David asks:
Does
the prediction of redshift nullify the "expansion" interpretation for
the big bang? In other words, is it a different explanation than expansion?
David:
Right. The idea that
the universe is expanding was always silly. Now we know why: the assumption
that c
was constant. Aether deniers, like Einstein, have no medium for light. That is
why they have to objectify light motion as enigmatic massless particles or
wave-particles. In UCT (www.universalcycletheory.com),
we speculate that aether is densest where baryonic matter is rarest. The miss-named
“gravitational redshift” supports this. When light is emitted from celestial
bodies, it enters regions in which the aether/baryonic matter ratio increases. Light
velocity, like all wave velocities, is a function of the density of the medium.
The regions between galactic clusters would have the densest aether and the highest
light velocity. Thus,
10 cycles at 1.1c would have wavelengths 10% longer than 10 cycles at c.
As Hubble always suspected, most of the galactic redshift is a
function of distance travelled through intergalactic regions. The Doppler
Effect still occurs, of course, but it would simply be a function of the motion
of the source, not its distance from the observer. Our
paper, "Neomechanical Gravitational Theory," to
be presented at NPA19 in July has more details (Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, Stephen J., 2012, Neomechanical gravitation theory, in Volk, G., ed., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July: Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 53-58. [10.13140/RG.2.1.3991.0483]).
No comments:
Post a Comment