 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / April 2008Big Bang Space Expansion
Atronomers observe the most distant objects to be 13 billion light years away. The universe had to expand first to get those objects out to that distance. I call it distance motion of spatial expansion. Then we have to wait for light to traverse expanding space on its way back. Because space is growing it is going to take longer. Mitch Raemsch Falling light changes colour On Apr 12, 2:23�pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > Atronomers observe the most distant objects to be 13 billion light > years away. The universe had to expand first to get those objects out [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Mitch Raemsch Falling light changes colour Mitch, you know even less than I do. And I did not qualify to get into high school physic, only "modern science", ie "how soap bubbles work, etc. But you see I am here only as a troll, and a very successful one. I nonsense that sounds good enough to make the regulars here, especially Uncle Al, feel they have to refute it. You sound like your trying to do stuff like me, but your serious and I'm just kidding. And your posts are very superficial like the above post. They remind me of Donald Sutherland (as a pot smoking professor) regaling a bunch of freshman about how atoms might be little solar systems with inhabited planets. > On Apr 12, 2:23�pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > professor) regaling a bunch of freshman about how atoms might be > little solar systems with inhabited planets. I don't want to know what you know rush. MItch Raemsch In article <42ce5007-da52-46d8-acb7-8eb716d9fd52@ 1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, mitchgrav@hotmail.com says... > Then > we have to wait for light to traverse expanding space on its way back. What is the effect of light travelling in a space that is expanding? > In article <42ce5007-da52-46d8-acb7-8eb716d9fd52@ > 1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, mitchg...@hotmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What is the effect of light travelling in a space that is expanding? It is red shifted or expanded as it moves through the expanding space - expanding with it. This is identical to the red shift that it would have if it were moving away (into preexisting space) The galaxies are not moving away. Instead space is expanding. But the effect of red shift must be identical or we do not have any means of knowing where anything is at. In other words expanding light redshift has to be exactly equivalent to motions red shift in order for us to have any map. I call this an Equivalence Principle: Expanding space red shifts light in an identical way to a motion red shift that would come from distance/speed. Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 Dear SolomonW: > In article <42ce5007-da52-46d8-acb7-8eb716d9fd52@ > 1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, mitchgrav@hotmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What is the effect of light travelling in a > space that is expanding? On the light? None. David A. Smith On Apr 12, 7:52 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote: > Dear SolomonW: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > David A. Smith It gets stretched or red shifted by expanding space so slow that it takes 13 billion years for the largest expansion shift. Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 On Apr 12, 11:04 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Apr 12, 7:52 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > - Show quoted text - So - what makes it stretch in the first place ?? How do you model that mathematically ? Dear Huang: On Apr 12, 11:04 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Apr 12, 7:52 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" > <dl...@cox.net> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> space so slow that it takes 13 billion years >> for the largest expansion shift. > So - what makes it stretch in the first place ?? It doesn't. Our clocks are running that much faster, compared to "then". > How do you model that mathematically ? He is a twice nodel laureate. Mathematics is foreign to him. David A. Smith > On Apr 12, 11:04 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The model is Hyperpshere or 4 dimensional sphere. The universe is the surface and the hyperpshere is expanding. Mitch Raemsch On Apr 12, 11:04 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Apr 12, 7:52 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > - Show quoted text - So - what makes it stretch in the first place ?? How do you model that mathematically ? Take one BB ( Quantum Point conversion) convert a portion of the QP into Physical Particles of Anti Matter and Matter, run those into each other causing short inflation phase, Note the remaining energy not converted continues to exist as a Inverse Tensor between all Physical Particles and you have an ever expanding universe expanding at an ever increasing rate of expansion. To model mathematically you must make up stuff to fit what is observed like UGC, Hubble Constant, Infinity and Multi-Dimensions and the like... Its all much simpler than many conceive. > On Apr 12, 11:04 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The only thing that makes any sense to me is modelling length probabilistically. I just cant visualize spacebending very easily using the standard methods. Using probability really simplifies things IMO. > > "Huang" <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Geometry. > On Apr 12, 11:04 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: >> On Apr 12, 7:52 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > is observed like UGC, Hubble Constant, Infinity and Multi-Dimensions and > the like... Its all much simpler than many conceive. I prefer travelers shrinking local universes under 'constant boost' (constant power) propulsion. Contracting a local universe, or any number of local universes, gets them where they are going quicker (actually gets them there, period). Of course when they decelerate -- slow down -- toward arrival, the local universe expands up from the prior contraction of space and time, as does their destination point in it (be it galaxy, solar system, world, gas station....) expand up as well. GLB > > On Apr 12, 11:04 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > >> On Apr 12, 7:52 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Imagine a plane. Ordinarily, all of the points exist with probability 1. But if you allow this probability to vary from place to place, then the "expected length" must be either compressed or contracted. You can model _everything_ this way, and even incorporate this view with some dynamics without too much difficulty. You can very easily: [1] conclude that space is "indeterminately either continuous or discrete". [2] easily explain anomalous precession of perihelion of Mercury. [3] should be able to reconcile Bohr and deBroigle atoms [4] explains dark matter [5] explains redshifting [6] explains spacebending etc etc etc On Apr 12, 8:52 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote: > Dear SolomonW: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > On the light? None. a. Expanding space gives the optical illusion that light slows down on its way. Or... b. Light slowing down on its way gives the optical illusion of space expanding. I think b is more accurate. Dear Michael Helland: > On Apr 12, 8:52 pm, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> > wrote: ... > > > What is the effect of light travelling in a > > > space that is expanding? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a. Expanding space gives the optical illusion that light > slows down on its way. Disproven by simple experiment. Use the Moon as a shutter for high z sources. If they become eclipsed later than they should, then light is slowed down. Even more stringent was Kopeikin's "speed of gravity" experiment, where Jupiter was used as a shutter, a pulsar was used as the light source, an nanosecond timers were applied. > Or... > > b. Light slowing down on its way gives the optical > illusion of space expanding. > > I think b is more accurate. One can imagine a few more "mechanisms", but what is the point? David A. Smith > Dear Michael Helland: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > sources. If they become eclipsed later than they should, then light > is slowed down. E = hf Have we considered the possibility that not only would light lose velocity, but how it acted under gravity would be pretty different too? I'm guess anything moving slow enough would crash into the back of the moon if it came anywhere in the local vicinity of the moon.. Or, just pass right through it and show up as the CMB. > Even more stringent was Kopeikin's "speed of gravity" experiment, > where Jupiter was used as a shutter, a pulsar was used as the light [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > One can imagine a few more "mechanisms", but what is the point? This one simple mechanism eliminates expansion, inflation, dark energy, and adjustable parameters and other mechanisms It's overwhelmingly elegant compared to the Big Bang. And all if have to accept is one simple little fact: FACT: Like Newtonian physics, Relativistic physics has limits. We'll soon acknowledge that distances of about 650,000,000 light years are where it starts to break down. Dear Michael Helland: >> Dear Michael Helland: >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Or, just pass right through it and show up as the CMB. The point is, there is no anomalous eclipse. High z, low z, they all eclipse on schedule... including the CMBR (most likely). (Hard to look for a 3K hole in a ~273K background) >> Even more stringent was Kopeikin's "speed of >> gravity" experiment, where Jupiter was used as [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > FACT: Like Newtonian physics, Relativistic physics > has limits. Doesn't help. Expansion is not a problem for GR, nor uniformly-distributed Dark Energy, but Dark Matter and Dark Energy only at certain scales is. > We'll soon acknowledge that distances of about > 650,000,000 light years are where it starts to > break down. No, it breaks down below the scale of a molecule, and much beyond our solar system. Dark Matter lets it cover all the observed galaxies, but not superclusters. Waving a hand and saying "well it is all approximation anyway" just doesn't help. Keep in mind that redshift agrees with expansion, duration of supernovae agrees with expansion, intensity agrees with expansion. David A. Smith On Apr 14, 7:51 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote: > Dear Michael Helland: > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > The point is, there is no anomalous eclipse. High z, low z, they > all eclipse on schedule... including the CMBR (most likely). Most likely? What are the facts? > (Hard to look for a 3K hole in a ~273K background) > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > supernovae agrees with expansion, intensity agrees with > expansion. Could you explain the bit about intensity. Dear Michael Helland: > On Apr 14, 7:51 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" > <dl...@cox.net> > wrote: >> Dear Michael Helland: >> >> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message ... >> The point is, there is no anomalous eclipse. >> High z, low z, they all eclipse on schedule... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What are the facts? 1) z of up to 3 and change, no anomaly. With the Moon, 1.3 seconds is normal one-way time. A z of 3 could make that trip (1+z) * 1.3 = 5.2 seconds. We could essentially "see through" the Moon for 3.9 seconds, while other objects would be blanked out. 2) Hard to look for a 3K hole in a ~273K background. The CMBR is only 3K and the Moon is much hotter than this. It wipes out the CMBR's signal. Unfortunate, because with a z of over 1000... 3) Even more stringent was Kopeikin's "speed of gravity" experiment, where Jupiter was used as a shutter, a pulsar was used as the light source, and nanosecond timers were applied. >> Keep in mind that redshift agrees with expansion, >> duration of supernovae agrees with expansion, >> intensity agrees with expansion. > > Could you explain the bit about intensity. The 1/r^2 intensity (number of photons per unit area, per unit time) agrees with the distance arrived at by red shift alone. They are as far away as we see them to be. They "expanded" that far away up until now. David A. Smith > > Dear Michael Helland: > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > It's overwhelmingly elegant compared to the Big Bang. So is the steady state universe. Too bad it is wrong. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm Tired light is wrong, and has been for a long time. You didn't listen last time and you probably won't listen now, I just hate seeing stupidity go unchallenged. > And all if have to accept is one simple little fact: > > FACT: Like Newtonian physics, Relativistic physics has limits. You understand neither. What's your point? > We'll soon acknowledge that distances of about 650,000,000 light years > are where it starts to break down. No. > > > Dear Michael Helland: > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > last time and you probably won't listen now, I just hate seeing > stupidity go unchallenged. In that case, the steady state universe was one model that has been falsified. Does that mean all other candidates and possibilities for non- expansionary models are falsified? No. That's stupid. You must be happy someone challenged it. > > > > Dear Michael Helland: > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > That's stupid. NO, what is stupid is repeatedly bringing up the same idiocies over and over while ignoring their refutations. No matter how hard you wish, you aren't going to make the big bang theory go away with your nonexistent knowledge of the subject. > You must be happy someone challenged it. > > > > > Dear Michael Helland: > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > NO, what is stupid is repeatedly bringing up the same idiocies over > and over while ignoring their refutations. You mean like posting Ned Wright's arguments against an old Tired Light model, and assuming no Tired Light model can be made to fit. The Big Bang model is falsified all the time, and adjustable parameters like inflation are used to save it. The problem is there is no tolerance for suggesting that expansion is just an illusion. It's an optical effect: space appears to expand, because light takes longer to reach us. It could just slow down. > No matter how hard you > wish, you aren't going to make the big bang theory go away with your > nonexistent knowledge of the subject. > > > You must be happy someone challenged it. > > > > > > Dear Michael Helland: > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > You mean like posting Ned Wright's arguments against an old Tired > Light model, and assuming no Tired Light model can be made to fit. Yep. > The Big Bang model is falsified all the time, and adjustable > parameters like inflation are used to save it. Nope - the basic hypothesis of the big bang model hasn't changed. > The problem is there is no tolerance for suggesting that expansion is > just an illusion. Nope - just no tolerance for discredited models. > It's an optical effect: space appears to expand, because light takes > longer to reach us. It could just slow down. Nope - read the tired light cosmology faq. Try to read it this time. > > No matter how hard you > > wish, you aren't going to make the big bang theory go away with your > > nonexistent knowledge of the subject. > > > > You must be happy someone challenged it. > > > > > > > Dear Michael Helland: > [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > Nope - the basic hypothesis of the big bang model hasn't changed. But several adjustable parameters have been necessary to save it. > > The problem is there is no tolerance for suggesting that expansion is > > just an illusion. > > Nope - just no tolerance for discredited models. Or an unwavering belief in constancy of the speed of light even after a billion light years. > > It's an optical effect: space appears to expand, because light takes > > longer to reach us. It could just slow down. > > Nope - read the tired light cosmology faq. Try to read it this time. I did. The supernovae argument could be addressed by adjusting for a "Malmquist Type II" bias. I *think* that means the supernova we witness far away are actually bigger and stronger than we think they are because the weaker ones fall off the observations. Or something like that. The only argument on Ned's FAQ that I don't understand the Tolman Surface Brightness test. However, since that's allegedly much like the Light curve evidence argument, the same bias in the data could exist there. [snip] > > Nope - the basic hypothesis of the big bang model hasn't changed. > > But several adjustable parameters have been necessary to save it. So? > > > The problem is there is no tolerance for suggesting that expansion is > > > just an illusion. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Or an unwavering belief in constancy of the speed of light even after > a billion light years. It fits the data. There would be obvious spectral broadening of supernova light curves otherwise. > > > It's an optical effect: space appears to expand, because light takes > > > longer to reach us. It could just slow down. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I did. The supernovae argument could be addressed by adjusting for a > "Malmquist Type II" bias. Bullshit. You have no idea what a Malmquist bias is or how it is relevant. You still haven't figured out the Tolman surface brightness test. > I *think* that means the supernova we witness far away are actually > bigger and stronger than we think they are because the weaker ones > fall off the observations. Or something like that. Oh do you now? Do you have any evidence for this, or is this more supposition from someone who needs to be *repeatedly* pointed to a FAQ in regards to his misunderstandings? > The only argument on Ned's FAQ that I don't understand the Tolman > Surface Brightness test. Wow, you still haven't figured it out yet? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7b17ce4f98e6a613?dmode=source Nearly a month ago I gave you exactly what you needed and still you do not understand. > However, since that's allegedly much like the Light curve evidence > argument, the same bias in the data could exist there. Neat - you are in full-on crank mode. Now science is /conspiring/ to hide the truth from you. How you know this is an infinite mystery since you have no actual understanding of the field in question... > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So? It means the original hypothesis was falsified, and ad hoc solutions were created. > > > > The problem is there is no tolerance for suggesting that expansion is > > > > just an illusion. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It fits the data. There would be obvious spectral broadening of > supernova light curves otherwise. The only thing obvious to scientists is what they are looking for. If they're looking for confirmation of the Big Bang, that's usually what they'll find. > > > > It's an optical effect: space appears to expand, because light takes > > > > longer to reach us. It could just slow down. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > hide the truth from you. How you know this is an infinite mystery > since you have no actual understanding of the field in question... Science isn't a conspiracy. It's a meme. > > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It means the original hypothesis was falsified, and ad hoc solutions > were created. Let's find out if you can read for comprehension. The original big bang hypothesis hasn't changed. At all. The inflation hypothesis was added on to explain the extreme smallness of the anisotropies in the background radiation as well as why the matter in the universe appears to be pretty much isotropic. > > > > > The problem is there is no tolerance for suggesting that expansion is > > > > > just an illusion. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The only thing obvious to scientists is what they are looking for. Bzzt - wrong. That isn't how it works, as a casual read of the literature would show. Oh wait - you don't read the literature. Ever. OTOH I feel like pretending to be a scientist and that means testing the hypothesis. What was the last peer reviewed paper you read pertaining to cosmology? > If they're looking for confirmation of the Big Bang, that's usually > what they'll find. Yea, that microwave background that appears to permeate the universe was Penzias' and Wilson's way of getting out of not wanting to clean the pigeon sh.t out of the microwave antenna. They had friends on the Nobel committee who helped cover their a.s, and the fraud has perpetuated ever since. Thank god you are the only one who knows the truth. If scientists find only what they are looking for, the steady state universe would be the current doctrine. Since you have zero influence on the scientific community - much less this newsgroup - I encourage you to continue repeating obvious stupidities for the entertainment value it provides. Would now be a bad time to remind you that you have no grasp of either the current state of the field or any of its' history? > > > > > It's an optical effect: space appears to expand, because light takes > > > > > longer to reach us. It could just slow down. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > relevant. You still haven't figured out the Tolman surface brightness > > test. No comment? Still can't explain how a Malmquist bias is relevant to this? I mean sh.t, the Tolman surface brightness test is conceptually simpler than the Malmquist bias and you couldn't get /that/ even with some intense hand holding. Do you actually expect me to believe you haven't figured out the Tolman test while having a firm grasp on the Malmquist bias? > > > I *think* that means the supernova we witness far away are actually > > > bigger and stronger than we think they are because the weaker ones [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7b17ce4f98e6a613?dmode... Still haven't figured it out? > > Nearly a month ago I gave you exactly what you needed and still you do > > not understand. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > It's a meme. -1, Wrong. "longcat is long" is a meme. "lulz" is a meme. Science isn't a f.cking meme. Do you worship the idol of stupidity? Have you made the daily textbook or journal sacrifice? I could be tripping balls and still have a better grasp of the scientific method than you. > > > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > anisotropies in the background radiation as well as why the matter in > the universe appears to be pretty much isotropic. Ok. You can organize names in all sorts of configurations that make sense. Bottom line: The hypothesis for the history of the Universe has changed to conform to observations. > > > > > > The problem is there is no tolerance for suggesting that expansion is > > > > > > just an illusion. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > you to continue repeating obvious stupidities for the entertainment > value it provides. I never said "only". I said they "usually". As in commonly. Rare exceptions become legends, as you have pointed out. > Would now be a bad time to remind you that you have no grasp of either > the current state of the field or any of its' history? Are you aware that Hubble never accepted expansion as the cause of the redshift? > > > > > > It's an optical effect: space appears to expand, because light takes > > > > > > longer to reach us. It could just slow down. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > hand holding. Do you actually expect me to believe you haven't figured > out the Tolman test while having a firm grasp on the Malmquist bias? I never said I had a firm grasp on any physics concept. I said "I think that means" and then provided what I think. It's certainly open for a discussion. Which you haven't expanded on at all, while setting your sights on my personal shortcomings. Thank you for your expert contribution. > > > > I *think* that means the supernova we witness far away are actually > > > > bigger and stronger than we think they are because the weaker ones [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Still haven't figured it out? Not for the wikipedia article, no. Care to explain it? > > > Nearly a month ago I gave you exactly what you needed and still you do > > > not understand. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Science isn't a f.cking meme. The idea that science is not a meme is also a meme. > Do you worship the idol of stupidity? > Have you made the daily textbook or journal sacrifice? > > I could be tripping balls and still have a better grasp of the > scientific method than you. The scientific method is a process of conjecture and refutation based on solving problems by conjecturing a variety of solutions and selecting them through criticism and experiment. Mutation and selection. It's Darwinian. It's evolution. Coincidentally, memetics is the Darwinian mutation and selection of ideas. See the connection? Science isn't just a meme. It's a bonafide memeplex. > Are you aware that Hubble never accepted expansion as the cause of the > redshift? Are you aware that Hubble did not have a lot of education, nor an understanding of general relativity? > > Are you aware that Hubble never accepted expansion as the cause of the > > redshift? > > Are you aware that Hubble did not have a lot of education, nor > an understanding of general relativity? Sure. Are you aware that Einstein’s general theory of relativity predicts that the universe should collapse under the attraction of gravity, yet those calculations took place before we discovered or even considered other galaxies beyond the Milky Way? That discovery would confirm that for the most part those galaxies are in fact collapsing in on themselves. This is all fairly secondary to the issues at hand. On Apr 16, 10:25 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote: > Michael Helland wrote: > > Are you aware that Hubble never accepted expansion as the cause of the > > redshift? > > Are you aware that Hubble did not have a lot of education, nor > an understanding of general relativity? (Helland wrote) Sure. Are you aware that Einstein’s general theory of relativity predicts that the universe should collapse under the attraction of gravity, yet those calculations took place before we discovered or even considered other galaxies beyond the Milky Way? That discovery would confirm that for the most part those galaxies are in fact collapsing in on themselves. This is all fairly secondary to the issues at hand. (End) "That discovery would confirm that for the most part those galaxies are in fact collapsing in on themselves." Not quite, but they are each and all of them deep inside holes in the universe of their own making. Now you have redshift. More over, with [apparently] increasing distance, increasing combination (apparently deepening fields, and overall, an apparently deepening field?). Ask Sam to deny that [apparently] gravity exists at distant points from any local. Greatly at [apparently] greatly distant points from any local. Infinitely at [apparently] infinitely distant points from any local. Of course I believe that the other end of..., or local entry point to..., that most distant [singularly non-local] SINGULARITY of all singularities is the event horizon of any and every one of an infinity of local black holes past and future (or future and past, whichever (with them there's singularly no difference at all)). GLB >>> Are you aware that Hubble never accepted expansion as the cause of the >>> redshift? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > those calculations took place before we discovered or even considered > other galaxies beyond the Milky Way? Part of the historical record... > That discovery would confirm that for the most part those galaxies are > in fact collapsing in on themselves. GTR predicts that the universe is not static. There's too much motion within galaxies and clusters of galaxies for collapse to dominate. >>>>>>Dear Michael Helland: >> [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > You mean like posting Ned Wright's arguments against an old Tired > Light model, and assuming no Tired Light model can be made to fit. OK, do you have a Tired Light model that DOES fit? Do you have a TL model that doesn't need any /ANY/ any ad-hoc modifications and fits ALL the evidence? Including the evidence that Alpha (the Fine Structure Constant) has been constant to <1 part in 10E-4 over the last 12 billion years. The speed of light and Alpha are linked - so if Alpha hes not changed over cosmological timescales, it is unlikely that the speed of light has changed either. I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you are right, you will need to provide real hard specific arguments to explain why the Alpha constant (and by corollary the speed of light) has shown no evidence of systemic change over moderately long periods of time. > >>>>>>Dear Michael Helland: > [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Expanding in turn expands light as it moves through space. Mitch Raemsch > > > Dear Michael Helland: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > > E = hf Einstein's equation is wrong. h is such a tiny quantity as to reduce the energy of light to something impossibly small. This is cleaqrly wrong. SO they set H-bar to One. Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 > > Have we considered the possibility that not only would light lose > > velocity, but how it acted under gravity would be pretty different [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Apr 14, 5:40 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: [snip noise] Shut up, kid. On Apr 14, 8:40 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > > > E = hf > > Einstein's equation is wrong. h is such a tiny quantity as to reduce > the energy of light to something impossibly small. You're talking about the energy of a single photon. A single photon doesn't have enough energy to excite the rods and cones in the eye. On the surface, that doesn't seem like a problem to me. > A single photon doesn't have enough energy to excite the rods and > cones in the eye. Wanna bet? Are you restricting yourself to an average human eye? > > A single photon doesn't have enough energy to excite the rods and > > cones in the eye. > > Wanna bet? Are you restricting yourself to an average human eye? Yes, by the eye, I meant the average human eye. I've heard that some frogs see individual photons. -- Paul R. Mays "I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation" > > > A single photon doesn't have enough energy to excite the rods and > > > cones in the eye. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I've heard that some frogs see individual photons. How the heck would anyone know.. I haven't heard one tell me that.. Unless of course you speak French.. > -- > Paul R. Mays [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > How the heck would anyone know.. I haven't heard > one tell me that.. Unless of course you speak French.. The frog's eye, unlike ours, can generate an electrical impulse from just one photon. We are assuming, given the difficulty (impossibility) of knowing it's conscious experience for sure, that if its brain receives an electrical impulse, it sees it. > Dear Michael Helland: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > David A. Smith Shapiro shows the wait on light passing through gravity. Mitch Raemsch On Apr 12, 2:23 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > Atronomers observe the most distant objects to be 13 billion light > years away. The universe had to expand first to get those objects out [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Mitch Raemsch Falling light changes colour Before the supposed singular BB, there was supposedly just our one and only SMBH (aka God fart or Semitic Massive Black Hole) surrounded in all possible directions by less than one messily atom per cubic light year, and without any other photon or graviton anywhere in sight. (aka ideal faith-based mindset) OOPS!, talk about cosmic shrinkage and having another one of those bad God days. Images of galactic encounters, of the worse possible kind. (a series of God fart resets, as recorded by team Hubble) The best of 59 examples of cosmic hell busting lose, not that many other than these relatively old Hubble images of the anti-big-bang exist. Each of these galaxies has a fairly horrific gravity/tidal radius of several thousand light years (perhaps at least as great as 64r, if not 128r), not to mention the mutual attraction of whatever a pair or more of these bad boys has to work with, whereas you might like to further reconsider the mutual gravity/tidal binding grasp of two or more such encounters is perhaps worth 4X the individual tidal radius. (hard to avoid gravity, especially when it’s the only game in town) http://www.sciam.com/gallery_directory.cfm?photo_id=8153DC82-A24D-3D07-8B3267209 8BE3984 http://www6.comcast.net/news/science/galaxies/slideshow/view/1/ What is the cosmic gravity/tidal binding reach of our Milky Way? (1024r?) Try to remember that our moon and Earth represents a mutual tidal grasp of better than 60r, and our Sun/Pluto tidal reach is obviously worth 10,060r, not to mention whatever Sedna might suggest. Obviously if the mutual tidal radius wasn’t there to behold, we’d be losing our grip on such wussy little items as Pluto and Sedna. . – Brad Guth On Apr 12, 2:23 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > Atronomers observe the most distant objects to be 13 billion light > years away. The universe had to expand first to get those objects out [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Mitch Raemsch Falling light changes colour Before the supposed singular BB, there was supposedly just our one and only SMBH (aka God fart or Semitic Massive Black Hole) surrounded in all possible directions by less than one messily atom per cubic light year, and without any other photon or graviton anywhere in sight. (aka ideal faith-based mindset) OOPS!, talk about cosmic shrinkage and having another one of those bad God days. No Faith involved view... -- http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf -- Paul R. Mays "I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation" Images of galactic encounters, of the worse possible kind. (a series of God fart resets, as recorded by team Hubble) The best of 59 examples of cosmic hell busting lose, not that many other than these relatively old Hubble images of the anti-big-bang exist. Each of these galaxies has a fairly horrific gravity/tidal radius of several thousand light years (perhaps at least as great as 64r, if not 128r), not to mention the mutual attraction of whatever a pair or more of these bad boys has to work with, whereas you might like to further reconsider the mutual gravity/tidal binding grasp of two or more such encounters is perhaps worth 4X the individual tidal radius. (hard to avoid gravity, especially when it’s the only game in town) http://www.sciam.com/gallery_directory.cfm?photo_id=8153DC82-A24D-3D07-8B32 672098BE3984 http://www6.comcast.net/news/science/galaxies/slideshow/view/1/ What is the cosmic gravity/tidal binding reach of our Milky Way? (1024r?) Try to remember that our moon and Earth represents a mutual tidal grasp of better than 60r, and our Sun/Pluto tidal reach is obviously worth 10,060r, not to mention whatever Sedna might suggest. Obviously if the mutual tidal radius wasn’t there to behold, we’d be losing our grip on such wussy little items as Pluto and Sedna. . – Brad Guth > On Apr 12, 2:23 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > grip on such wussy little items as Pluto and Sedna. > . – Brad Guth http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf "The basic aspect of this writing is simple. We exist within the Universe and are connected to every particle in the Universe and as such any device we build, every piece of material we dig from the ground, every thing we use to observer the universe is connected from the observer to that which is being observed and attempted to be modeled in such a way as for the observer to understand. Its this position of us the observer that will never allow us to directly observer or model the Causational aspect of the universe as we are in the Box and as such cannot ever observer the Box." / Paul R. Mays The problem here is that a box sequestered mindset does us little if any good. I too accept the BB and perceived expansion, although not necessarily via the singular BB, because God or whatever may have had multiple stored farts to get rid of. I think there are other universes out there, at least an opposite dipole other version of our universe to behold, of which might greatly if not entirely explain the required balance that the laws of physics typically demands. . - Brad Guth On Apr 27, 5:19 pm, "Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote: > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > grip on such wussy little items as Pluto and Sedna. > . – Brad Guth >http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf >"The basic aspect of this writing is simple. We exist within the >Universe and are connected to every particle in the Universe and as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >observer or model the Causational aspect of the universe as we are in >the Box and as such cannot ever observer the Box." / Paul R. Mays >The problem here is that a box sequestered mindset does us little if >any good. I see it a bit differently.. It does you no good if you do not recognize your in a box. But if you recognize you May be in a box, even though you cannot observe it you can Theorize the construct of the box by the effect of the box on what you observe. All I am suggesting is that we may very well be in a box and not recognize it so we and any models we build of what we do know May be Intrinsically Biased. The Box analogy only goes a little of the way as being inside the universe and connected via the Quantum State the Box, so to speak, is in Us and around us and an integral part of us, what we observe and any device we attempt to use to observe. >I too accept the BB and perceived expansion, I very well know my postulate is considered out of left field to most but if you except the construct of a BB then if you look closely you will not that the postulate gives logical explanation for not only expansion by inflation and that the expansion rate will increase as it expands, explains a different mind set on the basic nature of observable matter that contends that existing physical laws remain intact, All this while giving a very simple structure with an elegant design that would self organize. >although not necessarily >via the singular BB, because God or whatever may have had multiple >stored farts to get rid of. Again no need for gods and farts in the postulate it follows energy/matter conversion that was the basic concept of Einstein's E=mc^2 >I think there are other universes out there, at least an opposite >dipole other version of our universe to behold, of which might greatly >if not entirely explain the required balance that the laws of physics >typically demands. >. - Brad Guth I point to the Intrinsic Bias concept, using it there is no balance required as all laws can be simple EM wave interactions across a connected quantum state and matter can be understood as a Primal Particle that produces a EM wave through the connected inverse tensor of the QS. -- http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf -- Paul R. Mays "I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation" > On Apr 27, 5:19 pm, "Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > recognize it so we and any models we build of what we do know > May be Intrinsically Biased. I have little doubt that our universe has us boxed in, perhaps in much thje same as a black hole has its event horizon that's keeping all of whatever within. Even the box like containment of our own galaxy is likely going to keep us from ever looking back at ourselves. > The Box analogy only goes a little of the way as being inside the > universe and connected via the Quantum State the Box, so to speak, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > laws remain intact, All this while giving a very simple structure with > an elegant design that would self organize. If there's less than one atom/ly3 and perhaps no other dark matter or dark energy outside of our universe, I can fully understand and appreciate the ongoing expansion. > >although not necessarily > >via the singular BB, because God or whatever may have had multiple > >stored farts to get rid of. > > Again no need for gods and farts in the postulate it follows energy/matter > conversion that was the basic concept of Einstein's E=mc^2 Don't be so certain or absolute as to what a great deal of ET intelligent design couldn't pull off, especially if they were as Einstein smart and given unlimited space, energy and matter to work with. > >I think there are other universes out there, at least an opposite > >dipole other version of our universe to behold, of which might greatly [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know > I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation" I still like to think there's a radial clone of another universe that's somewhat tethered to us by a quantum string of dark energy and dark matter, somewhat like a mutual graviton/tidal radial link, of which this conjecture shouldn't bother your postulate because each universe is still fully independent and unavoidably expanding as based upon your postulate, that is unless there's a cosmic reset by way of recombining everything back into that SMBH, only to eventually implode and restart by giving birth to creating two or more universes. Of course, this still leaves us forever sequestered within a Einstein or God box, so to speak. . - Brad Guth On Apr 12, 2:23 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > Atronomers observe the most distant objects to be 13 billion light > years away. The universe had to expand first to get those objects out > to that distance. I call it distance motion of spatial expansion. Then > we have to wait for light to traverse expanding space on its way back. > Because space is growing it is going to take longer. Expansion is imaginary. That makes big bang, inflation, dark matter, dark energy guilty by association. > On Apr 12, 2:23 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That makes big bang, inflation, dark matter, dark energy guilty by > association. Then perhaps it's just us shrinking ??? It seems that at least once upon a time there was as least one BB, if not many. It equally seems deductive enough, to consider that external to our Universe there's less than one atom/ly3. So, why wouldn't or shouldn't cosmic stuff expand? . - Brad Guth > > On Apr 12, 2:23 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > So, why wouldn't or shouldn't cosmic stuff expand? > . - Brad Guth The beginning of the Big Bang was inflation. Mitch Reamsch On Apr 28, 2:55 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Apr 12, 2:23 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Mitch Reamsch OK, is there something special or trick worthy about that announcement? Obviously, even a very little bang represents inflation, however not sustained unless it's expanding by way of being sucked out into less than nothing. If all of the original SMBH of all matter is converted into energy, thus expanding or rather radiating as pure energy out into the nothingness at the velocity of 'c', inflating into where only other universes coexist, perhaps only then can we consider a forever expansion possible. However, even if you discover the holy grail of "space expansion", in another couple thousand years (if the human species is still any part of Earth), it isn't going to matter either way. . - Brad Guth > On Apr 28, 2:55 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The original expansion of infinitely small dimensions of the hypersphere is inflation. Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel laureate 2008 On Apr 28, 9:14 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Apr 28, 2:55 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > hypersphere is inflation. > Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel laureate 2008 So what? or rather, so what's the difference? Are you suggesting there's something mission essential we humans need to know about? What are your future intentions, as actions that you intend to take? . - Buad Guth > On Apr 28, 2:55 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > OK, is there something special or trick worthy about that > announcement? Stephen Hawking is making an announcement. > Obviously, even a very little bang represents inflation, however not > sustained unless it's expanding by way of being sucked out into less [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Apr 29, 2:47 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Apr 28, 2:55 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - This year? . - BG > On Apr 29, 2:47 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > - Show quoted text - As often as he can. |
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.