I don't think space is expanding.

Status
Not open for further replies.
hecd2 said:
Mike did not mean to suggest
velocity = velocity / (1 + distance/distance)2is an equation. He was answering your challenge about units, so he was demonstrating that if the constant he calls H (which is not the Hubble constant) has units of length the thing is dimensionally balanced. He doesn’t know that we’d write that as:

L/T = L/T /(1+L/L) ^2. It’s just a dimension check not an equation. His equation can’t be right for many physical reasons but it’s not dimensionally screwed up.
Click to expand...

As for myself, I often find it quite difficult to figure out what Mike is trying to say since he is often so very wrong about so many things.

In any event, if he wishes to re-word/re-phrase/correct his original posting, then I hope that he does so.
 
hecd2 said:
To Mike: H is the symbol we use for the Hubble constant. It is generally given in km s-1 Mpc-1 and has dimensions of 1/T. If you want to talk about some other constant which has different dimensions, say, L, then use a different symbol.
Click to expand...

Ok. How about H0? Is that taken?
 
Mike Helland said:
z = (D/H)2 + 2D/H
Click to expand...
It is still a high school science error. Hubble's constant H or H0 has the units of inverse time.
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!
21 March 2021: A deeply ignorant "v = c/(1+ D/H}2 fantasy from Mike Helland (even ignorant about his own fantasies :eye-poppi!).
There is a suggestion that his "H" is not Hubble's constant. This is yet another high school science level error! When a new equation is stated, what it contains must be defined. This is especially true when it uses common symbols. H in cosmology is Hubble's constant. He has been sung H as Hubble's constant since the start of this thread (v=HD!). He uses H as Hubble's constant on his web page.

ETA: If H is not Hubble's constant, he is doing bad curve fitting. Making up equations unrelated to physics or cosmology and literally seeing if they fit supernova data.

The pit of ignorance, errors and fabatsies that Mike Helland is digging himself into gets deeper.
ETA: 4 March 2021: Mike Helland still cannot understand Wavespeed = frequency * wavelength is for waves in a medium [this is not light!].
15 March 2021: The "General Relativity" section in his web page is nonsensical.
ETA: 15 March 2021: An ignorant "Quantum Mechanics" section (does not know what a Feynman diagram is!).
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.
21 March 2021: More ignorance of science and relativity (observers have clocks) from Mike Helland
21 March 2021: An idiotic "Snell's law and v=c-HD" web page by Mike Helland as anyone reading "Snell's law and v=c-HD"" knows.
21 March 2021: More idiocy about a "Feynman solution" and photon clocks from Mike Helland.
 
Last edited:
Mike Helland said:
Ok. How about H0? Is that taken?
Click to expand...
Of course. That is the current Hubble constant, the measure that is under tension and about which you have been posting for three months. How could you not know that? Leave H altogether.
 
Reality Check said:
It is still a high school science error. Hubble's constant H or H0 has the units of inverse time.
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!
21 March 2021: A deeply ignorant "v = c/(1+ D/H}2 fantasy from Mike Helland (even ignorant about his own fantasies :eye-poppi!).
There is a suggestion that his "H" is not Hubble's constant. This is yet another high school science level error! When a new equation is stated, what it contains must be defined. This is especially true when it uses common symbols. H in cosmology is Hubble's constant. He has been sung H as Hubble's constant since the start of this thread (v=HD!). He uses H as Hubble's constant on his web page.

ETA: If H is not Hubble's constant, he is doing bad curve fitting. Making up equations unrelated to physics or cosmology and literally seeing if they fit supernova data.

The pit of ignorance, errors and fabatsies that Mike Helland is digging himself into gets deeper.
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.
21 March 2021: More ignorance of science and relativity (observers have clocks) from Mike Helland
21 March 2021: An idiotic "Snell's law and v=c-HD" web page by Mike Helland as anyone reading "Snell's law and v=c-HD"" knows.
21 March 2021: More idiocy about a "Feynman solution" and photon clocks from Mike Helland.
Click to expand...

Here's a link to the paper if anyone wants to compare what's written here with what I'm actually proposing.

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/
 
A web page making his error explicit and deep ignorance of relativity

Mike Helland said:
Here's a link to the paper if anyone wants to compare what's written here with what I'm actually proposing.

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/
Click to expand...
A web page making his error explicit :jaw-dropp!
Hubble's constant usually has units of km/s/Mpc, which works out to units of inverse time. Those units no longer work for v=c/(1+HD). This requires new units that are of inverse distance
Click to expand...
He is doing the high school science error of changing the units of Hubble's constant. This makes his "H" not Hubble's constant which he still cannot unerstand.
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!
21 March 2021: A deeply ignorant "v = c/(1+ D/H}2 fantasy from Mike Helland (even ignorant about his own fantasies :eye-poppi!).

ETA: A web page with his "A similar resolution can be added to Feynman's path integral in quantum electrodynamics"/"Reflection in quantum electrodynamics" idiocy when he is abysmally ignorant about quantum electrodynamics and especially "Feynman's path integral". There are links to a stupid simulation showing patterns that mean nothing. More idiocy is that his simulation page source has nothing obviously related to QED in its source :eek:.
There is no "Feynman's path integral". There is Feynman's path integral formulation where to get from 1 quantum state to another, there is a sum over every possible path between the states. There are an infinite number of these paths. For a free particle such as a photon travelling through vacuum there is an explicit solution. For a photon bouncing off a mirror all of the paths are needed, phases means many cancel and we get reflection.

The pit of ignorance, errors and fantasies that Mike Helland is digging himself into gets deeper.
23 March 2021: Ignorance of relativity from Mike Helland (photons have undefined proper time).
He writes "The photon has a clock in relativity, but it always reads zero.". The photons actual has undefined proper time because there is a division by zero! Proper time is the integral of dt over the Lorentz factor as a function of t). The Lorentz factor is 1/0 when v = c.
It is distances that are always zero according to a photon.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
A web page making his error explicit :jaw-dropp!

He is doing the high school science error of changing the units of Hubble's constant. This makes his "H" not Hubble's constant which he still cannot unerstand.
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!
21 March 2021: A deeply ignorant "v = c/(1+ D/H}2 fantasy from Mike Helland (even ignorant about his own fantasies :eye-poppi!).

ETA: A web page with his "A similar resolution can be added to Feynman's path integral in quantum electrodynamics"/"Reflection in quantum electrodynamics" idiocy when he is abysmally ignorant about quantum electrodynamics and especially "Feynman's path integral". There are links to a stupid simulation showing patterns that mean nothing. More idiocy is that his simulation page source has nothing obviously related to QED in its source :eek:.
There is no "Feynman's path integral". There is Feynman's path integral formulation where to get from 1 quantum state to another, there is a sum over every possible path between the states. There are an infinite number of these paths. For a free particle such as a photon travelling through vacuum there is an explicit solution. For a photon bouncing off a mirror all of the paths are needed, phases means many cancel and we get reflection.

The pit of ignorance, errors and fabatsies that Mike Helland is digging himself into gets deeper.
Click to expand...

And here is the link to that page:

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/other/reflection_nm.htm

Anyone can look at that and judge for themselves.
 
List the Feynman path integrals used in your simulation, Mike Helland

Mike Helland said:
Anyone can look at that and judge for themselves.
Click to expand...
Yes they can. They will see stupid simulations with pretty patterns. They will read an idiotic "Feynman path integrals" title when there is no apparent use of Feynman path integrals. But lets make sure.
22 March 2021: List the Feynman path integrals used in your simulation, Mike Helland.
That will be the code in your web page and the matching equation(s) in a QED source (textbook, Wikipedia, etc.)

They have already read you making it explicit that you are ignorant or in denial of dimensional analysis taught in high school. Hubble's constant has units of 1/T (inverse time). Anything that does not have units of 1/T is not Hubble's constant. Thus
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!
21 March 2021: A deeply ignorant "v = c/(1+ D/H}2 fantasy from Mike Helland (even ignorant about his own fantasies :eye-poppi!).

The pit of ignorance, errors and fantasies that Mike Helland is digging himself into gets deeper.
23March 2021: Ignorance of relativity from Mike Helland (photons have undefined proper time).

23March 2021: A "The Geometry of Spacetime" section with no geometry :eye-poppi by Mike Helland.
The geometry of spacetime is not set by a fantasy about the speed of photons or a fantasy that photons can magically "veer off of the null geodesic" (massless particles always follow the null geodesic as he writes above this!).
The geometry of space time is geometry! Special relativity has a geometry with a distance between points that includes -ct. GR is more general of course.
 
Last edited:
Mike Helland said:
I know. That's more of an odometer modulo wavelength.

In any case, photon's need clocks.

The hypothesis is no longer falsified by observation. It's just incongruent with your assumed premises.
Click to expand...

I'd like to understand how a clock's hands can move when the elapsed time is zero.
 
Roboramma said:
I'd like to understand how a clock's hands can move when the elapsed time is zero.
Click to expand...
They are not clocks. They never were clocks. In spite of the fact that Mike referred to them as clock thingies.

Now he has solved the problem to his own satisfaction (but no-one else's) by applying an unphysical fudge factor that exactly compensates for the consequence of the erroneous proposition that the speed of light is a function of distance travelled. He gets the right answer by deliberately applying an error that exactly compensates for the consequences of his original error. And that is what he came over all arrogant about. At which point I realised my time would be better spent ironing my socks.
 
Roboramma said:
I'd like to understand how a clock's hands can move when the elapsed time is zero.
Click to expand...

There's two things going n here How to model reflection in classical physics and quantum mechanics. Both are non-relativistic.

The solution is rather simple, and easier to understand in the context of the least time principle Each photon experiences time different depending on how long its been traveling. At the end of the simulation, check to see how much time has elapsed on each clock. The clock with the lowest time wins. That ends up being the photon in the middle.

In a relativistic universe, it works somewhat backwards. Instead of the photon's clock falling off from absolute time, in relativity, the photon's clock starts at a stand still, and increases with distance.
 
hecd2 said:
They are not clocks. They never were clocks. In spite of the fact that Mike referred to them as clock thingies.

Now he has solved the problem to his own satisfaction (but no-one else's) by applying an unphysical fudge factor that exactly compensates for the consequence of the erroneous proposition that the speed of light is a function of distance travelled. He gets the right answer by deliberately applying an error that exactly compensates for the consequences of his original error. And that is what he came over all arrogant about. At which point I realised my time would be better spent ironing my socks.
Click to expand...
Mike, how does it feel, to have your idea debunked by someone who died six hundred years before you even thought it up?
 
Mike Helland shows that he is deeply ignorant of relativistic QED

Mike Helland said:
There's two things going n here How to model reflection in classical physics and quantum mechanics. Both are non-relativistic.
Click to expand...
23 March 2021: Mike Helland shows that he is deeply ignorant of QED which is relativistic :jaw-dropp!

The path integral formulation he claims to be using is relativistic. Quantum electrodynamics that he implies he is using is relativistic. Quantum mechanics in general has been relativistic since 1928 and the Dirac equation which was the first step toward QED :eye-poppi!

Still no evidence that he is using anything he claims to be using other than statements of ignorance debunking the claim!
22 March 2021: List the Feynman path integrals used in your simulation, Mike Helland.
 
Roboramma said:
I'd like to understand how a clock's hands can move when the elapsed time is zero.
Click to expand...
As hecd2 points out, Mike Helland is ignorantly obsessing with cartoons of arrows that turn. These are not clock hands.
Quantum mechanics has wave functions. These are mappings of the possible states of a system onto complex numbers. Complex number can be written as a radius r and an angle called a phase. The phases can be written as arrows. It is phases that are in the cartoons.
 
theprestige said:
Mike, how does it feel, to have your idea debunked by someone who died six hundred years before you even thought it up?
Click to expand...

If cosmologically redshifted photons experience time different than the rest of the universe, than taking that into account, Fermat's last time principle chooses the middle photon.

Do the math and see. Give each photon a clock, and count photons before the mirror not as having half the velocity, but counting half the time.

fltp.gif
 
Last edited:
Mike Helland said:
If cosmologically redshifted photons experience time different than the rest of the universe, than taking that into account, Fermat's last time principle chooses the middle photon.
Click to expand...

And if pigs had wings, then they might fly.

Do the math and see.
Click to expand...

Considering that you continually fail to understand math yourself, then you are not in a position to tell other people that math will validate your various schemes.

Give each photon a clock, and count photons before the mirror not as having half the velocity, but counting half the time.
Click to expand...

This statement makes no sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom