Dear SolomonW:

"SolomonW" <Solom...@DONTBOTHER.com> wrote in message

news:MPG.226c0e4f2371923c9896e7@news...

In article <42ce5007-da52-46d8-acb7-8eb716d9fd52@
1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, mitchg...@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?

On the light? None.

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?

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 14, 6:44 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

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?

On the light? None.

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?

On Apr 14, 4:06 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:



Dear Michael Helland:

On Apr 14, 6:44 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

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?

On the light?  None.

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.

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
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?

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.

On Apr 14, 4:38 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Apr 14, 4:06 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:

Dear Michael Helland:

On Apr 14, 6:44 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

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?

On the light? None.

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.

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
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?

This one simple mechanism eliminates expansion, inflation, dark
energy, and adjustable parameters and other mechanisms

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.

Dear Michael Helland:

"Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:a7522c7f-8a1c-46a8-8486-161b80dcf73a@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...



On Apr 14, 4:06 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
Dear Michael Helland:

On Apr 14, 6:44 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com
wrote:

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?

On the light? None.

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.

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.

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
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?

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.

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.

On Apr 14, 7:52 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Apr 14, 4:38 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 14, 4:06 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:

Dear Michael Helland:

On Apr 14, 6:44 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

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?

On the light?  None.

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.

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
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?

This one simple mechanism eliminates expansion, inflation, dark
energy, and adjustable parameters and other mechanisms

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.

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.

On Apr 14, 4:38 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Apr 14, 4:06 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:

Dear Michael Helland:

On Apr 14, 6:44 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

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?

On the light?  None.

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.

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
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?

This one simple mechanism eliminates expansion, inflation, dark
energy, and adjustable parameters and other mechanisms

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Michael Helland:

On Apr 14, 6:44 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

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?

On the light?  None.

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
Shapiro shows the wait on light passing through gravity.

On Apr 14, 4:06 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
Dear Michael Helland:

On Apr 14, 6:44 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com
wrote:

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?

On the light? None.

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.

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
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?


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.

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...
including the CMBR (most likely).

Most likely?

What are the facts?

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.

On Apr 14, 5:02 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Apr 14, 7:52 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 14, 4:38 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 14, 4:06 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:

Dear Michael Helland:

On Apr 14, 6:44 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

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?

On the light? None.

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.

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
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?

This one simple mechanism eliminates expansion, inflation, dark
energy, and adjustable parameters and other mechanisms

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.

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.

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.

On Apr 14, 8:33 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Apr 14, 5:02 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 14, 7:52 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 14, 4:38 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 14, 4:06 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:

Dear Michael Helland:

On Apr 14, 6:44 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

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?

On the light?  None.

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.

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
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?

This one simple mechanism eliminates expansion, inflation, dark
energy, and adjustable parameters and other mechanisms

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.

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.

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.

On Apr 15, 5:55 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Apr 14, 8:33 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 14, 5:02 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 14, 7:52 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 14, 4:38 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 14, 4:06 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:

Dear Michael Helland:

On Apr 14, 6:44 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

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?

On the light? None.

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.

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
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?

This one simple mechanism eliminates expansion, inflation, dark
energy, and adjustable parameters and other mechanisms

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.

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.

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.

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.