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.

On Mar 21, 9:16*am, Michael Helland wrote:

[snip junk]

Go figure. You can't understand any of modern physics but you feel
free to try to reinvent cosmology regardless and without understanding
of modern observations.


Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics'
Delayed gamma rays from deep space may provide the first evidence for
physics beyond current theories.

http://www.physorg.com/news110480559.html

1) Submitted is not published, and its' been 6 months. Unpublished.
PRL has yet to accept the manuscript - junk this into the pile of
amazing claims like Tajmar, et. al.
2) The claims are based on the assumption of how quasar processes
work.
3) You are an idiot.

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.

2) we are not getting increasing levels of light
scattered from older objects

Because they lose energy without scattering.

There are *not enough photons*. So guess again.

Check this out:

Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics'
Delayed gamma rays from deep space may provide
the first evidence for physics beyond current theories.

http://www.physorg.com/news110480559.html

Non sequitur.

A fellow duplicated "gamma ray bursters" in the lab, eliciting
high energy photons from empty space, using only rapidly changing
magnetic fields. Howeer cool that is, it also has nothing to do
with our discussion.

3) we now cannot find processes similar to ones
we see occuring locally.

Same with expansion.

NOT the "same with expansion".

Your conjecture fixes one observation, and breaks two.

The point is this doesn't occur locally.

Why? Relativity has a way to handle this, but you do not.

The point is Relativity holds true, but has like
the Newtonian physics it replaced, it starts to
break down after traveling through deep space.

Prove it.

....
But it also fits that if c decreases, its not the
distance that increases, it's the time that
increases.

You don't need to play with both.

Right.

You need to play with one or the other.

Mainstream cosmology says play with the size of space.

No. It says that the distance between two distant bodies is not
constant. This leaves a locally constant c, and a *variable time
rate* based on the "global curvature" of the Universe at that
instant.

I'm saying, and the above cite seems to support,
that playing with the speed of photons gives all
the same results.

It doesn't. I was tricked by the words of Setterfield into
thinking it solves problems too. It does not.

I'm not denying the redshift.

It's just that the redshift is really light slowing
down which gives the illusion of space
expanding.

And breaks the entire rest of physics. Think about it.

I know.

Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics'
Delayed gamma rays from deep space may provide
the first evidence for physics beyond current theories.

http://www.physorg.com/news110480559.html

Just as non sequitur as it was before.

David A. Smith

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
quote
Supernovae Ia (SNe Ia) light curves have been used to prove the
universe is expanding. As standard candles, SNe Ia appear to indicate
the rate of expansion has increased in the past and is now decreasing.
This independent evaluation of SNe Ia light curves demonstrates a
Malmquist Type II bias exists in the body of supernova data. If this
bias is properly addressed, there is very little budget for time
dilation in the light curves of supernova.
snip
For most of the 20th century astronomical observations such as
galactic evolution, heavy metal abundance, supernovae light curves and
the cosmic microwave background have fallen within the constraints of
the Einstein - de Sitter Big Bang model. In the last two decades these
relationships have become severely strained. The universe is too big
and too old; the magnitudes of supernovae are dimming too fast. There
are too many radio point sources. The far infrared continuum emissions
imply a dusty past that is completely at odds with multi-colored
supernovae and quasar spectrums. There is too little anisotropy in the
cosmic microwave background to support the observed galaxy
super-cluster structure. Heavy metal ratios equal to solar
concentrations have been quantified in the most redshifted objects we
observe. Something is wrong with this mature theory: It has failed in
too many predictions.
/quote


2) we are not getting increasing levels of light
scattered from older objects

Because they lose energy without scattering.

There are *not enough photons*. So guess again.

Check this out:

Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics'
Delayed gamma rays from deep space may provide
the first evidence for physics beyond current theories.

http://www.physorg.com/news110480559.html

Non sequitur.

A fellow duplicated "gamma ray bursters" in the lab, eliciting
high energy photons from empty space, using only rapidly changing
magnetic fields. Howeer cool that is, it also has nothing to do
with our discussion.

3) we now cannot find processes similar to ones
we see occuring locally.

Same with expansion.

NOT the "same with expansion".

Your conjecture fixes one observation, and breaks two.

The point is this doesn't occur locally.

Why? Relativity has a way to handle this, but you do not.

The point is Relativity holds true, but has like
the Newtonian physics it replaced, it starts to
break down after traveling through deep space.

Prove it.

...

But it also fits that if c decreases, its not the
distance that increases, it's the time that
increases.

You don't need to play with both.

Right.

You need to play with one or the other.

Mainstream cosmology says play with the size of space.

No. It says that the distance between two distant bodies is not
constant. This leaves a locally constant c, and a *variable time
rate* based on the "global curvature" of the Universe at that
instant.

I'm saying, and the above cite seems to support,
that playing with the speed of photons gives all
the same results.

It doesn't. I was tricked by the words of Setterfield into
thinking it solves problems too. It does not.

I'm not denying the redshift.

It's just that the redshift is really light slowing
down which gives the illusion of space
expanding.

And breaks the entire rest of physics. Think about it.

I know.

Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics'
Delayed gamma rays from deep space may provide
the first evidence for physics beyond current theories.

http://www.physorg.com/news110480559.html

Just as non sequitur as it was before.

David A. Smith

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?

[...]

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?

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, and the isotropy in the background
radiation.

How many predictions has your non-theory successfully made? I'm
guessing zero.

Dear Michael Helland:

"Michael Helland" 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

On Mar 21, 3:55 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear Michael Helland:

"Michael Helland" 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


This turns up a 1,180 hits:

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

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

It seems pretty obvious signs of things to come are starting to pop
up, unless you're not interested in paying attention.

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?


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.

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.

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.