>>>>But it only has so much energy it can give, and once it hits certain thresholds, begins to deliver less energy, not to mention move slower.
>>>
>>>What do you mean with "give"? As long as a photon travels through empty space, and isn't absorbed, it should not lose any energy.
>>>
>>>>Light moving slowly when we're not expecting it gives the optical illusion of there being extra space for it to travel through.
>>>
>>>As far as I know, there is no indication whatsoever that light can move at any speed different from the "speed of light".
>>
>>
>>Hubble redshift is such an indication.
>>
>>Scientists don't want to admit that it slows down, so they invent extra space (expansion) to account for the observations.
>>
>>But it's just a mathematical trick, an illusion that results from a belief that light travels infinitely far without ever changing.
>
>Ok, I'll bite. What proof do you have of your assertions other than the fact that your opinion differs from that of other scientists. And please don't tell me that their assertions just don't make sense. The whole issue of quantum physics makes little sense in the normal way.


If I had proof I'm pretty sure there'd be a world wide frenzy.

But I'm half done thinking of a way to test it.

So, like I said, here's the skinny.

We look out at the cosmos, and it appears that every galaxy in deep space is running away from us very fast.

Since we don't presume to be in any special place in the Universe (such as the center of an explosion) the scientists say "Well every point in the Universe must be receding from every other point."

So space is expanding.

If you run the expansion in reverse, it must have all started at one point.

That's the big bang.

Most of the observable evidence for the big bang is wrapped up in the observation that all the remote galaxies are receding from us.

That's the "proof" of the big bang.

But I think my idea better fits the evidence.

It's not that galaxies themselves are moving via expansion.

There's nothing strange going on with the galaxies at all.

It is the light from those galaxies that is doing something unexpected.

We observe a finite Universe, but we expect light to go on for all infinity.

Problem is it doesn't. It slows down and dies out.

Not sure how much you know about light, but they believe c=fw, that means if frequency (f) goes down then wavelength (w) goes up to accommodate it, because there is one EM spectrum.

And that's what happens in the big bang. Hubble redshift is a loss in frequency, so wavelength goes up.

But in my theory, light that has traveled hundreds of millions of years acts different, and doesn't fit on the same EM spectrum as fresh locally emitted light.

It suggests that frequency can drop in really old light, and the wavelength does NOT go up.

If anyone can think of a way to test that, it would be pretty good proof.