“Tired
Light – an Explanation of Redshifts in a Static Universe,” by Lydon Ashmore, 2016
Ashmore’s
basic insight is that the light-wave redshift observation is caused, not by
‘receding galaxies’ as claimed in the Big Bang theory (BB), but because light
photons are weakened through collisions with electrons in loose plasma clouds
in intergalactic space. Hence the light
becomes ‘tired’ - weaker when it reaches earth.
The reason this happens is because space is not a void or vacuum as some
claim. Another pillar of the BB is that
the cosmic microwave background is a reflection of the BB’s initial explosion
which created all matter. Ashmore makes quick work of this idea too, showing
that photon to electron collisions actually lose and transfer energy ‘to the
side’ in new weaker photons, creating the cosmic microwave background
locally. He also suggests that ‘dark
matter’ – which has never been located by the BB – is actually this plasma around
galaxies and in intergalactic space.
The
tired light theory was first suggested in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky, who postulated
that the photon redshifts from distant galaxy clusters were caused by the
distance to the cluster through some ‘gravity drag,’ not by an expanding
universe, as in the BB. Ashmore has
refined this through investigating recent cosmic data, lab experiments and 20
years of working on the math to prove his theory, which he now calls New Tired
Light (NTL). Its virtue is that it is simpler than the BB and it is derived from basic science methods, not relativity. As an independent researcher he got the idea
while teaching physics, noting the contradiction between the BB as accepted
‘truth’ and how medical X-ray photons work.
This contradiction made him think, illuminating the philosophic link between
micro and macro matter/energy issues. Even a setting sun going redder made him more
curious.
Ashmore uses
the term ‘static’ universe to describe the actual state of the universe, unlike
‘steady state,’ which is defined differently, as it borrows expansion and
red-shift from the BB, but believed this process had stopped. 'Static' is also unlike an ‘expanding’ closed
universe, as in BB. As a result Ashmore considers
the universe infinite, unlike BB and Einstein.
I think calling the universe ‘static’ is an error, as there is still
dynamism in the universe, not ‘stasis’ as the word is commonly understood. His theory fits neatly with Halton’ Arp’s
observations of galaxy, quasar and galaxy cluster distances; Lerner and Alven’s
understanding of intergalactic electro-magnetic plasma and with Abdul Malek’s dialectical
point about micro and macro reality and scientific methods being many times on a
continuum, closest to ‘Occam’s razor’ in simplicity.
 |
| Hubble Ultra Deep Field View |
The book
is full of complex calculations and many cosmological abbreviations, so it is
not only for general science readers. I
am not a physicist or mathematician so I can’t check the math. Ashmore’s papers have been peer-reviewed and
published, so for awhile he was able to overcome the high walls of the
corporate scientific establishment. Although
now independent researchers are not allowed to publish unless they are linked
to an institution(!) The archaic Big
Bang theory is now almost 100 years old and still rules the cosmology establishment (just check out Wikipedia...)
but its problems only multiply. Ashmore
goes into those multiple problems throughout the book – missing exotic
particles, flatness, horizon issues, non-existent cooling, clumpiness, initial inflation,
BB’s estimate of the universe’s age, lack of sufficient gravitational force, etc. As far back as the data goes Ashmore can find
no signs of universe expansion in 10,000,000,000 years, only a ‘static’
universe.
Ashmore
shows how tired light solves many of BB’s problems. He dispenses with objections like blurring, Tolman surface brightness and supernovae time
dilation. He estimates the amount of
collisions photons go through in space and how denser plasma clouds do not
create redshift, related to the Mossbauer effect. He looks at dispersion measures, an adjusted
Hubble Constant and fast radio bursts as support for NTL. He takes data on electron number density
which support NTL. After all this he wrote
the book “Big Bang Blasted” and the ‘rest is history’ according to him.
Another
book from a line of dissident cosmologists.
You will not understand everything here but the plot-line is still
clear!
Other
prior blog reviews on this subject, use blog search box upper left: “The Big Bang Never Happened,” (Lerner)
“Seeing Red” (Arp) “The Philosophy of Space-Time,” “The Dialectical Universe,”
“The Einsteinian Universe,” (all 3 by Malek); “Big Bang Goes Boom!” “Reason in Revolt” (Woods-Grant); “The Big
Bang is a Situation Comedy,” “Dialectical Materialism versus the New
Physics” (Gimbel).
And I
bought it at May Day Books!
Red Frog
May 8,
2020
Thank you for sharing tthis
ReplyDelete