Tired Light

http://www.lyndonashmore.com/preprintpdf.pdf
I have gotten to about message 136 in this thread so far.
I have also noticed very quickly in reading the above paper that it is written in language that would not be acceptable in most scientific journals.Examples:
"when one considers that, if we are to believe in an expanding Universe, H could have had any value from zero up to the speed of light and is not supposed to be related to the electron. We must ask the question, why is the measured value of H so close to a simple
combination of the parameters of the electron if they are not related?"It is not customary to speak of alternative theories in terms of one's belief in them, only if they are considered correct or not. Only a poor scientific writer would put in rhetorical questions such as this. Mind you, there might be questions asked, but they would never be worded like that.re-worded to be more scientific:
"...when one considers that within the standard BB model the value of H should have no correlation with properties of the electron. If the value of H and the value of certain properties of the electron do correlate, how does this occur?"It's not the best rewording, but it's an improvement.Reading through most of the paper, it does look like a high school term paper.This message has been edited by gnojek, 03-23-2005 06:20 PM

DUH!
because Type 1A supernova are a result of a very specific phenomenon which occurs with a specific energy, thus giving observers sort of a standard candle. They all have the same light output and so you can calculate distance using the luminosity of the supernovaBut, being a physicist, you already knew that. Actually, you've got that backward.
(This is my ill-informed cartoon of events. Please correct me where I am wrong.)
Hubble saw all this redshift all over the place.
He very roughly showed that the redshift was proportional to distance.
(Distance that was measured by other means.)
He looked everywhere and saw just about every galaxy was redshifted.
He proposed that this might be due to the Doppler effect.
The conclusion from that is that galaxies are moving away from each other.
This implies that at some previous point all the galaxies were much closer to each other (but only if you extrapolate continouosly like creationists have done with the earth's magnetic field to say that it can't possibly be 4 billion years old).
Then, the theorists chimed in.
They looked at the equations of general relativity (without the cosmological constant) and said that space must either be expanding or contracting.
They then took this to say that the redshift is not only due to the relative velocity of the matter in galaxies, but also due to the expansion of space itself.
They also did some complicated extrapolations, and bang! we have the big bang theory.So the BB theory is built on some serious assumptions that may or may not be correct, but they didn't just make it up.Again, please don't kick over your chair if you want to correct me, just do it!This message has been edited by gnojek, 03-23-2005 07:44 PM

Ah! Thanks for the explanation. Yeah, I couldn't believe he was that dense. I guess I need to do more than skim and read through these things so quickly. Yeah, hmm, I wonder why they were so selective with their supernovae. I'll just read the paper (oh, and you explained it as well).And, I understand what redshift is, but I guess you can't assume anything here.Ah, I didn't realize that it wasn't Hubble that proposed the Doppler origins of redshift.I also wanted to put a little smiley or something at the end.
I realize reading my post that the exclamation point makes me look angry or something. Eh, I'll figure it out. Oh, you have type the smiley name.
This message has been edited by gnojek, 03-24-2005 04:45 PM