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 2nd December 2020, 01:16 PM   #81
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,272
So, you're right that I can't explain the CMB in any scientific way.

I still think that if there's energy that doesn't have a traditional source (such as photon's redshifting and depositing energy) then its source would have a "no body" spectrum, whatever that would be.

I also think the CMB anomalies and the fact that its temperature was most accurately predicted by a model that doesn't have a big bang show that the CMB is not the rock solid arbiter of truth that you do.

But, yes, my CMB explanation is not good.

That said, the standard model is in crisis mode, measurements don't agree, and the dark energy and dark matter situation gets more and more convoluted by the year.

I think the important aspect of my model is that it shows more redshift in the nearby unverse than the expanding model, which is perceived as acceleration in the expanding models.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And again, you haven't solved other fundamental problems with your theory, such as the fact that it would cause blurring. Thus it is already contradicted by observation.
Why blurring?

If increasing distance (expansion) doesn't blur the images, then increasing time (decelerating photons) shouldn't either.

Last edited by Mike Helland; 2nd December 2020 at 01:17 PM. Reason: tpos
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 2nd December 2020, 01:19 PM   #82
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Which is photons. Which don't just split the way this would require.
As far as we know.


Quote:
No. Re-read what's already been said about this.
Redshift is an observed fact, and it is a decrease in energy and frequency (which are related by E = hf).
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 2nd December 2020, 01:28 PM   #83
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,650
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
As far as we know.
Exactly. You're replacing everything we actually know about photons with baseless speculation. Baseless speculation that in some places actually contradicts what we already know about photons.

As far as we know, photons don't work the way you think they need to work for your theory. Not only that, but if they did work that way, we wouldn't observe many things that we have in fact observed. Not only that, but even if they did work that way, your theory would still not work, because it also contradicts many other things that we have observed.

Basically your theory requires replacing everything we actually see happening around us with a bunch of stuff that you made up and that we don't see happening at all.
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 2nd December 2020, 01:35 PM   #84
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,650
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Why blurring?

If increasing distance (expansion) doesn't blur the images, then increasing time (decelerating photons) shouldn't either.
The photon scattering you proposed would create blurring. We don't see blurring, so we know that your scattering proposal is wrong and should be discarded. If your theory depends on photon scattering, then the entire theory is wrong and should be discarded.

This is separate from your proposal that photons decelerate, which has its own problems, and is also fatal to any theory that depends on it.

"What if Tired Light?"

"Won't work because of X."

"What if instead of X, Y?"

"Y doesn't work either, and also doesn't make Tired Light work."

"What about Z?"

"Z also doesn't work, doesn't fix Y, and doesn't make Tired Light work."

"... As far as we know."
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 2nd December 2020, 01:38 PM   #85
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 31,899
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's possible to be right and to be a jerk about it.
Then it would be demonstrated by supporting their claims.
Captain_Swoop 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 2nd December 2020, 01:40 PM   #86
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Exactly. You're replacing everything we actually know about photons with baseless speculation. Baseless speculation that in some places actually contradicts what we already know about photons.

As far as we know, photons don't work the way you think they need to work for your theory. Not only that, but if they did work that way, we wouldn't observe many things that we have in fact observed. Not only that, but even if they did work that way, your theory would still not work, because it also contradicts many other things that we have observed.

Basically your theory requires replacing everything we actually see happening around us with a bunch of stuff that you made up and that we don't see happening at all.
Can you give some examples?

We observe redshift. That's a fact. Intergalactic photons arrive with reduced energy.

We didn't expect that, so we put expanding space in front of its way, and then Pearl Harbor happened, and Edwin Hubble got assigned to work in a wind tunnel, and later on, we picked up the expanding idea after the war, not realizing it wasn't really the best idea.

It was announced in a newspaper article in December 1941 that Hubble refuted the expansion of the universe.



If space is expanding at v = HD, and at some point HD = c, then that means at that point in space, there will be photons trapped for eternity in space expanding faster than the speed of light.

Light that's infinite in a finite universe, is like putting a nuclear reacting in a datsun.
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 2nd December 2020, 01:42 PM   #87
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,650
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Then it would be demonstrated by supporting their claims.
By the way they support their claims. Debunkers are often jerks in the way they support their claims. Treating a crackpot as a "chew toy" to be poked for your amusement is a jerk thing to do, even if your debunking itself is a valuable service to the community.
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 2nd December 2020, 01:47 PM   #88
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The photon scattering you proposed would create blurring.
I'm not proposing a scattering.

That's Zwicky's Tired Light model.

In my model the photon redshifts because that's what photons do.

Just like matter curving space, photons redshift at H*D.

Quote:
This is separate from your proposal that photons decelerate, which has its own problems, and is also fatal to any theory that depends on it.
But my theory doesn't depend on the photon interacting with anything.

It's different from Zwicky's Tired Light theory and other tired light theories that way.

I can show that mathematically.

In Zwicky's Tired Light theory photons travel at c. This produces the blue line on the graph, while my theory produces the green lines. Expanding models on the gray lines.

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 2nd December 2020, 01:51 PM   #89
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
By the way they support their claims. Debunkers are often jerks in the way they support their claims. Treating a crackpot as a "chew toy" to be poked for your amusement is a jerk thing to do, even if your debunking itself is a valuable service to the community.
Chew toy is pretty apt, because I think some of see themselves as guard dogs for the flock.

Like, they revere the actual physicists, the shepards, so they go online and do some gatekeeping to gain favor of their idols, keeping the flock in check and flexing their knowledge.

If being a crackpot is my hobby, than I suppose it takes the opposite type to balance out nature.
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 2nd December 2020, 02:18 PM   #90
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,344
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I also think the CMB anomalies and the fact that its temperature was most accurately predicted by a model that doesn't have a big bang show that the CMB is not the rock solid arbiter of truth that you do.
You fundamentally misunderstand both Eddington's prediction and the early big bang prediction. Eddington didn't predict a CMB, because he didn't even know it existed. The temperature he predicted was a temperature that he though an object in space would equilibrate to by being heated by starlight. Starlight doesn't have a CMB spectrum. Not only is it not blackbody, the temperature profile of starlight is in the thousands of degrees, not single digits. And the amount of starlight he was using for that calculation is what we get here on earth (excluding the sun), which is inside a galaxy. In intergalactic space, which is most of the universe, the amount of starlight is significantly less, and the temperature one would calculate using Eddington's method would be much lower.

So no, Eddington didn't accurately predict the CMB temperature, at all.

As for what the Big Bang theory says about the temperature, again, that's something which changes as the universe ages. Unlike the blackbody spectrum profile, the temperature is not a fundamental aspect of the theory. It's measurement-dependent, and the fact that early measurements about the age and expansion rate of the universe weren't terribly accurate is no indictment of the theory, but merely a result of measurement limitations.

Quote:
But, yes, my CMB explanation is not good.
I'm glad you can recognize that.

Quote:
Why blurring?
Because scattering is the only mechanism which can make light lose energy the way you want it to, and scattering will cause blurring.

Quote:
If increasing distance (expansion) doesn't blur the images, then increasing time (decelerating photons) shouldn't either.
No. Expansion will desync clocks. Your model won't. So your model cannot change frequency without scattering. Expansion can change frequencies, because (as mentioned) clocks desync.
__________________
"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 2nd December 2020, 02:31 PM   #91
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Because scattering is the only mechanism which can make light lose energy the way you want it to, and scattering will cause blurring.

That's a different theory.

What you're saying is redshifts need be caused by something.

Expansion could be that cause. Tired light tries to find another cause.

Edwin Hubble suggested there is no cause, photons redshifting is a fundamental law of nature.

"If red-shifts are the familiar velocity-shifts, systematic variations do exist in the observable region, and they suggest an expanding universe that is finite, small, and young. On the other hand, if red-shifts are evidence of some unknown principle of nature, which does not involve actual motion, then variations are not appreciable in our sample, and the observable region is an insignificant fraction of the universe as a whole. Thus, in a certain sense, we again face a choice between a small finite universe and a universe indefinitely large plus a new principle of nature."
-- Edwin Hubble

I understand what you're trying to say.

Redshifts can only happen by some known principle, and those lead to blurring.

Do you understand what Hubble is saying? That this isn't an effect of a known cause?

Either redshifts are fundamental, or something like dark energy in fundamental.

Redshifts are actually observed.
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 2nd December 2020, 02:45 PM   #92
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,344
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I understand what you're trying to say.

Redshifts can only happen by some known principle, and those lead to blurring.
No, you do not understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that any possible mechanism which produces redshift must either scatter photons or desync clocks. It doesn't matter whether or not I know what's scattering or desyncing, it is impossible to redshift without at least one of those.

Your theory has neither. It is, therefore, impossible.
__________________
"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 2nd December 2020, 02:58 PM   #93
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, you do not understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that any possible mechanism which produces redshift must either scatter photons or desync clocks. It doesn't matter whether or not I know what's scattering or desyncing, it is impossible to redshift without at least one of those.

Your theory has neither. It is, therefore, impossible.
That's based on known principles of physics.

Hubble is saying redshift is an unknown principle physics.

If he is wrong, and its really just expansion, that leads to dark energy, which isn't observed.

If you think about what is observed, one should be sketpical of dark energy, and open to redshifts being a real thing.
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 2nd December 2020, 04:09 PM   #94
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,344
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
That's based on known principles of physics.
No, it’s based on logic.

Quote:
Hubble is saying redshift is an unknown principle physics.
Hubble was not a general relativity expert.

Quote:
If you think about what is observed, one should be sketpical of dark energy, and open to redshifts being a real thing.
I don’t know what you mean by “real thing”, since the Big Bang theory treats it as quite real.
__________________
"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 2nd December 2020, 04:20 PM   #95
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I don’t know what you mean by “real thing”, since the Big Bang theory treats it as quite real.
The big bang treats it as an effect of the expanding universe, accelerated by dark energy.

If we're suspending skepticism for all that exotic stuff causing redshift, why not suspend skepticism for redshifts being their own cause.
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 2nd December 2020, 04:28 PM   #96
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,344
I’ll expand a bit on the whole logic thing. Have you ever heard of Noether’s theorem? No, I’m sure you haven’t. Noether’s theorem states that if your laws of physics have certain kinds of symmetry, then each of those symmetries has an associated conserved quantity. So for example, translation symmetry (the laws of physics are the same regardless of where you are) leads to conservation of momentum. This is a logical requirement. It doesn’t tell you what the laws of physics are, but it does constrain what they can 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
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 2nd December 2020, 04:32 PM   #97
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,344
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The big bang treats it as an effect of the expanding universe, accelerated by dark energy.

If we're suspending skepticism for all that exotic stuff causing redshift, why not suspend skepticism for redshifts being their own cause.
Because again, red shift requires either scattering or clock desynchronization. This is a logical requirement. Scattering is logically possible but is disproven by observation (no blurring). So any possible cause consistent with observation must allow for clock desynchronization. The Big Bang is in principle not the only way to do that, but your theory doesn’t. So it is 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
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 2nd December 2020, 04:38 PM   #98
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This is a logical requirement.
What are the premises of that logic?



One way to look at it is when space expands, the distance and duration of a photon's trip to a galaxy increases.

I'm saying just time expands. Same distance, more time.

That amounts to the photon slowing down.

But time expanding sounds like clock desyncing.
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 2nd December 2020, 07:57 PM   #99
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,344
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
What are the premises of that logic?
The frequency of light is a clock. The oscillation of the field is tied directly to oscillations in the source, and is a direct result of those oscillations. You cannot separate the two. If light is red shifted but not scattered, then the clocks are desynchronized.
__________________
"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 2nd December 2020, 09:24 PM   #100
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 70,273
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If space isn't expanding, there would be no evidence of a size limit, and it should be considered indefinitely large.
What is the advantage of proposing the existence of space that is beyond our ability to detect? Given that we will never be able to confirm or refute that suggestion, what do we gain by considering it?
__________________
Please scream inside your heart.
arthwollipot 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 3rd December 2020, 02:29 AM   #101
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,287
With expanding energy fields of light, internal pressures of different magnitudes in different regions = explanation for the general redshift of light.

1. Expanding light has a lot of mass, but our devices can't register the expanding waves of the expanding light that are dark to us, which is the expanding thrust that all expanding nuclei of atoms circulate with one another.

2. We can study expanding light with the help of available photons.

3. Expanding photons are a very very very small part of the expanding light. They are like foam heads of waves of expanding light.

4. The wavy nature of the expanding light is projected by the available photons.

5. In the double gap test, send single photons and see where the waves of expanding light are transporting us.

6. For us, the dark waves of expanding lights interact with each other, accelerating each other's expansion out of space into existing space.

7. The denser the individual expanding densities of the waves of the expanding light, the greater the internal pressure of the expanding energy field formed by the expanding light and the more widely expanding the energy field will diffuse / expand outward into existing space.

8. In a large "empty" space between galaxy clusters, the expanding energy field of the expanding light field is not as large as within the galaxy cluster.

9. Due to lower internal pressure, the rate of expanding light does not accelerate away from its own galaxy cluster as quickly as the rate of expanding light accelerates within the forward galaxy clusters.

10. When the old expanding light finally projects inside or past another expanding galaxy, the new, more energetic and slightly faster expanding light accelerates the old expanding light to its own, thus extending the old expanding light, that is, generally redshifting.

11. The more expansive light that has passed through / past the galaxy cluster, the more elongated or generally redshifted the expanding light.

Expanding light vs. expanding space.

1. Space does not radiate information. You can't try to manipulate space to get information about it. In other words, expanding space is a completely religious concept. Expanding space is emperor naked.

2. Light can be studied scientifically. If and when the lights expand and interact with each other, we can change the trajectory of the expanding light with billions of years of expanding light by conducting a scientific experiment.

Why do cosmologists believe in the existence of expanding space trapped in a hat even though they cannot scientifically prove its existence?!?

Expanding space is a concept similar to the gods of antiquity.

🤔
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key 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 3rd December 2020, 02:59 AM   #102
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
What is the advantage of proposing the existence of space that is beyond our ability to detect? Given that we will never be able to confirm or refute that suggestion, what do we gain by considering it?
That's a great question.


So, say here's the big bang, expanding from a single point:



That's how it looked last century.

It said the univere was like 5 billion years old, but we thought stars were 20 billion years old.

That's a bug.

There was also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ba...etic_monopoles

So what did they do to fix it? Stars had to get younger, and the universe had to get older.

They came up with this cool trick, cram 1 trillion years of expansion into a single nanosecond. Inflation!



Why did this change happen?

To fix bugs in the big bang. It's a patch to fix the flaws. Nothing more.

Inflation means galaxies can be bigger and more mature faster than plain expansion.

But guess what, that's still not good enough.

There is a maximum theoretical size limit in the universe, which has has been busted by obseration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...mic_structures

Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall (2014)[1] 9,700,000,000
Giant GRB Ring (2015)[5] 5,600,000,000[5]
Huge-LQG (2012-2013) 4,000,000,000[6][7][8]
U1.11 LQG (2011) 2,500,000,000
Clowes–Campusano LQG (1991) 2,000,000,000
Sloan Great Wall (2003) 1,380,000,000
South Pole Wall (2020) 1,370,000,000[9][10][11][12][13][14]
(Theoretical limit) 1,200,000,000

Further, this still goesn't give galaxies enough time to form:

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/mo...axy-08450.html
https://astronomy.com/news/2020/10/s...ive-black-hole
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronom...arly-universe/
https://www.space.com/how-can-a-star...-universe.html
https://medium.com/predict/hidden-an...e-4947007452b7
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0830131202.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1118070758.htm
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronom....Vlkn6oBZ.dpuf
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0925085546.htm
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/f...detected-47761
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0302122925.htm
https://www.mq.edu.au/newsroom/2014/...arly-universe/

So we tried to fix the bug by given the universe super powers, and it still doesn't allow for what we actually observe.


Even in the standard model there are galaxies beyondn our Hubble volume which will never be observed.

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

And in the standard model the observable universe is fraction of the universe itself.

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

The question is... do we see 90% of the universe? 50%?

Or less than 1%?


So, we lose dark energy, we lose inflation, we lose expansion, we lose age and size restrictions to the universe.

We lose our creation myth. That's a tough one.

So what do we gain?

A universe big enough and old enough to account for observations.

A universe filled with stuff we actually observe.

A universe that follows Coperniucan and cosmological principles.

Common sense.

And a new principle of physics, essentially a distance limit to inertia itself.
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 3rd December 2020, 03:02 AM   #103
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The frequency of light is a clock. The oscillation of the field is tied directly to oscillations in the source, and is a direct result of those oscillations. You cannot separate the two. If light is red shifted but not scattered, then the clocks are desynchronized.
Cool.

My theory has energy in it, which is directly linear to frequency, so cool.

In my theory, space doesn't expand, but time does.

The energy from a photon is discarded into space. Everything's conserved just fine.

Let's remember, that you said Sean Carroll is wrong about General Relativity and conserving energy, so it's not like I'm totally crazy and you're totally sane.
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 3rd December 2020, 03:51 AM   #104
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,344
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The energy from a photon is discarded into space. Everything's conserved just fine.
We aren't even talking about energy conservation here. The frequency is a clock. The timing has to match.

If I take a charged ball and shake it up and down, that will emit electromagnetic radiation. The frequency of the radiation must match the frequency of my shaking because that's what causes the radiation's frequency, and that forms a clock. Whatever happens to the energy of that radiation as it propagates outwards, the frequency is still tied directly to how fast I shook it up and down. You can't change that frequency without desynchronizing the clock of my shaking. Appealing to quantum mechanics won't get you out of this. It happens at the macroscopic, classical level too.

Quote:
Let's remember, that you said Sean Carroll is wrong about General Relativity and conserving energy, so it's not like I'm totally crazy and you're totally sane.
I never said you were crazy, I said you were 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
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 3rd December 2020, 03:54 AM   #105
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,287
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The CMB is a real puzzle for anyone wanting some alternative cosmology. It’s actually quite hard for most people to understand why it’s so remarkable. The absolutely perfect blackbody shape of the CMB spectrum is something we can’t even produce artificially.
Background radiation arose when supermassive objects in the centers of galaxies were born. Each of them was born in its own 3 D "initial explosion." And they were born far apart.

Thus, there is no need for hokkus pokkus expanding space.


So, there was lot of 3 D "big bang" with out expanding space.

Expanding supermassive objects, expanding stars, expanding electrons, and expanding photons are created on the same principle without pulling forces


Entropy, of course, also on a small scale all the time.

Yes, there is no need for tensile forces because it is sufficient that the expanding condensations circulating zillions of expanding pushing force begin to expand much faster at the same time, explosively.

Immediately, a very high pressure is applied to the center / fulcrum of the system formed by the rapidly expanding densities.

See and wonder how easily that can be described with 3D animation.

https://youtu.be/QboDTgped1E

Then try to find a video that describes the expansion of expanding space using 3D animation.

You won’t find that because the expansion of expanding space cannot be described in words, nor visually.

Expanding supermassive objects emerged at about the same time completed far apart. Lot of 3 D "big bang" about same time. It was then that expanding light was released which is now perceived as background radiation.

Later, as the trajectories of these expanding supermassive objects met, expanding galaxies emerged from the inside out. That is, a lot of expanding stars from that dark expanding matter for us that protrudes from expanding supermassive objects.

And the principle is the same as in the way of expanding supermassive objects created without pulling forces.

