Tired-light and slowed-light

OK. You got me being unclear. Only the stuff in the space is finite and therefore tangible . What I meant to communicate was the following:
The idea of a confined space ( one with finite walls enclosing it) is more comfortable and workable to me than an unconfined(infinite) space. In my previous example the detection of a limit constituted confinement or finiteness and therefore tangibility. As for star trek ideas, I don’t accept them as proof of anything except an active imagination as well…and I am not sorry about it.



There is only one kind of stuff!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Leland</i>
<br />OK. You got me being unclear. Only the stuff in the space is finite and therefore tangible . What I meant to communicate was the following:
The idea of a confined space ( one with finite walls enclosing it) is more comfortable and workable to me than an unconfined(infinite) space. In my previous example the detection of a limit constituted confinement or finiteness and therefore tangibility. As for star trek ideas, I don’t accept them as proof of anything except an active imagination as well…and I am not sorry about it.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

So are you saying that all matter is within a finite distance?

No..D you? I'm really not sure. What I am very sure is that it will be a ver very long time before anyone finds a limit or edge if one exists. In the meantime not knowing for sure should not prevent us for discovering some very practical things like the mechanism of gravity.

Lee

There is only one kind of stuff!

The general galactic redshift can certainly not be caused by a decrease of the speed of light since c=&lambda;*<i>&nu;</i>. If a wave is redshifted to half its frequency <i>&nu;</i>, the wavelength &lambda; doubles (this can be demonstrated by interference effects for instance) i.e. the speed of light c is constant.
However, the speed of light is only known with an accuracy of about 10^-10 and could theoretically be variable within this limit. This could explain in principle the stretching of supernova lightcurves in a steady-state universe, although I consider it more likely that this phenomenon is actually due to the reduction of the amplitude of the electromagnetic waves in the course of the redshift (which could be caused by the intergalactic plasma). See my webpage www.physicsmyths.org.uk/redshift.htm for more details.

---

www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk

Thomas, you've missed my point.

We know that c = fw.

The assumption we've made is that c is constant, therefore, if the frequency drops, the wavelength rises.

I'm asking that we challenge that assumption. What if over the largest observable distances in the Universe the speed of light slows down, such that the frequency drops and the wavelength stays the same?

Simply pointing out that the speed of light is constant only reasserts the original assumption. It doesn't support it in any way.

mhelland@techmocracy.net

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mhelland</i>
<br />Thomas, you've missed my point.
We know that c = fw.
The assumption we've made is that c is constant, therefore, if the frequency drops, the wavelength rises.
I'm asking that we challenge that assumption. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It isn't an assumption. You can measure the frequency and the wavelength of light separately and in any case the product of the two yields c. I think it would be fairly obvious if the light received from galaxies would have a redshifted frequency but an unchanged wavelength. You could also measure the speed of galaxy light directly by the usual lab experiments and I am sure it would not depend on the redshift.

---

www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk