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

On May 8, 3:07 pm, jjs...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On May 8, 3:56 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On May 6, 4:08 pm, "OG" <o...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Michael Helland" <mobyd...@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.

I apologize for not responding satisfactorily.

I thought I responded to it.

The rule says that new light travels at c, and its velocity drops as
the millions and billions of years go by.

When light enters a lens, it hits electrons, and new photons are
emitted with the same energy.

But it is new light, so its traveling at c.

Once the light hits something and is re-emitted, it travels at c.
According to the rule.

The light in the lens matches that prediction.

Hmmm.... lets see how does this match with reality? Anyone want to
take a stab at this one?


The code shows that even though light decelerates after a few hundred
million light years, it is emitted at c.

In QED, when light enters a lens, it is absorbed by electrons in the
atoms and emitted elsewhere.

So the photons in the lens are traveling at c, but they are spending
some time as energy in the atoms between short little journeys.
.