Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Merged: Why the James Webb Telescope rewrites/doesn't the laws of Physics/Redshifts

 Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
 1st November 2022, 09:05 PM #121 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by jonesdave116 What is your equation, and what does it give as the energy at d = 1 in the first part of that graphic? 6eV or 8eV? Either way, your photon needs to remember how far it has travelled, as the two parts of its journey see it losing different percentages of its energy. That is what you need to solve, and a linear relationship fails from the get-go. The equation I'm using is this: d = -(1 / (1 + z) - 1) c / H0 As you will note, d and z no longer have a linear relationship. As per this: d = 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d = 0 8eV >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4eV d=1 is actually 7 billion light years, that's where z=1 and you will get 50% of the energy. At d=2, that's 14 billion light years, z will be approaching infinity, and the photon energy will be approaching 0. d = 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d = 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d = 0 12eV >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6eV >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0eV
 2nd November 2022, 12:44 AM #122 zooterkin Nitpicking dilettanteAdministrator     Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 54,652 Originally Posted by jonesdave116 Nothing has a blueshift that high. Not even close. It is either redshifted or blueshifted. A redshifted galaxy cannot have a blueshift! He’s treating a redshift as a negative blueshift. __________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20
 2nd November 2022, 06:48 AM #123 jonesdave116 Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,601 Originally Posted by zooterkin He’s treating a redshift as a negative blueshift. Which is like saying that black is white. __________________ “There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
 2nd November 2022, 06:52 AM #124 zooterkin Nitpicking dilettanteAdministrator     Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 54,652 Originally Posted by jonesdave116 Which is like saying that black is white. I didn't say it made any sense. I suspect it's something so absurd that anyone who does understand the topic would assume he meant something else. __________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20
 2nd November 2022, 07:15 AM #125 jonesdave116 Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,601 Originally Posted by Mike Helland The equation I'm using is this: d = -(1 / (1 + z) - 1) c / H0 As you will note, d and z no longer have a linear relationship. As per this: d = 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d = 0 8eV >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4eV d=1 is actually 7 billion light years, that's where z=1 and you will get 50% of the energy. At d=2, that's 14 billion light years, z will be approaching infinity, and the photon energy will be approaching 0. d = 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d = 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d = 0 12eV >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6eV >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0eV What is that nonsense? Seriously? It loses 50% of its energy travelling from d = 2 to d = 1, and then loses 100% of its remaining energy going precisely the same distance from d = 1 to d = 0? That is as silly as Lerner's nonsense. Your 'equation' makes zero sense. And z = 1 means the light has been travelling for ~ 7 Ga. Z= 2 means it has been travelling for ~ 10 Ga. It is not infinity, or even close. Otherwise we would not see photons from those distances. We see the CMB photons at ~ 13.8 Ga. How close do you think the epoch of recombination actually is? Somewhere near Andromeda? Sorry, but you are not explaining anything. We can independently measure photons from sources at z = 2 and z = 1. They agree with cosmological redshift. Put the z = 1 source between us and the z = 2 source. What do we see in emission and absorption from the z = 1 source? Trust me, it isn't zero as you would have it. This is going nowhere. Just as Lerner's nonsense did. Face it - there is no tired light mechanism to explain cosmological redshift, and there is no equation to explain it. __________________ “There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin Last edited by jonesdave116; 2nd November 2022 at 07:34 AM.
2nd November 2022, 07:49 AM   #126
Mike Helland
Master Poster

Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,998
Originally Posted by zooterkin
I didn't say it made any sense. I suspect it's something so absurd that anyone who does understand the topic would assume he meant something else.

Background

Light is made of particles called photons, and photons have a wavelength, and that wavelength determines what color the photon is.

Red light has a higher wavelength than blue light. If a photon's wavelength were to increase for some reason, that is called redshift. And if the wavelength decreases, it is called blueshift. Whether the colors are red or blue before or after the shift, or whether they are in the visible range of light at all, doesn't matter. Just whether the wavelength increases (redshift) or decreases (blueshift).

As the universe expands, the wavelength of photons gets stretched, causing redshift.

Redshift and wavelength

Based on the original wavelength (w_emit) of the photon, and wavelength it was observed to have after traveling through the expanding universe (w_obs), the amount of redshift (z) can be described as:

Code:
```1 + z = w_obs / w_emit

w_obs = w_emit(z + 1)```
This shows the effect of redshift z (shown on the x-axis) on the wavelength observed (shown on the y-axis) of a photon emitted with a wavelength of 1 nm.

The red and blue shading indicates where values of z are redshifted or blueshifted. When z > 0, that's redshift. Notice that when z = -1, the wavelength becomes zero. So the range of blueshift is finite and actually very small, -1 < z < 0.

Redshift and frequency

A photon also has a frequency, which is related to wavelength by the speed of light (c):

Code:
`c = wavelength * frequency`
There are also formulas for z using frequency:

Code:
```1 + z = f_emit / f_obs

f_obs = f_emit / (1 + z)```
This shows the effect of redshift z (shown on the x-axis) on the frequency observed (y-axis) of a photon emitted with a frequency of 1 Thz.

The first thing you notice is that increasing redshift has the opposite effect on frequency as it does on wavelength. A higher z means a lower observed frequency.

The other thing to notice is that the frequency approaches zero as redshift approaches infinity, and that the frequency approaches infinity as redshift approaches z = -1.

In the case of both wavelength and frequency, the blueshift region is small, -1 < z < 0, and the redshift region is infinite, z > 0.

Redshift and energy

A photon also has energy, and that too is affected by redshifting. The energy of a photon and its frequency are directly related by Planck's constant (h):

Code:
`E = h f`
That being the case, the formulas for redshift using energy are similar to those for redshift using frequency:

Code:
```1 + z = E_emit / E_obs

E_obs = E_emit / (1 + z)```
And the graph looks the same as it does for frequency. The more redshift, the less energy.

Redshift z goes in the direction of wavelength (more redshift, higher wavelength), but in the opposite direction of energy and frequency (more redshift, less energy and frequency).

Blueshift

That redshift is going "with" wavelength, or "against" energy and frequency shouldn't make a difference. That can be investigated by inverting the redshift z formulas into blueshift b formulas:

Code:
```1 + b = w_emit / w_obs
1 + b = f_obs / f_emit
1 + b = E_obs / E_emit```
Or:

Code:
```w_obs = w_emit / (b + 1)
f_obs = f_emit(b + 1)
E_obs = E_emit(b + 1)```
Now let's compare the blueshift b to the observed wavelength:

And observed frequency:

We see now the situation has reversed. Not only does energy and frequency rise when blueshift increases, but all the redshifting happens when -1 < b < 0.

All of z > 0 now fits into -1 < b < 0.

Does that affect anything?

Distance

The z-distance relation is:

Code:
```d = zc / H0
z << 1```
This is only considered valid for very small values of z. At z = 10, the distance would be 140 billion light years. And since z can go up to infinity, the sky is the limit.

How about when redshifts are represented as negative blueshifts (-b) instead of z? Perhaps:

Code:
`d = -bc / H0`
Since b has to be greater than -1, the largest distance this relationship can produce is d = c / H0, or Hubble's length.

To compare z and -b, assume a photon is emitted at 1 MeV. When the photon is observed at the following values, we can see a big difference.

 Observed (MeV) Redshift z Blueshift b Distance(z) Distance(-b) 1 0 0 0 Bly 0 Bly 0.5 1 -0.5 14 Bly 7.0 Bly 0.33 2 -0.66 28 Bly 9.3 Bly 0.25 3 -0.75 42 Bly 10.5 Bly 0.2 4 -0.8 56 Bly 11.2 Bly

We know from the redshift equations that 1 / (1 + z) will give you the percentage of a frequency or energy that will be observed. To get the blueshift b, from that percentage you just subtract 1, so:

Code:
`b = 1 / (1 + z) - 1`
Therefore, we could say:

Code:
`d = -(1 / (1 + z) - 1) c / H0`
Let's compare the original z-distance relationship with this new one.

The new z-distance relationship seems to be closely mimicking the lookback times from the current standard cosmological model, LCDM. LCDM has more parameters, and so leads to a wider variety of predictions. Let's compare two of those sets of parameters with the new z-distance relationship. Consider the distance d to be divided by c the speed of light, converting 1 billion light years (Gly) into 1 billion years (Gyr):

Last edited by Mike Helland; 2nd November 2022 at 07:55 AM.

 2nd November 2022, 08:20 AM #127 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by jonesdave116 What is that nonsense? Seriously? It loses 50% of its energy travelling from d = 2 to d = 1, and then loses 100% of its remaining energy going precisely the same distance from d = 1 to d = 0? That is as silly as Lerner's nonsense. From d = 2 to d = 1 it loses 50%. From d = 2 to d = 0 it loses 50% x 2. That's if by "d" you mean distance. You seem to be using it interchangeably with "z" in the next sentence. Quote: And z = 1 means the light has been travelling for ~ 7 Ga. Z= 2 means it has been travelling for ~ 10 Ga. It is not infinity, or even close. I said at d=2, z=infinity. I didn't say at z=2, z=infinity.
 3rd November 2022, 03:50 AM #128 catsmate No longer the 1     Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 27,900 Originally Posted by jonesdave116 Yeah, right. That's Kroupa. I take him about as seriously as Lerner. He's a MONDist, last I heard. How's that going, Pavel? On its death bed, last time I looked. Fails miserably at large scales. When he can explain the colliding cluster lensing observations without invoking dark matter, I might listen. McGaugh and the rest of the MONDists can't. He is still, moderately interesting stuff back in '12 __________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
 3rd November 2022, 09:48 PM #129 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by Mike Helland The new z-distance relationship seems to be closely mimicking the lookback times from the current standard cosmological model, LCDM. LCDM has more parameters, and so leads to a wider variety of predictions. Let's compare two of those sets of parameters with the new z-distance relationship. Consider the distance d to be divided by c the speed of light, converting 1 billion light years (Gly) into 1 billion years (Gyr): http://www.internationalskeptics.com...282fae4fca.png Here are some more sets of parameters:
 4th November 2022, 06:57 AM #130 jonesdave116 Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,601 Originally Posted by Mike Helland From d = 2 to d = 1 it loses 50%. From d = 2 to d = 0 it loses 50% x 2. That's if by "d" you mean distance. You seem to be using it interchangeably with "z" in the next sentence. I said at d=2, z=infinity. I didn't say at z=2, z=infinity. Errrr, nope! Care to plug the numbers into your equation and show how that impossibility is possible? Here it is; d = -(1 / (1 + z) - 1) c / H0 Let's plug in z = 1; d = -(1/ (1 + 1) -1) = -0.50 assuming you are dividing by (1 + z) before you subtract the -1?; -(1 / 2 = 0.5 - 1) = -(-0.5). And now z = 2; d = -(1/ (1 + 2) -1) = -(1 / 3 = 0.333) - 1 = -(-0.667). What are you doing with the minus sign before the parentheses? Anything > z = 1 is going to give you a minus number in the parentheses anyway??? So, from that perspective, we still have a linear equation. Which doesn't work. Fancy plugging in z = 0.5? You end up with -(1 (1 + 0.5) -1) = -(-0.333). What does that say about a photon travelling from z = 1 to z = 0? And what is its energy at z = 0.5? z = 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> z = 0.5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> z = 0 (Earth) 12eV >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ??eV >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6eV Your equation tells us that it should indeed lose 50% of its energy from z = 1 to z = 0. It also tells us that a photon from z = 0.5 should lose 1/3rd of its energy. So, if it arrives at Earth with the 6eV calculated above then it must have had an energy of 9eV at z = 0.5. However, if it started its trip at z = 1, and arrived at z = 0.5 with 9eV, that means it only lost 1/4 of its energy from z = 1 to z = 0.5 (3 / 12)! It should lose 1/3rd, as it did on the second part of its journey. By your reckoning, the photon from z = 1 should arrive at z = 0.5 with 8eV of energy. If it then arrives at Earth (d = 0), with 6eV, it has only lost 1/4 of its energy from z = 0.5 to z = 0. Sorry, but your equation makes no more sense than Lerner's. You have ended up with the exact same problem as he did. Because there are zero tired light mechanisms, nor equations, that make any sense. As Ben m said, you need some sort of exponent. And none of them work. __________________ “There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin Last edited by jonesdave116; 4th November 2022 at 07:00 AM.
 4th November 2022, 10:04 AM #131 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by jonesdave116 d = -(1 / (1 + z) - 1) c / H0 Let's plug in z = 1; d = -(1/ (1 + 1) -1) = -0.50 You got two things wrong here. Try a calculator.
 4th November 2022, 10:37 AM #132 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by jonesdave116 So, from that perspective, we still have a linear equation. How many linear equations are in the graph below:
 4th November 2022, 03:14 PM #133 jonesdave116 Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,601 Originally Posted by Mike Helland You got two things wrong here. Try a calculator. No I didn't. If you think I did, do the equation yourself. And show us what the eV values are in the example I gave. Get on with it. EDIT: How hard can this be? How much energy, percentage-wise, is lost by a photon travelling from z = 1 to z = 0? How much energy is lost, percentage-wise by a photon travelling from z = 0.5 to z = 0? If a photon is travelling from z = 1 to z = 0, what is its value as it passes z = 0.5 on its way to z = 0? Is it the same percentage loss on both halves of its journey? It had better be. What happens if the object at z = 0.5 happens to be a galaxy that absorbs and re-emits photons from the z = 1 source? What about the emission from the z = 0.5 galaxy itself? Are the two values the same? They had better be, because otherwise you are violating actual observation, not to mention basic physics. The photons in both cases are arriving from z = 0.5. Understand? One of them started at z = 1, before it got to the galaxy at z = 0.5, but the galaxy doesn't know that. As far as it is concerned, it absorbed a photon from somewhere, at a certain value, and this caused it to emit another photon towards us in emission. Using real physics, we can measure the distance to the z = 0.5 galaxy using either its own emissions, or those it has absorbed and re-emitted from a more distant object. Because they will be the same. Give us a value, using your 'equation', for the energy of the photon at z = 0.5 after it is emitted from z = 1. Then we can use that value, and send the same energy of photon right back at it from Earth. Will it arrive at z = 0.5 with the same value as it arrived with at Earth when travelling in the other direction? You are in the same boat as Lerner. Your photons need to know how far they have travelled. What is the IQ of a photon? __________________ “There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin Last edited by jonesdave116; 4th November 2022 at 03:53 PM.
 4th November 2022, 04:21 PM #134 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by jonesdave116 d = -(1 / (1 + z) - 1) c / H0 Let's plug in z = 1; d = -(1/ (1 + 1) -1) = -0.50 d = 0.5 c / H0, or about 7 billion light light years. Not -0.50. You did the math wrong and got the equation wrong. Quote: How much energy, percentage-wise, is lost by a photon travelling from z = 1 to z = 0? Photons don't travel from z=1 to z=0. z is not distance. You can't keep that straight for some reason.
 4th November 2022, 04:31 PM #135 jonesdave116 Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,601 Originally Posted by Mike Helland How many linear equations are in the graph below: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...282df3335f.png You said; Quote: From d = 2 to d = 1 it loses 50%. From d = 2 to d = 0 it loses 50% x 2. Lol. So, you are using your constant to multiply a negative number, that isn't negative in the real world, to make and negative percentage become zero (i.e. -100%) for any distance greater than d = 2? Brilliant! No wonder I couldn't grok it! It is even crazier and more unscientific than I had first given it credit for! So, if z = 1, your constant c also equals 1? And if z = 2, c = 2? So, if your 'equation', for want of a better word, says that a photon loses 50% of its energy from z = 1 to z = 0, you just multiply 50% x 1? Got it. So, you end up with 50%. Fantastic. If it comes from z = 0.5, we end up with -( 1/(1 + 0.5) -1) x c (0.5, in this case) = -0.333 (-33.3%) x 0.5 = -0.1667 (-16.67%)! It only loses 1/6th of its energy from z = 0.5 to z = 0! Holy Hell! That means a 10eV photon emitted a z = 1, should arrive at Earth (z = 0) with a energy of 5eV. But it had to pass z = 0.5 on the way! If we have a photon arriving at Earth with an energy of 5eV, that means it had to have had 6eV of energy at z = 0.5 (6 x 5/6 = 5). But it has already travelled from z = 1 to z = 0.5, and managed to lose 4eV on the way! 40% of its original energy. It should only have lost 1/6th. You say that photons from z = 2 lose 100% of their energy So, the photon from z = 1 still has energy when it arrives at Earth. 50% of it, in fact. So, let's stick to the example above. A 10eV photon leaves z = 1, and gets to us at z = 0 with 5eV of energy. So far so good (kind of). OK. It doesn't stop at Earth. Let's say that it interacts with out atmosphere. It gets absorbed, and re-emitted by some atom or other. It carries on for another z = 1 in the opposite direction from which it arrived. With what energy does it arrive at its new destination? It is a brand new photon, created by emission when the Earthly atom de-excited. It should get to its new destination with 2.5eVof energy. There are alien astronomers there, wanting to study our atmosphere, for clues of a possible intelligent civilisation. I fear that they may well be disappointed, if some posts on this thread are anything to go by! So, do the aliens see the 2.5eV photon, or has it disappeared for reasons unknown? After all, it has only travelled from Earth to z= 1, even though the photon that brought it into existence originated at z = 2 from the aliens. Do you see where this is going? If a photon is not absorbed and re-emitted from z = 2, we can never see it. If it is absorbed and re-emitted along the way, we can see it! Christ alone knows what energy it is supposed to arrive at, be absorbed at, and re-emitted at! It doesn't really matter, because the whole 'equation' is a complete train wreck, and is totally unphysical. __________________ “There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin Last edited by jonesdave116; 4th November 2022 at 04:43 PM.
 4th November 2022, 04:41 PM #136 jonesdave116 Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,601 Originally Posted by Mike Helland Photons don't travel from z=1 to z=0. z is not distance. You can't keep that straight for some reason. Yes they do. We measure them all the time. What you can't get straight is that your equation fails laughably. And they are the time that the light has been travelling. Which tells us the current distance, not the distance they were emitted at. Because the universe is expanding. So, when real scientists say that a galaxy is at a redshift of 2, how far was it in your fantasy universe when it emitted the light we detect? Quote: d = 0.5 c / H0, or about 7 billion light light years. Not -0.50. You did the math wrong and got the equation wrong. Really? So, what is the energy loss between an object at z = 1 by the time we detect it? What is it at z = 0.5, on its way to us? Show me the maths. I am not interested in your wonky equation, which makes zero sense. We know z because we know the rest wavelength and the measured wavelength. If it doubles, so does z. What happens in the fantasy universe you inhabit? __________________ “There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
 4th November 2022, 05:10 PM #137 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by jonesdave116 So, when real scientists say that a galaxy is at a redshift of 2, how far was it in your fantasy universe when it emitted the light we detect? 9.33 Gly. Quote: Really? So, what is the energy loss between an object at z = 1 by the time we detect it? What is it at z = 0.5, on its way to us? 1 / (1 + z) z = 1, energy remaining is 50%, so energy loss is 50% z = 0.5, energy remaining is 66%, so energy loss is 33%
 4th November 2022, 05:47 PM #138 jonesdave116 Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,601 Originally Posted by Mike Helland 9.33 Gly. 1 / (1 + z) z = 1, energy remaining is 50%, so energy loss is 50% z = 0.5, energy remaining is 66%, so energy loss is 33% So, from your own words, a 12eV photon emitted at z = 1 gets to Earth (z = 0) with 6eV of energy remaining, and 6eV lost. As the photon had to pass z = 0.5 on its way here, where it may or may not have been absorbed and re-emitted, its energy is ??????????????? You see, if we emit a 9eV photon from z = 0.5, then it will lose one third of its energy, and reach Earth at the measured 6eV. But if it had 9eV of energy at z = 0.5, that means it has only lost 25% of its energy on the trip from z = 1 to z = 0.5. Conversely, if it obeyed your rules, and lost 33% of its energy from z = 1 to z = 0,5, it would arrive at z = 0.5 with 8eV of energy. And then only lose a further 25% between z= 0.5 and Earth. How is this possible? It is important that we know this, because if our z measurements and equations were all wrong, as you suggest, we would see an obvious difference in absorption and emission wavelengths from intermediate galaxies and distant quasars, for instance. We don't. How come? As I keep saying - just like Lerner, your photons need to remember how far they have travelled. Any galaxy they encounter along the way, will have to know where they are going to, in order to know how much it needs to fiddle around with electron excitation levels from photons absorbed from more distant sources, to make them match the galaxy's own emission wavelengths. All this just to fool us poor saps on Earth into believing that our equations are correct after all. Which is not very scientific. Far more parsimonious to believe that the equations are correct, and that there is neither a mechanism, nor an equation, that explains tired light, and a static universe. Which is why pretty much nobody bothers with such things anymore. __________________ “There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
4th November 2022, 06:33 PM   #139
Mike Helland
Master Poster

Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,998
Originally Posted by jonesdave116
So, from your own words, a 12eV photon emitted at z = 1 gets to Earth (z = 0) with 6eV of energy remaining, and 6eV lost.

 z E left (%) d (Gly) 0 100 0 0.5 66.6 4.66 1 50 7

A photon with a z=1, has half its energy, and has traveled 7 billion light years. Ok.

Quote:
As the photon had to pass z = 0.5 on its way here, where it may or may not have been absorbed and re-emitted, its energy is ???????????????
Let's check the chart. A photon from z=0.5 is from 4.66 Gly.

So where does a z=1 photon actually meet up with z=0.5 photon?

7 - 4.66 = 2.33 Gly

A galaxy that is 2.33 Gly has a z=0.2.

Code:
```|-----------------7--------------|
A          B                     C
|---2.33---|---------4.66--------|```
A and C will see each others photons as z=1 (with 50% of its energy)
A and B will see each others photons as z=0.2 (with 83%)
B and C will see each others photons as z-0.5 (with 66%)

A photon leaves A (d=0,z=0) and arrives at B (d=2.33 Gly, z=0.2).

It will have 83.33% of its energy. If it continues on to C, which is twice as far as it has already gone, (d=7 Gly, z=1) it will have 50% of it it started with, losing an additional 33.33% from point B.

If a photon is emitted from B (d=0, z=0) and arrives at C (d=4.66 Gly, z=0.5) it will have 66.66% of its energy. It too will have lost 33% from point B.

*edit* You can see it adds up clearly by this:

 z E lost (%) d (Gly) 0 0 0 0.2 16.66 2.33 0.5 33.33 4.66 1 50 7

16.66 + 33.33 = 50%
2.33 + 4.66 = 7 Gly

*edit 2*

A 12 eV photon leaving A will pass B with 10 eV and arrive at C with 6 eV.

12 - (12 * 0.1666) - (12 * 0.3333)

If a photon leaves B with 9 eV, it will arrive at c with 6 eV.

You would have to reach the same conclusion in the expanding universe. If the photons are redshifted by the expansion of space, how can it affect different photons differently?

I think you might have found an interesting flaw in the expanding universe.

Last edited by Mike Helland; 4th November 2022 at 08:13 PM.

 4th November 2022, 09:42 PM #140 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by Mike Helland I think you might have found an interesting flaw in the expanding universe. I should mention that I started a new thread a bit ago, that wasn't about JWST or tired light, just redshift quantification. But it got merged into this thread, so here we are. This all applies to the expanding universe, and nothing to do with tired light: ---- A 12 eV photon leaves point A (d=0, z=0, E=12 eV) it passes by point B (d=2.33 Gly, z=0.2, E=10 eV), and arrives at point C (d=7 Gly, z=1, E=6 eV). It has 50% its original energy, after losing 16.66% between A and B, and another 33.33% between B and C. As the first photon passed point B, say a second photon is emitted at 9 eV from point B (d=0, z=0, E=9 eV) and arrives at point C (d=4.66 Gly, z=0.5, E=6 eV). It arrives after losing 33.33% of its energy between B and C, just like the first, and arrived with 6 eV just like the first. But it left point B with less energy than the first photon had at the same point and time. Code: ```|-----------------7-------------| A B C |---2.33---|---------4.66-------| First photon A (d=0, z=0, E=12 eV) B (d=2.33 Gly, z=0.2, E=10 eV) C (d=7 Gly, z=1, E=6 eV) Second photon B (d=0, z=0, E=9 eV) C (d=4.66 Gly, z=0.5, E=6 eV)``` I don't see the issue here, except that if the redshifts were caused by expanding space, how could that be? Last edited by Mike Helland; 4th November 2022 at 11:31 PM.
5th November 2022, 01:11 AM   #141
Mike Helland
Master Poster

Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,998
Originally Posted by Mike Helland
 z E lost (%) d (Gly) 0 0 0 0.2 16.66 2.33 0.5 33.33 4.66 1 50 7

16.66 + 33.33 = 50%
2.33 + 4.66 = 7 Gly
Since 1 + b = 1 / (1 + z):

 z b E lost (%) d (Gly) 0 0 0 0 0.2 -0.166 16.66 2.33 0.5 -0.33 33.33 4.66 1 -0.5 50 7

All the columns add up, except for z.

 5th November 2022, 01:47 AM #142 Pixel42 Schrödinger's cat     Join Date: May 2004 Location: Malmesbury, UK Posts: 15,150 Originally Posted by Mike Helland I should mention that I started a new thread a bit ago, that wasn't about JWST or tired light, just redshift quantification. But it got merged into this thread, so here we are. One thread is more than sufficient for each brand of physics crackpottery. __________________ "If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
 5th November 2022, 03:24 AM #143 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 It turns out that: Is exactly equal to LCDM in a default state. What are the odds of that? Check it out, I made an interactive version, so even if you don't care about the hypothesis, you can still see how the parameters effect the graph. https://mikehelland.github.io/hubble...other/lcdm.htm
 5th November 2022, 05:04 AM #144 W.D.Clinger Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,731 Originally Posted by Mike Helland The equation I'm using is this: d = -(1 / (1 + z) - 1) c / H0 Originally Posted by jonesdave116 Errrr, nope! Care to plug the numbers into your equation and show how that impossibility is possible? Here it is; d = -(1 / (1 + z) - 1) c / H0 Let's plug in z = 1; d = -(1/ (1 + 1) -1) = -0.50 assuming you are dividing by (1 + z) before you subtract the -1?; -(1 / 2 = 0.5 - 1) = -(-0.5). And now z = 2; d = -(1/ (1 + 2) -1) = -(1 / 3 = 0.333) - 1 = -(-0.667). The calculation I highlighted in blue is incorrect, for two reasons: the sign of -0.5 is wrong and the factor c / H0 has been omitted. The calculation I highlighted in yellow is incorrect for only the second of those two reasons. The calculation I highighted in green is correct because, although it omits the factor c/H0, it does not claim to calculate d. Originally Posted by Mike Helland You got two things wrong here. Try a calculator. Originally Posted by jonesdave116 No I didn't. If you think I did, do the equation yourself. I'm with Mike Helland on this one point. It is conceivable that Mike Helland's recent posts have been right about other things as well, but I haven't looked hard enough to find examples of such.
 5th November 2022, 08:31 PM #145 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger It is conceivable that Mike Helland's recent posts have been right about other things as well, but I haven't looked hard enough to find examples of such. Inconceivable! So, you're pretty well up to speed on much of this. Does this look familiar at all to you?
 6th November 2022, 10:34 AM #146 W.D.Clinger Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,731 How is that different fromd = (z/(z+1)) c/H0In other words, why are you writing z/(z+1) as -(1/(1+z)-1) ?
 6th November 2022, 01:59 PM #147 fertilizerspike New Blood   Join Date: Sep 2022 Posts: 17 "Redshift" bears no relationship to distance Sent from my SM-S111DL using Tapatalk
 7th November 2022, 02:07 AM #148 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger How is that different fromd = (z/(z+1)) c/H0In other words, why are you writing z/(z+1) as -(1/(1+z)-1) ? I'll don the derivatino tomorrow. I'm goin to fdin my car. https://mikehelland.github.io/hubble...ue/redblue.htm https://mikehelland.github.io/hubble...other/lcdm.htm Last edited by Mike Helland; 7th November 2022 at 02:08 AM.
 7th November 2022, 11:06 AM #149 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger How is that different fromd = (z/(z+1)) c/H0In other words, why are you writing z/(z+1) as -(1/(1+z)-1) ? I guess the answer is because that's how I derived it. Here's an equation for redshift: 1 + z = Eemit / Eobs When z>0 that's redshift, when z<0, that's blueshift. But notice this is hyperbolic, and z>0 goes to infinity, while z<0 only goes to -1: If you invert the formula, the situation reverses: 1 + b = Eobs / Eemit So 1 + b = 1 / (1 + z) I think checked this: d = -bc / H0 And it produced LCDM lookback times over its domain. Since 1 + b = 1 / (1 + z), then b = 1 / (1 + z) - 1.
 8th November 2022, 12:05 PM #150 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by Mike Helland A 12 eV photon leaves point A (d=0, z=0, E=12 eV) it passes by point B (d=2.33 Gly, z=0.2, E=10 eV), and arrives at point C (d=7 Gly, z=1, E=6 eV). It has 50% its original energy, after losing 16.66% between A and B, and another 33.33% between B and C. As the first photon passed point B, say a second photon is emitted at 9 eV from point B (d=0, z=0, E=9 eV) and arrives at point C (d=4.66 Gly, z=0.5, E=6 eV). It arrives after losing 33.33% of its energy between B and C, just like the first, and arrived with 6 eV just like the first. But it left point B with less energy than the first photon had at the same point and time. Code: ```|-----------------7-------------| A B C |---2.33---|---------4.66-------| First photon A (d=0, z=0, E=12 eV) B (d=2.33 Gly, z=0.2, E=10 eV) C (d=7 Gly, z=1, E=6 eV) Second photon B (d=0, z=0, E=9 eV) C (d=4.66 Gly, z=0.5, E=6 eV)``` I don't see the issue here, except that if the redshifts were caused by expanding space, how could that be? Did anyone find the mistake here? It looks right to me. But obviously can't be, if redshifts are caused by expanding space.
 8th November 2022, 07:45 PM #151 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,001 Originally Posted by Mike Helland A 12 eV photon leaves point A (d=0, z=0, E=12 eV) it passes by point B (d=2.33 Gly, z=0.2, E=10 eV), and arrives at point C (d=7 Gly, z=1, E=6 eV). It has 50% its original energy, after losing 16.66% between A and B, and another 33.33% between B and C. 33.3% of what? The energy it had at A, not the energy it had at B. It loses 40% of the energy it had at B when traveling from B to C, using your numbers. Quote: As the first photon passed point B, say a second photon is emitted at 9 eV from point B (d=0, z=0, E=9 eV) and arrives at point C (d=4.66 Gly, z=0.5, E=6 eV). It arrives after losing 33.33% of its energy between B and C, just like the first, No. You are comparing apples to oranges by not taking an equivalent percentage. If your first set of numbers was correct, this second photon should lose 40% of its energy it had at B when traveling from B to C, not 33.33%, and end with 5.4 eV, not 6.
 8th November 2022, 10:12 PM #152 bruto Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 33,760 Originally Posted by Mike Helland From d = 2 to d = 1 it loses 50%. From d = 2 to d = 0 it loses 50% x 2. That's if by "d" you mean distance. You seem to be using it interchangeably with "z" in the next sentence. I said at d=2, z=infinity. I didn't say at z=2, z=infinity. I defer to others on physics and higher math, about which I am something of an idiot. But the highlighted part seems odd. What causes the percentage to increase? __________________ I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver) "There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
 9th November 2022, 12:12 AM #153 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by bruto I defer to others on physics and higher math, about which I am something of an idiot. But the highlighted part seems odd. What causes the percentage to increase? From d=0 to d=1 is some distance without a unit of length. d=0 to d=2 should be twice that.
 9th November 2022, 05:42 AM #154 erwinl Illuminator     Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 3,419 Originally Posted by Mike Helland From d=0 to d=1 is some distance without a unit of length. d=0 to d=2 should be twice that. In your post #140, you say d does have a unit of length (Gly, to be precise). In post #127 you suggest that d does not have nunits for length and also, if I understand it correctly, does not go higher than 2. Or did I not understand (which is more than possible)? __________________ Bow before your king Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
 9th November 2022, 07:30 AM #155 bruto Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 33,760 Originally Posted by Mike Helland From d=0 to d=1 is some distance without a unit of length. d=0 to d=2 should be twice that. I get that. If d0 to d1 is twice the length, it follows that d1 to d2 is the same length as d0 to d1. So what causes the percentage to change in the second half? I think in most situations, if something loses 50 percent of anything in a given distance, then when it goes twice that given distance, it would lose another 50 percent of that 50 percent unless some other factor made the percentage of loss over distance greater. __________________ I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver) "There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
 9th November 2022, 07:42 AM #156 W.D.Clinger Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,731 Originally Posted by erwinl In your post #140, you say d does have a unit of length (Gly, to be precise). In post #127 you suggest that d does not have nunits for length and also, if I understand it correctly, does not go higher than 2. Good catch. Mike Helland has been consistently sloppy throughout this thread. With my highlighting: Originally Posted by Mike Helland The equation I'm using is this: d = -(1 / (1 + z) - 1) c / H0 As you will note, d and z no longer have a linear relationship. As per this: d = 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d = 0 8eV >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4eV d=1 is actually 7 billion light years, that's where z=1 and you will get 50% of the energy. At d=2, that's 14 billion light years, z will be approaching infinity, and the photon energy will be approaching 0. The highlighted equation simplifies to d = (z/(z+1)) c/H0 from which it is obvious that d cannot exceed c/H0, which is about 14 billion light-years. Yet Mike Helland is talking about d=1 or d=2, which is obviously inconsistent with his equation for d (highlighted above). (ETA: According to the equation for d, d=1 and d=2 are both achieved at approximately zero red shift, and it is obvious that Mike Helland thinks he has been talking about measurably positive red shifts.) I have absolutely no idea of what Mike Helland thinks he means by d=1 or d=2, and have ceased to care. More accurately, I have not cared at any moment since the birth of this thread what Mike Helland thinks he is talking about. Mike Helland should consider whether the degree of care he has put into describing his equations and numbers is remotely adequate to motivate any care on the part of whatever he believes his audience to be. Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 9th November 2022 at 07:58 AM. Reason: added ETA in gray
 9th November 2022, 07:20 PM #157 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger Good catch. Mike Helland has been consistently sloppy throughout this thread. With my highlighting: The highlighted equation simplifies to d = (z/(z+1)) c/H0 from which it is obvious that d cannot exceed c/H0, which is about 14 billion light-years. Yet Mike Helland is talking about d=1 or d=2, which is obviously inconsistent with his equation for d (highlighted above). (ETA: According to the equation for d, d=1 and d=2 are both achieved at approximately zero red shift, and it is obvious that Mike Helland thinks he has been talking about measurably positive red shifts.) I have absolutely no idea of what Mike Helland thinks he means by d=1 or d=2, and have ceased to care. More accurately, I have not cared at any moment since the birth of this thread what Mike Helland thinks he is talking about. Mike Helland should consider whether the degree of care he has put into describing his equations and numbers is remotely adequate to motivate any care on the part of whatever he believes his audience to be. That's understandable, W.D.Clinger. It was jonesdave116 that was persistent in that I answer a question originally proposed by ben m in this forum far before my time. Originally it was about a photon from a distance of z=1, and what about a photon z=2, which was proposed to be twice as far away a z=1. Since that's wrong, it may be confusing. The scenario was eventually modified to be about a z=0.5 photon a z=1 photon.The change in stipulations only adds to the confusion. I answered the question thoroughly, eventually, and the results are here: Code: ```|-----------------7-------------| A B C |---2.33---|---------4.66-------| First photon A (d=0, z=0, E=12 eV) B (d=2.33 Gly, z=0.2, E=10 eV) C (d=7 Gly, z=1, E=6 eV) Second photon B (d=0, z=0, E=9 eV) C (d=4.66 Gly, z=0.5, E=6 eV)``` This demonstrates that the expanding universe is internally inconsistent.
 9th November 2022, 07:26 PM #158 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by bruto I get that. If d0 to d1 is twice the length, it follows that d1 to d2 is the same length as d0 to d1. So what causes the percentage to change in the second half? It doesn't. It's the same percent as the photon's original energy. Say a photon redshifts over 100 million light years. But it doesn't redshift over 1 light second. If you checked the photon's energy every second, and reset its distance to 0, it would never redshift. Photons redshift per their original energy, not their energy at any arbitrary point.
 9th November 2022, 07:35 PM #159 RecoveringYuppy Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 14,185 Does the phrase "It's the same percent as the photon's original energy" actually mean something in context here? Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 9th November 2022 at 07:36 PM.
 10th November 2022, 12:48 AM #160 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy Does the phrase "It's the same percent as the photon's original energy" actually mean something in context here? Why wouldn't it?

International Skeptics Forum