Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ExpErdMann
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
No. What you should say, is how you get from redshift to limited range in the case of electromagnetism.
|
On this point I am relying on the theoretical work of others, notably Toivo Jaakkola and Andre Assis. I never derived that point myself. I could try to find some online papers by them but you can also find them yourself in the online back issues of Apeiron. I said I'd get them for you when I had a chance. |
I suggest that you do not use analogies you do not understand yourself, unless you can give an appropriate reference.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ExpErdMann
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ExpErdMann
In my own model, in essence, I am proposing (like Jaakkola) that gravitons and photons are interconvertible forms of energy. The photons lose energy to newly formed gravitons and vice versa. The details of my model would be too complicated to go into here.
|
No, they would not.
There are enough practicing scientists on this board that can follow details of a model.
Go ahead and show us the details. |
I'm happy on one hand that your interested in my model, but it's really just a work in progress. The thing I recently noticed about it is that it did not address the SN time dilation studies. That's the reason for this thread. BTW I don't have a mechanism worked out for tired light. What I do have is some evidence that gravitons are being converted to photons and vice versa. I have presented some of this in other threads. |
What kind of evidence?
Since it is relevant to this thread, can you give some references?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ExpErdMann
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ExpErdMann
The redshifts avoid the problem of infinite gravitational potentials appearing. When you integrate with the redshift included, a finite value is attained. I'll see if I can fnd some links on this.
|
What do you mean with " infinite gravitational potentials"?
Infinite in range? Gravitational potential energy diverging to infinity?
And what about electromagnetism? |
Again, relates to Jaakkola and Assis. |
You are supporting a theory, but you do not address legitimate questions about it.
This puts in serious doubt your own understanding of it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ExpErdMann
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ExpErdMann
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
By the way:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
According to my understanding (I have to thank Grey for this), there is no frame of reference that covers cosmological distances.
And the observed energy of a particle depends on the frame of reference (and this happens even in classical mechanics).
|
Once you accept the absence of global frame of reference, cosmological redshift is no more exotic than the different kinetic energy of a bullet observed in different frames of reference. |
That is one interpretation, that the energy just disappears because of a shift in reference frame. |
Who said that energy disappears?
The observed energy depends on the frame of reference: it does not "disappear" when we change frame of reference.
If you are driving a car, the car is at rest in your frame of reference.
For me standing on the side of the road, the car is moving in my frame of reference.
When you shift from your frame to mine, the car does not suddenly accelerate: the observed state of motion is different for different frames. |
Again, there are different points of view. Harrison says the Universe is losing energy (but he also says that's not a problem!) |
On what basis do you choose one interpretation over another?