TIRED LIGHT

can anyone explain what is tired light and does it exists or not


thanks

Well, I dont think light has brains or soul to be tired 8-)

There seems to be red-shift, less energy from photon/light coming from long
distance. It can be caused by gravity or other forces, universe expanding
as in the big bang theory, or other theory is that light loses some energy
after billions of years (which are not accepted as much as the big bang).


"Dave Oatley" wrote in message
...
can anyone explain what is tired light and does it exists or not


thanks

"Dave Oatley" wrote in news:_pXPb.726$nd4.652
@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk:

can anyone explain what is tired light and does it exists or not


thanks




See:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

Llanzlan.

DaveO The only force that can make light tired is gravity. Tired being
a lose of energy. This was proven about 55 years ago in a lab,and the
guy that did the experiment got the Nobel. He was trying to prove SR and
GR was wrong,and he after the experiment poved it right. (go figure)
Bert

"Dave Oatley" wrote in message
...
can anyone explain what is tired light and does it exists or not


"Errors in Tired Light Cosmology"
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

"Tired light models invoke a gradual energy loss by photons as they travel
through the cosmos to produce the redshift-distance law. This has three main
problems:"

"- There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without
also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects
which is not observed."

"- The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high
redshift supernova light curves."

"- The tired light model can not produce a blackbody spectrum for the Cosmic
Microwave Background without some incredible coincidences."

"onegod" wrote in message
...
Well, I dont think light has brains or soul to be tired 8-)

There seems to be red-shift, less energy from photon/light coming from
long
distance. It can be caused by gravity or other forces, universe expanding
as in the big bang theory, or other theory is that light loses some energy
after billions of years (which are not accepted as much as the big bang).


"Dave Oatley" wrote in message
...
can anyone explain what is tired light and does it exists or not


thanks


I read an equation somewhere for calculating the Doppler effect, and the
text said that there was an effect even if the motion was at right angles to
the observer. It seemed to me that if this was so then there would be a
general red shift if the universe was rotating.

If this was the case then there ought to be different red shifts in
different directions, or even a blue shift in one particular direction. The
only reason I could think of why such a blue shift could not be seen was
that it was hidden by the milky way. Even then there ought to be some
lessening of the red shifts near the milky way.

David F. Cox

"Dave Oatley" wrote in message
...
can anyone explain what is tired light and does it exists or not

Tired light has two meanings. First, it was an idea that was kicked around
for a while and then dropped as not holding water. The theory was that light
was fighting its way out of a gravity well and the frequency became
redshifted as a result. Therefore there did not need to be expansion and
therefore no big bang. As I said, it didn't hold up and was dropped.

The second meaning is when it is thrown out netloons who want to challenge
everything but doesn't have a basis for doing so. When their theory has
holes punched in it, they say that tired light is the cause and the rest of
science is in a conspiracy against them.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

************************************

Llanzlan:

Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th wrote:
"Dave Oatley" wrote in news:_pXPb.726$nd4.652
@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk:

can anyone explain what is tired light and does it exists or not

thanks

See:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

Llanzlan.



On So-Called Tired Light:

The measurements of light as photons and not primarily as waves probably
led to the
discovery of the reduction of the energy level of the photon. The term
"tired light" is a
quasi-derogatory term that is now applied to the topic by advocates of
the BB, and who
have a vested interest in maintaining the BB theory.

Interestingly the raw data regarding photons that have been collected by
the BB
expansionist-cerationists just as well supports the theory of the
reduction of the energy level
of photons in inelastic collisions.

One of the problems that appear on the UCLA site is that they offfer no
cause for "tired light".
They neither recognize that gravitational existents nor hydrogen atoms
can cause a reduction
of the energy level of the photon, when in fact there have been
experiments that illustrate
a plausible causal relationship to the lowered energy level of the
photon due to such collisions.

They also commit a logical fallacy that is called the, 'stolen concept
fallacy'. They retain the idea
of the expansion of the universe when evaluating the reduction of energy
levels. However, the
theory of the reduction of the energy level of the photon leads instead,
logically, to a universe that
is not expanding, and also to a smaller universe. Their descriptions
appear, for that reason to include
that 'non-sequitur' as well.

In the equation, frequency = C / wavelength. If one decreases the
wavelength the
frequency necessarily increases according to the fixed ratio determined
by C. The BB expansionists
only see the terms frequency and wavelength, and they do not see the
relationship as an expression
of the amount of energy of the photon as measured in a certain distance
in the context of C. If the
distance is lessened the frequency is increased. But energy is the
concept that corresponds to
the frequency. And a wavelength is a distance. Accordingly, energy = C
/ distance. We don't know
precisely what a photon is, however we know that it is functioning
existent, and we know several of
its fundamental properties. As it travels in space the functioning
photon acts in a certain distance.
That is indepentent of velocity, however, since the velocity of light
has been measured to be C, that
value is the constant that determines the precise relationship of the
amount of energy that a photon
of a certain frequency has and over what distance it acts. If the energy
level of the photon is lower, the
distance over which that photon is acting increases in fixed ratio to C.

If something in space collides or interferes with the photon in an
inelastic collision (Rayleigh) the energy
level of the photon decreases. That means that the energy of the photon
acts over a greater distance.
Or, that in a given distance the photon expresses less energy. The Spin
concept of entities (cite needed) is
appropriate in that context. A object with a lower rate spin than
another in the same distance and velocity
will have a lower energy.

The concept of Rayleigh's discovery of the lowered energy level of the
photon means that the Doppler
effect is not necessary to explain the Apparent Red Shift of
spectrographic data from discrete light
sources. The report that I read indicated that Rayleigh said that it
looked likely that the universe was
not expanding (cite needed).

Tired light is the 'in theory' now. Once it was shown that the Hubble constant or 'rate of the expansion of the Universe' was just the electron in disguise (See www.lyndonashmore.com) then there was no way that the Big Bang theory could have been correct.
Cheers Lyndon

Ralph Hertle wrote:

Llanzlan:

Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th wrote:
"Dave Oatley" wrote in news:_pXPb.726$nd4.652
@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk:

can anyone explain what is tired light and does it exists or not

thanks

See:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

Llanzlan.



On So-Called Tired Light:

The measurements of light as photons and not primarily as waves probably
led to the
discovery of the reduction of the energy level of the photon. The term
"tired light" is a
quasi-derogatory term that is now applied to the topic by advocates of
the BB, and who
have a vested interest in maintaining the BB theory.

Interestingly the raw data regarding photons that have been collected by
the BB
expansionist-cerationists just as well supports the theory of the
reduction of the energy level
of photons in inelastic collisions.

One of the problems that appear on the UCLA




----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.net/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

In message , David F. Cox
writes

I read an equation somewhere for calculating the Doppler effect, and the
text said that there was an effect even if the motion was at right angles to
the observer.

Interesting! Can you recall where you saw that? To be honest, I'm
sceptical, because it would give a method of measuring transverse
velocities. That's currently very difficult.

It seemed to me that if this was so then there would be a
general red shift if the universe was rotating.

If this was the case then there ought to be different red shifts in
different directions, or even a blue shift in one particular direction. The
only reason I could think of why such a blue shift could not be seen was
that it was hidden by the milky way. Even then there ought to be some
lessening of the red shifts near the milky way.

But we know from COBE data that the universe is not rotating.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.