🚀 go-pugleaf

"Michael Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:a047eae0-4413-450b-98d2-c63ec38de0b9@c7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On May 22, 2:15 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0c7c1cbc-76de-444a-9fe2-1fca8d8bfe50@g37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On May 22, 8:12 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 10:01 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I suspect clever cosmologists now clearly see the importance of the
> > > following question:
>
> > > Given the formula:
>
> > > frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
> > > is the redshift of a distant star's light due to a change in the speed
> > > of light, or is it due to a change in wavelength?
>
> > > The correct answer "redshift is due to change in the speed of light"
> > > will have to be officially adopted soon:
>
> > Indeed.
>
> > But a change in the speed of light has to be stated in a formula.
>
> > Recall that my interpretation of Hubble's Law is v = c - Hd
>
> > Where c and H are constants, v is the speed of light, and d is the
> > distance the light has traveled.
>
> Reasonable, if you ignore initial change in the speed of light in the
> gravitational field of the source.
>
> Pentcho Valev
>
> ===========================
>
> An optical illusion. To the light its path throughout the gravitational
> field is as straight as straight can get, and at every local point of that
> constant of straight line path, that dead straight straightaway, the speed
> of light is just as constant, c.
>
> You shouldn't vouch for optical illusions. The "optical" part is real but
> the "illusion" borne is rarely so.


My formula says that expansion is an optical illusion.

We see something funny from the light coming from very distant
galaxies, so we assume something is up with the galaxies!

It's the light that is acting funny.

Light is not the infinitely traveling absolute perfection we want to
believe it is.

It has a limited range, when Hd = c, then v = 0

==========================

  It doesn't have to be "infinitely traveling." You can't and won't observe 
an infinite Universe. At most -- in different ways of the Universe's 
material / immaterial duality, if not multiplicity -- you will observe only 
a distant [horizon] of that same infinity. The *closed up* horizon of that 
same infinity of Universe, the most distant non-local *constant* of Big Bang 
Singularity....existing nowhere short of the speed of light (nowhere this 
side of the speed of light, that is, 'c' being a Planck unit). Distantly 
(non-locally) "out there," and equally distantly (non-locally) within us --  
and within everything else everywhere and everywhen else -- where we stand, 
our physical-pyramidal make up, backing the [same] Planck stage / horizon of 
the Universe just as it does distantly "out there."

  You can't and won't observe an infinite Universe, the ultimate in 
non-locality, no matter how far, space and time-wise, you might travel it. 
From any local-relative viewpoint you could and would observe something of 
the its REDUCTION! That is to say, some observable POTENTIAL FOR INFINITY!

  How you would *interpret* it, though, is your own 
mental-pychological-philosophical or religious outlook. It would look like 
some version of 'Creationism'. In the infinite Universe's duality, if not 
multiplicity, it would not only look like it but [be] some version of 
'Creationism' (such as [being] the 'Big Bang Singularity').

GLB

==========================