What Causes the Hubble Redshift (in a Static Universe)

http://www.nature.com/news/superflui...hysics-1.15437
Natu "As waves travel through a medium, they lose energy over time. This dampening effect would also happen to photons traveling through spacetime, the researchers found." x

http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/t...s_2001_cha.pdf
Paul Davies: "As pointed out by DeWitt, the quantum vacuum is in some respects reminiscent of the aether, and in what follows it may be helpful to think of space-time as filled with a type of invisible fluid medium, representing a seething background of vacuum fluctuations. Although the mechanical properties of this medium can be strange, and the image should not be pushed too far, it is sometimes helpful to envisage this "quantum aether" as possessing a type of viscosity."

HYPOTHESIS: As the photon travels through the viscous vacuum (in a STATIC universe), it loses speed analogously to a golf ball losing speed due to the resistance of the air.

On this hypothesis the resistive force (Fr) is proportional to the velocity of the photon (V):

Fr = - KV

That is, the speed of light decreases with time in accordance with the equation:

dV/dt = - K'V

Clearly, at the end of a very long journey of photons (coming from a very distant object), the contribution to the redshift is much smaller than the contribution at the beginning of the journey. Light coming from nearer objects is less subject to this effect, that is, the increase of the redshift with distance is closer to LINEAR for short distances. For distant light sources we have:

f' = f(exp(-kt))

where f is the initial and f' the measured (redshifted) frequency. (It is assumed that the speed of light and the frequency vary while the wavelength remains unchanged.) For short distances the following approximations can be made:

f' = f(exp(-kt)) ~ f(1-kt) ~ f - kd/λ

where d is the distance between the light source and the observer and λ is the wavelength. The equation f'=f-kd/λ is only valid for short distances and corresponds to the Hubble law. The equation f'=f(exp(-kt)) shows that, at the end of a very long journey (in a STATIC universe), photons redshift much less vigorously than at the beginning of the journey. This provides an alternative explanation of the observations that brought the 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics to Saul Perlmutter, Adam Riess and Brian Schmidt.

Pentcho Valev

Victorious Einsteinians:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2001/...-gets-re-tired
"Both the standard expanding-universe and the tired-light theory, they realized, agree that redshifted light should make distant galaxies look dimmer than they really are. In an expanding universe, however, time dilation and other relativistic distortions will also dim distant galaxies, making them appear much fainter than tired-light theory dictates. What's more, young stars - and thus young galaxies - tend to be considerably brighter than old ones. When that extra brightness is taken into account, the observations match expanding-universe predictions, as Lubin and Sandage will report in Astronomical Journal. For the tired-light theory to be correct, young galaxies would have to be dimmer, rather than brighter, than old ones. "The expansion is real. It's not due to an unknown physical process. That is the conclusion," says Sandage. Although not surprising in themselves, the results are useful for "tidying things up in our cosmology," says Michael Pahre, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Even so, "I don't think it's possible to convince people who are holding on to tired light," says Ned Wright, an astrophysicist at the University of California, Los Angeles. "I would say it is more a problem for a psychological journal than for Science."

The arguments are idiotic (not even wrong), and Einsteinians also suggest that any supporter of the tired-light hypothesis is a psychopath. Needless to say, in the end heretics would rather start believing the relativistic idiocies than see themselves kicked out of universities as psychopaths:

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orw...hapter1.7.html
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev