Re: SR vs. Emitter Theory


"dlzc" <dlzc1@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:a7136be1-4aff-4c77-9796-aeb8c2d7c4e8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 10, 2:28 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"dlzc" <dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:09e711f1-03a1-4a16-b6cf-6e8252d77d43@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear mpc755:

On Jul 10, 9:52 am, mpc755 <mpc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jul 10, 12:38 pm,dlzc<dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
...
The distance between the star and the
photons it emits has been increasing at
'c' from the time of their emission.

And has been increasing much faster than
this due to "expansion" and "acceleration
of expansion". So what the light
represents is the emitting processes, the
differential in gravity wells, and the
relationship between the "universe at the
instant of emission" and "... absorption".

If we can determine where the star is
now we can determine when the photons
were emitted.

We cannot know this. Likely for
anything with a significant z, we can
never interact with that object again.
The light we are receiving is
"fossil"...

Instantaneous signalling is not
permitted in this Universe. If it
were, then all sorts of "fun" things can
be ascertained.

I'm not talking about instantaneous
signaling. I'm discussing the separation
between the photon and the source
occurring at 'c'.

Your discussion and implied model *assumes* an absolute space, and
requires (thereby) instantaneous signalling. It may not be your
intention...

You are discussing how the expanding
universe changes this separation to be
occurring at speeds greater than 'c'.

I am answering the question asked, in the only way Nature will allow
us to answer it.

My question is, and you do not have to
answer it if it is meaningless (or
pointless) to you,

It is *neither*.

is what if the separation of the photon
and the source is occurring at 'c' in
the universe.

Wouldn't that change our understanding
of the expanding universe?

It is not a question that Nature will permit an answer to. We know
that within a few (micro)seconds, the light has moved so far that it
is no longer "local", and measureable things are happening (or appear
to be happening) to spacetime at scales of millions of years
separation.

Without instantaneous signalling, or FTL travel, your "what if" must
remain an unverifiable fantasy world, in which anything you want to
imagine can occur. Because most of the Universe is now inaccessible
from *here*, with only fossil remnants still arriving from within our
Rindler horizon.

David A. Smith
=============================================
Hey moron!
Do you have a clue why cameras have a shutter speed?
See, when the light level is high photographers use a fast speed,
and when it low they use a slow speed, and when the source
is magnitude 30 they leave the fucking shutter open for an hour
because they won't get enough light in 4 fucking seconds when
the moon shuts it off. But of course you believe man didn't land
on the Moon because there are no stars in the photographs, right?

So much for your pathetic argument, Smiffy.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0004-637X/692/2/1247
... no asymmetry in the CMBR pattern near the Moon. This is monitoring
a light source that has a z of more than 1000. There should have been
a motion-associated asymmetry.

And the VLBA counts photons (essentially), locatable to specific
sources, and doesn't care about seconds.

And Kopeikin get c from a binary pulsar, where high speeds are
involved.

So much for your prevarication, and typical misdirection.

David A. Smith
===========================================
There are no "binary pulsars", only Doppler shift from one of the pair
and that is evidence of emission fact.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF

Percival Lowell got canals on Mars, too.
So much for your fucking bull***.







.

Quantcast