[PhysBang]

In order to stretch space would need a property of stretchiness. If such were found and we could isolate a local area and measure the stretch property to see how much expansion had happened, I might give it more credibility. []

This is exactly what has been done since the 1930s.

[Vern]

I think we've exhausted the subject. I'm not here to defend any tired light theory, or to discredit the Standard Model. [] So, can we just agree to disagree?  []

[Ron Hughes]

If the wavelength of light were to get longer as it moves away from it's source by say 10^-36 meters/meter would we even be able to know it? I don't think there any counters close to that kind of accuracy.

[Vern]

Well, we would see what we see. There would be a direct relationship between the amount of the observed red shift and distance to the observed object. We know that this is the fact. Knowing that, we are considering what can be the cause of it. Is it because there is some mechanism that changes the light, or is it some mechanism that changes the universe?

[Ron Hughes]

If what I suggest is correct then our observed accelerated expansion might be wrong?

[Vern]

Yes; that is correct; but how is that concept different than the lengthening of the wavelength that we've been calling "Tired Light"? My own suspicion is that something is going on with the light as you suggest. But I don't think anyone has the mechanism pinned down yet.

[Ron Hughes]

It's not any different. I just wonder why the possibility wouldn't be interesting enough for someone to build a counter with the accuracy to test the idea. Maybe no one wants to test it because it would be devastating to cosmology and physics?

[Ethos]

Maybe no one wants to test it because it would be devastating to cosmology and physics?

You may have a point there Ron. Those positioned at the top of the Theoretical ladder may not want their status compromized.

[PhysBang]

It's not any different. I just wonder why the possibility wouldn't be interesting enough for someone to build a counter with the accuracy to test the idea. Maybe no one wants to test it because it would be devastating to cosmology and physics?

This kind of thing is tested all the time in cosmology. All the time. The specifics of the relationship of redshift to distance are the main subject matter for cosmology and there simply is no chance for a tired light theory to fit the data without some kind of arbitrary parameter assigned to the theory with no basis in tired light. This relationship changes over really large distances in a way that there is no explanation for in tired light theories, but there is an obvious explanation for it in theories based on expansion.

The fact that the redshift-distance relationship is also tied to time dilation is a real death knell to any theory that seeks to explain the redshift-distance relationship using tired light. It is unfortunate that Lyndon Ashmore is out there distributing such gross distortions of the results of astronomical observations on this very topic.

[Ron Hughes]

A 10^-36 meters/meter change is tested all the time? And it is tested how?

[PhysBang]

A 10^-36 meters/meter change is tested all the time? And it is tested how?

Is such a change significant enough to effect the wavelengths of the light that we observe?

Changes significant enough to effect measured wavelength are checked because the relationship between observed wavelength and the distance to an observed object or event is the foundation of much of our astronomical observations.

[Ron Hughes]

Such a change would only be significant on the order of five hundred thousand light years but it would account for much of the red shift that we see.

[PhysBang]

Such a change would only be significant on the order of five hundred thousand light years but it would account for much of the red shift that we see.

But would it account for time dilation? And for the change in the relationship between redshift and sitance over large distances? And then another change in the relationship that happens even further out? scientists are actually asking these sorts of questions and publishing on it.

[Ron Hughes]

Out of all the questions one can ask about the universe the why of time dilation may be the most important. In my opinion it is the mechanism of gravity. See the last post here, http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=20490.msg282907;topicseen#msg282907 . I think time dilation is somehow related to the radiation emitted by matter.

[Ron Hughes]

I have what I consider to be proof of tired light. Does the wavelength of light propagating into a gravity well get shorter? Yes, does the wavelength of light propagating out of a gravity well get longer? Yes, can the Universe be considered a gravity well? Yes.

[Vern]

Also, I suspect that ambient gravity affects light.

[PhysBang]

Also, I suspect that ambient gravity affects light.

But then you would have to explan what "ambient gravity" is and why it is different from the standard gravity in every other theory. The standard cosmological model is pretty much a theory of the ambient gravity of the universe. There is a question of what happens to the light we observe as it passes through regions that are less dense or more dense than average, and this is addressed in a number of papers that consider observations over great distances.

[Ron Hughes]

Ambient gravity would be the gravity of the entire Universe and it is no different from all other gravity.

[Vern]

Yes; ambient gravity is the total amount of raw gravity present in a local area. It need not be attractive in any direction. It might be balanced by equal masses in all directions so that there is no general force in any direction. In such a field, a photon must experience a red shift just as in a gravitational field with a directional preference.

This ambient gravity is not different than the gravity in any theory. Most theories simply do not take it into account. And this is not a theory, it is a simple observation of fact that should be taken into account in any theory.

[PhysBang]

Yes; ambient gravity is the total amount of raw gravity present in a local area. It need not be attractive in any direction. It might be balanced by equal masses in all directions so that there is no general force in any direction. In such a field, a photon must experience a red shift just as in a gravitational field with a directional preference.

Why?

This ambient gravity is not different than the gravity in any theory. Most theories simply do not take it into account. And this is not a theory, it is a simple observation of fact that should be taken into account in any theory.

Why do you say that theories do not take this into account? Are you familiar with the Friedmann equation? Wouldn't you say that this introduces a gravitational effect throughout the universe?