Proof: Universe not expanding faster
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: The Pillars of Black Holes are Shaking
Next: THE QUEST FOR THE ULTIMATE THEORY OF TIME, AN INTRODUCTION TO IRREVERSIBILITY
From: guskz on 22 May 2010 14:02 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Inverse_square_law.svg A star's observed brightness decreases by the inverse square law above (1/^r^2); for every r advancement of the light beam, the beam also expands by r in both width & height, thus reducing it's overall brightness. AS WELL the brightness "also" decreases due to the Universe's Expansion, **BUT** it is INCORRECTLY calculated for this reason: Taking one instance (one quadrant instance of the inverse square law above): As space expands (say by "r") in all directions, then so does the light beam and thus it's brightness reduces. You take the same quadrant in the image above and expand it by r both width & height...but then also by depth....so if a quadrant is say 6 by 6 units: As Space expands, this quadrant expands by (6+r) by (6+r) at the same instance (location) and then this same (6+r) by (6+r) also expands by r in depth (thickness), so it expands by r/2 in depth both forward and then another r/2 backward. #1: Therefore the formula for a non-expanding space is Brightness ~ 1/ r^2 #2: *BUT* for an expanding space (Universe) the formula should be the above "as well as" Brightness ~ (1/r^2)/r thickness. Using "d" instead of "r" for #2, the formula to measure a stars brightness in an expanding universe should then be: Brightness ~ 1/r^2 + 1/d^3 thus Brightness = Luminosity / (r^2 d^3) The next post will put in actual numbers to inform of the true rate that space and our Universe is expanding or shrinking.
From: guskz on 22 May 2010 14:13 On May 22, 2:02 pm, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Inverse_square_law.svg > > A star's observed brightness decreases by the inverse square law above > (1/^r^2); for every r advancement of the light beam, the beam also > expands by r in both width & height, thus reducing it's overall > brightness. > > AS WELL the brightness "also" decreases due to the Universe's > Expansion, **BUT** it is INCORRECTLY calculated for this reason: > > Taking one instance (one quadrant instance of the inverse square law > above): > > As space expands (say by "r") in all directions, then so does the > light beam and thus it's brightness reduces. > > You take the same quadrant in the image above and expand it by r both > width & height...but then also by depth....so if a quadrant is say 6 > by 6 units: > > As Space expands, this quadrant expands by (6+r) by (6+r) at the same > instance (location) and then this same (6+r) by (6+r) also expands by > r in depth (thickness), so it expands by r/2 in depth both forward and > then another r/2 backward. > > #1: Therefore the formula for a non-expanding space is Brightness ~ 1/ > r^2 > > #2: *BUT* for an expanding space (Universe) the formula should be the > above "as well as" Brightness ~ (1/r^2)/r thickness. > > Using "d" instead of "r" for #2, the formula to measure a stars > brightness in an expanding universe should then be: > > Brightness ~ 1/r^2 + 1/d^3 > thus > Brightness = Luminosity / (r^2 d^3) > > The next post will put in actual numbers to inform of the true rate > that space and our Universe is expanding or shrinking. mistake 1/3+1/4 doesn't = 1/12 The formula instead is: Brightness= Luminosity/r^2 + Luminosity/d^3. And so, the present formula used is incorrect which is: Brightness = Luminosity / (r+d)^2.
From: guskz on 22 May 2010 14:14 On May 22, 2:13 pm, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 22, 2:02 pm, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Inverse_square_law.svg > > > A star's observed brightness decreases by the inverse square law above > > (1/^r^2); for every r advancement of the light beam, the beam also > > expands by r in both width & height, thus reducing it's overall > > brightness. > > > AS WELL the brightness "also" decreases due to the Universe's > > Expansion, **BUT** it is INCORRECTLY calculated for this reason: > > > Taking one instance (one quadrant instance of the inverse square law > > above): > > > As space expands (say by "r") in all directions, then so does the > > light beam and thus it's brightness reduces. > > > You take the same quadrant in the image above and expand it by r both > > width & height...but then also by depth....so if a quadrant is say 6 > > by 6 units: > > > As Space expands, this quadrant expands by (6+r) by (6+r) at the same > > instance (location) and then this same (6+r) by (6+r) also expands by > > r in depth (thickness), so it expands by r/2 in depth both forward and > > then another r/2 backward. > > > #1: Therefore the formula for a non-expanding space is Brightness ~ 1/ > > r^2 > > > #2: *BUT* for an expanding space (Universe) the formula should be the > > above "as well as" Brightness ~ (1/r^2)/r thickness. > > > Using "d" instead of "r" for #2, the formula to measure a stars > > brightness in an expanding universe should then be: > > > Brightness ~ 1/r^2 + 1/d^3 > > thus > > Brightness = Luminosity / (r^2 d^3) > > > The next post will put in actual numbers to inform of the true rate > > that space and our Universe is expanding or shrinking. > > mistake 1/3+1/4 doesn't = 1/12 > > The formula instead is: > > Brightness= Luminosity/r^2 + Luminosity/d^3. > > And so, the present formula used is incorrect which is: > > Brightness = Luminosity / (r+d)^2. mistake 1/3+1/4 doesn't = 1/12 The formula instead is: Brightness= Luminosity/r^2 + Luminosity/d^3.
From: Sam Wormley on 22 May 2010 15:59 Inverse-square law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law "In physics, an inverse-square law is any physical law stating that some physical quantity or strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity". "The intensity (or illuminance or irradiance) of light or other linear waves radiating from a point source (energy per unit of area perpendicular to the source) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source; so an object (of the same size) twice as far away, receives only one-quarter the energy (in the same time period)". "More generally, the irradiance, i.e., the intensity (or power per unit area in the direction of propagation), of a spherical wavefront varies inversely with the square of the distance from the source (assuming there are no losses caused by absorption or scattering)". "For example, the intensity of radiation from the Sun is 9140 watts per square meter at the distance of Mercury (0.387AU); but only 1370 watts per square meter at the distance of Earth (1AU)�a threefold increase in distance results in a ninefold decrease in intensity of radiation". No Center http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
From: guskz on 23 May 2010 11:27
On May 22, 3:59 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Inverse-square law > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law > > "In physics, an inverse-square law is any physical law stating that some > physical quantity or strength is inversely proportional to the square of > the distance from the source of that physical quantity". > > "The intensity (or illuminance or irradiance) of light or other linear > waves radiating from a point source (energy per unit of area > perpendicular to the source) is inversely proportional to the square of > the distance from the source; so an object (of the same size) twice as > far away, receives only one-quarter the energy (in the same time period)".. > > "More generally, the irradiance, i.e., the intensity (or power per unit > area in the direction of propagation), of a spherical wavefront varies > inversely with the square of the distance from the source (assuming > there are no losses caused by absorption or scattering)". > > "For example, the intensity of radiation from the Sun is 9140 watts per > square meter at the distance of Mercury (0.387AU); but only 1370 watts > per square meter at the distance of Earth (1AU)a threefold increase in > distance results in a ninefold decrease in intensity of radiation". > > No Center > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html > > Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html > > WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html > > WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html Is that how you passed your exams, by posting links to the answers? #1. Is the intensity of a laser inversely proportional to the distance from the source? Answer is no. Why no? #2. If space was to expand at the rate of half a light-year, what would be the intensity of the star at one light years distance? Or are we all link and no play? |