Tired light and supernovae

That is very interesting. I would say that if the red shift is not "tired" then the process could enforce a contracting Universe. With those bodies that are closer to the center (less red shift) accelerating at a slower rates than those at an increased red shift and experiencing less force from the center. The supernova at the higher red shifts are further out from the center and are not experiencing as great of force from the center attractor as those supernova nearer the center.

The Big Bang cannot handle this explaination, because those supernova with the increased red shift should be experiencing processes at an increasing rate but the scenario you prescribed does not support this.

Also, I would conclude, the bodies with less red shift should be experiencing a higher decay rate than those bodies with a higher red shift. However, if an opposing observation occurs pandora's box would be opened and once again cast many shodows of our ignorants. What do the processes tell us about our location in the Universe, if any? What does this mean for the Cosmological Principle?

NW is a hard core BBer and the MWB as he sees it is very interesting. One detail about redshift and how it effects the energy of photons is in error in my opinion. The photon does not loose or gain energy in the process but it does take longer for it to arrive at the point of observation.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />If the universe is the same then as now, why would any supposed degradation of light change the duration of an event as well?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It would not change the duration. Wright is making an assumption that we know the correct distance to the supernova, from which we can infer its intrinsic (absolute) brightness, from which we can estimate the half-width of the light-curve at half-maximum brightness. Then any observed extra width can be attributed to "time dilation".

But if he is guessing the distance wrongly (using BB assumptions about what causes redshift), then he is using the wrong template for the supernova lightcurve. In particular, MM estimates most distances as much greater than BB. This means MM interprets an SN of some observed brightness as being intrinsically much brighter, which means an intrinsically wider light curve. That leaves little or no room for widening by time dilation. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But if he is guessing the distance wrongly ...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
As I understand it, there is no guessing involved.

One observes the "redshift" which all contesting parties can agree upon since it is an objective measurement ... then ... one observes the light curve width (again another objective measurement) ... then ... one makes a graph ... and ... the resulting graph shows an objective correlation between redshift and lightcurve width.

The correlation cannot be false as it does not depend on anyone's interpretation of the cause of redshift or lightcurve width variations. They are just there for anyone to see.

The lightcurve stretching is not compatible with tired light because that theory requires no stretching (variations) at all ... but ... there it is. And ... it correlates strongly with the redshift of the source (BB theory requires that the lightcurves be stretched in just such fashion).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />One observes the "redshift" which all contesting parties can agree upon since it is an objective measurement ... then ... one observes the light curve width (again another objective measurement) ... then ... one makes a graph ... and ... the resulting graph shows an objective correlation between redshift and lightcurve width.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your understanding is incorrect. There is no such thing as a single standard SN lightcurve. Type Ia supernovas are standard candles only in the sense that their intrinsic maxima are limited to a range of a couple of magnitudes, but this still covers a variety of lightcurve widths.

More importantly, there is no correlation between half-width and redshift beyond that expected from Malmquist bias (the tendency to see only the brightest objects in any class at the greatest distances). The correlation you speak of appears only when brightness is inferred using assumptions about the redshift-distance relation. In fact, it is precisely because the supernovae do not follow the expected behavior that forces BB proponents to infer that the universe's expansion is now accelerating. So BB needs two new fudge factors: acceleration now and changes in acceleration in the past.

By contrast, with MM's redshift-distance law, no expansion, acceleration, or changes in acceleration are needed. The data paints a simple picture again.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The lightcurve stretching is not compatible with tired light because that theory requires no stretching (variations) at all ... but ... there it is.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">BB has always used a physically impossible version of "tired light" as a strawman. It would not dare use a realistic model because BB would fail any such comparison.

But by just comparing itself to data and "failing", BB can keep adding new parameters with new rationalizations to keep itself viable. This has the fringe benefit of keeping the journals filled with news of new discoveries about the universe. Obviously, I have become rather jaded by the whole process. The models that work best do not have even expansion, let alone acceleration and changes in acceleration. -|Tom|-

I absolutely agree and you should also add in the fact that the expansion in BB is at the speed of light and cannot then be accelerated without exceeding the speed of light(unless LB has a trump card here)