Bigbang, a fantasy?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 7 Jan 2010 19:59 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:7pabk554sl4uqkfo0a935m8hke7n13gngd(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 07:34:24 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:pk0bk59jk0c1fn2ivq95qt2bvqtnggrnsl(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 06:04:31 -0000, "Androcles" >>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:hi3lhi$qv6$5(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>>> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:15:09 -0800, eric gisse >>>>>> <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:32:36 -0800 (PST), mluttgens >>>>>>>> <mluttgens(a)orange.fr> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>See http://www.spacetelescope.org/new/htmeheic1007.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Marcel Luttgens >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There was no BB. Light loses energy as it travels. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Well it makes sense if you don't accept relativity, there's no way >>>>>>>you'd >>>>>>>accept any part of modern cosmology. >>>>>> >>>>>> mine is the most modern >>>>> >>>>[...] >>> >>> Just because I told inertial to shove a cow turd in her mouth to shut >>> her >>> up >>> doesn't mean you had to do it too. >>> >> >>What does the inert one have to do with me snipping gisse? >>You are only trading byte-sized flames with bit-sized shitheads >>anyway, you aren't discussing anything interesting with any of >>them. > > No, but they are so stupid I'm laughing my bloody head off at their posts. > Haven't laughed so much in years. > We've thinned the ranks but there will always be the diehard bigots. Bound to happen, I suppose, but you've gone along with their mentality and made a newsgroup into a chat room. As my old grandfather used to say, "It's like a bloody German coffee shop in here, everybody talking and nobody listening". I'm not sure he knew what German coffee shops are like, though, he joined the Royal Navy and went to war with the Kaiser.
From: Androcles on 7 Jan 2010 20:43 "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hi5qas$ibd$6(a)news.eternal-september.org... > ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > [...] [...] Androcles stumps Gisse yet again!
From: Androcles on 7 Jan 2010 23:46 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:7qbdk59mdru622qt89cocjn9iv5p5j7v2g(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:59:20 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:7pabk554sl4uqkfo0a935m8hke7n13gngd(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 07:34:24 -0000, "Androcles" >>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> >>> wrote: > >>>>What does the inert one have to do with me snipping gisse? >>>>You are only trading byte-sized flames with bit-sized shitheads >>>>anyway, you aren't discussing anything interesting with any of >>>>them. >>> >>> No, but they are so stupid I'm laughing my bloody head off at their >>> posts. >>> Haven't laughed so much in years. >>> >>We've thinned the ranks but there will always be the diehard bigots. >>Bound to happen, I suppose, but you've gone along with their >>mentality and made a newsgroup into a chat room. As my old >>grandfather used to say, "It's like a bloody German coffee shop in >>here, everybody talking and nobody listening". I'm not sure he knew >>what German coffee shops are like, though, he joined the Royal Navy >>and went to war with the Kaiser. > > Did he kill him? By Gisse/PD/Inert/Wormley logic he must have, he's dead. That's the same logic as global worming. The planet is worming up, it must be caused by Wormley.
From: John Kennaugh on 8 Jan 2010 06:23 Androcles wrote: > >"John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >news:yqX+C7HNicRLFwar(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk... >> Androcles wrote: >>> >>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>>news:i1u9k5h9o9vo71snujj5q2j65ai8qape0b(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:32:36 -0800 (PST), mluttgens <mluttgens(a)orange.fr> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>See http://www.spacetelescope.org/new/htmeheic1007.html >>>>> >>>>>Marcel Luttgens >>>> >>>> There was no BB. Light loses energy as it travels. >>>> >>>Nonsense. Light spreads its energy over an ever-increasing area, none is >>>lost. >>>If I fire six rounds at you and only one hits, you "lost" five of them. >> >> Except where vast distance is involved light gets fainter but does not >> change colour. "Spreading over an ever increasing area" is "getting >> fainter". > >Inverse square law (or one of them), together with E = h(nu). > >Star emits N photons per unit of time, omnidirectionally. >At a distance of 1 string, M photons fall on one square eyeball >in one unit of time. >At a distance of 2 strings, M/4 photons fall on one square eyeball >in one unit of time. >At a distance of 4 strings, M/16 photons fall on one square eyeball >in one unit of time. >At a distance of 5 strings, only one photon falls on one square eyeball >in one unit of time. >At a distance of 6 strings, only one photon falls on one square eyeball >and it takes more than one unit of time for it to happen, so the exposure >time has to be increased. >But at 7 strings the star is so faint it can only be seen as part of galaxy, >and stars that are part of galaxies are circling. >That means the light they emit is travelling at c+v as they approach >and c-v as they recede. Being 7 strings away, the fast light emitted >later catches up with the slow light emitted earlier, like this: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF >For most of the time, most of the stars are Wilson-Sekerin time >expanded and red-shifted. (Wilson saw it before I did and Sekerin >knew about it.) Occasionally the star will appear to go nova >as the blue shifted photons arrive, but this doesn't last long. I am trying to understand what you are saying. I see from your diagram that if light speed is source dependent it will result in redshift most of the time and blue shift for a much shorter period (on the diagram marked region of reversal). Questions arising. 1/ What is the time scale between reversals? i.e. something which could be observed or is the time scale so long it exceeds the period we have been able to observe. 2/ Surely a galaxy which is edge-on would give a large redshift while one face-on very little. Applying conventional interpretation 'distant' galaxies' would be edge on while 'near' galaxies would be face on - I would have thought that would be noticed. 3/ I'm a little confused in that you say that "Occasionally the star will appear to go nova" but your argument seems to hinge on the idea that you can no longer see individual stars only the galaxy as a whole. >> Using your analogy if the bullet is fired in outer space the impact energy >> of each bullet (analogous to colour) will not vary with distance although >> the number of bullets hitting you may. > >The bullets are from a machine gun mounted on a crank. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Engine.gif >If you are far enough away a cluster of bullets will arrive in bursts >and then there will be a lull in the rate of slow bullet arrival. > > >> If the bullets are fired in air then friction would reduce their energy >> with distance analogous to red shift. >> >> You have perhaps 4 scenarios. >> 1/ a photon doesn't hit anything and arrives as it set out. >> 2/ a photon hits something - end of photon. >> 3/ a photon interacts with something causing a loss of energy. >> 4/ a photon interacts with something causing no loss of energy. >> >5/ a photon's speed is relative to the source. > > > >> We can ignore 2 we have nothing to observe. >> The question then comes down to "can a photon travel vast distances >> through space without interacting with anything" or put another way what >> percentage would come into category 1. >> >> Fox suggested extinction effects due to interstellar particles. Whether >> you believe in the extinction effect or not if Fox's guesstimate is >> anywhere near correct it suggests that all photons are likely to have >> encountered a matter particle by the time they have travelled 1 ly so for >> distances where red shift is noticeable we can rule out 1 and we are left >> with 3 and 4. I see no reason why all interactions should be loss less so >> even if some are scenario 4 it would not rule out the "tired light" >> explanation. However it depends not only on the validity of 3 which might >> be considered in itself a certainty, but on an interaction where the loss >> of energy is minute and near constant. >> >We can ignore 1,2,3 and 4, the logical answer is 5. >Even with its false colour, this image doesn't show Hubble's red shift >for all galaxies. > http://harleyk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/HubbleDeepFieldL.jpg >I conclude Hubble was cherry-picking his galaxies to suit his theory. I assume that Hubble's 'law' was formulated by correlating distances measured using parallax with redshift giving a limited data-base with increasing "error bars" with distance. >The universe is infinite, the big bonk is a fantasy. OTOH I can't think of a good reason why it should be static. Suppose the entire universe is rotating. The further from the centre of rotation a galaxy is the larger its speed and the greater its transverse Doppler. Note that emission theory predicts the same transverse Doppler as SR. Everything in the universe appears to be rotating or orbiting around something else. If the universe as a whole is not rotating it is unique in that respect. If it is rotating then transverse redshift would increase with distance. -- John Kennaugh
From: Androcles on 8 Jan 2010 12:38
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:Fmozx0DzWxRLFwNY(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk... > Androcles wrote: >> >>"John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:yqX+C7HNicRLFwar(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk... >>> Androcles wrote: >>>> >>>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>>>news:i1u9k5h9o9vo71snujj5q2j65ai8qape0b(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:32:36 -0800 (PST), mluttgens >>>>> <mluttgens(a)orange.fr> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>See http://www.spacetelescope.org/new/htmeheic1007.html >>>>>> >>>>>>Marcel Luttgens >>>>> >>>>> There was no BB. Light loses energy as it travels. >>>>> >>>>Nonsense. Light spreads its energy over an ever-increasing area, none is >>>>lost. >>>>If I fire six rounds at you and only one hits, you "lost" five of them. >>> >>> Except where vast distance is involved light gets fainter but does not >>> change colour. "Spreading over an ever increasing area" is "getting >>> fainter". >> >>Inverse square law (or one of them), together with E = h(nu). >> >>Star emits N photons per unit of time, omnidirectionally. >>At a distance of 1 string, M photons fall on one square eyeball >>in one unit of time. >>At a distance of 2 strings, M/4 photons fall on one square eyeball >>in one unit of time. >>At a distance of 4 strings, M/16 photons fall on one square eyeball >>in one unit of time. >>At a distance of 5 strings, only one photon falls on one square eyeball >>in one unit of time. >>At a distance of 6 strings, only one photon falls on one square eyeball >>and it takes more than one unit of time for it to happen, so the exposure >>time has to be increased. >>But at 7 strings the star is so faint it can only be seen as part of >>galaxy, >>and stars that are part of galaxies are circling. >>That means the light they emit is travelling at c+v as they approach >>and c-v as they recede. Being 7 strings away, the fast light emitted >>later catches up with the slow light emitted earlier, like this: >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF >>For most of the time, most of the stars are Wilson-Sekerin time >>expanded and red-shifted. (Wilson saw it before I did and Sekerin >>knew about it.) Occasionally the star will appear to go nova >>as the blue shifted photons arrive, but this doesn't last long. > > I am trying to understand what you are saying. I see from your diagram > that if light speed is source dependent it will result in redshift most of > the time and blue shift for a much shorter period (on the diagram marked > region of reversal). Questions arising. That's right. > > 1/ What is the time scale between reversals? i.e. something which could be > observed or is the time scale so long it exceeds the period we have been > able to observe. What is the period of a galaxy and how far away is it? Let's say it's a million years to make one complete orbit. You have to position yourself somewhere on the vertical scale and sit there for a million years to see one cycle for one star. Let's say you see it red for 550,000 years and blue for 450,000 years. Then choose a further position and sit there for another million years. This time you see it red for 600,000 years and blue for 400,000 years. But that's just one star, they are all doing it at a different phase. So the overall effect is more dull red than bright blue and that increases with distance. > > 2/ Surely a galaxy which is edge-on would give a large redshift while one > face-on very little. Applying conventional interpretation 'distant' > galaxies' would be edge on while 'near' galaxies would be face on - I > would have thought that would be noticed. See for yourself: http://harleyk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/HubbleDeepFieldL.jpg http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/hdf/DetailWF4.gif http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/universe/images/tour_ggs_hdf_l.jpg I count as much blue as I do red in those images, but you be the judge. > 3/ I'm a little confused in that you say that "Occasionally the star will > appear to go nova" but your argument seems to hinge on the idea that you > can no longer see individual stars only the galaxy as a whole. > When one star reaches its maximum output it'll shine above the rest. This gives astronomers a distance clue, they have very little else to work with other than magnitude. Parallax only works locally and not at all for galaxies. Even the nearest, M31 in Andromeda or the Megallanic clouds, are only approximated. The estimate for M31 is 2.0 +/- 0.5 million light years. Astronomy is a very imprecise science when it comes to distance. > >>> Using your analogy if the bullet is fired in outer space the impact >>> energy >>> of each bullet (analogous to colour) will not vary with distance >>> although >>> the number of bullets hitting you may. >> >>The bullets are from a machine gun mounted on a crank. >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Engine.gif >>If you are far enough away a cluster of bullets will arrive in bursts >>and then there will be a lull in the rate of slow bullet arrival. >> >> >>> If the bullets are fired in air then friction would reduce their energy >>> with distance analogous to red shift. >>> >>> You have perhaps 4 scenarios. >>> 1/ a photon doesn't hit anything and arrives as it set out. >>> 2/ a photon hits something - end of photon. >>> 3/ a photon interacts with something causing a loss of energy. >>> 4/ a photon interacts with something causing no loss of energy. >>> >>5/ a photon's speed is relative to the source. >> >> >> >>> We can ignore 2 we have nothing to observe. >>> The question then comes down to "can a photon travel vast distances >>> through space without interacting with anything" or put another way what >>> percentage would come into category 1. >>> >>> Fox suggested extinction effects due to interstellar particles. Whether >>> you believe in the extinction effect or not if Fox's guesstimate is >>> anywhere near correct it suggests that all photons are likely to have >>> encountered a matter particle by the time they have travelled 1 ly so >>> for >>> distances where red shift is noticeable we can rule out 1 and we are >>> left >>> with 3 and 4. I see no reason why all interactions should be loss less >>> so >>> even if some are scenario 4 it would not rule out the "tired light" >>> explanation. However it depends not only on the validity of 3 which >>> might >>> be considered in itself a certainty, but on an interaction where the >>> loss >>> of energy is minute and near constant. >>> >>We can ignore 1,2,3 and 4, the logical answer is 5. >>Even with its false colour, this image doesn't show Hubble's red shift >>for all galaxies. >> http://harleyk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/HubbleDeepFieldL.jpg >>I conclude Hubble was cherry-picking his galaxies to suit his theory. > > I assume that Hubble's 'law' was formulated by correlating distances > measured using parallax with redshift giving a limited data-base with > increasing "error bars" with distance. > >>The universe is infinite, the big bonk is a fantasy. > > OTOH I can't think of a good reason why it should be static. A static population is one where the number of births equals the number of deaths, it doesn't mean individuals live forever. The steady state universe is infinite in both time and space, but individual stars are born and die. Where the clouds of matter that form stars comes from is not known, but they are definitely there. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap970119.html Grasping the infinite is difficult from most people, but the opposite, a finite universe, is anathema. What is outside it but more nothing, and beyond the edge of the furthest galaxy why can't there be another galaxy? I can always add one to the highest number there is. > Suppose the entire universe is rotating. That's impossible for me to imagine. It implies a centre of rotation and we would be at it. Geocentricity went out with Copernicus and is illogical. > The further from the centre of rotation a galaxy is the larger its speed > and the greater its transverse Doppler. Simply not observed and anyway the galaxies are independent of each other. You couldn't even get water going down the kitchen sink to do that, it would drag against the side walls. Drop some corks or styrofoam crumbs in and watch. > Note that emission theory predicts the same transverse Doppler as SR. Note that emission theory predicts NO transverse Doppler, the opposite of SR. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img110.gif That's as far blueshifted as you can get and proof Einstein was a ranting lunatic. It is also proof that he knew what a vector is, but only when it suited him. Where do you get these outlandish ideas from? > Everything in the universe appears to be rotating or orbiting around > something else. If the universe as a whole is not rotating it is unique in > that respect. If it is rotating then transverse redshift would increase > with distance. If everything revolves around something else then something else revolves around everything. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/barycentre.gif |