Re: Formula for Decelerating Light
- From: Michael Helland <mobydikc@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 23:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
On May 8, 6:15 pm, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
On May 8, 2:41 pm, jjs...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On May 8, 3:48 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On May 8, 8:17 am, jjs...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Yes because of experimental evidence... none of which you grasp...On May 8, 6:12 am, MichaelHelland<mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Most people have said "The Speed of Light is Constant!" and thought
<snip>
Mikepeople have tried to explain why your wrong to you, but you don't
seem to listen so believe what-ever the hell you want.
that was it.
I have no trouble accepting that the speed of light traveling in
distances under 500 million light years the speed of light could be
constant.
But experimental evidence (Hubble redshift) shows that the farther you
go out, light is taking longer to get here than it should.
No, you claim that. The experiments do not show it.
If space expands, then more space means more time.
The observations support expansion and deceleration.
<snip> crapFor those like you who will never hear reason.... yes...
But to each his own.
We could trade these subjective commentaries back and forth.
I accept that SR is a very good theory (I can only accept that because
I lack understanding it) but maybe it has its limits and the range of
electromagnetic force starts to die out at Hubble redshift distances.
So you are just guessing. Research is not done that way. You are
supposed to test and justify your conclusions.
I'm hypothesizing.
I predict we'll find that the CMB is actually light from galaxies far
beyond observable space reaching the end of its range, and that with
better telescopes we'll find that the ansitropy in the CMB is actually
galaxies at the limit of the em force and consequently observable
space.
If we observe the most distant galaxies actually bleed into the CMB,
it would definitively falsify the expansion and confirm deceleration.
<snip>
Isn't it true that the nuclear forces die out at some range?
Are you aware that there are books that explain these things?
They even have classes to help you learn these things.
If the electromagnetic force had a finite range, like the nuclear
forces, it would appear as redshift.
Hey, what do you know, we observe Hubble redshift.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Formula for Decelerating Light
- From: Eric Gisse
- Re: Formula for Decelerating Light
- From: jjsajd
- Re: Formula for Decelerating Light
- References:
- Formula for Decelerating Light
- From: Michael Helland
- Re: Formula for Decelerating Light
- From: Michael Helland
- Re: Formula for Decelerating Light
- From: jjsajd
- Re: Formula for Decelerating Light
- From: Michael Helland
- Re: Formula for Decelerating Light
- From: jjsajd
- Re: Formula for Decelerating Light
- From: Michael Helland
- Re: Formula for Decelerating Light
- From: jjsajd
- Re: Formula for Decelerating Light
- From: Michael Helland
- Re: Formula for Decelerating Light
- From: jjsajd
- Re: Formula for Decelerating Light
- From: Michael Helland
- Re: Formula for Decelerating Light
- From: jjsajd
- Re: Formula for Decelerating Light
- From: Michael Helland
- Re: Formula for Decelerating Light
- From: none
- Formula for Decelerating Light
- Prev by Date: Quantum Gravity 251.8: India and UCLA Results Indicate PI Better Than Conditional Probability for Quantum Secret Sharing
- Next by Date: Re: Speed of Light is Constant in Tired Light Models, Decelerated Light is a new model
- Previous by thread: Re: Formula for Decelerating Light
- Next by thread: Re: Formula for Decelerating Light
- Index(es):