I don't think space is expanding.

[Ziggurat]

The theory is the same.

v=c(1+HD)²
If D increases, v goes slows down. If it decreases, v goes up.

Ok.

In a model of spacetime, with us as an observer, in the distant universe, where z=1, clocks run at half speed.

Instead of putting in the pre-redshifted galaxies, and getting the redshifts out of the model, we put in the observed redshifts.

In this case, by the time the photon reaches us, it's traveling at c.

These are mutually exclusive. At any given moment, I do not know which one you may be referring to. Perhaps you do not either.

Alas, the wind blows north-northwest.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

D is the photon's distance to the observer.

So, zero then?

 

[Steve]

D is the photon's distance to the observer.

So, zero then?

I like how you think, Reformed Offlian .

 

[Myriad]

One wonders what would happen if the force of expansion increased to the point where it overrode local gravity. Let alone local molecular bonds. If expansion was stretching your meter stick, you'd probably have much more serious problems to worry about. Like your own gradual but inevitable disintegration.

And the fact that your planet is probably already out of any stable orbit. And your sun is about to dissipate.

It gets worse when you consider how I might go about measuring the length of my meter stick. For instance, I could use my other meter stick...

 

[theprestige]

It gets worse when you consider how I might go about measuring the length of my meter stick. For instance, I could use my other meter stick...

Ha.

Or you could clock a photon as it travels from one end to the other.

 

[hecd2]

Ha.

Or you could clock a photon as it travels from one end to the other.

Make sure it's the same photon at each end. Good luck.

 

[Mike Helland]

So, zero then?

Well yeah.

Any light you interact with will be moving at c.

 

[hecd2]

Well yeah.

Any light you interact with will be moving at c.

So that's not what you were saying three days ago. How is your current idea different from the standard model?

 

[Mike Helland]

So that's not what you were saying three days ago. How is your current idea different from the standard model?

Distances aren't increasing.

Distant clocks run slower than yours.

The speed of light is c when its near you, and loses speed the farther away it is (with respect to your clock, it's moving at c where it is).

 

[hecd2]

Distances aren't increasing.

Distant clocks run slower than yours.

Why?

The speed of light is c when its near you, and loses speed the farther away it is (with respect to your clock, it's moving at c where it is).

Why?

This is another thing you just pulled out of your backside.

 

[Mike Helland]

Why?

Because that's what's observed.

It's ad hoc. But so is the expansion, inflation, and acceleration of the universe, all of which this avoids.

Fits the observed data with a static Hubble constant, the speed of light, distance from the observer, and zero other parameters.

 

[hecd2]

Because that's what's observed.

It's ad hoc. But so is the expansion, inflation, and acceleration of the universe, all of which this avoids.

Fits the observed data with a static Hubble constant, the speed of light, distance from the observer, and zero other parameters.

[qimg]https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/img/supernovae.png[/qimg]

Those things are not ad hoc. Expansion is the only explanation for the observation of redshift as a function of distance. Inflation explains flatness and homogeneity which your idea does not, and acceleration is observed.

How does your idea avoid the need for these things? Hell, how does it even lead to redshift?

 

[Mike Helland]

Those things are not ad hoc. Expansion is the only explanation for the observation of redshift as a function of distance. Inflation explains flatness and homogeneity which your idea does not, and acceleration is observed.

How does your idea avoid the need for these things? Hell, how does it even lead to redshift?

If we had a big enough telescope, and they had a big enough clock, we should be able to look through our telescope to a clock at z=1 and see that its hands move at half the rate of our clock's hands.

We observe the distant universe is to be redshifed.

In this interpretation, it is.

The light's frequency never changes then. It's f according to the clock's where it is, but it's f/2 according to our clocks.

As the photon approaches, D gets to zero, and v=c.

 

[hecd2]

If we had a big enough telescope, and they had a big enough clock, we should be able to look through our telescope to a clock at z=1 and see that its hands move at half the rate of our clock's hands.

We observe the distant universe is to be redshifed.

In this interpretation, it is.

The light's frequency never changes then. It's f according to the clock's where it is, but it's f/2 according to our clocks.

As the photon approaches, D gets to zero, and v=c.

So if you had a cottage on a planet orbiting a sun in that galaxy several billion light years away and you looked at the light the galaxy was emitting and saw it to be centred on 500nm, when it arrives it is still at 500nm. So where’s the redshift?

ETA: Leaving aside the fact that your idea is internally inconsistent, is plucked out of your bum, and destroys general relativity, it doesn’t even do what you want it to.

 

[Mike Helland]

so if you had a cottage on a planet orbiting a sun in that galaxy several billion light years away and you looked at the light the galaxy was emitting and saw it to be centred on 500nm, when it arrives it is still at 500nm. So where’s the redshift?

You mean when it arrives to us, at z=1?

The frequency will have never changed, but the speed and wavelength will, in this interpretation.

 

[hecd2]

You mean when it arrives to us, at z=1?

The frequency will have never changed, but the speed and wavelength will, in this interpretation.

No they won’t. The frequency, speed and wavelength are always the same in your interpretation at the current location of the wavefront. The HI line would be at the same frequency and wavelength when emitted and when observed. No redshift.

 

[Mike Helland]

No they won’t. The frequency, speed and wavelength are always the same in your interpretation at the current location of the wavefront. The HI line would be at the same frequency and wavelength when emitted and when observed. No redshift.

Unless clocks at the current location of the wavefront run at a different speed than clocks where the light was emitted from.

Let's say we shoot a laser beam into space. When it travels to z=1, it gets close enough to a black hole, where the light warps around the black hole and comes back to us.

That light won't be redshifted. It will have never changed frequency, because its frequency is tied to our clock.

But... if the light is emitted where clocks are running at half speed to an observers, the light will always have half the frequency to that observer, compared to one near the light's source.

 

[hecd2]

This is a specific instance of the general rule that in a static same-potential case, clocks do not desynchronise. By same-potential I mean that both source and detection are at the same gravitational potential. If they are not one clock runs faster and the other slower; each does not observe the other’s running slower and gravitational time dilation is not a function of distance but of gravitational potential.

 

[Ziggurat]

If we had a big enough telescope, and they had a big enough clock, we should be able to look through our telescope to a clock at z=1 and see that its hands move at half the rate of our clock's hands.

You claimed that they would see the same thing: our clocks running slow compared to them. But for both us and them to both see each other's clocks running slow, the travel time between us would need to be increasing, otherwise that's a logical impossibility.

You know what produces an increasing travel time? And expanding universe. Do you know what doesn't produce an increasing travel time? A static universe.

You can't even recognize the obvious.

 

[Mike Helland]

This is a specific instance of the general rule that in a static same-potential case, clocks do not desynchronise. By same-potential I mean that both source and detection are at the same gravitational potential. If they are not one clock runs faster and the other slower; each does not observe the other’s running slower and gravitational time dilation is not a function of distance but of gravitational potential.

"The principle of the constancy of the speed of light can be kept only when one restricts oneself to space-time regions of constant gravitational potential." - Michael Scott, I mean Albert Einstein

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light#Einstein's_early_proposal_(1911)

I think I'm doing another cart before the horse move here.

Does the gravitational potential define how fast the clock moves?

Or does the clock motion define gravitational potential?

The move I'm describing is much more basic than the other VSL's mentioned on that page.

Premise 1. Clocks that are stationary to each other tick at the same rate
Premise 2. Redshift is observed at cosmological distances
Conclusion: Clocks separated by cosmological distances are not stationary

That's the expanding interpretation.

Premise 1. Clocks that are stationary to each other tick at the same rate
Premise 2. Redshift is observed at cosmological distances
Conclusion: Clock that are separated by cosmological distances do not tick at the same rate.

That's the "relativistic decelerating photon hypothesis."

Light leaving our galaxy decelerates.

Light approaching our galaxy accelerates.