Question Hubble's Law

[Fire-Starter James]

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?

 

[Classical Motion]

Because the shift is linear. And they believe that it's a Doppler shift, like a sound wave.

Doppler shift is linear.

But light does not Doppler shift. The expanding cosmos is an measurement illusion.

But no one knows this.

That shift is a natural occurrence with light propagation. It's a duty cycle shift.

It's simple motion mechanics. And no one knows that either.

 

[Fire-Starter James]

Because the shift is linear. And they believe that it's a Doppler shift, like a sound wave.

Doppler shift is linear.

But light does not Doppler shift. The expanding cosmos is an measurement illusion.

But no one knows this.

That shift is a natural occurrence with light propagation. It's a duty cycle shift.

It's simple motion mechanics. And no one knows that either.

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 not because I'm uneducated. Frankly, I'm starting to think I'm in the wrong room. I can't see how anybody here is addressing the question I asked. For what reason must we assume Hubble's Law is linear? If there is no good reason, then we should consider alternatives also. The tanh version seems to predict the tensions we now have with the linear version.

I am ignorant of any compelling reason that Hubble's Law must be linear ‒ so why not pick something else that fits the facts better, and maybe gets rid of some ad hoc assumptions?

 

[Classical Motion]

Alrighty then. Sorry it didn't help you. I don't know what tired light is.

Linear is a rate of change. A straight line plot of change. Non linear is a rate of change that produces a curved line plot of change. It's a ratio plot.

This is why some things are called linear and some are called non linear. A description of change.

And evidently from your question, Hubble's Law is linear.

So the results of Hubble's law is a straight line.

An illusion with a straight line. It's not tired light, it's hayfield light.

I can't help you with the weeds and innards of Hubble's Law, for I believe it to be an illusion. And I ignore it.

But I do believe I can explain linear to you. For it's just a pattern of results.

Sorry if I confused or disturbed you.

 

[Fire-Starter James]

Alrighty then. Sorry it didn't help you. I don't know what tired light is.

Linear is a rate of change. A straight line plot of change. Non linear is a rate of change that produces a curved line plot of change. It's a ratio plot.

This is why some things are called linear and some are called non linear. A description of change.

And evidently from your question, Hubble's Law is linear.

So the results of Hubble's law is a straight line.

An illusion with a straight line. It's not tired light, it's hayfield light.

I can't help you with the weeds and innards of Hubble's Law, for I believe it to be an illusion. And I ignore it.

But I do believe I can explain linear to you. For it's just a pattern of results.

Sorry if I confused or disturbed you.

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 somehow expands the photon itself. I think the redshift is perfectly well explained by the Doppler effect from relative motion.

I don't know what hayfield light is. I'm lost at "An illusion with a straight line." Thanks for trying.