"Michael Helland" wrote in message
...
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.

OK, so take your theory seriously, find out how it works and come up with a
test that gives one result for your theory and a different result for the
existing model.
That's one way that science works. But it really has to start with you
taking your own theory seriously. Until then, you can't expect anyone else
to take it seriously.

What i don't get is that if distance is relative to matter and energy
(distance is not matter and energy), then how can it expand?

"uri" wrote in message
...
What i don't get is that if distance is relative to matter and energy

What do you mean by 'relative to matter and energy' ?

(distance is not matter and energy), then how can it expand?

On Mar 23, 11:42 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
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.comtolman 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.


When it comes to the Big Bang vrs Tired Light idea, thinking about it
and talking about it is just for fun.

You're acting like I'm irreverent and blasphemous. Like you're
emotionally attached to ideas.

Anyways.

If someone would like to explain the Tolman Surface Brightness test,
that would be great.

On Mar 24, 2:12*pm, Michael Helland wrote:
snip

When it comes to the Big Bang vrs Tired Light idea, thinking about it
and talking about it is just for fun.

So you find it fun to be ignorant, a look like a fool for everyone...
cool if that works for you...

You're acting like I'm irreverent and blasphemous. Like you're
emotionally attached to ideas.

No just that your to ignorant to have any right to discuss these
issues...

Anyways.

If someone would like to explain the Tolman Surface Brightness test,
that would be great.

Yeah why waste the time, when you wouldn't understand it anyways...
not to mention people have already given you things to read, read
them... or is the truth that in fact you can't read and thats why your
posts are so irrelevant...

Cheers

On Mar 24, 9:12*am, Michael Helland wrote:
On Mar 23, 11:42 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:



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.comtolmansurface 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.

When it comes to the Big Bang vrs Tired Light idea, thinking about it
and talking about it is just for fun.

You're acting like I'm irreverent and blasphemous. Like you're
emotionally attached to ideas.

Anyways.

If someone would like to explain the Tolman Surface Brightness test,
that would be great.

Why don't you read the links I gave you instead of requiring spoonfed
information?

On Mar 24, 11:46 am, theman wrote:
On Mar 24, 2:12 pm, Michael Helland wrote:
snip

When it comes to the Big Bang vrs Tired Light idea, thinking about it
and talking about it is just for fun.

So you find it fun to be ignorant, a look like a fool for everyone...
cool if that works for you...


I'm not to worried about my image.


You're acting like I'm irreverent and blasphemous. Like you're
emotionally attached to ideas.

No just that your to ignorant to have any right to discuss these
issues...

Any "right"?

Again, you sound like someone who goes to church.


Anyways.

If someone would like to explain the Tolman Surface Brightness test,
that would be great.

Yeah why waste the time,

Option A; discuss physics
Option B; put Mike down

I see what's most important to you.

On Mar 24, 11:57 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 24, 9:12 am, Michael Helland wrote:



On Mar 23, 11:42 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

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.comtolmansurfacebrightness 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.

When it comes to the Big Bang vrs Tired Light idea, thinking about it
and talking about it is just for fun.

You're acting like I'm irreverent and blasphemous. Like you're
emotionally attached to ideas.

Anyways.

If someone would like to explain the Tolman Surface Brightness test,
that would be great.

Why don't you read the links I gave you instead of requiring spoonfed
information?


I found those links earlier.

Needless to say, I am stupid, and as of yet, do not understand the
Tolman Surface Brightness test.

I didn't think you would explain it. You're more interested in putting
me down.

But someone else might.

On Mar 24, 3:20*pm, Michael Helland wrote:
On Mar 24, 11:46 am, theman wrote:

On Mar 24, 2:12 pm, wrote:
snip

When it comes to the Big Bang vrs Tired Light idea, thinking about it
and talking about it is just for fun.

So you find it fun to be ignorant, a look like a fool for everyone...
cool if that works for you...

I'm not to worried about my image.

You're acting like I'm irreverent and blasphemous. Like you're
emotionally attached to ideas.

No just that your to ignorant to have any right to discuss these
issues...

Any "right"?

Again, you sound like someone who goes to church.

Is that a problem for you....

Anyways.

If someone would like to explain the Tolman Surface Brightness test,
that would be great.

Yeah why waste the time,

Option A; discuss physics
Option B; putMikedown

I see what's most important to you.

No I just refuse to spoon feed you information that you can learn
yourself if you feel put down, then try learning about things before
you speak...

Cheers

On Mar 24, 3:23*pm, Michael Helland wrote:


I found those links earlier.

Then read them...

Needless to say, I am stupid, and as of yet, do not understand the
Tolman Surface Brightness test.

Then make yourself smart, or go away and stop trying to get people to
pity your stupidity....

snip, mike whining

But someone else might.

Anyone who's dealt with you in the past will hopefully have enough
sense to know that what you need is read a book, and will not spoon
feed you, because your to lazy to learn the stuff yourself...

Cheers