Eric Gisse wrote:

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?

Nice escape. Thanks.

On Mar 22, 12:42 am, 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.


Observations report the light comes in red-shifted.

E = hf

Loss in energy is a loss in frequency.

Plug that into this formula:

c = fw

f = c / w

And you'll see that c gets smaller.



Lightspeed is constant, even across cosmological distances.


That's the dogma.


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.



It breaks down at the distances that expansion allegedly appears.



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?


Randomness is best produced by complexity.



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?


I was agreeing with you.

Do I know what I'm talking?

Not really, no.

I'm just having fun.

You've been taught by this silly little society to hate people like
me.

I won't stand in your way.

On Mar 22, 1:34*pm, Michael Helland wrote:
snip unimportant

Do I know what I'm talking?

Not really, no.

ding ding ding we have a winner, a self proclaimed ignoramus.... Mike
a salute your honesty...

I'm just having fun.

Really? so your idea of fun is getting kicked in the preverbal nuts
everyday...?
So how do you feel about to quote a movie "a genital shocking taser
gun?" -Sandra Bullock

You've been taught by this silly little society to hate people like
me.

No you've taught us that mike through your all invading ignorance and
you inability to go away...

I won't stand in your way.

Sweet, then don't complain about comments leveled at you...

Cheers

On Mar 22, 6:18 am, foolsrushout wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
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?

Nice escape. Thanks.

It wasn't an escape - it was the purpose of bringing it up.

On Mar 22, 8:34 am, Michael Helland wrote:

[snip]

Do I know what I'm talking?

Not really, no.

Then why are you talking? Ignorance is not a form of knowing things.

[snip]

On Mar 21, 4:40*am, "wugi" wrote:
"Huang" :

New space distance is being created inbetween matter as the universe
expands. This we observe as apparent galactic motion. But it is not
motion. They are not moving away through space.

It's not such a dumb idea. This can be modelled using probabilistic
methods, and would explain many things such as redshifting quite
nicely.

You can have an expanding universe "without" a big bang.

How? What about the background radiation?

However, to attempt such a model without using probability theory -
now THAT would be d-u-m-b.

What makes it probabilistic and not pure geometry?

regards,

guidohttp://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm

The explanation can become quite long, so I'll try to be brief.


1] You have a piece of length which is composed of, or graduated by
individual Plancklengths.

2] The graduations are not fixed. They can slide around freely. Their
position along the length segment is indeterminate.

3] The best way to model [2] is with probability theory. This leads to
a very intuitive explanation of why calculus works perfectly
regardless of Plancklength.

4] Now you need 3 existential forms, not just 2. In physics you must
have these three forms :
a] That which exists
b] That which does not exist
c] That for which existence is indeterminate. Existential
indeterminacy is a boundary condition.

5] Length can now be described probabilistically in two distinct ways:
a] A given segment is composed of points, and to each point we assign
a probability that the point exists.
b] A given segment is composed of a nonrandom segment to which we add
a random segment.

6] It is indeterminate whether we have [5a] or [5b], and so the
continuity/discreteness of spacetime is indeterminate.

7] Waves in space are easily modelled as fluctuations in this
"existential potential" of [5a].

8] And so expansion of space can be characterized quite simply as an
overall increase of the probabilities in the existential potential of
[5a]. In a sense it really is expansion, but can be viewed as a purely
probabilistic phenoemena.

That's how I got there -

Huang

"Michael Helland" wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 3:12 am, "OG" wrote:
"Michael Helland" wrote in message

...



On Mar 20, 8:36 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear Michael Helland:

"Michael Helland" wrote in message

...

On Mar 20, 12:36 pm, wrote:

Here's a bonafide crackpot idea.

The Big Bang and expansion of space is an
illusion.

... good so far ...

We look at light coming from a far away place.

We notice it takes longer to get here than it ought to.

We can't know that. What we see is that:
- wavelengths are longer than they should be
- intensity is in agreement with red shift
- duration of characteristic events is redshifted similarly to
the wavelength

I am not denying the redshift.

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

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

But if light slows down from distant galaxies, during a lunar
occultatation
their image would take longer to disappear than more local stars or
galaxies. This isn't observed.


Maybe.

If the differences in speeds of local light and intergalactic light
are big enough, and the distance between the Earth and the Moon is big
enough.

But maybe it's not big enough.

OK, no problem, it's your theory. What is the difference in light speed
between local and distant objects by your theory?

On Mar 23, 3:56 pm, "OG" wrote:
"Michael Helland" wrote in message

...



On Mar 21, 3:12 am, "OG" wrote:
"Michael Helland" wrote in message

...

On Mar 20, 8:36 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear Michael Helland:

"Michael Helland" wrote in message

...

On Mar 20, 12:36 pm, wrote:

Here's a bonafide crackpot idea.

The Big Bang and expansion of space is an
illusion.

... good so far ...

We look at light coming from a far away place.

We notice it takes longer to get here than it ought to.

We can't know that. What we see is that:
- wavelengths are longer than they should be
- intensity is in agreement with red shift
- duration of characteristic events is redshifted similarly to
the wavelength

I am not denying the redshift.

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

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

But if light slows down from distant galaxies, during a lunar
occultatation
their image would take longer to disappear than more local stars or
galaxies. This isn't observed.

Maybe.

If the differences in speeds of local light and intergalactic light
are big enough, and the distance between the Earth and the Moon is big
enough.

But maybe it's not big enough.

OK, no problem, it's your theory. What is the difference in light speed
between local and distant objects by your theory?

Good question.

Let's get the extreme case out of the question.

The CMB.

Can you see the CMB behind the moon while its still there?

If so, we're still in the water.

Now the other extreme.

In which near galaxies does expansion redshift begin to occur?

How many light years does light have to travel to us before we detect
the expansion of the universe?

"Michael Helland" wrote in message
...
On Mar 23, 3:56 pm, "OG" wrote:
"Michael Helland" wrote in message

...



On Mar 21, 3:12 am, "OG" wrote:
"Michael Helland" wrote in message

...

On Mar 20, 8:36 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear Michael Helland:

"Michael Helland" wrote in message

...

On Mar 20, 12:36 pm, wrote:

Here's a bonafide crackpot idea.

The Big Bang and expansion of space is an
illusion.

... good so far ...

We look at light coming from a far away place.

We notice it takes longer to get here than it ought to.

We can't know that. What we see is that:
- wavelengths are longer than they should be
- intensity is in agreement with red shift
- duration of characteristic events is redshifted similarly to
the wavelength

I am not denying the redshift.

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

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

But if light slows down from distant galaxies, during a lunar
occultatation
their image would take longer to disappear than more local stars or
galaxies. This isn't observed.

Maybe.

If the differences in speeds of local light and intergalactic light
are big enough, and the distance between the Earth and the Moon is big
enough.

But maybe it's not big enough.

OK, no problem, it's your theory. What is the difference in light speed
between local and distant objects by your theory?

Good question.

Let's get the extreme case out of the question.

The CMB.

Can you see the CMB behind the moon while its still there?

If so, we're still in the water.

Now the other extreme.

In which near galaxies does expansion redshift begin to occur?

How many light years does light have to travel to us before we detect
the expansion of the universe?

"Michael Helland" wrote in message
...
On Mar 23, 3:56 pm, "OG" wrote:
"Michael Helland" wrote in message

...



On Mar 21, 3:12 am, "OG" wrote:
"Michael Helland" wrote in message

...

On Mar 20, 8:36 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear Michael Helland:

"Michael Helland" wrote in message

...

On Mar 20, 12:36 pm, wrote:

Here's a bonafide crackpot idea.

The Big Bang and expansion of space is an
illusion.

... good so far ...

We look at light coming from a far away place.

We notice it takes longer to get here than it ought to.

We can't know that. What we see is that:
- wavelengths are longer than they should be
- intensity is in agreement with red shift
- duration of characteristic events is redshifted similarly to
the wavelength

I am not denying the redshift.

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

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

But if light slows down from distant galaxies, during a lunar
occultatation
their image would take longer to disappear than more local stars or
galaxies. This isn't observed.

Maybe.

If the differences in speeds of local light and intergalactic light
are big enough, and the distance between the Earth and the Moon is big
enough.

But maybe it's not big enough.

OK, no problem, it's your theory. What is the difference in light speed
between local and distant objects by your theory?

Good question.

Let's get the extreme case out of the question.

The CMB.

Can you see the CMB behind the moon while its still there?

If so, we're still in the water.

Now the other extreme.

In which near galaxies does expansion redshift begin to occur?


I thought you didn't think that it *was* expansion redshift

How many light years does light have to travel to us before we detect
the expansion of the universe?

Lets start with a group of galaxies such as the Hercules Cluster. It is
reckoned to be about 650 Mly distant. The red shift is about 0.036. What
would be the reduction in the speed of light for these galaxies?