Re: Explanation of why expansion redshift optical illusion of a different kind of redshift

On Apr 21, 10:30 pm, jjs...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Apr 22, 1:05 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>

Sure, the evidence is well known.

Again, consider this. Here are three steps of an object traveling left
to right over a grid,
and the object slows down:

|X.....| (step 1)
|..X...| (step 2)
|...X..| (step 3)

See how it travels 2 dots from step 1 to step 2;

And it travels 1 dot from step 2 to step 3?

So....

So, when we plot the same data on an expanding grid, it gives the
illusion of a constant velocity, like so:


It's a curve.

Now the same three steps, shown as if you were zooming-in during each
step:

|X.....|
| . .X . . . |
|. . . X . . |

See how it's not a curve, but appears as a straight line?

A curve is merely a longer distance, it has no effect on the speed of
light, light will still be traveling at the same speed, sorry mike the
curve has nothing to do with it, all it means is that the distance is
longer so light will take longer to reach a given point. Mike the key
of SR is that light is constant no matter the frame of reference.

Ok.

But maybe it just doesn't work that way over 2000 million light years.


That straight line is a constant velocity.

All the evidence that agrees with expansion redshift agrees with that.

Now, whether that expansion used to get the appearance of a constant
speed is a real phenomenon or a mathematical trick, they are
mathematically identical.

Therefore, any evidence that agrees with expansion redshift should
agree with decelerating light.

This is piffle, light slows down sure, for example they can freeze
light and then restart it again. The rest of this is babble...

You say the speed of light is verified by numerous experiments.

Yes, have you happened to look at all the experiments that have
verified SR?

Are there are experiments that take place over a distance of several
thousand million light years?

That's the relevant scale.

Irrelevant, unless you have some specific evidence that points to a
flaw in special relativity or some real evidence to the contrary this
is all piffle.


I just demonstrated, rather undeniably, that the evidence for
expansion corresponds directly to light that decelerates over the
megaparsecs.


Yes light slows down for example the speed of light is
different in a vacuum... but that speed is the one that SR shows is
constant in all frames of reference. Something you have yet to show
any evidence to the contrary for.

The evidence is well known, just interpreted wrong as expansion rather
than deceleration, which I've shown are functionally identical.
.