IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 24th January 2021, 06:29 PM   #1841
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 875
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Ok.

So if gravity pulls everything back, the scale factor of the universe changes?
In a matter dominated universe, yes.

Quote:
If the universe extends indefinitely in all directions, there would be roughly equal mass in every direction at every point in space.
Of course - the FRLW metric solution starts with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy.
Quote:
Combine this with a force of gravity limited to the hubble volume, which stabilizes even a finite sample, I think you can get out without dark energy.
Show me. Develop a metric theory of gravity (looks like perhaps a scalar-tensor theory), find the homogeneous solutions and show that the solutions are stable for the matter density we measure in the Universe. You won't be able to do this, I know, so you're just speculating wildly.


Quote:
One is that there is an unknown force that slows the photons and gravitons.
Gravitons? You have a quantum theory of gravity that is consistent with the metric theory of gravity you have yet to develop?

Quote:
But it's still just a way to avoid the cold hard empirical fact that Hubble's law effectively limits the distance things can travel.
No, it doesn't. It effectively limits parts of the Universe that things can reach, but it doesn't limit how far things can travel.

Last edited by hecd2; 24th January 2021 at 06:35 PM.
hecd2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2021, 06:35 PM   #1842
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,149
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
In a matter dominated universe, yes.

Of course - the FRLW metric soliution starts with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy.
Show me. Develop a metric theory of gravity (looks like perhaps a scalar-tensor theory), find the homogeneous solutions and show that the solutions are stable for the matter density we measure in the Universe. You won't be able to do this, I know, so you're just speculating wildly.


Gravitons? You have a quantum theory of gravity that is consistent with the metric theory of gravity you have yet to develop?

No, it doesn't. It effectively limits parts of the Universe that things can reach, but it doesn't limit how far things can travel.
It limits parts of the universe that things can reach, which effectively limits how far things can travel.

Let's say the inch of floor in front of you expands at 100 m/s. You try running but can only go 5 m/s.

It is true you can travel to infinity. But you'll never traverse that original inch.

Frame it however you want, you'll never get across that inch.

That's not an absolute limit on how far you can travel. But it's a pretty effective one.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2021, 06:42 PM   #1843
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 875
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
It limits parts of the universe that things can reach, which effectively limits how far things can travel.
Wrong.

Quote:
Let's say the inch of floor in front of you expands at 100 m/s. You try running but can only go 5 m/s.
After one second, the inch of floor has expanded to 100m and you have travelled 5m. After million seconds you have travelled five million meters and so on. Expansion limits what things can reach, but not how far they can travel.


We know that parts of the expanding Universe outside the Hubble volume are beyond reach. So what?
hecd2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2021, 06:45 PM   #1844
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,442
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
It limits parts of the universe that things can reach, which effectively limits how far things can travel.

Let's say the inch of floor in front of you expands at 100 m/s. You try running but can only go 5 m/s.

It is true you can travel to infinity. But you'll never traverse that original inch.

Frame it however you want, you'll never get across that inch.

Yes you will get across that inch (and any other finite distance) eventually. That's a straightforward (if counterintuitive) mathematical fact.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2021, 06:46 PM   #1845
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,149
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Expansion limits what things can reach, but not how far they can travel.
Right.

My theory limits how far a particle can travel, which limits what we reach.

Quote:
We know that parts of the expanding Universe outside the Hubble volume are beyond reach. So what?
Electromagnetic waves won't cross over the Hubble limit.

Do gravitational waves?
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2021, 06:47 PM   #1846
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,149
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Yes you will get across that inch (and any other finite distance) eventually. That's a straightforward (if counterintuitive) mathematical fact.
If after one second, the inch is 100 m long, and you have run 5m.

After two seconds the inch is 200 m long and you have run 10 m.

I don't think you're gonna get there.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2021, 06:58 PM   #1847
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,442
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If after one second, the inch is 100 m long, and you have run 5m.

No, a little more than that.

Quote:
After two seconds the inch is 200 m long and you have run 10 m.

No, a little more than that.

Quote:
I don't think you're gonna get there.

I know that's what you think, but you're simply wrong.

It's in the same category as "I don't think pi is an irrational number" or "I don't think .9 + .09 + .009 +... adds up to 1." Like yours, those claims are exactly equivalent to "I am wrong."
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Myriad; 24th January 2021 at 06:59 PM.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2021, 07:11 PM   #1848
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 875
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Right.

