I don't think space is expanding.

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
And we know that your suggestion is wrong, from multiple lines of evidence.
Click to expand...

Not so.

We've shown that it's a logical impossibility.

That's pretty different.

If we assume that what I'm suggestion is not something that can happen (light redshifts on its own), then of course it's "logically impossible."

I say the observed redshifts are something nature does.

You say that's not possible.

I say nature doesn't care what we think is possible. That light is definitely redshifted.

Either its because of expansion, or its not.

Ya'll can keep barking up the expansion tree if you want.

I'm used to going at it alone :-)
 
Mike Helland said:
How does the deceleration of a quantum particle remove or create a wavefront?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. That's the point.

If the wavefronts are vt, and v is a bit slower, doesn't that just mean the wavefront moves slower?
Click to expand...

Yes, obviously. But you clearly don't grasp the implications of that, since it destroys your entire thesis from the beginning.

Second question, an optical wave always has a wavefront and never a back wave.

Is that accurate?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you mean by "back wave". Optical waves have LOTS of wave fronts, not just one. Each cycle of the wave constitutes a wave front. Even individual photons have multiple wave fronts.
 
Mike Helland said:
Not so.

We've shown that it's a logical impossibility.

That's pretty different.
Click to expand...
We've considered your idea from multiple aspects in the gazillion pages of this thread. We've considered self-consistency, observational evidence, well supported theories of physics and more. Not one of them lends any credence to your idea. And many of them falsify it absolutely. You're on a total loser here. The fact that you refuse to accept that says something about your attitude to evidence and your lack of knowledge of elementary physics.
 
Mike Helland said:
67 and 74 aren't slightly different.

It's wrong.

By 10%.
Click to expand...
No. As measured now, they are different by 10%. The fact that you consider that a failure rather than a rather miraculous triumph is because you have no idea how these things are actually measured.
 
hecd2 said:
We've considered your idea from multiple aspects in the gazillion pages of this thread. We've considered self-consistency, observational evidence, well supported theories of physics and more. Not one of them lends any credence to your idea. And many of them falsify it absolutely. You're on a total loser here. The fact that you refuse to accept that says something about your attitude to evidence and your lack of knowledge of elementary physics.
Click to expand...

My attitude toward evidence is this:

1. observations falsify theories. Theories do not falsify other theories. Theories do not falsify observations.

2. the domain of observable evidence grew exponentially in the 1920's. From thousands of lights years to billions.

3. Theories have limited domains of applicability

4. The redshifts are observed facts

5. The "acceleration" of redshifts are observed facts

Any objections to that?
 
hecd2 said:
No. As measured now, they are different by 10%. The fact that you consider that a failure rather than a rather miraculous triumph is because you have no idea how these things are actually measured.
Click to expand...

A miraculous triumph that has sent the field searching for alternative models.

*edit*:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.01183

The ΛCDM model provides a good fit to a large span of cosmological data but harbors areas of phenomenology. With the improvement of the number and the accuracy of observations, discrepancies among key cosmological parameters of the model have emerged. The most statistically significant tension is the 4−6σ disagreement between predictions of the Hubble constant H0 by early time probes with ΛCDM model, and a number of late time, model-independent determinations of H0 from local measurements of distances and redshifts. The high precision and consistency of the data at both ends present strong challenges to the possible solution space and demand a hypothesis with enough rigor to explain multiple observations--whether these invoke new physics, unexpected large-scale structures or multiple, unrelated errors.
 
Last edited:
Mike Helland said:
My attitude toward evidence is this:

1. observations falsify theories. Theories do not falsify other theories. Theories do not falsify observations.

2. the domain of observable evidence grew exponentially in the 1920's. From thousands of lights years to billions.

3. Theories have limited domains of applicability

4. The redshifts are observed facts

5. The "acceleration" of redshifts are observed facts

Any objections to that?
Click to expand...
1. Theories based on multiple observations held with high confidence can falsify stupid propositions. Newtonian mechanics falsifies the proposition that gravity goes as the third power of distance. (Electromagnetic theory falsifies the idea that light can propagate with more than one speed here and now).
5. Depends what you mean by acceleration.

Your idea is a complete crock and held on complete and abysmal ignorance linked to an overweaning and totally unjustified arrogance.
 
hecd2 said:
So you got the cartoon to work. The direction is representative of the phase and should point in the same direction as the bulk of the phases for the paths near the centre. The reason yours doesn't is that it's not sensitive enough to different paths (the scrolls at the ends are not tight enough). That's because your wavelength (the distance travelled for one complete cycle) is large compared to the path lengths and the lateral extent of the mirror. For visible light the wavelength is ~0.5 microns and the paths and mirror are much larger. It's still a cartoon, but you should be able to demonstrate the principle if you fix that problem.
Click to expand...

I really do appreciate the patience and knowledge you and others here demonstrate.
 
hecd2 said:
That’s just stupid. There’s a need for an explanation which means a hypothesis. Of course.
Click to expand...

Ok.

So we need a new hypothesis. One that resolves the Hubble tension.

And there is an active search for a solution, and alternatives to the standard cosmological model. Correct?

And not like there was ten years ago. The Hubble tension really became clear a few years ago and sharper since then. Correct?
 
Mike Helland said:
That light is definitely redshifted.
Click to expand...
And it's definitely not redshifted due to slowing down.

I'm used to going at it alone : - )
Click to expand...

That's kind of depressing, actually. People who know their stuff and do good work are usually in good company, with plenty of support from others in their field. If you're consistently at odds with the subject matter experts, this is a clear sign of ignorance on your part. Only a crackpot would take it as a badge of honor.
 
hecd2 said:
1. Theories based on multiple observations held with high confidence can falsify stupid propositions. Newtonian mechanics falsifies the proposition that gravity goes as the third power of distance.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the evidence do that?

Falsification is in opposition to the "verification" or induction. (I've read a few of Popper's books. I'm sure you're impressed ;-))

Nothing that we know is true for thousands of light years is guaranteed to be true for trillions of light years.

Light redshifts, and presumably approaching zero energy, discovered just before WWII.

The evidence makes me skeptical that light really does go to infinity.

The redshift evidence doesn't support the theory that light travels forever.

Your idea is a complete crock and held on complete and abysmal ignorance linked to an overweaning and totally unjustified arrogance.
Click to expand...

I don't think space is expanding. I think the light slows down.

If I can show that the clock thingies allow a decelerated photon to reflect properly without changing the angle, will you lighten up a bit?
 
theprestige said:
That's kind of depressing, actually.
Click to expand...

Hence the smile. "Oh well, nbd".

But here's the thing.

15 years ago I stopped believing in the expanding universe.

3 years ago I started seeing articles about the cosmological crisis.

Now they pop up every other week.

Maybe I won't be alone much longer?

:-)
 
theprestige said:
And now we've arrived at epicycles. Which still don't solve your problem of falsifying observations.
Click to expand...

For certain, we can say light travels at c, where we've measured it.

For certain, we can say light redshifts after millions of years.

Can anyone say anything for certain about what's going on 100 billion light years away?
 
Mike Helland said:
Hence the smile. "Oh well, nbd".

But here's the thing.

15 years ago I stopped believing in the expanding universe.

3 years ago I started seeing articles about the cosmological crisis.

Now they pop up every other week.

Maybe I won't be alone much longer?

: - )
Click to expand...

Nah, at this rate you'll continue to be alone indefinitely. When cosmologists solve the current "crisis", they will do so without you, and leave you still out in the cold. Nobody who knows physics is converging with you on a tired light model of cosmological redshift. Your ideas are totally divergent from physical reality, and will continue to diverge as long as you indulge them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom