Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408432 > unrolled thread

What Causes the Hubble Redshift (in a Static Universe)

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  What Causes the Hubble Redshift (in a Static Universe) Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-08 12:08 -0800
    What Causes the Hubble Redshift (in a Static Universe) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 12:11 -0800
    Re: What Causes the Hubble Redshift (in a Static Universe) alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-08 14:03 -0800
      Re: What Causes the Hubble Redshift (in a Static Universe) benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 18:37 -0500
        Re: What Causes the Hubble Redshift (in a Static Universe) alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-08 16:01 -0800
          Re: What Causes the Hubble Redshift (in a Static Universe) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:14 -0800
            Re: What Causes the Hubble Redshift (in a Static Universe) alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-08 16:32 -0800
              Re: What Causes the Hubble Redshift (in a Static Universe) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:37 -0800
                Re: What Causes the Hubble Redshift (in a Static Universe) alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-08 17:12 -0800
                  Re: What Causes the Hubble Redshift (in a Static Universe) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:52 -0800
                  Re: What Causes the Hubble Redshift (in a Static Universe) "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:06 -0800
                    Re: What Causes the Hubble Redshift (in a Static Universe) alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-09 13:18 -0800
                      Re: What Causes the Hubble Redshift (in a Static Universe) alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-09 14:21 -0800
                Re: What Causes the Hubble Redshift (in a Static Universe) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-09 22:54 -0800
                  Re: What Causes the Hubble Redshift (in a Static Universe) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-10 11:01 -0800
    Re: What Causes the Hubble Redshift (in a Static Universe) Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-09 01:15 -0800
      Re: What Causes the Hubble Redshift (in a Static Universe) Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 11:44 -0800
        Re: What Causes the Hubble Redshift (in a Static Universe) Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-13 13:33 -0800

#408432 — What Causes the Hubble Redshift (in a Static Universe)

https://asunow.asu.edu/20170208-finding-nothing-conversation-frank-wilczek 
 "Indeed, Wilczek began his lecture by speaking of the profound analogy between materials and vacuum. What our naked senses perceive as empty space turns out to be a riotous environment of virtual particles fluorescing and dying away on extremely small scales of space and time, as well as fog-like fields and condensates, which permeate all space and dictate the properties of elementary particles. To give an analogy for this perplexing new picture of reality, Wilczek asks us to imagine intelligent fish in a world surrounded by water. Such creatures would perceive the water surrounding them as their version of empty space or a vacuum. "The big idea I want to convey is simply this: We're like those fish," he said. What our senses perceive as empty space is better understood as a substance, a material."

http://philpapers.org/rec/DAVQVN 
 Paul Davies: "This leads to the prediction of vacuum friction: The quantum vacuum can act in a manner reminiscent of a viscous fluid." 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927994.100-vacuum-has-friction-after-all 
 New Scientist: "Vacuum has friction after all."

The Hubble redshift is due to the property of vacuum to slow down light - an effect analogous to slowing down moving objects by friction. The idea that vacuum constituents can slow down light is largely discussed, but only in a quantum gravity context: 

http://backreaction.blogspot.fr/2017/01/what-burst-fresh-attempt-to-see-space.html 
 Sabine Hossenfelder: "It's an old story: Quantum fluctuations of space-time might change the travel-time of light. Light of higher frequencies would be a little faster than that of lower frequencies. Or slower, depending on the sign of an unknown constant. Either way, the spectral colors of light would run apart, or 'disperse' as they say if they don't want you to understand what they say. Such quantum gravitational effects are miniscule, but added up over long distances they can become observable. Gamma ray bursts are therefore ideal to search for evidence of such an energy-dependent speed of light." 

It is time to start discussing the parallel idea: that slowing down light by vacuum constituents produces the Hubble redshift (in a STATIC universe): 

http://www.nature.com/news/superfluid-spacetime-points-to-unification-of-physics-1.15437 
 Nature: "As waves travel through a medium, they lose energy over time. This dampening effect would also happen to photons traveling through spacetime, the researchers found." 

For not so distant stars the slowing down of light is expressed as Hubble redshift but beyond a certain distance the star light does not reach us at all (Olbers' paradox).

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#408434

Increasing Entropy or a dropping Kinetic Energy of spacetime 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408459

W dniu środa, 8 lutego 2017 21:08:58 UTC+1 użytkownik Pentcho Valev napisał:
> https://asunow.asu.edu/20170208-finding-nothing-conversation-frank-wilczek 
>  "Indeed, Wilczek began his lecture by speaking of the profound analogy between materials and vacuum. What our naked senses perceive as empty space turns out to be a riotous environment of virtual particles fluorescing and dying away on extremely small scales of space and time, as well as fog-like fields and condensates, which permeate all space and dictate the properties of elementary particles. To give an analogy for this perplexing new picture of reality, Wilczek asks us to imagine intelligent fish in a world surrounded by water. Such creatures would perceive the water surrounding them as their version of empty space or a vacuum. "The big idea I want to convey is simply this: We're like those fish," he said. What our senses perceive as empty space is better understood as a substance, a material."
> 
> http://philpapers.org/rec/DAVQVN 
>  Paul Davies: "This leads to the prediction of vacuum friction: The quantum vacuum can act in a manner reminiscent of a viscous fluid." 
> 
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927994.100-vacuum-has-friction-after-all 
>  New Scientist: "Vacuum has friction after all."
> 
> The Hubble redshift is due to the property of vacuum to slow down light - an effect analogous to slowing down moving objects by friction. The idea that vacuum constituents can slow down light is largely discussed, but only in a quantum gravity context: 
> 
> http://backreaction.blogspot.fr/2017/01/what-burst-fresh-attempt-to-see-space.html 
>  Sabine Hossenfelder: "It's an old story: Quantum fluctuations of space-time might change the travel-time of light. Light of higher frequencies would be a little faster than that of lower frequencies. Or slower, depending on the sign of an unknown constant. Either way, the spectral colors of light would run apart, or 'disperse' as they say if they don't want you to understand what they say. Such quantum gravitational effects are miniscule, but added up over long distances they can become observable. Gamma ray bursts are therefore ideal to search for evidence of such an energy-dependent speed of light." 
> 
> It is time to start discussing the parallel idea: that slowing down light by vacuum constituents produces the Hubble redshift (in a STATIC universe): 
> 
> http://www.nature.com/news/superfluid-spacetime-points-to-unification-of-physics-1.15437 
>  Nature: "As waves travel through a medium, they lose energy over time. This dampening effect would also happen to photons traveling through spacetime, the researchers found." 
> 
> For not so distant stars the slowing down of light is expressed as Hubble redshift but beyond a certain distance the star light does not reach us at all (Olbers' paradox).
> 
> Pentcho Valev

The light waves can't slow down.

The cosmo. redshift is just the standard Poission
dissipation of energy in the medium in the cosmomedium (stars, gas, dust, etc):

E(r) = E0 * exp(-r/R) = E0 * exp(-ct/R) = E0 * exp(-t/tau) = ..
tau = 1/H, actually.
it's a mean time value of the dissipation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408481

On 2/8/2017 5:03 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu środa, 8 lutego 2017 21:08:58 UTC+1 użytkownik Pentcho Valev napisał:
>> https://asunow.asu.edu/20170208-finding-nothing-conversation-frank-wilczek
>>  "Indeed, Wilczek began his lecture by speaking of the profound analogy between materials and vacuum. What our naked senses perceive as empty space turns out to be a riotous environment of virtual particles fluorescing and dying away on extremely small scales of space and time, as well as fog-like fields and condensates, which permeate all space and dictate the properties of elementary particles. To give an analogy for this perplexing new picture of reality, Wilczek asks us to imagine intelligent fish in a world surrounded by water. Such creatures would perceive the water surrounding them as their version of empty space or a vacuum. "The big idea I want to convey is simply this: We're like those fish," he said. What our senses perceive as empty space is better understood as a substance, a material."
>>
>> http://philpapers.org/rec/DAVQVN
>>  Paul Davies: "This leads to the prediction of vacuum friction: The quantum vacuum can act in a manner reminiscent of a viscous fluid."
>>
>> https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927994.100-vacuum-has-friction-after-all
>>  New Scientist: "Vacuum has friction after all."
>>
>> The Hubble redshift is due to the property of vacuum to slow down light - an effect analogous to slowing down moving objects by friction. The idea that vacuum constituents can slow down light is largely discussed, but only in a quantum gravity context:
>>
>> http://backreaction.blogspot.fr/2017/01/what-burst-fresh-attempt-to-see-space.html
>>  Sabine Hossenfelder: "It's an old story: Quantum fluctuations of space-time might change the travel-time of light. Light of higher frequencies would be a little faster than that of lower frequencies. Or slower, depending on the sign of an unknown constant. Either way, the spectral colors of light would run apart, or 'disperse' as they say if they don't want you to understand what they say. Such quantum gravitational effects are miniscule, but added up over long distances they can become observable. Gamma ray bursts are therefore ideal to search for evidence of such an energy-dependent speed of light."
>>
>> It is time to start discussing the parallel idea: that slowing down light by vacuum constituents produces the Hubble redshift (in a STATIC universe):
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/news/superfluid-spacetime-points-to-unification-of-physics-1.15437
>>  Nature: "As waves travel through a medium, they lose energy over time. This dampening effect would also happen to photons traveling through spacetime, the researchers found."
>>
>> For not so distant stars the slowing down of light is expressed as Hubble redshift but beyond a certain distance the star light does not reach us at all (Olbers' paradox).
>>
>> Pentcho Valev
>
> The light waves can't slow down.
>
> The cosmo. redshift is just the standard Poission
> dissipation of energy in the medium in the cosmomedium (stars, gas, dust, etc):
>
> E(r) = E0 * exp(-r/R) = E0 * exp(-ct/R) = E0 * exp(-t/tau) = ..
> tau = 1/H, actually.
> it's a mean time value of the dissipation.
>
This is simply wrong. The "tired light" theory has been shown to be 
wrong. light moves without loss through the universe. In fact light from 
the stars does not even come through our space! The Red shift is a 
function of geometry. Say no more.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408484

W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 00:37:14 UTC+1 użytkownik benj napisał:

> This is simply wrong.

No. You should say: that is too simply.

> The "tired light" theory has been shown to be wrong.

The dissipation of any energy, under transmission, is an obvious fact!

> light moves without loss through the universe.

The stars - galaxies, alone blocks the lights already.
Thus even without any gas, dust in the intergalactic areas
the light can't propagate freely!

> In fact light from 
> the stars does not even come through our space! The Red shift is a 
> function of geometry. Say no more.

Actually the geometry of the universe is:
flat, uniform and isotropic space - the Copernicus principle, stupid!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408485

If LIGO detected Gravity Waves & (2GM)/c^2 = Entropy then redshift is the universe gaining Entropy 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408487

W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 01:14:53 UTC+1 użytkownik David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller napisał:
> If LIGO detected Gravity Waves & (2GM)/c^2 = Entropy then redshift is the universe gaining Entropy

Entropy is a mathematical entity of a system,
which is fully preserved for any closed system!

Stop improvising, stupid babes - you should learn something first!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408488

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 6:32:09 PM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 01:14:53 UTC+1 użytkownik David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller napisał:
> > If LIGO detected Gravity Waves & (2GM)/c^2 = Entropy then redshift is the universe gaining Entropy
> 
> Entropy is a mathematical entity of a system,
> which is fully preserved for any closed system!
> 
> Stop improvising, stupid babes - you should learn something first!

