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

 User Name Remember Me? Password

 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.
 10th November 2022, 03:33 AM #161 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,001 Originally Posted by Mike Helland Why wouldn't it? Because that's not possible. The photon has no "born with" tag, it only carries it's current energy. Anything that alters its energy will do so on the basis of it's current energy, not any other. __________________ "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
 10th November 2022, 03:43 AM #162 W.D.Clinger Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,731 Originally Posted by Mike Helland 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. No, it doesn't. In your calculation, a photon with 10 eV at B loses 4 eV to drop to 6 eV by the time it gets to C, while a second photon with 9 eV at B loses 3 eV to drop to the same 6 eV by the time it gets to C. If both events you refer to as B are the same, and both events you refer to as C are the same (which is something we could reasonably assume in a scientific presentation, but all bets are off when the presenter has a long and also recent history of using exactly the same letter to mean completely different things in consecutive sentences), then your calculation is inconsistent with an expanding universe. That means any conclusions you may attempt to draw from your calculation have nothing to do with an expanding universe.
 10th November 2022, 08:59 AM #163 bruto Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 33,760 Originally Posted by Mike Helland 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. I am probably being needlessly obtuse here, but it's hard to get behind a theory when it seems ordinary arithmetic doesn't work. So maybe I'm misunderstanding the issue of percentages here, so correct me if I am. We have a photon with a certain amount of energy. The exact amount seems irrelevant, as long as someone can measure it. It travels a certain distance. The exact distance seems irrelevant, as long as someone can measure it. We determine that a photon with energy n, when it travels a distance x, loses 50 percent of that energy. The exact cause of that loss seems irrelevant, as long as someone understands what it is. The choice of a distance that corresponds to a 50 percent loss is essentially arbitrary, based, one assumes, on long study of the rate of loss. At the point we just measured, the photon now has an energy of n/2. In the next distance of x, one would, I think, expect that the energy of that photon would be halved again, becoming n/4. Yet in your statement, this is not the case. The photon loses ALL its energy, and is effectively extinguished. Now maybe this is true, and maybe the rate of loss is not constant, but varies in some way, but the statement above, Quote: From d = 2 to d = 1 it loses 50%. From d = 2 to d = 0 it loses 50% x 2. looks from this vantage point like an arithmetical error, since it does not explain where that "50% x 2" comes from. __________________ I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver) "There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard) Last edited by bruto; 10th November 2022 at 09:00 AM.
 10th November 2022, 09:23 AM #164 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger No, it doesn't. In your calculation, a photon with 10 eV at B loses 4 eV to drop to 6 eV by the time it gets to C, while a second photon with 9 eV at B loses 3 eV to drop to the same 6 eV by the time it gets to C. If both events you refer to as B are the same, and both events you refer to as C are the same (which is something we could reasonably assume in a scientific presentation, but all bets are off when the presenter has a long and also recent history of using exactly the same letter to mean completely different things in consecutive sentences), then your calculation is inconsistent with an expanding universe. That means any conclusions you may attempt to draw from your calculation have nothing to do with an expanding universe. Then what is the proper calculation? If the calculations are inconsistent with the expanding universe, either the calculations are wrong, or the expanding universe is internally inconsistent. What are the proper numbers?
 10th November 2022, 09:24 AM #165 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by Ziggurat Because that's not possible. The photon has no "born with" tag, it only carries it's current energy. Anything that alters its energy will do so on the basis of it's current energy, not any other. Sure it does. Eemit. That's what's in the equations.
 10th November 2022, 09:29 AM #166 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by bruto At the point we just measured, the photon now has an energy of n/2. In the next distance of x, one would, I think, expect that the energy of that photon would be halved again, becoming n/4. When the energy is halved, z=1 (1/(1+z) = 1/2). When the energy is halved again z=3 (1/(1+z)=1/4) so, but z=1 and z=3 are really close, compared to z=0 and z=1. Unfortunately, your intuition is not how z and distance are related.
 10th November 2022, 10:32 AM #167 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by Mike Helland When the energy is halved, z=1 (1/(1+z) = 1/2). When the energy is halved again z=3 (1/(1+z)=1/4) so, but z=1 and z=3 are really close, compared to z=0 and z=1. Unfortunately, your intuition is not how z and distance are related. I'll add that when you invert the redshift equations and use negative blueshift, then when energy is halved b=-0.5, and when it is halved again b=-0.75. *edit, was -0.25* That's much more intuitive. And the distance light traveled is -b * Hubble's length. Last edited by Mike Helland; 10th November 2022 at 10:40 AM.
 10th November 2022, 12:09 PM #168 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,001 Originally Posted by Mike Helland Sure it does. Eemit. That's what's in the equations. Equations are descriptive. They work under certain circumstances, but it's easy to use them wrong, and you're using them wrong. Photons don't know how much energy they are emitted with. Hell, there isn't even a single value for that, it's reference frame dependent. The fact that Eemit appears in some equation does not mean that the photon itself keeps track of that. That's not how any of this works. __________________ "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
 10th November 2022, 05:56 PM #170 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by Ziggurat Equations are descriptive. Indeed they are. The equations for redshift and distance describe a relationship between two measured values. They attempt to, at least.
 10th November 2022, 06:00 PM #171 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger A calculation that relies on mainstream physics instead of Helland physics. False. My calculations are standard mainstream stuff. If you think I'm wrong, prove it. Here's the chart. You put what you think is right. Code: ```|-----------------?-------------| A B C |---?------|---------?----------| First photon A (d=0, z=0, E=12 eV) B (d=?Gly, z=?, E=? eV) C (d=? Gly, z=1, E=? eV) Second photon B (d=0, z=0, E=9 eV) C (d=? Gly, z=?, E=? eV)``` Fill in the ?'s. Last edited by Mike Helland; 10th November 2022 at 06:02 PM.
 10th November 2022, 10:12 PM #172 W.D.Clinger Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,731 Originally Posted by Mike Helland Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger A calculation that relies on mainstream physics instead of Helland physics. False. My calculations are standard mainstream stuff. If you think I'm wrong, prove it. In mainstream relativity and electromagnetism, the following is true:For any events B and C connected by a specific null geodesic W, and for any photon that departs from B and travels via W to C (without interacting with other particles etc), the relationship between the energy of that photon at B and its energy at C is described by a one-to-one mathematical function.Your calculation assumes photons violate that fact about mainstream relativity and electromagnetism. Your calculation is therefore based upon your against-the-mainstream brand of physics, which we might as well refer to as Helland physics. QED In mathematics, the following is true:If f is a one-to-one continuous function from the positive reals to the positive reals, then f is either strictly monotonic or strictly anti-monotonic.It so happens that the function alluded to above is strictly monotonic, but we didn't need that fact to prove that Mike Helland's calculation is inconsistent with mainstream physics. Originally Posted by Mike Helland Here's the chart. You put what you think is right. Code: ```|-----------------?-------------| A B C |---?------|---------?----------| First photon A (d=0, z=0, E=12 eV) B (d=?Gly, z=?, E=? eV) C (d=? Gly, z=1, E=? eV) Second photon B (d=0, z=0, E=9 eV) C (d=? Gly, z=?, E=? eV)``` Fill in the ?'s. The specific numbers will depend upon the spacetime geometry and the specific world line W that represents a null geodesic from B to C. Your obsession with numbers at the expense of insight obscures the simple fact that two photons going from B to C via W cannot start out with different energies at B yet end up with the same energy at C. By the way, that simple fact is easily proved using the time reversal of B, C, and W. Two photons that start out with the same energy and follow the same world line can't end up with different energies at the end of that world line unless they interact with some outside influence.
 11th November 2022, 03:57 AM #173 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger In mainstream relativity and electromagnetism, the following is true:For any events B and C connected by a specific null geodesic W, and for any photon that departs from B and travels via W to C (without interacting with other particles etc), the relationship between the energy of that photon at B and its energy at C is described by a one-to-one mathematical function. That seems like a reasonable assumption. Ben m and jonesdave116 have detailed a scenario that demonstrates it is not true, however. Do the numbers. Last edited by Mike Helland; 11th November 2022 at 05:27 AM.
 11th November 2022, 06:11 AM #174 W.D.Clinger Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,731 Originally Posted by Mike Helland Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger In mainstream relativity and electromagnetism, the following is true:For any events B and C connected by a specific null geodesic W, and for any photon that departs from B and travels via W to C (without interacting with other particles etc), the relationship between the energy of that photon at B and its energy at C is described by a one-to-one mathematical function. That seems like a reasonable assumption. Ben m and jonesdave116 have detailed a scenario that demonstrates it is not true, however. Do the numbers. ben m is no longer around to defend himself, but jonesdave116 is still here. As I noted previously, jonesdave116 got confused by your habit of using exactly the same letter (e.g. "d") to represent completely different things, even in consecutive sentences. From what you wrote in the quotation above, and from things you have been writing throughout this thread, I suspect you have confused yourself as well. Allow me, however, to note that you believe you are discussing these things in the context of red shift resulting from spatial expansion, which implies general relativity. That is why I have been careful to speak of events B and C rather than positions B and C, and why I have been careful to speak of some particular world line W (because there may be multiple null geodesics connecting events B and C). Even if you adopt the idealized simplifying assumption of an FLRW spacetime, the red shift is not uniform along W because the Hubble parameter H is not constant (because the scale factor a(t) is not a constant). To perform a proper calculation requires you to compute the value of a definite integral involving a(t). Even if you use approximations, how the red shift varies along W depends upon whether you are assuming a matter-dominated or energy-dominated FLRW spacetime.
 11th November 2022, 06:40 AM #175 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger ben m is no longer around to defend himself, but jonesdave116 is still here. As I noted previously, jonesdave116 got confused by your habit of using exactly the same letter (e.g. "d") to represent completely different things, even in consecutive sentences. From what you wrote in the quotation above, and from things you have been writing throughout this thread, I suspect you have confused yourself as well. Allow me, however, to note that you believe you are discussing these things in the context of red shift resulting from spatial expansion, which implies general relativity. That is why I have been careful to speak of events B and C rather than positions B and C, and why I have been careful to speak of some particular world line W (because there may be multiple null geodesics connecting events B and C). Even if you adopt the idealized simplifying assumption of an FLRW spacetime, the red shift is not uniform along W because the Hubble parameter H is not constant (because the scale factor a(t) is not a constant). To perform a proper calculation requires you to compute the value of a definite integral involving a(t). Even if you use approximations, how the red shift varies along W depends upon whether you are assuming a matter-dominated or energy-dominated FLRW spacetime. Yep. You can use this interactive version of LCDM to see the difference between matter and dark energy by adjusting the parameters. https://mikehelland.github.io/hubble...other/lcdm.htm If redshifts are caused by an expanding universe, then gravity plays a role in that by reigning it in a bit. Since that is observationally incorrect, dark energy is employed to push it back. Of course, if light just redshifts, none of that is right. That's not to say general relativity has a flaw. Just the FLRW metric does not match reality. Does it have any purpose outside cosmology, BTW?
 11th November 2022, 07:13 AM #176 W.D.Clinger Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,731 Originally Posted by Mike Helland If redshifts are caused by an expanding universe, then gravity plays a role in that by reigning it in a bit. In FLRW models of an expanding universe, gravity acts over time to reduce the second derivative of the scale factor a(t). In some FLRW models, where the matter-energy density of the universe exceeds a certain critical value, gravity will eventually make the first derivative of a(t) go negative, ultimately resulting in a Big Crunch. The first derivative of a(t) is not negative at the present time, and observational evidence suggests the FLRW parameters that most closely fit the universe as we know it predict the first derivative of a(t) will never go negative. That of course remains to be seen, but I don't expect to be around as the universe dies from heat death (or collapses into a Big Crunch, if that's what you think will happen). Originally Posted by Mike Helland Since that is observationally incorrect, dark energy is employed to push it back. You don't know what you're talking about. What I wrote above is true even of FLRW models for which the cosmological constant (dark energy) is zero. Originally Posted by Mike Helland That's not to say general relativity has a flaw. Just the FLRW metric does not match reality. Does it have any purpose outside cosmology, BTW? If we consider arbitrary spacetime manifolds instead of limiting ourselves to idealized solutions such as FLRW, then the variation in red shift of a photon traveling from some event B to some event C along some null geodesic W can be just about anything you like. There are, however, a few fundamental constraints:Two photons that start out with the same energy at B and travel to C along the same world line W can't end up with different energies at C. Two photons that start out with different energies at B and travel to C along the same world line W can't end up with the same energy at C. In other words, Mike Helland has been promoting a calculation that is wrong in one of the very few ways it is even possible for such a calculation to be fundamentally wrong. ETA: Originally Posted by Mike Helland Of course, if light just redshifts, none of that is right. In that sentence, Mike Helland is telling us that, if we start with Helland physics instead of mainstream physics, then we reach conclusions that are inconsistent with mainstream physics. The reason for that is obvious: Helland physics is inconsistent with mainstream physics. Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 11th November 2022 at 07:39 AM. Reason: added ETA
 11th November 2022, 08:16 AM #178 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by Ziggurat You wanted to use 33.3%, but this is wrong. Again, 33.3% was what you calculated as the percentage of the energy at A, but photon 2 didn't start at A, it started at B. You can't use 33.3% here and apply it to photon 2, that makes no sense. The second photon has a z=0.5, which 1/(1+z) means it has 66.6% of its energy. Again, jonesdave116 was adamant that I did the math. I didn't see the point. Now it's pretty obvious your assumptions don't add up. If you think I'm wrong, do the math.
