Martin Brown wrote:
In message , Ralph Hertle
writes

Martin Brown wrote:

[ text omitted ]

Hi Martin,
Do you have a reference for this? I want to be able to give a proper
reference to people who claim that red-shift is due to 'tired light'

Google "Lyman forest" ought to bring something useful up.
Combine it with "tired light" and you may get exactly what you seek.

Martin:

'Tired light' is a term that suits then advocates of the BB; it is a
derogatory term that is intended to place an emotional wet blanket
upon the issue in order to discredit any possible explanation for a
physical cause of the diminution of the energy levels of photons as
they traverse the openness of space.



[ your reply: ]

And "Big Bang" was also a derogatory term used by the main advocate of
old Steady State theories, Sir Fred Hoyle, to pour scorn on the new
upstarts.


True, and is the term, "tired light", the revenge of the Post Modernists
and the social metaphysicians who are attached to expansionist
-creationist science?


Observational evidence has long since settled this debate in
favour of hot Big Bang cosmologies and the name, short and simple has
stuck.



The term, Big Bang, did stay, and the term, ironically, actually
expressed the intention of the BB scientists in the discussions current
at the time.

The evidence for the Big Bang is, well known, and except for the mystic
statements that the Post Modernists and religionists are claiming to be
physics, the evidence for the "Apparent Red Shift" also supports the the
theory that actual existents are the cause of gravity and light. The BB
advocates deny that actual physical existents, or photons, are the cause
of the "Apparent Red Shift", and they claim that elastic variations in
the 'fabric' of 'space-time', a claimed entity that has no known,
identified, or demonstrable physical existence, is the supposed cause of
light and the "Apparent Red Shift".

The case is by no means closed.

The theory that identifies the facts of existence is the true theory,
and that theory will be able to be demonstrated by means of experiment
and proof.


Short names like this often stay in use. Tired light - for light that
loses energy and gets tired after long journeys seems like quite a nice
way of describing it to me.


Actually, the Lord Rayleigh photon-hydrogen experiment used the term,
"inelastic", to describe one effect in the process in which the energy
level of the photon is reduced. Another effect, that I believe he didn't
identify, is that the energy of the photon that is lost may have been
combined into the hydrogen atom, or more specifically into the electron
of the atom (that is case A). Alternatively, the energy fraction may
have been emitted in some other sub-atomic form (and, that is case B),
and that form may be a fractional photon. Scientist will discover the
actual truth just as soon as the Biblical Creationist idea is banned
from rational and factual science.


The proper scientific question to ask is, "What happens to light
photons as they traverse the openness of outer space that causes the
diminution of their energy levels?"

Climbing out of a deep gravitational potential well will do it, but
there is no evidence that we have seen any galaxies where that
contribution was dominant or even significant.



What "well"? What is the physical evidence for that?

Why "galaxies?" What is the meaning of that?


The real killer for steady state theories was when radio astronomy came
along and we could see out much further into the universe that the
numbers of faint active radio galaxies increased far too rapidly to be
consistent with any steady state theory. The universe was seen to have
been much more active at earlier times. Deeper and deeper optical fields
from the likes of Hubble now confirm this too.

Seeing the 4K microwave background radiation was a bonus.

You can always cobble together some "just so" explanation for steady
state models that would fit with enough gratuitous tweaking of physics,
but Occam's razor favours the simpler explanation. It may surprise you
to know that Steady State theories are included in most decent cosmology
text books for historical context.



You do not understand what physics is if you deny the three concepts
that I provided in my previous post, and equally appalling, you imply
that you think that science is a matter of social agreement.



And distance measures using supernovae as standard candles avoid relying
on using redshift to determine distance. Nothing can trump the
observational evidence - nature is the final arbiter.

Regards,



I don't quite understand what you are saying due to your grammatical
errors. What in photometry is a "standard candle". I think that you
agree to what the Post Modernists and social metaphysicians are saying,
in that the numbers of statements in agreement determines the truth of
the proposition. That is an error of logic, and that fallacy of logic is
called, "ad populem".

Social metaphysics, a concept in the philosophy of science, is
everywhere a false concept, including physics.

Ralph Hertle