|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Static universe
Am 19.09.2014 10:37, schrieb Steve Willner:
In article , davd writes: "This paper deals with the proposal that the Universe is not expanding, but that redshifts are produced by a tired-light mechanism. This hypothesis is used to infer that the observation of Type 1a supernovae are consistent with such a static universe by re-calibrating the Type 1a using the Phillips relation modified by assuming a selection effect. Why doesn't the observed light curve stretch -- higher-redshift SNe take longer to decline -- rule out tired light as providing the bulk of the redshift? In the case of Crawford's paper the reason for the light curve stretch is a very special interpretation of Phillips relation with a not straightforward new analysis of the type Ia supernovae data. In the case of the WPT (world potential theory) redshift and time dilation are caused by the cosmic gravity (subsections 6.3.1, 6.3.2 and 6.3.3 in [1]); this cosmic gravitative redshift and time dilation are a simple effect of Einstein's original equivalence principle of 1907 (page 454 in [2]) in the frame of SR without any need of GR. There are, of course, lots of other arguments against any tired light explanation. It's not as though the possibility has been ignored. No, not against _any_ tired light explanation; WPT [1] e.g. has no problems with all old well known arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light). [1] www.wolff.ch/astro/q.pdf [2] http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/E-1907.pdf |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Static Universe | davd | Research | 49 | July 21st 11 12:59 PM |
Static universe - revisited | davd | Research | 22 | May 8th 11 08:18 PM |
Static universe - reply | davd | Research | 6 | April 16th 11 06:57 AM |
Static Universe | davd | Research | 0 | April 2nd 11 10:32 AM |
baloon static in air | Michael Smith | Science | 0 | July 22nd 04 12:18 PM |