The discussion centers around the concept of "tired light" as proposed by Lyndon Ashmore and its implications in the context of redshift and blueshift phenomena. Participants reference Ashmore's publication and a peer-reviewed paper by C.S. Chen, highlighting a contradiction regarding the presence of blue shift in Chen's findings. The consensus leans towards skepticism about the validity of the tired light theory, as it fails to align with observed Doppler shifts in wavelength. Overall, the dialogue underscores the scientific community's rejection of tired light as a credible explanation for redshift.
PREREQUISITESAstronomers, astrophysics students, and researchers interested in cosmological theories and the debate surrounding redshift explanations.
Ennio said:Has anyone read the book of this author? What is your opinion about this topic?
https://www.google.de/search?q=tire...j5vfAhXK2qQKHdHsD6AQ_AUIDygC&biw=1280&bih=623
stefan r said:He sites a peer reviewed paper by C.S. Chen. I do not have access to the full article. The abstract clearly says "blue shift" and "red shift". Lyndon Ashmore's https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228730621_Intrinsic_Plasma_Redshifts_Now_Reproduced_In_The_Laboratory-a_Discussion_in_Terms_of_New_Tired_Light (page 2, left column, second paragraph) claims Chen's research shows no blue shift. That looks like a contradiction.
Well if he is writing about "tired light", I wouldn't take his writings too seriously because tired light is not a correct idea/theoryEnnio said:Here you can find his publication to download. I have bought and read the book: really interesting
https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=70089
If red shift is called "tired" then blue shift would have to be "wakeful". No wonder those ideas have no credence these days.davenn said:Well if he is writing about "tired light", I wouldn't take his writings too seriously because tired light is not a correct idea/theory