"The Universe is not expanding at all...the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space." http://sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-
expanding-01940.html

What happens to the light as it travels through space? Its speed gradually decreases, due to interaction with vacuum particles, and as a result we measure redshift proportional to the distance travelled by the light:

"Some physicists, however, suggest that there might be one other cosmic factor that could influence the speed of light: quantum vacuum fluctuation. This theory holds that so-called empty spaces in the Universe aren't actually empty - they're teeming with
particles that are just constantly changing from existent to non-existent states. Quantum fluctuations, therefore, could slow down the speed of light." https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-do-we-really-know-about-the-speed-of-light

Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though ALL THE CLOCKS GO AT THE SAME RATE. [...]
As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, BOTH ARE GOING AT THE SAME RATE. [...] The
gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation." http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/
0486406768

What befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation? Their speed changes, and as a result we measure gravitational redshift/blueshift.

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Variable speed of light explains the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment:

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with
emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then
expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train
at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus
automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms
of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.
com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Variable speed of light explains the gravitational redshift:

James Hartle, Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity, p. 113: "Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." https://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Introduction-Einsteins-General-Relativity/dp/0805386629

Paul A. Tipler, Ralph A. Llewellyn, Modern Physics: "A beam of light will accelerate in a gravitational field as do objects with rest mass. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/
books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

Albert Einstein Institute: "...you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals
inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs.html

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted
that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time
equal to the time of flight." http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relativite_fichiers/pound.pdf

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 12 August 2022 at 02:20:55 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:

"The Universe is not expanding at all...the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space." http://sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-

not-expanding-01940.html

What happens to the light as it travels through space? Its speed gradually decreases, due to interaction with vacuum particles, and as a result we measure redshift proportional to the distance travelled by the light:

"Some physicists, however, suggest that there might be one other cosmic factor that could influence the speed of light: quantum vacuum fluctuation. This theory holds that so-called empty spaces in the Universe aren't actually empty - they're teeming

with particles that are just constantly changing from existent to non-existent states. Quantum fluctuations, therefore, could slow down the speed of light." https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-do-we-really-know-about-the-speed-of-light

Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though ALL THE CLOCKS GO AT THE SAME RATE. [..

.] As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, BOTH ARE GOING AT THE SAME RATE. [...] The
gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation." http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/
0486406768

What befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation? Their speed changes, and as a result we measure gravitational redshift/blueshift.

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

I don’t think there is enough evidence to support the speed of light slowing over distance
to explain the redshift. To start with SN1a data does not show any time stretching.
Contrary to misinformation perpertrated by Reiss, Perlmutter and Knop.
They had to falsify the HST data to make the observed data fit their Big Bang theory
based stretched templates. Correct analysis of SN1a data with the un fiddled HST data
shows no time dilation.
And furthermore more recent SN1a data from high redshift supernova explicitly shows
no observed time dilation. Notice that to make this data fit their expanding universe
fantasy the BB theorists had to accelerate the expansion. Why this fiddle? Because it allowed them to pretend that distant supernova would not show
the predicted expansion based time dilation ...because the expansion
Of the universe accelerated.😂 Talk about retrodiction nonsense from the BBT.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 12 August 2022 at 10:11:36 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Variable speed of light explains the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment:

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with

emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then
expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train

at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus
automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms
of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.
com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Variable speed of light explains the gravitational redshift:

James Hartle, Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity, p. 113: "Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." https://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Introduction-Einsteins-General-Relativity/dp/

0805386629

Paul A. Tipler, Ralph A. Llewellyn, Modern Physics: "A beam of light will accelerate in a gravitational field as do objects with rest mass. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/

books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

Albert Einstein Institute: "...you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass

equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs.html

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted

that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time
equal to the time of flight." http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relativite_fichiers/pound.pdf

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

As much as I like Pentcho and his aversion to Alberts lies...He is mistaken about
what causes the observed Pound Rebka “gravitational time dilation”
For starters, there is no observed data Thst shows light is a particle. Contrary
to centuries of data showing it is a wave only. Newton may have been a
good mathematician and helped with his r^2 theoretical assumptions. But
he was wrong about light being a particle. Kind of like the way he was wrong about how all the mass of a body is concentrated at its theoretical Center. (Which is why he was unable to account for Mercury preccession. If he
had spread the mass across the volume of the sun,...he would have found
that yes indeed...this calculation would account for planetary preccession.
And avoided us from having to put up with a lo IQ patent clerks ideas
being touted for the last century by low IQ physicists desperate to keep
their hi paid jobs)
So back to Pound Rebka. FACT: We know that resonating systems change their resonant frequencies when an external force is applied to the system.
FACT: We know that ALL observations of atoms show it is only a resonating system.
FACT: we know that gravity acts as a force and that it varies over r^2
It doesn’t take a genius to conclude that pound Rebka results show
that as the gravitational force diminishes over altitude...that it would
alter the resonant frequency of the atoms of the detector and emitter.
And as we know if the detector s at a slightly different resonant frequency than the emitter due to altitude...it won’t respond to input wave radiation as well as if the detector and emitter were at the same height.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)