Hubble Redshift is the expansion of time
in [Physics]
|
Prev: The Special Theory of Discrete Continuity
Next: Accentuate the negative & sell BP's cap&trade nostrum (IPCC)
From: Sam Wormley on 8 Jul 2010 20:23 On 7/8/10 1:48 AM, Michael Helland wrote: > On Jul 7, 5:17 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/7/10 4:16 PM, Michael Helland wrote: >> >>> The increase in time is the central feature of all cosmological >>> observations, not the expansion of space, which you don't actually >>> need if you accept Hubble redshift for what it is, evidence that light >>> slows down over millions and millions of lights years of traveling. >> >> Actually, Michael, you are quite wrong. The tired light theory >> is contradicted by observational data. > > The tired light theory in no way includes the expansion of time, which > the Big Bang does. > > What I'm suggesting is entirely novel. "expansion of time"? Got an equation? You know Michael, what you really need are some physics textbooks and the fortitude to read them and work the problems. Physics FAQ: A Physics Booklist: Recommendations from the Net http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/booklist.html
From: Michael Helland on 9 Jul 2010 07:53 On Jul 8, 5:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/8/10 1:48 AM, Michael Helland wrote: > > > On Jul 7, 5:17 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/7/10 4:16 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > > >>> The increase in time is the central feature of all cosmological > >>> observations, not the expansion of space, which you don't actually > >>> need if you accept Hubble redshift for what it is, evidence that light > >>> slows down over millions and millions of lights years of traveling. > > >> Actually, Michael, you are quite wrong. The tired light theory > >> is contradicted by observational data. > > > The tired light theory in no way includes the expansion of time, which > > the Big Bang does. > > > What I'm suggesting is entirely novel. > > "expansion of time"? Got an equation? v = c - Ht where v is the speed of light in a vacuum, c is ~300000km/sec, H is 21.7 km/sec/million years and t is how long the light has been traveling in millions of years. This means the light slows down (the properties of spacetime are not Universal and don't hold at all scales). If light slows down on its journey, that means the duration of its journey increases. You call increasing distance "the expansion of space". Well, why not call increasing duration "the expansion of time". Whatever you want to call it, the mathematics are right there. It might be unfortunate the Hubble redshift tells us that special relativity as-is doesn't hold at the vast distances where the redshift is observed, but that's science. Its an old and exhausted theory. It has to strain itself pretty bad to tell us how superclusters could form in the time frame the model gives it, a time frame not predicted by the model, but which is always being adjusted to meet the new evidence that contradicts it. Its a theory whose time has come and is on the way of going. Don't go acting like your girlfriend broke up with you, or someone pissed on your Koran. > You know Michael, what you really need are some physics textbooks > and the fortitude to read them and work the problems. > > Physics FAQ: A Physics Booklist: Recommendations from the Net > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/booklist.html
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 11:56 On 7/9/10 6:44 AM, Michael Helland wrote: > H = 21.77 Where did you get H = 21.77 km/s/1000000years? The Hubble constant, often denoted as H_o is typically measured as 72�4 km/s/Mpc, which is in the form of a velocity per distance. Whereas you incorrectly have it as a velocity per time! Can you explain this apparent discrepancy?
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 11:58 On 7/9/10 6:53 AM, Michael Helland wrote: > v = c - Ht > > where v is the speed of light in a vacuum, c is ~300000km/sec, H is > 21.7 km/sec/million years and t is how long the light has been > traveling in millions of years. > Where did you get H = 21.77 km/s/1000000years? The Hubble constant, often denoted as H_o is typically measured as 72?4 km/s/Mpc, which is in the form of a velocity per distance. Whereas you incorrectly have it as a velocity per time! Can you explain this apparent discrepancy?
From: Michael Helland on 9 Jul 2010 12:29
On Jul 9, 8:56 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/9/10 6:44 AM, Michael Helland wrote: > > > H = 21.77 > > Where did you get H = 21.77 km/s/1000000years? > > The Hubble constant, often denoted as H_o is typically measured > as 72±4 km/s/Mpc, which is in the form of a velocity per distance. > Whereas you incorrectly have it as a velocity per time! Can you > explain this apparent discrepancy? Explaining that was the purpose of the original post. Here: Now, Hubble's Constant is defined in units of km/sec/Mpc or km/sec/ Mly. Either way, Mpc or Mly, this is in terms of distance. Wouldn't it also be possible to determine the expansion rate based on time instead of distance? Wouldn't it be mathematically equivalent to make the same determinations if Hubble's law looked like this: v = H_0 * t where H_0 = 21 km/sec per million years, and where t is how many millions of years light traveled? Because the speed of light is constant, in the Big Bang model, it should make no difference as to whether or not the Universe expands in relation to distance or in relation to time. What's more, is that the "expansion of time" is an unavoidable consequence of the expansion of space. But I don't think it is true vice versa. There is a manner of expanding time without expanding space. This leads me to ask, is it all possible that the expansion of time is the central cause of cosmological observations (redshifts, time dilation in light curves) and that the expansion of space is but one method of achieving the expansion of space? That may be an interesting question *if* I can show that time can expand while space remains static. But that's simple. Hubble redshift is clear empirical evidence: light loses energy as it travels the cosmos. Instead of trying to fit this evidence into our theories, why not try to adapt the theory to fit the evidence? We have to accept that Hubble redshift is clear empirical evidence that the conservation of energy is not Universal, it has a limited domain of applicability. We have to accept that Hubble redshift is clear empirical evidence that Newtonian physics and also Special Relativity. We have to accept that light has a finite range. If we can accept that, and we can accept that light slows down as it reaches the end of its range, then we explain why it redshifts, why we observe time dilation, and why the observable cosmos is finite. We can understand that even though light's journey from a galaxy 50 million light years way will take longer than 50 million years, it is only the *time* that increases and not the *distance*, which is still 50 million light years away. Shorter distances means a stronger force of gravity, which means we don't need as much dark matter, if we need any at all. A finite range of light means the Universe itself is indefinitely old, which means the great walls and voids and superclusters had more than enough time to evolve. No inflationary field is required. A finite range would mean that the apparent recessional velocity of a galaxy is only *apparent*, just as Hubble stressed over and over as he expressed his doubts about the expansion of space. The galaxies aren't moving, and they aren't the reason their light appears redshift. Its the internal dynamics of the light itself that causes it to redshift. |