I Predict You will be eventually be Proven Incorrect

red shift is the universe gaining Entropy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408490

W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 01:37:18 UTC+1 użytkownik David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller napisał:
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 6:32:09 PM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 01:14:53 UTC+1 użytkownik David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller napisał:
> > > If LIGO detected Gravity Waves & (2GM)/c^2 = Entropy then redshift is the universe gaining Entropy
> > 
> > Entropy is a mathematical entity of a system,
> > which is fully preserved for any closed system!
> > 
> > Stop improvising, stupid babes - you should learn something first!
> 
> I Predict You will be eventually be Proven Incorrect
> 
> red shift is the universe gaining Entropy

The entropy is not any physical thing, quantity, nor part of a system, stupid!

And due to this reason: You can provide an entropy for a statistical process only.

In the reality there is no entropy at all,
because the universe is not a statistical process
(a primitive surrogate of the reality = statistics), but rather quite and fully real!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408497

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 7:12:07 PM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 01:37:18 UTC+1 użytkownik David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller napisał:
> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 6:32:09 PM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 01:14:53 UTC+1 użytkownik David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller napisał:
> > > > If LIGO detected Gravity Waves & (2GM)/c^2 = Entropy then redshift is the universe gaining Entropy
> > > 
> > > Entropy is a mathematical entity of a system,
> > > which is fully preserved for any closed system!
> > > 
> > > Stop improvising, stupid babes - you should learn something first!
> > 
> > I Predict You will be eventually be Proven Incorrect
> > 
> > red shift is the universe gaining Entropy
> 
> The entropy is not any physical thing, quantity, nor part of a system, stupid!
> 
> And due to this reason: You can provide an entropy for a statistical process only.
> 
> In the reality there is no entropy at all,
> because the universe is not a statistical process
> (a primitive surrogate of the reality = statistics), but rather quite and fully real!

dictionary definition of entropy is that it is "a measure of thermal energy per unit temperature that is not available for useful work".



When we measure an object's temperature, we measure the average kinetic energy of the particles in the object. The higher the temperature, the faster the molecules of the substance move, on the average

Entropy is simply the Ratio of the Total Energy of a system UnAvailable to perform work

More Mass = More Entropy
More Mass = More Gravity
More Mass = Less available Kinetic Energy
More Mass = Lower Vacuum Impedance

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408500

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 7:12:07 PM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 01:37:18 UTC+1 użytkownik David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller napisał:
> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 6:32:09 PM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 01:14:53 UTC+1 użytkownik David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller napisał:
> > > > If LIGO detected Gravity Waves & (2GM)/c^2 = Entropy then redshift is the universe gaining Entropy
> > > 
> > > Entropy is a mathematical entity of a system,
> > > which is fully preserved for any closed system!
> > > 
> > > Stop improvising, stupid babes - you should learn something first!
> > 
> > I Predict You will be eventually be Proven Incorrect
> > 
> > red shift is the universe gaining Entropy
> 
> The entropy is not any physical thing, quantity, nor part of a system, stupid!
> 
> And due to this reason: You can provide an entropy for a statistical process only.
> 
> In the reality there is no entropy at all,
> because the universe is not a statistical process
> (a primitive surrogate of the reality = statistics), but rather quite and fully real!

Let's Pretend the Space time per unit Volume NEEDS an Actual Cause.

Let's Pretend The Cause of this Volume is the Gravitation of MASS.

If Hubble Red Shift says Space per Unit Volume is increasing, then the Mass which is causing the Gravitation which is causing the Expansion per unit volume is INCREASING 

So the Light of the Universe which is Electromagnetic Radiation which is Equivalent to Kinetic Energy per Unit Volume is DECREASING, Which is EXACTLY what Entropy is 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408658

W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 03:06:19 UTC+1 użytkownik David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller

> Let's Pretend the Space time per unit Volume NEEDS an Actual Cause.
> Let's Pretend The Cause of this Volume is the Gravitation of MASS.
> If Hubble Red Shift says Space per Unit Volume is increasing, then the Mass which is causing the Gravitation which is causing the Expansion per unit volume is INCREASING 
> 
> So the Light of the Universe which is Electromagnetic Radiation which is Equivalent to Kinetic Energy per Unit Volume is DECREASING, Which is EXACTLY what Entropy is

I'm very sorry but there is no expansion of space in the reality.
The cosmo. expansion has been invented long time ago,
because this simplification provides easy metod for a distance measurement in the cosmos.

The cosmological expansion has been falsified milions times!
For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HUDF-JD2

there are visible two galaxies:
one the big yellow spiral with z = 0.7, and a second - small distant giant galaxy with z = 7;

And the BB - provisional expansion model, provides wrong diameter-distance proportion... the more distant tiny galaxy should be much bigger the the big spiral on the image!

The static cosmology provides correct proportion for these galaxies - about 1/5,
which is quite correct of course.

The expansion of space is just a pure nonsense - the same like the geocentric fantastic ideas.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408665

http://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/icosmos.co.uk$2Findex.html%7Csort:relevance/sci.physics.foundations/DuGhoD30KRE/F32Fy4_TpzAJ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408689

David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 6:32:09 PM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 01:14:53 UTC+1 użytkownik David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller napisał:
> > > If LIGO detected Gravity Waves & (2GM)/c^2 = Entropy then redshift is the universe gaining Entropy
> >
> > Entropy is a mathematical entity of a system,
> > which is fully preserved for any closed system!
> >
> > Stop improvising, stupid babes - you should learn something first!
> 
> I Predict You will be eventually be Proven Incorrect
> 
> red shift is the universe gaining Entropy


I think it's about time yous people learn the truth about Hubble redshift...


you would have a better understanding if you understood Colors.

There is no relation between the color red and the ...shift.


Mars is red, is it a shift?

Pluto is red, is it a shift?


there are other planets/bodies in our solar system that is red...no shift.


Red is a Color.


If you understands Colors, there is no need to understand shift.


Now, the test, ...What is Red?


What is the relation between Mars Red and Hubble Redshift?


Only if you understand Colors can you answer the question.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408748

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 6:32:09 PM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 01:14:53 UTC+1 użytkownik David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller napisał:
> > > > If LIGO detected Gravity Waves & (2GM)/c^2 = Entropy then redshift is the universe gaining Entropy
> > >
> > > Entropy is a mathematical entity of a system,
> > > which is fully preserved for any closed system!
> > >
> > > Stop improvising, stupid babes - you should learn something first!
> >
> > I Predict You will be eventually be Proven Incorrect
> >
> > red shift is the universe gaining Entropy
> 
> I think it's about time yous people learn the truth about Hubble redshift...
> 
> you would have a better understanding if you understood Colors.
> 
> There is no relation between the color red and the ...shift.
> 
> Mars is red, is it a shift?
> 
> Pluto is red, is it a shift?
> 
> there are other planets/bodies in our solar system that is red...no shift.
> 
> Red is a Color.
> 
> If you understands Colors, there is no need to understand shift.
> 
> Now, the test, ...What is Red?
> 
> What is the relation between Mars Red and Hubble Redshift?
> 
> Only if you understand Colors can you answer the question.


The Big Bang was a Giant Red Shift.


if you observe what caused the big bang, you will find lurking in the
shadows the blue and the green.


and the blue green sez, "What was all that noise?"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408547

Theoretical physics should be deductive, which means that theoreticians should regularly try to draw conclusions from premises (postulates) that are not certain to be true. In my view, it makes sense to see what cosmology can be deduced from the following two simple postulates (additional premises will be needed of course):

Postulate 1. Once emitted, light never changes its wavelength.

Postulate 2. The following relation is always valid for any observer:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

The two postulates establish a universal proportionality between measured frequency and (difficult to measure) speed of light.

