I don't think space is expanding.

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Aberration of light being the main one I'm aware of.

It's not the only one. But on its own it's sufficient to kill your idea. Give it a decent burial.

Quote:

Right.

if Newton's first law is an object in motion at velocity v remains in motion to infinity at velocity v, and Maxwell's electromagnetism is based on that,

It's not. How can someone trying to rewrite physics know so little and still persevere?

Quote:

and relativity is based on that,

It's not. Ditto.

Quote:

then breaking inertia is going to break anything based on it.

Inertia is not a theory, it's a property.

Quote:

in relativity, everything travels through spacetime at c.

If that were actually c-HD, then the redshifted universe we observe can be produced without expanding space.

That doesn't even make sense. You have attempted to normalise your 4-vector with an expression that varies with a distance which is not uniquely defined in GR (and you are trying to apply it to light where it is 0 not a finite normalised value anyway). You have broken the foundations of GR, including the invariance of the spacetime interval.

Quote:

The suggestion is to move Hubble's law from the scale factor to the geodesic equation. In tihat GR remains fully intact.

Riiiight. With variable spacetime intervals? I am 100% certain that you have no idea how to understand or manipulate the geodesic equation. I can assure you that GR is not intact unless spacetime intervals are invariant.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Redshifted energy piles up in the gravitational field or is simply lost in the standard model. .

Mainstream science is not an answer to your energy "start to pile up", etc. nonsense in Why the "The CMB indicates a hot past" section is still very wrong since 20 January 2021.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Would it not?

An irrelevant question. Real objects do not absorb starlight or cosmic rays inside the Milky Way to become perfect black bodies emitting microwaves that have the signature of being emitted outside of the Milky Way as you know, Mike Helland. For example, dust absorbs infrared light and heats up to infrared temperatures.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

I think I'm following.

You say "without reduced emission in the microwave", is that because the spray paint reflects outgoing heat back in? And the spray paint wouldn't keep any microwaves from escaping?

No, you are not following.

Forget paint. Objects have absorption spectra, painted or not. They can absorb differently at different wave lengths. Paint can change that, but it’s not the important part.

Starlight is largely optical, so the incident light energy is mostly optical. Absorption in the optical determines how much energy the object receives. The object will be cold, so it will emit primarily in the infrared or microwave. Emission and absorption have to balance at equilibrium, and emission is determined both by emissivity and temperature. Absorb a lot of optical but have low microwave/infrared emissivity, and you will have to be at higher temperature to achieve equilibrium than if you absorb little optical and have high microwave/infrared emissivity.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

in relativity, everything travels through spacetime at c.

Not completely correct, Mike Helland. Special relativity says that massless objects travel at c. General relativity says galaxies will travel faster than c in an expanding universe (there is no speed limit for spacetime).
Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology: Can objects move away from us faster than the speed of light?

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Absorption in the optical determines how much energy the object receives.

Is that in general?

IE, it receives energy infrared too, but it's much lower energy light so it doesn't contribute much?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Is that in general?

It’s specific to the scenario of heating from star light, which is dominated by the optical. There will be IR and ultraviolet components as well, but optical (and near optical) contain the majority of the energy.

[Nakani]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

If the photon traveled at v=c-HD, the math shows this is what happens.

Just click the "run" buttons to see it:

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/

My phone won't do that.

Quote:

My hypothesis is that photon's are naturally limited to a distance of c/H, known as Hubble's limit.

They slow down because that's what they do, and the redshifts are the observed evidence of this.

We observe redshifts, which are loss in energy. Energy goes down, then frequency goes down. Frequency goes down, speed goes down.

Light just doesn't travel to infinity. Seems like a fair engineering decision by whoever made all this.

I was hoping for a better reason than 'that is what they do', and math with letters tells me nothing.

If you have a stationary star by itself with nothing else for miles, why would the light redshift?

I can think of a few possibilities.

When the light is emitted it is the same size as the surface of the star, as it travels it gets larger. This might change the wave over large distances.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Nakani

When the light is emitted it is the same size as the surface of the star, as it travels it gets larger. This might change the wave over large distances.

Yeah, no. It doesn’t work like that.

There are only a few ways light can red shift without scattering, and we understand those pretty well. And scattering is not responsible for cosmological red shifts, because it would blur images of distant objects. But they are not blurred, so it isn’t scattering. The remaining options are relative motion or expansion of space. Mike’s idea of light spontaneously slowing down is impossible for a number of reasons.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Mike’s idea of light spontaneously slowing down is impossible for a number of reasons.

Of course.

Light should go to infinity without losing energy.

That's why the observation of redshift was so surprising.

If Newton's first law doesn't hold to infinity, we would only know that when we observed distance where we'd see the effects of that.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Of course.

Light should go to infinity without losing energy.

That's why the observation of redshift was so surprising.

If Newton's first law doesn't hold to infinity, we would only know that when we observed distance where we'd see the effects of that.

No.

For momentum conservation to be violated, you have to break translation invariance (ie, the laws of physics over there have to be different than the laws of physics here). That could manifest in observations of distant galaxies without us having to go there. If you don’t break translation invariance, you cannot make momentum unconserved.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

For momentum conservation to be violated, you have to break translation invariance (ie, the laws of physics over there have to be different than the laws of physics here).

The momentum of a photon is p=E/c. it's energy divided by a constant.

Redshifts are an observed loss in energy.

Wouldn't the photon's momentum have the same issue in the standard model?

If that energy goes somewhere, why can't it's momentum go with.

What happens to the momentum of redshifted photon in the standard model?

[Pixie of key]

Things that are already obvious to physicists.

1. The water of a lake changes completely with time = Same lake as before, but different water.

2. All human cells change almost completely with time = Same human as before, but different cells. There may still be the same cells in your heart and brain as when you were born.

3. The stars of the spiral branches of the galaxies change completely over time = Same spiral branch as before, but different stars.

Things physicists don't understand yet.

The expanding pushing force in the space-expanding quarks changes completely with time = The same space-expanding quark, but the expanding pushing force in it has completely changed with time

Think of the couch or chair you are sitting in, it may no longer have any of the energy / pushing force it had when it was completed. It has the same expanding nuclei of atoms in space, but the expanding pushing force in the separate expanding densities in them has had time to change completely over time.

Also, the expanding pushing force in expanding photons in space changes completely with time.

That is, the expanding photons that transmit information from distant objects are the same ones that set out to push toward the expanding Solar System in space in their time, but the expanding pushing force in them has had time to change many times during the journey.

When you understand and perceive this, you understand why physicists have not been able to come up with a theory of everything in physics.

1. They do not understand that, of course, entropy acts internally on quarks and photons. Of course, they have internal structure, volume, density, and internal motion and, through it, internal pressure and also, of course, time.

2. Physicists and cosmologists have also succumbed to concepts that can be compared to the gods of antiquity and are expanding space, curving space, pulling forces, extra dimensional dimensions, dark matter holding a bigger god on its pedestal, i.e. pulling power / curving space and then there is still dark energy which somehow somehow makes space somehow expand at somehow at an accelerating pace.

Ps. Here is one example of medium-scale recycling.

“What’s special about clouds, in addition to their appearance, is that they seem to stay in place sometimes even for hours. But that’s not what they actually do. Namely, more and more almond cloud layers are forming in the ridge area of ​​the mountain wave at the same time as the older escaping layers are disintegrating at the same rate. This creates the illusion that the clouds would stay in place. ”

https://tekniikanmaailma.fi/nasa-jul...-jopa-ufoiksi/

That is, the universe deceives the little man in many ways.

Suddenly it seems that the bodies are attracted to each other, but it is only an illusion due to the fact that the actually expanding matter in space consists of expanding dark pushing reciprocating densities so that this recyclable expanding dark pushing force has e.g. the nature of the expandable electrons and expandable photons that can be registered.

And it is precisely because of this illusion, that is, that the pieces seem to attract each other, that the theory of physics has not been brought about.

And not if physicists are unable to give up the driving forces and e.g. hokkus pokkus the space that does this and that, always according to the needs of physicists and cosmologists when they are unable to explain observations by space-only, moving and space-changing systems.

��

[hecd2]

So are you just going to ignore the fact that the speed of light can be derived directly from the Maxwell equations?

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by hecd2

So are you just going to ignore the fact that the speed of light can be derived directly from the Maxwell equations?

It's a good thing it does, otherwise c-HD would be hard to calculate without c.

The wave is given a velocity v. This is tacitly assumed to be a constant velocity due to Newton's first law of motion.

Can light go to infinity?

The observation of redshift suggests not.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Nakani

I was hoping for a better reason than 'that is what they do'

Well, we observe them redshifting.

It's not a huge stretch of the imagination to think that's something they do.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Well, we observe them redshifting.

It's not a huge stretch of the imagination to think that's something they do.

That's all it is, though: imagination. It's not informed by science or any understanding of light.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That's all it is, though: imagination. It's not informed by science or any understanding of light.

We observed light losing energy when we never expected it to.

Those observations have lead to dark energy and multiverse, neither of which are observed.

According to the scientific method, questioning our assumptions is OK. There is no blasphemy in science.

[Mike Helland]

Got peer review back from a journal. Thought you might like it.

----

Reviewer #1

This manuscript considers an alternative explanation forthe cosmologicalredshift phenomenon. Regarding the author’s hypothesis, the speed of a photon varies in such a way that it decreases asits distance from the emission location grows. In thisrespect two models are presented: linear and square laws based ones. I presume that the speed the author refers to is the speed of light in vacuum. A comparative summarised section with other alternative theories (apart from the standard expanding FLRW universe) is presented. Later a section of test proposalsisrelated and, finally, the conclusions are shown.
In general, I don't think that this manuscript presents enough information to be of interest to regular followers of Astronomy & Astrophysics papers. From my point of view it presents multiple drawbacks, examples of these are:
The main proposal, that is, the idea that the velocity of a photon varies in such a way that it decreases as it moves away from the source, is not analysed in depth. However, there is no proposal for a basic physical framework theory to support it, and also there is no mention as to how this hypothesis could modify the existing ones. For example Einstein’s well tested and established special relativity holds that the vacuum light speed is finite and constant, so precludes any variation of it. The relativistic Doppler Effect which includes time dilation effect of special relativity (assuming that the vacuum light speed is finite and constant) was first observed in 1938 in the so named Ives‐Stilwell experiment (1).
Another weak point is regarding the evidences: any scientist should ask him(her)self if the described photon behaviour is in accordance with current observations. In this respect, many open issues have been left out. In detail: How does this behaviour affect the Cosmic Microwave Background? Is it compatible with the anisotropies and polarization measures of the Planck Satellite? (2) How gravitational lensing and Baryon acoustic oscillations measurements are affected? And so on.
The manuscript includes an abundance of totally avoidable explicit program code which is irrelevant that makes it unnecessarily extensive. The computations can be summarily described, so that the author might specify the way in which he has realised his calculations.
There are also some misunderstood concepts, for instance the term co‐moving distance in cosmology provides a distance that does not vary in time due to expansion, but according to the author “In the expanding model, the lookback time refersto how long ago the light was emitted, and the co‐moving distance refers to how far away the light source is now, given that space has expanded since the light was emitted.” So, ignoring peculiar motions, in “how far away the light source is now”, the term “now” may confuse the reader (taking into account that the distance does not vary in time due to expansion).
In general, I consider that, the heuristic (and ad‐hoc) way the model is built is a very weak point in its development that may create future contradictions.



----


Reviewer #2: This paper discusses the trajectory of a photon as a function of redshift. Whilst it is clear that the author has invested substantial time into the preparation of this manuscript, it is not suitable for publication. The article is based on incorrect physics and, within the first line, makes the claim "a photon's velocity decreases with distance from its source"; clearly at odds with special relativity.

I would encourage the author to continue to refine their passion for astronomy by reading introductory texts such as 'Astrophysics in a Nutshell' (Dan Maoz), or 'Our Universe' (Jo Dunkley).

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Got peer review back from a journal. Thought you might like it.

----

Reviewer #1

This manuscript considers an alternative explanation forthe cosmologicalredshift phenomenon. Regarding the author’s hypothesis, the speed of a photon varies in such a way that it decreases asits distance from the emission location grows. In thisrespect two models are presented: linear and square laws based ones. I presume that the speed the author refers to is the speed of light in vacuum. A comparative summarised section with other alternative theories (apart from the standard expanding FLRW universe) is presented. Later a section of test proposalsisrelated and, finally, the conclusions are shown.
In general, I don't think that this manuscript presents enough information to be of interest to regular followers of Astronomy & Astrophysics papers. From my point of view it presents multiple drawbacks, examples of these are:
The main proposal, that is, the idea that the velocity of a photon varies in such a way that it decreases as it moves away from the source, is not analysed in depth. However, there is no proposal for a basic physical framework theory to support it, and also there is no mention as to how this hypothesis could modify the existing ones. For example Einstein’s well tested and established special relativity holds that the vacuum light speed is finite and constant, so precludes any variation of it. The relativistic Doppler Effect which includes time dilation effect of special relativity (assuming that the vacuum light speed is finite and constant) was first observed in 1938 in the so named Ives‐Stilwell experiment (1).
Another weak point is regarding the evidences: any scientist should ask him(her)self if the described photon behaviour is in accordance with current observations. In this respect, many open issues have been left out. In detail: How does this behaviour affect the Cosmic Microwave Background? Is it compatible with the anisotropies and polarization measures of the Planck Satellite? (2) How gravitational lensing and Baryon acoustic oscillations measurements are affected? And so on.
The manuscript includes an abundance of totally avoidable explicit program code which is irrelevant that makes it unnecessarily extensive. The computations can be summarily described, so that the author might specify the way in which he has realised his calculations.
There are also some misunderstood concepts, for instance the term co‐moving distance in cosmology provides a distance that does not vary in time due to expansion, but according to the author “In the expanding model, the lookback time refersto how long ago the light was emitted, and the co‐moving distance refers to how far away the light source is now, given that space has expanded since the light was emitted.” So, ignoring peculiar motions, in “how far away the light source is now”, the term “now” may confuse the reader (taking into account that the distance does not vary in time due to expansion).
In general, I consider that, the heuristic (and ad‐hoc) way the model is built is a very weak point in its development that may create future contradictions.



----


Reviewer #2: This paper discusses the trajectory of a photon as a function of redshift. Whilst it is clear that the author has invested substantial time into the preparation of this manuscript, it is not suitable for publication. The article is based on incorrect physics and, within the first line, makes the claim "a photon's velocity decreases with distance from its source"; clearly at odds with special relativity.

I would encourage the author to continue to refine their passion for astronomy by reading introductory texts such as 'Astrophysics in a Nutshell' (Dan Maoz), or 'Our Universe' (Jo Dunkley).

I think it's very suspicious that the reviewers mention many of the same issues as Hecd, Ziggurat, Reality Check et al did here. How would they know that if it isn't all just a conspiracy by big science?

You must be probing at a weak spot, as they've circled the wagons to try to keep you out.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

We observed light losing energy when we never expected it to.

What you mean "we", white man?

Quote:

Those observations have lead to dark energy and multiverse, neither of which are observed.

I really don't get your whole multiverse kick. It's strange. It's like you read something somewhere and an idea got stuck in your head, but the wrong way, and now you're getting stuff mixed up.

Quote:

According to the scientific method, questioning our assumptions is OK. There is no blasphemy in science.

Sure. You're not a heretic.

But you are wrong. There's just so much evidence against your pet theory, much of which you clearly don't even understand. If the standard model is wrong (always a possibility), it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You don't have anywhere near the knowledge base required to evaluate any of this in anything even resembling an informed manner.

[Nakani]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Yeah, no. It doesn’t work like that.

There are only a few ways light can red shift without scattering, and we understand those pretty well. And scattering is not responsible for cosmological red shifts, because it would blur images of distant objects. But they are not blurred, so it isn’t scattering

The light doesn't scatter because it is not made of particles.

Quote:

The remaining options are relative motion or expansion of space.

In a vacuum, you mean?

Quote:

Mike’s idea of light spontaneously slowing down is impossible for a number of reasons.

Yes, I'm pretty sure math won't slow down light.

[Nakani]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Well, we observe them redshifting.

It's not a huge stretch of the imagination to think that's something they do.

My imagination wants to know why?

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I really don't get your whole multiverse kick.

It's just one of the ad hoc exotic concepts cosmology requires.

It seems to me that the most prominent scientists that are rejecting inflation are doing so on the grounds that its necessary multiverse component is a bad direction for science.

Quote:

If you have an inflationary Universe that's governed by quantum physics, a Multiverse is unavoidable.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...h=292ed45d6d08

Quote:

And it's even worse, they argue, inflation is not even a scientific theory:

“[i]nflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...h=7748a813b45e

Quote:

Paul Steinhardt, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University and one of the early contributors to the theory of eternal inflation, saw the multiverse as a "fatal flaw" in the reasoning he had helped advance, and he remains stridently anti-multiverse today. "Our universe has a simple, natural structure," he said in September. "The multiverse idea is baroque, unnatural, untestable and, in the end, dangerous to science and society."

Steinhardt and other critics believe the multiverse hypothesis leads science away from uniquely explaining the properties of nature

https://evolutionnews.org/2014/11/princeton_theor/


My thinking is that, I'm sure my ideas aren't totally right. Considering in a vacuum, they should be burned and never spoken of again.

But if you consider the reigning contender... it's a natural abomination. If we consider the warts of both models, mine doesn't seem so horrible.

Quote:

If the standard model is wrong (always a possibility), it isn't wrong in the way you think it is.

Probably true.

On the other hand, if the universe is not expanding, light slowing down is the only intuitive way it would ever produce those time delays.

[Reformed Offlian]

Originally Posted by Nakani

The light doesn't scatter because it is not made of particles.

If that were the case then light should never scatter. But it does.

Also, many modes of scattering, such as Rayleigh scattering, are based on a wave model of light. It simply isn't correct to say that only particles scatter.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Nakani

My imagination wants to know why?

The electromagnetic force is what holds an electron to a proton.

I think 14 billion light years is more than enough to ask from it.

Are we entitled to infinite light?

Did the designers of our world do I a disservice by limiting to light to 14 billion light years?

I for one care my about my atoms sticking together than what happens 20 billion years away from here.

If light traveled to infinity, it wouldn't redshift away its energy.

Simple as that.

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by hecd2

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

So are you just going to ignore the fact that the speed of light can be derived directly from the Maxwell equations?

It's a good thing it does, otherwise c-HD would be hard to calculate without c.

No. You misunderstand. Electromagnetism predicts a speed of electromagnetic waves (light) which is independent of distance and depends only on two constants of nature (the vacuum permittivity and the vacuum pemeability). All electromagnetic waves, according to electromagnetic theory, propagate at this constant speed regardless of source. If you think that is wrong, you have to point out what is wrong with Maxwell's equations or with the derivation of the speed of light from them.

Quote:

The wave is given a velocity v. This is tacitly assumed to be a constant velocity due to Newton's first law of motion.

No it isn't. First of all, Newton's first law has nothing to say about massless particles. Secondly, the derivation of the speed of propagation of light from electromagnetic theory does not call on any law of classical mechanics. It is completely independent of Newton's laws of motion. A constant speed is a consequence, not an assumption of the electromagnetic wave equation.

All electromagnetic waves propagate at c according to electromagnetic theory. This, on its own, is sufficient to falsify your idea.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by hecd2

Electromagnetism predicts a speed of electromagnetic waves (light)

Indeed. And when combined with Newton's first law of motion, it would maintain that velocity to infinity.

And it should never lose energy.

Maxwell's equations were from the 1800's, so it's not like they were doing special relativity.

Quote:

which is independent of distance and depends only on two constants of nature (the vacuum permittivity and the vacuum pemeability). All electromagnetic waves, according to electromagnetic theory, propagate at this constant speed regardless of source. If you think that is wrong, you have to point out what is wrong with Maxwell's equations or with the derivation of the speed of light from them.

According to v=c-HD, the initial photon of a velocity is c, and that only changes when in the domain of cosmological redshifts.

Quote:

No it isn't. First of all, Newton's first law has nothing to say about massless particles.

Are we talking 1800's or 1900's?

Quote:

Secondly, the derivation of the speed of propagation of light from electromagnetic theory does not call on any law of classical mechanics.

Hmmmm.

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Nakani

The light doesn't scatter because it is not made of particles.

You could google Compton scattering.

[Reformed Offlian]

Originally Posted by hecd2

You could google Compton scattering.

Or any scattering. Light scatters. Even sound scatters.

That light scatters is probably the most straightforward and commonplace observation one can make about it. Nakani's denial of this is simply bizarre.

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

It's just one of the ad hoc exotic concepts cosmology requires.

It seems to me that the most prominent scientists that are rejecting inflation are doing so on the grounds that its necessary multiverse component is a bad direction for science.

My personal take is that the kind of criticism of inflationary models that Sabine Hossenfelder specialises in (its her career) is not unreasonable, and there is an issue with developing detailed models of inflation which can be distinguished by observation. However, the multiverse concept is not ridiculous per se. Moreover, even if an inflationary hot Big Bang model turns out to be wrong, we already know that your solution is entirely wrong.

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian

Or any scattering. Light scatters. Even sound scatters.

That light scatters is probably the most straightforward and commonplace observation one can make about it. Nakani's denial of this is simply bizarre.

Yeah, I was wanting to give an example of scattering that is explained by considering light as particles, and where the energy and momentum of the photons is affected by the interaction, as he claimed light is not made of particles, and as you had already given an example of Rayleigh scattering.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by hecd2

My personal take is that the kind of criticism of inflationary models that Sabine Hossenfelder specialises in (its her career) is not unreasonable, and there is an issue with developing detailed models of inflation which can be distinguished by observation. However, the multiverse concept is not ridiculous per se.

I'm not claiming its ridiculous or wrong.

But it is part of the growing inventory of exotic concepts the big bang needs to keep going.

I've suggested a more complex geometry of spacetime (each photon starts out light-like then turns time-like based on its own individual history) and a background field to receive redshifted energy and re-emit it as the CMB.

And that all might sound pretty drastic, but if it replaces the inflationary field (which had to exist but has now disappeared) and a dark energy field, and the need for a multiverse, it's not that bad of a trade.

[Reformed Offlian]

Originally Posted by hecd2

Yeah, I was wanting to give an example of scattering that is explained by considering light as particles, and where the energy and momentum of the photons is affected by the interaction, as he claimed light is not made of particles, and as you had already given an example of Rayleigh scattering.

Understand. I was piggybacking more than I was commenting on your suggestion.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

My thinking is that, I'm sure my ideas aren't totally right. Considering in a vacuum, they should be burned and never spoken of again.

But if you consider the reigning contender... it's a natural abomination. If we consider the warts of both models, mine doesn't seem so horrible.

Yeah, no. Not even close. You are focused on the problems that experts in the field can find in the standard model, and then comparing that to you, your own model seems to have similar levels of problems. But you are wrong about that. You have no actual clue about how completely broken and nonsensical your model is, because you have no base of knowledge to evaluate it with.

Your model is busted at so much more fundamental a level, and in so many ways, that it DOES seem horrible to anyone who actually knows some physics.

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Indeed. And when combined with Newton's first law of motion, it would maintain that velocity to infinity.

Classical mechanics is irrelevant.

Quote:

And it should never lose energy.

It says nothing about energy.

Quote:

Maxwell's equations were from the 1800's, so it's not like they were doing special relativity.

Indeed, but here's the thing. Physicists were puzzled by the fact that the equations predict a fixed speed of light without reference to a preferred frame at a time when people thought that light must propagate through a medium (the aether) which would define a preferred frame.


And then special relativity did away with the preferred frame, and reconciled the predictions of electromagnetism with the observations of Michelson-Morley and similar experiments.

Quote:

According to v=c-HD, the initial photon of a velocity is c, and that only changes when in the domain of cosmological redshifts.

I know what your idea is. It doesn't matter. Electromagnetic theory says that the speed of electromagnetic waves is a constant regardless of source.

Quote:

Are we talking 1800's or 1900's?

Ever. Newton's first law is about massive objects.

Quote:

Hmmmm.

Hmmm what? I said that the derivation of the speed of propagation of light from electromagnetic theory does not call on any law of classical mechanics. That is a fact. Since you don't understand the derivation, you say hmmm. That is your ignorance talking.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Your model is busted at so much more fundamental a level, and in so many ways

It doesn't get much more fundamental than violating the first law of motion.

Aside from that, what is the most fundamental error in your opinion?

Just one. The most fundamental error. If you had to pick one more fundamental than the others.

Is it the aberration? Snell's law? (Or is that the same criticism?)

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by hecd2

Electromagnetic theory says that the speed of electromagnetic waves is a constant regardless of source.

How far can light travel in electromagnetic theory and should there be systemic redshifts if that's the case?

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

How far can light travel in electromagnetic theory and should there be systemic redshifts if that's the case?

Electromagnetic theory puts no bound on the propagation of electromagnetic waves. Why would redshifts not exist according to electromagnetism?

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by hecd2

Electromagnetic theory puts no bound on the propagation of electromagnetic waves. Why would redshifts not exist according to electromagnetism?

They can exist.

The question was why would systemic redshifts exist according to Maxwell's equations?

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

The question was why would systemic redshifts exist according to Maxwell's equations?

Maxwell’s equations do not preclude redshift, but I don’t think the term systemic redshift means what you think it means.