Hubble Redshift is the expansion of time
in [Physics]
|
Prev: The Special Theory of Discrete Continuity
Next: Accentuate the negative & sell BP's cap&trade nostrum (IPCC)
From: Michael Helland on 6 Jul 2010 15:30 A galaxy 50 million light years away emits some light. How long does it take to get here? I calculate 50.09 million years. Is that right? (Just checking.) Now, Hubble's Constant is defined in units of km/sec/Mpc or km/sec/ Mly. Either way, Mpc or Mly, this is in terms of distance. Wouldn't it also be possible to determine the expansion rate based on time instead of distance? Wouldn't it be mathematically equivalent to make the same determinations if Hubble's law looked like this: v = H_0 * t where H_0 = 21 km/sec per million years, and where t is how many millions of years light traveled? Because the speed of light is constant, in the Big Bang model, it should make no difference as to whether or not the Universe expands in relation to distance or in relation to time. What's more, is that the "expansion of time" is an unavoidable consequence of the expansion of space. But I don't think it is true vice versa. There is a manner of expanding time without expanding space. This leads me to ask, is it all possible that the expansion of time is the central cause of cosmological observations (redshifts, time dilation in light curves) and that the expansion of space is but one method of achieving the expansion of space? That may be an interesting question *if* I can show that time can expand while space remains static. But that's simple. Hubble redshift is clear empirical evidence: light loses energy as it travels the cosmos. Instead of trying to fit this evidence into our theories, why not try to adapt the theory to fit the evidence? We have to accept that Hubble redshift is clear empirical evidence that the conservation of energy is not Universal, it has a limited domain of applicability. We have to accept that Hubble redshift is clear empirical evidence that Newtonian physics and also Special Relativity. We have to accept that light has a finite range. If we can accept that, and we can accept that light slows down as it reaches the end of its range, then we explain why it redshifts, why we observe time dilation, and why the observable cosmos is finite. We can understand that even though light's journey from a galaxy 50 million light years way will take longer than 50 million years, it is only the *time* that increases and not the *distance*, which is still 50 million light years away. Shorter distances means a stronger force of gravity, which means we don't need as much dark matter, if we need any at all. A finite range of light means the Universe itself is indefinitely old, which means the great walls and voids and superclusters had more than enough time to evolve. No inflationary field is required. A finite range would mean that the apparent recessional velocity of a galaxy is only *apparent*, just as Hubble stressed over and over as he expressed his doubts about the expansion of space. The galaxies aren't moving, and they aren't the reason their light appears redshift. Its the internal dynamics of the light itself that causes it to redshift. Galileo Galilei once said: in questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual
From: Androcles on 6 Jul 2010 19:17 "Michael Helland" <mobydikc(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:079373ae-8470-4c76-8306-6a93fda4ad0b(a)w33g2000prb.googlegroups.com... A galaxy 50 million light years away emits some light. How long does it take to get here? I calculate 50.09 million years. Is that right? (Just checking.) ========================= No. Both these images are blurred because the light arrives at different times. http://othersidedmusic.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/night_time_lapse.jpg http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html Now, Hubble's Constant is defined in units of km/sec/Mpc or km/sec/ Mly. Either way, Mpc or Mly, this is in terms of distance. Wouldn't it also be possible to determine the expansion rate based on time instead of distance? Wouldn't it be mathematically equivalent to make the same determinations if Hubble's law looked like this: v = H_0 * t where H_0 = 21 km/sec per million years, and where t is how many millions of years light traveled? Because the speed of light is constant, in the Big Bang model, it should make no difference as to whether or not the Universe expands in relation to distance or in relation to time. What's more, is that the "expansion of time" is an unavoidable consequence of the expansion of space. But I don't think it is true vice versa. There is a manner of expanding time without expanding space. This leads me to ask, is it all possible that the expansion of time is the central cause of cosmological observations (redshifts, time dilation in light curves) and that the expansion of space is but one method of achieving the expansion of space? That may be an interesting question *if* I can show that time can expand while space remains static. But that's simple. Hubble redshift is clear empirical evidence: light loses energy as it travels the cosmos. Instead of trying to fit this evidence into our theories, why not try to adapt the theory to fit the evidence? We have to accept that Hubble redshift is clear empirical evidence that the conservation of energy is not Universal, it has a limited domain of applicability. We have to accept that Hubble redshift is clear empirical evidence that Newtonian physics and also Special Relativity. We have to accept that light has a finite range. If we can accept that, and we can accept that light slows down as it reaches the end of its range, then we explain why it redshifts, why we observe time dilation, and why the observable cosmos is finite. We can understand that even though light's journey from a galaxy 50 million light years way will take longer than 50 million years, it is only the *time* that increases and not the *distance*, which is still 50 million light years away. Shorter distances means a stronger force of gravity, which means we don't need as much dark matter, if we need any at all. A finite range of light means the Universe itself is indefinitely old, which means the great walls and voids and superclusters had more than enough time to evolve. No inflationary field is required. A finite range would mean that the apparent recessional velocity of a galaxy is only *apparent*, just as Hubble stressed over and over as he expressed his doubts about the expansion of space. The galaxies aren't moving, and they aren't the reason their light appears redshift. Its the internal dynamics of the light itself that causes it to redshift. Galileo Galilei once said: �in questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual� ============================================= He meant me, not you. You're way off base.
From: Sam Wormley on 7 Jul 2010 00:03 On 7/6/10 2:30 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > A galaxy 50 million light years away emits some light. > > How long does it take to get here? Homogeneity and Isotropy http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm#DT "A fourth distance is based on the light travel time: Dltt = c*(to-tem). People who say that the greatest distance we can see is c*to are using this distance. But Dltt = c*(to-tem) is not a very useful distance because it is very hard to determine tem, the age of the Universe at the time of emission of the light we see. And finally, the redshift is a very important distance indicator, since astronomers can measure it easily, while the size or luminosity needed to compute DA or DL are always very hard to determine. The redshift is such a useful distance indicator that it is a shame that science journalists conspire to leave it out of stories: they must be taught the "5 w's but no z" rule in journalism school".
From: Sam Wormley on 7 Jul 2010 20:17 On 7/7/10 4:16 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > The increase in time is the central feature of all cosmological > observations, not the expansion of space, which you don't actually > need if you accept Hubble redshift for what it is, evidence that light > slows down over millions and millions of lights years of traveling. > Actually, Michael, you are quite wrong. The tired light theory is contradicted by observational data. The cosmic expansion sifts the wavelengh of the light propagating at c. 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 02:48
On Jul 7, 5:17 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/7/10 4:16 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > > > The increase in time is the central feature of all cosmological > > observations, not the expansion of space, which you don't actually > > need if you accept Hubble redshift for what it is, evidence that light > > slows down over millions and millions of lights years of traveling. > > Actually, Michael, you are quite wrong. The tired light theory > is contradicted by observational data. The tired light theory in no way includes the expansion of time, which the Big Bang does. What I'm suggesting is entirely novel. |