On Aug 19, 11:51*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Dear Pentcho: The fallacy of your 'velocity change’ red shift is
this: At emission, the real time frequency of the emitted photons
from monochromic light sources is constant. If, as you say, light
simply slows down over great distances, then the "trailing" higher
speed photons will pile-up behind the slowed down photons—like cars
traveling the legal speed limit will pile-up behind a car driven by
granny that is going 10 mph slower. So your explanation does not
work.

My "aging light" explanation wedges the photons further apart without
changing the basic 'c' long-distance-velocity of light. The likely
reason light doesn't also "wedge" light closer together, is because
photons are tangles of polar IOTAs. In contacting the adjunct ether
along the journey, photons develop a particular spin direction which
can briefly be "nullified" by photons passing just in front, but will
displace the photon (forward) when the crossing photon passes just
behind. That is not unlike the orbital "sling shot" effect when
satellites pass on the "back side" of planets or moons, but not on the
front. — NoEinstein —

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

where f' is the shifted frequency of light (at the moment of
reception), f is the original frequency (at the moment of emission),
c' is the speed of light relative to the observer or receiver (at the
moment of reception), c is the speed of light relative to the emitter
(at the moment of emission).

Pentcho Valev wrote:

In accordance with the formula:

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

if there is redshift and you wish the speed of light to remain
constant (Divine Albert has said it is constant), you should STRETCH
THE WAVELENGTH. So for a century Einsteinians have been fiercely
stretching the wavelength no matter what type of redshift is
measured:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=278
"In both cases, the light emitted by one body and received by the
other will be "redshifted" - i.e. its wavelength will be stretched, so
the color of the light is more towards the red end of the spectrum.
But there's a subtle difference, which you sort of allude to. In fact,
only in the first case (a nearby body moving away from the earth) is
the redshift caused by the Doppler effect. You've experienced the
Doppler effect if you've ever had a train go past you and heard the
whistle go to a lower pitch (corresponding to a longer wavelength for
the sound wave) as the train moves away. The Doppler effect can happen
for light waves too (though it can't be properly understood without
knowing special relativity). It turns out that just like for sound
waves, the wavelength of light emitted by an object that is moving
away from you is longer when you measure it than it is when measured
in the rest frame of the emitting object. In the case of distant
objects where the expansion of the universe becomes an important
factor, the redshift is referred to as the "cosmological redshift" and
it is due to an entirely different effect. According to general
relativity, the expansion of the universe does not consist of objects
actually moving away from each other - rather, the space between these
objects stretches. Any light moving through that space will also be
stretched, and its wavelength will increase - i.e. be redshifted.
(This is a special case of a more general phenomenon known as the
"gravitational redshift" which describes how gravity's effect on
spacetime changes the wavelength of light moving through that
spacetime. The classic example of the gravitational redshift has been
observed on the earth; if you shine a light up to a tower and measure
its wavelength when it is received as compared to its wavelength when
emitted, you find that the wavelength has increased, and this is due
to the fact that the gravitational field of the earth is stronger the
closer you get to its surface, causing time to pass slower - or, if
you like, to be "stretched" - near the surface and thereby affecting
the frequency and hence the wavelength of the light.) Practically
speaking, the difference between the two (Doppler redshift and
cosmological redshift) is this: in the case of a Doppler shift, the
only thing that matters is the relative velocity of the emitting
object when the light is emitted compared to that of the receiving
object when the light is received. After the light is emitted, it
doesn't matter what happens to the emitting object - it won't affect
the wavelength of the light that is received. In the case of the
cosmological redshift, however, the emitting object is expanding along
with the rest of the universe, and if the rate of expansion changes
between the time the light is emitted and the time it is received,
that will affect the received wavelength. Basically, the cosmological
redshift is a measure of the total "stretching" that the universe has
undergone between the time the light was emitted and the time it was
received."

Are Einsteiniana's idiocies, "stretching the wavelength" in
particular, eternal?"

Pentcho Valev