[quote=George;870118]It was because of Edwin Hubble's redshift findings that Lemaitre proposed his Big Bang theory, as it was later coined by Hoyle. Not the otherway around.
I don't think Lemaitre or others thought this way, but I would be curious if any evidence supports this idea.[quote]
I mashed a lot there, sorry it doesn't come out clear.
Quote:
I suspect otherwise, but I am, admittedly, pretty low on the totem pole. 
|
Then the speed of light is relative to a different dimension.
Quote:
|
Yes, per E=mc^2; photons have relativistic mass.
|
Comment in this week's New Scientist, on gravity, pointing out that below the temperature for super conducting, photons gain mass and electrons start binding. Interesting for my hypothosis that light radiation dropping below the level of CMBR might start condensing into mass.
Quote:
|
I don't think light contributes much to curvature.
|
If it was accepted, then I wouldn't be proposing it.
Quote:
|
My limited view has light appearing to us to redshift because we have gained in relative velocity with respect to the photon emitter due to expansion. This is a pure Doppler approach. The photon remains intact, similar to the fact galaxies and clusters are barely affected.
|
The problem with using the Doppler effect to describe this is that it doesn't imply expanding space, only increasing distance in fixed space. The train might be moving away, but the railroad tracks are not stretching. The speed of light amounts to the railroad tracks.
Why is it so easy to accept positively curved space, but negatively curved space is taboo?