The Steady State Universe

On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 2:08:33 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.

Merely by assuming dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
I was led to c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
and on to Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)

K ~= 10^-10 /year
t = time in years

Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to
enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more
accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........

K = H = Hubble's Constant
and t = -t ( so times past become +ve)

which substituted in (3) gives:

Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)

then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)

So for t 1/H we have:

Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)

which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
for modest times into the past ( t ~5 billion years).

As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore
further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law
expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
in observatories all around the world eh!

Conclusions:
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
2. There was no "Big Bang"
3. There was no "Inflation"
4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
5. There is no "Dark Energy"


A Big Bang theory is certainly the most far fetched conclusion to draw from the evidence at hand. I do think that red light travels slower that blue light. But the difference in speed is only in the slightest way responsible for the difference in frequency. But light has in some way lost energy.

Double-A

On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 3:19:00 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 2:08:33 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.

Merely by assuming dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
I was led to c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
and on to Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)

K ~= 10^-10 /year
t = time in years

Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to
enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more
accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........

K = H = Hubble's Constant
and t = -t ( so times past become +ve)

which substituted in (3) gives:

Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)

then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)

So for t 1/H we have:

Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)

which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
for modest times into the past ( t ~5 billion years).

As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore
further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law
expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
in observatories all around the world eh!

Conclusions:
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
2. There was no "Big Bang"
3. There was no "Inflation"
4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
5. There is no "Dark Energy"


A Big Bang theory is certainly the most far fetched conclusion to draw from the evidence at hand. I do think that red light travels slower that blue light. But the difference in speed is only in the slightest way responsible for the difference in frequency. But light has in some way lost energy..

Double-A
Gamma photons have more energy than heat photons(proven) However no change in the speed of c.Change in wave frequency deturms the kind of photons.Bert

On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 10:34:36 AM UTC-7, Herbert Glazier wrote:
On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 3:19:00 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 2:08:33 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.

Merely by assuming dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
I was led to c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
and on to Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)

K ~= 10^-10 /year
t = time in years

Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to
enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more
accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........

K = H = Hubble's Constant
and t = -t ( so times past become +ve)

which substituted in (3) gives:

Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)

then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)

So for t 1/H we have:

Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)

which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
for modest times into the past ( t ~5 billion years).

As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore
further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law
expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
in observatories all around the world eh!

Conclusions:
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
2. There was no "Big Bang"
3. There was no "Inflation"
4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
5. There is no "Dark Energy"


A Big Bang theory is certainly the most far fetched conclusion to draw from the evidence at hand. I do think that red light travels slower that blue light. But the difference in speed is only in the slightest way responsible for the difference in frequency. But light has in some way lost energy.

Double-A
Gamma photons have more energy than heat photons(proven) However no change in the speed of c.Change in wave frequency deturms the kind of photons.Bert


I contend that our ways of measuring speed are not yet accurate enough to detect the difference in speed between gamma and infrared photons. Yet some detections of the radiation coming from supernovae have suggested there may be a difference.

Double-A

On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 3:10:08 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 10:34:36 AM UTC-7, Herbert Glazier wrote:
On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 3:19:00 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 2:08:33 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.

Merely by assuming dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
I was led to c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
and on to Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)

K ~= 10^-10 /year
t = time in years

Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to
enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more
accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me............

K = H = Hubble's Constant
and t = -t ( so times past become +ve)

which substituted in (3) gives:

Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)

then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)

So for t 1/H we have:

Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)

which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
for modest times into the past ( t ~5 billion years).

As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore
further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law
expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
in observatories all around the world eh!

Conclusions:
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
2. There was no "Big Bang"
3. There was no "Inflation"
4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
5. There is no "Dark Energy"


A Big Bang theory is certainly the most far fetched conclusion to draw from the evidence at hand. I do think that red light travels slower that blue light. But the difference in speed is only in the slightest way responsible for the difference in frequency. But light has in some way lost energy.

Double-A
Gamma photons have more energy than heat photons(proven) However no change in the speed of c.Change in wave frequency deturms the kind of photons.Bert


I contend that our ways of measuring speed are not yet accurate enough to detect the difference in speed between gamma and infrared photons. Yet some detections of the radiation coming from supernovae have suggested there may be a difference.

Double-A

I read light speed is 186,282 mps. I stop light 3 inchesfrom its source(that made me famous) Shown at MIT,U of Cal at Fulleron and U of Irvine.Bert

___"reber wrote:
"I stop light 3 inches from its source", always,... since
"I park & bark in the dark. I'm of low wit & a stupid ****." Bert

"Why am I posting this, it's making me cry as it always does"

______ "Why am I not loved by all?". Bert.





hmmm...snicker...chortle...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFL MAO

On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 8:04:26 PM UTC-7, hanson wrote:
___"reber wrote:
"I stop light 3 inches from its source", always,... since
"I park & bark in the dark. I'm of low wit & a stupid ****." Bert

"Why am I posting this, it's making me cry as it always does"

______ "Why am I not loved by all?". Bert.





hmmm...snicker...chortle...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFL MAO

"Herbert Glazier" wrote:
"I park & bark in the dark. I'm of low wit & a stupid ****." Bert
"Why am I posting this, it's making me cry as it always does"

______ "Why am I not loved by all?". Bert.


Swine Glazier makes his daily Run
Hopes that Bert's Double-Asshole will come
------- See: Glazier's Dossier -------
e.g http://tinyurl.com/Blog-of-2-fecal-kikes-Mar2017



hmmm...snicker...chortle...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFL MAO

On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 10:34:36 AM UTC-7, Herbert Glazier wrote:
On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 3:19:00 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 2:08:33 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.

Merely by assuming dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
I was led to c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
and on to Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)

K ~= 10^-10 /year
t = time in years

Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to
enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more
accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........

K = H = Hubble's Constant
and t = -t ( so times past become +ve)

which substituted in (3) gives:

Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)

then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)

So for t 1/H we have:

Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)

which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
for modest times into the past ( t ~5 billion years).

As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore
further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law
expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
in observatories all around the world eh!

Conclusions:
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
2. There was no "Big Bang"
3. There was no "Inflation"
4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
5. There is no "Dark Energy"


A Big Bang theory is certainly the most far fetched conclusion to draw from the evidence at hand. I do think that red light travels slower that blue light. But the difference in speed is only in the slightest way responsible for the difference in frequency. But light has in some way lost energy.

Double-A
Gamma photons have more energy than heat photons(proven) However no change in the speed of c.Change in wave frequency deturms the kind of photons.Bert
when 'c' goes up your gut, full of baloney, it slows down a little


#lolz

On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 1:20:23 PM UTC-7, IAM wrote:
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 10:34:36 AM UTC-7, Herbert Glazier wrote:
On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 3:19:00 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 2:08:33 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.

Merely by assuming dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
I was led to c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
and on to Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)

K ~= 10^-10 /year
t = time in years

Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to
enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more
accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me............

K = H = Hubble's Constant
and t = -t ( so times past become +ve)

which substituted in (3) gives:

Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)

then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)

So for t 1/H we have:

Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)

which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
for modest times into the past ( t ~5 billion years).

As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore
further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law
expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
in observatories all around the world eh!

Conclusions:
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
2. There was no "Big Bang"
3. There was no "Inflation"
4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
5. There is no "Dark Energy"


A Big Bang theory is certainly the most far fetched conclusion to draw from the evidence at hand. I do think that red light travels slower that blue light. But the difference in speed is only in the slightest way responsible for the difference in frequency. But light has in some way lost energy.

Double-A
Gamma photons have more energy than heat photons(proven) However no change in the speed of c.Change in wave frequency deturms the kind of photons.Bert
when 'c' goes up your gut, full of baloney, it slows down a little


#lolz

You are a Hanson clone.Bert

Bert reads every post of mine
Bert sees hanson as divine.
------- See: Glazier's Dossier -------
e.g http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-REAL-intent


hmmm...snicker...chortle...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFL MAO