I don't think space is expanding.

Status
Not open for further replies.
hecd2 said:
Correct. If the source and the observer are in relative motion it does not lead to a paradox. If they are not, it does.
Click to expand...

Let's say we have a laser tag setup, and we shoot lasers at each other, once a second according to our wrist watches.

As I move away, from you, the laser shots will arrive at less than 1 hz.

When I stop, the lasers resuming arriving at 1 hz. However, if I am 10 light seconds away, there should always be 10 laser shots in transit.

Let's say I go to 1 billion light years away and here is where our clocks are different (despite being stationary).

Now there will be more than 1 billion * seconds per year laser pulses in transit.

If I return to home base, without FTL, our clocks should resync, as all the latent signals will be caught up.
 
Mike Helland said:
Let's say we have a laser tag setup, and we shoot lasers at each other, once a second according to our wrist watches.

As I move away, from you, the laser shots will arrive at less than 1 hz.

When I stop, the lasers resuming arriving at 1 hz. However, if I am 10 light seconds away, there should always be 10 laser shots in transit.

Let's say I go to 1 billion light years away and here is where our clocks are different (despite being stationary).

Now there will be more than 1 billion * seconds per year laser pulses in transit.

If I return to home base, without FTL, our clocks should resync, as all the latent signals will be caught up.
Click to expand...
No you don’t understand and you’re talking nonsense. It’s possible that you can compensate the clock desynchronisation as a result of moving away by the motion back together (positive velocity out and negative velocity back), but you can never compensate for the fact that the clock desynchronisation that you propose, which is a function of separation only which is always positive, will result in the distant clock accumulating less time thaN your own with no possibility of compensation. You always see fewer pulses arriving than you’re sending out if the clocks are separated. Sure, when you are back together the clocks again tick at the same rate, but the accumulated time is always less on the other clock than your own in your scheme.
 
hecd2 said:
No you don’t understand and you’re talking nonsense. It’s possible that you can compensate the clock desynchronisation as a result of moving away by the motion back together (positive velocity out and negative velocity back), but you can never compensate for the fact that the clock desynchronisation that you propose, which is a function of separation only which is always positive, will result in the distant clock accumulating less time thaN your own with no possibility of compensation. You always see fewer pulses arriving than you’re sending out if the clocks are separated. Sure, when you are back together the clocks again tick at the same rate, but the accumulated time is always less on the other clock than your own in your scheme.
Click to expand...

The time discrepancy is accounted for the the signals still in route.

To the distant observer, most of the signals are still by the source. Once they get close enough (z<1) they really pick up speed.

If you bring the clocks together no signals are lost.
 
Mike Helland said:
Let's say we have a laser tag setup, and we shoot lasers at each other, once a second according to our wrist watches.

As I move away, from you, the laser shots will arrive at less than 1 hz.

When I stop, the lasers resuming arriving at 1 hz. However, if I am 10 light seconds away, there should always be 10 laser shots in transit.

Let's say I go to 1 billion light years away and here is where our clocks are different (despite being stationary).

Now there will be more than 1 billion * seconds per year laser pulses in transit.

If I return to home base, without FTL, our clocks should resync, as all the latent signals will be caught up.
Click to expand...

You are being as dense as ever.

If the clocks get out of synchronization due to the effects of general relativity, then the clocks do not somehow resynchronize just because they happen to be in the same reference frame at some later date.

Instead, the clocks will stay out of synchronization even if they are brought back into the same reference frame at some later date. Furthermore, this sort of effect has been well observed and well documented for the over 40 years now.
 
Crossbow said:
You are being as dense as ever.

If the clocks get out of synchronization due to the effects of general relativity, then the clocks do not somehow resynchronize just because they happen to be in the same reference frame at some later date.

Instead, the clocks will stay out of synchronization even if they are brought back into the same reference frame at some later date. Furthermore, this sort of effect has been well observed and well documented for the over 40 years now.
Click to expand...

Ok, but I'm describing a different effect.

A new principle of time.
 
Mike Helland said:
The time discrepancy is accounted for the the signals still in route.

To the distant observer, most of the signals are still by the source. Once they get close enough (z<1) they really pick up speed.

If you bring the clocks together no signals are lost.
Click to expand...
Are you being hard of understanding because you genuinely don’t understand or because it is a convenient tactical ploy? What you describe is not compatible with the idea that you see the distant clock running slower for any length of time that you are stationary with respect to it. The number of pulses in transit is a function of the distance and the emission rate and is a constant for any given distance. But the accumulated difference between the clocks is a function of how long you observe for. One cannot compensate for the other. And as I said, pulses lost on the outward journey can be compensated for by pulses gained on the return journey. But the discrepancy between clock rates as a function of separation cannot be compensated. It leads inexorably to a logical inconsistency. Your idea cannot work.
 
hecd2 said:
The number of pulses in transit is a function of the distance and the emission rate and is a constant for any given distance.
Click to expand...

When the speed of light is constant.

That's not the case here.

photons in transit = distance * emission rate / (c / (1+HD)2)

or

photons in transit = distance * emission rate * ((1+HD)2 / c)
 
Mike Helland said:
When the speed of light is constant.

That's not the case here.

photons in transit = distance * emission rate / (c / (1+HD)2)

or

photons in transit = distance * emission rate * ((1+HD)2 / c)
Click to expand...

Which is a constant for any given D.

ETA: the number is transit for any given separation must be a constant In time. Why would it vary?
 
Last edited:
Look at it this way. From any given location the number of pulses in transit from another location at rest wrt to the first must be a constant in time. But the discrepancy between the number of pulses emitted and received is a linear function of time. One cannot compensate for the other.
 
hecd2 said:
Which is a constant for any given D.

ETA: the number is transit for any given separation must be a constant In time. Why would it vary?
Click to expand...

That is true.

My point was the photon count in transit is not a linear relationship to distance.

That's what makes distant clocks appear slower.

From what I've worked out,

v = c / (1 + HD)2
And

v = c / (1 + z)

So

1+z = (1 + HD)2
z = HD2 + 2HD

That fits the observed acceleration without adding more parameters.

It's not a linear relationship now.
 
hecd2 said:
Look at it this way. From any given location the number of pulses in transit from another location at rest wrt to the first must be a constant in time. But the discrepancy between the number of pulses emitted and received is a linear function of time. One cannot compensate for the other.
Click to expand...

Linear function of z.

sqrt(1 + z) = 1 + HD

*edit* Not even that is linear, since it's r = 1 / (1+z), where r is the clock's relative rate.
 
Last edited:
Mike Helland said:
The observed evidence is that clocks at great distances do run slow.

That's not a debunk. That's an agreement between theory and observation.
Click to expand...
Some idiocy when the theory that the supernova light curve time dilation curves agree with is an expanding universe :jaw-dropp! This debunks his idea that the universal is static.

The time dilation in SR is from the relative speed of the observer and source. The measured time dilation shows that the galaxies are physically moving away from us faster and faster with distance. This does not happen in a actually static universe.

A "semi-religious" static universe could allow this by making us the center of an exploding universe :p. Add a fantasy that everything was here at Earth and somehow not forming a black hole. Add a fantasy that something made everything explode (rather nasty for anyone who trusts in conservation of energy!). Ignore basic physics and have the galaxies increase speed as they get further from the Earth.

18 March 2021: Repeated ignorance about clocks at z = 1 (supernovae light curve) which debunks his idea from Mike Helland
 
Mike Helland said:
The observation that supernovae decay over stretched time is consistent with their clocks running slower.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately their clocks running slower isn't consistent with a lot of other stuff we observe.

You might want to spell out the logic that leads to the debunk, because I don't see it here.
Click to expand...
Since clocks running slower isn't consistent with observation, it debunks the claim that supernovae decay over stretched time because of slower clocks.
 
theprestige said:
Unfortunately their clocks running slower isn't consistent with a lot of other stuff we observe.
Click to expand...

If the clocks weren't running slower, then the expansion of space wouldn't be called for.

Since clocks running slower isn't consistent with observation, it debunks the claim that supernovae decay over stretched time because of slower clocks.
Click to expand...

What stretches them then?

And what does that do to the clocks?
 
Ignorance about SR from Mike Helland (the twin paradox)

Mike Helland said:
Any time lost by distant clock would return when the clock comes back.
Click to expand...
19 March 2021: Ignorance about SR from Mike Helland (the twin paradox)
Or maybe a fantasy based on his invalid idea, not related to real physics?

The resolved twin paradox is that a returning clock has lost time when it returns. There are identical twins Albert and Bruce. Albert stays on Earth. Bruce travels into outer space and returns. Bruce is now younger than Albert. A resolution is that Bruce has accelerated in order to return. They have changed reference frames.
We have confirmed this experimentally! Replace the twins with 2 pairs of atomic clocks. Send one pair around the world. The travelling clocks arrive back "younger" than the stay-at-home ones. Hafele–Keating experiment
 
Last edited:
Mike Helland said:
When the speed of light is constant.
... (c / (1+HD)2)
Click to expand...
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!

Plus his error (or yet another fantasy?) that if the speed of photons changes, the number of photons in transit changes. A light source emits X photons. They travel through vacuum. A detector will receive X photons. Magically changing the speed of the photons does not create or destroy photons! This is an especially bad error when he knows about the conservation of energy and that each photon has energy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom