Tired Light

Hi Sylas, sorry about the spelling before, unintentional — wrong glasses on.Thanks for the welcome, I am just passing through really — I will just sort this thing out on tired light and then move on.You seem to be confused about the Hubble constant. You have WMAP at 71 plus or minus 3.5 meaning it lies between about 67 and 74? and yet you also quote other values of 60 or less and then Wendy’s of over 70. You can’t have them all. You cannot say it is 71 or it might be 60 or less but not 64. Make your mind up.Unless you are you saying that the rate of expansion is different in different directions?I believe that we get different values of H because the electron density varies slightly from place to place so all these values are fine with my theory — but not with the BB.In any case 64 is an average of recent values
I am surprised that you don’t find H = hr/m per cubic metre (in magnitude and dimensions) interesting because this is not any old coincidence. We use these quantities to find H in the first place!
To measure redshift we look at the shift in wavelength of absorption/emission lines. These are caused by electrons leaping about from energy level to energy level in an atom. So why is H = hr/m for the electron in magnitude if they are not related?The shift in wavelength is also a shift in frequency(f). photon energy, E = hf so why is H= hr/m in magnitude if they are not related? and then I show you that H = hr/m per cubic metre of space. Interesting.You see when the answer you get is a combination of the quantities you used to get that answer, especially when they are not supposed to be related, you smell a rat. We have to be interested if only to disprove it. In my theory of course it is not the electrons in the atoms surrounding stars that causes the redshift but those in IG space. I say that H = 2nhr/m where n is the electron density (known to lie between 0.1 and 10)Tied Light.
Universe is not expanding.Cheers Lyndonall units for h are km/s per Mpc

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth! (Copy of Message 124, reposted by admins from a proxy account. Spaces added between paragraphs.)

quote:

---

Ah well. Thanks for dropping by. I’m happy to continue, but I see no prospects for a happy resolution.

---

Giving up already Sylas? You surprise me.It is a fact that different groups of workers find differing values for the Hubble constant. In an expanding universe the values of H should overlap within their uncertainty ranges. They do not. In any normal scientific debate the consensus would be that this means that the Hubble constant is not constant — hence the Big Bang must be wrong.But here you are just ignoring the ‘nonconstant’ Hubble constant and blaming the experimentalists! Unbelievable.Just read your post again.
What it says is
Sylas the BB is correct. I will not hear anything against the BB.
Lyndon But Sylas, different groups are finding different values for the Hubble constant which are mutually exclusive.
Sylas the BB is correct. I will not hear anything against the BB. The experimentalists are wrong, I don’t know who, but one of them must be because the theory must be correct.
Lyndon Reiss et al got 64 km/s per Mpc which is hr/m for the electron in each cubic metre of space and photns are known to interact with the electron.
Sylas the BB is correct. I will not hear anything against the BB. Reiss et al have gone back and ‘stastically’ changed (fiddled?) that result so they could agree with everybody else. Anyone who disagrees with the Bb will be ex communicated.I am only on my third post and the BB has been blown wide open. Experiment shows that the Hubble constant is not a constant. It has slight variations in it. Tired Light can explain this (variations in the electron density) The BB and an expanding Universe cannot explain it.Possible explanations.
Silas the BB is correct. I will not hear anything against the BB. It is the experimental results that are wrong.
Lyndon. Since the theory does not agree with experimental results, the theory must be wrong.Cheers
Lyndon (Copy of Message 127; blank lines added)

Hi Trae, nice to meet you.
I am proud nay honoured to say that the paper has been accepted for publication in the peer reviewed paper "Galilean Electrodynamics" editors from Tufts University, University of Conneticut and Academy of Aviation St Petersburg.When I say passing through I don't mean passing through in a day or so, I am just staying until I have converted Sylas to tired Light.Cheers
Lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth! (Copy of Message 128; blank lines added. This was a reply to Message 125 by Trae.)