I don't think space is expanding. - Page 41

Ziggurat · 21st January 2021, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

It's one of the fundamental questions of religion.

There's no reason a theory of redshifts should tell us how old the universe is.

It has to match the facts.

Not faith.

How old the universe is isn’t a matter of faith, it’s a matter of fact. And the fact is that either the universe is infinitely old, or it had a beginning. That isn’t religion, that’s elementary logic. You say you aren’t claiming that the universe is infinitely old. Then how old is it? We should be able to determine that by examining it. By looking at the facts.

You are strangely incurious about this. Why?

Mike Helland · 21st January 2021, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

How old the universe is isn’t a matter of faith, it’s a matter of fact. And the fact is that either the universe is infinitely old, or it had a beginning. That isn’t religion, that’s elementary logic. You say you aren’t claiming that the universe is infinitely old. Then how old is it? We should be able to determine that by examining it. By looking at the facts.

You are strangely incurious about this. Why?

According to the Big Bang theory, the universe is 14 billion years old.

According to a non-expanding theory, the universe wouldn't have an age.

I was kinda shocked about that at first. Made me feel dirty even.

But I got over it.

I'm fine with either.

That the big bang gives us a creation date, which is cool, but no logical argument I know of says other redshift interpretations must do the same thing.

Ziggurat · 21st January 2021, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

It wouldn't, I suppose.

It would have to be catching up with photons in front of it.

But that is precisely what your theory allows for: a spaceship to catch up with photons in front of it. So what would those photons look like to the ship that caught up to them?

Your theory is fundamentally incompatible with both relativity and electrodynamics. You don’t even understand the problem, of course you’re not going to be able to come up with a solution.

Reality Check · 21st January 2021, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

If a star spends all its fuel, it won't make a bit of difference.

The light it has shown will redshift, and that energy would get recycled back

A delusion that "recycled energy" from red shifted light turns elements such as iron (the endpoint of normal stellar fusion) back into hydrogen.

Ziggurat · 21st January 2021, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

According to the Big Bang theory, the universe is 14 billion years old.

According to a non-expanding theory, the universe wouldn't have an age.

Unless you mean the universe is infinitely old, this statement doesn’t even make sense. And if you are claiming it is infinitely old, then we are back to the problem of why it isn’t already heat dead. If it’s not infinitely old, then we have the problem of figuring out how old. Refusing to say doesn’t make your theory better than a theory which does say, it makes it worse.

Quote:

I was kinda shocked about that at first. Made me feel dirty even.

But I got over it.

I'm fine with either.

I don’t care what you are fine with. You don’t know anything, so neither your objections nor your approval matter. I care what actually is possible, and what matches observation. Your theory doesn’t.

Reality Check · 21st January 2021, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

....

More idiocy of irrelevant questions in a thread about Mike Helland's ignorant fantasies.

Mike Helland irrelevancy about the conclusion of "A Cold, Massive, Rotating Disk 1.5 Billion Years after the Big Bang"
Another ignorant fantasy that a challenge is removed by removing a time limit when the challenges are probably in the complexity of numeric simulations.
Mike Helland's inability to understand clear English in a paper's abstract.
Mike Helland turns incomprehension into a lie about a paper's abstract which has no problem

Mike Helland · 21st January 2021, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

But that is precisely what your theory allows for: a spaceship to catch up with photons in front of it. So what would those photons look like to the ship that caught up to them?

I suppose it would be no different than catching up to a sound wave, or a shockwave from an earth quake.

In this case, you would literally be outrunning light from a galaxy, to reach a point where the light is now showing you a younger version of the galaxy than where you just were.

Quote:

Your theory is fundamentally incompatible with both relativity and electrodynamics. You don’t even understand the problem, of course you’re not going to be able to come up with a solution.

Is it a problem?

If you outrun light, you get to see the light that came before it.

Basically time travel.

Mike Helland · 21st January 2021, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Unless you mean the universe is infinitely old, this statement doesn’t even make sense. And if you are claiming it is infinitely old, then we are back to the problem of why it isn’t already heat dead. If it’s not infinitely old, then we have the problem of figuring out how old. Refusing to say doesn’t make your theory better than a theory which does say, it makes it worse.

It could be 10¹⁰⁰ years old, or 10^100¹⁰⁰ years old.

The evidence isn't discriminating at this point.

But both are finite numbers.

Reality Check · 21st January 2021, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

"This provides a simple null test to be applied to any cluster thus found in a real catalogue, and suggests that the interpretation of LQGs as ‘structures’ is misleading."

The argument doesn't apply to walls.

Mike Helland fantasizes about a quote from a paper and follows with a fantasy that I updated Wikipedia.
An ignorant physics crank will not know what arguments in a paper can be applied to. Mike Helland is so deeply ignorant of astronomy that he seems to still believe that the CMB is local form his recent posts and his web page still has his "retracted" stuff.

20 January 2021: A couple or maybe 3 retractions from Mike Helland.

Reality Check · 21st January 2021, 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

I suppose it would be no different than catching up to a sound wave, or a shockwave from an earth quake.

Abysmal ignorance about catching up to light from Mike Helland.
A delusion that light is propagated in a medium like a sound wave or shock wave. This has been known to be not the case since the Michelson–Morley experiment in 1887. This is well known textbook physics.
Pursuing a beam of light is a 16 year old Einstein thinking about travelling at c alongside a light beam and concluding that it would not exist!

Quote:

There seems to be no such thing, however, neither on the basis of experience nor according to Maxwell's equations

Ziggurat · 21st January 2021, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

It could be 10¹⁰⁰ years old, or 10^100¹⁰⁰ years old.

The evidence isn't discriminating at this point.

But both are finite numbers.

What would it look like if the universe was 10¹⁰⁰ years old? Why aren’t all the stars burned out already? They don’t last that long.

The evidence is, in fact, quite discriminating on this point.

Ziggurat · 21st January 2021, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

I suppose it would be no different than catching up to a sound wave, or a shockwave from an earth quake.

That analogy requires an aether to work. Do you believe in an aether?

Quote:

Is it a problem?

Yes. It contradicts relativity. That’s a problem, since relativity has so much experimental support.

Reformed Offlian · 21st January 2021, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

It wouldn't, I suppose.

It would have to be catching up with photons in front of it.

In that case you have the unique reference frame problem Ziggurat mentioned.

But continuing with the thought experiment: if I could communicate with these aliens to ask them where GN-Z11 was, which way would they point?

Mike Helland · 21st January 2021, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Why aren’t all the stars burned out already?

If the universe is 13.8 Byo, and our galaxy is 13.6 Byo, we live in a galaxy about as old as the universe.

This has led some to speculate that we are among the first intelligent life in the universe:

"This most intriguing conclusion flows from the age of the universe, the generally understood epochs when stars and then planets and galaxies formed, and then how long it would take for a planet to cool off enough to form the chemical building blocks of life and then life itself. Given these factors, Loeb says, we're early."

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/20...n-the-universe

What we're being told believe is that the stars and galaxies we see are among the first to have ever existed. In the trillions of years in the galaxy's future, we're here at the beginning.

Yeah... I highly doubt that.

That's a pretty Christopher Columbus way of looking at things. Show up late and claim you discovered it.

No, what's far more likely is the stars and galaxies we see are not the first, not the children, not even the grandchildren of the firsts.

Countless generations of stars have lived and died.

Hawking radiation and such.

Mike Helland · 21st January 2021, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian

In that case you have the unique reference frame problem Ziggurat mentioned.

Just because different observers see things in different directions, that's a problem?

Light can wrap around a black hole and come back to you. Kind of similar concept.

Quote:

But continuing with the thought experiment: if I could communicate with these aliens to ask them where GN-Z11 was, which way would they point?

Assuming photons were like billiard balls, the galaxy behind them would appear in front of them.

If they weren't billiard balls and had their "outward direction" maybe that'd be different. That's a can of worms I'm not sure I want to open.

Mike Helland · 21st January 2021, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That analogy requires an aether to work. Do you believe in an aether?

Nope.

Quote:

Yes. It contradicts relativity. That’s a problem, since relativity has so much experimental support.

v=c-HD, so when the expansion of space can be ignored, v=c, experimentally we're good.

If, hypothetically, you could travel at 2c, then you could travel away from Earth, looking backwards, and see it grow younger. You should be able to see galaxies rotate backwards and devolve.

If the light is traveling at 0.08 at z=11, you should be able to see the same thing moving away from the galaxy at v>0.08.

Ziggurat · 22nd January 2021, 05:16 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

v=c-HD

In what frame? I keep asking, but you won’t say. You don’t even seem to realize that this is necessarily frame-dependent.

Ziggurat · 22nd January 2021, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Countless generations of stars have lived and died.

Then where are all the corpses?

Guybrush Threepwood · 22nd January 2021, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Then where are all the corpses?

They turn into planets.

Reformed Offlian · 22nd January 2021, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

They turn into planets.

Zombie planets! Must...eat...stars...

Reformed Offlian · 22nd January 2021, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Just because different observers see things in different directions, that's a problem?

No, there's a problem because you cannot predict what different observers will see in different directions. You cannot predict how light will look to different observers without extrinsic information about where it came from. Even with that information, you cannot tell me with any certainty what the aliens will see when they look at GN-Z11; by your own admission, you're just guessing.

And that in turn means that your theory cannot make coherent predictions; it relies on extrinsic assumptions; it's only valid wrt one reference frame, and there's no way to know whether we're even in that reference frame; we might just as easily be the aliens in the spaceship.

Mike Helland · 22nd January 2021, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

In what frame? I keep asking, but you won’t say. You don’t even seem to realize that this is necessarily frame-dependent.

Any inertial frame.

Mike Helland · 22nd January 2021, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian

No, there's a problem because you cannot predict what different observers will see in different directions. You cannot predict how light will look to different observers without extrinsic information about where it came from. Even with that information, you cannot tell me with any certainty what the aliens will see when they look at GN-Z11; by your own admission, you're just guessing.

According to relativity, the aliens would look back and see the galaxy grow younger.

But I think you've actually suggested a pretty good test.

If we have an observer probe, viewing GN-Z11, the probe should move away at v>0.08c.

I think it would either

1. continue to redshift (even when time goes backward)
2. disappear or flicker
3. disappear and reappear in front of you

Quote:

And that in turn means that your theory cannot make coherent predictions; it relies on extrinsic assumptions; it's only valid wrt one reference frame, and there's no way to know whether we're even in that reference frame; we might just as easily be the aliens in the spaceship.

Let's say I'm in a spaceship moving away from Earth at 2c.

Looking at the Earth, wouldn't it grow younger?

We would be catching up to light that left in the past.

That same logic applies to all frames.

Mike Helland · 22nd January 2021, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Then where are all the corpses?

You mean all the rare earth metals in your electronics?

Reformed Offlian · 22nd January 2021, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

According to relativity, the aliens would look back and see the galaxy grow younger.

According to which relativity? In SR light moves at c in all directions for all observers, so you can't use that.

Quote:

But I think you've actually suggested a pretty good test.

If we have an observer probe, viewing GN-Z11, the probe should move away at v>0.08c.

I think it would either

1. continue to redshift (even when time goes backward)
2. disappear or flicker
3. disappear and reappear in front of you

So, no actual prediction then? It's multiple choice?

Quote:

Let's say I'm in a spaceship moving away from Earth at 2c.

Let's not.

So which redshifts give the correct distances? Your model assumes that there's an answer to that question.

Ziggurat · 22nd January 2021, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Any inertial frame.

No. Your equation is not relativistically invariant. If it is correct in one frame, it will be wrong in other frames.

Which frame is it correct in? You can't say "any inertial frame", that's wrong.

Ziggurat · 22nd January 2021, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

You mean all the rare earth metals in your electronics?

Why are rare earth metals rare? They shouldn't be rare if we've been through many, many generations of stars. And that's only part of the corpse. Where's the rest of it?

You don't even know enough physics to understand why this is a problem for your theory.

Mike Helland · 22nd January 2021, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian

According to which relativity? In SR light moves at c in all directions for all observers, so you can't use that.

Second postulate of SR is that light moves at c in a vacuum.

My hypothesis is that light moves at c-HD in a vacuum.

It's a marriage between Einstein and Hubble. *edit* Hubble's Law gets divorced from GR and and elopes with SR.

So that's what I would use.

Quote:

So, no actual prediction then? It's multiple choice?

3 different hypothesis lead to 3 predictions and observation would be left to choose between them, yes.

Quote:

Let's not.

As you wish.

Mike Helland · 22nd January 2021, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Why are rare earth metals rare?

Probably because until a couple hundred years ago were using shovels to get at them.

They get less rare every day. And that's just on Earth.

Buy bitcoin ;-)

Quote:

They shouldn't be rare if we've been through many, many generations of stars. And that's only part of the corpse. Where's the rest of it?

In the ground or out in space.

Mike Helland · 22nd January 2021, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No. Your equation is not relativistically invariant. If it is correct in one frame, it will be wrong in other frames.

Which frame is it correct in? You can't say "any inertial frame", that's wrong.

Why's it wrong?

Use length contraction for D if you're not in at rest wrt the observed object.

Ziggurat · 22nd January 2021, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Probably because until a couple hundred years ago were using shovels to get at them.

No. They are rare in absolute terms, not simply in their availability to us.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Why's it wrong?

Because when you do a coordinate transformation on that equation, it changes form. It's not the same equation anymore. If you try to use the original equation in the new reference frame, you will get a different answer than the transformed equation. So the original equation is wrong in this new frame.

Quote:

Use length contraction for D if you're not in at rest wrt the observed object.

This is a half-answer that you don't even understand. You seem to be saying that the equation is correct as written in the reference frame of the emitter. Is that what you mean? It's still not relativistically invariant and that's still a problem, but at least that would be an answer. If this is what you mean, then we can examine the consequences.

Mike Helland · 22nd January 2021, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No. They are rare in absolute terms, not simply in their availability to us.

There are about 2 trillion galaxies in the universe.

If most of them have no gold (as we observe them at a young age), because we're among the first galaxies to have gold, that would be pretty remarkable.

My hypothesis predicts similar metal content today as 13 billion years ago.

The big bang predicts lower.metal content.

Another prediction the JWST should be able to tell us.

Basically, I'm just exploring this hypothesis, because if the universe turns out to be way bigger and older and more heavy metal than we thought, I can pull this out of my pocket and say "v=c-HD".

If JWST shows us a 14 billion year old universe with an observable region 96 Bly across, well done big bang. Well done.

Quote:

This is a half-answer that you don't even understand. You seem to be saying that the equation is correct as written in the reference frame of the emitter.

Nope.

If we are thinking of this as a modified special relativity (from v=c to v=c-HD) then it would be in any inertial frame.

Ziggurat · 22nd January 2021, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

My hypothesis predicts similar metal content today as 13 billion years ago.

You haven't predicted anything about heavy metal element compositions. Seriously, where are your numbers?

Quote:

Basically, I'm just exploring this hypothesis

No, you aren't. You don't even know enough to explore it meaningfully.

Quote:

Nope.

If we are thinking of this as a modified special relativity (from v=c to v=c-HD) then it would be in any inertial frame.

No, Mike. This is wrong. Your equation can only be valid in one reference frame, if at all. It must be wrong in every other frame, because changing frames changes the equation. That's just math. There is no way around that.

Mike Helland · 22nd January 2021, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You haven't predicted anything about heavy metal element compositions. Seriously, where are your numbers?

It's a matter of the cosmological principle, not a specific numbers.

I don't know the ratio of walls to voids, but the cosmological principle says it ought to be the same everywhere.

Quote:

No, Mike. This is wrong. Your equation can only be valid in one reference frame, if at all. It must be wrong in every other frame, because changing frames changes the equation. That's just math. There is no way around that.

How does it change the equation?

We're on earth and the sun is out there. Light from the sun heads to Earth at c.

A space ship from Mars heads past us towards the Sun.

Both the space ship and Earth see light moving at c. The space ship will get some blue shifts going on.

Now let's say we're not talking about the sun, but a high z galaxy.

What's different, the light doesn't move at c, it moves at c-HD.

So... don't use length contraction. Use proper length.

There. Figured it out. Now it's frame invariant. All in a days work.

Ziggurat · 22nd January 2021, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

It's a matter of the cosmological principle, not a specific numbers.

I don't know the ratio of walls to voids, but the cosmological principle says it ought to be the same everywhere.

This is a weird non-sequitor. We were talking about element ratios, not structures.

Quote:

How does it change the equation?

By changing both v and D. These are reference-frame dependent.

We're on earth and the sun is out there. Light from the sun heads to Earth at

Quote:

Now let's say we're not talking about the sun, but a high z galaxy.

What's different, the light doesn't move at c, it moves at c-HD.

So... don't use length contraction. Use proper length.

Do you mean the comoving frame proper length? That's still picking one frame, the comoving frame, in which to do the calculation. Which, fine, but you've still got to actually specify that. Otherwise there is no "proper length" you can refer to, and that still doesn't fix the whole problem because you're still left with v being reference-frame dependent. You could pick the comoving frame for that, but again, you're still specifying one frame in which the equation is correct, and it's wrong in other reference frames.

Quote:

There. Figured it out. Now it's frame invariant. All in a days work.

No, you haven't figured anything out. It's still reference frame dependent. You're just so bad at relativity that you don't even understand why.

Mike Helland · 22nd January 2021, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Do you mean the comoving frame proper length?

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_length

Ziggurat · 22nd January 2021, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_length

This doesn't make any sense. The distance between the source and the observer is not an object, and is not spanned by an object. It doesn't have a proper length under this definition.

You keep revealing that you don't actually understand anything you're talking about.

Mike Helland · 22nd January 2021, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

This doesn't make any sense. The distance between the source and the observer is not an object, and is not spanned by an object. It doesn't have a proper length under this definition.

Yeah, proper distance rather, from the same article. As in SR opposed to GR.

Ziggurat · 22nd January 2021, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Yeah, proper distance rather, from the same article. As in SR opposed to GR.

Yeah, well, that pretty much blows up your entire theory. Photons travel along null trajectories. The proper distance along their path is zero. Therefore, D=0 and they will never slow down.

Oops.

You really don't know anything, and are just throwing words against a wall in the hopes that something sticks.

theprestige · 22nd January 2021, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Second postulate of SR is that light moves at c in a vacuum.

My hypothesis is that light moves at c-HD in a vacuum.

Hubble distance is relative to the points being considered.

The Hubble distance across the Milky Way is one value. The Hubble distance between Andromeda and the Milky Way is another. You're saying that the same exact photon from Andromeda will move at two different speeds simultaneously.

Of course you're actually saying that the same photon will move at an infinite number of different speeds, simultaneously.

21st January 2021, 08:45 PM	#1601
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by Mike Helland It's one of the fundamental questions of religion. There's no reason a theory of redshifts should tell us how old the universe is. It has to match the facts. Not faith. How old the universe is isn’t a matter of faith, it’s a matter of fact. And the fact is that either the universe is infinitely old, or it had a beginning. That isn’t religion, that’s elementary logic. You say you aren’t claiming that the universe is infinitely old. Then how old is it? We should be able to determine that by examining it. By looking at the facts. You are strangely incurious about this. Why?
	__________________ "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

21st January 2021, 08:49 PM	#1603
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by Mike Helland It wouldn't, I suppose. It would have to be catching up with photons in front of it. But that is precisely what your theory allows for: a spaceship to catch up with photons in front of it. So what would those photons look like to the ship that caught up to them? Your theory is fundamentally incompatible with both relativity and electrodynamics. You don’t even understand the problem, of course you’re not going to be able to come up with a solution.
	__________________ "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

21st January 2021, 08:49 PM	#1604
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 27,720	A delusion that iron will magically turn back to hydrogen Originally Posted by Mike Helland If a star spends all its fuel, it won't make a bit of difference. The light it has shown will redshift, and that energy would get recycled back A delusion that "recycled energy" from red shifted light turns elements such as iron (the endpoint of normal stellar fusion) back into hydrogen.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

21st January 2021, 08:53 PM	#1605
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by Mike Helland According to the Big Bang theory, the universe is 14 billion years old. According to a non-expanding theory, the universe wouldn't have an age. Unless you mean the universe is infinitely old, this statement doesn’t even make sense. And if you are claiming it is infinitely old, then we are back to the problem of why it isn’t already heat dead. If it’s not infinitely old, then we have the problem of figuring out how old. Refusing to say doesn’t make your theory better than a theory which does say, it makes it worse. Quote: I was kinda shocked about that at first. Made me feel dirty even. But I got over it. I'm fine with either. I don’t care what you are fine with. You don’t know anything, so neither your objections nor your approval matter. I care what actually is possible, and what matches observation. Your theory 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

21st January 2021, 08:54 PM	#1606
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 27,720	Idiocy of irrelevant questions in a thread about Mike Helland's ignorant fantasies. Originally Posted by Mike Helland .... More idiocy of irrelevant questions in a thread about Mike Helland's ignorant fantasies. Mike Helland irrelevancy about the conclusion of "A Cold, Massive, Rotating Disk 1.5 Billion Years after the Big Bang" Another ignorant fantasy that a challenge is removed by removing a time limit when the challenges are probably in the complexity of numeric simulations. Mike Helland's inability to understand clear English in a paper's abstract. Mike Helland turns incomprehension into a lie about a paper's abstract which has no problem
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

21st January 2021, 08:48 PM	#1602
Mike Helland Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by Ziggurat How old the universe is isn’t a matter of faith, it’s a matter of fact. And the fact is that either the universe is infinitely old, or it had a beginning. That isn’t religion, that’s elementary logic. You say you aren’t claiming that the universe is infinitely old. Then how old is it? We should be able to determine that by examining it. By looking at the facts. You are strangely incurious about this. Why? According to the Big Bang theory, the universe is 14 billion years old. According to a non-expanding theory, the universe wouldn't have an age. I was kinda shocked about that at first. Made me feel dirty even. But I got over it. I'm fine with either. That the big bang gives us a creation date, which is cool, but no logical argument I know of says other redshift interpretations must do the same thing.

21st January 2021, 08:55 PM	#1607
Mike Helland Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by Ziggurat But that is precisely what your theory allows for: a spaceship to catch up with photons in front of it. So what would those photons look like to the ship that caught up to them? I suppose it would be no different than catching up to a sound wave, or a shockwave from an earth quake. In this case, you would literally be outrunning light from a galaxy, to reach a point where the light is now showing you a younger version of the galaxy than where you just were. Quote: Your theory is fundamentally incompatible with both relativity and electrodynamics. You don’t even understand the problem, of course you’re not going to be able to come up with a solution. Is it a problem? If you outrun light, you get to see the light that came before it. Basically time travel.

21st January 2021, 08:57 PM	#1608
Mike Helland Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Unless you mean the universe is infinitely old, this statement doesn’t even make sense. And if you are claiming it is infinitely old, then we are back to the problem of why it isn’t already heat dead. If it’s not infinitely old, then we have the problem of figuring out how old. Refusing to say doesn’t make your theory better than a theory which does say, it makes it worse. It could be 10¹⁰⁰ years old, or 10^100¹⁰⁰ years old. The evidence isn't discriminating at this point. But both are finite numbers.

21st January 2021, 09:09 PM	#1609
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 27,720	Mike Helland fantasizes about a quote from a paper Originally Posted by Mike Helland "This provides a simple null test to be applied to any cluster thus found in a real catalogue, and suggests that the interpretation of LQGs as ‘structures’ is misleading." The argument doesn't apply to walls. Mike Helland fantasizes about a quote from a paper and follows with a fantasy that I updated Wikipedia. An ignorant physics crank will not know what arguments in a paper can be applied to. Mike Helland is so deeply ignorant of astronomy that he seems to still believe that the CMB is local form his recent posts and his web page still has his "retracted" stuff. 20 January 2021: A couple or maybe 3 retractions from Mike Helland.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

21st January 2021, 09:17 PM	#1610
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 27,720	Abysmal ignorance about catching up to light from Mike Helland Originally Posted by Mike Helland I suppose it would be no different than catching up to a sound wave, or a shockwave from an earth quake. Abysmal ignorance about catching up to light from Mike Helland. A delusion that light is propagated in a medium like a sound wave or shock wave. This has been known to be not the case since the Michelson–Morley experiment in 1887. This is well known textbook physics. Pursuing a beam of light is a 16 year old Einstein thinking about travelling at c alongside a light beam and concluding that it would not exist! Quote: There seems to be no such thing, however, neither on the basis of experience nor according to Maxwell's equations
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 21st January 2021 at 09:54 PM.

21st January 2021, 09:46 PM	#1611
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by Mike Helland It could be 10¹⁰⁰ years old, or 10^100¹⁰⁰ years old. The evidence isn't discriminating at this point. But both are finite numbers. What would it look like if the universe was 10¹⁰⁰ years old? Why aren’t all the stars burned out already? They don’t last that long. The evidence is, in fact, quite discriminating on this point.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

21st January 2021, 09:49 PM	#1612
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by Mike Helland I suppose it would be no different than catching up to a sound wave, or a shockwave from an earth quake. That analogy requires an aether to work. Do you believe in an aether? Quote: Is it a problem? Yes. It contradicts relativity. That’s a problem, since relativity has so much experimental support.
	__________________ "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

21st January 2021, 10:39 PM	#1613
Reformed Offlian Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2020 Location: USA Posts: 350	Originally Posted by Mike Helland It wouldn't, I suppose. It would have to be catching up with photons in front of it. In that case you have the unique reference frame problem Ziggurat mentioned. But continuing with the thought experiment: if I could communicate with these aliens to ask them where GN-Z11 was, which way would they point?

21st January 2021, 10:48 PM	#1614
Mike Helland Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Why aren’t all the stars burned out already? If the universe is 13.8 Byo, and our galaxy is 13.6 Byo, we live in a galaxy about as old as the universe. This has led some to speculate that we are among the first intelligent life in the universe: "This most intriguing conclusion flows from the age of the universe, the generally understood epochs when stars and then planets and galaxies formed, and then how long it would take for a planet to cool off enough to form the chemical building blocks of life and then life itself. Given these factors, Loeb says, we're early." https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/20...n-the-universe What we're being told believe is that the stars and galaxies we see are among the first to have ever existed. In the trillions of years in the galaxy's future, we're here at the beginning. Yeah... I highly doubt that. That's a pretty Christopher Columbus way of looking at things. Show up late and claim you discovered it. No, what's far more likely is the stars and galaxies we see are not the first, not the children, not even the grandchildren of the firsts. Countless generations of stars have lived and died. Hawking radiation and such.

21st January 2021, 10:54 PM	#1615
Mike Helland Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian In that case you have the unique reference frame problem Ziggurat mentioned. Just because different observers see things in different directions, that's a problem? Light can wrap around a black hole and come back to you. Kind of similar concept. Quote: But continuing with the thought experiment: if I could communicate with these aliens to ask them where GN-Z11 was, which way would they point? Assuming photons were like billiard balls, the galaxy behind them would appear in front of them. If they weren't billiard balls and had their "outward direction" maybe that'd be different. That's a can of worms I'm not sure I want to open.

21st January 2021, 11:27 PM	#1616
Mike Helland Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by Ziggurat That analogy requires an aether to work. Do you believe in an aether? Nope. Quote: Yes. It contradicts relativity. That’s a problem, since relativity has so much experimental support. v=c-HD, so when the expansion of space can be ignored, v=c, experimentally we're good. If, hypothetically, you could travel at 2c, then you could travel away from Earth, looking backwards, and see it grow younger. You should be able to see galaxies rotate backwards and devolve. If the light is traveling at 0.08 at z=11, you should be able to see the same thing moving away from the galaxy at v>0.08.

22nd January 2021, 05:16 AM	#1617
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by Mike Helland v=c-HD In what frame? I keep asking, but you won’t say. You don’t even seem to realize that this is necessarily frame-dependent.
	__________________ "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

22nd January 2021, 05:18 AM	#1618
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by Mike Helland Countless generations of stars have lived and died. Then where are all the corpses?
	__________________ "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

22nd January 2021, 06:25 AM	#1619
Guybrush Threepwood Trainee Pirate Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: An Uaimh Posts: 3,076	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Then where are all the corpses? They turn into planets.

22nd January 2021, 07:16 AM	#1620
Reformed Offlian Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2020 Location: USA Posts: 350	Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood They turn into planets. Zombie planets! Must...eat...stars...

22nd January 2021, 07:26 AM	#1621
Reformed Offlian Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2020 Location: USA Posts: 350	Originally Posted by Mike Helland Just because different observers see things in different directions, that's a problem? No, there's a problem because you cannot predict what different observers will see in different directions. You cannot predict how light will look to different observers without extrinsic information about where it came from. Even with that information, you cannot tell me with any certainty what the aliens will see when they look at GN-Z11; by your own admission, you're just guessing. And that in turn means that your theory cannot make coherent predictions; it relies on extrinsic assumptions; it's only valid wrt one reference frame, and there's no way to know whether we're even in that reference frame; we might just as easily be the aliens in the spaceship.
	Last edited by Reformed Offlian; 22nd January 2021 at 07:31 AM.

22nd January 2021, 08:18 AM	#1622
Mike Helland Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by Ziggurat In what frame? I keep asking, but you won’t say. You don’t even seem to realize that this is necessarily frame-dependent. Any inertial frame.

22nd January 2021, 08:28 AM	#1623
Mike Helland Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian No, there's a problem because you cannot predict what different observers will see in different directions. You cannot predict how light will look to different observers without extrinsic information about where it came from. Even with that information, you cannot tell me with any certainty what the aliens will see when they look at GN-Z11; by your own admission, you're just guessing. According to relativity, the aliens would look back and see the galaxy grow younger. But I think you've actually suggested a pretty good test. If we have an observer probe, viewing GN-Z11, the probe should move away at v>0.08c. I think it would either 1. continue to redshift (even when time goes backward) 2. disappear or flicker 3. disappear and reappear in front of you Quote: And that in turn means that your theory cannot make coherent predictions; it relies on extrinsic assumptions; it's only valid wrt one reference frame, and there's no way to know whether we're even in that reference frame; we might just as easily be the aliens in the spaceship. Let's say I'm in a spaceship moving away from Earth at 2c. Looking at the Earth, wouldn't it grow younger? We would be catching up to light that left in the past. That same logic applies to all frames.

22nd January 2021, 08:29 AM	#1624
Mike Helland Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Then where are all the corpses? You mean all the rare earth metals in your electronics?

22nd January 2021, 08:54 AM	#1625
Reformed Offlian Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2020 Location: USA Posts: 350	Originally Posted by Mike Helland According to relativity, the aliens would look back and see the galaxy grow younger. According to which relativity? In SR light moves at c in all directions for all observers, so you can't use that. Quote: But I think you've actually suggested a pretty good test. If we have an observer probe, viewing GN-Z11, the probe should move away at v>0.08c. I think it would either 1. continue to redshift (even when time goes backward) 2. disappear or flicker 3. disappear and reappear in front of you So, no actual prediction then? It's multiple choice? Quote: Let's say I'm in a spaceship moving away from Earth at 2c. Let's not. So which redshifts give the correct distances? Your model assumes that there's an answer to that question.
	Last edited by Reformed Offlian; 22nd January 2021 at 08:55 AM.

22nd January 2021, 08:56 AM	#1626
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by Mike Helland Any inertial frame. No. Your equation is not relativistically invariant. If it is correct in one frame, it will be wrong in other frames. Which frame is it correct in? You can't say "any inertial frame", that's 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

22nd January 2021, 08:58 AM	#1627
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by Mike Helland You mean all the rare earth metals in your electronics? Why are rare earth metals rare? They shouldn't be rare if we've been through many, many generations of stars. And that's only part of the corpse. Where's the rest of it? You don't even know enough physics to understand why this is a problem for your theory.
	__________________ "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

22nd January 2021, 09:03 AM	#1628
Mike Helland Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian According to which relativity? In SR light moves at c in all directions for all observers, so you can't use that. Second postulate of SR is that light moves at c in a vacuum. My hypothesis is that light moves at c-HD in a vacuum. It's a marriage between Einstein and Hubble. edit Hubble's Law gets divorced from GR and and elopes with SR. So that's what I would use. Quote: So, no actual prediction then? It's multiple choice? 3 different hypothesis lead to 3 predictions and observation would be left to choose between them, yes. Quote: Let's not. As you wish.
	Last edited by Mike Helland; 22nd January 2021 at 09:10 AM.

22nd January 2021, 09:05 AM	#1629
Mike Helland Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Why are rare earth metals rare? Probably because until a couple hundred years ago were using shovels to get at them. They get less rare every day. And that's just on Earth. Buy bitcoin ;-) Quote: They shouldn't be rare if we've been through many, many generations of stars. And that's only part of the corpse. Where's the rest of it? In the ground or out in space.

22nd January 2021, 09:06 AM	#1630
Mike Helland Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by Ziggurat No. Your equation is not relativistically invariant. If it is correct in one frame, it will be wrong in other frames. Which frame is it correct in? You can't say "any inertial frame", that's wrong. Why's it wrong? Use length contraction for D if you're not in at rest wrt the observed object.

22nd January 2021, 09:15 AM	#1631
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by Mike Helland Probably because until a couple hundred years ago were using shovels to get at them. No. They are rare in absolute terms, not simply in their availability to us. Originally Posted by Mike Helland Why's it wrong? Because when you do a coordinate transformation on that equation, it changes form. It's not the same equation anymore. If you try to use the original equation in the new reference frame, you will get a different answer than the transformed equation. So the original equation is wrong in this new frame. Quote: Use length contraction for D if you're not in at rest wrt the observed object. This is a half-answer that you don't even understand. You seem to be saying that the equation is correct as written in the reference frame of the emitter. Is that what you mean? It's still not relativistically invariant and that's still a problem, but at least that would be an answer. If this is what you mean, then we can examine the consequences.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law Last edited by Ziggurat; 22nd January 2021 at 09:16 AM.

22nd January 2021, 09:33 AM	#1632
Mike Helland Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by Ziggurat No. They are rare in absolute terms, not simply in their availability to us. There are about 2 trillion galaxies in the universe. If most of them have no gold (as we observe them at a young age), because we're among the first galaxies to have gold, that would be pretty remarkable. My hypothesis predicts similar metal content today as 13 billion years ago. The big bang predicts lower.metal content. Another prediction the JWST should be able to tell us. Basically, I'm just exploring this hypothesis, because if the universe turns out to be way bigger and older and more heavy metal than we thought, I can pull this out of my pocket and say "v=c-HD". If JWST shows us a 14 billion year old universe with an observable region 96 Bly across, well done big bang. Well done. Quote: This is a half-answer that you don't even understand. You seem to be saying that the equation is correct as written in the reference frame of the emitter. Nope. If we are thinking of this as a modified special relativity (from v=c to v=c-HD) then it would be in any inertial frame.

22nd January 2021, 09:38 AM	#1633
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by Mike Helland My hypothesis predicts similar metal content today as 13 billion years ago. You haven't predicted anything about heavy metal element compositions. Seriously, where are your numbers? Quote: Basically, I'm just exploring this hypothesis No, you aren't. You don't even know enough to explore it meaningfully. Quote: Nope. If we are thinking of this as a modified special relativity (from v=c to v=c-HD) then it would be in any inertial frame. No, Mike. This is wrong. Your equation can only be valid in one reference frame, if at all. It must be wrong in every other frame, because changing frames changes the equation. That's just math. There is no way around that.
	__________________ "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

22nd January 2021, 09:43 AM	#1634
Mike Helland Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by Ziggurat You haven't predicted anything about heavy metal element compositions. Seriously, where are your numbers? It's a matter of the cosmological principle, not a specific numbers. I don't know the ratio of walls to voids, but the cosmological principle says it ought to be the same everywhere. Quote: No, Mike. This is wrong. Your equation can only be valid in one reference frame, if at all. It must be wrong in every other frame, because changing frames changes the equation. That's just math. There is no way around that. How does it change the equation? We're on earth and the sun is out there. Light from the sun heads to Earth at c. A space ship from Mars heads past us towards the Sun. Both the space ship and Earth see light moving at c. The space ship will get some blue shifts going on. Now let's say we're not talking about the sun, but a high z galaxy. What's different, the light doesn't move at c, it moves at c-HD. So... don't use length contraction. Use proper length. There. Figured it out. Now it's frame invariant. All in a days work.

22nd January 2021, 09:51 AM	#1635
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by Mike Helland It's a matter of the cosmological principle, not a specific numbers. I don't know the ratio of walls to voids, but the cosmological principle says it ought to be the same everywhere. This is a weird non-sequitor. We were talking about element ratios, not structures. Quote: How does it change the equation? By changing both v and D. These are reference-frame dependent. We're on earth and the sun is out there. Light from the sun heads to Earth at Quote: Now let's say we're not talking about the sun, but a high z galaxy. What's different, the light doesn't move at c, it moves at c-HD. So... don't use length contraction. Use proper length. Do you mean the comoving frame proper length? That's still picking one frame, the comoving frame, in which to do the calculation. Which, fine, but you've still got to actually specify that. Otherwise there is no "proper length" you can refer to, and that still doesn't fix the whole problem because you're still left with v being reference-frame dependent. You could pick the comoving frame for that, but again, you're still specifying one frame in which the equation is correct, and it's wrong in other reference frames. Quote: There. Figured it out. Now it's frame invariant. All in a days work. No, you haven't figured anything out. It's still reference frame dependent. You're just so bad at relativity that you don't even understand why.
	__________________ "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