Speed of Light is Constant in Tired Light Models, Decelerated Light is a new model
Michael Helland
speed of light is a constant c.
Decelerating-Light is new and different.
It interprets the Hubble redshift as the simplest and most elegant
possibility:
redshift is light naturally decelerating in static space.
This is a rough implementation of Hubble's law through deceleration
rather than expansion for 9 photons emitted at different times:
photon_count = 0
do while photon_count < 10
photon_count = photon_count + 1
dimension photon_array[photon_count]
photon_array[photon_count] = createobject("photon", photon_count)
* go a while before creating another photon
for iii = 1 to 4.2 * 10^5
for jjj = 1 to photon_count
photon = photon_array[jjj]
photon.move()
endfor
endfor
?.t.
enddo
create cursor photons (n i, x n(20,5), c n(10,6))
for jjj = 1 to photon_count
photon = photon_array[jjj]
insert into photons (n, x, c) values (photon.n, photon.x, photon.c)
endfor
browse
copy to decelerated type csv
define class photon as custom
x = 0 && position in light years
c = 1 && speed in light years per year
i = 0 && iterations
n = 0 && identification
function move
this.i = this.i + 1
this.x = this.x + this.c
* We've been traveling for 1 million light years, slow down
if this.i = 10^6
this.i = 0
this.c = this.c - 0.00002
?this.c, this.x, this.n
endif
return
function init(tnPhotonCount)
this.n = tnPhotonCount
return
enddefine
That sends 10 photon's going around, and since they are emitted at
different times, they are traveling at different decelerated
velocities.
Here is the result in CSV format:
n,x,c
1,4199864.00020,0.999920
2,3779893.20022,0.999940
3,3359918.40022,0.999940
4,2939942.40020,0.999960
5,2519959.20014,0.999960
6,2099976.00007,0.999960
7,1679986.40005,0.999980
8,1259994.80002,0.999980
9,840000.00000,1.000000
10,420000.00000,1.000000
Because
E = hf
and
c = fw
It seems that this rule, unlike expansion, drops the frequency without
compensating in the wavelength.
So expansion predicts redshift frequency and stretched wavelength.
And deceleration predicts redshift frequency and static wavelength.
It seems that deceleration is dead on arrival if that's the case.
But, according to the code, every photon, upon emission, is traveling
at c.
Without a fuller QM model to work with, we would have to make some
assumptions about what happens when this light is measured.
It seems that the photons are absorbed, and re-transmitted in all
sorts of ways.
If that's the case, in the process of measuring the light, we're
dealing with fresh new photons recently emitted from electrons in the
measurement apparatus, and they would be traveling at c.
So, maybe there's some other way to tell.
Sam Wormley
> In all cosmological models, including expansion and tired-light, the
> speed of light is a constant c.
>
> Decelerating-Light is new and different.
>
.... and wrong.
Eric Gisse
[snip]
The point of this eludes me. You have no idea what predictions "your"
theory will have to satisfy.
Michael Helland
The first point was that Tired Light uses a constant speed of light.
The second point was that deceleration of light in static space is a
valid interpretation of Hubble redshift.
It makes the prediction, essentially, that light with Hubble redshift
has its original wavelength despite the redshifted frequency.
Yanick Toutain
Michael Helland wrote : "in static space. "
Do you really think that ?
"in static space. "
You agree with absolute space of Newton ?
It is the beginning of philosophy, the beginning of science.
It is the beginning of Newton's Principa ?
You agree?
=============================
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/tree/browse_frm/thread/64dccde4a3c3b3fe/eef9777dd1ee16e5?hl=fr&rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F64dccde4a3c3b3fe%3Fhl%3Dfr%26#doc_eef9777dd1ee16e5
=================================
Michael Helland a écrit : « dans l'espace statique. »
Pensez-vous vraiment cela ?
« dans l'espace statique. »
Vous êtes d'accord avec l'espace absolu de Newton ?
C'est le commencement de la philosophie, le commencement de la
science.
C'est le commencement de Principa de Newton ?
Vous convenez ?
=============================
迈克尔Helland写道： “在静态空间。 ”
您是否真正地认为那？
“在静态空间。 ”
您同意牛顿绝对空间？
它是哲学起点，科学起点。
它是牛顿的Principa起点？
您同意？
==============================
كتب مايكل [هلّند]: "في فراغ ساكن إستاتيكي. "
أنت حقّا تفكّر أنّ?
"في فراغ ساكن إستاتيكي. "
أنت توافق مع فراغ مطلقة نيوتن?
هو البداية الفلسفة, البداية العلم.
هو البداية من نيوتن [برينسبا]?
أنت توافق?
==============================
Michael Helland escribió: “en espacio estático. ”
¿Usted piensa realmente eso?
“en espacio estático. ”
¿Usted conviene con el espacio absoluto de Newton?
Es el principio de la filosofía, el principio de la ciencia.
¿Es el principio de Principa de Newton?
¿Usted conviene?
===============================
Майкл Helland написало: «в статическом космосе. »
Вы действительно думаете то?
«в статическом космосе. »
Вы соглашаетесь с абсолютным космосом Newton?
Начало общего соображения, начало науки.
Начало Principa Newton?
Вы соглашаетесь?
===============================
ミハエルHellandは書いた: 「静的なスペースで。 」
実際にそれを考えるか。
「静的なスペースで。 」
ニュートンの絶対スペースと同意するか。
それは哲学の始め、科学の始めである。
それはニュートンのPrincipaの始めであるか。
同意するか。
================================
Michael Helland
> On 2 mai, 00:17, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Helland wrote : "in static space. "
>
> Do you really think that ?
> "in static space. "
> You agree with absolute space of Newton ?
My point was that it is not expanding.
That's what I meant by static.
> It is the beginning of philosophy, the beginning of science.
> It is the beginning of Newton's Principa ?
> You agree?
The beginning of Newton's Principia defined time and space as being
both absolute and relative:
<quote>
I. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own
nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by
another name is called duration:
relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external
(whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of
motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour,
a day, a month, a year.
II. Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything
external, remains always similar and immovable.
Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute
spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies; and
which is commonly taken for immovable space; such is the dimension of
a subterraneous, an aerial, or celestial space, determined by its
position in respect of the earth.
</quote>
Furthermore, Einstein never disputed absolute/relative duality of
space and time.
He only pointed out that the subject of our equations and observations
are relative space and time.
He writes in Relativity Chapter 9:
<quote>
Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always
tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an
absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of
motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this
assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of
simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between
the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of
relativity (developed in Section VII) disappears."
</quote>
The reason for the assumption could be Newton's description of
absolute time being mathematical rather than relative time.
In Chapter 8, Einstein gives his working definition for time:
<quote>
Under these conditions we understand by the 'time' of an event the
reading (position of the hands) of that one of these clocks which is
in the immediate vicinity (in space) of the event
</quote>
Einstein is defining time in terms of the moving hands of a clock,
which is nearly identical to how Newton defined relative time:
<quote>
Relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external
(whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of
motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour,
a day, a month, a year.
</quote>
Newton's definitions came from Descartes, and the ideas go back to the
Greek Monists.
OG
"Michael Helland" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d31fd906-37ec-4529...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> In all cosmological models, including expansion and tired-light, the
> speed of light is a constant c.
>
> Decelerating-Light is new and different.
>
So some light is travelling slower than other light; yet all light of a
particular (incident) frequency in a medium has the same refractive index .
Can you explain this?
Yanick Toutain
Michel Helland wrote
(I hope that the honest readers of sci.logic will be able to give us
their opinion
=============================
Les 1er,3 mai : 52 P.M., le <YanickTout… @gmail.com> de Yanick Toutain
ont écrit :
> sur 2 l'AMI, 00:17, le <mobyd… @gmail.com> de Michael Helland a écrit :
> Michael Helland a écrit : « dans l'espace statique. »
> faites-vous pensent vraiment cela ?
> « dans l'espace statique. »
> vous êtes d'accord avec l'espace absolu de Newton ?
Mon point était qu'il n'augmente pas.
C'est ce qu'ai voulu dire je par charge statique.
> c'est le commencement de la philosophie, le commencement de la science.
> c'est le commencement de Principa de Newton ?
> vous convenez ?
Le commencement de Principia de Newton a défini le temps et l'espace
en tant qu'étant
absolu et parent :
<quote>
I. Temps absolu, vrai, et mathématique, de lui-même, et de ses propres
nature, écoulements régulier sans relation à n'importe quoi externe,
et près
un autre nom s'appelle durée :
le temps relatif, apparent, et commun, est un certains sensible et
externe
(si précis ou unequable) mesure de durée par les moyens de
mouvement, qui est utilisé généralement au lieu d'en temps réel ;
comme une heure,
un jour, un mois, une année.
II. L'espace absolu, en sa propre nature, sans relation à n'importe
quoi
l'external, demeure toujours semblable et immeuble.
L'espace relatif est une certaine dimension ou mesure mobile de
l'absolu
les espaces ; ce que nos sens déterminent par sa position aux corps ;
et
ce qui est généralement pris pour l'espace immeuble ; telle est la
dimension de
un subterraneous, une antenne, ou l'espace céleste, déterminé par son
position en ce qui concerne la terre.
</quote>
En outre, Einstein n'a jamais contesté dualité absolue/relative de
l'espace et temps.
Il a seulement précisé que le sujet de nos équations et observations
sont l'espace et le temps relatifs.
Il écrit en chapitre 9 de relativité :
<quote>
Maintenant avant l'arrivée de la théorie de relativité il a eu
toujours
tacitement assumé dans la physique que le rapport du temps a eu
signification absolue, c.-à-d. ce c'est indépendant de l'état de
mouvement du corps de la référence. Mais nous avons juste vu que ceci
la prétention est incompatible avec la définition la plus normale de
simultanéité ; si nous jetons cette prétention, alors le conflit entre
la loi de la propagation de la lumière sous vide et du principe de
la relativité (développée dans section VII) disparaît. «
</quote>
La raison de la prétention a pu être la description de Newton de
temps absolu étant mathématique plutôt que le temps relatif.
En chapitre 8, Einstein donne sa définition fonctionnante pendant le
temps :
<quote>
Dans ces conditions nous comprenons par la « période » d'un événement
lecture (position des mains) de celle-là de ces horloges qui sont
à proximité immédiate (dans l'espace) de l'événement
</quote>
Einstein définit le temps en termes de mains mobiles d'une horloge,
ce qui est presque identique à la façon dont Newton a défini le temps
relatif :
<quote>
Le temps relatif, apparent, et commun, est un certains sensible et
externe
(si précis ou unequable) mesure de durée par les moyens de
mouvement, qui est utilisé généralement au lieu d'en temps réel ;
comme une heure,
un jour, un mois, une année.
</quote>
Les définitions de Newton sont venues de Descartes, et les idées
retournent au
Monists grec.
=========================
Michael Helland
> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
According to the code, a photon doesn't start to decelerate until it
travels a million light years.
Is there a medium 100 million light years long, to perform an
experiment in?
If so, it would take a few million years to perform the experiment.
So it seems the rule, with its constant velocity until 1 million light
years, is consistent with experiments.
And all locally emitted light is going to be traveling at c.
Nothing about that would change, and it'll be consistent with SR.
Eric Gisse
> On May 1, 3:33 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 2:17 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> > The point of this eludes me. You have no idea what predictions "your"
> > theory will have to satisfy.
>
> The first point was that Tired Light uses a constant speed of light.
No it doesn't.
>
> The second point was that deceleration of light in static space is a
> valid interpretation of Hubble redshift.
No it isn't. You ignore extensive evidence that is consistent with
expansion, eg time dilation of light curves, the proper fall off in
luminosity as a function of redshift...
>
> It makes the prediction, essentially, that light with Hubble redshift
> has its original wavelength despite the redshifted frequency.
Oh wow I love it when you disprove your own ideas.
Sam Wormley
>
> The beginning of Newton's Principia defined time and space as being
> both absolute and relative:
>
Observations show that is wrong.
Sam Wormley
>
> So some light is travelling slower than other light...
No the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers.
Uncle Al
>
> In all cosmological models, including expansion and tired-light, the
> speed of light is a constant c.
>
> Decelerating-Light is new and different.
0) Violates Lorentz invariance, blows permitivity and permeability
of the vacuum, blows mass-energy equivalence and stellar fusion...
1) http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
2) http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge
2a) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
2b) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
others.
2c) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of
their inadequacy.
3) Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Uncle Al
Sam Wormley
>
>
> According to the code, a photon doesn't start to decelerate until it
> travels a million light years.
>
During its whole existence the speed of light is c.
Uncle Al
>
> On May 1, 4:13 pm, "OG" <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
> > "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:d31fd906-37ec-4529...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > In all cosmological models, including expansion and tired-light, the
> > > speed of light is a constant c.
> >
> > > Decelerating-Light is new and different.
> > > redshift is light naturally decelerating in static space.
> >
> > So some light is travelling slower than other light; yet all light of a
> > particular (incident) frequency in a medium has the same refractive index .
> >
> > Can you explain this?
>
> According to the code, a photon doesn't start to decelerate until it
> travels a million light years.
Idiot. Fucking imbecile. How does the photon measure the distance?
Proper length and proper time are defined as the length of an object
and the amount of time that passes in a comoving frame.
A time-like vector in Minkowski space-time selects a preferred frame
(coordinate system) in which the t-axis points along the vector and
spatial coordinates are orthogonal to it. In this special coordinate
system, the t-component of the vector is called its proper length (or
proper mass-energy when talking of a 4-momentum vector).
OTOH, a light-like vector points along one of the directions contained
in the light cone. The light cone is unvariant under all Lorentz
transformations. Thus, a light-like vector is simply unable to pick a
preferred coordinate system. We cannot make any "proper"
measurements of a photon's 4-momentum.
Define "proper energy" as for any object: the length of the energy
momentum four-vector - that is, the mass-energy. EM waves(photons)
have no mass, so E = pc. The length of the four-vector is zero. In a
comoving frame (if such a thing could meaningfully exist) said light
would have no energy or frequency.
Michael Helland
> On May 1, 2:48 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 3:33 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 2:17 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > [snip]
>
> > > The point of this eludes me. You have no idea what predictions "your"
> > > theory will have to satisfy.
>
> > The first point was that Tired Light uses a constant speed of light.
>
> No it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
From the wikipedia:
"The concept was first proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky, who suggested
that photons lose energy over time through collisions with other
particles"
The energy and frequency are lost.
But not velocity.
That makes deceleration an entirely novel alternative to the expansion
interpretation of Hubble's redshift.
> > The second point was that deceleration of light in static space is a
> > valid interpretation of Hubble redshift.
>
> No it isn't. You ignore extensive evidence that is consistent with
> expansion, eg time dilation of light curves, the proper fall off in
> luminosity as a function of redshift...
E = hf
c = fw
f can drop and w can expand.
Or...
f can drop and c can drop.
All the mathematics are identical, except w stays constant instead of
w.
As opposed to in tired light, which is falsified, f drops but c and w
stay the same.
That doesn't add back up to the expansion model.
But dropping c does.
> > It makes the prediction, essentially, that light with Hubble redshift
> > has its original wavelength despite the redshifted frequency.
>
> Oh wow I love it when you disprove your own ideas.
Disproving your own idea is called science.
I'm glad you love my science.
Michael Helland
> Michael Helland wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 3:33 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 1, 2:17 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > [snip]
>
> > > The point of this eludes me. You have no idea what predictions "your"
> > > theory will have to satisfy.
>
> > The first point was that Tired Light uses a constant speed of light.
>
> > The second point was that deceleration of light in static space is a
> > valid interpretation of Hubble redshift.
>
> > It makes the prediction, essentially, that light with Hubble redshift
> > has its original wavelength despite the redshifted frequency.
>
> 1)http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
> 2) Idiot
1. Tired Light sucks
2. Decelerated Light actually changes c, unlike Tired Light, which
makes it a new model
3. It's pretty obvious that you have a small dick
Sam Wormley
>
> That makes deceleration an entirely novel alternative to the expansion
> interpretation of Hubble's redshift.
>
>
Not observed in nature.
Sam Wormley
>
> 1. Tired Light sucks
>
> 2. Decelerated Light actually changes c, unlike Tired Light, which
> makes it a new model
>
> 3. It's pretty obvious that you have a small dick
Speed of light is observed as c, therefore you "new model" is
discredited. It's wrong. It doesn't fit the observations. It
must be discarded.
Michael Helland
> Michael Helland wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 4:13 pm, "OG" <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
> > > "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:d31fd906-37ec-4529...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > In all cosmological models, including expansion and tired-light, the
> > > > speed of light is a constant c.
>
> > > > Decelerating-Light is new and different.
> > > > redshift is light naturally decelerating in static space.
>
> > > So some light is travelling slower than other light; yet all light of a
> > > particular (incident) frequency in a medium has the same refractive index .
>
> > > Can you explain this?
>
> > According to the code, a photon doesn't start to decelerate until it
> > travels a million light years.
>
> [snip rest of crap]
>
> Idiot. Fucking imbecile. How does the photon measure the distance?
It keeps track of how many iterations of the Move() function have been
called with the "i" property.
Assuming, for explanatory purposes, a photon is the mathematical
object below, then it should be easy, for a competent mathematician,
to see how each photon keeps track of how many times it has moved, and
that the speed is constant until 1 million light years.:
Michael Helland
> Michael Helland wrote:
>
> > In all cosmological models, including expansion and tired-light, the
> > speed of light is a constant c.
>
> > Decelerating-Light is new and different.
>
> [snip rest of crap]
>
> 0) Violates Lorentz invariance, blows permitivity and permeability
> of the vacuum, blows mass-energy equivalence and stellar fusion...
The speed of a photon is constant c for the first 1 million light
years of a journey.
So my rule is consistent with SR for every experiment that takes place
in less than 1 million years.
> 1)http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
>
> 2)http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
> Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): ignorance more
> frequently begets confidence than does knowledge
>
> 2a) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
> skill.
> 2b) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
> others.
> 2c) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of
> their inadequacy.
>
> 3) Idiot.
You are clearly over estimating your own competence, because you can't
tell the difference between Tired Light (which has a constant speed of
light) and Slow Light (where the speed actually changes).
I'd call you an idiot, but the world needs all strategies to go round.
Even though we're probably going to see the last generation of big
bang supporters soon, they are entertaining, coming up with an
accordian style expand and contract universe just to explain Hubble
redshift.
Yanick Toutain
> Here is the automatic translation I am going to use to understand what
> Michel Helland wrote
> (I hope that the honest readers of sci.logic will be able to give us
> their opinion
> =============================
> Les 1er,3 mai : 52 P.M., le <YanickTout… @gmail.com> de Yanick Toutain
> ont écrit :
>
> > sur 2 l'AMI, 00:17, le <mobyd… @gmail.com> de Michael Helland a écrit :
> > Michael Helland a écrit : « dans l'espace statique. »
> > faites-vous pensent vraiment cela ?
> > « dans l'espace statique. »
> > vous êtes d'accord avec l'espace absolu de Newton ?
>
That's what I meant by static.
> Mon point était qu'il n'augmente pas.
>
> C'est ce qu'ai voulu dire je par charge statique.
>
You DO NOT answer to MY question !
MY question was :
"You agree with absolute space of Newton ?"
Your answer is not the answer to MY question.
=============
I ask for the opinion of the referees of the forum “sci.logic” I ask
for an arbitration.
Who tells truth?
Je demande l'opinion des arbitres du forum "sci.logic"
Je demande un arbitrage.
Qui dit vrai ?
============
> > c'est le commencement de la philosophie, le commencement de la science.
> > c'est le commencement de Principa de Newton ?
> > vous convenez ?
>
> Le commencement de Principia de Newton a défini le temps et l'espace
> en tant qu'étant
> absolu et parent :
>
> <quote>
> I. Temps absolu, vrai, et mathématique, de lui-même, et de ses propres
> nature, écoulements régulier sans relation à n'importe quoi externe,
> et près
> un autre nom s'appelle durée :
>
The beginning of Newton's Principia defined time and space as being
both absolute and relative:
<quote>
I. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own
nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by
another name is called duration:
==============================
from
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/scholium.html
I. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own
nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by
another name is called duration: relative, apparent, and common time,
is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure
of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of
true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year.
========================
from
http://site.voila.fr/monsyte/de/SCIENCES/scphys/textes_scientifiques_sources/Newton/Newton_Principia_original_et_Chatelet.htm
I Le temps absolu, vrai et mathématique, sans relation à rien
d'extérieur, coule uniformément, & s'appelle durée. Le temps relatif,
apparent et vulgaire, est cette mesure sensible & externe d'une partie
de durée quelconque (égale ou inégale) prise du mouvement : telles
sont les mesures d'heures, de jours, de mois, &c, dont on se sert
ordinairement à la place du temps vrai.
================================
> le temps relatif, apparent, et commun, est un certains sensible et
> externe
> (si précis ou unequable) mesure de durée par les moyens de
> mouvement, qui est utilisé généralement au lieu d'en temps réel ;
> comme une heure,
> un jour, un mois, une année.
===================================>
> II. L'espace absolu, en sa propre nature, sans relation à n'importe
> quoi
> l'external, demeure toujours semblable et immeuble.
>
> L'espace relatif est une certaine dimension ou mesure mobile de
> l'absolu
> les espaces ; ce que nos sens déterminent par sa position aux corps ;
> et
> ce qui est généralement pris pour l'espace immeuble ; telle est la
> dimension de
> un subterraneous, une antenne, ou l'espace céleste, déterminé par son
> position en ce qui concerne la terre.
> </quote>
>
================================
from
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/scholium.html
II. Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything
external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some
movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses
determine by its position to bodies; and which is commonly taken for
immovable space; such is the dimension of a subterraneous, an aerial,
or celestial space, determined by its position in respect of the
earth. Absolute and relative space are the same in figure and
magnitude; but they do not remain always numerically the same. For if
the earth, for instance, moves, a space of our air, which relatively
and in respect of the earth remains always the same, will at one time
be one part of the absolute space into which the air passes; at
another time it will be another part of the same, and so, absolutely
understood, it will be continually changed.
II. L'espace absolu, sans relation aux choses externes, demeure
toujours similaire & immobile. L'espace relatif est cette mesure ou
dimension mobile de l'espace absolu, laquelle tombe sous nos sens par
la relation aux corps, & que le vulgaire confond avec l'espace
immobile. C'est ainsi, par exemple, qu'un espace, pris en dedans de la
terre ou dans le ciel, est déterminé par la situation qu'il a à
l'égard de la terre. L'espace absolu & l'espace relatif sont les mêmes
d'espèce & de grandeur; mais ils ne le sont pas toujours de nombre;
car, par exemple, lorsque la terre change de place dans l'espace,
l'espace qui contient notre air demeure le même par rapport à la
terre, quoique l'air occupe nécessairement les différentes parties de
l'espace dans lesquelles il passe, & qu'il en change réellement sans
cesse.
===================================
=============
I ask for the opinion of the referees of the forum “sci.logic” I ask
for an arbitration.
Who tells truth?
Je demande l'opinion des arbitres du forum "sci.logic"
Je demande un arbitrage.
Qui dit vrai ?
Because my contradictor starts at once to speaking about Albert
Einstein who was not, in any way, the subject of our debate.
But for another reason, more serious still: he still does not answer
my question, he makes smoke by making a quotation of Newton.
…. and it erased the end of the quotation of Newton: I ask the
referees to announce that it cut the end of this quotation.
Parce que mon contradicteur se met aussitôt à parler de Albert
Einstein qui n'était, en aucune façon, le sujet de notre débat.
Mais pour une autre raison, plus grave encore : il ne répond touours
pas à ma question, il fait de la fumée en faisant une citation de
Newton.
.... et il a effacé la fin de la citation de Newton : je demande aux
arbitres de signaler qu'il a coupé la fin de cette citation.
============
JE VAIS DONC RECOPIER LA FIN DE LA CITATION DE NEWTON QUE MON
INTERLOCUTEUR A EFFACEE.
====================================
Absolute and relative space are the same in figure and magnitude; but
they do not remain always numerically the same. For if the earth, for
instance, moves, a space of our air, which relatively and in respect
of the earth remains always the same, will at one time be one part of
the absolute space into which the air passes; at another time it will
be another part of the same, and so, absolutely understood, it will be
continually changed.
L'espace absolu & l'espace relatif sont les mêmes d'espèce & de
grandeur; mais ils ne le sont pas toujours de nombre; car, par
exemple, lorsque la terre change de place dans l'espace, l'espace qui
contient notre air demeure le même par rapport à la terre, quoique
l'air occupe nécessairement les différentes parties de l'espace dans
lesquelles il passe, & qu'il en change réellement sans cesse.
================================
Michal Helland erased the passage of Newton where this one explains
the exact significance CLEARLY by what precedes.
Isaac Newton explains us, before paragraph 3, that the air of the
office where we are goes, successively, to occupy of the absolute
places in empty space.
The air will move of an absolute place to another absolute place.
An absolute movement.
And thus this displacement will be done at an absolute velocity.
I want that the referees take note of the veracity of my quotation of
Newton.
============
Michal Helland a effacé le passage de Newton où celui -ci explique
CLAIREMENT la signification exacte de ce qui précède.
Isaac Newton nous explique, avant le paragraphe 3, que l'air du bureau
où nous sommes va, successivement, occuper des lieux absolus dans
l'espace vide.
L'air va se déplacer d'un lieu absolu à un autre lieu absolu.
Un mouvement absolu.
Et donc ce déplacement va se faire à une vitesse absolue.
Je veux que les arbitres prennent acte de la véracité de ma citation
de Newton.
===============================
THE REMAINDER OF THE TEXT WHICH MAKES A PLEA PRO-EINSTEIN IS ONLY USED
TO JUSTIFY THE REFUSAL TO ANSWER MY QUESTION.
LE RESTE DU TEXTE QUI FAIT UN PLAIDOYER PRO-EINSTEIN NE SERT QU'À
JUSTIFIER LE REFUS DE REPONDRE À MA QUESTION.
==================================
Il apparait, de plus, qu'il y a des mensonges flagrants concernant les
opinions écrites de Einstein sur les vitesses abolues de Newton :
Einstein a récusé TOTALEMENT l'existence d'un mouvement absolu, d'un
temps absolu et , à plus forte raison, des lieux absolus.
======================================
Michael Helland
Light after traveling 100 million light years is observed as having a
redshift, loss in f.
c = fw
We only "observe" c to be constant because we assume that's what it
must be, and go through great lengths such as inventing extra space
for it to travel around in, making it appear constant, hiding the fact
that it slowed down.
Yanick Toutain
You are a joker !!!
6,3 billion inhabitants of the Earth can look at the sun by the
window.
They see the sun RELATIVE with THEIR window.
Each one his.
It is what Newton wrote.
(It also knows that the window advances, in the vacuum, of an absolute
place to another absolute place)
And you would have evidence that all that would be false?
We would like to know this “evidence”!!!!! To laugh!
Vous êtes un plaisantin !
6,3 milliards d'habitants de la Terre peuvent regarder le soleil par
la fenêtre.
Ils voient le soleil RELATIVEMENT à LEUR fenêtre.
Chacun la sienne.
C'est ce que Newton a écrit.
(Il sait aussi que la fenêtre avance, dans le vide, d'un lieu absolu à
un autre lieu absolu)
Et vous auriez des preuves que tout cela serait faux ?
Nous aimerions connaître ces "preuves" !!!!! Pour rire !
============
I ask for to the referees of the forum “sci.logic” to affirm the
nonsense of the contribution of Sam Wormley and his incomprehension of
the text of Newton.
Je demande aux arbitres du forum "sci.logic" d'affirmer l'absurdité
de la contribution de Sam Wormley et son incompréhension du texte de
Newton.
Michael Helland
Riddle me this, Sam.
Newton wrote:
"Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute
spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies;"
It seems he is saying relative space is what makes up our measurements
and observations.
I'd love to know.
How do observations show that is wrong?
Sam Wormley
> On May 1, 4:45 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Michael Helland wrote:
>>
>>> 1. Tired Light sucks
>>> 2. Decelerated Light actually changes c, unlike Tired Light, which
>>> makes it a new model
>>> 3. It's pretty obvious that you have a small dick
>> Speed of light is observed as c, therefore you "new model" is
>> discredited. It's wrong. It doesn't fit the observations. It
>> must be discarded.
>
>
> Light after traveling 100 million light years is observed as having a
> redshift, loss in f.
>
> c = fw
Doppler Effect
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DopplerEffect.html
E decreases
Wavelength increases (gets longer)
Frequency decreases
c remains constant
This is observed in the laboratory
This is observed in satellite clocks
This is observed in the solar system
This is observed in the cosmos
Sam Wormley
See: http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Sections 4 and on...
Michael Helland
This fits the data.
Through the properties of multiplication, a "w" that remains constant
will also fit the data.
You don't really "observe" space expanding.
You think you do because that's what you want to see.
Until you allow for the possibility of photons moving at less than c,
with a frequency and wavelength that don't fit on the traditional
spectrum, then you'll never see anything else.
Because of those assumptions, our optical instruments and techniques
aren't designed to show us what we're really looking at.
Which is obviously light slowing down.
Yanick Toutain
HERE IS THE EXPLANATION
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Groups-Basics/browse_frm/thread/04c094ce20b2e591#
=======================
AND MY ANSWER !!!!
================
I CAN POST PHYSICS IN GOOGLE ASSISTANCE !!!
I LAUGH !
===================
Ce qui suit est une traduction automatique systran du texte de Michaël
Helland.
J'ai posé, 3 minutes auparavant, la même question que lui à Sam
Wormley : quelles preuves ?
What follows is a Systran automatic translation of the text of Michael
Helland.
I posed, 3 minutes before, the same question as him in Sam Wormley:
which evidence?
==================
Résolvez-moi ceci, Sam.
Newton a écrit :
« L'espace relatif est une certaine dimension ou mesure mobile des
espaces absolus ; ce que nos sens déterminent par sa position aux
corps ; »
Elle semble il dit que l'espace relatif est ce qui compose nos mesures
et observations.
J'aimerais savoir.
Comment les observations montrent-elles qui est erroné ?
==============================
Eric Gisse
> On May 1, 4:24 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 2:48 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 3:33 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 1, 2:17 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > [snip]
>
> > > > The point of this eludes me. You have no idea what predictions "your"
> > > > theory will have to satisfy.
>
> > > The first point was that Tired Light uses a constant speed of light.
>
> > No it doesn't.
>
> Yes, it does.
>
> From the wikipedia:
Nice to see your knowledge of cosmology is restricted to what Wikipedi
tells you.
>
> "The concept was first proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky, who suggested
> that photons lose energy over time through collisions with other
> particles"
That's one model of tired light. It isn't the only one, as you keep
trying to remind us. They are all disproved by observation
>
> The energy and frequency are lost.
>
> But not velocity.
>
> That makes deceleration an entirely novel alternative to the expansion
> interpretation of Hubble's redshift.
Novel 80 years ago but not now. The theory is wrong because it makes
certain predictions about the luminosity of objects as a function of
distance which are WRONG.
>
> > > The second point was that deceleration of light in static space is a
> > > valid interpretation of Hubble redshift.
>
> > No it isn't. You ignore extensive evidence that is consistent with
> > expansion, eg time dilation of light curves, the proper fall off in
> > luminosity as a function of redshift...
>
> E = hf
>
> c = fw
>
> f can drop and w can expand.
Elevate the argument past physics 101.
Remember the Tolman surface brightness test?
>
> Or...
>
> f can drop and c can drop.
>
> All the mathematics are identical, except w stays constant instead of
> w.
How the fuck would you know? I'm yet to see you write anything more
complicated than E = hf much less make a prediction.
You never make literature references or any kinds of references. You
simply start thread after thread explaining with some bullshit
pseudocode how you think the universe works. When challenged to
actually explain something, you are unable to use anything more
complicated than stuff taught in a physics 101 course.
>
> As opposed to in tired light, which is falsified, f drops but c and w
> stay the same.
>
> That doesn't add back up to the expansion model.
>
> But dropping c does.
Qualitative bullshit. Write something concrete instead of endless
amounts of weasle that allow you to slip in whatever you want when it
suits you.
>
> > > It makes the prediction, essentially, that light with Hubble redshift
> > > has its original wavelength despite the redshifted frequency.
>
> > Oh wow I love it when you disprove your own ideas.
>
> Disproving your own idea is called science.
>
> I'm glad you love my science.
Stupidity is a wonderful shield from thinking, wouldn't you agree?
Yanick Toutain
Vous ne semblez pas avoir remarqué clairement que vous êtes, ici, à
l'intérieur du débat secondaire que j'ai initié.
Ce débat est un sous-débat de celui initié par Michael Helland.
Le thème de ce sous-débat est :
La thèse présentée par Michael Helland est-elle (oui ou non) dans le
cadre du vide de Newton (static space) ou est-elle une thèse
antinewtoniste qui avancerait masquée avec de la fumée pour semer la
confusion ?
================================
Mr Sam Wormley
You do not seem to have noticed clearly that you are, here, inside the
secondary debate which I initiated.
This debate is a under-debate of that initiated by Michael Helland.
The topic of this under-debate is:
The thesis presented by Michael Helland is (yes or not) within is
the framework of the vacuum of Newton (static space) or a thesis
antinewtonist which would advance masked with smoke to sow confusion?
=================================
山姆・ Wormley先生
您不似乎明显地注意了您是，这里，在我创始的次要辩论里面。
这次辩论是迈克尔・创始的那的在之下辩论Helland。
这次在之下辩论题目是：
迈克尔・提出的命题的Helland是(是) 在之内牛顿(静态空间)或论文antinewtonist的真空的框架会前进掩没与烟播种混乱？
=================================
La première réponse de Michael Helland est un rideau de fumée.
J'ai fait appel à l'arbitrage des gens honnêtes du forum
"sci.logic" (ce qui exclut d'éventuels contributeurs provenant de
l'équipe de direction des sceptiques du Québec (ou de leurs alliés
relativistes) équipe qui, sans un seul mot d'explication ni publique
ni privée, a verrouillé le débat Newton que j'ai initié, effacé 3 de
mes textes et supprimé mon accès à leur forum.)
====================================
The first answer of Michael Helland is a smoke screen.
I called upon the arbitration of honest people of the forum
“sci.logic” (what excludes from possible contributors coming from the
leadership team from the skeptics from Quebec (or their relativistic
allies) team which, without only one word of explanation neither
public nor deprived, locked the Newton debate that I initiated, erased
3 of my texts and removed my access to their forum.)
=============================
迈克尔Helland第一个答复是烟幕。
我要求了论坛“sci.logic”的诚实的人的仲裁(什么从来自领导队的可能的贡献者排除自怀疑者自，没有仅公开和被剥夺，被锁牛顿辩论我创始，删掉
3我的文本和被取消我的对他们的论坛的通入的解释的一个词。)的魁北克(或他们相对论性的盟友)队
================================
Le cas échéant, je demanderais à des juges arbitres (d'instance
supérieure) provenant de Chine, dans le cas où il resterait, encore,
là-bas, de véritables matérialistes ayant étudié les textes hostiles à
la relativité qui ont été écrits par VI Oulianov - Lénine dans son
livre "Matérialisme et empiriocriticisme"
.================================
If necessary, I would ask judges referees (of higher authority) coming
from China, if it would remain, still, over there, of true
materialists having studied the hostile texts with relativity which
were written by VI Oulianov - Lénine in its book “Materialism and
empiriocriticism”
.
====================================
如果需要，我会询问法官(高级负责人)来自中国的裁判员，如果它将保持，仍然，在那被学习与相对的，真实的唯物论者敌对文本哪些由VI在它的书“唯物主
义和empiriocriticism”的Oulianov - Lénine写
.
==================================
Votre réponse est donc complètement hors du sujet qui nous intéresse.
On ne vous a pas demandé si
- vous saviez recopier un link (on se doute que oui)
- vous connaissiez des textes en faveur de la relativité. (on se doute
aussi que oui)
===============================
Your answer is thus completely out of the subject which interests us.
It was not asked to you whether
- you could recopy a link (one suspects that yes)
- you knew texts in favour of relativity. (one also suspects that yes)
==================================
您的答复完全地因而是在感兴趣我们的主题外面。
是否未被要求给您
-您可能重复印链接(一个人是怀疑那)
-您知道文本倾向于相对。 (一个人是也怀疑那)
========================================
Le débat est :
1° Lorsque vous regardez le soleil, faites vous cela RELATIVEMENT A
VOTRE FENETRE
2° Cette question est-elle EXACTEMENT ce que dit NEWTON DANS SON
TEXTE ?
ET EN DEBAT ANNEXE : LA FENETRE A-T-ELLE UN MOUVEMENT ABSOLU PAR
RAPPORT AU VIDE ?
======================================
The debate is:
1° When you look at the sun, made you that RELATIVELY HAS YOUR WINDOW
2° is This question EXACTLY what NEWTON IN ITS TEXT says?
AND APPENDIX DISCUSSES IT: DOES THE WINDOW HAVE AN ABSOLUTE MOVEMENT
COMPARED TO THE VACUUM?
=================================
辩论是：
1°，当您看太阳，做相对地有您的窗口的您
2°正确地是这个问题它的文本的什么牛顿说？
并且附录谈论它： 窗口是否有绝对运动与真空比较？
=================================
Le reste : vos états d'âmes, vos links , vos réflexes conditionnés
d'une vie malheureuse qui semble avoir fait de vous une victime d'une
éducation basée sur les travaux de Pavlov et sur le modèle
comportemental des chiens qui bavent ... cela n'intéresse plus les
matérialistes : la révolution mondiale approche (6 révolutions)
================================
The remainder: your states of hearts, your links, your conditioned
reflexes of an unhappy life which seem to have made you a victim of an
education based on work of Pavlov and on the behavioral model of the
dogs which dribbles… that does not interest any more the materialists:
the world revolution approaches (6 revolutions)
=======================
剩下的人： 心脏您的状态，您的链接，似乎做了您根据狗行为模式的Pavlov工作和受害者教育一滴…不感兴趣唯物论者的您的不快乐的生活条件反射：
世界革命方法(6次革命)
========================
> Michael Helland wrote:
> > On May 1, 4:25 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> Michael Helland wrote:
>
> >>> The beginning of Newton's Principia defined time and space as being
> >>> both absolute and relative:
> >> Observations show that is wrong.
>
> > Riddle me this, Sam.
>
> > Newton wrote:
>
> > "Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute
> > spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies;"
>
> > It seems he is saying relative space is what makes up our measurements
> > and observations.
>
> > I'd love to know.
>
> > How do observations show that is wrong?
>
> Sections 4 and on...
jjs...@yahoo.com
> tell the difference between Tired Light (which has a constant speed of
> light) and Slow Light (where the speed actually changes).
>
though you have failed to master even basic physics or calculus.
> I'd call you an idiot, but the world needs all strategies to go round.
>
Well Mike you actually are an idiot...
> Even though we're probably going to see the last generation of big
> bang supporters soon, they are entertaining, coming up with an
> accordian style expand and contract universe just to explain Hubble
> redshift.
Go away mike... learn about what your talking about...
Cheers
Invalid Sphysics
A Google-poster.
With a gmail address.
Has a theory about physics.
*YAWN*
"Michael Helland" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d31fd906-37ec-4529...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> In all cosmological models, including expansion and tired-light, I be a
> idiotz.
>
b.sh...@yahoo.com
> In all cosmological models, including expansion and tired-light, the
> speed of light is a constant c.
>
> Decelerating-Light is new and different.
>
And unverified why bother with it?
> It interprets the Hubble redshift as the simplest and most elegant
> possibility:
>
> redshift is light naturally decelerating in static space.
>
Space is not static....
> This is a rough implementation of Hubble's law through deceleration
> rather than expansion for 9 photons emitted at different times:
>
> photon_count = 0
>
> do while photon_count < 10
>
> photon_count = photon_count + 1
> dimension photon_array[photon_count]
>
> photon_array[photon_count] = createobject("photon", photon_count)
>
> * go a while before creating another photon
> for iii = 1 to 4.2 * 10^5
>
> for jjj = 1 to photon_count
> photon = photon_array[jjj]
> photon.move()
> endfor
>
> endfor
>
> ?.t.
> enddo
>
> create cursor photons (n i, x n(20,5), c n(10,6))
> for jjj = 1 to photon_count
> photon = photon_array[jjj]
> insert into photons (n, x, c) values (photon.n, photon.x, photon.c)
> endfor
> browse
> copy to decelerated type csv
>
> define class photon as custom
> x = 0 && position in light years
> c = 1 && speed in light years per year
> i = 0 && iterations
> n = 0 && identification
>
> function move
>
> this.i = this.i + 1
> this.x = this.x + this.c
>
> * We've been traveling for 1 million light years, slow down
> if this.i = 10^6
> this.i = 0
> this.c = this.c - 0.00002
> ?this.c, this.x, this.n
> endif
> return
>
> function init(tnPhotonCount)
> this.n = tnPhotonCount
> return
>
> enddefine
>
> That sends 10 photon's going around, and since they are emitted at
> different times, they are traveling at different decelerated
> velocities.
>
> Here is the result in CSV format:
>
> n,x,c
> 1,4199864.00020,0.999920
> 2,3779893.20022,0.999940
> 3,3359918.40022,0.999940
> 4,2939942.40020,0.999960
> 5,2519959.20014,0.999960
> 6,2099976.00007,0.999960
> 7,1679986.40005,0.999980
> 8,1259994.80002,0.999980
> 9,840000.00000,1.000000
> 10,420000.00000,1.000000
>
> Because
>
> E = hf
>
> and
>
> c = fw
>
> It seems that this rule, unlike expansion, drops the frequency without
> compensating in the wavelength.
>
> So expansion predicts redshift frequency and stretched wavelength.
>
> And deceleration predicts redshift frequency and static wavelength.
>
> It seems that deceleration is dead on arrival if that's the case.
>
> But, according to the code, every photon, upon emission, is traveling
> at c.
>
The code proves nothing... you need observation from the real world
not a computer program.
> Without a fuller QM model to work with, we would have to make some
> assumptions about what happens when this light is measured.
>
Hmmm.... try observation and see if that helps....
<snip>
bob
Yanick Toutain
> Oh look.
>
> A Google-poster.
>
> With a gmail address.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=fr&scoring=d&filter=0&enc_author=qNavhhMAAAABhSffOxLM9c-JVluUrZLTWMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww&as_drrb=b&as_mind=1&as_minm=9&as_miny=1999&as_maxd=30&as_maxm=9&as_maxy=1999
invalid ?
http://www.invalides.org/pages/anglais/location_a.html
or anonym
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tombe_du_Soldat_inconnu_(France)
>
> Has a theory about physics.
>
> *YAWN*
>
> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Michael Helland
> Michael Helland wrote:
> > On May 1, 4:25 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> Michael Helland wrote:
>
> >>> The beginning of Newton's Principia defined time and space as being
> >>> both absolute and relative:
> >> Observations show that is wrong.
>
> > Riddle me this, Sam.
>
> > Newton wrote:
>
> > "Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute
> > spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies;"
>
> > It seems he is saying relative space is what makes up our measurements
> > and observations.
>
> > I'd love to know.
>
> > How do observations show that is wrong?
>
> Sections 4 and on...
Basically that says that space and time as they are studied in science
are relative.
Again, I point you to Newton's definition, which says that what we
observe is relative space:
"Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute
spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies;"
If, by definition, all observations of space are relative space, the
only way to prove Newton's definition wrong is to observe absolute
space.
Which your cite says is impossible.
Newton's definition of relative time and Einstein's definition of time
are identical.
Sam Wormley
You are pretty confused.
What level of mathematics can you handle?
Michael Helland
> > Even though we're probably going to see the last generation of big
> > bang supporters soon, they are entertaining, coming up with an
> > accordian style expand and contract universe just to explain Hubble
> > redshift.
>
> Go away mike... learn about what your talking about...
*accordion sounds*
Sam Wormley
That's kind of important in science... The Doppler Effect and
Relativistic Doppler effect fit the data!
Sam Wormley
Invalid Sphysics
A Google-poster.
With a gmail address.
Posted a meaningless, off-topic reply.
"Yanick Toutain" <Yanick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f03844b-5a5d-4df6...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> " I'm a cheese-eating surrender-monkey "
>
jjs...@yahoo.com
<snip>
read some books on these topics:
Calculus
Differential Equations
GR
SR
Theoretical Physics
Then come back and then we'll see if you have anything to say that
makes sense. Or maybe you want to try your hand at mastering my latest
area of interest Fluid Dynamics, and Theoretical Hydrodynamics... oh
wait thats to difficult for you... the math is way beyond anything you
grok....
Cheers
OG
> On May 1, 4:13 pm, "OG" <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d31fd906-37ec-4529...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > speed of light is a constant c.
>>
>>
>> particular (incident) frequency in a medium has the same refractive index
>> .
>>
>> Can you explain this?
>
>
> According to the code, a photon doesn't start to decelerate until it
> travels a million light years.
>
> experiment in?
No No, you don't really understand physics do you?
My point is that the light from the Moon (travelling at 'c' when it hits the
telescope optics) is refracted and brought to a focus at exactly the same
place as light from a distant galaxy ( travelling at << 'c' for sufficiently
distant galaxies)
So unless you can explain this, your theory is toast.
OG
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:wlsSj.91494$TT4.50522@attbi_s22...
> OG wrote:
>
>>
>> So some light is travelling slower than other light...
>
>
> No the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers.
I'm just restating a onsequence of his flawed theory so that we can draw out
the inconsistencies
Michael Helland
> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:984fd54a-03ae-450a...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 4:13 pm, "OG" <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
> >> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:d31fd906-37ec-4529...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > In all cosmological models, including expansion and tired-light, the
> >> > speed of light is a constant c.
>
> >> > Decelerating-Light is new and different.
> >> > redshift is light naturally decelerating in static space.
>
> >> So some light is travelling slower than other light; yet all light of a
> >> particular (incident) frequency in a medium has the same refractive index
> >> .
>
> >> Can you explain this?
>
> > According to the code, a photon doesn't start to decelerate until it
> > travels a million light years.
>
> > Is there a medium 100 million light years long, to perform an
> > experiment in?
>
> No No, you don't really understand physics do you?
>
> My point is that the light from the Moon (travelling at 'c' when it hits the
> telescope optics) is refracted and brought to a focus at exactly the same
> place as light from a distant galaxy ( travelling at << 'c' for sufficiently
> distant galaxies)
>
> So unless you can explain this, your theory is toast.
Did you read the code?
If a photon is emitted, it starts at c. It doesn't lose velocity until
1 million light years.
According to QED, refraction should be the absorbsion and reemission
of photons.
Since they're being re-emitted, the reemissions should be traveling at
c, like all normal light.
That's a direct consequence of the code I posted, and described in a
little detail toward the end of the original post.
OG
Why would I waste the time.
> If a photon is emitted, it starts at c. It doesn't lose velocity until
> 1 million light years.
>
> According to QED, refraction should be the absorbsion and reemission
> of photons.
And you assume that QED applies to your version of physics - can you justify
this?
> Since they're being re-emitted, the reemissions should be traveling at
> c, like all normal light.
Why?
Michael Helland
"My version" of physics isn't that different from the physics that
exists.
> > Since they're being re-emitted, the reemissions should be traveling at
> > c, like all normal light.
>
> Why?
Because that's how the rule works.
It starts out with c, and after traveling through 1 million light
years of space, then starts to decelerate.
If it gets reemitted, it'll start traveling at c again.
Paul Mays
"Michael Helland" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e011879c-c2d3-4adb...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Why?... Why not 1.204570342856 million light years or 400 billion or 1
microsec?
>
> According to QED, refraction should be the absorbsion and reemission
> of photons.
>
> Since they're being re-emitted, the reemissions should be traveling at
> c, like all normal light.
>
> That's a direct consequence of the code I posted, and described in a
> little detail toward the end of the original post.
--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf
--
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"
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
> In all cosmological models, including expansion and tired-light, the
> speed of light is a constant c.
>
> Decelerating-Light is new and different.
>
> possibility:
>
>
> assumptions about what happens when this light is measured.
>
> sorts of ways.
>
> If that's the case, in the process of measuring the light, we're
> dealing with fresh new photons recently emitted from electrons in the
> measurement apparatus, and they would be traveling at c.
>
> So, maybe there's some other way to tell.
Expanding space expands the light wave.
Light slows down in the slower time of gravitation. You must wait on
it. It is still at c but in a different slower time metric.
Mitch Raemsch
OG
> On May 2, 2:51 pm, "OG" <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>> >> My point is that the light from the Moon (travelling at 'c' when it
>> >> hits
>> >> the
>> >> telescope optics) is refracted and brought to a focus at exactly the
>> >> same
>> >> place as light from a distant galaxy ( travelling at << 'c' for
>> >> sufficiently
>> >> distant galaxies)
>>
>> >> So unless you can explain this, your theory is toast.
>>
>> > Did you read the code?
>>
>> Why would I waste the time.
>>
>> > If a photon is emitted, it starts at c. It doesn't lose velocity until
>> > 1 million light years.
>>
>> > According to QED, refraction should be the absorbsion and reemission
>> > of photons.
>>
>> And you assume that QED applies to your version of physics - can you
>> justify
>> this?
>
> "My version" of physics isn't that different from the physics that
> exists.
OK, so you insist that refractive still depends on the ratio of the speed of
light in the two media.
So light from a distant galaxy (having a slower speed in vacuo) would have
be refracted in glass less than light from the moon
Can you see the problem yet?
NB Hubble - yes?
Sam Wormley
What inconsistencies?
OG
Dunno yet; he's not told us enough so far*!
Personally, I'm looking for inconsistencies with 'real life', but unless we
know know more about physics in the 'world of M_Helland' we won't know where
his 'physics' gets close enough to reality that he will start to think
critically about his theory.
* apart from the one sbout light always travelling at 'c', but if he's
content enough to ignore the obvious evidence, it's probably worth
clarifying where 'his theory' fails in 'his own' conceptual frame.
Michael Helland
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>
> news:EJMSj.92984$TT4.16809@attbi_s22...
>
> > OG wrote:
> >> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> >>news:wlsSj.91494$TT4.50522@attbi_s22...
> >>> OG wrote:
>
> >>>> So some light is travelling slower than other light...
>
> >>> No the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers.
>
> >> I'm just restating a onsequence of his flawed theory so that we can draw
> >> out the inconsistencies
>
> > What inconsistencies?
>
> Dunno yet; he's not told us enough so far*!
> Personally, I'm looking for inconsistencies with 'real life', but unless we
> know know more about physics in the 'world of M_Helland' we won't know where
> his 'physics' gets close enough to reality that he will start to think
> critically about his theory.
As I've shown, c = fw
Either c is constant, and when f drops, w expands to compensate.
Or w is constant, and when f drops c drops too.
No matter which way you calculate c and w, f should be consistent with
observations.
As to slow star light coming from around the moon, I would guess that
the change in c has an effect on how well light travels through a
strong gravitational field like the moon's.
The light might drop for each star by distance, but it's being sent
off in another direction, or landing in the back of the moon before we
see it.
Eric Gisse
> On May 2, 4:28 pm, "OG" <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:EJMSj.92984$TT4.16809@attbi_s22...
>
> > > OG wrote:
> > >> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:wlsSj.91494$TT4.50522@attbi_s22...
> > >>> OG wrote:
>
> > >>>> So some light is travelling slower than other light...
>
> > >>> No the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers.
>
> > >> I'm just restating a onsequence of his flawed theory so that we can draw
> > >> out the inconsistencies
>
> > > What inconsistencies?
>
> > Dunno yet; he's not told us enough so far*!
> > Personally, I'm looking for inconsistencies with 'real life', but unless we
> > know know more about physics in the 'world of M_Helland' we won't know where
> > his 'physics' gets close enough to reality that he will start to think
> > critically about his theory.
>
> As I've shown, c = fw
As you have ASSERTED...
>
> Either c is constant, and when f drops, w expands to compensate.
>
> Or w is constant, and when f drops c drops too.
>
> No matter which way you calculate c and w, f should be consistent with
> observations.
Only if you are incredibly naive and refuse to actually think very
hard. You continue to refuse to elevate the discourse past "well it
expands to compensate...". Remember the Tolman surface brightness
test? I'm sure you do since you carefully ignore every mention of it
now.
[snip remaining qualitative bullshit]
Michael Helland
I've thought hard about it.
This implies that I'm suggesting properties of an EM wave that don't
fit on the traditional EM spectrum.
> You continue to refuse to elevate the discourse past "well it
> expands to compensate...". Remember the Tolman surface brightness
> test? I'm sure you do since you carefully ignore every mention of it
> now.
Tired Light fails the surface brightness test, because the galaxy is
not receding, and the light doesn't slow down.
However, when the light slows down (w is constant and c decreases) you
wind up with all the exact same frequencies as when space expands (c
is constant and w increases).
Decelerating light predicts all the same values as expansion, because
explaining redshift through deceleration or expansion are the same
mathematical trick, different only in the choice of which variable is
constant.
Since light doesn't decelerate until after 1 million years of a
journey, until then the speed of light is constant making the rule
consistent with SR for every experiment that takes less than 1 million
years to perform.
Eric Gisse
[snip]
>
> Tired Light fails the surface brightness test [...]
That is _all_ you needed to say.
Michael Helland
Tired light sucks.
Decelerated light is a new model.
It passes the surface brightness test because it is mathematically
equivalent to expansion.
Sam Wormley
No, that's not true.
The constancy of speed of light is in agreement with observation
and theories such as SR, QED and QFT. Try a bit of self education.
jjs...@yahoo.com
There is little hope of that people have been telling mike to learn
about this stuff for years...
Cheers
Michael Helland
Decelerated light is consistent with all that too.
The only differences occur if a photon has traveled over 1 million
light years.
Sam Wormley
Ooooooh a magic threshold at 1 Mlyr. Give us a break!
Michael Helland
That's true in expansion cosmology too.
It doesn't appear in galaxies.
Sam Wormley
Your "threshold at 1 Mlyr" is without evidence or theory
and is BULLSHIT.
Michael Helland
Expansion has thresholds too.
It is the same threshold.
It can't be bullshit for expansion, and "magic" for deceleration.
That's just your beliefs reacting negatively.
jjs...@yahoo.com
>
> It is the same threshold.
>
> It can't be bullshit for expansion, and "magic" for deceleration.
>
> That's just your beliefs reacting negatively.
Just further proof of why you need to go an read some real physics and
cosmology instead of trying to pretend you know things you obviously
don't.
Cheers
Michael Helland
There are no thresh holds to expansion?
It is happening everywhere?
jjs...@yahoo.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe
This is an okay summary of the idea of the expanding universe.
Whether the universe expands or not is irrelevant to stating your idea
is wrong...
Cheers
Michael Helland
But decelerating light matches the same observable evidence as
expansion.
If there is more space for light to travel through, the journey takes
longer.
If light slows down, the journey takes longer.
f = 1 / t
Because t is the same regardless of what is going on wavelength or
speed, f matches the observations.
The problem is that we assume c must be constant, and that all light
has a proportional frequency and wavelength.
What I'm suggesting is that the f decreases, and w stays the same.
Therefore, Hubble redshift is actually an observation of light that is
unlike the light we find locally, in fact, it doesn't even fit on our
traditional spectrum because f and w aren't proportional like the
light we find around here.
none
Well since gratings measure wavelength, this conclusion is wrong.
Sam Wormley
BINGO!
jjs...@yahoo.com
<snip>
>
> But decelerating light matches the same observable evidence as
> expansion.
>
photons propagate at c.
> If there is more space for light to travel through, the journey takes
> longer.
>
No kidding...
> If light slows down, the journey takes longer.
>
> f = 1 / t
>
Yes and if you you knew what you were talking about you would know
what your talking about. Decelerating light violates observation,
learn about physics....
> Because t is the same regardless of what is going on wavelength or
> speed, f matches the observations.
>
> The problem is that we assume c must be constant, and that all light
> has a proportional frequency and wavelength.
>
No we observe that c is constant and thus go from their, have you
looked at any of the experiments proving SR?
> What I'm suggesting is that the f decreases, and w stays the same.
>
Sorry mike no, frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength...
this is an observed fact you can't just change the laws of physics to
match what ever it is you imagine...
> Therefore, Hubble redshift is actually an observation of light that is
> unlike the light we find locally, in fact, it doesn't even fit on our
> traditional spectrum because f and w aren't proportional like the
> light we find around here.
And your evidence for that is what? Where is the observations to prove
it? Have you ever read anything on the theory of electromagnetism? No,
no and no.... so go read something about the topic and stop making up
all this horse-shit.
Cheers
Michael Helland
> On May 5, 10:36 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > But decelerating light matches the same observable evidence as
> > expansion.
>
> Irrelevant the evidence points to expansion not deceleration since
> photons propagate at c.
That's what you believe.
And no matter what I say, you won't change your mind.
But there is evidence that photons from deep space can be slower:
http://www.physorg.com/news110480559.html
The MAGIC (Major Atmospheric Gamma-ray Imaging Cherenkov) telescope
found that high-energy photons of gamma radiation from a distant
galaxy arrived at Earth four minutes after lower-energy photons,
although they were apparently emitted at the same time. If correct,
that would contradict Einstein's theory of relativity, which says that
all photons (particles of light) must move at the speed of light.
> > If there is more space for light to travel through, the journey takes
> > longer.
>
> No kidding...
>
> > If light slows down, the journey takes longer.
>
> > f = 1 / t
>
> Yes and if you you knew what you were talking about you would know
> what your talking about.
> Decelerating light violates observation,
> learn about physics....
Deceleration describes where SR down, not vice versa.
> > Because t is the same regardless of what is going on wavelength or
> > speed, f matches the observations.
>
> > The problem is that we assume c must be constant, and that all light
> > has a proportional frequency and wavelength.
>
> No we observe that c is constant and thus go from their, have you
> looked at any of the experiments proving SR?
Sure. Have you noticed Hubble redshift?
That's deceleration.
> > What I'm suggesting is that the f decreases, and w stays the same.
>
> Sorry mike no, frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength...
> this is an observed fact you can't just change the laws of physics to
> match what ever it is you imagine...
That's what expansion does.
We imagine c = fw and c never changes, so we change the properties of
space (expansion) to match that.
There is nothing wrong with hypothesizing.
> > Therefore, Hubble redshift is actually an observation of light that is
> > unlike the light we find locally, in fact, it doesn't even fit on our
> > traditional spectrum because f and w aren't proportional like the
> > light we find around here.
>
> And your evidence for that is what?
Hubble redshift.
> Where is the observations to prove
> it?
Hubble redshift.
> Have you ever read anything on the theory of electromagnetism? No,
> no and no.... so go read something about the topic and stop making up
> all this horse-shit.
I'm suggesting that photons from deep space have properties that don't
line up exactly with the spectrum of light emitted locally.
Blasphemy?
If so, I consider that a good quality.
You're just going to have to live with it.
Eric Gisse
[snip]
I see the usual ragging about the c = fw dispersion relation with no
understanding past that, with the usual mentions of SR on cosmological
distances with no understanding of why he is wrong, with a dollop of a
popsci article that doesn't support his position even if what was said
was true.
Sam Wormley
>
> But there is evidence that photons from deep space can be slower:
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news110480559.html
> The MAGIC (Major Atmospheric Gamma-ray Imaging Cherenkov) telescope
> found that high-energy photons of gamma radiation from a distant
> galaxy arrived at Earth four minutes after lower-energy photons,
> although they were apparently emitted at the same time. If correct,
> that would contradict Einstein's theory of relativity, which says that
> all photons (particles of light) must move at the speed of light.
>
>
No violation of the constancy of the speed of light.
