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.
Closed Thread
Old 2nd March 2021, 07:30 PM   #2681
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,649
Mike, I think you might have an ethical problem here.
theprestige 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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 06:58 AM   #2682
Reformed Offlian
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 361
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Actually Mike (as prompted by Ziggurat) is correct about this one. If the bullets are fired at one per second, and they all slow down the same way, then (once the first bullet arrives at the target) they'll arrive at the target once per second.

Closer to the target, they'll be moving slower, but be closer together.

It might be easier to visualize in reverse. Identical race cars (that accelerate identically once started) are lined up at a starting line and one is released every five seconds. As they accelerate down the track they'll get farther apart, but continue to pass a given line at five second intervals.
You're right (and so is Mike), I stand corrected.
Reformed Offlian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 07:35 AM   #2683
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
To the extent that I understand Mike Helland's ideas, he is proposing a variation of the old "tired light" idea in which light that travels long distances slows down to an extent described by a simple numerical formula. Furthermore, I believe Mike Helland has suggested that such tired light becomes rejuvenated when it is reflected by a mirror, becoming ordinary light that travels at the accepted speed of light.
Yes, except in "classical" tired light the energy is lost in transit by interactions with matter or by some other means and the speed in an inertial frame remains at c throughout. Classical tired light is rejected for a number of cogent reasons. Mike's version is that it is in the nature of light to slow down with distance so that its speed at a distance D from its source is given by v=c-HD where is H is the Hubble constant (which I believe is a genuine constant in time and space according to Mike).

He uses the v = freq * wavelength relationship to claim that since v goes down with distance then so does frequency and hence energy. As you realise this cannot be correct for many many reasons.

Quote:
If I understand correctly, you have pointed out that the familiar angles of reflection for light striking a mirror would not hold if the reflected light travels at a different speed from the incident light. You have stated and explained the angles of reflection that would be observed for tired light that becomes rejuvenated when it reflects from a mirror.
Yes, and I'd just like to be clear that Ziggurat made this argument a long time ago, even before I started posting in the thread.

Quote:
You have applied those calculations to the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), which is a reflecting telescope. You have concluded that, if Mike Helland's ideas were correct, the HST would be unable to resolve sufficiently distant objects.

Mike Helland appears to have agreed with that conclusion:
Yes, although he has introduced a caveat as you have noted, the details of which are unclear. Whether he decides to develop and defend that caveat remains to be seen.
Quote:
In other words: If Mike Helland is right, then Mike Helland is wrong. Do I have that right?
Yes.
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 09:53 AM   #2684
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Yes, except in "classical" tired light the energy is lost in transit by interactions with matter or by some other means and the speed in an inertial frame remains at c throughout. Classical tired light is rejected for a number of cogent reasons. Mike's version is that it is in the nature of light to slow down with distance so that its speed at a distance D from its source is given by v=c-HD where is H is the Hubble constant (which I believe is a genuine constant in time and space according to Mike).
A+



Quote:
Yes, although he has introduced a caveat as you have noted, the details of which are unclear. Whether he decides to develop and defend that caveat remains to be seen.
The caveat has to do with the difference between classical light and a photon.

A photon reflecting off a mirror and gaining wavelength and speed is weird and bad enough.

I think the most bothersome part of the hypothesis, for the critics, would be the photon interacting with a radio antenna.

If v=c-HD, and the velocity and energy and frequency of the photon drop, then, in flight, the wavelength ought to stay the same. Since radio antenna detect the wavelength of the light, in this case they shouldn't detect any redshifts.

In this case, the E=hf oand E=h/w give different answers.

The next step to resolving this is for me to produce a model of quantum electrodynamics that properly shows the reflection of light by a mirror and the reception of light by an antenna using a photon with only a E and a D.

The model would lack any explicit definition of classical frequency or wavelength, and deal strictly with the transfer of energy.

Also, random question not related to anything... the HST reflector is just pure metal right? It doesn't have a glass coating?
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 10:11 AM   #2685
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
As I said before you have no idea what assumptions and estimates go into determining H0 from Cepheid variables but here are a few. You won't understand most of them, and those you do understand you will ignore or blow off, but this is for other people fiollowing this.
Very informative, thank you.

And I'll just assume that you think there aren't any bigger assumptions or larger extrapolations occurring early universe measurements.

If you think the early and current time methods are about equal, OK.

From what I had read, in some instances the CMB values were regarded as predictions from the model, and the supernovae values were regarded as measurements to test that model.

Of course, that's one interpretation, and not all characterize the situation that way.

One thing I should say, though, is that while I think the CMB values can be disregarded (as the CMB in v=c-HD is not ancient), the 74 km/s/Mpc can't right either.

The time dilation in supernova light curves are, in my opinion, the strongest evidence against v=c-HD.

They shouldn't be time dilated if space isn't expanding.

The only way v=c-HD could be true, is if those light curves are not actually time dilated, but larger and bigger events than we can see.

And that can only be true if these things are much farther away than we think, or the light extinction is greater than we think.

Since v=c-HD actually puts distant galaxies closer to us than v=HD, it would have to be the extinction rate. We're seeing a smaller fraction of light of supernovae from our vantage point than we think.

Quote:
Next, you have to make assumptions about the intergalactic extinction. Since you are attempting to determine the star's distance by the difference between apparent magnitude (directly measured) and absolute magnitude (inferred from the period), and that difference is sensitive to extinction in the host galaxy and intergalactically then these assumptions are critical.
And there's also observational biases, such the Malmquist bias:

"The Malmquist bias is an effect in observational astronomy which leads to the preferential detection of intrinsically bright objects."

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

This paper by Jerry Jensen talks about something called a "Malmquist Type II bias":

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404207

Have you ever heard of a Malmquist type II bias before? I don't see it referenced really anywhere else.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 11:14 AM   #2686
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Have you ever heard of a Malmquist type II bias before? I don't see it referenced really anywhere else.
It's from Terrikorpi's paper Observational selection bias affecting the determination of the extragalactic distance scale available here, Section 3 page 109. Do you think you understand this stuff? It refers mainly to determinations of H from very distant Sn1A samples. Since other methods of determining H0, such as Cepheid variables, RR Lyrae, gravitational lensing and TRGB are used which rely on closer samples I'm not sure how relevant it is.

I'll address the rest of your post later.
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 11:22 AM   #2687
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The next step to resolving this is for me to produce a model of quantum electrodynamics that properly shows the reflection of light by a mirror and the reception of light by an antenna using a photon with only a E and a D.

The model would lack any explicit definition of classical frequency or wavelength, and deal strictly with the transfer of energy.

Many people, upon realizing that the only way to rescue their ideas is to produce an entirely new "model" of quantum electrodynamics, would consider the possibility that their ideas are beyond rescue.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Also, random question not related to anything... the HST reflector is just pure metal right? It doesn't have a glass coating?

Other way around: The HST reflector is mostly glass, which determines its (flawed, alas, albeit corrected at great expense) shape, with a very thin aluminum coating.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 11:26 AM   #2688
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,673
Quote:
Other way around: The HST reflector is mostly glass, which determines its (flawed, alas, albeit corrected at great expense) shape, with a very thin aluminum coating.
Ok.

Problem solved.

When the light reflects off the mirror, the reflection happens at the interface between the glass and the aluminum.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 11:30 AM   #2689
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 92,227
Baleeted. Obsolete.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; 3rd March 2021 at 11:48 AM.
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 11:31 AM   #2690
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Many people, upon realizing that the only way to rescue their ideas is to produce an entirely new "model" of quantum electrodynamics, would consider the possibility that their ideas are beyond rescue.
I'm not sure it'd be entirely new, it'd just have redshifting photons.

" In other words, the power is transferred to another wave with a different propagation direction (opposite to the original direction for normal incidence on the surface). "

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...rs-reflect-ph/
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 11:32 AM   #2691
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 92,227
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I'm not sure it'd be entirely new, it'd just have redshifting photons.
If you really think so, then this entire thread has been a waste of time because you didn't learn anything that was told to you.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 11:43 AM   #2692
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
When the light reflects off the mirror, the reflection happens at the interface between the glass and the aluminum.
Why would you even think that?
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 11:47 AM   #2693
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Why would you even think that?
Cuz I'm a gomer and can't read gud.

The glass is on the other side of the light, isn't it?
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 11:57 AM   #2694
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,240
Quote:
Mathematically, reducing frequency reduces velocity.
Originally Posted by Jesse Custer
Or increases wavelength
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Or partially increases wavelength while partially reducing speed.
What's a "partial increase"?

You claimed that "mathematically, reducing frequency reduces velocity", and that is simply wrong because you didn't point out anything wrong with what I said, implying you agree with me, you could make the equation balance by changing the wavelength without changing the velocity.

So do you acknowledge that "mathematically, reducing frequency reduces velocity" isn't true, you can make the equation balance without reducing velocity?

If thus kind of school level basic algebra eludes you, how are you going to come up with a new version of QED?
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 12:02 PM   #2695
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
What's a "partial increase"?

You claimed that "mathematically, reducing frequency reduces velocity", and that is simply wrong because you didn't point out anything wrong with what I said, implying you agree with me, you could make the equation balance by changing the wavelength without changing the velocity.

So do you acknowledge that "mathematically, reducing frequency reduces velocity" isn't true, you can make the equation balance without reducing velocity?

If thus kind of school level basic algebra eludes you, how are you going to come up with a new version of QED?
Well, 10 = 2 * 5

Let's say we drop the 2 to 1.

We could say

5 = 1 * 5
10 = 1 * 10

Or even

7.5 = 1 * 7.5
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 12:13 PM   #2696
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Well, 10 = 2 * 5

Let's say we drop the 2 to 1.

We could say

5 = 1 * 5
10 = 1 * 10

Or even

7.5 = 1 * 7.5
I don't know if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.

Am I wrong that it's not necessary to decrease the velocity to make the equation balance if you decrease the frequency?
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 12:14 PM   #2697
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Well, 10 = 2 * 5

Let's say we drop the 2 to 1.

We could say

5 = 1 * 5
10 = 1 * 10

Or even

7.5 = 1 * 7.5
Yes, you can replace some numbers with other numbers in the equation "10=2*5" and still get the left side to equal the right side, so what?
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 12:26 PM   #2698
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
Yes, you can replace some numbers with other numbers in the equation "10=2*5" and still get the left side to equal the right side, so what?
So, in the equation v=f*w, a decrease in f leads to a change in v and/or w, mathematically.

The question is then, of the mathematical possibilities, which represents physical reality?

The expanding interpretation stretches the wavelength. This leads to the standard model of cosmology we have today.

My alternative cosmology is based on the other interpretation, that the speed decreases.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 12:31 PM   #2699
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,637
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
So, in the equation v=f*w, a decrease in f leads to a change in v and/or w, mathematically.

The question is then, of the mathematical possibilities, which represents physical reality?

The expanding interpretation stretches the wavelength. This leads to the standard model of cosmology we have today.

My alternative cosmology is based on the other interpretation, that the speed decreases.
Your interpretation is internally inconsistent, incoherent, and contradicted by observation.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 12:44 PM   #2700
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 92,227
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Your interpretation is internally inconsistent, incoherent, and contradicted by observation.
I don't know how you do it, remaining relatively patient after so much time trying to get through to him. I've been back since yesterday and I want to rip my hair out.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 12:45 PM   #2701
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,649
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Your interpretation is [...] incoherent
It's a metaphor for how light in his model is incoherent.
theprestige 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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 03:04 PM   #2702
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,189
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Ok.

Problem solved.

When the light reflects off the mirror, the reflection happens at the interface between the glass and the aluminum.

So you think that in mirrors, light actually penetrate the metal and that the reflection is caused by the next interface? Truly amazing. When the next material is glass, why does the light not simply continue? Glass is usually regarded as transparent, right?
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 03:13 PM   #2703
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,637
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
So you think that in mirrors, light actually penetrate the metal and that the reflection is caused by the next interface? Truly amazing. When the next material is glass, why does the light not simply continue? Glass is usually regarded as transparent, right?
No. He thought the setup was like a bathroom mirror, with the metal coating on the back of the glass, not the front.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 03:20 PM   #2704
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,189
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. He thought the setup was like a bathroom mirror, with the metal coating on the back of the glass, not the front.

__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 06:31 PM   #2705
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The next step to resolving this is for me to produce a model of quantum electrodynamics that properly shows the reflection of light by a mirror and the reception of light by an antenna using a photon with only a E and a D.

The model would lack any explicit definition of classical frequency or wavelength, and deal strictly with the transfer of energy.
Mike, the idea of you producing a model of QED when you struggle with simple trigonometry is, well, laughable. QED is not just diagrams with squiggly lines you know. You have to be prepared to understand actions, Hamiltonians, Lagrangians, integral calculus, 4-vectors, matrix algebra, the whole paraphernalia of quantum mechanics such as probability amplitudes, vector spaces, eigenvalues and eigenvectors and that's just page 1. So no, you're not going to produce a model of QED.

And you're never going to do it just with energy and distance, because waves and their properties are built into very lowest foundation of quantum mechanics. It is nonsense to talk of photons absent their property of frequency.

And in any case, even if you could do a QED calculation for reflection, you'd be wasting your time because it will yield exactly the same result for large numbers of photons as the classical result does (ie the result we calculated above), even with your bizarre idea of speed less than c, because the wave mechanics links tightly to the probability amplitudes of individual photons. In other words, Fermat's principle applied to reflection falls directly out of the path integral formulation. So, no, your caveat is doomed to fail.
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 06:41 PM   #2706
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,636
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. He thought the setup was like a bathroom mirror, with the metal coating on the back of the glass, not the front.

Originally Posted by steenkh View Post

And even if that were so it wouldn't help. If the light speed went from c-HD to c on reaching the surface of the glass, it would be wildly refracted there, before even reaching the mirror.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 06:50 PM   #2707
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
And even if that were so it wouldn't help. If the light speed went from c-HD to c on reaching the surface of the glass, it would be wildly refracted there, before even reaching the mirror.
Actually the final direction after refraction, reflection and refraction again from a back coated mirror would be the same as just reflection from a front coated mirror.
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 06:52 PM   #2708
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
And you're never going to do it just with energy and distance, because waves and their properties are built into very lowest foundation of quantum mechanics. It is nonsense to talk of photons absent their property of frequency.
If you know their energy, what specifically does the frequency add?
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 06:54 PM   #2709
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,649
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Actually the final direction after refraction, reflection and refraction again from a back coated mirror would be the same as just reflection from a front coated mirror.
You're not accounting for the photons arbitrarily changing speed, frequency, wavelength, and energy, without corresponding changes to any of their other properties, at each transition.
theprestige 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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 07:07 PM   #2710
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,636
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You're not accounting for the photons arbitrarily changing speed, frequency, wavelength, and energy, without corresponding changes to any of their other properties, at each transition.

Only at the first transition, after which the light is back to behaving classically.

I suppose there's nothing really wrong with that, it's just bad optics.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 07:26 PM   #2711
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,953
Exclamation Mike Helland still has no explanations for the CMB properties

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If light redshifts, and the vacuum or background or whatever accepts it, regardless of the wavelength, that would make it the purest black ever.
Your usual abysmal ignorance and fantasies, Mike Helland. A black body spectrum is not light being "black" ! This is black-body radiation.
Black body radiation is not caused by redshift. Black body radiation is not caused by "vacuum or background or whatever accepts it" gibberish. The CMB like all black body radiation was emitted by a body in almost perfect thermal equilibrium. There are no such bodies in the current universe as you have been told. The CMB must have been emitted when the universe was filled with a hot, dense plasma.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Quantum fluctuations still exist in nearby space. The anisotropy could still be quantum fluctuations.
A delusion that CMB anisotropy is quantum fluctuations when high school science students know that quantum fluctuations are random and on quantum scales . What makes this deluded is that you know that the CMB is cosmic, not created "in nearby space". The real CMB anisotropies are a signature of what emitted the CMB.

4 March 2021: Mike Helland still has no explanations for the CMB properties except ignorant fantasies
Mainstream cosmology can explain the measurements of
  1. CMB temperature (emission from a hot dense plasma filling the universe).
  2. Variation of Tcmb with distance (that hot dense plasma again).
  3. A perfect black body spectrum (that hot dense plasma again).
  4. Anisotropy as in the CMB power spectrum (that hot dense plasma again)
Mike Helland writes obvious idiocy such as "quantum fluctuations" even "in nearby space".

21 January 2021: The "Age of the universe" section is just wrong.
2 February 2021:" Why the "The CMB indicates a hot past" section is still very wrong
2 February 2021: The "Age of the universe" section is still wrong (galaxies are not stars or planets , etc.).

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd March 2021 at 07:42 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 07:55 PM   #2712
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,953
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Exactly.
Followed by the garbage part of GIGO!
The fact the special relativity works with the postulate that the speed of light is constant for inertial observers shows that the speed of light is always c. The fact is we have no experimental evidence that the speed of light ever change even from cosmological sources. This leads to the only way of red shifting light - changing its energy.
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 08:06 PM   #2713
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,953
Exclamation Mike Helland still cannot understand Wavespeed = frequency * wavelength

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Photons lose frequency proportional to distance (observed fact)
Wavespeed = frequency * wavelength
Both are wrong.
The first mildly wrong because photons lose frequency in a more complex way than simply "proportional to distance". The expansion of the universe has been measured to be accelerating, as you know.
The second error is stupid because you know differently since you were told it was an error !

4 March 2021: Mike Helland still cannot understand Wavespeed = frequency * wavelength is for waves in a medium.
He has quoted the phase velocity for waves traveling in a medium yet again . We have known for ~130 years that light does not travel in a medium. Light has a wavelength related to is energy. I explained this textbook physics weeks ago.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd March 2021 at 08:19 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 08:13 PM   #2714
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,953
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The premises are not controversial claims.
A stupid answer to Don't try to shift the burden of proof.. That post was that Mike Helland has the burden of proof to support his ideas with more than obvious ignorance, errors or fantasies.

The stupidity is his citations.
Ask Ethan: When A Photon Gets Redshifted, Where Does The Energy Go? is an astronomer explaining mainstream cosmology. There is mention of Mike Helland's fantasy.
Wave Speed Formula is about waves in a medium which is not light and thus emphasizes Mike Helland's fantasy !

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd March 2021 at 08:18 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 08:27 PM   #2715
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,953
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
For starters we would have to agree that light reflects off of mirrors, but photons can only be absorbed and emitted, and v=c-HD is a description of photons, not classical light.
No one will agree with a "v=c-HD" fantasy or vague gibberish.

Photons are classical light. Photons behave as electromagnetic waves and as particles. This is the textbook physics of wave-particle duality.
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 08:36 PM   #2716
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,953
Exclamation Mike Helland repeats his CMB is not cosmological delusion

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The hypothesis says that the CMB is not of cosmological origin so the CMB can't determine a value for H_0.
4 March 2021: Mike Helland repeats his CMB is not cosmological delusion.

