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: eric gisse on 10 Jul 2010 18:47 Michael Helland wrote: [...] > My hypothesis is that the light loses speed at cosmological distances > between interactions. Time delay gravitational lenses wouldn't work if you were right. Goddamn you need to find a hobby you are good at. [snip rest, unread]
From: Michael Helland on 10 Jul 2010 19:00 On Jul 10, 3:47 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Michael Helland wrote: > > [...] > > > My hypothesis is that the light loses speed at cosmological distances > > between interactions. > > Time delay gravitational lenses wouldn't work if you were right. Goddamn you > need to find a hobby you are good at. I'm referring to EM interactions, when its absorbed and emitted by electrically charged particles. Gravity may work on EM, but EM doesn't work on gravity. If it did we would probably be able to detect gravitons using photons. But we can't. That's a falsifiable statement. This indicates a larger research program than what I've so far indicated in this thread.
From: Sam Wormley on 10 Jul 2010 20:39 On 7/10/10 3:40 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > On Jul 10, 6:46 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/10/10 1:39 AM, Michael Helland wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 9, 10:54 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/10/10 12:18 AM, Michael Helland wrote: >> >>>>> On Jul 9, 5:16 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>> On a quantum level, that means the light will be absorbed (with the >>>>>>> redshifted frequency) and re-emitted without adding an energy. >> >>>>>> What ever gave you that the wavelength was shifted by a mirror? >> >>>>> Measurements of increased wavelength and decreased frequency from >>>>> cosmological light. >> >>>> One can measure the spectra of a light source directly and then >>>> reflected by a mirror and see that the spectra are identical. >> >>> Not if the light source is millions of miles away. >> >> Take the sun for example--millions of miles away. Using a >> diffraction grating, sunlight is broken into its spectra. >> >> See:http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap100627.html > > This says: > > "Shown above are all the visible colors of the Sun, produced by > passing the Sun's light through a prism-like device." > > When the light passes through that device, at the quantum level it is > absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in the device. > > The hypothesis dictates the light only travels slower than c as > cosmological scales between interactions. > > Since the electrons in the prism are not separated by a cosmological, > the light travels at c, according the formula. > > Since the redshifted frequency and energy isn't magically recovered, > the wavelength (which requires no energy) does match up to c = f * w. > > That is exactly what we observe from light coming out of the prism. > > > Again, not the accepted theory, but in agreement with observation none- > the-less. > > > > > >> Reflect the sunlight with a mirror before the diffraction grating >> and on gets identical spectra. >> >> The same is true for any other star or galaxy. Any Doppler or and >> cosmic red shift is preserved by the mirror. The distance photons >> traveled from their sources and the associate red or blue shift is >> not altered by the optics of the telescope. >> >> Anyone who would continue to be confused by that might be dumber >> than a pail of nails (which is not as bad as being dumber than a >> box of rocks). I'm not saying you are dumb, Michael, but I'm starting >> to raise my eyebrows. > Try a diffraction grating. Reflect the sunlight with a mirror before the diffraction grating and on gets identical spectra. The same is true for any other star or galaxy. Any Doppler or and cosmic red shift is preserved by the mirror. The distance photons traveled from their sources and the associate red or blue shift is not altered by the optics of the telescope.
From: eric gisse on 11 Jul 2010 00:56 Michael Helland wrote: > On Jul 10, 3:47 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Michael Helland wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> > My hypothesis is that the light loses speed at cosmological distances >> > between interactions. >> >> Time delay gravitational lenses wouldn't work if you were right. Goddamn >> you need to find a hobby you are good at. > > > I'm referring to EM interactions, when its absorbed and emitted by > electrically charged particles. A subject you know an abundant nothing about, by the way. > > Gravity may work on EM, but EM doesn't work on gravity. Two subjects you know nothing about. > > If it did we would probably be able to detect gravitons using photons. > But we can't. That's a falsifiable statement. > > This indicates a larger research program than what I've so far > indicated in this thread. All that is indicated is that you are clueless. Nobody said anything about gravitons, nor are they even relevant to time delay gravitational lenses. Lenses make light travel along entirely different optical paths, that will be significantly different in distance. Your halfassed theory means time delays would be years/decades/centuries rather than hours/days. Find a new hobby.
From: Michael Helland on 11 Jul 2010 04:23
On Jul 10, 9:56 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Find a new hobby. So.... you've been published? |