I don't think space is expanding.

[Ziggurat]

So, if the bus moves by at 1 mph, or 100 mph, how would that change the reflection?

Aberration increases with increasing velocity. It's pretty damn small at 100 mph. But earth's orbital speed is 30 km/s, quite a bit faster, and can cause up to about 40 arcseconds (1 arcsecond = 1/3600th of a degree) in annular deviation. That may not sound like much, but Hubble (for example) has an angular resolution of 0.05 arcseconds, so the effect is well above the resolution of our telescopes. Many earthbound telescopes actually have higher angular resolutions (Keck Observatory is 0.01 arcseconds). Astronomers have to take it into account, or their measurements will be noticeably off.

If light slows down by a factor of 2, then the aberration will increase by roughly a factor of 2 as well. So Hubble would really notice that.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Seems to be a novel hypothesis.

Hmm.

1 - Newton's First Law is wrong.

2 - Maxwell's Equations are wrong.

3 - Conservation of momentum is wrong.

4 - Conservation of energy is wrong.

5 - Observations of stellar aberration are wrong.

6 - Complete absence of any supporting evidence.

You say "novel hypothesis" as if it's a good thing.

 

[Mike Helland]

Hmm.

1 - Newton's First Law is wrong.

2 - Maxwell's Equations are wrong.

3 - Conservation of momentum is wrong.

4 - Conservation of energy is wrong.

5 - Observations of stellar aberration are wrong.

6 - Complete absence of any supporting evidence.

You say "novel hypothesis" as if it's a good thing.

Well, to be fair, you said it was an old hypothesis, but this makes different predictions from both expanding and established tired light theories.

The supporting evidence would be the perceived acceleration of expansion.

My model accommodates that pretty well, here is (in green) against the standard model's predictions for the same H.

My model predicts less expansion where z > 8

 

[Mike Helland]

Aberration increases with increasing velocity. It's pretty damn small at 100 mph. But earth's orbital speed is 30 km/s, quite a bit faster, and can cause up to about 40 arcseconds (1 arcsecond = 1/3600th of a degree) in annular deviation. That may not sound like much, but Hubble (for example) has an angular resolution of 0.05 arcseconds, so the effect is well above the resolution of our telescopes. Many earthbound telescopes actually have higher angular resolutions (Keck Observatory is 0.01 arcseconds). Astronomers have to take it into account, or their measurements will be noticeably off.

If light slows down by a factor of 2, then the aberration will increase by roughly a factor of 2 as well. So Hubble would really notice that.

So if I'm spraying water with a hose at a moving bus, and the water is perpendicular to the bus, the water would bounce back somewhat in the direction the bus in moving.

If we increase the pressure of the water, and it comes out faster, that would make the water splash back farther, but would it effect the water's motion in the direction the bus moving?

 

[Ziggurat]

Hmm.

1 - Newton's First Law is wrong.

2 - Maxwell's Equations are wrong.

3 - Conservation of momentum is wrong.

4 - Conservation of energy is wrong.

5 - Observations of stellar aberration are wrong.

6 - Complete absence of any supporting evidence.

You say "novel hypothesis" as if it's a good thing.

The other strange thing about this is the project is doomed from the start. All of this is inspired by a dissatisfaction with how weird stuff like dark energy gets, and the sense that it must be made up, that reality must be simpler than that.

But it can never work. The creation of the universe has got to be weird. There's no way it could be otherwise. Let's suppose that the universe wasn't expanding, that it was static in size. We're still left with the question of where it all comes from. It cannot be infinitely old. Stars burn out. Fusion of hydrogen into heavier elements is a one-way street. How did all this matter come to fill the universe, if the universe was always here? There are no possible answers which won't be just as strange as, if not stranger than, dark energy.

And of course, although proponents of radical theories like this generally claim they're being guided by evidence, that's not really true either. They might be guided by one piece of evidence, but usually ignore a whole host of others which contradict their hypothesis. This is understandable in the sense that there's more physics out there than anyone can master, and most non-physicists won't even be aware of most of it. That should lead to humility in the face of such a daunting task as trying to rewrite physics. But it doesn't always.

 

[Ziggurat]

So if I'm spraying water with a hose at a moving bus, and the water is perpendicular to the bus

In whose frame? If it's perpendicular in you frame, it won't be perpendicular in the bus frame.

But it will be closer to perpendicular the faster the water comes out.

 

[Mike Helland]

The other strange thing about this is the project is doomed from the start. All of this is inspired by a dissatisfaction with how weird stuff like dark energy gets, and the sense that it must be made up, that reality must be simpler than that.

I never really had a problem with dark energy. I was kind of accepting to whatever the experts said

I was just thinking one day, we expect light to travel at c for infinity, but there's this expanding space thing that effectively puts a limit on it. Running a race where the finish line is moving away from you is kinda like slowing down as you reach the finish line. Which lead to the hypothesis.

The latest measurements of H raise a lot of questions, and there's a new space telescope going up next year, so I don't really see the harm in wondering if we got Hubble's law exactly right, and what the universe would like alternatively.

We're still left with the question of where it all comes from. It cannot be infinitely old. Stars burn out. Fusion of hydrogen into heavier elements is a one-way street.

I think the photon decaying into tiny bits of energy strewn about the universe makes for a good recycling program.

That should lead to humility in the face of such a daunting task as trying to rewrite physics. But it doesn't always.

Well, if it helps, I'm an idiot, and if there's even a shred of merit to anything I say or think, chalk it up to pure dumb luck.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Hmm.

1 - Newton's First Law is wrong.

2 - Maxwell's Equations are wrong.

3 - Conservation of momentum is wrong.

4 - Conservation of energy is wrong.

5 - Observations of stellar aberration are wrong.

6 - Complete absence of any supporting evidence.

You say "novel hypothesis" as if it's a good thing.

There comes a point at which one should realize that, if everybody else has to be wrong about everything for you to be right about anything, maybe it's more likely that you aren't actually right about anything

 

[Mike Helland]

In whose frame? If it's perpendicular in you frame, it won't be perpendicular in the bus frame.

But it will be closer to perpendicular the faster the water comes out.

Ok. Got it.

So, now let's add my hypothesis, and make the bus a hypothetical surface that returns that water at velocity v disregarding the incoming velocity.

Won't the splash be the same for any speed of water sent toward it?

 

[Mike Helland]

There comes a point at which one should realize that, if everybody else has to be wrong about everything for you to be right about anything, maybe it's more likely that you aren't actually right about anything

100 years ago, the universe and Milky Way were one in the same.

Then we got big telescopes and discovered everything outside the Milky Way.

We went from a hundred thousand light year across observable distances, to billions.

We discovered redshift.

Either redshifts indicate some limit to inertia which is only observed with 20th century technology, or they indicate expansion and dark energy and all the rest.

The redshifts are actually observed, so I don't see the harm in examining a hypothetical universe where cosmological redshifts are fundamental, rather than an effect of some other fundamental cause.

The astronomers of the 20th century felt the expanding theories get the job done with the least amount of fuss.

In the 21st century, there's now quite a bit of fuss.

 

[abaddon]

so I don't see the harm in examining a hypothetical universe where cosmological redshifts are fundamental, rather than an effect of some other fundamental cause.

There is no harm at all in such a hypothetical. But you need to provide evidence.
So far, all you have come up with is fantasy.

Amusing to read but not meaningful.

 

[Mike Helland]

There is no harm at all in such a hypothetical. But you need to provide evidence.
So far, all you have come up with is fantasy.

Amusing to read but not meaningful.

If you plug the velocities I get from the hypothesis into the wave speed equation you get z values that differ from the standard model, in a pretty interesting way.

This is for H = 74

The hypothesis is in green, the white dots are the standard model.

You see the hypothesis doesn't take as steep a curve up.

A z > 8, the hypothesis is inconsistent with standard model, by predicting lower z after that.

This divergence is supported by observations that suggest a lower expansion rate for the "early" universe:

This impasse may soon force cosmologists to reexamine the “standard model” of cosmology, which tells us about the composition of the universe (radiation, normal matter, dark matter and dark energy) and how it has evolved over time.

For about five years now, two projects have been at odds over the value of the Hubble constant (H0), the rate at which the universe is expanding. One relies on studies of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the relic afterglow from the hot, dense plasma that suffused the universe shortly after the big bang. The other project uses a potpourri of more “local” measurements, which constitute the so-called cosmic distance ladder.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/best-yet-measurements-deepen-cosmological-crisis/

All of this leads me to task, why would assume light travels at c for infinity, when it starts redshifting after a few hundred million years and ultimately winds up in space that expands faster than it can travel?

Seems reasonable that the first law of motion doesn't apply to infinite distances when empirically there's less than a mere 100 billion light years to work with.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Ok, so if light from a galaxy is propagating in all directions, and we're moving laterally to it:

https://openmedia.gallery/view/1788

So... if we want to look at that red galaxy, we view at one angle on the left, which we adjust as we move to the right... why would the speed of the light affect which direction we look to see the galaxy?

Whether photons are traveling at c or 0.3c, the galaxy is still in the same direction, is it not?

It is, but we won't see it in the same direction.

Hans

 

[Ziggurat]

I never really had a problem with dark energy. I was kind of accepting to whatever the experts said

I was just thinking one day, we expect light to travel at c for infinity, but there's this expanding space thing that effectively puts a limit on it. Running a race where the finish line is moving away from you is kinda like slowing down as you reach the finish line. Which lead to the hypothesis.

The latest measurements of H raise a lot of questions, and there's a new space telescope going up next year, so I don't really see the harm in wondering if we got Hubble's law exactly right, and what the universe would like alternatively.

Sure, there's no harm in it. It's just that your idea is wrong, for various reasons we've already detailed.

I think the photon decaying into tiny bits of energy strewn about the universe makes for a good recycling program.

It's just not consistent with observations.

 

[Mike Helland]

It is, but we won't see it in the same direction.

If there's a yard sprinkler, the sprays water in all directions, the speed of the water doesn't change from which direction the water the hit you.

Would it?

 

[Ziggurat]

Ok. Got it.

So, now let's add my hypothesis, and make the bus a hypothetical surface that returns that water at velocity v disregarding the incoming velocity.

Won't the splash be the same for any speed of water sent toward it?

You're mixing together two different issues. The issue of aberration isn't about reflected velocity, but incoming velocity. That's issue #1: the telescope won't point in the right direction if the velocity isn't close to c. Issue #2 is Snell's law: any change in velocity causes the reflection angle to change. That won't affect which way the telescope has to point (that's covered by #1 regardless), but it will mean that the focus will be completely wrong.

You don't need a bus and water analogy for any of this.

The fact that we can correctly point and focus our telescopes means that the light they are receiving is coming in at close to c, and reflecting at close to c. Sufficiently minor variations wouldn't be detectable (that's true of any measurement of anything, BTW), but you're talking about massive variations for distant galaxies which would stick out like sore thumbs, far above our resolution limits.

 

[Mike Helland]

It's just not consistent with observations.

The standard model produces inconsistent measurements of the expansion rate, the two CMB anomalies, predicted the wrong temperature for the CMB, predicts the wrong exponent for the surface brightness test, and that's with a fair amount of adjustable fudge factors like dark energy and dark matter.

My model is consistent with the measurements of H for a single constant value, has no issue with the CMB being warmer on one side than the other, no issue with the cold spot, removes a factor from the surface brightness test, and doesn't need of the exotic patches needed by the standard model.

Perhaps we should take an inventory of the criticism thus far:

1. doesn't predict the CMB
2. not cool with relativity or anything else really
3. slow light should aberrate (is that a word, probably not) more which would have been noticed

What else?

 

[Ziggurat]

If there's a yard sprinkler, the sprays water in all directions, the speed of the water doesn't change from which direction the water the hit you.

Would it?

Why are you stuck on trying to use water as an analogy? This isn't going to help.

 

[Mike Helland]

You're mixing together two different issues. The issue of aberration isn't about reflected velocity, but incoming velocity. That's issue #1: the telescope won't point in the right direction if the velocity isn't close to c. Issue #2 is Snell's law: any change in velocity causes the reflection angle to change. That won't affect which way the telescope has to point (that's covered by #1 regardless), but it will mean that the focus will be completely wrong.

You don't need a bus and water analogy for any of this.

The fact that we can correctly point and focus our telescopes means that the light they are receiving is coming in at close to c, and reflecting at close to c. Sufficiently minor variations wouldn't be detectable (that's true of any measurement of anything, BTW), but you're talking about massive variations for distant galaxies which would stick out like sore thumbs, far above our resolution limits.

I'm saying that if the light approaches a mirror at 0.5c, but reflects at c, based on what is actually observed, we really wouldn't know what speed the light was before it hit the mirror.

You're using Snell's law and a non-existent medium to describe what would happen to a photon moving at c - H * D in a vacuum.

https://brucesherwood.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Refraction.pdf

Blau and Halfpap posed the question in the American Journal of Physics of how to interpret refraction (Snell's law; index of refraction) and the (apparent) slower speed of light in glass in terms of quantum mechanics.

...

The original question asked about Snell's law from the point of view of photons. The main issue isn't really photons, but microscopic versus macroscopic analyses. The passage to quantum mechanics introduces still more mathematical complexity but doesn't change the main point. The reflected and refracted light consists of the (quantum) interference of incoming photons with photons re-emitted by atoms in the glass. The fundamental speed of light is unaffected.

My hypothesis describes a photon in a vacuum traveling at less than c.

By invoking Snell's law, we would assume the light as traveling at less than c because it's being "re-emitted by atoms".

But those atoms don't exist in the model, and thus the effects of Snell's law wouldn't appear, because Snell's law is about light in media, not photons in a vacuum that violate Newton's first law.

 

[Ziggurat]

The standard model produces inconsistent measurements of the expansion rate, the two CMB anomalies, predicted the wrong temperature for the CMB, predicts the wrong exponent for the surface brightness test, and that's with a fair amount of adjustable fudge factors like dark energy and dark matter.

My model is consistent with the measurements of H for a single constant value, has no issue with the CMB being warmer on one side than the other, no issue with the cold spot, removes a factor from the surface brightness test, and doesn't need of the exotic patches needed by the standard model.

But it fails a whole bunch of far more fundamental tests. That isn't an improvement. New theories cannot just do something an old theory doesn't. They have to do everything the old theory did PLUS something new.

And since your theory doesn't actually include a CMB at all, let alone know how to calculate the CMB temperature, not having a conflicting temperature value isn't a mark in its favor.

Lastly, if you're referring to the very first CMB temperature predictions being wrong as evidence that the standard model is wrong, well, no. As I already explained, the CMB temperature isn't something that can be predicted absent experimental measurements, since it isn't constant. Getting it wrong at a point in time when those measurements were, well, not very good isn't an issue. There are issues with the standard model, but not that.

Perhaps we should take an inventory of the criticism thus far:

1. doesn't predict the CMB
2. not cool with relativity or anything else really
3. slow light should aberrate (is that a word, probably not) more which would have been noticed

What else?

Isn't that enough?