On Aug 20 John Polasek wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
On Fri, 20 Aug Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html
David A. Plaisted: "This suggests that the red shift may be caused by
something other than the expansion of the universe, at least in part.
This could be a loss of energy of light rays as they travel, or A
DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT..."

snip

The redshift of light does obey a universal principle but this
principle does not consist in a universal procrusteanization of the
wavelength into conformity with Einstein's 1905 false light postulate.
Rather, the principle consists in a universal proportionality between
the frequency (the measurable feature) and the VARIABLE speed of
light:

f'/f = c'/c

Pentcho, there is a hitch. Have you thought about what happens to the
wavelength using your ratios?
* * * * L = c/f = c'/f'
Your ratios say that the wavelength remains unchanged *contrary
experience. Our only means of measuring red shift is *to measure the
change in wavelength, it looks like your ratios can't be supported.
Sorry.
( but the wavelength remains constant in a gravity well such as in the
Pound & Rebka experiment).

Your admission that "the wavelength remains constant in a gravity
well" is a step in the right direction. This means that, in accordance
with the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

the frequency varies with the gravitational potential, phi, as
f'=f(1+phi/c^2) (experimentally confirmed by Pound and Rebka) while
the speed of light varies as c'=c(1+phi/c^2) (an equation given by
Newton's emission theory of light and explicitly used by Einstein in
the period 1907-1915).

Now it is time for your next step in the right direction. Does the
wavelength vary with the speed of the observer, as Einsteinians (not
very enthusiastically) claim, or is it the speed of the wave relative
to the observer that varies:

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

The third (and last) step in the right direction consists in admitting
that there can be no stretching of the wavelength by an allegedly
expanding universe. Hubble himself was moving in that direction:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...757145,00.html
Monday, Dec. 14, 1936: "Other causes for the redshift were suggested,
such as cosmic dust or a change in the nature of light over great
stretches of space. Two years ago Dr. Hubble admitted that the
expanding universe might be an illusion, but implied that this was a
cautious and colorless view. Last week it was apparent that he had
shifted his position even further away from a literal interpretation
of the redshift, that he now regards the expanding universe as more
improbable than a non-expanding one."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf
Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell
"The question is this: Do astronomical observations necessarily
support the idea of an expanding universe? Almost all cosmologists
believe as sacrosanct that the Hubble recession law was directly
inferred from astronomical observations. As this belief might be ill-
founded... (...) It turns out that the Hubble recession law was not
directly inferred from astronomical observations. The Hubble recession
law was directly inferred from the ad hoc assumption that the observed
spectroscopic redshifts of distant galaxies may be interpreted as
ordinary Doppler shifts. The observational techniques used by Hubble
led to the empirical discovery of a linear dependence of redshift on
distance. Based upon these historical considerations, the first
conclusion of the present study is that astronomical evidence in favor
of an expanding universe is circumstantial at best. The past eight
decades of astronomical observations do not necessarily support the
idea of an expanding universe. (...) Reber (1982) made the interesting
point that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe
idea. Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought
a model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple
and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding
space-time geometry. The second conclusion of the present study is
that the model Hubble diagram for a static (tired-light) cosmology
gives a good fit to the Type Ia supernova data shown in Fig. 2. This
observational test of a static (tired-light) cosmology model also
proves that it is wholly possible to explain the supernovae data
without requiring any flat Friedmann model universe undergoing
acceleration."

Pentcho Valev