From: John Clark (jonkc@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Thu Jul 26 2001 - 10:29:53 MDT
Miriam English <miriam@werple.net.au> Wrote:
> The idea that light could traverse millions of lightyears without losing
> energy always seemed to me a dubious one. Because light can't lose energy
> in its intensity like sound does, it would need to lose it in its wavelength.
Interesting timing, the last 2 nails in the coffin of Franz Zwicky's tired light
theory happened just a few weeks ago, see an article called "Tired Light
Hypothesis gets retired" in the June 29 2001 issue of the journal Science,
page 2414. Briefly it's about 2 studies, one involving how the red shift of
very distant supernovas correlates with their observed brightness, the other
study involved galaxies. Both results fit the big bang prediction beautifully,
they doesn't come close to the tired light prediction. Science calls the results
"very unambiguous" and as for those who still like tired light " it is more a
problem for a psychological journal than for Science."
Personally I also think the steady state theory is much more elegant than
the big bang, but that's not the way things are. If I were God I would have done
things differently but unfortunately I was not given the job.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:09:10 MST