[NatureNS] Expand Universe or Tired Light

ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none;
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com;
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dalu.onmicrosoft.com;
From: Stephen Shaw <srshaw@Dal.Ca>
To: "naturens@chebucto.ns.ca" <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>
Thread-Topic: [NatureNS] Expand Universe or Tired Light
Thread-Index: AQHWKvvg5vkfHIQ1eEqi0Jj9Sl9kvqip0XaA
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 22:48:55 +0000
References: <8485a90e-7c49-1a8f-f0a7-17f7b5263668@glinx.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
authentication-results: chebucto.ns.ca; dkim=none (message not signed)
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

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