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 13 May 2010 05:21 On May 12, 7:25 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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". This of course based on one absolute assumption: light never changes speed in vacuum with no gravitational affect. That assumption is flawed, but I've come to realize, you will never except the truth, but simply repeat knowledge from last century. Your opinion was once the standard for scientific knowledge, is now the statement of a dogma whose time has passed.
From: J. Clarke on 13 May 2010 07:39 On 5/13/2010 3:13 AM, G. L. Bradford wrote: > > "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! So how does light conduct this "assault"? Does it carry M-16s or something?
From: Sam Wormley on 13 May 2010 11:48 On 5/13/10 4:21 AM, Michael Helland wrote: > That assumption is flawed, but I've come to realize, you will never > except the truth, but simply repeat knowledge from last century. What truth is that, Michael? You make the photon sound like a Newtonian object. The photon only has existence propagating at c. From the quantum mechanical perspective, all photons travel at c. 1. photons are emitted (by charged particles) 2. photons propagate at c 3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles) Photon momentum p = hν/c = h/λ Photon Energy E = hν
From: G. L. Bradford on 13 May 2010 12:06 "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:hsgpkf01l3k(a)news7.newsguy.com... > On 5/13/2010 3:13 AM, G. L. Bradford wrote: >> >> "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! > > So how does light conduct this "assault"? Does it carry M-16s or > something? > > ====================== Concerning the effectiveness of a flashlight, there is no difference between night and day on Earth, is there? Astronomers, from their Earth based scopes, get the same view of the observable universe regardless of whether the Sun is on this side of Earth or the other side....no effect on, or interference with, incoming light at all, eh? There is an enormous amount of outgoing light outpouring from our local region. And that is only an inner ring of an expansion of ever greater numbers of rings of outgoing light emission cascading an accelerating, accumulating, avalanche of light upon oncoming light. All of it is UNOBSERVABLE from Earth, except for its stepped effects upon all oncoming light. This is just the frontal, never mind all that is avalanching UNOBSERVED from every other UNOBSERVABLE angle of flank, from left, from right, from up and from down (relatively speaking), going out and away from every local. The more distant the picture making its way, the greater the accumulation of effect and the heavier the effects (so to speak). GLB =====================
From: J. Clarke on 13 May 2010 14:43
On 5/13/2010 12:06 PM, G. L. Bradford wrote: > > "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message > news:hsgpkf01l3k(a)news7.newsguy.com... >> On 5/13/2010 3:13 AM, G. L. Bradford wrote: >>> >>> "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! >> >> So how does light conduct this "assault"? Does it carry M-16s or >> something? >> >> > > ====================== > > Concerning the effectiveness of a flashlight, there is no difference > between night and day on Earth, is there? Astronomers, from their Earth > based scopes, get the same view of the observable universe regardless of > whether the Sun is on this side of Earth or the other side....no effect > on, or interference with, incoming light at all, eh? > > There is an enormous amount of outgoing light outpouring from our local > region. And that is only an inner ring of an expansion of ever greater > numbers of rings of outgoing light emission cascading an accelerating, > accumulating, avalanche of light upon oncoming light. All of it is > UNOBSERVABLE from Earth, except for its stepped effects upon all > oncoming light. This is just the frontal, never mind all that is > avalanching UNOBSERVED from every other UNOBSERVABLE angle of flank, > from left, from right, from up and from down (relatively speaking), > going out and away from every local. The more distant the picture making > its way, the greater the accumulation of effect and the heavier the > effects (so to speak). Oh, gotcha. Thought I was dealing with someone who had at least taken freshman physics. Silly me. |