My theory limits how far a particle can travel, which limits what we reach.
But we know your idea (it's not a theory) is wrong.


Quote:
Electromagnetic waves won't cross over the Hubble limit.
In a universe with constant Hubble factor, they won't.
Quote:
Do gravitational waves?
No - but I know where you're going with this.


First of all the gravitational field of an object is not the same as gravitational waves (just as the electrostatic field of a charged object is not the same as light emitted by the object).


But more importantly, the Friedman type solutions to the Einstein field equations are agnostic about the size of the Universe. They assume homogeneity, and the density and equations of state of the radiation, matter and other fields determine the metric (scale factor and curvature). If you think that the causal horizon will affect the metric solutions, or if you have an alternative theory of gravity, then you're just going to have to develop the theory and show me.

Last edited by hecd2; 24th January 2021 at 07:14 PM. Reason: clarification
hecd2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2021, 07:26 PM   #1849
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,149
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
First of all the gravitational field of an object is not the same as gravitational waves (just as the electrostatic field of a charged object is not the same as light emitted by the object).
Oh.

Does gravity extend beyond Hubble's length, then?

Quote:
But more importantly, the Friedman type solutions to the Einstein field equations are agnostic about the size of the Universe. They assume homogeneity, and the density and equations of state of the radiation, matter and other fields determine the metric (scale factor and curvature). If you think that the causal horizon will affect the metric solutions, or if you have an alternative theory of gravity, then you're just going to have to develop the theory and show me.
Ok.

Well.

If this is the Einstein gravitational constant:

k = (8 * pi * G) / c^4

Then, if it were limited by Hubble's law, it would look something like this:

k = (8 * pi * G) / (c-HD)^4

Last edited by Mike Helland; 24th January 2021 at 08:01 PM. Reason: minus to plus to minux
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 01:43 AM   #1850
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,247
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Oh.

Does gravity extend beyond Hubble's length, then?



Ok.

Well.

If this is the Einstein gravitational constant:

k = (8 * pi * G) / c^4

Then, if it were limited by Hubble's law, it would look something like this:

k = (8 * pi * G) / (c-HD)^4
You are really bad at this. That would make gravity diverge to infinity at large distance, not make it fall to zero.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 02:00 AM   #1851
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,232
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Yes you will get across that inch (and any other finite distance) eventually. That's a straightforward (if counterintuitive) mathematical fact.
Can you explain? If there was a penny at the 1 inch mark, would he be able to step on it at some point? After how long?

I feel like I'm missing something.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 04:03 AM   #1852
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 875
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If after one second, the inch is 100 m long, and you have run 5m.

After two seconds the inch is 200 m long and you have run 10 m.

I don't think you're gonna get there.
You're wrong and Myriad is correct. I wasn't paying attention when I agreed with you. For any constant finite speed of stretching and any constant speed of travel with respect to space, you will reach any finite distance within a finite time.


By the way, you have been talking about the limit of observability, the cosmic event horizon and calling it the Hubble limit. The two things are not the same. The event horizon is at a finite distance in a universe with accelerating expansion, such as we appear to be in, but not in a Universe with constant expansion.
hecd2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 05:25 AM   #1853
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 875
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Can you explain? If there was a penny at the 1 inch mark, would he be able to step on it at some point? After how long?

I feel like I'm missing something.
Yes. If, at any time, my speed with respect to the floor is v and the floor where I am is moving at w, then my speed is v+w. If the target is moving at V, then w=V(x/X) where x is my position at time T and X is the target position at T. You can solve this discretely by considering what happens in small increments of time t (small with respect to the total time to reach the target). The proportion of distance actually travelled (by my running and the stretching of the floor) to the distance to the target increases in each time increment and the total distance travelled as a proportion of the distance to the target in each increment forms a harmonic series which diverges so that the total proportion will always exceed 1 after some finite number of terms.



You can also solve it analytically, by converting to co-ordinates along the floor so that any point on the floor is always at the same co-ordinate location, writing an expression for my velocity in terms of floor co-ordinates and integating to find my location on the floor at any time. The time taken to reach the target is then T=((e^V/v)-1)X0/V, where X0 is the distance to the target at the start, V is the velocity of the target, and v is my speed with respect to the floor.


