next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Dave: see salutary account of this idea under "Tired Light” in Wikipedia (always 100% reliable, as you know). Quoting: "By the 1990s and on into the twenty-first century, a number of falsifying observations have shown that "tired light" hypotheses are not viable explanations for cosmological redshifts.” A good read therein and a quite complicated analysis: refutation is based not just on thought experiments or theory, but on some contrary astronomical observations that you have to surmount in order to continue to argue for a tired light explanation of cosmological redshifts. On May 15, 2020, at 4:57 PM, David Webster <dwebster@glinx.com> wrote > 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
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects