Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Light From Distant Galaxies.

The reverse of that has to be a question for Bill 6.

I don't see the question.

The thought process (if it can be graced with such a title)went some thing like this:

“Models that do not predict this relationship between DA and DL, such as......the tired light model, are ruled out by the properties of the CMB.”

Orac said: “So probably start with why that observation ruled them out.”

Reversed question: Why is the tired light model not ruled out by this line of reasoning about the CMB?

Another question for Bill 6.

How does the tired light model square with results of the Tolman surface brightness test?

Please try not to be too technical

I fail to see how any line of reasoning based on assumptions and personal interpretations can prove or disprove any concept.

OK. Can you be more specific, though, you are dealing with a novice in this area?

does this comment also apply to the question about the Tolman surface brightness test?

Sarcasm is intolerable.

Bill 6.

I was not being sarcastic; it was an honest request for something I could understand. I do not have a background in science, and struggle with some of the things that many of you take in your stride.

I apologise for my reaction.

I, too, am bereft of formal education in the subject of physics however your referral to the following material indicates a superior level of understanding.

According to Wiki - the Tolman test conclusions are based on observations of light emanating from distant galaxies and I fail to see how anyone can insist that said conclusions are indomitable.

From what I can read it seems that his test did not actually disprove the tired light theory but tended to favor the alternative expansion theory.

That was, more or less, my understanding, but I wondered if I had missed anything.

Bill 6: How about doing us a "hitch-hiker's guide" to the tired light model? It should draw a few people in.

I don't understand.

Why “Hitch-hikers’ Guide”? To answer that question it is first necessary to consider what we understand by a hitch-hiker. Obviously, it is, in the strict sense, someone who travels by seeking and accepting “lifts” from other travellers who are going in the same direction. Essentially these hitch-hikers fall into two very broad categories. The first includes people who simply want to get from A to B, but do not have their own transport, and cannot, or choose not to, use public transport. The second category includes those who are travelling for the joy of travelling, and for whom the carefree uncertainty of hitch-hiking adds something to the pleasure of the experience.

The hitch-hikers to whom I refer have much more in common with the latter group than with the former. I refer here to people, like myself, who have no particular expertise or training in science, and are not professionally involved in scientific pursuits. I consider myself to be a hitch-hiker, and suspect that there are lots of others on this forum.

Here I thought you wanted a "HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy". That of course is already out, written by Douglas Adams.

I personally am not that much up on tired light, except that it has been pretty widely shown to be wrong. Of course Wikipedia has an article on it. Check that out, it isn't too technical. It covers most of the high points, including the fact that current measurements have pretty much ruled the possibility out.

Bill Gill

thanks for the suggestion, Bill. Looks as though you found much the same sort of thing as I did. However, as we have a "tired-lightophile" in our midst it seems a shame not to avail ourselves of the pros as well as the cons, which are more easily found.

I couldn't understand what you meant by 'doing a hitch-hiker's guide' to the tired light model nor why you asked me to do one.

When someone whose oppinion I respect holds a view about which I know little, I find it difficult to resist a little "brain-picking"; or even a lot!

Can anyone cast some light(!) on how Tired Light Theory accounts for the observations that are taken as evidence of accelerating spacetime expansion? Does it explain this second derivative (the acceleration) of the expanding universe in terms of tired light? If so, how?

I'm hoping Bill 6 will do this for us. The references I have found so far seem, generally, dismissive, but with any luck Bill 6 will present the other side of the theory.

You seem to think that I have some sort of expertise in the subject of tired light - I don't - I merely believe that because space is permeated with particles the absorption/emission of photons results in their loss of energy.

If a beam of light is projected through a glass block that object will heat up and remain warm long after the beam has departed.

This accrued energy must come from the photons that passed through the object thus they would emerge from that medium redshifted compared to their frequency upon entry of same.

This is not associated with the scattering challenge aimed at Zwicky's intervening particle suggestion.