I don't think space is expanding.

[Mike Helland]

Time reversal of the emission process.

How does that apply when the photon is emitted by another photon?

 

[Reality Check]

Mike Hellend is asking about an author with a different explanation of Hubble's law

How does that apply when the photon is emitted by another photon?

An irrelevant equation follows up an idiotic "How does spacetime curvature absorb photons in Crawford's hypothesis?" question. The real answer is that is not Crawford's hypothesis.

The pit of ignorance, errors and fantasies that Mike Helland is digging himself into gets deeper. This is a question about an irrelevant and obscure 1979 letter whose author has a different static universe model !
31 March 2021: Mike Hellend Helland is asking about an author with a different explanation of Hubble's law and a different static universe model.

There is some actual physics in this speculation from 1979 (Photon decay in curved space-time)
If a photon was a real extended particle and if that extended particle was made of stuff that could experience tidal forces then it would experience tidal stresses even in Newtonian gravity! We can then imagine the stresses "tearing" the photon apart. But this speculation was invalid even in 1979. The evidence is that photon is a point particle, not an extended particle, because QED works with point particles. The author seems confused about the wave packet solution for free particles.. The solution has a "finite spread" not the particles.
We certainly know today that the universe is largely homogeneous, isotropic and almost certainly flat. There is no curvature of spacetime on a global scale to do this tidal force speculation.

 

[theprestige]

The pit of ignorance, errors and fantasies that Mike Helland is digging himself into gets deeper.

Nitpick: It's "Helland", like Hell Land. Not "Hellend" to rhyme with "bellend".

 

[Ziggurat]

How does that apply when the photon is emitted by another photon?

How does a photon emit another photon in the first place? Doesn’t matter. If it can go one way, it can go the other way. I don’t even need to know the details.

But if you think it strange for a photon to absorb a photon, yes, that doesn’t happen. And for the same reason, photons don’t emit other photons either.

 

[Mike Helland]

If it can go one way, it can go the other way.

Sounds like reverse entropy.

 

[hecd2]

You didn't provide a value for H₀.

And the article you cited is 6 years old.

The latest measurements don't agree with 13.8 billion years old.

You will find the most recent figures for H0 and the age from Planck here: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2020/09/aa33880-18/aa33880-18.html
Planck + BAO

H0 = 67.66
Age = 13.79Gy

 

[Mike Helland]

You will find the most recent figures for H0 and the age from Planck here: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2020/09/aa33880-18/aa33880-18.html
Planck + BAO

H0 = 67.66
Age = 13.79Gy

Those aren't the most recent measurements.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.08534

https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.02221

 

[Ziggurat]

Sounds like reverse entropy.

You've got no idea what you're talking about, and no idea why entropy isn't macroscopically reversible.

 

[hecd2]

Those aren't the most recent measurements.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.08534

https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.02221

They are the most recent self-consistent values of the two measurables from observation of the CMB plus BAO.

ETA: I don’t think there is any mention of age in your references.

 

[Roboramma]

Sounds like reverse entropy.

Do you not understand time reversal symmetry?

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you not understand time reversal symmetry?

No, he doesn't. He thinks that microscopic processes don't have to be time reversal symmetric since entropy isn't. He fundamentally misunderstands all of it.

 

[hecd2]

So statistical thermodynamics is yet another subject of which Mike is ignorant.

 

[Mike Helland]

No, he doesn't. He thinks that microscopic processes don't have to be time reversal symmetric since entropy isn't. He fundamentally misunderstands all of it.

We're calling the redshift of 99% of the universe "microscopic"?

 

[Mike Helland]

So statistical thermodynamics is yet another subject of which Mike is ignorant.

I know we don't see redshifts in microscopes.

To me, it looks like the redshifts and CMB were discovered, and were regarded as great discoveries.

Then they were fit into the laws of physics. And that path requires that we come up with new physics.

Maybe the CMB and redshifts *are* the new physics we need. Maybe they don't fit into 19th century physics properly.

Square holes, round pegs.

Or, maybe the universe is all dark energy. I admit I could be wrong. At this point, belief in the big bang is less justified than doubt.

 

[Ziggurat]

We're calling the redshift of 99% of the universe "microscopic"?

No. We're individual photon interactions "microscopic".

Seriously, just how clueless are you?

 

[Ziggurat]

I know we don't see redshifts in microscopes.

Oh yes we do.

You think you know something, but you don't know anything.

 

[Ziggurat]

So statistical thermodynamics is yet another subject of which Mike is ignorant.

There is no field of physics that he actually understands.

 

[hecd2]

At this point, belief in the big bang is less justified than doubt.

That's your opinion. But since I am hard pushed to think of even a single statement that you have made about physics in these gazillion pages that has been correct, why should anyone care about your opinion?

 

[sackett]

The universe is obviously not expanding. If it was, this thread would have got somewhere by now.

 

[Mike Helland]

Oh yes we do.

You think you know something, but you don't know anything.

Cosmological redshift?

It's literally the least microscopic phenomenon in the universe, as it requires millions of light years in distance.