Re: My paper is awesome, and your criticisms are lousy



Michael Helland wrote:

On Dec 4, 2:30 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:05:32 -0800 (PST), Michael Helland

<mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 4, 1:38 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:54:24 -0800 (PST), Michael Helland<mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

I've done the searching. Slow light is novel.

Yeah - in 1920.

Work on your understanding of cosmology -before- wasting everyone's
time.

Zwicky never wrote anything about light slowing down. Period.

In case you haven't noticed, the tired light concept has been
completely co-opted by cranks and their thousand little views since
the original concept is undeniably wrong.


I did a Google Search on "tired light slow" and low and behold the 2nd
result is a conversation between you and I from May.

Tired light does not stand in opposition to relativity, while slow
light posits that relativity begins to break down at cosmological
distances.

Tired light posits lots of stuff that isn't observed.

Would you like to revisit the Tolman surface brightness test and your
total cockup of trying to understand it? It would be far simpler for
you agree that tired light is excluded rather firmly by observation,
but that would mean you learned something and experience shows that
just won't happen.

How about time dilation of SN1a light curves?

How about a little effort on your part in understanding why 70+ year
old theories have been discarded? Boy wouldn't that be a goddamn novel
concept.



Tired light has been discarded because of the time dilation of light
curves and the surface brightness test.

Tired light does not having expanding space or time, which is why it
fails those tests.

Slow light does not have expanding space, but it does have expanding
time, an effect that results in time dilation of light curves, and the
appearance of recessional velocity of galaxies which emit redshifted
light.

The irony of all this is that my paper has been modified to not touch
on the subject of cosmology in the slightest.

Yet you continue attached to it. Basically because you know its the
only thing you really got on me.

That said, NO TIRED LIGHT MODEL allows individual photons to slow down
from traveling cosmological distances.

It is my idea and no one else's.

If I were you, I would be careful about claiming ownership of something
that is just silly. You want to claim that somehow the photons that
are generated here are subject to maxwell's equations but those from
far away are not. Since photons can only go at the speed of light,
how come there are different rules if they come from a distance?
Who is keeping score about what speeds each should go? This also
is in direct contradiction with the predictions of relativity.
Those predictions have never been shown to be wrong. By the way,
this means that any new extended theory must reproduce relativity
for all studied areas.
.

Quantcast