Tired Light and cosmological redshift

Some “tired light” theorists have suggested that the reason light redshifts over distance is due, not to expansion, but to light slowing down as it travels from a distant source to an observer on earth. Although I have previously agreed in this blog with the non expanding model of the universe, unfortunately I have to find fault with the suggested cause of the observed Hubble redshift being due to light losing speed over distance.

The problem with a reducing speed of c over distance is that it would result in no observed redshifting of light! Contrary to the misconceptions made by authors in Various published papers. The reason for this is simple. If light waves reduced speed over distance then they would have to be be travelling at a slower speed then any light waves later emitted by the same source. The obvious conclusion of this model is that: Any wavefronts emitted by a source would always be slowly “catching up” with those wavefronts already emitted by the source at an earlier time. And the distance between successive wavefronts emitted would always have to decrease to accommodate the different speeds between each successive wavefront.

Taking this into account it becomes clear that even though if the speed of the wave slows, because the distance between wavefronts also diminishes...the observed frequency would still remain the same over any distance. In other words the observed frequency of light would not decay over great cosmological distances in any model where light speed is asssumed to decrease over distance. And as we know this conclusion is ruled out by the observed Hubble redshift 

So my conclusion is that although yes I agree with the non expanding model of a universe, I don’t believe a slowing of light speed over distance can explain the observed decay of frequency over distance as observed in cosmological redshift.

And here is another interesting piece from the historical record quoted below. Looks like in 1929 Hubble knew “expansion” was not real. He just couldn’t attribute it to a failure of Einsteins photon model. Because Albert was just too famous to challenge. Seeing as Albert had just won the Nobel prize for saying that light does *not* lose energy/frequency over distance!

“Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This viewpoint is emphasized (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae, (b) in his reply (Hubble 1937a) to the criticisms of the 1936 papers by Eddington and by McVittie, and (c) in his 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to Cosmology (Hubble 1937b). It also persists in his last published scientific paper which is an account of his Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953).”

https://apod.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/1996/sandage_hubble.html

Distorted galaxies in deep field images

 Hubble has already shown us images of distorted galaxy formation in deep field images. These incidentally were not initially predicted by the BBT. However theorists now pretend this apparent isotropic evolution in galaxy shapes from the “early universe” to now is all part of the success of the predictive powers of the BBT. Presumably JWST will reveal more of these distorted galaxy shapes in the distant universe.

But can these distortions be explained in a non expanding universe? I believe it can. Using two simple methods. Firstly one must take into account optical distortion. The more distance light travels through the gas and dust filled plasma of the vacuum, the more distorted the images will be. Just as light travelling through an imperfect glass or atmospheric medium distorts light images. And this distortion of course will be isotropic. The second method relies on the simple rule of light speed in a non relativistic model of EMR. Outlined in other pages of this blog on pages like my DeSitter page in this blog. As I have said elsewhere the MMX and Sagnac experiments show us light always travels at c relative to the source. This means that if the source moves relative to the observer or vice versa the speed of light of *all the light that has ever left* the source is always still at c relative to the source. A simple example can be explained as follows: Light propagates away from a source at c. The observer moves in a circle relative to the source. Notice as the observer moves away from the source the measured light speed is slower. And when they travel towards the source the light speed increases. 

Now apply this observation to the early universe. We see a galaxy rotate from our point of view. But from a star at the edge of the galaxies POV, they see earth rotate in the sky. Lightpaths from that star are always travelling at c in a straight line towards the earth relative to the star. Whereas the earth is moving back and forth across these light paths. From the earths POV the light appears to be dragged back and forth across the sky. And the light also appears to slow down and speed up as it arrives here on earth.Even though in fact in the stars frame it is always propagating in straight lines at a constant speed c.

So in the earths frame if one then tracked the path of light from various stars around the edge of the galaxy but always kept the light travelling at c in straight lines relative to each star, then over great cosmological time frames the image of the galaxy would *appear* to warp and bend from the earths point of view. Even though in fact the galaxy itself has not warped and bent.

Redshifting as ‘tired light’ does not lose energy over distance

There seems to be a flaw in the assumption that cosmological redshift of galaxies first observed by Hubble and others in the 1920s cannot be explained by tired light because there is no explanation as to how light ‘loses’ energy over distance. The argument being a “photon” of light at 100nm has more energy than one at 200nm. But this seems to overlook a fundamental point which is that a light beam with a wavelength range of 100-200nm when redshifted to 200-400nm still has the same total energy as the rest frame emitted range. But just spread out across a range double that of the original rest frame emission range.

My question is: A source emits a constant amount of energy as EMR with a range of 100-200 nm. Will the measured total energy of that emission by an observor be the same for the rest frame beam of 100-200nm as it would be for the same beam redshifted to 200-400nm beam during the same observation time frame?

My assumption is that where 100-200 nm gets redshifted to a longer wavelength the energy is *still conserved*. Just spread out across a larger wavelength range. Contrary to and negating the argument used by Big Bang theorists that a tired light non expanding universe would have to explain how light “loses” energy.

Redshift Distance relationship in a non expanding model of the universe

 Redshift/Distance relationship for a Non expanding model

In cosmology redshift is given by the letter z.  The z to wavelength relationship in an expanding model works as follows:

A restframe source emits a wavelength range of 500-1000 nm. At z= 1 it doubles to an observed range of 1000-2000. At z=2 the range is 1500 to 3000. At z=3 the range is redshifted to 2000 to 4000 etc. The distance to the source in an expanding model is explained and given as velocity in km/s. The higher the redshift the faster it is moving away from us and the farther away it is. 

In other words the distance to a source at z=2 in an expanding model is much farther than predicted for a non expanding model because in a non expanding universe the source is not moving away from the observer on earth. So that for instance in a non expanding model a star at z=2 is twice as far away from earth as a star at z=1 is from earth.

Unfortunately to date the best confirmed real actual distance of any star from earth is much less than z=1. Which is z=0.1 to the Virgo cluster. The table below assumes distance X at z=1 is a known actual real distance and not an assumed distance related to velocity, as is the case in a Big Bang universe. 

z=0 (500nm to 1000nm ) = restframe

z= 1 (1000 to 2000)=distance A

z=3  (2000 to 4000)=distance 2xA

z=7 (4000 to 8000)=distance 3xA

z=15 (8000 to 16000)

z=31 (16000 to 32000)

z=63 (32000 to 64000)

z=127

z=255

z=511

z=1023(ie Microwave)=distance 10xA

Therefore in a non expanding universe z=1023 is only twice as far away as z=31. Or 10 times as far away as an object at z=1 

So far the current available limits of detection in optical are via the JWST mid infrared camera. ( JWST MIR camera range is 5-28 microns. Equivelent to a redshift range of z=9 to z=49)

The big question is...how far away is z=1 in a non expanding model?

That will be hard to quantify as so far only the Virgo cluster at approx z=0.001 has a known real distance. Using various methods like parralax. 

Thus in a non expanding universe the CMBR is explained as redshifted light from galaxies at and around z=1023. That is galaxies at around 10 times the distance from earth as any source observed at a distance where the light is redshifted to z=1.

The average black body spectrum of all the billions of stars in that distance parameter around z=1023 combine to give the observed CMBR. And because at that distance there is still a small variation in distribution of galaxies this also accounts for the slight graininess observed in the COBE CMBR images.

Black Holes in M87 and Sag A

 Recent news from Event Horizon Telescope consortium is a new discovery of a black hole at sag A in our Milky Way. With an image surprisingly similar to the BH in M87

Notice M87 didn’t have a mandatory accretion disc. The rather disingenuous excuse from NASA is that by some remarkeable coincidence the BH is face on to us. The only angle that an accretion disc wouldn’t show up in observations. I said back then this is a failed image of an imaginary BH with a lousy excuse to legitimise the image not having a mandatory accretion disc. 

Guess what? The BH in sag A also doesn’t have an accretion disc either. And guess what NASA’s excuse is this time? 

“If confirmed this means that from our vantage point we are looking down on Sgr A* and its ring more than we are from side-on, surprisingly similar to EHT's first target M87*.”(NASA)

Another amazing coincidence to back up a failed prediction about Black Holes by theorists? Or just an imaginary BH from a unsubstantiatable theory.

Mercury anomalous preccession: A classical explanation

Mercury anomalous preccession and the Flyby anomaly.

Newton assumes we use the center of mass to calculate F=G*(mM/r^2)

This is true in the sense that yes, with the mass of volume being considered as homogenous, the pull of gravity is definitely towards the Center of mass. But it doesn’t take into account the fact that mass is not all concentrated at a hypothetical center of volume. It, the mass, is spread across the volume. So how does this affect Newton’s orbital calculations when trying to model both planets orbital preccession and the flyby anomaly?

We already know Newtonian calculations can not account for the observed anomalous preccession, first noticed by Le Verrier, unless an additional gravitational force is added. Le Verrier assumed an additional mass inside its orbital path. Others including Einstein provided their own explanations. (Einstein invoked an additional 1/r^4 gravitational force as the source of the anomalous advance of preccession.) All supplied mathematical proofs. 

I believe a non relativistic solution is still needed. And have found a simpler explanation based on the assumption that if the suns mass is spread across its volume, rather than concentrated at its center, this effects an outcome on perehilion that is slightly different from F=G(mM/r^2)

And this effect is related to the fact that an orbiting body will experience an additional gravitational pull from what Newtons formula predicts, the closer it is to the suns volume. Based on the assumption that some of the suns mass is closer to the orbitting body than the center of the sun is to the orbiting body at perehilion. And therefore must exert an additional increase in gravitational pull as defined by F in the Newtonian formula above.

But how can this be quantified without resorting to Le Verrier or General Relativity?

I believe I can supply not only the theoretical explanation but also the mathematical calculation to explain not only the anomalous preccession of the planets. But also the flyby anomaly.

The theoretical explanation is outlined above by assuming the suns mass is distributed across its volume. Not at its center. I call this the classical model seeing as it is a non relativistic explanation.

The calculations are as follows: Assuming this effect is greatest at perehilion than this neccessitates calculating the additional gravitational force at the perehilion. Not at the semi major axis as Newton, Einstein and others assume.

I have found that a simple 1/r^2 formula using r at perehilion instead of at semi major axis gives a reliable outcome that quantifies the additional preccession at least as well if not better than  Le Verrier, Gerber or Einstein. Without needing to resort to fantasies about Vulcan or imaginary Spacetime. Altering distance r at perehilion slightly, by adding an additional distance R, gives an even more accurate formula that can be consistently applied to model all the planets anomalous preccessions.

Notice that in my version of the classic r^2 relationship between gravity and radius, the radius is not the radius of the sun. But the radius of the orbit at perehilion. The explanation for this is that the effect is based on the assumption that the anomalous preccession is directly related to the diameter of the sun vs the distance of the orbitting body from the suns center. Notice that the diameter of the sun as seen from the orbitting body is determined by r^2. (Its size in the sky as seen from the orbitting body gets smaller with distance using 1/r^2)

Where r is perehilion distance and R is radius of the sun, are the following “classical” formulae:

A)Preccessional advance in arc seconds=1/(r+R)^2

B)Preccessional advance in arcseconds= 1/(r+3R)^2

The following table shows column 1 planet, column 2 observed, column 3 predicted GRT (relativity), columns  4&5 predicted  classical model. 

Notice classical version B is more accurate even than GRT for predicting all the planets observed preccessions.

                 Observed.    GRT.           A         B

Mercury.     43.1          43.5          45.85    43.24

Venus.          8.0            8.6            8.54       8.33

Earth.            5.0           3.87          4.5         4.49

Mars.           *2.5           1.3            2.3         2.29

( Errors on Venus observed are 8.0 +-5.0)

(Source: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 403, 1381–1391 (2010) 

[Table 1, column 9])

It is also worth pointing out that usually reference say Mars’ “observed” is 1.3. This is actually a theoretical assumption. Erroneously assumed to be consistent with the prediction made by GRT. 

In fact it is commonly accepted that only Mercury, Earth and Venus orbits can be measured to a any sufficient degree of accuracy. Not Mars or any of the other planets.

What relativist revisionists fail to mention is that total of the best measured preccession of Mars which includes any anomalous contribution is 9.0arcseconds/Century.

Of which *2.5* is an unattributable  “uncertainty”. Not 1.3

(https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4722-z)

                

.

Waves and particles

 

Coffee grounds in bucket of water. Shake bucket back and forth to create waves. Coffee settles out in wave pattern. No need for QT to explain how atoms subjected to an external resonance can create interference patterns.