On Mar 20, 12:36 pm, wrote:


Here's a bonafide crackpot idea.

The Big Bang and expansion of space is an illusion.

We look at light coming from a far away place.

We notice it takes longer to get here than it ought to.

As if light slows down on its way here.

But because of relativity, we don't allow that.

So, instead we say it takes longer because space expands.

But that's sort of silly.

What's really happening is light just slows down.

Relativity breaks down at certain distances.

On Mar 20, 9:28 pm, Michael Helland wrote:
On Mar 20, 12:36 pm, wrote:

Here's a bonafide crackpot idea.

The Big Bang and expansion of space is an illusion.

We look at light coming from a far away place.

We notice it takes longer to get here than it ought to.

As if light slows down on its way here.

But because of relativity, we don't allow that.

So, instead we say it takes longer because space expands.

But that's sort of silly.

What's really happening is light just slows down.

Relativity breaks down at certain distances.

That's funny stuff

Dear Michael Helland:

"Michael Helland" wrote in message
...
On Mar 20, 12:36 pm, wrote:


Here's a bonafide crackpot idea.

The Big Bang and expansion of space is an
illusion.

.... good so far ...

We look at light coming from a far away place.

We notice it takes longer to get here than it ought to.

We can't know that. What we see is that:
- wavelengths are longer than they should be
- intensity is in agreement with red shift
- duration of characteristic events is redshifted similarly to
the wavelength

As if light slows down on its way here.

.... No ...

But because of relativity, we don't allow that.

.... No, Maxwell shows that the speed of light is a constant. And
try as we might, light is so smart that it remembers to reflect
in such a way that its two-way light speed is always c. So not
"because of relativity", but because it agrees with Nature *here*
and *now*.

So, instead we say it takes longer because
space expands.

But that's sort of silly.

Only because you made a mistake.

What's really happening is light just slows down.

Relativity breaks down at certain distances.

If you are interested in cosmology, you might read these pages:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
.... that way you can know what the observations *are*.

David A. Smith

New space distance is being created inbetween matter as the universe
expands. This we observe as apparent galactic motion. But it is not
motion. They are not moving away through space.




It's not such a dumb idea. This can be modelled using probabilistic
methods, and would explain many things such as redshifting quite
nicely.

You can have an expanding universe "without" a big bang.

However, to attempt such a model without using probability theory -
now THAT would be d-u-m-b.


Dr. V. I. Plankenstein

On Mar 20, 8:36 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear Michael Helland:

"Michael Helland" wrote in message

...

On Mar 20, 12:36 pm, wrote:

Here's a bonafide crackpot idea.

The Big Bang and expansion of space is an
illusion.

... good so far ...

We look at light coming from a far away place.

We notice it takes longer to get here than it ought to.

We can't know that. What we see is that:
- wavelengths are longer than they should be
- intensity is in agreement with red shift
- duration of characteristic events is redshifted similarly to
the wavelength


I am not denying the redshift.

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

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.

Which is a decrease in c.

If space expands, then c decreases.

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

I'm not denying the redshift.

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


As if light slows down on its way here.

... No ...

But because of relativity, we don't allow that.

... No, Maxwell shows that the speed of light is a constant. And
try as we might, light is so smart that it remembers to reflect
in such a way that its two-way light speed is always c. So not
"because of relativity", but because it agrees with Nature *here*
and *now*.

So, instead we say it takes longer because
space expands.

But that's sort of silly.

Only because you made a mistake.

What's really happening is light just slows down.

Relativity breaks down at certain distances.

If you are interested in cosmology, you might read these pages:http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
... that way you can know what the observations *are*.

David A. Smith

"Huang" :

New space distance is being created inbetween matter as the universe
expands. This we observe as apparent galactic motion. But it is not
motion. They are not moving away through space.

It's not such a dumb idea. This can be modelled using probabilistic
methods, and would explain many things such as redshifting quite
nicely.

You can have an expanding universe "without" a big bang.

How? What about the background radiation?

However, to attempt such a model without using probability theory -
now THAT would be d-u-m-b.

What makes it probabilistic and not pure geometry?

regards,

guido
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm

"Michael Helland" wrote in message
...
On Mar 20, 8:36 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear Michael Helland:

"Michael Helland" wrote in message

...

On Mar 20, 12:36 pm, wrote:

Here's a bonafide crackpot idea.

The Big Bang and expansion of space is an
illusion.

... good so far ...

We look at light coming from a far away place.

We notice it takes longer to get here than it ought to.

We can't know that. What we see is that:
- wavelengths are longer than they should be
- intensity is in agreement with red shift
- duration of characteristic events is redshifted similarly to
the wavelength


I am not denying the redshift.

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

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

But if light slows down from distant galaxies, during a lunar occultatation
their image would take longer to disappear than more local stars or
galaxies. This isn't observed.

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

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.

On Mar 21, 8:04 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:


That's the point.


1) we don't know any way to remove some energy from passing
photons and not scatter them.


The conjecture is that photons, after traveling far enough, slow down
naturally.


2) we are not getting increasing levels of light scattered from
older objects

Because they lose energy without scattering.

Check this out:

Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics'
Delayed gamma rays from deep space may provide the first evidence for
physics beyond current theories.

http://www.physorg.com/news110480559.html


3) we now cannot find processes similar to ones we see occuring
locally.

Same with expansion.

The point is this doesn't occur locally.

The point is Relativity holds true, but has like the Newtonian physics
it replaced, it starts to break down after traveling through deep
space.


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.


Right.

You need to play with one or the other.

Mainstream cosmology says play with the size of space.

I'm saying, and the above cite seems to support, that playing with the
speed of photons gives all the same results.



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.

I know.

Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics'
Delayed gamma rays from deep space may provide the first evidence for
physics beyond current theories.

http://www.physorg.com/news110480559.html