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 Yesterday, 04:36 PM   #2721
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,284
"Will this solve the mystery of the expansion of the universe?"

Physicists' new proposal that a new type of extra dark energy is involved is highlighted in scientific journal.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0303142442.htm
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 Yesterday, 07:38 PM   #2722
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,732
Exclamation The lies still in Mike Helland's web page after they have been explained to him.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
That's not what it says ....
8 March 2021: The lies still in Mike Helland's web page after they have been explained to him.

One last time.
You write that red shifting photons are the source of the CMB.
In this universe, we see red shifting photons from galaxies. Galaxies do not emit a near perfect black body spectrum. Thus 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.

"Early 20th century astronomers calculated that the minimum temperature to which a black body in our galaxy would cool is 2.8 K well before the CMB was discovered.[24]" is still a lie as anyone who read what you linked to can see.
Thermal (non-microwave background) temperature predictions
Quote:
1930s – Cosmologist Erich Regener calculates that the non-thermal spectrum of cosmic rays in the galaxy has an effective temperature of 2.8 K
This is the only temperature of 2.8 K.
  1. It was calculated by one and only one astronomer.
  2. It is not the minimum temperature of anything.
    It is an effective temperature.
  3. If is not the effective temperature of a black body.
    It is the effective temperature of the non-thermal spectrum of cosmic rays. Cosmic rays do not have have a black body spectrum.

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 probably an issue with the models.

You are still lying that your solution is to make the age of the universe bigger.
  1. Your idea is that the age of the universe is "indefinite" which is the idiocy that there can be no age assigned.
  2. If you do assign an age, that gives the Big Bang again.
    The galaxies have to form from gas that suddenly allows them to form. That is a change in the entire universe, e.g. it expanding.
    The CMB still says that the universe was in a hot dense state.
A lying question. You know that you cited papers that were not on the fact we see fewer and fewer mature galaxies or even galaxies . Thus
2 February 2021: The "Age of the universe" section is still wrong (galaxies are not stars or planets , etc.).

For others: The stupidity is linking to Oldest Alien Planets Found—Born at Dawn of Universe - an 8 year old National Geographic article - and just stopping there.
A year later it was found these planets did not exist. It takes 5 minutes to find this. HIP 11952
Quote:
Claims of planet detection
In 2012 it was announced that HIP 11952 had two giant planets, this would have made it the oldest and most metal-poor planet host star known.[5] This would have posed a challenge to planetary formation, as the chances of a planet forming so early in the Universe's history, with such a small amount of heavy elements with which to form planets, are believed to be remote.[6]

Further measurements of HIP 11952 were made on 35 nights over about 150 days, from August 7, 2012 to January 6, 2013, using the newly installed high resolution spectrograph HARPS-N at the 3.58m Telescopio Nazionale Galileo telescope on La Palma Island (Canary Islands) and HARPS at the European Southern Observatory's 3.6m telescope on La Silla (Chile). Following their analysis, they were able to confidently exclude, through non-detection, the presence of the two giant planets with periods of 6.95 0.01 days and 290.0 16. 2 days.[7] They also reasoned that the previously mistaken detections were probably due to instrument measurement errors.[7] Re-analysis of the FEROS data revealed a problem with the barycentric correction used to derive the radial velocities, this error had led to the erroneous detection claim.[8]

Last edited by Reality Check; Yesterday at 07:50 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:52 PM   #2723
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,284
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
You write that red shifting photons are the source of the CMB.
Indirectly.

Not in the way you stated.

Quote:
"Early 20th century astronomers calculated that the minimum temperature to which a black body in our galaxy would cool is 2.8 K well before the CMB was discovered.[24]" is still a lie as anyone who read what you linked to can see.
Thermal (non-microwave background) temperature predictions

This is the only temperature of 2.8 K.
I see. I can change 2.8 K to "about 3 K".


Quote:
You are still lying that we do not see fewer and fewer mature galaxies when we look back in time.
As of a few years ago, the "early" universe looks just like the current one.

You're just behind the times.

That's ok.

Quote:
You are still lying that your solution is to make the age of the universe bigger.
The galaxy formation theories we have allow the galaxies we see to form, given there's billion and billions of years available for them to work.

You seem to think the problem with the galaxy formation and evolution theories are unrelated to the amount of time budgeted to them.

That's cool. Think whatever you want.

Calling me a liar is pretty silly though.

Quote:
(galaxies are not stars or planets , etc.).[/url]
Reality Check, what are the planets and stars you're talking about?
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 Yesterday, 08:26 PM   #2724
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,732
Exclamation Ignorant and lying "Tolman Surface Brightness Test" section on Mike Helland's site

8 March 2021: Ignorant and lying "Tolman Surface Brightness Test" section on Mike Helland's web page.

Short section so only 1 item of ignorance and 1 lie.

The Tolman surface brightness test is actually a test of any cosmology not just expanding versus static. Tolman did propose it as a test between static and expanding universe in 1930. Static universes as in his idea fail it abysmally.
The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. IV. A Measurement of the Tolman Signal and the Luminosity Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies
Quote:
The result of the present paper is that a static model, where the redshift is due to an unknown physical cause, fails the surface brightness test by a large factor. ... Each value is more than 10 σ from the required exponent of 1.0
if the “tired light” scenerio were correct. We take this to be a definitive proof that the hypothesis of non-expansion does not fit the surface brightness data.
I emphasize the 10 sigma value. We generally take a 5 sigma fit as being that a prediction is definitely been matched, e.g. the discovery of the Higgs boson. The opposite (a 5 sigma discrepancy) says that the prediction is definitely wrong.
We have abysmal ignorance of citing a test that debunks his idea .

The section ends with a "The decelerating photon hypothesis predicts one fewer factor than the expanding universe, matching observations." lie. Any static universe model predicts a factor of 1.0 as above. The test is easy to understand. In a static universe the brightness of an object falls as the inverse square of its distance which its area falls as the square of the distance. The object's surface brightness will be constant.

N.B. Brightness is a count of photons received, not the color of the photons. Red or blue shifting photons does not affect the brightness. Anyone who has learned physics or reads the Wikipedia page will knows this. Allan Sandage and Lori M. Lubin analyzed a couple of different frequency bands.

Last edited by Reality Check; Yesterday at 08:56 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:38 PM   #2725
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,284
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The section ends with a "The decelerating photon hypothesis predicts one fewer factor than the expanding universe, matching observations." lie. Any static universe model predicts a factor of 1.0 as above.
Yes, precisely.

Any static universe, where light travels at c to infinity.

That's where the novel deceleration of photon's makes a difference.
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 Yesterday, 08:38 PM   #2726
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,732
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Indirectly. ...
8 March 2021: The lies still in Mike Helland's web page after they have been explained to him.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:46 PM   #2727
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,284
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Yeah, you didn't like that anomalously old stars and planets were lumped in with the galaxies were anomalously old, so I changed that.

Months ago at his point. And you keep copying and pasting the same thing.

And saying "liar" over and over. I don't know if that's normal where you're from, but to me it makes you look like 7 year old.
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 Yesterday, 08:50 PM   #2728
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,732
Exclamation n idiotic "Size of the universe" section on Mike Helland's web page

8 March 2021: An idiotic "Size of the universe" section on Mike Helland's web page.
Idiotic because
  • there is nothing about the size of the universe in that section.
  • it ends with "the size and age of the universe are indefinite".
    Ages and sizes are numbers. They can be finite or infinite (that covers all of the numbers). They can be unknown, i.e. the model cannot calculate them. Indefinite might be unknown but who knows what it means to him?
  • it ends with "and there is no cosmic size limit" when mainstream cosmology has no cosmic size limit.
A proper link to the chart: List of largest cosmic structures
Quote:
Structures larger than this size are incompatible with the cosmological principle according to all estimates. However, whether the existence of these structures itself constitutes a refutation of the cosmological principle is still unclear. [17]
My emphasis added. This is not anything to do with the age or size of the universe. It is about a calculation assumption used in cosmological models.
Mike Helland does not have any model and so cannot know what it predicts for the size of structures.

Last edited by Reality Check; Yesterday at 08:51 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:01 PM   #2729
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,732
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Yes, precisely....
An abysmally ignorant reply to my post. The precise answer is that any static universe regardless any fantasies about the speed of light has a factor of 1.0 in the Tolman surface bright test. It is basic geometry that high school children can understand.
8 March 2021: Ignorant and lying "Tolman Surface Brightness Test" section on Mike Helland's web page.
Quote:
The section ends with a "The decelerating photon hypothesis predicts one fewer factor than the expanding universe, matching observations." lie. Any static universe model predicts a factor of 1.0 as above. The test is easy to understand. In a static universe the brightness of an object falls as the inverse square of its distance which its area falls as the square of the distance. The object's surface brightness will be constant.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:12 PM   #2730
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,284
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
[*]it ends with "the size and age of the universe are indefinite".
Ages and sizes are numbers. They can be finite or infinite (that covers all of the numbers). They can be unknown, i.e. the model cannot calculate them. Indefinite might be unknown but who knows what it means to him?
So the hypothesis limits the distance a photon can travel to 14 billion light years.

A filament of galaxies stretching off beyond our observable region could continue on for trillions of light years. Or 10100 light years.

Probably not infinity.

If you turned on the radio, and check all the frequencies, and found 40 radio stations, would you assume there are only 40 radio stations in the world? Of course not.

How many radio stations are there? Way more than you'll pick up. But probably a finite number nonetheless.

So, for that, I would say the number of radio stations extends indefinitely beyond the 40 we can pick up.

In Edwin Hubble's 1937 Observational Approach to Cosmology he used the word indefinite many times.

Page 6

The conclusions are tentative but they are none the less impressive, for once again, as in the days of Copernicus, we seem to face a choice between a finite, small-scale universe and a universe indefinitely large plus a new principle of nature.

Page 19

To anticipate, the investigations lead to alternative pictures, depending upon the alternative possible interpretations of red-shifts. 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.

Page 22

On the other hand, the plausible and, in a sense, familiar conception of a universe extending indefinitely in space and time, a universe vastly greater than the observable region, seems to imply that red-shifts are not primarily velocity-shifts.

Page 47

The familiar interpretation of red-shifts as velocity-shifts very seriously restricts not only the time scale, the age of the universe, but the spatial dimensions as well. On the other hand, the alternative possible interpretation, that red-shifts are not velocity-shifts, avoids both difficulties, and presents the observable region as an insignificant sample of a universe that extends indefinitely in space and in time

Page 52

Two pictures of the universe are sharply drawn. Observations, at the moment, seem to favour one picture, but they do not rule out the other. We seem to face, as once before in the days of Copernicus, a choice between a small, finite universe, and a universe indefinitely large plus a new principle of nature.

----

One of these quotes is also in the conclusion of my paper. So I think you understand the context in which the word is being used.
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 Yesterday, 09:13 PM   #2731
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,732
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Yeah, you didn't like that anomalously old stars and planets were lumped in with the galaxies were anomalously old, so I changed that.
You cannot even retract obviously wrong citations without lying about why they needed to be retracted !
You needed to retract the Methuselah star citation because it has nothing to do with your "there are no fewer and fewer mature galaxies" fantasy and does not exclude the measured age of the universe yet.
You needed to get rid of the old planets citation because the planets do not exist as 5 minutes research finds.

