I don't think space is expanding.

[Reformed Offlian]

sin theta_2 / sin theta_1 = v_2 / (v_1 + H * D)

Or just reset D to 0 when you move media and that works too.

That's not a derivation, that's just your proposed revision of the formula. How do you *derive* it? Specifically, why are we adding H*D to v_1? What's the theoretical rationale for that? Apart from the obvious: "Mike needs it to get his idea out of this specific problem?"

 

[Mike Helland]

Yes.

What makes you think that moving at less than c in a vacuum would exempt light from Snell's law?

Because if we were to assume that we can calculate the density of a medium based on how fast light travels through it, we would get the wrong answer.

Doesn't it assume a 1 to 1 ratio for velocity of light of medium density?

As in two different densities shouldn't predict the same velocity?

 

[Mike Helland]

That's not a derivation, that's just your proposed revision of the formula. How do you *derive* it?

I'd have to get back to you on that one.

In any case, you're treating cosmologically red-shifted photons as traveling through a medium, and that's not how my model treats them.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Even light moving at less than c in a vacuum?

Yes. v_1 is v_1. Nothing about what medium, if any, the wave is travelling through.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I'd have to get back to you on that one.

In any case, you're treating cosmologically red-shifted photons as traveling through a medium, and that's not how my model treats them.

No, I'm simply treating them as traveling with a given velocity, which is all that Snell's law references. The idea that there's something magically different about their passing through a medium is your gratuitous addition.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Because if we were to assume that we can calculate the density of a medium based on how fast light travels through it, we would get the wrong answer.

Doesn't it assume a 1 to 1 ratio for velocity of light of medium density?

Nope.

For example, hydrogen gas at a given temperature and pressure is less dense than helium gas, but has a higher refractive index.

For a *given* material, there tends to be a strong relationship between density and RI, but even then I don't think it's always linear.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Ok, change v_1 to V_1 + H * D.

Where H * D = 0, nothing changes.

Where there is cosmological red-shift of a photon, entering a medium resets its v to c.

Sorry to jump in late, but you should realize that, at a minimum, your theory invalidates Maxwell's equations, and does so at a very fundamental level.

Consider that, if we think of light as an electromagnetic wave, it consists of both electric and magnetic fields which oscillate 90 degrees out of phase. This can only happen in a consistent fashion when the velocity of propagation (c in a vacuum) is equal to 1 over the square root of the product of free space permeability and permittivity.

If your theory is correct, space is filled with EM radiation travelling at a wide variety of speeds. Every star with a different redshift produces light which has a different value for c, and over quite a broad range, too. This in turn implies that there is no such thing as a unique value for permittivity and permeability. However, such unique values have been measured repeatedly in the laboratory, and to far greater precision than stellar radiation would allow (Oh, those pesky high-z objects!).

So, unless you are able to extend your theory to explain how space can have a broad range of values for permeability and permittivity, I'm afraid that you're going to have give up on it for a while.

On another note, you need to be aware that everything is a medium. Even intergalactic space is not a pure vacuum, so "entering a medium resets its v to c" is pretty meaning-free. You would need to establish a threshold of density at which a vacuum ceases being a vacuum - and justify it. Numerically.

Good luck.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Sorry to jump in late, but you should realize that, at a minimum, your theory invalidates Maxwell's equations, and does so at a very fundamental level.

Consider that, if we think of light as an electromagnetic wave, it consists of both electric and magnetic fields which oscillate 90 degrees out of phase. This can only happen in a consistent fashion when the velocity of propagation (c in a vacuum) is equal to 1 over the square root of the product of free space permeability and permittivity.

If your theory is correct, space is filled with EM radiation travelling at a wide variety of speeds. Every star with a different redshift produces light which has a different value for c, and over quite a broad range, too. This in turn implies that there is no such thing as a unique value for permittivity and permeability. However, such unique values have been measured repeatedly in the laboratory, and to far greater precision than stellar radiation would allow (Oh, those pesky high-z objects!).

So, unless you are able to extend your theory to explain how space can have a broad range of values for permeability and permittivity, I'm afraid that you're going to have give up on it for a while.

You're responding to a guy who doesn't believe in conservation of momentum; I don't think round-filing Maxwell's equations is going to give him pause.

