Notices
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Comparing: Tired Light vs. Dark Matter/Energy

  1. #1 Comparing: Tired Light vs. Dark Matter/Energy 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Tired light is no more insane than Dark Matter or Dark Energy. You need an artificial adjustment to make the equations add up right? No problem. Just invent a magical, and entirely undetectable force out of nowhere and then factor it in.

    Honestly: Isn't it kind of contradictory to do one, and then totally object to doing the other?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Comparing: Tired Light vs. Dark Matter/Energy 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Tired light is no more insane than Dark Matter or Dark Energy. You need an artificial adjustment to make the equations add up right? No problem. Just invent a magical, and entirely undetectable force out of nowhere and then factor it in.

    Honestly: Isn't it kind of contradictory to do one, and then totally object to doing the other?
    Not really. The two cases are different. As to the redshift, there is already a well established and working theory. But there is nothing as satisfying for the observed additional apparent gravitational pull. The naive approach is of course that there must be more matter than we see. But there are also other ideas competing with this. I agree that many scientists tend to sell the commonly more likely hypothesis as a fact, but it is not like that. It is a working hypothesis just like the modification of the gravitational law that achieves about the same results. I am very sceptical about the "Dark Matter" idea myself, because it reminds me a bit of the "ether" that was invented as a medium for electromagnetic waves.

    So, there is no real need to discredit the current theory on redshift (at least the widely accepted concept works excellently), but the invention of the so called "Dark Matter" is one (of a few) possible solutions to a problem still to be understood.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of of ozzzzzzz

    Dishmaster said

    So, there is no real need to discredit the current theory on redshift (at least the widely accepted concept works excellently), but the invention of the so called "Dark Matter" is one (of a few) possible solutions to a problem still to be understood.
    When does it become a real need? Science is always questioning and testing, there is no emotional or personal hang up about it.

    The following are interesting reading


    http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4085

    A review of redshift and its interpretation in cosmology and astrophysics

    Authors: R. Gray, J. Dunning-Davies
    (Submitted on 25 Jun 2008)

    Abstract: The interpretation of redshift in cosmology and astronomy yields a great deal of information about the universe in which we live, but much controversy surrounds the correct interpretation of the phenomenon. This article discusses the history of the redshift, and how its interpretation varies between different cosmological theories, including the Big Bang theory and some of its most famous rivals, the Steady State theory and Tired Light theory, and aims to highlight a few of the problems still existing. Some notions not normally associated with astronomy and astrophysics are mentioned also in the hope that a somewhat broader view of this important topic may be investigated.
    =======================

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904131
    Curvature pressure in a cosmology with a tired-light redshift

    Authors: David F. Crawford
    (Submitted on 12 Apr 1999 (v1), last revised 6 Sep 1999 (this version, v2))

    Abstract: A hypothesis of curvature pressure is used to derive a static and stable cosmology with a tired-light redshift. The idea is that the high energy particles in the inter-galactic medium do not travel along geodesics because of the strong electrostatic forces. The result is a reaction back on the medium that is seen as an additional pressure. Combined with the explanation of the Hubble redshift as a gravitational interaction results in a static and stable cosmology. The predicted Hubble constant is 60.2 km/s/Mpc, the predicted background microwave temperature is 3 degrees and quasar luminosity functions and angular size distributions are shown to be consistent with the model. Since most observations that imply dark matter rely on redshift data it is argued that there is no dark matter. Observations of quasar absorption lines, supernovae light curves and the Butcher-Oemler effect are discussed. The curvature pressure is important for stellar structure and may explain the solar neutrino deficiency.
    ===========================

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2885

    An Alternative Explanation for Cosmological Redshift

    Authors: David Schuster
    (Submitted on 19 Jun 2007 (v1), last revised 9 May 2008 (this version, v2))

    Abstract: The first and most compelling evidence of the universe's expansion was, and continues to be, the observed redshift of spectra from distant objects. This paper plays "devil's advocate" by providing an alternative explanation with elementary physics. I assume a steady-state universe that is infinite in both expanse and age, with the observed redshifts caused by particle interactions creating an overall index of refraction of the universe. The cumulative effects of these interactions over long distances cause not only the shifts that we observe, but also the monotonically increasing redshifts as more distant objects are observed. This is a novel explanation for the phenomenon known as "tired light" which has been discussed for decades.
    ===========================

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.3351

    Reflections and Thoughts on Tired Light

    Authors: M. Moore, J. Dunning-Davies
    (Submitted on 23 Jul 2007)

    Abstract: The position of the various tired light theories is reviewed briefly and it is noted that one of the biggest objections to them concerns the mechanism by which light might lose energy as it travels through space. Here some new work relating to the constancy of the speed of light is highlighted as providing a possible solution to this conundrum, thus making more feasible explanation of phenomena via theories involving the notion of tired light.
    ========================================

    When all is said and done, how accurate is the data?

    This may explain what I mean.

    Oct 18, 2004
    Fingers of God
    http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/a...ingers-god.htm

    The big bang theory predetermines the size, the shape and the age of the universe (according to the latest satellite data, it is an expanding sphere 78 billion light years in diameter and 13.7 billion years old.) Because astronomers believe that redshift is a measure of distance, most of the distances of millions of galaxies, quasars, and gamma ray bursts have been distorted. A different interpretation of redshift will imply a much different universe. Halton Arp's research shows that redshift cannot be a measure of distance. The charts above compare a galaxy cluster in Arp's observed universe to the big bang's theoretical universe.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Comparing: Tired Light vs. Dark Matter/Energy 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Tired light is no more insane than Dark Matter or Dark Energy. You need an artificial adjustment to make the equations add up right? No problem. Just invent a magical, and entirely undetectable force out of nowhere and then factor it in.

    Honestly: Isn't it kind of contradictory to do one, and then totally object to doing the other?
    Not really. The two cases are different. As to the redshift, there is already a well established and working theory. ..
    Perhaps "Well established" as in many people have signed off on it, but not well established in the sense of having any experimental backing. No one has yet observed space expansion in a laboratory, nor performed any test other than just to point out that it would match Hubble's observations.


    But there is nothing as satisfying for the observed additional apparent gravitational pull.
    And I'm interested in what makes expansion of space so satisfying? If it's really happening, then it's a more remarkable phenomenon than the one it explains. That's usually a bad thing.

    I mean, compare the remarkable-ness here:

    Option #1:

    1) - Light shifting color for no apparent reason

    Versus option #2:

    2) - Space itself growing in size.... for no apparent reason.

    Am I the only one who's more comfortable with the anomalous behavior being attributed to the behavior of light, instead of the behavior of space itself?

    The naive approach is of course that there must be more matter than we see. But there are also other ideas competing with this. I agree that many scientists tend to sell the commonly more likely hypothesis as a fact, but it is not like that. It is a working hypothesis just like the modification of the gravitational law that achieves about the same results. I am very sceptical about the "Dark Matter" idea myself, because it reminds me a bit of the "ether" that was invented as a medium for electromagnetic waves.
    And a creation event was invented as a causal medium to make sense of the expansion of those waves when they travel great distances. I don't know why we need such an amazing occurrence to happen so we can rest easy.



    So, there is no real need to discredit the current theory on redshift (at least the widely accepted concept works excellently), but the invention of the so called "Dark Matter" is one (of a few) possible solutions to a problem still to be understood.
    It depends on how you look at science today, as compared to the earlier part of the 20th century when all the really sweet break throughs were happening. We base so much of our thinking on an assumption we can't back up experimentally, and then wonder why everything keeps running into dead ends.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •