Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
SUPERLUMINAL NEUTRINOS AND TIRED LIGHT
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Nov 21, 2011, 4:31:59 PM11/21/11
to
If photons interact with some ingredients of "empty" space so that
their energy or speed gradually decreases (the "tired light"
hypothesis), then the higher speed of neutrinos, particles
immeasurably more penetrating than photons, looks quite natural.
Cosmologists hate the tired light hypothesis but it has clever
supporters:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w6777w07xn737590/fulltext.pdf
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell, Astrophys Space Sci
"Reber (1982) pointed out that Hubble himself was never an advocate
for the expanding universe idea. Indeed, it was Hubble who personally
thought that a model universe based on the tired-light hypothesis is
more simple and less irrational than a model universe based on an
expanding spacetime geometry (...) ...any photon gradually loses its
energy while traveling over a large distance in the vast space of the
universe."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,757145,00.html
Monday, Dec. 14, 1936: "Other causes for the redshift were suggested,
such as cosmic dust or a change in the nature of light over great
stretches of space. Two years ago Dr. Hubble admitted that the
expanding universe might be an illusion, but implied that this was a
cautious and colorless view. Last week it was apparent that he had
shifted his position even further away from a literal interpretation
of the redshift, that he now regards the expanding universe as more
improbable than a non-expanding one."
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html
David A. Plaisted: "This suggests that the red shift may be caused by
something other than the expansion of the universe, at least in part.
This could be a loss of energy of light rays as they travel, or A
DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT..."
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-physics-einstein.html
"Yet quantum theory suggests that space should be grainy at the
smallest scales, like sand on a beach. (...) According to
calculations, the tiny grains would affect the way that gamma rays
travel through space."
http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1612
Jean-Claude Pecker: "L'expansion ne serait qu'une apparence ; les «
redshifts » ne seraient pas dus à l'effet Doppler-Fizeau, mais à une
interaction des photons avec les milieux traversés (c'est la « fatigue
de la lumière »). Le mécanisme de cette interaction n'est pas encore
précisé ; plusieurs suggestions sont faites ; cest le point faible de
cette vision de l'univers."
http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1502
Jean-Claude Pecker: "Or, le décalage d'un spectre vers le rouge se
démontre simplement en physique classique grâce à l'effet Doppler-
Fizeau, bien étudié au XIXe siècle. Un décalage spectral vers le rouge
est alors lié à une vitesse d'éloignement de la galaxie source de
lumière. Avec cette interprétation, on peut dire que les galaxies
s'éloignent toutes de nous avec une vitesse proportionnelle à leur
distance, et qu'elles s'écartent donc les unes des autres avec une
vitesse proportionnelle à la distance qui les sépare. L'univers
observé serait alors, actuellement, en expansion. Les vitesses des
galaxies les plus lointaines étudiées par Hubble étaient au plus de
quelques dizaines de milliers de kilomètres par seconde, dix fois plus
petites que la vitesse de la lumière ; cette vitesse était déjà en
vérité considérable, si considérable que Hubble lui-même, et son
collègue Tolman parlent toujours de « vitesse apparente » - ce qui
implique qu'ils envisagent la possibilité de décalages vers le rouge
non dus à un effet Doppler-Fizeau. Mais la collectivité, n'ayant pas
d'autre explication que l'effet Doppler, admet - et cela devient un
dogme non discuté, et bientôt non discutable - que l'Univers est en
expansion."
http://www.zetetique.ldh.org/bigbang.html
Jean-Claude Pecker: "...d'autres auteurs (après Zwicky et Belopolsky
il y a plus d'un demi siècle, Findlay-Freundlich, vers 1954, puis
Vigier et moi-même, vers 1972, et bien d'autres depuis) défendent
l'idée de la "fatigue de la lumière". En voyageant dans l'espace, la
lumière interagit avec le milieu traversé... la lumière perd de
l'énergie de façon proportionnelle à la durée du trajet : c'est la loi
de Hubble, prédite très simplement."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
their energy or speed gradually decreases (the "tired light"
hypothesis), then the higher speed of neutrinos, particles
immeasurably more penetrating than photons, looks quite natural.
Cosmologists hate the tired light hypothesis but it has clever
supporters:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w6777w07xn737590/fulltext.pdf
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell, Astrophys Space Sci
"Reber (1982) pointed out that Hubble himself was never an advocate
for the expanding universe idea. Indeed, it was Hubble who personally
thought that a model universe based on the tired-light hypothesis is
more simple and less irrational than a model universe based on an
expanding spacetime geometry (...) ...any photon gradually loses its
energy while traveling over a large distance in the vast space of the
universe."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,757145,00.html
Monday, Dec. 14, 1936: "Other causes for the redshift were suggested,
such as cosmic dust or a change in the nature of light over great
stretches of space. Two years ago Dr. Hubble admitted that the
expanding universe might be an illusion, but implied that this was a
cautious and colorless view. Last week it was apparent that he had
shifted his position even further away from a literal interpretation
of the redshift, that he now regards the expanding universe as more
improbable than a non-expanding one."
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html
David A. Plaisted: "This suggests that the red shift may be caused by
something other than the expansion of the universe, at least in part.
This could be a loss of energy of light rays as they travel, or A
DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT..."
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-physics-einstein.html
"Yet quantum theory suggests that space should be grainy at the
smallest scales, like sand on a beach. (...) According to
calculations, the tiny grains would affect the way that gamma rays
travel through space."
http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1612
Jean-Claude Pecker: "L'expansion ne serait qu'une apparence ; les «
redshifts » ne seraient pas dus à l'effet Doppler-Fizeau, mais à une
interaction des photons avec les milieux traversés (c'est la « fatigue
de la lumière »). Le mécanisme de cette interaction n'est pas encore
précisé ; plusieurs suggestions sont faites ; cest le point faible de
cette vision de l'univers."
http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1502
Jean-Claude Pecker: "Or, le décalage d'un spectre vers le rouge se
démontre simplement en physique classique grâce à l'effet Doppler-
Fizeau, bien étudié au XIXe siècle. Un décalage spectral vers le rouge
est alors lié à une vitesse d'éloignement de la galaxie source de
lumière. Avec cette interprétation, on peut dire que les galaxies
s'éloignent toutes de nous avec une vitesse proportionnelle à leur
distance, et qu'elles s'écartent donc les unes des autres avec une
vitesse proportionnelle à la distance qui les sépare. L'univers
observé serait alors, actuellement, en expansion. Les vitesses des
galaxies les plus lointaines étudiées par Hubble étaient au plus de
quelques dizaines de milliers de kilomètres par seconde, dix fois plus
petites que la vitesse de la lumière ; cette vitesse était déjà en
vérité considérable, si considérable que Hubble lui-même, et son
collègue Tolman parlent toujours de « vitesse apparente » - ce qui
implique qu'ils envisagent la possibilité de décalages vers le rouge
non dus à un effet Doppler-Fizeau. Mais la collectivité, n'ayant pas
d'autre explication que l'effet Doppler, admet - et cela devient un
dogme non discuté, et bientôt non discutable - que l'Univers est en
expansion."
http://www.zetetique.ldh.org/bigbang.html
Jean-Claude Pecker: "...d'autres auteurs (après Zwicky et Belopolsky
il y a plus d'un demi siècle, Findlay-Freundlich, vers 1954, puis
Vigier et moi-même, vers 1972, et bien d'autres depuis) défendent
l'idée de la "fatigue de la lumière". En voyageant dans l'espace, la
lumière interagit avec le milieu traversé... la lumière perd de
l'énergie de façon proportionnelle à la durée du trajet : c'est la loi
de Hubble, prédite très simplement."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
james thomas
Nov 21, 2011, 6:27:51 PM11/21/11
to
medium.
Neutrinos if they have never accelerated are the closest to the speed
of light. They are fastest matter And slow matter doesn't slow them.
This is how a neutrino could overcome light.
The Einsteinian law beats it all. The limit of motion remains.
Cherenkov is another example.
Mitchell Raemsch
Pentcho Valev
Nov 22, 2011, 12:18:47 PM11/22/11
to
Let us assume that, as the photon travels through "empty" space (in a
STATIC universe), it loses speed in much the same way that a golf ball
loses speed due to the resistance of the air:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.2885v2.pdf
David Schuster, An Alternative Explanation for Cosmological Redshift
"Current models of the intergalactic medium contend that it has mass
density on the order of 10^(-27) kg/m^3. While it is true that this
equates to approximately one atom of neutral Hydrogen per cubic meter,
averaging over cosmological distances, it is reasonable to consider
the IGM a super-low density fluid. (...) Obviously, as the density of
the intervening medium increases, so does the number of interactions
and, consequently, so does the travel time of the light. This is the
effect seen in a dense material like calcite where there are so many
interactions that THE LIGHT SLOWS DOWN appreciably in a short
distance. (...) Assuming the interaction cross-section to correspond
to the Bohr radius. This means that a photon will, on average, have an
interaction and, accordingly, a characteristic delay every 37600 light
years. This is using the minimum particle density in intergalactic
space, which can vary widely up to approximately 1000 particles/m^3 in
areas of particularly high density."
On this analogy the resistive force (Fr) is proportional to the
velocity of the photon (V):
Fr = - KV
That is, the speed of light decreases in accordance with the
equation:
dV/dt = - K'V
Clearly, at the end of a very long journey of photons (coming from a
very distant object), the contribution to the redshift is much smaller
than the contribution at the beginning of the journey. Light coming
from nearer objects is less subject to this difference in
contribution, that is, for such light, the increase of the redshift
with distance is closer to LINEAR. This explains why distant
supernovae are farther away than one would expect based on the LINEAR
increase of the redshift with distance.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
STATIC universe), it loses speed in much the same way that a golf ball
loses speed due to the resistance of the air:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.2885v2.pdf
David Schuster, An Alternative Explanation for Cosmological Redshift
"Current models of the intergalactic medium contend that it has mass
density on the order of 10^(-27) kg/m^3. While it is true that this
equates to approximately one atom of neutral Hydrogen per cubic meter,
averaging over cosmological distances, it is reasonable to consider
the IGM a super-low density fluid. (...) Obviously, as the density of
the intervening medium increases, so does the number of interactions
and, consequently, so does the travel time of the light. This is the
effect seen in a dense material like calcite where there are so many
interactions that THE LIGHT SLOWS DOWN appreciably in a short
distance. (...) Assuming the interaction cross-section to correspond
to the Bohr radius. This means that a photon will, on average, have an
interaction and, accordingly, a characteristic delay every 37600 light
years. This is using the minimum particle density in intergalactic
space, which can vary widely up to approximately 1000 particles/m^3 in
areas of particularly high density."
On this analogy the resistive force (Fr) is proportional to the
velocity of the photon (V):
Fr = - KV
That is, the speed of light decreases in accordance with the
equation:
dV/dt = - K'V
Clearly, at the end of a very long journey of photons (coming from a
very distant object), the contribution to the redshift is much smaller
than the contribution at the beginning of the journey. Light coming
from nearer objects is less subject to this difference in
contribution, that is, for such light, the increase of the redshift
with distance is closer to LINEAR. This explains why distant
supernovae are farther away than one would expect based on the LINEAR
increase of the redshift with distance.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
james thomas
Nov 22, 2011, 8:29:35 PM11/22/11
to
If it is replaced it is for the stupid alone or the science fiction
scientist.
Mitch Raemsch; the prize
Pentcho Valev
Nov 24, 2011, 11:57:14 AM11/24/11
to
An extremely silly explanation of the cosmological redshift:
http://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Cosmos-Space-Texture-Reality/dp/0375412883
The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality,
Brian Greene
p. 515: "Common atoms such as hydrogen and oxygen emit light at
wavelengths that have been well documented through laboratory
experiments. When such substances are constituents of galaxies that
are rushing away, the light they emit is elongated, much as the siren
of a police car that's racing away is also elongated, making the pitch
drop. Because red is the longest wavelength of light that can be seen
with the unaided eye, this stretching of light is called the redshift
effect."
Yet the standard explanation taught at universities is even sillier:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=278
Cornell University: "In the case of distant objects where the
expansion of the universe becomes an important factor, the redshift is
referred to as the "cosmological redshift" and it is due to an
entirely different effect. According to general relativity, the
expansion of the universe does not consist of objects actually moving
away from each other - rather, the space between these objects
stretches. Any light moving through that space will also be stretched,
and its wavelength will increase - i.e. be redshifted. (This is a
special case of a more general phenomenon known as the "gravitational
redshift" which describes how gravity's effect on spacetime changes
the wavelength of light moving through that spacetime. The classic
example of the gravitational redshift has been observed on the earth;
if you shine a light up to a tower and measure its wavelength when it
is received as compared to its wavelength when emitted, you find that
the wavelength has increased, and this is due to the fact that the
gravitational field of the earth is stronger the closer you get to its
surface, causing time to pass slower - or, if you like, to be
"stretched" - near the surface and thereby affecting the frequency and
hence the wavelength of the light.)"
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
http://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Cosmos-Space-Texture-Reality/dp/0375412883
The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality,
Brian Greene
p. 515: "Common atoms such as hydrogen and oxygen emit light at
wavelengths that have been well documented through laboratory
experiments. When such substances are constituents of galaxies that
are rushing away, the light they emit is elongated, much as the siren
of a police car that's racing away is also elongated, making the pitch
drop. Because red is the longest wavelength of light that can be seen
with the unaided eye, this stretching of light is called the redshift
effect."
Yet the standard explanation taught at universities is even sillier:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=278
Cornell University: "In the case of distant objects where the
expansion of the universe becomes an important factor, the redshift is
referred to as the "cosmological redshift" and it is due to an
entirely different effect. According to general relativity, the
expansion of the universe does not consist of objects actually moving
away from each other - rather, the space between these objects
stretches. Any light moving through that space will also be stretched,
and its wavelength will increase - i.e. be redshifted. (This is a
special case of a more general phenomenon known as the "gravitational
redshift" which describes how gravity's effect on spacetime changes
the wavelength of light moving through that spacetime. The classic
example of the gravitational redshift has been observed on the earth;
if you shine a light up to a tower and measure its wavelength when it
is received as compared to its wavelength when emitted, you find that
the wavelength has increased, and this is due to the fact that the
gravitational field of the earth is stronger the closer you get to its
surface, causing time to pass slower - or, if you like, to be
"stretched" - near the surface and thereby affecting the frequency and
hence the wavelength of the light.)"
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
Nov 25, 2011, 10:29:28 AM11/25/11
to
If light is not Doppler-shifted, then it is stretched so as to look
Doppler-shifted (idiotic but who cares):
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=2011-nobel-prize-in-physics-11-10-04
Frank Atkinson (comment 6): "I warmly applaud the accurate
observatonal work of the prize winners - on supernovae. However, the
Prize was awarded on the grounds of the work showing that the Universe
is expanding at an accelerating rate but this is merely conjectue
based on the prior guess that the Universe is actually expanding. It
seems reasonable to expect the elimination of prior guesswork before
handing out prestigious Prizes. All the facts relied on for an
expanding Universe have alternatie explanations. For example we know
the redshift is not due to the Doppler effect. or we would have to be
at the centre of the Universe. Problematically, the Doppler effect is
the only proved redshift effect caused by motion, others are
guesswork. However, a model called the cosmological redshift, has been
fabricated, to make the redshift be a measure of a notional expansion.
This relies on the expansion being produced by space itself stretching
and pushing galaxies apart. The redshift is then said to be caused by
the expanding space, stretching the wavelength of light as it passes
through it. There is no known method for either space to stretch and
expand or for it to stretch light as it passes through it. This model
is pure metaphysical speculation."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Doppler-shifted (idiotic but who cares):
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=2011-nobel-prize-in-physics-11-10-04
Frank Atkinson (comment 6): "I warmly applaud the accurate
observatonal work of the prize winners - on supernovae. However, the
Prize was awarded on the grounds of the work showing that the Universe
is expanding at an accelerating rate but this is merely conjectue
based on the prior guess that the Universe is actually expanding. It
seems reasonable to expect the elimination of prior guesswork before
handing out prestigious Prizes. All the facts relied on for an
expanding Universe have alternatie explanations. For example we know
the redshift is not due to the Doppler effect. or we would have to be
at the centre of the Universe. Problematically, the Doppler effect is
the only proved redshift effect caused by motion, others are
guesswork. However, a model called the cosmological redshift, has been
fabricated, to make the redshift be a measure of a notional expansion.
This relies on the expansion being produced by space itself stretching
and pushing galaxies apart. The redshift is then said to be caused by
the expanding space, stretching the wavelength of light as it passes
through it. There is no known method for either space to stretch and
expand or for it to stretch light as it passes through it. This model
is pure metaphysical speculation."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Michael Helland
Nov 25, 2011, 4:50:24 PM11/25/11
to
That's how it looks to me too.
Would you mind endorsing my hypothesis:
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1KLC-mK63lrH_2F_T3gz5D8Z7Fap8REUGDGIQ_qxePVE
Szczepan Bialek
Nov 26, 2011, 4:16:37 AM11/26/11
to
"Michael Helland" <moby...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:55156fdb-2894-46a0...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
The light is emitted in form of damped waves. Speed of waves are the
amplitude dependent. If the amplitudes are decreasing the smaller picks
travel slower. The light quanta becomes longer.
See:
http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/electromag/3250/Solitons-Coherence-Redshift
S*
Pentcho Valev
Nov 26, 2011, 4:49:50 AM11/26/11
to
On Nov 25, 10:50 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1KLC-mK63lrH_2F_T3gz5D8Z7Fap8REUGDGIQ_qxePVE&pli=1
Your hypothesis is correct in principle but there is an analogy that
makes me believe that the decrease of the speed of light with distance
is not linear: As the photon travels through "empty" space (in a
sci.physics.relativity:
Your hypothesis is correct in principle but there is an analogy that
makes me believe that the decrease of the speed of light with distance
is not linear: As the photon travels through "empty" space (in a
STATIC universe), it loses speed in much the same way that a golf ball
loses speed due to the resistance of the air. On this analogy the
Pentcho Valev
Nov 26, 2011, 6:06:22 PM11/26/11
to
Justification of the "tired light" (or "slowed light") hypothesis:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html
"In fact, the vacuum is full of various particles that are
continuously fluctuating in and out of existence. They appear, exist
for a brief moment and then disappear again. Since their existence is
so fleeting, they are usually referred to as virtual particles."
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-researchers-create-light-from-almost.html
"The thinking goes that in any vacuum, virtual particles come into
existence and then disappear on a constant ongoing basis; and they do
so in waves. The Casimir effect proposes that if two very tiny mirrors
were to be placed very close together; close enough that the distance
between them would be smaller than the length of some of the virtual
waves, a force would be created as the number of particles outside of
the space between the mirrors grows higher than the number that exists
between them, causing a pull on the mirrors, dragging them closer
together."
If virtual particles can exert a force on mirrors, it is reasonable to
assume that they can exert a force on travelling photons thereby
decreasing their energy (speed):
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-physics-einstein.html
"Yet quantum theory suggests that space should be grainy at the
smallest scales, like sand on a beach. (...) According to
calculations, the tiny grains would affect the way that gamma rays
travel through space."
For the moment the final conclusion:
"Hubble redshift due to decreased speed of light; static, not
expanding, universe"
is prevented by crimestop:
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html
"In fact, the vacuum is full of various particles that are
continuously fluctuating in and out of existence. They appear, exist
for a brief moment and then disappear again. Since their existence is
so fleeting, they are usually referred to as virtual particles."
