On Mar 21, 11:04*am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear Michael Helland:

"Michael Helland" wrote in message

...
...

I am not denying the redshift.

I just agree with Hubble that expansion is
not the cause.

"Agree" is the wrong word. *"Believe" is probably the right word.

The cause is a loss in velocity over such
immense intergalactic distances.

E = hf

c = fw

Redshift means a loss of energy. Which
means a decrease in frequency.

Now consider that:
- intensity changes in agreement with redshift being expansion
- duration of events change in agreement with redshift being
expansion

Your "belief" fixes redshift, but now requires entirely new
physics:
1) we don't know any way to remove some energy from passing
photons and not scatter them.
2) we are not getting increasing levels of light scattered from
older objects
3) we now cannot find processes similar to ones we see occuring
locally.

Which is a decrease in c.

No, it is not a decrease in c.

If space expands, then c decreases.

What happens if your clock runs faster, and c stays always the
same value? *The meter is defined as c times time. *Is more
distance created thereby?

But it also fits that if c decreases, its not the
distance that increases, it's the time that
increases.

You don't need to play with both.

I'm not denying the redshift.

It's just that the redshift is really light slowing
down which gives the illusion of space
expanding.

And breaks the entire rest of physics. *Think about it.

David A. Smith

Why don't you pick on someone not so easily refuted? D.W.H.