Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz
Hello modest in reference to:
"Big Bang Blasted!"
The Home of Tired Light. Redshift, the Hubble constant, Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and the Expanding Universe all explained.
Quote:
Tired Light is an alternative theory to that of the expanding Universe. This theory explains the experimental evidence without resorting to the 'cosmological constants' or 'vacuum energy' that are essential to the theory of the expanding Universe.
Experiment tells us that photons of light from distant galaxies have a longer wavelength on arrival than when they set off. Since red light has a longer wavelength than blue light, we say that they have been 'redshifted'. The Theory of the Expanding Universe explains this as space expanding and stretching the photons as it does so. In Tired Light we say that the photons lost energy during their journey to us by bumping into electrons on the way.
The Tired Light Theory (that redshift is due to electron interaction) is supported by the fact that measured values of the Hubble constant, H are exactly equal to a combination of the parameters of the electron. This is known as 'Ashmore's Paradox'. If, in the expanding Universe, the expansion is not related to the electron then why is the Hubble constant found experimentally to be related to the electron?
|
What is wrong with this logic?
Is this logic further than reality as explained by the BBT expansion of the universe via space/time without reference to actual observations. |
"
Actual observations" agree with cosmological expansion and
rule out tired light scenarios.
Quote:
The relation between universal expansion and redshift is observationally confirmed through a great variety of tests...
Today, tired light is remembered mainly for historical interest, and almost no scientist accepts tired light as a viable explanation for Hubble's Law.
Tired light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Quote:
We also demonstrate the 1+z light-curve time-axis broadening expected from cosmological expansion. This argues strongly against alternative explanations, such as tired light, for the redshift of distant objects.
When we compare this result to the alternate theories, it is clear that they are severely challenged or simply ruled out. The tired light theories (Zwicky (1929); Hubble & Tolman (1935); Hubble (1936); Mariˇc et al. (1977); Chow (1977); La Violette (1986) would not yield this slowing of the light curves, and thus do not fit this dataset.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0104382v1.pdf
|
Quote:
We conclude that the Tolman surface brightness test is consistent with the reality of the expansion. We have also used the high-redshift HST data to test the ``tired light'' speculation for a non-expansion model for the redshift. The HST data rule out the ``tired light'' model at a significance level of better than 10 sigma.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0106566v1.pdf
|
It is "simply ruled out" by many, many observations. How, for example, would tired light time dilate a supernova? It would not. Simple observations like that support cosmic expansion and rule out tired light.
~modest
