The conventional view is that gravity does not alter the speed of light, but lengthens its wavelength. The early universe was more dense than todays expanded universe and therefore had a more powerful gravitational field. It seems logical that light climbing away from this denser universe towards us would not slow down but wuld have its wavelength red shifted. Though speed c is 186,000 mp sec in a vaccuum, space is not a perfect vaccuum. It is well known that light slows when passing thro air, for example, so while space is a lot more tenuous than air it has a proton here and there and in some regions substantial clouds of hydrogen and helium, so light must be slowed when passing thro. By how much would light be slowed by passing thro a billion lyr of space?
That was a deal-breaker for me in physics in the 1970's, that the speed of galaxies was inferred but not confirmed by direct observation. I had the same qualms about the existence of quarks.
The red-shifted light we see is very old, made at a time when the universe was expanding and is evidence of the big-bang. It does not tell us anything about the current expansion rate, if any, of the universe. The ancient objects that we see receding very quickly, from red-shifted light made a long time ago, may be now moving towards us. Looking at objects much closer to us may tell us more about any current universe expansion than looking at distant objects, which is simply old data.
Best explanation of the cosmological redshift I've seen so far! In my limited view, this has also consequences on how we measure the distances of redshifted stars / galaxies.
FINALLY! I've been contemplating this question for years while doubting expansion. I also have doubts about a "big bang" or any beginning/creation and this explanation helps considerably.
You are doing good work Unzicker. We musn't become too monolithic to question the basic assumptions of our theories- even if they hold exalted status amongst the community.
I remember when I first realized that we have no independent (of redshift) way of measuring recessional velocities of galaxies. It all depends on the assumption that redshift is all caused by recessional velocities.
I have been discussing with colleagues that since light interacts with all mass in the universe that causes light to lose energy and redshift with distance. I was going to use Sciama's (1953) approach to inertia to calculate it where I assume that inertia is a quantum field interaction responsible for inertia and the secondary Machian effect of all matter leads to redshift.
Besides refraction, the redshift could also be explained by an energy loss of the light wave in the ether medium. That energy loss equates in a drop in frequency (aka redshift) and happens for every other wave...like sound waves, their energy gets lower and lower as distance increases, until it fades completely. If ether exists, as reason requires, and the double slit experiment proves, then a similar phenomenon is to be expected for light waves, altough on much larger distances- which is what we actually observe.
The accelerated contraction of the aether (or whatever you want to call the medium which electromagnetic waves propagate through) would also result in the illusion of the expansion of the universe
The conventional view is that gravity does not alter the speed of light, but lengthens its wavelength. The early universe was more dense than todays expanded universe and therefore had a more powerful gravitational field. It seems logical that light climbing away from this denser universe towards us would not slow down but wuld have its wavelength red shifted. Though speed c is 186,000 mp sec in a vaccuum, space is not a perfect vaccuum. It is well known that light slows when passing thro air, for example, so while space is a lot more tenuous than air it has a proton here and there and in some regions substantial clouds of hydrogen and helium, so light must be slowed when passing thro. By how much would light be slowed by passing thro a billion lyr of space?
Definitely no expansion. That theory is the worst in history
That was a deal-breaker for me in physics in the 1970's, that the speed of galaxies was inferred but not confirmed by direct observation. I had the same qualms about the existence of quarks.
There is a reason this guy is ignored in the scientific community. How anyone could take his nonsense seriously is a mystery.
The red-shifted light we see is very old, made at a time when the universe was expanding and is evidence of the big-bang. It does not tell us anything about the current expansion rate, if any, of the universe. The ancient objects that we see receding very quickly, from red-shifted light made a long time ago, may be now moving towards us. Looking at objects much closer to us may tell us more about any current universe expansion than looking at distant objects, which is simply old data.
Best explanation of the cosmological redshift I've seen so far! In my limited view, this has also consequences on how we measure the distances of redshifted stars / galaxies.
FINALLY! I've been contemplating this question for years while doubting expansion. I also have doubts about a "big bang" or any beginning/creation and this explanation helps considerably.
There's probably a point here, but the presentation obscures it.
You are doing good work Unzicker. We musn't become too monolithic to question the basic assumptions of our theories- even if they hold exalted status amongst the community.
Forget the math Alexander Unzicker. It is preventing you from understanding the physics. Mark Martens, Accidental Scientist.
I remember when I first realized that we have no independent (of redshift) way of measuring recessional velocities of galaxies. It all depends on the assumption that redshift is all caused by recessional velocities.
I've never understood why "tired light" theory for red shifting was discounted. Thank you for another, plausible explanation.
Love your vids on Variable Speed of C!
I have been discussing with colleagues that since light interacts with all mass in the universe that causes light to lose energy and redshift with distance. I was going to use Sciama's (1953) approach to inertia to calculate it where I assume that inertia is a quantum field interaction responsible for inertia and the secondary Machian effect of all matter leads to redshift.
Although VSL theories are an interesting proposition, they raise a number of issues:
Besides refraction, the redshift could also be explained by an energy loss of the light wave in the ether medium. That energy loss equates in a drop in frequency (aka redshift) and happens for every other wave...like sound waves, their energy gets lower and lower as distance increases, until it fades completely. If ether exists, as reason requires, and the double slit experiment proves, then a similar phenomenon is to be expected for light waves, altough on much larger distances- which is what we actually observe.
Thanks Alexander , excelent .
Very interesting video
Hi !
The accelerated contraction of the aether (or whatever you want to call the medium which electromagnetic waves propagate through) would also result in the illusion of the expansion of the universe