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.

On Apr 15, 9:35 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

[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.

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 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.

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.

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...

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...

On Apr 15, 6:19 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 15, 9:35 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

Nope - the basic hypothesis of the big bang model hasn't changed.

But several adjustable parameters have been necessary to save it.

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.

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 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.

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.

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...

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...

Science isn't a conspiracy.

It's a meme.

On Apr 16, 5:11 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 15, 6:19 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 15, 9:35 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

Nope - the basic hypothesis of the big bang model hasn't changed.

But several adjustable parameters have been necessary to save it.

So?

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.

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 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.

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 shit out of the microwave antenna. They had friends on the
Nobel committee who helped cover their ass, 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.

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.

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.

No comment?

Still can't explain how a Malmquist bias is relevant to this? I mean
shit, 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
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...

Still haven't figured it out?

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...

Science isn't a conspiracy.

It's a meme.

-1, Wrong.

"longcat is long" is a meme.
"lulz" is a meme.

Science isn't a fucking 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.

E = hf

Einstein's equation is wrong. h is such a tiny quantity as to reduce
the energy of light to something impossibly small.

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?

Michael Helland wrote:

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?

Are you aware that Hubble never accepted expansion as the cause of the
redshift?

A single photon doesn't have enough energy to excite the rods and
cones in the eye.

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

news:32cd0833-69d3-4a46-9b27-7b247bb36384@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 16, 10:27 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:

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.

How the heck would anyone know.. I haven't heard
one tell me that.. Unless of course you speak French..

On Apr 16, 10:27 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:

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.

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?

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?

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.

Michael Helland 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.

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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.