Re: Formula for Decelerating Light

On May 8, 4:41 pm, jjs...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On May 8, 7:28 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>

Most people have said "The Speed of Light is Constant!" and thought
that was it.

Yes because of experimental evidence... none of which you grasp...

I have no trouble accepting that the speed of light traveling in
distances under 500 million light years the speed of light could be
constant.

Good thats settled then... you agree the speed of light is constant
under 500 million light years.

But experimental evidence (Hubble redshift) shows that the farther you
go out, light is taking longer to get here than it should.

Yes thanks to expansion of the universe....


That's the status quo.

So is light's infinite range.


I accept that SR is a very good theory (I can only accept that because
I lack understanding it) but maybe it has its limits and the range of
electromagnetic force starts to die out at Hubble redshift distances.

Maybe... prove it....


My theory predicts some galaxies and clusters will bleed directly into
the CMB.

We may need some better telescopes to see it, but that's one
difference between deceleration and expansion.



Which however you ignored along with the issue of Tolman Surface
Brightness test...

Hmmm still ignoring all mentions of Tolman Surface Brightness Test,
you must have failed to grasp it...


In expansion, redshifted objects have longer wavelengths due to
expansion.

In tired light, which fails the test, as well as the supernovae light
curves, it only has redshifted frequency and lost energy. Wavelength
and velocity are the same.


Deceleration is more like expansion, except wavelength is constant and
velocity changes instead of the other way around.

It matches the same data as expansion.



But that can't possibly be right.

You know this how? Because you've studied cosmology in depth? No.. you
have no idea of what the hell your talking about.

Because even though the photon is massless, if it's traveling at half
speed it's going to be in the gravitational field twice as long, the
gravitational effect should be greater.

Yeah if, of course photons travel through gravitational fields and
slow down this is well known, and as soon as they pass through they
resume their normal speed... c

If an old slow photon (from traveling 800 million light years) enters
a gravitational field, it won't travel along the same lines as a new
photon traveling at c.

That's all I'm saying.


Isn't it true that the nuclear forces die out at some range?

Read a book on the topic instead of expecting me to spoon feed the
information to you...

They do die out.

But our assumptions are that the em force doesn't die out, even though
we observe redshift which is a loss in frequency and energy!


Well to wrap up you have no case, no argument, and no leg to stand
on....

Observational evidence, common sense, and a lack of belief in the big
bang.
.

Quantcast