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: Androcles on 9 Jul 2010 17:19 "Michael Helland" <mobydikc(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:cd17899a-95e7-4e77-8ed9-c371333fb1db(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... 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, ========================================= It isn't, so you can forget that.
From: Michael Helland on 9 Jul 2010 17:30 On Jul 9, 1:24 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Hubble's Law says a galaxy's apparent recessional velocity is proportional to the distance it's light traveled to reach us: v = H * D. H = 21 km/sec/Million Light Years If a galaxy's apparent recessional velocity is 2100 km/sec, we can figure out that its light traveled a distance of 100 million light years to reach us. We also know that light traveled a duration of 100 million years. Follow the pattern, and you'll see that it also must be true that a galaxy's apparent recessional velocity is proportional to the duration of light's journey across the cosmos to our telescopes, which is given by the following equation: v = H * t H = 21 km/sec/Million Years t = the time light has been traveling since emitted in units of millions of years
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 18:02 On 7/9/10 4:17 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > 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. As far as I'm concerned, Mike, you haven't shown anything. No publications, no work that is self consistent and holds together, nothing of substance on USENET. Further more, almost everything you post is wrong. There are a number of poster's who have attempted to get you to examine your ideas, but you are resistant to learning any real physics. You are not alone, at least on USENET. Treat yourself to a physics course at a university near you this fall. Go at it with the intent of really learning something new. Put your cosmology "models" on hold and learn some fundamentals.
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 18:11 On 7/9/10 4:30 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > On Jul 9, 1:24 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > > Hubble's Law says a galaxy's apparent recessional velocity is > proportional to the distance it's light traveled to reach us: To first order... a galaxy's apparent recessional velocity is proportional to the distance! > > v = H * D. > H = 21 km/sec/Million Light Years > > If a galaxy's apparent recessional velocity is 2100 km/sec, we can > figure out that its light traveled a distance of 100 million light > years to reach us. Take a look at the more rigorous calculations behind Ned Wright's cosmological calculator. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html There are similar in the for of apps for the iPod/iPad/iPhone. As distances increase... well play with the calculator and see for yourself. > > We also know that light traveled a duration of 100 million years. > > Follow the pattern, and you'll see that it also must be true that a > galaxy's apparent recessional velocity is proportional to the duration > of light's journey across the cosmos to our telescopes, which is given > by the following equation: > > v = H * t > H = 21 km/sec/Million Years > t = the time light has been traveling since emitted in units of > millions of years
From: Michael Helland on 9 Jul 2010 18:29
On Jul 9, 3:02 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/9/10 4:17 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > > > 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. > > As far as I'm concerned, Mike, you haven't shown anything. I gave 3 mathematical models that calculated the duration of light's journey from a distant galaxy to our telescopes for my model, tired light, and the Big Bang. Tired Light didn't predict any increase in that duration (t=5000), where my model and the Big Bang showed equal increases (t=5009). Can I least get credit for demonstrating that? Explaining the significance of those predictions is going to be pretty tough if you deny that I've made them. |