3 cosmological models
in [Physics]
|
Prev: CRUCIAL THEOREM IN THERMODYNAMICS
Next: Quantum Gravity 369.1: Multiverse-Multivalued Logics Relationship to Gn = Gn-1 - Gn-2 Unification
From: eric gisse on 7 May 2010 19:09 Michael Helland wrote: > On May 7, 9:39 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 5/7/10 7:46 AM, Michael Helland wrote: >> >> > On May 6, 9:10 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html >> >> > Sam, I will have to say, I am genuinely happy about your response. >> >> > But these days I'm leaning toward redshift being a function of the >> > duration of light's journey from a distant galaxy to our telescopes. >> >> That has been shown to be wrong > > How could that possibly be when there is a 1 to 1 relationship between > distance and duration light travel's in an expanding Universe? > > If light can't be redshifted as a function of how long in duration it > is traveling, than the Big Bang would be falsified. Except it is. Hurry up and go away so we can have another 4 months w/o your idiocy.
From: Michael Helland on 8 May 2010 03:11 On May 7, 2:39 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/7/10 3:48 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > > > On May 7, 9:36 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 5/7/10 7:41 AM, Michael Helland wrote: > > >>> Tell me this, is the big bang an unquestionable fact, Alan? > > >> Look at the evidence! > > >> No Center > >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html > >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html > > >> Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial > >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm > >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html > >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html > > >> WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory > >> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html > > >> WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology > >> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html > > > That makes it a good theory, not an unquestionable fact. > > > But the way of science is sometimes a better theory comes along. > > http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0504481v1http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0504481 > > > > > > > ABSTRACT > > We have obtained high-quality Keck optical spectra at three epochs of the > > Type Ia supernova 1997ex, whose redshift z is 0.361. The elapsed calendar time > > between the first two spectra was 24.88 d, and that between the first and third > > spectra was 30.95 d. In an expanding universe where 1 + z represents the factor > > by which space has expanded between the emission and detection of light, the > > amount of aging in the supernova rest frame should be a factor of 1/(1 + z) > > smaller than the observed-frame aging; thus, we expect SN 1997ex to have aged > > 18.28 d and 22.74 d between the first epoch and the second and third epochs, > > respectively. The quantitative method for determining the spectral-feature age > > of a SN Ia, developed by Riess et al. (1997), reveals that the corresponding > > elapsed times in the supernova rest frame were 16.97±2.75 d and 18.01±3.14 d, > > respectively. This result is inconsistent with no time dilation with a significance > > level of 99.0%, providing evidence against tired light and other hypotheses in > > which no time dilation is expected. Moreover, the observed timescale of spectral > > evolution is inconsistent with that expected in the variable mass theory. The > > result is within 1 of the aging expected from a universe in which redshift is > > produced by cosmic expansion. Of course. Like I said, tired light doesn't predict time dilation. But slow light does predict time dilation. If light slows down on its way to our telescopes, it will act as though it encountered extra distance, because the duration of its journey gets stretched out. > http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/ep-79-how-big-is-the-universe/ > > http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0005229http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0005229 > > > > > In the spring of 1996, I switched from the SCP to the HZT. > > Although I continued to work with the SCP on some aspects > > of their project, such as the reduction and analysis of Keck > > spectra of high-z supernova candidates, my primary allegiance > > was with the HZT. The switch occurred largely because of > > differences in style and culture: I preferred to work within the > > somewhat amorphous structure of the HZT, where my voice > > was more likely to be heard. Also, the HZTs ways of resolving > > issues of scientific procedures and credit were more to my > > liking. As was previously the case with the SCP, on the HZT > > I was still largely responsible for the Keck spectroscopy of SN > > candidates. However, I was also more closely involved with > > the cosmological interpretationand indeed, a great opportunity > > presented itself when Adam G. Riess, formerly Bob Kirshners > > graduate student at the CfA, came to the University of California, > > Berkeley in 1996 September as a Miller Postdoctoral > > Fellow to work with me. > > One of Adams first projects was to develop a quantitative > > method for determining the age of a SN Ia from its spectrum. > > His spectral feature age technique turned out to work remarkably > > well, and we were able to demonstrate that the spectrum > > of SN 1996bj (z p 0.57) evolved more slowly by a factor > > of 1 z p 1.57 than that of a nearby, low-redshift SN Ia (Riess > > et al. 1997). This effectively eliminated tired light and other > > nonexpansion hypotheses for the redshifts of objects at cosmological > > distances. (For nonstandard cosmological interpretations > > of all the SN Ia data, see Narlikar & Arp 1997 and > > Hoyle, Burbidge, & Narlikar 2000; a proper assessment of these > > possible alternatives is beyond the scope of this essay.) Although > > one might have been able to argue that something other > > than universal expansion could be the cause of the apparent > > stretching of SN Ia light curves at high redshifts, it was much > > more difficult to attribute apparently slower evolution of spectral > > details to an unknown effect. In a collaboration involving > > me, Kirshner, and SCP members Perlmutter and Peter Nugent, > > Adam used spectral feature ages to develop a method for determining > > snapshot distances of SNe Ia from just a single > > spectrum and a single night of multifilter photometry (Riess et > > al. 1998a). Such distances are slightly less precise than those > > obtained from well-sampled SN light curves, but they have the > > advantage of requiring much less telescope time.
From: Sam Wormley on 8 May 2010 06:37 On 5/8/10 2:11 AM, Michael Helland wrote: > > Like I said, tired light doesn't predict time dilation. > > But slow light does predict time dilation. > > If light slows down on its way to our telescopes, it will act as > though it encountered extra distance, because the duration of its > journey gets stretched out. > Instead of continuing to fool yourself Michael why don't you read the cited papers and benefit from some self-education. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0504481v1 http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0504481 http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/ep-79-how-big-is-the-universe/ http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0005229 http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0005229
From: nuny on 8 May 2010 07:16
On May 6, 3:21 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 1. Big Bang, v = HD, the light encounters expanding distances > 2. Zwicky's Tired Light Model, the light loses energy > 3. My model, v = c - Hd, light has a finite range and loses velocity First problem. In number 1, light is considered not to experience time; it has no "memory" other than its own energy (which determines its observed frequency and wavelength) and of course its speed doesn't vary. In number 3, light's speed is variable, but you need an absolute reference, which there ain't any. Consider; how does light "know" how fast it is going at any point in its path? Where is its memory stored? How does it change states? (What does it absorb/emit in order to change states? Where do those bits come from/go to?) How often does it change states? Measured against what? In other words, in number 3, what is light's preferred frame? Secnd problem. According to both 1 and 3, light that was originally emitted in the visible will at some distance have redshifted into the microwave (CMBR). According to you, when it started out the CMBR must have been fresh (fast) hot high energy photons that at our distance decay to dim (slow) microwaves. But, my radar gun also produces fresh, "undecayed" microwave photons which being freshly minted, according to your "theory" should move at an unaltered c. What then, is the difference between your slow "stale" microwaves and my fast fresh ones? Mark L. Fergerson |