"greywolf42" wrote in message ...
greywolf42 wrote in message news:...

Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
om...

{snip}

Near the beginning of your Hubble paper, the following paragraph exists:

""The discussion of possibility to explain otherwise the metagalactic red
shift showed that all other physical processes that have been used for such
explanation, both hypo-thetical and actual, are insufficient. They either
cannot at all cause the red shift (such is, for instance, the photon
scattering on the Dirac's electron background or the spontane-ous splitting
of photons) or they cause too small red shift (such is, for instance, the
gravity waves radiation by the EM waves) or they have to cause, except the
red shift, such spurious phenomena which are actually absent (such is, for
instance, the photon scattering at some particles). Thus, the longitudinal
Doppler effect (in relation to the ac-companying reference frame) is the
only physical phenomenon with whose help we can explain the properties of
metagalactic red shift" [8, p. 511?512]."

That reference is a 1962 article, in Russian, "8. Zelmanov, A.L. Red shift.
In: Physical encyclopaedia, v. 2, p. 511?512. Sovet-skaya encyclopedia,
Moscow."

As it stands, there is no reason to merely accept the bald statement that
"all other physical processes... are insufficient." That WAS the point,
after all. Merely referencing somebody else's claim is not valid science.

What ARE the "physical processes" that were considered?


Sections 1-3 of your (word) document focuses entirely on theoretical
considertations within the big bang cosmology -- and assumes a pure,
doppler-only source of redshift.

Sections 4 and 5 brings up the subject of "tired light" once more. Your
conclusion (section 9) remains as in your abstract -- fallacious:

"The hypothesis of quanta ageing in the light propagation in space, on one
hand, contradicts the photon theory postulates, and on the other, it is
unable to substantiate the consistent mechanism of ageing. The mechanism of
ageing caused by the viscosity of aether proposed by Atsukovsky does not
provide the relationship of the light frequency shift with respect to
distance from the source. "

I note simply that you only attempted two extreme cases. Absolute purity
and infinite range of photons ("contradicts the photon theory postulates").
And one, single, flawed theory of the aether (Atsukovsky's) as a normal
(though unknown) gas. The first "option" is fundamentally flawed, because
one cannot use one theory (photons, here) as evidence against another theory
(ageing photons). It remains a logical fallacy. The second part is a valid
scientific effort -- but ignorant of history. Together, they form the
fallacy of the excluded middle. (There are more options available than the
two extreme ones you provided.)

I highly recommend that you take a look at Maxwell's initial derivation of
Maxwell's equations (and more) in "On Physical Lines of Force" -- 1861.
Maxwell utilized a particulate, superfluid aether as the substance needed to
support electric and magnetic phenomena. And determined from that, the
speed of light relative to the medium. By noting that Maxwell's aether is a
superfluid (which is a requirement for EM waves) you will find that your
argument against Atsukovsky's "normal" fluid falls apart when dealing with
physically-required aethers.

In short, you can't claim that because you were able to show Atsukovsky's
fluid didn't work, that NO aether will work.

You also assume that the redshift must be ENTIRELY due to one process, OR
ENTIRELY due to another process. Again, this is the fallacy of the excluded
middle. The observed redshifts may be partly due to more than one process.

And in your evaluation, you utilize the argument that the relation of
distance-to-redshift holds only for doppler. You need to be aware that ALL
of the distances to the galaxies are determined by FIRST assuming that
distance-to-redshift is ONLY the result of doppler shift. Real measurments
(i.e. the distant supernovae) do NOT match this assumption. In other words,
you may not assume the distances calculated by the big bang assumption, when
you do your analysis.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

You Wolf wrote much, indeed. Your wish not to study the issue but to
grind me to powder is clearly seen. But to do so, you would more
correctly treat the scientific logic and follow the classical system
of proof. Or you are unable to get at me. ;-)

In particular, you are writing, I didn't present all existing
hypotheses. Yes, and I'm not married with all women in the world!
Happily, in physics we have no need to doubt all hypotheses without
exception. Physics can be divided into few levels. At the first level
we have the basic phenomenology on which we can rely when constructing
the model of phenomenon. At the second level we have the regularities
taking into account the revelations of basic phenomenology under
different conditions. And further downstairs. If the basic
phenomenology is beyond questions and if it fully satisfies the entire
COMPLEX of observed properties, we pass to the second level. If we see
it okay, too - we can go further downstairs, too. In the citation
which raised your indignation, we said that a broad spectrum of
substantiations of red shift has been considered and thoroughly
discussed at the level of phenomenology. Most of hypotheses have been
rejected, as they were unable to substantiate the entire complex of
observed properties. You don't like it? This is your difficulty. The
same as it's your difficulty, if you don't understand a simple ABC of
physics - if you haven't rigorously substantiated the basis of model
on which you ground the phenomenology of studied phenomenon, all your
further computations will be built on the sand. So all substantiations
of red shift based on the photon theory are beforehand known to be
wrong, as the photon theory per se doesn't stand any criticism and
doesn't answer not only the full complex of questions, it answers
satisfactorily no one question.

Such are the matters.

Sergey.