Cosmological Redshift and Expansion of Space

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />The simple fact is a lightyear or parsec is a unit of time as well as a unit of distance.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, it isn't. A lightyear is the <i>distance</i> light travels in a year. A parsec is the <i>distance</i> at which Earth's orbital radius subtends an angle of one arc second. (The name comes from "parallax second".) Both have units of pure length, which are easily converted to meters or miles.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">About light loosing energy due to redshift: it could be this too is a result of modeling and not a real effect.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No again. The hydrogen light from high-redshift objects arrives with lower energy than the hydrogen light from low-redshift objects. -|Tom|-

Hello All

Its amazing that 98% of all papers I read, they assume that the BBT is fact.

I know our scientists around the world are not stupid and yet they write papers with so called evidence in support of the BBT.

Do we not have the know how to axe the BBT.



Smile and live another day

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Pluto</i>
<br />Do we not have the know how to axe the BBT.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">An international conference this September in Port Angeles WA has that goal in mind. Meta Research is one of three sponsors. For conference details, see www.cosmology.info/2008conference/

Non-participating Observers may also register and attend. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>...and in MM is the time for a lightwave to lose 63% of its remaining energy. (The percentage comes from 1/e, if you are familiar with exponential decay.) -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Pardon me, TVF; I've been following this discussion with interest but I must be missing something obvious, as I don't understand where you get that figure.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Finrod</i>
<br />I don't understand where you get that (63%) figure.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">As mentioned, it refers to exponential decay, in which the base for natural logarithms (e = 2.71828...) is featured in the rate of decay of a phenomenon.

Each time interval equal to the reciprocal Hubble constant, roughly 14 billion years, causes the remaining energy of propagating lightwaves to lose a factor of e. Anything diminished by the factor e has lost 63% of its previous magnitude. -|Tom|-

Energy conservation is not an issue in conncection with the redshift. Energy and momentum are concepts from Classical Mechanics and can not be applied to light (see my page regarding the Energy and Momentum Conservation Laws in Physics for more). Light only has a frequency and wavelength, and there is no conservation law for this.

Thomas