Tired Light

Just a small point here Silas, Tired light is still alive and kicking and doing very well thank you. In Tired light, we say that the Universe is static and that redshifts are caused by photons of light interacting with electrons in Intergalactic Space on the way.In the Big bang Theory, the Hubble constant, H is the rate at which the Universe is expanding. An oft quoted value for H is 64 km/s per Mpc and this is found from supernova data.However, these are strange units so let us change them to SI units;
64 km/s per Mpc is 2.06x10^-18 s^-1.I show on my site that this is just about exactly equal to ‘hr/m for the electron in each cubic metre of space’. (h = planck constant, r = classical radius of electron and m = rest mass of electron)
hr/m per cubic metre of space = 2.05x10^-18 s^-1.Tired Light says that redshifts and the Hubble constant are due to photons interacting with electrons in intergalactic space.Experiment shows that the value of H is ‘this much of an electron (hr/m) in each cubic metre of space.What more do you want.Tired Light.The Universe is not expanding.Cheers LyndonAshmore’s paradox — ‘H = hr/m per cubic metre of space therefore the Universe is not expanding’. This thread began life as Message 121 of the What's the Fabric of space made out of? thread. --Admin
{Added the blank lines between the paragraphs - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-15-2005 03:04 PM

Hi Loudmouth,
As Sylas says, Tired Light does not mean the light slows down — the speed of light is a universal constant.
Forget all this nonsense about an expanding universe, the Universe is static.
What we find from experiment is that photons of light from distant galaxies have a longer wavelength when they arrive at the Earth, than when they set off. This is called ‘redshift’. The BB theory gets hot and bothered and somehow interprets this as the universe expanding out of nothing. They say that as the universe expands it ‘stretches’ the photons. This is overcomplicating things. All we need to explain, is why do photons of light have a longer wavelength on arrival than when they set off?
Tired light says that the photons interact with electrons on their way (after all, some of them have been travelling for hundreds of millions of years so one expects them to have bumped into something on the way — unless you are a Big Banger that is!). At each interaction, the photon loses a little energy. Since the speed of light is a constant, it can’t slow down. With Photons, their energy is proportional to their frequency and the constant of proportionality is the Planck constant (E = hf). Twice as much energy means twice the frequency of a photon and so on. So if the photon loses energy to an electron on the way, its frequency must reduce. Lower frequency means longer wavelength. It has been redshifted. Doesn’t that make more sense than all these ‘bangs’ and ‘expansions?
When I showed that the Hubble constant itself was related to a combination of the planck constant and the electron - it shows just who is correct.
Tired light.
The Universe is not expanding.
Cheers,
lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

Hi Sylas,
This post of yours is so full of holes, I don’t know where to start.
Sylas is wrong when he says:

quote:

---

Which ever model is used, the Hubble constant still ends up being constant; there is no good evidence for inconstancy in the linear relationship between redshift and distance. This has nothing to do with the Big Bang; tired light models also have a linear relationship. This relation is the basic data that both conventional astronomy and tired light models try to explain.

---

It is an accepted fact that the redshift distance relationship is exponential. All agree (except Sylas it would seem) that it is exponential. An exponential function is linear for nearby galaxies but rises sharply the more distant one goes. Tired Light shows this relationship and derives it. The Big Bangers made a quick about turn and dreamt up ‘inflation’ to explain the experimental result. Unlike Tired light, where this exponential relationship has a firm grounding, there is no basis for inflation in the Bb - other than making a false theory fit the experimental results.
Sylas is wrong when he says:

quote:

---

Supernova light curves. The light from a type Ia supernova has a characteristic light curve. It peaks in about 20 days and then fades at a fixed rate. However, there is a linear relationship between redshift and the fade time. The more redshifted the supernova, the more slowly the light fades. The data is a good match with expectations arising from modeling redshift as recessions. After 20 days, the supernova is that much further from earth as it recedes with the Hubble flow, and the light takes correspondingly longer to reach us. Tired light models predict no change in light curves; and are falsified by the data.

---

In the Big bang theory, Supernovae light curves are ‘said to have a relationship between redshift and fade time because of relativistic effects — when the speed approaches that of the speed of light, the slower time clocks go. This post of Sylas’s is just gobbledy gook. I thought I was here to correct your misleading posts on Tired light and now I am having to correct your misleading posts on your own pet theory — the BB! You would be well advised to stop ‘cherry picking’ from scientific papers, and get a good book on the BB - and then come back to defend it.
However, let us return to the fact of the nonconstant Hubble constant. I see that you are clinging to the belief that the BB Theory must be correct and that the experimental evidence must be wrong.
The paper you quote and your response to it shows that you know nothing of experimental uncertainties. The error bars are not the ‘maximum permitted range’ but give the range ‘one standard deviation’ each side — that is random errors will give results 60 odd percent of the time within this range. It is like the odds on a horse. A horse may be unlikely to win a race with odds of 33 to 1 but it still, and does, win — sometimes. In your quoted paper, where distances don’t overlap within their ranges of uncertainties, they are not that much further out and the probability of this happening is still fairly high. With experimental values of H from 50 to 80 then no way! This is far too unlikely to happen and so H must not be a constant. The Big Bang Theory must be wrong.
To say that it is the experimental result is wrong rather than the theory is just bad science and closed mindedness.
Sylas:

quote:

---

By the way, I am not a real scientist myself. I'm an interested amateur who does a lot of reading

---

I think we had already gathered this Sylas.
Cheers,
Lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

Hi Sidelined,
Yes I have but I have got to go out now, I will get back to you.
Cheers,
Lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

Hi Melchior
My effect is not compton, more mossbauer type of thing. So scatter is is not a problem- see below.
Cheers Lyndon

Thanks for the interest in the theory. Let me explain how my tired light theory works, but first we must look at how light travels through a medium.
When light travels through a medium such as glass it is constantly absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in the atoms of the glass. The photon comes along, bumps into an electron and is absorbed (— regardless of its frequency) and the electrons in the atom are set into oscillation. What happens next depends upon the frequency of the photon compared to the natural frequency of oscillation of the electron in the atom.
If the two frequencies are the same then the photon is absorbed and the energy dissipated to all the atoms in the block (resonance absorption).
It the two frequencies are way apart (as happens with most photons of light and glass) then the electrons in the atom emit a new photon exactly the same as the incoming one and in the same direction as the first. However, the absorption re-emission process takes a little time and so the light is slowed down. Photons travel at the speed of light between atoms but because of all the delays suffered by the photon as it is absorbed and re-emitted its average speed is reduced.
In glass
1) light travels in straight lines.
2) The speed is reduced because of absorption re-emission of the photns.
Now I say that the same thing happens with the electrons in the plasma of Intergalactic space. Over 99% of space is in the form of plasma and because of long range coulomb forces, the electrons act collectively and can oscillate. Therefore they can absorb and re-emit photons of light. But there is a difference between IG space and glass. In glass the electrons and atoms are firmly held together, they cannot recoil. No energy is lost to the electrons in the atom and so the new photon emitted has the same energy as the one absorbed - there is no redshift in glass.
In IG space it is different. It is ‘squidgy’. When an electron absorbs a photon the electron recoils. When the electron re-emits the new photon it recoils again. Some of the energy of the incoming photon is transferred to the recoiling electron. The new photon that is emitted has less energy than the one that arrived. This means that its frequency is less and its wavelength greater — it has been redshifted.
Now on this journey through intergalactic space, photons will make many collisions such as this and be redshifted each time.
In tired light the distance redshift relation becomes:
Photons of light from a galaxy twice as far away, travel twice as far through the intergalactic medium, make twice as many collisions and thus undergo twice the shift in wavelength.
Now doesn’t that make much more sense?
Cheers
Lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

Thanks Percy,
I posted a general reply first because there are a few posts here relating to the theory so that post is to everyone.
We cannot answer questions such as Sylas asks until we know what the theory is - then I will explain CMb, time dilation etc.

quote:

---

Because the direction of the outgoing photon is not governed by the direction of the original photon, there should be scattering of light. Is this observed?

---

My process is the same as that in glass. The photons go in straight lines there so they will in mine. Two physical reasons are i) principal of least time ii) conservation of linear momentum. Remember that the electrons in the plasma are not totally free, there are electrostatic forces acting between them.

quote:

---

Statistically, some photons will encounter more of the matter in the intergalactic medium than others, so some arriving photons will be more "tired" than others. Is this observed?

---

Yes it is observed. spectral lines are broadened on arrival. I am re doing my website with new software so the calculation is not there but the 'spread' has been calculated and agrees with experiment - I will let yoknow when I have put that on.

quote:

---

Also, the degree to which light becomes tired in your theory must be a function of how much of the intergalactic medium it interacts with. Do we observe differences in red shift according to density of intergalactic medium?

---

Yes that is what I am disagrreing with Sylas with at the moment. There is a spread in the values of the Hubble constant. Sylas blames the experimenters I say it is variations in the electron density.

quote:

---

Since in your theory the decrease in energy of photons is due to interaction with electrons, and since electrons can only change energy by quantum amounts, light can only become tired by quantum amounts. Is this observed?

---

One only gets electrons changing energy by quantum amounts with monotomic gases at low pressure. In IG space this is not the case because the electrons are not confined to a single atom.
Hope this helps
Cheers
Lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

Hi NosyNed
I did say 'Mossbauer type of thing'.
When a nucleus emits a photon (gamma) it recoils so the emitted photon does not get all the energy - it is redshifted. A second nucleus can no longer absorb the photon - this is analagous to the sort of thing that happens in IG space. If you cool the stuff then the nucleus cannot recoil so all the energy is given to the photon. A second identical nucleus can absorb it. The photon is not redshifted - analogous to electrons and glass.
Thats all!
Right its weekend I am off to the pub.
Cheers
lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

I see we all like Feynmann (my hero) so this should make it easier.
As he says in the Book QED "transmission of light is nothing more than an electron picking up a photon, scratching its head and emitting a new photon."
Now I say that in IG space, the electron recoils whilst it is scratching its head. This means it loses some energy to the electron, experiences a reduction in energy and hence an increase in wavelength - it is redshifted.
Also in His lectures is the 'theory of least time' which explains why the light still goes in straight lines - it does so because it is the most probable.
Feynmann just calls it 'scatter'.
Cheers,
Lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

Hi Percy,
Try Here and see it for yourself.
Sorry about that,I thought you wanted to see the sums which are now Here.
as to

quote:

---

Atoms in a rigid matrix behave much differently in this regard from atoms in a gas.

---

We know plasma absorb and re emit photons and still go in a straight line because of radar ranging in satellites. They have to correct the data to allow for the radio waves travelling slower in the plasma and this means that the photons must have been absorbed and re-emitted on the way.cheers,
Lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

Hi Percy,
Thanks for the advice re inserting images - The soft ware on this site is good. However, what about copyright?
Thanks for the plasma ref, but it isn't really applicable here. A better one is "Quantum Electrodynamics" by Landau and Lifshitz. They look at transmission of light by photons being absorbed and reemitted by a "system of electrons" Whilst they simplify the whole thing by ignoring any time delay and recoil, they do put a footnote at the bottom to state that they have ignored any recoil. I don't ignore it and get the redshift.

quote:

---

I'm actually focusing on something simpler than the debate between two groups of scientists about the value of the Hubble constant. Do we observe different amounts of red shift as a function of the total amount of intervening intergalactic matter?

---

Well, yes that is the whole point of my theory. Galaxies twice as far away have twice the intervening galactic matter between them and us. This results in photons travelling from that galaxy twice as far away undergoing twice the redshift. hence the Hubble law

quote:

---

While I suppose you could argue that one could only detect quantum energy changes in simple gases, all energy changes are in units of quanta. It seems your red shift should be by quantized amounts and that it should be detectable through statistical analysis of many measurements.