For the problem as stated by Mike, X0=0.0254m, V=100m/s, v=5m/s, so T=~123,231 seconds). (By which time the target point, and I, would be ~12,332km from the starting point).
hecd2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 08:47 AM   #1854
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,442
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Can you explain? If there was a penny at the 1 inch mark, would he be able to step on it at some point? After how long?

I feel like I'm missing something.

The full mathematical expiration is here (among other places). The counterintuitive result hinges on two key details. One is that the expanding space stretches behind you as well as in front of you, so whatever fraction of the total distance across the span you are is preserved as the span stretches. If you're a third of the way across, you're still (at least) a third of the way across no matter how much it stretches, even though the remaining two thirds increases in actual distance. The other is the mathematical fact that the harmonic series is divergent.

Here's a crude step by step explanation of the specific case. To avoid using calculus, we can simplify the scenario by allowing me (the mover along the expanding space) to save my movement and perform it all at once, after the span has stretched for a time. This is not cheating. It disadvantages me, since clearly if the span is continuously lengthening, the sooner I move a given increment, the faster I'll get across. If I can get across in delayed jumps, I could certainly get across more quickly by continuous movement.

So, I wait for the first second, while the "inch" lengthens to 100m. At that point I jump my 5m. So I'm now at 5m, there's 95m to go. I'm .05 (5%) of the way across.

Then I wait for nine seconds. The total span lengthens to 1000m (900 additional meters, 855m of which are added in front of me and 45m of which are added behind me) and the remaining distance in front of me lengthens to 950m. (The span behind me lengthens to 50m.) At that point I jump 45m, so there's 905m to go. I'm an additional .045 (4.5%) of the way across.

Then I wait for 90 seconds. The total span lengthens to 10000m and the remaining distance in front of me lengthens to 9050m. At that point I jump 450m, so there's 8600m to go. I'm an additional .045 (4.5%) of the way across.

Then I wait for 900 seconds. The total span lengthens to 100000m and the remaining distance in front of me lengthens to 86000m. At that point I jump 4500m, so there's 81500m to go. I'm an additional .045 of the way across. (Now 18.5% of the span.)

And so forth. I'm waiting 10x longer for each jump, but each jump takes me a fixed fraction of the total span farther. (Of course, if I moved continuously instead of waiting for jumps, I'd progress faster, but that requires higher math to calculate.) So in a finite number of jumps, taking a finite (though perhaps large) amount of time, I'll get past 100% of the way.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 08:51 AM   #1855
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,149
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
The full mathematical expiration is here (among other places). The counterintuitive result hinges on two key details. One is that the expanding space stretches behind you as well as in front of you, so whatever fraction of the total distance across the span you are is preserved as the span stretches. If you're a third of the way across, you're still (at least) a third of the way across no matter how much it stretches, even though the remaining two thirds increases in actual distance. The other is the mathematical fact that the harmonic series is divergent.

Here's a crude step by step explanation of the specific case. To avoid using calculus, we can simplify the scenario by allowing me (the mover along the expanding space) to save my movement and perform it all at once, after the span has stretched for a time. This is not cheating. It disadvantages me, since clearly if the span is continuously lengthening, the sooner I move a given increment, the faster I'll get across. If I can get across in delayed jumps, I could certainly get across more quickly by continuous movement.

So, I wait for the first second, while the "inch" lengthens to 100m. At that point I jump my 5m. So I'm now at 5m, there's 95m to go. I'm .05 (5%) of the way across.

Then I wait for nine seconds. The total span lengthens to 1000m (900 additional meters, 855m of which are added in front of me and 45m of which are added behind me) and the remaining distance in front of me lengthens to 950m. (The span behind me lengthens to 50m.) At that point I jump 45m, so there's 905m to go. I'm an additional .045 (4.5%) of the way across.

Then I wait for 90 seconds. The total span lengthens to 10000m and the remaining distance in front of me lengthens to 9050m. At that point I jump 450m, so there's 8600m to go. I'm an additional .045 (4.5%) of the way across.

Then I wait for 900 seconds. The total span lengthens to 100000m and the remaining distance in front of me lengthens to 86000m. At that point I jump 4500m, so there's 81500m to go. I'm an additional .045 of the way across. (Now 18.5% of the span.)

And so forth. I'm waiting 10x longer for each jump, but each jump takes me a fixed fraction of the total span farther. (Of course, if I moved continuously instead of waiting for jumps, I'd progress faster, but that requires higher math to calculate.) So in a finite number of jumps, taking a finite (though perhaps large) amount of time, I'll get past 100% of the way.
You're right, because the loss of speed is over time.

It should be a loss of speed over distance, ala Hubble's law. Which makes it harder.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 08:53 AM   #1856
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,149
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You are really bad at this. That would make gravity diverge to infinity at large distance, not make it fall to zero.
Indeed. It'd be have to part of the metric tensor or Ricci or tensor, I suppose.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 09:04 AM   #1857
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,247
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Indeed. It'd be have to part of the metric tensor or Ricci or tensor, I suppose.
You keep breaking things, and then expecting that you can fix what you broke by breaking something else. It's never going to work.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 09:21 AM   #1858
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,149
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You keep breaking things, and then expecting that you can fix what you broke by breaking something else. It's never going to work.
I've only broken one thing.

I just happens to be inertia, and everything else is based on that.

Hardly my fault. ;-)

GR seems to be like pythagoras in 4 squiggly dimensions where the hypotenuse is c.

In my theory, that's have to be longer.

If only in the time dimension.

c3 * (c-HD)

But obviously c-HD isn't right, unless its integrated for all values between 0 and the D.

I mean, yeah, I'm bad this. Yeah I'm making up lots of stuff. Yeah I watched 6 videos on general relativity last night which has not educated me but only fueled my delusions.

But let me ask you this. Doesn't a bad conversation about physics beat any conversation about politics any day?

I imagine someone hear has learned something. Even if it's not me.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 09:32 AM   #1859
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,247
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I've only broken one thing.

I just happens to be inertia, and everything else is based on that.
You just broke gravity with that last substitution, and there have been a lot more.

Quote:
But obviously c-HD isn't right
No kidding.

Quote:
But let me ask you this. Doesn't a bad conversation about physics beat any conversation about politics any day?
That's setting the bar awfully low.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 09:40 AM   #1860
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,500
"If I make physics arguments that are as painfully obtuse and willfully ignorant as a bad conversation about politics, I'm still doing better than a conversation about politics, right? Right?"

You set out to solve a "crisis" in cosmology. Your contribution so far, by your own admission, sums up to "just about as bad as a political slapfight". Maybe you'd be better off just talking about politics, and leaving physics to the actual physicists.

Last edited by theprestige; 25th January 2021 at 09:42 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 09:53 AM   #1861
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 875
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
You're right, because the loss of speed is over time.

It should be a loss of speed over distance, ala Hubble's law. Which makes it harder.
What loss of speed? There is no loss of speed with time or distance in your scenario.
hecd2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 10:05 AM   #1862
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,149
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You just broke gravity with that last substitution, and there have been a lot more.
Indeed.

After looking at what I posted I thought "That might be the stupidest thing I've said yet. They're really going to let me have it for that."

But you weren't mean. Dismissive, but not mean.

So thanks for that!


Quote:
That's setting the bar awfully low.
So we agree on something? :-)

I agree of course this all foolish to think anything will come out of this. I should probably work on something more productive.

But, looking at the FLRW metric, I can see the a(t), which is the scale factor over time, and there is where Hubble's law comes into play. If I understand right, that's what changes the light cone from a martini glass to a champagne glass.



If the decelerating hypothesis was right (hypothetically), I would need to set the scale factor to a constant 1, which removes Hubble's parameter, and resets the light cone to the martini glass. My goal then would be to recreate the champagne glass light cone by modifying the motion of light.

The geodesics are defined as such they allow for pure unfettered inertia to make all the decision.

If I were looking for a place to reintroduce Hubble's constant, it would be that the v along that geodesic v=c-HD, this makes the photon's light-like trajectory become time-like, and limits the travel distance along that geodesic to c/H.

This sort of defeats the purpose of the geodesic, but I think that's why the discovery of Hubble's redshifts was so important.

I suppose, from a GR perspective, my hypothesis is meant to place the blame for the redshifts on the photons diverging from the null geodesic after cosmological distances.

I'm not saying that a solution or anything.

Does the geometry of spacetime even allow that?

Or would that require a new term? Like a Hubble tensor.

Code:
c-HD 0 0 0
0    0 0 0 
0    0 0 0
0    0 0 0
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 10:06 AM   #1863
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,149
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
What loss of speed? There is no loss of speed with time or distance in your scenario.

Right, I used v=c-HD rather than v=HD.

The speed at which the inch expands is per distance, not per time.

Either way, disregard the expanding inch.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 11:00 AM   #1864
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,149
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Or would that require a new term? Like a Hubble tensor.
No, that'd be wrong.

That'd be defining the geometry of spacetime for all particles.

The solution would have to define a unique divergent geodesic from each point of the null geodesic.

The geodesic equation equates the acceleration of object to 0. That would have to be -HD, for deceleration..but that's a negative velocity not a deceleration so the units wouldn't match.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 11:02 AM   #1865
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,149
If anyone wants a crash course on general relativity, I found this to be pretty informative

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xodtfM1r9FA

First of a series of 8 fairly short videos.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 11:32 AM   #1866
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 13,303
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If anyone wants a crash course on general relativity, I found this to be pretty informative

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xodtfM1r9FA

First of a series of 8 fairly short videos.
Alternately, ...

If anyone actually does want to know about General Relativity, then one should simply ask one of the several scientists who have been providing you with so much good information about General Relativity.
__________________
I can barely believe that I made it through the Trump presidency.

On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 11:40 AM   #1867
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,149
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
Alternately, ...

If anyone actually does want to know about General Relativity, then one should simply ask one of the several scientists who have been providing you with so much good information about General Relativity.
Yep, very helpful.

Ok, I think I got it figured it. It was at the end of the last video.

I'll time stamp if for you:

https://youtu.be/-UPSiKugRW0?t=881

||v|| = 0

If you put in ||v|| = HD, then the photon will veer experience time and space until it redshifts all its energy away.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 11:58 AM   #1868
Nakani
Muse
 
Nakani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Acho Dene Koe
Posts: 958
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I've only broken one thing.

I just happens to be inertia, and everything else is based on that.

Hardly my fault. ;-)

GR seems to be like pythagoras in 4 squiggly dimensions where the hypotenuse is c.

In my theory, that's have to be longer.

If only in the time dimension.

c3 * (c-HD)

But obviously c-HD isn't right, unless its integrated for all values between 0 and the D.

I mean, yeah, I'm bad this. Yeah I'm making up lots of stuff. Yeah I watched 6 videos on general relativity last night which has not educated me but only fueled my delusions.

But let me ask you this. Doesn't a bad conversation about physics beat any conversation about politics any day?

I imagine someone hear has learned something. Even if it's not me.
Hello, fellow 'Physics Crank' here, I for one have been enjoying this conversation, I am impressed with the amount of work you have done. I have been trying to read this thread but the last page keeps getting farther away.

While I have you, I am wondering what we are arguing about?

Is the theory, that space itself is expanding and pushing the galaxies apart?

Or that the galaxies are all moving away from each other?

Seems to me that with all the different ways light can be red-shifted, to say space is expanding is a bit of a stretch. Given our current data, we can say celestial bodies move around but that is it. The rest is just big bang propaganda.



Cranks make gears turn!
Nakani is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2021, 12:09 PM   #1869
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,149
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
Hello, fellow 'Physics Crank' here,
Hello!

Quote:
While I have you, I am wondering what we are arguing about?
Hubble's Law is v=HD, that distant objects move away at velocity v, based on Hubble's constant H and the objects distance.

I look at it this like, if we shoot a laser into space at a target 100 million light years away, it will take more than 100 million years for the laser beam to reach the target.

I think these time delays (time dilation?) and the redshifts go hand in hand.

If we change the theory so the galaxies are not moving away, and things are stationary (each galaxy still having its own peculiar motion but not part of the expansion of space or Hubble flow), but the laser beam actually slows down, according to v=c-HD, then the exact same time delays are produced.

You can view this in action at this web page, and just click the "Run" buttons to see what time delays are produced.

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/


Quote:
Seems to me that with all the different ways light can be red-shifted, to say space is expanding is a bit of a stretch.
Hundreds of ways, but they all fail as explanations for the redshift.

Here is a paper with 772 tired light theories:

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/19....129R/abstract

(*edit* full paper: https://mikehelland.github.io/hubble...ghtcatalog.pdf)

None of them, as far as I can tell, slow down the light, so none of them can produce the time delays.

My hypothesis doesn't expand space, it expands time.

If time increases but space doesn't, that's equivalent to decelerating.

Last edited by Mike Helland; 25th January 2021 at 12:14 PM.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2021, 01:35 PM   #1870
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,694
Exclamation Why the "The CMB indicates a hot past" section is very wrong

20 January 2021: A couple or maybe 3 retractions from Mike Helland.
A week and no sign of any retraction of the errors on Mike Helland's web page.