On another note, you need to be aware that everything is a medium. Even intergalactic space is not a pure vacuum, so "entering a medium resets its v to c" is pretty meaning-free. You would need to establish a threshold of density at which a vacuum ceases being a vacuum - and justify it. Numerically.
Good luck.

He ignored my earlier question about how extinction figures in his "model"; I'm not sure he knows what that is.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'd have to get back to you on that one.

In any case, you're treating cosmologically red-shifted photons as traveling through a medium, and that's not how my model treats them.

There are all sorts of oddities to your model that I don't think you've thought through.

For example, what does a photon traveling at 0.5c look like to an observer traveling at 0.5c? It's stationary in their frame, but it was also emitted by a source that was less than 1 D away.

Or how can a photon even know how far away it comes from? That information is supposedly coded in its current velocity (in which reference frame?), but if photons can have different velocities, why are they only ever emitted with one velocity? That also breaks time reversal symmetry, since a process which allows photons to be absorbed at < c should also be able to emit them at < c.

I don't think it's even possible to make this theory even self-consistent, let alone consistent with experiment.

 

[Mike Helland]

Sorry to jump in late, but you should realize that, at a minimum, your theory invalidates Maxwell's equations, and does so at a very fundamental level.

True, and Newton's first law of motion.

Everyone tends to think I'm some relativity crank.

I'm just following the hypothesis. Newton's first law may not be true to infinity.

Do you have evidence its true to infinity?

We have evidence of red-shifting.

Every star with a different redshift produces light which has a different value for c, and over quite a broad range, too.

Stars? If they're affected by the Hubble flow.

In my model stars and galaxies still have peculiar motion that leads to velocity shifts.

Cosmological redshifts are posited to be their own phenomenon.

So, unless you are able to extend your theory to explain how space can have a broad range of values for permeability and permittivity, I'm afraid that you're going to have give up on it for a while.

Instead of an objects light cone defined by c, it's defined by c - H * D.

Hubble's constant is built into the light cone.

On another note, you need to be aware that everything is a medium. Even intergalactic space is not a pure vacuum, so "entering a medium resets its v to c" is pretty meaning-free. You would need to establish a threshold of density at which a vacuum ceases being a vacuum - and justify it. Numerically.
.

True, we can tell from Lyman lines when far away light hit clouds of hydrogen for examples.

 

[Mike Helland]

For example, what does a photon traveling at 0.5c look like to an observer traveling at 0.5c? It's stationary in their frame, but it was also emitted by a source that was less than 1 D away.

What does a 1c photon look like to an observer at rest?

I've never seen a photon. Have you?

My model only gives the values to photons its observed. Not in flight.

Or how can a photon even know how far away it comes from?

It's stored in the d variable of the model.

That information is supposedly coded in its current velocity (in which reference frame?),

Actually, velocity is a function of distance, v = c - H * D, not the other way around.

but if photons can have different velocities, why are they only ever emitted with one velocity? That also breaks time reversal symmetry, since a process which allows photons to be absorbed at < c should also be able to emit them at < c.

I've never seen time go backwards either.

 

[Mike Helland]

No, I'm simply treating them as traveling with a given velocity, which is all that Snell's law references. The idea that there's something magically different about their passing through a medium is your gratuitous addition.

The difference between a vacuum and a medium matters. (Rimshot!)

In QM, a photon always travels at c, even in a medium, it's just spends time in between absorption and emission not traveling.

 

[Ziggurat]

What does a 1c photon look like to an observer at rest?

Like a photon traveling at 1c.

If a photon is stationary... what is it?

I've never seen a photon. Have you?

That's literally not true. Photons are the only thing you ever see.

My model only gives the values to photons its observed. Not in flight.

Not to be rude, but if your model can't handle photons in flight, your model is garbage.

It's stored in the d variable of the model.

A model is not reality. Information in reality has to be stored in actual properties of things. What property of the photon contains the information about how far it's traveled? Its current velocity? That doesn't actually work, because unless its current velocity is equal to c, then its velocity isn't invariant. And that introduces internal contradictions into your theory.

Actually, velocity is a function of distance, v = c - H * D, not the other way around.

Doesn't work. Neither D nor v will be invariant. They will both depend on reference frame. And they will both depend on reference frame differently, in a manner that makes consistency impossible.

I've never seen time go backwards either.

It's not necessary to. It suffices to simply note that individual interactions are reversible.

 

[Mike Helland]

Like a photon traveling at 1c.

I see my laptop.

I see a piano.

I see a space heater.

Don't see any photons.

That's literally not true. Photons are the only thing you ever see.

I've never seen one. I think they literally let us see other things might be more accurate.

Information in reality has to be stored in actual properties of things.

Where is c stored? Where is an electron's mass stored?

It's not necessary to. It suffices to simply note that individual interactions are reversible.

That's great.

But we observe time always going forward. So... I think that's what the model should do.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The difference between a vacuum and a medium matters. (Rimshot!)

This is a claim to be demonstrated. I await your demonstration.

In QM, a photon always travels at c, even in a medium, it's just spends time in between absorption and emission not traveling.

Which means we can add QM to the list of physics that has to be wrong before your model can be right.

ETA: Oh, and speaking of absorption and emission: what role does extinction play in your model?

 

[Mike Helland]

Which means we can add QM to the list of physics that has to be wrong before your model can be right.

Yes, at scales where redshift is observed.

Anything based on Newton's first law of motion holding true to infinity would be wrong at cosmological scales if the hypothesis is right.

To fix the model we give the photon a velocity of c - H * D.

I'm saying the speed of light is based on c and H.

It could be, it's the speed of galaxies that is based on H. It could be, the big bang is right.

It could be, there's actually no such thing as dark energy and/or the expansion of space.

 

[Ziggurat]

I see my laptop.

I see a piano.

I see a space heater.

Don't see any photons.

No. You see photons coming from them, which creates an image which your brain interprets as being them. But it's the photons you actually see. That's why you can't see them in the dark. Those objects are still there, it's the photons which are gone.

Where is c stored?

c doesn't have to be stored. It's a property of spacetime itself, it's not unique to photons.

Where is an electron's mass stored?

An electron's mass is not a variable quantity. Variable quantities need some way of being stored.

That's great.

But we observe time always going forward. So... I think that's what the model should do.

If you watch a video, how can you tell whether it's playing forward or backward? A video of the earth orbiting the sun would look the same either way.

There are some processes where you can tell, namely processes which increase entropy on a macroscopic level. But your photon conversion idea isn't one of them. That's a zero entropy change process. It must be reversible.

 

[Mike Helland]

I don't think the hypothesis would have a different effect on extinction than the expansion of space.

Both in the expanding model and the decelerating model the photon's duration or travel increases (either extra space to cross or not going as fast).

 

[Mike Helland]

You see photons coming from them

What do they look like?

c doesn't have to be stored. It's a property of spacetime itself, it's not unique to photons.

Presumably you have a position in space and a velocity (perhaps you're at rest, v = 0).

Where is that stored?

In your knee caps?

Variable quantities need some way of being stored.

Where is your mass stored?

There are some processes where you can tell, namely processes which increase entropy on a macroscopic level. But your photon conversion idea isn't one of them. That's a zero entropy change process. It must be reversible.

You're saying that if photons lose energy by traveling in space, they should also gain energy by traveling backwards?

We observe redshift. We don't observe systemic blue shifts.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Yes, at scales where redshift is observed.

Anything based on Newton's first law of motion holding true to infinity would be wrong at cosmological scales if the hypothesis is right.

It's not really about scale though, is it? We're not talking about how the light behaves on a scale of billions of lightyears, we're talking about how it behaves right here, in the atmosphere and in our telescopes, depending on what object it comes from. Right here on earth, these things don't work, if we're looking at certain galaxies. Right here on earth, our apparatus doesn't work the way we think it does, if it's pointed at certain galaxies. That's not a question of scale, that's special pleading for an arbitrary set of objects.

ETA: To be more specific, let's consider Snell's law as it applies to the experiment I had suggested. None of the relevant values (angle of refraction, angle of incident, speed of light in a vacuum or in a medium) are outside the *scales* over which Snell's law is known to apply. Not even if you think light coming from the most distant galaxies are only travelling at, say, .01c. Heck, Snell's law works for sound waves. So saying that Snell's law doesn't work at "cosmological scales" doesn't mean anything, unless we're talking about a refracting medium billions of lightyears across or something.