Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #480175 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-12-18 21:59 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-12-23 19:48 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 46 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-18 21:59 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-18 19:11 -0600
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 06:46 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-19 20:50 -0600
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-19 14:24 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 16:09 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 15:53 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-19 08:19 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 16:55 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-19 09:58 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-19 15:13 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 03:04 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 06:57 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-19 06:56 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 17:20 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-19 14:26 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 07:54 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-20 03:20 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 11:53 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-20 04:53 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 13:45 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-20 09:18 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-20 07:46 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 16:25 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 18:43 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-20 13:32 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 22:53 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-27 13:59 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 02:36 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-30 08:46 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-20 13:43 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-27 14:04 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 14:20 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-27 16:57 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 22:44 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 00:34 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 18:10 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 16:00 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 18:27 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 11:40 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 00:09 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-19 18:09 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 15:18 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-22 18:31 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-22 21:30 -0600
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 19:48 +0000
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-18 21:59 +0000 |
| Subject | It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. |
| Message-ID | <_4eSD.13055$lN1.10956@fx13.am4> |
On 16/12/2018 21:04, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 16/12/2018 11:16 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 16/12/2018 09:19, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 16/12/2018 3:57 am, Keith Stein wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> You're not very consistent. If the speed of light is changing, what else might be changing? >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> >> Look at Bohr's formula for the frequencies emitted by the hydrogen atom,Sylvia >> >> = 2 * Pi^2 * m * e^4 / h^2 (1/n1^2 - 1/n2^2) >> >> There is no c in that. >> But the fact that the hydrogen spectrum appears the same throughout the >> universe would certainly suggest that the mass of the electron m, the chargeof the electron e, and Plank's constant h, are all universal constants the >> values of which do not vary with time. >> >> I agree that it is an interesting question as to what else might be changing if the speed of light is changing, but not m, e, or h, i think. > > Once you consider, without evidence, that one universal constant might be changing, all bets are off. You can't pick and choose to support your pet theory. > > Sylvia I don't agree with you on anything you said there Sylvia. FIRST: The evidence for slowing light speed (SLS eh!) is at least as good as that for the BIG BANG nonsense. In fact it's better. It explains the Hybble red shifts better, and without the need for any of that INFLATION,ACCELERATING ! GALAXIES, DARK ENERGY nonsense eh! SECOND: NO, ALL BETS ARE NOT OFF. There is very good evidence that ATOMIC CONSTANTS (e.g. me,mp,mn,e,and h) which affect atomic spectra, do NOT change with time. I WOULD BET ON THAT, Sylvia. However it would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the only constant which wasn't eh! keith stein
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-18 19:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <iPidnQBhjPFBB4TBnZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #480175 |
On 12/18/18 3:59 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > FIRST: The evidence for slowing light speed (SLS eh!) is > at least as good as that for the BIG BANG nonsense. Nope. It's just that YOU do not know what the evidence for the big bang actually is. So you wallow in your IGNORANCE and make up fantasies. Grow up. LEARN something about the subject before attempting to write about it. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 06:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <TOlSD.29231$Of2.21951@fx03.am4> |
| In reply to | #480188 |
On 19/12/2018 01:11, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 12/18/18 3:59 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> FIRST: The evidence for slowing light speed (SLS eh!) is >> at least as good as that for the BIG BANG nonsense. > > Nope. It's just that YOU do not know what the evidence for the big bang > actually is. So you wallow in your IGNORANCE and make up fantasies. > > Grow up. LEARN something about the subject before attempting to write > about it. > > Tom Roberts The evidence for slowing light speed (SLS eh!) *is* at least as good as that for the BIG BANG nonsense. In fact it's better. It explains the Hubble red shifts better, and without the need for any of that INFLATION,ACCELERATING GALAXIES, DARK ENERGY nonsense eh!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 20:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <suednRirxcMTnobBnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #480204 |
On 12/19/18 12:46 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > On 19/12/2018 01:11, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 12/18/18 3:59 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> FIRST: The evidence for slowing light speed (SLS eh!) is >>> at least as good as that for the BIG BANG nonsense. >> >> Nope. It's just that YOU do not know what the evidence for the big >> bang actually is. So you wallow in your IGNORANCE and make up fantasies. >> >> Grow up. LEARN something about the subject before attempting to write >> about it. >> >> Tom Roberts > > The evidence for slowing light speed (SLS eh!) *is* > at least as good as that for the BIG BANG nonsense. Nope! Not even close! What does it predict for nucleosynthesis? The H:D:T:He3:He4:Li7 abundance ratios? Galaxy formation? The CMBR power spectrum? ...? You are FAR TOO IGNORANT to make such claims. Your GUESSES don't count. Apparently you are also too ARROGANT to bother learning about the subject -- your mind is closed, and that is not science. It's also downright stupid. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 14:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pvdkb2$t95$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #480188 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 12/18/18 3:59 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> FIRST: The evidence for slowing light speed (SLS eh!) is at least as >> good as that for the BIG BANG nonsense. > > Nope. It's just that YOU do not know what the evidence for the big bang > actually is. So you wallow in your IGNORANCE and make up fantasies. Let's say it in this way. The same light, as a distinct entity, will slow down own speed, in order to account for the difference due to my own speed. No mechanism presented. This thing, sir, is impossible. Lights has no soul and freewill.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 16:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <G2uSD.74652$krL1.37944@fx15.am4> |
| In reply to | #480214 |
On 19/12/2018 14:24, Scott Richman wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 12/18/18 3:59 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> FIRST: The evidence for slowing light speed (SLS eh!) is at least as >>> good as that for the BIG BANG nonsense. >> >> Nope. It's just that YOU do not know what the evidence for the big bang >> actually is. So you wallow in your IGNORANCE and make up fantasies. > > Let's say it in this way. The same light, as a distinct entity, will slow > down own speed, in order to account for the difference due to my own > speed. No mechanism presented. This thing, sir, is impossible. Lights has > no soul and freewill. Indeed i certainly never meant to suggest that it did,sir. We know from Maxwell's theory that she speed of light is determined by MACROSCOPIC PROPERTIES of the MEDIUM it is passing through. I think it is clear that the universe is evolving. In which case the INTERGALACTIC MEDIUM evolves too. So it would really be surprising if the speed of light in the intergalactic medium was exactly constant. A slowing of light speed of just one part in 14 billion per year would be sufficient to fully explain the Hubble Red Shifts, and would also explain the exponential increases in Hubble Red Shifts for galaxies further than about five billion light years, as found quite recently, to the great surprise of BIG Bang Cosmologists eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 15:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <EPtSD.74651$krL1.29191@fx15.am4> |
| In reply to | #480188 |
On 19/12/2018 01:11, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 12/18/18 3:59 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> FIRST: The evidence for slowing light speed (SLS eh!) is >> at least as good as that for the BIG BANG nonsense. > > Nope. It's just that YOU do not know what the evidence for the big bang > actually is. or maybe it because i do know how surprised the Big Bang Cosmologists where to find the exponential rises in Hubble Red Shifts at distances greater than about 5 billion light years, whereas a slowing light cosmology would say the exponential rise was inevitable, no "dark energy" eh! > So you wallow in your IGNORANCE and make up fantasies. I take it you don't think, INFLATION. accelerating galaxies,DARK ENERGY, are fantasies, but you KNOW slowing light is just Stein's fantasy eh! > Grow up. Don't be like that Tom. It's CHRISTMAS eh! I got a Christmas present or three for you. The 3 postings of mine following this one, are Christmas presents for you Tom. Enjoy, and do tell me which one you like best, after you've had chance to study them in depth eh! "HAPPY CHRISTMAS" Mr. Roberts from keith stein eh! LEARN something about the subject before attempting to write > about it. > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 08:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <df06fa35-e59b-41d4-bbb9-e08e5285e101@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480219 |
Keith Stein escrito On 19/12/2018 01:11, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 12/18/18 3:59 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> FIRST: The evidence for slowing light speed (SLS eh!) is >> at least as good as that for the BIG BANG nonsense. > > Nope. It's just that YOU do not know what the evidence for the big bang > actually is. or maybe it because i do know how surprised the Big Bang Cosmologists where to find the exponential rises in Hubble Red Shifts Ignoramus Stein ... The Hubble Redshift is exactly the same as (the rise in energy required in an attempt to accelerate out of the event horizon of a Black Hole) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C1kfyk-9mU3lqrARJ2s_eut70h2Bl0c5TrGOD_upOJg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 16:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8KuSD.8299$MC5.3343@fx20.am4> |
| In reply to | #480223 |
On 19/12/2018 16:19, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > Keith Stein escrito > > On 19/12/2018 01:11, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 12/18/18 3:59 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> FIRST: The evidence for slowing light speed (SLS eh!) is >>> at least as good as that for the BIG BANG nonsense. >> >> Nope. It's just that YOU do not know what the evidence for the big bang >> actually is. > > or maybe it because i do know how surprised the Big Bang Cosmologists > where to find the exponential rises in Hubble Red Shifts > > Ignoramus Stein ... Well it is certainly true that i did not know that, Fuller, but surely the vast majority must be an "ignoramus" if that is the criteria eh! > The Hubble Redshift is exactly the same as (the rise in energy required in an attempt to accelerate out of the event horizon of a Black Hole) > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C1kfyk-9mU3lqrARJ2s_eut70h2Bl0c5TrGOD_upOJg > According to which i read: "Hubble Expansion is Kinetic Energy Of Space Time Dropping as Entropy Rises", which i think is indeed, your opinion Mr.Fuller, and thank you for sharing that with us David. My own humble opinion is that "Hubble Expansion is the slowing of light", and who knows, one of us might be right eh! HAPPY CHRISTMAS "KRONOS" keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 09:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <59a1ed4d-b5dd-4505-8dce-55d05c655a93@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480226 |
Keith Stein On 19/12/2018 16:19, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > Keith Stein escrito > > On 19/12/2018 01:11, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 12/18/18 3:59 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> FIRST: The evidence for slowing light speed (SLS eh!) is >>> at least as good as that for the BIG BANG nonsense. >> >> Nope. It's just that YOU do not know what the evidence for the big bang >> actually is. > > or maybe it because i do know how surprised the Big Bang Cosmologists > where to find the exponential rises in Hubble Red Shifts > > Ignoramus Stein ... Well it is certainly true that i did not know that, Fuller, but surely the vast majority must be an "ignoramus" if that is the criteria eh! There are only Two Shoes that fit One is made by “IGNORAMUS” The other is “DISHONESTY & SUBTERFUGE”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 15:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4c0829f6-6830-43d9-af47-fbe5cdfc40af@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480219 |
On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 9:53:10 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote: > On 19/12/2018 01:11, Tom Roberts wrote: > > On 12/18/18 3:59 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > >> FIRST: The evidence for slowing light speed (SLS eh!) is > >> at least as good as that for the BIG BANG nonsense. > > > > Nope. It's just that YOU do not know what the evidence for the big bang > > actually is. > > or maybe it because i do know how surprised the Big Bang Cosmologists > where to find the exponential rises in Hubble Red Shifts at distances > greater than about 5 billion light years, Ignoramus Stein ... The Hubble Redshift is exactly the same as (the rise in energy required in an attempt to accelerate out of the event horizon of a Black Hole) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C1kfyk-9mU3lqrARJ2s_eut70h2Bl0c5TrGOD_upOJg (((7.04370151e+4 * (m / s)) / (1 Mpc)) * (13.882091754 billion light years)) / c = 1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 03:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lziSD.3146$X_3.2787@fx01.am4> |
| In reply to | #480175 |
On 23/04/2018 13:22, Adam Stefaniak wrote: > Keith Stein wrote >> What's the difference between a universe which is expanding, >> and a universe in which the speed of light is slowing down ? > From what little I know about VSL theories (e.g. Moffat, Albrecht > & Maguejo), they don't replace the standard big bang expansion (LCDM), > but rather precede it, as an alternative to inflation. They're > something of a fudge factor introduced to explain the flatness > problem. You seem to know much more than the average sci.physics.relativity contributor Adam, but i do admire your humility eh! > One would need to have a full and self-consistent model of static > cosmology with VSL, that makes testable predictions, in order to > be able to say what it does differently, and make any meaningful > comparisons. Well no false modesty from me Adam. I present a full and self-consistent model of static cosmology with VSL, that makes testable predictions:- > On 24/03/2018 08:36, 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) > > > > 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! > > > > wikIpedia wrote: > "We currently appear to be approaching a period where the expansion is > exponential due to the increasing dominance of vacuum energy. In this > regime, the Hubble parameter is constant, and the universe grows by a > factor e each Hubble time:" > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#Observed_values_of_the_Hubble_constant On 23/04/2018 13:22, Adam Stefaniak wrote: > One would need to have a full and self-consistent model of static > cosmology with VSL, that makes testable predictions, in order to > be able to say what it does differently, and make any meaningful > comparisons. As you say Adam, but i am very encouraged by the exponential rises in red shifts which were such a surprise to the Big Bangers, whereas VSL folk like myself say, "TOLD YOU SO" eh! But whatever, none of that answers the question:- >> What's the difference between a universe which is expanding, >> and a universe in which the speed of light is slowing down ? keith stein On 17/12/2018 14:13, Dono, wrote: shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 06:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9ZlSD.26319$MB6.12252@fx33.am4> |
| In reply to | #480175 |
Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth. Thus the light beam from my laser is stretch by a factor of 2 ( because the end of the beam left 1 year after the start, and took 1 year longer on the journey.). However the number of waves sent will be exactly the same as the number received, (assuming you are careful and don't miss any,) so the wavelength must also have been stretched by a factor of 2. This is equivalent to a red-shift of 1, and corresponds reasonably well with what is found in practice. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 06:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ba41fda4-fba9-407f-a269-4826d16599b2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480205 |
On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 1:57:11 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: > Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is > 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good > planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a > whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly > 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be > alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to > reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been > holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in > 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly > 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth. Nope, the front end of the laser beam will not reach you on earth due too the inverse square law. > > Thus the light beam from my laser is stretch by a factor of 2 ( because > the end of the beam left 1 year after the start, and took 1 year longer > on the journey.). However the number of waves sent will be exactly the > same as the number received, (assuming you are careful and don't miss > any,) so the wavelength must also have been stretched by a factor of 2. > This is equivalent to a red-shift of 1, and corresponds reasonably well > with what is found in practice. > > keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 17:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <T5vSD.9848$Ck1.7387@fx18.am4> |
| In reply to | #480215 |
On 19/12/2018 14:56, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 1:57:11 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: >> Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is >> 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good >> planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a >> whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly >> 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be >> alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to >> reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been >> holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in >> 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly >> 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth. > > Nope, the front end of the laser beam will not reach you on earth due too the inverse square law. The good news is that you are right,Ken, indeed in practice one would not see the laser here on Earth. The bad news is that your reason is wrong Ken Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW. Think about it Ken. If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2 at a distance of 1 meter, it will give much the same power at a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters, although not at 10 billion light years eh! keith stein >> >> Thus the light beam from my laser is stretch by a factor of 2 ( because >> the end of the beam left 1 year after the start, and took 1 year longer >> on the journey.). However the number of waves sent will be exactly the >> same as the number received, (assuming you are careful and don't miss >> any,) so the wavelength must also have been stretched by a factor of 2. >> This is equivalent to a red-shift of 1, and corresponds reasonably well >> with what is found in practice. >> >> keith stein >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 14:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f7878649-9246-4b8a-a256-8a453db09764@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480228 |
On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 10:20:53 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > .... > Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW. That is false. You are indeed an ignoramus, blathering nonsense about things you know nothing about, which is just about everything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-20 07:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <BUHSD.18104$gX2.16824@fx32.am4> |
| In reply to | #480262 |
> > Nope, the front end of the laser beam will not reach you on earth due too the inverse square law. The good news is that you are right,Ken, indeed in practice one would not see the laser here on Earth. The bad news is that your reason is wrong Ken Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW. Think about it Ken. If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2 at a distance of 1 meter, it will give much the same power at a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters, although not at 10 billion light years eh! keith stein On 19/12/2018 22:26, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 10:20:53 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >> .... >> Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW. > > That is false. You are indeed an ignoramus, blathering nonsense about > things you know nothing about, which is just about everything. > Think about it Gary. If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2 at a distance of 1 meter, it will give much the same power at a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters, although not at 10 billion light years eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-20 03:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <99758966-365c-4caa-9758-d74fbff79cf1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480286 |
On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 12:54:11 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 19/12/2018 22:26, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 10:20:53 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > > .... > > > Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW. > > > > That is false. You are indeed an ignoramus, blathering nonsense about > > things you know nothing about, which is just about everything. > > Think about it Gary. I thought. > If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2 at a distance of 1 meter, it will > give much the same power at a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters, > although not at 10 billion light years eh! > > keith stein THINK about it, Keith! If a sun puts out 10^26 watts at the orbit of Mercury, it puts out 10^26 watts at the orbit of earth, or Mars or Pluto. You are confusing the TOTAL power output with the power density (W/m²). The LATTER is what the inverse square law is all about. Once again you're yammering baloney. No surprise, it's what you DO.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-20 11:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <toLSD.18560$CD3.3653@fx05.am4> |
| In reply to | #480290 |
On 20/12/2018 11:20, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 12:54:11 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> On 19/12/2018 22:26, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 10:20:53 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>> ....
>>>> Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.
>>>
>>> That is false. You are indeed an ignoramus, blathering nonsense about
>>> things you know nothing about, which is just about everything.
>>
>> Think about it Gary.
>
> I thought.
>
>> If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2 at a distance of 1 meter, it will
>> give much the same power at a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters,
>> although not at 10 billion light years eh!
>>
>> keith stein
>
> THINK about it, Keith! If a sun puts out 10^26 watts at the orbit of
> Mercury, it puts out 10^26 watts at the orbit of earth, or Mars or Pluto.
>
> You are confusing the TOTAL power output with the power density (W/m²).
"laser gives 1 mW per anything^2"
It is power density i AM talking about Gary, although your units are
neater eh!
> The LATTER is what the inverse square law is all about. Once again
> you're yammering baloney. No surprise, it's what you DO.
>
BUT, nevertheless:
"Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW."
Think about it Gary. If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2 at a distance
of 1 meter, it will give much the same power DENSITY at a distance if 2
meters, or even 10 meters.
If you won't concede that i am right about that, then you never been
any where near a laser eh!
keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-20 04:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5d703481-b20d-4ebe-b60b-4f0e3f205922@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480292 |
On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 4:52:59 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 20/12/2018 11:20, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 12:54:11 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > > > > > On 19/12/2018 22:26, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 10:20:53 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW. > > > > > > > > That is false. You are indeed an ignoramus, blathering nonsense about > > > > things you know nothing about, which is just about everything. > > > > > > Think about it Gary. > > > > I thought. > > > > > If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2 at a distance of 1 meter, it will > > > give much the same power at a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters, > > > although not at 10 billion light years eh! > > > > > > keith stein > > > > THINK about it, Keith! If a sun puts out 10^26 watts at the orbit of > > Mercury, it puts out 10^26 watts at the orbit of earth, or Mars or Pluto. > > > > You are confusing the TOTAL power output with the power density (W/m²). > > "laser gives 1 mW per anything^2" > > It is power density i AM talking about Gary, Then you are foolishly wrong. > although your units are neater eh! > > > The LATTER is what the inverse square law is all about. Once again > > you're yammering baloney. No surprise, it's what you DO. > > BUT, nevertheless: > > "Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW." > > Think about it Gary. If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2 at a distance > of 1 meter, it will give much the same power DENSITY at a distance if 2 > meters, or even 10 meters. > > > If you won't concede that i am right about that, then you never been > any where near a laser eh! > > > keith stein Idiot! I spent many YEARS working with lasers and I KNOW that lasers obey the inverse square law in the far field. This is because a laser beam has a diffraction limit (look it up and LEARN something for a change), which is set by the aperture of said laser and its beam quality. The fact is that ALL laser beams diverge in the far field and that divergence obeys optics principles. You are arrogantly ignorant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web