Prev: Bungling Idiots And Their Political Agendas Re: MYTH: 'Obama admin turned down foreign assistance' (and other Right-Wing Noory Distortions)
Next: Quantum Gravity 401.2: USA Relates Intersection to Basic Game Semantics Logic
From: harald on 13 Jul 2010 17:15
On Jul 13, 5:06 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> abstract: A model based on a novel interpretation of the observed
> Hubble redshift is compared and  contrasted to a model based on the
> widely accepted expansion interpretation and also, for demonstration
> purposes, to a model based on the long refuted tired light
> interpretation.
>
> Let us begin with an observation, some empirical evidence.
>
>         Exhibit A:
>         Hubble redshift is detected in electromagnetic radiation that has
> traveled cosmological  distances.
>
> To explain Exhibit A, I submit the following conjecture:
>
>         Conjecture:
>         The redshift is a decrease in energy and frequency which will
> eventually reach 0. This is caused  by the internal dynamics of
> electromagnetic radiation.
>
> The established theories of electromagnetism have been so well tested
> in our laboratories as to be above  suspicion as the source of the
> observed redshift at cosmological scales. And because the wide
> acceptance  of the expansion interpretation, there seemed to be little
> reason to even consider changing the theories  of light to accommodate
> Exhibit A.
>
> On the other hand, the expansion interpretation changed the apparent
> motion of every galaxy and the  properties of space itself, limits the
> age of a Universe that contains vast superclusters, and introduces
> mysterious entities like dark energy. All of this increases the
> possibility of more elegant theories  being discovered.
>
> Upon reflection, would changing the theories of EM radiation to
> accommodate a phenomenon detected in EM  radiation, Exhibit A, be
> uncalled for?
>
> To explore that possibility, the conjecture needs to be developed into
> a hypothesis and worked into a  model.
>
> In developing the hypothesis, the mindset demonstrated here is that
> the empirical reality of Exhibit A  might indicate a new principle of
> physics at cosmological scales, and might demonstrate there are
> limits  to the domain of applicability of many established theories,
> which are well tested but at much smaller  scales. In other words, my
> hypothesis may contradict many other theories at cosmological scales,
> but only  in the pursuit of best explaining what is actually observed
> at cosmological scales.
>
> According to the conjecture, the redshift is caused by the internal
> dynamics of EM radiation and not the  motion of the galaxy that
> emitted the light; the apparent recessional velocity of a redshifted
> galaxy is  not its actual recessional velocity. This leads me to ask,
> is there is a better way to state Hubble's Law  (v = H * D) using some
> other physical magnitude in the place of the galaxy's apparent
> recessional  velocity?
>
> I've developed what I think is the proper alternative to Hubble's Law,
> which generates some pretty  interesting predictions and consequences.
>
>         Hypothesis:
>         v = c - Ht
>         where
>         v = the speed of light in a vacuum
>         c = 299792.458 km/sec
>         H = 21.77 km/sec/one million years
>         t = duration of the photon's journey between emission and absorption
> in millions of years
>
> Given that the speed of a wave is its frequency * wavelength, and we
> observe a reduced frequency as  empirical fact Exhibit A, it's not too
> difficult to see that reducing frequency would reduce the speed of
> the wave, just as the hypothesis predicts.

No, that is putting physics on its head - or the wagon in front of the
horse. Physics isn't math!
As you say wave, that means that in your model light propagates like
wave packets - as in GRT. Well I have news for you: the speed of a
wave in a dispersion free surrounding (as you seem to assume) is not
affected by the frequency; the wavelength is a function of the
frequency and the propagation speed. You may have been misled by the
fact that one commonly identifies "wavelength" with colour, but in
fact it's the frequency that corresponds to the colour.

Moreover, Einstein provided a weighty argument in 1911: the amount of
emitted cycles should be conserved - you can't loose part of the
cycles that are in transit into nothing!

Harald

> To demonstrate the hypothesis I've built a model of light which is
> emitted along an x axis at a speed  determined by the hypothesis, v =
> c - Ht. Once the timer starts, the light takes off until it reaches a
> target which is 6 billion light years away, at which point the timer
> is checked and the results are  displayed.
>
> I've built two more models to compare and contrast the results with.
>
> In the second model, which is based on the dominant expansion
> hypothesis, the light does not obey my  hypothesis, but instead always
> travels at c. On the other hand, the target that light is traveling
> toward  is receding from the source of the light at a velocity v that
> increases proportionally with the distance  D the light has traveled
> thus far, such that v = H * D.
>
> In the third model, which is based on the discredited tired light
> models, light may lose some energy  based on an unexplained
> interaction, but it doesn't slow down nor does it encounter an
> increasing  distance to its target.
>
> The models are written in the Visual FoxPro programming environment
> and provided in Appendix A of this  paper. When they finish, in the
> first two models t=8.83 billion years, and in the third model t=6
> billion  years. A video of screen shots of the model running is
> available on the Internet at:
>
>         Video:
>        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0JTD3FkWjc
>
> Here is a graph that shows the final result of the models.
>
>         Graph:
>         (included at the end of the video)
>
> It can be seen from these results that while the distance covered by
> the v=c-Ht and tired light models is  the same, the duration of the
> trip is larger than tired lights predictions by equal amounts in both
> v=c-Ht and the expansion models. v=c-Ht may not predict increasing
> distances, like the Big Bang, but it  does predict increasing
> durations, identical to the Big Bang.
>
> It stands to reason that if a solar panel collecting energy X in 24
> hours, were to start collecting the  same energy X in 26 hours, that
> (assuming the change had occurred in the source and not the panel)
> the  increasing duration would imply a decreased frequency of the
> incoming light. Because the increase in  duration predicted by the
> expansion model and the v=c-Ht model are equal, it would stand to also
> reason  that both models predict identical redshifts, the empirically
> observed Exhibit A.
>
> The increase in duration is a feature shared by the v=c-Ht and
> expansion models, creating a general class  of models to which the
> tired light model does not belong, as it cannot predict Exhibit A and
> is again  ruled out.
>
> Predictions
>
> That leaves the expansion model and v=c-Ht. Even though these models
> have been show to both predict an  equally increasing duration, there
> are some differences in the cosmologies they predict, which will be
> examined so that tests may be devised to determine which of the models
> is the best fit for the whole  cosmos.
>
> v=c-Ht predicts a finite range of light, whereas the established
> models have an indefinite range of  light. Consequently, the distances
> of the established model must be increasing in an expansion that
> rewinds back to a Big Bang. Thus, the established models, with an
> indefinite range of light predict that  the Universe has a finite age
> and size.
>
> On the other hand, v=c-Ht with its finite range of light, predicts an
> indefinite age and size of the  Universe. If there were galaxies
> beyond the finite range of light, we would never see them. This would
> be  confirmed by observing structure in the cosmos older than
> expansion model allows for.
>
> Further, as there is no increasing distances in the v=c-Ht model, it
> predicts shorter distances between  galaxies, and thus a stronger
> force of gravity should be observed between galaxies than with
> expanded  distances.
>
> Criticisms
>
> The first critical flaw that is often pointed out where this
> hypothesis's predictions and what is observed seem to be in conflict
> is that the measured wavelength of redshifted light is increased,
> whereas  my theory predicts the frequency will reduce along with the
> speed, which means a static wavelength. On  the contrary, the light's
> speed is dependent on the time between emission and absorption. That
> means once  the light interacts with the measurement device, it will
> have been re-emitted. Since the time the light  has been traveling
> since emission will now be small rather than cosmological, it will be
> re-emitted at c.  The light won't magically regain its redshifted
> frequency or energy, Exhibit A, but since the hypothesis  predicts the
> light will be traveling at c, its wavelength is predicted to be larger
> too.
>
> And that is what is observed of the light coming from the diffraction
> grating. This criticism actually  works in favor of the hypothesis.  A
> common reaction to this claim is that its an ad-hoc resolution to  the
> criticism. But clearly this behavior is dictated by the hypothesis,
> even if it works differently than  the established theories, which
> should be addressed here.
>
> I'll use Special Relativity as an example as it seems to be the theory
> most in disagreement with the  decreasing speed of light. The response
> to this criticism is Exhibit A requires us to change our picture  of
> Special Relativity, and it can be easily demonstrated how and why
> considering light cones in Special  Relativity.
>
> No matter what scale you're talking about, somewhere the light cones
> will intersect. But even under the  expansion model of redshift, this
> won't apply to the light at all scales. In the Big Bang, the distance
> between the light sources is expanding, and at distances beyond
> Hubble's Limit, the light cones won't  intersect at all because of the
> expansion is too great.
>
> The novel finite range of light model, on the other hand suggests the
> light cones curve, making "goblet"  or wineglass shapes, rather than
> cone-like martini glasses.
>
>         Video:
>        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te4AJJTCMXk
>
> These light goblets and their deviations from their light cone
> counterparts, are suggested to be the  source of a range of
> cosmological observations, from the fall off in surface brightness,
> the time  dilation in supernovae light curves, and of course, Hubble
> redshift, Exhibit A.
>
> As more predictions and tests are worked out of the hypothesis, in the
> meantime go look out in the night sky sometime. Did all of that expand
> from a single point? Or is it possible light  doesn't travel forever,
> and maybe there's even unfathomably more out there beyond what light
> is able to  show us?
>
> You be the judge.
>
> Appendix A:
>
> clear
> lEscape = .f.
> lPictures = .f.
> on escape lEscape = .t.
>
> DECLARE Sleep IN Win32API INTEGER nMilliseconds
> if lPictures
>         Declare Integer formtobmp IN "PCT_DLL.dll" integer hwnd,String
> bmpFileName
>         lcFile = sys(2015)
> endif
>
> if type("_screen.target1") = "O"
>         _screen.RemoveObject("target1")
> endif
> if type("_screen.target2") = "O"
> ...
>
> read more »

From: eric gisse on 14 Jul 2010 04:05
Michael Helland wrote:

> On Jul 13, 6:32 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Michael Helland wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > No, tired light going back to Zwicky always invoked some strange
>> >> > interaction, either with dust or with space itself, things like
>> >> > that.
>>
>> >> While your model is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT because you rely on 'internal
>> >> dynamics of electromagnetic radiation' for the *exact* same effect.
>>
>> >> Are you that stupid?
>>
>> > The results of my model are clear, tired light fails to predict an
>> > increase in duration, which my hypothesis and the expansion hypothesis
>> > do predict, which accounts for the observed cosmological redshift.
>>
>> Wrong, and stupid. All you write is that light slows down. You don't
>> model a larger distance, you instead assert 'magic'.
>
>
> Coming from a guy that discredits my code as "pseudo", won't look at
> various states of the model in action or graphs that summarize what
> the models intend to show, that's pretty rich.

Unlike you, I learn from what I see. And I have seen the previous 5 years of
you babbling.

You know nothing of cosmology, electromagnetic theory, or even the level of
mathematics I had learned by the time I was a sophomore. Your ideas stopped
being worth examining years ago.

[...]
From: Michael Helland on 14 Jul 2010 04:18
On Jul 14, 1:05 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Helland wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 6:32 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Michael Helland wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >> >> > No, tired light going back to Zwicky always invoked some strange
> >> >> > interaction, either with dust or with space itself, things like
> >> >> > that.
>
> >> >> While your model is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT because you rely on 'internal
> >> >> dynamics of electromagnetic radiation' for the *exact* same effect.
>
> >> >> Are you that stupid?
>
> >> > The results of my model are clear, tired light fails to predict an
> >> > increase in duration, which my hypothesis and the expansion hypothesis
> >> > do predict, which accounts for the observed cosmological redshift.
>
> >> Wrong, and stupid. All you write is that light slows down. You don't
> >> model a larger distance, you instead assert 'magic'.
>
> > Coming from a guy that discredits my code as "pseudo", won't look at
> > various states of the model in action or graphs that summarize what
> > the models intend to show, that's pretty rich.
>
> Unlike you, I learn from what I see. And I have seen the previous 5 years of
> you babbling.
>
> You know nothing of cosmology, electromagnetic theory, or even the level of
> mathematics I had learned by the time I was a sophomore. Your ideas stopped
> being worth examining years ago.


That's your opinion.

In the mean time, I'll examine the 4 questions you've given me. Thanks
for that.

If you don't mind entertaining a slight request, however.... I was
wondering if you could give me some specific problems that have
specific answers, you know... with numbers in them.

After all, comparing general techniques might be a lengthy tangent,
but its the comparison of cold hard quantitative statements that I'm
going after here.
From: spudnik on 14 Jul 2010 23:39
first of all, I don't know of any minimal frequency / maximal
wavelength
of lightwaves, in any theory. secondly,
most of the highly redshifted stuff from Hubble scope is tantalizingly
blurry, and
who really knows, how far "back" it could go, from those wavelengths?

now, Olber probably didn't know about redshifting; did he?

the other cool thing was brought-up by surfer,
that most blue-shifts wouldn't be visible, whatever causes the general
red-
shifting with distance.

> >> >> > The results of my model are clear, tired light fails to predict an
> >> >> > increase in duration, which my hypothesis and the expansion
> >> >> > hypothesis do predict, which accounts for the observed cosmological
> >> >> > redshift.

> What I asked you to derive are textbook problems

--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net -- the book that brought H-Dubya, down (iff any
book, did .-)
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Bungling Idiots And Their Political Agendas Re: MYTH: 'Obama admin turned down foreign assistance' (and other Right-Wing Noory Distortions)
Next: Quantum Gravity 401.2: USA Relates Intersection to Basic Game Semantics Logic