A few years ago I tried to develop the idea for a FQXi essay contest. Now I don't find my essay well written, and there is a mistake in it concerning Einstein's interpretation of the variability of the speed of light in a gravitational field, but still some arguments could be useful:

http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Valev_Shift_in_Frequency_Im.pdf 
 Pentcho Valev, Shift in Frequency Implies Shift in Speed of Light, FQXi essay contest, 2012 − Questioning the Foundations: Which of our basic physical assumptions are wrong?

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408752

http://www.nature.com/news/superfluid-spacetime-points-to-unification-of-physics-1.15437 
 Nature: "As waves travel through a medium, they lose energy over time. This dampening effect would also happen to photons traveling through spacetime, the researchers found."  x

http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/thz/documents/davies_2001_cha.pdf 
 Paul Davies: "As pointed out by DeWitt, the quantum vacuum is in some respects reminiscent of the aether, and in what follows it may be helpful to think of space-time as filled with a type of invisible fluid medium, representing a seething background of vacuum fluctuations. Although the mechanical properties of this medium can be strange, and the image should not be pushed too far, it is sometimes helpful to envisage this "quantum aether" as possessing a type of viscosity."

HYPOTHESIS: As the photon travels through the viscous vacuum (in a STATIC universe), it loses speed analogously to a golf ball losing speed due to the resistance of the air. 

On this hypothesis the resistive force (Fr) is proportional to the velocity of the photon (V): 

Fr = - KV 

That is, the speed of light decreases with time in accordance with the equation: 

dV/dt = - K'V 

Clearly, at the end of a very long journey of photons (coming from a very distant object), the contribution to the redshift is much smaller than the contribution at the beginning of the journey. Light coming from nearer objects is less subject to this effect, that is, the increase of the redshift with distance is closer to LINEAR for short distances. For distant light sources we have: 

f' = f(exp(-kt)) 

where f is the initial and f' the measured (redshifted) frequency. (It is assumed that the speed of light and the frequency vary while the wavelength remains unchanged.) For short distances the following approximations can be made: 

f' = f(exp(-kt)) ~ f(1-kt) ~ f - kd/λ 

where d is the distance between the light source and the observer and λ is the wavelength. The equation f'=f-kd/λ is only valid for short distances and corresponds to the Hubble law. The equation f'=f(exp(-kt)) shows that, at the end of a very long journey (in a STATIC universe), photons redshift much less vigorously than at the beginning of the journey. This provides an alternative explanation of the observations that brought the 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics to Saul Perlmutter, Adam Riess and Brian Schmidt. 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409120

Victorious Einsteinians:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2001/06/tired-light-hypothesis-gets-re-tired 
 "Both the standard expanding-universe and the tired-light theory, they realized, agree that redshifted light should make distant galaxies look dimmer than they really are. In an expanding universe, however, time dilation and other relativistic distortions will also dim distant galaxies, making them appear much fainter than tired-light theory dictates. What's more, young stars - and thus young galaxies - tend to be considerably brighter than old ones. When that extra brightness is taken into account, the observations match expanding-universe predictions, as Lubin and Sandage will report in Astronomical Journal. For the tired-light theory to be correct, young galaxies would have to be dimmer, rather than brighter, than old ones. "The expansion is real. It's not due to an unknown physical process. That is the conclusion," says Sandage. Although not surprising in themselves, the results are useful for "tidying things up in our cosmology," says Michael Pahre, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Even so, "I don't think it's possible to convince people who are holding on to tired light," says Ned Wright, an astrophysicist at the University of California, Los Angeles. "I would say it is more a problem for a psychological journal than for Science."

The arguments are idiotic (not even wrong), and Einsteinians also suggest that any supporter of the tired-light hypothesis is a psychopath. Needless to say, in the end heretics would rather start believing the relativistic idiocies than see themselves kicked out of universities as psychopaths:

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter1.7.html 
 "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?" 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web