Bigbang, a fantasy?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 7 Jan 2010 01:04 "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hi3lhi$qv6$5(a)news.eternal-september.org... > ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:15:09 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:32:36 -0800 (PST), mluttgens >>>> <mluttgens(a)orange.fr> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>See http://www.spacetelescope.org/new/htmeheic1007.html >>>>> >>>>>Marcel Luttgens >>>> >>>> There was no BB. Light loses energy as it travels. >>> >>>Well it makes sense if you don't accept relativity, there's no way you'd >>>accept any part of modern cosmology. >> >> mine is the most modern > [...]
From: Androcles on 7 Jan 2010 01:04 "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hi3qea$t2o$4(a)news.eternal-september.org... > ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:48:02 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:15:09 -0800, eric gisse >>>> <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:32:36 -0800 (PST), mluttgens >>>>>> <mluttgens(a)orange.fr> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>See http://www.spacetelescope.org/new/htmeheic1007.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Marcel Luttgens >>>>>> >>>>>> There was no BB. Light loses energy as it travels. >>>>> >>>>>Well it makes sense if you don't accept relativity, there's no way >>>>>you'd >>>>>accept any part of modern cosmology. >>>> >>>> mine is the most modern >>> >>>It isn't even yours, dipshit. Like nearly every idea you've ever had, you >>>spout about a version of a theory that was PROFOUNDLY squished many years >>>ago. Tired light is old news, and just as wrong as ballistic theory. >>> >>>But since you can not even come to terms with the basic observations that >>>falsify ballistic theory, there's no way in hell you'd be able to wrap >>>your mind around the observations of expansion that disprove tired light. >> >> gawd, you say some silly things. > [...]
From: Androcles on 7 Jan 2010 02:34 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:pk0bk59jk0c1fn2ivq95qt2bvqtnggrnsl(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 06:04:31 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> > wrote: > >> >>"eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:hi3lhi$qv6$5(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:15:09 -0800, eric gisse >>>> <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:32:36 -0800 (PST), mluttgens >>>>>> <mluttgens(a)orange.fr> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>See http://www.spacetelescope.org/new/htmeheic1007.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Marcel Luttgens >>>>>> >>>>>> There was no BB. Light loses energy as it travels. >>>>> >>>>>Well it makes sense if you don't accept relativity, there's no way >>>>>you'd >>>>>accept any part of modern cosmology. >>>> >>>> mine is the most modern >>> >>[...] > > Just because I told inertial to shove a cow turd in her mouth to shut her > up > doesn't mean you had to do it too. > What does the inert one have to do with me snipping gisse? You are only trading byte-sized flames with bit-sized shitheads anyway, you aren't discussing anything interesting with any of them.
From: John Kennaugh on 7 Jan 2010 06:42 Androcles wrote: > >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >news:i1u9k5h9o9vo71snujj5q2j65ai8qape0b(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:32:36 -0800 (PST), mluttgens <mluttgens(a)orange.fr> >> wrote: >> >>>See http://www.spacetelescope.org/new/htmeheic1007.html >>> >>>Marcel Luttgens >> >> There was no BB. Light loses energy as it travels. >> >Nonsense. Light spreads its energy over an ever-increasing area, none is >lost. >If I fire six rounds at you and only one hits, you "lost" five of them. Except where vast distance is involved light gets fainter but does not change colour. "Spreading over an ever increasing area" is "getting fainter". Using your analogy if the bullet is fired in outer space the impact energy of each bullet (analogous to colour) will not vary with distance although the number of bullets hitting you may. If the bullets are fired in air then friction would reduce their energy with distance analogous to red shift. You have perhaps 4 scenarios. 1/ a photon doesn't hit anything and arrives as it set out. 2/ a photon hits something - end of photon. 3/ a photon interacts with something causing a loss of energy. 4/ a photon interacts with something causing no loss of energy. We can ignore 2 we have nothing to observe. The question then comes down to "can a photon travel vast distances through space without interacting with anything" or put another way what percentage would come into category 1. Fox suggested extinction effects due to interstellar particles. Whether you believe in the extinction effect or not if Fox's guesstimate is anywhere near correct it suggests that all photons are likely to have encountered a matter particle by the time they have travelled 1 ly so for distances where red shift is noticeable we can rule out 1 and we are left with 3 and 4. I see no reason why all interactions should be loss less so even if some are scenario 4 it would not rule out the "tired light" explanation. However it depends not only on the validity of 3 which might be considered in itself a certainty, but on an interaction where the loss of energy is minute and near constant. -- John Kennaugh
From: Androcles on 7 Jan 2010 07:40
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:yqX+C7HNicRLFwar(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk... > Androcles wrote: >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:i1u9k5h9o9vo71snujj5q2j65ai8qape0b(a)4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:32:36 -0800 (PST), mluttgens <mluttgens(a)orange.fr> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>See http://www.spacetelescope.org/new/htmeheic1007.html >>>> >>>>Marcel Luttgens >>> >>> There was no BB. Light loses energy as it travels. >>> >>Nonsense. Light spreads its energy over an ever-increasing area, none is >>lost. >>If I fire six rounds at you and only one hits, you "lost" five of them. > > Except where vast distance is involved light gets fainter but does not > change colour. "Spreading over an ever increasing area" is "getting > fainter". Inverse square law (or one of them), together with E = h(nu). Star emits N photons per unit of time, omnidirectionally. At a distance of 1 string, M photons fall on one square eyeball in one unit of time. At a distance of 2 strings, M/4 photons fall on one square eyeball in one unit of time. At a distance of 4 strings, M/16 photons fall on one square eyeball in one unit of time. At a distance of 5 strings, only one photon falls on one square eyeball in one unit of time. At a distance of 6 strings, only one photon falls on one square eyeball and it takes more than one unit of time for it to happen, so the exposure time has to be increased. But at 7 strings the star is so faint it can only be seen as part of galaxy, and stars that are part of galaxies are circling. That means the light they emit is travelling at c+v as they approach and c-v as they recede. Being 7 strings away, the fast light emitted later catches up with the slow light emitted earlier, like this: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF For most of the time, most of the stars are Wilson-Sekerin time expanded and red-shifted. (Wilson saw it before I did and Sekerin knew about it.) Occasionally the star will appear to go nova as the blue shifted photons arrive, but this doesn't last long. > Using your analogy if the bullet is fired in outer space the impact energy > of each bullet (analogous to colour) will not vary with distance although > the number of bullets hitting you may. The bullets are from a machine gun mounted on a crank. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Engine.gif If you are far enough away a cluster of bullets will arrive in bursts and then there will be a lull in the rate of slow bullet arrival. > If the bullets are fired in air then friction would reduce their energy > with distance analogous to red shift. > > You have perhaps 4 scenarios. > 1/ a photon doesn't hit anything and arrives as it set out. > 2/ a photon hits something - end of photon. > 3/ a photon interacts with something causing a loss of energy. > 4/ a photon interacts with something causing no loss of energy. > 5/ a photon's speed is relative to the source. > We can ignore 2 we have nothing to observe. > The question then comes down to "can a photon travel vast distances > through space without interacting with anything" or put another way what > percentage would come into category 1. > > Fox suggested extinction effects due to interstellar particles. Whether > you believe in the extinction effect or not if Fox's guesstimate is > anywhere near correct it suggests that all photons are likely to have > encountered a matter particle by the time they have travelled 1 ly so for > distances where red shift is noticeable we can rule out 1 and we are left > with 3 and 4. I see no reason why all interactions should be loss less so > even if some are scenario 4 it would not rule out the "tired light" > explanation. However it depends not only on the validity of 3 which might > be considered in itself a certainty, but on an interaction where the loss > of energy is minute and near constant. > We can ignore 1,2,3 and 4, the logical answer is 5. Even with its false colour, this image doesn't show Hubble's red shift for all galaxies. http://harleyk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/HubbleDeepFieldL.jpg I conclude Hubble was cherry-picking his galaxies to suit his theory. The universe is infinite, the big bonk is a fantasy. |