next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Hi Steve & All, As I indicated earlier, my physics at this juncture mostly revolves around a diet rich in plant fiber. But getting back to 'tired light' if you wish to call it that--- I agree that interaction with particles does not wash. But I wonder about destructive interference. When two waves are out of phase the resultant is zero. An observer sees only that light emitted by the near surface but, in general, light will be emitted in all directions by a spherical luminous body. And light from the most distant source will have the greatest opportunity to experience interference, in transit, and light from less distant sources will have progressively less opportunity. Or, expressed in greater detail, if there are many light sources, which is the case, then light from more distant sources must be exposed in transit to more light from sources which are less distant and consequently have greater opportunity to experience destructive interference and this will preferentially have least effect at the red end (lower frequency) and greatest effect at the blue end (higher frequency) of the spectrum. So there will be a red shift which increases with distance from observer. I am more comfortable with a universe which does not expand because 1) the universe as we know it, from observation, is well adapted to perpetual renewal, 2) I find it difficult to imagine a time when the universe did not exist, except as a infinitely dense something which for no clear reason decided to blow up to become ever larger. 3) Although history is important and interesting, and Astrophysics and related topics are fun, the pressing issues ahead revolve around Climate Change; how to get past the empty promise stage and take coordinated action with trade penalties for slackers. Yt, DW, Kentville On 5/15/2020 7:48 PM, Stephen Shaw wrote: > 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