Light slowing down!

[Skyrocket]

Understand that one of the greatest astromers of the 20th century's greatest theory is wrong.

Redshift is not caused from moving galaxies, no it is merely the photons getting tired, losing energy and slowing down. which would lead to the illusory phenomenon that is redshift.

A lot of thinking has been wasted on this one single theory and it may not even be right.

[David Hall]

Hello Skyrocket. Welcome aboard.

I'm not sure if you're really being serious here. It's customary in forums like this to try to substantiate your claims with data, or at least with sources. A link to some website or news article, for example.

But in any case, tired-light has been discredited for a long time, and has no serious backers in astronomy, cosmology, or physics.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

[Chemist]

How can redshift mean that light is slowing down? Redshift is an increase in wavelength and hence a decrease in energy of the photon. The photon is still traveling at the velocity of light.

[traztx]

On 2003-01-17 02:09, Skyrocket wrote:
Understand that one of the greatest astromers of the 20th century's greatest theory is wrong.

Redshift is not caused from moving galaxies, no it is merely the photons getting tired, losing energy and slowing down. which would lead to the illusory phenomenon that is redshift.

A lot of thinking has been wasted on this one single theory and it may not even be right.


I don't think the mainstream wastes much time on this theory. Most people believe motion causes red or blue shifts depending on relative velocity of observers, because it has been demonstrated in experiments.

I'm curious who this astronomer is, and why he is considered one of the greatest in the 20th century, and why anyone would think this is his "greatest theory". Can you give more details?

[JS Princeton]

Tired light has been blown out of the water more times than I can count. Even Big Bang deniers don't believe it. A critique and explanation of its incorrectness can be found in the standard MTW Gravitation text.

[irony]

So why then is there a doppler effect when we listen to sounds, too? Is sound slowing down?

[traztx]

On 2003-01-17 10:33, irony wrote:
So why then is there a doppler effect when we listen to sounds, too? Is sound slowing down?


There is not always a doppler effect when you listen to sounds. You only get that if the speaker is in motion that results in a change in the distance between.

However, low frequency sounds travel farther than high frequency. If you've ever listened to marching band approach in a parade, you may have noticed that the big bass drums seem louder than the cymbals from a distance. When they are close, the cymbals seem louder. The amplitude is different, but not the frequency. This effect on the amplitude is not doppler. (If you didn't noticed this, then next time try not to focus so much on the baton twirlers!)

[cable]

Skyrocket,
welcome on board.


Redshift is not caused from moving galaxies, no it is merely the photons getting tired ...

well. I'm not surprised. Astronomers too get tired. that's why we call them Bad Astronomers /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[irony]

On 2003-01-17 10:58, traztx wrote:
There is not always a doppler effect when you listen to sounds. You only get that if the speaker is in motion that results in a change in the distance between.


I know that... I was just attempting to point out that Skyrocket has said something dumb. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[Glom]

On 2003-01-17 02:09, Skyrocket wrote:
A lot of thinking has been wasted on this one single theory and it may not even be right.


Whether or not it is right is irrelevant. The scientific method is never a waste of time. Many theories get formulated and later junked. That's scientific progress. We learn a lot from failiure. Despite the impression that the public and media like to give that any failiure means somebody should be shot, scientists and engineers value the lessons learned from failiure. For every theory junked, that's one step closer to finding the true theory (if there is such a thing).

[Yul]

Light slowing down has some advocates. Is "cdk" the same as "tired light"?

http://www.setterfield.org/queries/index.html

[Chip]

On 2003-01-17 02:09, Skyrocket wrote:
"...Redshift is not caused from moving galaxies, no it is merely the photons getting tired, losing energy and slowing down. which would lead to the illusory phenomenon that is redshift..."

Hi Skyrocket,
Your statement is not supported by actual observations.
If you want to get a little technical, here's Astronomer Ned Wright's debunking (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm) of "Tired Light" theories. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2003-01-17 15:24 ]</font>