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 9 Jul 2010 15:45 Michael Helland wrote: > 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). Liar. We've been over this before, you predict the wrong result. [snip rest, unread]
From: Michael Helland on 9 Jul 2010 16:08 On Jul 9, 12:45 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Michael Helland wrote: > > 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). > > Liar. > > We've been over this before, you predict the wrong result. What we went over before was different. I'm suggesting a change to the inverse square law: instead of being based on the distance the light has traveled, base it on the time it has been traveling. Unlike tired light, the Big Bang and my model equally exhibit an increasing duration, which would yield the same weakened EM force, and presumably be observed as the same fall-off in surface brightness. I admit that last bit is some speculation and guess work, and that I might be wrong and I've obviously got more learning to do before I would know.
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 16:20 On 7/9/10 3:08 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > I'm suggesting a change to the inverse square law: It will take more votes than you can possibly muster to change the inverse square law.
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 16:24 On 7/9/10 2:30 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > 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? Actually you expression makes little sense. It is as if you don't understand the fundamental principle involved. You should 1. clarify mathematically you expression. 2. show how you derive it from first principles If you can't do that, you've got nothing.
From: Michael Helland on 9 Jul 2010 17:17
On Jul 9, 1:20 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/9/10 3:08 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > > > I'm suggesting a change to the inverse square law: > > It will take more votes than you can possibly muster to > change the inverse square law. If the speed of light is constant, then whether its intensity is given by the inverse square of distance traveled from the source or the inverse square of the duration traveled from the source, the answer is going to be the same. It's mathematically equivalent. Also, I have shown that unlike Tired Light, my model and the Big Bang predict equally increased duration, which if used to calculate intensity rather than the standard way of using distance, my model and the Big Bang would would work out to be the same weakened intensity, caused by an increased duration, which Zwicky's Tired Light, among its many other problems, could never account for. |