Viscosity of Space: Theory & Evidence

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Kevin Haney
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Space Viscosity
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the theory that space possesses viscosity, which could cause matter or energy to lose energy as it travels through space. This theory suggests an alternative explanation for the redshift observed in the expanding universe. However, participants in the forum overwhelmingly dismiss the theory as "pretty much completely bogus," referencing the "tired light" hypothesis as a critical counterpoint. There is no substantial theoretical or experimental evidence supporting the viscosity of space theory.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of redshift and its implications in cosmology
  • Familiarity with the "tired light" hypothesis
  • Basic knowledge of energy loss mechanisms in physics
  • Awareness of current cosmological theories regarding the expanding universe
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the "tired light" hypothesis and its critiques
  • Study the principles of redshift in cosmology
  • Examine current theories on the expansion of the universe
  • Explore experimental evidence related to the viscosity of space theory
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, physicists, and students of cosmology interested in the fundamental theories of the universe and the mechanisms behind redshift phenomena.

Kevin Haney
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
There is a theory that space is viscous and that matter or energy traveling through it looses a very small part of its energy through this viscosity. It seems that the red shift that has been taken to be the main evidence for an expanding universe could potentially be explained by this phenomenon. Does anyone know if this inference, or the theory itself, has in fact been dis-proven, either theoretically or experimentally?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Kevin Haney said:
There is a theory that space is viscous and that matter or energy traveling through it looses a very small part of its energy through this viscosity. It seems that the red shift that has been taken to be the main evidence for an expanding universe could potentially be explained by this phenomenon. Does anyone know if this inference, or the theory itself, has in fact been dis-proven, either theoretically or experimentally?

It's pretty much completely bogus. You can google for "tired light" to see why (but beware of crackpot web sites!).

This thread is closed - there's really not much more to say than "pretty much completely bogus".
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba

Similar threads

High School How Do Radars in Space Prevent Signal Dispersion and Maintain Target Accuracy?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
High School How Can We Prove That Space is Expanding?
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
High School Can the "Dark Energy" concept be wrong?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
High School Dark Energy: Are We All Missing The Obvious?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
High School More Evidence for MOND -- Globular cluster galactic acceleration imprint
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School Standard candles in a stretching fabric of space
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Energy conservation in Doppler (NOT cosmological) redshifts?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Undergrad Which theory of time is the most evidence-based?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
High School Ultramassive Black Hole (UMB), 30 billion solar masses?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
High School Red shifted tired light doubts
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K