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-researchers-create-light-from-almost.html
"The thinking goes that in any vacuum, virtual particles come into
existence and then disappear on a constant ongoing basis; and they do
so in waves. The Casimir effect proposes that if two very tiny mirrors
were to be placed very close together; close enough that the distance
between them would be smaller than the length of some of the virtual
waves, a force would be created as the number of particles outside of
the space between the mirrors grows higher than the number that exists
between them, causing a pull on the mirrors, dragging them closer
together."
If virtual particles can exert a force on mirrors, it is reasonable to
assume that they can exert a force on travelling photons thereby
decreasing their energy (speed):
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-physics-einstein.html
"Yet quantum theory suggests that space should be grainy at the
smallest scales, like sand on a beach. (...) According to
calculations, the tiny grains would affect the way that gamma rays
travel through space."
"Hubble redshift due to decreased speed of light; static, not
expanding, universe"
is prevented by crimestop:
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Michael Helland
Nov 27, 2011, 5:53:20 PM11/27/11
to
>
> Your hypothesis is correct in principle but there is an analogy that
> makes me believe that the decrease of the speed of light with distance
> is not linear:
I would like to see some evidence that would make me believe that
> Your hypothesis is correct in principle but there is an analogy that
> makes me believe that the decrease of the speed of light with distance
> is not linear:
instead.
One interesting thing you'll find if you explore this, that it is
possible to state the Hubble relationship between speed of a photon
and the distance it traveled ( v = c - H_0 * d ) or by the duration of
its journey ( v = c - H * t you'd have to adjust the units of H_0
to /time rather than /distance).
These two equations give different answers, when you adjust by time,
it begins to fall off more quickly.
Pentcho Valev
Nov 28, 2011, 1:53:17 AM11/28/11
to
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george/ay21/readings/Luminet_BBcosmo.pdf
Jean-Pierre Luminet: "The great novelty was that Lemaître provided the
first interpretation of cosmological redshifts in terms of space
expansion, instead of a real motion of galaxies: space was constantly
expanding and consequently increased the apparent separations between
galaxies. This idea proved to be one of the most significant
discoveries of the century."
Should this "most significant discovery" be worshipped, Jean-Pierre
Luminet? It is based on the assumption that the expanding space
somehow stretches the wavelength of light so as to produce a redshift
identical to the classical redshift that would be produced in the case
of "a real motion of galaxies". Is the assumption reasonable, Jean-
Pierre Luminet? Perhaps it is just idiotic? Of course this discussion
is forbidden in Einsteiniana (you will remain silent forever) but "le
commun des mortels" does react to the idiocy sometimes:
Jean-Pierre Luminet: "The great novelty was that Lemaître provided the
first interpretation of cosmological redshifts in terms of space
expansion, instead of a real motion of galaxies: space was constantly
expanding and consequently increased the apparent separations between
galaxies. This idea proved to be one of the most significant
discoveries of the century."
Should this "most significant discovery" be worshipped, Jean-Pierre
Luminet? It is based on the assumption that the expanding space
somehow stretches the wavelength of light so as to produce a redshift
identical to the classical redshift that would be produced in the case
of "a real motion of galaxies". Is the assumption reasonable, Jean-
Pierre Luminet? Perhaps it is just idiotic? Of course this discussion
is forbidden in Einsteiniana (you will remain silent forever) but "le
commun des mortels" does react to the idiocy sometimes:
Szczepan Bialek
Nov 28, 2011, 5:12:59 AM11/28/11
to
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:f815c0ce-8ba8-4dbf...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george/ay21/readings/Luminet_BBcosmo.pdf
>
> There is no known method for either space to stretch and
expand or for it to stretch light as it passes through it. This model
is pure metaphysical speculation."
Radio waves travel in wires and in space.
> There is no known method for either space to stretch and
expand or for it to stretch light as it passes through it. This model
is pure metaphysical speculation."
Light is like the damped waves. Amplitudes are decreasing.
AM radio waves have amplitudes increasing/decreasing.
The redshift and blueshift is easy observed.
S*
0 new messages