radius, approximately 4.5 gigaparsecs or 14.7 billion light-years, away from us have a recession speed that is faster than the speed of light’.
There should not be.
“c” is the absolute speed limit inside the universe.
The universe itself has no such restrictions expanding outward.
Photons are massless. Any mass converging on the speed of light becomes infinite.
That is why the speed limit of photons is “c”, the threshold where massless photons (restmass) begin to acquire energetic mass.
This may confirm that the inflationary epoch allowed photons to travel @ FTL and acquired mass when the early universe cooled and became denser, restricting the SOL to “c”.
August 16, 2002• Phys. Rev. Focus 10, 9
Canadian Galactic Plane SurveyThe mysterious magnetic fields that seem to permeate the cosmos may come from simple physics.
Simple physics principles might explain the mysterious magnetic fields that seem to permeate the cosmos. Researchers have suggested that the magnetism might have arisen if normally massless photons possessed mass during the Universe’s early moments of expansion. Now in the 2 September print issue of PRL , they finally show that massive photons could have existed.
In quantum field theory, every particle has a corresponding field extending across space. Inflation pulls those fields like taffy. Most particles, such as the photon, don’t notice this pull. But a few do, including particles called light charged scalars, which appear in several theories. As a result, pairs of virtual charged scalar particles are separated before they can annihilate one another, and they become real particles emerging from the vacuum. The vacuum becomes “polarized,” as particle physicists say.
This polarization affects photons. It takes more energy to produce a photon amidst the sea of scalars, and photons can only propagate a limited distance through them. Effectively, the photon acquires mass. In today’s Universe, other particles probably acquire mass by a similar mechanism: according to theory, they appear massive only because they are surrounded by a cloud of virtual Higgs particles. “It’s like moving through water,” says Prokopec. When inflation ends, photons lose their mass, but some of the extra energy of the electromagnetic field is left behind in the form of a small magnetic field.
They all have energetic mass equivalent as do gluons. c isn’t derived.
[quote=“martin-peter-clarke, post:58, topic:8020”]
They all have energetic mass equivalent as do gluons. c isn’t derived.
[/quote] Can gluons exceed “c”?
If all particles with zero rest-mass are also restricted to “c” (SOL), does that not suggest that SOL is a true spacetime limit imposed on how fast a (any) particle can travel ?
Above or in spacetime, c is the limit, but we have no idea why it has the value it does, yet, along with the handful of other measured constants. Although I’m a tad suspicious of elementary charge.: it looks derivable.
