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

Groups > sci.physics > #710221 > unrolled thread

Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 16:25 +0000
    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-29 20:34 +0100
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 22:00 +0000
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 09:52 -0600
        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 14:33 -0500
          Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-05 13:38 -0800
          Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 19:03 -0800
    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 12:54 -0700
    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-29 14:16 -0700
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 22:19 +0000
        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-29 15:57 -0700
          Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 16:20 +0000
            Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-30 18:48 +0100
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 18:10 -0800
        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 18:54 -0800
          Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 14:28 -0800
        Einstein snubbed the Nobel committee. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-11-05 19:01 -0800
    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 21:18 -0700
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 16:02 +0000
        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 12:58 -0400
        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 19:34 -0700
        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-11-01 14:27 -0700
    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 06:36 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#710221 — Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts

Summary:
     1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
     2. There was no "Big Bang"
     3. There was no "Inflation"
     4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
     5. There is no "Dark Energy"


Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it 
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this 
will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.

Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)

     K ~= 10^-10 /year
     t = time in years

Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to 
enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more 
accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........

                        K = H = Hubble's Constant
and                    t = -t  ( so times past become +ve)

which substituted in (3) gives:

             Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)

then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
             e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)

So for t << 1/H we have:

             Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)

which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).

As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore 
further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law 
expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
in observatories all around the world eh!

Conclusions:
     1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
     2. There was no "Big Bang"
     3. There was no "Inflation"
     4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
     5. There is no "Dark Energy"
********************************************************************

**********************************************************************
         A GOOD QUESTION

When light slows down by entering a more dense medium such as glass, or
water, the frequency stays the same and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.

So how is it that when light slows down traveling across intergalactic 
space,the the WAVELENGTH INCREASES ?

good question!

when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the 
wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows 
before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave 
catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train 
compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.

When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there 
is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave 
train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the 
same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as 
it travels through intergalactic space.

So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is 
INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light 
is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that 
it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light 
was higher than it is now.

The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on distant 
galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as that on 
Earth today. The wavelength is proportional the the velocity of light AT 
THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased wavelength is faithfully 
transmitted through space, where it is measured in our observatories.

keith stein

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#710238

Keith Stein wrote:
> 
> Summary:
>      1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.

It is not.  There is a lot of evidence to the contrary.

>      2. There was no "Big Bang"

There was.  The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (accidentally
discovered in 1964, predicted before that) is evidence of it;
so are cosmological redshift, time dilation, and fading light.

>      3. There was no "Inflation"

There was.  The “Planck” probe’s mission confirmed it once again:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#Results>

>      4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.

They are not, indeed.  Instead, space is expanding with increasing speed,
carrying *distant* galaxies (not those of the Local Group, which are
gravitationally bound) away with it.

This is evident not only in the redshift, but also in the *cosmological time
dilation*, and the otherwise inexplicable *fading of light* observable in
distant processes like supernovae.  (Time dilation is the greater the
greater the apparent relative velocity is; light intensity is inversely
proportional to the square of the distance to the light source.)

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was awarded for this *unexpected* 1997/1998
discovery:

<https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2011/summary/>

In terms that you can understand (if you want to):

<https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/popular-physicsprize2011-1.pdf>

>      5. There is no "Dark Energy"

There is; the energy content of our universe is approximately 70 % dark
energy.  Confirmed once again by the “Planck” probe’s mission’s results
(see above).

> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it 
> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, […]

Good morning, sunshine.  This idea is called “tired light” and has been
*refuted* – in all its variants – *decades ago*.

For example, the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) has a much greater mass than the
Milky Way and so, if the “tired light” idea had any substance, would have to
slow down the light emitted by its stars, and cause a redshift.

The light is blueshifted instead, because that galaxy and the Milky Way are
approaching each other, to merge in ca. 2 billion years.

,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light>
|
| […] As cosmological measurements became more precise and the statistics in
| cosmological data sets improved, tired light proposals ended up being
| falsified,[1][2][3] to the extent that the theory was described in 2001 by
| science writer Charles Seife as being "firmly on the fringe of physics 30
| years ago".[5]

End of story.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#710255

On 29/10/2018 19:34, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> Summary:
>>       1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
> 
> It is not.  There is a lot of evidence to the contrary.
> 
>>       2. There was no "Big Bang"
> 
> There was.  The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (accidentally
> discovered in 1964, predicted before that) is evidence of it;
> so are cosmological redshift, time dilation, and fading light.
> 
>>       3. There was no "Inflation"
> 
> There was.  The “Planck” probe’s mission confirmed it once again:
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#Results>
> 
>>       4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
> 
> They are not, indeed.  Instead, space is expanding with increasing speed,
> carrying *distant* galaxies (not those of the Local Group, which are
> gravitationally bound) away with it.
> 
> This is evident not only in the redshift, but also in the *cosmological time
> dilation*, and the otherwise inexplicable *fading of light* observable in
> distant processes like supernovae.  (Time dilation is the greater the
> greater the apparent relative velocity is; light intensity is inversely
> proportional to the square of the distance to the light source.)
> 
> The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was awarded for this *unexpected* 1997/1998
> discovery:
> 
> <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2011/summary/>
> 
> In terms that you can understand (if you want to):
> 
> <https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/popular-physicsprize2011-1.pdf>
> 
>>       5. There is no "Dark Energy"
> 
> There is; the energy content of our universe is approximately 70 % dark
> energy.  Confirmed once again by the “Planck” probe’s mission’s results
> (see above).
> 
>> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
>> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, […]
> 
> Good morning, sunshine.  This idea is called “tired light” and has been
> *refuted* – in all its variants – *decades ago*.
> 
> For example, the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) has a much greater mass than the
> Milky Way and so, if the “tired light” idea had any substance, would have to
> slow down the light emitted by its stars, and cause a redshift.
> 
> The light is blueshifted instead, because that galaxy and the Milky Way are
> approaching each other, to merge in ca. 2 billion years.
> 
> ,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light>
> |
> | […] As cosmological measurements became more precise and the statistics in
> | cosmological data sets improved, tired light proposals ended up being
> | falsified,[1][2][3] to the extent that the theory was described in 2001 by
> | science writer Charles Seife as being "firmly on the fringe of physics 30
> | years ago".[5]
> 
> End of story.