That is, the expanding dark matter densities protruding from the expanding supermassive object met the expanding dark matter densities protruding from the other expanding supermassive object, their mutual interaction and the expansion of the zillions of separate expanding densities immediately intensified into an explosive one.

The expanding atomic nuclei continue to recycle, with all the other expanding atomic nuclei, the expanding pushing force in the form of zillions as separate expanding densities of dark energy which, by the same principle, give rise to new expanding electrons and new expanding photons.

🤔
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key 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 3rd December 2020, 04:01 AM   #106
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,344
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
So what do we gain?

A universe big enough and old enough to account for observations.
No, we do not. You are proposing radical changes to fundamental physical laws. You cannot specify what these changes actually are, and you cannot make any predictions for how they would affect things like galaxy formation times.

For example, what's your theory of gravity? We know Newtonian gravity is wrong. General Relativity is accurate to the extent that we can test it. Are you claiming it's wrong? If so, how does it need to be modified, or with what does it need to be replaced? You've got no idea. If you try to keep general relativity, then you cannot make the universe you're arguing for using GR. And if you don't have a replacement for it, you can't claim that you've gained anything.

Quote:
Common sense.
Common sense doesn't have anything to do with this. We cannot directly experience anything on galactic, let alone cosmological scales. Why then would we have any intuition about such matters? Why would we have "common sense" about something that is not common to us at all?
__________________
"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 3rd December 2020, 04:04 AM   #107
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Whatever happens to the energy of that radiation as it propagates outwards, the frequency is still tied directly to how fast I shook it up and down. You can't change that frequency without desynchronizing the clock of my shaking.
Ok.

And let's say that works great in our experiments.

But in the 1920's. we discovered the universe outside the Milky Way, and we discovered redshift.

Photons lose frequency at cosmological distances. That's an observed, undeniable fact.

We can salvage the constancy of the speed of light by inventing extra space for the photon to travel through, but 90 years later we can't figure out how much extra space to add.
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 3rd December 2020, 04:09 AM   #108
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,344
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Ok.

And let's say that works great in our experiments.

But in the 1920's. we discovered the universe outside the Milky Way, and we discovered redshift.

Photons lose frequency at cosmological distances. That's an observed, undeniable fact.

We can salvage the constancy of the speed of light by inventing extra space for the photon to travel through, but 90 years later we can't figure out how much extra space to add.
You still don't get it. It doesn't matter if the speed of light changes. Even if the speed of light is changing, the frequency can only change if the clocks desynchronize. That's true for any wave transmission. It's true for sound as well, and that's not a constant at all. There are multiple possible causes of desynchronization, but your cosmology is static, and so stationary clocks at different locations cannot desynchronize. Any cause of desynchronization requires a non-static situation, which is precisely what you're trying to avoid.
__________________
"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 3rd December 2020, 04:11 AM   #109
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You are proposing radical changes to fundamental physical laws. You cannot specify what these changes actually are, and you cannot make any predictions for how they would affect things like galaxy formation times.
I can specify it, a photon's velocity is v = c - H * D, which you'll recognize as containing Hubble's Law.

This eliminates the need for an expanding universe, which eliminates time restrictions, which means galaxies that we observe 12 billion light years away didn't need to form within 1.8 billion years.


Quote:
For example, what's your theory of gravity?
Given that this is about the photon, it would be a quantum theory of gravity with a graviton.


Quote:
Common sense doesn't have anything to do with this. We cannot directly experience anything on galactic, let alone cosmological scales.
We can directly observe redshift.

I'm proposing we treat it as a feature of nature, and ditch dark energy.

That's common sense.
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 3rd December 2020, 04:13 AM   #110
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You still don't get it. It doesn't matter if the speed of light changes. Even if the speed of light is changing, the frequency can only change if the clocks desynchronize. That's true for any wave transmission. It's true for sound as well, and that's not a constant at all. There are multiple possible causes of desynchronization, but your cosmology is static, and so stationary clocks at different locations cannot desynchronize. Any cause of desynchronization requires a non-static situation, which is precisely what you're trying to avoid.
You're saying the expansion of space reduces frequency.

I'm saying it's time that expands, since frequency is inverse time, that accounts for the clock desync you're talking about.

If time increases but distance stays the same, that's deceleration of the traveler.
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 3rd December 2020, 04:49 AM   #111
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,344
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I can specify it, a photon's velocity is v = c - H * D, which you'll recognize as containing Hubble's Law.
No. You've specified one thing. What about everything else?

Quote:
This eliminates the need for an expanding universe
General relativity doesn't really support steady state cosmologies. What's your theory for changing or replacing general relativity? You haven't specified. But you need a theory of gravity if you're trying to do cosmology.

Quote:
Given that this is about the photon, it would be a quantum theory of gravity with a graviton.
Which you haven't specified the details of. For example, quantum electrodynamics turns into classical electrodynamics in the classical limit. Does your graviton theory turn into General Relativity in the classical limit? If so, then the cosmology should look like what general relativity predicts (which is the big bang), because the universe as a whole is going to be approaching the classical limit. And if not, then we're back to the question of what the hell you do have. And you have no answer to that.

Quote:
We can directly observe redshift.
Yes, we can. So what? That's not the issue.

Quote:
I'm proposing we treat it as a feature of nature
It doesn't matter if it's a "feature of nature". Whatever it is, it's still synonymous with clock desynchronization. And that means that the situation cannot be static. That's a logical requirement even if it's a "feature of nature", whatever that even means.

Quote:
and ditch dark energy.

That's common sense.
Again, "common sense" isn't a useful guide to something as uncommon as cosmology.
__________________
"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 3rd December 2020, 04:57 AM   #112
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,344
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
You're saying the expansion of space reduces frequency.
Yes, it obviously would.

Quote:
I'm saying it's time that expands
How does time expand? I don't mean what causes it to, because ultimately on some level things just are, but what's the mathematical description of this?

The expansion of space is a direct prediction of general relativity's Einstein field equation. This equation has been experimentally tested in many ways and found accurate. What do you have? If you're expanding time and not space, then you're making a prediction in conflict with general relativity. So you need to replace Einstein's field equation. What will you replace it with? And can your replacement match all the experimental results which Einstein's field equation matches?

You have no replacement, and you cannot correctly account for any of those multiple experimental verifications of general relativity. You want to replace GR because of difficulties in matching it to the most difficult problems, but you can't even replicate its successes in the easiest of problems. And you don't even recognize that this is a problem.
__________________
"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 3rd December 2020, 05:00 AM   #113
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. You've specified one thing. What about everything else?
Nothing changes where H * D is approximately 0/

Quote:
General relativity doesn't really support steady state cosmologies.
FWIW, despite what the name might imply, space expands in steady state cosmology.

Quote:
What's your theory for changing or replacing general relativity? You haven't specified.
GR needs to be superceded by a theory of quantum gravity anyways.

That's what work on string theory is about. But my theory creates redshifts without the force of gravity, so that's really a whole separate issue.

Quote:
Does your graviton theory turn into General Relativity in the classical limit?
Gravitons aren't my theory.


Quote:
Yes, we can. So what? That's not the issue.
The fact that we observe redshifts, which leads to stuff like dark energy is 100%


Quote:
Again, "common sense" isn't a useful guide to something as uncommon as cosmology.
Well, cosmology could be right, and the universe could be 96% dark matter and dark energy.

I have my doubts.
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 3rd December 2020, 05:08 AM   #114
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 13,009
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post

That's common sense.
Common sense says the earth is flat and the sun goes round the earth.

Common sense has proved to be a very poor guide to the underlying nature of the universe. Most of modern physics is counterintuitive.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 3rd December 2020, 05:11 AM   #115
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I don't mean what causes it to, because ultimately on some level things just are, but what's the mathematical description of this?
v = c - H * D

The time of the journey increases as the velocity of the photon decreases.


Quote:
If you're expanding time and not space, then you're making a prediction in conflict with general relativity.
Correct.

