Re: Speed of Light is Constant in Tired Light Models, Decelerated Light is a new model


"Michael Helland" <mobydikc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:480fde48-5665-44c4-8266-b448d4542cb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 2, 6:49 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 2, 5:23 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On May 2, 4:28 pm, "OG" <o...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Sam Wormley" <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:EJMSj.92984$TT4.16809@xxxxxxxxxxxx

OG wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:wlsSj.91494$TT4.50522@xxxxxxxxxxxx
OG wrote:

So some light is travelling slower than other light...

No the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers.

I'm just restating a onsequence of his flawed theory so that we
can draw
out the inconsistencies

What inconsistencies?

Dunno yet; he's not told us enough so far*!
Personally, I'm looking for inconsistencies with 'real life', but
unless we
know know more about physics in the 'world of M_Helland' we won't
know where
his 'physics' gets close enough to reality that he will start to
think
critically about his theory.

As I've shown, c = fw

As you have ASSERTED...



Either c is constant, and when f drops, w expands to compensate.

Or w is constant, and when f drops c drops too.

No matter which way you calculate c and w, f should be consistent with
observations.

Only if you are incredibly naive and refuse to actually think very
hard.

I've thought hard about it.

This implies that I'm suggesting properties of an EM wave that don't
fit on the traditional EM spectrum.


You continue to refuse to elevate the discourse past "well it
expands to compensate...". Remember the Tolman surface brightness
test? I'm sure you do since you carefully ignore every mention of it
now.

Tired Light fails the surface brightness test, because the galaxy is
not receding, and the light doesn't slow down.

However, when the light slows down (w is constant and c decreases) you
wind up with all the exact same frequencies as when space expands (c
is constant and w increases).

Decelerating light predicts all the same values as expansion, because

How the hell would you know? You know bugger all about physics, and you've
ignored the point that lenses don't differentiate between your proposed
'deccelerated' light and normal light when bringing it to focus.



.

Loading