IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 15th December 2022, 08:23 AM   #401
Mike Helland
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Silly comment. Either the universe is expanding or it isn't. The supernova data say it is. Regardless of whether it is accelerated expansion or not, it shows it to be expanding. That is what you need to deal with, instead of making irrelevant comparisons that do not address the observations. They aren't going away just because they are inconvenient or you.
Either the universe is expanding or it isn't.

The SN1a data didn't match the expanding universe. So the expansion of the universe was changed to match it.

If you consider that a win, that's great. Have a cookie.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2022, 10:15 AM   #402
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,647
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The SN1a data didn't match the expanding universe. So the expansion of the universe was changed to match it.
Yes it did. It showed that it was not only expanding, but doing so in an accelerated fashion. And that accelerated expansion is also supported by other evidence, as noted. I think you need to learn what the word 'expansion' means. It means getting bigger. Not shrinking. Not being static.

If you think the supernova data shows anything other than expansion, then you are living in a fantasy world. We can be sure of one thing - none of the evidence supports a static universe. In fact, it is ruled out to such significance that nobody is even bothering with such models anymore. At least, not in the peer-reviewed literature. You might find some crackpots on youtube who believe such things, but they are also the type of people that believe the Earth is flat, or that it was created < 10 000 years ago, or that EM effects can move charge neutral stars around a galaxy. Et cetera.

When the opposition is only coming from such quarters, we can be sure that there really is no opposition worth considering. And no evidence to consider.
__________________
ďThere is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.Ē - Victor Hugo

ďNever argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.Ē - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2022, 10:38 AM   #403
Mike Helland
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Yes it did. It showed that it was not only expanding, but doing so in an accelerated fashion. And that accelerated expansion is also supported by other evidence, as noted. I think you need to learn what the word 'expansion' means. It means getting bigger. Not shrinking. Not being static.

If you think the supernova data shows anything other than expansion, then you are living in a fantasy world. We can be sure of one thing - none of the evidence supports a static universe. In fact, it is ruled out to such significance that nobody is even bothering with such models anymore. At least, not in the peer-reviewed literature. You might find some crackpots on youtube who believe such things, but they are also the type of people that believe the Earth is flat, or that it was created < 10 000 years ago, or that EM effects can move charge neutral stars around a galaxy. Et cetera.

When the opposition is only coming from such quarters, we can be sure that there really is no opposition worth considering. And no evidence to consider.
The SN data says that they are time dilated due to the expansion of space.

Now that we can see literally billions of high z galaxies, we should be able to find some SN in those, and they should last for months, or years, right?
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2022, 11:07 AM   #404
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,647
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The SN data says that they are time dilated due to the expansion of space.

Now that we can see literally billions of high z galaxies, we should be able to find some SN in those, and they should last for months, or years, right?
I don't know that JWST has supernovae observation as a priority. And it is not as if the supernovae data are the only evidence on which an accelerated universe is built.


https://www.inverse.com/science/the-...irst-supernova
__________________
ďThere is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.Ē - Victor Hugo

ďNever argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.Ē - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2022, 01:19 PM   #405
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 53,938
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Either the universe is expanding or it isn't.

The SN1a data didn't match the expanding universe.
Yes it did.

It didn't match the expansion rate calculated by other means. But it absolutely matched an expanding universe. You can't explain it without an expanding universe.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2022, 01:27 PM   #406
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 53,938
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I said it desyncs.
This is no different than saying, "magic".

And it won't work. You can't desync clocks that are stationary relative to each other in a static universe. You need to either move them, or you need to have the universe changing over time. There is no other possible way to desynchronize them.

And you won't do either. Your entire goal is to have them stationary and have the universe static.

Quote:
There's no reason, and no evidence, clocks 1 billion light years away are in sync with ours.

You think otherwise? Prove it.
Why would I try to prove otherwise? They aren't in sync. That's my entire point. But you're so clueless you didn't even notice, because you don't understand the implications of desynchronization. The fact that they aren't in sync requires relative motion or a changing universe (or both). But those are two things you are rejecting. You keep demanding contradictory things, and you don't even realize that they're contradictory because you don't understand any of it. Even after all this time, it still eludes you.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2022, 04:35 PM   #407
Mike Helland
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes it did.

It didn't match the expansion rate calculated by other means. But it absolutely matched an expanding universe. You can't explain it without an expanding universe.
They just added dark energy for the fun of it, because it matched so well?

Yeah, right.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2022, 04:36 PM   #408
Mike Helland
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The fact that they aren't in sync requires relative motion or a changing universe (or both). But those are two things you are rejecting.
Or a new principle altogether. EM interactions should be limited to Hubble's length at the quantum level.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2022, 05:09 PM   #409
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,845
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Do you have any examples of me making the claim you say I have?

I question dark energy, and inflation, though they could be true.

Dark matter has a whole other body of evidence.

I am sorry. I must have misread something at some point. You are right: I probably cannot find anywhere where you claim that dark matter does not exist.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2022, 05:39 PM   #410
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 53,938
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Or a new principle altogether. EM interactions should be limited to Hubble's length at the quantum level.
No. Not every law of physics is possible. What you are proposing is not possible. It breaks self- consistency. This isn't a matter of something we haven't discovered yet. It's that you are throwing basic logic out the window, and you don't even realize it.

You are simply wrong. How many times do I have to tell you?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th December 2022, 02:52 AM   #411
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,647
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
They just added dark energy for the fun of it, because it matched so well?

Yeah, right.
Nope, it was a placeholder, and it makes predictions. Such as the ISW effect, as observed. And the BAO observations, as observed. That is how science works.
__________________
ďThere is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.Ē - Victor Hugo

ďNever argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.Ē - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2022, 10:57 PM   #412
Mike Helland
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What you are proposing is not possible. It breaks self- consistency.
How does making the range over which electrons can exchange photons finite break self-consistency?
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th December 2022, 06:18 AM   #413
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 53,938
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
How does making the range over which electrons can exchange photons finite break self-consistency?
You haven't made that range finite. It remains infinite.

You really don't understand how to construct a theory. You're treating this stuff as if every piece is independent, and they aren't. They connect together, and those connections all have to work simultaneously.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Last edited by Ziggurat; 19th December 2022 at 06:19 AM.
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th December 2022, 07:09 AM   #414
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 14,447
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. Not every law of physics is possible. What you are proposing is not possible. It breaks self- consistency. This isn't a matter of something we haven't discovered yet. It's that you are throwing basic logic out the window, and you don't even realize it.

You are simply wrong. How many times do I have to tell you?
If I may chime in here, ...

Considering that 'Mike Helland' has consistently failed to understand much of any of that you, or any of the several other posters who have made good efforts to educate him, then I am sure that you tell him infinityinfinity number of times how wrong he is, and yet he would still continue to be wrong.
__________________
On 29JUL2022, 'Gaetan' said: "We all know here that the moderators are for the use of firearms and they don't mind if some people recieve a bullet in their head."

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th December 2022, 12:13 AM   #415
Mike Helland
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You haven't made that range finite. It remains infinite.
If a photon's distance is d = z/(1+z) c/H0, then d approaches c/H0 as z approaches infinity.

That's a finite distance.

Quote:
You really don't understand how to construct a theory. You're treating this stuff as if every piece is independent, and they aren't. They connect together, and those connections all have to work simultaneously.
In QED, can the distance at which two electrons exchange a photon be arbitrary? Can it be infinite? Do the photons ever redshift?

It seems to me, that's not consistent with the observational evidence.

So let's postulate the distance a photon travels in QED is d = z/(1+z) c/H0.

Is there something about QED specifically that requires the electromagnetic force to work over an infinite range?
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th December 2022, 07:38 AM   #416
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 53,938
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If a photon's distance is d = z/(1+z) c/H0, then d approaches c/H0 as z approaches infinity.

That's a finite distance.
Again, that doesn't work. You can't redshift without scattering (observations disprove) or clock desyncing. Your clocks don't desynch. So your theory is internally inconsistent, and therefore obviously wrong.

So no, you haven't made it finite distance.


Quote:
So let's postulate the distance a photon travels in QED is d = z/(1+z) c/H0.
Again, you can't just redshift out of nowhere. ANY possible mechanism of redshift must do one of those two things. This is a logical requirement, there isn't any way around it.

Quote:
Is there something about QED specifically that requires the electromagnetic force to work over an infinite range?
Possibly not. But you can't make it finite range without other consequences, and you haven't dealt with any of those other consequences. Your theory, as it currently stands, is simply wrong. That's not in doubt. There is no possibility that it could be right.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th December 2022, 06:38 PM   #417
Mike Helland
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Your clocks don't desynch. So your theory is internally inconsistent, and therefore obviously wrong.
Where does it say that's necessary within the framework of quantum electrodynamics?

How many clocks do you think are in QED?

What we're talking about here is an unexpected feature of a photon in between two cosmologically separated electrons.

It loses energy. That's an observed fact.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th December 2022, 10:29 PM   #418
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 53,938
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Where does it say that's necessary within the framework of quantum electrodynamics?
Nowhere. Because nobody except you needs it spelled out. Everyone else can put two and two together. Your idea isnít actually new. Itís decades old, itís called tired light, and it fails.

You are way, way out of your depth here.

Quote:
What we're talking about here is an unexpected feature of a photon in between two cosmologically separated electrons.
Doesnít matter. The logical requirement of self-consistency prohibits the addition of just any old ďfeatureĒ, including your proposed one.

Quote:
It loses energy. That's an observed fact.
Absolutely. Nobody is claiming otherwise.

But only certain explanations can account for that observation. Yours isnít among them.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th December 2022, 11:29 PM   #419
Mike Helland
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Nowhere. Because nobody except you needs it spelled out. Everyone else can put two and two together. Your idea isnít actually new. Itís decades old, itís called tired light, and it fails.

Two and two together?

QM and FLRW?

Everyone can do that?

How many clocks are in QED?
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2023, 08:57 AM   #420
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 53,938
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Everyone can do that?
Everyone who needs to.

Quote:
How many clocks are in QED?
Potentially an infinite number. Why do you think this question is even relevant?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2023, 03:14 PM   #421
Mike Helland
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Potentially an infinite number. Why do you think this question is even relevant?

https://www.quantamagazine.org/quant...blem-20161201/

Quote:
Theoretical physicists striving to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity into an all-encompassing theory of quantum gravity face whatís called the ďproblem of time.Ē

In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einsteinís theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension thatís inextricably interwoven with directions x, y and z into a four-dimensional ďspace-timeĒ fabric. The fabric warps under the weight of matter, causing nearby stuff to fall toward it (this is gravity), and slowing the passage of time relative to clocks far away. Or hop in a rocket and use fuel rather than gravity to accelerate through space, and time dilates; you age less than someone who stayed at home.

Unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity requires reconciling their absolute and relative notions of time
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2023, 08:48 PM   #422
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 53,938
That has **** all to do with red shifts or your explanation for them. It's also purely speculative, and likely not even an accurate representation of those speculations.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2023, 09:01 PM   #423
Mike Helland
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That has **** all to do with red shifts or your explanation for them. It's also purely speculative, and likely not even an accurate representation of those speculations.

There's just one universal clock in QED.

By your logic, QED cannot explain redshifts because the idea of clocks desyncing is nonsense in that framework.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2023, 08:24 AM   #424
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 53,938
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
There's just one universal clock in QED.
First off, you confuse time with clocks. Subtle but important difference. Second, you are wrong about time as well. QED is necessarily relativistic. Relativity was born from electrodynamics, so any theory of electromagnetism should be relativistic. And QED is explicitly relativistic. Itís not compatible with general relativity (but problems only crop up at the Planck scale), but it was built from the ground up to include special relativity, where time is relative.

You keep revealing that you have no clue about any of the stuff you talk about.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2023, 10:46 AM   #425
Mike Helland
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
QED is necessarily relativistic. Relativity was born from electrodynamics, so any theory of electromagnetism should be relativistic.
Yet it took until 1947 for a relativistic theory to come about.

Quote:
And QED is explicitly relativistic.
Sure.

But how does that explicitly work?

Photons traveling at c don't have "clocks" or at least they are frozen.

How do the virtual photons traveling above c experience time? Is it going backwards?

Are the electrons and the like all considered to be observers with their own clocks?

Because I've never seen another observer in a Feynman diagram.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2023, 03:37 PM   #426
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 53,938
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Yet it took until 1947 for a relativistic theory to come about.
How is that relevant?

And I'm not going to try to teach you QED. There's no point. It would take you literally years of study to get ready to start learning QED, assuming you even could make it that far.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2023, 04:40 PM   #427
Mike Helland
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
How is that relevant?

And I'm not going to try to teach you QED. There's no point. It would take you literally years of study to get ready to start learning QED, assuming you even could make it that far.
Ok.

Let's make it simpler, let's take a z=1 galaxy.

There are three ways to talk about its distance:

Quote:
Then, by using independently measured numbers like the Hubble parameter, they can infer (1) how far away the galaxy was when it emitted the light we see now, (2) how far it now lies from Earth, and (3) how far the light traveled in the interim.
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronom...ion-years-ago/

Which one do we use in Coulomb's law? (1), (2), or (3)?
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2023, 06:43 PM   #428
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 53,938
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Ok.

Let's make it simpler, let's take a z=1 galaxy.

There are three ways to talk about its distance:



https://skyandtelescope.org/astronom...ion-years-ago/

Which one do we use in Coulomb's law? (1), (2), or (3)?
2. Gauss' law.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2023, 07:04 PM   #429
Mike Helland
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
2. Gauss' law.
So (2) is where the galaxy is now, comoving distance. For a z=11 galaxy that's 30 billion light years.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?...rameter+%3D+74

Are you sure 30 billion ly is the right number to plug in?

Since Coulomb's law is like dividing by a spherical surface area, you think the radius of the sphere is 30 billion light years?

The lookback time for this galaxy is 12.7 billion years, so (3) is 12.7 billion years * c, or 12.7 Gly.

And then there's (1), which I suppose you calculate using (3) and (2) to determine the scale factor?

Quote:
However, because of the expansion of the universe, the distance of 2.66 billion light-years between GN-z11 and the Milky Way at the time when the light was emitted increased by a factor of (z+1)=12.1 to a distance of 32.2 billion light-years during the 13.4 billion years it has taken the light to reach us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GN-z11

So:

(1) = 2.66 Gly
(2) = 32.2 Gly
(3) = 13.4 Gly

Using (1) would be using a sphere with a radius of the galaxies' distance when the light was emitted.

Using (2) would be a sphere with a radius of the galaxies' distance now.

And (3) would be a sphere with a radius in between.

Code:
        S*-         O
       S *---        O
      S  *-----       O
     S   *-------      O
    S    *----------    O
   S     *---------------O
(1) the distance between S (source) and O (observer) at the beginning.

(2) is the distance between S and O at the end.

(3) is, in my mind, the distance the light actually traveled. If it had a fit bit on, counting its steps, not concerned with where O started or S ended up.

Last edited by Mike Helland; 2nd January 2023 at 07:07 PM.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2023, 10:20 PM   #430
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 53,938
Light does not follow Coulomb's law, which is for static fields.

As I keep having to tell you, you really don't understand what you're talking about.

ETA to elaborate: the field strength of light falls off as 1/r. The energy density falls off as the square of field strength. That isn't Coulomb's law.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Last edited by Ziggurat; 2nd January 2023 at 10:24 PM.
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2023, 11:43 PM   #431
Mike Helland
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Light does not follow Coulomb's law, which is for static fields.

As I keep having to tell you, you really don't understand what you're talking about.

ETA to elaborate: the field strength of light falls off as 1/r. The energy density falls off as the square of field strength. That isn't Coulomb's law.
Coulomb's law is about the force between electric charges.

So if two electrons have a repulsive force, then that would be somewhat related to the exchange of a photon for electrons to repel in QED, if not very related.

You could just do:

Code:
F = (K q1 q2 / r2) * 1 / (1 + z)
Or you could make K a function of redshift, rather than a constant.

In the standard redshift distance relation,

Code:
d = cz / H0

cz = dH0

z = dH0 / c
In my inverted version of the redshift distance relation:

Code:
d = -(1 / (1 + z) - 1) * c/H0

dH0 / c = -(1 / (1 + z) - 1)

dH0 / c = -1 / (1 + z) + 1

-1 + dH0 / c = -1 / (1 + z)

1 - dH0 / c = 1 / (1 + z)

c / c - dH0 / c = 1 / (1 + z)

(c - dH0) / c = 1 / (1 + z)

c / (c - dH0) = 1 + z

z = c / (c - dH0) - 1

z = c / (c - dH0) - (c - dH0) / (c - dH0)

z = c - (c - dH0) / (c - dH0)

z = (c - c + dH0) / (c - dH0)

z = dH0 / (c - dH0)
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2023, 06:13 AM   #432
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 53,938
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Coulomb's law is about the force between electric charges.
No. Itís about static electric fields. It doesnít apply to non static electromagnetic fields. It does not describe the force between charges if that force isnít from a static field, as it is for photons.

Quote:
So if two electrons have a repulsive force, then that would be somewhat related to the exchange of a photon for electrons to repel in QED, if not very related.
In the sense that you can construct a static field from photons via Fourier transform, sure. But one photon still doesnít obey Coulombís law, and the QED picture isnít really about a single photon either. As I already pointed out, spherical photon fields fall off as 1/r, not 1/r2.

Quote:
You could just do:

Code:
F = (K q1 q2 / r2) * 1 / (1 + z)
Or you could make K a function of redshift, rather than a constant.
You could, but that would be unjustified. You pulled that out of your ass with zero justification.

You donít understand any of what youíre talking about.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2023, 05:29 PM   #433
Mike Helland
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. Itís about static electric fields. It doesnít apply to non static electromagnetic fields. It does not describe the force between charges if that force isnít from a static field, as it is for photons.
Um, ok.

But wouldn't you calculate the forces on charges based on the field which is based on their positions in the field, then update their positions for some time step which makes a new field to be applied for the next time step?


Quote:
You could, but that would be unjustified. You pulled that out of your ass with zero justification.
It's motivated by the empirical observation that the energy delivered by a photon decreases as its distance traveled reaches cosmological scales.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2023, 06:51 PM   #434
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 53,938
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Um, ok.

But wouldn't you calculate the forces on charges based on the field which is based on their positions in the field, then update their positions for some time step which makes a new field to be applied for the next time step?
You are describing a numerical integration technique to approximate a solution to the differential equations, but sure. But the field you use isnít the Coulomb field unless youíre talking about a static electric field. A dynamic electromagnetic field does NOT obey Coulombís law. In the example of, say, a dipole radiation field, it falls off as 1/r, NOT 1/r2. So why would you expect it to behave like a Coulomb field? Why would you expect what happens to a Coulomb field to tell you what happens to a field that doesnít behave like a Coulomb field?

Quote:
It's motivated by the empirical observation that the energy delivered by a photon decreases as its distance traveled reaches cosmological scales.
Thatís not good enough.

You are out of your depth, Mike. You donít even know enough to know what it is that you donít know.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2023, 08:56 PM   #435
Mike Helland
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You are out of your depth, Mike. You donít even know enough to know what it is that you donít know.
I know quantifying redshift and the redshift/distance relationship as :

Code:
1 + z = Eemit / Eobs

d = zc / H0
is only approximately accurate when z << 1. Both z and d go up to infinity.

On the other hand, the negative-blueshift/distance relationship:

Code:
1 + b = Eobs / Eemit

d = -bc / H0
b can only go down to -1, and d can only go up to c/H0.

And since:

Code:
1 + b = 1 / (1 + z)

b = 1 / (1 + z) - 1

b = -z / (1 + z)
-b = z / (1 + z)

d = -bc / H0

d = z / (1 + z) * c / H0
Which is a much better approximation of the consensus model at all z's.

If you divide both sides by c, you get a formula for light travel time:

Code:
t = z / (1 + z) * 1 / H0
Which is the same equation for lookback time in an "empty" FLRW universe (page 3, equation 5):

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9306002

How do you interpret that? Pure coincidence?
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2023, 09:32 PM   #436
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,047
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I know quantifying redshift and the redshift/distance relationship as :

Code:
1 + z = Eemit / Eobs

d = zc / H0
is only approximately accurate when z << 1. Both z and d go up to infinity.

On the other hand, the negative-blueshift/distance relationship:

Code:
1 + b = Eobs / Eemit

d = -bc / H0
b can only go down to -1, and d can only go up to c/H0.
Nonsense.

As b converges toward -1, z increases without bound. (Colloquially, z converges toward infinity.) And vice versa: As z increases without bound, b converges toward -1.

According to what I highlighted in light blue: As z increases without bound (and b converges toward -1), d also increases without bound.

Bu according to what I highlighted in light green: As z increases without bound (and b converges toward -1), d is bounded by c/H0.

In short: You are contradicting yourself.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If you divide both sides by c, you get a formula for light travel time:

Code:
t = z / (1 + z) * 1 / H0
Which is the same equation for lookback time in an "empty" FLRW universe (page 3, equation 5):

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9306002

How do you interpret that? Pure coincidence?
In the context of this thread, I interpret that as yet another failure of Mike Helland's reading comprehension. Many posts within this thread have advised Mike Helland that his "empty" FLRW universe (with Ω = ΩM = ΩR = ΩΛ = 0) implies a degree of negative curvature that is hundreds of times greater than would be consistent with observation.

Indeed, the preprint cited by Mike Helland explicitly notes that equation (5) holds only for an empty universe with negative curvature (ETA: and zero cosmological constant). What's more, the fact that Ω < 1 implies negative curvature is noted at the very top of the page 3 that contains equation (5) at its bottom:
Originally Posted by Kevin Krisciunas
If the vacuum energy density of the universe is zero (i.e. if Einstein’s cos-
mological constant Λ = 0), Ω < 1 implies a universe with negative curvature
which will expand forever;

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 4th January 2023 at 09:33 PM. Reason: added text in gray
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2023, 10:22 PM   #437
Mike Helland
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Nonsense.

As b converges toward -1, z increases without bound. (Colloquially, z converges toward infinity.) And vice versa: As z increases without bound, b converges toward -1.

According to what I highlighted in light blue: As z increases without bound (and b converges toward -1), d also increases without bound.

Bu according to what I highlighted in light green: As z increases without bound (and b converges toward -1), d is bounded by c/H0.

In short: You are contradicting yourself.
You almost got it.

Code:
d = zc / H0
And:

Code:
d = -bc / H0
Are different equations.

In the first one, z and d increase without bound.

In the second one, b converges toward -1, and d converges toward c/H0.

Since -b ≠ z, the equations are not interchangeable, and they have different consequences for d.

Quote:
In the context of this thread, I interpret that as yet another failure of Mike Helland's reading comprehension. Many posts within this thread have advised Mike Helland that his "empty" FLRW universe (with Ω = ΩM = ΩR = ΩΛ = 0) implies a degree of negative curvature that is hundreds of times greater than would be consistent with observation.
The observations you speak of are extrapolated from measurements of the CMB. They only apply if the assumptions we've made about the CMB are true, and there are a few reasons to doubt that they are.

Quote:
Indeed, the preprint cited by Mike Helland explicitly notes that equation (5) holds only for an empty universe with negative curvature (ETA: and zero cosmological constant). What's more, the fact that Ω < 1 implies negative curvature is noted at the very top of the page 3 that contains equation (5) at its bottom:
You keep mentioning that like it is news. I brought it to your attention.

In FLRW, if you don't add any matter or energy, you get maximal negative curvature, "pure expansion" if you will.

When you add matter, the gravity from our galaxy is going to pull every other galaxy in the universe toward us. Even if they're 10 billion light years away.

But that makes for too young of a universe and doesn't fit the supernovae data. So repulsive dark energy is added.

How much? Enough to counteract the gravitational attraction due to matter, making it approximately what the empty, pure expansion universe was to begin with.


Last edited by Mike Helland; 4th January 2023 at 10:26 PM.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2023, 11:34 PM   #438
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,047
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Nonsense.

As b converges toward -1, z increases without bound. (Colloquially, z converges toward infinity.) And vice versa: As z increases without bound, b converges toward -1.

According to what I highlighted in light blue: As z increases without bound (and b converges toward -1), d also increases without bound.

Bu according to what I highlighted in light green: As z increases without bound (and b converges toward -1), d is bounded by c/H0.

In short: You are contradicting yourself.
You almost got it.

Code:
d = zc / H0
And:

Code:
d = -bc / H0
Are different equations.

In the first one, z and d increase without bound.

In the second one, b converges toward -1, and d converges toward c/H0.

Since -b ≠ z, the equations are not interchangeable, and they have different consequences for d.
Repeating your nonsense does not convert your nonsense into sense.

According to your own equations that state the definitions of z and b, those two quantities are related by
z = (1 / (1 + b)) - 1 = − b/(b+1)
and
b = (1 / (1 + z)) - 1 = − z/(z+1)
(Deriving those two equations from your defining equations involves a smidgen of high school algebra, so your failure to recognize those relationships is no surprise to anyone who's been following this thread.)
Plugging the first of those relationships into your first equation for d yields
d = z c / H0 = [− b/(b+1)] c / H0
which tells us d increases without bound as b converges to -1, contrary to your claim I highlighted in green.
(To recognize that fact involves concepts that are taught within the first week of a calculus course, so your failure to recognize that fact is no surprise to anyone who's been following this thread.)
Plugging the second of those relationships into your second equation for d yields
d = − b c / H0 = − [− z/(z+1)] c / H0 = [z/(z+1)] c / H0
which tells us d is bounded by c / H0 as z increases without bound, contrary to your claim I highlighted in blue.

You are contradicting yourself, and you don't realize you are contradicting yourself even after your self-contradiction has been explained to you.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Quote:
In the context of this thread, I interpret that as yet another failure of Mike Helland's reading comprehension. Many posts within this thread have advised Mike Helland that his "empty" FLRW universe (with Ω = ΩM = ΩR = ΩΛ = 0) implies a degree of negative curvature that is hundreds of times greater than would be consistent with observation.
The observations you speak of are extrapolated from measurements of the CMB.
Almost true, but you wrote "extrapolated" when the correct word would be "obtained" or "derived". That's why I wrote "a degree of negative curvature that is hundreds of times greater than would be consistent with observation." Are you unaware that measurements of the CMB count as observations? Are you unaware that conclusions obtained by applying well-established principles of mainstream physics to such measurements also count as observations?

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
They only apply if the assumptions we've made about the CMB are true, and there are a few reasons to doubt that they are.
What you are saying is that Helland physics requires us to reject observations obtained by applying well-established principles of mainstream physics to measurements of the CMB.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Quote:
Indeed, the preprint cited by Mike Helland explicitly notes that equation (5) holds only for an empty universe with negative curvature (ETA: and zero cosmological constant). What's more, the fact that Ω < 1 implies negative curvature is noted at the very top of the page 3 that contains equation (5) at its bottom:
You keep mentioning that like it is news. I brought it to your attention.
Actually, it was I who pointed out to you that your notion of an empty universe implies a large degree of negative curvature, hundreds of times larger than would be consistent with observation. At the time, you seemed to express surprise and/or disbelief.

The archives of this thread preserve that history. Need I dig up the relevant posts?
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th January 2023, 11:54 PM   #439
Mike Helland
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
You are contradicting yourself, and you don't realize you are contradicting yourself even after your self-contradiction has been explained to you.
I posted two different equations and showed how they were different.

The equations contradict. That's what I intended on showing.

Quote:
What you are saying is that Helland physics requires us to reject observations obtained by applying well-established principles of mainstream physics to measurements of the CMB.
That's a bit melodramatic. I could say mainstream physics requires us to reject observations like the axis of evil or other CMB anomalies, but that too is of course hyperbole.

Probably best to keep an open mind about what happened 13 billion years ago. Maybe the CMB is what we think it is. Maybe it isn't.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th January 2023, 05:42 AM   #440
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,047
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Which is the same equation for lookback time in an "empty" FLRW universe (page 3, equation 5):

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9306002

How do you interpret that? Pure coincidence?
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
In the context of this thread, I interpret that as yet another failure of Mike Helland's reading comprehension. Many posts within this thread have advised Mike Helland that his "empty" FLRW universe (with Ω = ΩM = ΩR = ΩΛ = 0) implies a degree of negative curvature that is hundreds of times greater than would be consistent with observation.
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The observations you speak of are extrapolated from measurements of the CMB. They only apply if the assumptions we've made about the CMB are true, and there are a few reasons to doubt that they are.
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
What you are saying is that Helland physics requires us to reject observations obtained by applying well-established principles of mainstream physics to measurements of the CMB.
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
That's a bit melodramatic. I could say mainstream physics requires us to reject observations like the axis of evil or other CMB anomalies, but that too is of course hyperbole.

Probably best to keep an open mind about what happened 13 billion years ago. Maybe the CMB is what we think it is. Maybe it isn't.

It sounds as though Helland physics requires you to reject these parts of mainstream science:
  • general relativity (which predicted the cosmic microwave background (CMB))
  • measurements of the CMB obtained by COBE, WMAP, and Planck
  • the mainstream physics that tells us how those measurements of the CMB place tight bounds on the curvature of the universe
As an alternative to rejecting general relativity altogether, Helland physics might require only that you accept that the universe has hundreds of times as much negative curvature as would be consistent with measurements of the CMB as interpreted using mainstream physics.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:57 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.