Merged: Why the James Webb Telescope rewrites/doesn't the laws of Physics/Redshifts

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Let's say there's Alice, Bob, and Carol, laid out like A...B...C.

Alice sends two photons to Bob, Bob gets them and sends them to Carol.

If the two photons sent by Alice are 1 second apart, and Bob receives them 2 seconds apart, and Carol receives them 4 seconds apart, is there a paradox then?

You have to look at the consequences on a single clock because there is no saying what happens with regard to synchronisation and so forth between different clocks in your postulate because you haven't and can't express it mathematically. (For example, what are the equivalents to the Lorentz transforms in your Universe. No-one knows and no-one will ever know.) What we can do is to ask what happens on a single clock with a round trip and what we find is a paradox. So your postulate is not self-consistent.

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

But not contradictory.

Bollocks. Just do what I asked you to do. What are the flight time durations for the two photons according to Alice's clock?

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Yeah.

Instead of the second photon's arrival time being delayed, the first photon's departure time moves back.

Not intuitive. But not contradictory.

So when the photons get back to Alice, she's aware that she sent them both one and four seconds apart?

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by hecd2

Bollocks. Just do what I asked you to do. What are the flight time durations for the two photons according to Alice's clock?

R and R+3

That's for z=1.

Let's say, z=0.5.

R and R+1.25

z=0.1?

A 1 second delay at the start leads to a 1/(1+0.1):

R and R+0.02

As z approaches 0, the round trip's approach equal.

But when z>0, the duration between photon 1 and photon 2 keeps increasing.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Mashuna

So when the photons get back to Alice, she's aware that she sent them both one and four seconds apart?

If the times were the same, then no time dilation would have occurred, which means the postulate was not applied.

If Bob sends two photons to Alice, 2 seconds apart, and Alice receives them 4 seconds apart, what difference would it make whether Bob did that on his own, or was prompted by Alice sending two photons previously?

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

R and R+3

That's for z=1.

Let's say, z=0.5.

R and R+1.25

z=0.1?

A 1 second delay at the start leads to a 1/(1+0.1):

R and R+0.02

As z approaches 0, the round trip's approach equal.

But when z>0, the duration between photon 1 and photon 2 keeps increasing.

QED as that is not consistent with a round trip duration of a fixed distance at a fixed speed. It also implies that the round trip duration depends on where the photon is in a sequence. Which is nonsense.

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

If the times were the same, then no time dilation would have occurred, which means the postulate was not applied.

If Bob sends two photons to Alice, 2 seconds apart, and Alice receives them 4 seconds apart, what difference would it make whether Bob did that on his own, or was prompted by Alice sending two photons previously?

Because you cannot directly compare Alice's and Bob's clock (as you have not written down and cannot write down the relevant transformations), but you can compare round trips on a single clock and that leads to an irreconcilable paradox, as ypu have bow worked out yourself. Hence your postulate is logically impossible.


ETA: and because in the round trip scenario Alice is able to measure the round trip duration for each photon leading to the paradox.

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

If the times were the same, then no time dilation would have occurred, which means the postulate was not applied.

If Bob sends two photons to Alice, 2 seconds apart, and Alice receives them 4 seconds apart, what difference would it make whether Bob did that on his own, or was prompted by Alice sending two photons previously?

Same photons, reflected back. With the obvious conclusion.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by hecd2

QED as that is not consistent with a round trip duration of a fixed distance at a fixed speed.

The before measurement is not time dilated. The after measurement is.

If you dilate the before measurement, the photons took off 4 seconds apart.

Quote:

It also implies that the round trip duration depends on where the photon is in a sequence. Which is nonsense.

Time dilation affects the past too.

1 second in the past dilated double twice becomes 4 seconds in the past.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by hecd2

Because you cannot directly compare Alice's and Bob's clock (as you have not written down and cannot write down the relevant transformations)

t' = t(1+z)

The t in this case is the 1 second between pulses.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Mashuna

Same photons, reflected back. With the obvious conclusion.

So if Bob emits 2 photons 2 seconds apart, and Alice receives them 4 seconds apart, that's not a problem.

But if Alice emits 2 photons 1 second apart, Bob receives and emits them 2 seconds apart, and Alice receives those at 4 seconds apart, that is a problem?

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

The before measurement is not time dilated. The after measurement is.

If you dilate the before measurement, the photons took off 4 seconds apart.



Time dilation affects the past too.

1 second in the past dilated double twice becomes 4 seconds in the past.

I have no idea what you are bleating about now. Clocks run slower in the past in the same location? Why? Slower compared with what? How would you measure it? What does it even mean?

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

So if Bob emits 2 photons 2 seconds apart, and Alice receives them 4 seconds apart, that's not a problem.

But if Alice emits 2 photons 1 second apart, Bob receives and emits them 2 seconds apart, and Alice receives those at 4 seconds apart, that is a problem?

Absolutely yes, because then Alice can measure the flight time duration of the two photons with the same clock and they are different.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by hecd2

I have no idea what you are bleating about now. Clocks run slower in the past in the same location? Why? Slower compared with what? How would you measure it? What does it even mean?

You'd measure it how we just explained.

You take some information about an event that lasts a second long, broadcast half way across the observable universe which means the information is received with the affects of time dilation, broadcast it back, which time dilates it again, and future Alice will receive the doubly dilated measurement from past Alice.

If you remove the postulate and there is no time dilation, things work as you expect.

If you add the postulate and there is time dilation, things work as has been described.

It may not work how you expect, but that's a contradiction between your expectations and the postulate, not the postulate and itself.

[Mike Helland]

Different scenario.

A supernovae goes off in Alice's galaxy. She says it lasted 14 days.

Bob observes this and says it lasted 28 days.

So Bob sends a signal to Alice that lasts 28 days from start to finish.

How long is the signal that Alice receives?

56 days right? How could it be anything else?

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

You'd measure it how we just explained.

You'd use the measured time between the photons arrival to determine that the photon arrival is different now compared to what it was in the past? I don't think so. You need a separate clock.

You can only measure the duration of events by some reliable clock. It is meaningless to say that your clock was ticking faster or slower in the past, as you don't have any means of judging that. Your whole scenario depends on the claim that two events one second apart according to your clock, are, after a round trip, four seconds apart. That leads to the paradox that we have all described till we are puce in the face.

If you say now that the gap between the two photons is the same now as when they were emitted, four seconds, according to some reliable clock, then there is no difference in the gap and no time dilation. Your claim is that there is a real and measurable difference in the gap between the photons' emission and detection, and if there is then that leads inexorably to the paradox.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by hecd2

You can only measure the duration of events by some reliable clock.

I think that's an important part of what's missing here.

For time dilation to do something, there needs to be an event with a duration. In our "send 2 photons scenario", the event started when the first photon was emitted, and ended when the second photon was emitted

Quote:

It is meaningless to say that your clock was ticking faster or slower in the past, as you don't have any means of judging that.

Ok... before you get mad... just remember that I'm not trying to make you mad. This is just an idea. About stuff that may or may not happen billions of light years away. So... deep breath...

Quote:

Your whole scenario depends on the claim that two events one second apart according to your clock, are, after a round trip, four seconds apart. That leads to the paradox that we have all described till we are puce in the face.

Understood.

Quote:

If you say now that the gap between the two photons is the same now as when they were emitted, four seconds, according to some reliable clock, then there is no difference in the gap and no time dilation. Your claim is that there is a real and measurable difference in the gap between the photons' emission and detection, and if there is then that leads inexorably to the paradox.

It boils down to this.

Photon 1 takes off at t_A=0,
photon 2 takes off at t_A=1,

Photon 1 arrives at t_B=0
Photon 2 arrives at t_B=2

Intuitively, photon 2 stayed in the air longer.