The errors start with ignorance of the cosmic nature of the CMB.
Why Mike Helland's "CMB is local (produced by the Milky Way)" idea is totally wrong.
Also:
  • Energy "start to pile up", etc. nonsense about the energy lost by red-shifted light without any calculation of the temperature of the CMB from his idea.
  • Some "minimum" temperature ignorance when he cites effective temperatures of radiation (starlight and cosmic rays) in mainstream literature.
    There is no actual background of starlight or cosmic rays with a temperature of Eddington's 3.18 K, etc. Just like the Sun does not have a temperature of 5772 K from fitting a black body curve to its roughly black body spectrum.
  • His retracted and irreverent "Predictions of the temperature of the CBR" image.
    This has "stationary universe" ignorance when Eddington, Regerer and Nerst did calculations for the Milky Way, ignoring the rest of the universe.
    Finlay-Freundlich did use a stationary universe in but used a tired light theory which are wrong.
  • The CMB is not just its temperature! The CMB has a spectrum.
    Eddington's Temperature of Space goes through why Eddington's calculation is nothing to do with the CMB. Similar arguments probably apply to Regerer and Nerst.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2021, 01:45 PM   #1871
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 13,303
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Yep, very helpful.

Ok, I think I got it figured it. It was at the end of the last video.

I'll time stamp if for you:

https://youtu.be/-UPSiKugRW0?t=881

||v|| = 0

If you put in ||v|| = HD, then the photon will veer experience time and space until it redshifts all its energy away.
You continue to demonstrate your ignorance.
__________________
I can barely believe that I made it through the Trump presidency.

On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2021, 02:27 PM   #1872
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,149
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Energy "start to pile up", etc. nonsense about the energy lost by red-shifted light without any calculation of the temperature of the CMB from his idea.
Redshifted energy piles up in the gravitational field or is simply lost in the standard model.

Take your pick.

Quote:
Some "minimum" temperature ignorance when he cites effective temperatures of radiation (starlight and cosmic rays) in mainstream literature.
An effective temperature would determine what a temperature an object exposed to that effective temperature cools to.

Would it not?

Quote:
The CMB is not just its temperature! The CMB has a spectrum.
Eddington's Temperature of Space goes through why Eddington's calculation is nothing to do with the CMB. Similar arguments probably apply to Regerer and Nerst.
Indeed.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2021, 02:53 PM   #1873
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,247
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
An effective temperature would determine what a temperature an object exposed to that effective temperature cools to.

Would it not?
Only if that object was a black body. If it's not a black body, then the temperature it would equilibrate at would be different.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2021, 03:07 PM   #1874
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,149
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Only if that object was a black body. If it's not a black body, then the temperature it would equilibrate at would be different.
If were were to spray paint the object white, then it would reflect light.

Is that light counted as temperature, and thus higher than a black body?

Or is its reflection unrelated to the temperature it would be underneath the spray paint?
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2021, 03:13 PM   #1875
Nakani
Muse
 
Nakani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Acho Dene Koe
Posts: 958
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Hello!

Hubble's Law is v=HD, that distant objects move away at velocity v, based on Hubble's constant H and the objects distance.

I look at it this like, if we shoot a laser into space at a target 100 million light years away, it will take more than 100 million years for the laser beam to reach the target.
I think these time delays (time dilation?) and the redshifts go hand in hand.

If we change the theory so the galaxies are not moving away, and things are stationary (each galaxy still having its own peculiar motion but not part of the expansion of space or Hubble flow), but the laser beam actually slows down, according to v=c-HD, then the exact same time delays are produced.
Do you mean that if you are correct, this is what will happen?

Quote:
Hundreds of ways, but they all fail as explanations for the redshift.

None of them, as far as I can tell, slow down the light, so none of them can produce the time delays.
When light passes through water it slows. Do you know of a way light would slow down over distance without the interference of matter?

Quote:
My hypothesis doesn't expand space, it expands time.
Expands time? I think your photons are just late, and they better have a good reason.

Quote:
If time increases but space doesn't, that's equivalent to decelerating.
Yes, I would agree.

Last edited by Nakani; 26th January 2021 at 03:14 PM.
Nakani is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2021, 03:19 PM   #1876
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,149
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
Do you mean that if you are correct, this is what will happen?
If the photon traveled at v=c-HD, the math shows this is what happens.

Just click the "run" buttons to see it:

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/


Quote:
When light passes through water it slows. Do you know of a way light would slow down over distance without the interference of matter?
Nope.

My hypothesis is that photon's are naturally limited to a distance of c/H, known as Hubble's limit.

They slow down because that's what they do, and the redshifts are the observed evidence of this.

Energy of a photon E = hf
Speed in a wave v = freq * wavelength

We observe redshifts, which are loss in energy. Energy goes down, then frequency goes down. Frequency goes down, speed goes down.

Light just doesn't travel to infinity. Seems like a fair engineering decision by whoever made all this.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2021, 03:54 PM   #1877
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,247
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If were were to spray paint the object white, then it would reflect light.

Is that light counted as temperature, and thus higher than a black body?

Or is its reflection unrelated to the temperature it would be underneath the spray paint?
I mean the actual internal temperature will change.

If you spray paint it with ordinary white paint, the equilibrium temperature will likely be lower. Star light has a lot of optical light that would get reflected. But ordinary white paint isn't particularly reflective in the microwave regime, so that wouldn't make much difference to thermal emissions. Reduced absorption in the optical without reduced emission in the microwave means lower equilibrium temperature. Conversely, it it's black in the optical regime but white in the microwave regime, it will have to heat up to a higher temperature in order to radiate away what it absorbs. The color makes a difference to the equilibrium temperature in this case.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2021, 05:31 PM   #1878
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 875
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If the photon traveled at v=c-HD, the math shows this is what happens.
We already know from several lines of empirical observation that light from distant and near sources must have the same speed, so your idea cannot possibly be correct.

There is an additional cogent theoretical and empirical reason why your idea is a non-starter, which I am not sure has been mentioned as yet, and which I don't think you are aware of. It is relatively easy to demonstrate that classical electromagnetic theory (the Maxwell equations) leads directly and inevitably to electromagnetic waves propagating at a constant speed in vacuo, c=sqrt(1/ε0.μ0), where ε0 and μ0 are the vacuum permittivity and permeability respectively. Consequently, your proposal would break yet another major scientific theory. Good luck rewriting electromagnetism.
hecd2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2021, 05:32 PM   #1879
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,149
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I mean the actual internal temperature will change.

If you spray paint it with ordinary white paint, the equilibrium temperature will likely be lower. Star light has a lot of optical light that would get reflected. But ordinary white paint isn't particularly reflective in the microwave regime, so that wouldn't make much difference to thermal emissions. Reduced absorption in the optical without reduced emission in the microwave means lower equilibrium temperature.
I think I'm following.

You say "without reduced emission in the microwave", is that because the spray paint reflects outgoing heat back in? And the spray paint wouldn't keep any microwaves from escaping?

Quote:
Conversely, it it's black in the optical regime but white in the microwave regime, it will have to heat up to a higher temperature in order to radiate away what it absorbs. The color makes a difference to the equilibrium temperature in this case.
If I'm still following, is that because the energy that will try to escape the body will be blocked at microwave energies by the spray paint, requiring it to heat up enough to escape at higher energy photons?
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2021, 05:40 PM   #1880
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,149
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
We already know from several lines of empirical observation that light from distant and near sources must have the same speed, so your idea cannot possibly be correct.
Aberration of light being the main one I'm aware of.

Quote:
There is an additional cogent theoretical and empirical reason why your idea is a non-starter, which I am not sure has been mentioned as yet, and which I don't think you are aware of. It is relatively easy to demonstrate that classical electromagnetic theory (the Maxwell equations) leads directly and inevitably to electromagnetic waves propagating at a constant speed in vacuo, c=sqrt(1/ε0.μ0), where ε0 and μ0 are the vacuum permittivity and permeability respectively. Consequently, your proposal would break yet another major scientific theory. Good luck rewriting electromagnetism.
Right.

if Newton's first law is an object in motion at velocity v remains in motion to infinity at velocity v, and Maxwell's electromagnetism is based on that, and relativity is based on that, then breaking inertia is going to break anything based on it.

in relativity, everything travels through spacetime at c.

If that were actually c-HD, then the redshifted universe we observe can be produced without expanding space.

The suggestion is to move Hubble's law from the scale factor to the geodesic equation. In tihat GR remains fully intact.
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:12 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.