Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #488874
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity, alt.astronomy |
| Subject | Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? |
| Date | 2018-03-22 13:29 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <p913n9$1pc$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <5AAB611D.47AB@ix.netcom.com> <5AAC9AA9.1D43@ix.netcom.com> <MMKrC.43247$Oy5.39980@fx11.am4> |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
"Keith Stein" <keithstein111@gmail.com> 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! > > Conclusions: > 1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down. > 2. There was no "Big Bang" > 3. There was no "Inflation" > 4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us. > 5. There is no "Dark Energy" > > hanson wrote: Very nice and cool post, Keith. Kudos! > All of your conclusions, except [ > 1.] are in vogue today. Also consider that there are very many ways to skin the cat. IOW, it's story telling about nature... It's all just theorizing. > Just like you using your MO above, all of this was done already a full century ago, by folks like Hartree-Fock, etc. <vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/courses/chem6485/pdf/Hartree-Fock> and <http://www.shodor.org/chemviz/overview/hfa.html> , etc and even earlier by D'alembert (for black holes), see: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Alembert's_principle> > and by by others who were gesticulating in/with Gedanken-XPs, using Nature's -Scaling-Laws- & it's obvious -Self-Similarity- whose addressed domain or realm does always span many dozens of orders of magnitudes, up or down... as exampled > by the great old timers of Physics such as Max Planck who published stuff like the above in 1899... BUT then, unfortunately, in 1905 Einstein entered and his "Juden physics" got into the Lime-light with its immense Zionist propaganda machine...... > ... which was the beginning of the end of the golden age of physics, which is the science of quantitatively MEASURING items, events & processes, & it began to decay & to deteriorate into the current free-for-all socio-physic-philosophy-palaver that we see to day on social media, TV shows, and here > on Usenet by cranks and crackpots, who proudly state that they do physics-without-math, & insist that that their own Weltbild is the absolute truth which they try to cram and stuff down everybody else's throat. When "dissidents" laugh at the posted excrements of these Usenet cranks, the cranks get vicious and criminally homicidal. The cranks threaten to shit into the mouths of the dissidents and want them to be murdered so that the cranks can urinate onto their graves. > So much for the physics-of-the-cranks, which in a way is reflected in the artistry of, e.g., the melancholy of: <https://www.bing.com/search?q=dire+straits+lyrics+brothers+in+arms&FORM=AWRE>: > "There's so many different worlds -- So many different suns And we have just one world -- But we live in different ones..." > Warnings about this sorry trend of real physics came early on, out of the ivy-league of academia: > by John Beckman, an astronomy prof & Einstein disciple: "The theory of relativity lives on. Is it a true picture of reality? That is more a matter of faith than of proof." > or by Edward Teller, the inventor of the H-Bomb, who said: "Einstein didn't know what he was talking about, or that Einstein was lying, or both". > or Prof. Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman), who wrote: "It is my firm belief that the 20th century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of physics." > or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future, Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition, all associated with the names of Marx, Freud and Einstein" > ______ The Dossier _________ So, here is a set of links which belabor such issues: <http://tinyurl.com/Hubble-Derivtn-Age-of-Universe> <http://tinyurl.com/Electron-core-size-and-charge> <http://www-hep.uta.edu/hep/draper/Draper.html> <http://tinyurl.com/electron-is-NOT-ZERO-sized> <http://tinyurl.com/Pauls-composite-volume-Belief> <http://tinyurl.com/Drapers-zero-volume-Belief> <http://tinyurl.com/Electron-core-size-and-charge> <http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR> <http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery> <http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0f1a7daa49aa8cf3> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/70e4aba63b7351ba> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/2753001d76037d04> > _____ Examples of quantifications: _______ The Proton- and Electron-mass can be expressed in terms of their measured properties & fundamental Physics constants: > m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3 > or the proton with mass m_p as: > m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a) Both of these particle masses have characteristics of nucleon-sized Black holes. See detailed explanation for the above in here: > <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/msg/53371ffd43f> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4ab31e372f1dfee7> <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c78fb8dd36d24968> > ...of course you can make the case/conjecture that an uncharged mini-black-hole of 1 Planck-mass having the radius of 1 Planck-length, is manifest/has half-life of only one 1 Planck-time-unit after which it disintegrates into exactly 1 mole of particles that consist of stable, charged particles with the average mass of the electron. .. in which > their fundamental electrical charge, will endow them with "immortality", of a duration that vastly exceeds the life-time span of our universe. What "charge" is, or where it comes from, is unknown. All we know is what the said charge does.... > > _____________ Up shot: ________________ "The only thing that new changes is Change itself" > IOW no matter how "logical", rigorous one "calculates solutions, they are always limited to comparatives relative to each other, at best, but mostly just only consist of belletristic philosophical palcer. > The Dirty little secret, that nobody likes to admit to, is that no, none, not a single "absolute" is known to exist. What is advertised as "absolute/s" is/are edicts that are arbitrated and issued by human cabals or committee and declared to be "absolutes" so that searches and workers can comparatively well communicate rationally with each other. > Cranks OTOH take refuge and invoke their "god" of faith as the "real" manifest "absolute", instead of just humbly admitting to saying: "I don't know" > Interestingly, faith, which is an emotional notion, is a million times stronger than any obviously rational logic. The force of Faith and religious beliefs are so deep that societies and potentates have elected to protect and enshrine Faith in societies' laws and its constitutions, even in today's modern society. > > hmmm...<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO
Back to rec.arts.sf.written | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-15 23:15 -0700
Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? T Guy <tim.bateman1961@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 04:59 -0700
Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-16 09:39 -0700
Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-16 09:25 -0700
Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2018-03-16 10:18 -0700
Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-03-16 17:49 +0000
Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? "Default User" <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 16:59 +0000
Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-17 10:53 -0700
Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2018-03-17 13:08 -0700
Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? "Default User" <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-17 23:46 +0000
Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-17 16:55 -0700
Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 19:03 +0000
Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-16 14:53 -0700
Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-16 21:21 -0700
Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 19:12 +0000
Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-16 15:15 -0700
Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 23:02 +0000
Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-16 21:33 -0700
Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 08:45 +0000
Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-19 09:22 -0700
Re: Does Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-23 10:46 -0700
Re: Does Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-24 10:21 -0700
Re: Does Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-25 00:54 -0700
Re: Does Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-25 00:59 -0700
Re: Does Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-25 20:48 -0700
Re: Does Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-26 00:06 -0700
Re: Does Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-26 19:00 -0700
Re: Does Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-27 10:37 -0700
Re: Does Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-27 15:51 -0700
Re: Does Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-27 23:30 -0700
Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-03-22 13:29 -0700
Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 01:41 +0000
A more considered response to Mr.Hanson Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 11:00 +0100
Re: A more considered response to Mr.Hanson "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-03-25 13:26 -0700
csiph-web