It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Phage
If the red shift is not the result of Doppler effect, how does Ashmore account for blue shifted galaxies?
[edit on 9/18/2009 by Phage]
In this Tired Light theory, I explain the increase in wavelength as being due to photons of light interacting, or colliding, with the electrons in the plasma of intergalactic space and thus losing energy. The more interactions they make, the more energy they lose and the lower their frequency becomes.
Originally posted by Phage
Blue light is higher frequency than red. According to him the light from blue shifted galaxies must somehow be gaining energy as it travels even though it's moving through the same intergalactic space which takes energy away from red shifted light.
Originally posted by elfie
reply to post by Karilla
Thanks for the link. Hₒ is currently estimated to be 70.8 ± 4.0 (km/s)/Mpc.
Nonsense number 3: Why these rediculous units of km/s per Mpc?
What strange units for 'professional' scientists to use! km/s per Mpc. 'Mpc' means megaparsec and it is a unit of distance. But km is also a unit of distance so why have two different units for distance in the same expression? Why not Mpc/s per Mpc? Or km/s per km? Or even m/s per m? Ah! but wait a minute, if one has 'm/s per m', the metres cancel to give 'per sec' or just s-1 . But then it is not a velocity. people would never believe that the universe was expanding if the units were just 'per sec' and had no units of velocity in there, would they? Methinks the units of km/s per Mpc are a con to make people think that the universe is expanding. The proper unit for H is s-1. Lets use that instead.
If we are to believe in 'Big Bang' Codsmology then:
i) We must believe:
The magnitude of the age of the Universe is (mass of electron)/[(planck constant)x(radius of the electron)]
ii) We must believe:
The space occupied by a ruler one metre long stretches at such a rate that every second it stretches by an amount equal to [(planck constant)x(radius of electron)]/(mass of electron)
And that both these results are purely by chance.
It cannot be. The Universe is not expanding.
Of course until now, these codsmologists did not realise that the value they had for H was a combination of three very common physical constants. You can take any child's scientific calculator and call up these constants and work out the Hubble constant! It is there - inside the child's calculator.
For me, I just cannot believe that these results happen by chance. If you have a coincidence of this nature so that two seemingly very different quantities have the same value then their must be a relationship between them.
It is an indisputable fact that the Hubble constant is hr/m per cubic metre.
In my Tired Light Theory, I show that H = 2nhr/m where 'n' is the number of electrons in each cubic metre of space - and we know from observation that 'n' is about 0.5m-3 so the above results are not a problem in the Tired Light Theory. This is where the ' per cubic metre' comes from in the above relationships. It is the number of electrons in each cubic metre of space. In Tired light 1/H is not the age of the universe and space is not expanding so the coincidences of the age of the universe and the ruler do not happen. H is only dependent upon the electron and the Plank constant.
Is the Expanding Universe too big a stretch of the imagination????
Originally posted by MOTT the HOOPLE
I wonder if this means the end of the multiple Universe theory?
Originally posted by Karilla
My question is: If the universe is not expanding, this implies that there was NOT a "big bang", so what about the background noise found by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson?