| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Tired Light is Still Dead
Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Michael Helland |
 Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 7:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 5:14 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 30, 2:46 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:18 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 30, 9:51 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
When a photon exists... it only exists propagating at c.
That's the theory.
That's a theory in which no observation has ever contradicted
a prediction.
Hubble red shift seems to contradict it.
-1, Wrong. SR is only valid locally - is Hubble expansion a local
phenomena?
What is the valid domain of SR? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 9:49 am |
|
|
|
|
On May 1, 9:28 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 30, 5:14 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:46 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:18 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 30, 9:51 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
When a photon exists... it only exists propagating at c.
That's the theory.
That's a theory in which no observation has ever contradicted
a prediction.
Hubble red shift seems to contradict it.
-1, Wrong. SR is only valid locally - is Hubble expansion a local
phenomena?
What is the valid domain of SR?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Space expansion expands light over billions of years. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michael Helland |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 10:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 6:12 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Quote: Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:18 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 30, 9:51 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
When a photon exists... it only exists propagating at c.
That's the theory.
That's a theory in which no observation has ever contradicted
a prediction.
Hubble red shift seems to contradict it.
Nope - You are wrong.
It sure does, no one has interpreted it right though.
Even in the failed Tired Light Models, c was c. It didn't change.
Light lost energy, but not speed.
So even those that disagreed with expansion, still agreed that the
speed of light is constant.
But, when we observe Hubble redshift, energy and frequency are lost.
What we're seeing is light decelerating.
No one's ever called it that, but it's pretty obvious.
Eric said:
"SR is only valid locally - is Hubble expansion a local phenomena?"
Which seems to say to me that there shouldn't be any problem letting
light decelerate at Hubble redshift scales. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eric Gisse |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 11:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 1, 9:28 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 30, 5:14 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:46 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:18 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 30, 9:51 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
When a photon exists... it only exists propagating at c.
That's the theory.
That's a theory in which no observation has ever contradicted
a prediction.
Hubble red shift seems to contradict it.
-1, Wrong. SR is only valid locally - is Hubble expansion a local
phenomena?
What is the valid domain of SR?
Open a relativity textbook and find out. I'm not going to spoon feed
you an education. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michael Helland |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 11:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 1, 2:28 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On May 1, 9:28 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 5:14 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:46 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:18 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 30, 9:51 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
When a photon exists... it only exists propagating at c.
That's the theory.
That's a theory in which no observation has ever contradicted
a prediction.
Hubble red shift seems to contradict it.
-1, Wrong. SR is only valid locally - is Hubble expansion a local
phenomena?
What is the valid domain of SR?
Open a relativity textbook and find out. I'm not going to spoon feed
you an education.
If Hubble "expansion" is beyond the domain of SR, then a Decelerating
Light model should have no problems. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michael Helland |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 1:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 1, 4:31 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Quote: Michael Helland wrote:
But, when we observe Hubble redshift, energy and frequency are lost.
What we're seeing is light decelerating.
No--Energy (frequency and wavelength) of light is measurable and
it is the shifting of the spectral lines that allows measurement
of the Doppler Effect (Hubble redshift).
How is it shifted?
c = fw
Is it the wavelength (space) expanding ?
Alternatively, a decreasing c would maintain the proportions and would
accommodate the the same data. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michael Helland |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 1:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 1, 4:54 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Quote: Michael Helland wrote:
On May 1, 4:31 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
But, when we observe Hubble redshift, energy and frequency are lost.
What we're seeing is light decelerating.
No--Energy (frequency and wavelength) of light is measurable and
it is the shifting of the spectral lines that allows measurement
of the Doppler Effect (Hubble redshift).
How is it shifted?
Doppler Effect
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DopplerEffect.html
c = fw
In Helland lingo
f = c/w, where c is a constant
w = c/f, where c is a constant
And the shift is that f goes down, and w goes up.
My point is that if f goes down, c goes down, and w stays constant
will be a similar shift that would accommodate the same data as the
"expansion" shift. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michael Helland |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 2:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 1, 5:15 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Quote: Michael Helland wrote:
On May 1, 4:54 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
In Helland lingo
f = c/w, where c is a constant
w = c/f, where c is a constant
And the shift is that f goes down, and w goes up.
Yes--that is what is observed in nature.
My point is that if f goes down, c goes down, and w stays constant
No--that IS NOT observed in nature.
But mathematically it would accommodate the same data. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eric Gisse |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 3:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 1, 1:32 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On May 1, 2:28 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 1, 9:28 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 5:14 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:46 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:18 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 30, 9:51 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
When a photon exists... it only exists propagating at c.
That's the theory.
That's a theory in which no observation has ever contradicted
a prediction.
Hubble red shift seems to contradict it.
-1, Wrong. SR is only valid locally - is Hubble expansion a local
phenomena?
What is the valid domain of SR?
Open a relativity textbook and find out. I'm not going to spoon feed
you an education.
If Hubble "expansion" is beyond the domain of SR, then a Decelerating
Light model should have no problems.
Except with observation. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michael Helland |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 6:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 1, 6:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On May 1, 1:32 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 1, 2:28 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 1, 9:28 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 5:14 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:46 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:18 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 30, 9:51 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
When a photon exists... it only exists propagating at c.
That's the theory.
That's a theory in which no observation has ever contradicted
a prediction.
Hubble red shift seems to contradict it.
-1, Wrong. SR is only valid locally - is Hubble expansion a local
phenomena?
What is the valid domain of SR?
Open a relativity textbook and find out. I'm not going to spoon feed
you an education.
If Hubble "expansion" is beyond the domain of SR, then a Decelerating
Light model should have no problems.
Except with observation.
Tired light has a problem with observation.
But decelerating light does not.
c = fw
Under expansion f drops, w expands and c is constant.
If we assume that c drops, f drops, and w is constant, then based on
the properties of multiplication, we should be able to match the same
observations to the formula.
Decelerating light, unlike tired light, is mathematically equivalent
to expansion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michael Helland |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 6:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 7:06 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Quote: Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:46 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 8:45 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 29, 10:54 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Tired Light is Still Dead
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
24 Apr 2008 - Blondin et al. (2008) studied distant supernovae using spectra to judge the
age of the object during each observation. They found an aging rate that varied with
redshift z like
1/(1+z)(0.97 +/- 0.10),
compatible with the expected 1/(1+z) for expanding Universes, but 9.7 standard deviations
away from the constant aging rate expected in the tired light model.
The tired light model suggests that E and f are lost, yet the speed of
light stays the same.
What I have suggested is different than tired light.
It is decelerating light.
Calling it something else doesn't change the features of the theory.
It is wrong, you are wrong. Give it a rest.
Tired light assumes that the energy is the light is lost, but the
velocity stays the same.
My decelerating light isn't just a new name, it's a brand new
suggestion.
Show us your equations.
Ok.
Show me the data my math should accommodate.
For example, a 1D x axis has points A and B. They are 1 million light
years apart.
If a photon leaves point A and arrives at point B, because of
expansion it will have traveled 1 million light years + 20km.
Give me a set of data, such as:
t (in million years) x (distance from origin in light years)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
2
3
4
5...ect
I should be able to provide an algorithm that produces that, and the
rest of Hubble's Law, based on deceleration in non-expanding space. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Uncle Al |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 6:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Helland wrote:
Quote:
On May 1, 2:28 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 1, 9:28 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 5:14 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:46 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:18 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 30, 9:51 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
When a photon exists... it only exists propagating at c.
That's the theory.
That's a theory in which no observation has ever contradicted
a prediction.
Hubble red shift seems to contradict it.
-1, Wrong. SR is only valid locally - is Hubble expansion a local
phenomena?
What is the valid domain of SR?
Open a relativity textbook and find out. I'm not going to spoon feed
you an education.
If Hubble "expansion" is beyond the domain of SR, then a Decelerating
Light model should have no problems.
Randomly spewing idiot.
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge
1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
others.
3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sam Wormley |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 6:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Helland wrote:
Quote:
But, when we observe Hubble redshift, energy and frequency are lost.
What we're seeing is light decelerating.
No--Energy (frequency and wavelength) of light is measurable and
it is the shifting of the spectral lines that allows measurement
of the Doppler Effect (Hubble redshift). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sam Wormley |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 6:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Helland wrote:
Quote: On May 1, 4:31 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
But, when we observe Hubble redshift, energy and frequency are lost.
What we're seeing is light decelerating.
No--Energy (frequency and wavelength) of light is measurable and
it is the shifting of the spectral lines that allows measurement
of the Doppler Effect (Hubble redshift).
How is it shifted?
Doppler Effect
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DopplerEffect.html
In Helland lingo
f = c/w, where c is a constant
w = c/f, where c is a constant
E = hv, where v is frequency
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Photon.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eric Gisse |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 6:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 1, 8:08 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On May 1, 6:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 1, 1:32 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 1, 2:28 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 1, 9:28 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 5:14 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:46 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:18 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 30, 9:51 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
When a photon exists... it only exists propagating at c.
That's the theory.
That's a theory in which no observation has ever contradicted
a prediction.
Hubble red shift seems to contradict it.
-1, Wrong. SR is only valid locally - is Hubble expansion a local
phenomena?
What is the valid domain of SR?
Open a relativity textbook and find out. I'm not going to spoon feed
you an education.
If Hubble "expansion" is beyond the domain of SR, then a Decelerating
Light model should have no problems.
Except with observation.
Tired light has a problem with observation.
But decelerating light does not.
c = fw
Under expansion f drops, w expands and c is constant.
If we assume that c drops, f drops, and w is constant, then based on
the properties of multiplication, we should be able to match the same
observations to the formula.
Decelerating light, unlike tired light, is mathematically equivalent
to expansion.
Now provide the proper relation between distance and luminosity for a
given intensity. Or is that too hard?
I'm tired of dumb ass physics 101 level arguments. It is painfully
obvious you don't know enough about the subject to argue properly, so
I'm wondering how long you will keep repeating this bullshit that you
obviously thought up in like 5 minutes while high. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri May 16, 2008 11:29 pm
|
|