---

Tift, Guthrie and many more have argued that redshifts are quantised. I believe that this quantisation is due to plasma not being evenly distributed but appearing in clouds. One cloud, two clouds ... giving us this quantisation.
As for atomic quantisation, this is only for monatomic gases alow densities.
Cheers
Lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

Hi Percy,

quote:

---

We all have great respect for Feynman, but "Feynman says so" is insufficient justification. Could you provide something more concrete to go on?

---

Yes, when I work out the predicted expression for H I get H = 2nhr/m. Experimental values of n predict a value for H that agrees with measured values.
When I work out an expression for redshift, z I get z = exp(2nhr/m) - 1 which has now been shown to agree with experiment. This theory then goes on to predict a CMB and when we put the numbers in we get microwave radiation. Plus lots more. Isn't this concrete enough?

quote:

---

If the light goes in straight lines after interacting with electrons, why does Feynman call it 'scatter', which is the opposite of straight lines? Is it possible you misunderstood what Feynman was saying?

---

Why does he call it scatter? You will have to ask him that and yes, I have understood what he and others are saying.
Remember, we are looking at photons that have made the trip and arrived here. We are not sitting on a distant galaxy and asking "will this photon make it to earth?".
Cheers Lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

For electrons in an atom in say, glass, the photon comes along and sets the electrons oscillating. If the frequency of the incoming photon is well away from the resonant frequency of that system of electrons then the elctrons cannot accept it and the oscillating electrons re-emit it as a new photon in the same direction as before. We know this happens because a) light travels in straight lines in glass.
b) it is slowed down so the pphotons must have been absorbed and re-emitted.
In IG space I say the electron recoils. so Photon comes in, some of the energy goes to setting electrons into oscillation but some of hte energy goes to KE of recoiling electron. You cannot get this back here. Your new photon only gets the energy stored as oscillations. It has less energy, lower frequency and a longer wavelength. _Redshifted.
Tired Light.
The Universe is not expanding.
Cheers
Lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

This site gives you some idea of the ‘powerful tools’ needed for detection of this from our nearby ionosphere - and most of it comes from electron density fluctuations — also the reason why metals are ‘shiny’.

quote:

---

Typical Incoherent Scatter radars radiate effective powers measured in gigawatts, but the returned signals normally represent only picowatts.
Powerful multi-mega-watt transmitters, large high-gain antennas (typically at least 1000 m2 in area), sensitive receivers and sophisticated radar control and data acquisition systems are all necessary for the sucful detection and evaluation of the weak incoherent scatter echoes received from the ionosphere

---

quote:

---

But the Hubble Law is a mere function of distance, while the Ashmore Law is a function of intervening intergalactic material. The amount of intergalactic material is not the same everywhere. Just by chance, there is more in some directions than others. If the Ashmore Law holds, then red shift should be a function of the amount of intervening intergalactic material, which is only approximately a function of distance but can vary widely according to circumstance.

---

Ashmore law as you kindly call it is a function of intervening material which is a function of the distance between galaxy and Earth. Same thing.

quote:

---

Just by chance, there is more in some directions than others

---

But over long distances these average out. Remember to be in the Hubble flow where the Hubble relation works galaxies have to be a long way away (more than 5 million ly?). I believe that one of the reasons for this is that you need at least this distance to have sufficiennt collisions to get reproducable statistical effects.
Cheers,
have to go now, there is a Chinese lady at the door selling the latest DVD's at 3 dollars each (I must ask if she has any Disney films).
Lyndon
PS we don't talk about Compton effect in the transmission of light through glass and this is the same effect that I am applying here.

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

Its late here so I'm off to bed. I will respond to all points but in the meantime, can you find us a link to this 'perfect CMB cueve' for us all to see.
Secondly look up Hawkins and Quasar time dilation.
If you still feel Sylas's points are worth discussing then discuss them we will.
Cheers
Lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!