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 19:03 Michael Helland wrote: > 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? You get negative credit for continuing to talk about tired light as if it were a viable theory. > > Explaining the significance of those predictions is going to be pretty > tough if you deny that I've made them.
From: Michael Helland on 9 Jul 2010 19:11 On Jul 9, 4:03 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Michael Helland wrote: > > 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? > > You get negative credit for continuing to talk about tired light as if it > were a viable theory. Actually, I'm demonstrating that tired light is wrong and not part of a general class of hypotheses that can show the increase in duration, a general class of hypotheses that includes both the Big Bang and my model. The increase in duration is the reason behind the observed cosmological redshift in frequency and the falloff in surface brightness (if the intensity may be calculated inversely proportional to the square of the duration). Like I said, I can work up the models in any computer language you prefer. > > Explaining the significance of those predictions is going to be pretty > > tough if you deny that I've made them.
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 20:03 On 7/9/10 6:11 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > > Like I said, I can work up the models in any computer language you > prefer. > I have worked with graduate students that tried to convince me that such and such was so... because the computer program said it was! Being a programmer does not make you a scientist.
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 20:07 On 7/9/10 5:00 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > Except in a model where light slows down as evidenced by Hubble > redshift. Did you forget that the speed of light is a defined constant! Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of special relativity? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 20:16
On 7/9/10 6:19 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > > In order to measure the wavelength of light you'll be bouncing it off > a mirror and focusing it through lenses. Look at the light spectra! Diffraction grating will do. > > On a quantum level, that means the light will be absorbed (with the > redshifted frequency) and re-emitted without adding an energy. What ever gave you that the wavelength was shifted by a mirror? You really need to take a freshman physics class. > > However, the formula and my computer algorithms that implement it > require that light travels at c when its being emitted (ie not > traveling cosmological distances between interactions). Your computer algorithms are written by you and you don't understand physics. The computer DID NOT correct your errors! > > So, again without adding any energy, the light is re-emitted at > traveling at c with a redshifted frequency and an increased > wavelength. Wrong! > > I'm proposing the wavelength doesn't stretch in mid flight. On cosmic scales space stretches increasing the wavelength. > > I'm proposing it stretches if its being re-radiated after a > cosmological journey. Wrong! What ever gave you that the wavelength was shifted by a mirror? You really need to take a freshman physics class. > > In other words, measuring the system change the system, which is what > you expect with light. > What kind of nonsense is this! |