 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / March 2008Space expansion and distance creation
New space distance is being created inbetween matter as the universe expands. This we observe as apparent galactic motion. But it is not motion. They are not moving away through space. Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 > New space distance is being created inbetween matter as the universe > expands. This we observe as apparent galactic motion. But it is not > motion. They are not moving away through space. > > Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 xxein: And that means that light transmission time is not affected??? Here's a bonafide crackpot idea. The Big Bang and expansion of space is an illusion. We look at light coming from a far away place. We notice it takes longer to get here than it ought to. As if light slows down on its way here. But because of relativity, we don't allow that. So, instead we say it takes longer because space expands. But that's sort of silly. What's really happening is light just slows down. Relativity breaks down at certain distances. > Here's a bonafide crackpot idea. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Relativity breaks down at certain distances. That's funny stuff Dear Michael Helland: > Here's a bonafide crackpot idea. > > The Big Bang and expansion of space is an > illusion. ... good so far ... > We look at light coming from a far away place. > > We notice it takes longer to get here than it ought to. We can't know that. What we see is that: - wavelengths are longer than they should be - intensity is in agreement with red shift - duration of characteristic events is redshifted similarly to the wavelength > As if light slows down on its way here. ... No ... > But because of relativity, we don't allow that. ... No, Maxwell shows that the speed of light is a constant. And try as we might, light is so smart that it remembers to reflect in such a way that its two-way light speed is always c. So not "because of relativity", but because it agrees with Nature *here* and *now*. > So, instead we say it takes longer because > space expands. > > But that's sort of silly. Only because you made a mistake. > What's really happening is light just slows down. > > Relativity breaks down at certain distances. If you are interested in cosmology, you might read these pages: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm ... that way you can know what the observations *are*. David A. Smith > New space distance is being created inbetween matter as the universe > expands. This we observe as apparent galactic motion. But it is not > motion. They are not moving away through space. It's not such a dumb idea. This can be modelled using probabilistic methods, and would explain many things such as redshifting quite nicely. You can have an expanding universe "without" a big bang. However, to attempt such a model without using probability theory - now THAT would be d-u-m-b. Dr. V. I. Plankenstein "Huang" : > > New space distance is being created inbetween matter as the universe > > expands. This we observe as apparent galactic motion. But it is not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You can have an expanding universe "without" a big bang. How? What about the background radiation? > However, to attempt such a model without using probability theory - > now THAT would be d-u-m-b. What makes it probabilistic and not pure geometry? regards, guido http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm > "Huang" : > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > guidohttp://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm The explanation can become quite long, so I'll try to be brief. 1] You have a piece of length which is composed of, or graduated by individual Plancklengths. 2] The graduations are not fixed. They can slide around freely. Their position along the length segment is indeterminate. 3] The best way to model [2] is with probability theory. This leads to a very intuitive explanation of why calculus works perfectly regardless of Plancklength. 4] Now you need 3 existential forms, not just 2. In physics you must have these three forms : a] That which exists b] That which does not exist c] That for which existence is indeterminate. Existential indeterminacy is a boundary condition. 5] Length can now be described probabilistically in two distinct ways: a] A given segment is composed of points, and to each point we assign a probability that the point exists. b] A given segment is composed of a nonrandom segment to which we add a random segment. 6] It is indeterminate whether we have [5a] or [5b], and so the continuity/discreteness of spacetime is indeterminate. 7] Waves in space are easily modelled as fluctuations in this "existential potential" of [5a]. 8] And so expansion of space can be characterized quite simply as an overall increase of the probabilities in the existential potential of [5a]. In a sense it really is expansion, but can be viewed as a purely probabilistic phenoemena. That's how I got there - Huang On Mar 20, 8:36 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote: > Dear Michael Helland: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > - duration of characteristic events is redshifted similarly to > the wavelength I am not denying the redshift. I just agree with Hubble that expansion is not the cause. The cause is a loss in velocity over such immense intergalactic distances. E = hf c = fw Redshift means a loss of energy. Which means a decrease in frequency. Which is a decrease in c. If space expands, then c decreases. But it also fits that if c decreases, its not the distance that increases, it's the time that increases. I'm not denying the redshift. It's just that the redshift is really light slowing down which gives the illusion of space expanding. > > As if light slows down on its way here. > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > David A. Smith > On Mar 20, 8:36 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > The cause is a loss in velocity over such immense intergalactic > distances. But if light slows down from distant galaxies, during a lunar occultatation their image would take longer to disappear than more local stars or galaxies. This isn't observed. > > On Mar 20, 8:36 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > their image would take longer to disappear than more local stars or > galaxies. This isn't observed. Maybe. If the differences in speeds of local light and intergalactic light are big enough, and the distance between the Earth and the Moon is big enough. But maybe it's not big enough. >> > On Mar 20, 8:36 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> >> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > But maybe it's not big enough. OK, no problem, it's your theory. What is the difference in light speed between local and distant objects by your theory? > >> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > OK, no problem, it's your theory. What is the difference in light speed > between local and distant objects by your theory? Good question. Let's get the extreme case out of the question. The CMB. Can you see the CMB behind the moon while its still there? If so, we're still in the water. Now the other extreme. In which near galaxies does expansion redshift begin to occur? How many light years does light have to travel to us before we detect the expansion of the universe? >> >> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > How many light years does light have to travel to us before we detect > the expansion of the universe? >> >> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > In which near galaxies does expansion redshift begin to occur? I thought you didn't think that it *was* expansion redshift > How many light years does light have to travel to us before we detect > the expansion of the universe? Lets start with a group of galaxies such as the Hercules Cluster. It is reckoned to be about 650 Mly distant. The red shift is about 0.036. What would be the reduction in the speed of light for these galaxies? > >> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > I thought you didn't think that it *was* expansion redshift I could have said "begin to allegedly appear". That's what normal cranks do. > > How many light years does light have to travel to us before we detect > > the expansion of the universe? > > Lets start with a group of galaxies such as the Hercules Cluster. It is > reckoned to be about 650 Mly distant. The red shift is about 0.036. What > would be the reduction in the speed of light for these galaxies? How much expansion occurs during that journey? Say it is X, or f(650) v = 650 light years / 650 years so v = f(650) light years / f(650) years That's an expanding universe, because the speed of light is constant. But, if we accept that around 650 light years relativity hits its limit (much like Newton hits its limits approaching c), then we can allow the speed of light to change. v_tired = 650 light years / f(650) years That's how much the speed of light tires. [snip] In 2008, tired light is a stupid idea. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm > [snip] > > In 2008, tired light is a stupid idea. > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm He has 4 criticisms. 1. No known interaction will cause tired light response: I'm not suggesting an interaction causes it. I'm suggesting it's the natural behavior of photon after 650 Mly. 2. Light curves. response: Jensen casts some doubt on the evidence 3. The CMB response: His diagrams clearly depict models based on different assumptions. Keeping the Big Bang current with observations has been top priority. It's not surprising alternative models have fallen behind. 4. "The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test. This is essentially the same effect as the CMB prefactor test, but applied to the surface brightness of galaxies instead of to the emissivities of blackbodies." Can anyone explain this? >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Can anyone explain this? I've asked what value you expect the speed of light to be after the light has travelled for 650 Mly. My question to you - What is your answer? In sci.physics.relativity, OG <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote on Mon, 24 Mar 2008 01:09:51 -0000 <64odb3F2crul8U1@mid.individual.net>: >>> [snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > I've asked what value you expect the speed of light to be after the light > has travelled for 650 Mly. My question to you - What is your answer? It gets worse than that. The "tired light" phenomenon is, AFAICT, related to Gaussian wavepacket spreading. http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0143-0807/18/3/022 is a theoretical analysis thereof. I'm not sure of the exact parameterization.  Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not try our new color changing variant? -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com snip > I've asked what value you expect the speed of light to be after the light > has travelled for 650 Mly. My question to you - What is your answer? Let's say you are a photon. You are at 0,0. You're friend is at 0, 650Mly You want to see your friend. You meet up with your friend. He was 650 Mly away. Because of expansion you traveled a distance greater than 650 Mly. You traveled f(650) Mly. I use the function because I don't know how to calculate the actual number. Yes, I'm that stupid. If we were to assume that space is not expanding, then space stays the same, yet time changes. Like so: your_predicted_speed_of_light = 650 Mly / f(650) years That's my answer. And because: c = fw If we consider c variable and not constant, then E = hf Which means it's consistent with the observed redshifts. > snip >> I've asked what value you expect the speed of light to be after the light [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Which means it's consistent with the observed redshifts. OK, so take your theory seriously, find out how it works and come up with a test that gives one result for your theory and a different result for the existing model. That's one way that science works. But it really has to start with you taking your own theory seriously. Until then, you can't expect anyone else to take it seriously. What i don't get is that if distance is relative to matter and energy (distance is not matter and energy), then how can it expand? > What i don't get is that if distance is relative to matter and energy What do you mean by 'relative to matter and energy' ? > (distance is not matter and energy), then how can it expand? > What i don't get is that if distance is relative to matter and energy > (distance is not matter and energy), then how can it expand? Not sure I really understand your question but I might be able to explain the part about space expanding and its relation to mass and energy. I have been posting about an alternative theory that looks at the idea that because gravity slows time, that its this slowing of time that expands space. Its testable and gives the same predictions for expanding space that is now observed.One of my postings where I describe 2 contracting cubes inside of a space ship falling towards a black hole is review for you here.For example if time is only about 1/10 of our time the cubes would have also contracted by 10 time less their original widths note how they would be farther apart yet never have moved form their original locations.Its like you had 2 cubes of jellow set beside each other and let them dry out and contract.Note how they also get farther apart but yet never moved from their centers.Note that on the space ship we have 2 observers the ones on the ship and the externals.People on the ship will argue that the cubes moved apart and never changed in volume but our external outside observers will argue that the cubes never moved they only contracted and so becomes a relative thing much the same way time is.Since you need mass to make gravity,things go to extremes with black holes so its more obvious and with that the relations where you need mass to make space, start to become apparent. Its too much to reprint it all here again except briefly so look for all my posting as you will find more in them than on the web site www.alttheories.com as its incomplete but enough is there now to get you started. Dale > > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > response: I'm not suggesting an interaction causes it. I'm suggesting > it's the natural behavior of photon after 650 Mly. "sh.t happens" is not a valid model. You don't know why or how you think it happens, or even why you think it happens. That is not good enough. > 2. Light curves. > > response: Jensen casts some doubt on the evidence Doubt it. You aren't qualified to critique anything. > 3. The CMB > > response: His diagrams clearly depict models based on different > assumptions. Keeping the Big Bang current with observations has been > top priority. It's not surprising alternative models have fallen > behind. ...and you totally sidestep the issue. > 4. "The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test. > This is essentially the same effect as the CMB prefactor test, but > applied to the surface brightness of galaxies instead of to the > emissivities of blackbodies." > > Can anyone explain this? www.google.com "how to use google" Have you noticed how often you expect us to do your research for you? Have you considered that you are wholly unqualified to do what you are trying to do? > > > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > "sh.t happens" is not a valid model. In the Big Bang model, in order to explains some of its problems, an "inflation" period occurred. That's just sh.t happening. If you posit the Big Bang, then you posit an "inflation" period. That's essentially the same as positing a "tiring" period on a photon. Occam's Razor isn't on your side. > You don't know why or how you think it happens, or even why you think > it happens. That is not good enough. I do know why. > > 2. Light curves. > > > response: Jensen casts some doubt on the evidence > > Doubt it. You aren't qualified to critique anything. Someone told me the Universe doesn't care about your opinion. > > 3. The CMB > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ...and you totally sidestep the issue. The issue is, from his diagrams, he is assuming the observable universe and universe are one in the same. Under my assumptions, the observable universe is different from the Universe. The CMB is recovered in a much different manner. > > 4. "The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test. > > This is essentially the same effect as the CMB prefactor test, but [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Have you considered that you are wholly unqualified to do what you are > trying to do? Have you noticed I'm just here looking for conversation. If someone was willing to explain the Tolman surface brightness test* then I think the physics content in this group would probably go up . You can stand in the way of that if you'd like. * yes, I did Google in an attempt to understand on my own but couldn't [snip] > * yes, I did Google in an attempt to understand on my own but couldn't www.google.com tolman surface brightness test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman_surface_brightness_test First link. Worthless as an actual reference but a perfect place to get started in your research. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0106566 Second link. Summarized: Tired light is crap, and observation is consistent with an expanding universe. Read the paper, and you will have it explained - again - why tired light is crap. When you can't figure out something when its' name is given to you and the first dozen links on google abundantly and clearly explain the concept for anyone who is even slightly familiar with the field, then you clearly need to stop discussing tired light and cosmology in general. I simply do not understand why you believe you can contribute to any discussion when you don't have any of the required background. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I simply do not understand why you believe you can contribute to any > discussion when you don't have any of the required background. When it comes to the Big Bang vrs Tired Light idea, thinking about it and talking about it is just for fun. You're acting like I'm irreverent and blasphemous. Like you're emotionally attached to ideas. Anyways. If someone would like to explain the Tolman Surface Brightness test, that would be great. <snip> > When it comes to the Big Bang vrs Tired Light idea, thinking about it > and talking about it is just for fun. So you find it fun to be ignorant, a look like a fool for everyone... cool if that works for you... > You're acting like I'm irreverent and blasphemous. Like you're > emotionally attached to ideas. No just that your to ignorant to have any right to discuss these issues... > Anyways. > > If someone would like to explain the Tolman Surface Brightness test, > that would be great. Yeah why waste the time, when you wouldn't understand it anyways... not to mention people have already given you things to read, read them... or is the truth that in fact you can't read and thats why your posts are so irrelevant... Cheers > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So you find it fun to be ignorant, a look like a fool for everyone... > cool if that works for you... I'm not to worried about my image. > > You're acting like I'm irreverent and blasphemous. Like you're > > emotionally attached to ideas. > > No just that your to ignorant to have any right to discuss these > issues... Any "right"? Again, you sound like someone who goes to church. > > Anyways. > > > If someone would like to explain the Tolman Surface Brightness test, > > that would be great. > > Yeah why waste the time, Option A; discuss physics Option B; put Mike down I see what's most important to you. > > On Mar 24, 2:12 pm, MichaelHelland<mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > <snip> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Again, you sound like someone who goes to church. Is that a problem for you.... > > > Anyways. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I see what's most important to you. No I just refuse to spoon feed you information that you can learn yourself if you feel put down, then try learning about things before you speak... Cheers > > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > If someone would like to explain the Tolman Surface Brightness test, > that would be great. Why don't you read the links I gave you instead of requiring spoonfed information? > > > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Why don't you read the links I gave you instead of requiring spoonfed > information? I found those links earlier. Needless to say, I am stupid, and as of yet, do not understand the Tolman Surface Brightness test. I didn't think you would explain it. You're more interested in putting me down. But someone else might. > I found those links earlier. Then read them... > Needless to say, I am stupid, and as of yet, do not understand the > Tolman Surface Brightness test. Then make yourself smart, or go away and stop trying to get people to pity your stupidity.... <snip, mike whining> > But someone else might. Anyone who's dealt with you in the past will hopefully have enough sense to know that what you need is read a book, and will not spoon feed you, because your to lazy to learn the stuff yourself... Cheers > > > > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Needless to say, I am stupid, and as of yet, do not understand the > Tolman Surface Brightness test. Then maybe you shouldn't be speculating about a field you cannot understand even with the required information is put in front of you and practically spoon fed. > I didn't think you would explain it. You're more interested in putting > me down. > > But someone else might. If I thought there was a shred of hope that you'd learn, I'd take the time to teach you what I have learned while reading about it. Since there isn't, I don't go past the requisite effort of putting the information out there. > > > > > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > Since there isn't, I don't go past the requisite effort of putting the > information out there. Well, next time you lament the lack of physics content around here, maybe you'll remember that you chose not talk physics here because of some personal issue. <snip> > Well, next time you lament the lack of physics content around here, > maybe you'll remember that you chose not talk physics here because of > some personal issue. The sooner you go away the sooner physics discussions can happen without your ignorance and mindless drivel getting in the way... Cheers > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Cheers I get it. When I go away, then random threads about the Tolmon test will just show up. Sure. > > > > > > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > maybe you'll remember that you chose not talk physics here because of > some personal issue. Posting here is my hobby. Occasionally I'll write a long post full of physics in response to something, but those are few and far between because folks like you won't appreciate it and doing it just isn't the same when you know it won't be appreciated. If you want more physics in here, make the effort to learn some yourself. If you could demonstrate that you want to /learn/ instead of just /talk/, then I'd be glad to talk more. Otherwise, carry on in your whining. Dear Michael Helland: ... > I am not denying the redshift. > > I just agree with Hubble that expansion is > not the cause. "Agree" is the wrong word. "Believe" is probably the right word. > The cause is a loss in velocity over such > immense intergalactic distances. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Redshift means a loss of energy. Which > means a decrease in frequency. Now consider that: - intensity changes in agreement with redshift being expansion - duration of events change in agreement with redshift being expansion Your "belief" fixes redshift, but now requires entirely new physics: 1) we don't know any way to remove some energy from passing photons and not scatter them. 2) we are not getting increasing levels of light scattered from older objects 3) we now cannot find processes similar to ones we see occuring locally. > Which is a decrease in c. No, it is not a decrease in c. > If space expands, then c decreases. What happens if your clock runs faster, and c stays always the same value? The meter is defined as c times time. Is more distance created thereby? > But it also fits that if c decreases, its not the > distance that increases, it's the time that > increases. You don't need to play with both. > I'm not denying the redshift. > > It's just that the redshift is really light slowing > down which gives the illusion of space > expanding. And breaks the entire rest of physics. Think about it. David A. Smith On Mar 21, 11:04 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote: > Dear Michael Helland: > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > David A. Smith Why don't you pick on someone not so easily refuted? D.W.H. On Mar 21, 8:04 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote: > Dear Michael Helland: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > - duration of events change in agreement with redshift being > expansion > Your "belief" fixes redshift, but now requires entirely new > physics: That's the point. > 1) we don't know any way to remove some energy from passing > photons and not scatter them. The conjecture is that photons, after traveling far enough, slow down naturally. > 2) we are not getting increasing levels of light scattered from > older objects Because they lose energy without scattering. Check this out: Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics' Delayed gamma rays from deep space may provide the first evidence for physics beyond current theories. http://www.physorg.com/news110480559.html > 3) we now cannot find processes similar to ones we see occuring > locally. Same with expansion. The point is this doesn't occur locally. The point is Relativity holds true, but has like the Newtonian physics it replaced, it starts to break down after traveling through deep space. > > Which is a decrease in c. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > You don't need to play with both. Right. You need to play with one or the other. Mainstream cosmology says play with the size of space. I'm saying, and the above cite seems to support, that playing with the speed of photons gives all the same results. > > I'm not denying the redshift. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And breaks the entire rest of physics. Think about it. I know. Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics' Delayed gamma rays from deep space may provide the first evidence for physics beyond current theories. http://www.physorg.com/news110480559.html [snip junk] Go figure. You can't understand any of modern physics but you feel free to try to reinvent cosmology regardless and without understanding of modern observations. > Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics' > Delayed gamma rays from deep space may provide the first evidence for > physics beyond current theories. > > http://www.physorg.com/news110480559.html 1) Submitted is not published, and its' been 6 months. Unpublished. PRL has yet to accept the manuscript - junk this into the pile of amazing claims like Tajmar, et. al. 2) The claims are based on the assumption of how quasar processes work. 3) You are an idiot. Dear Michael Helland: > On Mar 21, 8:04 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" > <dl...@cox.net> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > That's the point. Not a point in your favor. >> 1) we don't know any way to remove some >> energy from passing photons and not scatter them. > > The conjecture is that photons, after traveling far > enough, slow down naturally. So they travel at c at emission, but slower than c sometime later? This is not observed in the laboratory, using starlight from rapidly moving sources. Guess again. >> 2) we are not getting increasing levels of light >> scattered from older objects > > Because they lose energy without scattering. There are *not enough photons*. So guess again. > Check this out: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.physorg.com/news110480559.html Non sequitur. A fellow duplicated "gamma ray bursters" in the lab, eliciting high energy photons from empty space, using only rapidly changing magnetic fields. Howeer cool that is, it also has nothing to do with our discussion. >> 3) we now cannot find processes similar to ones >> we see occuring locally. > > Same with expansion. NOT the "same with expansion". Your conjecture fixes one observation, and breaks two. > The point is this doesn't occur locally. Why? Relativity has a way to handle this, but you do not. > The point is Relativity holds true, but has like > the Newtonian physics it replaced, it starts to > break down after traveling through deep space. Prove it. ... >> > But it also fits that if c decreases, its not the >> > distance that increases, it's the time that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Mainstream cosmology says play with the size of space. No. It says that the distance between two distant bodies is not constant. This leaves a locally constant c, and a *variable time rate* based on the "global curvature" of the Universe at that instant. > I'm saying, and the above cite seems to support, > that playing with the speed of photons gives all > the same results. It doesn't. I was tricked by the words of Setterfield into thinking it solves problems too. It does not. >> > I'm not denying the redshift. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://www.physorg.com/news110480559.html Just as non sequitur as it was before. David A. Smith On Mar 21, 12:33 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote: > Dear Michael Helland: > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > later? This is not observed in the laboratory, using starlight > from rapidly moving sources. Guess again. Are you sure? http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0404/0404207.pdf <quote> Supernovae Ia (SNe Ia) light curves have been used to prove the universe is expanding. As standard candles, SNe Ia appear to indicate the rate of expansion has increased in the past and is now decreasing. This independent evaluation of SNe Ia light curves demonstrates a Malmquist Type II bias exists in the body of supernova data. If this bias is properly addressed, there is very little budget for time dilation in the light curves of supernova. <snip> For most of the 20th century astronomical observations such as galactic evolution, heavy metal abundance, supernovae light curves and the cosmic microwave background have fallen within the constraints of the Einstein - de Sitter Big Bang model. In the last two decades these relationships have become severely strained. The universe is too big and too old; the magnitudes of supernovae are dimming too fast. There are too many radio point sources. The far infrared continuum emissions imply a dusty past that is completely at odds with multi-colored supernovae and quasar spectrums. There is too little anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background to support the observed galaxy super-cluster structure. Heavy metal ratios equal to solar concentrations have been quantified in the most redshifted objects we observe. Something is wrong with this mature theory: It has failed in too many predictions. </quote> > >> 2) we are not getting increasing levels of light > >> scattered from older objects [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > > David A. Smith > On Mar 21, 12:33 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0404/0404207.pdf How are you qualified to cite these papers when you have no idea what the contents mean? [...] > > On Mar 21, 12:33 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > [...] Empirical Eric, How many predictions has Big Bang successfully made? > > > On Mar 21, 12:33 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > How many predictions has Big Bang successfully made? Which one? The big bang theory has evolved many times since Guth and crew thought of it. For starters, the observed baryonic isotope ratios, the background radiation power spectrum, and the isotropy in the background radiation. How many predictions has your non-theory successfully made? I'm guessing zero. > > > > On Mar 21, 12:33 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> > > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > For starters, the observed baryonic isotope ratios, the background > radiation power spectrum, Didn't really get that one right, did it? > and the isotropy in the background > radiation. > How many predictions has your non-theory successfully made? I'm > guessing zero. Well, my non-theory says that what is observable in deep space may be limited, but the universe is actually infinite in all directions. The reason for the observation limit is after traveling long enough, say, twice the width of the observable universe light naturally wears out. It shows up to us as what is called the CMB. It's a vague vague shadow, much vaguer than usual, of deeper than deep space. That explains what it all looks the same in all directions. We are looking at a finite representation of infinity. > > > > > On Mar 21, 12:33 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> > > > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > Didn't really get that one right, did it? It gets all of them right. You just have no idea what I'm talking about because you are even further from your area of expertise than you were before - and that's pretty f.cking far. > > and the isotropy in the background > > radiation. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well, my non-theory says that what is observable in deep space may be > limited, but the universe is actually infinite in all directions. Congratulations, you acknowledge that light has finite propagation speed. The prediction is otherwise untestable. > The reason for the observation limit is after traveling long enough, > say, twice the width of the observable universe light naturally wears > out. > > It shows up to us as what is called the CMB. Stupid and wrong. The CMB is a perfect blackbody to parts per million level, and the anisotropies are randomly distributed. > It's a vague vague shadow, much vaguer than usual, of deeper than deep > space. > > That explains what it all looks the same in all directions. > > We are looking at a finite representation of infinity. You have no idea what you are talking about. > > > > > > On Mar 21, 12:33 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> > > > > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > It gets all of them right. Initially it was wrong. Ad-hoc solutions came up. > You just have no idea what I'm talking > about because you are even further from your area of expertise than > you were before - and that's pretty f.cking far. I know that. This is a bonafide crackpot idea. I was pretty clear about that. > > > and the isotropy in the background > > > radiation. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Congratulations, you acknowledge that light has finite propagation > speed. The prediction is otherwise untestable. At the distances redshift expansion starts to appear, the propagation speed of light lessens. In the equation v = d / t In order to explain the redshift, we assume t takes longer because d gets bigger. Instead, what if t takes longer because v gets smaller? What if at the point expansion starts to appear, we're really just watching relativity break down (much like how Newtonian physics breaks down where relativity starts to appear). > > The reason for the observation limit is after traveling long enough, > > say, twice the width of the observable universe light naturally wears [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > You have no idea what you are talking about. Not really, no. [...] > Initially it was wrong. Yea, that's why I asked WHICH ONE because the model has gone through a few revisions. > Ad-hoc solutions came up. Which make further specific predictions that are validated. > > You just have no idea what I'm talking > > about because you are even further from your area of expertise than [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Instead, what if t takes longer because v gets smaller? Unsupported by observation. Lightspeed is constant, even across cosmological distances. > What if at the point expansion starts to appear, we're really just > watching relativity break down (much like how Newtonian physics breaks > down where relativity starts to appear). What if, at that point, a unicorn appears? Saying relativity "breaks down" is meaningless without a quantitative prediction of when, where, and under what conditions relativity breaks down. > > > The reason for the observation limit is after traveling long enough, > > > say, twice the width of the observable universe light naturally wears [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Stupid and wrong. The CMB is a perfect blackbody to parts per million > > level, and the anisotropies are randomly distributed. No comment, Mike? > > > It's a vague vague shadow, much vaguer than usual, of deeper than deep > > > space. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Not really, no. Oh, yes. You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know, mathematically, what a multipole mmoment is? > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > Oh, yes. You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know, > mathematically, what a multipole mmoment is? Alright then, bring the discussion home from multipole moment to space expansion and creation since you've introduced the idea into this thread. Please show us how this works. [...] > > Oh, yes. You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know, > > mathematically, what a multipole mmoment is? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > introduced the idea into this thread. Please show us > how this works. Why enter into a discussion about the background radiation if Mike doesn't know what radiation multipole moments are? > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Why enter into a discussion about the background radiation if Mike > doesn't know what radiation multipole moments are? Nice escape. Thanks. > > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Nice escape. Thanks. It wasn't an escape - it was the purpose of bringing it up. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Unsupported by observation. Observations report the light comes in red-shifted. E = hf Loss in energy is a loss in frequency. Plug that into this formula: c = fw f = c / w And you'll see that c gets smaller. > Lightspeed is constant, even across cosmological distances. That's the dogma. > > What if at the point expansion starts to appear, we're really just > > watching relativity break down (much like how Newtonian physics breaks [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > prediction of when, where, and under what conditions relativity breaks > down. It breaks down at the distances that expansion allegedly appears. > > > > The reason for the observation limit is after traveling long enough, > > > > say, twice the width of the observable universe light naturally wears [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No comment, Mike? Randomness is best produced by complexity. > > > > It's a vague vague shadow, much vaguer than usual, of deeper than deep > > > > space. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Oh, yes. You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know, > mathematically, what a multipole mmoment is? I was agreeing with you. Do I know what I'm talking? Not really, no. I'm just having fun. You've been taught by this silly little society to hate people like me. I won't stand in your way. <snip unimportant> > Do I know what I'm talking? > > Not really, no. ding ding ding we have a winner, a self proclaimed ignoramus.... Mike a salute your honesty... > I'm just having fun. Really? so your idea of fun is getting kicked in the preverbal nuts everyday...? So how do you feel about to quote a movie "a genital shocking taser gun?" -Sandra Bullock > You've been taught by this silly little society to hate people like > me. No you've taught us that mike through your all invading ignorance and you inability to go away... > I won't stand in your way. Sweet, then don't complain about comments leveled at you... Cheers [snip] > Do I know what I'm talking? > > Not really, no. Then why are you talking? Ignorance is not a form of knowing things. [snip] >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > And you'll see that c gets smaller. No, you will see that w gets larger. The wavelength is what is measured for light. When you do this with microwaves, you measure frequency and you see the frequency decrease. Since the frequency decreases and the wavelength increases in the same ratio, it means that c is a constant. >> Lightspeed is constant, even across cosmological distances. > > That's the dogma. No, that is the experimental result. Look up "tired light" and see the reasons it has been rejected. >>> What if at the point expansion starts to appear, we're really just >>> watching relativity break down (much like how Newtonian physics breaks [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > I won't stand in your way. Dear Eric Gisse: On Mar 21, 3:16 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote: ... >> The reason for the observation limit is after traveling >> long enough, say, twice the width of the observable >> universe light naturally wears out. > >> It shows up to us as what is called the CMB. > Stupid and wrong. The CMB is a perfect blackbody to > parts per million level, and the anisotropies are > randomly distributed. Add that the CMBR was hotter as we look back further in time. Why is there no similar hot CMBR light now? David A. Smith On Mar 21, 7:14 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote: > Dear Eric Gisse: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > David A. Smith Has the temperature of the CMB changed since we first began to measure it? Dear Michael Helland: > On Mar 21, 7:14 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" > <dl...@cox.net> > wrote: ... >> >> It shows up to us as what is called the CMB. >> > Stupid and wrong. The CMB is a perfect blackbody to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Has the temperature of the CMB changed since > we first began to measure it? Only as refinements. But we have been able to use observations of distant processes, and have seen the CMBR to be much hotter "back then". For example, 1.1 billion years ago, the CMBR was about 9 K. David A. Smith On Mar 21, 9:55 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote: > Dear Michael Helland: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > David A. Smith Does it predict any changes in the next 500 years? > > The reason for the observation limit is after traveling long enough, > > say, twice the width of the observable universe light naturally wears [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Stupid and wrong. The CMB is a perfect blackbody to parts per million > level, and the anisotropies are randomly distributed. Random. You mean as the result of complexity? Dear Michael Helland: > On Mar 21, 12:33 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" > <dl...@cox.net> > wrote: ... >> So they travel at c at emission, but slower than c >> sometime later? This is not observed in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0404/0404207.pdf You cite a paper that was never peer reviewed, and is used nowhere as a citation. In other words, it proposes but does not support "new physics". So it is crap. David A. Smith On Mar 21, 3:55 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote: > Dear Michael Helland: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > David A. Smith This turns up a 1,180 hits: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Supernovae+Light+Curves+jensen&hl=en&lr=&btn G=Search An entirely new physics would take decades of effort and involve many many research projects. It seems pretty obvious signs of things to come are starting to pop up, unless you're not interested in paying attention. Dear Michael Helland: > On Mar 21, 3:55 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" > <dl...@cox.net> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Supernovae+Light+Curves+jensen&hl=en&lr=&btn G=Search So? A google search on "dlzc" ends up with 56,800 hits. > An entirely new physics would take decades of > effort and involve many many research projects. And experimental verification. How convenient that "Jensen" relies on results that cannot be experimentally verified *here* and *now*, while "vanilla" relativity can. > It seems pretty obvious signs of things to come > are starting to pop up, unless you're not > interested in paying attention. Why is it that you are not interested in paying attention? David A. Smith On Mar 21, 7:11 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote: > Dear Michael Helland: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > So? A google search on "dlzc" ends up with 56,800 hits. A Google Scholar search for that comes up with 43. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=dlzc&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search > > An entirely new physics would take decades of > > effort and involve many many research projects. > > And experimental verification. How convenient that "Jensen" > relies on results that cannot be experimentally verified *here* > and *now*, while "vanilla" relativity can. I think he was pointing out the lack of light curve evidence. As in a prediction that the Big Bang gets wrong. > > It seems pretty obvious signs of things to come > > are starting to pop up, unless you're not > > interested in paying attention. > > Why is it that you are not interested in paying attention? Dear Michael Helland: > On Mar 21, 7:11 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" > <dl...@cox.net> > wrote: .. >> > This turns up a 1,180 hits: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=dlzc&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search I'm shocked that a mechanical engineer should end up with any hits there. >> > An entirely new physics would take decades of >> > effort and involve many many research projects. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > As in a prediction that the Big Bang gets wrong. I think he doesn't point out anything useful, and offers "new physics". David A. Smith On Mar 21, 9:52 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote: > Dear Michael Helland: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I'm shocked that a mechanical engineer should end up with any > hits there. I'm not shocked you didn't actually look at the link before you commented. Those aren't references to you. > >> > An entirely new physics would take decades of > >> > effort and involve many many research projects. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I think he doesn't point out anything useful There's too much riding on the line to do that. >, and offers "new > physics". > > David A. Smith On Mar 21, 6:55 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote: > Dear MichaelHelland: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > David A. Smith To be honest I am surprised Mike even posted a reference albeit a poor one normally he just spews so this is a marked improvement. Although I am a little confused to what the point of some of these google searches is. Although as usual Mike unfailingly embarrases himself in the misuse of ideas he has no notion of, and in fact Mike has even admitted that he knows nothing of physics so him talking of physics is really a waste of anyones time... Cheers Mitch My Convex & Concave theory fits well here Bert > New space distance is being created inbetween matter as the universe > expands. This we observe as apparent galactic motion. But it is not > motion. They are not moving away through space. > > Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 But isn't distance in itself nothing? So how can it be created? Distance is only relative. Only energy exists. > > New space distance is being created inbetween matter as the universe > > expands. This we observe as apparent galactic motion. But it is not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But isn't distance in itself nothing? So how can it be created? > Distance is only relative. Only energy exists. Distance is dimensional. It grows as the universe expands. Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 On Mar 23, 3:45 am, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > Distance is dimensional. It grows as the universe expands. But distance is not matter or energy and it is also not made of particles is it? On Mar 22, 8:45 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > New space distance is being created inbetween matter as the universe > > > expands. This we observe as apparent galactic motion. But it is not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Distance is dimensional. It grows as the universe expands. Distance is dimensional. You bet it is. Sow how do you model it "growing" there Mr. 2XNobel Laureates ? Show me some math that makes it "grow". > On Mar 22, 8:45 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > "growing" there Mr. 2XNobel Laureates ? Show me some math that makes > it "grow". Volume is expanding in three dimensional space direction. Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 On Mar 25, 4:36 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Mar 22, 8:45 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You can model anything any way you want. So show me some math. Volume is V. Whats next. (?) > On Mar 25, 4:36 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Volume is curved. Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 On Mar 26, 5:24 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Mar 25, 4:36 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Volume is curved. So maybe it is. Show the math. > On Mar 26, 5:24 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The math is Einstein's curved Riemanian geometry. Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 In sci.physics.relativity, mitchgrav@hotmail.com <mitchgrav@hotmail.com> wrote on Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:08:33 -0700 (PDT) <e27232b6-c406-40a8-a03b-37338b24c73c@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>: >> On Mar 26, 5:24 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 Math is a vehicle for communication. What is the destination here? Can you predict a result that can be measured? Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Conventional memory has to be one of the most UNconventional architectures I've seen in a computer system. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.