This postulate says the duration between 1 and 2 is 1 second, which is dilated to 2 seconds, which means photon 1 didn't take off at t=0, the photon took off at t=-1.

This postulate, counterintuitively, says both photons stayed in the air longer.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

If A sends a 1 second pulse to B, and B returns it back to A, then A can compare the pulse length sent to the pulse length received.

If space is expanding but clocks aren't going faster or slower, the pulse length will increase. So that doesn't actually distinguish the two scenarios.

Quote:

A shoots a photon to B.

Now when B shoots a reply back to A, the distance between them has increased, so the response will take longer.

A has no way to determine how much time is taken up in the first part vs. the second part of the journey. All A can measure is the round trip time. And that's increasing under your "clocks go faster" scenario and under a space expanding scenario.

Quote:

They are very obviously different.

The only thing that's obvious is you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

A has no way to determine how much time is taken up in the first part vs. the second part of the journey. All A can measure is the round trip time. And that's increasing under your "clocks go faster" scenario and under a space expanding scenario.

If Alice pings Bob and Bob pings Alice, and so on back and forth, the ping time will continually increase in an expanding universe.

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

If Alice pings Bob and Bob pings Alice, and so on back and forth, the ping time will continually increase in an expanding universe.

And also in your 'clocks run faster' universe.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Mashuna

And also in your 'clocks run faster' universe.

Not for a single photon.

If Alice sends a photon and gets a response T years later, then pinging back would get a second response another T years later.

It's when Alice sends two photons, or a steady pulse, or a supernovae happens, something that has a duration, a start time < end time, does that duration get dilated.

Emitting a single photon as an event has a duration of 0 (start time = end time) so 0(1+z)=0. There's nothing to accumulate.

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Not for a single photon.

If Alice sends a photon and gets a response T years later, then pinging back would get a second response another T years later.

It's when Alice sends two photons, or a steady pulse, or a supernovae happens, something that has a duration, a start time < end time, does that duration get dilated.

Emitting a single photon as an event has a duration of 0 (start time = end time) so 0(1+z)=0. There's nothing to accumulate.

So it's a magic photon?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

If Alice pings Bob and Bob pings Alice, and so on back and forth, the ping time will continually increase in an expanding universe.

Originally Posted by Mashuna

And also in your 'clocks run faster' universe.

Precisely

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Not for a single photon.

Yes for a single photon.

Quote:

It's when Alice sends two photons, or a steady pulse, or a supernovae happens, something that has a duration, a start time < end time, does that duration get dilated.

A single photon has a duration. It can be made arbitrarily small, but it's never zero.

You keep revealing you don't know anything, and you're wrong about everything.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You keep revealing you don't know anything, and you're wrong about everything.

Good to know.

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

It boils down to this.

Photon 1 takes off at t_A=0,
photon 2 takes off at t_A=1,

Photon 1 arrives at t_B=0
Photon 2 arrives at t_B=2

Intuitively, photon 2 stayed in the air longer.

This postulate says the duration between 1 and 2 is 1 second, which is dilated to 2 seconds, which means photon 1 didn't take off at t=0, the photon took off at t=-1.

This postulate, counterintuitively, says both photons stayed in the air longer.

It takes off at 0 and -1? It takes off before it takes off? The fact that you have to write such arrant nonsense to attempt, unsuccessfully to rescue your garbage idea, is because your garbage creates unresolvable paradoxes.

And you're only doing half the thought experiment again. You need to do a round trip and you need to measure all the events on the same clock, which is the only means you have of measuring durations. There is no absolute external time against which your clock runs faster or slower. And when you do that, you come up with a nonsense scenario in which each photon in a sequence takes a longer time on the round trip than the previous one, and the time taken depends on what number in a sequence a photon is. Which is patent nonsense, as is your idea.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Let's say there's Alice, Bob, and Carol, laid out like A...B...C.

Alice sends two photons to Bob, Bob gets them and sends them to Carol.

If the two photons sent by Alice are 1 second apart, and Bob receives them 2 seconds apart, and Carol receives them 4 seconds apart, is there a paradox then?

If all three of them have PhDs, then it would no longer be a paradox.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by hecd2

It takes off before it takes off?

The end of the event is signaled by photon 2.

Photon 2 is emitted one second after photon 1.

Therefore, at the end of the event, the emission of photon 1 is one second in the past.

When the postulate is applied and time is dilated, photon 1 was actually emitted two seconds in the past.

Say here's a normal universe, photon 1 (top) leaves before photon 2 (bottom) by one ~, and arrives by one ~ sooner.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~
     ~~~~~~~~~~~~
t------------------->

If the time's are dilated, then photon 2 arrives one ~ later, and photon 1 takes off one ~ sooner.

   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
t------------------->

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Therefore, at the end of the event, the emission of photon 1 is one second in the past.

You are joking, right?

[Steve]

Originally Posted by steenkh

You are joking, right?

Well one of the options for the existence of this thread is performance art, but I don't know.......

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by steenkh

You are joking, right?

Huh? Not at all.

We're going to define an event with a duration of one second that begins by emitting photon and ends with emitting a photon.

Since the event is one second long, at the end of the event, the beginning of it will be one second in the past.

That's tautological.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by hecd2

I can only assume that your lack of understanding is deliberate and in bad faith, because no-one could be that stupid.

Giving benefit of the doubt, we should consider the possibility that we are witnessing an accidental and good-faith attempt to demonstrate that someone can indeed be that stupid.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

When Alice emits photons, and Bob receives them, Alice is the source, and Bob is the observer.

But when Bob emits photons, and Alice receives them, Bob is the source, and Alice is the observer.

Clocks always get faster in the direction the photon is traveling.

Inasmuch as Helland physics says space is not expanding, it should not be terribly difficult for a neutral arbitrator Carol to figure out how to position herself exactly halfway between Alice and Bob. At some arbitrary time of her own choosing, Carol sends messages to both Alice and Bob telling them to start sending photons to each other. When Alice and Bob receive those messages, Alice sends a photon to Bob and Bob sends a photon to Alice.

According to Helland physics, quoted above, "Clocks always get faster in the direction the photon is traveling." The scenario described above is perfectly symmetric. A photon is traveling toward Alice, so clocks get faster in the direction of Alice. A photon is traveling toward Bob, so clocks get faster in the direction of Bob.

Whenever Alice receives a photon from Bob, Alice immediately sends another photon to Bob. Whenever Bob receives a photon from Alice, Bob immediately sends another photon to Alice. It's as though they're holding mirrors that reflect each other's photons.

By symmetry, the speeding up of Alice's clock is exactly the same as the speeding up of Bob's clock. So the local clocks of both Alice and Bob are speeding up by exactly the same rate so long as they are sending photons to each other.

But (as we may infer from precise astronomical observations of similar physical processes) Alice and Bob don't see any change in the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom, which both Alice and Bob continue to measure as 9192631770 Hertz. That means physical processes in the vicinity of Alice and Bob are speeding up at exactly the same rate at which their local clocks are speeding up.

Which means neither Alice and Bob can rely on any local experiments to detect the alleged fact that both their clocks are speeding up.

But both Alice and Bob notice that the photons they receive from each other are redshifted from the frequencies each of them claim those photons had at the time of transmission. From which they infer that their local clocks are running faster than the distant clocks that were used to measure those frequencies at their point of transmission.

Now we could have run this experiment by positioning Alice and Bob at any two arbitrary points of space, from which it follows that either

• At every point of space, during every interval of time, clocks are speeding up (but this goes unnoticed because all physical processes are speeding up at exactly the same rate).
• Clocks and physical processes are speeding up only at those points of space and during those intervals of time in which a photon travels toward those points of space.

From what I have read of the peer-reviewed literature on Helland physics, I have been unable to determine which of those possibilities is predicted by Helland physics. Is it too much to hope that the sole proponent and author of Helland physics will offer some clarity on this important point?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Is it too much to hope that the sole proponent and author of Helland physics will offer some clarity on this important point?

It’s too much to hope that he even understands what you’re asking of him.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Giving benefit of the doubt, we should consider the possibility that we are witnessing an accidental and good-faith attempt to demonstrate that someone can indeed be that stupid.

That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.

Quote:

Now we could have run this experiment by positioning Alice and Bob at any two arbitrary points of space, from which it follows that either

• At every point of space, during every interval of time, clocks are speeding up (but this goes unnoticed because all physical processes are speeding up at exactly the same rate).

The observer's clock will be faster than the sources, but at a constant (1+z).

If you have a series of observers:

A B C D E F

As a photon goes from A to F, each clock it passes will be faster than the last.

And same goes for F to A.

But A and F aren't changing speed relative to each other.

This is why light travel time distance is not just (d_emit)(1+z).

You have to add up the slices of (1+z) for all z's up till your target z. IOW, the sum of the time elapsed around A (ie,z=0), and around B, and around C, etc.

[jimbob]

Keep it civil and address the arguments not the arguer

Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:jimbob

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Huh? Not at all.

We're going to define an event with a duration of one second that begins by emitting photon and ends with emitting a photon.

Since the event is one second long, at the end of the event, the beginning of it will be one second in the past.

That's tautological.

If all you are trying to say is that the beginning is before the end, you have a strange way of saying it. Usually, time is not measured from the end of an event, but from the beginning.

What is the purpose of this reformulation?

[hecd2]

One thing that recent pages of this thread has highlighted for me is that some people don't understand the difference between counter-intuitive and paradoxical. It's usually people who think that, for example, SR makes contradictory claims, but it can go the other way - those who, like Mike, claim that something which results in truly paradoxical and contradictory outcomes is merely "counter-intuitive".


ETA: I'll just add that the latter can never be expressed in a mathematically coherent and self-consistent way.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Is it too much to hope that the sole proponent and author of Helland physics will offer some clarity on this important point?

It’s too much to hope that he even understands what you’re asking of him.

He didn't.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

The observer's clock will be faster than the sources, but at a constant (1+z).

If you have a series of observers:

A B C D E F

As a photon goes from A to F, each clock it passes will be faster than the last.

And same goes for F to A.

But A and F aren't changing speed relative to each other.

That doesn't answer my question.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

This is why light travel time distance is not just (d_emit)(1+z).

You have to add up the slices of (1+z) for all z's up till your target z. IOW, the sum of the time elapsed around A (ie,z=0), and around B, and around C, etc.

But

∫₀^z (1 + z') dz' = z + ½ z²

which contradicts various Helland equations. How do you account for those discrepancies?

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by steenkh

If all you are trying to say is that the beginning is before the end, you have a strange way of saying it. Usually, time is not measured from the end of an event, but from the beginning.

What is the purpose of this reformulation?

It continued:

---

Therefore, at the end of the event, the emission of photon 1 is one second in the past.

When the postulate is applied and time is dilated, photon 1 was actually emitted two seconds in the past.

---

The "paradox" arises when you dilate the time of when photon 2 was in the air by itself.

If you dilate all the times, including when photon 1 was in the air by itself, the flight times for both photons are equal and the paradox is resolved.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

But

∫₀^z (1 + z') dz' = z + ½ z²

which contradicts various Helland equations. How do you account for those discrepancies?

Here's what I have:

dt = 0
dts = []
for (let z = 0; z<=20; z+=0.1) {
    d = z/(1+z) * 13200    
    dts.push({z: z, dt: dt})
    dt += 1 - 0.0000756 * d
}

If you plot the z's and dt's, you should get the light travel time distance.

It looks like the slope of this line is equal to the area under the curve for z/(1+z)*c/H₀.