On Mar 21, 3:16*pm, Michael Helland wrote:
On Mar 21, 3:46 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:



On Mar 21, 11:42 am, Michael Helland wrote:

On Mar 21, 12:58 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Mar 21, 10:54 am, Michael Helland wrote:

On Mar 21, 12:33 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:

Dear Michael Helland:

"Michael Helland" wrote in message

...

On Mar 21, 8:04 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

wrote:
Dear Michael Helland:

"Michael Helland" wrote in message

...
...

I am not denying the redshift.

I just agree with Hubble that expansion is
not the cause.

"Agree" is the wrong word. *"Believe" is probably
the right word.

The cause is a loss in velocity over such
immense intergalactic distances.

E = hf

c = fw

Redshift means a loss of energy. Which
means a decrease in frequency.

Now consider that:
- intensity changes in agreement with redshift
being expansion
- duration of events change in agreement with
redshift being expansion

Your "belief" fixes redshift, but now requires
entirely new physics:

That's the point.

Not a point in your favor.

1) we don't know any way to remove some
energy from passing photons and not scatter them.

The conjecture is that photons, after traveling far
enough, slow down naturally.

So they travel at c at emission, but slower than c sometime
later? *This is not observed in the laboratory, using starlight
from rapidly moving sources. *Guess again.

Are you sure?

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0404/0404207.pdf

How are you qualified to cite these papers when you have no idea what
the contents mean?

[...]

Empirical Eric,

How many predictions has Big Bang successfully made?

Which one? The big bang theory has evolved many times since Guth and
crew thought of it.

For starters, the observed baryonic isotope ratios, the background
radiation power spectrum,

Didn't really get that one right, did it?

It gets all of them right. You just have no idea what I'm talking
about because you are even further from your area of expertise than
you were before - and that's pretty ****ing far.


and the isotropy in the background
radiation.
How many predictions has your non-theory successfully made? I'm
guessing zero.

Well, my non-theory says that what is observable in deep space may be
limited, but the universe is actually infinite in all directions.

Congratulations, you acknowledge that light has finite propagation
speed. The prediction is otherwise untestable.


The reason for the observation limit is after traveling long enough,
say, twice the width of the observable universe light naturally wears
out.

It shows up to us as what is called the CMB.

Stupid and wrong. The CMB is a perfect blackbody to parts per million
level, and the anisotropies are randomly distributed.


It's a vague vague shadow, much vaguer than usual, of deeper than deep
space.

That explains what it all looks the same in all directions.

We are looking at a finite representation of infinity.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Dear Michael Helland:

"Michael Helland" wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 7:11 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

wrote:
...
This turns up a 1,180 hits:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...rves+jensen&hl...

So? A google search on "dlzc" ends up with 56,800 hits.

A Google Scholar search for that comes up with 43.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...r=&btnG=Search

I'm shocked that a mechanical engineer should end up with any
hits there.

An entirely new physics would take decades of
effort and involve many many research projects.

And experimental verification. How convenient
that "Jensen" relies on results that cannot be
experimentally verified *here* and *now*, while
"vanilla" relativity can.

I think he was pointing out the lack of light
curve evidence.

As in a prediction that the Big Bang gets wrong.

I think he doesn't point out anything useful, and offers "new
physics".

David A. Smith

Dear Michael Helland:

"Michael Helland" wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 7:14 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

wrote:
....
It shows up to us as what is called the CMB.
Stupid and wrong. The CMB is a perfect blackbody to
parts per million level, and the anisotropies are
randomly distributed.

Add that the CMBR was hotter as we look
back further in time. Why is there no similar
hot CMBR light now?

Has the temperature of the CMB changed since
we first began to measure it?

Only as refinements. But we have been able to use observations
of distant processes, and have seen the CMBR to be much hotter
"back then". For example, 1.1 billion years ago, the CMBR was
about 9 K.

David A. Smith

On Mar 21, 9:55 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear Michael Helland:

"Michael Helland" wrote in message

...

On Mar 21, 7:14 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

wrote:
...
It shows up to us as what is called the CMB.
Stupid and wrong. The CMB is a perfect blackbody to
parts per million level, and the anisotropies are
randomly distributed.

Add that the CMBR was hotter as we look
back further in time. Why is there no similar
hot CMBR light now?

Has the temperature of the CMB changed since
we first began to measure it?

Only as refinements. But we have been able to use observations
of distant processes, and have seen the CMBR to be much hotter
"back then". For example, 1.1 billion years ago, the CMBR was
about 9 K.

David A. Smith


Does it predict any changes in the next 500 years?

On Mar 21, 9:52 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear Michael Helland:

"Michael Helland" wrote in message

...

On Mar 21, 7:11 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

wrote:
..
This turns up a 1,180 hits:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...rves+jensen&hl...

So? A google search on "dlzc" ends up with 56,800 hits.

A Google Scholar search for that comes up with 43.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...r=&btnG=Search

I'm shocked that a mechanical engineer should end up with any
hits there.


I'm not shocked you didn't actually look at the link before you
commented.

Those aren't references to you.




An entirely new physics would take decades of
effort and involve many many research projects.

And experimental verification. How convenient
that "Jensen" relies on results that cannot be
experimentally verified *here* and *now*, while
"vanilla" relativity can.

I think he was pointing out the lack of light
curve evidence.

As in a prediction that the Big Bang gets wrong.

I think he doesn't point out anything useful


There's too much riding on the line to do that.



, and offers "new
physics".

David A. Smith

On Mar 21, 5:45 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:


The reason for the observation limit is after traveling long enough,
say, twice the width of the observable universe light naturally wears
out.

It shows up to us as what is called the CMB.

Stupid and wrong. The CMB is a perfect blackbody to parts per million
level, and the anisotropies are randomly distributed.


Random.

You mean as the result of complexity?

On Mar 21, 6:55*pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear MichaelHelland:

"MichaelHelland" wrote in message

...

On Mar 21, 12:33 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

wrote:
...
So they travel at c at emission, but slower than c
sometime later? *This is not observed in the
laboratory, using starlight from rapidly moving
sources. *Guess again.

Are you sure?

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0404/0404207.pdf

You cite a paper that was never peer reviewed, and is used
nowhere as a citation. *In other words, it proposes but does not
support "new physics". *So it is crap.

David A. Smith


To be honest I am surprised Mike even posted a reference albeit a poor
one normally he just spews so this is a marked improvement.

Although I am a little confused to what the point of some of these
google searches is.

Although as usual Mike unfailingly embarrases himself in the misuse of
ideas he has no notion of, and in fact Mike has even admitted that he
knows nothing of physics so him talking of physics is really a waste
of anyones time...

Cheers

On Mar 21, 4:45 pm, Michael Helland wrote:

[...]


Initially it was wrong.

Yea, that's why I asked WHICH ONE because the model has gone through a
few revisions.


Ad-hoc solutions came up.

Which make further specific predictions that are validated.


You just have no idea what I'm talking
about because you are even further from your area of expertise than
you were before - and that's pretty ****ing far.

I know that. This is a bonafide crackpot idea. I was pretty clear
about that.

and the isotropy in the background
radiation.
How many predictions has your non-theory successfully made? I'm
guessing zero.

Well, my non-theory says that what is observable in deep space may be
limited, but the universe is actually infinite in all directions.

Congratulations, you acknowledge that light has finite propagation
speed. The prediction is otherwise untestable.

At the distances redshift expansion starts to appear, the propagation
speed of light lessens.

In the equation

v = d / t

In order to explain the redshift, we assume t takes longer because d
gets bigger.

Instead, what if t takes longer because v gets smaller?

Unsupported by observation. Lightspeed is constant, even across
cosmological distances.


What if at the point expansion starts to appear, we're really just
watching relativity break down (much like how Newtonian physics breaks
down where relativity starts to appear).

What if, at that point, a unicorn appears?

Saying relativity "breaks down" is meaningless without a quantitative
prediction of when, where, and under what conditions relativity breaks
down.




The reason for the observation limit is after traveling long enough,
say, twice the width of the observable universe light naturally wears
out.

It shows up to us as what is called the CMB.

Stupid and wrong. The CMB is a perfect blackbody to parts per million
level, and the anisotropies are randomly distributed.

No comment, Mike?


It's a vague vague shadow, much vaguer than usual, of deeper than deep
space.

That explains what it all looks the same in all directions.

We are looking at a finite representation of infinity.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Not really, no.

Oh, yes. You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know,
mathematically, what a multipole mmoment is?

Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 21, 4:45 pm, Michael Helland wrote:

[...]


Initially it was wrong.


Yea, that's why I asked WHICH ONE because the model has gone through a
few revisions.


Ad-hoc solutions came up.


Which make further specific predictions that are validated.


You just have no idea what I'm talking
about because you are even further from your area of expertise than
you were before - and that's pretty ****ing far.

I know that. This is a bonafide crackpot idea. I was pretty clear
about that.


and the isotropy in the background
radiation.
How many predictions has your non-theory successfully made? I'm
guessing zero.

Well, my non-theory says that what is observable in deep space may be
limited, but the universe is actually infinite in all directions.

Congratulations, you acknowledge that light has finite propagation
speed. The prediction is otherwise untestable.

At the distances redshift expansion starts to appear, the propagation
speed of light lessens.

In the equation

v = d / t

In order to explain the redshift, we assume t takes longer because d
gets bigger.

Instead, what if t takes longer because v gets smaller?


Unsupported by observation. Lightspeed is constant, even across
cosmological distances.


What if at the point expansion starts to appear, we're really just
watching relativity break down (much like how Newtonian physics breaks
down where relativity starts to appear).


What if, at that point, a unicorn appears?

Saying relativity "breaks down" is meaningless without a quantitative
prediction of when, where, and under what conditions relativity breaks
down.




The reason for the observation limit is after traveling long enough,
say, twice the width of the observable universe light naturally wears
out.

It shows up to us as what is called the CMB.

Stupid and wrong. The CMB is a perfect blackbody to parts per million
level, and the anisotropies are randomly distributed.


No comment, Mike?


It's a vague vague shadow, much vaguer than usual, of deeper than deep
space.

That explains what it all looks the same in all directions.

We are looking at a finite representation of infinity.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Not really, no.


Oh, yes. You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know,
mathematically, what a multipole mmoment is?

Alright then, bring the discussion home from multipole
moment to space expansion and creation since you've
introduced the idea into this thread. Please show us
how this works.

On Mar 22, 12:32 am, foolsrushout wrote:
[...]


Oh, yes. You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know,
mathematically, what a multipole mmoment is?

Alright then, bring the discussion home from multipole
moment to space expansion and creation since you've
introduced the idea into this thread. Please show us
how this works.

Why enter into a discussion about the background radiation if Mike
doesn't know what radiation multipole moments are?