> red shift as the result of light losing energy to radiation as it travels Yet another incarnation of the old so-called "tired light" idea. Just google it. Or

> red shift as the result of light losing energy to radiation as it travels Yet another incarnation of the old so-called "tired light" idea. Just google it. Or start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light You run very quickly into all sorts of problems once you assume light gets "tired" as it travels. > While the theory seems to be collecting dust, I've not found anything to fully discredit it. Start here: http://hep.ucsb.edu/people/bmonreal/Null_Physics_Review.html http://hep.ucsb.edu/people/bmonreal/Null_Physics_Review.html > I've not found anything Odd, since a simple google search for "null physics" returns several strong rebuttals on literally the first page. Maybe you haven't actually looked? EDIT: Oh boy, this "null physics" thing shows all the signs of crackpot "science". The author working on it "for decades". Studies physics, but becomes "disenchanted" and switches to engineering. Is a "visiting scientist" at a "university" nobody has heard about. His theory is not published in journals because journals "help the establishment". Compares himself with Ben Franklin, Bill Gates, and Faraday. The only thing he's published is this book; no articles, no nothing. On and on and on. There are literally hundreds of woo peddlers out there like this guy, and all of them are made in the exact same image. http://www.ourundiscovereduniverse.com/pages_author.php http://www.ourundiscovereduniverse.com/pages_author.php That page lit up the pseudo-science detector, firing up another alarm at each and every sentence. The only thing amazing about this guy is how well he fits the stereotype. It's surreal. Brilliant quote from a link I posted above: Much crackpot literature gives the impression of an old grudge being played out: "I learned quantum mechanics from some book that made me feel dumb; thinking up Quantum Aethro-Gyromechanics on my own made me feel smart." The sad thing is, this illustrates a sort of can-do spirit that's admirable in fields other than science. Stubbornly defying a swimming coach ("You'll never be an Olympian, kid") or editor ("Your manuscript 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone' does not meet our needs at this time") or venture capitalist ("Forget it, Mr. Fred Smith, there is no market for nationwide express delivery"), turns out to actually work sometimes; the people who pull this off are praised as heros. But science isn't like that. Whereas coaches, editors, and entrepreneurs have to rely on (fallible, human) gut instinct for many of their evaluations, science relies on explicit, rigorous go/no-go tests. I think that the dissonance between the value of stick-to-it-iveness in entrepreneurship, versus the value of mathematical rigor in science, is the root cause of a lot of physics crackpottery.