
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. 
1st November 2022, 09:05 PM  #121 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,318

The equation I'm using is this:
d = (1 / (1 + z)  1) c / H_{0} As you will note, d and z no longer have a linear relationship. As per this: d = 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d = 0 8eV >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4eV d=1 is actually 7 billion light years, that's where z=1 and you will get 50% of the energy. At d=2, that's 14 billion light years, z will be approaching infinity, and the photon energy will be approaching 0. d = 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d = 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d = 0 12eV >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6eV >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0eV 
2nd November 2022, 12:44 AM  #122 
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 55,222


__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20 

2nd November 2022, 06:48 AM  #123 
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,644


__________________
“There is in every village a torch  the teacher; and an extinguisher  the priest.”  Victor Hugo “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”  George Carlin 

2nd November 2022, 06:52 AM  #124 
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 55,222


__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20 

2nd November 2022, 07:15 AM  #125 
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,644

What is that nonsense? Seriously? It loses 50% of its energy travelling from d = 2 to d = 1, and then loses 100% of its remaining energy going precisely the same distance from d = 1 to d = 0? That is as silly as Lerner's nonsense.
Your 'equation' makes zero sense. And z = 1 means the light has been travelling for ~ 7 Ga. Z= 2 means it has been travelling for ~ 10 Ga. It is not infinity, or even close. Otherwise we would not see photons from those distances. We see the CMB photons at ~ 13.8 Ga. How close do you think the epoch of recombination actually is? Somewhere near Andromeda? Sorry, but you are not explaining anything. We can independently measure photons from sources at z = 2 and z = 1. They agree with cosmological redshift. Put the z = 1 source between us and the z = 2 source. What do we see in emission and absorption from the z = 1 source? Trust me, it isn't zero as you would have it. This is going nowhere. Just as Lerner's nonsense did. Face it  there is no tired light mechanism to explain cosmological redshift, and there is no equation to explain it. 
__________________
“There is in every village a torch  the teacher; and an extinguisher  the priest.”  Victor Hugo “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”  George Carlin 

2nd November 2022, 07:49 AM  #126  
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,318

Background Light is made of particles called photons, and photons have a wavelength, and that wavelength determines what color the photon is. Red light has a higher wavelength than blue light. If a photon's wavelength were to increase for some reason, that is called redshift. And if the wavelength decreases, it is called blueshift. Whether the colors are red or blue before or after the shift, or whether they are in the visible range of light at all, doesn't matter. Just whether the wavelength increases (redshift) or decreases (blueshift). As the universe expands, the wavelength of photons gets stretched, causing redshift. Redshift and wavelength Based on the original wavelength (w_emit) of the photon, and wavelength it was observed to have after traveling through the expanding universe (w_obs), the amount of redshift (z) can be described as: Code:
1 + z = w_obs / w_emit w_obs = w_emit(z + 1) The red and blue shading indicates where values of z are redshifted or blueshifted. When z > 0, that's redshift. Notice that when z = 1, the wavelength becomes zero. So the range of blueshift is finite and actually very small, 1 < z < 0. Redshift and frequency A photon also has a frequency, which is related to wavelength by the speed of light (c): Code:
c = wavelength * frequency Code:
1 + z = f_emit / f_obs f_obs = f_emit / (1 + z) The first thing you notice is that increasing redshift has the opposite effect on frequency as it does on wavelength. A higher z means a lower observed frequency. The other thing to notice is that the frequency approaches zero as redshift approaches infinity, and that the frequency approaches infinity as redshift approaches z = 1. In the case of both wavelength and frequency, the blueshift region is small, 1 < z < 0, and the redshift region is infinite, z > 0. Redshift and energy A photon also has energy, and that too is affected by redshifting. The energy of a photon and its frequency are directly related by Planck's constant (h): Code:
E = h f Code:
1 + z = E_emit / E_obs E_obs = E_emit / (1 + z) Redshift z goes in the direction of wavelength (more redshift, higher wavelength), but in the opposite direction of energy and frequency (more redshift, less energy and frequency). Blueshift That redshift is going "with" wavelength, or "against" energy and frequency shouldn't make a difference. That can be investigated by inverting the redshift z formulas into blueshift b formulas: Code:
1 + b = w_emit / w_obs 1 + b = f_obs / f_emit 1 + b = E_obs / E_emit Code:
w_obs = w_emit / (b + 1) f_obs = f_emit(b + 1) E_obs = E_emit(b + 1) And observed frequency: We see now the situation has reversed. Not only does energy and frequency rise when blueshift increases, but all the redshifting happens when 1 < b < 0. All of z > 0 now fits into 1 < b < 0. Does that affect anything? Distance The zdistance relation is: Code:
d = zc / H_{0} z << 1 How about when redshifts are represented as negative blueshifts (b) instead of z? Perhaps: Code:
d = bc / H0 To compare z and b, assume a photon is emitted at 1 MeV. When the photon is observed at the following values, we can see a big difference.
We know from the redshift equations that 1 / (1 + z) will give you the percentage of a frequency or energy that will be observed. To get the blueshift b, from that percentage you just subtract 1, so: Code:
b = 1 / (1 + z)  1 Code:
d = (1 / (1 + z)  1) c / H_{0} The new zdistance relationship seems to be closely mimicking the lookback times from the current standard cosmological model, LCDM. LCDM has more parameters, and so leads to a wider variety of predictions. Let's compare two of those sets of parameters with the new zdistance relationship. Consider the distance d to be divided by c the speed of light, converting 1 billion light years (Gly) into 1 billion years (Gyr): 

2nd November 2022, 08:20 AM  #127 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,318


3rd November 2022, 03:50 AM  #128 
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 28,125


__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to newborn children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. 

3rd November 2022, 09:48 PM  #129 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,318


4th November 2022, 06:57 AM  #130 
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,644

Errrr, nope! Care to plug the numbers into your equation and show how that impossibility is possible? Here it is; d = (1 / (1 + z)  1) c / H0 Let's plug in z = 1; d = (1/ (1 + 1) 1) = 0.50 assuming you are dividing by (1 + z) before you subtract the 1?; (1 / 2 = 0.5  1) = (0.5). And now z = 2; d = (1/ (1 + 2) 1) = (1 / 3 = 0.333)  1 = (0.667). What are you doing with the minus sign before the parentheses? Anything > z = 1 is going to give you a minus number in the parentheses anyway??? So, from that perspective, we still have a linear equation. Which doesn't work. Fancy plugging in z = 0.5? You end up with (1 (1 + 0.5) 1) = (0.333). What does that say about a photon travelling from z = 1 to z = 0? And what is its energy at z = 0.5? z = 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> z = 0.5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> z = 0 (Earth) 12eV >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ??eV >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6eV Your equation tells us that it should indeed lose 50% of its energy from z = 1 to z = 0. It also tells us that a photon from z = 0.5 should lose 1/3rd of its energy. So, if it arrives at Earth with the 6eV calculated above then it must have had an energy of 9eV at z = 0.5. However, if it started its trip at z = 1, and arrived at z = 0.5 with 9eV, that means it only lost 1/4 of its energy from z = 1 to z = 0.5 (3 / 12)! It should lose 1/3rd, as it did on the second part of its journey. By your reckoning, the photon from z = 1 should arrive at z = 0.5 with 8eV of energy. If it then arrives at Earth (d = 0), with 6eV, it has only lost 1/4 of its energy from z = 0.5 to z = 0. Sorry, but your equation makes no more sense than Lerner's. You have ended up with the exact same problem as he did. Because there are zero tired light mechanisms, nor equations, that make any sense. As Ben m said, you need some sort of exponent. And none of them work. 
__________________
“There is in every village a torch  the teacher; and an extinguisher  the priest.”  Victor Hugo “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”  George Carlin 

4th November 2022, 10:04 AM  #131 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,318


4th November 2022, 10:37 AM  #132 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,318


4th November 2022, 03:14 PM  #133 
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,644

No I didn't. If you think I did, do the equation yourself. And show us what the eV values are in the example I gave. Get on with it.
EDIT: How hard can this be? How much energy, percentagewise, is lost by a photon travelling from z = 1 to z = 0? How much energy is lost, percentagewise by a photon travelling from z = 0.5 to z = 0? If a photon is travelling from z = 1 to z = 0, what is its value as it passes z = 0.5 on its way to z = 0? Is it the same percentage loss on both halves of its journey? It had better be. What happens if the object at z = 0.5 happens to be a galaxy that absorbs and reemits photons from the z = 1 source? What about the emission from the z = 0.5 galaxy itself? Are the two values the same? They had better be, because otherwise you are violating actual observation, not to mention basic physics. The photons in both cases are arriving from z = 0.5. Understand? One of them started at z = 1, before it got to the galaxy at z = 0.5, but the galaxy doesn't know that. As far as it is concerned, it absorbed a photon from somewhere, at a certain value, and this caused it to emit another photon towards us in emission. Using real physics, we can measure the distance to the z = 0.5 galaxy using either its own emissions, or those it has absorbed and reemitted from a more distant object. Because they will be the same. Give us a value, using your 'equation', for the energy of the photon at z = 0.5 after it is emitted from z = 1. Then we can use that value, and send the same energy of photon right back at it from Earth. Will it arrive at z = 0.5 with the same value as it arrived with at Earth when travelling in the other direction? You are in the same boat as Lerner. Your photons need to know how far they have travelled. What is the IQ of a photon? 
__________________
“There is in every village a torch  the teacher; and an extinguisher  the priest.”  Victor Hugo “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”  George Carlin 

4th November 2022, 04:21 PM  #134 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,318


4th November 2022, 04:31 PM  #135 
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,644

You said;
Quote:
So, if z = 1, your constant c also equals 1? And if z = 2, c = 2? So, if your 'equation', for want of a better word, says that a photon loses 50% of its energy from z = 1 to z = 0, you just multiply 50% x 1? Got it. So, you end up with 50%. Fantastic. If it comes from z = 0.5, we end up with ( 1/(1 + 0.5) 1) x c (0.5, in this case) = 0.333 (33.3%) x 0.5 = 0.1667 (16.67%)! It only loses 1/6th of its energy from z = 0.5 to z = 0! Holy Hell! That means a 10eV photon emitted a z = 1, should arrive at Earth (z = 0) with a energy of 5eV. But it had to pass z = 0.5 on the way! If we have a photon arriving at Earth with an energy of 5eV, that means it had to have had 6eV of energy at z = 0.5 (6 x 5/6 = 5). But it has already travelled from z = 1 to z = 0.5, and managed to lose 4eV on the way! 40% of its original energy. It should only have lost 1/6th. You say that photons from z = 2 lose 100% of their energy So, the photon from z = 1 still has energy when it arrives at Earth. 50% of it, in fact. So, let's stick to the example above. A 10eV photon leaves z = 1, and gets to us at z = 0 with 5eV of energy. So far so good (kind of). OK. It doesn't stop at Earth. Let's say that it interacts with out atmosphere. It gets absorbed, and reemitted by some atom or other. It carries on for another z = 1 in the opposite direction from which it arrived. With what energy does it arrive at its new destination? It is a brand new photon, created by emission when the Earthly atom deexcited. It should get to its new destination with 2.5eVof energy. There are alien astronomers there, wanting to study our atmosphere, for clues of a possible intelligent civilisation. I fear that they may well be disappointed, if some posts on this thread are anything to go by! So, do the aliens see the 2.5eV photon, or has it disappeared for reasons unknown? After all, it has only travelled from Earth to z= 1, even though the photon that brought it into existence originated at z = 2 from the aliens. Do you see where this is going? If a photon is not absorbed and reemitted from z = 2, we can never see it. If it is absorbed and reemitted along the way, we can see it! Christ alone knows what energy it is supposed to arrive at, be absorbed at, and reemitted at! It doesn't really matter, because the whole 'equation' is a complete train wreck, and is totally unphysical. 
__________________
“There is in every village a torch  the teacher; and an extinguisher  the priest.”  Victor Hugo “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”  George Carlin 

4th November 2022, 04:41 PM  #136 
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,644

Yes they do. We measure them all the time. What you can't get straight is that your equation fails laughably. And they are the time that the light has been travelling. Which tells us the current distance, not the distance they were emitted at. Because the universe is expanding.
So, when real scientists say that a galaxy is at a redshift of 2, how far was it in your fantasy universe when it emitted the light we detect?
Quote:
Show me the maths. I am not interested in your wonky equation, which makes zero sense. We know z because we know the rest wavelength and the measured wavelength. If it doubles, so does z. What happens in the fantasy universe you inhabit? 
__________________
“There is in every village a torch  the teacher; and an extinguisher  the priest.”  Victor Hugo “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”  George Carlin 

4th November 2022, 05:10 PM  #137 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,318


4th November 2022, 05:47 PM  #138 
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,644

So, from your own words, a 12eV photon emitted at z = 1 gets to Earth (z = 0) with 6eV of energy remaining, and 6eV lost. As the photon had to pass z = 0.5 on its way here, where it may or may not have been absorbed and reemitted, its energy is ???????????????
You see, if we emit a 9eV photon from z = 0.5, then it will lose one third of its energy, and reach Earth at the measured 6eV. But if it had 9eV of energy at z = 0.5, that means it has only lost 25% of its energy on the trip from z = 1 to z = 0.5. Conversely, if it obeyed your rules, and lost 33% of its energy from z = 1 to z = 0,5, it would arrive at z = 0.5 with 8eV of energy. And then only lose a further 25% between z= 0.5 and Earth. How is this possible? It is important that we know this, because if our z measurements and equations were all wrong, as you suggest, we would see an obvious difference in absorption and emission wavelengths from intermediate galaxies and distant quasars, for instance. We don't. How come? As I keep saying  just like Lerner, your photons need to remember how far they have travelled. Any galaxy they encounter along the way, will have to know where they are going to, in order to know how much it needs to fiddle around with electron excitation levels from photons absorbed from more distant sources, to make them match the galaxy's own emission wavelengths. All this just to fool us poor saps on Earth into believing that our equations are correct after all. Which is not very scientific. Far more parsimonious to believe that the equations are correct, and that there is neither a mechanism, nor an equation, that explains tired light, and a static universe. Which is why pretty much nobody bothers with such things anymore. 
__________________
“There is in every village a torch  the teacher; and an extinguisher  the priest.”  Victor Hugo “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”  George Carlin 

4th November 2022, 06:33 PM  #139  
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,318

Let's start with a handy chart.
A photon with a z=1, has half its energy, and has traveled 7 billion light years. Ok.
Quote:
So where does a z=1 photon actually meet up with z=0.5 photon? 7  4.66 = 2.33 Gly A galaxy that is 2.33 Gly has a z=0.2. Code:
7 A B C 2.334.66 A and B will see each others photons as z=0.2 (with 83%) B and C will see each others photons as z0.5 (with 66%) A photon leaves A (d=0,z=0) and arrives at B (d=2.33 Gly, z=0.2). It will have 83.33% of its energy. If it continues on to C, which is twice as far as it has already gone, (d=7 Gly, z=1) it will have 50% of it it started with, losing an additional 33.33% from point B. If a photon is emitted from B (d=0, z=0) and arrives at C (d=4.66 Gly, z=0.5) it will have 66.66% of its energy. It too will have lost 33% from point B. *edit* You can see it adds up clearly by this:
16.66 + 33.33 = 50% 2.33 + 4.66 = 7 Gly *edit 2* A 12 eV photon leaving A will pass B with 10 eV and arrive at C with 6 eV. 12  (12 * 0.1666)  (12 * 0.3333) If a photon leaves B with 9 eV, it will arrive at c with 6 eV. You would have to reach the same conclusion in the expanding universe. If the photons are redshifted by the expansion of space, how can it affect different photons differently? I think you might have found an interesting flaw in the expanding universe. 

4th November 2022, 09:42 PM  #140 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,318

I should mention that I started a new thread a bit ago, that wasn't about JWST or tired light, just redshift quantification.
But it got merged into this thread, so here we are. This all applies to the expanding universe, and nothing to do with tired light:  A 12 eV photon leaves point A (d=0, z=0, E=12 eV) it passes by point B (d=2.33 Gly, z=0.2, E=10 eV), and arrives at point C (d=7 Gly, z=1, E=6 eV). It has 50% its original energy, after losing 16.66% between A and B, and another 33.33% between B and C. As the first photon passed point B, say a second photon is emitted at 9 eV from point B (d=0, z=0, E=9 eV) and arrives at point C (d=4.66 Gly, z=0.5, E=6 eV). It arrives after losing 33.33% of its energy between B and C, just like the first, and arrived with 6 eV just like the first. But it left point B with less energy than the first photon had at the same point and time. Code:
7 A B C 2.334.66 First photon A (d=0, z=0, E=12 eV) B (d=2.33 Gly, z=0.2, E=10 eV) C (d=7 Gly, z=1, E=6 eV) Second photon B (d=0, z=0, E=9 eV) C (d=4.66 Gly, z=0.5, E=6 eV) 
5th November 2022, 01:11 AM  #141 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,318


5th November 2022, 01:47 AM  #142 
Schrödinger's cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 15,323


__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things"  Terry Pratchett 

5th November 2022, 03:24 AM  #143 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,318

It turns out that:
Is exactly equal to LCDM in a default state. What are the odds of that? Check it out, I made an interactive version, so even if you don't care about the hypothesis, you can still see how the parameters effect the graph. https://mikehelland.github.io/hubble...other/lcdm.htm 
5th November 2022, 05:04 AM  #144 
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,830

The calculation I highlighted in blue is incorrect, for two reasons: the sign of 0.5 is wrong and the factor c / H0 has been omitted. The calculation I highlighted in yellow is incorrect for only the second of those two reasons. The calculation I highighted in green is correct because, although it omits the factor c/H0, it does not claim to calculate d.
I'm with Mike Helland on this one point. It is conceivable that Mike Helland's recent posts have been right about other things as well, but I haven't looked hard enough to find examples of such. 
5th November 2022, 08:31 PM  #145 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,318


6th November 2022, 10:34 AM  #146 
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,830

How is that different from
d = (z/(z+1)) c/H_{0}In other words, why are you writing z/(z+1) as (1/(1+z)1) ? 
6th November 2022, 01:59 PM  #147 
New Blood
Join Date: Sep 2022
Posts: 17

"Redshift" bears no relationship to distance
Sent from my SMS111DL using Tapatalk 
7th November 2022, 02:07 AM  #148 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,318

I'll don the derivatino tomorrow. I'm goin to fdin my car.
https://mikehelland.github.io/hubble...ue/redblue.htm https://mikehelland.github.io/hubble...other/lcdm.htm 
7th November 2022, 11:06 AM  #149 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,318

I guess the answer is because that's how I derived it.
Here's an equation for redshift: 1 + z = E_{emit} / E_{obs} When z>0 that's redshift, when z<0, that's blueshift. But notice this is hyperbolic, and z>0 goes to infinity, while z<0 only goes to 1: If you invert the formula, the situation reverses: 1 + b = E_{obs} / E_{emit} So 1 + b = 1 / (1 + z) I think checked this: d = bc / H_{0} And it produced LCDM lookback times over its domain. Since 1 + b = 1 / (1 + z), then b = 1 / (1 + z)  1. 
8th November 2022, 12:05 PM  #150 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,318


8th November 2022, 07:45 PM  #151 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 53,389

33.3% of what? The energy it had at A, not the energy it had at B. It loses 40% of the energy it had at B when traveling from B to C, using your numbers.
Quote:

8th November 2022, 10:12 PM  #152 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 34,288


__________________
Like many humorless and indignant people, he is hard on everybody but himself, and does not perceive it when he fails his own ideal (Moličre) A pedant is a man who studies a vacuum through instruments that allow him to draw crosssections of the details (John Ciardi) 

9th November 2022, 12:12 AM  #153 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,318


9th November 2022, 05:42 AM  #154 
Illuminator
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,468


9th November 2022, 07:30 AM  #155 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 34,288

I get that. If d0 to d1 is twice the length, it follows that d1 to d2 is the same length as d0 to d1. So what causes the percentage to change in the second half?
I think in most situations, if something loses 50 percent of anything in a given distance, then when it goes twice that given distance, it would lose another 50 percent of that 50 percent unless some other factor made the percentage of loss over distance greater. 
__________________
Like many humorless and indignant people, he is hard on everybody but himself, and does not perceive it when he fails his own ideal (Moličre) A pedant is a man who studies a vacuum through instruments that allow him to draw crosssections of the details (John Ciardi) 

9th November 2022, 07:42 AM  #156 
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,830

Good catch.
Mike Helland has been consistently sloppy throughout this thread. With my highlighting: The highlighted equation simplifies to d = (z/(z+1)) c/H_{0} from which it is obvious that d cannot exceed c/H_{0}, which is about 14 billion lightyears. Yet Mike Helland is talking about d=1 or d=2, which is obviously inconsistent with his equation for d (highlighted above). (ETA: According to the equation for d, d=1 and d=2 are both achieved at approximately zero red shift, and it is obvious that Mike Helland thinks he has been talking about measurably positive red shifts.) I have absolutely no idea of what Mike Helland thinks he means by d=1 or d=2, and have ceased to care. More accurately, I have not cared at any moment since the birth of this thread what Mike Helland thinks he is talking about. Mike Helland should consider whether the degree of care he has put into describing his equations and numbers is remotely adequate to motivate any care on the part of whatever he believes his audience to be. 
9th November 2022, 07:20 PM  #157 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,318

That's understandable, W.D.Clinger. It was jonesdave116 that was persistent in that I answer a question originally proposed by ben m in this forum far before my time.
Originally it was about a photon from a distance of z=1, and what about a photon z=2, which was proposed to be twice as far away a z=1. Since that's wrong, it may be confusing. The scenario was eventually modified to be about a z=0.5 photon a z=1 photon.The change in stipulations only adds to the confusion. I answered the question thoroughly, eventually, and the results are here: Code:
7 A B C 2.334.66 First photon A (d=0, z=0, E=12 eV) B (d=2.33 Gly, z=0.2, E=10 eV) C (d=7 Gly, z=1, E=6 eV) Second photon B (d=0, z=0, E=9 eV) C (d=4.66 Gly, z=0.5, E=6 eV) 
9th November 2022, 07:26 PM  #158 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,318

It doesn't. It's the same percent as the photon's original energy.
Say a photon redshifts over 100 million light years. But it doesn't redshift over 1 light second. If you checked the photon's energy every second, and reset its distance to 0, it would never redshift. Photons redshift per their original energy, not their energy at any arbitrary point. 
9th November 2022, 07:35 PM  #159 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185

Does the phrase "It's the same percent as the photon's original energy" actually mean something in context here?

10th November 2022, 12:48 AM  #160 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,318


Thread Tools  

