I don't think space is expanding.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reformed Offlian said:
We're not talking about how the light behaves on a scale of billions of lightyears, we're talking about how it behaves right here, in the atmosphere and in our telescopes, depending on what object it comes from. Right here on earth, these things don't work, if we're looking at certain galaxies. Right here on earth, our apparatus doesn't work the way we think it does, if it's pointed at certain galaxies. That's not a question of scale, that's special pleading for an arbitrary set of objects.
Click to expand...

If all those objects happen to be at least million of light years away, that's a question of domain of applicability.

Nuclear physicists don't worry about Hubble's constant, because the distances involved are too small.

In fact, only cosmologists worry about Hubble's constant because their domain is the only place Hubble redshift appears.
 
Mike Helland said:
If all those objects happen to be at least million of light years away, that's a question of domain of applicability.
Click to expand...

No reason to think that's true. You admitted yourself you didn't have a rationale for adding a kluge to Snell's law, and that you'd have to "get back to me".

Nuclear physicists don't worry about Hubble's constant, because the distances involved are too small.

In fact, only cosmologists worry about Hubble's constant because their domain is the only place Hubble redshift appears.
Click to expand...

Sure. But you are proposing a change to Snell's law to explain away something that *doesn't* appear, with no actual explanation for why we shouldn't expect it to appear.

The only thing your model actually proposes is that light from distant sources is redshifted because it moves slower than c through space. You haven't explained how that places such light outside the domain of applicability for Snell's law, although you seem to want people to agree with you that it somehow does, anyway.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
Sure. But you are proposing a change to Snell's law to explain away something that *doesn't* appear, with no actual explanation for why we shouldn't expect it to appear.
Click to expand...

If light enters a medium that is a billion light years long, it will travel for a billion light years at the speed of light in that medium. It's velocity over time will be a flat line.

If light travels at c - H * D in a vacuum (the hypothesis being tested) then it starts at c, and dips over millions of years. The velocity over time would be a curve.

The curve of the light in a vacuum would intersect the flat line of the light in a medium once.
 
Mike Helland said:
If light enters a medium that is a billion light years long, it will travel for a billion light years at the speed of light in that medium. It's velocity over time will be a flat line.

If light travels at c - H * D in a vacuum (the hypothesis being tested) then it starts at c, and dips over millions of years. The velocity over time would be a curve.

The curve of the light in a vacuum would intersect the flat line of the light in a medium once.
Click to expand...

Why should anybody believe that?
 
For what distances can we be assured by observation that Newton's First Law of Motion of holds true?

Surely we can all agree not a trillion light years, yes?
 
Little 10 Toes said:
more educated members than I will say that all current evidence shows newton's first law is correct to any distance.
Click to expand...

Even a trillion light years?

Do you have any evidence otherwise?
Click to expand...

Yes, cosmological redshift.

Speed of wave = frequency x wavelength

We observe a decrease in frequency.

Either light doesn't travel at c forever to infinity... or we add extra space for it to travel through accomplishing the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Mike Helland said:
What do they look like?
Click to expand...

To your eye, they look like color.

To sensitive scientific equipment, they look like oscillating electromagnetic fields.

You're saying that if photons lose energy by traveling in space, they should also gain energy by traveling backwards?
Click to expand...

That would depend. If they are scattering off something, then that process will increase entropy, and while it might occasionally produce an increase in energy, in general it would not.

But you don’t actually have a mechanism for them to lose energy, only hand waving. So there is no way to evaluate it.

We observe redshift. We don't observe systemic blue shifts.
Click to expand...

And you want to solve this by introducing this mechanism with no internal consistency, which you pulled out of nowhere, despite having basically no understanding of physics...

And you think you have even the slightest chance of being right?

Yeah, no. Every significant revolution in physics was made by people who understood what came before. That was always necessary. There are no examples of someone with no knowledge coming in and making a major discovery. It doesn’t happen, for a reason.
 
Mike Helland said:
Let's take a poll.

A) Who sees photons?
B) Who sees thing?

I see things.
Click to expand...

No. Your brain interprets what you see as things. And for good reason. The photons you see are an excellent proxy for the things you are interested in. But it's still just photons that you're seeing.
 
Ziggurat said:
No. Your brain interprets what you see as things. And for good reason. The photons you see are an excellent proxy for the things you are interested in. But it's still just photons that you're seeing.
Click to expand...

Is that a vote for A (I see photons) or B (I see things)?
 
Mike Helland said:
Let's take a poll.

A) Who sees photons?
B) Who sees thing?

I see things.
Click to expand...

Let's take a poll.

A) Who sees the sun going round the earth?
B) Who sees the earth going round the sun?

I think I see the sun going round the earth, but I know the earth is really going the sun.

Likewise I think I see things, but I know what I'm really seeing is photons.
 
Ziggurat said:
Apparently that's your ending point too, because you haven't actually thought about this any deeper than that.
Click to expand...

Starting point is the redshifts:

1. Observation: decrease in frequency proportional to distance
2. Known fact: speed of a wave = frequency x wavelgnth
3: Conjecture: observed drop in frequency means drop in speed
4. Hypothesis: speed of photon is v = c - H * D
5: Compared with existing observations: hypothesis leads to more redshift close by, correlating with the so called Hubble tension
6. Tests:
6.1: Add a distant shutter to a space telescope and see if reshifted galaxies disappear simultaneously with nearby galaxies
6.2 Use a space telescope to observe a high z galaxy on the horizon at maximal proceeding and receding velocities

That's like... 5 more steps than the starting point.

I think you have a good experiment to disprove the hypothesis.

If you'd like acknowledgements for this experiment in my work, please let me know in a private message.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom