"The universe is expanding, and that expansion stretches light traveling through space in a phenomenon known as cosmological redshift." https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/nasa-s-webb-to-explore-galaxies-from-cosmic-dawn-to-present-day

"As light travels towards us from the distant galaxies, it is stretched over time by the ever expanding space it is travelling through. The longer it travels, the more the wavelengths are increased (reddened)." https://www.wwu.edu/astro101/a101_hubble_redshift.shtml

On the other hand, cosmologists teach that space inside galaxies and galactic clusters does not expand at all. They reject the scenario in which expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters does occur but is overcome by gravitational attraction. According to their models, even the slightest gravitational attraction blocks any expansion:

"Is the space inside, say, a galaxy growing but overcome by the gravitational attraction between the stars? The answer is no. Space within any gravitationally bound system is unaffected by the surrounding expansion." https://youtu.be/bUHZ2k9DYHY?t=356

Sabine Hossenfelder: "The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies...It is only somewhere beyond the scales of galaxy clusters that expansion takes over." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/28/most-things-dont-actually-expand-in-an-expanding-universe/

How does stretching of light occur if part of space is expanding and the other part is not expanding? The expansion theory implicitly involves the following scenario. Light is stretched as it travels in the space between galactic clusters, then stretching stops as the light enters a cluster, then stretching continues as the light leaves the cluster, etc. Idiotic, isn't it? Unfortunately, idiocies can be universally accepted and even worshiped:

George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

The following quotation may ring an alarm bell inside not-very-brainwashed heads:

Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter p. 15 https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

Whether Feynman is correct is not a matter of discussion here. I am just drawing the attention to a crucial implication. The concept of VARIABLE wavelength of light

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M

is preposterous if "light is made of particles". That is, the particle model of light implies that the wavelength can only be an invariable proportionality factor in the formula

(speed of light) = (wavelength)(frequency)

And the formula says that, if the wavelength is constant, the redshift known as "cosmological" (or "Hubble") is due to the speed of light slowing down as photons travel through vacuum, in a non-expanding universe (CMB is, accordingly, very very slow, highly redshifted light). This is not a totally unacceptable idea:

"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

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

Pentcho Valev

VARIABLE or CONSTANT wavelength of light is a generic problem across the whole range of fundamental physics. It is obvious that the particle model of light is incompatible with VARIABLE wavelength of light. Unfortunately for theoretical physicists, the wave model of light is incompatible with VARIABLE wavelength as well:

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary." http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf

This interpretation implies that the emitter is CHASING the emitted crest - that is the reason why, when the next crest is emitted, the distance between the two crests is smaller than when the emitter is stationary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mJTRXCMU6o&t=77s

As chasing becomes faster and faster, the distance between crests approaches zero - the emitted crests remain in the vicinity of the emitter for a long time. Preposterous, isn't it?

The variation of the wavelength of light with the speed of the emitter is absurd not only intuitively. It is incompatible with the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, the emitter could regularly measure the variations inside his spaceship - so he would know his spaceship's speed without looking outside. If, for instance, measurements inside the spaceship show that the wavelength has decreased, the emitter will conclude that his spaceship is now moving faster than before.

For light waves, there can be no chasing. No matter how fast the emitter is moving, the speed of the emitted crest relative to the emitter remains constant, c. Accordingly, when the next crest is emitted, the distance between the two crests remains unchanged - the same as when the emitter is stationary.

The wavelength of light depends only on the nature of the emitting substance and is constant otherwise.

The formula

(speed of light) = (wavelength)(frequency)

can accommodate two axioms:

Axiom 1: The speed of light is constant (Einstein 1905).

Axiom 2: The wavelength of light is constant.

Axiom 1 killed physics. (This sounds too pompous but is true.)

Axiom 2 can resurrect physics (if it's not too late). Corollaries of "The wavelength of light is constant":

Corollary 1: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

Corollary 2: If the emitter and the observer travel towards each other with relative speed v, the speed of light relative to the observer is c' = c+v, as posited by Newton's theory.

Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist. LIGO's "discoveries" are fakes.

Corollary 4: Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies - near Earth's surface the accelerations of falling photons is g = 9.8 m/s^2. Accordingly, there is no gravitational time dilation.

Corollary 5: The so-called cosmological (Hubble) redshift is due to the speed of light gradually slowing down as light travels through vacuum, in a non-expanding universe.

Corollary 6: The dark sky in the Olbers' paradox can be explained by two facts. 1. Low-speed, high-redshifted light (known as CMB), coming from very distant sources, is invisible. 2. Beyond a certain distance, the star light does not reach us at all (its speed is reduced to zero).

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

Pentcho Valev

On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 23:46:01 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote

Cosmological redshift or not - 2+2=4 is
no way better than Pythagorean theorem
and the rest of basic Euclidean geometry,
announced false by Einstein and his idiot
worshippers.

On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 2:46:01 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "The universe is expanding, and that expansion stretches light traveling through space in a phenomenon known as cosmological redshift." https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/nasa-s-webb-to-explore-galaxies-from-cosmic-dawn-to-present-day
>
> "As light travels towards us from the distant galaxies, it is stretched over time by the ever expanding space it is travelling through. The longer it travels, the more the wavelengths are increased (reddened)." https://www.wwu.edu/astro101/a101_hubble_redshift.shtml
>
> On the other hand, cosmologists teach that space inside galaxies and galactic clusters does not expand at all. They reject the scenario in which expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters does occur but is overcome by gravitational attraction. According to their models, even the slightest gravitational attraction blocks any expansion:
>
> "Is the space inside, say, a galaxy growing but overcome by the gravitational attraction between the stars? The answer is no. Space within any gravitationally bound system is unaffected by the surrounding expansion." https://youtu.be/bUHZ2k9DYHY?t=356
>
> Sabine Hossenfelder: "The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies...It is only somewhere beyond the scales of galaxy clusters that expansion takes over." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/28/most-things-dont-actually-expand-in-an-expanding-universe/
>
> How does stretching of light occur if part of space is expanding and the other part is not expanding? The expansion theory implicitly involves the following scenario. Light is stretched as it travels in the space between galactic clusters, then stretching stops as the light enters a cluster, then stretching continues as the light leaves the cluster, etc. Idiotic, isn't it? Unfortunately, idiocies can be universally accepted and even worshiped:
>
> George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
>
> The following quotation may ring an alarm bell inside not-very-brainwashed heads:
>
> Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter p. 15 https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170
>
> Whether Feynman is correct is not a matter of discussion here. I am just drawing the attention to a crucial implication. The concept of VARIABLE wavelength of light
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M
>
> is preposterous if "light is made of particles". That is, the particle model of light implies that the wavelength can only be an invariable proportionality factor in the formula
>
> (speed of light) = (wavelength)(frequency)
>
> And the formula says that, if the wavelength is constant, the redshift known as "cosmological" (or "Hubble") is due to the speed of light slowing down as photons travel through vacuum, in a non-expanding universe (CMB is, accordingly, very very slow, highly redshifted light). This is not a totally unacceptable idea:
>
> "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
>
> See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev

The two results of expanding space...
red shift to light and more universal dimension...