GR predicts too slow of redshift in the nearby universe, which causes us to think it's accelerating.

My equation plots a slightly different curve, which is consistent with the so-called Hubble tension.




Quote:
So you need to replace Einstein's field equation. What will you replace it with? And can your replacement match all the experimental results which Einstein's field equation matches?
Or maybe GR should explain the observed Hubble tension.


[/quote]
You have no replacement, and you cannot correctly account for any of those multiple experimental verifications of general relativity. You want to replace GR because of difficulties in matching it to the most difficult problems, but you can't even replicate its successes in the easiest of problems. And you don't even recognize that this is a problem.[/quote]

That's the problem of quantum gravity.

Meanwhile, there are immediate problems in cosmology.
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 3rd December 2020, 05:14 AM   #116
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Common sense says the earth is flat and the sun goes round the earth.

Common sense has proved to be a very poor guide to the underlying nature of the universe. Most of modern physics is counterintuitive.
Well, when the theory of gravitation came about, common sense would choose that over Ptolemy's epicycles.

I'm not saying let's take the most naive view possible.

One that actually fits what we observe would be nice though.
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 3rd December 2020, 05:24 AM   #117
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,344
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
v = c - H * D

The time of the journey increases as the velocity of the photon decreases.
That's a description of velocity changing, not time changing.

Quote:
That's the problem of quantum gravity.

Meanwhile, there are immediate problems in cosmology.
Quantum gravity theories under consideration by most physicists reduce to general relativity in the classical limit, and so produce the same cosmologies as general relativity.

If you want something to replace general relativity, you can't just wave your hands and say "quantum gravity". That doesn't suffice. For example, how does quantum gravity produce your v = c - H*D?
__________________
"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 3rd December 2020, 05:28 AM   #118
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,344
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Well, when the theory of gravitation came about, common sense would choose that over Ptolemy's epicycles.

I'm not saying let's take the most naive view possible.

One that actually fits what we observe would be nice though.
But your theory doesn't fit what we observe. It doesn't account for the precession of Mercury's perihelion. It doesn't account for gravitational time dilation. It doesn't account for measurements of frame dragging. It doesn't account for gravitational lensing. It doesn't account for gravitational wave measurements. There are so many observations that general relativity accounts for that you can't account for. And yet you want us to throw it overboard, with no actual replacement.

There is no common sense in that.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
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 3rd December 2020, 05:30 AM   #119
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That's a description of velocity changing, not time changing.
Sure.

Imagine a runner doing the 50 meter dash.

They get time X.

Now imagine the finish line moving away from them. If they run at the same speed, they will get a time > X. That's expanding space.

Now imagine the finish line isn't moving, but the race track clock runs faster.

They will get time > X too.

The difference, mathematically, is that the rate of time increases more at the beginning and less at the end when only time increases. That's Hubble tension solved.


Quote:
If you want something to replace general relativity, you can't just wave your hands and say "quantum gravity". That doesn't suffice. For example, how does quantum gravity produce your v = c - H*D?
Quantum gravity doesn't produce that formula.

That formula is proposed to be a new law of physics.

It clearly violates relativity.

An even bigger problem is that is violates inertia, a body in motion should remain in motion.

If that doesn't hold true for infinity, then that's a bigger problem than how this squares with relativity.

That just means physics needs innovation. Which we should assume is always true anyways.
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 3rd December 2020, 05:32 AM   #120
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But your theory doesn't fit what we observe. It doesn't account for the precession of Mercury's perihelion. It doesn't account for gravitational time dilation. It doesn't account for measurements of frame dragging. It doesn't account for gravitational lensing. It doesn't account for gravitational wave measurements. There are so many observations that general relativity accounts for that you can't account for. And yet you want us to throw it overboard, with no actual replacement.

There is no common sense in that.
My theory doesn't say anything about gravity.

v = c - H * D

There's no mass, no gravitation.

Hubble's Law as photon velocity fits cosmological observations independent of a theory of gravity.

Quantum gravity is a separate problem.
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 09:16 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.