Helland should dig into this and see what's really going on. Perhaps
there is your 4 minute delay being created in the shock wave of the
leading edge of the blazer-jet. To wit, we don’t need to re-write
relativity from this one observation, Occam’s razor to the rescue...
Mysteries are always fun.
jjs...@yahoo.com
<snip>
You're hopeless.... go be ignorant...
Cheers
Michael Helland
Occam would be on the side of decelerating light.
One simple little function for decelerating light could wipe away all
of expansion, big bang, inflation, dark matter, and dark energy off
the drafting table.
OG
"Michael Helland" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:480fde48-5665-44c4...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
How the hell would you know? You know bugger all about physics, and you've
ignored the point that lenses don't differentiate between your proposed
'deccelerated' light and normal light when bringing it to focus.
Sam Wormley
Your "theory" makes no sense... whatsoever.
You, Helland, like Seto, can't demonstrate it gives a correct answer.
Eric Gisse
Great. Let's see the tired light prediction for the big bang power
spectrum.
jjs...@yahoo.com
> On May 6, 2:58 pm, MichaelHelland<mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 6, 5:55 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > > MichaelHellandwrote:
>
> > > > But there is evidence that photons from deep space can be slower:
>
> > > >http://www.physorg.com/news110480559.html
> > > > The MAGIC (Major Atmospheric Gamma-ray Imaging Cherenkov) telescope
> > > > found that high-energy photons of gamma radiation from a distant
> > > > galaxy arrived at Earth four minutes after lower-energy photons,
> > > > although they were apparently emitted at the same time. If correct,
> > > > that would contradict Einstein's theory of relativity, which says that
> > > > all photons (particles of light) must move at the speed of light.
>
> > > No violation of the constancy of the speed of light.
>
> > > there is your 4 minute delay being created in the shock wave of the
> > > leading edge of the blazer-jet. To wit, we don’t need to re-write
> > > relativity from this one observation, Occam’s razor to the rescue...
>
> > Occam would be on the side of decelerating light.
>
> > One simple little function for decelerating light could wipe away all
> > of expansion, big bang, inflation, dark matter, and dark energy off
> > the drafting table.
>
> Great. Let's see the tired light prediction for the big bang power
> spectrum.
But Eric, Mike says he's not doing tired light its decelerating light,
and of course Mike would know that is completely different. Its a
completely different method of being wrong... To be honest I am
surprised he even bothered with the formula for this, he must really
be committed to making the biggest fool of himself he can.
Cheers
Michael Helland
> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I apologize for not responding satisfactorily.
I thought I responded to it.
The rule says that new light travels at c, and its velocity drops as
the millions and billions of years go by.
When light enters a lens, it hits electrons, and new photons are
emitted with the same energy.
But it is new light, so its traveling at c.
Once the light hits something and is re-emitted, it travels at c.
According to the rule.
The light in the lens matches that prediction.
jjs...@yahoo.com
Hmmm.... lets see how does this match with reality? Anyone want to
take a stab at this one?
Cheers
OG
And the refractive index is the ratio of the speed of light before and after
the light hits the glass. Agreed?
So - in typical glass (lab measurement of refractive index = 1.333) light
travels at 0.75 c Agreed?
And the kicker, for light that has travelled billions of light years and is
travelling at 0.8 c, the refractive index in the same glass is going to be
1.067.
Yet it is brought to focus at exactly the same place as the light from
nearby stars that is travelling at 1.0 c.
Can you see the problem with your theory? Yet?
Michael Helland
The speed of light before doesn't matter. It would c and the speed of
light in the medium.
Michael Helland
The code shows that even though light decelerates after a few hundred
million light years, it is emitted at c.
In QED, when light enters a lens, it is absorbed by electrons in the
atoms and emitted elsewhere.
So the photons in the lens are traveling at c, but they are spending
some time as energy in the atoms between short little journeys.
OG
Wrong - the speed of light 'before' DOES matter. That's why I mentioned it.
You are wrong.
Eric Gisse
Curve fitting is not physics. Make a quantitative prediction - maybe
show that your "theory" gives the proper falloff for luminosity so it
passes the Tolman surface brightness test.
Oh wait, didn't you tell me it doesn't? Why are you still talking like
it is a viable theory?
Sam Wormley
> On May 8, 3:07 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> The code shows that even though light decelerates after a few hundred
> million light years, it is emitted at c.
THe code is wrong -- the speed of light is constant.
>
> In QED, when light enters a lens, it is absorbed by electrons in the
> atoms and emitted elsewhere.
In QED light is absorbed by charged particle... the energy may
be re-emitted in the form of a photon.
>
> So the photons in the lens are traveling at c, but they are spending
> some time as energy in the atoms between short little journeys.
Photon ONLY exist propagating at c
none
I do hope you intended this as humor since it is pretty funny.
You need to study some actual physics.
jjs...@yahoo.com
<snip>
>
> The code shows that even though light decelerates after a few hundred
> million light years, it is emitted at c.
>
> In QED, when light enters a lens, it is absorbed by electrons in the
> atoms and emitted elsewhere.
>
Hmmm.... yeah, whatever, as if there is a point to trying to correct
this...
> So the photons in the lens are traveling at c, but they are spending
> some time as energy in the atoms between short little journeys.
Imbecile learn some physics....
Cheers
Michael Helland
The speed of the photons in the medium is c.
They do spend time inside atoms between absorption and emission, so it
takes longer to get from point a to b.
That's what is observed, and that's consistent with the rule where all
photons are emitted at c.
Michael Helland
I told you tired light failed the test.
But deceleration is more like expansion than tired light.
Eric Gisse
Exactly. Your theory fails the test.
>
> But deceleration is more like expansion than tired light.
Great!
Show how it predicts the correct luminosity as a function of distance,
re: Tolman surface brightness test. Or ignore the question.
Show how it predicts that the CMBR _exists_.
Show how it predicts that the CMBR obeys a Planckian distribution.
Show how it predicts the 2.73 Kelvin temperature of the CMBR.
Show how it predicts the Gaussian distribution of inhomogeneities in
the CMBR.
Show how it explains how the inhomogeneities remain consistent even
across the casual horizon.
Show me that you know what a casual horizon /is/.
Show how it predicts the relative abundances of the light elements.
Show how it predicts the time dilation of supernova light curves.
Show how it predicts how galaxies form not only themselves and the
large scale structure of the universe.
That's what I can think of off the top of my head. I'll be
flabbergasted if you can do two of those.
Sam Wormley
> On May 8, 4:52 pm, "OG" <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>
> They [photons] do spend time inside atoms between absorption and emission, so it
> takes longer to get from point a to b.
Show that in a Feynman Diagram
>
> That's what is observed, and that's consistent with the rule where all
> photons are emitted at c.
Nope. Wrong again.
jjs...@yahoo.com
You know your just setting yourself up for disappointment, or a good
laugh, Mike couldn't do one of those if his life depended on it. He
doesn't even know what a harmonic oscillator is nor can he solve a
PDE...
Cheers
Michael Helland
> Michael Helland wrote:
> > On May 8, 4:52 pm, "OG" <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > They [photons] do spend time inside atoms between absorption and emission, so it
> > takes longer to get from point a to b.
>
> Show that in a Feynman Diagram
X = electron
O = photon
O X
\ /
\ /
X
|
|
X
/ \
O X
jjs...@yahoo.com
> On May 8, 8:20 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
> X = electron (no this is not how you represent an electron)
> O = photon (no this is not how you represent a photon)
>
> O X
> \ /
> \ /
> X
> |
> |
> X
> / \
> O X
>
ROFL is this your attempt at a Feynman Diagram? Tell me what do the
lines represent? all being the same...
Do you even know what a Feynman Diagram is?
Do you know what a deWitt Indice is?
Did you even look at a Feynman Diagram before you made this little
travesty....?
Mike you really are pathetic...
Cheers
Eric Gisse
> On May 8, 8:20 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Helland wrote:
> > > On May 8, 4:52 pm, "OG" <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > > They [photons] do spend time inside atoms between absorption and emission, so it
> > > takes longer to get from point a to b.
>
> > Show that in a Feynman Diagram
>
> X = electron
> O = photon
>
> O X
> \ /
> \ /
> X
> |
> |
> X
> / \
> O X
>
Wow.
Sam Wormley
> On May 8, 8:20 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Michael Helland wrote:
>>> On May 8, 4:52 pm, "OG" <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>>> They [photons] do spend time inside atoms between absorption and emission, so it
>>> takes longer to get from point a to b.
>> Show that in a Feynman Diagram
>
> X = electron
>
> O X
> \ /
> \ /
> X
> |
> |
> X
> / \
> O X
>
>
Your diagram implies the absorption of a photon of one
wavelength and the emission of a second photon of a
different wavelength.