Space expansion and distance creation
mitc...@hotmail.com
expands. This we observe as apparent galactic motion. But it is not
motion. They are not moving away through space.
Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
xxein
xxein: And that means that light transmission time is not affected???
Michael Helland
Here's a bonafide crackpot idea.
The Big Bang and expansion of space is an illusion.
We look at light coming from a far away place.
We notice it takes longer to get here than it ought to.
As if light slows down on its way here.
But because of relativity, we don't allow that.
So, instead we say it takes longer because space expands.
But that's sort of silly.
What's really happening is light just slows down.
Relativity breaks down at certain distances.
eratosthenes
That's funny stuff
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Michael Helland" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f96e8740-9302-46e9...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 20, 12:36 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Here's a bonafide crackpot idea.
>
> The Big Bang and expansion of space is an
> illusion.
... good so far ...
> We look at light coming from a far away place.
>
> We notice it takes longer to get here than it ought to.
We can't know that. What we see is that:
- wavelengths are longer than they should be
- intensity is in agreement with red shift
- duration of characteristic events is redshifted similarly to
the wavelength
> As if light slows down on its way here.
... No ...
> But because of relativity, we don't allow that.
... No, Maxwell shows that the speed of light is a constant. And
try as we might, light is so smart that it remembers to reflect
in such a way that its two-way light speed is always c. So not
"because of relativity", but because it agrees with Nature *here*
and *now*.
> So, instead we say it takes longer because
> space expands.
>
> But that's sort of silly.
Only because you made a mistake.
> What's really happening is light just slows down.
>
> Relativity breaks down at certain distances.
If you are interested in cosmology, you might read these pages:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
... that way you can know what the observations *are*.
David A. Smith
Huang
> New space distance is being created inbetween matter as the universe
> expands. This we observe as apparent galactic motion. But it is not
> motion. They are not moving away through space.
>
It's not such a dumb idea. This can be modelled using probabilistic
methods, and would explain many things such as redshifting quite
nicely.
You can have an expanding universe "without" a big bang.
However, to attempt such a model without using probability theory -
now THAT would be d-u-m-b.
Dr. V. I. Plankenstein
Michael Helland
wrote:
> Dear Michael Helland:
>
> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f96e8740-9302-46e9...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 20, 12:36 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Here's a bonafide crackpot idea.
>
> > The Big Bang and expansion of space is an
> > illusion.
>
> ... good so far ...
>
> > We look at light coming from a far away place.
>
> > We notice it takes longer to get here than it ought to.
>
> We can't know that. What we see is that:
> - wavelengths are longer than they should be
> - intensity is in agreement with red shift
> - duration of characteristic events is redshifted similarly to
> the wavelength
I am not denying the redshift.
I just agree with Hubble that expansion is not the cause.
The cause is a loss in velocity over such immense intergalactic
distances.
E = hf
c = fw
Redshift means a loss of energy. Which means a decrease in frequency.
Which is a decrease in c.
If space expands, then c decreases.
But it also fits that if c decreases, its not the distance that
increases, it's the time that increases.
I'm not denying the redshift.
It's just that the redshift is really light slowing down which gives
the illusion of space expanding.
wugi
> > New space distance is being created inbetween matter as the universe
> > expands. This we observe as apparent galactic motion. But it is not
> > motion. They are not moving away through space.
>
> It's not such a dumb idea. This can be modelled using probabilistic
> methods, and would explain many things such as redshifting quite
> nicely.
>
> You can have an expanding universe "without" a big bang.
How? What about the background radiation?
> However, to attempt such a model without using probability theory -
> now THAT would be d-u-m-b.
What makes it probabilistic and not pure geometry?
regards,
guido
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm
OG
> On Mar 20, 8:36 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>> Dear Michael Helland:
>>
>> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:f96e8740-9302-46e9...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Mar 20, 12:36 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Here's a bonafide crackpot idea.
>>
>> > The Big Bang and expansion of space is an
>> > illusion.
>>
>> ... good so far ...
>>
>> > We look at light coming from a far away place.
>>
>> > We notice it takes longer to get here than it ought to.
>>
>> We can't know that. What we see is that:
>> - wavelengths are longer than they should be
>> - intensity is in agreement with red shift
>> - duration of characteristic events is redshifted similarly to
>> the wavelength
>
>
> I am not denying the redshift.
>
> I just agree with Hubble that expansion is not the cause.
>
> The cause is a loss in velocity over such immense intergalactic
> distances.
But if light slows down from distant galaxies, during a lunar occultatation
their image would take longer to disappear than more local stars or
galaxies. This isn't observed.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Michael Helland" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c66c52c6-d594-487a...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
...
> I am not denying the redshift.
>
> I just agree with Hubble that expansion is
> not the cause.
"Agree" is the wrong word. "Believe" is probably the right word.
> The cause is a loss in velocity over such
> immense intergalactic distances.
>
> E = hf
>
> c = fw
>
> Redshift means a loss of energy. Which
> means a decrease in frequency.
Now consider that:
- intensity changes in agreement with redshift being expansion
- duration of events change in agreement with redshift being
expansion
Your "belief" fixes redshift, but now requires entirely new
physics:
1) we don't know any way to remove some energy from passing
photons and not scatter them.
2) we are not getting increasing levels of light scattered from
older objects
3) we now cannot find processes similar to ones we see occuring
locally.
> Which is a decrease in c.
No, it is not a decrease in c.
> If space expands, then c decreases.
What happens if your clock runs faster, and c stays always the
same value? The meter is defined as c times time. Is more
distance created thereby?
> But it also fits that if c decreases, its not the
> distance that increases, it's the time that
> increases.
You don't need to play with both.
> I'm not denying the redshift.
>
> It's just that the redshift is really light slowing
> down which gives the illusion of space
> expanding.
And breaks the entire rest of physics. Think about it.
David A. Smith
dwhi...@peoplepc.com
wrote:
> Dear Michael Helland:
>
> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Why don't you pick on someone not so easily refuted? D.W.H.
Michael Helland
wrote:
> Dear Michael Helland:
>
> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c66c52c6-d594-487a...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> ...
>
> > I am not denying the redshift.
>
> > I just agree with Hubble that expansion is
> > not the cause.
>
> "Agree" is the wrong word. "Believe" is probably the right word.
>
> > The cause is a loss in velocity over such
> > immense intergalactic distances.
>
> > E = hf
>
> > c = fw
>
> > Redshift means a loss of energy. Which
> > means a decrease in frequency.
>
> Now consider that:
> - intensity changes in agreement with redshift being expansion
> - duration of events change in agreement with redshift being
> expansion
> Your "belief" fixes redshift, but now requires entirely new
> physics:
That's the point.
> 1) we don't know any way to remove some energy from passing
> photons and not scatter them.
The conjecture is that photons, after traveling far enough, slow down
naturally.
> 2) we are not getting increasing levels of light scattered from
> older objects
Because they lose energy without scattering.
Check this out:
Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics'
Delayed gamma rays from deep space may provide the first evidence for
physics beyond current theories.
http://www.physorg.com/news110480559.html
> 3) we now cannot find processes similar to ones we see occuring
> locally.
Same with expansion.
The point is this doesn't occur locally.
The point is Relativity holds true, but has like the Newtonian physics
it replaced, it starts to break down after traveling through deep
space.
> > Which is a decrease in c.
>
> No, it is not a decrease in c.
>
> > If space expands, then c decreases.
>
> What happens if your clock runs faster, and c stays always the
> same value? The meter is defined as c times time. Is more
> distance created thereby?
>
> > But it also fits that if c decreases, its not the
> > distance that increases, it's the time that
> > increases.
>
> You don't need to play with both.
Right.
You need to play with one or the other.
Mainstream cosmology says play with the size of space.
I'm saying, and the above cite seems to support, that playing with the
speed of photons gives all the same results.
> > I'm not denying the redshift.
>
> > It's just that the redshift is really light slowing
> > down which gives the illusion of space
> > expanding.
>
> And breaks the entire rest of physics. Think about it.
I know.
Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics'
Delayed gamma rays from deep space may provide the first evidence for
physics beyond current theories.
Michael Helland
Maybe.
If the differences in speeds of local light and intergalactic light
are big enough, and the distance between the Earth and the Moon is big
enough.
But maybe it's not big enough.
Eric Gisse
[snip junk]
Go figure. You can't understand any of modern physics but you feel
free to try to reinvent cosmology regardless and without understanding
of modern observations.
>
> Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics'
> Delayed gamma rays from deep space may provide the first evidence for
> physics beyond current theories.
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news110480559.html
1) Submitted is not published, and its' been 6 months. Unpublished.
PRL has yet to accept the manuscript - junk this into the pile of
amazing claims like Tajmar, et. al.
2) The claims are based on the assumption of how quasar processes
work.
3) You are an idiot.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Michael Helland" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a48887f8-9e97-44b6...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Not a point in your favor.
>> 1) we don't know any way to remove some
>> energy from passing photons and not scatter them.
>
> The conjecture is that photons, after traveling far
> enough, slow down naturally.
So they travel at c at emission, but slower than c sometime
later? This is not observed in the laboratory, using starlight
from rapidly moving sources. Guess again.
>> 2) we are not getting increasing levels of light
>> scattered from older objects
>
> Because they lose energy without scattering.
There are *not enough photons*. So guess again.
> Check this out:
>
> Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics'
> Delayed gamma rays from deep space may provide
> the first evidence for physics beyond current theories.
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news110480559.html
Non sequitur.
A fellow duplicated "gamma ray bursters" in the lab, eliciting
high energy photons from empty space, using only rapidly changing
magnetic fields. Howeer cool that is, it also has nothing to do
with our discussion.
>> 3) we now cannot find processes similar to ones
>> we see occuring locally.
>
> Same with expansion.
NOT the "same with expansion".
Your conjecture fixes one observation, and breaks two.
> The point is this doesn't occur locally.
Why? Relativity has a way to handle this, but you do not.
> The point is Relativity holds true, but has like
> the Newtonian physics it replaced, it starts to
> break down after traveling through deep space.
Prove it.
...
>> > But it also fits that if c decreases, its not the
>> > distance that increases, it's the time that
>> > increases.
>>
>> You don't need to play with both.
>
> Right.
>
> You need to play with one or the other.
>
> Mainstream cosmology says play with the size of space.
No. It says that the distance between two distant bodies is not
constant. This leaves a locally constant c, and a *variable time
rate* based on the "global curvature" of the Universe at that
instant.
> I'm saying, and the above cite seems to support,
> that playing with the speed of photons gives all
> the same results.
It doesn't. I was tricked by the words of Setterfield into
thinking it solves problems too. It does not.
>> > I'm not denying the redshift.
>>
>> > It's just that the redshift is really light slowing
>> > down which gives the illusion of space
>> > expanding.
>>
>> And breaks the entire rest of physics. Think about it.
>
> I know.
>
> Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics'
> Delayed gamma rays from deep space may provide
> the first evidence for physics beyond current theories.
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news110480559.html
Just as non sequitur as it was before.
David A. Smith
Michael Helland
Are you sure?
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0404/0404207.pdf
<quote>
Supernovae Ia (SNe Ia) light curves have been used to prove the
universe is expanding. As standard candles, SNe Ia appear to indicate
the rate of expansion has increased in the past and is now decreasing.
This independent evaluation of SNe Ia light curves demonstrates a
Malmquist Type II bias exists in the body of supernova data. If this
bias is properly addressed, there is very little budget for time
dilation in the light curves of supernova.
<snip>
For most of the 20th century astronomical observations such as
galactic evolution, heavy metal abundance, supernovae light curves and
the cosmic microwave background have fallen within the constraints of
the Einstein - de Sitter Big Bang model. In the last two decades these
relationships have become severely strained. The universe is too big
and too old; the magnitudes of supernovae are dimming too fast. There
are too many radio point sources. The far infrared continuum emissions
imply a dusty past that is completely at odds with multi-colored
supernovae and quasar spectrums. There is too little anisotropy in the
cosmic microwave background to support the observed galaxy
super-cluster structure. Heavy metal ratios equal to solar
concentrations have been quantified in the most redshifted objects we
observe. Something is wrong with this mature theory: It has failed in
too many predictions.
</quote>
Eric Gisse
How are you qualified to cite these papers when you have no idea what
the contents mean?
[...]
Michael Helland
Empirical Eric,
How many predictions has Big Bang successfully made?
Eric Gisse
Which one? The big bang theory has evolved many times since Guth and
crew thought of it.
For starters, the observed baryonic isotope ratios, the background
radiation power spectrum, and the isotropy in the background
radiation.
How many predictions has your non-theory successfully made? I'm
guessing zero.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Michael Helland" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c5e8d5c-9d25-4ddb...@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 21, 12:33 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
> <dl...@cox.net>
> wrote:
...
>> So they travel at c at emission, but slower than c
>> sometime later? This is not observed in the
>> laboratory, using starlight from rapidly moving
>> sources. Guess again.
>
> Are you sure?
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0404/0404207.pdf
You cite a paper that was never peer reviewed, and is used
nowhere as a citation. In other words, it proposes but does not
support "new physics". So it is crap.
David A. Smith
Michael Helland
wrote:
> Dear Michael Helland:
>
> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
This turns up a 1,180 hits:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Supernovae+Light+Curves+jensen&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search
An entirely new physics would take decades of effort and involve many
many research projects.
It seems pretty obvious signs of things to come are starting to pop
up, unless you're not interested in paying attention.
Michael Helland
Didn't really get that one right, did it?
> and the isotropy in the background
> radiation.
> How many predictions has your non-theory successfully made? I'm
> guessing zero.
Well, my non-theory says that what is observable in deep space may be
limited, but the universe is actually infinite in all directions.
The reason for the observation limit is after traveling long enough,
say, twice the width of the observable universe light naturally wears
out.
It shows up to us as what is called the CMB.
It's a vague vague shadow, much vaguer than usual, of deeper than deep
space.
That explains what it all looks the same in all directions.
We are looking at a finite representation of infinity.
Eric Gisse
It gets all of them right. You just have no idea what I'm talking
about because you are even further from your area of expertise than
you were before - and that's pretty fucking far.
>
> > and the isotropy in the background
> > radiation.
> > How many predictions has your non-theory successfully made? I'm
> > guessing zero.
>
> Well, my non-theory says that what is observable in deep space may be
> limited, but the universe is actually infinite in all directions.
Congratulations, you acknowledge that light has finite propagation
speed. The prediction is otherwise untestable.
>
> The reason for the observation limit is after traveling long enough,
> say, twice the width of the observable universe light naturally wears
> out.
>
> It shows up to us as what is called the CMB.
Stupid and wrong. The CMB is a perfect blackbody to parts per million
level, and the anisotropies are randomly distributed.
>
> It's a vague vague shadow, much vaguer than usual, of deeper than deep
> space.
>
> That explains what it all looks the same in all directions.
>
> We are looking at a finite representation of infinity.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Michael Helland
Initially it was wrong.
Ad-hoc solutions came up.
> You just have no idea what I'm talking
> about because you are even further from your area of expertise than
> you were before - and that's pretty fucking far.
I know that. This is a bonafide crackpot idea. I was pretty clear
about that.
> > > and the isotropy in the background
> > > radiation.
> > > How many predictions has your non-theory successfully made? I'm
> > > guessing zero.
>
> > Well, my non-theory says that what is observable in deep space may be
> > limited, but the universe is actually infinite in all directions.
>
> Congratulations, you acknowledge that light has finite propagation
> speed. The prediction is otherwise untestable.
At the distances redshift expansion starts to appear, the propagation
speed of light lessens.
In the equation
v = d / t
In order to explain the redshift, we assume t takes longer because d
gets bigger.
Instead, what if t takes longer because v gets smaller?
What if at the point expansion starts to appear, we're really just
watching relativity break down (much like how Newtonian physics breaks
down where relativity starts to appear).
> > The reason for the observation limit is after traveling long enough,
> > say, twice the width of the observable universe light naturally wears
> > out.
>
> > It shows up to us as what is called the CMB.
>
> Stupid and wrong. The CMB is a perfect blackbody to parts per million
> level, and the anisotropies are randomly distributed.
>
>
>
> > It's a vague vague shadow, much vaguer than usual, of deeper than deep
> > space.
>
> > That explains what it all looks the same in all directions.
>
> > We are looking at a finite representation of infinity.
>
> You have no idea what you are talking about.
Not really, no.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Michael Helland" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d7421abb-aa08-4dc4...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 21, 3:55 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
> <dl...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>> Dear Michael Helland:
>>
>> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5c5e8d5c-9d25-4ddb...@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Mar 21, 12:33 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
>> > <dl...@cox.net>
>> > wrote:
>> ...
>> >> So they travel at c at emission, but slower than c
>> >> sometime later? This is not observed in the
>> >> laboratory, using starlight from rapidly moving
>> >> sources. Guess again.
>>
>> > Are you sure?
>>
>> >http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0404/0404207.pdf
>>
>> You cite a paper that was never peer reviewed, and
>> is used nowhere as a citation. In other words, it
>> proposes but does not support "new physics". So it
>> is crap.
>
> This turns up a 1,180 hits:
>
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Supernovae+Light+Curves+jensen&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search
So? A google search on "dlzc" ends up with 56,800 hits.
> An entirely new physics would take decades of
> effort and involve many many research projects.
And experimental verification. How convenient that "Jensen"
relies on results that cannot be experimentally verified *here*
and *now*, while "vanilla" relativity can.
> It seems pretty obvious signs of things to come
> are starting to pop up, unless you're not
> interested in paying attention.
Why is it that you are not interested in paying attention?
David A. Smith
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bccb2326-ab94-4c91...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 21, 3:16 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>> The reason for the observation limit is after traveling
>> long enough, say, twice the width of the observable
>> universe light naturally wears out.
>
>> It shows up to us as what is called the CMB.
> Stupid and wrong. The CMB is a perfect blackbody to
> parts per million level, and the anisotropies are
> randomly distributed.
Add that the CMBR was hotter as we look back further in time.
Why is there no similar hot CMBR light now?
David A. Smith
Michael Helland
>
> So? A google search on "dlzc" ends up with 56,800 hits.
A Google Scholar search for that comes up with 43.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=dlzc&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search
> > An entirely new physics would take decades of
> > effort and involve many many research projects.
>
> And experimental verification. How convenient that "Jensen"
> relies on results that cannot be experimentally verified *here*
> and *now*, while "vanilla" relativity can.
I think he was pointing out the lack of light curve evidence.
As in a prediction that the Big Bang gets wrong.
Michael Helland
wrote:
> Dear Eric Gisse:
>
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Has the temperature of the CMB changed since we first began to measure
it?
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Michael Helland" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6cee90fb-266c-4d8b...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 21, 7:11 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
> <dl...@cox.net>
> wrote:
..
>> > This turns up a 1,180 hits:
>>
>> >http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Supernovae+Light+Curves+jensen&hl...
>>
>> So? A google search on "dlzc" ends up with 56,800 hits.
>
> A Google Scholar search for that comes up with 43.
>
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=dlzc&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search
I'm shocked that a mechanical engineer should end up with any
hits there.
>> > An entirely new physics would take decades of
>> > effort and involve many many research projects.
>>
>> And experimental verification. How convenient
>> that "Jensen" relies on results that cannot be
>> experimentally verified *here* and *now*, while
>> "vanilla" relativity can.
>
> I think he was pointing out the lack of light
> curve evidence.
>
> As in a prediction that the Big Bang gets wrong.
I think he doesn't point out anything useful, and offers "new
physics".
David A. Smith
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Michael Helland" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ac02fb21-f2ea-4741...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 21, 7:14 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
> <dl...@cox.net>
> wrote:
...
>> >> It shows up to us as what is called the CMB.
>> > Stupid and wrong. The CMB is a perfect blackbody to
>> > parts per million level, and the anisotropies are
>> > randomly distributed.
>>
>> Add that the CMBR was hotter as we look
>> back further in time. Why is there no similar
>> hot CMBR light now?
>
> Has the temperature of the CMB changed since
> we first began to measure it?
Only as refinements. But we have been able to use observations
of distant processes, and have seen the CMBR to be much hotter
"back then". For example, 1.1 billion years ago, the CMBR was
about 9 K.
David A. Smith
Michael Helland
wrote:
> Dear Michael Helland:
>
> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Does it predict any changes in the next 500 years?
Michael Helland
wrote:
> Dear Michael Helland:
>
> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6cee90fb-266c-4d8b...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 21, 7:11 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
> > <dl...@cox.net>
> > wrote:
> ..
> >> > This turns up a 1,180 hits:
>
> >> >http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Supernovae+Light+Curves+jensen&hl...
>
> >> So? A google search on "dlzc" ends up with 56,800 hits.
>
> > A Google Scholar search for that comes up with 43.
>
> >http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=dlzc&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search
>
> I'm shocked that a mechanical engineer should end up with any
> hits there.
I'm not shocked you didn't actually look at the link before you
commented.
Those aren't references to you.
> >> > An entirely new physics would take decades of
> >> > effort and involve many many research projects.
>
> >> And experimental verification. How convenient
> >> that "Jensen" relies on results that cannot be
> >> experimentally verified *here* and *now*, while
> >> "vanilla" relativity can.
>
> > I think he was pointing out the lack of light
> > curve evidence.
>
> > As in a prediction that the Big Bang gets wrong.
>
> I think he doesn't point out anything useful
There's too much riding on the line to do that.
Michael Helland
> > The reason for the observation limit is after traveling long enough,
> > say, twice the width of the observable universe light naturally wears
> > out.
>
> > It shows up to us as what is called the CMB.
>
> Stupid and wrong. The CMB is a perfect blackbody to parts per million
> level, and the anisotropies are randomly distributed.
Random.
You mean as the result of complexity?
theman
wrote:
> Dear MichaelHelland:
>
> "MichaelHelland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
To be honest I am surprised Mike even posted a reference albeit a poor
one normally he just spews so this is a marked improvement.
Although I am a little confused to what the point of some of these
google searches is.
Although as usual Mike unfailingly embarrases himself in the misuse of
ideas he has no notion of, and in fact Mike has even admitted that he
knows nothing of physics so him talking of physics is really a waste
of anyones time...
Cheers
Eric Gisse
[...]
>
> Initially it was wrong.
Yea, that's why I asked WHICH ONE because the model has gone through a
few revisions.
>
> Ad-hoc solutions came up.
Which make further specific predictions that are validated.
>
> > You just have no idea what I'm talking
> > about because you are even further from your area of expertise than
> > you were before - and that's pretty fucking far.
>
> I know that. This is a bonafide crackpot idea. I was pretty clear
> about that.
>
> > > > and the isotropy in the background
> > > > radiation.
> > > > How many predictions has your non-theory successfully made? I'm
> > > > guessing zero.
>
> > > Well, my non-theory says that what is observable in deep space may be
> > > limited, but the universe is actually infinite in all directions.
>
> > Congratulations, you acknowledge that light has finite propagation
> > speed. The prediction is otherwise untestable.
>
> At the distances redshift expansion starts to appear, the propagation
> speed of light lessens.
>
> In the equation
>
> v = d / t
>
> In order to explain the redshift, we assume t takes longer because d
> gets bigger.
>
> Instead, what if t takes longer because v gets smaller?
Unsupported by observation. Lightspeed is constant, even across
cosmological distances.
>
> What if at the point expansion starts to appear, we're really just
> watching relativity break down (much like how Newtonian physics breaks
> down where relativity starts to appear).
What if, at that point, a unicorn appears?
Saying relativity "breaks down" is meaningless without a quantitative
prediction of when, where, and under what conditions relativity breaks
down.
>
>
>
> > > The reason for the observation limit is after traveling long enough,
> > > say, twice the width of the observable universe light naturally wears
> > > out.
>
> > > It shows up to us as what is called the CMB.
>
> > Stupid and wrong. The CMB is a perfect blackbody to parts per million
> > level, and the anisotropies are randomly distributed.
No comment, Mike?
>
> > > It's a vague vague shadow, much vaguer than usual, of deeper than deep
> > > space.
>
> > > That explains what it all looks the same in all directions.
>
> > > We are looking at a finite representation of infinity.
>
> > You have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> Not really, no.
Oh, yes. You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know,
mathematically, what a multipole mmoment is?
foolsrushout
Alright then, bring the discussion home from multipole
moment to space expansion and creation since you've
introduced the idea into this thread. Please show us
how this works.
Eric Gisse
[...]
>
> > Oh, yes. You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know,
> > mathematically, what a multipole mmoment is?
>
> Alright then, bring the discussion home from multipole
> moment to space expansion and creation since you've
> introduced the idea into this thread. Please show us
> how this works.
Why enter into a discussion about the background radiation if Mike
doesn't know what radiation multipole moments are?
foolsrushout
Nice escape. Thanks.
Michael Helland
Observations report the light comes in red-shifted.
E = hf
Loss in energy is a loss in frequency.
Plug that into this formula:
c = fw
f = c / w
And you'll see that c gets smaller.
> Lightspeed is constant, even across cosmological distances.
That's the dogma.
> > What if at the point expansion starts to appear, we're really just
> > watching relativity break down (much like how Newtonian physics breaks
> > down where relativity starts to appear).
>
> What if, at that point, a unicorn appears?
>
> Saying relativity "breaks down" is meaningless without a quantitative
> prediction of when, where, and under what conditions relativity breaks
> down.
It breaks down at the distances that expansion allegedly appears.
> > > > The reason for the observation limit is after traveling long enough,
> > > > say, twice the width of the observable universe light naturally wears
> > > > out.
>
> > > > It shows up to us as what is called the CMB.
>
> > > Stupid and wrong. The CMB is a perfect blackbody to parts per million
> > > level, and the anisotropies are randomly distributed.
>
> No comment, Mike?
Randomness is best produced by complexity.
> > > > It's a vague vague shadow, much vaguer than usual, of deeper than deep
> > > > space.
>
> > > > That explains what it all looks the same in all directions.
>
> > > > We are looking at a finite representation of infinity.
>
> > > You have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> > Not really, no.
>
> Oh, yes. You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know,
> mathematically, what a multipole mmoment is?
I was agreeing with you.
Do I know what I'm talking?
Not really, no.
I'm just having fun.
You've been taught by this silly little society to hate people like
me.
I won't stand in your way.
theman
<snip unimportant>
>
> Do I know what I'm talking?
>
> Not really, no.
>
a salute your honesty...
> I'm just having fun.
>
Really? so your idea of fun is getting kicked in the preverbal nuts
everyday...?
So how do you feel about to quote a movie "a genital shocking taser
gun?" -Sandra Bullock
> You've been taught by this silly little society to hate people like
> me.
>
No you've taught us that mike through your all invading ignorance and
you inability to go away...
> I won't stand in your way.
Sweet, then don't complain about comments leveled at you...
Cheers
uri
> New space distance is being created inbetween matter as the universe
> expands. This we observe as apparent galactic motion. But it is not
> motion. They are not moving away through space.
>
> Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
But isn't distance in itself nothing? So how can it be created?
Distance is only relative. Only energy exists.
Eric Gisse
It wasn't an escape - it was the purpose of bringing it up.
Eric Gisse
[snip]
> Do I know what I'm talking?
>
> Not really, no.
Then why are you talking? Ignorance is not a form of knowing things.
[snip]
mitc...@hotmail.com
Distance is dimensional. It grows as the universe expands.
Huang
> "Huang" :
>
> > > New space distance is being created inbetween matter as the universe
> > > expands. This we observe as apparent galactic motion. But it is not
> > > motion. They are not moving away through space.
>
> > methods, and would explain many things such as redshifting quite
> > nicely.
>
> > You can have an expanding universe "without" a big bang.
>
> How? What about the background radiation?
>
> > However, to attempt such a model without using probability theory -
> > now THAT would be d-u-m-b.
>
> What makes it probabilistic and not pure geometry?
>
> regards,
>
> guidohttp://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm
The explanation can become quite long, so I'll try to be brief.
1] You have a piece of length which is composed of, or graduated by
individual Plancklengths.
2] The graduations are not fixed. They can slide around freely. Their
position along the length segment is indeterminate.
3] The best way to model [2] is with probability theory. This leads to
a very intuitive explanation of why calculus works perfectly
regardless of Plancklength.
4] Now you need 3 existential forms, not just 2. In physics you must
have these three forms :
a] That which exists
b] That which does not exist
c] That for which existence is indeterminate. Existential
indeterminacy is a boundary condition.
5] Length can now be described probabilistically in two distinct ways:
a] A given segment is composed of points, and to each point we assign
a probability that the point exists.
b] A given segment is composed of a nonrandom segment to which we add
a random segment.
6] It is indeterminate whether we have [5a] or [5b], and so the
continuity/discreteness of spacetime is indeterminate.
7] Waves in space are easily modelled as fluctuations in this
"existential potential" of [5a].
8] And so expansion of space can be characterized quite simply as an
overall increase of the probabilities in the existential potential of
[5a]. In a sense it really is expansion, but can be viewed as a purely
probabilistic phenoemena.
That's how I got there -
Huang
uri
> Distance is dimensional. It grows as the universe expands.
But distance is not matter or energy and it is also not made of
particles is it?
OG
> On Mar 21, 3:12 am, "OG" <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:c66c52c6-d594-487a...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 20, 8:36 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Dear Michael Helland:
>>
>> >> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:f96e8740-9302-46e9...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Mar 20, 12:36 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >> > Here's a bonafide crackpot idea.
>>
>> >> > The Big Bang and expansion of space is an
>> >> > illusion.
>>
>> >> ... good so far ...
>>
>> >> > We look at light coming from a far away place.
>>
>> >> > We notice it takes longer to get here than it ought to.
>>
>> >> We can't know that. What we see is that:
>> >> - wavelengths are longer than they should be
>> >> - intensity is in agreement with red shift
>> >> - duration of characteristic events is redshifted similarly to
>> >> the wavelength
>>
>> > I am not denying the redshift.
>>
>> > I just agree with Hubble that expansion is not the cause.
>>
>> > distances.
>>
>> occultatation
>> their image would take longer to disappear than more local stars or
>> galaxies. This isn't observed.
>
>
> Maybe.
>
> If the differences in speeds of local light and intergalactic light
> are big enough, and the distance between the Earth and the Moon is big
> enough.
>
> But maybe it's not big enough.
OK, no problem, it's your theory. What is the difference in light speed
between local and distant objects by your theory?
Michael Helland
Good question.
Let's get the extreme case out of the question.
The CMB.
Can you see the CMB behind the moon while its still there?
If so, we're still in the water.
Now the other extreme.
In which near galaxies does expansion redshift begin to occur?
How many light years does light have to travel to us before we detect
the expansion of the universe?
OG
OG
I thought you didn't think that it *was* expansion redshift
> How many light years does light have to travel to us before we detect
> the expansion of the universe?
Lets start with a group of galaxies such as the Hercules Cluster. It is
reckoned to be about 650 Mly distant. The red shift is about 0.036. What
would be the reduction in the speed of light for these galaxies?
Michael Helland
I could have said "begin to allegedly appear".
That's what normal cranks do.
> > How many light years does light have to travel to us before we detect
> > the expansion of the universe?
>
> Lets start with a group of galaxies such as the Hercules Cluster. It is
> reckoned to be about 650 Mly distant. The red shift is about 0.036. What
> would be the reduction in the speed of light for these galaxies?
How much expansion occurs during that journey?
Say it is X, or f(650)
v = 650 light years / 650 years
so
v = f(650) light years / f(650) years
That's an expanding universe, because the speed of light is constant.
But, if we accept that around 650 light years relativity hits its
limit (much like Newton hits its limits approaching c), then we can
allow the speed of light to change.
v_tired = 650 light years / f(650) years
That's how much the speed of light tires.
Eric Gisse
[snip]
In 2008, tired light is a stupid idea.
Michael Helland
He has 4 criticisms.
1. No known interaction will cause tired light
response: I'm not suggesting an interaction causes it. I'm suggesting
it's the natural behavior of photon after 650 Mly.
2. Light curves.
response: Jensen casts some doubt on the evidence
3. The CMB
response: His diagrams clearly depict models based on different
assumptions. Keeping the Big Bang current with observations has been
top priority. It's not surprising alternative models have fallen
behind.
4. "The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test.
This is essentially the same effect as the CMB prefactor test, but
applied to the surface brightness of galaxies instead of to the
emissivities of blackbodies."
Can anyone explain this?
OG
I've asked what value you expect the speed of light to be after the light
has travelled for 650 Mly. My question to you - What is your answer?
none
No, you will see that w gets larger. The wavelength is what is measured
for light. When you do this with microwaves, you measure frequency and
you see the frequency decrease. Since the frequency decreases and the
wavelength increases in the same ratio, it means that c is a constant.
>
>
>> Lightspeed is constant, even across cosmological distances.
>
>
> That's the dogma.
>
No, that is the experimental result. Look up "tired light" and see the
reasons it has been rejected.
Eric Gisse
> On Mar 23, 5:36 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 23, 2:49 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> > In 2008, tired light is a stupid idea.
>
> >http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
>
> He has 4 criticisms.
>
> 1. No known interaction will cause tired light
>
> response: I'm not suggesting an interaction causes it. I'm suggesting
> it's the natural behavior of photon after 650 Mly.
"shit happens" is not a valid model.
You don't know why or how you think it happens, or even why you think
it happens. That is not good enough.
>
> 2. Light curves.
>
> response: Jensen casts some doubt on the evidence
Doubt it. You aren't qualified to critique anything.
>
> 3. The CMB
>
> response: His diagrams clearly depict models based on different
> assumptions. Keeping the Big Bang current with observations has been
> top priority. It's not surprising alternative models have fallen
> behind.
...and you totally sidestep the issue.
>
> 4. "The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test.
> This is essentially the same effect as the CMB prefactor test, but
> applied to the surface brightness of galaxies instead of to the
> emissivities of blackbodies."
>
> Can anyone explain this?
www.google.com "how to use google"
Have you noticed how often you expect us to do your research for you?
Have you considered that you are wholly unqualified to do what you are
trying to do?
The Ghost In The Machine
<ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk>
wrote
on Mon, 24 Mar 2008 01:09:51 -0000
<64odb3F...@mid.individual.net>:
It gets worse than that. The "tired light" phenomenon is,
AFAICT, related to Gaussian wavepacket spreading.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0143-0807/18/3/022
is a theoretical analysis thereof. I'm not sure of the
exact parameterization.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
try our new color changing variant?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Michael Helland
snip
> I've asked what value you expect the speed of light to be after the light
> has travelled for 650 Mly. My question to you - What is your answer?
Let's say you are a photon.
You are at 0,0.
You're friend is at 0, 650Mly
You want to see your friend.
You meet up with your friend.
He was 650 Mly away. Because of expansion you traveled a distance
greater than 650 Mly.
You traveled f(650) Mly.
I use the function because I don't know how to calculate the actual
number.
Yes, I'm that stupid.
If we were to assume that space is not expanding, then space stays the
same, yet time changes. Like so:
your_predicted_speed_of_light = 650 Mly / f(650) years
That's my answer.
And because:
c = fw
If we consider c variable and not constant, then
E = hf
Which means it's consistent with the observed redshifts.
Michael Helland
> On Mar 23, 3:44 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 23, 5:36 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 23, 2:49 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > [snip]
>
> > > In 2008, tired light is a stupid idea.
>
> > >http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
>
> > He has 4 criticisms.
>
> > 1. No known interaction will cause tired light
>
> > response: I'm not suggesting an interaction causes it. I'm suggesting
> > it's the natural behavior of photon after 650 Mly.
>
> "shit happens" is not a valid model.
In the Big Bang model, in order to explains some of its problems, an
"inflation" period occurred.
That's just shit happening.
If you posit the Big Bang, then you posit an "inflation" period.
That's essentially the same as positing a "tiring" period on a photon.
Occam's Razor isn't on your side.
> You don't know why or how you think it happens, or even why you think
> it happens. That is not good enough.
I do know why.
> > 2. Light curves.
>
> > response: Jensen casts some doubt on the evidence
>
> Doubt it. You aren't qualified to critique anything.
Someone told me the Universe doesn't care about your opinion.
> > 3. The CMB
>
> > response: His diagrams clearly depict models based on different
> > assumptions. Keeping the Big Bang current with observations has been
> > top priority. It's not surprising alternative models have fallen
> > behind.
>
> ...and you totally sidestep the issue.
The issue is, from his diagrams, he is assuming the observable
universe and universe are one in the same.
Under my assumptions, the observable universe is different from the
Universe.
The CMB is recovered in a much different manner.
> > 4. "The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test.
> > This is essentially the same effect as the CMB prefactor test, but
> > applied to the surface brightness of galaxies instead of to the
> > emissivities of blackbodies."
>
> > Can anyone explain this?
>
> www.google.com"how to use google"
>
> Have you noticed how often you expect us to do your research for you?
> Have you considered that you are wholly unqualified to do what you are
> trying to do?
Have you noticed I'm just here looking for conversation.
If someone was willing to explain the Tolman surface brightness test*
then I think the physics content in this group would probably go up .
You can stand in the way of that if you'd like.
* yes, I did Google in an attempt to understand on my own but couldn't
Eric Gisse
[snip]
> * yes, I did Google in an attempt to understand on my own but couldn't
www.google.com tolman surface brightness test
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman_surface_brightness_test
First link. Worthless as an actual reference but a perfect place to
get started in your research.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0106566
Second link. Summarized: Tired light is crap, and observation is
consistent with an expanding universe. Read the paper, and you will
have it explained - again - why tired light is crap.
When you can't figure out something when its' name is given to you and
the first dozen links on google abundantly and clearly explain the
concept for anyone who is even slightly familiar with the field, then
you clearly need to stop discussing tired light and cosmology in
general.
I simply do not understand why you believe you can contribute to any
discussion when you don't have any of the required background.
OG
OK, so take your theory seriously, find out how it works and come up with a
test that gives one result for your theory and a different result for the
existing model.
That's one way that science works. But it really has to start with you
taking your own theory seriously. Until then, you can't expect anyone else
to take it seriously.
uri
(distance is not matter and energy), then how can it expand?
OG
"uri" <dan...@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:9908606c-f9cd-49b1...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> What i don't get is that if distance is relative to matter and energy
What do you mean by 'relative to matter and energy' ?
Michael Helland
> On Mar 23, 9:08 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > * yes, I did Google in an attempt to understand on my own but couldn't
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman_surface_brightness_test
>
> First link. Worthless as an actual reference but a perfect place to
> get started in your research.
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0106566
>
> Second link. Summarized: Tired light is crap, and observation is
> consistent with an expanding universe. Read the paper, and you will
> have it explained - again - why tired light is crap.
>
> When you can't figure out something when its' name is given to you and
> the first dozen links on google abundantly and clearly explain the
> concept for anyone who is even slightly familiar with the field, then
> you clearly need to stop discussing tired light and cosmology in
> general.
>
> I simply do not understand why you believe you can contribute to any
> discussion when you don't have any of the required background.
When it comes to the Big Bang vrs Tired Light idea, thinking about it
and talking about it is just for fun.
You're acting like I'm irreverent and blasphemous. Like you're
emotionally attached to ideas.
Anyways.
If someone would like to explain the Tolman Surface Brightness test,
that would be great.
theman
> and talking about it is just for fun.
>
cool if that works for you...
> You're acting like I'm irreverent and blasphemous. Like you're
> emotionally attached to ideas.
>
No just that your to ignorant to have any right to discuss these
issues...
> Anyways.
>
> If someone would like to explain the Tolman Surface Brightness test,
> that would be great.
Yeah why waste the time, when you wouldn't understand it anyways...
not to mention people have already given you things to read, read
them... or is the truth that in fact you can't read and thats why your
posts are so irrelevant...
Cheers
Eric Gisse
> On Mar 23, 11:42 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 9:08 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> > > * yes, I did Google in an attempt to understand on my own but couldn't
>
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman_surface_brightness_test
>
> > First link. Worthless as an actual reference but a perfect place to
> > get started in your research.
>
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0106566
>
> > Second link. Summarized: Tired light is crap, and observation is
> > consistent with an expanding universe. Read the paper, and you will
> > have it explained - again - why tired light is crap.
>
> > When you can't figure out something when its' name is given to you and
> > the first dozen links on google abundantly and clearly explain the
> > concept for anyone who is even slightly familiar with the field, then
> > you clearly need to stop discussing tired light and cosmology in
> > general.
>
> > I simply do not understand why you believe you can contribute to any
> > discussion when you don't have any of the required background.
>
> When it comes to the Big Bang vrs Tired Light idea, thinking about it
> and talking about it is just for fun.
>
> You're acting like I'm irreverent and blasphemous. Like you're
> emotionally attached to ideas.
>
> Anyways.
>
> If someone would like to explain the Tolman Surface Brightness test,
> that would be great.
Why don't you read the links I gave you instead of requiring spoonfed
information?
Michael Helland
> On Mar 24, 2:12 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > When it comes to the Big Bang vrs Tired Light idea, thinking about it
> > and talking about it is just for fun.
>
> So you find it fun to be ignorant, a look like a fool for everyone...
> cool if that works for you...
I'm not to worried about my image.
> > You're acting like I'm irreverent and blasphemous. Like you're
> > emotionally attached to ideas.
>
> No just that your to ignorant to have any right to discuss these
> issues...
Any "right"?
Again, you sound like someone who goes to church.
> > Anyways.
>
> > If someone would like to explain the Tolman Surface Brightness test,
> > that would be great.
>
> Yeah why waste the time,
Option A; discuss physics
Option B; put Mike down
I see what's most important to you.
Michael Helland
> On Mar 24, 9:12 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 11:42 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 23, 9:08 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > [snip]
>
> > > > * yes, I did Google in an attempt to understand on my own but couldn't
>
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman_surface_brightness_test
>
> > > First link. Worthless as an actual reference but a perfect place to
> > > get started in your research.
>
> > >http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0106566
>
> > > Second link. Summarized: Tired light is crap, and observation is
> > > consistent with an expanding universe. Read the paper, and you will
> > > have it explained - again - why tired light is crap.
>
> > > When you can't figure out something when its' name is given to you and
> > > the first dozen links on google abundantly and clearly explain the
> > > concept for anyone who is even slightly familiar with the field, then
> > > you clearly need to stop discussing tired light and cosmology in
> > > general.
>
> > > I simply do not understand why you believe you can contribute to any
> > > discussion when you don't have any of the required background.
>
> > When it comes to the Big Bang vrs Tired Light idea, thinking about it
> > and talking about it is just for fun.
>
> > You're acting like I'm irreverent and blasphemous. Like you're
> > emotionally attached to ideas.
>
> > Anyways.
>
> > If someone would like to explain the Tolman Surface Brightness test,
> > that would be great.
>
> Why don't you read the links I gave you instead of requiring spoonfed
> information?
I found those links earlier.
Needless to say, I am stupid, and as of yet, do not understand the
Tolman Surface Brightness test.
I didn't think you would explain it. You're more interested in putting
me down.
But someone else might.
theman
> On Mar 24, 11:46 am, theman <genericjoe2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > When it comes to the Big Bang vrs Tired Light idea, thinking about it
> > > and talking about it is just for fun.
>
> > So you find it fun to be ignorant, a look like a fool for everyone...
> > cool if that works for you...
>
> I'm not to worried about my image.
>
> > > You're acting like I'm irreverent and blasphemous. Like you're
> > > emotionally attached to ideas.
>
> > No just that your to ignorant to have any right to discuss these
> > issues...
>
> Any "right"?
>
> Again, you sound like someone who goes to church.
>
> > > Anyways.
>
> > > If someone would like to explain the Tolman Surface Brightness test,
> > > that would be great.
>
> > Yeah why waste the time,
>
> Option A; discuss physics
> Option B; putMikedown
>
> I see what's most important to you.
No I just refuse to spoon feed you information that you can learn
yourself if you feel put down, then try learning about things before
you speak...
Cheers
theman
>
> I found those links earlier.
>
Then read them...
> Needless to say, I am stupid, and as of yet, do not understand the
> Tolman Surface Brightness test.
>
Then make yourself smart, or go away and stop trying to get people to
pity your stupidity....
<snip, mike whining>
> But someone else might.
Anyone who's dealt with you in the past will hopefully have enough
sense to know that what you need is read a book, and will not spoon
feed you, because your to lazy to learn the stuff yourself...
Cheers
Eric Gisse
Then maybe you shouldn't be speculating about a field you cannot
understand even with the required information is put in front of you
and practically spoon fed.
>
> I didn't think you would explain it. You're more interested in putting
> me down.
>
> But someone else might.
If I thought there was a shred of hope that you'd learn, I'd take the
time to teach you what I have learned while reading about it.
Since there isn't, I don't go past the requisite effort of putting the
information out there.
Michael Helland
Well, next time you lament the lack of physics content around here,
maybe you'll remember that you chose not talk physics here because of
some personal issue.
theman
> maybe you'll remember that you chose not talk physics here because of
> some personal issue.
The sooner you go away the sooner physics discussions can happen
without your ignorance and mindless drivel getting in the way...
Cheers
Michael Helland
I get it. When I go away, then random threads about the Tolmon test
will just show up. Sure.
Eric Gisse
Posting here is my hobby. Occasionally I'll write a long post full of
physics in response to something, but those are few and far between
because folks like you won't appreciate it and doing it just isn't the
same when you know it won't be appreciated.
If you want more physics in here, make the effort to learn some
yourself. If you could demonstrate that you want to /learn/ instead of
just /talk/, then I'd be glad to talk more. Otherwise, carry on in
your whining.
Huang
> On Mar 22, 1:05 pm, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 20, 9:36 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > New space distance is being created inbetween matter as the universe
> > > expands. This we observe as apparent galactic motion. But it is not
> > > motion. They are not moving away through space.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
>
> > But isn't distance in itself nothing? So how can it be created?
> > Distance is only relative. Only energy exists.
>
> Distance is dimensional. It grows as the universe expands.
>
Distance is dimensional. You bet it is. Sow how do you model it
"growing" there Mr. 2XNobel Laureates ? Show me some math that makes
it "grow".
mitc...@hotmail.com
Volume is expanding in three dimensional space direction.
Huang
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can model anything any way you want. So show me some math.
Volume is V.
Whats next. (?)
mitc...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Volume is curved.
Huang
So maybe it is. Show the math.
mitc...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
The math is Einstein's curved Riemanian geometry.
The Ghost In The Machine
<mitc...@hotmail.com>
wrote
on Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:08:33 -0700 (PDT)
<e27232b6-c406-40a8...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>:
Math is a vehicle for communication. What is the destination here?
Can you predict a result that can be measured?
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Conventional memory has to be one of the most UNconventional
architectures I've seen in a computer system.
lit...@nbnet.nb.ca
> What i don't get is that if distance is relative to matter and energy
> (distance is not matter and energy), then how can it expand?
Not sure I really understand your question but I might be able to
explain the part about space expanding and its relation to mass and
energy.
I have been posting about an alternative theory that looks at the idea
that because gravity slows time, that its this slowing of time that
expands space. Its testable and gives the same predictions for
expanding space that is now observed.One of my postings where I
describe 2 contracting cubes inside of a space ship falling towards a
black hole is review for you here.For example if time is only about
1/10 of our time the cubes would have also contracted by 10 time less
their original widths note how they would be farther apart yet never
have moved form their original locations.Its like you had 2 cubes of
jellow set beside each other and let them dry out and contract.Note
how they also get farther apart but yet never moved from their
centers.Note that on the space ship we have 2 observers the ones on
the ship and the externals.People on the ship will argue that the
cubes moved apart and never changed in volume but our external outside
observers will argue that the cubes never moved they only contracted
and so becomes a relative thing much the same way time is.Since you
need mass to make gravity,things go to extremes with black holes so
its more obvious and with that the relations where you need mass to
make space, start to become apparent.
Its too much to reprint it all here again except briefly so look for
all my posting as you will find more in them than on the web site
www.alttheories.com as its incomplete but enough is there now to get
you started.
Dale