View Full Version : Redshift and the speed of light
Mike Helland
Nov22-04, 05:14 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\nI\'ve heard about an alternative to the doppler effect being the cause\nof red-shift in our observations of distance galaxies. Its that over\nthose huge huge distances the photon actually looses energy, slows\ndown, and thus you see the red-shift.\n\nThis "Tired-light" seems to have been thoroughly refuted.\n\nObviouslly, the easiest way to falsify tired-light would be to measure\nthe speed of the photons coming from those distant galaxies, and see\nif they are indeed less than c.\n\nI want to do this. How do I measure the speed of light, and what are\nsome usefully distant galaxies that I can gather light from in my\nmeasurements?\n\nOne thing I want to pay attention to is that my photon is not\ninterupted before the measurement is made.\n\nFor example, in QED we know that photons are absorbed by charged\nparticles and then emitted again.\n\nSince the hypothesis we are testing here deals with an unknown\nmechanism, I should anticipate controls for the experiment. So I also\nhypothesize that by abosrbing one of these slow moving photons photon\nand emitting a new one it is possible the newly emitted one travels at\nc again. Again, I\'m only saying its possible, and thus I would like my\nmeasurements to avoid the this outcome altering possibility.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>I've heard about an alternative to the doppler effect being the cause
of red-shift in our observations of distance galaxies. Its that over
those huge huge distances the photon actually looses energy, slows
down, and thus you see the red-shift.
This "Tired-light" seems to have been thoroughly refuted.
Obviouslly, the easiest way to falsify tired-light would be to measure
the speed of the photons coming from those distant galaxies, and see
if they are indeed less than c.
I want to do this. How do I measure the speed of light, and what are
some usefully distant galaxies that I can gather light from in my
measurements?
One thing I want to pay attention to is that my photon is not
interupted before the measurement is made.
For example, in QED we know that photons are absorbed by charged
particles and then emitted again.
Since the hypothesis we are testing here deals with an unknown
mechanism, I should anticipate controls for the experiment. So I also
hypothesize that by abosrbing one of these slow moving photons photon
and emitting a new one it is possible the newly emitted one travels at
c again. Again, I'm only saying its possible, and thus I would like my
measurements to avoid the this outcome altering possibility.
Eugene Shubert
Nov23-04, 03:08 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n"Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message\nnews:11990c07.0411191328.1fc89bfc@posting .google.com...\n> I\'ve heard about an alternative to the doppler effect being the\n> cause of red-shift in our observations of distance galaxies. Its\n> that over those huge huge distances the photon actually looses\n> energy, slows down, and thus you see the red-shift.\n\nThere is more than one "Tired-light" theory. It could be that photons\nlose energy over cosmological distances but that the speed of light\nremains constant. This assumption leads immediately to the precise\nfunctional form of the equation for distance related Doppler shifts:\n\nLet f be an initial photon frequency and let f\'=fh(x) be the photon\nfrequency after the photon has traveled a distance x. Now let the same\nphoton continue on an additional distance y. Thus, f"=f\'h(y). This\nimplies f"=fh(x)h(y). Also, f"=fh(x+y). Clearly, h(x)h(y)=h(x+y). The\nonly continuous solution is h(x)=Exp(kx) for some constant k. Thus\nf\'=fExp(kx). This equation for distance related Doppler shifts could\nthen be compared to observations to see if there\'s a single constant k\nthat fits all the data.\n\nThere are varying speed of light theories where the ultimate speed\nlimit varies with the age of the universe.\nhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=580\nThe physical basis and regular intersecting point of these theories\nseems to be that photons of the early were supposedly moving\nmuch faster than they do now and that this assumption alleviates\na few cosmological riddles.\n\n> Obviouslly, the easiest way to falsify tired-light would be to\n> measure the speed of the photons coming from those distant\n> galaxies, and see if they are indeed less than c.\n\nSince the speed of light is allegedly tied to cosmological time,\nany light arriving from distance sources will be identical to light\nproduced recently and locally.\n\nI don\'t know how well the theories of Joao Magueijo are being\nreceived today or what it would take to refute his ideas. You\nmight want to read a few of his published papers.\n\nEugene Shubert\nhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11990c07.0411191328.1fc89bfc@posting.google.c om...
> I've heard about an alternative to the doppler effect being the
> cause of red-shift in our observations of distance galaxies. Its
> that over those huge huge distances the photon actually looses
> energy, slows down, and thus you see the red-shift.
There is more than one "Tired-light" theory. It could be that photons
lose energy over cosmological distances but that the speed of light
remains constant. This assumption leads immediately to the precise
functional form of the equation for distance related Doppler shifts:
Let f be an initial photon frequency and let f'=fh(x) be the photon
frequency after the photon has traveled a distance x. Now let the same
photon continue on an additional distance y. Thus, f"=f'h(y). This
implies f"=fh(x)h(y). Also, f"=fh(x+y). Clearly, h(x)h(y)=h(x+y). The
only continuous solution is h(x)=\Exp(kx) for some constant k. Thus
f'=fExp(kx). This equation for distance related Doppler shifts could
then be compared to observations to see if there's a single constant k
that fits all the data.
There are varying speed of light theories where the ultimate speed
limit varies with the age of the universe.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=580
The physical basis and regular intersecting point of these theories
seems to be that photons of the early were supposedly moving
much faster than they do now and that this assumption alleviates
a few cosmological riddles.
> Obviouslly, the easiest way to falsify tired-light would be to
> measure the speed of the photons coming from those distant
> galaxies, and see if they are indeed less than c.
Since the speed of light is allegedly tied to cosmological time,
any light arriving from distance sources will be identical to light
produced recently and locally.
I don't know how well the theories of Joao Magueijo are being
received today or what it would take to refute his ideas. You
might want to read a few of his published papers.
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
greywolf42
Nov23-04, 03:08 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message\nnews:11990c07.0411191328.1fc89bfc@posting .google.com...\n>\n>\n>\n> I\'ve heard about an alternative to the doppler effect being the cause\n> of red-shift in our observations of distance galaxies. Its that over\n> those huge huge distances the photon actually looses energy, slows\n> down, and thus you see the red-shift.\n>\n> This "Tired-light" seems to have been thoroughly refuted.\n\nActually, this is incorrect, though commonly repeated. There are no\nsubstantive refutations of \'tired light\' at all. The only attempts that\nhave been proffered are strawman-type calculations of Compton scattering.\nSee the thread about the unsubstantiated claims located in Misner, Thorne\nand Wheeler and their source, Zel\'dovich.\n\nhttp://www.google.com/groups?selm=103pkonmqrb5ud3%40corp.supernews.com\n \n> Obviouslly, the easiest way to falsify tired-light would be to measure\n> the speed of the photons coming from those distant galaxies, and see\n> if they are indeed less than c.\n\nThe speed of a \'tired\' photon is the same as any other photon.\n\n> I want to do this. How do I measure the speed of light, and what are\n> some usefully distant galaxies that I can gather light from in my\n> measurements?\n\nThis has no applicability to the question of tired light.\n\n> One thing I want to pay attention to is that my photon is not\n> interupted before the measurement is made.\n>\n> For example, in QED we know that photons are absorbed by charged\n> particles and then emitted again.\n\nThat is the theory. However, the issue is what is reality.\n\n> Since the hypothesis we are testing here deals with an unknown\n> mechanism, I should anticipate controls for the experiment. So I also\n> hypothesize that by abosrbing one of these slow moving photons photon\n> and emitting a new one it is possible the newly emitted one travels at\n> c again. Again, I\'m only saying its possible, and thus I would like my\n> measurements to avoid the this outcome altering possibility.\n\nAgain, \'tired\' photons are not \'slow\' photons. Your entire premise is based\non ignorance of the \'tired light\' postulates. \'Tired light\' (such as\nVigier\'s theory) postulates that photons lose energy. Not speed. This\nresults in a red shift. Not a slowing of photons.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for e-mail}\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11990c07.0411191328.1fc89bfc@posting.google.c om...
>
>
>
> I've heard about an alternative to the doppler effect being the cause
> of red-shift in our observations of distance galaxies. Its that over
> those huge huge distances the photon actually looses energy, slows
> down, and thus you see the red-shift.
>
> This "Tired-light" seems to have been thoroughly refuted.
Actually, this is incorrect, though commonly repeated. There are no
substantive refutations of 'tired light' at all. The only attempts that
have been proffered are strawman-type calculations of Compton scattering.
See the thread about the unsubstantiated claims located in Misner, Thorne
and Wheeler and their source, Zel'dovich.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=103pkonmqrb5ud3%40corp.supernews.com
> Obviouslly, the easiest way to falsify tired-light would be to measure
> the speed of the photons coming from those distant galaxies, and see
> if they are indeed less than c.
The speed of a 'tired' photon is the same as any other photon.
> I want to do this. How do I measure the speed of light, and what are
> some usefully distant galaxies that I can gather light from in my
> measurements?
This has no applicability to the question of tired light.
> One thing I want to pay attention to is that my photon is not
> interupted before the measurement is made.
>
> For example, in QED we know that photons are absorbed by charged
> particles and then emitted again.
That is the theory. However, the issue is what is reality.
> Since the hypothesis we are testing here deals with an unknown
> mechanism, I should anticipate controls for the experiment. So I also
> hypothesize that by abosrbing one of these slow moving photons photon
> and emitting a new one it is possible the newly emitted one travels at
> c again. Again, I'm only saying its possible, and thus I would like my
> measurements to avoid the this outcome altering possibility.
Again, 'tired' photons are not 'slow' photons. Your entire premise is based
on ignorance of the 'tired light' postulates. 'Tired light' (such as
Vigier's theory) postulates that photons lose energy. Not speed. This
results in a red shift. Not a slowing of photons.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Nov24-04, 01:46 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <11990c07.0411191328.1fc89bfc@posting.google.com>, \nmobydikc@gmail.com (Mike Helland) writes:\n\n> I\'ve heard about an alternative to the doppler effect being the cause\n> of red-shift in our observations of distance galaxies. Its that over\n> those huge huge distances the photon actually looses energy, slows\n> down, and thus you see the red-shift.\n>\n> This "Tired-light" seems to have been thoroughly refuted.\n>\n> Obviouslly, the easiest way to falsify tired-light would be to measure\n> the speed of the photons coming from those distant galaxies, and see\n> if they are indeed less than c.\n\nWith light, even for (most) supporters of the tired-light hypothesis,\nlosing energy means increasing wavelength---not moving more slowly.\n(Note that a redshift IS an increase in wavelength. The question is not\nwhat happens, but why. The generally accepted idea is that the\nwavelength of light gets stretched due to the expansion of the universe.\nThe tired-light folks postulate other reasons.)\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <11990c07.0411191328.1fc89bfc@posting.google.com>,
mobydikc@gmail.com (Mike Helland) writes:
> I've heard about an alternative to the doppler effect being the cause
> of red-shift in our observations of distance galaxies. Its that over
> those huge huge distances the photon actually looses energy, slows
> down, and thus you see the red-shift.
>
> This "Tired-light" seems to have been thoroughly refuted.
>
> Obviouslly, the easiest way to falsify tired-light would be to measure
> the speed of the photons coming from those distant galaxies, and see
> if they are indeed less than c.
With light, even for (most) supporters of the tired-light hypothesis,
losing energy means increasing wavelength---not moving more slowly.
(Note that a redshift IS an increase in wavelength. The question is not
what happens, but why. The generally accepted idea is that the
wavelength of light gets stretched due to the expansion of the universe.
The tired-light folks postulate other reasons.)
Ilja Schmelzer
Nov24-04, 09:26 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> schrieb\n> "Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote\n> > I\'ve heard about an alternative to the doppler effect being the cause\n> > of red-shift in our observations of distance galaxies. Its that over\n> > those huge huge distances the photon actually looses energy, slows\n> > down, and thus you see the red-shift.\n> >\n> > This "Tired-light" seems to have been thoroughly refuted.\n>\n> Actually, this is incorrect, though commonly repeated. There are no\n> substantive refutations of \'tired light\' at all. The only attempts that\n> have been proffered are strawman-type calculations of Compton scattering.\n\nHm, I remember some other refutation of tired light. It comes from\nsupernova Sn1a observations. The premise is that each such supernova\nexplosion has similar characteristics (similar size of the collapsing star).\nTherefore, the whole explosion needs almost the same time. Thus,\nthe duration of such explosions defines a sort of clock.\n\nNow, observation shows (sorry, source forgotten) that the time dilation\nof this "clock" is the same as the time dilation defined by the observed red\nshift of light. If tired light would be correct, there would be no time\ndilation for the duration of supernova explosions.\n\nIlja\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> schrieb
> "Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote
> > I've heard about an alternative to the doppler effect being the cause
> > of red-shift in our observations of distance galaxies. Its that over
> > those huge huge distances the photon actually looses energy, slows
> > down, and thus you see the red-shift.
> >
> > This "Tired-light" seems to have been thoroughly refuted.
>
> Actually, this is incorrect, though commonly repeated. There are no
> substantive refutations of 'tired light' at all. The only attempts that
> have been proffered are strawman-type calculations of Compton scattering.
Hm, I remember some other refutation of tired light. It comes from
supernova Sn1a observations. The premise is that each such supernova
explosion has similar characteristics (similar size of the collapsing star).
Therefore, the whole explosion needs almost the same time. Thus,
the duration of such explosions defines a sort of clock.
Now, observation shows (sorry, source forgotten) that the time dilation
of this "clock" is the same as the time dilation defined by the observed red
shift of light. If tired light would be correct, there would be no time
dilation for the duration of supernova explosions.
Ilja
Greysky
Nov25-04, 03:37 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply" <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de>\nwrote in message news:cntslf\\$sd7\\$1@online.de...\n> In article <11990c07.0411191328.1fc89bfc@posting.google.com>, \n> mobydikc@gmail.com (Mike Helland) writes:\n>\n>> I\'ve heard about an alternative to the doppler effect being the cause\n>> of red-shift in our observations of distance galaxies. Its that over\n>> those huge huge distances the photon actually looses energy, slows\n>> down, and thus you see the red-shift.\n>>\n>> This "Tired-light" seems to have been thoroughly refuted.\n>>\n>> Obviouslly, the easiest way to falsify tired-light would be to measure\n>> the speed of the photons coming from those distant galaxies, and see\n>> if they are indeed less than c.\n>\n> With light, even for (most) supporters of the tired-light hypothesis,\n> losing energy means increasing wavelength---not moving more slowly.\n> (Note that a redshift IS an increase in wavelength. The question is not\n> what happens, but why. The generally accepted idea is that the\n> wavelength of light gets stretched due to the expansion of the universe.\n> The tired-light folks postulate other reasons.)\n>\nYes. Photons may redshift because they are running into some medium and\nre-radiated. Molecular hydrogen, is a good example. Unlike humans, light\ndoesn\'t \'slow down\' when it gets either tired or old...\n\nGreysky\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply" <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de>
wrote in message news:cntslf$sd7$1@online.de...
> In article <11990c07.0411191328.1fc89bfc@posting.google.com>,
> mobydikc@gmail.com (Mike Helland) writes:
>
>> I've heard about an alternative to the doppler effect being the cause
>> of red-shift in our observations of distance galaxies. Its that over
>> those huge huge distances the photon actually looses energy, slows
>> down, and thus you see the red-shift.
>>
>> This "Tired-light" seems to have been thoroughly refuted.
>>
>> Obviouslly, the easiest way to falsify tired-light would be to measure
>> the speed of the photons coming from those distant galaxies, and see
>> if they are indeed less than c.
>
> With light, even for (most) supporters of the tired-light hypothesis,
> losing energy means increasing wavelength---not moving more slowly.
> (Note that a redshift IS an increase in wavelength. The question is not
> what happens, but why. The generally accepted idea is that the
> wavelength of light gets stretched due to the expansion of the universe.
> The tired-light folks postulate other reasons.)
>
Yes. Photons may redshift because they are running into some medium and
re-radiated. Molecular hydrogen, is a good example. Unlike humans, light
doesn't 'slow down' when it gets either tired or old...
Greysky
greywolf42
Nov25-04, 03:42 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Ilja Schmelzer" <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> wrote in message\nnews:co22nd\\$fd2\\$1@beech.fernuni-hagen.de...\n>\n> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> schrieb\n> > "Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote\n\n> > > I\'ve heard about an alternative to the doppler effect being the cause\n> > > of red-shift in our observations of distance galaxies. Its that over\n> > > those huge huge distances the photon actually looses energy, slows\n> > > down, and thus you see the red-shift.\n> > >\n> > > This "Tired-light" seems to have been thoroughly refuted.\n> >\n> > Actually, this is incorrect, though commonly repeated. There are no\n> > substantive refutations of \'tired light\' at all. The only attempts that\n> > have been proffered are strawman-type calculations of Compton\n> > scattering.\n>\n> Hm, I remember some other refutation of tired light.\n\nWhich specific tired light theory was being evaluated?\n\n> It comes from\n> supernova Sn1a observations. The premise is that each such supernova\n> explosion has similar characteristics (similar size of the collapsing\n> star). Therefore, the whole explosion needs almost the same time.\n\nYou may remember that SN1987a wasn\'t possible, according to supernova\ntheories (premises) that existed at the time. I\'d be a little careful about\nbasing a broad-brush claim for "refutation" on the basis of a theoretical\nmodel of a different process.\n\n> Thus, the duration of such explosions defines a sort of clock.\n\nYou may also want to read the thread in sci.astro.research about the\nquestions on the use of templates to get the SN1a time dilation. It seems\nthe data analysis supporting the standard paradigm is not all that strong,\nand may have some circularity built in.\n\n> Now, observation shows (sorry, source forgotten) that the time dilation\n> of this "clock" is the same as the time dilation defined by the observed\n> red shift of light.\n\nI\'d appreciate it if you found the source. It would be nice to avoid the\ncreation of another myth. (Such as arose about the prior non-substantive\n"disproofs" of tired light that eventually made it into MTW.)\n\n> If tired light would be correct, there would be no\n> time dilation for the duration of supernova explosions.\n\nWell, this one is at least a new argument (at least to me), even if it is\nonly qualitative. However, I believe that you (or your reference) may be\nmisunderstanding something about tired light theories. Which I can\'t really\ntell from the brief outline you\'ve posted. Perhaps you (or someone reading\nthis) would be so kind to post a reference to the quantitative, substantive\nanalysis.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for e-mail}\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Ilja Schmelzer" <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> wrote in message
news:co22nd$fd2$1@beech.fernuni-hagen.de...
>
> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> schrieb
> > "Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote
> > > I've heard about an alternative to the doppler effect being the cause
> > > of red-shift in our observations of distance galaxies. Its that over
> > > those huge huge distances the photon actually looses energy, slows
> > > down, and thus you see the red-shift.
> > >
> > > This "Tired-light" seems to have been thoroughly refuted.
> >
> > Actually, this is incorrect, though commonly repeated. There are no
> > substantive refutations of 'tired light' at all. The only attempts that
> > have been proffered are strawman-type calculations of Compton
> > scattering.
>
> Hm, I remember some other refutation of tired light.
Which specific tired light theory was being evaluated?
> It comes from
> supernova Sn1a observations. The premise is that each such supernova
> explosion has similar characteristics (similar size of the collapsing
> star). Therefore, the whole explosion needs almost the same time.
You may remember that SN1987a wasn't possible, according to supernova
theories (premises) that existed at the time. I'd be a little careful about
basing a broad-brush claim for "refutation" on the basis of a theoretical
model of a different process.
> Thus, the duration of such explosions defines a sort of clock.
You may also want to read the thread in sci.astro.research about the
questions on the use of templates to get the SN1a time dilation. It seems
the data analysis supporting the standard paradigm is not all that strong,
and may have some circularity built in.
> Now, observation shows (sorry, source forgotten) that the time dilation
> of this "clock" is the same as the time dilation defined by the observed
> red shift of light.
I'd appreciate it if you found the source. It would be nice to avoid the
creation of another myth. (Such as arose about the prior non-substantive
"disproofs" of tired light that eventually made it into MTW.)
> If tired light would be correct, there would be no
> time dilation for the duration of supernova explosions.
Well, this one is at least a new argument (at least to me), even if it is
only qualitative. However, I believe that you (or your reference) may be
misunderstanding something about tired light theories. Which I can't really
tell from the brief outline you've posted. Perhaps you (or someone reading
this) would be so kind to post a reference to the quantitative, substantive
analysis.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Ilja Schmelzer wrote:\n> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> schrieb\n>\n>>"Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote\n>>\n>>>I\'ve heard about an alternative to the doppler effect being the cause\n>>>of red-shift in our observations of distance galaxies. Its that over\n>>>those huge huge distances the photon actually looses energy, slows\n>>>down, and thus you see the red-shift.\n>>>\n>>>This "Tired-light" seems to have been thoroughly refuted.\n>>\n>>Actually, this is incorrect, though commonly repeated. There are no\n>>substantive refutations of \'tired light\' at all. The only attempts that\n>>have been proffered are strawman-type calculations of Compton scattering.\n>\n>\n> Hm, I remember some other refutation of tired light. It comes from\n> supernova Sn1a observations. The premise is that each such supernova\n> explosion has similar characteristics (similar size of the collapsing star).\n> Therefore, the whole explosion needs almost the same time. Thus,\n> the duration of such explosions defines a sort of clock.\n>\n> Now, observation shows (sorry, source forgotten) that the time dilation\n> of this "clock" is the same as the time dilation defined by the observed red\n> shift of light. If tired light would be correct, there would be no time\n> dilation for the duration of supernova explosions.\n>\n> Ilja\n\nI fail to see a logical connection between your premise and your\nconclusion. If the light emitted is redshifted, and if we can only\nmeasure the duration of the explosion via these redshifted photons, then\nwe can draw the conclusion that the increase in the explosion\'s duration\nis the direct result of the tiring of the photons (in the form of\nincrease in wavelength), and thus of the subsequent stretching out of\nthe wavetrain over space. Obviously given a constant velocity, the\nlonger wavetrain would require a longer time-like interval to pass the\ndetector, in strict proportion to the redshift, which you have yourself\ncited as being observed.\n\nRichard Perry\n\n\n`\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> schrieb
>
>>"Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>>I've heard about an alternative to the doppler effect being the cause
>>>of red-shift in our observations of distance galaxies. Its that over
>>>those huge huge distances the photon actually looses energy, slows
>>>down, and thus you see the red-shift.
>>>
>>>This "Tired-light" seems to have been thoroughly refuted.
>>
>>Actually, this is incorrect, though commonly repeated. There are no
>>substantive refutations of 'tired light' at all. The only attempts that
>>have been proffered are strawman-type calculations of Compton scattering.
>
>
> Hm, I remember some other refutation of tired light. It comes from
> supernova Sn1a observations. The premise is that each such supernova
> explosion has similar characteristics (similar size of the collapsing star).
> Therefore, the whole explosion needs almost the same time. Thus,
> the duration of such explosions defines a sort of clock.
>
> Now, observation shows (sorry, source forgotten) that the time dilation
> of this "clock" is the same as the time dilation defined by the observed red
> shift of light. If tired light would be correct, there would be no time
> dilation for the duration of supernova explosions.
>
> Ilja
I fail to see a logical connection between your premise and your
conclusion. If the light emitted is redshifted, and if we can only
measure the duration of the explosion via these redshifted photons, then
we can draw the conclusion that the increase in the explosion's duration
is the direct result of the tiring of the photons (in the form of
increase in wavelength), and thus of the subsequent stretching out of
the wavetrain over space. Obviously given a constant velocity, the
longer wavetrain would require a longer time-like interval to pass the
detector, in strict proportion to the redshift, which you have yourself
cited as being observed.
Richard Perry
`
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Nov26-04, 01:16 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <G%0pd.49095\\$QJ3.28829@newssvr21.news.prodigy.co m>, "Greysky"\n<greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> writes:\n\n> > With light, even for (most) supporters of the tired-light hypothesis,\n> > losing energy means increasing wavelength---not moving more slowly.\n> > (Note that a redshift IS an increase in wavelength. The question is not\n> > what happens, but why. The generally accepted idea is that the\n> > wavelength of light gets stretched due to the expansion of the universe.\n> > The tired-light folks postulate other reasons.)\n> >\n> Yes. Photons may redshift because they are running into some medium and\n> re-radiated. Molecular hydrogen, is a good example. Unlike humans, light\n> doesn\'t \'slow down\' when it gets either tired or old...\n\nThis particular variant of tired light, though, is ruled out since it\npredicts that the images of distant objects will become fuzzy.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <G%0pd.49095$QJ3.28829@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, "Greysky"
<greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> > With light, even for (most) supporters of the tired-light hypothesis,
> > losing energy means increasing wavelength---not moving more slowly.
> > (Note that a redshift IS an increase in wavelength. The question is not
> > what happens, but why. The generally accepted idea is that the
> > wavelength of light gets stretched due to the expansion of the universe.
> > The tired-light folks postulate other reasons.)
> >
> Yes. Photons may redshift because they are running into some medium and
> re-radiated. Molecular hydrogen, is a good example. Unlike humans, light
> doesn't 'slow down' when it gets either tired or old...
This particular variant of tired light, though, is ruled out since it
predicts that the images of distant objects will become fuzzy.
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message\nnews:30l4aaF328j7fU1@uni-berlin.de...\n> Ilja Schmelzer wrote:\n> > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> schrieb\n> >\n> >>"Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote\n> >>\n> >>>I\'ve heard about an alternative to the doppler effect being the cause\n> >>>of red-shift in our observations of distance galaxies. Its that over\n> >>>those huge huge distances the photon actually looses energy, slows\n> >>>down, and thus you see the red-shift.\n> >>>\n> >>>This "Tired-light" seems to have been thoroughly refuted.\n> >>\n> >>Actually, this is incorrect, though commonly repeated. There are no\n> >>substantive refutations of \'tired light\' at all. The only attempts that\n> >>have been proffered are strawman-type calculations of Compton\nscattering.\n> >\n> >\n> > Hm, I remember some other refutation of tired light. It comes from\n> > supernova Sn1a observations. The premise is that each such supernova\n> > explosion has similar characteristics (similar size of the collapsing\nstar).\n> > Therefore, the whole explosion needs almost the same time. Thus,\n> > the duration of such explosions defines a sort of clock.\n> >\n> > Now, observation shows (sorry, source forgotten) that the time dilation\n> > of this "clock" is the same as the time dilation defined by the observed\nred\n> > shift of light. If tired light would be correct, there would be no time\n> > dilation for the duration of supernova explosions.\n> >\n> > Ilja\n\nThat\'s an interesting one, I hadn\'t thought of that! BTW, using EM theory\nindeed Doppler type effects have nothing to do with light speed: received\nfrequency should be independent of the signal transmission speed, because of\nthe continuity/conservation requirements of frequency and energy - which\nfall away in case something interferes with it during its travel. Compton\ntype scattering is a very plausible mechanism for creating redshift, what\nmatters is a correct estimation of how much of redshift is caused by what,\nand such observations as Ilja mentioned could be helpful indeed.\nBut with the received frequency a combined effect of pure Doppler, time\ndilation, Compton Scattering and what else may be, in to-be-determined\nratios, analysis looks tricky to me.\n\n> I fail to see a logical connection between your premise and your\n> conclusion. If the light emitted is redshifted, and if we can only\n> measure the duration of the explosion via these redshifted photons, then\n> we can draw the conclusion that the increase in the explosion\'s duration\n> is the direct result of the tiring of the photons (in the form of\n> increase in wavelength), and thus of the subsequent stretching out of\n> the wavetrain over space.\n\nIt doesn\'t matter if you transmit a clock signal with red light, radio\nwaves, or even sound(!) or light and then sound- as long as the relevant\nvalues remain constant, the frequency is not affected.\n\nHarald\n\n> Obviously given a constant velocity, the\n> longer wavetrain would require a longer time-like interval to pass the\n> detector, in strict proportion to the redshift, which you have yourself\n> cited as being observed.\n>\n> Richard Perry\n>\n>\n> `\n>\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:30l4aaF328j7fU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> schrieb
> >
> >>"Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote
> >>
> >>>I've heard about an alternative to the doppler effect being the cause
> >>>of red-shift in our observations of distance galaxies. Its that over
> >>>those huge huge distances the photon actually looses energy, slows
> >>>down, and thus you see the red-shift.
> >>>
> >>>This "Tired-light" seems to have been thoroughly refuted.
> >>
> >>Actually, this is incorrect, though commonly repeated. There are no
> >>substantive refutations of 'tired light' at all. The only attempts that
> >>have been proffered are strawman-type calculations of Compton
scattering.
> >
> >
> > Hm, I remember some other refutation of tired light. It comes from
> > supernova Sn1a observations. The premise is that each such supernova
> > explosion has similar characteristics (similar size of the collapsing
star).
> > Therefore, the whole explosion needs almost the same time. Thus,
> > the duration of such explosions defines a sort of clock.
> >
> > Now, observation shows (sorry, source forgotten) that the time dilation
> > of this "clock" is the same as the time dilation defined by the observed
red
> > shift of light. If tired light would be correct, there would be no time
> > dilation for the duration of supernova explosions.
> >
> > Ilja
That's an interesting one, I hadn't thought of that! BTW, using EM theory
indeed Doppler type effects have nothing to do with light speed: received
frequency should be independent of the signal transmission speed, because of
the continuity/conservation requirements of frequency and energy - which
fall away in case something interferes with it during its travel. Compton
type scattering is a very plausible mechanism for creating redshift, what
matters is a correct estimation of how much of redshift is caused by what,
and such observations as Ilja mentioned could be helpful indeed.
But with the received frequency a combined effect of pure Doppler, time
dilation, Compton Scattering and what else may be, in to-be-determined
ratios, analysis looks tricky to me.
> I fail to see a logical connection between your premise and your
> conclusion. If the light emitted is redshifted, and if we can only
> measure the duration of the explosion via these redshifted photons, then
> we can draw the conclusion that the increase in the explosion's duration
> is the direct result of the tiring of the photons (in the form of
> increase in wavelength), and thus of the subsequent stretching out of
> the wavetrain over space.
It doesn't matter if you transmit a clock signal with red light, radio
waves, or even sound(!) or light and then sound- as long as the relevant
values remain constant, the frequency is not affected.
Harald
> Obviously given a constant velocity, the
> longer wavetrain would require a longer time-like interval to pass the
> detector, in strict proportion to the redshift, which you have yourself
> cited as being observed.
>
> Richard Perry
>
>
> `
>
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:\n> In article <G%0pd.49095\\$QJ3.28829@newssvr21.news.prodigy.co m>, "Greysky"\n> <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> writes:\n>\n>\n>>>With light, even for (most) supporters of the tired-light hypothesis,\n>>>losing energy means increasing wavelength---not moving more slowly.\n>>>(Note that a redshift IS an increase in wavelength. The question is not\n>>>what happens, but why. The generally accepted idea is that the\n>>>wavelength of light gets stretched due to the expansion of the universe.\n>>>The tired-light folks postulate other reasons.)\n>>>\n>>\n>>Yes. Photons may redshift because they are running into some medium and\n>>re-radiated. Molecular hydrogen, is a good example. Unlike humans, light\n>>doesn\'t \'slow down\' when it gets either tired or old...\n>\n>\n> This particular variant of tired light, though, is ruled out since it\n> predicts that the images of distant objects will become fuzzy.\n\nA better reason to rule it out is that the rates of emission and\nabsorption of waves cannot be equal per unit time in this model, i.e.,\ngiven source and detector at rest wrt each other, and constant speed of\npropagation wrt detector, these elongating waves would have to overlap\nin space, which of course leads us back to "no change in detected\nfrequency"\n\nThere are only three possible ways to produce redshift:\n\n1) Source frequency is, or better "was" (at the time of emission)\nobjectively lower than the frequency to which the comparison is being\nmade. Thus this is only an imagined redshift, i.e. the frequency is\n"redder than __" requiring something to be inserted into the blank,\nwhile no change in the wavelength or speed of the waves takes place over\nthe propagational path wrt the observational inertial frame.\n\n2) Source is receding from the the detector. Doppler shift: Also a\ncomparative value, and also requires to fill in the blank above, but\nexact cause known to be due to relative motion. "Redder than__detected\nby a detector comoving with the source".\n\n3) Both of the above in conjunction.\n\nAFAIK there are no other workable possibilities.\n\nRichard Perry\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
> In article <G%0pd.49095$QJ3.28829@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, "Greysky"
> <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>
>>>With light, even for (most) supporters of the tired-light hypothesis,
>>>losing energy means increasing wavelength---not moving more slowly.
>>>(Note that a redshift IS an increase in wavelength. The question is not
>>>what happens, but why. The generally accepted idea is that the
>>>wavelength of light gets stretched due to the expansion of the universe.
>>>The tired-light folks postulate other reasons.)
>>>
>>
>>Yes. Photons may redshift because they are running into some medium and
>>re-radiated. Molecular hydrogen, is a good example. Unlike humans, light
>>doesn't 'slow down' when it gets either tired or old...
>
>
> This particular variant of tired light, though, is ruled out since it
> predicts that the images of distant objects will become fuzzy.
A better reason to rule it out is that the rates of emission and
absorption of waves cannot be equal per unit time in this model, i.e.,
given source and detector at rest wrt each other, and constant speed of
propagation wrt detector, these elongating waves would have to overlap
in space, which of course leads us back to "no change in detected
frequency"
There are only three possible ways to produce redshift:
1) Source frequency is, or better "was" (at the time of emission)
objectively lower than the frequency to which the comparison is being
made. Thus this is only an imagined redshift, i.e. the frequency is
"redder than __" requiring something to be inserted into the blank,
while no change in the wavelength or speed of the waves takes place over
the propagational path wrt the observational inertial frame.
2) Source is receding from the the detector. Doppler shift: Also a
comparative value, and also requires to fill in the blank above, but
exact cause known to be due to relative motion. "Redder than__detected
by a detector comoving with the source".
3) Both of the above in conjunction.
AFAIK there are no other workable possibilities.
Richard Perry
Paul Stowe
Nov27-04, 06:39 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 07:16:06 +0000 (UTC), helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de\n(Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:\n\n>In article <G%0pd.49095\\$QJ3.28829@newssvr21.news.prodigy.co m>, "Greysky"\n><greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> writes:\n>\n>> > With light, even for (most) supporters of the tired-light hypothesis,\n>> > losing energy means increasing wavelength---not moving more slowly.\n>> > (Note that a redshift IS an increase in wavelength. The question is not\n>> > what happens, but why. The generally accepted idea is that the\n>> > wavelength of light gets stretched due to the expansion of the universe.\n>> > The tired-light folks postulate other reasons.)\n>> >\n>> Yes. Photons may redshift because they are running into some medium and\n>> re-radiated. Molecular hydrogen, is a good example. Unlike humans, light\n>> doesn\'t \'slow down\' when it gets either tired or old...\n>\n> This particular variant of tired light, though, is ruled out since it\n> predicts that the images of distant objects will become fuzzy.\n\nI have to question this \'assumption\'. If it is not an assumption based\nupon exrapolation perhaps someone can point to a detailed scattering\nanalysis.\n\nHere\'s my point...\n\nTake a Star of Radius R emitting light with a surface intensity I. Now\nthe optical angle is simply R/D where D is the observational distance.\n\nSo, let\'s take the Sun, with a radius of ~ 7E+08 m at even the simple\n500 MLY distance the optical angle is ~8E-15 degrees... So, for all\npurposes it is a point source (as would be expected). Now let\'s take\na scattering mean free path (distance) [L] of say 1500 MLY. This mean\nthe photons scatter in some form on average ever 1500 million years of\ntravel. So, let\'s look at this...\n\n\n500MLY\no-----------//-------------*\nSun Observer\n\n\nNow, calculate the scattering probability that a photon NOT on a line of\nsight path will scatter from angle d(theta) to \'hit\' at obaerver. Then\ncompare the resulting intensity of these to the uncollided incident flux.\n\nI think you\'ll find that blurring of the image does not occur. But at\n1.5 BLY mean free path we can calculate the energy loss during travel\nalong the direct line of sight. That simply is the well known\n\nI\' = Iexp(-D/L)\n\nFor cases where D/L << 1 this becomes ~ the linear expression (1 - D/L)\n\nLook up the concept of \'Buildup\' (scattering of photons) in cases of\nionizing radiation.\n\nAnother thing, if you have a chain of photons emitted in time t at\nsome wavelength l. Degrading the energy resulting in increasing the\nwavelengths of the photons from l to l\' increasing the chain length\nby l\'/l. If you are timing the length of the chain that time will\nincrease by l\'/l also yielding an apparent duration icrease. Thus\nit seems to me that duration increase with distance cannot be used\nto discriminate between expansion and tired light models.\n\nPaul Stowe\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 07:16:06 +0000 (UTC), helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de
(Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
>In article <G%0pd.49095$QJ3.28829@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, "Greysky"
><greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> > With light, even for (most) supporters of the tired-light hypothesis,
>> > losing energy means increasing wavelength---not moving more slowly.
>> > (Note that a redshift IS an increase in wavelength. The question is not
>> > what happens, but why. The generally accepted idea is that the
>> > wavelength of light gets stretched due to the expansion of the universe.
>> > The tired-light folks postulate other reasons.)
>> >
>> Yes. Photons may redshift because they are running into some medium and
>> re-radiated. Molecular hydrogen, is a good example. Unlike humans, light
>> doesn't 'slow down' when it gets either tired or old...
>
> This particular variant of tired light, though, is ruled out since it
> predicts that the images of distant objects will become fuzzy.
I have to question this 'assumption'. If it is not an assumption based
upon exrapolation perhaps someone can point to a detailed scattering
analysis.
Here's my point...
Take a Star of Radius R emitting light with a surface intensity I. Now
the optical angle is simply R/D where D is the observational distance.
So, let's take the Sun, with a radius of ~ 7E+08 m at even the simple
500 MLY distance the optical angle is ~8E-15 degrees... So, for all
purposes it is a point source (as would be expected). Now let's take
a scattering mean free path (distance) [L] of say 1500 MLY. This mean
the photons scatter in some form on average ever 1500 million years of
travel. So, let's look at this...
500MLY
o-----------//-------------*
Sun Observer
Now, calculate the scattering probability that a photon NOT on a line of
sight path will scatter from angle d(\theta) to 'hit' at obaerver. Then
compare the resulting intensity of these to the uncollided incident flux.
I think you'll find that blurring of the image does not occur. But at
1.5 BLY mean free path we can calculate the energy loss during travel
along the direct line of sight. That simply is the well known
I' = Iexp(-D/L)
For cases where D/L << 1 this becomes ~ the linear expression (1 - D/L)
Look up the concept of 'Buildup' (scattering of photons) in cases of
ionizing radiation.
Another thing, if you have a chain of photons emitted in time t at
some wavelength l. Degrading the energy resulting in increasing the
wavelengths of the photons from l to l' increasing the chain length
by l'/l. If you are timing the length of the chain that time will
increase by l'/l also yielding an apparent duration icrease. Thus
it seems to me that duration increase with distance cannot be used
to discriminate between expansion and tired light models.
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
Nov27-04, 12:27 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>fly-over.\n\nThe agent said he specializes in that sort of thing, and he was flown\nover the property for an evaluation.\n\nHe told the other federal agents that he could not determine that there\nwas any.\n\nThe G-MEN flew him over again: "they pressured me to change my evaluation,\nand I did, even though I couldn\'t detect any marijuana. They got me to\nsay \'maybe I see some for sure\'."\n\nA large multi-departmental group of federal and county agents stormed the\nhouse, and shot the male owner to death.\n\nThe widow continues to live there.\n\nBefore moving in, law enforcement had the property appraised for its value.\n\nEventually, the county admitted it wanted the property.\n\n\nThis is our Drug War for national security reasons.\n\nThe government now says it regrets calling it a Drug War.\n\nThen appointed a retired Military General as Drug Czar.\n\nDrug Czar William Bennett was an active nicotine addict until his first day\nof work. The ONLY reason he quit smoking was because it would have been\npolitically incorrect to smoke while leading the War on Drugs.\n\n* On October 19 1996, Clinton announced that his administration will develop\n* a plan to test the uri\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>fly-over.
The agent said he specializes in that sort of thing, and he was flown
over the property for an evaluation.
He told the other federal agents that he could not determine that there
was any.
The G-MEN flew him over again: "they pressured me to change my evaluation,
and I did, even though I couldn't detect any marijuana. They got me to
say 'maybe I see some for sure'."
A large multi-departmental group of federal and county agents stormed the
house, and shot the male owner to death.
The widow continues to live there.
Before moving in, law enforcement had the property appraised for its value.
Eventually, the county admitted it wanted the property.
This is our Drug War for national security reasons.
The government now says it regrets calling it a Drug War.
Then appointed a retired Military General as Drug Czar.
Drug Czar William Bennett was an active nicotine addict until his first day
of work. The ONLY reason he quit smoking was because it would have been
politically incorrect to smoke while leading the War on Drugs.
* On October 19 1996, Clinton announced that his administration will develop
* a plan to test the uri
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>State troopers really know their "business":\n\n: Robert Fitches, a 22 year-old said in his Federal lawsuit that he was\n: humiliated when state troopers ordered him to drop his pants during a\n: drug search along Interstate 15 in Davis County.\n: Source: Salt Lake City Tribune 7/8/95\n\nMaybe this is an accurate analogy of why dragnet-monitoring is wrong:\n\n: The Sheraton Boston Hotel was discovered videotaping employees changing\n: clothes in locker rooms. The 1991 surveillance caught employees using\n: drugs, Sheraton said. Source: Senate Labor Committee on Employment, 6/93\n\nIf you strip us naked you will detect more crime, but also, you strip\nindividuals naked without specific individuals being suspected of a crime.\n\nDragnet monitoring should not be the American way.\n\nUnrestricted cryptography must be made legal now,\nso we are no longer naked to ECHELON monitoring.\nIt will be a beginning.\n\n\n: Privacy Journal\'s War Stories (75 pages, \\$21.50) is available from\n: PRIVACY JOURNAL, P.O. Box 28577, Providence RI 02908, 401/274-7861,\n: electronic mail: 5101719@mcimail.com.\n:\n: Beverly Folmsbee of Pittsfield Massachusetts, who was not suspected\n: of any drug use, left her job after declining to take a "degrading"\n: urinalysis test at her company, then known as Tech Tool Grinding &\n: Supply Inc.\n:\n: It required disrobing, donning a hospital gown, and submitting to\n: bodily inspection by a medical staff person.\n:\n: But the highest court in the state said that the testing was legitimate.\n: Source: Folmsbee v.Tech Tool Grinding & Supply Inc., 417 Mass. 338, 630\n: N.E. 2d 586 (1994).\n\n\nIt is totally urinating what the politicians and\ncourts have allowed in the name of the Drug War.\n\n\n: Privacy Journal\'s War Stories, By Attorney Robert Ellis Smith\n:\n: Burlingame, CA, 1990: A flight attendant suffered medical complications\n: because of Federal requirements t\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>State troopers really know their "business":
: Robert Fitches, a 22 year-old said in his Federal lawsuit that he was
: humiliated when state troopers ordered him to drop his pants during a
: drug search along Interstate 15 in Davis County.
: Source: Salt Lake City Tribune 7/8/95
Maybe this is an accurate analogy of why dragnet-monitoring is wrong:
: The Sheraton Boston Hotel was discovered videotaping employees changing
: clothes in locker rooms. The 1991 surveillance caught employees using
: drugs, Sheraton said. Source: Senate Labor Committee on Employment, 6/93
If you strip us naked you will detect more crime, but also, you strip
individuals naked without specific individuals being suspected of a crime.
Dragnet monitoring should not be the American way.
Unrestricted cryptography must be made legal now,
so we are no longer naked to ECHELON monitoring.
It will be a beginning.
: Privacy Journal's War Stories (75 pages, $21.50) is available from
: PRIVACY JOURNAL, P.O. Box 28577, Providence RI 02908, 401/274-7861,
: electronic mail: 5101719@mcimail.com.
:
: Beverly Folmsbee of Pittsfield Massachusetts, who was not suspected
: of any drug use, left her job after declining to take a "degrading"
: urinalysis test at her company, then known as Tech Tool Grinding &
: Supply Inc.
:
: It required disrobing, donning a hospital gown, and submitting to
: bodily inspection by a medical staff person.
:
: But the highest court in the state said that the testing was legitimate.
: Source: Folmsbee v.Tech Tool Grinding & Supply Inc., 417 Mass. 338, 630
: N.E. 2d 586 (1994).
It is totally urinating what the politicians and
courts have allowed in the name of the Drug War.
: Privacy Journal's War Stories, By Attorney Robert Ellis Smith
:
: Burlingame, CA, 1990: A flight attendant suffered medical complications
: because of Federal requirements t
Paul Stowe
Nov27-04, 01:38 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>European Union and FBI launch a global surveillance system\n* -------- ----- --- --- ------ - ------ ------------ ------\n*\n* The EU, in cooperation of the FBI of the USA, is launching a system of\n* global surveillance of communications to combat "serious crime" and to\n* protect "national security".\n*\n* But to do this they are creating a system which can monitor everyone\n* and everything.\n*\n* At the first meeting of the new Council of Justice and Home Affairs\n* Ministers in Brussels on 29-30 November 1993 they adopted the following\n* Resolution on "the interception of telecommunications" which speaks for\n* itself and reproduced here in full:\n*\n# CONFIDENTIAL MEMO\n#\n# "COUNCIL RESOLUTION ON THE INTERCEPTION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS"\n#\n# The Council:\n#\n# 1) calls upon the expert group to compare the requirements of the Member\n# States of the Union with those of the FBI;\n#\n# 2) agrees that the requirements of the Member States of the Union will be\n# conveyed to the third countries which attended the FBI meeting in\n# Quantico and were mentioned in the memorandum approved by the Ministers\n# at their meeting in Copenhagen (Sweden, Norway, Finland [countries\n# applying for accession to the European Communities], the USA and\n# Canada), in order to avoid a discussion based solely on the\n# requirements of the FBI;\n#\n# 3) approves for practical reasons the extension to Hong Kong, Australia\n# and New Zealand (which attended the FBI seminar) of the decision on\n# co-operation with third countries which was taken at the Ministerial\n# meeting in Copenhagen\'\n[\nThe whole world, not just EU...Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong...\n]\n# 4) hereby decides that informal talks with the above-named countries may\n# be envisage\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>European Union and FBI launch a global surveillance system
* -------- ----- --- --- ------ - ------ ------------ ------
*
* The EU, in cooperation of the FBI of the USA, is launching a system of
* global surveillance of communications to combat "serious crime" and to
* protect "national security".
*
* But to do this they are creating a system which can monitor everyone
* and everything.
*
* At the first meeting of the new Council of Justice and Home Affairs
* Ministers in Brussels on 29-30 November 1993 they adopted the following
* Resolution on "the interception of telecommunications" which speaks for
* itself and reproduced here in full:
*
# CONFIDENTIAL MEMO
#
# "COUNCIL RESOLUTION ON THE INTERCEPTION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS"
#
# The Council:
#
# 1) calls upon the expert group to compare the requirements of the Member
# States of the Union with those of the FBI;
#
# 2) agrees that the requirements of the Member States of the Union will be
# conveyed to the third countries which attended the FBI meeting in
# Quantico and were mentioned in the memorandum approved by the Ministers
# at their meeting in Copenhagen (Sweden, Norway, Finland [countries
# applying for accession to the European Communities], the USA and
# Canada), in order to avoid a discussion based solely on the
# requirements of the FBI;
#
# 3) approves for practical reasons the extension to Hong Kong, Australia
# and New Zealand (which attended the FBI seminar) of the decision on
# co-operation with third countries which was taken at the Ministerial
# meeting in Copenhagen'
[
The whole world, not just EU...Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong...
]
# 4) hereby decides that informal talks with the above-named countries may
# be envisage
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>us in deep dungeons.\n> Everytime I\'ve said I\'m pro-gun I\'m treated like a criminal even\n> though I LEGALLY own one.\n\n***************** END OF JOBTALK EXCERPT *********************************\n\n\n\n\nThere was lots and lots of drinking/sex traffic.\n\n: Did I tell you I slept with Fred on Christmas Eve!!!\n:\n: After work we had a couple bottles of red wine, and went to the karoke pub!!\n: Anyway, after spending the evening there, I was hammered. I drank tons.\n: After the last dance he dragged me outside and was trying to shag me\n: against a car!!! I wasn\'t too impressed by that.\n:\n: I can\'t resist him though. We went to his friends house and the next thing\n: I remember is waking up naked in bed with him!!!\n\n\n: It\'s okay if your e-mails are shorter than mine. Size is important,\n: and you TOTALLY pass THAT test, however, size of e-mails does not count.\n\n\n> I can\'t wait for this evening! I really hope I can lick your pussy\n> during the commute home. ;-)\n> I love eating you!!!\n> I have a hard-on right now!\n> umm, umm, your breasts and whipped cream...\n\n\nOne time I got curious enough to ask someone about them sending sexually\nexplicit traffic in the clear across the Internet.\n\nIt was someone using a back-and-forth style; one person does a few paragraphs\nof a hot and heavy scenario between themselves and the other person. The\nother person then picks up the thread for several more para\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>us in deep dungeons.
> Everytime I've said I'm pro-gun I'm treated like a criminal even
> though I LEGALLY own one.
*****************[/itex] END OF JOBTALK EXCERPT [itex]*********************************
There was lots and lots of drinking/sex traffic.
: Did I tell you I slept with Fred on Christmas Eve!!!
:
: After work we had a couple bottles of red wine, and went to the karoke pub!!
: Anyway, after spending the evening there, I was hammered. I drank tons.
: After the last dance he dragged me outside and was trying to shag me
: against a car!!! I wasn't too impressed by that.
:
: I can't resist him though. We went to his friends house and the next thing
: I remember is waking up naked in bed with him!!!
: It's okay if your e-mails are shorter than mine. Size is important,
: and you TOTALLY pass THAT test, however, size of e-mails does not count.
> I can't wait for this evening! I really hope I can lick your pussy
> during the commute home. ;-)
> I love eating you!!!
> I have a hard-on right now!
> umm, umm, your breasts and whipped cream...
One time I got curious enough to ask someone about them sending sexually
explicit traffic in the clear across the Internet.
It was someone using a back-and-forth style; one person does a few paragraphs
of a hot and heavy scenario between themselves and the other person. The
other person then picks up the thread for several more para
Paul Stowe
Nov27-04, 02:06 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>P108\nThe New Zealand analysts have a high level of contact with the overseas\nagencies, including overseas staff training, postings and exchanges. In\nthe early 1990s the GCSB began conducting its own training courses, teaching\nthem the special procedures and regulations governing the production of\nsignals intelligence reports for the UKUSA network.\n\nIt is at these courses where the analysts are told about the UKUSA agreement,\nwhich is described by senior staff as the \'foundation stone\' of all the\narrangements with the \'partner\' agencies.\n\n\nP110 The GCSB introduces the new trainees to the world of codebreaking by\nadvising them to read two of the greatest exposes of signals intelligence:\nJames Bamford\'s \'The Puzzle Palace\' and David Kahn\'s \'The Code Breakers\'.\n\n\nP22\nIn 1984, Glen Singleton of the NSA was formally appointed GCSB\'s Deputy\nDirector of Policy and Plans. Having an American inside the GCSB serving as\na foreign liaison officer would be one thing: allowing an officer from another\ncountry to direct policy and planning seems extraordinary.\n\n[ Unless you think of the NSA as the New World Order. ]\n\n\nP28-29\nIntelsat 7s can carry 90,000 individual phone or fax ci\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>P108
The New Zealand analysts have a high level of contact with the overseas
agencies, including overseas staff training, postings and exchanges. In
the early 1990s the GCSB began conducting its own training courses, teaching
them the special procedures and regulations governing the production of
signals intelligence reports for the UKUSA network.
It is at these courses where the analysts are told about the UKUSA agreement,
which is described by senior staff as the 'foundation stone' of all the
arrangements with the 'partner' agencies.
P110 The GCSB introduces the new trainees to the world of codebreaking by
advising them to read two of the greatest exposes of signals intelligence:
James Bamford's 'The Puzzle Palace' and David Kahn's 'The Code Breakers'.
P22
In 1984, Glen Singleton of the NSA was formally appointed GCSB's Deputy
Director of Policy and Plans. Having an American inside the GCSB serving as
a foreign liaison officer would be one thing: allowing an officer from another
country to direct policy and planning seems extraordinary.
[ Unless you think of the NSA as the New World Order. ]
P28-29
Intelsat 7s can carry 90,000 individual phone or fax ci
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>out of jail\n: on \\$25,000 bail. "You have political prisoners on top of political\n: prisoners. I\'m only one of a great many that should be exposed,\n: should be addressed."\n:\n: The same judge who presided over Pratt\'s original trial set him free.\n: Johnny Cochran said Pratt spent the first eight years of his sentence\n: in solitary confinement.\n\nThat\'s a long time to sit in jail just because the FBI didn\'t want to\nreveal its monitoring operations, isn\'t it? It\'s 1997 now: same as it\never was. And his imprisonment had the same slimy quality as the vicious\nattack on Qubilah Shabazz, whom the government at first claimed they\n"had enough on her to put her away for 90 years".\n\n\nAnd just how do domestic civil rights organizations get labelled terrorist\nor under the influence of foreign agents? Why was Qubilah Shabazz\'s father\nconsidered a terrorist?\n\n: "Secret and Sanctioned: Covert Operations and the American Presidency"\n: by Stephen F. Knott, 1996, ISBN 0-19-510098-0\n:\n: Both presidents Johnson and Nixon had been convinced that Communist\n: nations were bankrolling or directing the antiwar movement and had\n: ordered investigations into this possibility.\n:\n: The CIA\'s investigations, which included operation CHAOS, found no\n: evidence of external control or funding of the antiwar movement, the\n: Black Panthers, or the Students for a Democratic Society.\n\n* "The Rise of the Computer State", David Burnham, 1984\n*\n* p128: Federal authorities were concerned that foreign governments MIGHT\n* try to influence civil rights leaders in the United States. The list\n* of Americans monitored ballooned as political groups, celebrities and\n* ordinary citizens were added to the \'watch lists\'. The NSA surveillan\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>out of jail
: on $25,000 bail. "You have political prisoners on top of political
: prisoners. I'm only one of a great many that should be exposed,
: should be addressed."
:
: The same judge who presided over Pratt's original trial set him free.
: Johnny Cochran said Pratt spent the first eight years of his sentence
: in solitary confinement.
That's a long time to sit in jail just because the FBI didn't want to
reveal its monitoring operations, isn't it? It's 1997 now: same as it
ever was. And his imprisonment had the same slimy quality as the vicious
attack on Qubilah Shabazz, whom the government at first claimed they
"had enough on her to put her away for 90 years".
And just how do domestic civil rights organizations get labelled terrorist
or under the influence of foreign agents? Why was Qubilah Shabazz's father
considered a terrorist?
: "Secret and Sanctioned: Covert Operations and the American Presidency"
: by Stephen F. Knott, 1996, ISBN 0-19-510098-0
:
: Both presidents Johnson and Nixon had been convinced that Communist
: nations were bankrolling or directing the antiwar movement and had
: ordered investigations into this possibility.
:
: The CIA's investigations, which included operation CHAOS, found no
: evidence of external control or funding of the antiwar movement, the
: Black Panthers, or the Students for a Democratic Society.
* "The Rise of the Computer State", David Burnham, 1984
*
* p128: Federal authorities were concerned that foreign governments MIGHT
* try to influence civil rights leaders in the United States. The list
* of Americans monitored ballooned as political groups, celebrities and
* ordinary citizens were added to the 'watch lists'. The NSA surveillan
greywolf42
Nov29-04, 02:50 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message\nnews:30paepF303im9U1@uni-berlin.de...\n> Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:\n> > In article <G%0pd.49095\\$QJ3.28829@newssvr21.news.prodigy.co m>, "Greysky"\n> > <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> writes:\n> >\n> >\n> >>>With light, even for (most) supporters of the tired-light hypothesis,\n> >>>losing energy means increasing wavelength---not moving more slowly.\n> >>>(Note that a redshift IS an increase in wavelength. The question is\n> >>>not what happens, but why. The generally accepted idea is that the\n> >>>wavelength of light gets stretched due to the expansion of the\n> >>>universe. The tired-light folks postulate other reasons.)\n> >>\n> >>Yes. Photons may redshift because they are running into some medium and\n> >>re-radiated.\n\nThat is not a tired light assumption. If it were, there would not be any\nreason to call it "tired light".\n\n> >>Molecular hydrogen, is a good example. Unlike humans, light\n> >>doesn\'t \'slow down\' when it gets either tired or old...\n\n> > This particular variant of tired light, though, is ruled out since it\n> > predicts that the images of distant objects will become fuzzy.\n>\n> A better reason to rule it out is that the rates of emission and\n> absorption of waves cannot be equal per unit time in this model, i.e.,\n> given source and detector at rest wrt each other, and constant speed of\n> propagation wrt detector, these elongating waves would have to overlap\n> in space, which of course leads us back to "no change in detected\n> frequency"\n\nArguing theory to save a theory does not advance an argument.\n\n> There are only three possible ways to produce redshift:\n\nAccording to what theory (ies)?\n\n> 1) Source frequency is, or better "was" (at the time of emission)\n> objectively lower than the frequency to which the comparison is being\n> made. Thus this is only an imagined redshift, i.e. the frequency is\n> "redder than __" requiring something to be inserted into the blank,\n> while no change in the wavelength or speed of the waves takes place over\n> the propagational path wrt the observational inertial frame.\n>\n> 2) Source is receding from the the detector. Doppler shift: Also a\n> comparative value, and also requires to fill in the blank above, but\n> exact cause known to be due to relative motion. "Redder than__detected\n> by a detector comoving with the source".\n>\n> 3) Both of the above in conjunction.\n>\n> AFAIK there are no other workable possibilities.\n\nOne\'s ignorance of other options does not preclude the actions of the\nuniverse.\n\nFor example, perhaps you could identify what you consider the unworkable\naspects of Vigier\'s QM theory. Or the unworkable aspects of LeSagian\naethers. Or the unworkable aspects of Maxwell\'s aethers.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for e-mail}\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:30paepF303im9U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
> > In article <G%0pd.49095$QJ3.28829@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, "Greysky"
> > <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> >
> >
> >>>With light, even for (most) supporters of the tired-light hypothesis,
> >>>losing energy means increasing wavelength---not moving more slowly.
> >>>(Note that a redshift IS an increase in wavelength. The question is
> >>>not what happens, but why. The generally accepted idea is that the
> >>>wavelength of light gets stretched due to the expansion of the
> >>>universe. The tired-light folks postulate other reasons.)
> >>
> >>Yes. Photons may redshift because they are running into some medium and
> >>re-radiated.
That is not a tired light assumption. If it were, there would not be any
reason to call it "tired light".
> >>Molecular hydrogen, is a good example. Unlike humans, light
> >>doesn't 'slow down' when it gets either tired or old...
> > This particular variant of tired light, though, is ruled out since it
> > predicts that the images of distant objects will become fuzzy.
>
> A better reason to rule it out is that the rates of emission and
> absorption of waves cannot be equal per unit time in this model, i.e.,
> given source and detector at rest wrt each other, and constant speed of
> propagation wrt detector, these elongating waves would have to overlap
> in space, which of course leads us back to "no change in detected
> frequency"
Arguing theory to save a theory does not advance an argument.
> There are only three possible ways to produce redshift:
According to what theory (ies)?
> 1) Source frequency is, or better "was" (at the time of emission)
> objectively lower than the frequency to which the comparison is being
> made. Thus this is only an imagined redshift, i.e. the frequency is
> "redder than __" requiring something to be inserted into the blank,
> while no change in the wavelength or speed of the waves takes place over
> the propagational path wrt the observational inertial frame.
>
> 2) Source is receding from the the detector. Doppler shift: Also a
> comparative value, and also requires to fill in the blank above, but
> exact cause known to be due to relative motion. "Redder than__detected
> by a detector comoving with the source".
>
> 3) Both of the above in conjunction.
>
> AFAIK there are no other workable possibilities.
One's ignorance of other options does not preclude the actions of the
universe.
For example, perhaps you could identify what you consider the unworkable
aspects of Vigier's QM theory. Or the unworkable aspects of LeSagian
aethers. Or the unworkable aspects of Maxwell's aethers.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}
greywolf42
Nov29-04, 02:50 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply" <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de>\nwrote in message news:co49mm\\$blh\\$1@online.de...\n> In article <G%0pd.49095\\$QJ3.28829@newssvr21.news.prodigy.co m>, "Greysky"\n> <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> writes:\n>\n> > > With light, even for (most) supporters of the tired-light hypothesis,\n> > > losing energy means increasing wavelength---not moving more slowly.\n> > > (Note that a redshift IS an increase in wavelength. The question is\n> > > not what happens, but why. The generally accepted idea is that the\n> > > wavelength of light gets stretched due to the expansion of the\n> > > universe. The tired-light folks postulate other reasons.)\n> > >\n> > Yes. Photons may redshift because they are running into some medium and\n> > re-radiated. Molecular hydrogen, is a good example. Unlike humans, light\n> > doesn\'t \'slow down\' when it gets either tired or old...\n>\n> This particular variant of tired light, though, is ruled out since it\n> predicts that the images of distant objects will become fuzzy.\n\nHowever, re-radiation is not a tired light theory. Re-radiation is simply a\nstrawman argument.\n\nThis myth originally was a hand-waving argument presented by Zel\'dovich.\nThen it was enshrined in Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. And has been repeated\never since. But no one has ever done an actual calculation of the claim.\nThe closest that came was a strawman posted by Ned Wright, using Compton\nscattering off of electrons. But no actual tired light theory uses compton\nscattering.\n\nhttp://www.google.com/groups?selm=103pkonmqrb5ud3%40corp.supernews.com\n \n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for e-mail}\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply" <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de>
wrote in message news:co49mm$blh$1@online.de...
> In article <G%0pd.49095$QJ3.28829@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, "Greysky"
> <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
> > > With light, even for (most) supporters of the tired-light hypothesis,
> > > losing energy means increasing wavelength---not moving more slowly.
> > > (Note that a redshift IS an increase in wavelength. The question is
> > > not what happens, but why. The generally accepted idea is that the
> > > wavelength of light gets stretched due to the expansion of the
> > > universe. The tired-light folks postulate other reasons.)
> > >
> > Yes. Photons may redshift because they are running into some medium and
> > re-radiated. Molecular hydrogen, is a good example. Unlike humans, light
> > doesn't 'slow down' when it gets either tired or old...
>
> This particular variant of tired light, though, is ruled out since it
> predicts that the images of distant objects will become fuzzy.
However, re-radiation is not a tired light theory. Re-radiation is simply a
strawman argument.
This myth originally was a hand-waving argument presented by Zel'dovich.
Then it was enshrined in Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. And has been repeated
ever since. But no one has ever done an actual calculation of the claim.
The closest that came was a strawman posted by Ned Wright, using Compton
scattering off of electrons. But no actual tired light theory uses compton
scattering.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=103pkonmqrb5ud3%40corp.supernews.com
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>greywolf42 wrote:\n\n> "RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message\n> news:30paepF303im9U1@uni-berlin.de...\n>\n>>Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:\n>>\n>>>In article <G%0pd.49095\\$QJ3.28829@newssvr21.news.prodigy.co m>, "Greysky"\n>>><greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> writes:\n>>>\n>>>\n>>>\n>>>>>With light, even for (most) supporters of the tired-light hypothesis,\n>>>>>losing energy means increasing wavelength---not moving more slowly.\n>>>>>(Note that a redshift IS an increase in wavelength. The question is\n>>>>>not what happens, but why. The generally accepted idea is that the\n>>>>>wavelength of light gets stretched due to the expansion of the\n>>>>>universe. The tired-light folks postulate other reasons.)\n>>>>\n>>>>Yes. Photons may redshift because they are running into some medium and\n>>>>re-radiated.\n>\n>\n> That is not a tired light assumption. If it were, there would not be any\n> reason to call it "tired light".\n>\n>\n>>>>Molecular hydrogen, is a good example. Unlike humans, light\n>>>>doesn\'t \'slow down\' when it gets either tired or old...\n>\n>\n>>>This particular variant of tired light, though, is ruled out since it\n>>>predicts that the images of distant objects will become fuzzy.\n>>\n>>A better reason to rule it out is that the rates of emission and\n>>absorption of waves cannot be equal per unit time in this model, i.e.,\n>>given source and detector at rest wrt each other, and constant speed of\n>>propagation wrt detector, these elongating waves would have to overlap\n>>in space, which of course leads us back to "no change in detected\n>>frequency"\n>\n>\n> Arguing theory to save a theory does not advance an argument.\n>\n>\n>>There are only three possible ways to produce redshift:\n>\n>\n> According to what theory (ies)?\n\nI\'m sorry, but I don\'t quite understand this question. The theory, if\nyou want to call it a physical theory, that I draw these conclusions\nfrom is simple algebra.\n\nf * delta_t = f\' * delta_t\'\n\nFor any two inertial observers. This equality extends to every inertial\nframe in existence that is detecting the emitted light from an inertial\nsource. I call this equation "the law of conservation of information".\nAs you may or may not have noticed, it\'s a tautology.\n\nIt seems to be only the unworkable speculations that are tagged to some\nparticular physical theory of the universe.\nIf they don\'t satisfy the above equality, then they are simply incorrect.\n\nRichard Perry\n\n>\n>\n>>1) Source frequency is, or better "was" (at the time of emission)\n>>objectively lower than the frequency to which the comparison is being\n>>made. Thus this is only an imagined redshift, i.e. the frequency is\n>>"redder than __" requiring something to be inserted into the blank,\n>>while no change in the wavelength or speed of the waves takes place over\n>>the propagational path wrt the observational inertial frame.\n>>\n>>2) Source is receding from the the detector. Doppler shift: Also a\n>>comparative value, and also requires to fill in the blank above, but\n>>exact cause known to be due to relative motion. "Redder than__detected\n>>by a detector comoving with the source".\n>>\n>>3) Both of the above in conjunction.\n>>\n>>AFAIK there are no other workable possibilities.\n>\n>\n> One\'s ignorance of other options does not preclude the actions of the\n> universe.\n>\n> For example, perhaps you could identify what you consider the unworkable\n> aspects of Vigier\'s QM theory. Or the unworkable aspects of LeSagian\n> aethers. Or the unworkable aspects of Maxwell\'s aethers.\n>\n> --\n> greywolf42\n> ubi dubium ibi libertas\n> {remove planet for e-mail}\n>\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>greywolf42 wrote:
> "RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:30paepF303im9U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
>>Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
>>
>>>In article <G%0pd.49095$QJ3.28829@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, "Greysky"
>>><greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>With light, even for (most) supporters of the tired-light hypothesis,
>>>>>losing energy means increasing wavelength---not moving more slowly.
>>>>>(Note that a redshift IS an increase in wavelength. The question is
>>>>>not what happens, but why. The generally accepted idea is that the
>>>>>wavelength of light gets stretched due to the expansion of the
>>>>>universe. The tired-light folks postulate other reasons.)
>>>>
>>>>Yes. Photons may redshift because they are running into some medium and
>>>>re-radiated.
>
>
> That is not a tired light assumption. If it were, there would not be any
> reason to call it "tired light".
>
>
>>>>Molecular hydrogen, is a good example. Unlike humans, light
>>>>doesn't 'slow down' when it gets either tired or old...
>
>
>>>This particular variant of tired light, though, is ruled out since it
>>>predicts that the images of distant objects will become fuzzy.
>>
>>A better reason to rule it out is that the rates of emission and
>>absorption of waves cannot be equal per unit time in this model, i.e.,
>>given source and detector at rest wrt each other, and constant speed of
>>propagation wrt detector, these elongating waves would have to overlap
>>in space, which of course leads us back to "no change in detected
>>frequency"
>
>
> Arguing theory to save a theory does not advance an argument.
>
>
>>There are only three possible ways to produce redshift:
>
>
> According to what theory (ies)?
I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand this question. The theory, if
you want to call it a physical theory, that I draw these conclusions
from is simple algebra.
f * \delta_t = f' * \delta_t'
For any two inertial observers. This equality extends to every inertial
frame in existence that is detecting the emitted light from an inertial
source. I call this equation "the law of conservation of information".
As you may or may not have noticed, it's a tautology.
It seems to be only the unworkable speculations that are tagged to some
particular physical theory of the universe.
If they don't satisfy the above equality, then they are simply incorrect.
Richard Perry
>
>
>>1) Source frequency is, or better "was" (at the time of emission)
>>objectively lower than the frequency to which the comparison is being
>>made. Thus this is only an imagined redshift, i.e. the frequency is
>>"redder than __" requiring something to be inserted into the blank,
>>while no change in the wavelength or speed of the waves takes place over
>>the propagational path wrt the observational inertial frame.
>>
>>2) Source is receding from the the detector. Doppler shift: Also a
>>comparative value, and also requires to fill in the blank above, but
>>exact cause known to be due to relative motion. "Redder than__detected
>>by a detector comoving with the source".
>>
>>3) Both of the above in conjunction.
>>
>>AFAIK there are no other workable possibilities.
>
>
> One's ignorance of other options does not preclude the actions of the
> universe.
>
> For example, perhaps you could identify what you consider the unworkable
> aspects of Vigier's QM theory. Or the unworkable aspects of LeSagian
> aethers. Or the unworkable aspects of Maxwell's aethers.
>
> --
> greywolf42
> ubi dubium ibi libertas
> {remove planet for e-mail}
>
greywolf42
Dec1-04, 11:10 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message\nnews:311edaF36qfcvU1@uni-berlin.de...\n> greywolf42 wrote:\n>\n> > "RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message\n> > news:30paepF303im9U1@uni-berlin.de...\n> >\n> >>Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:\n> >>\n> >>>In article <G%0pd.49095\\$QJ3.28829@newssvr21.news.prodigy.co m>,\n"Greysky"\n> >>><greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> writes:\n> >>>\n> >>>>>With light, even for (most) supporters of the tired-light hypothesis,\n> >>>>>losing energy means increasing wavelength---not moving more slowly.\n> >>>>>(Note that a redshift IS an increase in wavelength. The question is\n> >>>>>not what happens, but why. The generally accepted idea is that the\n> >>>>>wavelength of light gets stretched due to the expansion of the\n> >>>>>universe. The tired-light folks postulate other reasons.)\n> >>>>\n> >>>>Yes. Photons may redshift because they are running into some medium\n> >>>> and re-radiated.\n> >\n> > That is not a tired light assumption. If it were, there would not be\n> > any reason to call it "tired light".\n\nNo response, I see.\n\n> >>>>Molecular hydrogen, is a good example. Unlike humans, light\n> >>>>doesn\'t \'slow down\' when it gets either tired or old...\n> >\n> >>>This particular variant of tired light, though, is ruled out since it\n> >>>predicts that the images of distant objects will become fuzzy.\n> >>\n> >>A better reason to rule it out is that the rates of emission and\n> >>absorption of waves cannot be equal per unit time in this model, i.e.,\n> >>given source and detector at rest wrt each other, and constant speed of\n> >>propagation wrt detector, these elongating waves would have to overlap\n> >>in space, which of course leads us back to "no change in detected\n> >>frequency"\n> >\n> > Arguing theory to save a theory does not advance an argument.\n\nNo response, I see.\n\n> >>There are only three possible ways to produce redshift:\n> >\n> > According to what theory (ies)?\n>\n> I\'m sorry, but I don\'t quite understand this question. The theory, if\n> you want to call it a physical theory, that I draw these conclusions\n> from is simple algebra.\n>\n> f * delta_t = f\' * delta_t\'\n\nWhat physical theory gave you the above equation? There are some embedded\nassumptions, that you are simply bypassing.\n\nAlgebra cannot provide the equation to you. Algebra can only operate on a\nprior equation. So, where\'s the prior equation(s)?\n\n> For any two inertial observers. This equality extends to every inertial\n> frame in existence that is detecting the emitted light from an inertial\n> source.\n\nAh! Since you use the term "inertial frame" you are starting off by\nassuming all of SR, and it\'s assumptions.\n\n> I call this equation "the law of conservation of information".\n> As you may or may not have noticed, it\'s a tautology.\n\nNot in the least. SR is a tautology, because it includes the e-synching\nprocedure that will directly adjust all measurements of time and space to\nmatch the assumptions.\n\n\n> It seems to be only the unworkable speculations that are tagged to some\n> particular physical theory of the universe.\n> If they don\'t satisfy the above equality, then they are simply incorrect.\n\nAccording to which theories?\n\n> >>1) Source frequency is, or better "was" (at the time of emission)\n> >>objectively lower than the frequency to which the comparison is being\n> >>made. Thus this is only an imagined redshift, i.e. the frequency is\n> >>"redder than __" requiring something to be inserted into the blank,\n> >>while no change in the wavelength or speed of the waves takes place over\n> >>the propagational path wrt the observational inertial frame.\n> >>\n> >>2) Source is receding from the the detector. Doppler shift: Also a\n> >>comparative value, and also requires to fill in the blank above, but\n> >>exact cause known to be due to relative motion. "Redder than__detected\n> >>by a detector comoving with the source".\n> >>\n> >>3) Both of the above in conjunction.\n> >>\n> >>AFAIK there are no other workable possibilities.\n> >\n> > One\'s ignorance of other options does not preclude the actions of the\n> > universe.\n> >\n> > For example, perhaps you could identify what you consider the unworkable\n> > aspects of Vigier\'s QM theory. Or the unworkable aspects of LeSagian\n> > aethers. Or the unworkable aspects of Maxwell\'s aethers.\n\nNo response, I see.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for return e-mail}\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:311edaF36qfcvU1@uni-berlin.de...
> greywolf42 wrote:
>
> > "RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:30paepF303im9U1@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >>Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <G%0pd.49095$QJ3.28829@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
"Greysky"
> >>><greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> >>>
> >>>>>With light, even for (most) supporters of the tired-light hypothesis,
> >>>>>losing energy means increasing wavelength---not moving more slowly.
> >>>>>(Note that a redshift IS an increase in wavelength. The question is
> >>>>>not what happens, but why. The generally accepted idea is that the
> >>>>>wavelength of light gets stretched due to the expansion of the
> >>>>>universe. The tired-light folks postulate other reasons.)
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes. Photons may redshift because they are running into some medium
> >>>> and re-radiated.
> >
> > That is not a tired light assumption. If it were, there would not be
> > any reason to call it "tired light".
No response, I see.
> >>>>Molecular hydrogen, is a good example. Unlike humans, light
> >>>>doesn't 'slow down' when it gets either tired or old...
> >
> >>>This particular variant of tired light, though, is ruled out since it
> >>>predicts that the images of distant objects will become fuzzy.
> >>
> >>A better reason to rule it out is that the rates of emission and
> >>absorption of waves cannot be equal per unit time in this model, i.e.,
> >>given source and detector at rest wrt each other, and constant speed of
> >>propagation wrt detector, these elongating waves would have to overlap
> >>in space, which of course leads us back to "no change in detected
> >>frequency"
> >
> > Arguing theory to save a theory does not advance an argument.
No response, I see.
> >>There are only three possible ways to produce redshift:
> >
> > According to what theory (ies)?
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand this question. The theory, if
> you want to call it a physical theory, that I draw these conclusions
> from is simple algebra.
>
> f * \delta_t = f' * \delta_t'
What physical theory gave you the above equation? There are some embedded
assumptions, that you are simply bypassing.
Algebra cannot provide the equation to you. Algebra can only operate on a
prior equation. So, where's the prior equation(s)?
> For any two inertial observers. This equality extends to every inertial
> frame in existence that is detecting the emitted light from an inertial
> source.
Ah! Since you use the term "inertial frame" you are starting off by
assuming all of SR, and it's assumptions.
> I call this equation "the law of conservation of information".
> As you may or may not have noticed, it's a tautology.
Not in the least. SR is a tautology, because it includes the e-synching
procedure that will directly adjust all measurements of time and space to
match the assumptions.
> It seems to be only the unworkable speculations that are tagged to some
> particular physical theory of the universe.
> If they don't satisfy the above equality, then they are simply incorrect.
According to which theories?
> >>1) Source frequency is, or better "was" (at the time of emission)
> >>objectively lower than the frequency to which the comparison is being
> >>made. Thus this is only an imagined redshift, i.e. the frequency is
> >>"redder than __" requiring something to be inserted into the blank,
> >>while no change in the wavelength or speed of the waves takes place over
> >>the propagational path wrt the observational inertial frame.
> >>
> >>2) Source is receding from the the detector. Doppler shift: Also a
> >>comparative value, and also requires to fill in the blank above, but
> >>exact cause known to be due to relative motion. "Redder than__detected
> >>by a detector comoving with the source".
> >>
> >>3) Both of the above in conjunction.
> >>
> >>AFAIK there are no other workable possibilities.
> >
> > One's ignorance of other options does not preclude the actions of the
> > universe.
> >
> > For example, perhaps you could identify what you consider the unworkable
> > aspects of Vigier's QM theory. Or the unworkable aspects of LeSagian
> > aethers. Or the unworkable aspects of Maxwell's aethers.
No response, I see.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>greywolf42 wrote:\n> RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message\n> news:311edaF36qfcvU1@uni-berlin.de...\n>\n>>greywolf42 wrote:\n>>\n>>\n>>>"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message\n>>>news:30paepF303im9U1@uni-berlin.de...\n>>>\n>>>\n>>>>Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>>>In article <G%0pd.49095\\$QJ3.28829@newssvr21.news.prodigy.co m>,\n>\n> "Greysky"\n>\n>>>>><greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net > writes:\n>>>>>\n>>>>>\n>>>>>>>With light, even for (most) supporters of the tired-light hypothesis,\n>>>>>>>losing energy means increasing wavelength---not moving more slowly.\n>>>>>>>(Note that a redshift IS an increase in wavelength. The question is\n>>>>>>>not what happens, but why. The generally accepted idea is that the\n>>>>>>>wavelength of light gets stretched due to the expansion of the\n>>>>>>>universe. The tired-light folks postulate other reasons.)\n>>>>>>\n>>>>>>Yes. Photons may redshift because they are running into some medium\n>>>>>>and re-radiated.\n>>>\n>>>That is not a tired light assumption. If it were, there would not be\n>>>any reason to call it "tired light".\n>\n>\n> No response, I see.\n\nI didn\'t respond to this, because I didn\'t post the argument. Perhaps\nyour newsreader doesn\'t provide the sidebars to indicate who it was that\nmade the statement.\n\n>\n>\n>>>>>>Molecular hydrogen, is a good example. Unlike humans, light\n>>>>>>doesn\'t \'slow down\' when it gets either tired or old...\n>>>\n>>>>>This particular variant of tired light, though, is ruled out since it\n>>>>>predicts that the images of distant objects will become fuzzy.\n>>>>\n>>>>A better reason to rule it out is that the rates of emission and\n>>>>absorption of waves cannot be equal per unit time in this model, i.e.,\n>>>>given source and detector at rest wrt each other, and constant speed of\n>>>>propagation wrt detector, these elongating waves would have to overlap\n>>>>in space, which of course leads us back to "no change in detected\n>>>>frequency"\n>>>\n>>>Arguing theory to save a theory does not advance an argument.\n>\n>\n> No response, I see.\n\nSee above.\n\n>\n>>>>There are only three possible ways to produce redshift:\n>>>\n>>>According to what theory (ies)?\n>>\n>>I\'m sorry, but I don\'t quite understand this question. The theory, if\n>>you want to call it a physical theory, that I draw these conclusions\n>>from is simple algebra.\n>>\n>>f * delta_t = f\' * delta_t\'\n>\n>\n> What physical theory gave you the above equation? There are some embedded\n> assumptions, that you are simply bypassing.\n\nThe only assumption that I made is that an event is absolute in the\nsense that in any frame it either did or did not occur. When I pulse a\nflashlight 10 times, then every observer will detect 10 flashes. The\nequation is just this statement in mathematical form.\n\nfreq * delta_t = (number of cycles)\n\nfreq\' * delta_t = (number of cycles)\n\nSo that if a finite number of cycles occur at the source, then for any\ntwo inertial observers of the corresponding waves we must have\n\nfreq * delta_t = freq\' * delta_t\'\n\nSuppose you explain how there is more at work here than simple algebra?\nI\'m at a complete loss to understand your inability to grasp that this\nis nothing more than the premise of one reality, the reality that we\njust happen to live in.\nThe theory in which this statement is a required premise is simply "any\ntheory that portends to be empirically consistent". The equation is an\nempirically derived premise, nothing more and nothing less, or better,\njust an algebraic manipulation of the tautology cycles = cycles\'.\n\n\n>\n> Algebra cannot provide the equation to you. Algebra can only operate on a\n> prior equation. So, where\'s the prior equation(s)?\n\nJust above, at the end of my previous sentence.\n\n>\n>\n>>For any two inertial observers. This equality extends to every inertial\n>>frame in existence that is detecting the emitted light from an inertial\n>>source.\n>\n>\n> Ah! Since you use the term "inertial frame" you are starting off by\n> assuming all of SR, and it\'s assumptions.\n\nNot at all.\n\n>\n>>I call this equation "the law of conservation of information".\n>>As you may or may not have noticed, it\'s a tautology.\n>\n>\n> Not in the least. SR is a tautology, because it includes the e-synching\n> procedure that will directly adjust all measurements of time and space to\n> match the assumptions.\n\nI\'m not promoting special relativity, just common sense. I find the\ntwo to be mutually exclusive, actually.\n>\n>\n>>It seems to be only the unworkable speculations that are tagged to some\n>>particular physical theory of the universe.\n>>If they don\'t satisfy the above equality, then they are simply incorrect.\n>\n>\n> According to which theories?\n\nAccording to reality, easily observable. Observed by every person, every\nday of their lives. We all agree on the fact that my left blinker\nflashed exactly 56 times while waiting on that light to change.\n\n>\n>\n>>>>1) Source frequency is, or better "was" (at the time of emission)\n>>>>objectively lower than the frequency to which the comparison is being\n>>>>made. Thus this is only an imagined redshift, i.e. the frequency is\n>>>>"redder than __" requiring something to be inserted into the blank,\n>>>>while no change in the wavelength or speed of the waves takes place over\n>>>>the propagational path wrt the observational inertial frame.\n>>>>\n>>>>2) Source is receding from the the detector. Doppler shift: Also a\n>>>>comparative value, and also requires to fill in the blank above, but\n>>>>exact cause known to be due to relative motion. "Redder than__detected\n>>>>by a detector comoving with the source".\n>>>>\n>>>>3) Both of the above in conjunction.\n>>>>\n>>>>AFAIK there are no other workable possibilities.\n>>>\n>>>One\'s ignorance of other options does not preclude the actions of the\n>>>universe.\n\nOne\'s ignorance of the actions of the universe doesn\'t require other\noptions to be a possibility.\nPossibility is after all just a measure of ignorance.\n\n>>>\n>>>For example, perhaps you could identify what you consider the unworkable\n>>>aspects of Vigier\'s QM theory. Or the unworkable aspects of LeSagian\n>>>aethers. Or the unworkable aspects of Maxwell\'s aethers.\n>\n>\n> No response, I see.\n\nShow how these run contrary to my statements, then I\'ll show you why\nthey are unworkable in that aspect of them. Until then I have no\ninterest in delving into details of theories, about an effect that is\nalready made pellucid in the simple equation that I provided above. The\nsubject is just that simple, there is no wiggle room, no stranger than\nlife fictions that can alter the reality expressed by that equation.\n\nRichard Perry\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>greywolf42 wrote:
> RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:311edaF36qfcvU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
>>greywolf42 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:30paepF303im9U1@uni-berlin.de...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <G%0pd.49095$QJ3.28829@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
>
> "Greysky"
>
>>>>><greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>With light, even for (most) supporters of the tired-light hypothesis,
>>>>>>>losing energy means increasing wavelength---not moving more slowly.
>>>>>>>(Note that a redshift IS an increase in wavelength. The question is
>>>>>>>not what happens, but why. The generally accepted idea is that the
>>>>>>>wavelength of light gets stretched due to the expansion of the
>>>>>>>universe. The tired-light folks postulate other reasons.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes. Photons may redshift because they are running into some medium
>>>>>>and re-radiated.
>>>
>>>That is not a tired light assumption. If it were, there would not be
>>>any reason to call it "tired light".
>
>
> No response, I see.
I didn't respond to this, because I didn't post the argument. Perhaps
your newsreader doesn't provide the sidebars to indicate who it was that
made the statement.
>
>
>>>>>>Molecular hydrogen, is a good example. Unlike humans, light
>>>>>>doesn't 'slow down' when it gets either tired or old...
>>>
>>>>>This particular variant of tired light, though, is ruled out since it
>>>>>predicts that the images of distant objects will become fuzzy.
>>>>
>>>>A better reason to rule it out is that the rates of emission and
>>>>absorption of waves cannot be equal per unit time in this model, i.e.,
>>>>given source and detector at rest wrt each other, and constant speed of
>>>>propagation wrt detector, these elongating waves would have to overlap
>>>>in space, which of course leads us back to "no change in detected
>>>>frequency"
>>>
>>>Arguing theory to save a theory does not advance an argument.
>
>
> No response, I see.
See above.
>
>>>>There are only three possible ways to produce redshift:
>>>
>>>According to what theory (ies)?
>>
>>I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand this question. The theory, if
>>you want to call it a physical theory, that I draw these conclusions
>>from is simple algebra.
>>
>>f * \delta_t = f' * \delta_t'
>
>
> What physical theory gave you the above equation? There are some embedded
> assumptions, that you are simply bypassing.
The only assumption that I made is that an event is absolute in the
sense that in any frame it either did or did not occur. When I pulse a
flashlight 10 times, then every observer will detect 10 flashes. The
equation is just this statement in mathematical form.
freq * \delta_t = (number of cycles)
freq' * \delta_t = (number of cycles)
So that if a finite number of cycles occur at the source, then for any
two inertial observers of the corresponding waves we must have
freq * \delta_t = freq' * \delta_t'
Suppose you explain how there is more at work here than simple algebra?
I'm at a complete loss to understand your inability to grasp that this
is nothing more than the premise of one reality, the reality that we
just happen to live in.
The theory in which this statement is a required premise is simply "any
theory that portends to be empirically consistent". The equation is an
empirically derived premise, nothing more and nothing less, or better,
just an algebraic manipulation of the tautology cycles = cycles'.
>
> Algebra cannot provide the equation to you. Algebra can only operate on a
> prior equation. So, where's the prior equation(s)?
Just above, at the end of my previous sentence.
>
>
>>For any two inertial observers. This equality extends to every inertial
>>frame in existence that is detecting the emitted light from an inertial
>>source.
>
>
> Ah! Since you use the term "inertial frame" you are starting off by
> assuming all of SR, and it's assumptions.
Not at all.
>
>>I call this equation "the law of conservation of information".
>>As you may or may not have noticed, it's a tautology.
>
>
> Not in the least. SR is a tautology, because it includes the e-synching
> procedure that will directly adjust all measurements of time and space to
> match the assumptions.
I'm not promoting special relativity, just common sense. I find the
two to be mutually exclusive, actually.
>
>
>>It seems to be only the unworkable speculations that are tagged to some
>>particular physical theory of the universe.
>>If they don't satisfy the above equality, then they are simply incorrect.
>
>
> According to which theories?
According to reality, easily observable. Observed by every person, every
day of their lives. We all agree on the fact that my left blinker
flashed exactly 56 times while waiting on that light to change.
>
>
>>>>1) Source frequency is, or better "was" (at the time of emission)
>>>>objectively lower than the frequency to which the comparison is being
>>>>made. Thus this is only an imagined redshift, i.e. the frequency is
>>>>"redder than __" requiring something to be inserted into the blank,
>>>>while no change in the wavelength or speed of the waves takes place over
>>>>the propagational path wrt the observational inertial frame.
>>>>
>>>>2) Source is receding from the the detector. Doppler shift: Also a
>>>>comparative value, and also requires to fill in the blank above, but
>>>>exact cause known to be due to relative motion. "Redder than__detected
>>>>by a detector comoving with the source".
>>>>
>>>>3) Both of the above in conjunction.
>>>>
>>>>AFAIK there are no other workable possibilities.
>>>
>>>One's ignorance of other options does not preclude the actions of the
>>>universe.
One's ignorance of the actions of the universe doesn't require other
options to be a possibility.
Possibility is after all just a measure of ignorance.
>>>
>>>For example, perhaps you could identify what you consider the unworkable
>>>aspects of Vigier's QM theory. Or the unworkable aspects of LeSagian
>>>aethers. Or the unworkable aspects of Maxwell's aethers.
>
>
> No response, I see.
Show how these run contrary to my statements, then I'll show you why
they are unworkable in that aspect of them. Until then I have no
interest in delving into details of theories, about an effect that is
already made pellucid in the simple equation that I provided above. The
subject is just that simple, there is no wiggle room, no stranger than
life fictions that can alter the reality expressed by that equation.
Richard Perry
Mike Helland
Dec3-04, 04:49 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message news:<F8sod.216\\$jP6.43@news.flashnewsgroups.com> ...\n\n> Again, \'tired\' photons are not \'slow\' photons. Your entire premise is based\n> on ignorance of the \'tired light\' postulates. \'Tired light\' (such as\n> Vigier\'s theory) postulates that photons lose energy. Not speed. This\n> results in a red shift. Not a slowing of photons.\n\nThis is interesting. Is there any existing information on a\n"slowed-light" hypothesis?\n\nI was thinking about the expansion, which says that the distance that\nlight travels through expands during the trip, and I just thought it\nwould be natural to investigate whether or not the distance stays the\nsame and the time is what exands.\n\nObviouslly, the duration of the trip could be expanded if the light\nwere to actually slow down, which would give the illusion that its\ntravelling through more space.\n\nAnd, obviouslly:\n\nc = fw\n\nSo if the light did slow down over huge HUGE interglactic differences\nwithout changing the wavelength of the light, the frequency would drop\ntoo, which is red-shift.\n\nSomeone told me that this is "tired-light", but it obviouslly isn\'t.\nHas anyone thoroughly refuted "slowed-light" or am I the first to\nthink about it?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message news:<F8sod.216$jP6.43@news.flashnewsgroups.com>...
> Again, 'tired' photons are not 'slow' photons. Your entire premise is based
> on ignorance of the 'tired light' postulates. 'Tired light' (such as
> Vigier's theory) postulates that photons lose energy. Not speed. This
> results in a red shift. Not a slowing of photons.
This is interesting. Is there any existing information on a
"slowed-light" hypothesis?
I was thinking about the expansion, which says that the distance that
light travels through expands during the trip, and I just thought it
would be natural to investigate whether or not the distance stays the
same and the time is what exands.
Obviouslly, the duration of the trip could be expanded if the light
were to actually slow down, which would give the illusion that its
travelling through more space.
And, obviouslly:
c = fw
So if the light did slow down over huge HUGE interglactic differences
without changing the wavelength of the light, the frequency would drop
too, which is red-shift.
Someone told me that this is "tired-light", but it obviouslly isn't.
Has anyone thoroughly refuted "slowed-light" or am I the first to
think about it?
greywolf42
Dec3-04, 04:59 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message\nnews:3170pdF37nntbU1@individual.net...\n> greywolf42 wrote:\n> > RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message\n> > news:311edaF36qfcvU1@uni-berlin.de...\n> >\n> >>greywolf42 wrote:\n> >>\n> >>>"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message\n> >>>news:30paepF303im9U1@uni-berlin.de...\n> >>>\n> >>>>Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:\n> >>>>\n> >>>>>In article <G%0pd.49095\\$QJ3.28829@newssvr21.news.prodigy.co m>,\n> >\n> > "Greysky"\n> >\n> >>>>><greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> writes:\n\n\n> >>>>>>Yes. Photons may redshift because they are running into some medium\n> >>>>>>and re-radiated.\n> >>>\n> >>>That is not a tired light assumption. If it were, there would not be\n> >>>any reason to call it "tired light".\n> >\n> > No response, I see.\n>\n> I didn\'t respond to this, because I didn\'t post the argument. Perhaps\n> your newsreader doesn\'t provide the sidebars to indicate who it was that\n> made the statement.\n\nI didn\'t assume that you were the original responder. I noted that you\navoided addressing the issue of what constitutes a tired light theory.\nPhotons hitting a matter medium is not a tired light theory.\n\n{snip argument not responded to by RP}\n\n> >>>>There are only three possible ways to produce redshift:\n> >>>\n> >>>According to what theory (ies)?\n> >>\n> >>I\'m sorry, but I don\'t quite understand this question. The theory, if\n> >>you want to call it a physical theory, that I draw these conclusions\n> >>from is simple algebra.\n> >>\n> >>f * delta_t = f\' * delta_t\'\n> >\n> > What physical theory gave you the above equation? There are some\n> > embedded assumptions, that you are simply bypassing.\n>\n> The only assumption that I made is that an event is absolute in the\n> sense that in any frame it either did or did not occur. When I pulse a\n> flashlight 10 times, then every observer will detect 10 flashes. The\n> equation is just this statement in mathematical form.\n\n> freq * delta_t = (number of cycles)\n\n> freq\' * delta_t = (number of cycles)\n\nFlashes are not energy content. You are confabulating events and entities.\n\n> So that if a finite number of cycles occur at the source, then for any\n> two inertial observers of the corresponding waves we must have\n>\n> freq * delta_t = freq\' * delta_t\'\n\n> Suppose you explain how there is more at work here than simple algebra?\n\nFirst, algebra works only on equations. You have to have a starting\nequation to use algebra. It is theory (or assumption) that gives us the\nequation upon which we can use algebra.\n\nSecond, you have made a very basic error. You are confusing the emission of\na given number of entities (photons, or light waves) with the actions that\naffect the entities during their travels. The number of entities may not\nchange, but the energy contained in those entities certainly *can* change.\n\n> I\'m at a complete loss to understand your inability to grasp that this\n> is nothing more than the premise of one reality, the reality that we\n> just happen to live in.\n\nThe entire span of human thought, philosophy, and the scientific method is\nnothing more than the attempt to understand the reality we happen to live\nin. And yet, people *do* have different views of how things work.\n\n> The theory in which this statement is a required premise is simply "any\n> theory that portends to be empirically consistent". The equation is an\n> empirically derived premise,\n\nThere is no such thing as a "premise" that is "empirically derived." One\ncan never derive a premise, for a premise must exist before a derivation\nbegins.\n\n> nothing more and nothing less, or better,\n> just an algebraic manipulation of the tautology cycles = cycles\'.\n\nBut tautologies are not useful in the scientific method. Or in\nunderstanding reality.\n\n> > Algebra cannot provide the equation to you. Algebra can only operate on\n> > a prior equation. So, where\'s the prior equation(s)?\n>\n> Just above, at the end of my previous sentence.\n\nThere are no prior equations in your prior post. Only final ones.\n\n> >>For any two inertial observers. This equality extends to every inertial\n> >>frame in existence that is detecting the emitted light from an inertial\n> >>source.\n> >\n> > Ah! Since you use the term "inertial frame" you are starting off by\n> > assuming all of SR, and it\'s assumptions.\n>\n> Not at all.\n\nThe term "inertial frame" was invented by Eddington in 1920, for use with\nspecial and general relativity. The term includes the assumptions of SR.\n\n> >>I call this equation "the law of conservation of information".\n> >>As you may or may not have noticed, it\'s a tautology.\n> >\n> > Not in the least. SR is a tautology, because it includes the e-synching\n> > procedure that will directly adjust all measurements of time and space\n> > to match the assumptions.\n>\n> I\'m not promoting special relativity, just common sense. I find the\n> two to be mutually exclusive, actually.\n\n"Common sense" is not part of the scientific method.\n\n> >>It seems to be only the unworkable speculations that are tagged to some\n> >>particular physical theory of the universe.\n> >>If they don\'t satisfy the above equality, then they are simply\n> >>incorrect.\n> >\n> > According to which theories?\n>\n> According to reality, easily observable.\n\nAgain, the whole point of science is to determine reality.\n\n> Observed by every person, every\n> day of their lives. We all agree on the fact that my left blinker\n> flashed exactly 56 times while waiting on that light to change.\n\nWhich is irrelevant to the entire issue. It has nothing to do with redshift\n(observation or theory). It has nothing to do with the speed of light\n(observation or theory.)\n\n> >>>>1) Source frequency is, or better "was" (at the time of emission)\n> >>>>objectively lower than the frequency to which the comparison is being\n> >>>>made. Thus this is only an imagined redshift, i.e. the frequency is\n> >>>>"redder than __" requiring something to be inserted into the blank,\n> >>>>while no change in the wavelength or speed of the waves takes place\nover\n> >>>>the propagational path wrt the observational inertial frame.\n> >>>>\n> >>>>2) Source is receding from the the detector. Doppler shift: Also a\n> >>>>comparative value, and also requires to fill in the blank above, but\n> >>>>exact cause known to be due to relative motion. "Redder\nthan__detected\n> >>>>by a detector comoving with the source".\n> >>>>\n> >>>>3) Both of the above in conjunction.\n> >>>>\n> >>>>AFAIK there are no other workable possibilities.\n> >>>\n> >>>One\'s ignorance of other options does not preclude the actions of the\n> >>>universe.\n>\n> One\'s ignorance of the actions of the universe doesn\'t require other\n> options to be a possibility.\n> Possibility is after all just a measure of ignorance.\n\nI find that certainty of infallibility is more often a measure of ignorance.\nIn this case, it is ignorance of other explanations that I was pointing out.\nNot ignorance of the observations.\n\n> >>>For example, perhaps you could identify what you consider the\n> >>>unworkable aspects of Vigier\'s QM theory. Or the unworkable\n> >>>aspects of LeSagian aethers. Or the unworkable aspects of\n> >>>Maxwell\'s aethers.\n> >\n> > No response, I see.\n>\n> Show how these run contrary to my statements, then I\'ll show you why\n> they are unworkable in that aspect of them.\n\nYou claimed that all of these theories were unworkable if they weren\'t\nstandard Big-Bang assumptions (your items 1 and 2). Item 1 was simply that\nthe source was different at an earlier time. Item 2 was simply that doppler\nshift is the only option.\n\nAll of the above postulate that light loses energy with distance -- not only\ndue to doppler shift. Vigier\'s theory is QM based. Maxwell\'s theory is the\nbasis for Maxwell\'s equations. LeSage\'s gravitational aether is a bulk\nfluid effect (that results in gravity).\n\n> Until then I have no interest in delving into details of theories,\n> about an effect that is already made pellucid in the simple equation\n> that I provided above. The subject is just that simple, there is no\n> wiggle room, no stranger than life fictions that can alter the reality\n> expressed by that equation.\n\nThe problem is that you confused the emission of photons with the parameters\nof the photons.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for return e-mail}\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3170pdF37nntbU1@individual.net...
> greywolf42 wrote:
> > RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:311edaF36qfcvU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >>greywolf42 wrote:
> >>
> >>>"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:30paepF303im9U1@uni-berlin.de...
> >>>
> >>>>Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article <G%0pd.49095$QJ3.28829@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> >
> > "Greysky"
> >
> >>>>><greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> >>>>>>Yes. Photons may redshift because they are running into some medium
> >>>>>>and re-radiated.
> >>>
> >>>That is not a tired light assumption. If it were, there would not be
> >>>any reason to call it "tired light".
> >
> > No response, I see.
>
> I didn't respond to this, because I didn't post the argument. Perhaps
> your newsreader doesn't provide the sidebars to indicate who it was that
> made the statement.
I didn't assume that you were the original responder. I noted that you
avoided addressing the issue of what constitutes a tired light theory.
Photons hitting a matter medium is not a tired light theory.
{snip argument not responded to by RP}
> >>>>There are only three possible ways to produce redshift:
> >>>
> >>>According to what theory (ies)?
> >>
> >>I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand this question. The theory, if
> >>you want to call it a physical theory, that I draw these conclusions
> >>from is simple algebra.
> >>
> >>f * \delta_t = f' * \delta_t'
> >
> > What physical theory gave you the above equation? There are some
> > embedded assumptions, that you are simply bypassing.
>
> The only assumption that I made is that an event is absolute in the
> sense that in any frame it either did or did not occur. When I pulse a
> flashlight 10 times, then every observer will detect 10 flashes. The
> equation is just this statement in mathematical form.
> freq * \delta_t = (number of cycles)
> freq' * \delta_t = (number of cycles)
Flashes are not energy content. You are confabulating events and entities.
> So that if a finite number of cycles occur at the source, then for any
> two inertial observers of the corresponding waves we must have
>
> freq * \delta_t = freq' * \delta_t'
> Suppose you explain how there is more at work here than simple algebra?
First, algebra works only on equations. You have to have a starting
equation to use algebra. It is theory (or assumption) that gives us the
equation upon which we can use algebra.
Second, you have made a very basic error. You are confusing the emission of
a given number of entities (photons, or light waves) with the actions that
affect the entities during their travels. The number of entities may not
change, but the energy contained in those entities certainly *can* change.
> I'm at a complete loss to understand your inability to grasp that this
> is nothing more than the premise of one reality, the reality that we
> just happen to live in.
The entire span of human thought, philosophy, and the scientific method is
nothing more than the attempt to understand the reality we happen to live
in. And yet, people *do* have different views of how things work.
> The theory in which this statement is a required premise is simply "any
> theory that portends to be empirically consistent". The equation is an
> empirically derived premise,
There is no such thing as a "premise" that is "empirically derived." One
can never derive a premise, for a premise must exist before a derivation
begins.
> nothing more and nothing less, or better,
> just an algebraic manipulation of the tautology cycles = cycles'.
But tautologies are not useful in the scientific method. Or in
understanding reality.
> > Algebra cannot provide the equation to you. Algebra can only operate on
> > a prior equation. So, where's the prior equation(s)?
>
> Just above, at the end of my previous sentence.
There are no prior equations in your prior post. Only final ones.
> >>For any two inertial observers. This equality extends to every inertial
> >>frame in existence that is detecting the emitted light from an inertial
> >>source.
> >
> > Ah! Since you use the term "inertial frame" you are starting off by
> > assuming all of SR, and it's assumptions.
>
> Not at all.
The term "inertial frame" was invented by Eddington in 1920, for use with
special and general relativity. The term includes the assumptions of SR.
> >>I call this equation "the law of conservation of information".
> >>As you may or may not have noticed, it's a tautology.
> >
> > Not in the least. SR is a tautology, because it includes the e-synching
> > procedure that will directly adjust all measurements of time and space
> > to match the assumptions.
>
> I'm not promoting special relativity, just common sense. I find the
> two to be mutually exclusive, actually.
"Common sense" is not part of the scientific method.
> >>It seems to be only the unworkable speculations that are tagged to some
> >>particular physical theory of the universe.
> >>If they don't satisfy the above equality, then they are simply
> >>incorrect.
> >
> > According to which theories?
>
> According to reality, easily observable.
Again, the whole point of science is to determine reality.
> Observed by every person, every
> day of their lives. We all agree on the fact that my left blinker
> flashed exactly 56 times while waiting on that light to change.
Which is irrelevant to the entire issue. It has nothing to do with redshift
(observation or theory). It has nothing to do with the speed of light
(observation or theory.)
> >>>>1) Source frequency is, or better "was" (at the time of emission)
> >>>>objectively lower than the frequency to which the comparison is being
> >>>>made. Thus this is only an imagined redshift, i.e. the frequency is
> >>>>"redder than __" requiring something to be inserted into the blank,
> >>>>while no change in the wavelength or speed of the waves takes place
over
> >>>>the propagational path wrt the observational inertial frame.
> >>>>
> >>>>2) Source is receding from the the detector. Doppler shift: Also a
> >>>>comparative value, and also requires to fill in the blank above, but
> >>>>exact cause known to be due to relative motion. "Redder
than__detected
> >>>>by a detector comoving with the source".
> >>>>
> >>>>3) Both of the above in conjunction.
> >>>>
> >>>>AFAIK there are no other workable possibilities.
> >>>
> >>>One's ignorance of other options does not preclude the actions of the
> >>>universe.
>
> One's ignorance of the actions of the universe doesn't require other
> options to be a possibility.
> Possibility is after all just a measure of ignorance.
I find that certainty of infallibility is more often a measure of ignorance.
In this case, it is ignorance of other explanations that I was pointing out.
Not ignorance of the observations.
> >>>For example, perhaps you could identify what you consider the
> >>>unworkable aspects of Vigier's QM theory. Or the unworkable
> >>>aspects of LeSagian aethers. Or the unworkable aspects of
> >>>Maxwell's aethers.
> >
> > No response, I see.
>
> Show how these run contrary to my statements, then I'll show you why
> they are unworkable in that aspect of them.
You claimed that all of these theories were unworkable if they weren't
standard Big-Bang assumptions (your items 1 and 2). Item 1 was simply that
the source was different at an earlier time. Item 2 was simply that doppler
shift is the only option.
All of the above postulate that light loses energy with distance -- not only
due to doppler shift. Vigier's theory is QM based. Maxwell's theory is the
basis for Maxwell's equations. LeSage's gravitational aether is a bulk
fluid effect (that results in gravity).
> Until then I have no interest in delving into details of theories,
> about an effect that is already made pellucid in the simple equation
> that I provided above. The subject is just that simple, there is no
> wiggle room, no stranger than life fictions that can alter the reality
> expressed by that equation.
The problem is that you confused the emission of photons with the parameters
of the photons.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>greywolf42 wrote:\n> RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message\n> news:3170pdF37nntbU1@individual.net...\n>\n>>greyw olf42 wrote:\n>>\n>>>RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message\n>>>news:311edaF36qfcvU1@uni-berlin.de...\n>>>\n>>>\n>>>>greywolf42 wrote:\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>>>"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message\n>>>>>news:30paepF303im9U1@uni-berlin.de...\n>>>>>\n>>>>>\n>>>>>>Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:\n>>>>>>\n>>>>>>\n>>>>>>>In article <G%0pd.49095\\$QJ3.28829@newssvr21.news.prodigy.co m>,\n>>>\n>>>"Greysky"\n>>>\n>>>\n>>>>>>><greyskyn ospam@sbcglobal.net> writes:\n>\n>\n>\n>>>>>>>>Yes. Photons may redshift because they are running into some medium\n>>>>>>>>and re-radiated.\n>>>>>\n>>>>>That is not a tired light assumption. If it were, there would not be\n>>>>>any reason to call it "tired light".\n>>>\n>>>No response, I see.\n>>\n>>I didn\'t respond to this, because I didn\'t post the argument. Perhaps\n>>your newsreader doesn\'t provide the sidebars to indicate who it was that\n>>made the statement.\n>\n>\n> I didn\'t assume that you were the original responder. I noted that you\n> avoided addressing the issue of what constitutes a tired light theory.\n> Photons hitting a matter medium is not a tired light theory.\n>\n> {snip argument not responded to by RP}\n>\n>\n>>>>>>There are only three possible ways to produce redshift:\n>>>>>\n>>>>>According to what theory (ies)?\n>>>>\n>>>>I\'m sorry, but I don\'t quite understand this question. The theory, if\n>>>>you want to call it a physical theory, that I draw these conclusions\n>>>\n>>>>from is simple algebra.\n>>>\n>>>>f * delta_t = f\' * delta_t\'\n>>>\n>>>What physical theory gave you the above equation? There are some\n>>>embedded assumptions, that you are simply bypassing.\n>>\n>>The only assumption that I made is that an event is absolute in the\n>>sense that in any frame it either did or did not occur. When I pulse a\n>>flashlight 10 times, then every observer will detect 10 flashes. The\n>>equation is just this statement in mathematical form.\n>\n>\n>>freq * delta_t = (number of cycles)\n>\n>\n>>freq\' * delta_t = (number of cycles)\n>\n>\n> Flashes are not energy content. You are confabulating events and entities.\n>\n>\n>>So that if a finite number of cycles occur at the source, then for any\n>>two inertial observers of the corresponding waves we must have\n>>\n>>freq * delta_t = freq\' * delta_t\'\n>\n>\n>>Suppose you explain how there is more at work here than simple algebra?\n>\n>\n> First, algebra works only on equations. You have to have a starting\n> equation to use algebra. It is theory (or assumption) that gives us the\n> equation upon which we can use algebra.\n>\n> Second, you have made a very basic error. You are confusing the emission of\n> a given number of entities (photons, or light waves) with the actions that\n> affect the entities during their travels. The number of entities may not\n> change, but the energy contained in those entities certainly *can* change.\n>\n>\n>>I\'m at a complete loss to understand your inability to grasp that this\n>>is nothing more than the premise of one reality, the reality that we\n>>just happen to live in.\n>\n>\n> The entire span of human thought, philosophy, and the scientific method is\n> nothing more than the attempt to understand the reality we happen to live\n> in. And yet, people *do* have different views of how things work.\n>\n>\n>>The theory in which this statement is a required premise is simply "any\n>>theory that portends to be empirically consistent". The equation is an\n>>empirically derived premise,\n>\n>\n> There is no such thing as a "premise" that is "empirically derived." One\n> can never derive a premise, for a premise must exist before a derivation\n> begins.\n>\n>\n>>nothing more and nothing less, or better,\n>>just an algebraic manipulation of the tautology cycles = cycles\'.\n>\n>\n> But tautologies are not useful in the scientific method. Or in\n> understanding reality.\n>\n>\n>>>Algebra cannot provide the equation to you. Algebra can only operate on\n>>>a prior equation. So, where\'s the prior equation(s)?\n>>\n>>Just above, at the end of my previous sentence.\n>\n>\n> There are no prior equations in your prior post. Only final ones.\n>\n>\n>>>>For any two inertial observers. This equality extends to every inertial\n>>>>frame in existence that is detecting the emitted light from an inertial\n>>>>source.\n>>>\n>>>Ah! Since you use the term "inertial frame" you are starting off by\n>>>assuming all of SR, and it\'s assumptions.\n>>\n>>Not at all.\n>\n>\n> The term "inertial frame" was invented by Eddington in 1920, for use with\n> special and general relativity. The term includes the assumptions of SR.\n>\n>\n>>>>I call this equation "the law of conservation of information".\n>>>>As you may or may not have noticed, it\'s a tautology.\n>>>\n>>>Not in the least. SR is a tautology, because it includes the e-synching\n>>>procedure that will directly adjust all measurements of time and space\n>>>to match the assumptions.\n>>\n>>I\'m not promoting special relativity, just common sense. I find the\n>>two to be mutually exclusive, actually.\n>\n>\n> "Common sense" is not part of the scientific method.\n>\n>\n>>>>It seems to be only the unworkable speculations that are tagged to some\n>>>>particular physical theory of the universe.\n>>>>If they don\'t satisfy the above equality, then they are simply\n>>>>incorrect.\n>>>\n>>>According to which theories?\n>>\n>>According to reality, easily observable.\n>\n>\n> Again, the whole point of science is to determine reality.\n>\n>\n>>Observed by every person, every\n>>day of their lives. We all agree on the fact that my left blinker\n>>flashed exactly 56 times while waiting on that light to change.\n>\n>\n> Which is irrelevant to the entire issue. It has nothing to do with redshift\n> (observation or theory). It has nothing to do with the speed of light\n> (observation or theory.)\n>\n>\n>>>>>>1) Source frequency is, or better "was" (at the time of emission)\n>>>>>>objectively lower than the frequency to which the comparison is being\n>>>>>>made. Thus this is only an imagined redshift, i.e. the frequency is\n>>>>>>"redder than __" requiring something to be inserted into the blank,\n>>>>>>while no change in the wavelength or speed of the waves takes place\n>\n> over\n>\n>>>>>>the propagational path wrt the observational inertial frame.\n>>>>>>\n>>>>>>2) Source is receding from the the detector. Doppler shift: Also a\n>>>>>>comparative value, and also requires to fill in the blank above, but\n>>>>>>exact cause known to be due to relative motion. "Redder\n>\n> than__detected\n>\n>>>>>>by a detector comoving with the source".\n>>>>>>\n>>>>>>3) Both of the above in conjunction.\n>>>>>>\n>>>>>>AFAIK there are no other workable possibilities.\n>>>>>\n>>>>>One\'s ignorance of other options does not preclude the actions of the\n>>>>>universe.\n>>\n>>One\'s ignorance of the actions of the universe doesn\'t require other\n>>options to be a possibility.\n>>Possibility is after all just a measure of ignorance.\n>\n>\n> I find that certainty of infallibility is more often a measure of ignorance.\n> In this case, it is ignorance of other explanations that I was pointing out.\n> Not ignorance of the observations.\n>\n>\n>>>>>For example, perhaps you could identify what you consider the\n>>>>>unworkable aspects of Vigier\'s QM theory. Or the unworkable\n>>>>>aspects of LeSagian aethers. Or the unworkable aspects of\n>>>>>Maxwell\'s aethers.\n>>>\n>>>No response, I see.\n>>\n>>Show how these run contrary to my statements, then I\'ll show you why\n>>they are unworkable in that aspect of them.\n>\n>\n> You claimed that all of these theories were unworkable if they weren\'t\n> standard Big-Bang assumptions (your items 1 and 2). Item 1 was simply that\n> the source was different at an earlier time. Item 2 was simply that doppler\n> shift is the only option.\n>\n> All of the above postulate that light loses energy with distance -- not only\n> due to doppler shift. Vigier\'s theory is QM based. Maxwell\'s theory is the\n> basis for Maxwell\'s equations. LeSage\'s gravitational aether is a bulk\n> fluid effect (that results in gravity).\n>\n>\n>>Until then I have no interest in delving into details of theories,\n>>about an effect that is already made pellucid in the simple equation\n>>that I provided above. The subject is just that simple, there is no\n>>wiggle room, no stranger than life fictions that can alter the reality\n>>expressed by that equation.\n>\n>\n> The problem is that you confused the emission of photons with the parameters\n> of the photons.\n\nSo finally we get around to your belief that there is a distinction\nbetween the frequency shifts of pulses and photons. I wanted you to\nmake the distinction yourself, because I see none, and didn\'t want to\nput any words into your mouth.\n\nMy argument holds without further qualification. We need only shift the\nargument to radio frequency waves, which are just pulses of photons,\ni.e. *pulses*. You are contending that the frequency of pulses can\nremain unchanged in transit, while the photons of which they are\ncomposed can simultaneously shift in frequency in transit. IOW, you\ncontend that the frequency of my flashlight pulses can be measure\nequally by both source and detector, but that the color of its light can\nbe simultaneously different wrt these two.\n\nBut in the case of the radio waves, the frequency of the photons is\nequal to the frequency of pulses, and must remain so throughout transit.\nA shift in the photon frequency would necessarily result in a shift in\nthe pulse frequency as well, an equal shift, it being just several\nsuperposed photons. Your argument is thus based upon a misconception\nabout what it means for a photon to have a given frequency. Frequency\nis cycles per unit time, so that regardless of the accepted universality\nof the expression\n\nE = hf\n\nIt is obviously a limiting case for source and detector at rest wrt each\nother, i.e. h isn\'t constant over time. The only other option is that\nthe empirically observed redshift is just a doppler shift due to\nrecession of the source.\n\nRichard Perry\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>greywolf42 wrote:
> RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3170pdF37nntbU1@individual.net...
>
>>greywolf42 wrote:
>>
>>>RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:311edaF36qfcvU1@uni-berlin.de...
>>>
>>>
>>>>greywolf42 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:30paepF303im9U1@uni-berlin.de...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <G%0pd.49095$QJ3.28829@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>
>>>"Greysky"
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>><greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>
>
>>>>>>>>Yes. Photons may redshift because they are running into some medium
>>>>>>>>and re-radiated.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is not a tired light assumption. If it were, there would not be
>>>>>any reason to call it "tired light".
>>>
>>>No response, I see.
>>
>>I didn't respond to this, because I didn't post the argument. Perhaps
>>your newsreader doesn't provide the sidebars to indicate who it was that
>>made the statement.
>
>
> I didn't assume that you were the original responder. I noted that you
> avoided addressing the issue of what constitutes a tired light theory.
> Photons hitting a matter medium is not a tired light theory.
>
> {snip argument not responded to by RP}
>
>
>>>>>>There are only three possible ways to produce redshift:
>>>>>
>>>>>According to what theory (ies)?
>>>>
>>>>I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand this question. The theory, if
>>>>you want to call it a physical theory, that I draw these conclusions
>>>
>>>>from is simple algebra.
>>>
>>>>f * \delta_t = f' * \delta_t'
>>>
>>>What physical theory gave you the above equation? There are some
>>>embedded assumptions, that you are simply bypassing.
>>
>>The only assumption that I made is that an event is absolute in the
>>sense that in any frame it either did or did not occur. When I pulse a
>>flashlight 10 times, then every observer will detect 10 flashes. The
>>equation is just this statement in mathematical form.
>
>
>>freq * \delta_t = (number of cycles)
>
>
>>freq' * \delta_t = (number of cycles)
>
>
> Flashes are not energy content. You are confabulating events and entities.
>
>
>>So that if a finite number of cycles occur at the source, then for any
>>two inertial observers of the corresponding waves we must have
>>
>>freq * \delta_t = freq' * \delta_t'
>
>
>>Suppose you explain how there is more at work here than simple algebra?
>
>
> First, algebra works only on equations. You have to have a starting
> equation to use algebra. It is theory (or assumption) that gives us the
> equation upon which we can use algebra.
>
> Second, you have made a very basic error. You are confusing the emission of
> a given number of entities (photons, or light waves) with the actions that
> affect the entities during their travels. The number of entities may not
> change, but the energy contained in those entities certainly *can* change.
>
>
>>I'm at a complete loss to understand your inability to grasp that this
>>is nothing more than the premise of one reality, the reality that we
>>just happen to live in.
>
>
> The entire span of human thought, philosophy, and the scientific method is
> nothing more than the attempt to understand the reality we happen to live
> in. And yet, people *do* have different views of how things work.
>
>
>>The theory in which this statement is a required premise is simply "any
>>theory that portends to be empirically consistent". The equation is an
>>empirically derived premise,
>
>
> There is no such thing as a "premise" that is "empirically derived." One
> can never derive a premise, for a premise must exist before a derivation
> begins.
>
>
>>nothing more and nothing less, or better,
>>just an algebraic manipulation of the tautology cycles = cycles'.
>
>
> But tautologies are not useful in the scientific method. Or in
> understanding reality.
>
>
>>>Algebra cannot provide the equation to you. Algebra can only operate on
>>>a prior equation. So, where's the prior equation(s)?
>>
>>Just above, at the end of my previous sentence.
>
>
> There are no prior equations in your prior post. Only final ones.
>
>
>>>>For any two inertial observers. This equality extends to every inertial
>>>>frame in existence that is detecting the emitted light from an inertial
>>>>source.
>>>
>>>Ah! Since you use the term "inertial frame" you are starting off by
>>>assuming all of SR, and it's assumptions.
>>
>>Not at all.
>
>
> The term "inertial frame" was invented by Eddington in 1920, for use with
> special and general relativity. The term includes the assumptions of SR.
>
>
>>>>I call this equation "the law of conservation of information".
>>>>As you may or may not have noticed, it's a tautology.
>>>
>>>Not in the least. SR is a tautology, because it includes the e-synching
>>>procedure that will directly adjust all measurements of time and space
>>>to match the assumptions.
>>
>>I'm not promoting special relativity, just common sense. I find the
>>two to be mutually exclusive, actually.
>
>
> "Common sense" is not part of the scientific method.
>
>
>>>>It seems to be only the unworkable speculations that are tagged to some
>>>>particular physical theory of the universe.
>>>>If they don't satisfy the above equality, then they are simply
>>>>incorrect.
>>>
>>>According to which theories?
>>
>>According to reality, easily observable.
>
>
> Again, the whole point of science is to determine reality.
>
>
>>Observed by every person, every
>>day of their lives. We all agree on the fact that my left blinker
>>flashed exactly 56 times while waiting on that light to change.
>
>
> Which is irrelevant to the entire issue. It has nothing to do with redshift
> (observation or theory). It has nothing to do with the speed of light
> (observation or theory.)
>
>
>>>>>>1) Source frequency is, or better "was" (at the time of emission)
>>>>>>objectively lower than the frequency to which the comparison is being
>>>>>>made. Thus this is only an imagined redshift, i.e. the frequency is
>>>>>>"redder than __" requiring something to be inserted into the blank,
>>>>>>while no change in the wavelength or speed of the waves takes place
>
> over
>
>>>>>>the propagational path wrt the observational inertial frame.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>2) Source is receding from the the detector. Doppler shift: Also a
>>>>>>comparative value, and also requires to fill in the blank above, but
>>>>>>exact cause known to be due to relative motion. "Redder
>
> than__detected
>
>>>>>>by a detector comoving with the source".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>3) Both of the above in conjunction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>AFAIK there are no other workable possibilities.
>>>>>
>>>>>One's ignorance of other options does not preclude the actions of the
>>>>>universe.
>>
>>One's ignorance of the actions of the universe doesn't require other
>>options to be a possibility.
>>Possibility is after all just a measure of ignorance.
>
>
> I find that certainty of infallibility is more often a measure of ignorance.
> In this case, it is ignorance of other explanations that I was pointing out.
> Not ignorance of the observations.
>
>
>>>>>For example, perhaps you could identify what you consider the
>>>>>unworkable aspects of Vigier's QM theory. Or the unworkable
>>>>>aspects of LeSagian aethers. Or the unworkable aspects of
>>>>>Maxwell's aethers.
>>>
>>>No response, I see.
>>
>>Show how these run contrary to my statements, then I'll show you why
>>they are unworkable in that aspect of them.
>
>
> You claimed that all of these theories were unworkable if they weren't
> standard Big-Bang assumptions (your items 1 and 2). Item 1 was simply that
> the source was different at an earlier time. Item 2 was simply that doppler
> shift is the only option.
>
> All of the above postulate that light loses energy with distance -- not only
> due to doppler shift. Vigier's theory is QM based. Maxwell's theory is the
> basis for Maxwell's equations. LeSage's gravitational aether is a bulk
> fluid effect (that results in gravity).
>
>
>>Until then I have no interest in delving into details of theories,
>>about an effect that is already made pellucid in the simple equation
>>that I provided above. The subject is just that simple, there is no
>>wiggle room, no stranger than life fictions that can alter the reality
>>expressed by that equation.
>
>
> The problem is that you confused the emission of photons with the parameters
> of the photons.
So finally we get around to your belief that there is a distinction
between the frequency shifts of pulses and photons. I wanted you to
make the distinction yourself, because I see none, and didn't want to
put any words into your mouth.
My argument holds without further qualification. We need only shift the
argument to radio frequency waves, which are just pulses of photons,
i.e. *pulses*. You are contending that the frequency of pulses can
remain unchanged in transit, while the photons of which they are
composed can simultaneously shift in frequency in transit. IOW, you
contend that the frequency of my flashlight pulses can be measure
equally by both source and detector, but that the color of its light can
be simultaneously different wrt these two.
But in the case of the radio waves, the frequency of the photons is
equal to the frequency of pulses, and must remain so throughout transit.
A shift in the photon frequency would necessarily result in a shift in
the pulse frequency as well, an equal shift, it being just several
superposed photons. Your argument is thus based upon a misconception
about what it means for a photon to have a given frequency. Frequency
is cycles per unit time, so that regardless of the accepted universality
of the expression
E = hf
It is obviously a limiting case for source and detector at rest wrt each
other, i.e. h isn't constant over time. The only other option is that
the empirically observed redshift is just a doppler shift due to
recession of the source.
Richard Perry
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>RP wrote:\n\n>\n>\n> greywolf42 wrote:\n>\n>> RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message\n>> news:3170pdF37nntbU1@individual.net...\n>>\n>>> greywolf42 wrote:\n>>>\n>>>> RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message\n>>>> news:311edaF36qfcvU1@uni-berlin.de...\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>>> greywolf42 wrote:\n>>>>>\n>>>>>\n>>>>>> "RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message\n>>>>>> news:30paepF303im9U1@uni-berlin.de...\n>>>>>>\n>>>>>>\n>>>>>>> Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:\n>>>>>>>\n>>>>>>>\n>>>>>>>> In article <G%0pd.49095\\$QJ3.28829@newssvr21.news.prodigy.co m>,\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>> "Greysky"\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>>>>>> <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> writes:\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>>>>>>>>> Yes. Photons may redshift because they are running into some\n>>>>>>>>> medium\n>>>>>>>>> and re-radiated.\n>>>>>>\n>>>>>>\n>>>>>> That is not a tired light assumption. If it were, there would not be\n>>>>>> any reason to call it "tired light".\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>> No response, I see.\n>>>\n>>>\n>>> I didn\'t respond to this, because I didn\'t post the argument. Perhaps\n>>> your newsreader doesn\'t provide the sidebars to indicate who it was that\n>>> made the statement.\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> I didn\'t assume that you were the original responder. I noted that you\n>> avoided addressing the issue of what constitutes a tired light theory.\n>> Photons hitting a matter medium is not a tired light theory.\n>>\n>> {snip argument not responded to by RP}\n>>\n>>\n>>>>>>> There are only three possible ways to produce redshift:\n>>>>>>\n>>>>>>\n>>>>>> According to what theory (ies)?\n>>>>>\n>>>>>\n>>>>> I\'m sorry, but I don\'t quite understand this question. The theory, if\n>>>>> you want to call it a physical theory, that I draw these conclusions\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>>> from is simple algebra.\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>>> f * delta_t = f\' * delta_t\'\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>> What physical theory gave you the above equation? There are some\n>>>> embedded assumptions, that you are simply bypassing.\n>>>\n>>>\n>>> The only assumption that I made is that an event is absolute in the\n>>> sense that in any frame it either did or did not occur. When I pulse a\n>>> flashlight 10 times, then every observer will detect 10 flashes. The\n>>> equation is just this statement in mathematical form.\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>>> freq * delta_t = (number of cycles)\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>>> freq\' * delta_t = (number of cycles)\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> Flashes are not energy content. You are confabulating events and\n>> entities.\n>>\n>>\n>>> So that if a finite number of cycles occur at the source, then for any\n>>> two inertial observers of the corresponding waves we must have\n>>>\n>>> freq * delta_t = freq\' * delta_t\'\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>>> Suppose you explain how there is more at work here than simple algebra?\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> First, algebra works only on equations. You have to have a starting\n>> equation to use algebra. It is theory (or assumption) that gives us the\n>> equation upon which we can use algebra.\n>>\n>> Second, you have made a very basic error. You are confusing the\n>> emission of\n>> a given number of entities (photons, or light waves) with the actions\n>> that\n>> affect the entities during their travels. The number of entities may not\n>> change, but the energy contained in those entities certainly *can*\n>> change.\n>>\n>>\n>>> I\'m at a complete loss to understand your inability to grasp that this\n>>> is nothing more than the premise of one reality, the reality that we\n>>> just happen to live in.\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> The entire span of human thought, philosophy, and the scientific\n>> method is\n>> nothing more than the attempt to understand the reality we happen to live\n>> in. And yet, people *do* have different views of how things work.\n>>\n>>\n>>> The theory in which this statement is a required premise is simply "any\n>>> theory that portends to be empirically consistent". The equation is an\n>>> empirically derived premise,\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> There is no such thing as a "premise" that is "empirically derived." One\n>> can never derive a premise, for a premise must exist before a derivation\n>> begins.\n>>\n>>\n>>> nothing more and nothing less, or better,\n>>> just an algebraic manipulation of the tautology cycles = cycles\'.\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> But tautologies are not useful in the scientific method. Or in\n>> understanding reality.\n>>\n>>\n>>>> Algebra cannot provide the equation to you. Algebra can only\n>>>> operate on\n>>>> a prior equation. So, where\'s the prior equation(s)?\n>>>\n>>>\n>>> Just above, at the end of my previous sentence.\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> There are no prior equations in your prior post. Only final ones.\n>>\n>>\n>>>>> For any two inertial observers. This equality extends to every\n>>>>> inertial\n>>>>> frame in existence that is detecting the emitted light from an\n>>>>> inertial\n>>>>> source.\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>> Ah! Since you use the term "inertial frame" you are starting off by\n>>>> assuming all of SR, and it\'s assumptions.\n>>>\n>>>\n>>> Not at all.\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> The term "inertial frame" was invented by Eddington in 1920, for use with\n>> special and general relativity. The term includes the assumptions of SR.\n>>\n>>\n>>>>> I call this equation "the law of conservation of information".\n>>>>> As you may or may not have noticed, it\'s a tautology.\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>> Not in the least. SR is a tautology, because it includes the\n>>>> e-synching\n>>>> procedure that will directly adjust all measurements of time and space\n>>>> to match the assumptions.\n>>>\n>>>\n>>> I\'m not promoting special relativity, just common sense. I find the\n>>> two to be mutually exclusive, actually.\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> "Common sense" is not part of the scientific method.\n>>\n>>\n>>>>> It seems to be only the unworkable speculations that are tagged to\n>>>>> some\n>>>>> particular physical theory of the universe.\n>>>>> If they don\'t satisfy the above equality, then they are simply\n>>>>> incorrect.\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>> According to which theories?\n>>>\n>>>\n>>> According to reality, easily observable.\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> Again, the whole point of science is to determine reality.\n>>\n>>\n>>> Observed by every person, every\n>>> day of their lives. We all agree on the fact that my left blinker\n>>> flashed exactly 56 times while waiting on that light to change.\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> Which is irrelevant to the entire issue. It has nothing to do with\n>> redshift\n>> (observation or theory). It has nothing to do with the speed of light\n>> (observation or theory.)\n>>\n>>\n>>>>>>> 1) Source frequency is, or better "was" (at the time of emission)\n>>>>>>> objectively lower than the frequency to which the comparison is\n>>>>>>> being\n>>>>>>> made. Thus this is only an imagined redshift, i.e. the frequency is\n>>>>>>> "redder than __" requiring something to be inserted into the blank,\n>>>>>>> while no change in the wavelength or speed of the waves takes place\n>>\n>>\n>> over\n>>\n>>>>>>> the propagational path wrt the observational inertial frame.\n>>>>>>>\n>>>>>>> 2) Source is receding from the the detector. Doppler shift: Also a\n>>>>>>> comparative value, and also requires to fill in the blank above,\n>>>>>>> but\n>>>>>>> exact cause known to be due to relative motion. "Redder\n>>\n>>\n>> than__detected\n>>\n>>>>>>> by a detector comoving with the source".\n>>>>>>>\n>>>>>>> 3) Both of the above in conjunction.\n>>>>>>>\n>>>>>>> AFAIK there are no other workable possibilities.\n>>>>>>\n>>>>>>\n>>>>>> One\'s ignorance of other options does not preclude the actions of the\n>>>>>> universe.\n>>>\n>>>\n>>> One\'s ignorance of the actions of the universe doesn\'t require other\n>>> options to be a possibility.\n>>> Possibility is after all just a measure of ignorance.\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> I find that certainty of infallibility is more often a measure of\n>> ignorance.\n>> In this case, it is ignorance of other explanations that I was\n>> pointing out.\n>> Not ignorance of the observations.\n>>\n>>\n>>>>>> For example, perhaps you could identify what you consider the\n>>>>>> unworkable aspects of Vigier\'s QM theory. Or the unworkable\n>>>>>> aspects of LeSagian aethers. Or the unworkable aspects of\n>>>>>> Maxwell\'s aethers.\n>>>>\n>>>>\n>>>> No response, I see.\n>>>\n>>>\n>>> Show how these run contrary to my statements, then I\'ll show you why\n>>> they are unworkable in that aspect of them.\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> You claimed that all of these theories were unworkable if they weren\'t\n>> standard Big-Bang assumptions (your items 1 and 2). Item 1 was simply\n>> that\n>> the source was different at an earlier time. Item 2 was simply that\n>> doppler\n>> shift is the only option.\n>>\n>> All of the above postulate that light loses energy with distance --\n>> not only\n>> due to doppler shift. Vigier\'s theory is QM based. Maxwell\'s theory\n>> is the\n>> basis for Maxwell\'s equations. LeSage\'s gravitational aether is a bulk\n>> fluid effect (that results in gravity).\n>>\n>>\n>>> Until then I have no interest in delving into details of theories,\n>>> about an effect that is already made pellucid in the simple equation\n>>> that I provided above. The subject is just that simple, there is no\n>>> wiggle room, no stranger than life fictions that can alter the reality\n>>> expressed by that equation.\n>>\n>>\n>>\n>> The problem is that you confused the emission of photons with the\n>> parameters\n>> of the photons.\n>\n>\n> So finally we get around to your belief that there is a distinction\n> between the frequency shifts of pulses and photons. I wanted you to\n> make the distinction yourself, because I see none, and didn\'t want to\n> put any words into your mouth.\n>\n> My argument holds without further qualification. We need only shift the\n> argument to radio frequency waves, which are just pulses of photons,\n> i.e. *pulses*. You are contending that the frequency of pulses can\n> remain unchanged in transit, while the photons of which they are\n> composed can simultaneously shift in frequency in transit. IOW, you\n> contend that the frequency of my flashlight pulses can be measure\n> equally by both source and detector, but that the color of its light can\n> be simultaneously different wrt these two.\n>\n> But in the case of the radio waves, the frequency of the photons is\n> equal to the frequency of pulses, and must remain so throughout transit.\n> A shift in the photon frequency would necessarily result in a shift in\n> the pulse frequency as well, an equal shift, it being just several\n> superposed photons. Your argument is thus based upon a misconception\n> about what it means for a photon to have a given frequency. Frequency\n> is cycles per unit time, so that regardless of the accepted universality\n> of the expression\n>\n> E = hf\n\nOmission corrected below.\n\n> It is obviously a limiting case for source and detector at rest wrt each,\n\n[and in close proximity to each other]\n\n> i.e. h isn\'t constant over time. The only other option is that\n> the empirically observed redshift is just a doppler shift due to\n> recession of the source.\n>\n> Richard Perry\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>RP wrote:
>
>
> greywolf42 wrote:
>
>> RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3170pdF37nntbU1@individual.net...
>>
>>> greywolf42 wrote:
>>>
>>>> RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:311edaF36qfcvU1@uni-berlin.de...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> greywolf42 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:30paepF303im9U1@uni-berlin.de...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <G%0pd.49095$QJ3.28829@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Greysky"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes. Photons may redshift because they are running into some
>>>>>>>>> medium
>>>>>>>>> and re-radiated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not a tired light assumption. If it were, there would not be
>>>>>> any reason to call it "tired light".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No response, I see.
>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't respond to this, because I didn't post the argument. Perhaps
>>> your newsreader doesn't provide the sidebars to indicate who it was that
>>> made the statement.
>>
>>
>>
>> I didn't assume that you were the original responder. I noted that you
>> avoided addressing the issue of what constitutes a tired light theory.
>> Photons hitting a matter medium is not a tired light theory.
>>
>> {snip argument not responded to by RP}
>>
>>
>>>>>>> There are only three possible ways to produce redshift:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to what theory (ies)?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand this question. The theory, if
>>>>> you want to call it a physical theory, that I draw these conclusions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> from is simple algebra.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> f * \delta_t = f' * \delta_t'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What physical theory gave you the above equation? There are some
>>>> embedded assumptions, that you are simply bypassing.
>>>
>>>
>>> The only assumption that I made is that an event is absolute in the
>>> sense that in any frame it either did or did not occur. When I pulse a
>>> flashlight 10 times, then every observer will detect 10 flashes. The
>>> equation is just this statement in mathematical form.
>>
>>
>>
>>> freq * \delta_t = (number of cycles)
>>
>>
>>
>>> freq' * \delta_t = (number of cycles)
>>
>>
>>
>> Flashes are not energy content. You are confabulating events and
>> entities.
>>
>>
>>> So that if a finite number of cycles occur at the source, then for any
>>> two inertial observers of the corresponding waves we must have
>>>
>>> freq * \delta_t = freq' * \delta_t'
>>
>>
>>
>>> Suppose you explain how there is more at work here than simple algebra?
>>
>>
>>
>> First, algebra works only on equations. You have to have a starting
>> equation to use algebra. It is theory (or assumption) that gives us the
>> equation upon which we can use algebra.
>>
>> Second, you have made a very basic error. You are confusing the
>> emission of
>> a given number of entities (photons, or light waves) with the actions
>> that
>> affect the entities during their travels. The number of entities may not
>> change, but the energy contained in those entities certainly *can*
>> change.
>>
>>
>>> I'm at a complete loss to understand your inability to grasp that this
>>> is nothing more than the premise of one reality, the reality that we
>>> just happen to live in.
>>
>>
>>
>> The entire span of human thought, philosophy, and the scientific
>> method is
>> nothing more than the attempt to understand the reality we happen to live
>> in. And yet, people *do* have different views of how things work.
