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 10 Jul 2010 10:11 On 7/10/10 1:37 AM, Michael Helland wrote: > On Jul 9, 11:03 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/10/10 12:20 AM, Michael Helland wrote: >> >>> On Jul 9, 5:07 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> 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! >> >>> Did you forget that is a scientific postulate, possibly with a limited >>> domain of applicability, not a Universal and Absolute truth protected >>> by taboo! >> >> Did you forget it is a measured constant! I hate to say this Mike, >> but you really put up a resistance to credible information and >> learning. Why is that? Did you fail some classes? > > > Directly measuring the speed of light after million of years would > require an experiment that lasted millions of years. > There are many other indicators that I tried to get you to read about--experiments and observations that rule out alternatives. Unfortunately, for you, I can't get you to look at the evidence. You would rather be defiant and live in your ignorance.
From: PD on 10 Jul 2010 12:11 On Jul 10, 1:37 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 9, 11:03 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 7/10/10 12:20 AM, Michael Helland wrote: > > > > On Jul 9, 5:07 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> 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! > > > > Did you forget that is a scientific postulate, possibly with a limited > > > domain of applicability, not a Universal and Absolute truth protected > > > by taboo! > > > Did you forget it is a measured constant! I hate to say this Mike, > > but you really put up a resistance to credible information and > > learning. Why is that? Did you fail some classes? > > Directly measuring the speed of light after million of years would > require an experiment that lasted millions of years. Basic mistake, Michael, indicating a lack of understanding of how to make measurements. The half-life of U235 is a *measured* 704 million years. Now, care to guess how that measurement is done, since it obviously wasn't done by waiting around for 704 million years? > > Hubble redshift on the other hand is a directly measured phenomena in > light that was actually emitted millions of years ago. > > I say in Hubble Redshift we are looking directly at a loss of > frequency, loss of energy, and a loss of speed over the millions of > years. > > You say we are looking at a loss of frequency and energy, and an > increase in wavelength. > > I say the wavelength is increased when the speed is restored after the > light is absorbed and re-emitted. > > My conclusions are the necessary result of this formula, v = c - Ht. > > When the light is absorbed and re-emitted, t goes back to 0 because t > represents how long light has been traveling since being emitted. > > What my formula demands is confirmed by direct observations. > > > >> Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of special relativity? > > >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > Show me an experiment that last for millions of years, and I'll accept > that we directly measure the speed of light after millions of years. > > In the meantime, it might be worth preparing yourself for the > realization that SR does not have a Universal domain. > > Hubble redshift is direct evidence that the light cone of an observer > doesn't not stretch indefinitely out like a martini glass: > > \ / > \ / > \/ > > Instead it curves out, producing Hubble redshift, like a wine glass > > | | > \ / > | | > \ / > \ / > \/ > > This means at huge distances, some light cones may never intersect > (which is true whether the expansion of space is act work or if the > light simply has a finite range).
From: Michael Helland on 10 Jul 2010 16:28 On Jul 10, 9:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 1:37 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 11:03 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 7/10/10 12:20 AM, Michael Helland wrote: > > > > > On Jul 9, 5:07 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> 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! > > > > > Did you forget that is a scientific postulate, possibly with a limited > > > > domain of applicability, not a Universal and Absolute truth protected > > > > by taboo! > > > > Did you forget it is a measured constant! I hate to say this Mike, > > > but you really put up a resistance to credible information and > > > learning. Why is that? Did you fail some classes? > > > Directly measuring the speed of light after million of years would > > require an experiment that lasted millions of years. > > Basic mistake, Michael, indicating a lack of understanding of how to > make measurements. > The half-life of U235 is a *measured* 704 million years. > Now, care to guess how that measurement is done, since it obviously > wasn't done by waiting around for 704 million years? My hypothesis is that the light loses speed at cosmological distances between interactions. Whatever device one sets up to measure light, it will be interacting with the light at the beginning and the light at the end. And this distance in between isn't cosmological. Hubble redshift is direct empirical evidence that the light slows down. We're just not ready to accept that yet. > > Hubble redshift on the other hand is a directly measured phenomena in > > light that was actually emitted millions of years ago. > > > I say in Hubble Redshift we are looking directly at a loss of > > frequency, loss of energy, and a loss of speed over the millions of > > years. > > > You say we are looking at a loss of frequency and energy, and an > > increase in wavelength. > > > I say the wavelength is increased when the speed is restored after the > > light is absorbed and re-emitted. > > > My conclusions are the necessary result of this formula, v = c - Ht. > > > When the light is absorbed and re-emitted, t goes back to 0 because t > > represents how long light has been traveling since being emitted. > > > What my formula demands is confirmed by direct observations. > > > > >> Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of special relativity? > > > >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > > Show me an experiment that last for millions of years, and I'll accept > > that we directly measure the speed of light after millions of years. > > > In the meantime, it might be worth preparing yourself for the > > realization that SR does not have a Universal domain. > > > Hubble redshift is direct evidence that the light cone of an observer > > doesn't not stretch indefinitely out like a martini glass: > > > \ / > > \ / > > \/ > > > Instead it curves out, producing Hubble redshift, like a wine glass > > > | | > > \ / > > | | > > \ / > > \ / > > \/ > > > This means at huge distances, some light cones may never intersect > > (which is true whether the expansion of space is act work or if the > > light simply has a finite range).
From: eric gisse on 10 Jul 2010 16:37 Michael Helland wrote: > On Jul 9, 10:39 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Michael Helland wrote: >> > 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. >> >> And you are reinventing electromagnetic theory to support your latest >> uneducated guess about how the universe works, all the while >> demonstrating your complete ignorance of basic observational astronomy. > > > I'm reinventing EM theory to fit Hubble Evidence. You are 'reinventing' a theory you do not understand to fit evidence you do not understand. Makes sense to me. > > What the Big Bang has done has changed the motion of every galaxy in > the Universe and space itself, in order to avoid doing exactly that. Theories don't "do" anything, Mike. Learn some science. > > There is no need for any type of inflation or dark energy if what I > say is true. > > The Big Bang is far too contrived to justify not making any changes to > EM theory to fit Hubble redshift which is observed in EM radiation. You don't know what you are talking about, Mike. Find a new hobby.
From: Michael Helland on 10 Jul 2010 16:40
On Jul 10, 6:46 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/10/10 1:39 AM, Michael Helland wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 10:54 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/10/10 12:18 AM, Michael Helland wrote: > > >>> 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. > > >> One can measure the spectra of a light source directly and then > >> reflected by a mirror and see that the spectra are identical. > > > Not if the light source is millions of miles away. > > Take the sun for example--millions of miles away. Using a > diffraction grating, sunlight is broken into its spectra. > > See:http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap100627.html This says: "Shown above are all the visible colors of the Sun, produced by passing the Sun's light through a prism-like device." When the light passes through that device, at the quantum level it is absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in the device. The hypothesis dictates the light only travels slower than c as cosmological scales between interactions. Since the electrons in the prism are not separated by a cosmological, the light travels at c, according the formula. Since the redshifted frequency and energy isn't magically recovered, the wavelength (which requires no energy) does match up to c = f * w. That is exactly what we observe from light coming out of the prism. Again, not the accepted theory, but in agreement with observation none- the-less. > Reflect the sunlight with a mirror before the diffraction grating > and on gets identical spectra. > > The same is true for any other star or galaxy. Any Doppler or and > cosmic red shift is preserved by the mirror. The distance photons > traveled from their sources and the associate red or blue shift is > not altered by the optics of the telescope. > > Anyone who would continue to be confused by that might be dumber > than a pail of nails (which is not as bad as being dumber than a > box of rocks). I'm not saying you are dumb, Michael, but I'm starting > to raise my eyebrows. |