Re: electrons cling more tightly as universe expands?

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
> 
> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> >> I like Richards approach but disagree with
> >> his conclusion. I do agree with Richard, it
> >> is a fact that
> >> INFO = frequency * duration = invariant.
> >> where Richard calls INFO,." A cycle is an
> >> absolute event and the information..."
> >> But the duration is expressed by (N = cycles)
> >> duration = N * wavelength,       then
> >
> >Wrong
> >time interval source = N / frequency
> >frequency = c/wavelength
> >Thus
> >time interval source = N * wavelength/ c
> 
> >> INFO = N*c,  (c=freq*wavelength).
> >
> >INFO = N
> 
> Ok, thats fine,  INFO and N are invariant.
> 
> >> Because the wavelength increases there is
> >> no loss of information carried by the photon.
> >
> >True, but how are you going to shift the wavelength?
> 
> Excatly the same way a photon emitted
> at the surface of the sun is red-shifted by
> gravitation as it moves up.

You are suffering here from a false impression. In the case of
gravitational redshift the photon at the surface is emitted at the lower
frequency, it never changes in flight. 

> 
> >Each end of the
> >wave represents the information of the beginning of two separate
> >objective events, e.g. cycles, both of these information 'bits' is
> 
> Richard seems to be adopting a photon *model*
> that carries 2 bits of information. I thinks it's best
> to trust the invariants we've agreed upon,
> c, N = INFO, and of course
> c =wavelength*frequency, then these must always
> remain reciprical analogies in any model.
> 
> >propagating at the same speed wrt the observer, and thus their
> >instantaneous displacement in space wrt each other is fixed wrt the
> >observer from the time of its emission to its absorption, i.e.
> >throughout its entire trip. The only way to change a wavelength in
> >flight is to change the speed of the wave, OTOH, this will not change
> >the frequency. This is simple Jr. High level optics.
> 
> (Simple for you maybe :-)
> 
> This question remains : No information is lost
> when a photon is reflected from a receding mirror.
> A receding mirror will red-shift the photon on
> reflection (doppler effect) but no INFO is lost.\

In order to provide a workable analogy you would need two partially
silvered mirrors thus reflecting the photon back again along its
original path. OTOH, this will not change the photon, it will instead
generate new photons, which again are shifted due to 'relative' motion
of source and detector. If OTOH you could show that photons do in fact
take a step back for every two steps forward, and that space itself is
expanding, then your analogy would provide for the observed red shift.
OTOH this requires space expansion, and thus your tired light theory
becomes equivalent to the expanding universe explanation. Your version
is redundant in that if the source is receding, then you don't need the
oscillatory reflected motion of the photon.

> 
> N and c remain invariant but frequency and
> wavelength are altered.
> 
> >> As a photon propagates across the empty voids
> >> of inter-galatic space, it is being deflected by all
> >> the matter that gravitationally influences that
> >> location, and gravitational deflection sucks photon
> >> momentum, and frequency, but INFO remains
> >> invariant.
> >
> >The frequency never changes wrt a given inertial frame.
> 
> That's a very good point, and produces a tired
> light analogy. Suppose a Spalding golf ball is struck
> very hard in some distant galaxy, and is moving near c.
> As it moves through intergalatic space it deaccelerates
> by gravitational effects any particles it encounters, and
> imparts acceleration to, such as galaxies. It slowly gives
> up momentum but the information (SPALDING) remains
> invariant., (written on the ball).
>   Rather like a bullet moving threw water.
> 
> >Richard Perry
> 
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker