Re: Expansion is wrong and its soooo freakin' obvious

On May 12, 2:20 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 12, 12:24 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

What happened to "but eric, deceleration is the /same/ as
expansion!!!" ?

They match the same data.


Hell, what happened to the LAST TWO THREADS you made
about this subject but abandoned mid-stream?

Here - I'll refresh your memory.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6609337492105fdb?dmode...http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b56aafb980dac78b?dmode...http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/8c21cd67d3325cc0?dmode...


How does my theory predict correct luminosity as a function of
distance?

Rewrite as a function of time

Expansion and deceleration both add time to the light's journey,
unlike tired light.

Extra time is redshift: f = 1/t



Observation: Hubble redshift

Explanation: The loss in frequency and energy is the natural
deceleration of light signals in steady space that fits the same curve
as constant light speed in an expanding space.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

Tired light is wrong.

It says light loses energy, but not velocity.

If there is no deceleration and no expansion, then no time is added in
conjunction with redshift.

That's why it fails the predictions.

It can't match the same curve that expansion and deceleration can.



Prediction 1: The next round of telescopes (2013?) discovers, once
again, galaxies far too old and distant for the big bang.

Why not make an actual prediction about the multipole moments in the
CMBR?

Because I don't understand multiple moments.



Prediction 2: We'll find that quasars are light signals from galaxies
near the end of the EM field's range, just before the very end of the
range which limps in as the CMB.

Idiot. Quasars are distributed over a long [but still far away] range
of distances. Plus the photon is massless - I told you this before,
but apparently you didn't bother reading it.


I accept that the photon is massless.

It can still have a finite range.


Prediction 3: We'll observe clusters that actually bleed right into
the CMB.

Idiot. The CMB is isotropic to parts per million level, has
inhomogeneities that have a Gaussian distribution [what does this
mean, Mike?] and has a blackbody spectrum [again, what does this man?]
and as such can /not/ possibly be from disparate sources like clusters.

The point is that beyond the range of the EM force are an infinite
amount of galaxies just too far for their light to reach us, and vice
versa.

An infinite number of galaxies aren't really that disparate.
.

Quantcast