0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
When sending digital pulses down a fibre optic, monochromatic light is used as different frequencies travel at different speeds down the fibre. If white light is used, this leads to 'pulse broadening .' In supernovae 'time dilation' muticolour light curves are considered. However, a supernova burst is just a digital pulse and 'pulse broadening' is not taken into consideration when testing Tired Light models .This produces an effect similar to 'Time Dilation.' Different frequencies of radiation are known to travel through space at different speeds  as is shown by gamma ray bursts. All frequencies may well start off at the same time but they will arrive here on Earth at different times - and the greater the redshift, the greater the pulse broadening! Who needs expansion and relativity - Tired Light.A video here shows a supernovae event and it clearly shows the colours arriving in order.
Different frequencies of radiation are known to travel through space at different speeds as is shown by gamma ray bursts.
You have shown yet another report of conclusions rather than the actual experimental results.
There is nothing in Einstein's theories that would have all frequencies of light propagating through space at the same speed. Different frequencies travel at different speeds through different media. Space is filled with media consisting of ions, atomic clouds, electrons, and other stuff.
I noticed that you avoided saying anything about the actual scientific paper that I cited above, one that reacks time dilation in a far different manner than that addressed by the crazy person. I also note that you didn't address any other points.
And time dilation and scatter are not the only problems for tired light theories! There is also the observed acceleration of expansion. Tired light theories have to explain why light is getting more tired. And since we can see that the expansion was slowing down in the distant past, tired light theories have to explain why light was getting less tired in the past before it started to get more tired.
No, it doesn't. Once the hydrogens are separated by a few atomic diameters there's no way of knowing , from the spectrum., how far apaprt they are.There's a thing called "pressure broadening" but it really doesn't amount to anything in a bloody good vacuum with a poorly defined temperature.
Since neutral hydrogen clouds at different positions between Earth and the distant light source see the photons at different wavelengths (due to the redshift), each individual cloud leaves its fingerprint as an absorption line at a different position in the spectrum as observed on Earth.
It's easier still to say that the wavelengths are distorted because of a known thing. They are moving through some medium- the interstellar gas.We know it affects them - you can tell from the dips in the spectrumWhy not accept that it's the reason for the dispersion?
I read the paper you linked; it was conclusions reached and not experimental results.
You claim that Lyndon Ashmore is a crazy person? He is a working physicist; I don't know anything about his sanity; but his conclusions seem reasonable given the experimental results that he cites.
It is much more simple to imagine the wave length of light being distorted by some unknown thing than to imagine the whole universe being distorted by some unknown thing.
It would be embarrassing to me for people to think I signed onto the Standard Model concepts.
I looked through the Ashmore data several times; he didn't say anything about the light from 1A supernova being digital.
He showed that different frequencies arrive at different times.
In addition to that he pointed out that the absolute magnitude of more distant supernovas is less than that of closer supernovas of the same type. This supports that the light pulse is smeared over time.
While not absolutely convincing, the scheme seems plausible. Just about any thing would be more plausible than the idea that empty space can stretch. That idea tests sanity IMHO. 
I haven't signed onto any tired-light theory to the extent that I would say that is the one. Measurements work with either scheme.
I couldn't describe the Standard Model to anyone and keep a straight face. To me it is an absurd notion. The idea that space-time is variable and laws of nature only temporarily apply to the present just can't fit in my concepts. It would be embarrassing to me for people to think I signed onto the Standard Model concepts.
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. 
Maybe no one wants to test it because it would be devastating to cosmology and physics?
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?
A 10^-36 meters/meter change is tested all the time? And it is tested how?
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.
Also, I suspect that ambient gravity affects light.
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.
The Friedmann equation already assumes that space-time is variable. It is useful in that context. We were questioning the assumption. How do we know that space-time is really variable. Observations that seem to show that it is can be explained by assuming it is the material things that vary.
Why would a photon in the field you describe experience redshift?
It seems I remember that the amplitude of the CMBR radiation was first predicted to be on the order of 50 K and only became 3.5 K after it was measured. I also remember that Sir Arthur Eddington and a group of his collaborators predicted that the temperature of space should be about 4 K due to the warming of space debris by starlight.From UCLA