Physics has no clue of the photon. So you are free to speculate in any
direction.
Currently we use the envelope function to describe a traveling photon.
Of course this function contradicts basic Maxwell equations as E/B are
never symmetric.
Solar photon emission produces a pressure that lets the space boil like
a soup pot and causes expansion of space. (As Mills said some 30 years
ago.) (A photon impact causes mechanical recoil!)
So any distant star is - in average - accelerating in relation to earth
hence photons are red shifted. This so called hubble expansion can be
exactly calculated from the photon pressure as Mills did 30 years ago.
So expansion has nothing to do with a big bang!
J.W.
On 25.08.2022 18:20, H LV wrote:
The original tired light hypothesis was rejected as an explanation of
the hubble red shift relation because it predicted more distant
galaxies would appear fuzzier then we observe. The predicted the
fuzziness was a consequence of scattering causing the red shift.
However, perhaps a new version of the tired light hypothesis involving
some new concepts could explain the hubble red shift relation.
eg. what if light is instrinsically prone to loose energy with
distance and the energy it gives up becomes something else like dark
mater or dark energy?
Harry
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 11:54 AM H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:
Eric Lerner argues the "unexpected" data from the JWST is expected
in an non-expanding universe. Of course if the universe is not
expanding he also says explaining the hubble redshift relation
would require some new physics.
Harry
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 7:32 PM Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
wrote:
As Lerner admits, the CMB is the main thing which is holding
the big bang theory together.
Yet the 'experts' really can't explain exactly how CMB
radiation, which is moving away from us at light-speed from a
single point in time, manages to somehow magically be
reflected back so as to be observed by us as a rather strong
signal.
Maybe CMB should not be observable in 3 space at all.
IOW - it can be argued that the cosmic background is itself
poorly understood and not the best feature with which to base
important derivative theories on (like the big bang)...
H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:
Eric Lerner comments on the first data from the JWST:
The Big Bang didn't happen
What do the James Webb images really show?
https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215
Eric Lerner's claims are deflated in this article:
https://www.cnet.com/science/space/no-james-webb-space-telescope-images-do-not-debunk-the-big-bang/
Harry
--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis
+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06
