Light - For Those Who Are More Educated In This Field

[Polymath257]

The wiki piece is dated, you should have read the article.

Tired Light Denies the Big Bang

The Big Bang, after Hubble’s work, became the most accepted cosmological model. In recent years, problems related to Big Bang have been more and more clearly realized by cosmologists and astronomers. Some problems are directly related to the interpretation of the Doppler effect for cosmological redshift. The Big Bang model cannot surmount these problems. Fortunately, the study of “tired light” theory has continued. In 2013, Shao developed the “tired light” hypothesis on the basis of physical principles, that is, (a) electromagnetic field theory, (b) the mass-energy equivalence, (c) the quantum light theory, and (d) the Lorentz theory [2]. Based on these physical principles, the “tired light” theory explains the cosmological redshift as the result of photon energy loss due to the interactions with material particles as photons travel through cosmological space. By this interpretation for cosmological redshift, the Cosmos is infinite and eternal.

[/QUOTE]

I find it interesting that when I do a search for that Author, I find nothing at all in arxiv.org or scholar.google.com. In fact, when I do a search for this author, I find a few articles from around 2012 or so. I downloaded one of them and read until the first fundamental mistake, which was using E=mc^2 to get a mass for a photon.

This immediately disqualifies this author as a reliable source. They go down from there, but that is quite sufficient to show they don't know what they are talking about.

Besides, BB theory that existence came from nothing is nonsense, there is no nothing, never was, nor ever will be.

Exactly. There was never a time when there was nothing. And that is quite consistent with the Big Bang cosmology.

 

[Polymath257]

Nope. Academia.edu is not peer-reviewed and I know for a fact is used by cranks to publish their nonsense. Any fool can publish there.

I mean a proper, recognised scientific journal.

Exactly. This is a nonsense journal. It has no value scientifically at all.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I find it interesting that when I do a search for that Author, I find nothing at all in arxiv.org or scholar.google.com. In fact, when I do a search for this author, I find a few articles from around 2012 or so. I downloaded one of them and read until the first fundamental mistake, which was using E=mc^2 to get a mass for a photon.This immediately disqualifies this author as a reliable source. They go down from there, but that is quite sufficient to show they don't know what they are talking about.[/q

So three Chinese scientists from the Xinjiang Astronomical Observatory CAS, Urumqi, China who write a paper relevant to their practiced field of astronomical science, and Mr non-scientist academic Polymath deems they do not know what they are talking about, I do so love humility. Perhaps it true that Chinese are stupid?

Exactly. There was never a time when there was nothing. And that is quite consistent with the Big Bang cosmology.

Ok, so what existed before the BB?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Exactly. This is a nonsense journal. It has no value scientifically at all.

Exactly. Oh look, they even publish Stephen Hawking's papers, say no more.
Academia.edu | Search | Stephen William Hawking

 

[Polymath257]

Haha, what about chemical engineers, they are the most cranky of all.

But at least we have established that tired light, ie. distance of radiation travelled results in red shift.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...e_Interpretation_of_the_Accelerating_Universe

Sorry, but you are reaching. Once again, just read the paper until the first obviously false statement is made. it is quite early on.

Exactly. Oh look, they even publish Stephen Hawking's papers, say no more.
Academia.edu | Search | Stephen William Hawking

They didn't publish any of his papers. They collected some of them, just like they collect the papers from many scholars. But that is quite different than running a respectable journal, which they do not.

 

[Polymath257]

So three Chinese scientists from the Xinjiang Astronomical Observatory CAS, Urumqi, China who write a paper relevant to their practiced field of astronomical science, and Mr non-scientist academic Polymath deems they do not know what they are talking about, I do so love humility. Perhaps it true that Chinese are stupid?

[/QUOTE]

If they are serious scholars, they would have had references in that period of time. They did not.

Ok, so what existed before the BB?

You need to first establish that there was a 'before the Big Bang'.

At this point, we don't know if that phrase even makes sense. Sort of like asking what is north of the north pole.

 

[Polymath257]

So three Chinese scientists from the Xinjiang Astronomical Observatory CAS, Urumqi, China who write a paper relevant to their practiced field of astronomical science, and Mr non-scientist academic Polymath deems they do not know what they are talking about, I do so love humility. Perhaps it true that Chinese are stupid?

Once again, using E=mc^2 to get a mass for a photon shows that they are incompetent in physics (and thereby astrophysics).

There are many smart Chinese scientists. These are not among them.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry, but you are reaching. Once again, just read the paper until the first obviously false statement is made. it is quite early on.

They didn't publish any of his papers. They collected some of them, just like they collect the papers from many scholars. But that is quite different than running a respectable journal, which they do not.

You can lead a horse to water but you can not make it drink, so long as you want to find fault with science that goes against your beliefs, then you find fault.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If they are serious scholars, they would have had references in that period of time. They did not.

You need to first establish that there was a 'before the Big Bang'.

At this point, we don't know if that phrase even makes sense. Sort of like asking what is north of the north pole.

China is China, they work for the government and that would be the reason you won't find stuff on them on the internet.

I know all these pat responses from BB true believers, but it won't cut with me, so long as you do not know why and how there was a BB, there wasn't one afaic.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Once again, using E=mc^2 to get a mass for a photon shows that they are incompetent in physics (and thereby astrophysics).

There are many smart Chinese scientists. These are not among them.

Link?

 

[exchemist]

You can lead a horse to water but you can not make it drink, so long as you want to find fault with science that goes against your beliefs, then you find fault.

Look , it's obvious that that paper you directed us to in Intechopen is rubbish, for the reason @Polymath257 has given. These people, whoever they are, do not have a 1st year undergrad's understanding of physics.

E=mc² does not apply to photons, because they have zero rest mass. Attempting to do that is a schoolboy error. Did you not realise that? You need the full form of Einstein's equation* which for photons, reduces to E=pc, where p is their momentum.

This is nothing to do with "beliefs". It is simply well-established science, backed by a century of evidence. If you want to tell us that is just a "belief", which these exciting people are challenging with their novel ideas, that means you are telling us they are dismissing relativity. But they aren't, because they are trying to use the idea of mass-energy equivalence, according to their own paper. So they don't know what they are talking about. (Which is to be expected, in an article published in a predatory journal like Intechopen.)

So please, stop pushing embarrassingly bad science at us all. If there really are new tired light ideas around with any credibility, they will be published somewhere serious and won't contain physics howlers.


* E² = (mc²)² + (pc)² . If p=0, which it is for particles at rest relative to the observer, the expression reduces to the familiar E=mc². But if m=0, which it is for photons, the 1st term vanishes and it reduces to E=pc.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Look , it's obvious that that paper you directed us to in Intechopen is rubbish, for the reason @Polymath257 has given. These people, whoever they are, do not have a 1st year undergrad's understanding of physics.

E=mc² does not apply to photons, because they have zero rest mass. Attempting to do that is a schoolboy error. Did you not realise that? You need the full form of Einstein's equation* which for photons, reduces to E=pc, where p is their momentum.

This is nothing to do with "beliefs". It is simply well-established science, backed by a century of evidence. If you want to tell us that is just a "belief", which these exciting people are challenging with their novel ideas, that means you are telling us they are dismissing relativity. But they aren't, because they are trying to use the idea of mass-energy equivalence, according to their own paper. So they don't know what they are talking about. (Which is to be expected, in an article published in a predatory journal like Intechopen.)

So please, stop pushing embarrassingly bad science at us all. If there really are new tired light ideas around with any credibility, they will be published somewhere serious and won't contain physics howlers.


* E² = (mc²)² + (pc)² . If p=0, which it is for particles at rest relative to the observer, the expression reduces to the familiar E=mc². But if m=0, which it is for photons, the 1st term vanishes and it reduces to E=pc.

Link please?

 

[exchemist]

Link please?

Energy–momentum relation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://bohr.wlu.ca/pc242/Phys242Lec5.pdf

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Exactly. There was never a time when there was nothing. And that is quite consistent with the Big Bang cosmology.

So what did exist before the BB?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Energy–momentum relation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://bohr.wlu.ca/pc242/Phys242Lec5.pdf

No silly, I mean the paper where it is claimed that the Chinese scientist said this!

 

[exchemist]

No silly, I mean the paper where it is claimed that the Chinese scientist said this!

It's your own link, from post 12, in section 4.

 

[Kenny]

The wave length of light can increase or decrease with the Doppler effect if its source is moving, but no, not in the literal sense, where something is compressed by a force and then returns to its original position when the compressing force is removed. Photons aren't solid matter:

"Elasticity is the tendency of solid objects and materials to return to their original shape after the external forces (load) causing a deformation are removed."

Do we determine the distance of stars by a constant of "light years"?
@exchemist @wellwisher @Ben Dhyan

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's your own link, from post 12, in section 4.

Got it thank you exchemist. Is it special relativty?

Photons are traditionally said to be massless. This is a figure of speech that physicists use to describe something about how a photon's particle-like properties are described by the language of special relativity.
-snip-
As the particle is accelerated to ever higher speeds, its relativistic mass increases without limit. It also turns out that in special relativity, we are able to define the concept of "energy" E, such that E has simple and well-defined properties just like those it has in newtonian mechanics. When a particle has been accelerated so that it has some momentum p (the length of the vector p) and relativistic mass mrel, then its energy E turns out to be given by

E = mrelc2
What is the mass of a photon?

 

[Polymath257]

So what did exist before the BB?

Why do you think anything existed before the BB? Again, that is still not an issue that is determined.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why do you think anything existed before the BB? Again, that is still not an issue that is determined.

Because nothing does not exist. Why do you say it is an issue to be determined when you've already agreed there is no nothing?