I don't think space is expanding.

[Mike Helland]

And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass when it hopped. So what?

Your theory fails very fundamental tests. Getting it to pass some other test doesn't matter when it can't handle the fundamentals.

Those fundamental tests you refer applied to the decelerating photon hypothesis.

v=c-c/(1+HD)² is an expanding model. One with built in "acceleration" and one where galaxies aren't going faster than c.

 

[Ziggurat]

Those fundamental tests you refer applied to the decelerating photon hypothesis.

v=c-c/(1+HD)² is an expanding model. One with built in "acceleration" and one where galaxies aren't going faster than c.

Wait... does this mean you're finally giving up on the whole space not expanding thing? Or is this just a temporary flirtation with the idea?

 

[Mike Helland]

Wait... does this mean you're finally giving up on the whole space not expanding thing? Or is this just a temporary flirtation with the idea?

Using the decelerating photon as inspiration, I found that v_photon=c/(1+HD)² nails the expansion curve. *edit* acceleration curve

The idea I had then was, as v=c/(1+HD)² is an inverse square version of v=c-HD, then maybe v=HD has an inverse square analog?

Which turns out to be v=c-c/(1+HD)².

I've tested dozens of hypotheses. It doesn't mean I "believe" in any of them. Here's a sample:

 

[Ziggurat]

Using the decelerating photon as inspiration

That doesn't actually answer my question. Have you given up on that idea or not?

I've tested dozens of hypotheses. It doesn't mean I "believe" in any of them. Here's a sample:

So it's just masturbatory curve fitting without justification. As expected.

 

[Mike Helland]

That doesn't actually answer my question. Have you given up on that idea or not?

I consider it more rational to assign a probability to each.

If Hubble's law gets changed to v=c-c/(1+HD)², eliminating dark energy from the universe (the whopping 76% it makes up), the expanding universe's probability would go up.

 

[hecd2]

I consider it more rational to assign a probability to each.

If Hubble's law gets changed to v=c-c/(1+HD)², eliminating dark energy from the universe (the whopping 76% it makes up), the expanding universe's probability would go up.

Hubble’s law has Isotropy and homogeneity built in. It works for the whole universe independent of location. This doesn’t.

 

[Mike Helland]

Hubble’s law has Isotropy and homogeneity built in. It works for the whole universe independent of location. This doesn’t.

Wouldn't that be an issue for the dark energy explanation of acceleration?

 

[hecd2]

Wouldn't that be an issue for the dark energy explanation of acceleration?

No. At any time the speed of expansion is the same for any two objects separated by the same distance.

ETA. And it’s a linear function of distance.

 

[Mike Helland]

No. At any time the speed of expansion is the same for any two objects separated by the same distance.

Makes sense.

ETA. And it’s a linear function of distance.

Most non-accelerating things are, eh.

 

[Ziggurat]

I consider it more rational to assign a probability to each.

What probability should we assign a theory that's already disproven by observation?

If Hubble's law gets changed to v=c-c/(1+HD)², eliminating dark energy from the universe

Why would you eliminate dark energy only to substitute something with even less justification? Dark energy at least has a connection to theory. You just pulled your idea out of your ass, with no idea if it can even fit with GR.

 

[Mike Helland]

What probability should we assign a theory that's already disproven by observation?

The decelerating photon theory violates observations when combined with Snell's law.

So, rationally speaking, there's a 50% chance the hypothesis is wrong, and a 50% Snell's law has a limited domain of applicability that doesn't include quantum particles and cosmological scales.

Why would you eliminate dark energy only to substitute something with even less justification?

Applying an inverse square law to observational evidence of acceleration, limiting the recessional velocity of galaxies to c seems totally justified.

In retrospect in anyways.

Dark energy at least has a connection to theory. You just pulled your idea out of your ass, with no idea if it can even fit with GR.

True.

It would replace lambda, I know that much.

 

[hecd2]

Makes sense.
Most non-accelerating things are, eh.

So your expansion formula is not just anisotropic and inhomogeneous. It's actually inconsistent.

Take three objects where the distance between the first and second, and the second and third is each one unit. Take your constant to be 0.1. So your expression gives the speed of recession between adjacent objects to be c-c/(1+0.1)^2 = c - c/1.21 = 0.174c. So the speed between the first and third shoud be 2 * 0.174c = 0.348c. But apply your expression and the speed between 1 and 3 is c - c/(1+0.2)^2 = c-c/1.44 = 0.305c. This discrepancy gets worse for larger speeds/distances. Both speeds can't be right at the same time so your expression is inconsistent, and that's because your relationship between speed and distance is non-linear. Expanding space can't work this way.

 

[Mike Helland]

So your expansion formula is not just anisotropic and inhomogeneous. It's actually inconsistent.

Take three objects where the distance between the first and second, and the second and third is each one unit. Take your constant to be 0.1. So your expression gives the speed of recession between adjacent objects to be c-c/(1+0.1)^2 = c - c/1.21 = 0.174c. So the speed between the first and third shoud be 2 * 0.174c = 0.348c. But apply your expression and the speed between 1 and 3 is c - c/(1+0.2)^2 = c-c/1.44 = 0.305c. This discrepancy gets worse for larger speeds/distances. Both speeds can't be right at the same time so your expression is inconsistent, and that's because your relationship between speed and distance is non-linear. Expanding space can't work this way.

Yes, understood.

So, either that acceleration data means the universe is 76% dark energy, or v_photon=c/(1+HD)², with comes with the stipulation that quantum particles of light in a vacuum reflect off a mirror do so independent of their incoming speed.

 

[hecd2]

Yes, understood.

So, either that acceleration data means the universe is 76% dark energy, or v_photon=c/(1+HD)², with comes with the stipulation that quantum particles of light in a vacuum reflect off a mirror do so independent of their incoming speed.

That’s desperate. Snell’s law applies to all waves not just light.

 

[hecd2]

That’s desperate. Snell’s law applies to all waves not just light.

And there are ever so many other reasons why we know the speed of light cannot be a function of distance travelled.

 

[Mike Helland]

That’s desperate. Snell’s law applies to all waves not just light.

Photons aren't classical waves.

Does QED insist that a photon in a vacuum reflects like Snell's law insists?

 

[abaddon]

The decelerating photon theory violates observations when combined with Snell's law.

So, rationally speaking, there's a 50% chance the hypothesis is wrong, and a 50% Snell's law has a limited domain of applicability that doesn't include quantum particles and cosmological scales.

Either Unicorns exist, or they do not. Therefore there is a 50% chance that unicorns exist.

That is, in essence, what you just said. And you think that is rational.

Applying an inverse square law to observational evidence of acceleration, limiting the recessional velocity of galaxies to c seems totally justified.

But you are unable to justify it. And "seems" is not very scientific, is it?

In retrospect in anyways.

That is how crank theories work. Everything is done in hindsight.

If some evidence is presented that falsifies a crank theory, the crank simply changes the crank theory and claims that it was always predicted by the crank theory. That is not how anything works.

If a hypothesis is falsified by the evidence, then it is falsified. Period.

One can go away and reformulate the hypothesis, sure. But that is not what you are doing. You are engaged in ad-hoc revisions on the fly which is a sloppy methodology unlikely to bear any fruit.

 

[Mike Helland]

You are engaged in ad-hoc revisions on the fly which is a sloppy methodology unlikely to bear any fruit.

That process has kept the big bang theory afloat since the 1979.

To this day, no one can tell you the expansion rate of the universe.

 

[Ziggurat]

The decelerating photon theory violates observations when combined with Snell's law.

So, rationally speaking, there's a 50% chance the hypothesis is wrong, and a 50% Snell's law has a limited domain of applicability that doesn't include quantum particles and cosmological scales.

Yeah, no. You're making excuses for the failure of your theory, and forgetting that this isn't even the only way it fails, but simply one way out of many.

 

[Ziggurat]

Photons aren't classical waves.

If that made any difference, then Snell's law would never hold for light. But it does, because that doesn't make any difference.

Does QED insist that a photon in a vacuum reflects like Snell's law insists?

Yes. That's why photons in a vacuum reflect like Snell's law insists.

Seriously, if Snell's law (or more specifically, the reasoning behind it) didn't hold, then photons traveling at c in a vacuum wouldn't reflect off mirrors at the same angle as their incident angle. They reflect off mirrors the way we expect, even in a vacuum, because Snell's law DOES hold.