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 27th January 2021, 12:33 PM   #1921
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Maxwellís equations do not preclude redshift, but I donít think the term systemic redshift means what you think it means.
What else could it mean?

The redshift-distance relation.
Mike Helland 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 27th January 2021, 12:46 PM   #1922
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,356
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
What else could it mean?

The redshift-distance relation.
It has a very specific meaning in astrophysics, in the study of galaxies, particularly with regard to star formation and gas outflows, by the redshift of emission and absorption lines such as Lyman alpha and O III. The spectra of these galaxies are very complex and the first problem is to find the frame in which the system (the galaxy as a whole) is at rest so that the other velocities such as interstellar gas velocities, outflows from star formation, star evolution and central black holes, along with the velocity range of actual stars themselves can be distinguished. The redshift of the system as a whole is referred to as the systemic redshift, and in astrophysics it has this and no other meaning.
hecd2 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 January 2021, 12:53 PM   #1923
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
It has a very specific meaning in astrophysics, in the study of galaxies, particularly with regard to star formation and gas outflows, by the redshift of emission and absorption lines such as Lyman alpha and O III. The spectra of these galaxies are very complex and the first problem is to find the frame in which the system (the galaxy as a whole) is at rest so that the other velocities such as interstellar gas velocities, outflows from star formation, star evolution and central black holes, along with the velocity range of actual stars themselves can be distinguished. The redshift of the system as a whole is referred to as the systemic redshift, and in astrophysics it has this and no other meaning.
Thanks!
Mike Helland 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 27th January 2021, 01:18 PM   #1924
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Got peer review back from a journal. Thought you might like it.
This is reviewers applying textbook physics and seeing that your idea is too wrong be of interest to their readers, Mike Helland.

An obvious debunking of your idea is that Hubble's law is not the only evidence for an expanding universe. There is an overwhelming body of evidence that the universe is expanding.

They mention special relativity which works and has the postulate that the speed of light in vacuum is constant for inertial observers. This is tested including from astronomical sources.
Experiments Using Cosmological Sources
Quote:
...
Observations of Supernovae
A supernova explosion sends debris out in all directions with speeds of 10,000 km/s or more (known from Doppler broadening of spectral lines). If the speed of light depended on the source velocity, its arrival at Earth would be spread out in time due to the spread of source velocities. Such a time spread is not observed, and observations of distant supernovae give k < 5�10−9. These observations could be subject to criticism due to Optical Extinction, but some observations are for supernovas considerably closer than the extinction length of the X-ray wavelengths used.
The light from these supernova arrived here with a speed of c+kv where v is the speed of the source (the expanding debris) and k < 10-9.

You know the speed of light is in E=mc^2. Change c too much and stars cannot exist .
The speed of light also appears in the fine-structure constant which mayhave increased slightly by a factor of 10-6 according to one analysis of quasar data between 0.5 < z < 3. Your idea demands a vast change in the fine structure constant.

Your idea demands that there be redshift from all astronomical sources. Spectroscopy is very accurate. You need to show that this redshift cannot be detected from stars and gas in the Milky Way.
Reality Check 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 27th January 2021, 01:38 PM   #1925
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
It doesn't get much more fundamental than violating the first law of motion.

Aside from that, what is the most fundamental error in your opinion?

Just one. The most fundamental error. If you had to pick one more fundamental than the others.

Is it the aberration? Snell's law? (Or is that the same criticism?)
Those are two different ones. One of the really big ones that I've mentioned before but I don't think you understand is that coherent (ie, not scattered) red shift isn't possible without clock desynchronization, ie, you will see the source's clock run at a slower speed than your own. Coherent red shift is not logically even possible without clock desynchronization. But clock desynchronization is fundamentally incompatible with your steady state universe for two distant observers who are stationary relative to each other.
__________________
"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 27th January 2021, 01:49 PM   #1926
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Those are two different ones. One of the really big ones that I've mentioned before but I don't think you understand is that coherent (ie, not scattered) red shift isn't possible without clock desynchronization, ie, you will see the source's clock run at a slower speed than your own. Coherent red shift is not logically even possible without clock desynchronization. But clock desynchronization is fundamentally incompatible with your steady state universe for two distant observers who are stationary relative to each other.
So, you're saying that redshift requires clock desynchronization, and my hypothesis prohibits clock desynchronization?

Is that because of the Newtonian computer program?

I think v=c-HD would have to be worked into whatever framework you're working in, if you're considering a domain where redshifts exist.

So the computer program I used is Newtonian, and it comes with the limitations of Newtonian physics.

In relativity, v=c-HD would have to be seen as the photon diverging from the null geodesic. Among the many very stupid things I've said, I've claimed that in spacetime, this could be seen as time dilation localized to each photon's individual geodesic. This thing:



Does this image represent some kind of clock desynchronization? (*editted for clarity)

If the photon starts out light-like then goes time-like, I think that resolves this issue? (fingers crossed)

Last edited by Mike Helland; 27th January 2021 at 01:55 PM.
Mike Helland 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 27th January 2021, 02:34 PM   #1927
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
So, you're saying that redshift requires clock desynchronization, and my hypothesis prohibits clock desynchronization?
Yes.

Quote:
Is that because of the Newtonian computer program?
No, it's got nothing to do with your program. It has to do with the fact that your universe is static. Two observers equal distance apart who stay that far apart should, according to your own theory, see each other's clocks run at the same speed. The time it takes a light signal to get from one to the other is constant. Doesn't even matter what it is, it doesn't change. Therefore, they will see each other's clocks running at the same rate. And that requires that light not change frequency, because light frequency is a form of clock for the source.

Quote:
I think v=c-HD would have to be worked into whatever framework you're working in, if you're considering a domain where redshifts exist.
I'm not talking about velocity here. Even if the velocity changes, the frequency cannot change, so long as the clocks remain synchronized. Which yours will, because there's no logical way for them to become desynchronized.

Quote:
So the computer program I used is Newtonian, and it comes with the limitations of Newtonian physics.
Not relevant.

Quote:
Does this image represent some kind of clock desynchronization? (*editted for clarity)
No.

Quote:
If the photon starts out light-like then goes time-like, I think that resolves this issue? (fingers crossed)
Nope. Not even close.
__________________
"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 27th January 2021, 02:38 PM   #1928
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes.
No, it's got nothing to do with your program. It has to do with the fact that your universe is static. Two observers equal distance apart who stay that far apart should, according to your own theory, see each other's clocks run at the same speed. The time it takes a light signal to get from one to the other is constant. Doesn't even matter what it is, it doesn't change. Therefore, they will see each other's clocks running at the same rate. And that requires that light not change frequency, because light frequency is a form of clock for the source.
I see.

A good theory requires that light not change frequency.


Quote:
I'm not talking about velocity here. Even if the velocity changes, the frequency cannot change, so long as the clocks remain synchronized. Which yours will, because there's no logical way for them to become desynchronized.
The logic is this:

A decrease in frequency is an observed fact.

---
edit

E=hf
v_wave=freq*wave

Drop in energy is an observed fact. That requires a drop in frequency.

Plug in a lower frequency, you get a lower wave speed.

It might not be a sound argument (given one's inclination to agree with the premises), but it is a logical one.

----

I guess what I'm saying is the change in frequency is the premise I'm starting from.

Last edited by Mike Helland; 27th January 2021 at 02:56 PM.
Mike Helland 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 27th January 2021, 04:15 PM   #1929
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I see.

A good theory requires that light not change frequency.
If you want your spacetime structure to be static, yes.

The big bang does not have a static spacetime structure. The structure changes over time. This restriction does not apply in that case. If you want to posit a changing spacetime structure, then you can allow for corresponding frequency changes, but that's likely to just bring you back to the big bang, and that's what you're trying to avoid.

Quote:
I guess what I'm saying is the change in frequency is the premise I'm starting from.
You can start from that premise if you want, you just can't go where you want to go (static spacetime structure) with it. That's a logical impossibility.
__________________
"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 27th January 2021, 04:40 PM   #1930
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If you want to posit a changing spacetime structure, then you can allow for corresponding frequency changes, but that's likely to just bring you back to the big bang, and that's what you're trying to avoid.
I am positing a changing spacetime structure, based on Hubble's constant.

But instead of the whole universe expanding, the photon's path veers off the null geodesic.
Mike Helland 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 27th January 2021, 04:54 PM   #1931
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,356
So, how are you going to resolve the fact that your idea is falsified by electromagnetic theory (amongst others).
hecd2 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 January 2021, 05:02 PM   #1932
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
So, how are you going to resolve the fact that your idea is falsified by electromagnetic theory (amongst others).
Theories are falsifed by observations.

Electromagnetic theory predicts a light wave will travel forever and never lose energy.

It was falsified by observations of redshift.

It however only needed interpreting the redshifts as the expansion of space to rectify the problem.

My hypothesis is just a different interpretation of redshift. One that applies to the history of an individual wave, rather than the history of the universe.

Last edited by Mike Helland; 27th January 2021 at 05:03 PM. Reason: grammar
Mike Helland 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 27th January 2021, 05:50 PM   #1933
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,356
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Theories are falsifed by observations.
Yes, yours is falsified. But you are planning to claim that electromagnetism is falsified? This should be good. Dunning-Kruger in full flow.
Quote:
Electromagnetic theory predicts a light wave will travel forever and never lose energy.

It was falsified by observations of redshift.
Wrong. Observations of redshift do not falsify any part of electromagnetic theory. If you think so, it is because you don't understand the theory. Electromagnetism, the Maxwell equations, have been tested and shown to be correct for more than a century. If you think differently tell us which of the Maxwell equations has been falsified and what it has been replaced by.

Quote:
It however only needed interpreting the redshifts as the expansion of space to rectify the problem.

My hypothesis is just a different interpretation of redshift. One that applies to the history of an individual wave, rather than the history of the universe.
Your hypothesis cannot possibly be correct for many, many reasons, amongst which is the fact that a constant speed of light falls directly out of the Maxwell equations. That means that light propagates at a single constant speed.

That is a fact. if you want to claim otherwise, you'll need to modify the Maxwell equations so that the electromagnetic wave equation yields a speed which depends on the distance of the source, so that at any point in space, say in your bedroom, light from different sources propagates at different speeds. Your modification of the Maxwell equations will, of course, have to be supported by experiment. I don't see how you can possibly do that, since it is inherent in the wave equation that all waves in the electromagnetic field propagate at the same speed.
hecd2 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 January 2021, 06:20 PM   #1934
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Observations of redshift do not falsify any part of electromagnetic theory. If you think so, it is because you don't understand the theory. Electromagnetism, the Maxwell equations, have been tested and shown to be correct for more than a century. If you think differently tell us which of the Maxwell equations has been falsified and what it has been replaced by.
You said that Maxwell's equations predict light travels at a constant speed without bounds.

Is the energy predicted to go up or down in that trip?
Mike Helland 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 27th January 2021, 06:41 PM   #1935
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 19,675
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
You said that Maxwell's equations predict light travels at a constant speed without bounds.

Is the energy predicted to go up or down in that trip?

The energy of a photon is always dependent upon the inertial reference frame from which it's observed.

If the photon travels somewhere where observers are in a different inertial reference frame from those of observers where it was first emitted, the new observers will observe it as having greater or lesser energy. Not as it having lost or gained energy; that it has always had less or more energy as observed from that frame. As we observe them, the Big Bang photons in the cosmic background haven't lost energy. They were emitted around 3 degrees K, as measured from our spacetime position distant from them and moving away from them very rapidly.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 27th January 2021, 06:45 PM   #1936
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I am positing a changing spacetime structure, based on Hubble's constant.

But instead of the whole universe expanding, the photon's path veers off the null geodesic.
No. You are positing that light slows down over distance. But thatís happening on a background of a static universe. Not all light is slowed down in your theory, only old light. New light still goes at c. That isnít a changing spacetime structure.
__________________
"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 27th January 2021, 06:52 PM   #1937
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. You are positing that light slows down over distance. But thatís happening on a background of a static universe. Not all light is slowed down in your theory, only old light. New light still goes at c. That isnít a changing spacetime structure.

At every point on every null geodesic, there exists a new geodesic of finite length c/H.

The null geodesic acts as a main artery and each point has an offramp:

Mike Helland 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 27th January 2021, 11:03 PM   #1938
Nakani
Graduate Poster
 
Nakani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Acho Dene Koe
Posts: 1,036
Wrong quote.

Last edited by Nakani; 27th January 2021 at 11:05 PM.
Nakani 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 27th January 2021, 11:10 PM   #1939
Nakani
Graduate Poster
 
Nakani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Acho Dene Koe
Posts: 1,036
Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian View Post
Or any scattering. Light scatters. Even sound scatters.

That light scatters is probably the most straightforward and commonplace observation one can make about it. Nakani's denial of this is simply bizarre.
I thought people would be more concerned with what I thought light was, than some 'gotcha' play on words.

Tomorrow I have time to post.
Nakani 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 28th January 2021, 05:35 AM   #1940
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,356
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
You said that Maxwell's equations predict light travels at a constant speed without bounds.

Is the energy predicted to go up or down in that trip?
There is no prediction for energy in the wave equation. In the QFT of light, which is the quantisation of the classical electromagnetic field, photon energy is frame dependent.


In both the classical and the QFT theories of electromagnetic waves, light travels as a fixed speed. There is no way you can get round this, unless you rewrite Maxwell's equations (and even then, I don't know how you'd do it to gave light arising from different sources different speeds at the same location in the same reference frame).
hecd2 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 28th January 2021, 05:38 AM   #1941
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,356
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
I thought people would be more concerned with what I thought light was, than some 'gotcha' play on words.
You think we should be concerned about the opinion on the nature of light held by someone who doesn't think light scatters?
hecd2 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 28th January 2021, 06:00 AM   #1942
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
At every point on every null geodesic, there exists a new geodesic of finite length c/H.

The null geodesic acts as a main artery and each point has an offramp:
That doesn't have anything to do with what I said.
__________________
"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 28th January 2021, 10:09 AM   #1943
Nakani
Graduate Poster
 
Nakani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Acho Dene Koe
Posts: 1,036
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
You think we should be concerned about the opinion on the nature of light held by someone who doesn't think light scatters?
Ffs, I remember why I don't post on these threads.
In the post someone selected my words from, I was proposing a lone star in a vacuum, I wondered if the light would change over distance as it expands from star size to billions of lightyears across.

The poster replied it wouldn't scatter the light and I said that was probably because light isn't a particle.

It seems like proof that light isn't some particle. If I take some marbles and put them in a circle one foot across then expand that circle. At one mile how wide are the gaps? Granted, the next rows can fill in spaces between preceding rows.

If light is a particle, there must be a distance where there is not enough new photons to fill the space, and gaps form in the starlight.
Nakani 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 28th January 2021, 11:11 AM   #1944
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
If light is a particle, there must be a distance where there is not enough new photons to fill the space, and gaps form in the starlight.
Photons don't have fixed size. A detector may collapse the wave function of a photon into something quite small, but prior to collapse photons can become very large as they travel. So there won't be gaps in the sense you mean it, though the distinction won't matter in a lot of cases.
__________________
"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 28th January 2021, 11:17 AM   #1945
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
The light doesn't scatter because it is not made of particles.
No, this has nothing to do with particle/wave differences. Waves can scatter too. Light in space WILL scatter off of dust, but when we image a distant galaxy, that light hasn't been scattered off of dust between us and that galaxy.

Quote:
In a vacuum, you mean?
A vacuum is the relevant case here. Changes in wavelength/speed but not frequency due to changing the medium light is going through are not generally referred to as red shifting or blue shifting, and even including them wouldn't alter my point.
__________________
"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 28th January 2021, 11:18 AM   #1946
theprestige
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 62,475
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
Ffs, I remember why I don't post on these threads.
In the post someone selected my words from, I was proposing a lone star in a vacuum, I wondered if the light would change over distance as it expands from star size to billions of lightyears across.

The poster replied it wouldn't scatter the light and I said that was probably because light isn't a particle.

It seems like proof that light isn't some particle. If I take some marbles and put them in a circle one foot across then expand that circle. At one mile how wide are the gaps? Granted, the next rows can fill in spaces between preceding rows.

If light is a particle, there must be a distance where there is not enough new photons to fill the space, and gaps form in the starlight.
We have ample evidence that light has both particle-like properties and wave-like properties.

Among other things, we have observed that light scatters in a particle-like fashion. Your suggestion that maybe light isn't a particle because it doesn't scatter like a particle doesn't make sense. It contradicts our observations that light does in fact scatter like a particle.

It also scatters like a wave. This suggests that our current particle-wave duality is not a completely accurate model of reality. Hopefully someday we'll figure out a model that incorporates both particle and wave properties.
theprestige 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 28th January 2021, 11:20 AM   #1947
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,356
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
Ffs, I remember why I don't post on these threads.
In the post someone selected my words from, I was proposing a lone star in a vacuum, I wondered if the light would change over distance as it expands from star size to billions of lightyears across.
Yes the intensity goes down according to the inverse square law once you get far enough away that you can treat the star as a point source. But it doesnít affect the frequency or the speed.

Quote:
The poster replied it wouldn't scatter the light and I said that was probably because light isn't a particle.
No. The poster, Ziggurat, said that scattering is one mechanism for changing the frequency, but it canít be the explanation for cosmological redshift because it also blurs our view of distant objects. Then you made your erroneous statement to which I replied that Compton scattering is the scattering of photons (particles).

Quote:
It seems like proof that light isn't some particle.
What seems like proof that light isnít a particle?
Quote:
If light is a particle, there must be a distance where there is not enough new photons to fill the space, and gaps form in the starlight.
And indeed at sufficiently low intensities, ie for sources sufficiently far away, we can detect individual photons, with, for example, a photomultiplier tube. Although I donít know what the ďnewĒ photons are that you mention.
hecd2 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 28th January 2021, 11:36 AM   #1948
Reformed Offlian
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 1,020
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
Ffs, I remember why I don't post on these threads.
In the post someone selected my words from, I was proposing a lone star in a vacuum, I wondered if the light would change over distance as it expands from star size to billions of lightyears across.

The poster replied it wouldn't scatter the light and I said that was probably because light isn't a particle.
Which is wrong. Light not being a particle has nothing to do with the probability that it will be scattered. Light scatters.

Also what you wrote was:

"The light doesn't scatter because it is not made of particles."

No probably about it.

Do you stand by the idea that light doesn't scatter if it's not a particle?
Reformed Offlian 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 28th January 2021, 12:07 PM   #1949
Nakani
Graduate Poster
 
Nakani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Acho Dene Koe
Posts: 1,036
For the record I know light scatters, could we quit pretending a statement I made regarding a hypothetical situation(single star in a vacuum) are my views on the entire universe.
Nakani 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 28th January 2021, 12:15 PM   #1950
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

Then I guess you win.
Mike Helland 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 28th January 2021, 12:20 PM   #1951
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
There is no prediction for energy in the wave equation. In the QFT of light, which is the quantisation of the classical electromagnetic field, photon energy is frame dependent.


In both the classical and the QFT theories of electromagnetic waves, light travels as a fixed speed. There is no way you can get round this, unless you rewrite Maxwell's equations (and even then, I don't know how you'd do it to gave light arising from different sources different speeds at the same location in the same reference frame).
You'd do it by placing it in a spacetime where either space expands or time increases the photon's path through spacetime.
Mike Helland 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 28th January 2021, 12:21 PM   #1952
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Then I guess you win.
What counts as winning? Being right? There are no prizes for that.

If you learn something, that might count as winning. It comes with a prize.
__________________
"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 28th January 2021, 12:22 PM   #1953
Reformed Offlian
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 1,020
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
For the record I know light scatters, could we quit pretending a statement I made regarding a hypothetical situation(single star in a vacuum) are my views on the entire universe.
Your statement isn't correct for light from a "single star in a vacuum", either. It isn't correct for any light source; there's no such thing as light that doesn't scatter because it's not particles.

The sun is a single star in a vacuum. Does its light scatter?
Reformed Offlian 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 28th January 2021, 12:26 PM   #1954
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What counts as winning? Being right? There are no prizes for that.

If you learn something, that might count as winning. It comes with a prize.
Oh, jeez.

You're s sore winner too?

You said there is no clock de-sync.

I said there is when you add all those specialized photon geodesics.

That's wrong.

I'm wrong.

Get over it.
Mike Helland 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 28th January 2021, 12:27 PM   #1955
Nakani
Graduate Poster
 
Nakani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Acho Dene Koe
Posts: 1,036
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The electromagnetic force is what holds an electron to a proton.

I think 14 billion light years is more than enough to ask from it.

Are we entitled to infinite light?

Did the designers of our world do I a disservice by limiting to light to 14 billion light years?

I for one care my about my atoms sticking together than what happens 20 billion years away from here.

If light traveled to infinity, it wouldn't redshift away its energy.

Simple as that.
Thank you for responding to my posts, I wanted to see if I could suggest some possibilities for 'tired' light but I'm having trouble communicating. I don't know how you keep it so classy all the time.
Nakani 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 28th January 2021, 12:30 PM   #1956
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
Thank you for responding to my posts, I wanted to see if I could suggest some possibilities for 'tired' light but I'm having trouble communicating. I don't know how you keep it so classy all the time.
Thanks.

I have limits though. Unlike the photon apparently...
Mike Helland 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 28th January 2021, 12:31 PM   #1957
Nakani
Graduate Poster
 
Nakani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Acho Dene Koe
Posts: 1,036
Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian View Post
Your statement isn't correct for light from a "single star in a vacuum", either. It isn't correct for any light source; there's no such thing as light that doesn't scatter because it's not particles.

The sun is a single star in a vacuum. Does its light scatter?
Yes because it is in the real universe. Not a hypothetical one containing a single star in a vacuum billions of lightyears across.
Nakani 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 28th January 2021, 12:39 PM   #1958
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Oh, jeez.

You're s sore winner too?

You said there is no clock de-sync.

I said there is when you add all those specialized photon geodesics.

That's wrong.

I'm wrong.

Get over it.
What I want is for you to learn. Are you doing that? I honestly can't tell.
__________________
"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 28th January 2021, 12:41 PM   #1959
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What I want is for you to learn. Are you doing that? I honestly can't tell.
You said my geodesics have nothing to do with what you're talking.

I learned I'm wrong.
Mike Helland 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 28th January 2021, 12:42 PM   #1960
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 14,333
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Oh, jeez.

You're s sore winner too?

You said there is no clock de-sync.

I said there is when you add all those specialized photon geodesics.

That's wrong.

I'm wrong.

Get over it.
Congratulations!

You have finally admitted one obvious truth.
__________________
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."

On 15FEB2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."

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
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 05:31 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.