IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events 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 February 2021, 01:24 PM   #2481
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It doesnít change the clocks. It changes how long it takes for a signal to go from one clock to another. That changing travel time is what desynchronizes them.
And the travel time in v=c-HD is exactly equal to the travel time in a universe that expands according to Hubble's law.



So if clock desync works because of travel time, there you go.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2021, 03:26 PM   #2482
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,634
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
And the travel time in v=c-HD is exactly equal to the travel time in a universe that expands according to Hubble's law.

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/img/vcHD.gif

So if clock desync works because of travel time, there you go.
Pay attention. The travel time CHANGES for an expanding universe. It isnít constant. Itís the fact that it changes which is critical, not itís specific value.

And no, your model doesnít contain a changing travel time.
__________________
"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 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 February 2021, 03:35 PM   #2483
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Pay attention. The travel time CHANGES for an expanding universe. It isnít constant. Itís the fact that it changes which is critical, not itís specific value.

And no, your model doesnít contain a changing travel time.
In a simple universe, it take 100 million years for light to travel 100 million light years.

In an expanding universe, it takes longer.

In a v=c-HD universe, it takes the same amount of time as an expanding universe.

If two metronomes are to pulse in sync, that time delay needs to be accounted for.

The correction only needs to be applied once in the case of v=c-HD (whereas in the expanding universe it will need to be applied for every trip, as space will have expanded in the meantime), but it still needs to be applied.

Otherwise the distant clock pulse would came in late.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2021, 05:46 PM   #2484
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,105
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
You asked me to draw some pictures, and I did. It shows what you said it would.

You said the illustration was what you were talking about.

I've complied with your demands. Not sure what else you want here.
Yeah, blatant reset and an attempt to ignore the consequences. I asked you to draw the construction because you doubted that the angle of reflection would be significantly different for incident light speed less than c compared with what it would be for c. Do you now agree that in your idea where incident light is at v=c-HD and reflected light is at c, the angle of reflection would be significantly different from if the light is incident at c, and that the angle of reflection would depend on D?

If not, why not?

Aren't you even interested in how much different?
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 27th February 2021, 05:53 PM   #2485
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Yeah, blatant reset and an attempt to ignore the consequences. I asked you to draw the construction because you doubted that the angle of reflection would be significantly different for incident light speed less than c compared with what it would be for c. Do you now agree that in your idea where incident light is at v=c-HD and reflected light is at c, the angle of reflection would be significantly different from if the light is incident at c, and that the angle of reflection would depend on D?
Of course. If the photon is traveling at 0.5c, then the semicircle would end up being twice as large. Producing a different angle.

I get that.

I even showed here:

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubble...reflection.htm

*edit* try 100,70

that if you place the observer point near the mirror, it produces different angles than a photon traveling at c, using the least time principle.

Funny enough, after only a couple hours of playing with this, it develops an intuition for the expected behavior pretty quickly, so that trying to imagine it working differently is uncomfortable in a way. So I totally understand your reaction. I can only imagine it being utterly repulsive to anyone that's honed their intuition over many years to expect a certain behavior.

Last edited by Mike Helland; 27th February 2021 at 06:33 PM.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2021, 06:04 PM   #2486
The Common Potato
Critical Thinker
 
The Common Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: The Scunthorpe Problem
Posts: 410
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Fair enough.

I can't explain the anomalies, but in a model where there's no reason it has to be the same temperature everywhere, they aren't anomalies.

They're features, not bugs.

It's probably just turbulence in the background field.
Your whole stick is based on what you have decided are anomalies. Like so many conspiracy types. I have little idea about this stuff so I shall invoke Clint: "A Man's got to know his Limitations."
The Common Potato 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 February 2021, 06:59 PM   #2487
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,634
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
In a simple universe, it take 100 million years for light to travel 100 million light years.

In an expanding universe, it takes longer.

In a v=c-HD universe, it takes the same amount of time as an expanding universe.

If two metronomes are to pulse in sync, that time delay needs to be accounted for.
It doesnít matter how long it takes. What matters is if the time it takes to get there if a signal leaves now is the same as the time it takes to get there if it leaves later.

In expanding space, the time for a signal to get to the destination keeps changing. In your theory, it doesnít. Thatís why your theory doesnít allow for clock desynch but expanding space does.

And again, we have been over all of this before. You forgot, yet again. Seriously, do you have memory issues? Because maybe you need to see a neurologist.
__________________
"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 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 February 2021, 07:31 PM   #2488
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It doesnít matter how long it takes. What matters is if the time it takes to get there if a signal leaves now is the same as the time it takes to get there if it leaves later.

In expanding space, the time for a signal to get to the destination keeps changing. In your theory, it doesnít. Thatís why your theory doesnít allow for clock desynch but expanding space does.

And again, we have been over all of this before. You forgot, yet again. Seriously, do you have memory issues? Because maybe you need to see a neurologist.
I understand what you're saying.

Two clocks in sync should go "tick" at the same time.

In an expanding universe, one of the clocks ticks progressively slower. They're out of sync.

In a v=c-HD, the distant clock doesn't tick progressively slower. Therefore, they aren't out of sync.

Right?

Let's say there are two metronomes that send their pulses as radio signals, and a receiver that plays the signals as audible clicks.

If one of the metronomes is placed near the receiver, and the other at a distance of 1 light second away the receiver has to delay the signals of the nearby metronome by 1 second in order for the pulses to line up.

We can apply these corrections for any distance, 1 light year, or 1 million light years.

However at 100 million light years, the pulses again will be off.

If the universe is expanding, the pulses will be progressively off.

If v=c-HD, the pulses will be consistently off.

But they will still be off.

Here's another example.

If light leaves its source, and space is expanding, the photon will redshift.

Let's say it reaches the observer after redshift, and, hypothetically, the universe stops expanding.

Future signals back and forth will take the same as the first trip. The first photon doesn't magically un-redshift. It doesn't matter what happens down the road. And we have no data from back and forth communications from millions of light years away to favor either model.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2021, 07:48 PM   #2489
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,634
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If the universe is expanding, the pulses will be progressively off.

If v=c-HD, the pulses will be consistently off.

But they will still be off.
Doesnít matter. Consistently off is still synchronized. Progressively off is not synchronized.
__________________
"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 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 February 2021, 07:51 PM   #2490
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Doesnít matter. Consistently off is still synchronized. Progressively off is not synchronized.
I get what you're saying.

As long as the clocks tick at the same rate, you're in sync.

Two stop watches that run at the same rate is a good thing. But you need to start them at the same time for their readings to make sense.

Likewise, if everyone in the band is playing at 120 bpm, but they all start at different times, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

The relativity of simultaneity does not ignore the succession of events.

Two clocks running at the same rate, but reading different times are not in sync.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2021, 09:14 PM   #2491
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,634
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I get what you're saying.

As long as the clocks tick at the same rate, you're in sync.

Two stop watches that run at the same rate is a good thing. But you need to start them at the same time for their readings to make sense.
Again, no. When looking at a distant galaxy, Iím watching how fast their clock runs. It isnít a stop watch in the first place.

Quote:
Two clocks running at the same rate, but reading different times are not in sync.
I am the one who introduced the term, and running at the same rate is EXACTLY what I meant. I have explained this to you before. Running at the same rate is the only thing we can test in real life anyways, because again, there are no actual stop watches involved here. And the rate (not absolute time) is all we need in order to demonstrate that your theory is wrong.
__________________
"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 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 February 2021, 09:51 PM   #2492
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I am the one who introduced the term, and running at the same rate is EXACTLY what I meant. I have explained this to you before. Running at the same rate is the only thing we can test in real life anyways, because again, there are no actual stop watches involved here. And the rate (not absolute time) is all we need in order to demonstrate that your theory is wrong.
Two clocks, side by side, reading the exact same time.

Now one of the clocks move to a distance D.

In special relativity, we would expect the clocks to have different rate while in motion.

But when they stop, they should both be ticking at the same rate.

However, they will be off by what time they think it is, and they will be off by a factor that includes an amount proportional to its redshift.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2021, 10:10 PM   #2493
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,634
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Two clocks, side by side, reading the exact same time.

Now one of the clocks move to a distance D.

In special relativity, we would expect the clocks to have different rate while in motion.

But when they stop, they should both be ticking at the same rate.

However, they will be off by what time they think it is, and they will be off by a factor that includes an amount proportional to its redshift.
Still irrelevant. Itís the rate, not the absolute time, that matters here. That is enough to prove you wrong.

And the fact that the rates are different when in motion is because the scenario satisfies one or both of the two conditions I told you are required in order for the rates to be different. Your theory has different rates even for clocks that satisfy neither condition. It is therefore impossible.
__________________
"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 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 February 2021, 10:22 PM   #2494
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Still irrelevant. It’s the rate, not the absolute time, that matters here. That is enough to prove you wrong.
There's no call to absolute time. The clocks start off in sync side by side.

The remote clock, observed by the other, would appear to be lagging behind at a rate proportional to its redshift.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2021, 11:15 PM   #2495
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,634
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
There's no call to absolute time. The clocks start off in sync side by side.

The remote clock, observed by the other, would appear to be lagging behind at a rate proportional to its redshift.
Yes.

Your theory needs a red shift without that clock slowdown. It needs clock desych without either of the two factors that make a desynch possible. It is therefore impossible. So why do you still cling to it? I can see no reason other than emotional attachment.
__________________
"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 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 February 2021, 12:08 AM   #2496
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes.

Your theory needs a red shift without that clock slowdown. It needs clock desych without either of the two factors that make a desynch possible. It is therefore impossible. So why do you still cling to it? I can see no reason other than emotional attachment.
Speed of a wave = frequency * wavelength

Fact: frequency decreases

Hypothesis: Maybe this is evidence of an unknown physics, where the frequency decrease comes with a velocity decrease?

Criticism: That's not on the list of known things that can happen.

Yeah, that's the point.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 03:06 AM   #2497
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,105
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Of course. If the photon is traveling at 0.5c, then the semicircle would end up being twice as large. Producing a different angle.

I get that.

I even showed here:

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubble...reflection.htm

*edit* try 100,70

that if you place the observer point near the mirror, it produces different angles than a photon traveling at c, using the least time principle.

Funny enough, after only a couple hours of playing with this, it develops an intuition for the expected behavior pretty quickly, so that trying to imagine it working differently is uncomfortable in a way. So I totally understand your reaction. I can only imagine it being utterly repulsive to anyone that's honed their intuition over many years to expect a certain behavior.
OK, let's take this a step a a time.

Although you won't do the geometric construction, do you accept I'm right when I tell you that the angles are given by sin(r) = c/v * sin(i) where v = c-HD?

So that for small angles r ~= (c/v) * i?
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 28th February 2021, 03:20 AM   #2498
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,187
I don't think space is expanding.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Criticism: That's not on the list of known things that can happen.
This is false: the criticism is that your hypothesis has consequences that are not seen to happen.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 05:06 AM   #2499
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
OK, let's take this a step a a time.

Although you won't do the geometric construction, do you accept I'm right when I tell you that the angles are given by sin(r) = c/v * sin(i) where v = c-HD?

So that for small angles r ~= (c/v) * i?
Yep.

I did the semicircle thing. Isn't twice as large a semicricle right?
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 05:29 AM   #2500
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,105
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Yep.

I did the semicircle thing. Isn't twice as large a semicricle right?
Well you shouldn't have :-).

I screwed up. For large c/v and large angles you get a nonsense result (arcsin > 1).

This is correct now. Do you still concur:
sin(pi/2 - r) = v/c sin(pi/2 - i)

This correctly represents the geometry now.


ETA to be confirmed later. I'm in a bit of a rush.

Last edited by hecd2; 28th February 2021 at 05:30 AM.
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 28th February 2021, 05:33 AM   #2501
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,634
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Speed of a wave = frequency * wavelength

Fact: frequency decreases

Hypothesis: Maybe this is evidence of an unknown physics, where the frequency decrease comes with a velocity decrease?

Criticism: That's not on the list of known things that can happen.

Yeah, that's the point.
No, Mike. That is not the criticism. Velocity is irrelevant to my argument. You can have that change however you want, for whatever reason you want.

I have explained all of this before. Your ignorance is so impenetrable that it causes you to forget.
__________________
"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 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 February 2021, 06:11 AM   #2502
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Well you shouldn't have :-).

I screwed up. For large c/v and large angles you get a nonsense result (arcsin > 1).

This is correct now. Do you still concur:
sin(pi/2 - r) = v/c sin(pi/2 - i)

This correctly represents the geometry now.


ETA to be confirmed later. I'm in a bit of a rush.
I never really doubted you.

My response was that any effects caused by the decelerated photon would also be caused by increasing distance in the expansion interpretation.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 06:17 AM   #2503
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, Mike. That is not the criticism. Velocity is irrelevant to my argument. You can have that change however you want, for whatever reason you want.

I have explained all of this before. Your ignorance is so impenetrable that it causes you to forget.
You can change the velocity of a photon however you want now?

Good news!

In all seriousness, we observe redshifts. I think it's something light does. You think that's impossible.

You asked why I haven't given up on the hypothesis. The reason is your arguments aren't convincing to me.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 08:23 AM   #2504
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,634
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
You can change the velocity of a photon however you want now?
For the purpose of evaluating your theory, yes.

Quote:
In all seriousness, we observe redshifts. I think it's something light does. You think that's impossible.
Obviously I don't think that red shifts are impossible. I gave logical requirements for it to happen, but there are multiple ways to meet those requirements, and thus multiple ways for red shifts to occur.

Your theory does not satisfy either of these.

Quote:
You asked why I haven't given up on the hypothesis. The reason is your arguments aren't convincing to me.
You have previously admitted that I was right. You keep forgetting.
__________________
"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 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 February 2021, 08:25 AM   #2505
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,105
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I never really doubted you.

My response was that any effects caused by the decelerated photon would also be caused by increasing distance in the expansion interpretation.
OK - I got myself in a muddle because my original expression sin(r) = c/v * sin(i) where v = c-HD, gives sin (r) > 1 if c/v * sin(i)>1. Of course arcsin of values >1 is undefined, so in my last post I tried to fix that. But looking again at the geometric construction, the original expression is correct even though it gives an undefined result for certain values of i and v.

Why is that? Well the reason I got into trouble is that the scenario of change of wave speed on reflection is not usual and is unphysical. But it turns out that the expression is exactly analogous to the case of the angle of refraction from a more dense to a less dense medium (say from glass to air) where the light is bent away from the normal. For certain values of n1 and n2 and certain angles of incidence greater than some amount, sin(rf) > 1, (where rf is the angle of refraction). In practice for any given pair of media, for any angles of incidence greater than that which gives rf=pi/2, there is total internal reflection - all the light is reflected internally in the denser medium and none can propagate into the less dense medium. So that is the physical meaning of sin(rf) > 1.

In our case I have no idea what sin(r) > 1 indicates physically. The scenario you present is unphysical, and I cannot think of a situation where the speed of a wave changes on reflection.

Anyway, having said all that, and being absolutely confident that you have followed along, we can stick with sin(r) = c/v * sin(i) where v = c-HD, for cases where sin(r) <=1. Therefore for small angles (what we are concerned with) r ~= c/v * i

Let me know if you now agree with that and then we can move on.

Last edited by hecd2; 28th February 2021 at 08:30 AM.
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 28th February 2021, 09:26 AM   #2506
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Obviously I don't think that red shifts are impossible. I gave logical requirements for it to happen, but there are multiple ways to meet those requirements, and thus multiple ways for red shifts to occur.

Your theory does not satisfy either of these.
Ok. So I am proposing a new way.

Light redshifts on its own.

Your criticism, with regards to the clock desyncing, seems to be that is not one of the known permissible ways it could happen.

You're right about that. But I don't consider that a deal breaker, since that's the deal. Cosmological redshifts indicate a new principle of physics.

Quote:
You have previously admitted that I was right. You keep forgetting.
You have been right about many things.

At this point, you are probably the world's leading expert in v=c-HD, the alternative cosmology with testable, practical implications.

A buddy pointed this out to me the other day, a lot like the space thought experiment from a while back: if v=c-HD is true, a probe located out around Mars that detects supernovae and alerts us on Earth should give us a decent advance warning to point our telescopes in the right direction.

*edit* assuming the supernova has a high enough z

Last edited by Mike Helland; 28th February 2021 at 09:34 AM.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 09:33 AM   #2507
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
OK - I got myself in a muddle because my original expression sin(r) = c/v * sin(i) where v = c-HD, gives sin (r) > 1 if c/v * sin(i)>1. Of course arcsin of values >1 is undefined, so in my last post I tried to fix that. But looking again at the geometric construction, the original expression is correct even though it gives an undefined result for certain values of i and v.

Why is that? Well the reason I got into trouble is that the scenario of change of wave speed on reflection is not usual and is unphysical. But it turns out that the expression is exactly analogous to the case of the angle of refraction from a more dense to a less dense medium (say from glass to air) where the light is bent away from the normal. For certain values of n1 and n2 and certain angles of incidence greater than some amount, sin(rf) > 1, (where rf is the angle of refraction). In practice for any given pair of media, for any angles of incidence greater than that which gives rf=pi/2, there is total internal reflection - all the light is reflected internally in the denser medium and none can propagate into the less dense medium. So that is the physical meaning of sin(rf) > 1.

In our case I have no idea what sin(r) > 1 indicates physically. The scenario you present is unphysical, and I cannot think of a situation where the speed of a wave changes on reflection.
How about in QED, where light can travel at all sorts of speeds (greater than and less than c) but those non-c paths cancel out?

If we messed with the "dial clock" for each photon in QED, that ought to lead to the expected wavelengths canceling out and a different wavelength as an outcome?



Quote:
Anyway, having said all that, and being absolutely confident that you have followed along, we can stick with sin(r) = c/v * sin(i) where v = c-HD, for cases where sin(r) <=1. Therefore for small angles (what we are concerned with) r ~= c/v * i

Let me know if you now agree with that and then we can move on.
I'm doing my best. Keep going.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 11:05 AM   #2508
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,105
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I'm doing my best. Keep going.
So the primary mirror in the HST is 2400mm diameter with a focal length of 5520mm. That means the angle of incidence on the edge of the mirror is given by 0.5 arctan (1200/5520) = 6.13 degrees.

The angular pixel size of the deep field image is 0.04 arc secs. Let us be lenient and say that if a galaxy is blurred by 20 pixels or more it will not be seen. This corresponds to an angular error of reflection at the edge of the mirror of 0.8 arc seconds (in other words, if the reflection angle is different by 0.8 arc secs at the edge of the mirror, those rays will be directed to a point on the CCD 20 pixels away from the base case).

If the speed of light equals c before reflection the angle of reflection at the edge of the mirror is 6.13 degrees.

If the speed of light is v=c-HD before reflection, the angle of reflection is c/v * 6.13 degrees and if this is more different from 6.13 degrees than 0.8 arc seconds the light will be directed 20 pixels or more away.

So the condition is that if (c/v * 6.13) - 6.13 = 6.13 degrees * (c/v-1) > 0.8 arcseconds the galaxy/star will not be resolved. Rearranging, (c/v)-1 = 0.8arcsecs/6.13 degrees = 3.63x10^-5. So if v<0.999964c then the galaxy will not be resolved.

v=c-HD. So if HD>(3.63 x 10^-5) * c, the galaxy or star will not be resolved. Taking H to be 70km s^-1 Mpc^-1 gives a limit on D of 0.156Mpc - everything further away will be blurred and unresolvable. This is trivially equivalent to z=3.63 x 10^-5

So, Mike, if your idea is right HST will not resolve anything 0.156Mpc or z=3.63 x 10^-5 or further away.

Do you agree? If not, why not?
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 28th February 2021, 11:29 AM   #2509
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
So the primary mirror in the HST is 2400mm diameter with a focal length of 5520mm. That means the angle of incidence on the edge of the mirror is given by 0.5 arctan (1200/5520) = 6.13 degrees.

The angular pixel size of the deep field image is 0.04 arc secs. Let us be lenient and say that if a galaxy is blurred by 20 pixels or more it will not be seen. This corresponds to an angular error of reflection at the edge of the mirror of 0.8 arc seconds (in other words, if the reflection angle is different by 0.8 arc secs at the edge of the mirror, those rays will be directed to a point on the CCD 20 pixels away from the base case).

If the speed of light equals c before reflection the angle of reflection at the edge of the mirror is 6.13 degrees.

If the speed of light is v=c-HD before reflection, the angle of reflection is c/v * 6.13 degrees and if this is more different from 6.13 degrees than 0.8 arc seconds the light will be directed 20 pixels or more away.

So the condition is that if (c/v * 6.13) - 6.13 = 6.13 degrees * (c/v-1) > 0.8 arcseconds the galaxy/star will not be resolved. Rearranging, (c/v)-1 = 0.8arcsecs/6.13 degrees = 3.63x10^-5. So if v<0.999964c then the galaxy will not be resolved.

v=c-HD. So if HD>(3.63 x 10^-5) * c, the galaxy or star will not be resolved. Taking H to be 70km s^-1 Mpc^-1 gives a limit on D of 0.156Mpc - everything further away will be blurred and unresolvable. This is trivially equivalent to z=3.63 x 10^-5

So, Mike, if your idea is right HST will not resolve anything 0.156Mpc or z=3.63 x 10^-5 or further away.

Do you agree? If not, why not?
Yeah, I never doubted you.

If a decelerated photon behaves as classical light does, it won't reflect the way needed to resolve distant galaxies. As can be shown multiple ways, Fermat's least time principle being a rather straightforward one.

In classical physics, you have light before and after the reflection, and we can tacitly think it is the "same" light throughout the experiment.

According to QED, it's ambiguous whether an electron emits the same photon it absorbs, or whether that's a new photon.

According to v=c-HD, the emitted photon has D=0 and an increased wavelength so it has to be considered different in at least those respects

But that said, when describing two parallel photons approaching a mirror at 45 degrees, you were insisting that I produce the size of the semicircle growing around the photon that hits first while the second is still in flight.

My response is that any time delay associated with the decelerated photon is also present when the redshifts are produced by increasing distance, as in the expanding universe.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 12:08 PM   #2510
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,634
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Ok. So I am proposing a new way.

Light redshifts on its own.

Your criticism, with regards to the clock desyncing, seems to be that is not one of the known permissible ways it could happen.

You're right about that. But I don't consider that a deal breaker, since that's the deal. Cosmological redshifts indicate a new principle of physics.
No, Mike. I am not saying you are wrong because no known method red shifts light like that. I am saying that those two conditions (non-static setup or an asymmetry) are requirements of any POSSIBLE mechanism for redshift. There are lots of new, unknown mechanisms that could fall under either of those two conditions. But yours doesn't. So it is logically prohibited.
__________________
"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 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 February 2021, 12:17 PM   #2511
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, Mike. I am not saying you are wrong because no known method red shifts light like that. I am saying that those two conditions (non-static setup or an asymmetry) are requirements of any POSSIBLE mechanism for redshift. There are lots of new, unknown mechanisms that could fall under either of those two conditions. But yours doesn't. So it is logically prohibited.
Ok.

If the redshifts are an effect of some cause, then whatever the cause requires, so does the redshifts.

If the redshifts are not an effect of some cause, but rather a fundamental phenomenon, something light naturally does given you let it travel uninterrupted for long enough, then your "logically prohibited" goes out the window.

I'm basing my theory of light slowing down based on the wave speed equation (v=f*w) and the empirical reality of redshifts, aka decreasing frequency.

If you don't buy that, that's cool. More power to you.

But to say that something we observe to happen can't logically happen, and therefore the infationary universe is a safer bet, I'm not buying that.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 12:49 PM   #2512
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,634
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Ok.

If the redshifts are an effect of some cause, then whatever the cause requires, so does the redshifts.

If the redshifts are not an effect of some cause, but rather a fundamental phenomenon, something light naturally does given you let it travel uninterrupted for long enough, then your "logically prohibited" goes out the window.

I'm basing my theory of light slowing down based on the wave speed equation (v=f*w) and the empirical reality of redshifts, aka decreasing frequency.

If you don't buy that, that's cool. More power to you.

But to say that something we observe to happen can't logically happen, and therefore the infationary universe is a safer bet, I'm not buying that.
Wow, but that is stupid. You are trying to play word games with "cause" as if it makes a difference. It does not.
__________________
"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 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 February 2021, 12:56 PM   #2513
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Wow, but that is stupid. You are trying to play word games with "cause" as if it makes a difference. It does not.
If nature decided the electromagnetic force, the force that nearly everything in our lives depends on, from holding atoms together to our human senses, only travels to c/H, no amount of logic or theory has a thing to say about it.

We observe the redshifts. Maybe nature does that.

The expanding space idea looked like the solution for a while there. Don't get me wrong. If this was the early 2000's I'd be right along with you, fighting the ignorant science denier.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 01:31 PM   #2514
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,634
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If nature decided the electromagnetic force, the force that nearly everything in our lives depends on, from holding atoms together to our human senses, only travels to c/H, no amount of logic or theory has a thing to say about it.
This is just pure desperation at this point. The range isnít relevant to my argument. You can limit the range to and distance you want, and my argument will still hold.
__________________
"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 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 February 2021, 01:49 PM   #2515
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This is just pure desperation at this point. The range isnít relevant to my argument. You can limit the range to and distance you want, and my argument will still hold.
I'm just saying, if nature thinks its best light doesn't shine to infinity, your logic won't change its mind.

Your argument might fall down in the following way:

Say there is just one galaxy in an expanding universe.

It's light will travel, but it will never reach an observer.

If there's no observer, by your logic, does the light redshift? How?
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 02:26 PM   #2516
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,634
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I'm just saying, if nature thinks its best light doesn't shine to infinity, your logic won't change its mind.

Your argument might fall down in the following way:

Say there is just one galaxy in an expanding universe.

It's light will travel, but it will never reach an observer.

If there's no observer, by your logic, does the light redshift? How?
How the hell is that hypothetical relevant when we DO observe redshifts?

And again, the range isnít relevant. My argument holds regardless of any distance limit.
__________________
"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 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 February 2021, 02:34 PM   #2517
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
How the hell is that hypothetical relevant when we DO observe redshifts?
Yes, we observe redshifts.

Using your logic of clocks desyncing, can redshift only happen to photons that are observed?

If there is only the source clock, shouldn't the photon still redshift? That would be impossible by your logic.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 04:38 PM   #2518
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,105
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
My response is that any time delay associated with the decelerated photon is also present when the redshifts are produced by increasing distance, as in the expanding universe.
What are you talking about? What has the expanding universe got to do with this question of local light speed?
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 28th February 2021, 05:53 PM   #2519
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,634
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Yes, we observe redshifts.

Using your logic of clocks desyncing, can redshift only happen to photons that are observed?
No. Why would you think that? That makes no sense.
__________________
"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 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 February 2021, 06:04 PM   #2520
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. Why would you think that? That makes no sense.
A redshift requires clocks to desync.

You need more than one clock for that to happen, right?

A single clock is synced with itself.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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

Bookmarks

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 07:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.