Tired light

A small correction here. The image we recieve after light passes through a gravitational field is distorted and blurred. In fact, we often see multiple images of a single object, such as a distant galaxy beyond a foreground galaxy. The image is composed of multiple photons, of course. The distortion is due to the fact that not all photons emitted at the same time arrive at the same time, the Shapiro Effect.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The bending blurs a parallel beam because a graviting object bends the nearer beam with a greater angle, i.e. the parallels are turning off (diverging).

The CMBR does not interfere with the light, but the microwave is the remnant of the originally "visible" light. (During a series of bendings the energy of the photon decreases to microwave range.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

naszvadi. Indeed. Infra-red light overlaps the microwave spectrum and we have billions of years of starlight and solar wind going where? It would take little effort for that IR to change to the CMB.

As the stupid BB never happened, obviously it cannot have caused the CMB.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am not happy with BB either... but i am puzzled to explain matter and energy unless the theory is even more complexing than any human could ever comprehend.

 

The modell what I described above so simple related to others, don't you think? (infinite universe, no BB, no need dark energy, ...)

A little extension to this modell:
The photon can be imagined as a little spinning particle (an asymmetric ball), and the rpm is (like at the macroscopic bodies) correlated with the energy of the photon (as the frequency of the wave in the other modell). The spinning axle of the ball is perpendicular to its direction. The interference of two photons you can imagine as those are unrecognizable if the phases are opposite, or you can measure twice energy if the phases are same.

 

Reiku. There are too many things wrong with the BB for it to be right. It even needs a multiverse to work, so actually solves nothing but just pushes things back another step. I think all explanations should be considered before anyone automatically decides they must be wrong because they are not the BB.

I think we are missing some basic information that will solve the puzzle for us. If we can really get something from nothing and not just an effect of bars atomically close together or similar, then we could be on the way to solving the problem.

 

naszvadi. That works better with waves, as in standing waves in radios, etc. It does work in light too as in the polarisation effect which sunglasses use.

 

What do the Friedmann equations have to do with multiverses? Are you familiar with David Deutsch's work?

 

No he is right.

1. INflation was needed.

2. Inflation wasn't enough, so they started a model which had the universe smaller than a blood cell, something like a proton.

3. But this wasn't enough, as it did NOT wipe out all conditional starting points, therego the multivese is required to set a balance.

Therego, this is why i reject big bang and multiverse theory.

 

I think all of these work also with the spinning ball.
(I gess you know how is possible to make a sinus-wave with a rolling circle.)

 

Don't challenge sinus wave speculations. Only revert to what is on topic please.

 

I didn't mean to give the impression that I assumed kaneda was wrong. My bad. I'm just curious to know different perspectives. It's not like I was kicking around x billion years ago.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I do believe Kaneda is working on his own theory, but so was i for two years there. Instead of a big bang, i postulate a ''Big Flow''...

 

How about sine wave - or sinusoidal wave if you prefer - but please, not "sinus."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

He's right. It's best to call it a sinusoidal wave... that is, one that oscilates and then returns to its starting point.

Read... Lets make up... eh?

 

That's cool. I like reading about new thoughts. I read something about you abandoning your theory recently. What's the deal with that? I just find it odd that you could work so hard on something for so long and then quit it with what seems like only a couple of day's worth of contemplation. Just curious, that's all. I get discouraged all the time, but I don't think it's ever worth throwing away so much thought. There's always something that I can take from old thoughts, even if the entire view ended up being not quite right.

 

Well, i suppose i am unique that way. If i study something for long enough, and find it inadiquate after a while, i will bin it to save my own reputation.

 

As to inflation, you have a "ball" which contains the whole universe. Everything. There is no outside bias that can effect it. Why should it not expand uniformly? OK, you say quantum fluctuations but they will be random and average out overall.

There is also the point that this is energy and cannot be matter till the universe has expanded sufficiently that it does not just collapse into a black hole as soon as the matter forms. How much in the way of fluctuations can there be in an expanding ball of uniform energy which has no resistance of any kind to it's expansion?

Did we really need inflation?

The multiverse would be needed for conservation of matter and energy over the whole multiverse, but would leave other universes(?) with less energy, to the tune of the energy of our universe.