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 20:34 Michael Helland wrote: [...] >> >> > Except in a model where light slows down as evidenced by Hubble >> > redshift. >> >> Wrong and stupid. Frequency and wavelength are measured separately, and >> still multiple together to obtain 'c' even from cosmic sources. > > > In order to measure the wavelength of light you'll be bouncing it off > a mirror and focusing it through lenses. Wrong and stupid again. Learn about diffraction gratings. [snip rest, unread]
From: eric gisse on 9 Jul 2010 20:36 Michael Helland wrote: > 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. False equivalency. Your model gets the wrong answer. > > 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). Luminosity is observed to be related to the inverse fourth power of 1+z. FOURTH power. > > Like I said, I can work up the models in any computer language you > prefer. Be wrong in as many languages as you prefer. The fundamental theory is wrong, so there's no point in examining the implementation of something that's wrong. > > > >> > Explaining the significance of those predictions is going to be pretty >> > tough if you deny that I've made them.
From: eric gisse on 9 Jul 2010 20:37 Sam Wormley wrote: > 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. Neither does the reverse, but boy being a scientist makes it easier.
From: Michael Helland on 10 Jul 2010 01:18 On Jul 9, 5:16 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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? Measurements of increased wavelength and decreased frequency from cosmological light. You act as if the current theories of physics are the end all to be all. I see them as in transition. That will be a fatal road block between us. Also, you seem to deny that my formula makes mathematical predictions. You even asked how I made those calculations and I showed you the code. That seemed to shut you up at the time, but you now to want to deny it ever happened. That's what happens when people believe in scientific theories without doubt and become emotionally attached to them.
From: Michael Helland on 10 Jul 2010 01:19
On Jul 9, 5:34 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Michael Helland wrote: > > [...] > > > > >> > Except in a model where light slows down as evidenced by Hubble > >> > redshift. > > >> Wrong and stupid. Frequency and wavelength are measured separately, and > >> still multiple together to obtain 'c' even from cosmic sources. > > > In order to measure the wavelength of light you'll be bouncing it off > > a mirror and focusing it through lenses. > > Wrong and stupid again. Learn about diffraction gratings. You think you can point a device without mirrors and a lens at an object 50 million light years away? You're on crack. |