Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #475821 > unrolled thread

Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 16:25 +0000
    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2018-10-29 09:41 -0700
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Ulka Górski <dug@jewandass.cu> - 2018-10-29 17:25 +0000
        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2018-10-29 10:49 -0700
          Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Ulka Górski <dug@jewandass.cu> - 2018-10-29 18:51 +0000
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 18:14 +0000
        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-29 11:20 -0700
          Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 18:48 +0000
            Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-03 11:15 -0700
    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-29 20:34 +0100
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-29 13:00 -0700
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-10-29 14:43 -0700
        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-30 18:40 +0100
          Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-10-30 11:30 -0700
            Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-30 20:18 +0100
              Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-10-30 13:29 -0700
                Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-10-30 22:57 -0700
                Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-03 04:20 +0100
                  Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-03 11:26 +0100
                    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-03 11:55 -0700
                      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-03 21:34 +0100
                        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-03 14:11 -0700
                          Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-04 17:34 +0100
                            Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-04 09:10 -0800
                              Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-04 18:25 +0100
                                Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-04 10:30 -0800
                                  Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-05 02:34 +0100
                                    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-04 18:03 -0800
                                      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-05 03:17 +0100
                                        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-05 09:29 -0800
                  Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-03 10:52 -0700
                    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-05 03:06 +0100
                      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-05 09:08 -0800
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 22:00 +0000
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 09:52 -0600
        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 14:33 -0500
          Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-05 12:15 -0800
    Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-29 18:59 -0700
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 08:47 +0000
        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-30 05:49 -0700
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-10-30 22:59 -0700
        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-31 08:11 -0700
          Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-10-31 16:12 -0700
            Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-01 03:29 -0700
              Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-11-01 10:31 -0700
    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 16:20 +0000
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-30 18:48 +0100
        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 15:42 +0000
          Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-04 16:51 +0100
          Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-04 15:00 -0800
            Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-04 18:58 -0800
            Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 22:54 -0500
              Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-05 05:13 +0100
                Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-09 05:06 -0800
                  Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-09 16:50 -0800
                    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-09 16:56 -0800
                  Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java4ow.nv> - 2018-11-11 16:01 +0000
                    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 19:12 +0000
                      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-11 12:55 -0800
                        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 00:24 +0000
              Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 08:19 +0000
                Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-05 07:10 -0800
                  Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-05 07:18 -0800
                    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-05 07:20 -0800
                      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-05 07:25 -0800
            Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 08:00 +0000
              Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-09 06:29 -0800
                Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 23:19 +0000
                  Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-09 15:37 -0800
                    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-10 07:57 +0000
                      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-10 13:08 +0100
                        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-10 04:30 -0800
                      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-10 04:45 -0800
                        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-10 04:59 -0800
                          Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-10 09:46 -0800
                            Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-10 10:08 -0800
                              Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-10 13:30 -0800
                            Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java2osw.np> - 2018-11-10 19:58 +0000
                              Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-10 22:17 +0100
                                Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java2osw.np> - 2018-11-10 21:48 +0000
    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 06:36 +0000
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-06 08:20 +0100
        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 11:28 +0000
          Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-06 22:30 +0100
            Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 00:30 +0000
              Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-07 06:21 -0800
        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-06 10:09 -0800

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#475932

David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> 
> Hubble redshift is Rising Entropy as Global System Pressure drops.


it simply ...red decay.


gives the appearance of shiffting..it's just decaying.


it's why all the surcace of the planets are red...


earth doesn't decay..it rebuilds.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475947

The Moron StarSharter excreted 

David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: 
> 
> Hubble redshift is Rising Entropy as Global System Pressure drops. 


it simply ...red decay. 


gives the appearance of shiffting..it's just decaying. 


it's why all the surcace of the planets are red... 


earth doesn't decay..it rebuilds. 

No Moron 

Red planets are red because of Chemical reactions like iron oxide 

The earth is also the color it is because of biochemical reactions 

Only ShitTarded Magical Brain Farts Out Of you. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475968

David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> 
> The Moron StarSharter excreted
> 
> David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> >
> > Hubble redshift is Rising Entropy as Global System Pressure drops.
> 
> it simply ...red decay.
> 
> gives the appearance of shiffting..it's just decaying.
> 
> it's why all the surcace of the planets are red...
> 
> earth doesn't decay..it rebuilds.
> 
> No Moron
> 
> Red planets are red because of Chemical reactions like iron oxide
> 
> The earth is also the color it is because of biochemical reactions
> 
> Only ShitTarded Magical Brain Farts Out Of you.


You are probably not aware of this....but there are, ..



"Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts"



decay is caused by raidiation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475983

The StarSharter Sharted 

David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: 
> 
> The Moron StarSharter excreted 
> 
> David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: 
> > 
> > Hubble redshift is Rising Entropy as Global System Pressure drops. 
> 
> it simply ...red decay. 
> 
> gives the appearance of shiffting..it's just decaying. 
> 
> it's why all the surcace of the planets are red... 
> 
> earth doesn't decay..it rebuilds. 
> 
> No Moron 
> 
> Red planets are red because of Chemical reactions like iron oxide 
> 
> The earth is also the color it is because of biochemical reactions 
> 
> Only ShitTarded Magical Brain Farts Out Of you. 


You are probably not aware of this....but there are, .. 



"Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts" 



decay is caused by raidiation. 

Cretin StarSharter Gibbered “raidiation” which is not even a word.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476021

David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> 
> The StarSharter Sharted
> 
> David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> >
> > The Moron StarSharter excreted
> >
> > David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > >
> > > Hubble redshift is Rising Entropy as Global System Pressure drops.
> >
> > it simply ...red decay.
> >
> > gives the appearance of shiffting..it's just decaying.
> >
> > it's why all the surcace of the planets are red...
> >
> > earth doesn't decay..it rebuilds.
> >
> > No Moron
> >
> > Red planets are red because of Chemical reactions like iron oxide
> >
> > The earth is also the color it is because of biochemical reactions
> >
> > Only ShitTarded Magical Brain Farts Out Of you.
> 
> You are probably not aware of this....but there are, ..
> 
> "Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts"
> 
> decay is caused by raidiation.
> 
> Cretin StarSharter Gibbered “raidiation” which is not even a word.


raid-di-ation

rade-de-a-shen


I write how it is pronounced, not how it is spelled.


If you ever looked at a dictionary....

there are two different spellings for each word.

If you spend a lot of time learning how to pronounce werds...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475893

On 29/10/2018 22:57, Double-A wrote:
 > On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 3:19:08 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
 >> On 29/10/2018 21:16, Double-A wrote:

 >>> You mean c has has decreased?

 >> I mean that IF c is decreasing this would explain the Hubble Red
 >> Shifts and, the exponential rise in red shift observed at distances
 >> over about 5 billion years, without the need to invent dark energy.

 >>>    Why?

 >> Why not?  The universe is clearly evolving eh!

 > I suppose that's one way to explain it.
 > You know Hubble himself never accepted the expanding universe idea.
 > thought there was something causing light to red shift over vast
 > distances.


Excellent Double-A.
That is by far the most encouraging response i have received
from anyone on sci.physics, or sci.physics.relativity eh!

Trusting that you won't object to the cross posting.

keith stein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475898

Keith Stein wrote:
>  >> Why not?  The universe is clearly evolving eh!
> 
>  > I suppose that's one way to explain it.

A very crude way, tantamount to being wrong if misunderstood, which is
therefore (and especially when equipped with lack of additional knowledge,
as is the case with Keith Stein) easy to do.

>  > You know Hubble himself never accepted the expanding universe idea.

Correct.

>  > thought there was something causing light to red shift over vast
>  > distances.

Correct, too.  In particular, Hubble thought that this something would be
the curvature of space; but his methodology was flawed, and we know "now"
(since 1964 at the latest) that he was wrong about that.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble#Redshift_increases_with_distance>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476216

On 30/10/2018 17:48, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Keith Stein wrote:
>>   >> Why not?  The universe is clearly evolving eh!
>>
>>   > I suppose that's one way to explain it.

And here's another way to explain the Hubble red shifts, Thomas.
Try to follow the math, and if you can't, then admit which
equations you have difficulty with, and i will make it simpler
for you Thomas. I promise you will find it is worth the effort
Thomas, even if you don't agree with my conclusions eh!

Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it 
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this 
will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.

Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)

     K ~= 10^-10 /year
     t = time in years

Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to 
enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more 
accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........

                        K = H = Hubble's Constant
and                    t = -t  ( so times past become +ve)

which substituted in (3) gives:

             Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)

then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
             e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)

So for t << 1/H we have:

             Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)

which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).

As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore 
further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law 
expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
in observatories all around the world eh!

Conclusions:
     1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
     2. There was no "Big Bang"
     3. There was no "Inflation"
     4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
     5. There is no "Dark Energy"
********************************************************************

**********************************************************************
         A GOOD QUESTION

When light slows down by entering a more dense medium such as glass, or
water, the frequency stays the same and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.

So how is it that when light slows down traveling across intergalactic 
space,the the WAVELENGTH INCREASES ?

good question!

when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the 
wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows 
before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave 
catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train 
compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.

When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there 
is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave 
train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the 
same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as 
it travels through intergalactic space.

So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is 
INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light 
is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that 
it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light 
was higher than it is now.

The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on distant 
galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as that on 
Earth today. The wavelength is proportional the the velocity of light AT 
THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased wavelength is faithfully 
transmitted through space, where it is measured in our observatories.

keith stein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476217

Keith Stein wrote:
> On 30/10/2018 17:48, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Keith Stein wrote:
>>>   >> Why not?  The universe is clearly evolving eh!
>>>
>>>   > I suppose that's one way to explain it.
> 
> And here's another way to explain the Hubble red shifts, Thomas.
> Try to follow the math, and if you can't, then admit which
> equations you have difficulty with, and i will make it simpler
> for you Thomas. I promise you will find it is worth the effort
> Thomas, even if you don't agree with my conclusions eh! […]

You are mentally ill:

  1. You are repeating the same, already (experimentally) refuted nonsense.

  2. You hold the unshakable belief that you have superior understanding
     of physics when you have no understanding at all.

  3. You are confusing me with someone who could take someone like you
     seriously.

Please go see a psychotherapist; if you have already done so, please take
your pills.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476252

On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 8:42:50 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it 
> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this 
> will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
> as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
> 
> Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
> I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
> and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)

The problem with (3) is that lambda = c/f, so if c = c(0)*exp(-k*t)
then lambda = c(0)*exp(-K*t)/f, which means that the wavelength is
becoming SMALLER not larger if f is constant.

So you'd have to assume that dc = +K*c*dt to explain the red shift.
But you have ANOTHER problem:  Why in the world (or cosmos) would you
expect that f is constant if c is increasing?  Why assume that the
rate of time is constant?  

> Conclusions:
>      1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.

That would give a BLUE shift, which is contrary to the experimental evidence.
Anyway, that's not a conclusion, that's your assumption.

>      2. There was no "Big Bang"

At 10^10 years, the speed of light would have been about 1 meter/second,
which means that the universe was 10^10 times smaller than we think it was.

>      3. There was no "Inflation"
>      4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
>      5. There is no "Dark Energy"

Non sequitur

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476269

Gary Harnagel
On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 8:42:50 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: 
> 
> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it 
> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this 
> will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance, 
> as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all. 
> 
> Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1) 
> I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2) 
> and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3) 

The problem with (3) is that lambda = c/f, so if c = c(0)*exp(-k*t) 
then lambda = c(0)*exp(-K*t)/f, which means that the wavelength is 
becoming SMALLER not larger if f is constant. 

So you'd have to assume that dc = +K*c*dt to explain the red shift. 
But you have ANOTHER problem:  Why in the world (or cosmos) would you 
expect that f is constant if c is increasing?  Why assume that the 
rate of time is constant?   

> Conclusions: 
>      1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down. 

That would give a BLUE shift, which is contrary to the experimental evidence. 
Anyway, that's not a conclusion, that's your assumption. 

>      2. There was no "Big Bang" 

At 10^10 years, the speed of light would have been about 1 meter/second, 
which means that the universe was 10^10 times smaller than we think it was. 

>      3. There was no "Inflation" 
>      4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us. 
>      5. There is no "Dark Energy" 

Non sequitur 

Entropy is Rising simulating Hubble Expansion 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17W_L19_YvxkKXv1vNya0YekR0vb8K31XTq4_4-CssSM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476273

On 11/4/2018 6:00 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 8:42:50 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
>> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
>> will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
>> as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
>>
>> Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
>> I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
>> and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)
> 
> The problem with (3) is that lambda = c/f, so if c = c(0)*exp(-k*t)
> then lambda = c(0)*exp(-K*t)/f, which means that the wavelength is
> becoming SMALLER not larger if f is constant.
> 
> So you'd have to assume that dc = +K*c*dt to explain the red shift.
> But you have ANOTHER problem:  Why in the world (or cosmos) would you
> expect that f is constant if c is increasing?  Why assume that the
> rate of time is constant?
> 
>> Conclusions:
>>       1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
> 
> That would give a BLUE shift, which is contrary to the experimental evidence.
> Anyway, that's not a conclusion, that's your assumption.
> 
>>       2. There was no "Big Bang"
> 
> At 10^10 years, the speed of light would have been about 1 meter/second,
> which means that the universe was 10^10 times smaller than we think it was.
> 
>>       3. There was no "Inflation"
>>       4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
>>       5. There is no "Dark Energy"
> 
> Non sequitur
> 
Actually sequitur. You can still think, right?

If the red shift is NOT due to velocity then clearly;

2. There was no Big Bang (calculating drift backward from today)
3. There is no "inflation' because measurements are not due to velocity.
4. Galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
5. Dark matter is not needed to explain the motion of galaxies
6. Dark energy isn't needed to explain acceleration of the non-expansion.
7. The universe actually has a center which is not "everywhere" which is 
nonsense.


Problem here is #1.  The "tired light" theory has been shown wrong for a 
number of reasons.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476278

benj wrote:
> On 11/4/2018 6:00 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 8:42:50 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>> Conclusions:
>>>       1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
>>
>> That would give a BLUE shift,

No.  Blueshift would be and is only observed in the light of objects whose
distance to us (observers) is decreasing.

> which is contrary to the experimental evidence.

Blueshift (*one* word) *is* *observed* in the light of *nearby* galaxies
whose peculiar velocity towards us is greater than the apparent velocity
away from us.  Case in point: M 31 (Andromeda Galaxy), which will merge
with the Milky Way in ca. 2 billion years.

> If the red shift is NOT due to velocity

But the _redshift_ (*one* word) is (due *apparent* velocity).  Provably.
Proved.

Because redshift is by far not the only evidence for the accelerated
expansion of our universe.  It is just the only evidence that you (barely)
know, in your blissful ignorance.

> then clearly;

And if my grandmother would have had wheels, then clearly she would have
been a bandwagon.  /Ex falso quodlibet./

You are mentally ill.  Get professional help.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476631

On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 9:13:57 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> benj wrote:
> >
> > On 11/4/2018 6:00 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 8:42:50 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Conclusions:
> > > >       1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
> > >
> > > That would give a BLUE shift,
> 
> No.  Blueshift would be and is only observed in the light of objects whose
> distance to us (observers) is decreasing.

If the speed of light were slowing down that would give a BLUE shift.  Pay
attention to the context before you blabber.

> > which is contrary to the experimental evidence.
> 
> Blueshift (*one* word)

Who made you the grammer police?

> *is* *observed* in the light of *nearby* galaxies
> whose peculiar velocity towards us is greater than the apparent velocity
> away from us.  Case in point: M 31 (Andromeda Galaxy), which will merge
> with the Milky Way in ca. 2 billion years.

Non sequitur.  Pay attention to the context.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476678

Gary Harnagel
On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 9:13:57 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: 
> 
> benj wrote: 
> > 
> > On 11/4/2018 6:00 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote: 
> > > 
> > > On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 8:42:50 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > Conclusions: 
> > > >       1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down. 
> > > 
> > > That would give a BLUE shift, 
> 
> No.  Blueshift would be and is only observed in the light of objects whose 
> distance to us (observers) is decreasing. 

If the speed of light were slowing down that would give a BLUE shift. 


Hubble Expansion & CMBR & Bekenstein Hawking Entropy

Hubble Expansion is Kinetic Energy Of Space Time Dropping as Entropy Rises 

((((70406.791856 * (m / s)) / (1 Mpc)) / (160.39005 GHz)) / G) * (6.5248935 (kg^(-1)) (m / s)) * (c^2) * (8 s) = 1 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C1kfyk-9mU3lqrARJ2s_eut70h2Bl0c5TrGOD_upOJg

70406.791856 / 67798.6422 = 6.5248935 / 2pi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476679

Gary Harnagel escrito 

On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 9:13:57 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: 
> 
> benj wrote: 
> > 
> > On 11/4/2018 6:00 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote: 
> > > 
> > > On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 8:42:50 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > Conclusions: 
> > > >       1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down. 
> > > 
> > > That would give a BLUE shift, 
> 
> No.  Blueshift would be and is only observed in the light of objects whose 
> distance to us (observers) is decreasing. 

If the speed of light were slowing down that would give a BLUE shift. 


Hubble Expansion & CMBR & Bekenstein Hawking Entropy 

Hubble Expansion is Kinetic Energy Of Space Time Dropping as Entropy Rises 

Either 
((((70406.791856 * (m / s)) / (1 Mpc)) / (160.39005 GHz)) / G) * (6.5248935 (kg^(-1)) (m / s)) * (c^2) * (8 s) = 1 

Or

((((67798.6422 * (m / s)) / (1 Mpc)) / (160.39005 GHz)) / G) * (((6.5248935^2) / (2 * pi)) * (kg^(-1)) * (m / s)) * (c^2) * (8 s) = 1



https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C1kfyk-9mU3lqrARJ2s_eut70h2Bl0c5TrGOD_upOJg 


70406.791856 / 67798.6422 = 6.5248935 / 2pi 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476784

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> If the speed of light were slowing down that would give a BLUE shift. 
> Pay attention to the context before you blabber.

please reconsider. Crests arriving at a slower rate, larger wavelength. 
That's a red, towards black.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476797

On 11/11/2018 16:01, Gaston Castaneda wrote:
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> 
>> If the speed of light were slowing down that would give a BLUE shift.
>> Pay attention to the context before you blabber.
> 
> please reconsider. Crests arriving at a slower rate, larger wavelength.
> That's a red, towards black.

Right you are Gaston.
i did already explain this to Gary, but some people just won't be told:

"when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the 
wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows 
before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave 
catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train 
compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.

When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there 
is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave 
train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the 
same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as 
it travels through intergalactic space.

So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is 
INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light 
is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that 
it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light 
was higher than it is now.

The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on distant 
galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as that on 
Earth today. The wavelength is proportional the the velocity of light AT 
THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased wavelength is faithfully 
transmitted through space, where it is measured in our observatories."


keith stein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476806

On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 12:12:57 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> On 11/11/2018 16:01, Gaston Castaneda wrote:
> >
> > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > If the speed of light were slowing down that would give a BLUE shift.
> > > Pay attention to the context before you blabber.
> > 
> > please reconsider. Crests arriving at a slower rate, larger wavelength.
> > That's a red, towards black.
> 
> Right you are Gaston.

So you want to babble about a BLACK shift now? :-))

> i did already explain this to Gary,

You couldn't express a cogent idea.

> but some people just won't be told:
> 
> "when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the 
> wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows 
> before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave 
> catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train 
> compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.
> 
> When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there 
> is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave 
> train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the 
> same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as 
> it travels through intergalactic space.

See?  First you say it's "slowing down in intergalactic space" and then
you contradict yourself by saying that speed of the front and back of the
wave train is the same.

> So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is 
> INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light 
> is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that 
> it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light 
> was higher than it is now.

Which contradicts what you said about the speed of light slowing down IN
intergalactic space.

> The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on distant 
> galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as that on 
> Earth today. The wavelength is proportional the the velocity of light AT 
> THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased wavelength is faithfully 
> transmitted through space, where it is measured in our observatories."
> 
> keith stein

And I showed you that the speed of light cannot have changed by the amount
you claim:

"If light traveled faster in the past, the electromagnetic force would be
weaker then.  The experimental evidence implies that

delta_alpha/alpha = (-5.7 +/1 1)x10^-6 over 10 to 12 billion years, which is
MUCH smaller and in the opposite direction from what you are saying: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Past_rate_of_change 

And measurements on the present rate of change implies a change less 
than 2x10^-17 per year.  Sorry, old bean." 

Your attempt to ignore the facts are clear for everyone to see.

“To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are
proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides
to go on being wrong.” ― Criss Jami

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476830

On 11/11/2018 20:55, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 12:12:57 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:

>> "when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the
>> wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows
>> before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave
>> catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train
>> compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.
>>
>> When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there
>> is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave
>> train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the
>> same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as
>> it travels through intergalactic space.
> 
> See?  First you say it's "slowing down in intergalactic space" and then
> you contradict yourself by saying that speed of the front and back of the
> wave train is the same.

"AT ANY ONE TIME the front and back of the wave ARE INDEED traveling at 
the same speed".
Your car behaves in much the same way Gary, which is why you don't get
squashed when you put the brakes on eh!

>> So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is
>> INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light
>> is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that
>> it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light
>> was higher than it is now.
> 
> Which contradicts what you said about the speed of light slowing down IN
> intergalactic space.

How could the velocity of light be higher in the past than it is now,
UNLESS the speed of light is slowing down. No contradiction there.

>> The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on distant
>> galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as that on
>> Earth today. The wavelength is proportional the the velocity of light AT
>> THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased wavelength is faithfully
>> transmitted through space, where it is measured in our observatories."
>>
>> keith stein
> 
> And I showed you that the speed of light cannot have changed by the amount
> you claim:
> 
> "If light traveled faster in the past, the electromagnetic force would be
> weaker then. 

Not if the reason the light slows down is because the intergalactic 
medium is changing it would not. I don't say the speed of light "in 
vacuum" is changing, because i don't believe in vacuum eh!, and i do
not imply that the force between an electron and proton changes. It
is the MACROSCOPIC INTERGALACTIC MEDIUM WHICH CHANGES eh!


> The experimental evidence implies that
> 
> delta_alpha/alpha = (-5.7 +/1 1)x10^-6 over 10 to 12 billion years, which is
> MUCH smaller and in the opposite direction from what you are saying:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Past_rate_of_change
> 
> And measurements on the present rate of change implies a change less
> than 2x10^-17 per year.  Sorry, old bean."

The speed of light is certainly less in water than in air Gary,
but i don't think the fine structure constant is any different
if you measure it under water, is it?

> Your attempt to ignore the facts are clear for everyone to see.
> 
> “To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are
> proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides
> to go on being wrong.” ― Criss Jami
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web