I don't think space is expanding.

[Reality Check]

Ignorant "Fermat's last time principle" nonsense from Mike Helland

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

24 March 2021: Ignorant "Fermat's last time principle" nonsense from Mike Helland.

Gibberish about a "middle photon".
"Fermat's last time principle" does not exist! There is Fermat's principle or principle of least time. This is classical optics. What it says that light rays going from 1 point to another takes the path that has the least time. In modern terms, every photon going from 1 point to another takes the path that has the least time.

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).

 

[Mike Helland]

"Fermat's last time principle" does not exist!

Incredible detective work.

Ignorance of relativity from Mike Helland (photons have undefined proper time).[/URL]

So, based on what you said before, that means it could be anything. Even negative numbers.

 

[Samson]

This article suggests space is expanding. It is reasonably detailed

https://phys.org/news/2021-03-myths-big.html

 

[Reality Check]

....

Usual nonsense and ignorance from Mike Helland.
24 March 2021: Ignorant "Fermat's last time principle" nonsense from Mike Helland.
23March 2021: Ignorance of relativity from Mike Helland (photons have undefined proper time).
Basic arithmetic: Division by zero is an undefined operation. It has no meaning. If we have x = a/0, there is no number when multiplied by zero gives a.
What I said before was that his fantasy has the idiocy of "indefinite" age. Indefinite means that universe can have any age - including negative as he now points out !

 

[Ziggurat]

So, based on what you said before, that means it could be anything. Even negative numbers.

No. That would be an unknown time, not an undefined time.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

No. That would be an unknown time, not an undefined time.

Oh, geez. He even forgot what he learned about "undefined" and "unassigned" expressions in 8th grade math?

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

So, based on what you said before, that means it could be anything. Even negative numbers.

No, Mike.

When a time is "undefined", it means that you cannot assign any number to it.

As an analogy, in the sense you're talking about, infinity is an undefined number. You cannot assign a specific value to it (in this case, because if you do anyone can trivially produce a larger number). So, just as with a photon's "time", there is no quantity, "even negative numbers", which makes sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTRKCXC0JFg

 

[Mike Helland]

No, Mike.

When a time is "undefined", it means that you cannot assign any number to it.

As an analogy, in the sense you're talking about, infinity is an undefined number. You cannot assign a specific value to it (in this case, because if you do anyone can trivially produce a larger number). So, just as with a photon's "time", there is no quantity, "even negative numbers", which makes sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTRKCXC0JFg

Understood.

Reality Check had earlier questioned what "indefinite" meant and I remembered wrong that "undefined" was used as a synonym.

Glad everyone can agree on something.

 

[theprestige]

Understood.

Let's not rush to judgement here. Maybe it's not understood quite yet. Let's give it a couple weeks and see if it actually gets internalized and included in future attempts at physics.

Reality Check had earlier questioned what "indefinite" meant and I remembered wrong that "undefined" was used as a synonym.

This isn't really the kind of thing competent physicists have to remember. It's more the kind of thing they know as a result of being competent at physics. If you still have to rely on remembering, you're not ready to attempt the kind of physics you're attempting here. As we have clearly seen.

"Rembering" is charitable, of course. I think the more likely explanation is that you didn't know, until you were told, that these are terms of art in math, and not the synonyms of lay English.

Glad everyone can agree on something.

Everyone in this thread but you has been in agreement all along.

 

[Mike Helland]

Let's not rush to judgement here.

Oh, I think that ship has sailed.

 

[theprestige]

Oh, I think that ship has sailed.

As usual with this topic, what you think is wrong. The judgement you perceive as rushed has actually been years in the making.

 

[Mike Helland]

As usual with this topic, what you think is wrong.

You're just imitating Z now.

What are the units of redshift?

 

[theprestige]

You're just imitating Z now.

As usual, you are wrong again. We happen to have similar tastes in rhetoric, is all.

What are the units of redshift?

Do your own homework.

 

[Mike Helland]

Do your own homework.

Redshifts are unitless.

Most posters here seem to be ignorant of that.

So forgive me if I'm underwhelmed by your insults.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Redshifts are unitless.

Most posters here seem to be ignorant of that.

So forgive me if I'm underwhelmed by your insults.

Who is ignorant of that??

 

[Roboramma]

I think this is what Mike is referring to:

But it's mathematically and physically nonsense.
As others ahve pointed out, you cannot add things unless they have the same units. This either won't have any units, in which case it won't explain redshift as in your 'theory' that needs units of time and distance, or it becomes impossible to calculate.

This is high school stuff you are failing at, how can you possibly claim to understand physics well enough to overturn it?

Redshift doesn't have units.

What nonsense this is developing into!

That was inevitable. As the somewhat more rational ideas get refuted it becomes necessary, in an effort to maintain the discussion, for the remaining claims to become more and more bizarre. It's all that is left.

I admit that I haven't been following the thread closely enough to be clear if they're saying something other than what he infers, though.

 

[steenkh]

Redshifts are unitless.

Think about. Can you measure redshift?

 

[hecd2]

This was all tied up with the dimensions of Hubble’s constant.

Redshift is dimensionless. Hubble’s constant has dimensions of inverse time.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Redshifts are unitless.

Most posters here seem to be ignorant of that.

So forgive me if I'm underwhelmed by your insults.

Well, no. Or at least not universally.

When measuring a redshifted spectrum, a given spectral feature will be redshifted by a specific amount, such as ~4 nm for the H and K lines in the largest Humason measurement used by Hubble in his 1929 paper.

In general, it is more useful to convert this to a dimensionless ratio - but your statement is wrong.

It's a pity you "seem to be ignorant of that".

 

[hecd2]

Well, no. Or at least not universally.

When measuring a redshifted spectrum, a given spectral feature will be redshifted by a specific amount, such as ~4 nm for the H and K lines in the largest Humason measurement used by Hubble in his 1929 paper.

In general, it is more useful to convert this to a dimensionless ratio - but your statement is wrong.

It's a pity you "seem to be ignorant of that".

To be fair to Mike nobody, or almost nobody quotes redshift of celestial objects in nm shift of a particular spectral line. When people talk about redshift in astrophysics, they almost always mean z, which is dimensionless.