0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The most common theory is that the far stars are moving away from us near the speed of light.
There are problems with it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light
"The far stars would have to have near infinite kinetic energy to move near the speed of light.""Near infinite" doesn't mean anything. The energy is finite, or it isn't; there are no half measures.The so called "tired light" hypothesis has been put forward before. There are problems with it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light
"tired" is a simplification.Your opening post says "The second possibility is that the light from the far stars loses energy per unit distance of travel." which is exaclty the hypothesis known as "tired light". It doesn't work.
Doesn't that violate law of conservation of energy?
Expansion theory does not violate Einstein's relativity in any way. Expansion of spacetime is responsible for distant galaxies 'moving away'. Movement through spacetime is limited to c, not spacetime itself. Since the distant galaxies are not moving through spacetime (or at least not above c) then there is no problem.Distant galaxies with a red-shift greater than about 1.7 were indeed receding with an apparent velocity>c when the light was emitted...but that in no way violates relativity.
Since we cannot produce a meaning for space expanding, it is meaningless. thus is is just empty words which explain nothing.
But the idea of the BB at a single point is profoundly wrong. The BB did not occur at a single point in space (how could it since there was no space?). Using a simple 'explosion' metaphor for the BB is a mistake (one often repeated in the popular press/media) since it implies a starting point in space. In a real sense every point in the universe is the centre of the BB - in another sense there is no centre. The skin of a balloon is the normal analogy...Your insistence that you have to find a 'meaning' for observation is also profoundly misguided. There ARE no analogies for much of physics so trying to imagine processes in terms of existing experience will always lead you into trouble. The fact seems to be that flat spacetime has energy - a sort of anti-gravity - which causes it to stretch and by doing so increase the distance between distant objects in spacetime.
jerrygg38Quote Since we cannot produce a meaning for space expanding, it is meaningless. thus is is just empty words which explain nothing.It has no meaning if you insist on thinking in terms of the existing (or, rather, recent) paradigm. If you want to become familiar with the newest ideas then you have to accept some of the new concepts and go along with them until they gel in your mind.After all, where you are 'at' at the moment is because you have already accepted all the stuff you learned as a lad because it is familiar. If you had lived a hundred years ago and had your present attitude to new things, you would be struggling with the very ideas which, now, you take for granted. "Particles as waves? Time dilation? Quantum Mechanics? " You have accepted huge amounts of that stuff before you started getting critical and they sound just as daft.
Therefore you are saying that both SR and GR are wrong. There is simply no way, in either, to construct a spacetime frame of reference for anything massive travelling at c or above.The fact is that you start from a false dichotomy and then construct a theory based on that - it is a fallacious way to proceed and can only result is a fallacious outcome (as it does in this case).