On Mar 23, 4:26 pm, "OG" wrote:
"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


I could have said "begin to allegedly appear".

That's what normal cranks do.


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?

How much expansion occurs during that journey?


Say it is X, or f(650)


v = 650 light years / 650 years

so

v = f(650) light years / f(650) years

That's an expanding universe, because the speed of light is constant.

But, if we accept that around 650 light years relativity hits its
limit (much like Newton hits its limits approaching c), then we can
allow the speed of light to change.


v_tired = 650 light years / f(650) years

That's how much the speed of light tires.

On Mar 23, 2:49 pm, Michael Helland wrote:
[snip]

In 2008, tired light is a stupid idea.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

On Mar 23, 5:36 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 23, 2:49 pm, Michael Helland wrote:
[snip]

In 2008, tired light is a stupid idea.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

He has 4 criticisms.

1. No known interaction will cause tired light

response: I'm not suggesting an interaction causes it. I'm suggesting
it's the natural behavior of photon after 650 Mly.

2. Light curves.

response: Jensen casts some doubt on the evidence

3. The CMB

response: His diagrams clearly depict models based on different
assumptions. Keeping the Big Bang current with observations has been
top priority. It's not surprising alternative models have fallen
behind.

4. "The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test.
This is essentially the same effect as the CMB prefactor test, but
applied to the surface brightness of galaxies instead of to the
emissivities of blackbodies."

Can anyone explain this?

"Michael Helland" wrote in message
...
On Mar 23, 5:36 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 23, 2:49 pm, Michael Helland wrote:
[snip]

In 2008, tired light is a stupid idea.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

He has 4 criticisms.

1. No known interaction will cause tired light

response: I'm not suggesting an interaction causes it. I'm suggesting
it's the natural behavior of photon after 650 Mly.

2. Light curves.

response: Jensen casts some doubt on the evidence

3. The CMB

response: His diagrams clearly depict models based on different
assumptions. Keeping the Big Bang current with observations has been
top priority. It's not surprising alternative models have fallen
behind.

4. "The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test.
This is essentially the same effect as the CMB prefactor test, but
applied to the surface brightness of galaxies instead of to the
emissivities of blackbodies."

Can anyone explain this?

I've asked what value you expect the speed of light to be after the light
has travelled for 650 Mly. My question to you - What is your answer?

Michael Helland wrote:
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.

No, you will see that w gets larger. The wavelength is what is measured
for light. When you do this with microwaves, you measure frequency and
you see the frequency decrease. Since the frequency decreases and the
wavelength increases in the same ratio, it means that c is a constant.



Lightspeed is constant, even across cosmological distances.


That's the dogma.

No, that is the experimental result. Look up "tired light" and see the
reasons it has been rejected.


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 23, 3:44 pm, Michael Helland wrote:
On Mar 23, 5:36 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Mar 23, 2:49 pm, Michael Helland wrote:
[snip]

In 2008, tired light is a stupid idea.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

He has 4 criticisms.

1. No known interaction will cause tired light

response: I'm not suggesting an interaction causes it. I'm suggesting
it's the natural behavior of photon after 650 Mly.

"**** happens" is not a valid model.

You don't know why or how you think it happens, or even why you think
it happens. That is not good enough.


2. Light curves.

response: Jensen casts some doubt on the evidence

Doubt it. You aren't qualified to critique anything.


3. The CMB

response: His diagrams clearly depict models based on different
assumptions. Keeping the Big Bang current with observations has been
top priority. It's not surprising alternative models have fallen
behind.

....and you totally sidestep the issue.


4. "The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test.
This is essentially the same effect as the CMB prefactor test, but
applied to the surface brightness of galaxies instead of to the
emissivities of blackbodies."

Can anyone explain this?

www.google.com "how to use google"

Have you noticed how often you expect us to do your research for you?
Have you considered that you are wholly unqualified to do what you are
trying to do?

In sci.physics.relativity, OG

wrote
on Mon, 24 Mar 2008 01:09:51 -0000
:

"Michael Helland" wrote in message
...
On Mar 23, 5:36 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 23, 2:49 pm, Michael Helland wrote:
[snip]

In 2008, tired light is a stupid idea.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

He has 4 criticisms.

1. No known interaction will cause tired light

response: I'm not suggesting an interaction causes it. I'm suggesting
it's the natural behavior of photon after 650 Mly.

2. Light curves.

response: Jensen casts some doubt on the evidence

3. The CMB

response: His diagrams clearly depict models based on different
assumptions. Keeping the Big Bang current with observations has been
top priority. It's not surprising alternative models have fallen
behind.

4. "The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test.
This is essentially the same effect as the CMB prefactor test, but
applied to the surface brightness of galaxies instead of to the
emissivities of blackbodies."

Can anyone explain this?

I've asked what value you expect the speed of light to be after the light
has travelled for 650 Mly. My question to you - What is your answer?


It gets worse than that. The "tired light" phenomenon is,
AFAICT, related to Gaussian wavepacket spreading.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0143-0807/18/3/022

is a theoretical analysis thereof. I'm not sure of the
exact parameterization.

--
#191,
Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
try our new color changing variant?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mar 23, 6:09 pm, "OG" wrote:

snip
I've asked what value you expect the speed of light to be after the light
has travelled for 650 Mly. My question to you - What is your answer?



Let's say you are a photon.

You are at 0,0.

You're friend is at 0, 650Mly

You want to see your friend.

You meet up with your friend.

He was 650 Mly away. Because of expansion you traveled a distance
greater than 650 Mly.

You traveled f(650) Mly.

I use the function because I don't know how to calculate the actual
number.

Yes, I'm that stupid.

If we were to assume that space is not expanding, then space stays the
same, yet time changes. Like so:

your_predicted_speed_of_light = 650 Mly / f(650) years

That's my answer.

And because:

c = fw

If we consider c variable and not constant, then

E = hf

Which means it's consistent with the observed redshifts.

On Mar 23, 6:39 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 23, 3:44 pm, Michael Helland wrote:

On Mar 23, 5:36 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Mar 23, 2:49 pm, Michael Helland wrote:
[snip]

In 2008, tired light is a stupid idea.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

He has 4 criticisms.

1. No known interaction will cause tired light

response: I'm not suggesting an interaction causes it. I'm suggesting
it's the natural behavior of photon after 650 Mly.

"**** happens" is not a valid model.


In the Big Bang model, in order to explains some of its problems, an
"inflation" period occurred.

That's just **** happening.

If you posit the Big Bang, then you posit an "inflation" period.

That's essentially the same as positing a "tiring" period on a photon.

Occam's Razor isn't on your side.



You don't know why or how you think it happens, or even why you think
it happens. That is not good enough.


I do know why.


2. Light curves.

response: Jensen casts some doubt on the evidence

Doubt it. You aren't qualified to critique anything.


Someone told me the Universe doesn't care about your opinion.


3. The CMB

response: His diagrams clearly depict models based on different
assumptions. Keeping the Big Bang current with observations has been
top priority. It's not surprising alternative models have fallen
behind.

...and you totally sidestep the issue.


The issue is, from his diagrams, he is assuming the observable
universe and universe are one in the same.

Under my assumptions, the observable universe is different from the
Universe.

The CMB is recovered in a much different manner.



4. "The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test.
This is essentially the same effect as the CMB prefactor test, but
applied to the surface brightness of galaxies instead of to the
emissivities of blackbodies."

Can anyone explain this?

www.google.com"how to use google"

Have you noticed how often you expect us to do your research for you?
Have you considered that you are wholly unqualified to do what you are
trying to do?


Have you noticed I'm just here looking for conversation.

If someone was willing to explain the Tolman surface brightness test*
then I think the physics content in this group would probably go up .

You can stand in the way of that if you'd like.

* yes, I did Google in an attempt to understand on my own but couldn't

On Mar 23, 9:08*pm, Michael Helland wrote:
[snip]

* yes, I did Google in an attempt to understand on my own but couldn't

www.google.com tolman surface brightness test

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman_...rightness_test

First link. Worthless as an actual reference but a perfect place to
get started in your research.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0106566

Second link. Summarized: Tired light is crap, and observation is
consistent with an expanding universe. Read the paper, and you will
have it explained - again - why tired light is crap.

When you can't figure out something when its' name is given to you and
the first dozen links on google abundantly and clearly explain the
concept for anyone who is even slightly familiar with the field, then
you clearly need to stop discussing tired light and cosmology in
general.

I simply do not understand why you believe you can contribute to any
discussion when you don't have any of the required background.