We are left with:
2 February 2021: The major problems with the section start with Mike Helland has emphasized that he has no idea how old the universe is ("indefinite" age). It could be younger than the mainstream age and this list is some evidence against his idea ! His idea has galaxies magically popping into existence at an indefinite number of billons years ago.
  1. A cold, massive, rotating disk galaxy 1.5 billion years after the Big Bang
    A paper on a galaxy 500 million years after they are predicted to appear.
  2. A dynamically cold disk galaxy in the early Universe
    A single galaxy that has a ratio of rotational-to-random motions higher than modeled and similar to current spiral galaxies. This is not a galaxy maturing.
  3. How Can a Star Be Older Than the Universe?
    A star not a galaxy !
  4. A dominant population of optically invisible massive galaxies in the early Universe
    A challenge to our understanding of massive-galaxy formation.
  5. Earliest giant galaxies: The birth of monsters
    A specific telescope (UltraVISTA ) may be not seeing some massive dusty galaxies.
  6. Lyman α Emission from a Luminous z = 8.68 Galaxy: Implications for Galaxies as Tracers of Cosmic Reionization
    Nothing to do with fewer and fewer mature galaxies.
  7. A dusty, normal galaxy in the epoch of reionization
    Nothing to do with fewer and fewer mature galaxies.
  8. Some galaxies in the early universe grew up quickly
    Nothing to do with fewer and fewer mature galaxies.
  9. Galaxy Zoo: CANDELS Barred Disks and Bar Fractions
    Little to do with fewer and fewer mature galaxies.
  10. Spitzer Splash Project Dives Deep for Galaxies
  11. Oldest Alien Planets Found—Born at Dawn of Universe
    Planets not galaxies! HIP 11952 emphasizes the ignorance of cherry picking an 8 year old article. A year later it was found these planets did not exist !
  12. Web of the giant: Spectroscopic confirmation of a large-scale structure around the z = 6.31 quasar SDSS J1030+0524
    A lie by quote mining. The paper is a resolution to the question of how supermassive black holes could form fast by accretion.
I have emphasized what you need to retract next.

Last edited by Reality Check; Yesterday at 09:14 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:15 PM   #2732
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,284
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
An abysmally ignorant reply to my post. The precise answer is that any static universe regardless any fantasies about the speed of light has a factor of 1.0 in the Tolman surface bright test. It is basic geometry that high school children can understand.
8 March 2021: Ignorant and lying "Tolman Surface Brightness Test" section on Mike Helland's web page.
So if a galaxy emitted some light, and the light traveled here without slowing down, you're saying the galaxy would appear just as bright if the photons did slow down?
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 Yesterday, 09:25 PM   #2733
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,732
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
So if a galaxy emitted some light, and the light traveled here without slowing down, you're saying the galaxy would appear just as bright if the photons did slow down?
8 March 2021: Ignorant and lying "Tolman Surface Brightness Test" section on Mike Helland's web page.

Tolman surface brightness test does not depend on photon speed.
Quote:
In a simple (static and flat) universe, the light received from an object drops proportional to the square of its distance and the apparent area of the object also drops proportional to the square of the distance, so the surface brightness (light received per surface area) would be constant, independent of the distance. In an expanding universe, however, there are two effects that change this relation. First, the rate at which photons are received is reduced because each photon has to travel a little farther than the one before. Second, the energy of each photon observed is reduced by the redshift. At the same time, distant objects appear larger than they really are because the photons observed were emitted at a time when the object was closer. Adding these effects together, the surface brightness in a simple expanding universe (flat geometry and uniform expansion over the range of redshifts observed) should decrease with the fourth power of 1+z.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:40 PM   #2734
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,732
Exclamation The idiocy of "indefinite" = infinite on Mike Helland's web page

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
So the hypothesis limits the distance a photon can travel to 14 billion light years.....
An irrelevant post about his fantasies which we know and are just in his head.
8 March 2021: An idiotic "Size of the universe" section on Mike Helland's web page.

But we now know what you mean by "indefinite".
8 March 2021: The idiocy of "indefinite" = infinite on Mike Helland's web page.

The English meaning is unknown. Edwin Hubble in his 1937 Observational Approach to Cosmology book is talking about finite versus infinite as in mainstream cosmology.
Quote:
The conclusions are tentative but they are none the less impressive, for once again, as in the days of Copernicus, we seem to face a choice between a finite, small-scale universe and a universe indefinitely large plus a new principle of nature.
And several other quotes with finite/infinite comparisons.

