I don't think space is expanding.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
No, Mike, you are not doing it right. Repeating the assertion won't make it so. You really don't understand what dt is, at all.
Click to expand...

If dt means something else in that equation, than in my program, that's fine.

I just noticed it in the equation after the fact.

But using the photon's "perceived" time based on its redshift resolves the issue for Fermat's least principle too.
 
theprestige said:
Anybody can write code that draws pretty pictures. I'm asking you for your mathematical model of reality, that yields reality-describing code as a by-product.

(No, not reality as you need it to be in order for your hypothesis to be true. Reality as it is actually observed, with which all true hypotheses are consistent.)
Click to expand...

Then that would be

dt' = dt / (1 + D/H)2
Where d1' is the time experienced by a photon and dt is the experienced by an observer, D is the distance traveled since the photon was emitted, and H is 25 Gly.

If that's not what you're looking for, please give an example of what you're looking for.
 
Mike Helland said:
If dt means something else in that equation, than in my program, that's fine.
Click to expand...

No, Mike, it isn't fine. dt is an essential part of the integral that you're using as justification for this. It only makes sense if it means what it means in the integral.

I just noticed it in the equation after the fact.
Click to expand...

Wow. That's even worse than I expected. You're using an equation to justify your work, and not only do you not understand it (I knew that right away), but you didn't even pay attention to it. That's just pathetic.

But using the photon's "perceived" time based on its redshift resolves the issue for Fermat's least principle too.
Click to expand...

No, Mike, it doesn't resolve anything. And you cannot use the photon's "perceived" time, for multiple reasons, starting with the fact that dt is ACTUAL time in the reference frame you're doing the calculation in. You don't get to just swap reference frames on a whim, and this isn't even the right way to handle different reference frames. Everything about this is wrong.
 
Mike Helland said:
If you say so.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it's not just me. Everyone who understands calculus knows exactly what you did wrong there.

You are wasting your time trying to develop physics theories when you don't even know any physics. And this isn't the way to learn either. It's past the point of being interesting and is now just pathetic.
 
Ziggurat said:
Like I said, it's not just me. Everyone who understands calculus knows exactly what you did wrong there.

You are wasting your time trying to develop physics theories when you don't even know any physics. And this isn't the way to learn either. It's past the point of being interesting and is now just pathetic.
Click to expand...

What I did "wrong" is assume that the photon's experience of time isn't constant over infinite distance, and applied that to two models of reflection that otherwise are "right".

Even if this interpretation of the redshifts is all wrong, I'm cool with that.

The redshift-distance relation z=(D/H)2 + 2D/H is still an empirically faithful shortcut to an accelerating universe.
 
Mike Helland said:
What I did "wrong" is assume that the photon's experience of time isn't constant over infinite distance
Click to expand...

No, Mike. That isn't what you did wrong. The fact that you still can't recognize it even after people tell you is proof of your profound ignorance of math. Seriously, this isn't even just a physics mistake here, it's a math one. You're doing the math wrong. Because you don't have even the first clue about the math. You don't know any calculus, do you? You've never actually taken a calculus class, have you?
 
Ziggurat said:
No, Mike. That isn't what you did wrong. The fact that you still can't recognize it even after people tell you is proof of your profound ignorance of math. Seriously, this isn't even just a physics mistake here, it's a math one. You're doing the math wrong. Because you don't have even the first clue about the math. You don't know any calculus, do you? You've never actually taken a calculus class, have you?
Click to expand...


I made the model and it shows what you said it would.

Then I made a change to the model, and it shows what I said it would.

Here's the difference:

Code: 
var dd = Math.sqrt(Math.pow(photon.dx * photon.dt , 2) + Math.pow(photon.dy * photon.dt , 2))  / photon.wavelength
if (testHypothesis) {
    dd = dd * photon.dt
}
photon.dial +=  dd

If the photon is experiencing time normally, it does what you said.

If it's experiencing time slowly relative to an observer, it does what I said.

I don't expect you to accept that.
 
Mike Helland said:
What I did "wrong" is assume that the photon's experience of time isn't constant over infinite distance
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that. Assuming something unorthodox and seeing where it leads is a good start to a good thought experiment.

The problem is you're not doing a good thought experiment, and you're not willing to follow where the premise leads you.
 
theprestige said:
Nothing wrong with that. Assuming something unorthodox and seeing where it leads is a good start to a good thought experiment.

The problem is you're not doing a good thought experiment, and you're not willing to follow where the premise leads you.
Click to expand...

The premise was that if photons weren't just moving slow (as in a medium) but experiencing time differently, I'd get a favorable result. And I did.

I'm not expecting you to agree.
 
Mike Helland said:
I made the model and it shows what you said it would.

Then I made a change to the model, and it shows what I said it would.
Click to expand...

You threw together some computer code which has no justification. You claimed you were doing Feynman integrals, but you weren't doing integrals at all. That's not just some change to the model. That's Calvinball.

If the photon is experiencing time normally, it does what you said.

If it's experiencing time slowly relative to an observer, it does what I said.

I don't expect you to accept that.
Click to expand...

Again, that isn't even the problem. The problem is that what you're doing isn't even integration.
 
Ziggurat said:
You threw together some computer code which has no justification. You claimed you were doing Feynman integrals, but you weren't doing integrals at all. That's not just some change to the model. That's Calvinball.

Again, that isn't even the problem. The problem is that what you're doing isn't even integration.
Click to expand...

Fine.

And how about the classical model of Snell's law, using the least time principle?

That was fine with you until I added the one of line of code that represents my hypothesis.
 
Mike Helland said:
Fine.

And how about the classical model of Snell's law, using the least time principle?

That was fine with you until I added the one of line of code that represents my hypothesis.
Click to expand...

You copied other people's work without understanding what they did or why. And yes, it still worked as long as you didn't change anything, since you don't need to understand something to simply copy it.

But because you didn't understand what they did, your change didn't make any sense. And it's wrong.

Everything you do is always wrong, without fail.
 
Mike Helland said:
Excuse me?
Click to expand...

You aren't excused.

Ok. You've said that like 350 times now.
Click to expand...

And it's as true now as the first time I said it. Why would you ever be right, when you refuse to learn?

I think we're done here.
Click to expand...

Your profound ignorance of the topic, your refusal to learn, and your arrogance in assuming you have special insight into a subject you have never even studied made this the inevitable outcome.
 
More abysmal ignorance of high school level science

Mike Helland said:
Yep....
Click to expand...
Missed his reply ignoring his continued abuse of high school level science.
10 March 2021: Mike Helland makes a high school science error (Therefore "c - c/(1+HD)2" is a high school science error).
10 March 2021: The total idiocy that he can change the units of Hubble's constant!

And adding more abysmal ignorance of high school level science with "z = HD2 + 2HD" which is adding two things with different units :eye-poppi!
 
Last edited:
More ignorance of science and relativity (observers have clocks) from Mike Helland

Mike Helland said:
...then I gave the photon a clock.
Click to expand...
21 March 2021: More ignorance of science and relativity (observers have clocks) from Mike Helland

It is observers who make measurements who are assigned clocks. This ignorance is abysmal since he wrote ignorance about null geodesics on his website and was corrected. Anything travelling at the speed of light such as an observer with a clock travelling along with a photon, measures all distances to be zero (thus the null in null geo geodesic!) and there is no defined proper time.
15 March 2021: The "General Relativity" section in his web page is nonsensical.
18 March 2021: Repeat of ignorance about null geodesics from Mike Helland.
19 March 2021: Ignorance about SR from Mike Helland (the twin paradox)
19 March 2021: An ignorant "Bob and Alice have a plan" scenario from Mike Helland.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom