TSW: "The conventional interpretation sees the redshift as a result of the relative motion of the observer and the observed ..."
BW: Which is very strange, because SR [Special Relativity Theory] stipulates a SOL [speed of light] that is independent of the velocity of the emitter. If c is a constant, then there shouldn't be ANY Doppler shift at all. I've never seen an explanation that reconciles SR with redshift.
TSW: Asimov: "... if it were indeed losing energy in this fashion, no one could offer a reasonable explanation as to what became of that energy."
BW: Which is the problem with any wave theory of light: the media not only slows, it also disperses the energy in every kinetic collision of its component particles. If light is a wave in an aether media, the night sky should be a uniform shade of dark red, with no stars visible.
In an infinite universe with perfect light transmission, any line of sight in any direction would encounter a star. The night sky would be wholly lit up."
BW: Not true. Light is a radial emission, so the further away the star, the weaker the incident energy on Earth. The only paradox is when light is considered a "transmitted" wave, as noted. There's no problem for a light particle to travel forever in a (mostly) vacant (imperfect) vacuum.
BW: Not at all. It just requires an energetic particle with structure and motion that produces wave-like effects. Maxwell considered light a "corpuscle" and Ritz explained the correct theory for light emission ... which is the only one compatible with redshift.
TSW: Engels: "If the ether offers resistance at all, it must also offer resistance to light, and so at a certain distance be impenetrable to light."
BW: Correct, but he was just echoing Olbers. This is an argument *against* an aether medium, not for it. Engels was primarily a political philosopher, not a scientist.
[GB: Bill, you seem to have gotten this mixed up. By incorrectly assuming “perfect light transmission,” one might conclude that the night sky is dark because the universe is finite. Light from distant stars does not reach us because there aren’t any. As mentioned, this deduction is true for both corpuscular and wave theories. In those days (1823 for Olbers and 1883 for Engels), aether denial had not raised its ugly head. Engels, whether scientist, philosopher, or just one of us, was prescient in his analysis of the situation, although the “if the ether offers resistance at all” part shows a bit of unwarranted uncertainty about what wave motion entails.]
BW: Another argument *against* an aether medium, not for it. There can't be a "perfect vacuum" that is occupied by an idealized aether with ZERO resistance to light and PERFECT transmission. The particle theory doesn't require a perfect vacuum, just mostly vacant space.
Next: The Univironmental Theory of Light (Part 3 of 3)