🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 22, 9:25 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@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."


Light is believed to have an indefinite range.

I'm saying that's a flaw in our understanding, which leads to the
improper interpretation of Hubble's Law as recessional velocity and
the expansion of space.



> You can't and won't observe
> an infinite Universe.

I agree again with you.

Observable nature is the Hubble Sphere.


> 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,

I agree.


> 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.


The question at hand is how to interpret Hubble's Law.

Hubble himself never believed expansion was the only interpretation
that should be considered.


> 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').

Well, that's your own mental-pychological-philosophical or religious
outlook.

I'm more interested in Hubble's Law.

I'm just agreeing the the OP's thesis that cosmologically redshifted
light reduces frequency not by an increase in  wavelength, but a drop
in the speed of light (velocity of a wave = frequency * wavelength),
according to my new version of Hubble's Law: v = c - Hd