 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / May 2008Expansion is wrong and its soooo freakin' obvious
Observation: Hubble redshift Explanation: The loss in frequency and energy is the natural deceleration of light signals in steady space that fits the same curve as constant light speed in an expanding space. Prediction 1: The next round of telescopes (2013?) discovers, once again, galaxies far too old and distant for the big bang. Prediction 2: We'll find that quasars are light signals from galaxies near the end of the EM field's range, just before the very end of the range which limps in as the CMB. Prediction 3: We'll observe clusters that actually bleed right into the CMB. What happened to "but eric, deceleration is the /same/ as expansion!!!" ? Hell, what happened to the LAST TWO THREADS you made about this subject but abandoned mid-stream? Here - I'll refresh your memory. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6609337492105fdb?dmode=source http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b56aafb980dac78b?dmode=source http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/8c21cd67d3325cc0?dmode=source > Observation: Hubble redshift > > Explanation: The loss in frequency and energy is the natural > deceleration of light signals in steady space that fits the same curve > as constant light speed in an expanding space. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm > Prediction 1: The next round of telescopes (2013?) discovers, once > again, galaxies far too old and distant for the big bang. Why not make an actual prediction about the multipole moments in the CMBR? > Prediction 2: We'll find that quasars are light signals from galaxies > near the end of the EM field's range, just before the very end of the > range which limps in as the CMB. Idiot. Quasars are distributed over a long [but still far away] range of distances. Plus the photon is massless - I told you this before, but apparently you didn't bother reading it. > Prediction 3: We'll observe clusters that actually bleed right into > the CMB. Idiot. The CMB is isotropic to parts per million level, has inhomogeneities that have a Gaussian distribution [what does this mean, Mike?] and has a blackbody spectrum [again, what does this man?] and as such can /not/ possibly be from disparate sources like clusters. > What happened to "but eric, deceleration is the /same/ as > expansion!!!" ? They match the same data. > Hell, what happened to the LAST TWO THREADS you made > about this subject but abandoned mid-stream? > > Here - I'll refresh your memory. > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6609337492105fdb?dmode...http://g roups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b56aafb980dac78b?dmode...http://groups.go ogle.com/group/sci.physics/msg/8c21cd67d3325cc0?dmode... How does my theory predict correct luminosity as a function of distance? Rewrite as a function of time Expansion and deceleration both add time to the light's journey, unlike tired light. Extra time is redshift: f = 1/t > > Observation: Hubble redshift > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm Tired light is wrong. It says light loses energy, but not velocity. If there is no deceleration and no expansion, then no time is added in conjunction with redshift. That's why it fails the predictions. It can't match the same curve that expansion and deceleration can. > > Prediction 1: The next round of telescopes (2013?) discovers, once > > again, galaxies far too old and distant for the big bang. > > Why not make an actual prediction about the multipole moments in the > CMBR? Because I don't understand multiple moments. > > Prediction 2: We'll find that quasars are light signals from galaxies > > near the end of the EM field's range, just before the very end of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of distances. Plus the photon is massless - I told you this before, > but apparently you didn't bother reading it. I accept that the photon is massless. It can still have a finite range. > > Prediction 3: We'll observe clusters that actually bleed right into > > the CMB. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > mean, Mike?] and has a blackbody spectrum [again, what does this man?] > and as such can /not/ possibly be from disparate sources like clusters. The point is that beyond the range of the EM force are an infinite amount of galaxies just too far for their light to reach us, and vice versa. An infinite number of galaxies aren't really that disparate. <snip> > Extra time is redshift: f = 1/t Is this the only equation you've mastered? Since basics don't cut it.... > > > Observation: Hubble redshift > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > It can't match the same curve that expansion and deceleration can. Have you read anything you did not write? I mean seriously how thick are you? Read a freaking book on this stuff... Oh yes and have you grasped Tolman Surface Brightness Test yet? Do you even have a clue what a laplace operator is? > > > Prediction 1: The next round of telescopes (2013?) discovers, once > > > again, galaxies far too old and distant for the big bang. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Because I don't understand multiple moments. No kidding... then what are you doing talking about cosmology? > > > Prediction 2: We'll find that quasars are light signals from galaxies > > > near the end of the EM field's range, just before the very end of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I accept that the photon is massless. Really then why do they decelerate? Do you even know what mass is? Or why things slow down? > It can still have a finite range. Prove it! what is going to make them decelerate if they have no mass? Why isn't this observed anywhere? > > > Prediction 3: We'll observe clusters that actually bleed right into > > > the CMB. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > amount of galaxies just too far for their light to reach us, and vice > versa. Idiot light doesn't slow down like that.... are there galaxies we cannot detect sure potentially if they are far enough away that their light has not had time to reach us yet. > An infinite number of galaxies aren't really that disparate. You know this how? And what about your statement agreeing that the speed of light is constant out to 500 million light years or are you changing your mind on that as well? And the other thing is I want to know where the hell that idiot diagram of yours came from, which wasn't even a Feynman diagram. Cheers On May 12, 3:09 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: [snip] This is more fun than it should be. > On May 12, 3:09 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > [snip] > > This is more fun than it should be. You've got that right, though he does bring it on himself with his insatiable desire to be made fun of, as evidenced by his actions. Cheers > > What happened to "but eric, deceleration is the /same/ as > > expansion!!!" ? > > They match the same data. How do you know? > > Hell, what happened to the LAST TWO THREADS you made > > about this subject but abandoned mid-stream? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > How does my theory predict correct luminosity as a function of > distance? Three replies, and you snip the other two without marking. We know about your rampant intellectual dishonesty, but flaunting it like that is bad form. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6609337492105fdb?dmode=3Dsour=ce http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b56aafb980dac78b?dmode=3Dsour=ce http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/8c21cd67d3325cc0?dmode=3Dsour=ce > Rewrite as a function of time > > Expansion and deceleration both add time to the light's journey, > unlike tired light. Show how you get the proper luminosity falloff, then respond to the rest of the post which you ignored. > Extra time is redshift: f = 1/t Uh, no it isn't. That's just silly. > > > Observation: Hubble redshift > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Tired light is wrong. How do you know? You don't understand the arguments against tired light. > It says light loses energy, but not velocity. > > If there is no deceleration and no expansion, then no time is added in > conjunction with redshift. What mechanism decelerates light? Where does the energy go? Why can't you make a quantitative prediction instead of halfassed qualitative fuckery? > That's why it fails the predictions. > > It can't match the same curve that expansion and deceleration can. How do you know? > > > Prediction 1: The next round of telescopes (2013?) discovers, once > > > again, galaxies far too old and distant for the big bang. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Because I don't understand multiple moments. Yet you can state with complete confidence that your tired light theory matches observation? Fascinating. > > > Prediction 2: We'll find that quasars are light signals from galaxies > > > near the end of the EM field's range, just before the very end of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It can still have a finite range. You can't have both, Mike. I'd ask you to support your statements using Maxwell's equations, but since you don't know what multipole moments are that means you have not studied E&M enough to make the discussion worth having. > > > Prediction 3: We'll observe clusters that actually bleed right into > > > the CMB. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > amount of galaxies just too far for their light to reach us, and vice > versa. Why is the light distribution a blackbody when spectroscopic data clearly shows that there would be lines in the spectral data? Why is the temperature 2.73 Kelvin? Why can we see stars in the night sky but not these stars that supposedly make up the CMBR? Why are the anisotropies distributed in a Gaussian manner? Why do the anisotropies that are not casually connected still share the same features? Why do you continue to talk about electromagnetic theory when you clearly have no f.cking clue what you are talking about? > An infinite number of galaxies aren't really that disparate. Whatever, Mike. In sci.physics, Michael Helland <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote on Mon, 12 May 2008 15:05:00 -0700 (PDT) <af058eff-aa5e-4e12-9b12-4547c051bb14@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>: >> What happened to "but eric, deceleration is the /same/ as >> expansion!!!" ? [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > It can still have a finite range. OK, I'll bite. What would the range of a photon be? In particular, what are the primary determiners thereof -- for instance, one might reasonably ask whether the range of a photon leaving a star would depend on the star's mass and (approximate) radius. >> > Prediction 3: We'll observe clusters that actually bleed right into >> > the CMB. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > An infinite number of galaxies aren't really that disparate. This does get around the "sky as bright as the sun" problem but I'd still like a formula for the range of a light beam. Also, does said light beam's characteristics (frequency, energy) change during its travels? If so, how? Also, what would distinguish your theory from already discredited "tired light" affairs?  Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net /dev/signature: Resource temporarily unavailable ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** On May 12, 10:47 pm, The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: > In sci.physics, Michael Helland > <mobyd...@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > OK, I'll bite. What would the range of a photon be? It holds to the inverse square law until Hubble redshift begins. When we observe redshift, we're literally observing the end of the EM field, even if we aren't prepared to admit it. The end of their range is the light that comes in as the CMB. How far is that? Awesome question. I don't know. I would guess it's easy to calculate if you can apply Hubble's law well. > In particular, what are the primary determiners thereof -- > for instance, one might reasonably ask whether the range of > a photon leaving a star would depend on the star's mass and > (approximate) radius. Another awesome question. I would guess that if the photon's natural deceleration over intergalactic distances is based on parameters that the frequency of the light originally may be most likely. It seems there is evidence that gamma rays may delay faster than other photons. > >> > Prediction 3: We'll observe clusters that actually bleed right into > >> > the CMB. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > This does get around the "sky as bright as the sun" problem > but I'd still like a formula for the range of a light beam. Well, if E = hf, then maybe every megaparsec or so, E loses and h. So E = hf - h, untill E is 0, then, blam. And yes, it does solve the night sky paradox. Thank you very much for acknowledging that. > Also, does said light beam's characteristics (frequency, > energy) change during its travels? If so, how? Also, > what would distinguish your theory from already discredited > "tired light" affairs? Tired light tries to lose energy, but it never suggests the light gets slower. [snip] > It holds to the inverse square law until Hubble redshift begins. Not even close, Mike. Neither classical EM waves nor photons follow any sort of "inverse square law". Electromagnetic waves freely propagate in vacuum with infinite extent. You'd know this had you studied electromagnetic theory in any significant detail. > When we observe redshift, we're literally observing the end of the EM > field, even if we aren't prepared to admit it. Except photons are massive - massless vector bosons == infinite range. Study some electromagnetic theory please. > The end of their range is the light that comes in as the CMB. Idiot. Physics Today April 2008 pg. 44 vol 61 #4. If you actually open that issue of Physics Today, tell me how far you get before you are completely lost. > How far is that? > > Awesome question. I don't know. Of course you don't. You haven't been able to answer even one of my quantitative questions yet. > I would guess it's easy to calculate if you can apply Hubble's law > well. If its' so f.cking easy why haven't we seen any actual calculations of observables in the weeks you have been arguing about this? Why do you think you are qualified to discuss the subject when you don't know what MULTIPOLE MOMENTS are? > > In particular, what are the primary determiners thereof -- > > for instance, one might reasonably ask whether the range of > > a photon leaving a star would depend on the star's mass and > > (approximate) radius. > > Another awesome question. Add it to the list which you can't answer. > I would guess that if the photon's natural deceleration over > intergalactic distances is based on parameters that the frequency of > the light originally may be most likely. The technical term for that is "dispersion relation". Did you try to read an E&M text and did you get lost? > It seems there is evidence that gamma rays may delay faster than other > photons. No there isn't. Congratulations for proving you cannot read for comprehension - the entire hubbub was that /in a specific model for photon production/ in the quasar, there would be a delay. Except the result hasn't been independently confirmed. Do you have a followup article, or are you restricted to the blurb in physorg? > > >> > Prediction 3: We'll observe clusters that actually bleed right into > > >> > the CMB. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Well, if E = hf, then maybe every megaparsec or so, E loses and h. So > E = hf - h, untill E is 0, then, blam. Do you seriously expect this argument to fly with people who are at least slightly familiar with....science? > And yes, it does solve the night sky paradox. Thank you very much for > acknowledging that. Its' called Olber's paradox, and no it doesn't since you claim there is a nice big fat infinity of stuff out there. > > Also, does said light beam's characteristics (frequency, > > energy) change during its travels? If so, how? Also, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Tired light tries to lose energy, but it never suggests the light gets > slower. Same thing, dipshit. Light loses energy either way, and has been observationally refuted. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > propagate in vacuum with infinite extent. You'd know this had you > studied electromagnetic theory in any significant detail. I know that the range of an EM wave is supposed to be infinite. But Hubble redshift is a pretty clear indication we're wrong about that. > > I would guess it's easy to calculate if you can apply Hubble's law > > well. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > think you are qualified to discuss the subject when you don't know > what MULTIPOLE MOMENTS are? Qualified? This is science, not church. Anyone can throw ideas out. If its good, it'll stick. > > And yes, it does solve the night sky paradox. Thank you very much for > > acknowledging that. > > Its' called Olber's paradox, and no it doesn't since you claim there > is a nice big fat infinity of stuff out there. A nice big fat infinity of stuff beyond the range of the EM force. Ghost In The Machine was able to put two and two together. > > > Also, does said light beam's characteristics (frequency, > > > energy) change during its travels? If so, how? Also, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Same thing, dipshit. Light loses energy either way, and has been > observationally refuted. No, it's not the same thing. Light in Tired light models still travels at c. I realize it seems real convenient to assume Deceleration has been looked at, but apparently the belief in the constancy of speed of light is such that no one ever considered it. > > On May 12, 11:50 pm, MichaelHelland<mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > But Hubble redshift is a pretty clear indication we're wrong about > that. No actually hubble redshift isn't, if you actually understood any cosmology you understand that....have you yet gotten Tolman Surface Brightness Test? > > > I would guess it's easy to calculate if you can apply Hubble's law > > > well. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Qualified? Yes mike qualified, if you don't know the math your unqualified to talk about this stuff... > This is science, not church. Anyone can throw ideas out. Yes but only those qualified can expect to be taken seriously... so as long as your fine with being laughed at your fine.... > If its good, it'll stick. Hence why none of your ideas stick... they are no good... <snip> > > Same thing, dipshit. Light loses energy either way, and has been > > observationally refuted. > > No, it's not the same thing. What the hell would you know, you don't even know what a laplace operator is.... > Light in Tired light models still travels at c. > > I realize it seems real convenient to assume Deceleration has been > looked at, but apparently the belief in the constancy of speed of > light is such that no one ever considered it. How would you know, you've never even cracked open a physics text in your life... Cheers On May 13, 10:11 am, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > On May 12, 11:50 pm, MichaelHelland<mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > No actually hubble redshift isn't, if you actually understood any > cosmology you understand that.... I understand that. I understand that if redshift meant recessional velocity, that would place us at the center of something, which can't be right, (Copernican principle) and that if every point were receding from every point, like expansion we have something that makes more sense. I understand that, and that expansion/big bang cosmology is what most people accept as a fact. But I don't. If light signals decelerated in steady space along the same curve as expansion, it would appear that every point were receding from every point but that is merely an optical illusion. I've made 3 predictions that can be tested within 5 to 10 years, depending on when the next super telescope comes out. We'll see. <snip> > > No actually hubble redshift isn't, if you actually understood any > > cosmology you understand that.... > > I understand that. Really? So do you understand what a relativistic doppler shift is? Or how about the Friedmann Equations? Do even know what they are? Or what about a harmonic oscillator, or the maxwell equations? Understand any of that? If no then you don't know jack sh.t about what the hell your talking about.... > I understand that if redshift meant recessional velocity, that would > place us at the center of something, which can't be right, (Copernican [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > But I don't. Because you think your incredible ignorance has gained you access to some information to which only ignorant people like you are privy that all the rest of us who are really scientists have nothing to contribute since you know best. > If light signals decelerated in steady space along the same curve as > expansion, it would appear that every point were receding from every > point but that is merely an optical illusion. Except for the minor point of that isn't observed anywhere... > I've made 3 predictions that can be tested within 5 to 10 years, > depending on when the next super telescope comes out. > > We'll see. Well don't hold your breath mike I wouldn't want you to die before you see how dumb your idea is... Oh and just out of curiosity do you know what this is? http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalHarmonicDifferentialEquation.html Do you know how to solve it? Cheers On May 13, 5:14 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > of that? If no then you don't know jack sh.t about what the hell your > talking about.... At the very least, I understand Hubble redshift needs expansion, or an explanation that yields the same results. > > I understand that if redshift meant recessional velocity, that would > > place us at the center of something, which can't be right, (Copernican [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > all the rest of us who are really scientists have nothing to > contribute since you know best. Maybe. Or maybe I just don't accept it. > > If light signals decelerated in steady space along the same curve as > > expansion, it would appear that every point were receding from every > > point but that is merely an optical illusion. > > Except for the minor point of that isn't observed anywhere... If light slowed down in steady space; it would appear as if space was expanding. That is observed everywhere. > > I've made 3 predictions that can be tested within 5 to 10 years, > > depending on when the next super telescope comes out. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Do you know how to solve it? Nope. > On May 13, 5:14 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: >> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > That is observed everywhere. You like to fool yourself... Expanding space has consequences that account for the abundances of hydrogen and helium, trace elements like lithium and the CMB. No Center http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html >>> I've made 3 predictions that can be tested within 5 to 10 years, >>> depending on when the next super telescope comes out. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Nope. <snip> > > Oh and just out of curiosity do you know what this is? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nope. Fantastic so you have no clue what your talking about no clue about red shift and how light slowing down in steady space fails to satisfy observation, you can't possibly have anything else to say, so that being said go away and come back when you've read some physics. Cheers On May 13, 8:22 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: <snip> > Fantastic so you have no clue what your talking about no clue about > red shift and how light slowing down in steady space fails to satisfy > observation The speed of light is constant, and Jesus loves you. Anyways. If space expands between distances of millions of light years, the light will take longer to reach its destination than it would in steady space. Likewise, if light slowed down after millions of light years in steady space, the light would also take longer to reach its destination that it would at a constant velocity. If you took the differences in time between the two approaches, you could plot them both against the same curves. f = 1 / t c = fw Deceleration (unlike tired light) will satisfy Hubble redshift as well as expansion and probably much more elegantly, unless you can't get over the whole speed of light taboo. > On May 13, 8:22 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The speed of light is constant, and Jesus loves you. Thanks, and the reason is because I know what I am talking about you on the other hand do not... <snip> > If space expands between distances of millions of light years, the > light will take longer to reach its destination than it would in > steady space. No sh.t...? congrats you understand that if the distance increases the time increases, you are now ready for 3rd grade science... > Likewise, if light slowed down after millions of light years in steady > space, the light would also take longer to reach its destination that > it would at a constant velocity. Sure only it doesn't > If you took the differences in time between the two approaches, you > could plot them both against the same curves. > > f = 1 / t > > c = fw Have you? No... is that point even relevant to the case? No.... > Deceleration (unlike tired light) will satisfy Hubble redshift as well > as expansion and probably much more elegantly, unless you can't get > over the whole speed of light taboo. Mike there is more to why light decelerating fails to work, for one how do explain how photons which are massless slowing down? Why do they slow down? Where does that energy go from them slowing down? What about Tolman Surface Brightness Test? Mike you can't answer any of the basic questions your theory has to be able to answer.... in other words its crap... Cheers > I understand that if redshift meant recessional velocity, that would > place us at the center of something, which can't be right, (Copernican > principle) and that if every point were receding from every point, > like expansion we have something that makes more sense. All point look like the center of the expansion No Center http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html > > I understand that if redshift meant recessional velocity, that would > > place us at the center of something, which can't be right, (Copernican > > principle) and that if every point were receding from every point, > > like expansion we have something that makes more sense. > > All point look like the center of the expansion Right, because every point appears to be receding from every other point. I don't disagree with that. >>> I understand that if redshift meant recessional velocity, that would >>> place us at the center of something, which can't be right, (Copernican [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I don't disagree with that. Good start! No Center http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html > > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > But Hubble redshift is a pretty clear indication we're wrong about > that. No, Mike. Having EM forces with finite range would look differently than what you are trying to assume. The falloff in distance would be exponential - which is not observed. Why not stick to computer programming? Cosmology isn't your thing. [Here I see you snip a lot of my post without marking] Physics Today April 2008 pg. 44 vol 61 #4. If you actually open that issue of Physics Today, tell me how far you get before you are completely lost. > > > I would guess it's easy to calculate if you can apply Hubble's law > > > well. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Qualified? Yea, as in nobody will listen to you when it is obvious you don't know what you are talking about. > This is science, not church. Anyone can throw ideas out. > > If its good, it'll stick. Notice that none of your ideas stick or are taken even remotely seriously? [More stuff that's snipped without marking by Mike] Hey Mike - why bring up the supposed time delay in quasars when you aren't willing to discuss it? Or was I right in saying your knowledge doesn't go past that one physorg article? > > > And yes, it does solve the night sky paradox. Thank you very much for > > > acknowledging that. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > A nice big fat infinity of stuff beyond the range of the EM force. If it is "beyond the range of the EM force" how do you know its' there? If it is "beyond the range of the EM force" how can you ever see it? > Ghost In The Machine was able to put two and two together. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > looked at, but apparently the belief in the constancy of speed of > light is such that no one ever considered it. ...well if the best you can do is "no it isn't" then why should anyone listen to you? Really Mike - this is the million dollar question. Why should anyone listen to you? You've been arguing about this new nuggest you picked out of your nose for the last two weeks and I haven't seen ONE quantitative prediction from you yet. On the other hand there is plenty of reason to /not/ take anything you say seriously. In the last few weeks we have learned that you don't know what spherical harmonics are. That means you haven't studied classical E&M - so you have no idea how electromagnetic radiation is created, how it propagates, or really much of anything. Plus you still don't know what the Tolman surface brightness test means. ...and of course, weeks of arguing about a field you obviously do not understand. <snip> > No,Mike. Having EM forces with finite range would look differently > than what you are trying to assume. The falloff in distance would be > exponential - which is not observed. Why not stick to computer > programming? Cosmology isn't your thing. Neither is programming, ask him about his job as a cash register programmer, ask how great of a programmer he is that he can program a simple cash register, with a psuedo programming language... <snip> > ...well if the best you can do is "no it isn't" then why should anyone > listen to you? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > out of your nose for the last two weeks and I haven't seen ONE > quantitative prediction from you yet. Oh come on eric he can't even do real programming what would he know of cosmology or predictions of any quality? > On the other hand there is plenty of reason to /not/ take anything you > say seriously. In the last few weeks we have learned that you don't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > course, weeks of arguing about a field you obviously do not > understand.- Hide quoted text - <snip> Come now Eric mike is certified nose picker, he is in fact liscenced to do so... Cheers <snip> > > I know that the range of an EM wave is supposed to be infinite. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > than what you are trying to assume. The falloff in distance would be > exponential - which is not observed. Are you sure about that? http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~mjuric/universe/all100.gif > [Here I see you snip a lot of my post without marking] > > Physics Today April 2008 pg. 44 vol 61 #4. If you actually open that > issue of Physics Today, tell me how far you get before you are > completely lost. Anything that I can read on the web? I got a question. If it costs like $35 to read articles on the web, do the authors get any of that money? That seems like a lot of coin to be making on peer reviewed science papers. <snip> > Hey Mike - why bring up the supposed time delay in quasars when you > aren't willing to discuss it? Or was I right in saying your knowledge > doesn't go past that one physorg article? I'm saying that in addition to Hubble redshift, there are other clues floating around out there. Make of them what you will. > > > > And yes, it does solve the night sky paradox. Thank you very much for > > > > acknowledging that. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > there? If it is "beyond the range of the EM force" how can you ever > see it? You would never see it. And thus the night sky is black. Duh. <snip> > > Light in Tired light models still travels at c. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ...well if the best you can do is "no it isn't" then why should anyone > listen to you? I'm saying there are no tired light papers that suggest light actually decelerates. Feel free to produce one for me. They mostly propose energy is lost through space somehow. <snip> > Really Mike - this is the million dollar question. Why should anyone > listen to you? Because they're curious and interested in exploring new ideas. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~mjuric/universe/all100.gif This proves...what, exactly? Cool picture, but it doesn't help your argument. > > [Here I see you snip a lot of my post without marking] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Anything that I can read on the web? Go to a library? > I got a question. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That seems like a lot of coin to be making on peer reviewed science > papers. Physics Today costs twice that for an entire year's subscription. Go to a library. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Make of them what you will. The "I see things nobody else does" argument is the /last/ one you should use here. > > > > > And yes, it does solve the night sky paradox. Thank you very much for > > > > > acknowledging that. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > And thus the night sky is black. Exactly, which is why your idea is wrong. The CMBR exists. > Duh. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Feel free to produce one for me. When was the last time you searched through a research library? Or even did a serious google search? Why do your answers matter since you don't understand the arguments against the theory? > They mostly propose energy is lost through space somehow. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Because they're curious and interested in exploring new ideas. <snip> > > > > > > And yes, it does solve the night sky paradox. Thank you very much for > > > > > > acknowledging that. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Exactly, which is why your idea is wrong. The CMBR exists. But just before it dies out, some light has to get through but is very very weak, that is the CMB. Just above absolute 0. The variations are galaxies (just as old as ours) at the end of the range. So their near side is visible as a galaxy and their far side, which is beyond the range of the EM fields, turns into the CMB. Can you at least admit that if we observed that, its something I predicted would be there, and the big bang would be in a pretty difficult position. [snip] > Can you at least admit that if we observed that, its something I > predicted would be there, and the big bang would be in a pretty > difficult position. Since you have no idea what spherical harmonics are, I don't think that's a real big worry. In fact, since you don't know jack about sh.t, I don't see why this should continue in any way. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > In fact, since you don't know jack about sh.t, I don't see why this > should continue in any way. Do have any greater passions than physics? Physics for you is life, isn't it? One thing I notice in your tone is that you're emotionally attached to some of these things. It's not a matter of "Well, if we observe that, you're right, if not I'm right." It's a matter of values, beliefs, and social status for you. You seem to have made objective knowledge one of your greatest sources of subjective gratification. Didn't you have any friends in sports? Any friends in business? Or did you not have any friends? And don't worry, the other nerds in your physics courses, count as friends, if you actually know and like something about them, outside of physics. Did you make learning physics your whole life purpose? Your religion? Do your negative emotional reactions to my posts come from someone questioning your purpose? Instead of asking rhetorical questions, let me just tell you how it is. You talk about personalities instead of science because your human social needs are completely desperate. I'm here for you, Eric. You'll be OK. <snip, horse-sh.t> > Do have any greater passions than physics? > > Physics for you is life, isn't it? And a good life to have Mike, but you wouldn't know... <snip, psychological bullshit> > Instead of asking rhetorical questions, let me just tell you how it > is. As if you would know or have anything to contribute... <snip, more bullshit> Mike instead of this psychological bullshit try answering some of the questions asked of you for example where does the energy go from the decelerating photon, what causes the photon to decelerate?... Cheers On May 14, 2:45 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > <snip, horse-sh.t> > Mike instead of this psychological bullshit try answering some of the > questions asked of you for example where does the energy go from the > decelerating photon, what causes the photon to decelerate?... Electrons and nuclei interact using the electromagnetic force. It holds are atoms and molecules together. It provides a force for life, and information, and intelligence. In this room are trillions of interactions following this force. That's apparently a priority for the Universe. And apparently, according to one interpretation of Hubble redshift, the interactions between galaxies billions of light years away isn't much of a priority. If the Universe really is being computed then it only makes sense that the best use of its resources is not computing the EM force at huge distances. Which is already widely accepted as being true for nuclear forces. [Word salad snipped] No Center http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html > On May 14, 2:45 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > On May 14, 5:40 pm, MichaelHelland<mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote: <snip> word salad, try answering the questions which I have restated at the bottom, going through each systematically... Hmmm.... well I see you have utterly ignored my questions without acknowledging you snipped them let me remind you what they were. Why do photons lose energy?Where does this energy go? In what form is energy lost in? Why don't we observe it all around us, at shorter distances? Cheers On May 15, 7:09 am, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > Why do photons lose energy? Think of it like car with full tank of gas. When the car drives 10 miles, it uses gas in the tank. But it can drive at a constant speed the whole time. Let's say the photon has a rule. After traveling ~ 60 Mpc, the tank starts to get the low, so the photon takes the foot of the gas. This is OBSERVED as Hubble redshift. The alternative explanation is expansion, where in the frequency and energy of photons in the universe is lost. Where does that energy go? Well, according to Sean Carroll, it's not conserved. So if deceleration is in hot water for not conserving energy, so is expansion: "Actually, there is a field of physics in which energy is not conserved: it's called general relativity. In an expanding universe, as we have known for many decades, the total energy is not conserved. Nothing fancy to do with dark energy -- the same thing is true for ordinary radiation. Every photon loses energy by redshifting as the universe expands, while the total number of photons remains conserved, so the total energy decreases. An effect which has, of course, been observed. " http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/2004/05/doubt-and-dissent-are-not-toler ated.html > Where does this energy go? In what form is energy lost in? It is used and expires. > Why don't we observe it all around us, at shorter distances? Why don't we observe Hubble redshift at shorter distances? Empirical reality just doesn't work that way. > On May 15, 7:09 am, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > After traveling ~ 60 Mpc, the tank starts to get the low, so the > photon takes the foot of the gas. This is horse-sh.t since photons are massless and have nothing to do with gas and cars, sorry mike, this is not a reason.... This is not a scientific explanation of why a photon loses energy... Photons propagate at c, its not an if... they are not tied to any form of tank of gas... this is observed.... > This is OBSERVED as Hubble redshift. NO its not.... <snip> > Where does that energy go? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/2004/05/doubt-and-dissent-ar... This is of course complete trash since conservation of energy is supported by both SR and GR. This blog post is just unverified unsupported crap, not worth the bits it takes up... In fact Conservation of Energy can be thought of as a more specific form of the more general statement of the conservation of mass thanks to E=mc^2. > > Where does this energy go? In what form is energy lost in? > > It is used and expires. Bullshit, energy does not expire like that.... if energy is lost it goes somewhere.... and where it goes would be definable.... have you even heard of the first law of thermodynamics? > > Why don't we observe it all around us, at shorter distances? > > Why don't we observe Hubble redshift at shorter distances? > > Empirical reality just doesn't work that way. No actually its just that Hubble Redshift does not support your theory. And your still wrong... can't even give a cogent answer to simple questions... Cheers On May 15, 1:31 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > Why do photons lose energy? > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > NO its not.... Right. Because light always travels at c, and Jesus loves you. > > Well, according to Sean Carroll, it's not conserved. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > This is of course complete trash since conservation of energy is > supported by both SR and GR. "Sean Carroll is a Senior Research Associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology. His research interests include theoretical aspects of cosmology, field theory, and gravitation. He is the author of a graduate-level textbook, Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity. And if you’re not (yet) in grad school, you should buy his Teaching Company lectures on dark matter and dark energy. His first blogging experience was at Preposterous Universe." http://cosmicvariance.com/sean/ Light always travels at c, energy is always conserved, and Jesus loves you. I show you evidence every day, and you flat out can't handle it. Because you believe. > > > Where does this energy go? In what form is energy lost in? > > > It is used and expires. > > Bullshit, energy does not expire like that.... if energy is lost it > goes somewhere.... E = hf Where does energy lost from Hubble redshift go? > and where it goes would be definable.... have you > even heard of the first law of thermodynamics? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > theory. And your still wrong... can't even give a cogent answer to > simple questions... Light always travels at c, energy is always conserved, and Jesus loves you. > On May 15, 1:31 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: <snip, trash> > > > Well, according to Sean Carroll, it's not conserved. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > This is of course complete trash since conservation of energy is > > supported by both SR and GR. This does not save you Mike since he never states photons lose energy nor does he make the argument. Even if he did its an unpublished blog post so who gives a sh.t... > "Sean Carroll is a Senior Research Associate in the Department of > Physics at the California Institute of Technology. His research [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://cosmicvariance.com/sean/ Still trash, its a blog not a published paper... it makes comments on another's work and does not have any scientific relevance... just because he is a scientist doesn't make him right, take Wolfram... he made a crackpot idea for the history books its called NKS... <snip, trash> Mike do you actually have an argument to make that is sensible or are you determined to be the biggest idiot you can be. You have not made a theory here, nor have you presented scientific evidence, sorry. A Blog post is not a scientific support for anything. You don't understand the math or the theory behind any of this so what the hell are you doing here...? Your a diversity hire mike.... go away until you grow an infantile intellect... Cheers On May 15, 2:08 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On May 15, 1:31 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > This does not save you Mike since he never states photons lose energy > nor does he make the argument. He states: "Every photon loses energy by redshifting as the universe expands" > Even if he did its an unpublished blog > post so who gives a sh.t... As the guy who wrote the well known textbook on GR said, it is well known that GR loses energy. Do a basic Google search and you'll find it's discussed quite often: <quote> Question: How does the expanding universe make a photon lose energy? Answer: By redshifting. A photon traveling through a spacetime described by the Robertson-Walker metric is redshifted to lower energy. Where has the lost energy gone? Perhaps since the metric represents a real change in spacetime with time, it is not surprising that energy isn't conserved, since energy conservation is a consequence of symmetry with respect to translations in time. </quote> http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/Foundations/Foundations_1/quest12.html Energy is not conserved in the expanding Universe. Nor is it in the decelerated light model. They're remarkably identical. <snip> > He states: > > "Every photon loses energy by redshifting as the universe expands" <snip> Of course this idea of a photon losing energy is an oversimplification. And in fact photon behavior is consistent as is GR and SR with the conservation of energy look at Noether's theorem... It has to do with frames of reference and the fact that photons are em force carriers... but as to the details of how this works, you need to read a book... since I will not spoon feed you physics just because your a lazy lack-wit... > Question: > How does the expanding universe make a photon lose energy? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Energy is not conserved in the expanding Universe. This is wrong, due to simplification.... in fact the answer is wrong since it implies thinking of red shift as energy loss which it isn't it is only an observed energy loss... but you wouldn't understand that would you... > Nor is it in the decelerated light model. > > They're remarkably identical. This in no way helps you since you still cannot explain why a photon would slow down... I think your problem as always is a complete ignorance of all but a few basics of physics... Have fun continuing to make a fool of yourself for me... Cheers On May 15, 3:17 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > This in no way helps you since you still cannot explain why a photon > would slow down... Common sense. EM holds atoms together. If the Universe is infinitely large, it probably has better things to do than manage the EM interactions between atoms trillions of light years apart. Therefore, the EM field actually has a finite range, and as it dies out redshifted galaxies, quasars, then the CMB appears before it all goes black. > I think your problem as always is a complete > ignorance of all but a few basics of physics... Have fun continuing to > make a fool of yourself for me... > On May 15, 3:17 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > out redshifted galaxies, quasars, then the CMB appears before it all > goes black. How can someone who doesn't understand spherical harmonics make such sweeping statements about electromagnetic theory with such confidence? > > I think your problem as always is a complete > > ignorance of all but a few basics of physics... Have fun continuing to > > make a fool of yourself for me... <snip> > Common sense. Mike your to ignorant to have any... > EM holds atoms together. Hmmm.... and what about strong nuclear force? the one that happens to hold the nucleus together? > If the Universe is infinitely large, it probably has better things to > do than manage the EM interactions between atoms trillions of light > years apart. That is pitiful Mike even for you.... > Therefore, the EM field actually has a finite range, and as it dies > out redshifted galaxies, quasars, then the CMB appears before it all > goes black. Did you read anything about gravitational redshift, do even understand the basics of conservation of energy, or relativistic observation? <snip> And since you seem to be in the mood to dodge questions let me restate them for you: Why do photons decelerate? What form is the energy loss? Is the energy lost or converted? How do you maintain the conservation of mass and energy, that are both held by GR, SR? Cheers The question is Mike what will you do? You know you don't understand the science, and obviously this is an issue of science. Are you going to repeat past action and abandon the idea now that it is untenable or are you going to stay and attempt to prove something... in the hopes of fully embarrassing yourself? Cheers On May 16, 7:53 am, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Hmmm.... and what about strong nuclear force? the one that happens to > hold the nucleus together? Good point. That one has a very short range. Because the Universe has better things to do than hold nuclei together over long distances. Just like it has better things to do than manage electron interactions at distances of trillions of light years. > > If the Universe is infinitely large, it probably has better things to > > do than manage the EM interactions between atoms trillions of light > > years apart. > > That is pitiful Mike even for you.... It's true for the strong nuclear force. Why not the em force? Because light always travels at c, and Jesus loves you. > > Therefore, the EM field actually has a finite range, and as it dies > > out redshifted galaxies, quasars, then the CMB appears before it all > > goes black. > > Did you read anything about gravitational redshift, do even understand > the basics of conservation of energy, or relativistic observation? If c is not a Universal constant, but the default velocity of each individual photon, and that velocity drops in conjunction with it's frequency (Hubble redshift) then the properties of space-time are going to be different for that photon. Seems to me the conservations laws would alter similarly as a consequence. In other words, the conservation laws change where redshift is observed. > And since you seem to be in the mood to dodge questions let me restate > them for you: > > Why do photons decelerate? Because they have a finite range. > What form is the energy loss? Deceleration. > Is the energy lost or converted? Lost. > How do you maintain the conservation of mass and energy, that are both > held by GR, SR? The first law of thermodynamics says: "The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings." In a deceleration model (just as in expansion) there is no increase in the internal energy of a system, nor any work being done. It simply loses energy through observed redshift, caused either by expansion or deceleration. [snip] Mike, shut the f.ck up. You are woefully unqualified to discuss any of the subjects in your post - you have no understanding of electromagnetism or cosmology in even the most basic of fashions. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > post - you have no understanding of electromagnetism or cosmology in > even the most basic of fashions. Right. A child like state. On the other hand, if it is possible that a photon's velocity diminishes with frequency according to its Hubble redshift, then we are uncovering new fields of electromagnetism and cosmology, of which you aren't a qualified authority either. So we're on even ground as far as being able to explore the terrain. > > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Right. A child like state. Have you even tried to learn what spherical harmonics are yet? Have you made any progress in understanding the Tolman surface brightness test? > On the other hand, if it is possible that a photon's velocity > diminishes with frequency according to its Hubble redshift, then we > are uncovering new fields of electromagnetism and cosmology, of which > you aren't a qualified authority either. No, idiot. > So we're on even ground as far as being able to explore the terrain. Except I know what spherical harmonics are, and I actually know something about cosmology and electromagnetic theory. Other than all the things that I know and you don't, yea even ground. <snip> > Right. A child like state. Yeah only thing is you've been in this state for years, Mike this is like being 12 years old and still failing the first grade... > On the other hand, if it is possible that a photon's velocity > diminishes with frequency according to its Hubble redshift, then we > are uncovering new fields of electromagnetism and cosmology, of which > you aren't a qualified authority either. Of course your not qualified to make the statement are you... being a lazy coot with nothing to contribute... since you have yet to learn anything about EM theory or any physics for that matter. You have yet to show me you can solve Maxwell's equations... oh wait you can't... then go away Mike till you can... > So we're on even ground as far as being able to explore the terrain. No your an ignoramus you have nothing to stand on but your self inflated ego that isn't worth the bits it takes to mention... Cheers On May 16, 11:19 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > No your an ignoramus you have nothing to stand on but your self > inflated ego that isn't worth the bits it takes to mention... Then why have you made my ego the focus of a hundred or so posts? All I've ever wanted to talk about is some bizarre physics ideas, and you're apparently desperate for human interaction. <snip> Since you seem determined to dodge all questions and then project your own ignorance on me I'll restate the questions that you cannot answer. Why do photons decelerate? In what form is the energy lost? Why would they only start losing energy at 60Mpc? What about Tolman Surface Brightness Test? What about relative frames of reference making redshift unusable for your theory? What about dark matter, dark energy? What are spherical harmonics, how do you solve them? Solve Maxwell's Equations for me. Tell me what Maxwell's Equations do? Solve for me the Einstein field equations. Those are a few off the top of my head... Cheers On May 17, 9:07 am, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > <snip> > > Since you seem determined to dodge all questions and then project your > own ignorance on me I'll restate the questions that you cannot answer. Oh, boo hoo. You consider my answers nonsense because Jesus loves you. It's not like you're doing the noble thing by answering any of mine: > Why do photons decelerate? Why does space expand? Because we observe a loss in frequency: f = 1 / t We observe that light takes longer to get here. Two options: 1 = space expands ; 2 = light decelerates Nobody taught you about 2, so you wouldn't be able to accept it. You're a student. <snip> > On May 17, 9:07 am, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You consider my answers nonsense because Jesus loves you. Jesus has nothing to do with this, fundie idiot. [snip] > > On May 17, 9:07 am, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Jesus has nothing to do with this, fundie idiot. I don't believe in Christ. I'm making fun of you, and you're apparently so smart that you couldn't realize it. If you believe light always travels at c, then that's absolute truth to you. Just like Jesus' love. Even when we observe Hubble redshift, which tells us LIGHT TAKES LONGER TO GET HERE FROM COSMOLOGICAL DISTANCES, you believe light always travels at c, so you accept that somehow, there must be more space for it to travel through. You've whole heartedly accepted extra space to account for the extra time. That's like accepting that Jesus walks on water. Nothing you see with you own eyes will convince otherwise because you only see what your beliefs will allow you to see. <snip> > I don't believe in Christ. Good for you... I don't believe you have feelings or a brain.... so what this is a physics group.... > I'm making fun of you, and you're apparently so smart that you > couldn't realize it. Mike the only person who is being laughed at is you, and you also have the distinction of being the only one too dumb to notice... congrats... > If you believe light always travels at c, then that's absolute truth > to you. Just like Jesus' love. No its actually observed and verified Tolman surface brightness test.....anyone... or try reading on SR.... oh wait, you don't grok the math.... sorry mike let me simplify for you, go away.... > Even when we observe Hubble redshift, which tells us LIGHT TAKES > LONGER TO GET HERE FROM COSMOLOGICAL DISTANCES, you believe light > always travels at c, so you accept that somehow, there must be more > space for it to travel through. Yes thanks to the big bang, and of course light is effected by gravity distortions of space... so yes SR is valid and expansion is valid so far, you have nothing to teach us, so again go away mike... > You've whole heartedly accepted extra space to account for the extra > time. No the evidence points to it, which means understanding the evidence which you don't so go away, Mike you can't solve a differential equation what the hell are you doing here.... > That's like accepting that Jesus walks on water. No its like accepting that the evidence currently points to the current explanation of expansion... > Nothing you see with you own eyes will convince otherwise because you > only see what your beliefs will allow you to see. Speak for yourself, toolbag... Cheers On May 17, 3:16 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Cheers Quasars are compact gravitational redshift objects that are not at the edge of the observable universe. They are evenly distributed near and far. Their redshift is gravitational first; distance second. These are failed galaxies the size of a light week. Their gravity is the biggest of all objects. On May 17, 4:16 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: <snip> > > Even when we observe Hubble redshift, which tells us LIGHT TAKES > > LONGER TO GET HERE FROM COSMOLOGICAL DISTANCES, you believe light [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > distortions of space... so yes SR is valid and expansion is valid so > far, you have nothing to teach us, so again go away mike... It's valid. If space expands, it accounts for the extra time the photon spent dinking around. And if Mary was a Virgin mother, Jesus really could have walked on water. The Surface Brightness has shown that Tired Light is invalid, because it assumes, like you, that light always travels at c. Under Tired Light, the light shows up too soon, and would be too bright. Expansion fixes this by delaying the time it takes for light to show up. Deceleration accomplishes the same effect in steady space, and passes the same tests. <snip> Here I am trying to pretend to care, wait...., ah... to difficult... sorry mike I just don't care.... Now if you don't mind I have real work dealing with the re-tooling of the navier stokes equations for a project of mine.... Cheers [snip] > Deceleration accomplishes the same effect in steady space, and passes > the same tests. Prove it. Show the derivation that gives the proper falloff in luminosity - you should have it by now since I've been asking it for a month. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > luminosity - you should have it by now since I've been asking it for a > month. Velocity of a wave: v = fw Velocity of light: v = c - Ht where H is Hubble's parameter rewritten as the deceleration of light (rather than the expansion of space) That should be equal to Hubble's law as far as f goes, the difference in this application is w stays steady instead of v.. > > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > v = fw Only for free traveling electromagnetic waves in a vacuum. Since you think photons have finite range that is wrong. > Velocity of light: > > v = c - Ht DUDE, the units aren't even right. Why are you even trying? > where H is Hubble's parameter rewritten as the deceleration of light > (rather than the expansion of space) Word salad berift of meaning. > That should be equal to Hubble's law as far as f goes, the difference > in this application is w stays steady instead of v.. ..."should be" ? I asked you to show that your model correctly predicts the observed falloff for luminosity re: Tolman surface brightness test. Given that you didn't even get close it is obvious you /still/ do not understand what the test is, what it means, or why it is relevant. Thanks for proving your stupidity in yet another way. > > > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > DUDE, the units aren't even right. Why are you even trying? The units are right, if you take into account what I said below, where Hubble's parameter is re-calculated in units of deceleration instead of expansion (time lost rather than space gained). So c units of m/s H units of m/s^2 t units of s Works out v is units of m/s The units are right. <snip> > The units are right, if you take into account what I said below, where > Hubble's parameter is re-calculated in units of deceleration instead > of expansion (time lost rather than space gained). Show your work, recalculate H the way your word salad suggests... if you can... Oh right you can't since hubbles paramter has to do with redshift and distance to galaxies, so how exactly would you change from distance to time? http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/HubbleLaw.html So here's a link to the equation, redo it as you claim it can be redone, I eagerly await your attempt... <snip, who cares> Cheers > > > > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > c units of m/s > H units of m/s^2 What are the units of km / s / mpc? If the answer you get is "length / time ^2" you are an idiot. > t units of s > > Works out v is units of m/s > > The units are right. > > > > > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > What are the units of km / s / mpc? length / time / length But that's expanding space. For my formula to work Hubble's parameter should be recalculated as the expansion of time. That can be accomplished through a negative acceleration, in units length / time / time > If the answer you get is "length / time ^2" you are an idiot. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > The units are right. <snip> > length / time / length > |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message