Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #707676 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-13 16:08 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-10-18 10:40 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 82 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 16:08 +0100
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-13 10:49 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 10:58 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-13 11:06 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 16:11 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 16:10 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 16:08 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-13 14:03 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 18:27 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-13 21:36 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-14 13:44 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 11:24 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 08:45 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 12:06 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 17:32 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 21:15 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 02:51 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 23:00 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 11:24 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 08:12 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 12:39 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-15 10:34 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 21:18 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-15 10:32 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 21:17 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-15 20:57 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 08:10 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-16 11:00 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 18:49 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-13 13:48 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 15:33 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 20:43 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 18:36 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 23:10 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 08:35 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 13:47 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 23:06 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-14 15:02 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 10:34 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 18:48 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 19:01 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 23:12 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 19:01 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 23:17 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 13:10 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 16:09 +0100
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 12:37 +0100
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 08:43 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 12:14 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 17:51 +0100
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 13:32 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 20:13 +0100
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 15:50 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 10:27 +0100
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 07:56 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 22:35 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 22:52 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-24 09:26 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-24 23:12 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-24 16:18 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-25 02:05 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-25 02:07 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-24 22:02 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-25 10:35 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-25 05:33 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-25 06:59 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-25 16:09 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-26 10:33 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-25 16:30 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-25 10:02 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-25 22:09 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-26 04:02 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-26 17:48 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-26 11:15 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-26 11:52 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-26 22:53 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-27 06:56 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-26 10:27 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 12:30 -0400
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 10:27 -0700
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-17 16:50 +0000
Re: Universe NO T Ex p a n d i n g eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 10:40 +0100
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-13 19:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d1c58996-e143-466f-bdfe-a1662873a929@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #707812 |
On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 6:48:35 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote: > On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 8:08:17 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > > http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html > > > > "The scientists carefully compared the size and brightness of about a > > thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. They chose the most > > luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average > > luminosity of the near and far samples. > > > > Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the > > surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical. > > > > These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary > > geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction > > with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the > > expanding Universe hypothesis." > > > > > > > > > > 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! > > > > > > > > wikepedia 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 > Red shift and blue tells us whats coming and going. The further we look out the redder it gets.All galaxies beyond Adromida are moving away from us.Reality is those far way are moving faster away.This the Hubble telly is showing.Bert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-13 23:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ppuc77$c1k$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707812 |
On 10/13/2018 9:48 PM, reber G=emc^2 wrote: > On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 8:08:17 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >> http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html >> >> "The scientists carefully compared the size and brightness of about a >> thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. They chose the most >> luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average >> luminosity of the near and far samples. >> >> Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the >> surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical. >> >> These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary >> geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction >> with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the >> expanding Universe hypothesis." >> >> >> >> >> 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! >> >> >> >> wikepedia 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 > Red shift and blue tells us whats coming and going. The further we look out the redder it gets.All galaxies beyond Adromida are moving away from us.Reality is those far way are moving faster away.This the Hubble telly is showing.Bert > Moving does give a shift, Bert, but it's not the ONLY thing shifting light! This is Nobel imperial thinking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-13 19:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86f2542b-fb4b-4b29-894e-926f38af614f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #707676 |
On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 8:08:17 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html > > "The scientists carefully compared the size and brightness of about a > thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. They chose the most > luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average > luminosity of the near and far samples. > > Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the > surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical. > > These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary > geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction > with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the > expanding Universe hypothesis." > > > > > 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! > > > > wikepedia 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 Space with its micro waves coming in all directions to us helps the BB theory.True its only a theory,but it has a lot going for it.Don't knock it.Try to come up with something better if you can.If you can't blow your hot air somewhere else.Bert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-13 23:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ppucft$cn6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707817 |
On 10/13/2018 10:01 PM, reber G=emc^2 wrote: > On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 8:08:17 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: >> http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html >> >> "The scientists carefully compared the size and brightness of about a >> thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. They chose the most >> luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average >> luminosity of the near and far samples. >> >> Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the >> surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical. >> >> These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary >> geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction >> with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the >> expanding Universe hypothesis." >> >> >> >> >> 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! >> >> >> >> wikepedia 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 > > Space with its micro waves coming in all directions to us helps the BB theory.True its only a theory,but it has a lot going for it.Don't knock it.Try to come up with something better if you can.If you can't blow your hot air somewhere else.Bert > OF course I have a better theory and it's worth millions. Which is why I'll never tell you because you'd just steal it alike you did G-Emc^2 off that barn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-15 13:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ccd880d6-d5cb-491b-8747-7c91c3ae0f43@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #707828 |
On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 8:17:20 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > On 10/13/2018 10:01 PM, reber G=emc^2 wrote: > > On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 8:08:17 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > >> http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html > >> > >> "The scientists carefully compared the size and brightness of about a > >> thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. They chose the most > >> luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average > >> luminosity of the near and far samples. > >> > >> Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the > >> surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical. > >> > >> These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary > >> geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction > >> with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the > >> expanding Universe hypothesis." > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 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! > >> > >> > >> > >> wikepedia 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 > > > > Space with its micro waves coming in all directions to us helps the BB theory.True its only a theory,but it has a lot going for it.Don't knock it.Try to come up with something better if you can.If you can't blow your hot air somewhere else.Bert > > > OF course I have a better theory and it's worth millions. Which is why > I'll never tell you because you'd just steal it alike you did G-Emc^2 > off that barn. Barn was is Fl.and the farmer got G=EMC^2 from me.Two letters from two popes from the Vatacan I have also.Came up with my equation for universe in 1946.I was 18,but thinking science since 8.In 1952 I meet Einstien and we agree that gravity and inertia were in fact two sides to the same source(coin) I've posted all this here for 26 years,and low wits just don't get it. My van has in big signs G=EMC^2.I liken that to Feynman's van with his diagrams on it. Bert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-15 16:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <R42xD.66015$SY5.59261@fx37.am4> |
| In reply to | #707676 |
On 13/10/2018 16:08, Keith Stein wrote: > > http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html > > "The scientists carefully compared the size and brightness of about a > thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. They chose the most > luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average > luminosity of the near and far samples. > > Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the > surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical. > > These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary > geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction > with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the > expanding Universe hypothesis." > > > > > 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! > > > > wikepedia 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 > Sans Mots eh!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 12:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <T9FxD.119336$8g.7202@fx08.am4> |
| In reply to | #707676 |
On 13/10/2018 16:08, Keith Stein wrote > 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. 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 ? 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 | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 08:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fbe86c88-0fca-4c9e-b86b-849cd8f39f71@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #708592 |
keith “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 fai” No. Light just gradually loses energy. It’s called tired light. But light is also red and blue shifted by differences in movement- both translational and rotational
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 12:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pq7n53$1c6t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #708592 |
On 10/17/2018 7:37 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > On 13/10/2018 16:08, Keith Stein wrote >> 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. > > > 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 ? > > 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 > > > > Sorry Keith but this is wrong on SO many levels!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 17:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <AMJxD.123710$p%6.94652@fx26.am4> |
| In reply to | #708603 |
On 17/10/2018 17:14, benj wrote: > On 10/17/2018 7:37 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 13/10/2018 16:08, Keith Stein wrote >>> 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. >> >> >> 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 ? >> >> 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 > Sorry Keith but this is wrong on SO many levels! No need to apologize Benj, any feedback welcome eh! Is it that you're a believer in the "Big Bang Nonsense", I'm not the only scientist who doubts that old cosmologist's tale Have you read this? http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html "The scientists carefully compared the size and brightness of about a thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. They chose the most luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average luminosity of the near and far samples. Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical. These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the expanding Universe hypothesis." 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! wikepedia 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 13:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pq7ro3$1kq6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #708608 |
On 10/17/2018 12:51 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > On 17/10/2018 17:14, benj wrote: >> On 10/17/2018 7:37 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 13/10/2018 16:08, Keith Stein wrote >>>> 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. >>> >>> >>> 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 ? >>> >>> 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 > > >> Sorry Keith but this is wrong on SO many levels! > > No need to apologize Benj, any feedback welcome eh! > > Is it that you're a believer in the "Big Bang Nonsense", > I'm not the only scientist who doubts that old cosmologist's tale > Have you read this? > > http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html > > "The scientists carefully compared the size and brightness of about a > thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. They chose the most > luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average > luminosity of the near and far samples. > > Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the > surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical. > > These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary > geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction > with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the > expanding Universe hypothesis." I had not seen that article. It it excellent new data! I not only do not "believe" in the Big Bang (science has nothing to do with belief) but I long stated (here and other places) it is the biggest mistake in all of physics. And the reason is that one starts with a mistake (red shift is due to Doppler velocity) and then one must start piling on additional mistake after mistake like "dark matter", and such to keep the erroneous ideas going. As data in article notes, basic idea is not supported which makes the whole cosmological house of cards fall. Important facts to note, however is that Doppler shifts ARE real and cause light shifts due to motion. However the majority of Red shift taken as "proof" of the expansion of the universe is NOT due to velocity. And allow me to say that the theory of "tired light" is wrong as well. The true causes takes a change in the grand metaparadigms of science and this is why there is such resistance to any new ideas. I wrote a paper explaining what really causes Red Shift on one of my websites (www.hypersphere.us) But it had some problem with calculating the diameter of the universe so I took it down until I get it fixed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 20:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sRLxD.28133$2T2.18543@fx42.am4> |
| In reply to | #708617 |
On 17/10/2018 18:32, benj wrote: > On 10/17/2018 12:51 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 17/10/2018 17:14, benj wrote: >>> On 10/17/2018 7:37 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> On 13/10/2018 16:08, Keith Stein wrote >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 ? >>>> >>>> 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 >> >> >>> Sorry Keith but this is wrong on SO many levels! >> >> No need to apologize Benj, any feedback welcome eh! >> >> Is it that you're a believer in the "Big Bang Nonsense", >> I'm not the only scientist who doubts that old cosmologist's tale >> Have you read this? >> >> http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html >> >> >> "The scientists carefully compared the size and brightness of about a >> thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. They chose the most >> luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average >> luminosity of the near and far samples. >> >> Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the >> surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical. >> >> These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary >> geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction >> with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the >> expanding Universe hypothesis." > > I had not seen that article. It it excellent new data! I not only do not > "believe" in the Big Bang (science has nothing to do with belief) but I > long stated (here and other places) it is the biggest mistake in all of > physics. And the reason is that one starts with a mistake (red shift is > due to Doppler velocity) and then one must start piling on additional > mistake after mistake like "dark matter", and such to keep the erroneous > ideas going. Not to mention "Inflation", or the latest abomination "Dark Energy" eh! > As data in article notes, basic idea is not supported which makes the > whole cosmological house of cards fall. Important facts to note, however > is that Doppler shifts ARE real and cause light shifts due to motion. > However the majority of Red shift taken as "proof" of the expansion of > the universe is NOT due to velocity. And allow me to say that the theory > of "tired light" is wrong as well. Well the light from distant galaxies is no more tired than the light from your computer screen, but it seems reasonable, to me, that as the universe "evolves" the intergalactic medium must also "evolve". We know from Maxwell's Theory that the velocity of light is dependent on the properties of the medium, and so it is certainly not unreasonable to believe that the velocity of light will decrease slowly with time. > The true causes takes a change in the grand metaparadigms of science and > this is why there is such resistance to any new ideas. I'm not keen on "new ideas" myself Benj. Been too many new ideas if you ask me. Back to Euclidean Geometry and Maxwell's Theory is what i want to see eh! I wrote a paper > explaining what really causes Red Shift on one of my websites > (www.hypersphere.us) But it had some problem with calculating the > diameter of the universe I might be able to help you with that Benj. Theoretically space can be considered to continue out to infinity, in all directions. and while data is still being collected we can say that nothing in so far would give anyone cause to doubt that the universe does indeed continue forever eh! so I took it down until I get it fixed. Well if that helps you to get it back up, maybe i take a look, but in the meantime i'm backing the light slowing in the evolving cosmos myself Benj. keith >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 15:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pq83ph$440$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #708634 |
On 10/17/2018 3:13 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > On 17/10/2018 18:32, benj wrote: >> On 10/17/2018 12:51 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 17/10/2018 17:14, benj wrote: >>>> On 10/17/2018 7:37 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>> On 13/10/2018 16:08, Keith Stein wrote >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 ? >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>> >>> >>>> Sorry Keith but this is wrong on SO many levels! >>> >>> No need to apologize Benj, any feedback welcome eh! >>> >>> Is it that you're a believer in the "Big Bang Nonsense", >>> I'm not the only scientist who doubts that old cosmologist's tale >>> Have you read this? >>> >>> http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html >>> >>> >>> "The scientists carefully compared the size and brightness of about a >>> thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. They chose the most >>> luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average >>> luminosity of the near and far samples. >>> >>> Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that >>> the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical. >>> >>> These results are consistent with what would be expected from >>> ordinary geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in >>> contradiction with the drastic dimming of surface brightness >>> predicted by the expanding Universe hypothesis." >> >> I had not seen that article. It it excellent new data! I not only do >> not "believe" in the Big Bang (science has nothing to do with belief) >> but I long stated (here and other places) it is the biggest mistake in >> all of physics. And the reason is that one starts with a mistake (red >> shift is due to Doppler velocity) and then one must start piling on >> additional mistake after mistake like "dark matter", and such to keep >> the erroneous ideas going. > > Not to mention "Inflation", or the latest abomination "Dark Energy" eh! > > >> As data in article notes, basic idea is not supported which makes the >> whole cosmological house of cards fall. Important facts to note, >> however is that Doppler shifts ARE real and cause light shifts due to >> motion. However the majority of Red shift taken as "proof" of the >> expansion of the universe is NOT due to velocity. And allow me to say >> that the theory of "tired light" is wrong as well. > > Well the light from distant galaxies is no more tired than the light > from your computer screen, but it seems reasonable, to me, that as the > universe "evolves" the intergalactic medium must also "evolve". We > know from Maxwell's Theory that the velocity of light is dependent on > the properties of the medium, and so it is certainly not unreasonable > to believe that the velocity of light will decrease slowly with time. Except that it doesn't. The light does not get "tired" over time. Aether is a "super" material and is lossless. This prevents any decays. >> The true causes takes a change in the grand metaparadigms of science >> and this is why there is such resistance to any new ideas. > > I'm not keen on "new ideas" myself Benj. Been too many new ideas if you > ask me. Back to Euclidean Geometry and Maxwell's Theory is what i want > to see eh! The answer, let me encourage you, is indeed with Maxwell theory and Euclidean Geometry! What you are missing is that you do not have enough dimensions! Note that if space is to "warp" this requires MORE dimensions than those of the manifold being bent! I find it funny that "modern" physics insists that space "warps" and that the center of the universe is "everywhere", and then in the same breath totally deny that reality has more dimensions than 3 plus time! It's a hoot. > > I wrote a paper >> explaining what really causes Red Shift on one of my websites >> (www.hypersphere.us) But it had some problem with calculating the >> diameter of the universe > > I might be able to help you with that Benj. > Theoretically space can be considered to continue > out to infinity, in all directions. > and while data is still being collected we > can say that nothing in so far would give anyone > cause to doubt that the universe does indeed continue > forever eh! Lots of cause. How does one explain the "edge" of the universe? It's the old "sailing off the edge of the flat earth" problem! Consider an alternative. The universe as a sphere, or more exactly a "hypersphere". Now the edge problem is solved. Now there can be a theory that the red shift in light is a function of the geometry and the angle the light makes with our space. > so I took it down until I get it fixed. > > Well if that helps you to get it back up, maybe i take a look, > but in the meantime i'm backing the light slowing in the evolving > cosmos myself Benj.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-18 10:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <FlYxD.36739$NF7.36297@fx14.am4> |
| In reply to | #708642 |
On 17/10/2018 20:50, benj wrote: > On 10/17/2018 3:13 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> >> I'm not keen on "new ideas" myself Benj. Been too many new ideas if >> you ask me. Back to Euclidean Geometry and Maxwell's Theory is what i >> want to see eh! > > The answer, let me encourage you, is indeed with Maxwell theory and > Euclidean Geometry! Good. > What you are missing is that you do not have enough > dimensions! Note that if space is to "warp" this requires MORE > dimensions than those of the manifold being bent! When i said "Euclidean Geometry", i meant that old fashioned notion of space with just 3 dimensions, and a quite separate time with just one dimension, Benj. Like in the good old days, before Einstein eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-18 07:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <892c351c-ded8-47a2-b86c-9967a4a339ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #708758 |
Keith “When i said "Euclidean Geometry", i meant that old fashioned notion of space with just 3 dimensions, and a quite separate time with just ” Only 3 spatial dimensions are needed to portray any ‘instant’ of Time. But Time goes MUCH faster at smaller scales. The electron that gets replaced in 10^-16 seconds reveals a CYCLE at that frequency. For us, our galactic cycle is around 250 million years. The Milky Way is about 10^22 meters in diameter. A Carbon atom is about 10^-09m. So 250 million years/10^-16sec should equal difference in size galaxy/atom 10^22m/10^-09m equals 10^31 So there must be 10^15 seconds in 250 million years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-18 22:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqb1sb$r0v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #708787 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Keith > “When i said "Euclidean Geometry", i meant that old fashioned notion > of space with just 3 dimensions, and a quite separate time with just ” > > Only 3 spatial dimensions are needed to portray any ‘instant’ of Time. > > But Time goes MUCH faster at smaller scales. The electron that gets > replaced in 10^-16 seconds reveals a CYCLE at that frequency. For us, our > galactic cycle is around 250 million years. The Milky Way is about 10^22 > meters in diameter. A Carbon atom is about 10^-09m. > > So 250 million years/10^-16sec > should equal difference in size galaxy/atom > 10^22m/10^-09m > equals 10^31 > > So there must be 10^15 seconds in 250 million years. > Why’d you choose carbon as opposed to hydrogen or uranium? And what makes you think 10^-16s applies to carbon? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-18 22:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqb2ra$s8l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #708840 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >> Keith >> “When i said "Euclidean Geometry", i meant that old fashioned notion >> of space with just 3 dimensions, and a quite separate time with just ” >> >> Only 3 spatial dimensions are needed to portray any ‘instant’ of Time. >> >> But Time goes MUCH faster at smaller scales. The electron that gets >> replaced in 10^-16 seconds reveals a CYCLE at that frequency. For us, our >> galactic cycle is around 250 million years. The Milky Way is about 10^22 >> meters in diameter. A Carbon atom is about 10^-09m. >> >> So 250 million years/10^-16sec >> should equal difference in size galaxy/atom >> 10^22m/10^-09m >> equals 10^31 >> >> So there must be 10^15 seconds in 250 million years. >> > > Why’d you choose carbon as opposed to hydrogen or uranium? And what makes > you think 10^-16s applies to carbon? > > And why’d you choose the Milky Way as opposed to, say, the rotation rate of an irregular galaxy? And why’d you use the time of 250 million years, which is the time that it takes the earth to go around, as opposed to the time it takes for the rim of the galaxy to complete an orbit (which is quite a bit more)? And just so you know, there are about 8*10^15 seconds in 250My. Or put a different way, about 30*10^15 seconds in the galactic period of the Milky Way. So aside from all the peculiar cherry picking of numbers, you’re off by a factor of 30. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-24 09:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <203ccb55-e244-4bca-a796-e3101fe4e8d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #708840 |
Odd “Why’d you choose carbon as opposed to hydrogen or uranium? And wh” How many arms does the Milky Way have, Odd?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-24 23:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqqu8b$2a1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #709494 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “Why’d you choose carbon as opposed to hydrogen or uranium? And wh” > > How many arms does the Milky Way have, Odd? > Four. So what’s your point? And if hydrogen is the most common atom, does this tell you that one-armed spiral galaxies are the most common galaxy? And is the ratio of two-armed spiral galaxies to one-armed spiral galaxies equal to 1:3 like the helium:hydrogen abundance? Hmmmmm, John? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-24 16:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <88c8c513-5de7-45d2-af71-955aa3ca63a1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #709541 |
Odd “And is the ratio of two-armed spiral galaxies to one-armed spiral galaxies equal to 1:3 like the helium:hydrogen abundance? Hmmmmm, John? ” And are there VERY few 3-armed galaxies? And WHAT is that BAR??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web