🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sep 14, 6:31 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> john wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 2:47 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> john wrote:
>
> >>> Also, tired light explains how every point
> >>> can be the center for the expansion mirage.
> >>> john
> >>    Tired Light is Still Dead
> >>      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
>
> >>    24 Apr 2008 - Blondin et al. (2008) studied distant supernovae using
> >>    spectra to judge the age of the object during each observation. They
> >>    found an aging rate that varied with redshift z like
>
> >>    1/(1+z)(0.97 +/- 0.10),
>
> >>    compatible with the expected 1/(1+z) for expanding Universes, but 9.7
> >>    standard deviations away from the constant aging rate expected in the
> >>    tired light model.
>
> > Don't you see that for the expanding
> > universe model, when you get far
> > enough from us, the other stuff is going to
> > have to be travelling at the speed of light?
>
> > john
>
>    Traveling at the speed of light with respect to what?
>    Just what is it you think is violated?


Guess we better clear that up.

If an object at whatever distance from
us, Sam, sends light to us, Sam,
is it your position that the photons will
travel at c wrt *us*, Sam, when they get here?

I think so.

So, if that object is receding from us at .5c,
you say that light from it will be redshifted
when it gets here by a corresponding amount,
but will be travelling at c wrt *us*.

But from the object's POV, the light was
released un-redshifted and at c wrt *it*.

So how can c wrt us be the same as c
wrt the object when we are separating at 1/2c?

When did it change?

john