🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 26, 3:37 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The fact that it is the speed of light, not the wavelength, that
> varies with frequency suggests that a universal principle called the
> Redshift Law might be valid:
>
> f'/f = c'/c
>
> where f' is the shifted frequency of light (at the moment of
> reception), f is the original frequency (at the moment of emission),
> c' is the speed of light relative to the observer (at the moment of
> reception), c is the speed of light relative to the emitter (at the
> moment of emission).
>
> The variability of the speed of light and the constancy of the
> wavelength also imply that one should look for another reason
> (different from Big Bang ones) why the more distant galaxies are, the
> more redshifted light coming from them is. If, as it travels, the
> photon regularly bumps into something and so gradually loses its speed
> (this assumption has a lot to do with the tired light hypothesis), its
> speed will decrease proportionally to the distance (this reconciles
> Hubble's law with the idea of a static universe):
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0806/0806.4085.pdf
> "However, it may be interesting to note that Hubble, even up to his
> final lecture before the Royal Society, always held open the
> possibility that the redshift did not mean velocity of recession but
> might be caused by something else."
>
> http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
> "Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
> stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
> ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
> universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
> not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
> acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
> cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged into the pool
> appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that affect all our
> observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard
> Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science
> Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are entirely right,"
> he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of
> light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point
> of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and
> correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded,"
> adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has
> gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these
> 'spurious' effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels
> with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about
> cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but
> physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other
> physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong,
> can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe."
>
> http://www.prlog.org/10252874-the-existence-of-dark-energy-is-moot-be...
> "The existence of Dark Energy is moot because the Universe is not
> expanding. Dark energy thought to be the cause of an expanding
> Universe is moot because cosmic dust is shown to produce the Hubble
> redshift measurements without the Universe expanding.... Given that
> Supernova light is unequivocally absorbed by DPs [dust particles] on
> its way to the Earth, the measured Hubble redshift Z is most likely
> caused by DPs and has nothing to do with an expanding Universe. Cosmic
> dust therefore makes moot the existence of dark energy because it is
> no longer necessary in non-expanding Universe. Cosmic dust also holds
> in question the Hubble redshift as the first and only proof that the
> Universe began with the Big Bang suggesting the new cosmological
> paradigm adopted at the forthcoming Invisible Universe Conference in
> Paris should be a return to Einstein’s static Universe in dynamic
> equilibrium."
>
> http://cosmologystatement.org/
> An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
> (Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
> "The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical
> entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter
> and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there
> would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by
> astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other
> field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical
> objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and
> observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the
> validity of the underlying theory."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

xxein:  You have your right to cry 'wolf' but you have to convince the
'hunters' that the wolf you think you saw is real.  I'm hardly saying
that present theories have a genuine kernel of truth but you only have
a lesss viable speculation in return.  At least core theories have a
measure of predictability.

By the same token, a predictability does not insure a physical and
logical understanding.  It's just all we can accept until something
more explanatory comes along.  Cosmology is no different, in this
respect, from any other physical discipline we might adopt.

It might be instructive to you that gravity can 'bend' light. But you
don't know the mechanism of gravity, do you?  You're just guessing
something based on diddly-squat, aren't you?  If you thought your way
through it, to all it's conclusions, you would kick yourself in the
head.

You're starting to sound like Burt (Mitch).  You don't have what it
takes to analyse the physic and make theory.

While you've said some things in the past that I could lend a credence
(and investigation) to, this deserves no thought.  It is utterly wrong
in many ways.

As you started off (redshift), Hubble associated c with G.  What
happens when c and G are only relative constants (Relativity Theory)?
G/c^2 is also relative but has a constancy that provides for the
conversion of kg of mass into meters of mass.  It still ends up being
a subjective measurement.

Full blown GRT has it's problems.  Relativity makes it a subjectively
observed theory.  Where is the objective nature and physic of the
universe to be found?

G is a made-up term, just as relative as any velocity we measure.  Did
you notice that we can observe an addition of velocities that are not
linear?  Puzzled yet?  This means that light can travel biased to our
velocity.  That's why there is a v/c term always present in all
relativity theories.

It nails an ether of sorts, but it is a gradient.  That's why we have
a gravitational time dilation.  The ether moves and you can think of
it as an energy gradient.  There are many backwards ways to present
that as GRT.

But back to your start.  We can rectify and eliminate our measurement
due to our gravitational time dilation for observing a recession
velocity (universal expansion).  We must also assume the mass for the
emitting object to rectify it's frequency output in it's own gravity
and timerate.  But the frequency we observe is part of the whole
spectrum.  We can ID the spectrum and measure how much it shifted.
But we have not eliminated any velocity we may have in observing it.

How do we solve for this?  Well, we can't (yet).  But can we recognize
it!  It's not really hiding.  It just escapes a real and objective
measurement.

Wrt Hubble and z, there is a monkey wrench thrown in.  In otherwise
equal considerations, what we see as (frequency f) is v/c = f^2-1 /
f^2+1.  Yes, relative, and it also conforms to a velocity addition.
It is not linear, isn't it?  And z is a stupidly made-up mathematical
term because nobody knows how this stuff works.  You don't observe z
--- you observe f.

Have fun.