This is already a delusion because the physical evidence is that the CMB is cosmological, as he knows.
Another point to show that this is delusional: Why would a non-cosmological light source have any relationship at all to the Hubble constant H0? In Mike Helland's universe we would might get H0 is negative or zero or thousands of (km/s)/Mpc In this universe we get a value not very far from other techniques.
Another point to show that this is delusional: A signature of the hot dense early universe is baryon acoustic oscillations. If the CMB was not cosmological then any H0 from it will not be related to a BAO value. The BOSS survey got 67.6+0.7−0.6 on 2016-07-13. Compare that the Planck Mission's 67.74Ī0.46 the previous year!

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd March 2021 at 08:45 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2021, 09:03 PM   #2717
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Your interpretation is internally inconsistent, incoherent, and contradicted by observation.
Those are its best features.

Prodded by Ziggurat, hecd2, and others, Mike Helland has explained his interpretation with enough specificity and clarity to support Ziggurat's conclusion.

Not everyone achieves that. We have seen other threads in this subforum devoted to ideas about physics that were so muddled as to be "not even wrong".
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th March 2021, 12:40 PM   #2718
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Photons are classical light.
That's how they seem to be treated.

In any case, I have updated my papers in response to some of your criticisms.

You may want to update your criticism accordingly.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2021, 01:35 PM   #2719
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,953
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
That's how they seem to be treated.

In any case, I have updated my papers in response to some of your criticisms.

You may want to update your criticism accordingly.
You do not have any papers. You have web pages with your obviously invalid idea. You quote mined my post:
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
No one will agree with a "v=c-HD" fantasy or vague gibberish.

Photons are classical light. Photons behave as electromagnetic waves and as particles. This is the textbook physics of wave-particle duality.
(emphasis added). Photons are treated as waves in appropriate situations. Photons are treated as particles in appropriate situations. Photons are both classical electromagnetic waves and quantum particles.

You have not addressed a fundamental flaw in your idea:
4 March 2021: Mike Helland still cannot understand Wavespeed = frequency * wavelength is for waves in a medium
Light does not travel in a medium . Throw away everything we know about light, change its speed and you cannot say what happens to its frequency.

Nothing significant has changed.
You still have the idiocy that the CMB is red shifted light that we detect from galaxies when galaxies are very far from being black bodies.
You are still lying about Timeline of prediction, discovery and interpretation. There is no 2.8 K from black bodies. This is an especially blatant lie when this is the effective temperature of non-thermal radiation of stars and cosmic radiation.
You are still lying that we do not see fewer and fewer mature galaxies when we look back in time. An issue is that when we go forward in time from the Big Bang. the models of galaxy formation and evolution do not quite match what we detect. That is very probably caused by the models. It is not caused by the idiocy of a universe with an "indefinite" age! Everytime you write that the age of the universe has to be pushed back, you are supporting the Big Bang ! You still have galaxies forming from a universe filled with gas and plasma. You still have a CMB that shows the universe was in a hot dense state before this. That is still a universe expanding from a beginning.

21 January 2021: The "Age of the universe" section is just wrong.
2 February 2021:" Why the "The CMB indicates a hot past" section is still very wrong
2 February 2021: The "Age of the universe" section is still wrong (galaxies are not stars or planets , etc.).

Last edited by Reality Check; 7th March 2021 at 01:56 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 7th March 2021, 04:33 PM   #2720
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
You still have the idiocy that the CMB is red shifted light that we detect from galaxies when galaxies are very far from being black bodies.
That's not what it says.

Quote:
You are still lying about Timeline of prediction, discovery and interpretation. There is no 2.8 K from black bodies. This is an especially blatant lie when this is the effective temperature of non-thermal radiation of stars and cosmic radiation.
Huh? It's only a lie because you don't want people to see it.

Quote:
You are still lying that we do not see fewer and fewer mature galaxies when we look back in time. An issue is that when we go forward in time from the Big Bang. the models of galaxy formation and evolution do not quite match what we detect.
"Not quite" indeed.

Quote:
The "Age of the universe" section is still wrong (galaxies are not stars or planets , etc.).[/url]
What stars are and planets are you talking about?
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 12:34 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.