I don't think space is expanding.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reformed Offlian said:
What about light other observers are interacting with? How fast would observers in GZ-11 see light from their own galaxy moving? How fast would observers in a z=1 galaxy from earth see that light moving as it arrived?

Does light ever move, anywhere for any observer, at a speed other than c? If not, what is left of your proposal?
Click to expand...


All light being interacted with is moving at c according to the clock of the observer doing the interacting.

Another way to put that is the light is never at c, unless it is being observed (by you). In flight its speed, according to the clock of some other location, is less than c.
 
Mike Helland said:
All light being interacted with is moving at c according to the clock of the observer doing the interacting.

Another way to put that is the light is never at c, unless it is being observed (by you). In flight its speed, according to the clock of some other location, is less than c.
Click to expand...

Okay, so how is the redshift produced, then?
 
Mike Helland said:
All light being interacted with is moving at c according to the clock of the observer doing the interacting.

Another way to put that is the light is never at c, unless it is being observed (by you). In flight its speed, according to the clock of some other location, is less than c.
Click to expand...
Geocentrism. I can introduce you to people who would welcome you with open arms.
 
Mike Helland said:
Energy is conserved in this theory, so the energy is jettisoned into space.
Click to expand...
You need to learn science to avoid invalid statements about science, Mike Helland.
This is energy. We do not get spoons of energy because energy is not a physical thing. Energy cannot be "jettisoned into space". Energy has to go from your imaginary photons to something else. That is what the word conserved means :eye-poppi!
Alternately you mean that energy is transferred to spacetime. This is equally bad - you now have an expanding universe :eek:!
Mike Helland, where does the energy lost by red shifted photons in your idea go?


You need to learn about standard cosmology where there are a couple of opinions.
GR conserves energy globally and energy is conserved in cosmological redshift.
GR does not conserves energy globally and energy need not be conserved in cosmological redshift.
 
Last edited:
Mike Helland said:
It's no more geocentric than saying light is moving at c for all observers.

It applies on different planets and in different galaxies.
Click to expand...
It's geocentric because you are claiming that light and clocks get slower and slower the further away from Earth you go. They can't simultaneously get slower and slower starting from a different location. That is not logically possible in a static Universe. So the only way your claim can make logical (if not physical) sense is in an inhomogeneous and geocentric Universe where lightspeed is c here and less elsewhere.
 
hecd2 said:
It's geocentric because you are claiming that light and clocks get slower and slower the further away from Earth you go.
Click to expand...

If you go further away from Earth, z>0, Earth's clock will run slower than yours.

If you use a telescope to look at a clock at z>0 than from Earth, it will be slower than your clock.
 
Mike Helland said:
If you go further away from Earth, z>0, Earth's clock will run slower than yours.

If you use a telescope to look at a clock at z>0 than from Earth, it will be slower than your clock.
Click to expand...
Makes no sense at all in a static universe.
 
Reality Check said:
10 March 2021: Mike Helland makes a high school science error (Therefore "c - c/(1+HD)2" is a high school science error).
10 March 2021: The total idiocy that he can change the units of Hubble's constant!

H still has the units of 1/time because v = HD. That makes setting the units of H 1/length idiotic. That is not H. It is as bad as saying c has the units of kilograms.
Click to expand...

In light of the acceleration of the expansion, changing units from inverse time to inverse distance makes sense. If the effects of redshift correlate to inverse distance, they will naturally wane as distances increase when compared to time increasing.
 
Persistent ignorance of cosmology from Mike Helland (GR, etc. are not ad hoc)

Mike Helland said:
It's ad hoc. But so is the expansion, inflation, and acceleration of the universe, all of which this avoids.
Click to expand...
18 March 2021 Persistent ignorance of cosmology from Mike Helland (GR, etc. are not ad hoc).
GR, etc. are validated, scientific theories that match the real universe.
There is an overwhelming body of physical evidence that the universe is expanding. Good physical evidence[/B that this expansion is expanding. Adequate physical evidence[/B for inflation.
 
Mike Helland said:
Objects would be stationary in space, but the path of a photon through spacetime to a far enough object wouldn't be a straight line.
Click to expand...

Now all you have to do is come up with a math that describes this static spacetime, and trumps Einstein, Hubble, DeSitter, Lemaitre, Snell, Feynman, Hawking, et al.

Why are you bothering with a backwater forum, when you're ready to take on the big boys of physical reality? Why are you still posting here? Shouldn't you be publishing groundbreaking physics in every journal there is? With your computer animations?
 
Deep ignorance about clocks at z = 1 which debunk him from Mike Helland

Mike Helland said:
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.
Click to expand...
18 March 2021: Deep ignorance about clocks at z = 1 which debunk him from Mike Helland
We do observe "clocks" at z = 1. Type 1a supernovae are clocks! Light curves do halve speed at z=1. This debunks his idea :jaw-dropp!
Part of What is the evidence for the Big Bang? that he is still ignorant about is Time dilation in supernova light curves
This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1. The time dilation has been observed, with 5 different published measurements of this effect in supernova light curves
...
These observations contradict tired light models of the redshift.
Click to expand...
My emphasis added. Light getting tired through a slowing down (and thus no change in wavelength :eek:!) fantasy is a tired light theory. The wavelength of light is unelated to its speed.
 
Reality Check said:
18 March 2021: Deep ignorance about clocks at z = 1 which debunk him from Mike Helland
We do observe "clocks" at z = 1. Type 1a supernovae are clocks! Light curves do halve speed at z=1. This debunks his idea :jaw-dropp!
Click to expand...

The observed evidence is that clocks at great distances do run slow.

That's not a debunk. That's an agreement between theory and observation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom