Prev: asteroid visited by a "satellite"
Next: What do real scientist say about Abiogenesis:Alexandre Meinesz:
From: PD on 12 Jul 2010 16:15
On Jul 12, 1:46 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:24:41 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 10, 6:27 pm, ..@..(Marvin) wrote:
> >> Yes folks, without Einstein light could lose energy as it travels, slow down
> >> and turn red. There would be no need for an expanding universe or big bang.
>
> >I don't know why you would worry about what relativity would REQUIRE.
> >The question is what observations it explains well, and whether there
> >are a lot of them that it doesn't explain well. The very same issue is
> >what tired-light models have faced. So far, relativity wins.
>
> It would be extremely unusual for anything to travel for millions of years
> without being affected by whatever it meets on the way.

You're right. And light does scatter off the dust it interacts with on
the way. That, however, is accounted for and does not account for the
red-shift observed.

You perhaps also know that stars in the same galaxy show differential
redshift that corresponds to their motion in the galaxy. Now perhaps
you'd argue that the light from the stars on one side of the galaxy
are obviously more tired than the light from the other side of the
galaxy.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> Currently, religious fanatics of all persuasions are united behind Einstein
> >> because he alone has provided the vital link between science and their various
> >> belief systems, ie., that their various imaginary gods 'made the earth in seven
> >> days'.
>
> >> No doubt all conventional religions would be now struggling to survive had
> >> Einstein not concocted his famous second postulate.
>
> >> The question arises, WAS...or more precisely """IS""" EINSTEIN himself the
> >> actual one and only illusive GOD? After all, he has certainly attracted many
> >> braindead worshippers... like all the other gods of history.  Did he design and
> >> build the whole bloody shebang himself? ....after all, he never came across as
> >> being 100% human.
> >> Maybe Einstein put all those fossils in the rocks just to fool the sinful
> >> non-believers..... and....was it he who strung up the other bloke on a cross
> >> as some kind of publicity stunt?
>
> >> One can only wonder....
>
> Henry Wilson...
>
> .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Henry Wilson DSc on 12 Jul 2010 18:04
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:48:40 -0500, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/12/10 1:39 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:22:28 -0500, Sam Wormley<swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/11/10 5:31 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>>> Light ... loses energy as it travels, hence the redshift.
>>>
>>> Wrong again, Henri--In the late 1920's, the astronomer Edwin Hubble
>>> first observed that distant galaxies are moving away from us, just as
>>> would be expected if the space between galaxies were growing in volume -
>>> and just as predicted by Einstein's theory of gravity. Since then,
>>> astronomers have measured this recession for millions of galaxies. But
>>> there's other evidence as well.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#Observational_evidence
>>>
>>>
>>> Are galaxies really moving away from us or is space just expanding?
>>> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX
>>>
>>> "This depends on how you measure things, or your choice of coordinates.
>>> In one view, the spatial positions of galaxies are changing, and this
>>> causes the redshift. In another view, the galaxies are at fixed
>>> coordinates, but the distance between fixed points increases with time,
>>> and this causes the redshift. General relativity explains how to
>>> transform from one view to the other, and the observable effects like
>>> the redshift are the same in both views. Part 3 of the tutorial shows
>>> space-time diagrams for the Universe drawn in both ways".
>>>
>>> "In the absence of the cosmological constant, an object released at rest
>>> with respect to us does not then fly away from us to join the Hubble
>>> flow. Instead, it falls toward us, and then joins the Hubble flow on the
>>> other side of the sky, as discussed by Davis, Lineweaver& Webb (2003,
>>> AJP, 71, 358). In what are arguably the most reasonable coordinates, the
>>> cosmic time t and the distance D(t) measured entirely at the cosmic time
>>> t, the acceleration is given by g = -GM(r<D)/D2 where M(r<D) is the mass
>>> contained within radius D. This gives g =
>>> -(4*pi/3)*G*(rho(t)+3P(t)/c2)*D(t). The 3P/c2 term is a general
>>> relativistic correction to the otherwise Newtonian dynamics. Galaxies
>>> all move under the influence of this acceleration and their initial
>>> position and velocity. In other words, F = ma and gravity provides the
>>> force. Nothing extra or weird is needed".
>>
>> (:
>>
>> Henry Wilson...
>>
>> .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
>
> Obviously, Henri, you have no idea what I posted, or any understanding
> of relativity theory. You are relegated to belittling what you cannot
> understand.

(:

Time and space are totally unrelated fundamental dimensions.

Henry Wilson...

........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 12 Jul 2010 18:10
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:15:34 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 12, 1:46�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:24:41 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jul 10, 6:27�pm, ..@..(Marvin) wrote:
>> >> Yes folks, without Einstein light could lose energy as it travels, slow down
>> >> and turn red. There would be no need for an expanding universe or big bang.
>>
>> >I don't know why you would worry about what relativity would REQUIRE.
>> >The question is what observations it explains well, and whether there
>> >are a lot of them that it doesn't explain well. The very same issue is
>> >what tired-light models have faced. So far, relativity wins.
>>
>> It would be extremely unusual for anything to travel for millions of years
>> without being affected by whatever it meets on the way.
>
>You're right. And light does scatter off the dust it interacts with on
>the way. That, however, is accounted for and does not account for the
>red-shift observed.
>
>You perhaps also know that stars in the same galaxy show differential
>redshift that corresponds to their motion in the galaxy. Now perhaps
>you'd argue that the light from the stars on one side of the galaxy
>are obviously more tired than the light from the other side of the
>galaxy.

Internal 'tired light' redshifts are pretty negligible. More important are the
distances of source and observer from the galactic centre.

We lie on the ourtskirts of the Milky Way. Average cosmic light is emitted from
near the centres of galaxies and arrives at Earth at <c. It is further
redshifted for that reason.

>> >> Currently, religious fanatics of all persuasions are united behind Einstein
>> >> because he alone has provided the vital link between science and their various
>> >> belief systems, ie., that their various imaginary gods 'made the earth in seven
>> >> days'.
>>


Henry Wilson...

........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: eric gisse on 12 Jul 2010 13:23
...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
[...]

> We lie on the ourtskirts of the Milky Way. Average cosmic light is emitted
> from near the centres of galaxies and arrives at Earth at <c. It is
> further redshifted for that reason.

So if you multiple the wavelength of light obtained by a diffraction grating
times the frequency of light obtained via a waveguide / bolometer, you think
it will show more than, less than, or exactly c?

[...]
From: eric gisse on 12 Jul 2010 15:38
...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
[...]

> Time and space are totally unrelated fundamental dimensions.

On one hand, we have experiments that say they are.

On the other hand, we have Henry Wilson who says they are not. Henry Wilson
posts forged degrees and lies about the stupidest things.

>
> Henry Wilson...
>
> .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: asteroid visited by a "satellite"
Next: What do real scientist say about Abiogenesis:Alexandre Meinesz: