CMB : Long-Wavelength or Slow-Speed Light?

[Pentcho Valev]

"CMB is a universal patchwork of long-wave radiation from the oldest light in the universe!" https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/did-the-big-bang-happen-more-than-once

"As light travels towards us from the distant galaxies, it is stretched over time by the ever expanding space it is travelling through. The longer it travels, the more the wavelengths are increased (reddened)." https://www.wwu.edu/astro101/a101_hubble_redshift.shtml

At the same time Einsteinians teach that space inside galaxies and galactic clusters does not expand at all (they reject the scenario in which expansion does occur but is overcome by gravitational attraction):

"Is the space inside, say, a galaxy growing but overcome by the gravitational attraction between the stars? The answer is no. Space within any gravitationally bound system is unaffected by the surrounding expansion."

View: https://youtu.be/bUHZ2k9DYHY?t=356


Sabine Hossenfelder: "The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies...It is only somewhere beyond the scales of galaxy clusters that expansion takes over." https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...ont-actually-expand-in-an-expanding-universe/

So light is stretched as it travels in the space between galactic clusters, then stretching stops as the light enters a cluster, then stretching continues as the light leaves the cluster, etc.

The statement that light is stretched by space expansion is so preposterous that no rational criticism is possible. The reaction can only be hysterical ("But this is idiotic, don't you see?") and then the critic becomes crank, crackpot, troll, etc.

Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter p. 15 https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

Whether Feynman is correct is not a matter of discussion here. I am just drawing the attention to a crucial implication. The concept of VARIABLE wavelength of light

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M


is preposterous if "light is made of particles". That is, the particle model of light implies that the wavelength can only be an invariable proportionality factor in the formula

(speed of light) = (wavelength)(frequency)

And the formula says that, if the wavelength is constant, the so called cosmological (Hubble) redshift is due to the speed of light slowing down as photons travel through vacuum, in a non-expanding universe. CMB is, accordingly, very slow, highly redshifted light. This is not a totally unacceptable idea:

"Some physicists, however, suggest that there might be one other cosmic factor that could influence the speed of light: quantum vacuum fluctuation. This theory holds that so-called empty spaces in the Universe aren't actually empty - they're teeming with particles that are just constantly changing from existent to non-existent states. Quantum fluctuations, therefore, could slow down the speed of light." https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-do-we-really-know-about-the-speed-of-light

 

[Pentcho Valev]

It is obvious that the particle model of light is incompatible with VARIABLE wavelength of light. Unfortunately for cosmologists, the wave model is incompatible as well:

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary." http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf

This interpretation implies that the emitter is CHASING the emitted crest - that is the reason why, when the next crest is emitted, the distance between the two crests is smaller than when the emitter is stationary:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mJTRXCMU6o&t=77s


As chasing becomes faster and faster, the distance between crests approaches zero - the emitted crests remain in the vicinity of the emitter for a long time. Preposterous, isn't it?

The variation of the wavelength of light with the speed of the emitter is absurd not only intuitively. It is incompatible with the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, the emitter could regularly measure the variations inside his spaceship - so he would know his spaceship's speed without looking outside. If, for instance, measurements inside the spaceship show that the wavelength has decreased, the emitter will conclude that his spaceship is now moving faster than before.

For light waves, there can be no chasing. No matter how fast the emitter is moving, the speed of the emitted crest relative to the emitter remains constant, c. Accordingly, when the next crest is emitted, the distance between the two crests remains unchanged - the same as when the emitter is stationary.

The wavelength of light depends only on the nature of the emitting substance and is constant otherwise.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Cosmologists fiercely marginalize dissenters and then come up with the argument that there is no alternative better than the Big Bang nonsense:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqtFlKQO2FQ


Generally, there can be no serious alternative at all. A person working hard to feed his/her children, outside the domain of cosmology, cannot create anything comparable to the huge edifice built and constantly repaired by thousands of professional cosmologists.