A static universe has been deposed of from over 80 years of scientific progress since he published his book. Even his own comments were wrong. Nothing in 1937 suggested that the universe was finite. Hobble's law is the same in a finite or infinite universe.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:44 PM   #2735
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,284
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
8 March 2021: The idiocy of "indefinite" = infinite on Mike Helland's web page.
That's a lie.

If I meant something was infinite, I'd say that.

But I don't mean that, so I didn't say that.

Quote:
Nothing in 1937 suggested that the universe was finite.
That's a lie.
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 Yesterday, 09:50 PM   #2736
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,284
Quote:
In an expanding universe, however, there are two effects that change this relation. First, the rate at which photons are received is reduced because each photon has to travel a little farther than the one before. Second, the energy of each photon observed is reduced by the redshift. At the same time, distant objects appear larger than they really are because the photons observed were emitted at a time when the object was closer. Adding these effects together, the surface brightness in a simple expanding universe (flat geometry and uniform expansion over the range of redshifts observed) should decrease with the fourth power of 1+z.
You left off this part:

"The exponent found is not 4 as expected in the simplest expanding model, but 2.6 or 3.4, depending on the frequency band."

In my model, the photon's still redshift, and it still takes longer for the light to get here.

But the arrival rate doesn't change.
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 Yesterday, 11:06 PM   #2737
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,158
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
So if a galaxy emitted some light, and the light traveled here without slowing down, you're saying the galaxy would appear just as bright if the photons did slow down?

Brightness is the number of photons arriving in a certain time interval. If the photons slow down, they will still arrive in the same numbers, but they arrive with a slower speed.

If the universe expands, they will arrive in fewer numbers during this time interval, because those that were emitted later had a longer way to travel.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:43 PM   #2738
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,284
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Brightness is the number of photons arriving in a certain time interval. If the photons slow down, they will still arrive in the same numbers, but they arrive with a slower speed.

If the universe expands, they will arrive in fewer numbers during this time interval, because those that were emitted later had a longer way to travel.
Indeed, and experimentally, surface brightness does not drop off the way the expanding universe predicts.

It predicts too many factors.
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 Today, 01:34 AM   #2739
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,284
Here's something I did. The Supernovae Cosmology Project's data is here:

http://supernova.lbl.gov/Union/figur....1_mu_vs_z.txt

To make a JSON file I did this:

Code:
var out = []
var lines = data.split("\n")
var d
var cols
lines.forEach(line => {
    cols = line.split("\t")
    
    // distance modulus to parsec
    d = Math.pow(10, cols[2]/5+1) 

    // parsec to light years
    d = d * 3.261564

    // ly to Mly
    d = d / 1000000
    out.push({
        name: cols[0], 
        z: 1 * cols[1], 
        d: d}
    ) 
})

var out = out.sort((a,b)=>{return a.d-b.d})
var fs = require("fs")
fs.writeFile("supernovae.json", JSON.stringify(out), ()=>{})
That gives me a list of z's and d distances in million light years.

Next I calculated how long it would take to reach that distance in an expanding universe for each data point, giving them a t time.

Here's the resulting data in JSON if you want it.

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubble...upernovae.json

Now I could plot this data, and I could plot the expanding universe against it.



This shows the "preposterous" acceleration of the universe.

The z's should be getting higher with less time, but they're taking more time to increase.

Any mistakes there?
Mike Helland is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:08 AM   #2740
Mike Helland
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,284
Maybe there are some big math brains here that can I spot the error in the following logic.
v=HD and v=c-HD produce the same time delays.

Because the decelerating photon hypothesis begins at c and goes to zero, I can make an alternative hypothesis, where instead of subtracting HD from c, I divide c by 1+HD. This still means that light starts off at c, and decelerates as D increases.

Now... correct me if I'm wrong... but because galaxies in an expanding universe start with v=0, which increases with distance... can we actually produce an expansion law equivalent?

v=c-HD has an expansion equivalent of v=HD.

How about v=c/(1+HD)?
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 03:00 AM.
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.