Recent content by Fire-Starter James

Right on. The atoms do not stretch, so why think the photons do? The Doppler effect is a sufficient explanation for the redshift due to expansion. Another big question is: why is motion due to The Expansion exempt from relativity? It's a fundamental unspoken assumption in this article...

Someone please apply V(r)=c*tanh(Hr/c) to be Hubble's Law, just to see what difference it makes? Also apply relativity to masses, time rates, etc. I really think it'll help. That galaxy may be super farther away than they think it is. And maybe the universe is older than they think, too.

I'm not disturbed, just a little frustrated for a little bit. No huhu. I understand linear and such; I understand calculus. There's two main kinds of "tired light" theory. One is that a photon somehow loses energy as it travels, and redshifts. The other is that the universe expansion...

I think you're right about the ejecta. Maybe the best choice for now is to not restrict ourselves to a single method.

The Doppler shift of light is observed on a regular basis. I see no reason to posit the "tired light" theory. I've only heard the term "duty cycle" used by engineers, concerning man-made machines. I also know my physics mechanics. In short, I don't know what you're telling me here, and it's...

OP question: Why must Hubble's Law be linear? Even if a different function might alleviate all the new tensions? Or even eliminate the need for ad hoc dark energy or dark matter? Why must Hubble's Law be linear?

The DART experiment knocked a lot of debris off of the asteroid. If used near the Earth, it could deflect the asteroid, but not the debris of boulders. Also consider what happens if the first shot misses, or doesn't deflect the asteroid enough ‒ will we need launch several impactors for a...

I can't find the video.

If we set H(0)=72.431... things get interesting ~13.5 BLY. The wavelength ratio is ~e. K/s@1Mpc → linear/c relative/c 72.4311326407345 Δ per Mpc λs/λo λs/λo Mpc ↓ 3.2616 Mly ↓ 0.000241604252234839 0.000241604252234839 72.4311326407345 72.4311326407345 linear relative 4134 13483.4544...

There's no such thing as "traveling through space", because space is just the distance between objects. Space has no absolute reference point, nor any substance of its own, so it can't be stationary or moving. The closest we can come to an absolute, is to measure velocity relative to the...

"There is no such thing as absolute motion . . . there is only relative motion!" ‒ Exactly!

Using the hyperbolic tangent version of Hubble's Law, no recessional velocities ever exceed C, even in an infinite universe. Changing our theory about the existing law is what I was asking about. The tanh function gets rid of the exceeding C paradox. No reason to assume different "kinds" of...

We should also expect higher masses at farther away, appearing to get denser with distance. At some point, it might appear to be a huge neutronium shell surrounding the visible universe. I also don't see why gravity should have any effect at all on the expansion rate, with all points being...

I understand the distinction being made. I just don't understand why we should assume it makes a difference. Redshift works the same way for both cases, so why not relativity? And the tanh function does seem to resolve the Hubble Tension. Expansion rates should appear to be slower at farther...

:) That's about as far as I've got. No clue as to why that would be. But the tanh() function predicts something like the Hubble Tension.