 11th November 2022, 08:20 AM #179 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger In FLRW models of an expanding universe, gravity acts over time to reduce the second derivative of the scale factor a(t). In some FLRW models, where the matter-energy density of the universe exceeds a certain critical value, gravity will eventually make the first derivative of a(t) go negative, ultimately resulting in a Big Crunch. The first derivative of a(t) is not negative at the present time, and observational evidence suggests the FLRW parameters that most closely fit the universe as we know it predict the first derivative of a(t) will never go negative. That of course remains to be seen, but I don't expect to be around as the universe dies from heat death (or collapses into a Big Crunch, if that's what you think will happen). You don't know what you're talking about. What I wrote above is true even of FLRW models for which the cosmological constant (dark energy) is zero. If we consider arbitrary spacetime manifolds instead of limiting ourselves to idealized solutions such as FLRW, then the variation in red shift of a photon traveling from some event B to some event C along some null geodesic W can be just about anything you like. There are, however, a few fundamental constraints:Two photons that start out with the same energy at B and travel to C along the same world line W can't end up with different energies at C. Two photons that start out with different energies at B and travel to C along the same world line W can't end up with the same energy at C. In other words, Mike Helland has been promoting a calculation that is wrong in one of the very few ways it is even possible for such a calculation to be fundamentally wrong. ETA: In that sentence, Mike Helland is telling us that, if we start with Helland physics instead of mainstream physics, then we reach conclusions that are inconsistent with mainstream physics. The reason for that is obvious: Helland physics is inconsistent with mainstream physics. There are no Helland physic here. Just standard redshift and lookback calculations. Do the math. You won't get different results than I did.
 11th November 2022, 08:39 AM #180 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,001 Originally Posted by Mike Helland The second photon has a z=0.5, which 1/(1+z) means it has 66.6% of its energy. Again, jonesdave116 was adamant that I did the math. I didn't see the point. Now it's pretty obvious your assumptions don't add up. If you think I'm wrong, do the math. I just did the math. You ****** up. You can't use the same percentage applied to two different things (energy at A and energy at B) and expect them to match up. Of course that's going to cause inconsistencies. ETA: OK, let's do this the other way around. Photon 2 goes from 9 eV at B to 6 eV at C, a decrease of 33.3%. Fine. Photon 1 goes from 12 eV at A to 10 eV at B. Then it goes from B to C. It should decrease by 33.3% from B to C, just like photon 2. But not 33.3% of 12 eV, 33.3% of 10 eV. So it will end at C with an energy of 6.7 eV. At both B and C, photon 2 has 10% less energy than photon 1. No contradiction, if you don't **** it up. You ****** it up. __________________ "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; 11th November 2022 at 08:51 AM.
 11th November 2022, 09:24 AM #181 W.D.Clinger Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,731 Originally Posted by Mike Helland There are no Helland physic here. Just standard redshift and lookback calculations. Do the math. You won't get different results than I did. I've done the math:Those posts show the hard part of the math. The derivation of equations from the Friedman equations yields the definite integral I mentioned several posts above, ultimately yielding this equation for the redshift of a photon going from event B at time tB to event C at time tC in the FLRW coordinates:1 + z = a(tC) / a(tB) = λ(tC) / λ(tB)as derived in that same Wikipedia article. Astute observers will observe that the red shift given by that equation does not depend upon the frequency a photon might have had at any event prior to B. The red shift depends only upon the photon's frequency at B (λ(tB)) and at C (λ(tC)), whose ratio depends in turn only upon the value of the scale factor at B (a(tB)) and at C (a(tC)). The scale factors a(tB) and a(tC) are determined by the spacetime geometry, and are completely independent of which photons we might be discussing. From that it follows that the red shift given by that equation is the same for all photons traveling from event B to event C along a null geodesic. Which means two photons that have different energies at B cannot have the same energy at C. Which means Mike Helland's calculation is incorrect, no matter much he may stamp his feet and insist he's right. Mike Helland's calculation is incorrect because it is based upon Helland physics, as opposed to mainstream physics. Mike Helland hasn't done the math, and doesn't know enough physics and math to understand the mathematics laid out in the links I provided above. That's why Mike Helland insists upon using numbers instead of equations and general principles of mathematics and physics. He does know how to use a calculator. He just doesn't know enough math to tell whether he's feeding correct numbers into that calculator. Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 11th November 2022 at 09:29 AM. Reason: changed two words for clarity
 11th November 2022, 11:25 AM #182 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by Ziggurat I just did the math. You ****** up. You can't use the same percentage applied to two different things (energy at A and energy at B) and expect them to match up. Of course that's going to cause inconsistencies. ETA: OK, let's do this the other way around. Photon 2 goes from 9 eV at B to 6 eV at C, a decrease of 33.3%. Fine. Photon 1 goes from 12 eV at A to 10 eV at B. Then it goes from B to C. It should decrease by 33.3% from B to C, just like photon 2. But not 33.3% of 12 eV, 33.3% of 10 eV. So it will end at C with an energy of 6.7 eV. At both B and C, photon 2 has 10% less energy than photon 1. No contradiction, if you don't **** it up. You ****** it up. How does a 12 eV photon with a redshift of z=1 get to 6.7 eV? 1/(1+z)=1/2 Perhaps it would help if you showed your work.
 11th November 2022, 11:29 AM #183 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger From that it follows that the red shift given by that equation is the same for all photons traveling from event B to event C along a null geodesic. Which means two photons that have different energies at B cannot have the same energy at C. You assume your conclusion in your premises. I understand why its hard to give actual answers to the problem posed by jonesdave116. It doesn't actually add up.
 11th November 2022, 12:03 PM #184 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Here's the problem. You receive 2 photons, both 6 eV. One of them from a z=0.5 source. The other from z=1. What energy were they emitted with? What distance did they travel? And.... what energy did they have when they met up? Code: ```|-----------------?-------------| A B C |---?------|---------?----------| First photon A (d=0, z=0, E=? eV) B (d=? Gly, z=?, E=? eV) C (d=? Gly, z=1, E=6 eV) Second photon B (d=0, z=0, E=? eV) C (d=? Gly, z=0.5, E=6 eV)``` Fill in the ?'s. Last edited by Mike Helland; 11th November 2022 at 12:04 PM.
 11th November 2022, 12:45 PM #186 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger That's a pretty amazing post, btw.
 11th November 2022, 12:55 PM #187 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by Ziggurat Who said it had a z of 1? jonesdave. It was the basic stipulation of the problem. Quote: If photon 2 has a z of 0.5 and an energy of 6 eV at C, then it had an energy of 9 eV at B. If photon 1 has an energy of 6 eV at C, then it also had an energy of 9 eV at B. If its z is 1, then at A, it had an energy of 12 eV. This means that at B, it had a z of 0.33. Lookback time * c at z=1 is 7 Gly (say c/H0 = 14 Gly to make things easy). Lookback time * c at z=0.5 is 4.66 Gly. So the first and second photon traveled 4.66 Gly together. That leaves 7 - 4.66 = 2.33 Gly the first photon traveled alone. And it was z=0.33 when it met the second photon? Lookback time * c at z=0.33 is 3.5 Gly. 4.66 + 3.5 > 7 Doesn't add up. Last edited by Mike Helland; 11th November 2022 at 12:57 PM.
 11th November 2022, 01:49 PM #188 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,001 Originally Posted by Mike Helland Lookback time * c at z=0.33 is 3.5 Gly. 4.66 + 3.5 > 7 Doesn't add up. Because you're still doing it wrong. The quantity z is model independent, meaning its definition doesn't depend on how fast the universe is expanding. But the relationship between z and distance is NOT model independent. It depends on how fast the universe expands, and that's not constant in time. The relationship between z and distance that you're using is valid for z's calculated today. But the z you're using, 0.33, isn't a z that's valid today. It's a z from 4.66 billion years ago. You would need to use a different relationship between z and distance if you want to calculate how far photon 1 traveled between A and B based on z. You keep using equations that you don't actually understand, and so don't realize when you're using them 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
 11th November 2022, 01:55 PM #189 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by Ziggurat Because you're still doing it wrong. The quantity z is model independent, meaning its definition doesn't depend on how fast the universe is expanding. But the relationship between z and distance is NOT model independent. It depends on how fast the universe expands, and that's not constant in time. The relationship between z and distance that you're using is valid for z's calculated today. But the z you're using, 0.33, isn't a z that's valid today. It's a z from 4.66 billion years ago. You would need to use a different relationship between z and distance if you want to calculate how far photon 1 traveled between A and B based on z. You keep using equations that you don't actually understand, and so don't realize when you're using them wrong. I understand pretty well. If a photon travels for a billion years at the speed of light, it traveled 1 billion light years. The source of the photon was less than that at the time of the emission. And it was greater than that when the photon was received. That doesn't change anything though. A photon that travels for 2.33 billion years will have a z=0.2. Not z=0.333. Try filling out the chart.
 11th November 2022, 02:15 PM #190 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,001 Originally Posted by Mike Helland I understand pretty well. No, you absolutely do not understand. Quote: A photon that travels for 2.33 billion years will have a z=0.2. Not z=0.333. Again, this is only for today. It was not valid in the past, it won't be valid in the future. You're applying it in the past as if the past was the same as today, but it's not. __________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
 11th November 2022, 02:26 PM #191 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by Ziggurat Again, this is only for today. It was not valid in the past, it won't be valid in the future. You're applying it in the past as if the past was the same as today, but it's not. So what you're saying is, this is right to you? Code: ```|-----------------?-------------| A B C |---?------|---------?----------| First photon A (d=0, z=0, E=12 eV) B (d=3.5 Gly, z=0.33, E=9 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)``` Or how would you change that?
 11th November 2022, 02:33 PM #192 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,001 Originally Posted by Mike Helland So what you're saying is, this is right to you? No, it's not right. There's still a contradiction in there. You think that means that there's something wrong with the theory. In point of fact, it means you ****** up. Again, distance vs. z relationship TODAY is different than it was in the past. I haven't bothered doing the distance/time calculations, but assuming that you did them right for photon 2 (since the calculations were done for today, that's more likely to be correct), then this is what they should be: Code: ```|-----------------?-------------| A B C |---?------|---------?----------| First photon A (d=0, z=0, E=12 eV) B (d=2.33 Gly, z=0.33, E=9 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)``` z's don't match, but they don't need to. Elapsed times and changes in energy do match. __________________ "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
 11th November 2022, 02:37 PM #193 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by Ziggurat No, it's not right. There's still a contradiction in there. You think that means that there's something wrong with the theory. In point of fact, it means you ****** up. Again, distance vs. z relationship TODAY is different than it was in the past. I haven't bothered doing the distance/time calculations, but assuming that you did them right for photon 2 (since the calculations were done for today, that's more likely to be correct), then this is what they should be: Code: ```|-----------------?-------------| A B C |---?------|---------?----------| First photon A (d=0, z=0, E=12 eV) B (d=2.33 Gly, z=0.33, E=9 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)``` z's don't match, but they don't need to. Elapsed times and changes in energy do match. So an observer at point B would receive the first photon at z=0.33 and conclude point A is 3.5 Gly away?
 11th November 2022, 02:53 PM #194 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,001 Originally Posted by Mike Helland So an observer at point B would receive the first photon at z=0.33 and conclude point A is 3.5 Gly away? NO! That is EXACTLY what I'm telling you is WRONG. God damn it, Mike, how many times do I have to tell you? You CANNOT use an equation which is only valid TODAY for something long in the past. 4.66 billion years ago, the relationship between z and distance/age was DIFFERENT than it is today. __________________ "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
 11th November 2022, 02:58 PM #195 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by Ziggurat NO! That is EXACTLY what I'm telling you is WRONG. God damn it, Mike, how many times do I have to tell you? You CANNOT use an equation which is only valid TODAY for something long in the past. 4.66 billion years ago, the relationship between z and distance/age was DIFFERENT than it is today. Ok. But you're confident an observer at point B would received a photon from point A at z=0.333? Let's say 7 billion years ago 2 photons left point A. One of them stops at point B 4.66 billion years ago. The other continues to point C and gets there today. Is the trip between point A and B uniform for both photons?
 11th November 2022, 03:13 PM #196 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,001 Originally Posted by Mike Helland Ok. But you're confident an observer at point B would received a photon from point A at z=0.333? Yes. Why is that hard for you? Quote: Let's say 7 billion years ago 2 photons left point A. One of them stops at point B 4.66 billion years ago. The other continues to point C and gets there today. Is the trip between point A and B uniform for both photons? Yes. Why wouldn't it be? __________________ "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
 11th November 2022, 03:18 PM #197 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by Ziggurat Yes. Why is that hard for you? Because it traveled for 2.33 billion years, and lost 25% of its energy (at z=0.333). But if it traveled that same distance and was received today it would have lost just 16.66% of its energy (at z=0.2). Since the universe is expanding faster now than in those times... they should have lost less energy in the past than now. Not adding up. Quote: Yes. Why wouldn't it be? Then why shouldn't their z and travel times and energy be equal? You say the z's don't need to be equal. Kinda bailing on the whole consistency thing eh?
 11th November 2022, 03:38 PM #198 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,001 Originally Posted by Mike Helland Because it traveled for 2.33 billion years, and lost 25% of its energy (at z=0.333). But if it traveled that same distance and was received today it would have lost just 16.66% of its energy (at z=0.2). Since the universe is expanding faster now than in those times... they should have lost less energy in the past than now. Not adding up. YOU came up with those ages, not me. The ages are model dependent. I don't know what model you're using. I don't know if that model is accurate. I don't know if that model produces acceleration. What I do know is that you aren't handling red shifts correctly when there's more than one step. Quote: Then why shouldn't their z and travel times and energy be equal? Travel times between events will be equal. z's won't be because they're in reference to things which aren't equal, since the photons started at very different times. Why would you expect them to be? Quote: You say the z's don't need to be equal. Kinda bailing on the whole consistency thing eh? Uh, no. Consistency isn't the same as equivalence. Two things being different isn't an inconsistency if there's no reason they should be the same. The z CHANGE for the second segment of the trip for photon 1, which STILL REFERENCES event A, isn't going to be the same as z for photon 2, which was never at event A. There doesn't have to be any similarity. Don't compare z's between them. Compare their energies. Their energies are consistent. __________________ "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
 11th November 2022, 03:48 PM #199 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by Ziggurat The z CHANGE for the second segment of the trip for photon 1, which STILL REFERENCES event A, isn't going to be the same as z for photon 2, which was never at event A. There doesn't have to be any similarity. Don't compare z's between them. Compare their energies. Their energies are consistent. Their energies are consistent because you assumed them to be, and then reached that conclusion. A consequence of which is that a photon that has traveled 2.33 billion years, has a z=0.3333. If you're happy with that, good for you.
 11th November 2022, 03:58 PM #200 Mike Helland Master Poster   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 2,998 Originally Posted by Ziggurat What I do know is that you aren't handling red shifts correctly when there's more than one step. Let's add another step. X: Code: ```|-----------------7-------------| A B C |---2.33---|---------4.66-------| A B X C |---2.33---|---------|----------| First photon A (d=0, z=0, E=12 eV) B (d=2.33 Gly, z=0.2, E=10 eV) X (d=4.66 Gly, z=0.5, E=8 eV C (d=7 Gly, z=1, E=6 eV) Second photon B (d=0, z=0, E=9 eV) X (d=2.33 Gly, z=0.2, E=7.5 eV_ C (d=4.66 Gly, z=0.5, E=6 eV)``` What would you change on that?

International Skeptics Forum