Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #569572 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-10 17:20 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-04-14 12:38 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 145 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 17:20 -0700
Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 03:27 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 07:12 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 06:21 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 07:19 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 07:24 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-11 08:22 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:34 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 21:05 +0000
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 16:23 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 17:40 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 08:06 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-12 08:08 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 15:31 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-12 14:11 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 16:54 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-12 15:16 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 20:50 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-12 23:16 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 03:38 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:45 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-14 01:01 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 01:05 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:49 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-14 14:31 +0000
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 13:45 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-14 18:33 +0000
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 03:16 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:27 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 05:57 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-14 14:41 +0000
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 07:45 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 08:11 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 08:22 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 13:03 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 12:31 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:56 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-14 01:40 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 13:22 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 06:48 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 06:57 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 07:23 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 07:35 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 08:06 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 08:25 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 09:50 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 10:29 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:49 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:16 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 13:20 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:48 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:13 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:47 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:26 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-14 00:52 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 05:03 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 09:23 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 13:18 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:27 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-14 01:09 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:51 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:33 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:05 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 14:44 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 15:19 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 15:36 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 02:41 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 17:32 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 16:01 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 05:34 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 08:12 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-12 13:39 +0000
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 08:54 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 07:05 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 07:44 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:02 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-12 08:44 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 10:49 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 12:37 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:10 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 14:58 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-13 16:45 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:59 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 12:15 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 09:16 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 12:56 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 15:34 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 13:49 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 23:00 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 08:51 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 13:02 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:09 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 14:54 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 15:35 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 09:01 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-11 09:33 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 09:52 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-11 10:33 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 13:47 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 13:11 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 13:09 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 13:05 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 11:12 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 14:23 +0000
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 07:44 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 15:06 +0000
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-11 09:04 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 09:07 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 09:45 -0700
Gravity/eXergy evaporates away, never to return. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 10:14 -0700
Re: Gravity/eXergy evaporates away, never to return. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 13:49 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-11 10:12 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 13:45 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 13:58 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 21:14 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 08:08 -0500
the box noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 16:07 -0700
Re: Gravity/eXergy evaporates away, never to return. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 18:32 +0000
Re: SpaceTime grows as the cosmos evaporates. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 21:29 +0000
Re: SpaceTime grows as the cosmos evaporates. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 21:17 -0400
Re: SpaceTime grows as the cosmos evaporates. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-04-12 05:49 +0000
Re: I'm confident you'll continue to advertize my ideas. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 03:39 -0400
Re: I'm confident you'll continue to advertize my ideas. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-12 09:53 +0200
Re: I'm confident you'll continue to advertize my ideas. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-12 10:17 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 11:15 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 11:19 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 09:48 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 09:55 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 10:08 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 13:57 -0500
spatial (two p.t's noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 13:54 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 13:54 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 13:52 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-04-13 12:46 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 07:34 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 11:13 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 09:24 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 11:29 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 11:30 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 11:10 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-04-13 11:46 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 10:57 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-14 12:32 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 11:03 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-14 12:38 -0700
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 04:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7SIPy.865$h41.516@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #570375 |
On 04/14/2016 04:09 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Odd
>> Sorry, but this is just factually false. First of all, Doppler shift's relation to velocity is known from a wide variety of facts, ranging line broadening from hot gases in glass vials in the lab, to the fact that we can detect Doppler redshifting from one side of the sun and blueshifting from the other side of the sun (where the velocity comes from the rotation of the sun). So the relationship between Doppler shifting and velocity is well known.
>
> Secondly, for astronomical objects, it is easy to benchmark the Doppler shift with the velocity of those objects determined by methods other than frequency shift, at least for object at the low end of the distance scale. For example, simple parallax methods can tell you both the distance and the velocity of astronomical bodies within a Mpc. So in this case you have firm benchmarking between KNOWN velocity and frequency shift, establishing the fact that the frequency shift is due to radial velocity. For more distant objects, you then would have to ask, ok why would the velocity-frequency-shift relationship for >nearby object suddenly cease for objects further away? And what's the magic distance where this happens?
>
> This is an odd argument. First you say its false that I claim Hubble shift
> is distance dependent. Then you go on to explain that effectively the
> Hubble shift IS distance dependent.
>
Because, of course, Hubble shift IS distance dependent!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 12:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nelvs4$e6h$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569988 |
On 4/12/2016 4:11 PM, jay moseley wrote: > Because a photon cannot change frequency without some sort of energy > loss ( which cannot be explained). Whereas a purely wave model of > emr CAN change frequency over distance without losing energy. I think you're a little off base here. The photon is not changing its energy in flight -- not what the big bang theory is claiming, at all. What's true is that a photon's energy depends on reference frame, and so does its frequency. But that's also true for pebbles in classical mechanics, having nothing to do with Einstein or relativity or photons. If you drop a pebble from your pocket while standing in the aisle on a plane, it'll have a kinetic energy of about 1 J by the time it lands on the floor of the plane. But to someone standing on the ground, watching that plane go by at 500 mph, that same pebble will have a kinetic energy of about 180 J by the time it lands on the ground. Now you tell me... do you have to account for that 179 J of energy? And where in the trip did the pebble's energy change from 1 J to 180 J? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 12:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nelu8v$bba$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569908 |
On 4/12/2016 10:08 AM, jay moseley wrote: > Odd wrote... >>> jay moseley wrote: > Odd, your argument is based on a false premise. You say that a frequency > decay over distance cannot explain where the energy is lost. Violating > conservation of energy. But the BBT has the same accounting deficit. > You cant explain where the energy came from to first create the big >>bang. > >> There is no absolute energy scale. > >> You're up at the top of a building. Is your potential energy zero or some positive number up there? > > If you cant explain where the BBT came from. You havent explained what causes > the redshift any more than any tired light theory does. Sorry, but I don't respond to baits and shifting goal posts like what you're doing. Energy does not have an absolute scale. There is no need to explain why energy is not zero at the beginning of time, because where zero is is ARBITRARY, and that is classical physics, not modern physics. > >>> Also you claim that energy is lost with frequency decay over distance. > >> No, I did not say this. > > Not you personally obviously. But the argument Ive heard over and over > from BBT supporters is that if the redshift is due to frequency decay over distance > and not expansion, then an explanation as to where the *lost* energy went is > needed. I don't care what you've heard elsewhere. If you say I've said something I haven't, I'm going to call you on it. > My point was simple. Why does any non expanding model need to explain > where this lost energy went? No energy is lost if redshift is due to tired light. > What evidence or argument do you ( BBT supporters) have that shows an > explanation is even needed? Why should frequency decay over distance > (rather than expansion) violate conservation of energy? > There's a small problem with tired light. It doesn't account for blueshifts, which are easily observed. Only redshifts would be accounted for, and blueshifts shouldn't happen at all with tired light. But they do. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 14:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <TrwPy.6672$QO1.1478@fx27.iad> |
| In reply to | #570174 |
On 04/13/2016 01:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/12/2016 10:08 AM, jay moseley wrote:
>> Odd wrote...
>>>> jay moseley wrote: > Odd, your argument is based on a false premise.
>>>> You say that a frequency
>> decay over distance cannot explain where the energy is lost. Violating
>> conservation of energy. But the BBT has the same accounting deficit.
>> You cant explain where the energy came from to first create the big
>>> bang.
>>
>>> There is no absolute energy scale.
>>
>>> You're up at the top of a building. Is your potential energy zero or
>>> some positive number up there?
>>
>> If you cant explain where the BBT came from. You havent explained what
>> causes
>> the redshift any more than any tired light theory does.
>
> Sorry, but I don't respond to baits and shifting goal posts like what
> you're doing. Energy does not have an absolute scale. There is no need
> to explain why energy is not zero at the beginning of time, because
> where zero is is ARBITRARY, and that is classical physics, not modern
> physics.
>
>>
>>>> Also you claim that energy is lost with frequency decay over distance.
>>
>>> No, I did not say this.
>>
>> Not you personally obviously. But the argument Ive heard over and over
>> from BBT supporters is that if the redshift is due to frequency decay
>> over distance
>> and not expansion, then an explanation as to where the *lost* energy
>> went is
>> needed.
>
> I don't care what you've heard elsewhere. If you say I've said something
> I haven't, I'm going to call you on it.
>
>> My point was simple. Why does any non expanding model need to explain
>> where this lost energy went? No energy is lost if redshift is due to
>> tired light.
>> What evidence or argument do you ( BBT supporters) have that shows an
>> explanation is even needed? Why should frequency decay over distance
>> (rather than expansion) violate conservation of energy?
>>
>
> There's a small problem with tired light. It doesn't account for
> blueshifts, which are easily observed. Only redshifts would be accounted
> for, and blueshifts shouldn't happen at all with tired light. But they do.
Nonsense, Odd. Doppler still works. It's not some stupid either or
situation. It's that Doppler doesn't account for the basic redshift
increasing over distance. Relative velocity still causes shifts.
Hows the debate team doing this year?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 15:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <90a55913-70e0-40bb-bed0-e7ede1dff4f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #570174 |
Odd said " There's a small problem with tired light. It doesn't account for blueshifts, which are easily observed. Only redshifts would be accounted for, and blueshifts shouldn't happen at all with tired light. But they do. " This illustrates your black and white mentality. Just because the universally-observed redshift is because of tired light DOES NOT mean that approaching galaxies will not still blueshift and receding ones won't still redshift. I can't for the life of me figure how you jump to the conclusions you do. You hold conflicting things to be true, so you have to have kind of a Jeckl and Hyde type mind, I guess. I can't compartmentalise like that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 15:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87b81e85-b9c4-42ab-b60d-881633805594@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #570285 |
john Odd said " There's a small problem with tired light. It doesn't account for blueshifts, which are easily observed. Only redshifts would be accounted for, and blueshifts shouldn't happen at all with tired light. But they do. " This illustrates your black and white mentality. Just because the universally-observed redshift is because of tired light DOES NOT mean that approaching galaxies will not still blueshift and receding ones won't still redshift. I can't for the life of me figure how you jump to the conclusions you do. You hold conflicting things to be true, so you have to have kind of a Jeckl and Hyde type mind, I guess. I can't compartmentalise like that. ------------- John, look...I hate to say anything politically incorrect, but you have some sort of learning disability. Now I won't even call you retarded because a learning disability isn't the same as a retard.... Although the results are difficult to separate. Just sayin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 02:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <2YGPy.4503$KD1.2970@fx21.iad> |
| In reply to | #570287 |
On 04/13/2016 06:36 PM, HVAC wrote:
> john
> Odd said
> "
> There's a small problem with tired light. It doesn't account for
> blueshifts, which are easily observed. Only redshifts would be accounted
> for, and blueshifts shouldn't happen at all with tired light. But they do. "
>
> This illustrates your black and white mentality.
> Just because the universally-observed
> redshift is because of tired light
> DOES NOT mean that approaching galaxies
> will not still blueshift and receding ones won't
> still redshift.
>
> I can't for the life of me figure how you jump
> to the conclusions you do. You hold
> conflicting things to be true, so you have
> to have kind of a Jeckl and Hyde type mind,
> I guess. I can't compartmentalise like that.
> -------------
>
> John, look...I hate to say anything politically incorrect, but you have some sort of learning disability. Now I won't even call you retarded because a learning disability isn't the same as a retard.... Although the results are difficult to separate. Just sayin
>
Says the guy who doesn't know enough math to know that a finite universe
means it has a center.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 17:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1566a748-c8f2-4d70-8884-fe78d12f14eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #570285 |
there are no blues, in the extreme high redshift; AFAiK from a talk just heard, 6 and 7 are teh furthest, but a) not sure what it means, and b) forgot the figure given for distance\age > There's a small problem with tired light. It doesn't account for > blueshifts, which are easily observed. Only redshifts would be accounted > for, and blueshifts shouldn't happen at all with tired light. But they do. " > > This illustrates your black and white mentality. > Just because the universally-observed > redshift is because of tired light > DOES NOT mean that approaching galaxies > will not still blueshift and receding ones won't > still redshift. > > I can't for the life of me figure how you jump > to the conclusions you do. You hold > conflicting things to be true, so you have > to have kind of a Jeckl and Hyde type mind, > I guess. I can't compartmentalise like that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 16:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <92b54980-3d53-43f0-9776-40f2c7809a8c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569834 |
the sccondpower of the speed of light has a) nothing to wo with corpuscles, and b) is the rate of expansion of the area of the wavefront > that a beam of light does not spread as it travels away from a source? > Whereas this is untrue. It does spread. So if frequency decreases from > a to b to c, one also has to compensate for beam spread. So at point c one > has to measure energy received over a wider area in the same amount of > time then at point b. > Your argument incorrectly assumes that at c one measures energy received > over the same area as at point b in the same time frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 05:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <00ddcbc8-46b5-4282-8e50-3710bd45b762@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569813 |
Odd said " So to put it clearly, suppose there is a galaxy that is 50 Mpc from the Milky Way, and there is another galaxy that is 200 Mpc from the Milky Way. We will observe the nearer galaxy to be receding from the Milky Way at about 3500 km/s, which means that in one day, it will have receded by 302,000,000 km. We will observe the further galaxy to be receding from the Milky Way at about 14,000 km/s, which means that in one day, it will have receded by 1,210,000,000 km. " Odd, who is the observer, in this case? Are you saying that The Milky Way is the Center of a fantastic expansion? Yes, you are saying that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 08:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <neis7s$1et9$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569890 |
On 4/12/2016 7:34 AM, john wrote: > Odd said > " > So to put it clearly, suppose there is a galaxy that is 50 Mpc from the > Milky Way, and there is another galaxy that is 200 Mpc from the Milky Way. > > We will observe the nearer galaxy to be receding from the Milky Way at > about 3500 km/s, which means that in one day, it will have receded by > 302,000,000 km. > > We will observe the further galaxy to be receding from the Milky Way at > about 14,000 km/s, which means that in one day, it will have receded by > 1,210,000,000 km. " > > Odd, who is the observer, in this case? > Are you saying that The Milky Way is > the Center of a fantastic expansion? No, not at all. All I said is that there is recession. Let's call the nearer galaxy Galaxy A and the further galaxy Galaxy B. Notice that someone living in Galaxy A will see both the Milky Way and Galaxy B receding from it. Notice that someone living in Galaxy B will see both the Milky Way and Galaxy A receding from it. Where is the center now? > Yes, you are saying that. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 13:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <neitpk$pat$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #569890 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd, who is the observer, in this case? >Are you saying that The Milky Way is >the Center of a fantastic expansion? >Yes, you are saying that. Where is Sam Wormley and his "No Center" post when you need it? On second thought, don't bother, Sam. John is too thick to understand it, he'll ignore it and then post some more "We must be the center!" crap, or whine how something on the diagonal of a grid recedes faster (just as expected) or something,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 08:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <neiulf$1k19$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569900 |
On 4/12/2016 8:39 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > >> Odd, who is the observer, in this case? >> Are you saying that The Milky Way is >> the Center of a fantastic expansion? >> Yes, you are saying that. > > Where is Sam Wormley and his "No Center" post when you need it? > > On second thought, don't bother, Sam. John is too thick to understand it, > he'll ignore it and then post some more "We must be the center!" crap, > or whine how something on the diagonal of a grid recedes faster (just as > expected) or something, > John's a little attached to two conflicting ideas. First, he says that anything real must have boundaries, and by using the boundary you can find the center, so anything real must have a center. Second, he says the universe (which is real) is infinite and has no boundaries, and therefore has no center. So maybe he should just wrestle with his own internal conflict for a while until he gets THAT sorted out. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 07:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a88d6214-fd39-40e6-a893-7998de528f58@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569900 |
On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 9:39:31 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > > >Odd, who is the observer, in this case? > >Are you saying that The Milky Way is > >the Center of a fantastic expansion? > >Yes, you are saying that. > > Where is Sam Wormley and his "No Center" post when you need it? A) Are you Michael Moroney incapable of searching for it yourself? B) The count of Sam Worm Liars posts overwhelms your search engines? C) Shouldn't you just be able to paraphrase all Sam's cut and pastes? > On second thought, don't bother, Sam. John is too thick to understand it, > he'll ignore it and then post some more "We must be the center!" crap, > or whine how something on the diagonal of a grid recedes faster (just as > expected) or something, D) It's always just an either or for you Moroney? People can't simply explore ideas that go against the grains of some mythical Status Quo Scientists? Everyday, same scientists are shouting at the top of their lungs how little they actually know about the Universe. Why is that? E) Calling everyone else kooks or crazy or uneducated really merely makes you Moron Smart. Keep up the facade around your house of cards. -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: MM's posts' content is so predictable.”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 07:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <606bdb57-affa-4b19-9232-45afaae363d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569903 |
When I scale up something on Cad, it requires a place to scale "around". Simplest to scale it around the origin. Making something twice as big requires location, initial and final. Wishing and dreaming that it all just "delocalizes" and mystically is wherever needed is kook speak to me. Where is the Center of your expanding Universe? It has to be here, because from anywhere else, the velocities would not be symmetrical. I'll say it again- ALL you guys have taken "Flatland" and "spots on an expanding balloon" analogies WAY too literally. There are THREE dimensions. You're getting their boundaries mixed and you're mixing them up with Time. QM has told you the rules of Physics no longer apply at smaller scales, and you believed them. Every expansion has a Center. Light does not travel forever without losing energy. Electrons DO radiate because of their acceleration. Their are no non-composite particles- it is a fundamental contradiction in terms. Gravity IS the result of energy flow. What other things do you guys believe that's totally kooky? Benj, help me with this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 12:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nelu1v$b1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569906 |
On 4/12/2016 9:44 AM, john wrote: > When I scale up something > on Cad, it requires a place to > scale "around". OK, but that's AutoCAD. It'd be a mistake to assume that if AutoCAD requires it in the UI, then this is how nature works too. > Simplest to scale it around the > origin. > Making something twice as big > requires location, initial and final. In AutoCAD it does, not in nature. > > Wishing and dreaming that it all > just "delocalizes" and mystically is > wherever needed is kook speak to me. Delocalization has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe. > Where is the Center of your expanding > Universe? It has to be here, because from > anywhere else, the velocities would > not be symmetrical. That's simply not true. I have you an explicit example of a 3D expanding grid. I described what the velocities of nearby balls looks like from some arbitrary place on the grid. If you choose some other arbitrary ball and sit there and look at what the velocities of nearby balls looks like, it will look IDENTICAL to how it did where you were before. Check it out. > > I'll say it again- ALL you guys have taken > "Flatland" and "spots on an expanding balloon" > analogies WAY too literally. > There are THREE dimensions. > You're getting their boundaries mixed and > you're mixing them up with Time. > QM has told you the rules of Physics > no longer apply at smaller scales, and > you believed them. Expansion of the universe has nothing to do with QM. > > Every expansion has a Center. I gave you three examples where that was not true. > Light does not travel forever without losing > energy. > Electrons DO radiate because of their > acceleration. > Their are no non-composite particles- it is > a fundamental contradiction in terms. > Gravity IS the result of energy flow. > > What other things do you guys believe > that's totally kooky? > Benj, help me with this. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 08:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nej4v8$acu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #569903 |
Virdy "Mahipal" <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote an EXCELLENT post. It has wider applications. It applies to every poster who is not a physicist but especially to the loud mouths who brag to be "autodidacts". It means that they have read some articles, which gave them a fixed idea that fits their emotional Weltbild, which they then attempt to stuff down other folks throat... Jeff Relf, Porat, Full Swine Glazier, rect-Al Schwartz, Ferkelson Odd Boinker & Hellmutt Wabnigger practice that. But they are always good for a laugh, n'est pas. Take care Virdy -- -- hanson > > "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com>wrote: > Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > >Odd, who is the observer, in this case? > >Are you saying that The Milky Way is > >the Center of a fantastic expansion? > >Yes, you are saying that. > Michael wrote: > Where is Sam Wormley and his "No Center" post when you need it? > Virdy wrote: A) Are you Michael Moroney incapable of searching for it yourself? B) The count of Sam Worm Liars posts overwhelms your search engines? C) Shouldn't you just be able to paraphrase all Sam's cut and pastes? > Michael wrote: > On second thought, don't bother, Sam. John is too thick to understand it, > he'll ignore it and then post some more "We must be the center!" crap, > or whine how something on the diagonal of a grid recedes faster (just as > expected) or something, > Virdy wrote: D) It's always just an either or for you Moroney? People can't simply explore ideas that go against the grains of some mythical Status Quo Scientists? Everyday, same scientists are shouting at the top of their lungs how little they actually know about the Universe. Why is that? E) Calling everyone else kooks or crazy or uneducated really merely makes you Moron Smart. Keep up the facade around your house of cards. -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: MM's posts' content is so predictable.”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 10:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <94ad5c63-74ae-4905-aad7-e330262ad4e1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569912 |
On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 11:44:51 AM UTC-4, hanson wrote: > Virdy "Mahipal" <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote > an EXCELLENT post. It has wider applications. > It applies to every poster who is not a physicist > but especially to the loud mouths who brag to be > "autodidacts". It means that they have read some > articles, which gave them a fixed idea that fits > their emotional Weltbild, which they then attempt > to stuff down other folks throat... Jeff Relf, Porat, > Full Swine Glazier, rect-Al Schwartz, Ferkelson > Odd Boinker & Hellmutt Wabnigger practice that. > But they are always good for a laugh, n'est pas. > Take care Virdy -- -- hanson I hope, me m(y) fingers crossed, you Sir hanson, don't mean EXCELLENT for a change?! He he... Ha ha... Ferkelson does not belong on that list. Unless you mean someone other than Mark L. Fergerson. I realize you hanson and I don't always share the same friends, but for the most part, we somehow do. Do The Physics. I also like Yehiel Porat, Circulon Engineer for some circular reason. I can' explain it. > > "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com>wrote: > > > Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > > >Odd, who is the observer, in this case? > > >Are you saying that The Milky Way is > > >the Center of a fantastic expansion? > > >Yes, you are saying that. > > > Michael wrote: > > Where is Sam Wormley and his "No Center" post when you need it? > > > Virdy wrote: > A) Are you Michael Moroney incapable of searching for it yourself? > B) The count of Sam Worm Liars posts overwhelms your search engines? > C) Shouldn't you just be able to paraphrase all Sam's cut and pastes? > > > Michael wrote: > > On second thought, don't bother, Sam. John is too thick to understand it, > > he'll ignore it and then post some more "We must be the center!" crap, > > or whine how something on the diagonal of a grid recedes faster (just as > > expected) or something, Btw MM, Moron Smart or otherwise, we not only must be the center of The Universe, we actually are per the kooky we all live on a Yellow Submarine on the surface of fish(y) Cow, spherical by all diametrical measures. Schools can never make fools of all of us Us US. Axiomatically. What do I mean Moroney? If you had any actual real education at all, firstly your writing would reflect it, and you wouldn't hide it like do your cohorts HVAC, Odd Bodkin, ..., Sam Worm Liar. It's just too bad you all are well funded enough to use different distinct addressed IP servers. Your ignorable message remains the same. Now you know we know. We all can do the math to see with whom you agree or not. It's called reading. > Virdy wrote: > D) It's always just an either or for you Moroney? People can't simply > explore ideas that go against the grains of some mythical Status Quo > Scientists? Everyday, same scientists are shouting at the top of their > lungs how little they actually know about the Universe. Why is that? > E) Calling everyone else kooks or crazy or uneducated really merely > makes you Moron Smart. Keep up the facade around your house of cards. > > -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: MM's posts' content is so predictable.” -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Take care Sir hanson. Do cut down on them visuals.”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 12:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9175aedb-0de2-4b72-9c61-88c91e8f5a51@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569941 |
I don't see why they wouldn't do a straight up trade: DE for tired light. Then the whole BB goes away
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 12:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <neluhe$bba$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569962 |
On 4/12/2016 2:37 PM, john wrote: > I don't see why > they wouldn't do a straight up trade: > DE for tired light. > Then the whole BB goes away > Tired light can't explain blueshifting. Only redshifting would be allowed. Unless you have some kind of 5-Hour Energy Drink for photons. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web