Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
But! we must not be blinded by the light of many.
Redshift is questioned and it requires further research so that future data can fit whatever theory.
|
I agree that its good to question the theory, but you've got to realize that if you question something, it would behoove you to come up with a reason why other than just "I think it could be wrong."
So,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
What part of the paper do you disagree?
|
I'm somewhat familiar with the actual experimental data associated with measuring lightspeed through a medium, in fact there was an episode of The Universe on the History Channel this evening on this very topic, which got me thinking about this paper you cited.
Its well proven that passing through a medium slows down light, but that slowdown is directly proportional to the density of the medium it passes through. But you need a LOT of density to get it to slow down much. In our own atmosphere, the speed is affected by far less than 1%. The red-shifts we are talking about explaining are gigantic in comparison, and thus unless you're going to argue that the average density of material between the source and us of these stars is far more dense than water, the argument cannot, well, hold much water!
This is the *only* appeal that that paper put forth. How can I not think it's simply not bothering to even do the math when it claims that 1+1=86?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
Do you think light does not change over distance and time?
|
That's something that's not mentioned in that paper. I have indeed seen it appear in some places, most recently in the Dot-Wave Theory thread over in the Strange Claims forum.
Do you have a logical explanation--hopefully one you've thought through well enough to present here yourself rather than merely pointing us to a paper somewhere that you haven't verified in your own mind--for why the speed of light would vary? And why it would not do so in our local space--aside from well-understood variations due to media--but would do so at large distances?
Can you explain why red-shift data seems to correlate perfectly for those stars that are close enough to provide even parallax-confirmed distance data? Doesn't it seem to be the case that for those geometrical distances to be "misleading" it would require them to be affected by something akin to relativity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
Do you think that lensing is not a fact?
|
How is lensing inconsistent with red-shift? Lensing bends light, it does not create a medium that would slow it down. How is this question relevant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
Do you think that ultra dense matter does not influence the wavelength of light?
|
Sure it does. Just said so. The question is not one of the individual densities of particles--that cause gravitational lensing--but rather average density of that matter in space, which is what slows light down.
Are you sure you understand the difference between "dense matter" and "the density of a region of space"? They're two very different things!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
I think I post links to save me from typing.
The problem I have is that the more papers I read the more I find myself knowing that I know very little in the scope of the universe.
|
And there you have it: you need to increase your understanding. This comes from comparing and contrasting the statements in these papers and trying to keep an open mind to either side.
If I were just an absolutist, I would not have bothered to read the paper you referenced. I like new ideas, they in fact happen all the time! Some of them do overturn the conventional wisdom! Einstein did!
On the other hand weak scholarship is all too common these days and that paper really did not even pass the smell test. Sure it's fine to propose an alternate theory, but to blithely skip over even attempting to show why that alternate theory would match even a single data point makes that paper absolutely worthless. Worse still, even a cursory, back-of-the-envelope computation, like the one I give earlier in this post is orders-of-magnitude wrong.
Thus are you really sure this particular paper does anything to advance your argument?
I'd say it actually goes a long way toward providing the jumping off point to discount tired light completely!
I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong,
Buffy
