Myth or Science? (Tired Light)

"greywolf42" wrote in message ...
Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
om...
HORS CONCOURS

Well, Grey Wolf, it means, you weren't satisfied with the
substantiation of photon ageing impossibility which you have read in
our paper "On the nature of red shift of Metagalaxy", item 4 "The
Hubble law analysis on the basis of the photon ageing hypothesis"

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v3_1/hubbl.../hubble39.html

Our substantiation of EM energy loss and of red shift can be
interpreted in terms of quanta ageing, with the correction that
photons existence still should be properly scientifically proved. But
if the substantiation doesn't satisfy you, then what's the goal of
your search? Don't you want to salvage the phenomenon? You are trying
to achieve the result not basing on the analysis of natural phenomena
but on implementation into the nature someone's unsubstantiated ideas.
Now Henri Wilson creates in vain tremendous work on CMBR. And how many
such Henries are there which don't want to see, to hear, to
comprehend, but want only to force the nature, it to obey their
conceptions. Don't you pity their labour?

Please see, during last year the adherents of QM and Relativity in the
newsgroups have sequentially lost all subjects of the principal
discussions. None the less, they with the same insistence go on
reiterating the same, though they perfectly understand, if a theory is
unable to describe the phenomenon, - and these conceptions are unable
to describe whole amounts of phenomena which they have to describe, -
such conception is wrong. And the best scientific decision is to
understand it, but not to salvage what is basically impossible to be
salvaged. ;-)

Kind regards.

Sergey.


"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
Was "Who First Said This"

Sergey, please note the purpose of this thread:

Please do not clutter this thread with your own views on the
"problem".
This thread is simply a hunt for the origins of this particular
"standard
argument." Not a forum for discussing the merits of the argument.

Didn't you see my proposition? Isn't it a publication?

I'll admit it is a publication -- but it doesn't predate Misner, Thorne, and
Wheeler. Thus, it has no bearing on this contest. Again, the strength of
argument is irrelvant to this contest. (You are welcome to start another
thread at any time.)

greywolf42


Dear Wolf,

I don't participate in your competition. However it is important for
me to understand, what for do you seeking the references
substantiating an effect of which you already well know that this
substantiation is wrong? You arranged such ceremonies, as if this is
of the most importance - and I wonder, what for? What guides your
choose when you reject my grounded explanation and mathematical
substantiation which you cannot, as far as I know, find in other
publications? Or, none the less, you are feeling a wish to find
something at least outwardly alike, in order to prove at least
yourself that the authorship isn't mine? ;-) Well, Joseph Lazio said
you clearly in your thread, there is no phenomenological
substantiation for the light 'ageing'. One of attempts to substantiate
belongs to V.A. Atsukovsky and is based on his supposition of the
aether viscosity. We analyse this substantiation in our paper "On the
nature of red shift of Metagalaxy"

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...s3.html#hubble

to which I referred you, and you shouldn't ignore it. In the view of
scientific objectivity, you can only find our mistake, substantiate
and show me, in what specifically are we wrong. I'm not Henri Wilson,
I will not clutch at a wrong derivation. But I will substantiate.

If you are pro such SCIENTIFIC approach, please do answer. I will be
pleased to hear from you.

I intentionally put these questions to your thread and make a new one,
"Little Red Riding Hood asks Grey Wolf", as I want much to hear your
answer.

Thank you,

Sergey.

Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

{snip}

Sergey, please note the purpose of this thread:

Please do not clutter this thread with your own views on the
"problem".
This thread is simply a hunt for the origins of this particular
"standard
argument." Not a forum for discussing the merits of the
argument.

Didn't you see my proposition? Isn't it a publication?

I'll admit it is a publication -- but it doesn't predate Misner, Thorne,
and
Wheeler. Thus, it has no bearing on this contest. Again, the strength
of
argument is irrelvant to this contest. (You are welcome to start
another
thread at any time.)


Dear Wolf,

I don't participate in your competition.

Then don't reply to this thread.

However it is important for
me to understand, what for do you seeking the references
substantiating an effect of which you already well know that this
substantiation is wrong?

First, for historical purposes.

Second, one cannot decide if the claims against "tired light" are "wrong"
unless one knows what these arguments are. Hence, I am collecting arguments
against the proposition.

Hence, your arguments are premature -- in this thread.

{snip}

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas