Cosmology, the range of light, and the scientific method
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantum Gravity 400.7: Search for Equations of form y = 2x + z, SUNY Buffalo New York USA Results
Next: speed of light out of pure math the pseudosphere as time and sphere as distance Chapt 19 #216; ATOM TOTALITY
From: Michael Helland on 8 Jul 2010 04:20 "On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time." Edwin Hubble, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 97, 506, 1937 Observation: light from very distant galaxies has a reduced frequency and energy roughly proportional to their distances. Conjecture: light reduces its energy until its gone, it doesn't travel forever, it has a finite range Hypothesis: the internal dynamics of light dictate its speed in a vacuum, v, to be: v = c - Ht where c is ~300000 km/sec, H is 21 km/sec per million years, and t is the time light has been traveling since it was emitted. (this is an alternative interptation of Hubble's Law) Predictions: a. in contrast to the expansion hypothesis, where redshifts are caused by increasing distances which would weaken the force of gravity between galaxies, the finite range of light hypothesis only afftects the electromagnetic force with redshift, and doesn't increase distances, thus has a stronger force of gravity between galaxies. This prediction might be confirmed with the observations that suggest to us that dark matter is needed to compensate for the strnegth of gravity at the exaggerated distances of the expansion models. Criticisms: a. This is tired light which has been refuted. Not a single tired light model suggests light actually slows down, and thus its journey through the cosmos is delayed (which is like the Big Bang except without increasing distances). That's why it fails the surface brightness test, and the time dilation of supernovae light curves among other tets. And also unlike tired light, there is also no interaction required by this hypothesis that would blur the images we get from the cosmos in a manner that is not observed. This hypothesis is not Zwicky's tired light. It is novel. b. If light slowed down with its redshift, we could detect it from the wavelength measurements. The hypothesis dictates that v = c - Ht, and if the light is focused through a lens or reflected off a light, then at a quantum mechanical level it has been freshly re-emitted. That puts t at the Plank Scale, so Ht will effectively be 0, and thus v = c. Without gaining any energy, it may re-gain its lost velocity which is predicted by the hypothesis and is confirmed by observation as the increased wavelength. c. This conflicts with special relativity. Hubble redshift is empirical evidence that the conservation of energy and the local properties of spacetime are not Universal. The evidence of Hubble redshift falsifies (or at least places limits to the domains of applicability) of special relativity and more. Experiment: Stand outside at night and look at the sky. The night sky isn't as bright as the sun. Is that because everything out there expanded from a single point? Or is it because light doesn't travel forever, and maybe there's even unfathomably more out there beyond what light is able to show us? You be the judge.
From: eric gisse on 8 Jul 2010 10:48 Michael Helland wrote: [...] > a. This is tired light which has been refuted. > > Not a single tired light model suggests light actually slows down [...] The stupid is breathtaking.
From: Sam Wormley on 8 Jul 2010 14:00 Mike, take a few days and read this material: No Center http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
From: Michael Helland on 8 Jul 2010 14:40 On Jul 8, 7:48 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Michael Helland wrote: > > [...]> a. This is tired light which has been refuted. > > > Not a single tired light model suggests light actually slows down > > [...] > > The stupid is breathtaking. It's a true fact. My hypothesis is novel. Tired light models only decrease the energy of light, not the speed, so that leads to very different predictions.
From: eric gisse on 8 Jul 2010 20:43
Michael Helland wrote: > On Jul 8, 7:48 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Michael Helland wrote: >> >> [...]> a. This is tired light which has been refuted. >> >> > Not a single tired light model suggests light actually slows down >> >> [...] >> >> The stupid is breathtaking. > > It's a true fact. My hypothesis is novel. > > Tired light models only decrease the energy of light, not the speed, > so that leads to very different predictions. Who the hell cares? Your model predicts the wrong answer anyway. |