Requesting feedback on new ACG page - Re tired-light

[sahil5d]

Hi everyone,

I'm requesting feedback on an addition to the ACG website
#261.

The addition is a page, Errors in "Errors in Tired Light Cosmology"
https://github.com/a-cosmology-group/acg/blob/add-errors-page/redshift/rebut/errorswright.md
to challenge this blog post, https://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm,
unfortunately highly ranked on Google and highly cited on Wikipedia and causing the miseducation of many professional and aspiring astrophysicists.

People search for "tired light" and immediately get the big bang propaganda. Something better has to outrank it.

[RedshiftDrift]

Big Bang cosmologists "never get around to ..." studying tired-light properly because the strawman model they use

• is limited to a single a single photon interaction which causes blurring,
• does not predict a stretching of SNe light-curves (that is incorrectly assumed to be due to time dilation),
• does not produce a CMB (that is incorrectly assumed to have its origin at z = 1100).

From these incorrect assumptions their logic can only fail, and they dismiss T-L without further consideration.

[RedshiftDrift]

@sahil5d I fully agree with an addition to the ACG website of a page debunking Ned Wright's blog “Errors in Tired Light Cosmology”, and I wish to support your effort. As you noted, Google searches often fall on his website. The 'popularity' of his site is perhaps because it is the one who gives the most comprehensive list of challenges (he lists four) involved in using tired-light cosmology, so I think we have to give him credit for that. (This is why I refer to his website on my cosmology calculator.) When the page is published online, I will try to use Google Webmaster Tools to improve its position on Google searches.

But before posting the page there is a lot of work to do, your draft also contains errors 😮 and some arguments are incomplete.

As a first iteration I suggest:

• the title “There is no error in tired-light cosmology”
  and perhaps a subtitle like “Straw man arguments against tired-light are flawed”
• to make it easier to read by grouping the text you already have under independent sections:
  1. Introduction
     Ned Wright's page presents a strawman argument against tired-light...
  2. Redshift without blurring.
  3. Time dilation in supernovae.
  4. The blackbody spectrum of the CMB.
  5. The Tolman surface brightness test.
     The analysis presented by Lubin & Sandage (2001) suffers from many biases: not enough data, assumed galaxy evolution, etc...
  6. ... more can be added later to address some points on the wikipedia page for example...
  7. conclusions

[sahil5d]

It is up to you to prove this, given the extremely slow exponential increase of the VM as shown in the formula.

I disagree. You have to prove how a solar system that supposedly 1.4 x's its mass during 4.6 billion years (e^(4.6 / 13.8)) arrives at stable, delicate planetary orbits.

Also, the Sun loses about 10^17 kg per year. According to your model, the Sun gains about 10^20 kg per year.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=mass+of+sun+*+%28e%5E%281%2F13.8+billion%29+-+1%29
No way that's real.

[HanDeBruijn]

@sahil5d .

You have to prove how a solar system that supposedly 1.4 x's its mass during 4.6 billion years (e^(4.6 / 13.8)) arrives at stable, delicate planetary orbits.

I don't think I have to prove it. We are talking about a truly big timespan. Most probably the planetary orbits haven't been so stable and delicate as suggested.

Also, the Sun loses about 10^17 kg per year. According to your model, the Sun gains about 10^20 kg per year.

Yes, so the net gain is about 10^3 kg per year. Maybe that keeps the sun more stable than suggested.

As another example, take the distance between the earth and the moon. The light that we use for measuring that distance shows a blueshift over a forward period of a year. Agreed? And thus the variable mass causes an expansion of the empty space between the moon and the earth, at least as is observed with the measuring equipment at hand.

# 1 megaParsec
Mpc := 3.08567758*10^22;
# Hubble parameter (2022-02-08)
hubble := 73.4*1000/Mpc;
# Year in seconds
year := 31556926;
# Earth-Moon distance
EM := 384.4*10^6;
# Expansion of orbit
dEM := hubble*EM*year;

                         dEM := 0.02885516655 # 2.9 cm per year

There is a Lunar distance page on the internet. There it is stated that the lunar orbit is gradually expanding. The rate of recession is $3.830\pm 0.008$ cm per year. According to Wikipedia the expansion is caused entirely by Tidal dissipation. I don't think that explanation is conclusive.

[sahil5d]

You should have some proof if your hypothesis implies that the Sun's mass has increased to 1.4x and somehow planetary orbits continued for 4.6 Gy and somehow the T^2 ~ R^3 relation stands today.

10^20 - 10^17 is not 10^3.

There's no blueshift. If anything there would be a redshift. But fyi the Moon's radial velocity is known not by Doppler shift but by time of flight change over years.

[sahil5d]

Why do you say the VM hypothesis means that the Earth-Moon distance increases? Your hypothesis implies the Earth's mass increases, so that should increase the force of gravity and reduce the orbit radius.

There is another problem with VM's "radiation is redshifted at the source and not along the way". As you claim that mass everywhere is continuously increasing, then so should the hf/c^2 of a photon. So a photon in flight should be increasing its hf/c^2, and thus its frequency! So a photon even though "VM redshifted" at the source, would be "VM hf/c^2 boosted" during travel, and thus arrive with no detectable redshift, contradicting observation.

[HanDeBruijn]

[mikehelland]

Tired light models do not "invoke". They hypothesize a gradual energy loss by photons as they travel intergalactic space to produce the redshift-distance trend.

Means the same thing.

The phrase "There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum" is false. A photon's energy and momentum are directly proportional. Moreover, there are the known interactions that do so including gravitational redshift, magnetic redshift, and the redshift of a photon reflecting off a mirror.

Momentum is a vector.

Does the photon lose energy by interacting with something moving in exactly the opposite direction?

a false assumption that the CMB photons were emitted > 10 Gly away, thus

In LCDM, from z=1100, CMB photons were emitted from ~12 Mpc away.

[sahil5d]

Means the same thing.

There's a tonal difference. 'invoke' isn't really for science, and the way it's used by the author appears like choice of associating a mystic-related word with tired light. Somebody needs to point that out about the author. Also, 'invoke' is typically for references to prior ideas, whereas 'hypothesize' is for new ideas.

The phrase...

Sorry I should correct that sentence. That phrase isn't false but rather silly, because E=pc, so why even bring up "degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum"? That isn't even a possibility. The relevant thing is whether the momentum value can decrease while direction stay the same.

Also, I had updated the post before your feedback, so please refer to the latest version.

In LCDM, from z=1100, CMB photons were emitted from ~12 Mpc away.

According to what? I'm talking about LCDM's claim that the CMB traveled > 10 Gly to the Milky Way.

[mikehelland]

There's a tonal difference.

A stronger response would be that the standard model of cosmology invokes expanding space, an inflation period, dark energy, and dark matter.

We observe a redshift-distance relationship.

The relevant thing is whether the momentum value can decrease while direction stay the same.

That would only be the case, if I'm not mistaken, only if whatever the photon was interacting with happened to moving in the exact opposite direction.

According to what? I'm talking about LCDM's claim that the CMB traveled > 10 Gly to the Milky Way.

The alleged size of the universe at the time that CMB photons would have been emitted, was about ~1100 times smaller than it is today. So the closer you get back to the big bang singularity, the closer everything gets to each other.

[sahil5d]

the standard model of cosmology invokes expanding space, an inflation period, dark energy, and dark matter.

That's a perfect use of 'invoke'.

I would like to keep the focus on tired light only at the beginning of the post, so I'm thinking.. where else could that be added.

if whatever the photon was interacting with happened to moving in the exact opposite direction.

Why would that be required? There are redshifts without that condition like gravitational redshift and magnetic redshift. And there is a momentum-downshift phenomenon for particles without that condition, like that associated with Lenz's law.

alleged size of the universe at the time that CMB photons would have been emitted, was about ~1100 times smaller

Is that the LCDM ~ 45 Gly / 1100? But take a survey of big bang cosmologists' papers on the CMB.. they write that CMB photons were emitted either ~ 14 Gly or ~ 45 Gly away. I think they'll understand when we criticize them for the idea that the CMB photons were emitted > 10 Gly away.

[mikehelland]

Why would that be required?

Conservation of momentum applies not just in magnitude, but direction as well.

What happens when a ball traveling north to south collides with a ball traveling east to west?

they write that CMB photons were emitted either ~ 14 Gly or ~ 45 Gly away.

They would be wrong, but I doubt you'll find actual papers that say.

~14 Gly is the light travel time distance, which is c times the amount of time it's traveled. (Middle)
~45 Gly is the comoving distance, where the light source has moved to due to expansion (Bottom)

The distance light is emitted from is the angular diameter distance. (Top)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvRsXYHW2RU&t=9s

[sahil5d]

if whatever the photon was interacting with happened to moving in the exact opposite direction.

There are other possibilities. The interactingthing might not need to be moving in the exact opposite direction, and maybe the energy the photon lost in redshift comes out as another photon also moving forward. Or maybe it's the 2 photon-1 electron interaction Louis explained. Momentum conservation is possible with tired light.

CMB photons

Big bang cosmologists also say that the CMB was emitted behind the galaxies seen by JWST, and they affirm > 10 Gly distances to those galaxies.

[mikehelland]

Here's a possibility for a format, a "panel" or "roundtable" type document. Made from different replies here. (Hopefully more to come.)

There are 4 points:

• Redshift without blurring.
• Time dilation in supernovae.
• The blackbody spectrum of the CMB.
• The Tolman surface brightness test.

It could be formatted like this:

• Redshift without blurring.

LM: Louis' response
SG: Sahil's response
HDB: Han's response

etc.

There isn't one tired light model, and that should be made clear in the response.

[ExpEarth]

I wondered what your paper would say for what happens to the energy the thick shell radiates into "Exterior space". If that were occurring, the shell would cool and eventually disappear. And then I found it, "It is assumed that the CMB does not substantially leak out to an exterior space". Another special mechanism!!

No, it's not special! Remember, this is a black hole universe. In general, radiation cannot escape to the exterior space. But we already know in supermassive black holes that it seems to escape, in jets. We don't jet know why this happens. I'm just allowing for some escape of radiation, while keeping the notion of a black hole. It is the fact that it can't escape which sets up the CMB gravity cycle.

You say that it's ok to make assumptions. Is it ok to assume the whole conclusion ("CMB temp increases with distance") in the premise ("CMB temp increases with distance")?

That would be poor form. I'm assuming the increase with distance is correct, based on the CMB studies we talked about.

[HanDeBruijn]

@sahil5d .

("CMB temp increases with distance")

Is that true? Quite curious about your thoughts. Would you please answer this question and do me a favor in return?

[sahil5d]

I don't think it does.

I think the CMB-emitter might be within the local supercluster, occupying the volume within 50 Mly. The CMB power/area is similar to the power/area of the Milky Way as well as neighboring galaxies.

CMB ~ 3 microWatts / m^2
https://wolframalpha.com/input?i=stefan+boltzmann+constant+*+%282.7+K%29%5E4

Milky Way ~ 9 microWatts / m^2
https://wolframalpha.com/input?i=milky+way+luminosity+%2F+%284pi+*+milky+way+radius%5E2%29

Andromeda ~ 2 microWatts / m^2
https://wolframalpha.com/input?i=+%283.3+*+10%5E10+solar+luminosity%29+%2F+%284pi+*+%28radius+of+andromeda+galaxy%29%5E2%29

Pinwheel Galaxy ~ 1 microWatt / m^2
https://wolframalpha.com/input?i=%2830+billion+*+solar+luminosity%29+%2F+%284pi+*+%2885000+light+year%29%5E2%29

Whirlpool Galaxy ~ 2 microWatts / m^2
https://wolframalpha.com/input?i=%2810+*+10%5E9+*+luminosity+of+sun%29+%2F+%284pi+*+%2838000+lightyear%29%5E2%29

Sunflower Galaxy ~ 18 microWatts / m^2
https://wolframalpha.com/input?i=%281.9+*+milky+way+luminosity%29+%2F+%284pi+*+%2849000+lightyear%29%5E2%29

Messier 60 ~ 6 microWatts / m^2
https://wolframalpha.com/input?i=%2860+*+10%5E9+solar+luminosity%29+%2F+%284pi+*+%2860000+light+year%29%5E2%29

[HanDeBruijn]

@sahil5d .

You answer is very much appreciated ! Actually I don't care too much if that rather complicated CMB theory of mine would turn out to be unreal. Indeed, from my (VM) perspective I see that there are two possibilities:

• The CMB has a cosmic origin and shall be the same for observers elswhere in the cosmos
• The CMB has a local origin and shall be different for observers elswhere in the cosmos

However, what do you think about the Figure 2 in that paper as copied in a previous reply ?

[sahil5d]

Figure 2

It's not accurate. Their graphed "measurements" are not measurements but estimates, specifically calculations where one of the inputs is a measurement and one of the inputs is a theoretical value. "Other parameters of the fit were fixed to T_CMB = 11.6 K". Where did that "11.6 K" come from??

Original analysis: https://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/178#discussioncomment-7435822

[HanDeBruijn]

IMHO a still relevant treatise on the subject is the following: On the Interpretation of Spectral Red-Shift in Astrophysics: A Survey of Red-Shift Mechanisms - II by Louis Marmet, $24^{th}$ January, 2018.
Tired-Light is found on page 33 as: 9 Red-Shifts produced by an interaction between light and matter. The arguments given by Wright against tired light models [85] are incorrect, because of a number of reasons listed on page 34.
It is well known to ACG members that TL is a bias of @RedshiftDrift, the author of the paper. No further advertising on my part is required.

Jumping on my hobby horse, and to page 11 of the paper we find: 5 Red-Shifts produced by a time-dependent property of matter. In Discussion and comments Louis writes: An objection to this model is based on experimental results.
As I have demonstrated ad nauseam, this is based upon a complete misunderstanding of the theory. Some other arguments (biased toward the Big Bang cosmology) are given by Wright. The same Wright as our opponent to Tired-Light? Shouldn't we rather collaborate?

[HanDeBruijn]

@RedshiftDrift .

Skipping again to page 11 of your article.
Honestly, I have no idea where the expression for $H(z)$ comes from - in relationship to the Variable Mass Theory. It is anyway not found in the work by Arp and Narlikar, as far as I know.
As a next isue we have among the Functional relationships (for the VMT):

$$ d_A = (1+z)^{-1}\int_0^z\frac{dz'}{H(z')} $$

Which is dimensionally incorrect in the first place: a distance expressed in seconds. I think there is at least a factor $c=$ lightspeed missing.
Apart from this, the formula for $d_A$ in (our version of) the VMT seems to be the same as in SSTz cosmology, so what's the big deal:

$$ d_A = (1/H_z)\ln(1+z) \quad \mbox{with} \quad H_z = H_0 $$

For the bolometric luminosity distance the VMT has

$$ d_L = (1+z)d_A \quad \mbox{not} \quad d_L =^{?}\sqrt{1+z}\mbox{ }d_A $$

Surface Brightness:

$$ d_L = \sqrt{1+z}\mbox{ }d_A \quad \Longrightarrow \quad (\mbox{SB}) \sim (d_A/d_L)^2 = \frac{1}{1+z} \ne (1+z)^{-4} $$

Instead we have, in concordance with a finding by @ExpEarth: Tolman test - the Big bang model predicts the surface brightness diminishes as (1+z)^-4, while a 'typical' TL model has it as (1+z)^-1. The actual observations put the negative exponent at close to 2. This fits my model, as there is an extra factor of (1+z)^-1 due to the gravitational redshift. As far as I'm aware, my model is the only one which predicts this correctly. Which is too much credit for the Shell model: the VMT also predicts the SB correctly (and also does Tired-Light, if you ask me).

$$ d_L = (1+z)d_A \quad \Longrightarrow \quad (\mbox{SB}) \sim (d_A/d_L)^2 = (1+z)^{-2} $$

The dilated time is defined as the ratio of the observed duration of an event to the duration of that same event as would be measured at the object. With the VMT we have that atomic clock frequency is emitted wavelength divided by lightspeed and so, indeed:

$$ F_\tau = 1+z $$

[HanDeBruijn]

@RedshiftDrift .

We are not finished yet: jumping on your hobby horse and skipping to page 33 of your article.
A red-shift $1+z(N) = \lambda_1/\lambda_0$ caused by the interaction with a column density of matter $N$ is valid everywhere so that $1+z(N) = \lambda_{i+1}/\lambda_i$ for any $i$. Repeated redshifts follow the relation (minor correction by me):

$$ 1+z(kN) = \lambda_k/\lambda_0 = \Pi_{i=1}^k \mbox{ } \lambda_i/\lambda_{i-1} = (1+z(N))^k $$

which is satisfied by [81,82]. These references may be left unread if you jump to the OnlyMathFans section below.
Continuing with the main stuff:

$$ N = \rho_0 D_H \ln(1+z) \qquad (1) $$

where $\rho_0$ is the density of the interacting matter and the column density is given by

$$ N(d) = \int_0^d \rho(x)dx $$

On the other hand it is known that the distance-redshift formula for Tired-Light is given by

$$ d = D_H \ln(1+z) \quad \Longrightarrow \quad N(d)/\rho_0 = \int_0^d \rho(x)dx/\rho_0 = d $$

Wherefrom it is concluded that $\rho_0$ is just the arithmetic mean of $\rho$ over a distance $d$ - what else?

$$ \rho_0 = \int_0^d \rho(x)dx / d $$

OnlyMathFans

Ignore the references [81,82] as given in the paper and define

$$ f(x) = 1+z(x) \quad \Longrightarrow \quad f(kN) = f(N)^k \quad \Longrightarrow \quad g(kN)=\ln(f(kN))=k.\ln(f(N))=k.g(N) $$

A functional relationship for $g$ is found. In particular we have, for any $k$ and $N=1$ that : $g(k) = k.g(1)$ . This results in an equivalent functional relationship, valid for all values of $a$ and $b$.

$$ g(k_1+k_2) = (k_1+k_2).g(1) = k_1g(1) + k_2g(1) = g(k_1) + g(k_2) \quad \mbox{or} \quad g(a+b)=g(a)+g(b) $$

A relevant question on Mathematics SE is: Additive functions and measure theory. Because there exist no pathological functions in physics, any $g$ must be of the form

$$ g(x) = C.x \quad \mbox{with} \quad C = \mbox{constant} $$

And therefore

$$ \ln(f(N))=g(N)=C.N \quad \Longrightarrow \quad f(N) = 1 + z(N) = e^{C.N} \quad \Longrightarrow \quad N = (1/C)\ln(1+z) $$

which indeed is similar to equation (1) as cited above.

[RedshiftDrift]

There was an upgrade of some functions used by the ACG website which cause an error when GitHub generates the website.
@sahil5d your page (and the other corrections) has been merged with the ACG repository but that does not appear on the website.
I'll fix that when I find the time...

[RedshiftDrift]

All working without warnings... New page is on the web!