kd5sak wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
...

Could be that light ages over eons of travel time and the red shift is
actually a form
of fatigue. Or not. (G)

Harold
KD5SAK

Interesting enough, I found just such a theory being advanced awhile back
by a "real" university, it sounds preposterous, don't you think?
However, if you happen to have that page, please post it--I should have at
least given it a full read before dismissal...

Regards,
JS


I have'nt seen anything on that. It's just something that pops up out of the
back
of my mind on the rare occasions that I see a discussion on "Red Shift". Now
that you've mentioned it I'll do a web search and see if I can find anything
on the web. Be interesting to see what aspect of physics "they" think might
allow for that "light aging" to occur.

The aging of light is one of those strange concepts often brought out
by creationists as an attempt to make the universe "younger" in order to
fit in with their worldview.

One contradiction to that theory is the fact that while most distant
stellar objects are red shifting, there are also objects that are blue
shifting on us. Galaxy Andromeda comes to mind. So if redshift is to be
refuted, blueshift must also be explained.

Another issue is that Doppler effect, the basis of redshift, is so
easily demonstrated on so many scales - sonically, and
electromagnetically, that one would have to have a really strong
argument to refute it. I'd be interested in hearing the arguments though.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -