🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sep 12, 3:45 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
> Wilfred H. Sorrell, Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: >205–211
>< "Many advocates of big-bang cosmology believe observations showing the dimming of distant Type Ia supernovae prove beyond reasonable doubt that the expanding universe is undergoing acceleration. It is thought that the acceleration is driven by some unknown type of dark energy.  Although this standard interpretation of the supernovae data is widely
accepted, it could be completely wrong. [IT IS.] (...) The
observational techniques used by Hubble led to the empirical discovery
of a linear dependence of redshift on distance. >

  As experimentally proved and well known, when light interacts with
an atom all OR SOME of its energy is absorbed, If the latter happens,
the light continue on with less energy remaining in it. Since the
color of light is a function of the energy it contains, the less e
there is the redder it will be.

< Based upon these historical considerations, the first conclusion of
the present study is that
astronomical evidence in favor of an expanding universe is
circumstantial at best. The past eight decades of astronomical
observations do not necessarily support the idea of an expanding
universe. This statement is the final answer to the question asked in
Sect. 1 of the present study. Reber (1982) made the interesting point
that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe idea.
 Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought a
model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple
and less irrational than a model universe based upon an
expanding space-time geometry. >

  Both theories are false.

< The second conclusion of the present study is that the model Hubble
diagram for a static (tired-light)
cosmology gives a good fit to the Type Ia supernova data shown in Fig.
2. This observational test of a static (tired-light) cosmology model
also proves that it is wholly possible to explain the supernovae data
without requiring any flat Friedmann model universe undergoing
acceleration. >

  If we call the ongoing red-shifted light "tired", then it may indeed
"fit" the cited data; but it would not explain what's actually
happening.  For that, a META-physical theory is needed.  Since
"metaphysics" is considered a dirty word by most physicists, they
neither know nor want to know why there is a red shift and what it
means.
 For those who do, here is the answer:
In contradiction to the "all or none" theories of quantum physics, the
Compton Effect PROVES that when a bit of light transits an atom, SOME
of its energy will be absorbed. (If the almost linear bit traverses
the outer, least dense portion of an atom very little energy would be
absorbed. The closer to the nucleus its trajectory is the more e will
be absorbed. If the line of light has an internal pattern that happens
to match that of the traversed portion of an atom, ALL of its e will
be absorbed and the photon that thereby instantly existed will not
continue on as a light ray.)
  Since the vacuum of space is totally filled with hydrogen atoms -
billions per cc - and since the material of which they are made -
which totally fills
the space - is the conducting medium of the wavular structure called
"light", the further a bit of light radiates the redder it will be.
  As each atom absorbs a bit of e from a transient beam, the amount
off energy in it will slowly increase. Because the shell-layered
pattern has a range of energy per shell, once that range's upper limit
is reached a quantum burst will happen and the matter of that layer
will suddenly expand and a quantum of energy will be released.  THAT
is why there is a background cosmic radiation and - because H atoms
are everywhere, that's why it has almost no external center of origin.

glird