Difference between revisions of "On Reviving Tired Light"

From Natural Philosophy Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Imported from text file)
 
(Imported from text file)
Line 19: Line 19:
 
<span style="FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRoman">    Halton Arp has recently (1989) presented empirical criticisms of the validity of tired-light mechanisms as an explanation of anomalous redshifts. This is extremely welcome and represents the beginning of a true discussion among those who are not content with standard big bang cosmology. The unorthodox theories are legion: there almost as many theories as there are unorthodox thinkers in this domain. This situation is not conducive to advances in our understanding of a difficult problem. Therefore discussion, and even dispute, are necessary, unavoidable and useful. And who has greater right to initiate the discussion than Chip Arp, the pioneer of the field?
 
<span style="FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRoman">    Halton Arp has recently (1989) presented empirical criticisms of the validity of tired-light mechanisms as an explanation of anomalous redshifts. This is extremely welcome and represents the beginning of a true discussion among those who are not content with standard big bang cosmology. The unorthodox theories are legion: there almost as many theories as there are unorthodox thinkers in this domain. This situation is not conducive to advances in our understanding of a difficult problem. Therefore discussion, and even dispute, are necessary, unavoidable and useful. And who has greater right to initiate the discussion than Chip Arp, the pioneer of the field?
  
</span>[[Category:Scientific Paper]]
+
</span>
 +
 
 +
[[Category:Scientific Paper|reviving tired light]]
  
 
[[Category:Cosmology]]
 
[[Category:Cosmology]]

Revision as of 09:48, 1 January 2017

Scientific Paper
Title On Reviving Tired Light
Read in full Link to paper
Author(s) Toivo Jaakkola
Keywords Tired light
Published 1990
Journal Apeiron
Volume 1
Number 6
No. of pages 6
Pages 5-6

Read the full paper here

Abstract

Halton Arp has recently (1989) presented empirical criticisms of the validity of tired-light mechanisms as an explanation of anomalous redshifts. This is extremely welcome and represents the beginning of a true discussion among those who are not content with standard big bang cosmology. The unorthodox theories are legion: there almost as many theories as there are unorthodox thinkers in this domain. This situation is not conducive to advances in our understanding of a difficult problem. Therefore discussion, and even dispute, are necessary, unavoidable and useful. And who has greater right to initiate the discussion than Chip Arp, the pioneer of the field?