Tired light and transverse waves

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by chriscurtis</i>
<br />The photon should lose energy through gravitational time dilation<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It is called "gravitational redshift", and it is too small to matter in cosmology. Whatever causes cosmological redshift is certainly not the mass of individual nearby galaxies, which contribute very little.

Cosmological redshift is caused by some sort of energy-loss mechanism operating on large scales. IMO, the best bet for that mechanism is friction with the graviton medium. -|Tom|-

Hiya Tom,

My goodness, you're fast!

Given that gravitational red shift contributes very little, does that 'little' change significantly if MOND is correct?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by chriscurtis</i>
<br />Given that gravitational red shift contributes very little, does that 'little' change significantly if MOND is correct?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Gravitational redshift is a prediction of general relativity (GR), and MOND is an exception to GR, so the behavior of gravitational redshift in MOND is as yet unspecified. But it is certainly still negligible compared to cosmological redshift. -|Tom|-

If you reduce the Hubble Constant into standard SI units it comes out to be 1nm/s^2(10E-9m/s^2). This is a small acceleration and it is caused by the gravity of the universe. The points of mass in the universe makeup the gravity of the universe and they are everywhere in the universe. So, the cosmological redshift is caused by gravity and gravity does cause redshift. It seems to me this would indicate photons have mass and all photons have the same mass reguardless of their frequency. Therefore they all have the same energy also.

[Jim] "If you reduce the Hubble Constant into standard SI units it comes out to be 1nm/s^2(10E-9m/s^2)."

Nope. Usually you only mess up the units part of what you are trying to say. This time the number part is way off as well. (HINT - Use a spread sheet to help keep track of what you are doing.)


[Jim] "This is a small acceleration ... "

Nope. Check your units, Jim. (Spread sheets are good for this too.)

LB

I would agree that the Universe is not expanding (exceptions are localized) and the cosmological redshift is a result of large scale gravity field curvature caused by FTL interactions of gravitons with matter. Because of TVF pioneering work on speed of gravitons we now have a more complete picture of how the push of gravitons interact with matter.

However, I do think that the graviton has polarity and is specific in its bombardment of matter in forward time motion otherwise orbital rotation would not have increased gravitational forces. Therefore, large massive regions of rotating matter attract greater frequency of graviton interactions and will have a greater impact on curvature of light fields.

Because of the duality of time caused by a separate antimatter universe there must be two fields of gravity and antigravity waves that are in sync with each time domain. I know this is new territory but all the same I think we have a limited understanding on how antimatter plays a part in maintaining atomic spin by its asymmetric interactions within the forward time half of universe causing motion because of the counter rotational phase conjucation of all wave forms and matter modulation of FTL gravitons within the nucleons creating gravity fields. The further demodulation of phased frequencies within the nucleus creates the negative vortex of the electron causing pulsed light, light absorbtion, electric currents, and magnetic moments.

John