On Mar 24, 11:23 am, Michael Helland wrote:
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.comtolmansurfacebrightnesstest

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.

Then maybe you shouldn't be speculating about a field you cannot
understand even with the required information is put in front of you
and practically spoon fed.


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

But someone else might.

If I thought there was a shred of hope that you'd learn, I'd take the
time to teach you what I have learned while reading about it.

Since there isn't, I don't go past the requisite effort of putting the
information out there.

On Mar 24, 1:28 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 24, 11:23 am, Michael Helland wrote:



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.comtolmansurfacebrightnesstest

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.

Then maybe you shouldn't be speculating about a field you cannot
understand even with the required information is put in front of you
and practically spoon fed.



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

But someone else might.

If I thought there was a shred of hope that you'd learn, I'd take the
time to teach you what I have learned while reading about it.

Since there isn't, I don't go past the requisite effort of putting the
information out there.


Well, next time you lament the lack of physics content around here,
maybe you'll remember that you chose not talk physics here because of
some personal issue.

On Mar 24, 4:55*pm, Michael Helland wrote:
snip

Well, next time you lament the lack of physics content around here,
maybe you'll remember that you chose not talk physics here because of
some personal issue.

The sooner you go away the sooner physics discussions can happen
without your ignorance and mindless drivel getting in the way...

Cheers

On Mar 24, 2:38 pm, theman wrote:
On Mar 24, 4:55 pm, Michael Helland wrote:
snip



Well, next time you lament the lack of physics content around here,
maybe you'll remember that you chose not talk physics here because of
some personal issue.

The sooner you go away the sooner physics discussions can happen
without your ignorance and mindless drivel getting in the way...

Cheers


I get it. When I go away, then random threads about the Tolmon test
will just show up. Sure.

On Mar 24, 12:55 pm, Michael Helland wrote:
On Mar 24, 1:28 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:



On Mar 24, 11:23 am, Michael Helland wrote:

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.comtolmansurfacebrightnesstest

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.

Then maybe you shouldn't be speculating about a field you cannot
understand even with the required information is put in front of you
and practically spoon fed.

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

But someone else might.

If I thought there was a shred of hope that you'd learn, I'd take the
time to teach you what I have learned while reading about it.

Since there isn't, I don't go past the requisite effort of putting the
information out there.

Well, next time you lament the lack of physics content around here,
maybe you'll remember that you chose not talk physics here because of
some personal issue.

Posting here is my hobby. Occasionally I'll write a long post full of
physics in response to something, but those are few and far between
because folks like you won't appreciate it and doing it just isn't the
same when you know it won't be appreciated.

If you want more physics in here, make the effort to learn some
yourself. If you could demonstrate that you want to /learn/ instead of
just /talk/, then I'd be glad to talk more. Otherwise, carry on in
your whining.

On Mar 24, 5:13 am, uri wrote:
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?

Not sure I really understand your question but I might be able to
explain the part about space expanding and its relation to mass and
energy.
I have been posting about an alternative theory that looks at the idea
that because gravity slows time, that its this slowing of time that
expands space. Its testable and gives the same predictions for
expanding space that is now observed.One of my postings where I
describe 2 contracting cubes inside of a space ship falling towards a
black hole is review for you here.For example if time is only about
1/10 of our time the cubes would have also contracted by 10 time less
their original widths note how they would be farther apart yet never
have moved form their original locations.Its like you had 2 cubes of
jellow set beside each other and let them dry out and contract.Note
how they also get farther apart but yet never moved from their
centers.Note that on the space ship we have 2 observers the ones on
the ship and the externals.People on the ship will argue that the
cubes moved apart and never changed in volume but our external outside
observers will argue that the cubes never moved they only contracted
and so becomes a relative thing much the same way time is.Since you
need mass to make gravity,things go to extremes with black holes so
its more obvious and with that the relations where you need mass to
make space, start to become apparent.
Its too much to reprint it all here again except briefly so look for
all my posting as you will find more in them than on the web site
www.alttheories.com as its incomplete but enough is there now to get
you started.
Dale