Doubt i'll be able to convince you Thomas, but
I thank you for your opinions, and the links eh!

keith stein

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

#711632

On 10/29/2018 2:34 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> Summary:
>>      1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
> 
> It is not.  There is a lot of evidence to the contrary.
> 
>>      2. There was no "Big Bang"
> 
> There was.  The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (accidentally
> discovered in 1964, predicted before that) is evidence of it;
> so are cosmological redshift, time dilation, and fading light.
> 
>>      3. There was no "Inflation"
> 
> There was.  The “Planck” probe’s mission confirmed it once again:
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#Results>
> 
>>      4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
> 
> They are not, indeed.  Instead, space is expanding with increasing speed,
> carrying *distant* galaxies (not those of the Local Group, which are
> gravitationally bound) away with it.
> 
> This is evident not only in the redshift, but also in the *cosmological time
> dilation*, and the otherwise inexplicable *fading of light* observable in
> distant processes like supernovae.  (Time dilation is the greater the
> greater the apparent relative velocity is; light intensity is inversely
> proportional to the square of the distance to the light source.)
> 
> The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was awarded for this *unexpected* 1997/1998
> discovery:
> 
> <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2011/summary/>
> 
> In terms that you can understand (if you want to):
> 
> <https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/popular-physicsprize2011-1.pdf>
> 
>>      5. There is no "Dark Energy"
> 
> There is; the energy content of our universe is approximately 70 % dark
> energy.  Confirmed once again by the “Planck” probe’s mission’s results
> (see above).
> 
>> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it 
>> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, […]
> 
> Good morning, sunshine.  This idea is called “tired light” and has been
> *refuted* – in all its variants – *decades ago*.
> 
> For example, the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) has a much greater mass than the
> Milky Way and so, if the “tired light” idea had any substance, would have to
> slow down the light emitted by its stars, and cause a redshift.
> 
> The light is blueshifted instead, because that galaxy and the Milky Way are
> approaching each other, to merge in ca. 2 billion years.
> 
> ,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light>
> |
> | […] As cosmological measurements became more precise and the statistics in
> | cosmological data sets improved, tired light proposals ended up being
> | falsified,[1][2][3] to the extent that the theory was described in 2001 by
> | science writer Charles Seife as being "firmly on the fringe of physics 30
> | years ago".[5]
> 
> End of story.
> 


Thanks for the links !

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

#711674

On 11/5/2018 10:52 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 10/29/2018 2:34 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Keith Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> Summary:
>>>       1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
>>
>> It is not.  There is a lot of evidence to the contrary.
>>
>>>       2. There was no "Big Bang"
>>
>> There was.  The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (accidentally
>> discovered in 1964, predicted before that) is evidence of it;
>> so are cosmological redshift, time dilation, and fading light.
>>
>>>       3. There was no "Inflation"
>>
>> There was.  The “Planck” probe’s mission confirmed it once again:
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#Results>
>>
>>>       4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
>>
>> They are not, indeed.  Instead, space is expanding with increasing speed,
>> carrying *distant* galaxies (not those of the Local Group, which are
>> gravitationally bound) away with it.
>>
>> This is evident not only in the redshift, but also in the *cosmological time
>> dilation*, and the otherwise inexplicable *fading of light* observable in
>> distant processes like supernovae.  (Time dilation is the greater the
>> greater the apparent relative velocity is; light intensity is inversely
>> proportional to the square of the distance to the light source.)
>>
>> The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was awarded for this *unexpected* 1997/1998
>> discovery:
>>
>> <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2011/summary/>
>>
>> In terms that you can understand (if you want to):
>>
>> <https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/popular-physicsprize2011-1.pdf>
>>
>>>       5. There is no "Dark Energy"
>>
>> There is; the energy content of our universe is approximately 70 % dark
>> energy.  Confirmed once again by the “Planck” probe’s mission’s results
>> (see above).
>>
>>> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
>>> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, […]
>>
>> Good morning, sunshine.  This idea is called “tired light” and has been
>> *refuted* – in all its variants – *decades ago*.
>>
>> For example, the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) has a much greater mass than the
>> Milky Way and so, if the “tired light” idea had any substance, would have to
>> slow down the light emitted by its stars, and cause a redshift.
>>
>> The light is blueshifted instead, because that galaxy and the Milky Way are
>> approaching each other, to merge in ca. 2 billion years.
>>
>> ,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light>
>> |
>> | […] As cosmological measurements became more precise and the statistics in
>> | cosmological data sets improved, tired light proposals ended up being
>> | falsified,[1][2][3] to the extent that the theory was described in 2001 by
>> | science writer Charles Seife as being "firmly on the fringe of physics 30
>> | years ago".[5]
>>
>> End of story.
>>
> 
> 
> Thanks for the links !
> 
You needed help to find Wikipedia and nobelprze.org?

Mr. Vulcan is a true believer in the the Big Bang. He is wrong. Since he 
also is a true believer in "proof by assertion" that makes my argument 
iron-clad. Big Bang is bogus. "Tired light" is also wrong. The Red shift 
is due to something beyond the current science metaparadigms. (Which is 
why Mr. Vulcan is not permitted to believe)

If you just keep repeating your beliefs and thumping your bible long 
enough and hard enough everything you believe becomes true.

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

#711700

On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 11:33:05 AM UTC-8, benj wrote:
> On 11/5/2018 10:52 AM, Sergio wrote:
> > On 10/29/2018 2:34 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> Keith Stein wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Summary:
> >>>       1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
> >>
> >> It is not.  There is a lot of evidence to the contrary.
> >>
> >>>       2. There was no "Big Bang"
> >>
> >> There was.  The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (accidentally
> >> discovered in 1964, predicted before that) is evidence of it;
> >> so are cosmological redshift, time dilation, and fading light.
> >>
> >>>       3. There was no "Inflation"
> >>
> >> There was.  The “Planck” probe’s mission confirmed it once again:
> >>
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#Results>
> >>
> >>>       4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
> >>
> >> They are not, indeed.  Instead, space is expanding with increasing speed,
> >> carrying *distant* galaxies (not those of the Local Group, which are
> >> gravitationally bound) away with it.
> >>
> >> This is evident not only in the redshift, but also in the *cosmological time
> >> dilation*, and the otherwise inexplicable *fading of light* observable in
> >> distant processes like supernovae.  (Time dilation is the greater the
> >> greater the apparent relative velocity is; light intensity is inversely
> >> proportional to the square of the distance to the light source.)
> >>
> >> The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was awarded for this *unexpected* 1997/1998
> >> discovery:
> >>
> >> <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2011/summary/>
> >>
> >> In terms that you can understand (if you want to):
> >>
> >> <https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/popular-physicsprize2011-1.pdf>
> >>
> >>>       5. There is no "Dark Energy"
> >>
> >> There is; the energy content of our universe is approximately 70 % dark
> >> energy.  Confirmed once again by the “Planck” probe’s mission’s results
> >> (see above).
> >>
> >>> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
> >>> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, […]
> >>
> >> Good morning, sunshine.  This idea is called “tired light” and has been
> >> *refuted* – in all its variants – *decades ago*.
> >>
> >> For example, the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) has a much greater mass than the
> >> Milky Way and so, if the “tired light” idea had any substance, would have to
> >> slow down the light emitted by its stars, and cause a redshift.
> >>
> >> The light is blueshifted instead, because that galaxy and the Milky Way are
> >> approaching each other, to merge in ca. 2 billion years.
> >>
> >> ,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light>
> >> |
> >> | […] As cosmological measurements became more precise and the statistics in
> >> | cosmological data sets improved, tired light proposals ended up being
> >> | falsified,[1][2][3] to the extent that the theory was described in 2001 by
> >> | science writer Charles Seife as being "firmly on the fringe of physics 30
> >> | years ago".[5]
> >>
> >> End of story.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks for the links !
> > 
> You needed help to find Wikipedia and nobelprze.org?
> 
> Mr. Vulcan is a true believer in the the Big Bang. He is wrong. Since he 
> also is a true believer in "proof by assertion" that makes my argument 
> iron-clad. Big Bang is bogus. "Tired light" is also wrong. The Red shift 
> is due to something beyond the current science metaparadigms. (Which is 
> why Mr. Vulcan is not permitted to believe)
> 
> If you just keep repeating your beliefs and thumping your bible long 
> enough and hard enough everything you believe becomes true.

Light is moving through expanding space expanding its wavelength.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#711799

