Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts

[Keith Stein]

Summary:
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
2. There was no "Big Bang"
3. There was no "Inflation"
4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
5. There is no "Dark Energy"


Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.

Merely by assuming dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
I was led to c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
and on to Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)

K ~= 10^-10 /year
t = time in years

Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to
enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more
accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........

K = H = Hubble's Constant
and t = -t ( so times past become +ve)

which substituted in (3) gives:

Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)

then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)

So for t << 1/H we have:

Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)

which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).

As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore
further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law
expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
in observatories all around the world eh!

Conclusions:
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
2. There was no "Big Bang"
3. There was no "Inflation"
4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
5. There is no "Dark Energy"
********************************************************************

**********************************************************************
A GOOD QUESTION

When light slows down by entering a more dense medium such as glass, or
water, the frequency stays the same and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.

So how is it that when light slows down traveling across intergalactic
space,the the WAVELENGTH INCREASES ?

good question!

when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the
wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows
before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave
catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train
compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.

When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there
is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave
train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the
same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as
it travels through intergalactic space.

So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is
INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light
is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that
it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light
was higher than it is now.

The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on distant
galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as that on
Earth today. The wavelength is proportional the the velocity of light AT
THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased wavelength is faithfully
transmitted through space, where it is measured in our observatories.

keith stein

[dlzc]

Post by Keith Stein
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
2. There was no "Big Bang"
3. There was no "Inflation"
4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
5. There is no "Dark Energy"
Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble
Red Shifts, it occurred to me that if the speed of light
is slowing down, then this will necessarily lead to
increasing red-shift with increasing distance, as
observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.

No, this would cause blue shifting. Think of what happens to ocean waves as they approach regions of lower depth, the wave speed is reduced, and waves "crash". More energy is compressed in each wave... blue shifting.

I think you have a sign reversed.

David A. Smith

[Ulka Górski]

Post by dlzc

Post by Keith Stein
Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.

No, this would cause blue shifting. Think of what happens to ocean
waves as they approach regions of lower depth, the wave speed is
reduced, and waves "crash". More energy is compressed in each wave...
blue shifting.I think you have a sign reversed.David A. Smith

I strongly believe this is a deprecated obsolete approach. The water waves
are surface waves. Down there, there is of course something due the
difference in weight (compression) but it is infinitesimal. Safely
neglected, as of a nature of something completely else. Just think.

[dlzc]

Post by Ulka Górski

Post by dlzc

Post by Keith Stein
Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble
Red Shifts, it occurred to me that if the speed of
light is slowing down, then this will necessarily lead
to increasing red-shift with increasing distance, as
observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.

No, this would cause blue shifting. Think of what
happens to ocean waves as they approach regions of
lower depth, the wave speed is reduced, and waves
"crash". More energy is compressed in each wave...
blue shifting.I think you have a sign reversed.

I strongly believe this is a deprecated obsolete
approach. The water waves are surface waves. Down
there, there is of course something due the
difference in weight (compression) but it is
infinitesimal. Safely neglected, as of a nature of
something completely else. Just think.

This approach et al, is deprecated. But the OP brought it up again anyway. And what he requires, a slower speed of light, delivers more energy per second... not LESS. Less often to arrive, but more energy per arrival.

c is constant over all of displayed history. Nothing else fits. I just wanted to point out what he was trying to arrive at, did not resolve that way.

David A. Smith

David A. Smith

[Ulka Górski]

Post by dlzc

Post by Ulka Górski
I strongly believe this is a deprecated obsolete approach. The water
waves are surface waves. Down there, there is of course something due
the difference in weight (compression) but it is infinitesimal. Safely
neglected, as of a nature of something completely else. Just think.

This approach et al, is deprecated. But the OP brought it up again
anyway. And what he requires, a slower speed of light, delivers more
energy per second... not LESS. Less often to arrive, but more energy
per arrival.
c is constant over all of displayed history. Nothing else fits. I just
wanted to point out what he was trying to arrive at, did not resolve
that way.

I'm still not very sure. A higher frequency of light behaves particle-
like, and delivers more energy to a target it hits.

[Keith Stein]

Post by dlzc

Post by Keith Stein
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
2. There was no "Big Bang"
3. There was no "Inflation"
4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
5. There is no "Dark Energy"
Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble
Red Shifts, it occurred to me that if the speed of light
is slowing down, then this will necessarily lead to
increasing red-shift with increasing distance, as
observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.

No, this would cause blue shifting. Think of what happens to ocean waves as they approach regions of lower depth, the wave speed is reduced, and waves "crash". More energy is compressed in each wave... blue shifting.
I think you have a sign reversed.

No David i have certainly not got a sign reversed, and if you had
read beyond the first paragraph you would have seen that i did
indeed explain why the slowing of the speed of light causes a
red shift rather than a blue shift.

"when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the
wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows
before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave
catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train
compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.

When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there
is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave
train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the
same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as
it travels through intergalactic space.

So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is
INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light
is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that
it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light
was higher than it is now."


Do hope that is clear now David, but don't hesitate to come back again
if it is still not clear, because i myself am completely convinced that
a slowing of light by just one part in fourteen billion per year would
fully explain the Hubble RED shifts eh!

keith stein

Post by dlzc
David A. Smith

[m***@gmail.com]

Traveling for billions of years through the expanding universe expands light's wavelength... maximum red shifting its energy. Expansion is everywhere.

There is no preferred scale.


Mitchell Raemsch

[Keith Stein]

Post by m***@gmail.com
Traveling for billions of years through the expanding universe expands light's wavelength... maximum red shifting its energy. Expansion is everywhere.

or nowhere eh!

Post by m***@gmail.com
There is no preferred scale.
Mitchell Raemsch

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Keith Stein

Post by m***@gmail.com
Traveling for billions of years through the expanding universe expands light's wavelength... maximum red shifting its energy. Expansion is everywhere.

or nowhere eh!

Post by m***@gmail.com
There is no preferred scale.
Mitchell Raemsch

Light redshifts everywhere passing through expanding space.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Keith Stein
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.

It is not. There is a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Post by Keith Stein
2. There was no "Big Bang"

There was. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (accidentally
discovered in 1964, predicted before that) is evidence of it;
so are cosmological redshift, time dilation, and fading light.

Post by Keith Stein
3. There was no "Inflation"

There was. The “Planck” probe’s mission confirmed it once again:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#Results>

Post by Keith Stein
4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.

They are not, indeed. Instead, space is expanding with increasing speed,
carrying *distant* galaxies (not those of the Local Group, which are
gravitationally bound) away with it.

This is evident not only in the redshift, but also in the *cosmological time
dilation*, and the otherwise inexplicable *fading of light* observable in
distant processes like supernovae. (Time dilation is the greater the
greater the apparent relative velocity is; light intensity is inversely
proportional to the square of the distance to the light source.)

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was awarded for this *unexpected* 1997/1998
discovery:

<https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2011/summary/>

In terms that you can understand (if you want to):

<https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/popular-physicsprize2011-1.pdf>

Post by Keith Stein
5. There is no "Dark Energy"

There is; the energy content of our universe is approximately 70 % dark
energy. Confirmed once again by the “Planck” probe’s mission’s results
(see above).

Post by Keith Stein
Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, […]

Good morning, sunshine. This idea is called “tired light” and has been
*refuted* – in all its variants – *decades ago*.

For example, the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) has a much greater mass than the
Milky Way and so, if the “tired light” idea had any substance, would have to
slow down the light emitted by its stars, and cause a redshift.

The light is blueshifted instead, because that galaxy and the Milky Way are
approaching each other, to merge in ca. 2 billion years.

,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light>
|
| […] As cosmological measurements became more precise and the statistics in
| cosmological data sets improved, tired light proposals ended up being
| falsified,[1][2][3] to the extent that the theory was described in 2001 by
| science writer Charles Seife as being "firmly on the fringe of physics 30
| years ago".[5]

End of story.

[m***@wp.pl]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
There was. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (accidentally
discovered in 1964, predicted before that) is evidence of it;
so are cosmological redshift, time dilation, and fading light.

Or, at least, some fanatic morons deeply believe
it is an evidence. A sort of the same thing.

[a***@interia.pl]

W dniu poniedziałek, 29 października 2018 20:34:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
There was. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (accidentally
discovered in 1964, predicted before that) is evidence of it;
so are cosmological redshift, time dilation, and fading light.

You are strongly fooled - misinformed.

The CMB radiation has been provided, discovered and calculated
about 100 years ago already.

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Keith Stein
3. There was no "Inflation"

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#Results>

Post by Keith Stein
4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.

They are not, indeed. Instead, space is expanding with increasing speed,
carrying *distant* galaxies (not those of the Local Group, which are
gravitationally bound) away with it.
This is evident not only in the redshift, but also in the *cosmological time
dilation*, and the otherwise inexplicable *fading of light* observable in
distant processes like supernovae. (Time dilation is the greater the
greater the apparent relative velocity is; light intensity is inversely
proportional to the square of the distance to the light source.)
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was awarded for this *unexpected* 1997/1998
<https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2011/summary/>
<https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/popular-physicsprize2011-1.pdf>

Post by Keith Stein
5. There is no "Dark Energy"

There is; the energy content of our universe is approximately 70 % dark
energy. Confirmed once again by the “Planck” probe’s mission’s results
(see above).

Post by Keith Stein
Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, […]

Good morning, sunshine. This idea is called “tired light” and has been
*refuted* – in all its variants – *decades ago*.
For example, the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) has a much greater mass than the
Milky Way and so, if the “tired light” idea had any substance, would have to
slow down the light emitted by its stars, and cause a redshift.
The light is blueshifted instead, because that galaxy and the Milky Way are
approaching each other, to merge in ca. 2 billion years.
,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light>
|
| […] As cosmological measurements became more precise and the statistics in
| cosmological data sets improved, tired light proposals ended up being
| falsified,[1][2][3] to the extent that the theory was described in 2001 by
| science writer Charles Seife as being "firmly on the fringe of physics 30
| years ago".[5]
End of story.

Yes.
The fantastic stupidity is just neverending story in the mainstream astrology. haha!

Energy = E0 exp(-t/tau); tau = 1/H.

the so-called cosmo-redshift is a simple
and universal consequence of a dissipation of energy.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by a***@interia.pl
W dniu poniedziałek, 29 października 2018 20:34:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
There was. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (accidentally
discovered in 1964, predicted before that) is evidence of it;
so are cosmological redshift, time dilation, and fading light.

You are strongly fooled - misinformed.
The CMB radiation has been provided, discovered and calculated
about 100 years ago already.

Given that about 100 years ago nobody even knew that there are other
galaxies, that is an extraordinary claim.

Present the extraordinary evidence to support that claim.

Post by a***@interia.pl

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light>
|
| […] As cosmological measurements became more precise and the statistics in
| cosmological data sets improved, tired light proposals ended up being
| falsified,[1][2][3] to the extent that the theory was described in 2001 by
| science writer Charles Seife as being "firmly on the fringe of physics 30
| years ago".[5]
End of story.

Yes.
The fantastic stupidity is just neverending story in the mainstream astrology.

The mainstream *what*?

Post by a***@interia.pl
haha!

Get well soon.

Post by a***@interia.pl
Energy = E0 exp(-t/tau); tau = 1/H.
the so-called cosmo-redshift is a simple
and universal consequence of a dissipation of energy.

No, it is not. Intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the
distance (see my other follow-up), and does _not_ fall off exponentially
with distance. --
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[a***@interia.pl]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by a***@interia.pl
You are strongly fooled - misinformed.
The CMB radiation has been provided, discovered and calculated
about 100 years ago already.

Given that about 100 years ago nobody even knew that there are other
galaxies, that is an extraordinary claim.

Anybody with a one bit of a rational reasoning only,
could easily predict this radiation in the middle ages already.

https://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Apeiron-V2-p79-84(1995).pdf

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by a***@interia.pl
Energy = E0 exp(-t/tau); tau = 1/H.
the so-called cosmo-redshift is a simple
and universal consequence of a dissipation of energy.

No, it is not. Intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the
distance (see my other follow-up), and does _not_ fall off exponentially
with distance.

This is just that - perfectly.

The energy is simply lost - dissipated along a transmission path (hence the CMB exists!).

You claim the energy is never dissipated,
even in the billions-of-years journey - in the open space,
where are plenty of obstacles along,
so, very big congratulations for the giant fantasy.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by a***@interia.pl

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by a***@interia.pl
You are strongly fooled - misinformed.
The CMB radiation has been provided, discovered and calculated
about 100 years ago already.

Given that about 100 years ago nobody even knew that there are other
galaxies, that is an extraordinary claim.

Anybody with a one bit of a rational reasoning only,
could easily predict this radiation in the middle ages already.

That is another extraordinary claim for which you will also not be able to
present the required extraordinary evidence.

JFYI & JFTR: In the Middle Ages (which for historians ends just before the
beginning of the 16th century CE, 1501 CE) people did not even know they
were located *in* a galaxy.

[The Ancient Greeks thought that the Milky Way – the galaxy, from the
Ancient Greek word for “milk” – that they could easily see in the night
sky (there was no light pollution back then) would be the milk spilled
by the goddess Hera, wife of the god Zeus, when she discovered that
Zeus had put the half-mortal baby Heracles, product of his extramarital
affair with the mortal Alkmene, on her breast while she was sleeping.
Arabian astronomers of course did not subscribe to that interpretation,
but they still did not realize that what they saw was what one sees
if one is inside a spiral galaxy and looks along its edge.]

The first working telescope was built by Galileo Galilei (based on what he
heard about Lipperhey’s invention) between 1592 CE and 1610 CE. He
realized, using his telescope, that the Milky Way consisted of many stars,
but (AFAIK) did not realize that he was located in it.

It was only in 1750 that Thomas Wright did.

Post by a***@interia.pl
https://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Apeiron-V2-p79-84(1995).pdf

Unsurprisingly, your source does not corroborate your claim. In the
abstract it already says “We present the history of estimates of the
temperature of intergalactic space. We begin with the works of Guillaume
and Eddington […]”. Those two scientists lived at the beginning of
the 20th century:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_%C3%89douard_Guillaume>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington>

Post by a***@interia.pl

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by a***@interia.pl
Energy = E0 exp(-t/tau); tau = 1/H.
the so-called cosmo-redshift is a simple
and universal consequence of a dissipation of energy.

No, it is not. Intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the
distance (see my other follow-up), and does _not_ fall off exponentially
with distance.

This is just that - perfectly.

No, it is not. So we have ascertained now that you are unable to read
comprehensively *and* (unsurprisingly) you are unable to calculate (too).

Post by a***@interia.pl
The energy is simply lost - dissipated along a transmission path (hence the CMB exists!).

Which part of ”‘tired light’ has been refuted by observations more than
40 years ago” did you not understand?
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[a***@interia.pl]

W dniu wtorek, 30 października 2018 20:18:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas > > Anybody with a one bit of a rational reasoning only,

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by a***@interia.pl
could easily predict this radiation in the middle ages already.

That is another extraordinary claim for which you will also not be able to
present the required extraordinary evidence.
JFYI & JFTR: In the Middle Ages (which for historians ends just before the
beginning of the 16th century CE, 1501 CE) people did not even know they
were located *in* a galaxy.
[The Ancient Greeks thought that the Milky Way – the galaxy, from the
Ancient Greek word for “milk” – that they could easily see in the night
sky (there was no light pollution back then) would be the milk spilled
by the goddess Hera, wife of the god Zeus, when she discovered that
Zeus had put the half-mortal baby Heracles, product of his extramarital
affair with the mortal Alkmene, on her breast while she was sleeping.
Arabian astronomers of course did not subscribe to that interpretation,
but they still did not realize that what they saw was what one sees
if one is inside a spiral galaxy and looks along its edge.]
The first working telescope was built by Galileo Galilei (based on what he
heard about Lipperhey’s invention) between 1592 CE and 1610 CE. He
realized, using his telescope, that the Milky Way consisted of many stars,
but (AFAIK) did not realize that he was located in it.

I don't need any telescopes, nor any special evidences
to detect the obvious fact:
the bigger energy exists/flows around us,
then the bigger warm must be around us too!

Therefore the mainstream is in fact a horde of total imbeciles,
because they are still proudly claiming:
the source of the CMB energy is some fantastic
hyper explosion for billions of years ago!

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by a***@interia.pl
This is just that - perfectly.

No, it is not. So we have ascertained now that you are unable to read
comprehensively *and* (unsurprisingly) you are unable to calculate (too).

Post by a***@interia.pl
The energy is simply lost - dissipated along a transmission path (hence the CMB exists!).

Which part of ”‘tired light’ has been refuted by observations more than
40 years ago” did you not understand?

I don't promote any of 'tired light' concept.

Energy doesn't tired at all, it just dissipates around... thus warms the environment!

[The Starmaker]

Post by a***@interia.pl
W dniu wtorek, 30 października 2018 20:18:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas > > Anybody with a one bit of a rational reasoning only,

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by a***@interia.pl
could easily predict this radiation in the middle ages already.

That is another extraordinary claim for which you will also not be able to
present the required extraordinary evidence.
JFYI & JFTR: In the Middle Ages (which for historians ends just before the
beginning of the 16th century CE, 1501 CE) people did not even know they
were located *in* a galaxy.
[The Ancient Greeks thought that the Milky Way – the galaxy, from the
Ancient Greek word for “milk” – that they could easily see in the night
sky (there was no light pollution back then) would be the milk spilled
by the goddess Hera, wife of the god Zeus, when she discovered that
Zeus had put the half-mortal baby Heracles, product of his extramarital
affair with the mortal Alkmene, on her breast while she was sleeping.
Arabian astronomers of course did not subscribe to that interpretation,
but they still did not realize that what they saw was what one sees
if one is inside a spiral galaxy and looks along its edge.]
The first working telescope was built by Galileo Galilei (based on what he
heard about Lipperhey’s invention) between 1592 CE and 1610 CE. He
realized, using his telescope, that the Milky Way consisted of many stars,
but (AFAIK) did not realize that he was located in it.

I don't need any telescopes, nor any special evidences
the bigger energy exists/flows around us,
then the bigger warm must be around us too!
Therefore the mainstream is in fact a horde of total imbeciles,
the source of the CMB energy is some fantastic
hyper explosion for billions of years ago!

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by a***@interia.pl
This is just that - perfectly.

No, it is not. So we have ascertained now that you are unable to read
comprehensively *and* (unsurprisingly) you are unable to calculate (too).

Post by a***@interia.pl
The energy is simply lost - dissipated along a transmission path (hence the CMB exists!).

Which part of ”‘tired light’ has been refuted by observations more than
40 years ago” did you not understand?

I don't promote any of 'tired light' concept.
Energy doesn't tired at all, it just dissipates around... thus warms the environment!

Energy doesn't ...dissipates.


It tranforms.


You must be the 'new scientists' I've been hearing about...don't know
notin..

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by a***@interia.pl
I don't need any telescopes, nor any special evidences
the bigger energy exists/flows around us,
then the bigger warm must be around us too!

That is correct, in a sense.

Post by a***@interia.pl
Therefore the mainstream is in fact a horde of total imbeciles,
the source of the CMB energy is some fantastic
hyper explosion for billions of years ago!

No, you are just ignorant of the fact that our universe is expanding, and
that its temperature decreases as it expands.

This is as true for our universe as it is true for anything in it. Look up
“thermodynamic equation of state”:

p V = n k_B T


For example, if you have a air pump for bicycles, load it with air, press
your finger on the valve and push the piston. You will feel that the air in
the pump becomes warmer as it is compressed, and gets colder again when it
expands. (This process is called adiabatic compression/expansion, and it
also used in fridges.)

When the CMBR was released, after recombination and photon decoupling (ca.
370'000 years after the Big Bang event), the temperature of the universe was
ca. 3000 K.

That is approximately the temperature at and below which it is possible that
a proton and an electron can form a hydrogen atom (because, put simply, the
electron is then slow enough to be captured by the proton, but still fast
enough not to merge with it – the two particles carry opposite electric
charges, therefore attract each other electromagnetically).

Before that, in a plasma (where the particles of matter move too fast to
bind to each other), any photons (which were produced in electron–positron
annihilation before that, and are emitted by electrons returning to lower
energy states) almost immediately interact with other free electrons.

The average temperature of the cosmic vacuum, which is also the temperature
of the CMBR as we measure it *now, ca. 13.8 billion years later*, is only
ca. 3 K because in those ca. *13.8 billion years* our universe has expanded
to a gazillion times its former size.

So the CMBR and its near isotropy is living evidence of the Big Bang event.

Post by a***@interia.pl

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by a***@interia.pl
This is just that - perfectly.

No, it is not. So we have ascertained now that you are unable to read
comprehensively *and* (unsurprisingly) you are unable to calculate (too).

Post by a***@interia.pl
The energy is simply lost - dissipated along a transmission path (hence the CMB exists!).

Which part of ”‘tired light’ has been refuted by observations more than
40 years ago” did you not understand?

I don't promote any of 'tired light' concept.

Yes, you do. You claim that our universe does not expand (despite all
evidence to the contrary) and that the low frequency/energy of the CMBR is
caused by "dissipated along a transmission path".

But with that assumption you cannot explain the near-*isotropy* of the CMBR.
Because, what would be the so very equally distributed sources of
electromagnetic radiation that would all have to be in so almost equal
distances *to us*, arranged on a huge sphere, so that the "dissipation of
energy" is almost the same *in every direction*? Or, IOW, why can’t we
*see* them?

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by a***@interia.pl

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by a***@interia.pl
This is just that - perfectly.

No, it is not. So we have ascertained now that you are unable to read
comprehensively *and* (unsurprisingly) you are unable to calculate (too).

Post by a***@interia.pl
The energy is simply lost - dissipated along a transmission path (hence the CMB exists!).

Which part of ”‘tired light’ has been refuted by observations more than
40 years ago” did you not understand?

I don't promote any of 'tired light' concept.

Yes, you do. You claim that our universe does not expand (despite all
evidence to the contrary) and that the low frequency/energy of the CMBR is
caused by "dissipated along a transmission path".
But with that assumption you cannot explain the near-*isotropy* of the CMBR.
Because, what would be the so very equally distributed sources of
electromagnetic radiation that would all have to be in so almost equal
distances *to us*, arranged on a huge sphere, so that the "dissipation of
energy" is almost the same *in every direction*? Or, IOW, why can’t we
*see* them?

With that written (late at night, in a working, but tired state of mind),
your mistake there is more fundamental.

Because it is simply NOT so that the frequency of the radiation, and
therefore the energy of one photon of the radiation, E = ℎ f, is reduced
proportional to the distance from the source of the radiation: energy (here:
the energy of a photon) is a conserved quantity (the conservation of the
total energy of an isolated system one of the fundamental principles of
physics).

Instead, what changes with distance is the *number* of photons of the
radiation (in general: radiation particles) that (can) hit the observer’s
detector/eye per unit time. So the radiation’s/light’s *intensity*, or
*brightness*, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance to the
source instead¹ (which we can use to determine distances to celestial
objects whose luminosity we can calculate):

`-._ `. \ : /
`-._ `. \ : /
_ `-._ `. \ : /
''--..__ `-._ `. \ : / .'
''--.._`-._ `.\ : /.' _
''-`-.`\:/_.-'
(T)----(V)---(M)--------(S)-----
__..-_.-'/:``-._
__..--'' _.-'.' / : \`. `
_..--'' _.-' .' / : \ `.
_.-' .' / : \
_.-' __ ' / : \
_.-' |PE / : \

From this sketch it should be obvious that there are more light rays coming
from Sol (S) that intersect a detector on the daylit side of Mercury (M) or
Venus (V) than that intersect a detector on the daylit side of Terra (T).
Thus, Sol appears *brighter* (NOT: more bluish) on Mercury than on Terra (in
astronomy, one speaks of Sol’s apparent brightness/magnitude), and the
intensity of the sunlight, the power received per unit area (I̅ = P̅/A)
actually is greater on Mercury than on Terra (which is one reason why
Mercury and Venus are fried on up to 700 K = 426.85 °C, while on Terra the
maximum surface temperature [so far] is only 56.9 °C = 330.05 K).¹ (Only
distances to Sol are approximately to scale.)

[You can do the experiment on-planet: A bright flashlight will appear
dimmer, and a sheet of paper on which that light falls, will be less
radiated, the greater the distance from the flashlight. If you have
a light meter as used in photography, you can measure this
quantitatively.]

So the reason that the frequency of the *Cosmic* *Microwave* Background
Radiation (CMBR) is in the microwave range *now*, relatively low frequency
and, correspondingly relatively long wavelengths, is NOT that it has
traveled far to us. Rather, in a sense, it has been here all the time.
(Terra did not exist back then, but the space in which it exists now already
existed; the space just was a lot smaller than it is now.)

The actual reason is the expansion of our universe which caused the
radiation to be produced in the first place (AISB): Put simply, in expanding
space, electromagnetic waves "expand" as well, i.e. their wavelength λ
increases and their frequency f decreases, correspondingly. Which means for
photons of that radiation that their energy E = ℎ f decreases.

_______
¹ AISB, this can be easily derived if one considers that the total radiated
area at a distance r from the source (here: Sol) is the area of a sphere,
which is A = 4π r². So I̅(r) = P̅/A = P̅/(4π r²) = 1/r² × P̅/4π → I̅ ~ 1/r².
(The overline indicates the arithmetic mean of a quantity, so *mean*
intensity aso.)

[a***@interia.pl]

W dniu sobota, 3 listopada 2018 11:26:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
With that written (late at night, in a working, but tired state of mind),
your mistake there is more fundamental.
Because it is simply NOT so that the frequency of the radiation, and
therefore the energy of one photon of the radiation, E = ℎ f, is reduced
the energy of a photon) is a conserved quantity (the conservation of the
total energy of an isolated system one of the fundamental principles of
physics).

This is correct, but for the stationary case only.

In case of an expansionding version the radiation energy is lost - for the expansion just.

But now we don't observe any losts of energy,
because the total energy is conserved: CMB-energy + helium = 100% still,
thus no expansion possible!

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Instead, what changes with distance is the *number* of photons of the
radiation (in general: radiation particles) that (can) hit the observer’s
detector/eye per unit time. So the radiation’s/light’s *intensity*, or
*brightness*, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance to the
source instead¹ (which we can use to determine distances to celestial
`-._ `. \ : /
`-._ `. \ : /
_ `-._ `. \ : /
''--..__ `-._ `. \ : / .'
''--.._`-._ `.\ : /.' _
''-`-.`\:/_.-'
(T)----(V)---(M)--------(S)-----
__..-_.-'/:``-._
__..--'' _.-'.' / : \`. `
_..--'' _.-' .' / : \ `.
_.-' .' / : \
_.-' __ ' / : \
_.-' |PE / : \
From this sketch it should be obvious that there are more light rays coming
from Sol (S) that intersect a detector on the daylit side of Mercury (M) or
Venus (V) than that intersect a detector on the daylit side of Terra (T).
Thus, Sol appears *brighter* (NOT: more bluish) on Mercury than on Terra (in
astronomy, one speaks of Sol’s apparent brightness/magnitude), and the
intensity of the sunlight, the power received per unit area (I̅ = P̅/A)
actually is greater on Mercury than on Terra (which is one reason why
Mercury and Venus are fried on up to 700 K = 426.85 °C, while on Terra the
maximum surface temperature [so far] is only 56.9 °C = 330.05 K).¹ (Only
distances to Sol are approximately to scale.)

The Earth surface temperature is about 300K,
because this is just the thermodynamic equilibrium temperature
of the two bodies: Sun - Earth.

In the case of the whole Galaxy the equilibrium temperature is 3K only -
the same as the global temperature - CMB.

And this is obvious because every galaxy have to about the 3K -
no more, no less, because these all galaxies are
the parts of the system in the equilibrium state!

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
So the reason that the frequency of the *Cosmic* *Microwave* Background
Radiation (CMBR) is in the microwave range *now*, relatively low frequency
and, correspondingly relatively long wavelengths, is NOT that it has
traveled far to us. Rather, in a sense, it has been here all the time.
(Terra did not exist back then, but the space in which it exists now already
existed; the space just was a lot smaller than it is now.)
The actual reason is the expansion of our universe which caused the
radiation to be produced in the first place (AISB): Put simply, in expanding
space, electromagnetic waves "expand" as well, i.e. their wavelength λ
increases and their frequency f decreases, correspondingly. Which means for
photons of that radiation that their energy E = ℎ f decreases.

The spectrum of sun radiation is a black body spectrum with T = 6000K;
The Earth's atmosphere has 300K only, and it's a black body spectrum too.

The Milky Way mean temperature (effective) is 3K only,
because any galaxy has just the same 3K - this is just of the general equilibrium condition!

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by a***@interia.pl
W dniu sobota, 3 listopada 2018 11:26:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
With that written (late at night, in a working, but tired state of mind),
your mistake there is more fundamental.
Because it is simply NOT so that the frequency of the radiation, and
therefore the energy of one photon of the radiation, E = ℎ f, is reduced
the energy of a photon) is a conserved quantity (the conservation of the
total energy of an isolated system one of the fundamental principles of
physics).

This is correct, but for the stationary case only.

*You* have argued the stationary case. *You* have claimed that the universe
would NOT be expanding (even though all evidence suggests that it does),
and that the CMBR redshift would be the result of long-distance light
travel. (It isn’t.)

Do you even understand what *you* are writing? (I doubt it.)

Post by a***@interia.pl
In case of an expansionding version the radiation energy is lost - for the expansion just.

That is pseudo-scientific gibberish. It is not even word salad, because
that would be proper English (although meaningless nonsense).

The photon/radiation energy is not lost in expansion, it is converted into
kinetic and potential energy of the universe as the latter expands (similar
to when a star is converting potential energy into kinetic energy for
nuclear fusion when it is forming).

AISB, energy is never lost in an isolated system. Barring evidence to the
contrary, our universe must be modeled as an isolated system.

Post by a***@interia.pl
But now we don't observe any losts of energy,

Maybe *you* don’t. *We* do, inasfar as the radiation has less energy now
than it had before. As I explained.

Post by a***@interia.pl
because the total energy is conserved: CMB-energy + helium = 100% still,
thus no expansion possible!

Sadly, you have only *half-wit* knowledge, and not actually a clue what you
are talking about.

Post by a***@interia.pl

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
From this sketch it should be obvious that there are more light rays coming
from Sol (S) that intersect a detector on the daylit side of Mercury (M) or
Venus (V) than that intersect a detector on the daylit side of Terra (T).
Thus, Sol appears *brighter* (NOT: more bluish) on Mercury than on Terra (in
astronomy, one speaks of Sol’s apparent brightness/magnitude), and the
intensity of the sunlight, the power received per unit area (I̅ = P̅/A)
actually is greater on Mercury than on Terra (which is one reason why
Mercury and Venus are fried on up to 700 K = 426.85 °C, while on Terra the
maximum surface temperature [so far] is only 56.9 °C = 330.05 K).¹ (Only
distances to Sol are approximately to scale.)

The Earth surface temperature is about 300K,
because this is just the thermodynamic equilibrium temperature
of the two bodies: Sun - Earth.

Not at all. Earth is anything but in thermodynamic equilibrium with the
Sun. If it were, we would not be here.

Again, you have no clue what you are talking about.

Post by a***@interia.pl
In the case of the whole Galaxy the equilibrium temperature is 3K only -
the same as the global temperature - CMB.

You made that up.

Post by a***@interia.pl
And this is obvious because every galaxy have to about the 3K -
no more, no less, because these all galaxies are
the parts of the system in the equilibrium state!

Nonsense. A universe in thermodynamic equilibrium cannot harbor life
because all life depends on processes that increase entropy. Our universe
in a state of maximum entropy, in thermodynamic equilibrium (heat death),
is (based on observation) the likely state of our universe in the *distant
future*.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe>

Post by a***@interia.pl

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
So the reason that the frequency of the *Cosmic* *Microwave* Background
Radiation (CMBR) is in the microwave range *now*, relatively low frequency
and, correspondingly relatively long wavelengths, is NOT that it has
traveled far to us. Rather, in a sense, it has been here all the time.
(Terra did not exist back then, but the space in which it exists now already
existed; the space just was a lot smaller than it is now.)
The actual reason is the expansion of our universe which caused the
radiation to be produced in the first place (AISB): Put simply, in expanding
space, electromagnetic waves "expand" as well, i.e. their wavelength λ
increases and their frequency f decreases, correspondingly. Which means for
photons of that radiation that their energy E = ℎ f decreases.

The spectrum of sun radiation is a black body spectrum with T = 6000K;

Correct, *approximately*: The mean effective temperature of Sol is ca.
5772 K, and a star can be *modeled* as a black body.

And if you knew anything about black bodies, you would know that the peak
wavelength/frequency of the radiation corresponds to the temperature of the
black body. This is another indication that the CMBR is the “afterglow” of
the Big Bang event, and is NOT coming from any distant radiation sources
(contrary to what you have claimed), because it *is* black-body radiation.

(I notice, with passing interest, that you are not addressing my criticism
of your statements but start a sideshow instead. How typical for a crackpot.)

Post by a***@interia.pl
The Earth's atmosphere has 300K only, and it's a black body spectrum too.

No, it is not. That is a crazy idea. Earth is NOT emitting natural
radiation generated by it; it is *a planet*, NOT a star. At best,
you have misunderstood a Wikipedia article here. See above.

Post by a***@interia.pl
The Milky Way mean temperature (effective) is 3K only,

You made that up.

Post by a***@interia.pl
because any galaxy has just the same 3K -

You made that up, too.

Post by a***@interia.pl
this is just of the general equilibrium condition!

See above. Why are you so obviously lying?

[a***@interia.pl]

W dniu sobota, 3 listopada 2018 21:34:13 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by a***@interia.pl
This is correct, but for the stationary case only.

*You* have argued the stationary case. *You* have claimed that the universe
would NOT be expanding (even though all evidence suggests that it does),
and that the CMBR redshift would be the result of long-distance light
travel. (It isn’t.)

Yes.
The thermal energy, as any other too,
dissipates along its transmission path
and according to the typical exponential law:

exp(-t/tau) = exp(-ct/c.tau) = exp(-r/R);

so, the tau is a mean life-time, and the R is a mean distance,
of the standard exp distribution.

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by a***@interia.pl
In case of an expansionding version the radiation energy is lost - for the expansion just.

That is pseudo-scientific gibberish. It is not even word salad, because
that would be proper English (although meaningless nonsense).

In the case of any expansion, in the thermodynamic context,
the temperature (of the considered system) decreases, because the system's internal energy must to do the whole work necessary for the process you called 'expansion'!

And additionally: the energy needed for expansion is not due to an expansion of the system (in a space) at all,
because this is a unavoidable work against of the present environment pressure!

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
The photon/radiation energy is not lost in expansion, it is converted into
kinetic and potential energy of the universe as the latter expands (similar
to when a star is converting potential energy into kinetic energy for
nuclear fusion when it is forming).

This is nonsense, because the energy is inconsistent with any reality:
1000000000000000 x energy of the whole universe, which is limited up to 1, simply!

Mc^2 = 1 universe,
but the BB scenario needs here: 10^12 = 100000000000... much more than that!
Understand?

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
AISB, energy is never lost in an isolated system. Barring evidence to the
contrary, our universe must be modeled as an isolated system.

Indeed. No expansion is possible for an isolated system. :)

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by a***@interia.pl
And this is obvious because every galaxy have to about the 3K -
no more, no less, because these all galaxies are
the parts of the system in the equilibrium state!

Nonsense. A universe in thermodynamic equilibrium cannot harbor life
because all life depends on processes that increase entropy. Our universe
in a state of maximum entropy, in thermodynamic equilibrium (heat death),
is (based on observation) the likely state of our universe in the *distant
future*.

An entropy is simply constant for the universe,
hence it can exist infinitely without any problem. :)

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by a***@interia.pl
W dniu sobota, 3 listopada 2018 21:34:13 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by a***@interia.pl
This is correct, but for the stationary case only.

*You* have argued the stationary case. *You* have claimed that the universe
would NOT be expanding (even though all evidence suggests that it does),
and that the CMBR redshift would be the result of long-distance light
travel. (It isn’t.)

Yes.
The thermal energy, as any other too,
dissipates along its transmission path

No, AISB.

Post by a***@interia.pl
In the case of any expansion, in the thermodynamic context,
the temperature (of the considered system) decreases,
because the system's internal energy must to do the whole
work necessary for the process you called 'expansion'!

Yes, that is what I said. So you finally agree that we live in an expanding
universe?

Post by a***@interia.pl
And additionally: the energy needed for expansion is not due to an expansion of the system (in a space) at all,

But it probably is. It is also a good explanation why the expansion is
accelerated: the cosmological constant/dark energy can be understood as
vacuum energy. Where there is more space, there is more vacuum, therefore
more vacuum energy. Vacuum energy therefore is equivalent to a negative
pressure, so a space that is already expanding is expanding even further.
Thus, this is a self-sustaining, self-accelerating process. In one
now-likely state in the distant future, our universe will be even huger than
it is now (if that is a word) and completely dominated by dark energy (99+ %).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Cosmological_constant>

Post by a***@interia.pl
because this is a unavoidable work against of the present environment pressure!

There is no known environment that exerts a pressure on our universe. The
equivalent positive pressure, under which our universe would collapse, that
is more than compensated by the negative pressure of dark energy (≈ 70 %),
comes from dark (≈ 25 %) and baryonic matter (≈ 5 %).

Post by a***@interia.pl

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
The photon/radiation energy is not lost in expansion, it is converted into
kinetic and potential energy of the universe as the latter expands (similar
to when a star is converting potential energy into kinetic energy for
nuclear fusion when it is forming).

This is nonsense,

No, it is not.
But it is not.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe#Evidence_for_acceleration>

Post by a***@interia.pl
Understand?

Your gibberish nonsense cannot be understood, at least not by a sane person.

Post by a***@interia.pl

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
AISB, energy is never lost in an isolated system. Barring evidence to the
contrary, our universe must be modeled as an isolated system.

Indeed. No expansion is possible for an isolated system. :)

That is not what I said. Learn to read.

Post by a***@interia.pl

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by a***@interia.pl
And this is obvious because every galaxy have to about the 3K -
no more, no less, because these all galaxies are
the parts of the system in the equilibrium state!

Nonsense. A universe in thermodynamic equilibrium cannot harbor life
because all life depends on processes that increase entropy. Our universe
in a state of maximum entropy, in thermodynamic equilibrium (heat death),
is (based on observation) the likely state of our universe in the *distant
future*.

An entropy is simply constant for the universe,

No, it simply is not:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics>

Post by a***@interia.pl
hence it can exist infinitely without any problem. :)

You are mentally ill, believing in your own crackpot fantasies.

[a***@interia.pl]

W dniu niedziela, 4 listopada 2018 17:34:30 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Yes, that is what I said. So you finally agree that we live in an expanding
universe?

Post by a***@interia.pl
And additionally: the energy needed for expansion is not due to an expansion of the system (in a space) at all,

But it probably is. It is also a good explanation why the expansion is
accelerated: the cosmological constant/dark energy can be understood as
vacuum energy. Where there is more space, there is more vacuum, therefore
more vacuum energy. Vacuum energy therefore is equivalent to a negative
pressure, so a space that is already expanding is expanding even further.
Thus, this is a self-sustaining, self-accelerating process. In one
now-likely state in the distant future, our universe will be even huger than
it is now (if that is a word) and completely dominated by dark energy (99+ %).

The proposed expansion is extremely fallacious, unrealistic and idiotic!

And it has been excluded by a simple observational data already:

the angular distances are fully consistent with the static model of the universe!

In fact the expansion has been invented for a practical reason only -
as the convenient tool for distance measurement
to the distant galaxies in the space.

Nothing expands here, just the redshift is proportional
to the energy dissipation, which is exponential distribution:
exp(-x) = 1 - x + ...;

hence the linear part: x, is just the Hubble law,
but with an additional fallacious assumption:
z = v/c

what the stupid astrologists reinterpreted
to the fictitious escape speed of the distant objects:
v = zc;

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Cosmological_constant>

Post by a***@interia.pl
because this is a unavoidable work against of the present environment pressure!

There is no known environment that exerts a pressure on our universe. The
equivalent positive pressure, under which our universe would collapse, that
is more than compensated by the negative pressure of dark energy (≈ 70 %),
comes from dark (≈ 25 %) and baryonic matter (≈ 5 %).

Post by a***@interia.pl

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
The photon/radiation energy is not lost in expansion, it is converted into
kinetic and potential energy of the universe as the latter expands (similar
to when a star is converting potential energy into kinetic energy for
nuclear fusion when it is forming).

This is nonsense,

No, it is not.
But it is not.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe#Evidence_for_acceleration>

Post by a***@interia.pl
Understand?

Your gibberish nonsense cannot be understood, at least not by a sane person.

Post by a***@interia.pl

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
AISB, energy is never lost in an isolated system. Barring evidence to the
contrary, our universe must be modeled as an isolated system.

Indeed. No expansion is possible for an isolated system. :)

That is not what I said. Learn to read.

Post by a***@interia.pl

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by a***@interia.pl
And this is obvious because every galaxy have to about the 3K -
no more, no less, because these all galaxies are
the parts of the system in the equilibrium state!

Nonsense. A universe in thermodynamic equilibrium cannot harbor life
because all life depends on processes that increase entropy. Our universe
in a state of maximum entropy, in thermodynamic equilibrium (heat death),
is (based on observation) the likely state of our universe in the *distant
future*.

An entropy is simply constant for the universe,

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics>

Post by a***@interia.pl
hence it can exist infinitely without any problem. :)

You are mentally ill, believing in your own crackpot fantasies.
--
PointedEars
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by a***@interia.pl
W dniu niedziela, 4 listopada 2018 17:34:30 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Yes, that is what I said. So you finally agree that we live in an expanding
universe?

Post by a***@interia.pl
And additionally: the energy needed for expansion is not due to an expansion of the system (in a space) at all,

But it probably is. It is also a good explanation why the expansion is
accelerated: the cosmological constant/dark energy can be understood as
vacuum energy. Where there is more space, there is more vacuum, therefore
more vacuum energy. Vacuum energy therefore is equivalent to a negative
pressure, so a space that is already expanding is expanding even further.
Thus, this is a self-sustaining, self-accelerating process. In one
now-likely state in the distant future, our universe will be even huger than
it is now (if that is a word) and completely dominated by dark energy (99+ %).

The proposed expansion is extremely fallacious, unrealistic and idiotic!

No, it is not. By contrast, your statements are, and I am growing tired of
them.
No, it has been confirmed several times:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#History>

Post by a***@interia.pl
the angular distances are fully consistent with the static model of the universe!

“Angular distances”?

Post by a***@interia.pl
In fact the expansion has been invented for a practical reason only -

No. You are delusional.

Post by a***@interia.pl
as the convenient tool for distance measurement
to the distant galaxies in the space.

Nonsense.

Post by a***@interia.pl
Nothing expands here,

But it does. Provably. Proved. You are not entitled to your own facts.

Post by a***@interia.pl
just the redshift is proportional
exp(-x) = 1 - x + ...;

No, it is not. As I already explained to you, there is no "energy
dissipation". You are mentally ill, holding an unshakable belief
in your own crackpot fantasies. Please go see a psychiatrist;
if you already did, please take your pills.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)>

[a***@interia.pl]

W dniu niedziela, 4 listopada 2018 18:26:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#History>

Post by a***@interia.pl
the angular distances are fully consistent with the static model of the universe!

“Angular distances”?

I have used the image from the HUDF,
and the expansion-fallacy fails this simple test completely:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/icosmos.co.uk$2Findex.html%7Csort:relevance/sci.physics.foundations/DuGhoD30KRE/F32Fy4_TpzAJ

BB: 500% of error!!!

vs a static version: 100% correct!

the error is in fact still bigger, because it's simply equal to the: z.

simply: an error of BB = z for this test.

Thus for more distant galaxy,
for example z = 10, the error is 1000%!

2. the redshift periodicity - what this is?

mainly 72 km/s and further multiplicity: 144 km/s, ect.


The 72 km/s is simply a mean distance between galaxies
z = 72/c = 0.0002, which means: d =~ 2.5 Mly

and this is a distance to the Andromeda galaxy, of course.

So, the periodicity in the redshift is a consequence
of the denser medium around galaxies - thus stronger dissipation of energy!

The dissipation is here periodic, because these galaxies
create the periodic cellular-like structure in the space!

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by a***@interia.pl
W dniu niedziela, 4 listopada 2018 18:26:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#History>

Post by a***@interia.pl
the angular distances are fully consistent with the static model of the universe!

“Angular distances”?

I have used the image from the HUDF,
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/icosmos.co.uk$2Findex.html%7Csort:relevance/sci.physics.foundations/DuGhoD30KRE/F32Fy4_TpzAJ
BB: 500% of error!!!
vs a static version: 100% correct! […]

Your analysis there, if it can be called that, is based on ignorance and is
(therefore) flawed.

See also: <https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808>

Also, AISB, your idea of an exponential "dissipation of energy" is complete
and utter nonsense, and not only because there is no exponential relation in
that regard.

[a***@interia.pl]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by a***@interia.pl
W dniu niedziela, 4 listopada 2018 18:26:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#History>

Post by a***@interia.pl
the angular distances are fully consistent with the static model of the universe!

“Angular distances”?

I have used the image from the HUDF,
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/icosmos.co.uk$2Findex.html%7Csort:relevance/sci.physics.foundations/DuGhoD30KRE/F32Fy4_TpzAJ
BB: 500% of error!!!
vs a static version: 100% correct! […]

Your analysis there, if it can be called that, is based on ignorance and is
(therefore) flawed.

The analysis is correct: the observed angular distances
of distant galaxies completely disproves the expansion fallacy.

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
See also: <https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808>

Pseudoscience produces plenty of useless papers -
this is just its main role to producing and promoting fantasy for stupid babes.

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Also, AISB, your idea of an exponential "dissipation of energy" is complete
and utter nonsense, and not only because there is no exponential relation in
that regard.

This is an exponential relation in the BB too.

You are a total ignorant in this domain.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by a***@interia.pl

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by a***@interia.pl
W dniu niedziela, 4 listopada 2018 18:26:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#History>

Post by a***@interia.pl
the angular distances are fully consistent with the static model of the universe!

“Angular distances”?

I have used the image from the HUDF,
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/icosmos.co.uk$2Findex.html%7Csort:relevance/sci.physics.foundations/DuGhoD30KRE/F32Fy4_TpzAJ
BB: 500% of error!!!
vs a static version: 100% correct! […]

Your analysis there, if it can be called that, is based on ignorance and is
(therefore) flawed.

No, it is not.

Post by a***@interia.pl
the observed angular distances
of distant galaxies completely disproves the expansion fallacy.

In an *accelerated* expanding universe the distance/magnitude–redshift
relation is NOT linear. So you cannot simply divide the quantities
and arrive at correct conclusions from the result. End of story.

Post by a***@interia.pl

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
See also: <https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808>

Pseudoscience produces plenty of useless papers -
this is just its main role to producing and promoting fantasy for stupid babes.

It is obvious that you hold an unshakable belief, impervious to all evidence.

Your postings are pseudoscience and fantasy instead. I have had enough of
them now.

Post by a***@interia.pl

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Also, AISB, your idea of an exponential "dissipation of energy" is complete
and utter nonsense, and not only because there is no exponential relation in
that regard.

This is an exponential relation in the BB too.

It is not.

Post by a***@interia.pl
You are a total ignorant in this domain.

You are delusional. Take your pills. *PLONK*

[a***@interia.pl]

W dniu poniedziałek, 5 listopada 2018 03:17:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by a***@interia.pl

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by a***@interia.pl
I have used the image from the HUDF,
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/icosmos.co.uk$2Findex.html%7Csort:relevance/sci.physics.foundations/DuGhoD30KRE/F32Fy4_TpzAJ
BB: 500% of error!!!
vs a static version: 100% correct! […]

Your analysis there, if it can be called that, is based on ignorance and is
(therefore) flawed.

No, it is not.

Post by a***@interia.pl
the observed angular distances
of distant galaxies completely disproves the expansion fallacy.

In an *accelerated* expanding universe the distance/magnitude–redshift
relation is NOT linear. So you cannot simply divide the quantities
and arrive at correct conclusions from the result. End of story.

You still don't understand what is going on here at all!

I used the standard BB-fallacious nonlinear equations
to calculate the 'angular distance' to these two galaxies,
and further compared this with the simpler static - linear version.

And the BB failed 500%!!!
The static provides 1:5 - what is correct,
because these galaxies are equal in diameter (approximately),
and a distance proportion is: 1:5;

d1 = ln(7+1); d2 = ln(0.5+1)

d1/d2 = ln(7+1)/ln(0.5+1) = 5.12

and the angular sizes on the image are in fact in the proportion 1:5 also!!!

[a***@interia.pl]

W dniu sobota, 3 listopada 2018 04:20:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars'

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by a***@interia.pl
Therefore the mainstream is in fact a horde of total imbeciles,
the source of the CMB energy is some fantastic
hyper explosion for billions of years ago!

No, you are just ignorant of the fact that our universe is expanding, and
that its temperature decreases as it expands.
This is as true for our universe as it is true for anything in it. Look up
p V = n k_B T
For example, if you have a air pump for bicycles, load it with air, press
your finger on the valve and push the piston. You will feel that the air in
the pump becomes warmer as it is compressed, and gets colder again when it
expands. (This process is called adiabatic compression/expansion, and it
also used in fridges.)
When the CMBR was released, after recombination and photon decoupling (ca.
370'000 years after the Big Bang event), the temperature of the universe was
ca. 3000 K.
That is approximately the temperature at and below which it is possible that
a proton and an electron can form a hydrogen atom (because, put simply, the
electron is then slow enough to be captured by the proton, but still fast
enough not to merge with it – the two particles carry opposite electric
charges, therefore attract each other electromagnetically).
Before that, in a plasma (where the particles of matter move too fast to
bind to each other), any photons (which were produced in electron–positron
annihilation before that, and are emitted by electrons returning to lower
energy states) almost immediately interact with other free electrons.
The average temperature of the cosmic vacuum, which is also the temperature
of the CMBR as we measure it *now, ca. 13.8 billion years later*, is only
ca. 3 K because in those ca. *13.8 billion years* our universe has expanded
to a gazillion times its former size.
So the CMBR and its near isotropy is living evidence of the Big Bang event.

These all claims are wrong, unfortunately!
This is only seemingly consistent with thermodynamics.

Why?

Because the energy of CMB is now - today,
perfectly consistent with the helium abundance,
and it's perfectly consistent with the actual stars radiation!

And further:
the temperature (of the whole Universe) in range of 3000K is total absurd!

Look at this:

E = sigma * T^4

and because 3000K/3K = 1000,
hence the BB-model claims: 1000^4 = 10^12 = 1000000000000
times more energy!


But actually the 3K provides 1/500 Mc^2,
this means: the energy of CMB consist in fact about 0.5% of the total mass-energy of the Universe!

So, the BB provides that the source of CMB has this quantity of energy:

0.5 % x 10^12 = 500000000000%
of the whole Universe mass-energy!

So, it's evident the BB is a parody not any science!

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by a***@interia.pl
I don't promote any of 'tired light' concept.

Yes, you do. You claim that our universe does not expand (despite all
evidence to the contrary) and that the low frequency/energy of the CMBR is
caused by "dissipated along a transmission path".

There is no any evidences of an expansion in the cosmos.

Especially the angular-distances are perfectly
consistent with the static version!

The expansion is just a promoted by mainstream another parody only -
like the geocentric fallacy in the middle ages!

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
But with that assumption you cannot explain the near-*isotropy* of the CMBR.
Because, what would be the so very equally distributed sources of
electromagnetic radiation that would all have to be in so almost equal
distances *to us*, arranged on a huge sphere, so that the "dissipation of
energy" is almost the same *in every direction*? Or, IOW, why can’t we
*see* them?

A black body's temperature is fully determined by... energy density.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by a***@interia.pl
W dniu sobota, 3 listopada 2018 04:20:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars'

When the CMBR was released, after recombination and photon decoupling (ca..
370'000 years after the Big Bang event), the temperature of the universe was
ca. 3000 K.
That is approximately the temperature at and below which it is possible that
a proton and an electron can form a hydrogen atom (because, put simply, the
electron is then slow enough to be captured by the proton, but still fast
enough not to merge with it – the two particles carry opposite electric
charges, therefore attract each other electromagnetically).
Before that, in a plasma (where the particles of matter move too fast to
bind to each other), any photons (which were produced in electron–positron
annihilation before that, and are emitted by electrons returning to lower
energy states) almost immediately interact with other free electrons.
The average temperature of the cosmic vacuum, which is also the temperature
of the CMBR as we measure it *now, ca. 13.8 billion years later*, is only
ca. 3 K because in those ca. *13.8 billion years* our universe has expanded
to a gazillion times its former size.
So the CMBR and its near isotropy is living evidence of the Big Bang event.

These all claims are wrong, unfortunately!

They are not. This is *observed*.

Post by a***@interia.pl
This is only seemingly consistent with thermodynamics.

You have evidently no clue about thermodynamics, let alone physics.

Post by a***@interia.pl
Why?
Because the energy of CMB is now - today,
perfectly consistent with the helium abundance,
and it's perfectly consistent with the actual stars radiation!

No. In both cases one does not have anything to do with the other.

Helium abundance in our universe is heavily dependent on how many stars can
form that have enough mass to begin helium fusion:

<https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.5627>

And the CMB also is measured where there are not any stars in the vicinity.

You are just making stuff up as you go, to fit your delusions and agenda.
Hopeless.

[a***@interia.pl]

W dniu poniedziałek, 5 listopada 2018 03:06:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by a***@interia.pl
Because the energy of CMB is now - today,
perfectly consistent with the helium abundance,
and it's perfectly consistent with the actual stars radiation!

No. In both cases one does not have anything to do with the other.
Helium abundance in our universe is heavily dependent on how many stars can

The CMB energy is equal to the total helium fusion:

the helium fusion releases: 7 MeV per one nucleon;
the nucleon mass x c^2 is about 1000MeV,

thus this is a part:
7/1000 = 0.007 of the total energy of one hydrogen atom.

1/4 of the hydrogen has fussed into helium, hence:

1/4 0.007 =~ 1/500

Therefore the CMB energy is equal: 1/500 Mc^2
of the total mass-energy of the whole Universe.

The BB provides nothing, because: 3000K -> billions of universe!!!!!!

[Keith Stein]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Keith Stein
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.

It is not. There is a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Post by Keith Stein
2. There was no "Big Bang"

There was. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (accidentally
discovered in 1964, predicted before that) is evidence of it;
so are cosmological redshift, time dilation, and fading light.

Post by Keith Stein
3. There was no "Inflation"

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#Results>

Post by Keith Stein
4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.

They are not, indeed. Instead, space is expanding with increasing speed,
carrying *distant* galaxies (not those of the Local Group, which are
gravitationally bound) away with it.
This is evident not only in the redshift, but also in the *cosmological time
dilation*, and the otherwise inexplicable *fading of light* observable in
distant processes like supernovae. (Time dilation is the greater the
greater the apparent relative velocity is; light intensity is inversely
proportional to the square of the distance to the light source.)
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was awarded for this *unexpected* 1997/1998
<https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2011/summary/>
<https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/popular-physicsprize2011-1.pdf>

Post by Keith Stein
5. There is no "Dark Energy"

There is; the energy content of our universe is approximately 70 % dark
energy. Confirmed once again by the “Planck” probe’s mission’s results
(see above).

Post by Keith Stein
Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, […]

Good morning, sunshine. This idea is called “tired light” and has been
*refuted* – in all its variants – *decades ago*.
For example, the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) has a much greater mass than the
Milky Way and so, if the “tired light” idea had any substance, would have to
slow down the light emitted by its stars, and cause a redshift.
The light is blueshifted instead, because that galaxy and the Milky Way are
approaching each other, to merge in ca. 2 billion years.
,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light>
|
| […] As cosmological measurements became more precise and the statistics in
| cosmological data sets improved, tired light proposals ended up being
| falsified,[1][2][3] to the extent that the theory was described in 2001 by
| science writer Charles Seife as being "firmly on the fringe of physics 30
| years ago".[5]
End of story.

Doubt i'll be able to convince you Thomas, but
I thank you for your opinions, and the links eh!

keith stein

[Sergio]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Keith Stein
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.

It is not. There is a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Post by Keith Stein
2. There was no "Big Bang"

There was. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (accidentally
discovered in 1964, predicted before that) is evidence of it;
so are cosmological redshift, time dilation, and fading light.

Post by Keith Stein
3. There was no "Inflation"

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#Results>

Post by Keith Stein
4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.

They are not, indeed. Instead, space is expanding with increasing speed,
carrying *distant* galaxies (not those of the Local Group, which are
gravitationally bound) away with it.
This is evident not only in the redshift, but also in the *cosmological time
dilation*, and the otherwise inexplicable *fading of light* observable in
distant processes like supernovae. (Time dilation is the greater the
greater the apparent relative velocity is; light intensity is inversely
proportional to the square of the distance to the light source.)
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was awarded for this *unexpected* 1997/1998
<https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2011/summary/>
<https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/popular-physicsprize2011-1.pdf>

Post by Keith Stein
5. There is no "Dark Energy"

There is; the energy content of our universe is approximately 70 % dark
energy. Confirmed once again by the “Planck” probe’s mission’s results
(see above).

Post by Keith Stein
Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, […]

Good morning, sunshine. This idea is called “tired light” and has been
*refuted* – in all its variants – *decades ago*.
For example, the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) has a much greater mass than the
Milky Way and so, if the “tired light” idea had any substance, would have to
slow down the light emitted by its stars, and cause a redshift.
The light is blueshifted instead, because that galaxy and the Milky Way are
approaching each other, to merge in ca. 2 billion years.
,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light>
|
| […] As cosmological measurements became more precise and the statistics in
| cosmological data sets improved, tired light proposals ended up being
| falsified,[1][2][3] to the extent that the theory was described in 2001 by
| science writer Charles Seife as being "firmly on the fringe of physics 30
| years ago".[5]
End of story.

Thanks for the links !

[benj]

Post by Sergio

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Keith Stein
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.

It is not. There is a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Post by Keith Stein
2. There was no "Big Bang"

There was. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (accidentally
discovered in 1964, predicted before that) is evidence of it;
so are cosmological redshift, time dilation, and fading light.

Post by Keith Stein
3. There was no "Inflation"

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#Results>

Post by Keith Stein
4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.

They are not, indeed. Instead, space is expanding with increasing speed,
carrying *distant* galaxies (not those of the Local Group, which are
gravitationally bound) away with it.
This is evident not only in the redshift, but also in the *cosmological time
dilation*, and the otherwise inexplicable *fading of light* observable in
distant processes like supernovae. (Time dilation is the greater the
greater the apparent relative velocity is; light intensity is inversely
proportional to the square of the distance to the light source.)
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was awarded for this *unexpected* 1997/1998
<https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2011/summary/>
<https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/popular-physicsprize2011-1.pdf>

Post by Keith Stein
5. There is no "Dark Energy"

There is; the energy content of our universe is approximately 70 % dark
energy. Confirmed once again by the “Planck” probe’s mission’s results
(see above).

Post by Keith Stein
Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, […]

Good morning, sunshine. This idea is called “tired light” and has been
*refuted* – in all its variants – *decades ago*.
For example, the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) has a much greater mass than the
Milky Way and so, if the “tired light” idea had any substance, would have to
slow down the light emitted by its stars, and cause a redshift.
The light is blueshifted instead, because that galaxy and the Milky Way are
approaching each other, to merge in ca. 2 billion years.
,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light>
|
| […] As cosmological measurements became more precise and the statistics in
| cosmological data sets improved, tired light proposals ended up being
| falsified,[1][2][3] to the extent that the theory was described in 2001 by
| science writer Charles Seife as being "firmly on the fringe of physics 30
| years ago".[5]
End of story.

Thanks for the links !

You needed help to find Wikipedia and nobelprze.org?

Mr. Vulcan is a true believer in the the Big Bang. He is wrong. Since he
also is a true believer in "proof by assertion" that makes my argument
iron-clad. Big Bang is bogus. "Tired light" is also wrong. The Red shift
is due to something beyond the current science metaparadigms. (Which is
why Mr. Vulcan is not permitted to believe)

If you just keep repeating your beliefs and thumping your bible long
enough and hard enough everything you believe becomes true.

[a***@interia.pl]

Post by benj
Mr. Vulcan is a true believer in the the Big Bang. He is wrong. Since he
also is a true believer in "proof by assertion" that makes my argument
iron-clad. Big Bang is bogus. "Tired light" is also wrong. The Red shift
is due to something beyond the current science metaparadigms. (Which is
why Mr. Vulcan is not permitted to believe)

The cosmo-redshit is a simple consequence of
the common dissipation of radiation energy.

But the mainstream was and still is a horde of idiots only,
therefore they are unable to provide the process correctly,

In fact the so-called quantum physics - another fallacy
is blocking any progress.

The radiation is a wave by nature, not any of particles stream;
thus the photon fallacy is incompatible with the cosmic dissipation of energy,
because light is just of a pure wave's energy.

Simply: the fictitious particles of light forbids this type of dissipation,
and because the mainstream is fixed completely on the particle model of light,
therefore any progress is impossible in this domain (ie. of the radiation).

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Hubble redshift is Rising Entropy as Global System Pressure drops.



Redshift Hubble 70407.2611 m / s/Mpc


((1.70377849e+53 kg*(((70407.2611 * (m/s))/(1 Mpc))*(planck length/2pi) = 1.00000666 m kg/s


Hubble ((mass universe * (((70407.2611 * (m / s)) / (1 Mpc)) *planck length) = (2pi kg m/s)

c * ((((planck length * 0.5)^3) / (Planck Time * 0.5)) * 1.70377849e+53 (kg^(-1))) = 0.999999997 m^4 kg^-1 s^-2

Bulk Modulus Reverberations & Wave Speed @ c

(((((1.70377849e+53 kg) * G) / (c^2)) / (13.88805086 billion light years)) * 6.5248935) / (2pi) = 1

1.70377849e+53 kg * (((70407.2611 * (m / s)) / (1 Mpc)) * (planck length / (2pi))) = 1.00000666 m kg/s


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#Observed_values_of_the_Hubble_constant

((70407.2611 m / s/Mpc) *c^2*5) / (1+1/((2pi)^2)) = 1.00003345

(2.28174394e-18 * (299792458^2) * 5) / (1 + (1 / ((2 * pi)^2))) = 1.00003344815

planck length/(69988.5463 m/s/Mpc)^2 / (pi m s^2) = 1

((0.5 Planck Time) / ((0.5 Planck Length)^3)) / 299792458 = 1.70377849e+53 s / m^3 = mass universe


https://docs.google.com/document/d/158sSx9lANe1a4No0gD--OlqMczyEaf6h6upC-jSYZfI/

[Keith Stein]

Post by David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
Redshift Hubble 70407.2611 m / s/Mpc

You would appear to know Hubble's Constant to more
SIGNIFICANT FIGURES than the astronomers,Mr.Fuller.

Post by David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
((1.70377849e+53 kg*(((70407.2611 * (m/s))/(1 Mpc))*(planck length/2pi) = 1.00000666 m kg/s

and 666 = The Number of the Beast
Now that MUST BE SIGNIFICANT eh!


keith stein

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Keith Stein escrito

Post by David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
Redshift Hubble 70407.2611 m / s/Mpc

You would appear to know Hubble's Constant to more
SIGNIFICANT FIGURES than the astronomers,Mr.Fuller.

Post by David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
((1.70377849e+53 kg*(((70407.2611 * (m/s))/(1 Mpc))*(planck length/2pi) = 1.00000666 m kg/s

and 666 = The Number of the Beast
Now that MUST BE SIGNIFICANT eh!


keith stein

666 = Brain Fart 💨 Magic & Trauma Based Mind Control

1.70377849e+53 kg * (((70406.791856 * (m / s)) / (1 Mpc)) * (planck length / (2pi))) = 1 m kg / s

Hubble ((mass universe * (((70406.791856 * (m / s)) / (1 Mpc)) *planck length) = (2pi kg m/s)

c * ((((planck length * 0.5)^3) / (Planck Time * 0.5)) * 1.70377849e+53 (kg^(-1))) = 0.999999997 m^4 kg^-1 s^-2

Bulk Modulus Reverberations & Wave Speed @ c

(((((1.70377849e+53 kg) * G) / (c^2)) / (13.88805086 billion light years)) * 6.5248935) / (2pi) = 1

1.70377849e+53 kg * (((70406.791856 * (m / s)) / (1 Mpc)) * (planck length / (2pi))) = 1.00000000 m kg/s


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#Observed_values_of_the_Hubble_constant


((0.5 Planck Time) / ((0.5 Planck Length)^3)) / 299792458 = 1.70377849e+53 s / m^3 = mass universe

[The Starmaker]

Post by David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
Hubble redshift is Rising Entropy as Global System Pressure drops.

it simply ...red decay.


gives the appearance of shiffting..it's just decaying.


it's why all the surcace of the planets are red...


earth doesn't decay..it rebuilds.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

The Moron StarSharter excreted

Post by David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
Hubble redshift is Rising Entropy as Global System Pressure drops.

it simply ...red decay.


gives the appearance of shiffting..it's just decaying.


it's why all the surcace of the planets are red...


earth doesn't decay..it rebuilds.

No Moron

Red planets are red because of Chemical reactions like iron oxide

The earth is also the color it is because of biochemical reactions

Only ShitTarded Magical Brain Farts Out Of you.

[The Starmaker]

Post by David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
The Moron StarSharter excreted

Post by David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
Hubble redshift is Rising Entropy as Global System Pressure drops.

it simply ...red decay.
gives the appearance of shiffting..it's just decaying.
it's why all the surcace of the planets are red...
earth doesn't decay..it rebuilds.
No Moron
Red planets are red because of Chemical reactions like iron oxide
The earth is also the color it is because of biochemical reactions
Only ShitTarded Magical Brain Farts Out Of you.

You are probably not aware of this....but there are, ..



"Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts"



decay is caused by raidiation.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

The StarSharter Sharted

Post by David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
The Moron StarSharter excreted

Post by David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
Hubble redshift is Rising Entropy as Global System Pressure drops.

it simply ...red decay.
gives the appearance of shiffting..it's just decaying.
it's why all the surcace of the planets are red...
earth doesn't decay..it rebuilds.
No Moron
Red planets are red because of Chemical reactions like iron oxide
The earth is also the color it is because of biochemical reactions
Only ShitTarded Magical Brain Farts Out Of you.

You are probably not aware of this....but there are, ..



"Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts"



decay is caused by raidiation.

Cretin StarSharter Gibbered “raidiation” which is not even a word.

[The Starmaker]

Post by David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
The StarSharter Sharted

Post by David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
The Moron StarSharter excreted

Post by David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
Hubble redshift is Rising Entropy as Global System Pressure drops.

it simply ...red decay.
gives the appearance of shiffting..it's just decaying.
it's why all the surcace of the planets are red...
earth doesn't decay..it rebuilds.
No Moron
Red planets are red because of Chemical reactions like iron oxide
The earth is also the color it is because of biochemical reactions
Only ShitTarded Magical Brain Farts Out Of you.

You are probably not aware of this....but there are, ..
"Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts"
decay is caused by raidiation.
Cretin StarSharter Gibbered “raidiation” which is not even a word.

raid-di-ation

rade-de-a-shen


I write how it is pronounced, not how it is spelled.


If you ever looked at a dictionary....

there are two different spellings for each word.

If you spend a lot of time learning how to pronounce werds...

[Keith Stein]

You mean c has has decreased?

I mean that IF c is decreasing this would explain the Hubble Red
Shifts and, the exponential rise in red shift observed at distances
over about 5 billion years, without the need to invent dark energy.

Why?

Why not? The universe is clearly evolving eh!

I suppose that's one way to explain it.
You know Hubble himself never accepted the expanding universe idea.
thought there was something causing light to red shift over vast
distances.

Excellent Double-A.
That is by far the most encouraging response i have received
from anyone on sci.physics, or sci.physics.relativity eh!

Trusting that you won't object to the cross posting.

keith stein

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Why not? The universe is clearly evolving eh!

I suppose that's one way to explain it.

A very crude way, tantamount to being wrong if misunderstood, which is
therefore (and especially when equipped with lack of additional knowledge,
as is the case with Keith Stein) easy to do.

You know Hubble himself never accepted the expanding universe idea.

Correct.

thought there was something causing light to red shift over vast
distances.

Correct, too. In particular, Hubble thought that this something would be
the curvature of space; but his methodology was flawed, and we know "now"
(since 1964 at the latest) that he was wrong about that.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble#Redshift_increases_with_distance>

[Keith Stein]

Why not? The universe is clearly evolving eh!

I suppose that's one way to explain it.

And here's another way to explain the Hubble red shifts, Thomas.
Try to follow the math, and if you can't, then admit which
equations you have difficulty with, and i will make it simpler
for you Thomas. I promise you will find it is worth the effort
Thomas, even if you don't agree with my conclusions eh!

Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.

Merely by assuming dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
I was led to c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
and on to Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)

K ~= 10^-10 /year
t = time in years

Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to
enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more
accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........

K = H = Hubble's Constant
and t = -t ( so times past become +ve)

which substituted in (3) gives:

Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)

then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)

So for t << 1/H we have:

Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)

which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).

As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore
further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law
expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
in observatories all around the world eh!

Conclusions:
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
2. There was no "Big Bang"
3. There was no "Inflation"
4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
5. There is no "Dark Energy"
********************************************************************

**********************************************************************
A GOOD QUESTION

When light slows down by entering a more dense medium such as glass, or
water, the frequency stays the same and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.

So how is it that when light slows down traveling across intergalactic
space,the the WAVELENGTH INCREASES ?

good question!

when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the
wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows
before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave
catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train
compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.

When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there
is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave
train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the
same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as
it travels through intergalactic space.

So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is
INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light
is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that
it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light
was higher than it is now.

The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on distant
galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as that on
Earth today. The wavelength is proportional the the velocity of light AT
THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased wavelength is faithfully
transmitted through space, where it is measured in our observatories.

keith stein

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Keith Stein

Why not? The universe is clearly evolving eh!

I suppose that's one way to explain it.

And here's another way to explain the Hubble red shifts, Thomas.
Try to follow the math, and if you can't, then admit which
equations you have difficulty with, and i will make it simpler
for you Thomas. I promise you will find it is worth the effort
Thomas, even if you don't agree with my conclusions eh! […]

You are mentally ill:

1. You are repeating the same, already (experimentally) refuted nonsense.

2. You hold the unshakable belief that you have superior understanding
of physics when you have no understanding at all.

3. You are confusing me with someone who could take someone like you
seriously.

Please go see a psychotherapist; if you have already done so, please take
your pills.

[Gary Harnagel]

Post by Keith Stein
Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
Merely by assuming dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
I was led to c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
and on to Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)

The problem with (3) is that lambda = c/f, so if c = c(0)*exp(-k*t)
then lambda = c(0)*exp(-K*t)/f, which means that the wavelength is
becoming SMALLER not larger if f is constant.

So you'd have to assume that dc = +K*c*dt to explain the red shift.
But you have ANOTHER problem: Why in the world (or cosmos) would you
expect that f is constant if c is increasing? Why assume that the
rate of time is constant?

Post by Keith Stein
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.

That would give a BLUE shift, which is contrary to the experimental evidence.
Anyway, that's not a conclusion, that's your assumption.

Post by Keith Stein
2. There was no "Big Bang"

At 10^10 years, the speed of light would have been about 1 meter/second,
which means that the universe was 10^10 times smaller than we think it was.

Post by Keith Stein
3. There was no "Inflation"
4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
5. There is no "Dark Energy"

Non sequitur

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Gary Harnagel

Post by Keith Stein
Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
Merely by assuming dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
I was led to c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
and on to Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)

The problem with (3) is that lambda = c/f, so if c = c(0)*exp(-k*t)
then lambda = c(0)*exp(-K*t)/f, which means that the wavelength is
becoming SMALLER not larger if f is constant.

So you'd have to assume that dc = +K*c*dt to explain the red shift.
But you have ANOTHER problem: Why in the world (or cosmos) would you
expect that f is constant if c is increasing? Why assume that the
rate of time is constant?

Post by Keith Stein
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.

That would give a BLUE shift, which is contrary to the experimental evidence.
Anyway, that's not a conclusion, that's your assumption.

Post by Keith Stein
2. There was no "Big Bang"

At 10^10 years, the speed of light would have been about 1 meter/second,
which means that the universe was 10^10 times smaller than we think it was.

Post by Keith Stein
3. There was no "Inflation"
4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
5. There is no "Dark Energy"

Non sequitur

Entropy is Rising simulating Hubble Expansion

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17W_L19_YvxkKXv1vNya0YekR0vb8K31XTq4_4-CssSM

[benj]

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by Keith Stein
Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
Merely by assuming dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
I was led to c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
and on to Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)

The problem with (3) is that lambda = c/f, so if c = c(0)*exp(-k*t)
then lambda = c(0)*exp(-K*t)/f, which means that the wavelength is
becoming SMALLER not larger if f is constant.
So you'd have to assume that dc = +K*c*dt to explain the red shift.
But you have ANOTHER problem: Why in the world (or cosmos) would you
expect that f is constant if c is increasing? Why assume that the
rate of time is constant?

Post by Keith Stein
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.

That would give a BLUE shift, which is contrary to the experimental evidence.
Anyway, that's not a conclusion, that's your assumption.

Post by Keith Stein
2. There was no "Big Bang"

At 10^10 years, the speed of light would have been about 1 meter/second,
which means that the universe was 10^10 times smaller than we think it was.

Post by Keith Stein
3. There was no "Inflation"
4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
5. There is no "Dark Energy"

Non sequitur

Actually sequitur. You can still think, right?

If the red shift is NOT due to velocity then clearly;

2. There was no Big Bang (calculating drift backward from today)
3. There is no "inflation' because measurements are not due to velocity.
4. Galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
5. Dark matter is not needed to explain the motion of galaxies
6. Dark energy isn't needed to explain acceleration of the non-expansion.
7. The universe actually has a center which is not "everywhere" which is
nonsense.


Problem here is #1. The "tired light" theory has been shown wrong for a
number of reasons.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by Keith Stein
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.

That would give a BLUE shift,

No. Blueshift would be and is only observed in the light of objects whose
distance to us (observers) is decreasing.

Post by Gary Harnagel
which is contrary to the experimental evidence.

Blueshift (*one* word) *is* *observed* in the light of *nearby* galaxies
whose peculiar velocity towards us is greater than the apparent velocity
away from us. Case in point: M 31 (Andromeda Galaxy), which will merge
with the Milky Way in ca. 2 billion years.

Post by Gary Harnagel
If the red shift is NOT due to velocity

But the _redshift_ (*one* word) is (due *apparent* velocity). Provably.
Proved.

Because redshift is by far not the only evidence for the accelerated
expansion of our universe. It is just the only evidence that you (barely)
know, in your blissful ignorance.

Post by Gary Harnagel
then clearly;

And if my grandmother would have had wheels, then clearly she would have
been a bandwagon. /Ex falso quodlibet./

You are mentally ill. Get professional help.

[Gary Harnagel]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by Keith Stein
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.

That would give a BLUE shift,

No. Blueshift would be and is only observed in the light of objects whose
distance to us (observers) is decreasing.

If the speed of light were slowing down that would give a BLUE shift. Pay
attention to the context before you blabber.

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Gary Harnagel
which is contrary to the experimental evidence.

Blueshift (*one* word)

Who made you the grammer police?

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
*is* *observed* in the light of *nearby* galaxies
whose peculiar velocity towards us is greater than the apparent velocity
away from us. Case in point: M 31 (Andromeda Galaxy), which will merge
with the Milky Way in ca. 2 billion years.

Non sequitur. Pay attention to the context.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Gary Harnagel

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by Keith Stein
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.

That would give a BLUE shift,

No. Blueshift would be and is only observed in the light of objects whose
distance to us (observers) is decreasing.

If the speed of light were slowing down that would give a BLUE shift.


Hubble Expansion & CMBR & Bekenstein Hawking Entropy

Hubble Expansion is Kinetic Energy Of Space Time Dropping as Entropy Rises

((((70406.791856 * (m / s)) / (1 Mpc)) / (160.39005 GHz)) / G) * (6.5248935 (kg^(-1)) (m / s)) * (c^2) * (8 s) = 1

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C1kfyk-9mU3lqrARJ2s_eut70h2Bl0c5TrGOD_upOJg

70406.791856 / 67798.6422 = 6.5248935 / 2pi

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Gary Harnagel escrito

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by Keith Stein
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.

That would give a BLUE shift,

No. Blueshift would be and is only observed in the light of objects whose
distance to us (observers) is decreasing.

If the speed of light were slowing down that would give a BLUE shift.


Hubble Expansion & CMBR & Bekenstein Hawking Entropy

Hubble Expansion is Kinetic Energy Of Space Time Dropping as Entropy Rises

Either
((((70406.791856 * (m / s)) / (1 Mpc)) / (160.39005 GHz)) / G) * (6.5248935 (kg^(-1)) (m / s)) * (c^2) * (8 s) = 1

Or

((((67798.6422 * (m / s)) / (1 Mpc)) / (160.39005 GHz)) / G) * (((6.5248935^2) / (2 * pi)) * (kg^(-1)) * (m / s)) * (c^2) * (8 s) = 1



https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C1kfyk-9mU3lqrARJ2s_eut70h2Bl0c5TrGOD_upOJg


70406.791856 / 67798.6422 = 6.5248935 / 2pi

[Gaston Castaneda]

Post by Gary Harnagel
If the speed of light were slowing down that would give a BLUE shift.
Pay attention to the context before you blabber.

please reconsider. Crests arriving at a slower rate, larger wavelength.
That's a red, towards black.

[Keith Stein]

Post by Gaston Castaneda

Post by Gary Harnagel
If the speed of light were slowing down that would give a BLUE shift.
Pay attention to the context before you blabber.

please reconsider. Crests arriving at a slower rate, larger wavelength.
That's a red, towards black.

Right you are Gaston.
i did already explain this to Gary, but some people just won't be told:

"when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the
wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows
before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave
catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train
compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.

When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there
is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave
train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the
same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as
it travels through intergalactic space.

So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is
INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light
is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that
it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light
was higher than it is now.

The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on distant
galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as that on
Earth today. The wavelength is proportional the the velocity of light AT
THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased wavelength is faithfully
transmitted through space, where it is measured in our observatories."


keith stein

[Gary Harnagel]

Post by Keith Stein

Post by Gaston Castaneda

Post by Gary Harnagel
If the speed of light were slowing down that would give a BLUE shift.
Pay attention to the context before you blabber.

please reconsider. Crests arriving at a slower rate, larger wavelength.
That's a red, towards black.

Right you are Gaston.

So you want to babble about a BLACK shift now? :-))

Post by Keith Stein
i did already explain this to Gary,

You couldn't express a cogent idea.

Post by Keith Stein
"when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the
wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows
before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave
catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train
compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.
When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there
is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave
train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the
same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as
it travels through intergalactic space.

See? First you say it's "slowing down in intergalactic space" and then
you contradict yourself by saying that speed of the front and back of the
wave train is the same.

Post by Keith Stein
So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is
INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light
is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that
it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light
was higher than it is now.

Which contradicts what you said about the speed of light slowing down IN
intergalactic space.

Post by Keith Stein
The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on distant
galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as that on
Earth today. The wavelength is proportional the the velocity of light AT
THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased wavelength is faithfully
transmitted through space, where it is measured in our observatories."
keith stein

And I showed you that the speed of light cannot have changed by the amount
you claim:

"If light traveled faster in the past, the electromagnetic force would be
weaker then. The experimental evidence implies that

delta_alpha/alpha = (-5.7 +/1 1)x10^-6 over 10 to 12 billion years, which is
MUCH smaller and in the opposite direction from what you are saying:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Past_rate_of_change

And measurements on the present rate of change implies a change less
than 2x10^-17 per year. Sorry, old bean."

Your attempt to ignore the facts are clear for everyone to see.

“To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are
proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides
to go on being wrong.” ― Criss Jami

[Keith Stein]

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by Keith Stein
"when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the
wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows
before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave
catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train
compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.
When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there
is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave
train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the
same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as
it travels through intergalactic space.

See? First you say it's "slowing down in intergalactic space" and then
you contradict yourself by saying that speed of the front and back of the
wave train is the same.

"AT ANY ONE TIME the front and back of the wave ARE INDEED traveling at
the same speed".
Your car behaves in much the same way Gary, which is why you don't get
squashed when you put the brakes on eh!

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by Keith Stein
So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is
INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light
is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that
it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light
was higher than it is now.

Which contradicts what you said about the speed of light slowing down IN
intergalactic space.

How could the velocity of light be higher in the past than it is now,
UNLESS the speed of light is slowing down. No contradiction there.

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by Keith Stein
The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on distant
galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as that on
Earth today. The wavelength is proportional the the velocity of light AT
THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased wavelength is faithfully
transmitted through space, where it is measured in our observatories."
keith stein

And I showed you that the speed of light cannot have changed by the amount
"If light traveled faster in the past, the electromagnetic force would be
weaker then.

Not if the reason the light slows down is because the intergalactic
medium is changing it would not. I don't say the speed of light "in
vacuum" is changing, because i don't believe in vacuum eh!, and i do
not imply that the force between an electron and proton changes. It
is the MACROSCOPIC INTERGALACTIC MEDIUM WHICH CHANGES eh!

Post by Gary Harnagel
The experimental evidence implies that
delta_alpha/alpha = (-5.7 +/1 1)x10^-6 over 10 to 12 billion years, which is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Past_rate_of_change
And measurements on the present rate of change implies a change less
than 2x10^-17 per year. Sorry, old bean."

The speed of light is certainly less in water than in air Gary,
but i don't think the fine structure constant is any different
if you measure it under water, is it?

Post by Gary Harnagel
Your attempt to ignore the facts are clear for everyone to see.
“To hate being wrong is to change your opinion when you are
proven wrong; whereas pride, even when proven wrong, decides
to go on being wrong.” ― Criss Jami

[Keith Stein]

Post by benj

Post by Gary Harnagel

      1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.

That would give a BLUE shift, which is contrary to the experimental evidence.
Anyway, that's not a conclusion, that's your assumption.

      2. There was no "Big Bang"

At 10^10 years, the speed of light would have been about 1 meter/second,
which means that the universe was 10^10 times smaller than we think it was.

      3. There was no "Inflation"
      4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
      5. There is no "Dark Energy"

Non sequitur

Actually sequitur. You can still think, right?
If the red shift is NOT due to velocity then clearly;
2. There was no Big Bang (calculating drift backward from today)
3. There is no "inflation' because measurements are not due to velocity.
4. Galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
5. Dark matter is not needed to explain the motion of galaxies
6. Dark energy isn't needed to explain acceleration of the non-expansion.
7. The universe actually has a center which is not "everywhere" which is
nonsense.

Very good Benj, and saved me the trouble of responding to Gary's final
points eh!

Post by benj
Problem here is #1.  The "tired light" theory has been shown wrong for a
number of reasons.

Give us a for instance Benj.

keith stein

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Hubble Expansion is Kinetic Energy Of Space Time Dropping as Entropy Rises

(0.5 * 2.1764702e-8 kg * (c^2)) / (((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) * (planck length^3)) = 0.50000000

1 / (((1 / 299792458) * kg * (c^2)) / (((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) * (planck length^3))) = 6.5248935

Friedmann parameters

( 3.71295774e-28 kg*(c)^2) = ((3.33703999e-11 pascal)*(1 m)^3))

Electron Compton parameters

(0.5 electron mass*c^2) = ((9.12227006e+20 pascal * pi)*(2.42632627e-12 m)^3))

(Planck length * 1.50122737e+23) / meter = 2.42632627e-12

(((8^0.5) * 6.5248935)^0.25) / Boltzmann constant = 1.50122737e+23 m-2 kg-1 s2 K

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Hubble Expansion is Kinetic Energy Of Space Time Dropping as Entropy Rises

(0.5 * 2.1764702e-8 kg * (c^2)) / (((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) * (planck length^3)) = 0.50000000

1 / (((1 / 299792458) * kg * (c^2)) / (((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) * (planck length^3))) = 6.5248935

Friedmann parameters

( 3.71295774e-28 kg*(c)^2) = ((3.33703999e-11 pascal)*(1 m)^3))

Electron Compton parameters

(0.5 electron mass*c^2) = ((9.12227006e+20 pascal * pi)*(2.42632627e-12 m)^3))

(Planck length * 1.50122737e+23) / meter = 2.42632627e-12

(((8^0.5) * 6.5248935)^0.25) / Boltzmann constant = 1.50122737e+23 m^-2 kg^-1 s^2 K

(1 / (((1 / 299792458) * kg * (c^2)) / (((c^7) / (2pi*hbar * (G^2))) * (planck length^3))))^0.5 = 1.01905301786

http://vixra.org/pdf/1102.0032vB.pdf

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Hubble Expansion is Kinetic Energy Of Space Time Dropping as Entropy Rises

(0.5 * 2.1764702e-8 kg * (c^2)) / (((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) * (planck length^3)) = 0.50000000

1 / (((1 / 299792458) * kg * (c^2)) / (((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) * (planck length^3))) = 6.5248935

Friedmann parameters

( 3.71295774e-28 kg*(c)^2) = ((3.33703999e-11 pascal)*(1 m)^3))

Electron Compton parameters

(0.5 electron mass*c^2) = ((9.12227006e+20 pascal * pi)*(2.42632627e-12 m)^3))

(Planck length * 1.50122737e+23) / meter = 2.42632627e-12

(((8^0.5) * 6.5248935)^0.25) / Boltzmann constant = 1.50122737e+23 m^-2 kg^-1 s^2 K

(1 / (((1 / 299792458) * kg * (c^2)) / (((c^7) / (2pi*hbar * (G^2))) * (planck length^3))))^0.5 = 1.01905301786

http://vixra.org/pdf/1102.0032vB.pdf

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17W_L19_YvxkKXv1vNya0YekR0vb8K31XTq4_4-CssSM

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Hubble Expansion is Kinetic Energy Of Space Time Dropping as Entropy Rises

(0.5 * 2.1764702e-8 kg * (c^2)) / (((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) * (planck length^3)) = 0.50000000

1 / (((1 / 299792458) * kg * (c^2)) / (((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) * (planck length^3))) = 6.5248935

Friedmann parameters

( 3.71295774e-28 kg*(c)^2) = ((3.33703999e-11 pascal)*(1 m)^3))

Electron Compton parameters

(0.5 electron mass*c^2) = ((9.12227006e+20 pascal * pi)*(2.42632627e-12 m)^3))

(Planck length * 1.50122737e+23) / meter = 2.42632627e-12

(((8^0.5) * 6.5248935)^0.25) / Boltzmann constant = 1.50122737e+23 m^-2 kg^-1 s^2 K

(1 / (((1 / 299792458) * kg * (c^2)) / (((c^7) / (2pi*hbar * (G^2))) * (planck length^3))))^0.5 = 1.01905301786

http://vixra.org/pdf/1102.0032vB.pdf

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17W_L19_YvxkKXv1vNya0YekR0vb8K31XTq4_4-CssSM

Redshift Hubble 70407.2611 m / s/Mpc


1.70377849e+53 kg * (((70406.791856 * (m / s)) / (1 Mpc)) * (planck length / (2pi))) = 1 m kg / s

Hubble ((mass universe * (((70406.791856 * (m / s)) / (1 Mpc)) *planck length) = (2pi kg m/s)

c * ((((planck length * 0.5)^3) / (Planck Time * 0.5)) * 1.70377849e+53 (kg^(-1))) = 0.999999997 m^4 kg^-1 s^-2

Bulk Modulus Reverberations & Wave Speed @ c

(((((1.70377849e+53 kg) * G) / (c^2)) / (13.88805086 billion light years)) * 6.5248935) / (2pi) = 1

1.70377849e+53 kg * (((70406.791856 * (m / s)) / (1 Mpc)) * (planck length / (2pi))) = 1.00000000 m kg/s


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#Observed_values_of_the_Hubble_constant




((0.5 Planck Time) / ((0.5 Planck Length)^3)) / 299792458 = 1.70377849e+53 s / m^3 = mass universe

((70406.791856 * (m / s)) / 6.5248935) * (2pi) = 67798.6422


https://docs.google.com/document/d/158sSx9lANe1a4No0gD--OlqMczyEaf6h6upC-jSYZfI/

[Keith Stein]

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by Keith Stein
Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
Merely by assuming dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
I was led to c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
and on to Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)

The problem with (3) is that lambda = c/f, so if c = c(0)*exp(-k*t)
then lambda = c(0)*exp(-K*t)/f, which means that the wavelength is
becoming SMALLER not larger if f is constant.

You are wrong Gary, but it is nice to see that at least one person
on sci.physics relativity is thinking, and is not afraid of a few
equations. If you had read just a little further you would have
read:

" K = H = Hubble's Constant
and t = -t ( so times past become +ve) "

So i started with the normal convention of time running from
minus infinity to plus infinity, but had to switch signs to fall
into line to the convention that:
Red-Shift = H * t
where t is the time into the PAST at which the light was emitted.

Post by Gary Harnagel
So you'd have to assume that dc = +K*c*dt to explain the red shift.

No Gary. Assuming K is positive this would make c increasing, and
in order to explain the red shifts c must be decreasing eh!

Post by Gary Harnagel
But you have ANOTHER problem: Why in the world (or cosmos) would you
expect that f is constant if c is increasing? Why assume that the
rate of time is constant?

These are good questions Gary. One probably could come up with a theory
in which 'time' was not constant. If that was the case then not only
would the velocity of light be changing, but the frequency emitted by
any given atomic transition would also be changing.

What i show in the first posting in this thread, is that if the speed
of light is slowing down, by just 1 part in 14,000,000,000 per year,
then this would be sufficient to fully explain the Hubble red shifts.

So the answer to your good questions Gary is "Occam's Razor" eh!

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by Keith Stein
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.

That would give a BLUE shift, which is contrary to the experimental evidence.
Anyway, that's not a conclusion, that's your assumption.

Again you are wrong Gary, and you really should have read the whole
of the posting, because i did already explain this:

"when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the
wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows
before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave
catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train
compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.

When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there
is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave
train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the
same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as
it travels through intergalactic space.

So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is
INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light
is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that
it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light
was higher than it is now.

The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on distant
galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as that on
Earth today. The wavelength is proportional the the velocity of light AT
THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased wavelength is faithfully
transmitted through space, where it is measured in our observatories."

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by Keith Stein
2. There was no "Big Bang"

At 10^10 years, the speed of light would have been about 1 meter/second,
which means that the universe was 10^10 times smaller than we think it was.

If the speed of light is SLOWING DOWN, as i say, then clearly the speed
of light in the PAST was FASTER than it is now. Very roughly 10^10 years
ago the speed of light was about double what it is now, which is why the
wavelength of the light emitted at that time was about twice what it is
now eh!

keith stein

[Gary Harnagel]

Post by Keith Stein

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by Keith Stein
....
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.

That would give a BLUE shift, which is contrary to the experimental
evidence. Anyway, that's not a conclusion, that's your assumption.

Again you are wrong Gary, and you really should have read the whole
"when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the
wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows
before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave
catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train
compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.
When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there
is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave
train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the
same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as
it travels through intergalactic space.

Nope. YOU are the one claiming that light slows down. So it doesn't
matter whether there's a "denser medium" or not: if it slows down then
the waves get compressed as they travel.

Post by Keith Stein
So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is
INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light
is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that
it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light
was higher than it is now.

So why wouldn't it continue at that speed up to now? What would slow down
light that has already been emitted at, say, 2c? And if it DID slow down,
that would create a blue shift.

Post by Keith Stein
The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on distant
galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as that on
Earth today.

That's an assumption that science assumes and appears to be correct. We
don't receive it here as the same frequency, though.

Post by Keith Stein
The wavelength is proportional the the velocity of light AT
THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased wavelength is faithfully
transmitted through space, where it is measured in our observatories."

lambda = c/f. Ah, I see what you're saying. If this were true, there
would be no expansion. BUT, why would the ancient light slow down as
it travels, arriving here at our value of c?

Post by Keith Stein

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by Keith Stein
2. There was no "Big Bang"

At 10^10 years, the speed of light would have been about 1 meter/second,
which means that the universe was 10^10 times smaller than we think it was.

If the speed of light is SLOWING DOWN, as i say, then clearly the speed
of light in the PAST was FASTER than it is now. Very roughly 10^10 years
ago the speed of light was about double what it is now, which is why the
wavelength of the light emitted at that time was about twice what it is
now eh!
keith stein

There are many processes that depend on the speed of light, the fine
structure constant is an important example whose value is inversely
proportional to the speed of light. If light traveled faster in the
past, the electromagnetic force would be weaker then. The experimental
evidence implies that delta_alpha/alpha = (-5.7 +/1 1)x10^-6 over 10 to
12 billion years, which is MUCH smaller and in the opposite direction
from what you are saying:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Past_rate_of_change

And measurements on the present rate of change implies a change less
than 2x10^-17 per year. Sorry, old bean.

[Keith Stein]

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by Keith Stein
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.

That would give a BLUE shift,

No Gary. It would give a RED shift,and Until you can see that, there
is really no point in my wasting my time on you. Sorry old bean.

keith stein

[Gary Harnagel]

On 09/11/2018 14:29, Gary Harnagel wrote:\

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by Keith Stein
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.

That would give a BLUE shift,

No Gary. It would give a RED shift,and Until you can see that, there
is really no point in my wasting my time on you. Sorry old bean.
keith stein

That depends upon what you mean by "light slows down. If the emitted
light slows down as it travels, that would cause a BLUE shift. If,
OTOH, the emission speed of light slows down, that would indeed create
a red shift. But why in the universe would it do THAT? The ONLY reason
it would do that is if time is speeding up. But why in the universe would
it do THAT? No reason for either speculation.

And, old bean, you obviously read to the end of my previous post but
didn't dare to reply to the experimental data that destroys your entire
delusion:

There are many processes that depend on the speed of light, the fine
structure constant is an important example whose value is inversely
proportional to the speed of light. If light traveled faster in the
past, the electromagnetic force would be weaker then. The experimental
evidence implies that delta_alpha/alpha = (-5.7 +/1 1)x10^-6 over 10 to
12 billion years, which is MUCH smaller and in the opposite direction
from what you are saying:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Past_rate_of_change

And measurements on the present rate of change implies a change less
than 2x10^-17 per year. Sorry, old bean.

[Keith Stein]

Post by Gary Harnagel

On 09/11/2018 14:29, Gary Harnagel wrote:\

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by Keith Stein
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.

That would give a BLUE shift,

No Gary. It would give a RED shift,and Until you can see that, there
is really no point in my wasting my time on you. Sorry old bean.

That depends upon what you mean by "light slows down. If the emitted
light slows down as it travels, that would cause a BLUE shift. If,
OTOH, the emission speed of light slows down, that would indeed create
a red shift. But why in the universe would it do THAT? The ONLY reason
it would do that is if time is speeding up. But why in the universe would
it do THAT? No reason for either speculation.

What i am talking about,Gary, which is perfectly CLEAR from LINE 1 is:

1. The speed of light "in intergalactic-space" is slowing down.

And NO i do not believe that this is caused by "time speeding up" as
you so quaintly put it. The speed of light ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE is
depending on the medium it is traveling through. As the universe
evolves, as it clearly does, the INTERGALACTIC MEDIUM is obviously
evolving with it. It is solely this change in the intergalactic medium
which is responsible for the decreasing velocity of light. So the speed
of light in intergalactic space does indeed decrease as the light
travels from distant galaxies to us, BUT this does indeed result in a
RED shift, not a BLUE shift as you say, and until you see that Gary,
i'm still not going to waste my time on you eh!

keith stein

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Keith Stein
1. The speed of light "in intergalactic-space" is slowing down.

But it is not. Provably. Proved.

[m***@wp.pl]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Keith Stein
1. The speed of light "in intergalactic-space" is slowing down.

But it is not. Provably. Proved.

Even your idiot guru Popper could explain you you're
wrong.

[Gary Harnagel]

Post by Keith Stein

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by Keith Stein
No Gary. It would give a RED shift,and Until you can see that, there
is really no point in my wasting my time on you. Sorry old bean.

That depends upon what you mean by "light slows down. If the emitted
light slows down as it travels, that would cause a BLUE shift. If,
OTOH, the emission speed of light slows down, that would indeed create
a red shift. But why in the universe would it do THAT? The ONLY reason
it would do that is if time is speeding up. But why in the universe would
it do THAT? No reason for either speculation.

1. The speed of light "in intergalactic-space" is slowing down.

Which clarifies NOTHING and is ambiguous, as I demonstrated. If it slows
down AS IT TRAVELS "in intergalactic-space" then it would experience
a BLUE shift.

Post by Keith Stein
And NO i do not believe that this is caused by "time speeding up" as
you so quaintly put it. The speed of light ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE is
depending on the medium it is traveling through. As the universe
evolves, as it clearly does, the INTERGALACTIC MEDIUM is obviously
evolving with it. It is solely this change in the intergalactic medium
which is responsible for the decreasing velocity of light. So the speed
of light in intergalactic space does indeed decrease as the light
travels from distant galaxies to us, BUT this does indeed result in a
RED shift, not a BLUE shift as you say, and until you see that Gary,
i'm still not going to waste my time on you eh!
keith stein

And until you realize your bull plop is dead wrong I'll be correcting it.

[m***@wp.pl]

Post by Gary Harnagel
Which clarifies NOTHING and is ambiguous, as I demonstrated. If it slows
down AS IT TRAVELS "in intergalactic-space" then it would experience
a BLUE shift.

Can you point the experiments confirming that if the
light slows down then there is blue shift, poor halfbrain?

[Gary Harnagel]

Post by m***@wp.pl

Post by Gary Harnagel
Which clarifies NOTHING and is ambiguous, as I demonstrated. If it slows
down AS IT TRAVELS "in intergalactic-space" then it would experience
a BLUE shift.

Can you point the experiments confirming that if the
light slows down then there is blue shift, poor halfbrain?

Anyone with a brain wouldn't need to ask that question, idiotic no-brain.

[m***@wp.pl]

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by m***@wp.pl

Post by Gary Harnagel
Which clarifies NOTHING and is ambiguous, as I demonstrated. If it slows
down AS IT TRAVELS "in intergalactic-space" then it would experience
a BLUE shift.

Can you point the experiments confirming that if the
light slows down then there is blue shift, poor halfbrain?

Anyone with a brain wouldn't need to ask that question, idiotic no-brain.

I didn't need it. I just did it. So, can you or can't
you, poor idiot?
BTW. Do you have any blue shift when light
slows down in water, for instance?

[Gary Harnagel]

Post by m***@wp.pl

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by m***@wp.pl
Can you point the experiments confirming that if the
light slows down then there is blue shift, poor halfbrain?

Anyone with a brain wouldn't need to ask that question, idiotic no-brain.

I didn't need it. I just did it. So, can you or can't
you, poor idiot?

YOU are the idiot. You prove it with every post.

Post by m***@wp.pl
BTW. Do you have any blue shift when light slows down in water, for
instance?

What do you mean by "blue shift"? If you mean, does the wavelength get
shorter then of course there is. If you mean, does the frequency increase
then no, it doesn't. Fools like you who don't understand physics and
pretend you do are hypocrites wallowing in duplicity.

[Gaston Castaneda]

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by Gary Harnagel
Which clarifies NOTHING and is ambiguous, as I demonstrated. If it
slows down AS IT TRAVELS "in intergalactic-space" then it would
experience a BLUE shift.

Can you point the experiments confirming that if the light slows down
then there is blue shift, poor halfbrain?

Anyone with a brain wouldn't need to ask that question, idiotic no-brain.

That's a black shift, not blue shift. These relativists doesnt even know
the frequency of the black color, let alon the relativistic black shift.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

The ’nym-shifting troll demonstrated their ignorance as "Gaston Castaneda"

Post by Gaston Castaneda

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by Gary Harnagel
Which clarifies NOTHING and is ambiguous, as I demonstrated. If it
slows down AS IT TRAVELS "in intergalactic-space" then it would
experience a BLUE shift.

Can you point the experiments confirming that if the light slows down
then there is blue shift, poor halfbrain?

Anyone with a brain wouldn't need to ask that question, idiotic no-brain.

That's a black shift, not blue shift. These relativists doesnt even know
the frequency of the black color, let alon the relativistic black shift.

(Good grief, how ignorant-arrogant can one person be?)

The color “black” is the absence of visible light, so it is not an actual
color in the electromagnetic spectrum; it has no frequency, and there is no
"black shift".

It is where the light is absorbed and not re-emitted towards the observer,
where there are black absorption lines in the spectrum of a source.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift>

*PLONK*

[Gaston Castaneda]

The ’nym-shifting troll demonstrated their ignorance as "Thomas

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Gaston Castaneda

Post by Gary Harnagel

Post by Gary Harnagel
Which clarifies NOTHING and is ambiguous, as I demonstrated. If it
slows down AS IT TRAVELS "in intergalactic-space" then it would
experience a BLUE shift.

Can you point the experiments confirming that if the light slows down
then there is blue shift, poor halfbrain?

Anyone with a brain wouldn't need to ask that question, idiotic no-brain.

That's a black shift, not blue shift. These relativists doesnt even
know the frequency of the black color, let alon the relativistic black
shift.

(Good grief, how ignorant-arrogant can one person be?)
The color “black” is the absence of visible light, so it is not an
actual color in the electromagnetic spectrum;

Take a look at the color of your shoes, before pretending the absurd, that
the color black is not a color.

[Keith Stein]

On 29/10/2018 16:25, Keith Stein wrote:

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

Post by Keith Stein
Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)
    K ~= 10^-10 /year
    t = time in years
Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to
enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more
accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........
                       K = H = Hubble's Constant
and                    t = -t  ( so times past become +ve)
            Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)
then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
            e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)
            Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)
which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).
As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore
further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law
expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
in observatories all around the world eh!

wikepedia wrote:
"We currently appear to be approaching a period where the expansion is
exponential due to the increasing dominance of vacuum energy. In this
regime, the Hubble parameter is constant, and the universe grows by a
factor e each Hubble time:"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#Observed_values_of_the_Hubble_constant

Post by Keith Stein
    1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
    2. There was no "Big Bang"
    3. There was no "Inflation"
    4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
    5. There is no "Dark Energy"

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

The name is _Wikipedia_, and it does not write. *Authors* write. The
Wikipedia is a community project and has many authors. (I am one of them;
in particular, I have updated the table that you referred to in your
miscitation below with the data from the “Planck” 2015 release last year.¹)

Post by Keith Stein
"We currently appear to be approaching a period where the expansion is
exponential due to the increasing dominance of vacuum energy. In this
regime, the Hubble parameter is constant, and the universe grows by a
factor e each Hubble time:"

This is correct. Your conclusion that therefore the speed of light (in
vacuum) would be changing with time in the same way, however, not only is
*incorrect*, it is *fallacious*. /Non sequitur./

In fact, because the expansion speed grows exponentially while the speed of
light in vacuum, c₀, remains the same with time, we will never see the light
that galaxies at the edge of the observable universe (proper distance ca.
4.6 × 10¹⁰ ly) emit right now. As the expansion speed of the universe there
is already multiples of c₀, and the light will never reach areas of the
universe that expand at speeds slower than c₀.²

See again the oft-cited

[Davis & Lineweaver 2003]
Tamara M. Davis & Charles H. Lineweaver (2003): “Expanding Confusion:
common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal
expansion of the Universe”. <https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808>

Post by Keith Stein
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#Observed_values_of_the_Hubble_constant

That is a miscitation. The section that you are quoting from has the URL

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#Hubble_time>

instead. It continues, and ends, with

| Over long periods of time, the dynamics are complicated by general
| relativity, dark energy, inflation, etc., as explained above.

Post by Keith Stein

Post by Keith Stein
    1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
    2. There was no "Big Bang"
    3. There was no "Inflation"
    4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
    5. There is no "Dark Energy"

So *your own* source not only NOT corroborates, but it *contradicts* your
claims.

It is the unfortunate combination of your *arrogance*, your *ignorance* of
the subject matter, your obvious *inability* to read and write
*comprehensively* (evidence above added to your already long record) that
could fix that problem, and, following from this, your *misconceptions* of
the subject matter, that allows you to make your ridiculous claims about it
in the first place.

It is a hopeless endeavor for you to arrive at a *proper* understanding (of
physics and cosmology) without realizing, working on, and overcoming your
personal shortcomings *first*.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect>

And please *stop amok-crossposting*; crosspostings to both sci.physics and
sci.physics.relativity are *explicitly undesired/forbidden* by the newsgroup
charters, and *if* you crosspost you are supposed to set Followup-To the
newsgroup where the subsequent discussion would be, in your opinion, *most*
on topic.

_______
¹
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hubble%27s_law&type=revision&diff=761668754&oldid=757529977>
² It is possible for the light of closer galaxies to reach areas of
subluminal expansion speeds, which is why it is a misconception, and
incorrect, to say that we will never see the light of galaxies beyond
the current Hubble sphere because the universe expands too fast there:
the Hubble sphere is actually *growing*. See [Davis & Lineweaver 2003]
§ 3.3 for details.

[Keith Stein]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
The name is _Wikipedia_, and it does not write. *Authors* write. The
Wikipedia is a community project and has many authors. (I am one of them;
in particular, I have updated the table that you referred to in your
miscitation below with the data from the “Planck” 2015 release last year.¹)

Post by Keith Stein
"We currently appear to be approaching a period where the expansion is
exponential due to the increasing dominance of vacuum energy. In this
regime, the Hubble parameter is constant, and the universe grows by a
factor e each Hubble time:"

This is correct. Your conclusion that therefore the speed of light (in
vacuum) would be changing with time in the same way, however, not only is
*incorrect*, it is *fallacious*. /Non sequitur./

Thomas, Thomas, Thomas. Have i taught you NOTHING ?
Surely you must remember me telling you:

"THERE ISN'T ANY NOTHING, NOWHERE eh!"

So i have certainly NEVER EVER said that the speed of light (in vacuum)
is changing with time. This makes it sound like i think the properties
of light itself are changing with time, which is not at all what i
believe Thomas. It is much simpler than that eh!

The speed of light depends on the "MEDIUM" which it travels through.
The "intergalactic medium" is changing as the Universe evolves, and
it is simply this change in the intergalactic medium which causes
the speed of light IN THE INTERGALACTIC MEDIUM to decrease with time.

Please do not make that mistake again Thomas.

keith stein

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Keith Stein

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
The name is _Wikipedia_, and it does not write. *Authors* write. The
Wikipedia is a community project and has many authors. (I am one of them;
in particular, I have updated the table that you referred to in your
miscitation below with the data from the “Planck” 2015 release last year.¹)

Post by Keith Stein
"We currently appear to be approaching a period where the expansion is
exponential due to the increasing dominance of vacuum energy. In this
regime, the Hubble parameter is constant, and the universe grows by a
factor e each Hubble time:"

This is correct. Your conclusion that therefore the speed of light (in
vacuum) would be changing with time in the same way, however, not only is
*incorrect*, it is *fallacious*. /Non sequitur./

Thomas, Thomas, Thomas.

Oh the hubris.

Post by Keith Stein
Have i taught you NOTHING ?

Of course not, because you have nothing to teach (me; utter nonsense aside).

Post by Keith Stein
"THERE ISN'T ANY NOTHING, NOWHERE eh!"

I do not remember you telling me that, and that is probably good so because
(quantum vacuum aside) it is utterly wrong.

Post by Keith Stein
[condescension]

You are still confusing me with someone who could take someone like you
seriously. Someone who is has no clue and is obviously, evidently mentally
*very* ill.

[Keith Stein]

Post by Keith Stein
[condescension]
You are still confusing me with someone who could take someone like you
seriously. Someone who is has no clue and is obviously, evidently mentally
*very* ill.
-- PointedEars

If you are watching "Big Ben" through a telescope,
as you approach in your rocket at 0.9, then for every
hour on your clock you would see Big Ben advance
According to SR: sqrt((1+0.9)/(1-0.9)) hours = 4.36 hours
According to Classical Physics: (1+.9)/1 hours = 1.9 hours.

Ex falso quodlibet. In this case, something ridiculously wrong.
SR says exactly the opposite: In the rocket frame, Big Ben’s
clock would be observed to tick *slower* than the rocket clock
(not faster).

Thank you Thomas,
Please write to Professor Andersen, TO LET HIM KNOW that, not only
did he make a mistake with his Classical Physics, but he doesn't
understand Einstein's Special Relativity either. Alternatively

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Hubble Expansion & CMBR & Bekenstein Hawking Entropy

Hubble Expansion is Kinetic Energy Of Space Time Dropping as Entropy Rises

((((70406.791856 * (m / s)) / (1 Mpc)) / (160.39005 GHz)) / G) * (6.5248935 (kg^(-1)) (m / s)) * (c^2) * (8 s) = 1

1 / ((((((6.5248935 / (2pi)) * (m / s)) / (1 Mpc)) / (160.39005 GHz)) / G) * (6.5248935 (kg^(-1)) (m / s)) * (c^2) * (8 s)) = 67798.6422

70406.791856 / 67798.6422 = 6.5248935 / 2pi

[a***@interia.pl]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
In fact, because the expansion speed grows exponentially while the speed of
light in vacuum, c₀, remains the same with time, we will never see the light
that galaxies at the edge of the observable universe (proper distance ca.
4.6 × 10¹⁰ ly) emit right now. As the expansion speed of the universe there
is already multiples of c₀, and the light will never reach areas of the
universe that expand at speeds slower than c₀.²

Indeed. The limit of visibility is the universe is about 40Gly,
because there exists a standard limit for the data recognition:
1/20.

Thus in the case of the exponential distribution:

z =~ 20 is the limit

and this means a limit distance of visibility is equal to:

d = R_Hubble * ln(z + 1) = 13.8Gly ln(21) =~ 42 Gly.


But an absolute limit of visibility is a little bigger:
the background - CMB has just z = 1000, hence:

ln(1000) = 6.9
thus an ultimate limit of 'any' visibility
in this universe is about: 96Gly.