next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
Hi Patrick & All, Thanks Patrick for the detailed explanation of the Big Bang. In bare outline the Hubble Constant, amount of red shift is proportional to distance between source and observer, and this is taken as proof that the universe is expanding. But is an expanding universe the only way to account for these observations ? Experience with the properties of light from nearby sources has led to the assumption that light, an electromagnetic wave, can travel billions of years through magnetic fields, or electric fields without modification or loss of energy. But how can one be sure that light can travel for billions of years without some consumption or loss of photon/wave energy ? The objection that no attrition of photon energy over time, regardless of medium properties or travel time, is know to occur is not valid because the Hubble effect might be due to such attrition and not an expanding universe. And, with math proficiency degraded by moth, time and rust to about grade 8 level I am not in any position to debate this subject. Just express doubts about interpretation. But falling back on an old saying, as a Parthian shot; "Discovery is seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what no one else has thought." Yt, DW, Kentville
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects