Re: Expansion is wrong and its soooo freakin' obvious

On May 12, 10:47 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
<ew...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In sci.physics, Michael Helland
<mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Mon, 12 May 2008 15:05:00 -0700 (PDT)
<af058eff-aa5e-4e12-9b12-4547c051b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:



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......

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.

OK, I'll bite. What would the range of a photon be?


It holds to the inverse square law until Hubble redshift begins.

When we observe redshift, we're literally observing the end of the EM
field, even if we aren't prepared to admit it.

The end of their range is the light that comes in as the CMB.

How far is that?

Awesome question. I don't know.

I would guess it's easy to calculate if you can apply Hubble's law
well.



In particular, what are the primary determiners thereof --
for instance, one might reasonably ask whether the range of
a photon leaving a star would depend on the star's mass and
(approximate) radius.

Another awesome question.

I would guess that if the photon's natural deceleration over
intergalactic distances is based on parameters that the frequency of
the light originally may be most likely.

It seems there is evidence that gamma rays may delay faster than other
photons.



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.

This does get around the "sky as bright as the sun" problem
but I'd still like a formula for the range of a light beam.


Well, if E = hf, then maybe every megaparsec or so, E loses and h. So
E = hf - h, untill E is 0, then, blam.

And yes, it does solve the night sky paradox. Thank you very much for
acknowledging that.




Also, does said light beam's characteristics (frequency,
energy) change during its travels? If so, how? Also,
what would distinguish your theory from already discredited
"tired light" affairs?


Tired light tries to lose energy, but it never suggests the light gets
slower.
.

Quantcast