On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 6:03:05 AM UTC+10:30, benj wrote:
> On 11/5/2018 10:52 AM, Sergio wrote:
> > On 10/29/2018 2:34 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> Keith Stein wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Summary:
> >>>       1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
> >>
> >> It is not.  There is a lot of evidence to the contrary.
> >>
> >>>       2. There was no "Big Bang"
> >>
> >> There was.  The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (accidentally
> >> discovered in 1964, predicted before that) is evidence of it;
> >> so are cosmological redshift, time dilation, and fading light.
> >>
> >>>       3. There was no "Inflation"
> >>
> >> There was.  The “Planck” probe’s mission confirmed it once again:
> >>
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#Results>
> >>
> >>>       4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
> >>
> >> They are not, indeed.  Instead, space is expanding with increasing speed,
> >> carrying *distant* galaxies (not those of the Local Group, which are
> >> gravitationally bound) away with it.
> >>
> >> This is evident not only in the redshift, but also in the *cosmological time
> >> dilation*, and the otherwise inexplicable *fading of light* observable in
> >> distant processes like supernovae.  (Time dilation is the greater the
> >> greater the apparent relative velocity is; light intensity is inversely
> >> proportional to the square of the distance to the light source.)
> >>
> >> The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was awarded for this *unexpected* 1997/1998
> >> discovery:
> >>
> >> <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2011/summary/>
> >>
> >> In terms that you can understand (if you want to):
> >>
> >> <https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/popular-physicsprize2011-1.pdf>
> >>
> >>>       5. There is no "Dark Energy"
> >>
> >> There is; the energy content of our universe is approximately 70 % dark
> >> energy.  Confirmed once again by the “Planck” probe’s mission’s results
> >> (see above).
> >>
> >>> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
> >>> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, […]
> >>
> >> Good morning, sunshine.  This idea is called “tired light” and has been
> >> *refuted* – in all its variants – *decades ago*.
> >>
> >> For example, the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) has a much greater mass than the
> >> Milky Way and so, if the “tired light” idea had any substance, would have to
> >> slow down the light emitted by its stars, and cause a redshift.
> >>
> >> The light is blueshifted instead, because that galaxy and the Milky Way are
> >> approaching each other, to merge in ca. 2 billion years.
> >>
> >> ,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light>
> >> |
> >> | […] As cosmological measurements became more precise and the statistics in
> >> | cosmological data sets improved, tired light proposals ended up being
> >> | falsified,[1][2][3] to the extent that the theory was described in 2001 by
> >> | science writer Charles Seife as being "firmly on the fringe of physics 30
> >> | years ago".[5]
> >>
> >> End of story.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks for the links !
> > 
> You needed help to find Wikipedia and nobelprze.org?
> 
> Mr. Vulcan is a true believer in the the Big Bang. He is wrong. Since he 
> also is a true believer in "proof by assertion" that makes my argument 
> iron-clad. Big Bang is bogus. "Tired light" is also wrong. The Red shift 
> is due to something beyond the current science metaparadigms. (Which is 
> why Mr. Vulcan is not permitted to believe)
> 
> If you just keep repeating your beliefs and thumping your bible long 
> enough and hard enough everything you believe becomes true.

benj I agree with you so far as "there was no big bang" and also that "tired light" is a busted theory. 

Others will think this a contradictory opinion, because they think the refute of tired light proves big bang theory. They are locked within their narrow view, and not the imagination to peer without 

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

#710243

On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 12:25:14 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
> Summary:
>      1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
>      2. There was no "Big Bang"
>      3. There was no "Inflation"
>      4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
>      5. There is no "Dark Energy"
> 
> 
> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it 
> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this 
> will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
> as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
> 
> Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
> I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
> and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)
> 
>      K ~= 10^-10 /year
>      t = time in years
> 
> Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to 
> enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more 
> accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........
> 
>                         K = H = Hubble's Constant
> and                    t = -t  ( so times past become +ve)
> 
> which substituted in (3) gives:
> 
>              Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)
> 
> then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
> to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
>              e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)
> 
> So for t << 1/H we have:
> 
>              Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)
> 
> which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
> for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).
> 
> As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore 
> further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law 
> expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
> exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
> in observatories all around the world eh!
> 
> Conclusions:
>      1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
>      2. There was no "Big Bang"
>      3. There was no "Inflation"
>      4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
>      5. There is no "Dark Energy"
> ********************************************************************
> 
> **********************************************************************
>          A GOOD QUESTION
> 
> When light slows down by entering a more dense medium such as glass, or
> water, the frequency stays the same and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.
> 
> So how is it that when light slows down traveling across intergalactic 
> space,the the WAVELENGTH INCREASES ?
> 
> good question!
> 
> when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the 
> wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows 
> before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave 
> catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train 
> compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.
> 
> When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there 
> is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave 
> train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the 
> same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as 
> it travels through intergalactic space.
> 
> So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is 
> INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light 
> is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that 
> it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light 
> was higher than it is now.
> 
> The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on distant 
> galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as that on 
> Earth today. The wavelength is proportional the the velocity of light AT 
> THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased wavelength is faithfully 
> transmitted through space, where it is measured in our observatories.
> 
> keith stein


You have more than just the redshift to explain. For example,
refer to th thread: Bringing Dark Energy Out into the Light 
https://www.space.com/42178-bringing-dark-energy-into-the-light.html 

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

#710250

On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 9:25:14 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> Summary:
>      1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
>      2. There was no "Big Bang"
>      3. There was no "Inflation"
>      4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
>      5. There is no "Dark Energy"
> 
> 
> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it 
> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this 
> will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
> as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
> 
> Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
> I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
> and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)
> 
>      K ~= 10^-10 /year
>      t = time in years
> 
> Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to 
> enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more 
> accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........
> 
>                         K = H = Hubble's Constant
> and                    t = -t  ( so times past become +ve)
> 
> which substituted in (3) gives:
> 
>              Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)
> 
> then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
> to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
>              e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)
> 
> So for t << 1/H we have:
> 
>              Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)
> 
> which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
> for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).
> 
> As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore 
> further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law 
> expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
> exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
> in observatories all around the world eh!
> 
> Conclusions:
>      1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
>      2. There was no "Big Bang"
>      3. There was no "Inflation"
>      4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
>      5. There is no "Dark Energy"
> ********************************************************************
> 
> **********************************************************************
>          A GOOD QUESTION
> 
> When light slows down by entering a more dense medium such as glass, or
> water, the frequency stays the same and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.
> 
> So how is it that when light slows down traveling across intergalactic 
> space,the the WAVELENGTH INCREASES ?
> 
> good question!
> 
> when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the 
> wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows 
> before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave 
> catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train 
> compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.
> 
> When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there 
> is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave 
> train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the 
> same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as 
> it travels through intergalactic space.
> 
> So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is 
> INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light 
> is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that 
> it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light 
> was higher than it is now.
> 
> The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on distant 
> galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as that on 
> Earth today. The wavelength is proportional the the velocity of light AT 
> THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased wavelength is faithfully 
> transmitted through space, where it is measured in our observatories.
> 
> keith stein


You mean c has has decreased?  Why?

Double-A

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

#710256

On 29/10/2018 21:16, Double-A wrote:
> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 9:25:14 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>> Summary:
>>       1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
>>       2. There was no "Big Bang"
>>       3. There was no "Inflation"
>>       4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
>>       5. There is no "Dark Energy"
>>
>>
>> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
>> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
>> will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
>> as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
>>
>> Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
>> I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
>> and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)
>>
>>       K ~= 10^-10 /year
>>       t = time in years
>>
>> Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to
>> enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more
>> accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........
>>
>>                          K = H = Hubble's Constant
>> and                    t = -t  ( so times past become +ve)
>>
>> which substituted in (3) gives:
>>
>>               Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)
>>
>> then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
>> to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
>>               e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)
>>
>> So for t << 1/H we have:
>>
>>               Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)
>>
>> which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
>> for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).
>>
>> As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore
>> further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law
>> expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
>> exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
>> in observatories all around the world eh!
>>
>> Conclusions:
>>       1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
>>       2. There was no "Big Bang"
>>       3. There was no "Inflation"
>>       4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
>>       5. There is no "Dark Energy"
>> ********************************************************************
>>
>> **********************************************************************
>>           A GOOD QUESTION
>>
>> When light slows down by entering a more dense medium such as glass, or
>> water, the frequency stays the same and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.
>>
>> So how is it that when light slows down traveling across intergalactic
>> space,the the WAVELENGTH INCREASES ?
>>
>> good question!
>>
>> when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the
>> wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows
>> before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave
>> catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train
>> compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.
>>
>> When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there
>> is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave
>> train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the
>> same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as
>> it travels through intergalactic space.
>>
>> So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is
>> INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light
>> is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that
>> it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light
>> was higher than it is now.
>>
>> The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on distant
>> galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as that on
>> Earth today. The wavelength is proportional the the velocity of light AT
>> THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased wavelength is faithfully
>> transmitted through space, where it is measured in our observatories.
>>
>> keith stein
> 
> 
> You mean c has has decreased? 

I mean that IF c is decreasing this would explain the Hubble Red Shifts,
and, the exponential rise in red shift observed at distances over about
5 billion years, without the need to invent dark energy.

  Why?
Why not?  The universe is clearly evolving eh!

keith stein

> Double-A
> 

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

#710271

On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 3:19:08 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 29/10/2018 21:16, Double-A wrote:
> > On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 9:25:14 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> >> Summary:
> >>       1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
> >>       2. There was no "Big Bang"
> >>       3. There was no "Inflation"
> >>       4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
> >>       5. There is no "Dark Energy"
> >>
> >>
> >> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
> >> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
> >> will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
> >> as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
> >>
> >> Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
> >> I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
> >> and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)
> >>
> >>       K ~= 10^-10 /year
> >>       t = time in years
> >>
> >> Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to
> >> enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more
> >> accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........
> >>
> >>                          K = H = Hubble's Constant
> >> and                    t = -t  ( so times past become +ve)
> >>
> >> which substituted in (3) gives:
> >>
> >>               Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)
> >>
> >> then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
> >> to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
> >>               e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)
> >>
> >> So for t << 1/H we have:
> >>
> >>               Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)
> >>
> >> which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
> >> for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).
> >>
> >> As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore
> >> further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law
> >> expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
> >> exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
> >> in observatories all around the world eh!
> >>
> >> Conclusions:
> >>       1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
> >>       2. There was no "Big Bang"
> >>       3. There was no "Inflation"
> >>       4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
> >>       5. There is no "Dark Energy"
> >> ********************************************************************
> >>
> >> **********************************************************************
> >>           A GOOD QUESTION
> >>
> >> When light slows down by entering a more dense medium such as glass, or
> >> water, the frequency stays the same and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.
> >>
> >> So how is it that when light slows down traveling across intergalactic
> >> space,the the WAVELENGTH INCREASES ?
> >>
> >> good question!
> >>
> >> when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the
> >> wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows
> >> before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave
> >> catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train
> >> compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.
> >>
> >> When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there
> >> is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave
> >> train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the
> >> same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as
> >> it travels through intergalactic space.
> >>
> >> So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is
> >> INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light
> >> is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that
> >> it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light
> >> was higher than it is now.
> >>
> >> The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on distant
> >> galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as that on
> >> Earth today. The wavelength is proportional the the velocity of light AT
> >> THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased wavelength is faithfully
> >> transmitted through space, where it is measured in our observatories.
> >>
> >> keith stein
> > 
> > 
> > You mean c has has decreased? 
> 
> I mean that IF c is decreasing this would explain the Hubble Red Shifts,
> and, the exponential rise in red shift observed at distances over about
> 5 billion years, without the need to invent dark energy.
> 
>   Why?
> Why not?  The universe is clearly evolving eh!
> 
> keith stein
> 
> > Double-A
> >

I suppose that's one way to explain it.  You know Hubble himself never accepted the expanding universe idea.  He thought there was something causing light to red shift over vast distances.

Double-A

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

#710378

On 29/10/2018 22:57, Double-A wrote:
 > On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 3:19:08 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
 >> On 29/10/2018 21:16, Double-A wrote:

 >>> You mean c has has decreased?

 >> I mean that IF c is decreasing this would explain the Hubble Red
 >> Shifts and, the exponential rise in red shift observed at distances
 >> over about 5 billion years, without the need to invent dark energy.

 >>>    Why?

 >> Why not?  The universe is clearly evolving eh!

 > I suppose that's one way to explain it.
 > You know Hubble himself never accepted the expanding universe idea.
 > thought there was something causing light to red shift over vast
 > distances.


Excellent Double-A.
That is by far the most encouraging response i have received
from anyone on sci.physics, or sci.physics.relativity eh!

Trusting that you won't object to the cross posting.

keith stein

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

#710399

Keith Stein wrote:
>  >> Why not?  The universe is clearly evolving eh!
> 
>  > I suppose that's one way to explain it.

A very crude way, tantamount to being wrong if misunderstood, which is
therefore (and especially when equipped with lack of additional knowledge,
as is the case with Keith Stein) easy to do.

>  > You know Hubble himself never accepted the expanding universe idea.

Correct.

>  > thought there was something causing light to red shift over vast
>  > distances.

Correct, too.  In particular, Hubble thought that this something would be
the curvature of space; but his methodology was flawed, and we know "now"
(since 1964 at the latest) that he was wrong about that.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble#Redshift_increases_with_distance>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#711789

On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 2:16:39 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 9:25:14 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> > Summary:
> >      1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
> >      2. There was no "Big Bang"
> >      3. There was no "Inflation"
> >      4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
> >      5. There is no "Dark Energy"
> > 
> > 
> > Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it 
> > occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this 
> > will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
> > as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
> > 
> > Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
> > I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
> > and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)
> > 
> >      K ~= 10^-10 /year
> >      t = time in years
> > 
> > Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to 
> > enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more 
> > accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........
> > 
> >                         K = H = Hubble's Constant
> > and                    t = -t  ( so times past become +ve)
> > 
> > which substituted in (3) gives:
> > 
> >              Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)
> > 
> > then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
> > to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
> >              e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)
> > 
> > So for t << 1/H we have:
> > 
> >              Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)
> > 
> > which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
> > for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).
> > 
> > As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore 
> > further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law 
> > expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
> > exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
> > in observatories all around the world eh!
> > 
> > Conclusions:
> >      1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
> >      2. There was no "Big Bang"
> >      3. There was no "Inflation"
> >      4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
> >      5. There is no "Dark Energy"
> > ********************************************************************
> > 
> > **********************************************************************
> >          A GOOD QUESTION
> > 
> > When light slows down by entering a more dense medium such as glass, or
> > water, the frequency stays the same and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.
> > 
> > So how is it that when light slows down traveling across intergalactic 
> > space,the the WAVELENGTH INCREASES ?
> > 
> > good question!
> > 
> > when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the 
> > wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows 
> > before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave 
> > catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train 
> > compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.
> > 
> > When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there 
> > is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave 
> > train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the 
> > same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as 
> > it travels through intergalactic space.
> > 
> > So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is 
> > INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light 
> > is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that 
> > it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light 
> > was higher than it is now.
> > 
> > The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on distant 
> > galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as that on 
> > Earth today. The wavelength is proportional the the velocity of light AT 
> > THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased wavelength is faithfully 
> > transmitted through space, where it is measured in our observatories.
> > 
> > keith stein
> 
> 
> You mean c has has decreased?  Why?
> 
> Double-A

c speed can not change.To think it can is crazy.It would have to answer this question 'How does it get back to c speed? That simple question has never been answered.Thus I'm right and want my over due Nobel Bert

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

#711795

On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 12:40:31 PM UTC+10:30, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 2:16:39 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> > On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 9:25:14 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> > > Summary:
> > >      1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
> > >      2. There was no "Big Bang"
> > >      3. There was no "Inflation"
> > >      4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
> > >      5. There is no "Dark Energy"
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it 
> > > occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this 
> > > will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
> > > as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
> > > 
> > > Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
> > > I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
> > > and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)
> > > 
> > >      K ~= 10^-10 /year
> > >      t = time in years
> > > 
> > > Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to 
> > > enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more 
> > > accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........
> > > 
> > >                         K = H = Hubble's Constant
> > > and                    t = -t  ( so times past become +ve)
> > > 
> > > which substituted in (3) gives:
> > > 
> > >              Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)
> > > 
> > > then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
> > > to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
> > >              e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)
> > > 
> > > So for t << 1/H we have:
> > > 
> > >              Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)
> > > 
> > > which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
> > > for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).
> > > 
> > > As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore 
> > > further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law 
> > > expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
> > > exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
> > > in observatories all around the world eh!
> > > 
> > > Conclusions:
> > >      1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
> > >      2. There was no "Big Bang"
> > >      3. There was no "Inflation"
> > >      4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
> > >      5. There is no "Dark Energy"
> > > ********************************************************************
> > > 
> > > **********************************************************************
> > >          A GOOD QUESTION
> > > 
> > > When light slows down by entering a more dense medium such as glass, or
> > > water, the frequency stays the same and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.
> > > 
> > > So how is it that when light slows down traveling across intergalactic 
> > > space,the the WAVELENGTH INCREASES ?
> > > 
> > > good question!
> > > 
> > > when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the 
> > > wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows 
> > > before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave 
> > > catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train 
> > > compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.
> > > 
> > > When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there 
> > > is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave 
> > > train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the 
> > > same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as 
> > > it travels through intergalactic space.
> > > 
> > > So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is 
> > > INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light 
> > > is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that 
> > > it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light 
> > > was higher than it is now.
> > > 
> > > The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on distant 
> > > galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as that on 
> > > Earth today. The wavelength is proportional the the velocity of light AT 
> > > THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased wavelength is faithfully 
> > > transmitted through space, where it is measured in our observatories.
> > > 
> > > keith stein
> > 
> > 
> > You mean c has has decreased?  Why?
> > 
> > Double-A
> 
> c speed can not change.To think it can is crazy.It would have to answer this question 'How does it get back to c speed? That simple question has never been answered.Thus I'm right and want my over due Nobel Bert

reber G=emc^2 If the speed of light is dependent upon gravitational fields, then General Relativity dictates the value of C in relative environments. This can resolve the problem you mention and deny you your nobel, sorry to inform you 

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

#712139

On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:54:49 PM UTC-8, Steve wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 12:40:31 PM UTC+10:30, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 2:16:39 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 9:25:14 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> > > > Summary:
> > > >      1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
> > > >      2. There was no "Big Bang"
> > > >      3. There was no "Inflation"
> > > >      4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
> > > >      5. There is no "Dark Energy"
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it 
> > > > occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this 
> > > > will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
> > > > as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
> > > > 
> > > > Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
> > > > I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
> > > > and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)
> > > > 
> > > >      K ~= 10^-10 /year
> > > >      t = time in years
> > > > 
> > > > Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to 
> > > > enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more 
> > > > accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........
> > > > 
> > > >                         K = H = Hubble's Constant
> > > > and                    t = -t  ( so times past become +ve)
> > > > 
> > > > which substituted in (3) gives:
> > > > 
> > > >              Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)
> > > > 
> > > > then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
> > > > to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
> > > >              e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)
> > > > 
> > > > So for t << 1/H we have:
> > > > 
> > > >              Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)
> > > > 
> > > > which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
> > > > for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).
> > > > 
> > > > As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore 
> > > > further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law 
> > > > expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
> > > > exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
> > > > in observatories all around the world eh!
> > > > 
> > > > Conclusions:
> > > >      1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
> > > >      2. There was no "Big Bang"
> > > >      3. There was no "Inflation"
> > > >      4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
> > > >      5. There is no "Dark Energy"
> > > > ********************************************************************
> > > > 
> > > > **********************************************************************
> > > >          A GOOD QUESTION
> > > > 
> > > > When light slows down by entering a more dense medium such as glass, or
> > > > water, the frequency stays the same and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.
> > > > 
> > > > So how is it that when light slows down traveling across intergalactic 
> > > > space,the the WAVELENGTH INCREASES ?
> > > > 
> > > > good question!
> > > > 
> > > > when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the 
> > > > wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows 
> > > > before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave 
> > > > catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train 
> > > > compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.
> > > > 
> > > > When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there 
> > > > is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave 
> > > > train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the 
> > > > same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as 
> > > > it travels through intergalactic space.
> > > > 
> > > > So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is 
> > > > INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light 
> > > > is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that 
> > > > it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light 
> > > > was higher than it is now.
> > > > 
> > > > The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on distant 
> > > > galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as that on 
> > > > Earth today. The wavelength is proportional the the velocity of light AT 
> > > > THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased wavelength is faithfully 
> > > > transmitted through space, where it is measured in our observatories.
> > > > 
> > > > keith stein
> > > 
> > > 
> > > You mean c has has decreased?  Why?
> > > 
> > > Double-A
> > 
> > c speed can not change.To think it can is crazy.It would have to answer this question 'How does it get back to c speed? That simple question has never been answered.Thus I'm right and want my over due Nobel Bert
> 
> reber G=emc^2 If the speed of light is dependent upon gravitational fields, then General Relativity dictates the value of C in relative environments. This can resolve the problem you mention and deny you your nobel, sorry to inform you

Gravity can curve light,but never ever change its speed.That's reality and my Nobel will be waiting for me.Plus two more.Bert

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

#711797 — Einstein snubbed the Nobel committee.

> I'm want my over due Nobel

Einstein snubbed the Nobel committee.

He didn't even mention his Nobel award ceremony in his journal;
he was too busy traveling the world.

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

#710484

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 2:55:14 AM UTC+10:30, Keith Stein wrote:
> Summary:
>      1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
>      2. There was no "Big Bang"
>      3. There was no "Inflation"
>      4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
>      5. There is no "Dark Energy"
> 
> 
> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, 
> 
> keith stein

Hi Keith

You'll have learned more for having questioned and tested conventional doctrine, and having sort alternative explanations, benefit from having viewed it from contrasted perspectives. Those who dont engage in this fashion, but rather except conventional theory as teacher prescribes it without having rationalized for themselves, they dont come to know the subjects in quite the same way. And I say this irrespective of whether the theories taught are correct or not. The road you are on can lead to a far superior education. 

Having tried to break conventional theory and failed, one can have learnt a great deal. Or perhaps one tries to break conventional theory and succeeds. Even better. But this is a lonely road, for 98% of people dont have the mindset of questioning doctrine, and you can expect their disagreement by default. But you will know this already 

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

#710535

On 31/10/2018 04:18, Steve wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 2:55:14 AM UTC+10:30, Keith Stein wrote:
>> Summary:
>>       1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
>>       2. There was no "Big Bang"
>>       3. There was no "Inflation"
>>       4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
>>       5. There is no "Dark Energy"
>>
>>
>> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts,
>>
>> keith stein
> 
> Hi Keith
> 
> You'll have learned more for having questioned and tested conventional doctrine, and having sort alternative explanations, benefit from having viewed it from contrasted perspectives. Those who dont engage in this fashion, but rather except conventional theory as teacher prescribes it without having rationalized for themselves, they dont come to know the subjects in quite the same way. And I say this irrespective of whether the theories taught are correct or not. The road you are on can lead to a far superior education.
> 
> Having tried to break conventional theory and failed, one can have learnt a great deal. Or perhaps one tries to break conventional theory and succeeds. Even better. But this is a lonely road, for 98% of people dont have the mindset of questioning doctrine, and you can expect their disagreement by default. But you will know this already

Thank you Steve,I appreciate that.

I am old enough to remember the time before the Big Bang :) ,
and was always skeptical, and increasingly so as i witnessed
the attempts to rescue the already preposterous cosmology with
the ever more preposterous notions of "inflation" ,"dark matter",
and their latest creation "dark energy".

I don't doubt that in the long run the "Big Bang" will be
considered as little better than the notion that the Universe
rides on the back of a turtle, or was it a tortoise ?

In the meantime, yes it is a lonely road, but i really don't
mind the 'flames'.  Not nearly so bad as the 'flames' Giordando
Bruno suffered eh!

keith stein

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

#710546

On 10/31/2018 12:02 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 31/10/2018 04:18, Steve wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 2:55:14 AM UTC+10:30, Keith Stein wrote:
>>> Summary:
>>>       1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.

This is not correct.

>>>       2. There was no "Big Bang"

This is correct.

>>>       3. There was no "Inflation"

Maybe, maybe not. The possible "inflation" would be due to the PART of 
the Red Shift actually due to velocity. In other words the anomalous 
"acceleration" of the universe expansion as people are guessing.

>>>       4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.

Pretty much true (see 3 above)

>>>       5. There is no "Dark Energy"

Well, sort of true. There may be energies as yet undiscovered, but that 
isn't the question. The problem is that once you make a big mistake 
which in this case is to assume that the Red shift is due to velocity, 
then you end up required to start inventing all manner of things to 
patch your theory so it does not fall apart. Dark mass being one of 
those things to explain the supposed accelerations that were an error to 
begin with. You start with a mistake and then pretty soon need a house 
of cards to support and confirm it. Note all the other "accepted facts" 
that have been derived from this one mistake such as how old our 
universe is and so forth.

>>> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts,
>>>
>>> keith stein
>>
>> Hi Keith
>>
>> You'll have learned more for having questioned and tested conventional 
>> doctrine, and having sort alternative explanations, benefit from 
>> having viewed it from contrasted perspectives. Those who dont engage 
>> in this fashion, but rather except conventional theory as teacher 
>> prescribes it without having rationalized for themselves, they dont 
>> come to know the subjects in quite the same way. And I say this 
>> irrespective of whether the theories taught are correct or not. The 
>> road you are on can lead to a far superior education.
>>
>> Having tried to break conventional theory and failed, one can have 
>> learnt a great deal. Or perhaps one tries to break conventional theory 
>> and succeeds. Even better. But this is a lonely road, for 98% of 
>> people dont have the mindset of questioning doctrine, and you can 
>> expect their disagreement by default. But you will know this already
> 
> Thank you Steve,I appreciate that.
> 
> I am old enough to remember the time before the Big Bang :) ,
> and was always skeptical, and increasingly so as i witnessed
> the attempts to rescue the already preposterous cosmology with
> the ever more preposterous notions of "inflation" ,"dark matter",
> and their latest creation "dark energy".
> 
> I don't doubt that in the long run the "Big Bang" will be
> considered as little better than the notion that the Universe
> rides on the back of a turtle, or was it a tortoise ?
> 
> In the meantime, yes it is a lonely road, but i really don't
> mind the 'flames'.  Not nearly so bad as the 'flames' Giordando
> Bruno suffered eh!

Ah, the glory of the martyr!  Delusions of heroic science, have we? Eh?

I've been around long enough to have seen this sort of thing before and 
one day the "big Bang" will be totally discredited and then you can go 
confront all the "true believers" who argued for it tooth and nail and 
called you an idiot for "denying" true theory and every one of them will 
look you in the eye and deny that they ever supported the "big Bang" 
theory because "everybody knows" it's bogus. That's the way religion 
works.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web