| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Tired Light is Still Dead
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Sam Wormley |
 Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:54 am |
|
|
|
|
On Apr 29, 9:54 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Quote: 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.
Expanding space expands light. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michael Helland |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 29, 10:54 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Quote: 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Igor |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 1:54 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Quote: 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.
Hmm, just like General Francisco Franco. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michael Helland |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 9:51 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Quote: Michael Helland 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.
When a photon exists... it only exists propagating at c.
That's the theory.
It could have a limited domain, like the Newtonian mechanics the
theory replaced.
The fact of the matter is, tired light doesn't suggest that light
decelerates.
Even though my ideas sound like tired light, they are actually
significantly different. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eric Gisse |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 8:45 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sam Wormley |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Helland wrote:
Quote: 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.
When a photon exists... it only exists propagating at c. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michael Helland |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 2:18 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Quote: 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.
The expansion of space was invented to save us from questioning the
domain of SR.
Constant velocity in expanding space is mathematically identical to
deceleration in static space. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michael Helland |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 2:46 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eric Gisse |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 2:46 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: 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?
Quote:
The expansion of space was invented to save us from questioning the
domain of SR.
No, it wasn't. Try again - but read a book first.
Quote:
Constant velocity in expanding space is mathematically identical to
deceleration in static space.
No, it is not. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eric Gisse |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 2:46 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: 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.
Still contradicts observation, and is therefore wrong. Go away. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dirk Van de moortel |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Helland <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message
7d73ab37-dd77-48bc-8502-154e60f9332a@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
Quote: On Apr 30, 9:51 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland 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.
When a photon exists... it only exists propagating at c.
That's the theory.
It could have a limited domain, like the Newtonian mechanics the
theory replaced.
The fact of the matter is, tired light doesn't suggest that light
decelerates.
Even though my ideas sound like tired light, they are actually
significantly different.
Don't *you* ever get tired from trying to sound different?
Dirk Vdm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sam Wormley |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Helland wrote:
Quote: 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sam Wormley |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Helland wrote:
Quote: 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.
Quote:
The expansion of space was invented to save us from questioning the
domain of SR.
Constant velocity in expanding space is mathematically identical to
deceleration in static space. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sam Wormley |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Helland wrote:
Quote: 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:26 pm
|
|
