[Continuation] I don't think space is expanding Part II - Page 6

Mike Helland · Today, 03:10 AM

Originally Posted by erwinl

If the unit of v (and of c) is m/s and the unit of D is m (meters).
Then the unit of a should be s^-1, or v = c -aD would be nonsense.

Right.

In that context a has the same units as Hubble's constant, km s^-1 Mpc^-1, which reduces to inverse time.

In the other contexts, its means something else.

erwinl · Today, 03:49 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Right.

In that context a has the same units as Hubble's constant, km s^-1 Mpc^-1, which reduces to inverse time.

In the other contexts, its means something else.

If the same letters mean different things across the few formulas you post, why not change the letters to signify them meaning different things?

Or better. Declare the units beforehand so that other people can follow what you are doing?

Reality Check · Today, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

I'd probably have seen it if it wasn't surrounding by a pile of other links. ...

16 April 2021: Irrelevant nonsense about runners who are not photons travelling at c emphasizes his ignorance.
Photons are travelling at c have undefined times on a clock which is the first reason why your "dynamic time" idea into a ignorant fantasy. The second reason is that if w ignore textbook physics what you have is a made up equation that has no derived connection to cosmological redshift (other than your imagination) and so cannot match the data.
If your runner ran at c, their clock has undefined time because there is a division by zero.

Try actually reading my posts

!. The first link is on the post is your ignorant for over three week fantasy. The relevant point is in the link text and inow highlighted. If you do not know about calendars

, March has 31 days, so that 15 April 2021 is 15 + 7 days from 23 March 2021 which is 22 says. A week is 7 days. 22/7 is 1 day more than 3 weeks.

23 March 2021: Ignorance of relativity from Mike Helland (photons have undefined proper time).
29 March 2021: Mike Helland starts a new "expanding time hypothesis" fantasy.
14 April 2021: Mike Helland repeats his ignorance yet again with his idiotic dynamic time fantasy

15 April 2021: An ignorant "redshifts naturally fall out" fantasy from Mike Helland.
15 April 2021: Abysmal ignorance about relativity where space and time are dynamic from Mike Helland
15 April 2021: Repeats "So what's so idiotic about dynamic time?" spamming when the question has been answered.

Mike Helland · Today, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Irrelevant
nonsense
ignorance.
ignorant fantasy.
Ignorance
fantasy.
ignorance
idiotic
fantasy
ignorant
fantasy
Abysmal ignorance

At least you stick with what you know.

Reality Check · Today, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

At least you stick with what you know.

16 April 2021: Edits my post to emphasize his persistent irrelevancy, ignorance, and fantasies and the idiocy of ignoring attempts to educate him.
I do stick with recording Mike Helland's persistent irrelevancy, ignorance, and fantasies in the probably futile hope that he will learn something.

Repeating textbook physics for maybe the 4th time!
Plug c into the Lorentz factor and you get a division by zero. This is undefined. A photon travels at c in vacuum for any inertial observer - including one travelling at c. Photons have undefined time.
Another source: How Do Photons Experience Time?

Quote:

The light emitted from them takes billions of years to reach us from our point of view as observers in the Milky Way. During this time, the expansion of the Universe causes space to stretch, and the energy of the emitted photons to drop tremendously: a cosmological redshift. Yet despite this incredible journey, the photon itself experiences none of what we know as time: it simply is emitted and then instantaneously is absorbed, experiencing the entirety of its travels through space in literally no time. Given everything that we know, a photon never ages in any way at all.

I prefer that the photons has no time at all because of the division by zero. On the other hand, we can look at the limit as v tends to c which is zero. Either way Mike Helland is still ignoring textbook physics.

16 April 2021: Irrelevant nonsense about runners who are not photons travelling at c emphasizes his ignorance. is obviously irrelevant because he does not have them running at c like photons.
Over three weeks of ignorance of textbook relativity continues even after I highlighted the relevant physics!
23 March 2021: Ignorance of relativity from Mike Helland (photons have undefined proper time).

Mike Helland · Today, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Repeating textbook physics for maybe the 4th time!
Plug c into the Lorentz factor and you get a division by zero. This is undefined.

When I said the universe was indefinite, you conflated that with being infinite and also unknown.

I also made a mistake in remembering your error, conflating unknown with being undefined.

But did I mention a million other times?

No.

Because that's annoying.

And is worthless noise.

Is that what you aspire to?

Because you're nailing it.

Reality Check. Ha. Talk about an idiotic fantasy. You speaking for reality.

Mike Helland · Today, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by erwinl

If the same letters mean different things across the few formulas you post, why not change the letters to signify them meaning different things?

Or better. Declare the units beforehand so that other people can follow what you are doing?

Ok, thank you.

So here are the three runners.

The first can't run at top speed the full race, it's speed is v' = v - aD, where v is the runner's top speed, D is the distance ran, and a is exactly Hubble's constant.

The first runner sabotages the other runners.

For the second runner the race track is literally pulled like a rubber sheet at one end. Everything moves away from the starting line at velocity v=H₀D, where H₀ is of course Hubble's constant and D is the distance ran.

For the third runner, the clock is sabotaged to run faster. The clock runs at 1 / (1 - jD) the speed of the others. j here is in units of inverse distance, but interestingly enough, you can use the exact same value for j as Hubble's constant.

Due to the sabotages, all runners finish in a tie.

The length between steps for runner 2 is stretched, which allows us to calculate a z:

Code:

step.z = ((this.x - lastStep.x) - wavelength) / wavelength

And for runner's 1 and 3, the frequency of their foot steps decreases as the slow down and the clock speeds up in their respective races.

Code:

var f = 1 / (this.t - lastStep.t)
step.z = (frequency - f) / f

You can see the z's plotted at the bottom. They match for all three runners.

Since I'm using the an actual value of Hubble's constant, these runner's actually produce predictions that are accurate with measurements of redshifts up until dark energy kicks in.

For that, the model behind runners 1 and 3 can be changed rather easily to fit the most distant data we have.

Runner 2's model doesn't change so easily.

Not only, but think about this, one of those situations describes reality. The most commonly accepted one is easily the most outlandish one. If you were going to sabotage a race, stretching the race track would not be the easiest way. And it leads to the conclusion that all race tracks in the known universe once fit into the palm of your hand.

Today, 03:49 AM	#202
erwinl Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 2,776	Originally Posted by Mike Helland Right. In that context a has the same units as Hubble's constant, km s^-1 Mpc^-1, which reduces to inverse time. In the other contexts, its means something else. If the same letters mean different things across the few formulas you post, why not change the letters to signify them meaning different things? Or better. Declare the units beforehand so that other people can follow what you are doing?
erwinl Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 2,776	__________________ Bow before your king Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"

Today, 01:52 PM	#203
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 27,943	Irrelevant nonsense about runners who are not photons Originally Posted by Mike Helland I'd probably have seen it if it wasn't surrounding by a pile of other links. ... 16 April 2021: Irrelevant nonsense about runners who are not photons travelling at c emphasizes his ignorance. Photons are travelling at c have undefined times on a clock which is the first reason why your "dynamic time" idea into a ignorant fantasy. The second reason is that if w ignore textbook physics what you have is a made up equation that has no derived connection to cosmological redshift (other than your imagination) and so cannot match the data. If your runner ran at c, their clock has undefined time because there is a division by zero. Try actually reading my posts !. The first link is on the post is your ignorant for over three week fantasy. The relevant point is in the link text and inow highlighted. If you do not know about calendars , March has 31 days, so that 15 April 2021 is 15 + 7 days from 23 March 2021 which is 22 says. A week is 7 days. 22/7 is 1 day more than 3 weeks. 23 March 2021: Ignorance of relativity from Mike Helland (photons have undefined proper time). 29 March 2021: Mike Helland starts a new "expanding time hypothesis" fantasy. 14 April 2021: Mike Helland repeats his ignorance yet again with his idiotic dynamic time fantasy 15 April 2021: An ignorant "redshifts naturally fall out" fantasy from Mike Helland. 15 April 2021: Abysmal ignorance about relativity where space and time are dynamic from Mike Helland 15 April 2021: Repeats "So what's so idiotic about dynamic time?" spamming when the question has been answered.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; Today at 01:58 PM.

Today, 02:55 PM	#205
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 27,943	Edits my post to emphasize his persistent irrelevancy, ignorance, and fantasies Originally Posted by Mike Helland At least you stick with what you know. 16 April 2021: Edits my post to emphasize his persistent irrelevancy, ignorance, and fantasies and the idiocy of ignoring attempts to educate him. I do stick with recording Mike Helland's persistent irrelevancy, ignorance, and fantasies in the probably futile hope that he will learn something. Repeating textbook physics for maybe the 4th time! Plug c into the Lorentz factor and you get a division by zero. This is undefined. A photon travels at c in vacuum for any inertial observer - including one travelling at c. Photons have undefined time. Another source: How Do Photons Experience Time? Quote: The light emitted from them takes billions of years to reach us from our point of view as observers in the Milky Way. During this time, the expansion of the Universe causes space to stretch, and the energy of the emitted photons to drop tremendously: a cosmological redshift. Yet despite this incredible journey, the photon itself experiences none of what we know as time: it simply is emitted and then instantaneously is absorbed, experiencing the entirety of its travels through space in literally no time. Given everything that we know, a photon never ages in any way at all. I prefer that the photons has no time at all because of the division by zero. On the other hand, we can look at the limit as v tends to c which is zero. Either way Mike Helland is still ignoring textbook physics. 16 April 2021: Irrelevant nonsense about runners who are not photons travelling at c emphasizes his ignorance. is obviously irrelevant because he does not have them running at c like photons. Over three weeks of ignorance of textbook relativity continues even after I highlighted the relevant physics! 23 March 2021: Ignorance of relativity from Mike Helland (photons have undefined proper time).
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; Today at 02:59 PM.

Today, 05:36 PM	#207
Mike Helland Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 1,657	Originally Posted by erwinl If the same letters mean different things across the few formulas you post, why not change the letters to signify them meaning different things? Or better. Declare the units beforehand so that other people can follow what you are doing? Ok, thank you. So here are the three runners. The first can't run at top speed the full race, it's speed is v' = v - aD, where v is the runner's top speed, D is the distance ran, and a is exactly Hubble's constant. The first runner sabotages the other runners. For the second runner the race track is literally pulled like a rubber sheet at one end. Everything moves away from the starting line at velocity v=H₀D, where H₀ is of course Hubble's constant and D is the distance ran. For the third runner, the clock is sabotaged to run faster. The clock runs at 1 / (1 - jD) the speed of the others. j here is in units of inverse distance, but interestingly enough, you can use the exact same value for j as Hubble's constant. Due to the sabotages, all runners finish in a tie. The length between steps for runner 2 is stretched, which allows us to calculate a z: Code: step.z = ((this.x - lastStep.x) - wavelength) / wavelength And for runner's 1 and 3, the frequency of their foot steps decreases as the slow down and the clock speeds up in their respective races. Code: var f = 1 / (this.t - lastStep.t) step.z = (frequency - f) / f You can see the z's plotted at the bottom. They match for all three runners. Since I'm using the an actual value of Hubble's constant, these runner's actually produce predictions that are accurate with measurements of redshifts up until dark energy kicks in. For that, the model behind runners 1 and 3 can be changed rather easily to fit the most distant data we have. Runner 2's model doesn't change so easily. Not only, but think about this, one of those situations describes reality. The most commonly accepted one is easily the most outlandish one. If you were going to sabotage a race, stretching the race track would not be the easiest way. And it leads to the conclusion that all race tracks in the known universe once fit into the palm of your hand.
	Last edited by Mike Helland; Today at 05:42 PM.

Today, 03:10 AM	#201
Mike Helland Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 1,657	Originally Posted by erwinl If the unit of v (and of c) is m/s and the unit of D is m (meters). Then the unit of a should be s^-1, or v = c -aD would be nonsense. Right. In that context a has the same units as Hubble's constant, km s^-1 Mpc^-1, which reduces to inverse time. In the other contexts, its means something else.

Today, 01:58 PM	#204
Mike Helland Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 1,657	Originally Posted by Reality Check Irrelevant nonsense ignorance. ignorant fantasy. Ignorance fantasy. ignorance idiotic fantasy ignorant fantasy Abysmal ignorance At least you stick with what you know.

Today, 03:04 PM	#206
Mike Helland Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 1,657	Originally Posted by Reality Check Repeating textbook physics for maybe the 4th time! Plug c into the Lorentz factor and you get a division by zero. This is undefined. When I said the universe was indefinite, you conflated that with being infinite and also unknown. I also made a mistake in remembering your error, conflating unknown with being undefined. But did I mention a million other times? No. Because that's annoying. And is worthless noise. Is that what you aspire to? Because you're nailing it. Reality Check. Ha. Talk about an idiotic fantasy. You speaking for reality.