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: PD on 12 Jul 2010 20:30 On Jul 12, 6:16 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? *Measured* > > Event he measurements are based on some assumptions that may need to > be adjusted at some point after further observations. Such as? What are the assumptions that are in a half-life measurement? > > 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? With WHAT interacting with it? You're not speaking in complete sentences. > > > > > > 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: PD on 12 Jul 2010 20:33 On Jul 12, 6:39 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. That's not an answer, that's a question. I asked you how you think that *measurement* of 704 million years is done. So, how do you think it's done? > > 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)? What makes you think all the light interacts? With what? If 23,437,362,911 photons traveling from the galaxy are aimed in our direction, and 4,328 of them interact, how do you imagine that changes the speed of the light? > > > > > > 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 20:51 On Jul 12, 5:33 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 6:39 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > That's not an answer, that's a question. > I asked you how you think that *measurement* of 704 million years is > done. > So, how do you think it's done? I'm guessing not with a timer that is read 704 million years after it is started. That's how I would directly measure something. > > 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)? > > What makes you think all the light interacts? With what? > If 23,437,362,911 photons traveling from the galaxy are aimed in our > direction, and 4,328 of them interact, how do you imagine that changes > the speed of the light? I imagine that the speed of light between emission and absorption is governed by the mathematical equation I've provided, v=c-Ht. > > > > 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: eric gisse on 12 Jul 2010 15:35
Michael Helland wrote: [...] >> What makes you think all the light interacts? With what? >> If 23,437,362,911 photons traveling from the galaxy are aimed in our >> direction, and 4,328 of them interact, how do you imagine that changes >> the speed of the light? > > > I imagine that the speed of light between emission and absorption is > governed by the mathematical equation I've provided, v=c-Ht. So basically you can't answer the question so you go back to your boilerplate. [...] |