Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #450808 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-02-25 14:53 -0800 |
| Last post | 2018-03-19 08:50 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 128 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-02-25 14:53 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-02-25 15:09 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-02-26 07:15 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 14:09 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Eveline Hurst <rutu@rwsrnlv.ee> - 2018-02-26 13:32 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 15:24 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-03 07:53 -0600
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Ický Bezdrátovì <ikbe@wmkfre.np> - 2018-03-03 14:05 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Ický Bezdrátovì <ikbe@wmkfre.np> - 2018-03-03 14:07 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 21:38 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-04 13:03 +0100
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-08 13:33 -0600
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-08 11:53 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-08 12:08 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 13:46 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-08 14:16 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-08 15:37 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 22:53 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-09 06:37 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-09 07:03 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 21:35 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 21:42 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-11 18:54 -0500
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 01:11 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-13 22:44 -0500
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 14:57 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-18 13:30 -0500
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 12:00 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 11:12 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-23 18:50 -0500
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-23 17:16 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 06:22 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-24 06:22 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-03-24 11:55 -0400
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-24 11:02 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-24 09:08 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-12 11:12 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-12 14:22 -0500
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 12:59 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-12 07:30 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-12 14:34 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-14 07:07 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-12 16:01 -0500
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 21:14 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-14 08:50 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 18:01 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-14 11:30 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 18:37 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-14 12:42 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 20:44 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-14 14:11 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 21:27 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 21:31 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-14 22:17 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 11:53 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-15 06:06 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-14 22:17 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 11:53 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-15 06:08 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 14:57 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-15 12:07 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-14 14:28 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-15 07:09 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 14:57 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-16 07:06 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-03-16 14:10 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-16 14:39 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-16 18:19 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 16:36 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-16 09:59 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-16 21:34 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 06:50 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-17 08:47 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-17 16:18 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-17 19:22 +0100
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 11:23 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-17 12:05 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 19:11 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 12:35 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-17 16:37 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 18:32 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-18 12:44 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-17 17:11 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-15 17:13 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-13 06:14 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 14:06 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-14 08:53 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 18:01 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-15 07:13 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 15:06 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-15 15:03 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-15 15:25 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-15 17:10 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-16 07:09 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-13 17:19 -0500
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-13 22:51 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-13 15:58 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-13 16:00 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-14 09:00 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-04 06:10 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-03 15:08 +0100
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Ický Bezdrátovì <ikbe@wmkfre.np> - 2018-03-03 14:11 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-04 06:22 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-05 12:43 +0100
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-03 07:50 -0800
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-12 13:22 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-12 13:26 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-12 13:27 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-12 13:31 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-15 16:01 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-03-17 15:16 +0100
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-17 17:24 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-17 10:42 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-03-17 21:20 +0100
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 18:43 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-18 02:46 +0100
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 19:16 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 06:39 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-18 07:30 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 08:15 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 08:20 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-18 21:16 +0100
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 08:51 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-18 13:34 -0500
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 11:58 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-19 07:20 -0700
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 14:44 +0000
Re: Is time everywhere in the universe the same? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-03-19 08:50 -0700
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-11 21:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <iihpC.901943$F74.502603@fx47.am4> |
| In reply to | #451996 |
On 08/03/2018 19:33, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 3/3/18 3:38 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> Anyone tried measuring the time dilation on the International Space >> Station yet Mr.Roberts ? > > A pair of atomic clocks are being prepared for launch to the ISS; > they're not there yet (someone else posted a link). > > But of course the GPS satellites have had atomic clocks for decades. > Measurements using them confirm the predictions of GR to very high > accuracy. > > Tom Roberts On 08/03/2018 20:41, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 08.03.2018 10.53, skrev Keith Stein: >> On 07/03/2018 10:08, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> A more precise prediction for the clock in the ISS is >>> that it will loose 24.7 us per day. >> >> >> EXCELLENT! >> >> Now are you seriously trying to tell me that no one thought to take a >> couple of clocks up to the ISS to demonstrate the 24.7 us/day ??????? >> That is a HUGE AMOUNT !!! You could measure that with the ticker in >> the computer you are sitting at now. >> >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS. >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS. >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER. >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS. >> >> If you can demonstrate even half the 24.7 us/day you are admitting to >> I WOULD BE AMAZED ! >> Certainly it would be a lot more convincing than anything reported in >> the many references you so kindly provided Mr.Anderson.> > Prepare to be AMAZED: https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/i/iss-aces-pharao > or > http://tinyurl.com/yb94qzf4 Do you really think they are going to find your predicted 24.7 us/day? They are not even looking for it, which you would know if you read the references you post. In fact they are going to waste millions of dollars on fancy clocks signalling from orbit to ground, when a very much simpler test as outlined above would PROVE (or more likely disprove) the SR/GR time dilations. It's just more BULL SHIT eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-11 21:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cphpC.119448$By.1822@fx01.am4> |
| In reply to | #451996 |
On 08/03/2018 19:33, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 3/3/18 3:38 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 03/03/2018 13:53, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 3/2/18 9:24 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> It is true that frequencies look to be lower with galaxies further >>>> from Earth. This is conventionally considered to be a sort of >>>> Doppler Shift due to the expansion of the universe, but it is much >>>> better viewed as >>>> a result of light slowing down as it travels through the >>>> intergalactic medium. >>> >>> Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. It is easy to CALCULATE the effect >>> of the intergalactic medium, and it is woefully inadequate to account >>> for the observed cosmological redshift. >> >> I would very much like to see that CALCULATION, Mr.Roberts. I don't >> suppose you could provide a reference, could you? > > It is VERY simple, described in any textbook on electrodynamics (or > optics). > > If one measures using frequency, for light entering or leaving an > optical medium, or variations in the medium's density, there is no > change in frequency -- no redshift or blueshift. > > If one measures using wavelength, light entering a denser medium > experiences a BLUESHIFT. Note this occurs on entering or leaving the > medium; it is INDEPENDENT of distance traveled within the medium. The > air on earth is vastly more dense than the intergalactic medium, and > completely dominates. So your GUESS is plain and simply wrong -- the > intergalactic medium cannot possibly account for the observed redshift > of distant galaxies. > > The effect of air is about 290 parts per million; that > due to the intergalactic medium is more than a billion > times smaller. > > Note the Hubble telescope also sees the THE SAME redshift of distant > galaxies as do telescopes on the ground, and is outside the air. > > By convention all astronomical observations of spectra on > earth are corrected for the effects of the air and earth's > orbit. 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]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-11 18:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <grudnTUy2vYpXDjHnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #452374 |
On 3/11/18 4:42 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > So how is it that when light slows down traveling across intergalactic > space,the the WAVELENGTH INCREASES ? Light most definitely does NOT slow down as it propagates from distant objects to earth, because the aberration angle is the same for nearby stars and distant objects. This also disproves any notion that light emitted long ago travels with some speed other than c. Note that light does not have an intrinsic wavelength. When one measures the wavelength of light, one inherently does a geometrical projection of the light ray onto the instrument. For light from distant objects, that projection CHANGES due to the expansion of the universe, in such a way that the measured wavelength increases. This is no different from any other type of Doppler shift -- they are ALL changes in the geometrical projection of the light ray onto measuring instrument. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-12 01:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ktkpC.911914$F74.497026@fx47.am4> |
| In reply to | #452388 |
On 11/03/2018 23:54, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 3/11/18 4:42 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> So how is it that when light slows down traveling across intergalactic >> space,the the WAVELENGTH INCREASES ? > > Light most definitely does NOT slow down as it propagates from distant > objects to earth, because the aberration angle is the same for nearby > stars and distant objects. This also disproves any notion that light > emitted long ago travels with some speed other than c. One can look at aberration either from the point of view of an observer on Earth, who takes themselves as stationary and the star to be moving, or alternatively from the point of view of an observer on the distant star who considers themself as stationary and has the Earth moving. Both analysis must obviously predict the same angle of aberration, but the later is easier to explain, so let's examine aberration from the point of view of a stationary observer on a distant star. What do they 'see' ? They see the light shining in a straight line across space (slowing down, for sure) but in a perfectly straight line UNTIL it hits the Earth's atmosphere. At this point the light beam is bent, because in addition to its STRAIGHT DOWN velocity which (AT THIS POINT IN IT'S JOURNEY) is c(air), it also has a HORIZONTAL velocity v, which is the velocity of the Earth's atmosphere from the point of view of the observer on the distant star, (or indeed galaxy). Therefore Angle of Aberration = Tan^-1 ( v / c(air) ) Note that it is independent of the velocity of light at the time it left the star, or galaxy eh! > Note that light does not have an intrinsic wavelength. When one measures > the wavelength of light, one inherently does a geometrical projection of > the light ray onto the instrument. For light from distant objects, that > projection CHANGES due to the expansion of the universe, in such a way > that the measured wavelength increases. > > This is no different from any other type of Doppler shift > -- they are ALL changes in the geometrical projection of > the light ray onto measuring instrument. > > Tom Roberts I rather think that i am not going to convert you, or you me eh! But i do thank you for your well meaning, if misguided efforts. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-13 22:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <EradnVDMBN06BzXHnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #452392 |
On 3/11/18 8:11 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > On 11/03/2018 23:54, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 3/11/18 4:42 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> So how is it that when light slows down traveling across >>> intergalactic space,the the WAVELENGTH INCREASES ? >> >> Light most definitely does NOT slow down as it propagates from distant >> objects to earth, because the aberration angle is the same for nearby >> stars and distant objects. This also disproves any notion that light >> emitted long ago travels with some speed other than c. > > [...] > Therefore Angle of Aberration = Tan^-1 ( v / c(air) ) You must be more careful about what happens when the light enters the air from the vacuum, remembering that the air is moving with the earth. Do that, and use the Lorentz transform, and you'll find a much more complicated formula (Google is your friend). And, of course, for Hubble the air is irrelevant, yet it sees the SAME angle of aberration as do telescopes on earth (after correcting for its orbital velocity). You'll look in vain for signs of this in astronomical catalogs and papers, because it is ALWAYS corrected for before publishing. Ditto for the annual Doppler effect. These effects are solidly established, universal for observations from earth, and therefore uninteresting. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-14 14:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <GLaqC.38276$my2.35894@fx16.am4> |
| In reply to | #452591 |
On 14/03/2018 03:44, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 3/11/18 8:11 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 11/03/2018 23:54, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 3/11/18 4:42 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> So how is it that when light slows down traveling across >>>> intergalactic space,the the WAVELENGTH INCREASES ? >>> >>> Light most definitely does NOT slow down as it propagates from >>> distant objects to earth, because the aberration angle is the same >>> for nearby stars and distant objects. This also disproves any notion >>> that light emitted long ago travels with some speed other than c. >> >> [...] >> Therefore Angle of Aberration = Tan^-1 ( v / c(air) ) > > You must be more careful about what happens when the light enters the > air from the vacuum, remembering that the air is moving with the earth. > Do that, and use the Lorentz transform, and you'll find a much more > complicated formula (Google is your friend). > > And, of course, for Hubble the air is irrelevant, yet it sees the SAME > angle of aberration as do telescopes on earth (after correcting for its > orbital velocity). i was indeed a little sloppy with my derivation of the Angle of Aberration. Strictly i should of used c(medium) rather than c(air), because as you correctly point out Mr.Roberts one will still have aberration even in situations where there is no air. However THERE IS ALWAYS A MEDIUM, and the angle of aberration is determined by the local c(medium). The velocity of the light when it left the distant galaxy will in no way affect the angle of aberration. > You'll look in vain for signs of this in astronomical > catalogs and papers, because it is ALWAYS corrected for > before publishing. Ditto for the annual Doppler effect. > These effects are solidly established, universal for > observations from earth, and therefore uninteresting. > > Tom Roberts Your implication that the consistency of aberration rules out a variable light speed is simply wrong, Mr. Roberts. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-18 13:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9-udnelBS_3ULTPHnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #452620 |
On 3/14/18 9:57 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > However THERE IS ALWAYS A MEDIUM, Your "medium" is from classical electrodynamics. That surely breaks down in intergalactic space where atoms are so far apart -- quantum effects are important. In any case, physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. You have obviously not estimated the effects of the intergalactic medium on light. Or even the medium in the solar system (outside planetary atmospheres). Both are far too small to be observable. > Your implication that the consistency of aberration rules out a variable > light speed is simply wrong, Mr. Roberts. I suppose one could concoct a "variable speed of light" theory that could avoid being ruled out. I have not seen any such theory in any of your writings. But the consistency of aberration DOES rule out your "tired light" fantasy. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-18 12:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <600e1329-5e16-4146-b000-218040b14d0a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453135 |
On Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 2:30:39 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 3/14/18 9:57 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > > However THERE IS ALWAYS A MEDIUM, > > Your "medium" is from classical electrodynamics. That surely breaks down > in intergalactic space where atoms are so far apart -- quantum effects > are important. > > In any case, physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. You have obviously not > estimated the effects of the intergalactic medium on light. Or even the > medium in the solar system (outside planetary atmospheres). Both are far > too small to be observable. > > > Your implication that the consistency of aberration rules out a variable > > light speed is simply wrong, Mr. Roberts. > > I suppose one could concoct a "variable speed of light" theory that > could avoid being ruled out. I have not seen any such theory in any of > your writings. > > But the consistency of aberration DOES rule out your "tired light" fantasy. > > Tom Roberts Haaaa. Haaa. lol. Jokers. Shoot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-19 11:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XWMrC.97985$rA1.71606@fx34.am4> |
| In reply to | #453135 |
On 18/03/2018 18:30, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 3/14/18 9:57 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >> However THERE IS ALWAYS A MEDIUM, > > Your "medium" is from classical electrodynamics. That surely breaks down > in intergalactic space where atoms are so far apart -- quantum effects > are important. It is important to appreciate that classical electrodynamics, like most pre 20th century physics, is a MACROSCOPIC theory, and indeed it is valid only at the MACROSCOPIC level, where the medium is considered as continuous. At the atomic level classical electrodynamics will indeed fail, and you will have to consider quantum effects, as you say. However you should appreciate that one can not get much more MACROSCOPIC than in considering the transmission of light from a distant galaxy, across the intergalactic space, and on to our observatories on Earth, so not surprisingly Maxwell's e-m theory, with its assumed continuous medium, works just fine in at that GALACTIC SCALE eh! > In any case, physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. You have obviously not > estimated the effects of the intergalactic medium on light. Or even the > medium in the solar system (outside planetary atmospheres). Both are far > too small to be observable. Since no one has ever made any observation of the galaxies with no intergalactic medium, i fail to see how you could possibly claim that,Mr.Roberts. Similarly no one has made any observation within the solar system in the absence of the medium which pervades the solar system. >> Your implication that the consistency of aberration rules out a >> variable light speed is simply wrong, Mr. Roberts. > > I suppose one could concoct a "variable speed of light" theory that > could avoid being ruled out. I have not seen any such theory in any of > your writings. > > But the consistency of aberration DOES rule out your "tired light" fantasy. Put yourself on the distant galaxy which is being observed, Mr.Roberts. The light sets off on its journey to Earth at maybe twice today's value, 2 * c(0) eh!. That light keeps going in a straight line, slowing yes, but in a straight line. It only deviates from that straight line,as plotted by you on the distant galaxy, when it comes into contact with the local medium. Clear;u therefore the amount of bend (i.e. aberration) is only dependent on the tangential velocity of the local medium, and the velocity light in the local medium. The angle of aberration is INDEPENDENT OF THE INITIAL VELOCITY OF THE LIGHT,as it set off from your distant galaxy, IN A STRAIGHT LINE to me on Earth eh! I do not think it correct to classify the theory i am advocating as "tired light" theory, Mr.Roberts. A Variable Speed of Light (VSL) theory,certainly, but the light from the distant galaxy is no more "tired" than the light shining out of your........................ torch eh! keith stein > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-23 18:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <yuidnem7fqpcDyjHnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #453231 |
On 3/19/18 6:12 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > On 18/03/2018 18:30, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 3/14/18 9:57 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> However THERE IS ALWAYS A MEDIUM, >> >> Your "medium" is from classical electrodynamics. That surely breaks >> down in intergalactic space where atoms are so far apart -- quantum >> effects are important. > > It is important to appreciate that classical electrodynamics, like most > pre 20th century physics, is a MACROSCOPIC theory, and indeed it is > valid only at the MACROSCOPIC level, where the medium is considered as > continuous. Right. You just said what I said above, in different words. The intergalactic medium is so diffuse it cannot be considered continuous. > However you should appreciate that one can not get much more MACROSCOPIC > than in considering the transmission of light from a distant galaxy, Macroscopic isn't the issue, continuous is, and the intergalactic medium isn't. >> In any case, physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. You have obviously not >> estimated the effects of the intergalactic medium on light. Or even >> the medium in the solar system (outside planetary atmospheres). Both >> are far too small to be observable. > > Since no one has ever made any observation of the galaxies with no > intergalactic medium, Just calculate what classical electrodynamics predicts for an optical medium that is trillions of times less dense than air.... Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-23 17:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <26577a21-8159-48d3-8146-275592cf3403@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453630 |
Tom Roberts wrote Just calculate what classical electrodynamics predicts for an optical medium that is trillions of times less dense than air.... Tom Roberts 2 / (((3.71295774e-28 (m^3)) / kg) / ((planck length / m)^2)) = 1.40706915e-42 kg / m^3 (((1 / ((c^5) / (hbar * (G^2)))) / ((3.71295774e-28 (m^3)) / kg)) / ((planck length / m)^2)) / 2 = 1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-24 06:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Y8mtC.287991$oi5.266633@fx43.am4> |
| In reply to | #453630 |
On 23/03/2018 23:50, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 3/19/18 6:12 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 18/03/2018 18:30, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 3/14/18 9:57 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> However THERE IS ALWAYS A MEDIUM, >>> >>> Your "medium" is from classical electrodynamics. That surely breaks >>> down in intergalactic space where atoms are so far apart -- quantum >>> effects are important. >> >> It is important to appreciate that classical electrodynamics, like >> most pre 20th century physics, is a MACROSCOPIC theory, and indeed it >> is valid only at the MACROSCOPIC level, where the medium is considered >> as continuous. > > Right. You just said what I said above, in different words. The > intergalactic medium is so diffuse it cannot be considered continuous. All the evidence is against you on this Mr.Roberts. Air is not continuous and yet air *is* the classical electrodynamics medium. Now i am telling you Mr.Roberts that you can reduce the pressure of the air involved in ANY OPTICAL EXPERIMENT down to the LOWEST PRESSURE EVER ACHIEVED ON EARTH, and it will make no difference to your experiment whatsoever. Lenses will still form images, straight edges will still form diffraction patterns, and single and double slits will still do there thing. And if you don't agree then you must tell me what is the lowest pressure at which we may consider air as a continuous medium, and what exactly happens as we go below this minimum pressure. >> However you should appreciate that one can not get much more >> MACROSCOPIC than in considering the transmission of light from a >> distant galaxy, > > Macroscopic isn't the issue, continuous is, and the intergalactic medium > isn't. But then what is, Mr.Roberts, what is eh? >>> In any case, physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. You have obviously >>> not estimated the effects of the intergalactic medium on light. Or >>> even the medium in the solar system (outside planetary atmospheres). >>> Both are far too small to be observable. >> >> Since no one has ever made any observation of the galaxies with no >> intergalactic medium, > > Just calculate what classical electrodynamics predicts for an optical > medium that is trillions of times less dense than air.... > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-24 06:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4bf8d561-5b4d-4ed5-b691-427d442d2622@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453663 |
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 12:22:50 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 23/03/2018 23:50, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > Right. You just said what I said above, in different words. The > > intergalactic medium is so diffuse it cannot be considered continuous. > > All the evidence is against you on this Mr.Roberts. No, it's not. > Air is not continuous and yet air *is* the classical electrodynamics > medium. No, it's not. The "classical electrodynamics medium" is VACUUM, which has a permittivity of epsilon_zero. One can use relative dielectric constant, which can be multiplied by epsilon_zero and used in the EM equations. That works perfectly fine. The relative dielectric constant of air is about 1.0006, but like all materials, it depends on a number of variables, such as temperature, pressure, frequency, etc. Not so epsilon_zero. > Now i am telling you Mr.Roberts that you can reduce the pressure of the > air involved in ANY OPTICAL EXPERIMENT down to the LOWEST PRESSURE EVER > ACHIEVED ON EARTH, and it will make no difference to your experiment > whatsoever. You are wrong. That 0.0006 will fall to nearly zero as the pressure drops. If you are performing certain optical experiments, that change will be quite noticeable. > Lenses will still form images, straight edges will still > form diffraction patterns, and single and double slits will still do > there thing. Completely irrelevant. > And if you don't agree then you must tell me what is the lowest pressure > at which we may consider air as a continuous medium, and what exactly > happens as we go below this minimum pressure. I told you above, but you probably won't listen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-24 11:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <p95si2$alo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #453686 |
On 3/24/2018 9:22 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 12:22:50 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote: >> >> On 23/03/2018 23:50, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> >>> Right. You just said what I said above, in different words. The >>> intergalactic medium is so diffuse it cannot be considered continuous. >> >> All the evidence is against you on this Mr.Roberts. > > No, it's not. > >> Air is not continuous and yet air *is* the classical electrodynamics >> medium. > > No, it's not. The "classical electrodynamics medium" is VACUUM, which has > a permittivity of epsilon_zero. One can use relative dielectric constant, > which can be multiplied by epsilon_zero and used in the EM equations. Is it correct to assume that there will be a change in behavior from where "continuous" is accurate to inaccurate, when the average distance between atoms is the same order of magnitude as the wavelength of light? hmmm, what is the distance between atoms/molecules for air and for intergalactic space.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-24 11:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8cf88a92-9434-486d-9273-da1e0e7cf90b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453703 |
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 9:57:56 AM UTC-6, Volney wrote: > > On 3/24/2018 9:22 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 12:22:50 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote: > > > > > > On 23/03/2018 23:50, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > > > > Right. You just said what I said above, in different words. The > > > > intergalactic medium is so diffuse it cannot be considered continuous. > > > > > > All the evidence is against you on this Mr.Roberts. > > > > No, it's not. > > > > > Air is not continuous and yet air *is* the classical electrodynamics > > > medium. > > > > No, it's not. The "classical electrodynamics medium" is VACUUM, which has > > a permittivity of epsilon_zero. One can use relative dielectric constant, > > which can be multiplied by epsilon_zero and used in the EM equations. > > Is it correct to assume that there will be a change in behavior from > where "continuous" is accurate to inaccurate, when the average distance > between atoms is the same order of magnitude as the wavelength of light? > > hmmm, what is the distance between atoms/molecules for air and for > intergalactic space. Yahoo is your friend: http://space.wikia.com/wiki/Intergalactic_space About 1 atom per cubic meter. About 1 atom/cm3 in interstellar space: https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DaWeiCai.shtml Any idea what the average virtual particle density is (everywhere)? How about neutrinos? The sun emits 60 trillion neutrinos/cm2/second in the vicinity of the earth, so that would contribute quite a bit even in intergalactic space, wouldn't you say? 100 billion stars in our galaxy emitting that neutrino flux out there? Shouldn't be too hard to calculate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-24 09:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a375a453-e5f4-4ca7-9556-ec7cc23fabaf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453630 |
On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 7:50:32 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 3/19/18 6:12 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 18/03/2018 18:30, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 3/14/18 9:57 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > >>> However THERE IS ALWAYS A MEDIUM, > >> > >> Your "medium" is from classical electrodynamics. That surely breaks > >> down in intergalactic space where atoms are so far apart -- quantum > >> effects are important. > > > > It is important to appreciate that classical electrodynamics, like most > > pre 20th century physics, is a MACROSCOPIC theory, and indeed it is > > valid only at the MACROSCOPIC level, where the medium is considered as > > continuous. > > Right. You just said what I said above, in different words. The > intergalactic medium is so diffuse it cannot be considered continuous. The intergalactic medium (the ether or the E-Matrix) is continuous and that’s why it transmits light according to the inverse square law. > > > However you should appreciate that one can not get much more MACROSCOPIC > > than in considering the transmission of light from a distant galaxy, > > Macroscopic isn't the issue, continuous is, and the intergalactic medium > isn't. > > >> In any case, physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. You have obviously not > >> estimated the effects of the intergalactic medium on light. Or even > >> the medium in the solar system (outside planetary atmospheres). Both > >> are far too small to be observable. > > > > Since no one has ever made any observation of the galaxies with no > > intergalactic medium, > > Just calculate what classical electrodynamics predicts for an optical > medium that is trillions of times less dense than air.... > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-12 11:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8ba65707-0c3e-451b-85b9-49b1b7ef4301@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452388 |
On March 11, tjrob137 wrote: > Note that light does not have an intrinsic wavelength. When > one measures the wavelength of light, one inherently does > a geometrical projection of the light ray onto the instrument. > > This is no different from any other type of Doppler shift > -- they are ALL changes in the geometrical projection of > the light ray onto measuring instrument. ? The textbook derivation of Doppler effect, postulates the observer separating from the source, hence the amplitude peak-to-peak distance increases, etc. How does this present itself as a geometrical projection? -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-12 14:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tpGdnXPPI4HHTjvHnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #452423 |
On 3/12/18 1:12 PM, RichD wrote:
> On March 11, tjrob137 wrote:
>> Note that light does not have an intrinsic wavelength. When
>> one measures the wavelength of light, one inherently does
>> a geometrical projection of the light ray onto the instrument.
>>
>> This is no different from any other type of Doppler shift
>> -- they are ALL changes in the geometrical projection of
>> the light ray onto measuring instrument.
>
> The textbook derivation of Doppler effect, postulates
> the observer separating from the source, hence the
> amplitude peak-to-peak distance increases, etc.
Only in elementary textbooks and popular writings, because that is inherently a
NON-RELATIVISTIC discussion.
> How does this present itself as a geometrical projection?
In the context of GR, let us compute the interval between signals from
ticks of clock A, as measured by clock B. Let the clocks move in an
arbitrary manner, at arbitrary locations in a gravitational field (which
need not be static). The only assumption is that the tick interval is
small compared to any changes in the physical situation (that is not
essential, but simplifies the discussion and holds in practice).
1. construct the displacement 4-vector D between two successive
ticks of clock A. This is necessarily a timelike 4-vector
parallel to A's 4-velocity, with norm equal to A's tick
interval [#].
2. parallel-propagate D along the signal path from A to B.
3. compute the dot product of parallel-propagated D with the
4-velocity of B. This is the interval B will measure between
the signals from the two ticks of A.
[#] Note that the dot product of D with A's 4-velocity
is equal to A's tick interval.
Note: this algorithm accommodates ALL of the usual "time dilations" and
Doppler shifts: relative motion (SR), and both gravitational and
cosmological redshifts; it also handles the Shapiro delay (etc.). The is purely
geometrical -- both clocks tick at their usual rate and only geometrical
calculations are involved.
The dot product in #3 is a geometrical projection of the signals' displacement
between ticks onto the measuring instrument (here a clock).
So, for instance, in SR it's easy to apply this algorithm to the Doppler shift
between source and detector at rest in different inertial frames. The parallel
transport is trivial, and the metric is constant (the metric is used to compute
the norm and the dot products). The entire calculation boils down to the fact
that the 4-velocities of source and detector are not parallel in spacetime --
the geometrical relationship between them and the signal path determines the
Doppler shift.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-12 12:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ab0cc264-01b1-423e-bc46-c024d623fbde@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452427 |
On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 12:22:08 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > 2. parallel-propagate D along the signal path from A to B. > 3. compute the dot product of parallel-propagated D with the > 4-velocity of B. This is the interval B will measure between > the signals from the two ticks of A. A Doppler shift cannot be computed from time or spacetime interval. It can only be derived so through a transformation of energy and momentum. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-12 07:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8802ff4a-bfea-4741-8f46-236ae1d3db36@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451996 |
On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 2:33:56 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 3/3/18 3:38 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 03/03/2018 13:53, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 3/2/18 9:24 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > >>> It is true that frequencies look to be lower with galaxies further > >>> from Earth. This is conventionally considered to be a sort of Doppler > >>> Shift due to the expansion of the universe, but it is much better > >>> viewed as > >>> a result of light slowing down as it travels through the > >>> intergalactic medium. > >> > >> Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. It is easy to CALCULATE the effect > >> of the intergalactic medium, and it is woefully inadequate to account > >> for the observed cosmological redshift. > > > > I would very much like to see that CALCULATION, Mr.Roberts. I don't > > suppose you could provide a reference, could you? > > It is VERY simple, described in any textbook on electrodynamics (or optics). > > If one measures using frequency, for light entering or leaving an > optical medium, or variations in the medium's density, there is no > change in frequency -- no redshift or blueshift. > > If one measures using wavelength, light entering a denser medium > experiences a BLUESHIFT. Note this occurs on entering or leaving the > medium; it is INDEPENDENT of distance traveled within the medium. The speed of light within a dense optical medium is found to be slower than in the air. However, upon leaving the medium it (Light) regains its speed and no red or blue shift was found--same wavelength and frequency for before entering the medium. So how does SR explains these observations? These observations can be explained easily if light is being transmitted by a continuous ether called the E-Strings. While inside the dense medium the E-Strings are more curved and thus light is being transmitted at a slower speed. Upon leaving the medium, the E-Strings re cover to a non-distorted form and thus light is again being transmitted by them at the normal speed of c. I invite you to read the paper in the following link for a description of the E-Matrix and E-Strings. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf >The > air on earth is vastly more dense than the intergalactic medium, and > completely dominates. So your GUESS is plain and simply wrong -- the > intergalactic medium cannot possibly account for the observed redshift > of distant galaxies. > > The effect of air is about 290 parts per million; that > due to the intergalactic medium is more than a billion > times smaller. > > Note the Hubble telescope also sees the THE SAME redshift of distant > galaxies as do telescopes on the ground, and is outside the air. > > By convention all astronomical observations of spectra on > earth are corrected for the effects of the air and earth's > orbit. > > > Anyone tried measuring the time dilation on the International Space > > Station yet Mr.Roberts ? > > A pair of atomic clocks are being prepared for launch to the ISS; > they're not there yet (someone else posted a link). > > But of course the GPS satellites have had atomic clocks for decades. > Measurements using them confirm the predictions of GR to very high accuracy. > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web