4 ms·

What Hubble objectively measured wasn't galaxies receding. He measured redshift. Or photon energy loss. And there's another way to explain this, that is simple

What Hubble objectively measured wasn't galaxies receding. He measured redshift. Or photon energy loss. And there's another way to explain this, that is simpler, self-consistent, and doesn't require the concept of "inflation" where apparently space expanded faster than the speed of light. The explanation: photon hubbling, tired light. That galaxies are frankly right where they are. They're not receding. The photon loses energy. It costs energy to forge a path through spacetime.

naasking 5y ago
"Tired light" has failed other tests, so it's probably not the answer.
- sahil50 5y ago
  How so? Considering all the data on redshift we have, tired light fits. Not galactic recession. Rough calculations https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HI61-pDIzzSItw48K0gar1pEt2xsA9cfF9EOy511G8w/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HI61-pDIzzSItw48K0ga... Data from https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/Library/Distances/ https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/Library/Distances/
  - phaemon 5y ago
    Galaxies are either approaching or receding from our perspective. How could they possibly be stuck in some "place"? Your theory makes no sense.
    - sahil50 5y ago
      How do you know?
      - phaemon 5y ago
        How do I know that two objects are either receding or approaching? Because it's obvious. Think about it yourself. Edit: ah, wait, your theory says that approaching objects look the same as receding ones. I think you need to justify that.
        sahil50 5y ago
        You misread. The cosmological redshift is not attributable to galaxies receding. The cosmological redshift is photons losing energy as they forge a path through the gravitationally connected universe. It's the cost of traveling. Total redshift = Cosmological redshift (photon forging a path through spacetime) + Doppler redshift (for example, Andromeda drifting toward us) + Gravitational redshift (like how Sun-to-Earth photons are redshifted because the Sun is more massive)
        raattgift 5y ago
        Since you seem to have a lot of energy to invest in this theory space, why not try your hand at explaining the SDSS-III BOSS results? If you make any progress on that, try SPIDERS and TDSS and explain at least some of the apparent BAOs and high-z = low Tolman surface brightness. If you're really intrepid, you could try explaining the narrow lines of the Lyman-\alpha forest, and try your hand at predicting it for the background object (or, if you really dig down into your theory, whatever your explanation for the quartet of images at the edge of this structure) in https://research.ast.cam.ac.uk/lensedquasars/indiv/2M1310-1714.html https://research.ast.cam.ac.uk/lensedquasars/indiv/2M1310-17... Additionally, why is the CMB an almost perfect blackbody spectrum and why is it extremely isotropic? This is a key problem if you plan to retain photon number while depressing photon energy. While you're there, what is the value of the constant k in your magic equation, and how is it determined? How do you relate this to cosmological neutrino mass constraints in the Mega-Z LRG dataset found by several groups including (slides) http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucapola/Lahav_neutrino2016_8July2016A.pdf http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucapola/Lahav_neutrino2016_8... What is your idea make the hot dark matter vanish and/or fail to couple with your proton mass term? I don't think that this is a priori unachievable, but it is very much in the land of "show a realistic plan for your work that demonstrates engagement with several public datasets", and is a lot of work for a single author. I would suggest an initial thesis, roughly masters level, with a plan for follow-on work evolving from that initial target. Several widely-cited cosmologists having already had their doctoral dissertations accepted tried their hands at series of individual papers on the back of smaller datasets in the mid 20th century and largely retreated from technical problems in the coupling of emitted photons to specific intervening radiation fields. I don't think their approaches will necessarily help yours, since your equation (your thesis should cite its origin, even if it is a self-cite) does not have an explicit coupling term. Whether or not you complete this type of project or even have it looked at by anyone else, it is certain that the process of writing it more formally than short Hacker News comments will clarify your thinking. You'll also probably run into some interesting and still technically open problems, and it would be a win for everyone if you helped further resolve some of those.

naasking 5y ago

"Tired light" has failed other tests, so it's probably not the answer.

sahil50 5y ago
How so? Considering all the data on redshift we have, tired light fits. Not galactic recession. Rough calculations https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HI61-pDIzzSItw48K0gar1pEt2xsA9cfF9EOy511G8w/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HI61-pDIzzSItw48K0ga... Data from https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/Library/Distances/ https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/Library/Distances/
- phaemon 5y ago
  Galaxies are either approaching or receding from our perspective. How could they possibly be stuck in some "place"? Your theory makes no sense.
  - sahil50 5y ago
    How do you know?
    - phaemon 5y ago
      How do I know that two objects are either receding or approaching? Because it's obvious. Think about it yourself. Edit: ah, wait, your theory says that approaching objects look the same as receding ones. I think you need to justify that.
      - sahil50 5y ago
        You misread. The cosmological redshift is not attributable to galaxies receding. The cosmological redshift is photons losing energy as they forge a path through the gravitationally connected universe. It's the cost of traveling. Total redshift = Cosmological redshift (photon forging a path through spacetime) + Doppler redshift (for example, Andromeda drifting toward us) + Gravitational redshift (like how Sun-to-Earth photons are redshifted because the Sun is more massive)
        raattgift 5y ago
        Since you seem to have a lot of energy to invest in this theory space, why not try your hand at explaining the SDSS-III BOSS results? If you make any progress on that, try SPIDERS and TDSS and explain at least some of the apparent BAOs and high-z = low Tolman surface brightness. If you're really intrepid, you could try explaining the narrow lines of the Lyman-\alpha forest, and try your hand at predicting it for the background object (or, if you really dig down into your theory, whatever your explanation for the quartet of images at the edge of this structure) in https://research.ast.cam.ac.uk/lensedquasars/indiv/2M1310-1714.html https://research.ast.cam.ac.uk/lensedquasars/indiv/2M1310-17... Additionally, why is the CMB an almost perfect blackbody spectrum and why is it extremely isotropic? This is a key problem if you plan to retain photon number while depressing photon energy. While you're there, what is the value of the constant k in your magic equation, and how is it determined? How do you relate this to cosmological neutrino mass constraints in the Mega-Z LRG dataset found by several groups including (slides) http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucapola/Lahav_neutrino2016_8July2016A.pdf http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucapola/Lahav_neutrino2016_8... What is your idea make the hot dark matter vanish and/or fail to couple with your proton mass term? I don't think that this is a priori unachievable, but it is very much in the land of "show a realistic plan for your work that demonstrates engagement with several public datasets", and is a lot of work for a single author. I would suggest an initial thesis, roughly masters level, with a plan for follow-on work evolving from that initial target. Several widely-cited cosmologists having already had their doctoral dissertations accepted tried their hands at series of individual papers on the back of smaller datasets in the mid 20th century and largely retreated from technical problems in the coupling of emitted photons to specific intervening radiation fields. I don't think their approaches will necessarily help yours, since your equation (your thesis should cite its origin, even if it is a self-cite) does not have an explicit coupling term. Whether or not you complete this type of project or even have it looked at by anyone else, it is certain that the process of writing it more formally than short Hacker News comments will clarify your thinking. You'll also probably run into some interesting and still technically open problems, and it would be a win for everyone if you helped further resolve some of those.