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 9 Jul 2010 14:25 On 7/9/10 11:29 AM, Michael Helland wrote: > 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. Now you are saying light years and not years, so I will assume that way a typo in your earlier posts. > 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? Oops, there you go again... is it years or light years? Do you know the difference?
From: eric gisse on 9 Jul 2010 14:33 Michael Helland wrote: [...] > My formula, v = c - Ht (where H = 21km/sec per millions years and t is > duration of light's journey since being emitted in millions of years) > predicts shorter distances. Then it is wrong. Thanks for playing. You understand neither the cosmic distance ladder cosmologists use or the Tolman surface brightness test. > > When calculating the force of gravity, I shouldn't have to tell you > that shorter distances equals stronger gravitational forces.
From: Michael Helland on 9 Jul 2010 14:49 On Jul 9, 11:25 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/9/10 11:29 AM, Michael Helland wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > Now you are saying light years and not years, so I will assume that > way a typo in your earlier posts. > > > 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? > > Oops, there you go again... is it years or light years? Do you > know the difference? Yes. The standard version of Hubble's law is v = H_0 * D. H = 21 km/sec/Million Light Years I'm suggesting a different version v = H_0 * t H = 21 km/sec/Million Years See how the standard view is to think of the expansion of the Universe proportional to distance, but thinking of the Universe expanding proportionally with time is mathematically equivalent?
From: Michael Helland on 9 Jul 2010 15:28 On Jul 9, 11:31 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On the other hand, x and x3 differ as to the distance the light has > > traveled to reach its target. x, my hypothesis, has traveled less > > distance, which means the galaxies are closer in the first model, > > which means a stronger force of gravity. > > Your model fails the Tolman surface brightness test. Tired light fails the surface brightness test and light curve time dilation because it fails to account for the duration of light's journey increasing proportionally with the distance it has to travel. The Big Bang model and my model both account for the increased duration, (a cold hard prediction) which I suggest is what these tests are detecting, and not necessarily the expansion of space (speculation). Again, recall that Hubble's Law is in terms of distance, but there is a mathematical equivalent in terms of time. Well, following that train of thought (dangerous, I know) is why can't we think of the inverse square law as the duration squared, instead of the distance? There should be a mathematical equivalent. Well, yes, that would be good and all, as long distance and duration remain in lockstep, maintaining a constant speed. And that is true in the Big Bang. As duration increases, so does distance, and the inverse square law is equal whether you use duration or distance. But my model suggests that the duration increases while the distance stays the same. Now the inverse square law in terms of distance is going to give a different answer than the inverse square law of the duration. It seems entirely possible that when Hubble's Law and the Inverse Square Law are written in terms of time, not distance, that because my hypothesis and the expansion hypothesis yield the same durations (cold hard prediction), they would predict the same surface brightness (yes, I'm guessing).
From: Michael Helland on 9 Jul 2010 15:30
On Jul 9, 12:07 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/9/10 1:49 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > > > The standard version of Hubble's law is v = H_0 * D. > > > H = 21 km/sec/Million Light Years > > > I'm suggesting a different version v = H_0 * t > > > H = 21 km/sec/Million Years > > I don't think you would do very will in a freshman level > Astronomy class. And yet, what is accepted and what I am suggesting are mathematically equivalent, are they not? |