I don't think space is expanding.

[abaddon]

I had never heard about tired light when I came up with this. Here's what happened.

1. I had a little physics engine and I wanted to add expanding space, but I wanted a shortcut.

Of course you wanted a shortcut. Learning the actual physics was too much trouble for you.

2.I figured that expanding space creates increased traveled time.

Through laziness, you invented a simplistic notion out of whole cloth.

3. I figured I could increase travel time by "expanding time"

And shovelled in an ad hoc explaination on the basis that it took you the least possible effort.

4. I figured if distances stay the same, but durations increase, that's just equivalent to slowing down

And thus you decided that the universe must be wrong because you are lazy.

Since a slow photon has so many problems with established physics, then why not frame it as the more basic idea that time expands.

Why not frame it as the pixies putting on the photon brakes?

I believed from the time I was a little kid as far as I can remember that space was expanding up until my early 20's.

You might have heard it someplace, but you certainly didn't understand it nor "believe" it.

Space could be expanding. I just don't believe it 100% like I did when I was a kid.

Because you were too lazy to actual put in the work of learning about it.

The only thing that changed was finding this shortcut, and then seeing cosmology develop the way it has (mature galaxies observed at all observable times, more and more dark energy, finding CMB anomalies, and the Hubble tension).

And that is all you have. A "shortcut" that avoids doing the actual work in favour of making up any darn thing you like.

Well. Let's say 1 million light years. We can start there.

1+z=(1+ 1 Mly / 25 Gly)^2

z = 0.0000800016

Is that measurable?

Shouldn't you know that already?

 

[Mike Helland]

Through laziness, you invented a simplistic notion out of whole cloth.

And over the years, that simplistic notion explains what's actually observed (galaxies too old and too big, the accelerating redshifts) without the stuff that isn't (inflation, and dark energy).

 

[Reality Check]

An ignorant fantasy that his fantasies explain anything from Mike Helland

And over the years, that simplistic notion explains what's actually observed (galaxies too old and too big, the accelerating redshifts) without the stuff that isn't (inflation, and dark energy).

Fantasies and idiotic curve fitting with no valid physics explain nothing. His fantasies still have no galaxy formation or evolution in them. There are some galaxies that are more mature (evolved) than mainstream models say they should be. That is probably an issue with the complex astrophysics used in the mainstream models. His idiocy is that he just moves the age of the universe back which still leaves an expanding universe ! We still have an enormous body of evidence that the universe is expanding (Hubble's law, CMB, etc.) Part of those models is allowing for the frequency of galaxy interactions changing as the universe expands.

7 April 2021: Mike Helland's ignorance about the actually "observed" inflation and dark energy.
His usual ignorance about science. Sceince does not say that we have to see things with our eyes. We can use instruments and deduce the existence of things. A good example is quarks. The evidence is that we will never see an isolated quark but no knowledgeable person doubts that they exist.
Inflation exists because it explains observations of the universe.
Dark energy exists because it explains observations of the universe.

The pit of ignorance, errors and fantasies that Mike Helland is digging himself into gets deeper.
29 March 2021: Mike Helland states his "decelerating photon" fantasy violates the laws of physics.
29 March 2021: Mike Helland starts a new "expanding time hypothesis" fantasy.
30 March 2021: "I am thinking of the CMB as the radiation itself." idiocy from Mike Helland.
31 March 2021: Mike Helland persists in his fantasies about the CMB when he knows it is cosmological.
31 March 2021: "The energy budget of the expanding universe is quite, um, nonsensical" + "excess energy from the beginning of time" fantasies from Mike Helland.
31 March 2021: "This predicts mature galaxies in the "early" universe" idiocy when he has no predictions !
31 March 2021: "inflation has the entire universe popping into existence" ignorance from Mike Helland.
31 March 2021: "What value of H₀ gives you 13.8 billion years" ignorance from Mike Helland
6 April 2021: Some ignorant nonsense about a galaxy with z=11 and a cartoon
6 April 2021: After weeks, Mike Helland is still abysmally ignorant about photons and the CMB !
6 April 2021: An irrelevant display of ignorance and gibberish about GR from Mike Helland.

 

[Ziggurat]

And over the years, that simplistic notion explains what's actually observed (galaxies too old and too big, the accelerating redshifts) without the stuff that isn't (inflation, and dark energy).

No, Mike, it doesn't. You say that galaxies are too old and big for the standard theory, but your theory makes no predictions AT ALL about galaxy size or age.

That isn't better.

And this is true about basically everything. There are countless observations which you can't explain, but since you simply ignore them, you think that's not a problem. It is.

 

[Mike Helland]

No, Mike, it doesn't. You say that galaxies are too old and big for the standard theory, but your theory makes no predictions AT ALL about galaxy size or age.

That isn't better.

Uh, yeah it is.

The current theory is busted.

Assuming our galaxy is 13.6 billion years old, all those ones that look just like it way out there need just as much time to form.

 

[Ziggurat]

Uh, yeah it is.

The current theory is busted.

Assuming our galaxy is 13.6 billion years old, all those ones that look just like it way out there need just as much time to form.

No, Mike. As RC pointed out, you've done some meaningless curve fitting with no actual conceptual model behind it, your theory breaks a whole bunch of other observations, and you can't predict anything other than this one curve fit.

That is so much worse. You are just so clueless about physics that you can't understand all the ways it breaks things.

I really, really can't overemphasize how little you know. The only more remarkable thing is your disinterest in actually learning.

 

[abaddon]

Uh, yeah it is.

The current theory is busted.

Assuming our galaxy is 13.6 billion years old, all those ones that look just like it way out there need just as much time to form.

Nope. All you have is a simplistic computer model which you have tweaked to get the result you wanted. Which seems to change on a whim.

Anyone can do that. Anyone can write code on the basis of an squation that has no basis in fact, and which can be adjusted at will, to produce any curve that might be desired. And all such patterns of dots would be equally useless unless they had some basis in physics. That is what you lack. A basis in physics and science.

Since you style yourself as a programmer, you ought to know that a computer model is only as useful as an actual model which you are attempting to model. You, on the other hand, create a computer model and try to make reality fit the model you created. That is bass ackwards.

 

[Mike Helland]

you've done some meaningless curve fitting

My idea lead me to a novel redshift distance relation that is simple, empirically faithful, and makes future predictions.

If it's stupid but it works, it ain't that stupid.

 

[Mike Helland]

Anyone can do that. Anyone can write code on the basis of an squation that has no basis in fact, and which can be adjusted at will, to produce any curve that might be desired.

With a pretty simple equation and a single static constant I can predict the observed acceleration of redshifts.

Compared to adding arbitrary amounts of dark energy, I'd say that's not too shabby.

I'm not sure exactly that takes using the standard model, but there's definitely more than a single constant involved.

 

[abaddon]

With a pretty simple equation and a single static constant I can predict the observed acceleration of redshifts.

Compared to adding arbitrary amounts of dark energy, I'd say that's not too shabby.

I'm not sure exactly that takes using the standard model, but there's definitely more than a single constant involved.

Baloney. You thought that the "dt" tern in an integral was merely another number to be multiplied by the others. To this day, you still have no idea what it means, or does, or how it works. Add, subtract, multiply and divide is the full extent of your mathematical ability. Calculus is outside your knowledge. You could, of course, learn calculus.

But you won't. You want a "shortcut" so that you do not have to make any effort.

Well, more that a few of us actually did take the trouble to learn calculus, physics, cosmology and so on. Tough luck for you if you are too lazy to do so, but there is nothing stopping you. Only yourself.

Have you figured out why your daft notion of a radius of 13.8 billion light years idea is nonsense yet? Bet you haven't.

 

[Mike Helland]

Baloney. You thought that the "dt" tern in an integral was merely another number to be multiplied by the others. To this day, you still have no idea what it means, or does, or how it works. Add, subtract, multiply and divide is the full extent of your mathematical ability. Calculus is outside your knowledge. You could, of course, learn calculus.

Well, doing it the calculus way, you're looking for the limit as dt approaches zero.

But using small values of dt in a computer program will approximate it just fine.

 

[ferd burfle]

Nope. All you have is a simplistic computer model which you have tweaked to get the result you wanted. Which seems to change on a whim.

Anyone can do that. Anyone can write code on the basis of an squation that has no basis in fact, and which can be adjusted at will, to produce any curve that might be desired. And all such patterns of dots would be equally useless unless they had some basis in physics. That is what you lack. A basis in physics and science.

Since you style yourself as a programmer, you ought to know that a computer model is only as useful as an actual model which you are attempting to model. You, on the other hand, create a computer model and try to make reality fit the model you created. That is bass ackwards.

Exactly. What he has is not a physics engine, but an electronic Etch-A-Sketch.

 

[Mike Helland]

Exactly. What he has is not a physics engine, but an electronic Etch-A-Sketch.

The redshift distance relation is stated in Hubble's law, v=H₀D.

That seemed to be fine from 1929 to 1998, when the acceleration of the redshifts was firmly established.

v=c-HD can mimic Hubble's law.

It can also be changed to v=c/(1+D/H)² and match the new observations.

The expanding universe needs to be dominated dark energy, something we've never seen.

You can believe that if you want.

 

[Ziggurat]

My idea lead me to a novel redshift distance relation that is simple, empirically faithful, and makes future predictions.

If it's stupid but it works, it ain't that stupid.

It doesn't work. It isn't enough to fit one graph, but conflict with everything else.

 

[Mike Helland]

It doesn't work. It isn't enough to fit one graph, but conflict with everything else.

If you think the redshifts tell the story of how the universe started and how it will end, nothing I say will ever change your mind.

It's not just an observed phenomenon to you. It's a creation story.

 

[Reality Check]

Deeper into his pit of fantasy and ignorance with "The current theory is busted."

Uh, yeah it is.

The current theory is busted.

Repeats the idiocy that his fantasies and idiotic curve fitting with no valid physics are better than than astrophysics !
7 April 2021: Deeper into his pit of fantasy and ignorance with "The current theory is busted."
As he has been told many times, any failures of galaxy formation and evolution models are probable failures of those models because they use not fully understood and complex astrophysics. This has no impact on the enormous body of evidence for the Big Bang theory !

7 April 2021: A "all those ones that look just like it way out there" fanatsy.
We do not see any galaxies that look like the Milky Way in the early universe for the simple reason we cannot image them to see details! We have found one galaxy that is deduced to have couple of features that spiral galaxies such as the Milky Way have.
Extremely young galaxy is Milky Way look-alike Galaxy is distorted, appearing as a ring of light in the sky.
SPT0418-47 does not have spiral arms. SPT0418-47 does have a rotating disc and a bulge. A reporter or editor called it a "Milky Way look-alike." which anyone who knows what the Milky Way looks like knows to be wrong.

 

[Reality Check]

My idea lead me to a novel redshift distance relation that is simple, empirically faithful, and makes future predictions.

An ignorant "a novel redshift distance relation" fantasy. Making up a arbitrary equation to seemingly fit data is not a physical relationship between redshift and distance. He makes no predictions. For that he needs science!.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

If you think the redshifts tell the story of how the universe started and how it will end, nothing I say will ever change your mind.

It's not just an observed phenomenon to you. It's a creation story.

I always find it interesting how those with alternative models accuse others of dogma and religion, while they are the ones that refuse to accept that their model might be wrong and ignore all criticism.
The fallback position of those who cannot defend themselves.

Mike, your theory is wrong.
Maybe, just maybe it is possible that expanding space is also wrong, but even if it is (and no observation so far has shown it to be), your theory will never replace it, as it fails at every basic level.
If it can be taken apart on a website by people just spending some of their free time on it, it will be shattered the moment you try to actually engage scientists.

To put it in a programming analogy, you are the equivalent of a manager who coded a few lines of BASIC when he was young, who now tells the lead programmer of his company that his brilliant simple solution can be used to optimize the whole IT structure of the company, while ignoring all input from those that actually know what they are talking about.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Ps. I am not implying that posters here are not scientists, but rather that the discourse here is far more cordial than actually trying to get something published.

 

[Reality Check]

Some "dt" idiocy and adds ignorance of mathematics to his pit of ignorance

Well, doing it the calculus way, you're looking for the limit as dt approaches zero.

But using small values of dt in a computer program will approximate it just fine.

7 April 2021: Some "dt" idiocy and adds ignorance of mathematics to his pit of ignorance

The "calculus way" is to actually solve the integral! There is also numerical integration which is good at approximating integration over smooth functions. There is even https://www.wolframalpha.com/ for those who do not know calculus.
Guessing at a value of delta-t (which is not dt) and vaguely hoping that it will give the correct integration is abysmal mathematics.