in 13.7 billion years, light only travels 6.8 billion light years
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantum Gravity 394.6: India Returns to Excellence with Gravitation as a Boundary Phenomenon
Next: WHAT’S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, May 7, 2010 Washington, DC
From: Michael Helland on 11 May 2010 15:35 On May 9, 3:11 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 9, 2:49 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 8, 7:59 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 8, 7:12 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 6:33 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Michael Helland wrote: > > > > > > [snip idiocy] > > > > > > > So if I wanted to see how this affected the need for Dark Matter, is > > > > > > there an example of masses and distances that need to fit together? > > > > > > "Do my research for me." > > > > > Hey, I solved the acceleration problem with my formula, v = c - Ht > > > > where H is in units of km/sec/millionyears. > > > > > The least you could do is stop calling me an idiot. > > > > According to both standard cosmology and your theory, light that was > > > originally > > > emitted in the visible will at some distance have redshifted into the > > > microwave (CMBR). > > > According to standard Cosmology, yes. > > > According to my hypothesis, no. Sam W. actually drew my attention to > > that prediction. > > If by Sam W. you refer to Sam Wormley, I don't care what he says. I > have killfiled Wormley because he parrots others' words rather than do > his own thinking. > > Your hypothesis (I notice you have downgraded from "theory" but > that's not the nit I want to pick) predicts that blue photons (for > instance) from radiating objects near the Hubble Limit will, by the > time they get to our eyes and instruments, have the measurable > wavelength and frequency of what we on Earth call microwaves. Whatever > the physical reason, I see no reason the term "redshift" does not > apply. > > > > According to you, when it started out the CMBR must have been fresh > > > (fast) high energy photons that at our distance have decayed to stale > > > (slow) microwaves. > > > According to me, the CMB is the result of photons from galaxies around > > Hubble's limit that are at the end of their range. > > Right. > > > > But, my radar gun also produces fresh microwave photons > > > which being freshly minted, according to your "theory" should move at > > > an unaltered c. > > > > What then, is the difference between your slow "stale" microwaves > > > and my fast fresh ones? > > > The duration of their journey from their source to the observer > > according to the formula v = c - Ht where H is 21.77km/sec/million > > years > > Where does the energy of your "stale" photons go as they travel? Energy is lost in an expanding Universe too. This model suggests that QED has to be rewritten with even less classical concepts such as inertia than ever before. > How fast do they lose it? What's the physical mechanism? It loses velocity at the rate of v = c - Ht The physical mechanism is the internal behavior of light itself.
From: nuny on 11 May 2010 17:17 On May 11, 12:35 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 9, 3:11 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 9, 2:49 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 8, 7:59 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 7:12 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 8, 6:33 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Michael Helland wrote: > > > > > > > [snip idiocy] > > > > > > > > So if I wanted to see how this affected the need for Dark Matter, is > > > > > > > there an example of masses and distances that need to fit together? > > > > > > > "Do my research for me." > > > > > > Hey, I solved the acceleration problem with my formula, v = c - Ht > > > > > where H is in units of km/sec/millionyears. > > > > > > The least you could do is stop calling me an idiot. > > > > > According to both standard cosmology and your theory, light that was > > > > originally > > > > emitted in the visible will at some distance have redshifted into the > > > > microwave (CMBR). > > > > According to standard Cosmology, yes. > > > > According to my hypothesis, no. Sam W. actually drew my attention to > > > that prediction. > > > If by Sam W. you refer to Sam Wormley, I don't care what he says. I > > have killfiled Wormley because he parrots others' words rather than do > > his own thinking. > > > Your hypothesis (I notice you have downgraded from "theory" but > > that's not the nit I want to pick) predicts that blue photons (for > > instance) from radiating objects near the Hubble Limit will, by the > > time they get to our eyes and instruments, have the measurable > > wavelength and frequency of what we on Earth call microwaves. Whatever > > the physical reason, I see no reason the term "redshift" does not > > apply. > > > > > According to you, when it started out the CMBR must have been fresh > > > > (fast) high energy photons that at our distance have decayed to stale > > > > (slow) microwaves. > > > > According to me, the CMB is the result of photons from galaxies around > > > Hubble's limit that are at the end of their range. > > > Right. > > > > > But, my radar gun also produces fresh microwave photons > > > > which being freshly minted, according to your "theory" should move at > > > > an unaltered c. > > > > > What then, is the difference between your slow "stale" microwaves > > > > and my fast fresh ones? > > > > The duration of their journey from their source to the observer > > > according to the formula v = c - Ht where H is 21.77km/sec/million > > > years I meant *as detected*. > > Where does the energy of your "stale" photons go as they travel? > > Energy is lost in an expanding Universe too. Correct, and it's accounted for in the energy of relative motion of source and detector, which you've rejected. > This model suggests that QED has to be rewritten with even less > classical concepts such as inertia than ever before. > > > How fast do they lose it? What's the physical mechanism? > > It loses velocity at the rate of v = c - Ht I was looking for a response in units of Joule per second. > The physical mechanism is the internal behavior of light itself. Specifically, what behavior? You are proposing that light has a "memory" of its time of flight, an internal clock that counts away the energy it loses as it travels. That's not the mechanism I meant; do you suggest that photons emit some other sort of particle that carries away the energy? Are you suggesting photons suffer some sort of continuous lossy collisional processes? With what? Or, do you propose that energy is not conserved? Speaking of energy; the usual relation E=hf points out that if we know the frequency of a photon, we know its energy will be the product of that frequency and Planck's constant. That relation can be restated as E=hc/lambda. If c is not constant, two photons of the same wavelength but different "ages" hence different velocities will *not* have identical energy. That means that one of your "stale" CMBR microwave photons will have *less* energy than one of my "fresh" radar gun photons. Do you know how radio telescopes work? Generally, they use semiconductor detectors in which a locally-generated extremely stable RF signal is mixed with incoming microwaves, and the sum and difference frequencies are what are detected, measured, and recorded. At the mixer diode level, the energy of the photons is *critical*. It must be the specific value required to shift electrons from one energy level to another (those levels are set by the doping of the diode and the bias voltage applied to it). In other words, it *won't see* your slow photons at all. That is the difference between your stale photons and my fresh ones; yours will be undetectable. Mark L. Fergerson
From: Michael Helland on 11 May 2010 18:25 On May 11, 2:17 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 11, 12:35 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 9, 3:11 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 9, 2:49 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 7:59 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 8, 7:12 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 8, 6:33 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Michael Helland wrote: > > > > > > > > [snip idiocy] > > > > > > > > > So if I wanted to see how this affected the need for Dark Matter, is > > > > > > > > there an example of masses and distances that need to fit together? > > > > > > > > "Do my research for me." > > > > > > > Hey, I solved the acceleration problem with my formula, v = c - Ht > > > > > > where H is in units of km/sec/millionyears. > > > > > > > The least you could do is stop calling me an idiot. > > > > > > According to both standard cosmology and your theory, light that was > > > > > originally > > > > > emitted in the visible will at some distance have redshifted into the > > > > > microwave (CMBR). > > > > > According to standard Cosmology, yes. > > > > > According to my hypothesis, no. Sam W. actually drew my attention to > > > > that prediction. > > > > If by Sam W. you refer to Sam Wormley, I don't care what he says. I > > > have killfiled Wormley because he parrots others' words rather than do > > > his own thinking. > > > > Your hypothesis (I notice you have downgraded from "theory" but > > > that's not the nit I want to pick) predicts that blue photons (for > > > instance) from radiating objects near the Hubble Limit will, by the > > > time they get to our eyes and instruments, have the measurable > > > wavelength and frequency of what we on Earth call microwaves. Whatever > > > the physical reason, I see no reason the term "redshift" does not > > > apply. > > > > > > According to you, when it started out the CMBR must have been fresh > > > > > (fast) high energy photons that at our distance have decayed to stale > > > > > (slow) microwaves. > > > > > According to me, the CMB is the result of photons from galaxies around > > > > Hubble's limit that are at the end of their range. > > > > Right. > > > > > > But, my radar gun also produces fresh microwave photons > > > > > which being freshly minted, according to your "theory" should move at > > > > > an unaltered c. > > > > > > What then, is the difference between your slow "stale" microwaves > > > > > and my fast fresh ones? > > > > > The duration of their journey from their source to the observer > > > > according to the formula v = c - Ht where H is 21.77km/sec/million > > > > years > > I meant *as detected*. > > > > Where does the energy of your "stale" photons go as they travel? > > > Energy is lost in an expanding Universe too. > > Correct, and it's accounted for in the energy of relative motion of > source and detector, which you've rejected. > > > This model suggests that QED has to be rewritten with even less > > classical concepts such as inertia than ever before. > > > > How fast do they lose it? What's the physical mechanism? > > > It loses velocity at the rate of v = c - Ht > > I was looking for a response in units of Joule per second. > > > The physical mechanism is the internal behavior of light itself. > > Specifically, what behavior? You are proposing that light has a > "memory" of its time of flight, an internal clock that counts away the > energy it loses as it travels. Close. I suspect that it has a tank of energy from which it constantly uses and disperses quantums of energy. This is a theory of motion for the photon that isn't based on inertia, perhaps a milestone for QM. > That's not the mechanism I meant; do you suggest that photons emit > some other sort of particle that carries away the energy? Hmmmm. That's worth thinking about. Maybe the dispersed energy is another photon with a tiny range. Maybe that's how a single photon goes through both slits? I'll have to build a model or two based on that. > Are you > suggesting photons suffer some sort of continuous lossy collisional > processes? With what? > Or, do you propose that energy is not conserved? > > Speaking of energy; the usual relation E=hf points out that if we > know the frequency of a photon, we know its energy will be the product > of that frequency and Planck's constant. > > That relation can be restated as E=hc/lambda. > > If c is not constant, two photons of the same wavelength but > different "ages" hence different velocities will *not* have identical > energy. Right. Which is observed as Hubble's redshift. > That means that one of your "stale" CMBR microwave photons will have > *less* energy than one of my "fresh" radar gun photons. Right. > Do you know how radio telescopes work? Generally, they use > semiconductor detectors in which a locally-generated extremely stable > RF signal is mixed with incoming microwaves, and the sum and > difference frequencies are what are detected, measured, and recorded. > > At the mixer diode level, the energy of the photons is *critical*. > It must be the specific value required to shift electrons from one > energy level to another (those levels are set by the doping of the > diode and the bias voltage applied to it). In other words, it *won't > see* your slow photons at all. > > That is the difference between your stale photons and my fresh ones; > yours will be undetectable. I will give this some more thought.
From: Sam Wormley on 12 May 2010 22:25 On 5/12/10 2:25 AM, Michael Helland wrote: > Simple. Tired Light FAILS because light travels at c in steady space. > > Expansion PASSES because light traveling at constant c is delayed by > increasing distance. > > If you notice that in the subject line, my algorithm has the same > delay, except it works without increasing distance. Geez Louise--From even Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman_surface_brightness_test "In a simple (static and flat) universe, the light received from an object drops inversely with the square of its distance, but the apparent area of the object also drops inversely with the square of the distance, so the surface brightness would be independent of the distance. In an expanding universe, however, there are two effects that reduce the power detected coming from distant objects. First, the rate at which photons are received is reduced because each photon has to travel a little farther than the one before. Second, the energy of each photon observed is reduced by the redshift. At the same time, distant objects appear larger than they really are because the photons observed were emitted at a time when the object was closer. Adding these effects together, the surface brightness in a simple expanding universe (flat geometry and uniform expansion over the range of redshifts observed) should decrease with the fourth power of (1+z)". "To date, the best investigation of the relationship between surface brightness and redshift was carried out using the 400-inch Keck telescope to measure nearly a thousand galaxies' redshifts and the 94-inch HST to measure those galaxies' surface brightness.[1] The exponent found is not 4 as expected in the simplest expanding model, but 2.6 or 3.4, depending on the frequency band. The authors summarize: We show that this is precisely the range expected from the evolutionary models of Bruzual & Charlot. We conclude that the Tolman surface brightness test is consistent with the reality of the expansion".
From: G. L. Bradford on 13 May 2010 03:13
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:FMSdnVMS8tu1_nbWnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... > On 5/12/10 2:25 AM, Michael Helland wrote: >> Simple. Tired Light FAILS because light travels at c in steady space. >> >> Expansion PASSES because light traveling at constant c is delayed by >> increasing distance. >> >> If you notice that in the subject line, my algorithm has the same >> delay, except it works without increasing distance. > > Geez Louise--From even Wikipedia > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman_surface_brightness_test > > "In a simple (static and flat) universe, the light received from an object > drops inversely with the square of its distance, but the apparent area of > the object also drops inversely with the square of the distance, so the > surface brightness would be independent of the distance. In an expanding > universe, however, there are two effects that reduce the power detected > coming from distant objects. First, the rate at which photons are received > is reduced because each photon has to travel a little farther than the one > before. Second, the energy of each photon observed is reduced by the > redshift. At the same time, distant objects appear larger than they really > are because the photons observed were emitted at a time when the object > was closer. Adding these effects together, the surface brightness in a > simple expanding universe (flat geometry and uniform expansion over the > range of redshifts observed) should decrease with the fourth power of > (1+z)". > > "To date, the best investigation of the relationship between surface > brightness and redshift was carried out using the 400-inch Keck telescope > to measure nearly a thousand galaxies' redshifts and the 94-inch HST to > measure those galaxies' surface brightness.[1] The exponent found is not 4 > as expected in the simplest expanding model, but 2.6 or 3.4, depending on > the frequency band. The authors summarize: > We show that this is precisely the range expected from the evolutionary > models of Bruzual & Charlot. We conclude that the Tolman surface > brightness test is consistent with the reality of the expansion". > =========================== Not a single mention of continuous periphery gain and the constant of accumulating, increasing, peripheral interference along the entire line. To these people there is no right to left wall of light along the entire line, no left to right wall of light, no up to down wall, no down to up wall, no continuous gauntlet of UNOBSERVED (from Earth) light that the OBSERVED light had to run the entire way from there-then to here-now. Not too bad in the beginning, but the assault is effective even then. The assault of light from every direction of periphery never endingly increasing all the time in the effectiveness of a gauntlet assault upon all light oncoming to any point at any distance of line in the universe. Then there is the crowding in of periphery (of peripheral universe picture), accelerating in that crowding in, with all advance of light from any there-then through all closer there-thens to any here-now. Then there is one more assault of light upon all oncoming light that these people do not mention. Outgoing light's frontal assault on oncoming light. Not just the billions of years of outgoing light from this galaxy alone, but all the billions of years of outgoing light's frontal assault from this entire local region of light emitting bodies. Naaa! According to these people such is totally meaningless. No effect whatsoever. Thus no need to even think about it much less mention such dimensions. Remember, to them there is only one direction of and to light -- and the universe, absolute! GLB ============================ |