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 31st January 2021, 01:37 PM   #2081
theprestige
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 62,475
If light doesn't travel at c to infinity, then Maxwell is wrong about electromagnetism.

But Maxwell appears to be very much right about electromagnetism. Consistently right. Predictably right. Very very precisely right.

So Maxwell isn't wrong, and therefore expansion is still a better explanation than tired light.

But we already knew that tired light was a bad explanation, from many other lines of evidence.

Even Mike knows about this now, about Maxwell, and about the other lines of evidence. But he persists in pushing the idea that his explanation might be good anyway.

Mike Helland, this behavior of yours is super weird. What's really going on here?
theprestige 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 31st January 2021, 01:41 PM   #2082
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If light doesn't travel at c to infinity, then Maxwell is wrong about electromagnetism.
Only in the domain of millions of light years where redshift is observed.

And in this case, it doesn't seem to be Maxwell's error, it's based on Newton's first law of motion that inertia goes to infinity.


Quote:
Mike Helland, this behavior of yours is super weird. What's really going on here?
I'm probably mentally ill.

Last edited by Mike Helland; 31st January 2021 at 02:13 PM. Reason: whoops!
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 31st January 2021, 01:46 PM   #2083
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Still, you're acting as if there's no way in the world it can be done.
Because youíre doing it backwards. You can up with a trajectory, and you are assuming it can be a solution. But thatís not how you do it. You solve the equations and THAT tells you what the geodesic is, not the other way around. Your odds of correctly guessing the solution to complex equations is close to zero. And more to the point, you havenít done any of the necessary work, even if it can be done.

Quote:
My guess is, if you genuinely know GR well, you probably even know the right way to do it.
Iíve taken a class in GR, but Iím not close to an expert.
__________________
"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 31st January 2021, 01:48 PM   #2084
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,802
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Only in the domain of millions of light years where redshit is observed.

And in this case, it doesn't seem to be Maxwell's error, it's based on Newton's first law of motion that inertia goes to infinity.




I'm probably mentally ill.
beauty
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve 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 31st January 2021, 02:13 PM   #2085
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Because youíre doing it backwards. You can up with a trajectory, and you are assuming it can be a solution. But thatís not how you do it. You solve the equations and THAT tells you what the geodesic is, not the other way around.
Ok, this goes over the basic over view of solving these types of problems.

https://youtu.be/-UPSiKugRW0?t=221

You have to choose a metric, and a coordinate system, then you remove symmetries (dimensions) that don't affect the problem.

I've timestamped to the steps after that.

The redshifts are handled by the FLRW metric and ignored in the others.

If v=c-HD were true, and the Hubble limit applies to inertia itself, that should mean that the solution applies to any metric and any coordinate system.

In other words, if the hypothesis adds a new class of geodesics to spacetime's geometry, they should always be present, not just for certain solutions.

So, just to pick one, let's say Minkowski metric, in Cartesian coordinates, with 1 degree of space.

This metric ignores the expansion of space. Also, two photons may follow the same null geodesic.

However, if we consider those two photons to be their own geodesic, defined by v=c-HD, then at non-cosmological distances HD=0, and it will appear as if they are on the same geodesic.

In this way, v=c-HD can extend the Minkowski metric unchanged to cosmological distances.

The same should apply for the Schwarzschild too.

So if v=c-HD is not in the metric, and it's not in the coordinate system... where else is it?

That really only the geodesic equation. Or Chirstoffel numbers...

It can't be in the k Einstein gravitational constant because there is no gravity in the Minkowski metric.



Quote:
Iíve taken a class in GR, but Iím not close to an expert.
Cool, well, you definitely know a lot about physics.
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 31st January 2021, 02:26 PM   #2086
theprestige
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 62,475
Watching YouTube videos is not the same as doing math.

Mike, have you done the math?
theprestige 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 31st January 2021, 02:38 PM   #2087
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Watching YouTube videos is not the same as doing math.

Mike, have you done the math?
I plotted the path of a photon through spacetime for three models, simple, expanding, and v=c-HD.

The path through spacetime is identical for the expanding universe and v=c-HD.



At first they weren't actually identical, but then Ziggurat showed the flaw in the expanding model, and once fixed, they matched exactly.

I also show how the z's of the simple expanding model and the standard model of cosmology (LCDM) actually produce differing values as time increases.



The crisis in cosmology is basically that the nearby universe has different expansion rate than the faraway universe.

We can see that the standard model shows a steeper rise in z's over time than the simple expanding model. The simple expanding model is a better fit for this particular piece of evidence.

The problem is we can't go back to the simple expanding model. It's been falsified since the 1970's (horizon problem, flatness problem, monopole problem).

We can however get the same curve as the simple expanding model with v=c-HD.
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 31st January 2021, 03:06 PM   #2088
theprestige
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 62,475
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I plotted the path of a photon through spacetime for three models, simple, expanding, and v=c-HD.

The path through spacetime is identical for the expanding universe and v=c-HD.

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubble...ime_delays.png

At first they weren't actually identical, but then Ziggurat showed the flaw in the expanding model, and once fixed, they matched exactly.

I also show how the z's of the simple expanding model and the standard model of cosmology (LCDM) actually produce differing values as time increases.

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubble...img/z_time.png

The crisis in cosmology is basically that the nearby universe has different expansion rate than the faraway universe.

We can see that the standard model shows a steeper rise in z's over time than the simple expanding model. The simple expanding model is a better fit for this particular piece of evidence.

The problem is we can't go back to the simple expanding model. It's been falsified since the 1970's (horizon problem, flatness problem, monopole problem).

We can however get the same curve as the simple expanding model with v=c-HD.
I'm not asking for pretty pictures and more English. I'm asking for your math.

Have you done the math?
theprestige 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 31st January 2021, 03:16 PM   #2089
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm not asking for pretty pictures and more English. I'm asking for your math.

Have you done the math?
I didn't draw those images. The math did.

It's not the 1800's. There's no reason to do all that by hand.
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 31st January 2021, 03:27 PM   #2090
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,665
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
I think they are talking about the gravitational spin-Hall effect arising from spin coupling with space time curvature. Top review article here, Oancea et al, An overview of the gravitational spin Hall effect; which is a second order effect that relies on the fact that the propagation is in a strongly curved spacetime.

It has nothing to do with Mikeís idea, so I have no idea why he posted the link as it doesnít help him at all.

Thank you for explaining that.

Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
What do I think? I think you;'re throwing around words like spacetime and geodesic and geodesic equation that you have read somewhere without having the faintest idea what they mean.

For example:

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Since geodesics are paths of "pure motion", ie, just inertia, modifying inertia means modifying the geodesic. (*edit* or in my case adding a new class of geodesics.)

Whether a curve is a geodesic is determined entirely by the geometry, so "modifying the geodesic" means modifying the spacetime geometry.

There is no way to add "a new class of geodesics" without modifying the geometry, which would remove geodesics as well as add them.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Beyond that, yeah, I'm just guessing.

At that, as well.
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 31st January 2021, 03:28 PM   #2091
theprestige
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 62,475
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I understand why you're focused on Maxwell's equations, but I'm telling you, a bigger problem is inertia itself.
This is one thing I think you might actually understand, simply because you avoid addressing it. If nothing else, it seems likely that you understand that contradicting Maxwell's equations is (yet another) fatal flaw for your theory, so you try to change the subject.

Last edited by theprestige; 31st January 2021 at 03:29 PM.
theprestige 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 31st January 2021, 03:35 PM   #2092
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
There is no way to add "a new class of geodesics" without modifying the geometry, which would remove geodesics as well as add them.
The geometry is modified in the sense that new paths are added to the existing geometry.

The existing geometry serves as the starting point for each geodesic, and also represents the new geodesics in the limited domain where HD=0.
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 31st January 2021, 03:36 PM   #2093
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
This is one thing I think you might actually understand, simply because you avoid addressing it. If nothing else, it seems likely that you understand that contradicting Maxwell's equations is (yet another) fatal flaw for your theory, so you try to change the subject.
True or false: electromagnetic waves follow the first law of motion.
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 31st January 2021, 03:43 PM   #2094
theprestige
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 62,475
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The geometry is modified in the sense that new paths are added to the existing geometry.
The existing geometry already defines all possible paths. Adding new paths requires a new geometry.

Quote:
The existing geometry serves as the starting point for each geodesic, and also represents the new geodesics in the limited domain where HD=0.
Show us the math.
theprestige 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 31st January 2021, 03:44 PM   #2095
theprestige
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 62,475
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
True or false: electromagnetic waves follow the first law of motion.
Mu.

Show us the math.
theprestige 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 31st January 2021, 03:50 PM   #2096
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,356
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
True or false: electromagnetic waves follow the first law of motion.
False. Electromagnetism does not refer at all to classical mechanics. I have told you this before. Why are you incorrigible?
hecd2 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 31st January 2021, 03:52 PM   #2097
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,356
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The geometry is modified in the sense that new paths are added to the existing geometry.
As I said, you are using words without understanding them. The geometry defines the paths. Universally.
hecd2 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 31st January 2021, 03:57 PM   #2098
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,356
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Ok, this goes over the basic over view of solving these types of problems.

https://youtu.be/-UPSiKugRW0?t=221

You have to choose a metric, and a coordinate system, then you remove symmetries (dimensions) that don't affect the problem.

I've timestamped to the steps after that.

The redshifts are handled by the FLRW metric and ignored in the others.

If v=c-HD were true, and the Hubble limit applies to inertia itself, that should mean that the solution applies to any metric and any coordinate system.

In other words, if the hypothesis adds a new class of geodesics to spacetime's geometry, they should always be present, not just for certain solutions.

So, just to pick one, let's say Minkowski metric, in Cartesian coordinates, with 1 degree of space.

This metric ignores the expansion of space. Also, two photons may follow the same null geodesic.

However, if we consider those two photons to be their own geodesic, defined by v=c-HD, then at non-cosmological distances HD=0, and it will appear as if they are on the same geodesic.

In this way, v=c-HD can extend the Minkowski metric unchanged to cosmological distances.

The same should apply for the Schwarzschild too.

So if v=c-HD is not in the metric, and it's not in the coordinate system... where else is it?

That really only the geodesic equation. Or Chirstoffel numbers...

It can't be in the k Einstein gravitational constant because there is no gravity in the Minkowski metric.
This is word salad. Physicists are good at spotting poseurs. You’ve the words but unless you are versed in tensor algebra you have no idea what they mean. And it’s obvious from what you say that you have no idea what they mean. Now if you were to actually set up and solve the equations...

ETA:
Quote:
So if v=c-HD is not in the metric, and it's not in the coordinate system... where else is it?
Nowhere.

Last edited by hecd2; 31st January 2021 at 04:00 PM.
hecd2 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 31st January 2021, 04:03 PM   #2099
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
False. Electromagnetism does not refer at all to classical mechanics. I have told you this before. Why are you incorrigible?
Because I find that awfully hard to believe.

It's about a force after all. I'm pretty sure F=ma plays a big role there.
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 31st January 2021, 04:05 PM   #2100
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Because I find that awfully hard to believe.

It's about a force after all. I'm pretty sure F=ma plays a big role there.
OK, just point it out.
RecoveringYuppy 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 31st January 2021, 04:14 PM   #2101
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,356
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I understand why you're focused on Maxwell's equations, but I'm telling you, a bigger problem is inertia itself. Does it hold to infinity? If redshifts are taken as evidence that they do not, then inertia itself must be tweaked. An object in motion at velocity v remains in motion at velocity v'=v-HD.
Even if that were to be true (and you give us no reason to expect it be to true), youíre still jiggered, because electromagnetism precludes light propagating at more than one speed at a location, and you would have to modify Maxwellís equations to allow it while still being backwards compatible with rest of electromagnetism. You keep trying to sweep this under the carpet, but itís fatal to your idea and you need to deal with it or retract. Show us how you modify Maxwellís equations. You do know what they are, donít you?
hecd2 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 31st January 2021, 04:15 PM   #2102
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,356
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Because I find that awfully hard to believe.

It's about a force after all. I'm pretty sure F=ma plays a big role there.
Your personal incredulity is of no consequence. If you think classical mechanics plays a role in Maxwellís equations, show us where precisely.
hecd2 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 31st January 2021, 04:25 PM   #2103
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
If you think classical mechanics plays a role in Maxwell’s equations, show us where precisely.
Ha, I looked. You got me.

It seems Maxwell's equations only get you part way to electromagnetism. There's the Lorentz force law that's needed too.

It also seems like Maxwell's equations are just a bad fit for a single photon:

Quote:
Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law (along with the rest of classical electromagnetism) are extraordinarily successful at explaining and predicting a variety of phenomena. However they do not account for quantum effects and so their domain of applicability is limited. Maxwell's equations are thought of as the classical limit of quantum electrodynamics (QED).

Some observed electromagnetic phenomena are incompatible with Maxwell's equations. These include photon–photon scattering and many other phenomena related to photons or virtual photons, "nonclassical light" and quantum entanglement of electromagnetic fields (see quantum optics). E.g. quantum cryptography cannot be described by Maxwell theory, not even approximately. The approximate nature of Maxwell's equations becomes more and more apparent when going into the extremely strong field regime (see Euler–Heisenberg Lagrangian) or to extremely small distances.

Finally, Maxwell's equations cannot explain any phenomenon involving individual photons interacting with quantum matter, such as the photoelectric effect, Planck's law, the Duane–Hunt law, and single-photon light detectors. However, many such phenomena may be approximated using a halfway theory of quantum matter coupled to a classical electromagnetic field, either as external field or with the expected value of the charge current and density on the right hand side of Maxwell's equations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations
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 31st January 2021, 04:47 PM   #2104
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,356
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Ha, I looked. You got me.

It seems Maxwell's equations only get you part way to electromagnetism. There's the Lorentz force law that's needed too.
Word play. The Maxwell equations are sufficient to fully define the electric and magnetic fields. The Lorentz force law defines the force on a charge in a given electric and magnetic field. But the Maxwell equations are what is relevant here, because the speed of light follows logically from them.

Quote:
It also seems like Maxwell's equations are just a bad fit for a single photon:
Thatís true, or at least partly true for some quantum effects, such as the photoelectric effect and Planckís law. On the other hand we can use classical coherent optics to predict the result of single photon interference experiments. But none of this matters because quantum effects donít enter into astronomical spectroscopy.
hecd2 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 31st January 2021, 04:51 PM   #2105
Nakani
Graduate Poster
 
Nakani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Acho Dene Koe
Posts: 1,036
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes
Is that a hard yes, or a maybe yes?

Quote:
Solids cannot typically get more diffuse, and so to conserve both mass and density, they must shrink in one direction if stretched in another.

But photons are not solid. They must conserve energy, but they do not need to conserve energy density. Gasses are similar in that respect: you can expand them in multiple directions simultaneously, since density is not fixed, without violating mass conservation.
I can see that in my cigarette smoke, it floats around my wife's workshop expanding and contracting. Things
are different when I blow a smoke ring though. (Ok, I'm not that cool but if I could)

The motion gives it form, and as it travels it gets bigger and skinnier.

I realize photons aren't smoke rings but waves have structure regardless the medium
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 31st January 2021, 05:05 PM   #2106
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Word play. The Maxwell equations are sufficient to fully define the electric and magnetic fields. The Lorentz force law defines the force on a charge in a given electric and magnetic field. But the Maxwell equations are what is relevant here, because the speed of light follows logically from them.
A field without a force is a whole lot of nothing.


Quote:
But none of this matters because quantum effects donít enter into astronomical spectroscopy.
And yet, there are the redshifts.

Is there a quantum mechanical description of the redshifts?

This is the addition I've proposed:



And that one, I did draw myself.
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 31st January 2021, 05:06 PM   #2107
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
Is that a hard yes, or a maybe yes?
A hard yes.

Quote:
I can see that in my cigarette smoke, it floats around my wife's workshop expanding and contracting. Things
are different when I blow a smoke ring though. (Ok, I'm not that cool but if I could)

The motion gives it form, and as it travels it gets bigger and skinnier.
Surrounding air pressure keeps it from expanding, but if pressure drops, it is free to expand in volume.

There is no pressure acting against light in a vacuum to prevent expansion.

Quote:
I realize photons aren't smoke rings but waves have structure regardless the medium
So letís look at some other waves. Drop a pebble in a pond, and it sends out waves. Do the waves get compressed longitudinally as they spread out? No, the amplitude just drops. Or take sound waves: you canít usually see them, but the duration of a sound doesnít change with distance, nor does the pitch.
__________________
"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 31st January 2021, 05:14 PM   #2108
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,356
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
A field without a force is a whole lot of nothing.
So according to you, electromagnetic waves (light) are a whole lot of nothing. The problem remains no matter how much empty sophistry you employ, the fact remains that electromagnetism refutes your idea. When are you going to show us how you modify the Maxwell equations to allow more than one speed of light at a location?
Quote:
And yet, there are the redshifts.

Is there a quantum mechanical description of the redshifts?

This is the addition I've proposed:
Cargo cult Feynman diagram.
hecd2 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 31st January 2021, 05:24 PM   #2109
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,356
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Cargo cult Feynman diagram.
Ironically, Richard Feynman himself introduced the concept of cargo cult science:
Originally Posted by Feynman
In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he's the controller—and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land
.
In your case the diagram you have drawn is the equivalent of the wooden headphones and the planes are a consistent coherent new theory of physics. But the diagram is as much like a real Feynman diagram as the wooden headphones are like real ones, and however long you wait the planes won’t come.

Last edited by hecd2; 31st January 2021 at 05:26 PM.
hecd2 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 31st January 2021, 05:35 PM   #2110
theprestige
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 62,475
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Only in the domain of millions of light years where redshift is observed.
No. If electromagnetism works, then light must travel at c even in that domain. Or you need to rewrite the math of electromagnetism.

So where's your math?
theprestige 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 31st January 2021, 05:37 PM   #2111
theprestige
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 62,475
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Because I find that awfully hard to believe.
Appeal to incredulity is a fallacy, not a basis for rational inquiry.
theprestige 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 31st January 2021, 05:44 PM   #2112
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,356
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
No. If electromagnetism works, then light must travel at c even in that domain.
Even if one says that the speed of light is different a long way away, for whatever reason, then Mikeís idea is still refuted because it requires light to be propagating at different speeds here and now, which violates electromagnetism.
hecd2 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 31st January 2021, 05:48 PM   #2113
theprestige
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 62,475
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
Are you sure? My research indicates, stretching something makes it skinnier.
Tell us more about this research. How much of your research has been research into the nature and properties of electromagnetic waves?
theprestige 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 31st January 2021, 06:17 PM   #2114
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
No. If electromagnetism works, then light must travel at c even in that domain.
If electromagnetism worked in all domains, quantum electrodynamics wouldn't exist.

QED.
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 31st January 2021, 06:19 PM   #2115
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Even if one says that the speed of light is different a long way away, for whatever reason, then Mikeís idea is still refuted because it requires light to be propagating at different speeds here and now, which violates electromagnetism.
Lots of things violate classical electrodynamics.
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 31st January 2021, 08:20 PM   #2116
Little 10 Toes
Master Poster
 
Little 10 Toes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Directly above the center of the Earth
Posts: 2,579
Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes View Post
Where is your math?

I stand by my previous post. Your "paper" was submitted and returned. The reviews state that there are "misunderstood concepts" and that the article "is based on incorrect physics". Why haven't you taken the time to understand the correct concepts and/or understand physics? I know I don't know everything, but at least I know when people tell me I'm making mistakes, when to study more, and I know when to take advice from people who have more experience than me.

Edit: let me correct myself. I meant to say that I think my original post is partially correct. To me, Mike Helland comes across as "I'm right because Science can't explain everything".
I notice that you have avoided my two questions like COVID 19. I will ask them again.

Where is your math?

Why haven't you taken the time to understand the correct concepts and/or understand physics?
Little 10 Toes 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 31st January 2021, 08:30 PM   #2117
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes View Post
Where is your math?
Take a look:

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/test.htm
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 31st January 2021, 08:37 PM   #2118
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
None of that math indicates that your trajectory for light is a geodesic for any geometry.
__________________
"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 31st January 2021, 08:38 PM   #2119
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If electromagnetism worked in all domains, quantum electrodynamics wouldn't exist.

QED.
Quantum electrodynamics reduces to classical electrodynamics in the classical limit.

Your idea of light doesn't.
__________________
"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 31st January 2021, 08:51 PM   #2120
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Quantum electrodynamics reduces to classical electrodynamics in the classical limit.

Your idea of light doesn't.
My idea is to add a redshift action to QED, otherwise, it stays exactly the same and therefore reduces to the same thing when redshift is ignored.

When HD=0 it reduces to special relativity.

I totally get where you're coming from. This is all waaaay to simple to be in the realm of being remotely a possibility of being right. But we're the first humans to see how the expanding universe idea worked out. It became an idea 90 years ago, pretty widely accepted 50 years ago, and heavily modified since.

It would have been reckless to not pursue the expanding universe idea in favor of limiting inertia.

But we have.

And if you think it's working out great, then don't let me stop you.

The universe inflating in a nanosecond is a cool theory and all, but some of the theory's creators reject it as unscientific, which tells you how cosmology is doing these days.
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
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 04:32 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.