Prev: The Special Theory of Discrete Continuity
Next: Accentuate the negative & sell BP's cap&trade nostrum (IPCC)
From: eric gisse on 12 Jul 2010 03:32
Michael Helland wrote:

> On Jul 11, 12:18 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Michael Helland wrote:
>> > On Jul 10, 9:56 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Find a new hobby.
>>
>> > So.... you've been published?
>>
>> I see you've ran out of responses and are trying the "but you have no
>> publications" gambit.
>
>
> You are right.
>
> You said "find a new hobby" which is the first time I've heard that.
>
> But I didn't have a response for your amazingly original response.
>
> Boy.
>
> I hope to grow up to be you.
>
> PS: Do you have a life outside of sci.physics? Hopefully you have more
> sources of self-worth than this.

Now that we've established that you have no new ideas and have learned
nothing since your previous visit a few months back, you can hurry up and go
away.

See you in October, stupid.
From: PD on 12 Jul 2010 10:00
On Jul 10, 3:28 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 9:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 1:37 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Directly measuring the speed of light after million of years would
> > > require an experiment that lasted millions of years.
>
> > Basic mistake, Michael, indicating a lack of understanding of how to
> > make measurements.
> > The half-life of U235 is a *measured* 704 million years.
> > Now, care to guess how that measurement is done, since it obviously
> > wasn't done by waiting around for 704 million years?
>
> My hypothesis is that the light loses speed at cosmological distances
> between interactions.

You did not answer my question, did you?

>
> Whatever device one sets up to measure light, it will be interacting
> with the light at the beginning and the light at the end.

When we observe starlight, are we interacting with the light at the
beginning?

Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about?

>
> And this distance in between isn't cosmological.
>
> Hubble redshift is direct empirical evidence that the light slows
> down.
>
> We're just not ready to accept that yet.
>
>
>
> > > Hubble redshift on the other hand is a directly measured phenomena in
> > > light that was actually emitted millions of years ago.
>
> > > I say in Hubble Redshift we are looking directly at a loss of
> > > frequency, loss of energy, and a loss of speed over the millions of
> > > years.
>
> > > You say we are looking at a loss of frequency and energy, and an
> > > increase in wavelength.
>
> > > I say the wavelength is increased when the speed is restored after the
> > > light is absorbed and re-emitted.
>
> > > My conclusions are the necessary result of this formula, v = c - Ht..
>
> > > When the light is absorbed and re-emitted, t goes back to 0 because t
> > > represents how long light has been traveling since being emitted.
>
> > > What my formula demands is confirmed by direct observations.
>
> > > > >>     Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of special relativity?
> > > > >>      http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>
> > > Show me an experiment that last for millions of years, and I'll accept
> > > that we directly measure the speed of light after millions of years.
>
> > > In the meantime, it might be worth preparing yourself for the
> > > realization that SR does not have a Universal domain.
>
> > > Hubble redshift is direct evidence that the light cone of an observer
> > > doesn't not stretch indefinitely out like a martini glass:
>
> > > \    /
> > >  \  /
> > >   \/
>
> > > Instead it curves out, producing Hubble redshift, like a wine glass
>
> > > |        |
> > >  \      /
> > >   |     |
> > >   \    /
> > >    \  /
> > >     \/
>
> > > This means at huge distances, some light cones may never intersect
> > > (which is true whether the expansion of space is act work or if the
> > > light simply has a finite range).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Sam Wormley on 12 Jul 2010 14:45
On 7/12/10 12:21 AM, Michael Helland wrote:

>
> You are right.
>
> You said "find a new hobby" which is the first time I've heard that.
>
> But I didn't have a response for your amazingly original response.
>
> Boy.
>
> I hope to grow up to be you.
>

If so, you are going to have to take physics and mathematics courses
for a minimum of four years, understand and pass them with good grade.
Only them will you start to have some of the tools of a physicist.
From: Michael Helland on 12 Jul 2010 19:16
On Jul 12, 7:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 3:28 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 9:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 10, 1:37 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Directly measuring the speed of light after million of years would
> > > > require an experiment that lasted millions of years.
>
> > > Basic mistake, Michael, indicating a lack of understanding of how to
> > > make measurements.
> > > The half-life of U235 is a *measured* 704 million years.
> > > Now, care to guess how that measurement is done, since it obviously
> > > wasn't done by waiting around for 704 million years?
>
> > My hypothesis is that the light loses speed at cosmological distances
> > between interactions.
>
> You did not answer my question, did you?


Is half life measured or calculated?

Event he measurements are based on some assumptions that may need to
be adjusted at some point after further observations.

I'm suggesting Hubble redshift is precisely that.

Think of it like this.

Light goes from the Planck Scale to the Hubble Limit.

That's the complete model of light.

Right now there are two theories. One small, and one where space
itself expands so fast light can't make much progress.

I'm suggesting one theory of light, with the Hubble Limit defining the
range of light.


> > Whatever device one sets up to measure light, it will be interacting
> > with the light at the beginning and the light at the end.
>
> When we observe starlight, are we interacting with the light at the
> beginning?
>
> Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about?


Ok, how do you propose we measure the speed of light from highly
redshifted galaxies with interacting with it and affecting the
results?




> > And this distance in between isn't cosmological.
>
> > Hubble redshift is direct empirical evidence that the light slows
> > down.
>
> > We're just not ready to accept that yet.
>
> > > > Hubble redshift on the other hand is a directly measured phenomena in
> > > > light that was actually emitted millions of years ago.
>
> > > > I say in Hubble Redshift we are looking directly at a loss of
> > > > frequency, loss of energy, and a loss of speed over the millions of
> > > > years.
>
> > > > You say we are looking at a loss of frequency and energy, and an
> > > > increase in wavelength.
>
> > > > I say the wavelength is increased when the speed is restored after the
> > > > light is absorbed and re-emitted.
>
> > > > My conclusions are the necessary result of this formula, v = c - Ht.
>
> > > > When the light is absorbed and re-emitted, t goes back to 0 because t
> > > > represents how long light has been traveling since being emitted.
>
> > > > What my formula demands is confirmed by direct observations.
>
> > > > > >>     Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of special relativity?
> > > > > >>      http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>
> > > > Show me an experiment that last for millions of years, and I'll accept
> > > > that we directly measure the speed of light after millions of years..
>
> > > > In the meantime, it might be worth preparing yourself for the
> > > > realization that SR does not have a Universal domain.
>
> > > > Hubble redshift is direct evidence that the light cone of an observer
> > > > doesn't not stretch indefinitely out like a martini glass:
>
> > > > \    /
> > > >  \  /
> > > >   \/
>
> > > > Instead it curves out, producing Hubble redshift, like a wine glass
>
> > > > |        |
> > > >  \      /
> > > >   |     |
> > > >   \    /
> > > >    \  /
> > > >     \/
>
> > > > This means at huge distances, some light cones may never intersect
> > > > (which is true whether the expansion of space is act work or if the
> > > > light simply has a finite range).- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

From: Michael Helland on 12 Jul 2010 19:39
On Jul 12, 7:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 3:28 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 10, 9:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 10, 1:37 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Directly measuring the speed of light after million of years would
> > > > require an experiment that lasted millions of years.
>
> > > Basic mistake, Michael, indicating a lack of understanding of how to
> > > make measurements.
> > > The half-life of U235 is a *measured* 704 million years.
> > > Now, care to guess how that measurement is done, since it obviously
> > > wasn't done by waiting around for 704 million years?
>
> > My hypothesis is that the light loses speed at cosmological distances
> > between interactions.
>
> You did not answer my question, did you?


I'm just reminding you that I'm talking specifically about the speed
of light between EM interactions at cosmological scales.

To answer your question, is that number observed, or calculated based
on some other measurements and assumptions, assumptions which might
change with new observations.

I'm suggestion that Hubble redshift is that new observation.



> > Whatever device one sets up to measure light, it will be interacting
> > with the light at the beginning and the light at the end.
>
> When we observe starlight, are we interacting with the light at the
> beginning?
>
> Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about?


How would you measure the speed of light from redshifted galaxies
without interaction (which, according to the hypothesis would affect
the predicted speed)?



> > And this distance in between isn't cosmological.
>
> > Hubble redshift is direct empirical evidence that the light slows
> > down.
>
> > We're just not ready to accept that yet.
>
> > > > Hubble redshift on the other hand is a directly measured phenomena in
> > > > light that was actually emitted millions of years ago.
>
> > > > I say in Hubble Redshift we are looking directly at a loss of
> > > > frequency, loss of energy, and a loss of speed over the millions of
> > > > years.
>
> > > > You say we are looking at a loss of frequency and energy, and an
> > > > increase in wavelength.
>
> > > > I say the wavelength is increased when the speed is restored after the
> > > > light is absorbed and re-emitted.
>
> > > > My conclusions are the necessary result of this formula, v = c - Ht.
>
> > > > When the light is absorbed and re-emitted, t goes back to 0 because t
> > > > represents how long light has been traveling since being emitted.
>
> > > > What my formula demands is confirmed by direct observations.
>
> > > > > >>     Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of special relativity?
> > > > > >>      http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>
> > > > Show me an experiment that last for millions of years, and I'll accept
> > > > that we directly measure the speed of light after millions of years..
>
> > > > In the meantime, it might be worth preparing yourself for the
> > > > realization that SR does not have a Universal domain.
>
> > > > Hubble redshift is direct evidence that the light cone of an observer
> > > > doesn't not stretch indefinitely out like a martini glass:
>
> > > > \    /
> > > >  \  /
> > > >   \/
>
> > > > Instead it curves out, producing Hubble redshift, like a wine glass
>
> > > > |        |
> > > >  \      /
> > > >   |     |
> > > >   \    /
> > > >    \  /
> > > >     \/
>
> > > > This means at huge distances, some light cones may never intersect
> > > > (which is true whether the expansion of space is act work or if the
> > > > light simply has a finite range).- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Prev: The Special Theory of Discrete Continuity
Next: Accentuate the negative & sell BP's cap&trade nostrum (IPCC)