[Kryptid]

Math 1

That's not the math I was asking for. What I was asking for specifically was the math to support this particular claim:

The Pioneers and Voyagers allegedly flew vast distances, including the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud, and never collided with anything in space? This is statistically impossible.

Since you insist on putting your model here, then I'm merging this topic with all of your other topics since they are all ultimately about your model (either explicitly or implicitly). Henceforth, whenever you start a new thread that eventually strays into talking about your scientifically implausible model, I'm going to merge it. Keep that in mind for the future.

Also, I thought you said this website was now on your "personal ban" list?

And since I've now merged the topics, how about finally addressing this?

I'm waiting for you to refute the fact that gravitational red shift is not sufficient to stop photons. If you can't refute it, then you need to recognize that your model is wrong.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

I'm waiting for you to refute the fact that gravitational red shift is not sufficient to stop photons. If you can't refute it, then you need to recognize that your model is wrong.

The gravity of large objects (like the Sun) bends light. The gravity of the so-called "black holes" supposedly absorbs light irrevocably. The presence of a gravitational constant indicates the presence of a certain gravitational effect at any point in space. From the above, we can conclude that gravity acts on light, that is, it is a resistance factor for light waves.
Certain amount of gravity is present at any point of space. Gravity affects light, and therefore slows it down (or rather gradually absorbs it) as the distance passed by the light increases.

Spectrum redshift = gravitational constant * distance covered by light.

[Bored chemist]

I'm waiting for you to refute the fact that gravitational red shift is not sufficient to stop photons. If you can't refute it, then you need to recognize that your model is wrong.

The gravity of large objects (like the Sun) bends light. The gravity of the so-called "black holes" supposedly absorbs light irrevocably. The presence of a gravitational constant indicates the presence of a certain gravitational effect at any point in space. From the above, we can conclude that gravity acts on light, that is, it is a resistance factor for light waves.
Certain amount of gravity is present at any point of space. Gravity affects light, and therefore slows it down (or rather gradually absorbs it) as the distance passed by the light increases.

Spectrum redshift = gravitational constant * distance covered by light.

I thought you said you were leaving.

The obvious reason why that makes no sense is that there's essentially just as much universe in front of the light pulling ti forward as there is behind it pulling it back.
The net effect would be neither a red, nor a blue shift.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

The obvious reason why that makes no sense is that there's essentially just as much universe in front of the light pulling ti forward as there is behind it pulling it back.
The net effect would be neither a red, nor a blue shift.

This is subject to the infinity of the Universe in terms of space. It is difficult to prove, but it is much more probable, that the Universe is finite in terms of space. Therefore, the effect of gravity resistance for light waves will be greater than the opposite (to resistance) gravitational effect. Gravity may well be considered a resistance factor that absorbs light waves as the distance they travel increases.

Pulling back = Pulling  forward (if the Universe is infinite in space, which is less probable)
Pulling back > Pulling forward (if the Universe is finite in space, which is more probable)

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

In terms of time the Universe is infinite. It follows from the Law of Conservation of Energy - it's some kind of (like the third) Law of Thermodynamics: Nothing appears out of nowhere, and does not disappear into anywhere, but only redistributes and/or transforms from one state to another. From the same law it follows that the amount of matter/energy in the Universe is limited, that is, finite. Therefore, it is most likely that the Universe is finite in terms of space.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

Is the Universe local?
Yes. Moreover, it is absolutely local. This comes from the name itself. If besides the Universe there is something else, then without this something it is no longer the Universe. Within the framework of the Universe, the existence of something local is impossible, that is, absolutely without any interaction with the rest of the Universe. In short, this supposedly difficult question, in fact, is a priori very unambiguous: the Universe is absolutely local, within the Universe, conditionally (relatively) local phenomena or regions (space) can exist, for example: a soundproof room, an airtight container, water-air, etc. impermeable containers. But it is impossible to create an absolutely impenetrable space within the framework of the Universe itself for absolutely nothing. In short, the Universe is an absolutely local space, within which the existence of any other absolutely local space is impossible.

[Bored chemist]

This is subject to the infinity of the Universe in terms of space. It is difficult to prove, but it is much more probable, that the Universe is finite in terms of space.

Maybe.
But most of the universe is "far away" and the gravitational effect falls with the square of the distance, so anything that is far enough away will make no discernible difference.

And, if you were right (spoiler alert; you are not) then what we would see would be a blue shift in one direction, and a red shift in the other.

We don't.
So you are wrong.
Bu that's OK; you already left.

[Bored chemist]

If besides the Universe there is something else,

There isn't. That's what "universe" means

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

And, if you were right (spoiler alert; you are not) then what we would see would be a blue shift in one direction, and a red shift in the other.

You mean something like this?

Cosmic Microwave Background Dipole
Evidence for anisotropy of cosmic acceleration

[Bored chemist]

No
I mean what I said.
Red shift one way; blue shift the other.

I don't mean the consequence of this
"It was quickly realised that this dipole was the result of our Galaxy moving at 600 km/sec with respect to the CMB radiation, and it is now known that this reflects the motion of the Local Group of galaxies ."

[Kryptid]

The gravity of large objects (like the Sun) bends light.

But it doesn't stop light. That's important.

Gravity affects light, and therefore slows it down

No, it doesn't. It causes light to lose energy and increase its wavelength, but the speed of light is unaffected.

(or rather gradually absorbs it)

No, it doesn't. The amount of energy a photon loses as it travels up against a gravitational gradient is finite: it never goes to zero.

Gravity may well be considered a resistance factor that absorbs light waves

No, gravity does not absorb light waves (except in the case of a black hole).

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

The photon loses energy overcoming gravity. There is a certain amount of gravity at every point in space. Hence the photon loses energy with distance. Since the energy of a photon is not unlimited, the distance covered by a photon is also quite limited. As well as the lifetime of a photon. Unlikely to exceed 1-2 light minutes.

Spectrum redshift = gravitational constant * distance covered by light.

Definition*. The lifetime of a unit of wave oscillations (one wave) is inversely proportional to the speed of their propagation (or directly proportional to the inertia of the medium) and is directly proportional to the power of their source.
* - this definition is correct with or without the aether.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

Here are enough weighty factual and logical arguments in favor of a New model of the Universe, which you are trying to refute with very dubious official interpretations of the characteristics of spectral emissions (redshift and blue shift), as well as the supposedly officially infinite lifetime of a photon and an absurd consequence of this in the form of light years, millennia and millions of light years, from which it turns out that looking at the starry sky, we are literally looking at millions of years in the past. My model of the Universe is much more logical, more reliable and more consistent with reality than the official one.

[Janus]

The photon loses energy overcoming gravity. There is a certain amount of gravity at every point in space. Hence the photon loses energy with distance. Since the energy of a photon is not unlimited, the distance covered by a photon is also quite limited. As well as the lifetime of a photon. Unlikely to exceed 1-2 light minutes.

Spectrum redshift = gravitational constant * distance covered by light.

Definition*. The lifetime of a unit of wave oscillations (one wave) is inversely proportional to the speed of their propagation (or directly proportional to the inertia of the medium) and is directly proportional to the power of their source.
* - this definition is correct with or without the aether.

A photon loses energy "overcoming" gravity, In other words when climbing out of a gravity well. But it gains energy falling into a gravity well.   Light leaving the surface of a planet will red-shift as it climbs away from the planet.  But another observer, at some distance away on another planet sitting in an equally deep gravity well will see no red-shift in the light coming from the first planet, because the light blue-shifted as it fell into his gravity well.  The strength of each planet's gravity makes no difference, neither does the distance between them. All that matters is the relative depth of the gravity wells for source and observer.

[Kryptid]

The photon loses energy overcoming gravity.

Yes, but that energy never goes to zero. You seem to like ignoring that fact. If you disagree with me, then show me some math that supports your argument. How much redshift should a photon undergo when travelling through 1 kilometer of space? 1 million kilometers? 1 light-year? If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to be able to show us that the math supports your assertion. Go look up the gravitational red shift equation. That would be a good place to start.

Spectrum redshift = gravitational constant * distance covered by light.

If this equation was correct, then photons travelling two kilometers would be twice as red-shifted as photons traveling one kilometer. Current theory says that photons don't experience any red-shift at all if they travel between two stationary sources along a constant altitude. So your equation and the contemporary equation predict different results. Those results can be tested by current technology. Given the fact that radars and radios are used constantly throughout the world and no one has ever reported them violating current physics models, then obviously the current model is the one supported by the evidence.

By the way, your equation doesn't predict that a photon's energy should ever go to zero anyway. Travelling one million times the distance would result in a million-fold red-shift. One million times less energy is still not zero, though.

As well as the lifetime of a photon. Unlikely to exceed 1-2 light minutes.

Please show the math you used to arrive at this number. Math specifically, please. Not flawed analogies.

My model of the Universe is much more logical, more reliable and more consistent with reality than the official one.

No, it's not. Your model relies on fallacious assumptions (like the idea that gravity in interstellar space can stop photons). It also contradicts direct measurements (like the sizes of planets) and apparently relies on conspiracy theories (since you claim that interplanetary spacecraft aren't feasible because you say they'd be destroyed by asteroid impacts...).

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

Go look up the gravitational red shift equation. That would be a good place to start.

In the equation of the gravitational redshift of the spectrum, there is a gravitational constant (G), which is difficult to measure with high accuracy, which is already a flaw in this equation, not to mention its theoretical justification.

In wave processes occurring in different media (water, gas, space), there is a clear pattern of reducing the lifetime of the wave process as the speed increases. Water waves are slow but durable. Sound waves are faster but less durable. Light waves are much faster than sound waves, therefore their lifetime should be proportionally (much) shorter than the lifetime of sound waves.

My definition has logical priority over the gravitational redshift equation.
Definition*. The lifetime of a unit of wave oscillations (one wave) is inversely proportional to the speed of their propagation (or directly proportional to the inertia of the medium) and is directly proportional to the power of their source.
* - this definition is correct with or without the aether.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

It also contradicts direct measurements (like the sizes of planets) and apparently relies on conspiracy theories (since you claim that interplanetary spacecraft aren't feasible because you say they'd be destroyed by asteroid impacts...).

I claimed that space flights are unreasonably risky due to the inevitabile possibility of destruction in a collision with a meteorite, that is, in fact, they are meaningless.

[Bored chemist]

In the equation of the gravitational redshift of the spectrum, there is a gravitational constant (G), which is difficult to measure with high accuracy

It is known to 4 digits.
That's 4 more than you have supplied.

I claimed that space flights are unreasonably risky

No
You claimed this

. I think that there are no people on space stations

And that's a daft conspiracy theory.
Lying about it doesn't help

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

And that's a daft conspiracy theory.
Lying about it doesn't help

I'm not lying about space. Do you know in what conditions (supposedly) they live on the ISS? What kind of effort is it worth taking a shower or just going to the toilet? Look closely at the photo (500 days in space). The astronaut is neatly shaved, trimmed, and even has a professional manicure. Who's lying about space?
https://www.roscosmos.ru/25021/

Permanent risk of vital equipment breakdown, collision with space debris or meteorite. Permanent risk to life. Life in a small confined space with a whole bunch of everyday inconveniences and other difficulties. At the same time, all astronauts are constantly cheerful and smiling.

[The Spoon]

Farewell. This is my personal ban to your site.

So you lied about this too? Funny how your sort announce their departure dramatically and then return like an unpleasant disease.