>>
>>
>>> The theory in which this statement is a required premise is simply "any
>>> theory that portends to be empirically consistent". The equation is an
>>> empirically derived premise,
>>
>>
>>
>> There is no such thing as a "premise" that is "empirically derived." One
>> can never derive a premise, for a premise must exist before a derivation
>> begins.
>>
>>
>>> nothing more and nothing less, or better,
>>> just an algebraic manipulation of the tautology cycles = cycles'.
>>
>>
>>
>> But tautologies are not useful in the scientific method. Or in
>> understanding reality.
>>
>>
>>>> Algebra cannot provide the equation to you. Algebra can only
>>>> operate on
>>>> a prior equation. So, where's the prior equation(s)?
>>>
>>>
>>> Just above, at the end of my previous sentence.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are no prior equations in your prior post. Only final ones.
>>
>>
>>>>> For any two inertial observers. This equality extends to every
>>>>> inertial
>>>>> frame in existence that is detecting the emitted light from an
>>>>> inertial
>>>>> source.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ah! Since you use the term "inertial frame" you are starting off by
>>>> assuming all of SR, and it's assumptions.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> The term "inertial frame" was invented by Eddington in 1920, for use with
>> special and general relativity. The term includes the assumptions of SR.
>>
>>
>>>>> I call this equation "the law of conservation of information".
>>>>> As you may or may not have noticed, it's a tautology.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not in the least. SR is a tautology, because it includes the
>>>> e-synching
>>>> procedure that will directly adjust all measurements of time and space
>>>> to match the assumptions.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not promoting special relativity, just common sense. I find the
>>> two to be mutually exclusive, actually.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Common sense" is not part of the scientific method.
>>
>>
>>>>> It seems to be only the unworkable speculations that are tagged to
>>>>> some
>>>>> particular physical theory of the universe.
>>>>> If they don't satisfy the above equality, then they are simply
>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> According to which theories?
>>>
>>>
>>> According to reality, easily observable.
>>
>>
>>
>> Again, the whole point of science is to determine reality.
>>
>>
>>> Observed by every person, every
>>> day of their lives. We all agree on the fact that my left blinker
>>> flashed exactly 56 times while waiting on that light to change.
>>
>>
>>
>> Which is irrelevant to the entire issue. It has nothing to do with
>> redshift
>> (observation or theory). It has nothing to do with the speed of light
>> (observation or theory.)
>>
>>
>>>>>>> 1) Source frequency is, or better "was" (at the time of emission)
>>>>>>> objectively lower than the frequency to which the comparison is
>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>> made. Thus this is only an imagined redshift, i.e. the frequency is
>>>>>>> "redder than __" requiring something to be inserted into the blank,
>>>>>>> while no change in the wavelength or speed of the waves takes place
>>
>>
>> over
>>
>>>>>>> the propagational path wrt the observational inertial frame.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) Source is receding from the the detector. Doppler shift: Also a
>>>>>>> comparative value, and also requires to fill in the blank above,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> exact cause known to be due to relative motion. "Redder
>>
>>
>> than__detected
>>
>>>>>>> by a detector comoving with the source".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3) Both of the above in conjunction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> AFAIK there are no other workable possibilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One's ignorance of other options does not preclude the actions of the
>>>>>> universe.
>>>
>>>
>>> One's ignorance of the actions of the universe doesn't require other
>>> options to be a possibility.
>>> Possibility is after all just a measure of ignorance.
>>
>>
>>
>> I find that certainty of infallibility is more often a measure of
>> ignorance.
>> In this case, it is ignorance of other explanations that I was
>> pointing out.
>> Not ignorance of the observations.
>>
>>
>>>>>> For example, perhaps you could identify what you consider the
>>>>>> unworkable aspects of Vigier's QM theory. Or the unworkable
>>>>>> aspects of LeSagian aethers. Or the unworkable aspects of
>>>>>> Maxwell's aethers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No response, I see.
>>>
>>>
>>> Show how these run contrary to my statements, then I'll show you why
>>> they are unworkable in that aspect of them.
>>
>>
>>
>> You claimed that all of these theories were unworkable if they weren't
>> standard Big-Bang assumptions (your items 1 and 2). Item 1 was simply
>> that
>> the source was different at an earlier time. Item 2 was simply that
>> doppler
>> shift is the only option.
>>
>> All of the above postulate that light loses energy with distance --
>> not only
>> due to doppler shift. Vigier's theory is QM based. Maxwell's theory
>> is the
>> basis for Maxwell's equations. LeSage's gravitational aether is a bulk
>> fluid effect (that results in gravity).
>>
>>
>>> Until then I have no interest in delving into details of theories,
>>> about an effect that is already made pellucid in the simple equation
>>> that I provided above. The subject is just that simple, there is no
>>> wiggle room, no stranger than life fictions that can alter the reality
>>> expressed by that equation.
>>
>>
>>
>> The problem is that you confused the emission of photons with the
>> parameters
>> of the photons.
>
>
> So finally we get around to your belief that there is a distinction
> between the frequency shifts of pulses and photons. I wanted you to
> make the distinction yourself, because I see none, and didn't want to
> put any words into your mouth.
>
> My argument holds without further qualification. We need only shift the
> argument to radio frequency waves, which are just pulses of photons,
> i.e. *pulses*. You are contending that the frequency of pulses can
> remain unchanged in transit, while the photons of which they are
> composed can simultaneously shift in frequency in transit. IOW, you
> contend that the frequency of my flashlight pulses can be measure
> equally by both source and detector, but that the color of its light can
> be simultaneously different wrt these two.
>
> But in the case of the radio waves, the frequency of the photons is
> equal to the frequency of pulses, and must remain so throughout transit.
> A shift in the photon frequency would necessarily result in a shift in
> the pulse frequency as well, an equal shift, it being just several
> superposed photons. Your argument is thus based upon a misconception
> about what it means for a photon to have a given frequency. Frequency
> is cycles per unit time, so that regardless of the accepted universality
> of the expression
>
> E = hf
Omission corrected below.
> It is obviously a limiting case for source and detector at rest wrt each,
[and in close proximity to each other]
> i.e. h isn't constant over time. The only other option is that
> the empirically observed redshift is just a doppler shift due to
> recession of the source.
>
> Richard Perry
greywolf42
Dec6-04, 07:20 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Mike Helland <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message\nnews:11990c07.0412020910.5fb3312c@posting .google.com...\n> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message\nnews:<F8sod.216\\$jP6.43@news.flashnewsgr oups.com>...\n>\n> > Again, \'tired\' photons are not \'slow\' photons. Your entire premise is\n> > based on ignorance of the \'tired light\' postulates. \'Tired light\' (such\n> > as Vigier\'s theory) postulates that photons lose energy. Not speed.\n> > This results in a red shift. Not a slowing of photons.\n>\n> This is interesting. Is there any existing information on a\n> "slowed-light" hypothesis?\n\nI don\'t know of any.\n\n> I was thinking about the expansion, which says that the distance that\n> light travels through expands during the trip, and I just thought it\n> would be natural to investigate whether or not the distance stays the\n> same and the time is what exands.\n\nIf one has "tired light", then there need be no expansion.\n\n> Obviouslly, the duration of the trip could be expanded if the light\n> were to actually slow down, which would give the illusion that its\n> travelling through more space.\n\nWell, yes. But I don\'t know of any theories that predict this.\n\n> And, obviouslly:\n>\n> c = fw\n>\n> So if the light did slow down over huge HUGE interglactic differences\n> without changing the wavelength of the light, the frequency would drop\n> too, which is red-shift.\n>\n> Someone told me that this is "tired-light", but it obviouslly isn\'t.\n> Has anyone thoroughly refuted "slowed-light" or am I the first to\n> think about it?\n\nYou are probably not the first. Try looking around corpuscular light\ntheories. Light corpuscles (the Newtonian version) would have no problems\nbeing slowed down.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for return e-mail}\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Mike Helland <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11990c07.0412020910.5fb3312c@posting.google.c om...
> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:<F8sod.216$jP6.43@news.flashnewsgroups.com>...
>
> > Again, 'tired' photons are not 'slow' photons. Your entire premise is
> > based on ignorance of the 'tired light' postulates. 'Tired light' (such
> > as Vigier's theory) postulates that photons lose energy. Not speed.
> > This results in a red shift. Not a slowing of photons.
>
> This is interesting. Is there any existing information on a
> "slowed-light" hypothesis?
I don't know of any.
> I was thinking about the expansion, which says that the distance that
> light travels through expands during the trip, and I just thought it
> would be natural to investigate whether or not the distance stays the
> same and the time is what exands.
If one has "tired light", then there need be no expansion.
> Obviouslly, the duration of the trip could be expanded if the light
> were to actually slow down, which would give the illusion that its
> travelling through more space.
Well, yes. But I don't know of any theories that predict this.
> And, obviouslly:
>
> c = fw
>
> So if the light did slow down over huge HUGE interglactic differences
> without changing the wavelength of the light, the frequency would drop
> too, which is red-shift.
>
> Someone told me that this is "tired-light", but it obviouslly isn't.
> Has anyone thoroughly refuted "slowed-light" or am I the first to
> think about it?
You are probably not the first. Try looking around corpuscular light
theories. Light corpuscles (the Newtonian version) would have no problems
being slowed down.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n"Ilja Schmelzer" <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> wrote in message\nnews:co22nd\\$fd2\\$1@beech.fernuni-hagen.de...\n> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> schrieb\n> > "Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote\n> > > I\'ve heard about an alternative to the doppler effect being the cause\n> > > of red-shift in our observations of distance galaxies. Its that over\n> > > those huge huge distances the photon actually looses energy, slows\n> > > down, and thus you see the red-shift.\n> > >\n> > > This "Tired-light" seems to have been thoroughly refuted.\n> >\n> > Actually, this is incorrect, though commonly repeated. There are no\n> > substantive refutations of \'tired light\' at all. The only attempts that\n> > have been proffered are strawman-type calculations of Compton\n> > scattering.\n>\n> Hm, I remember some other refutation of tired light. It comes from\n> supernova Sn1a observations. <snip> (sorry, source forgotten) <snip>\n> If tired light would be correct, there would be no time dilation for the\n> duration of supernova explosions.\n> Ilja\n\nNed Wright\'s "kill TL" web page sums up refutations claimed so far\nhttp://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm .\nHis zeal is to establish that observed cosmological redshift follows the\ndoppler type formula coming from the standard FRW solutions to GR,\nie HotBB models. Some other old and recent GR cosmos models give\na Tired Light redshift formula.\nA current challanger with time dilation that is doing better this year with\na couple of refereed articles in print is updated in July 2004 issue of\nthe dissident journal Aperion http://redshift.vif.com/current_issue.htm\nMasreliez\' Scale Expanding Cosmos theory. In section 6 and 8 he\ndemonstrates how the objections to TL be eliminated and turned to its\nfavour by the discrete temporal expansion his theory is resting on.\n[An explanation of Pioneer 10 anomly (sect. 7) also attributed to Tired\nLight seems to be based on a mistaken sign for the acceleration. But\nthere is an other option in his theory - the hampering drag effect can\ndo the trick and an explanation still be claimed as support for the\nSEC theory.] It is a one man\'s work and it is a huge undertaking to\nadress all issues a vast majority regards as already firmly settled by\nthe standard hot BB theory. Read for your self and comment please.\n\nNow, how come Mike wish to test TL in the first place?\n/Kurt\n\n\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Ilja Schmelzer" <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> wrote in message
news:co22nd$fd2$1@beech.fernuni-hagen.de...
> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> schrieb
> > "Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote
> > > I've heard about an alternative to the doppler effect being the cause
> > > of red-shift in our observations of distance galaxies. Its that over
> > > those huge huge distances the photon actually looses energy, slows
> > > down, and thus you see the red-shift.
> > >
> > > This "Tired-light" seems to have been thoroughly refuted.
> >
> > Actually, this is incorrect, though commonly repeated. There are no
> > substantive refutations of 'tired light' at all. The only attempts that
> > have been proffered are strawman-type calculations of Compton
> > scattering.
>
> Hm, I remember some other refutation of tired light. It comes from
> supernova Sn1a observations. <snip> (sorry, source forgotten) <snip>
> If tired light would be correct, there would be no time dilation for the
> duration of supernova explosions.
> Ilja
Ned Wright's "kill TL" web page sums up refutations claimed so far
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm .
His zeal is to establish that observed cosmological redshift follows the
doppler type formula coming from the standard FRW solutions to GR,
ie HotBB models. Some other old and recent GR cosmos models give
a Tired Light redshift formula.
A current challanger with time dilation that is doing better this year with
a couple of refereed articles in print is updated in July 2004 issue of
the dissident journal Aperion http://redshift.vif.com/current_issue.htm
Masreliez' Scale Expanding Cosmos theory. In section 6 and 8 he
demonstrates how the objections to TL be eliminated and turned to its
favour by the discrete temporal expansion his theory is resting on.
[An explanation of Pioneer 10 anomly (sect. 7) also attributed to Tired
Light seems to be based on a mistaken sign for the acceleration. But
there is an other option in his theory - the hampering drag effect can
do the trick and an explanation still be claimed as support for the
SEC theory.] It is a one man's work and it is a huge undertaking to
adress all issues a vast majority regards as already firmly settled by
the standard hot BB theory. Read for your self and comment please.
Now, how come Mike wish to test TL in the first place?
/Kurt
greywolf42
Dec7-04, 08:06 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nRP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message\nnews:31csjhF39dfg5U1@individual.net...\n> greywolf42 wrote:\n> > RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message\n> > news:3170pdF37nntbU1@individual.net...\n\n> >>The only assumption that I made is that an event is absolute in the\n> >>sense that in any frame it either did or did not occur. When I pulse a\n> >>flashlight 10 times, then every observer will detect 10 flashes. The\n> >>equation is just this statement in mathematical form.\n> >\n> >>freq * delta_t = (number of cycles)\n> >\n> >>freq\' * delta_t = (number of cycles)\n> >\n> > Flashes are not energy content. You are confabulating events and\n> > entities.\n> >\n> >>So that if a finite number of cycles occur at the source, then for any\n> >>two inertial observers of the corresponding waves we must have\n> >>\n> >>freq * delta_t = freq\' * delta_t\'\n> >\n> >>Suppose you explain how there is more at work here than simple algebra?\n> >\n> > First, algebra works only on equations. You have to have a starting\n> > equation to use algebra. It is theory (or assumption) that gives us the\n> > equation upon which we can use algebra.\n\nSince you ignored this, I suppose you now understand the difference between\nalgebra and a theory?\n\n> > Second, you have made a very basic error. You are confusing the\n> > emission of a given number of entities (photons, or light waves)\n> > with the actions that affect the entities during their travels.\n> > The number of entities may not change, but the energy contained\n> > in those entities certainly *can* change.\n\nNo response again, I see.\n\n> >>I\'m at a complete loss to understand your inability to grasp that this\n> >>is nothing more than the premise of one reality, the reality that we\n> >>just happen to live in.\n> >\n> > The entire span of human thought, philosophy, and the scientific method\n> > is nothing more than the attempt to understand the reality we happen to\n> > live in. And yet, people *do* have different views of how things work.\n\nYet another non-response.\n\n> >>The theory in which this statement is a required premise is simply "any\n> >>theory that portends to be empirically consistent". The equation is an\n> >>empirically derived premise,\n> >\n> > There is no such thing as a "premise" that is "empirically derived."\n> > One can never derive a premise, for a premise must exist before a\n> > derivation begins.\n\nNo response, again.\n\n{snip higher levels and more uncommented stuff}\n\n> >>Until then I have no interest in delving into details of theories,\n> >>about an effect that is already made pellucid in the simple equation\n> >>that I provided above. The subject is just that simple, there is no\n> >>wiggle room, no stranger than life fictions that can alter the reality\n> >>expressed by that equation.\n> >\n> > The problem is that you confused the emission of photons with the\n> > parameters of the photons.\n>\n> So finally we get around to your belief that there is a distinction\n> between the frequency shifts of pulses and photons. I wanted you to\n> make the distinction yourself, because I see none, and didn\'t want to\n> put any words into your mouth.\n\nThe fact that you see no difference doesn\'t change the substance of the\nworld. Either address the issue, or not. Your choice. But simply claiming\nthat you don\'t agree (and simply repeating your argument) is not sufficient.\n\n> My argument holds without further qualification. We need only shift the\n> argument to radio frequency waves, which are just pulses of photons,\n> i.e. *pulses*.\n\nNope. Radio waves are not pulses. They are continuous, if the emitter is\ncontinuous.\n\n> You are contending that the frequency of pulses can\n> remain unchanged in transit, while the photons of which they are\n> composed can simultaneously shift in frequency in transit.\n\nThe pulses, themselves, don\'t *have* a frequency. Each pulse is unique.\n\n> IOW, you\n> contend that the frequency of my flashlight pulses can be measure\n> equally by both source and detector, but that the color of its light can\n> be simultaneously different wrt these two.\n\nYes. Because the "pulse" of your flashlight must be input by your hand,\nflipping the switch. It is not a characteristic of the light emitted by\nflashlight.\n\n> But in the case of the radio waves, the frequency of the photons is\n> equal to the frequency of pulses, and must remain so throughout transit.\n\nAgain, you are completely in error. There is no difference between your\nhand holding a flashlight, and your hand holding a radio transmitter. If\nboth only emit when your hand pushes the button.\n\nThe frequency of the (visible or radio) light wave is determined by the\ncharacteristics of the transmitter in your hand. The frequency of the\npulses is determined by your finger. And I don\'t think your thumb can even\nkeep up with the kilocycle band.\n\n> A shift in the photon frequency would necessarily result in a shift in\n> the pulse frequency as well, an equal shift, it being just several\n> superposed photons.\n\nA non sequiteur.\n\n> Your argument is thus based upon a misconception\n> about what it means for a photon to have a given frequency. Frequency\n> is cycles per unit time,\n\nNot in physics. Frequency can be applied to cycles. All waves have both\ncycles and frequency -- by definition. However, we can apply frequency to\nsituations that *don\'t* have cycles. For example, we can say that someone\neats 3 meals a day. But eating isn\'t a cycle (it\'s not continuously\nvarying). And it may only be an average. Some days the person may eat 4\nmeals. Sometimes none.\n\n> so that regardless of the accepted universality\n> of the expression\n>\n> E = hf\n\nThis isn\'t universal. It simply relates energy to the frequency of a light\nphoton in standard theory. It doesn\'t apply to anything else.\n\n> It is obviously a limiting case for source and detector at rest wrt each\n> other, i.e. h isn\'t constant over time.\n\nWrong again. But irrelevant to this issue.\n\n> The only other option is that\n> the empirically observed redshift is just a doppler shift due to\n> recession of the source.\n\nThere are many other options. The problem is that you are simply misusing\nunits. Shared units do not mean that the processes are equivalent.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for return e-mail}\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:31csjhF39dfg5U1@individual.net...
> greywolf42 wrote:
> > RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3170pdF37nntbU1@individual.net...
> >>The only assumption that I made is that an event is absolute in the
> >>sense that in any frame it either did or did not occur. When I pulse a
> >>flashlight 10 times, then every observer will detect 10 flashes. The
> >>equation is just this statement in mathematical form.
> >
> >>freq * \delta_t = (number of cycles)
> >
> >>freq' * \delta_t = (number of cycles)
> >
> > Flashes are not energy content. You are confabulating events and
> > entities.
> >
> >>So that if a finite number of cycles occur at the source, then for any
> >>two inertial observers of the corresponding waves we must have
> >>
> >>freq * \delta_t = freq' * \delta_t'
> >
> >>Suppose you explain how there is more at work here than simple algebra?
> >
> > First, algebra works only on equations. You have to have a starting
> > equation to use algebra. It is theory (or assumption) that gives us the
> > equation upon which we can use algebra.
Since you ignored this, I suppose you now understand the difference between
algebra and a theory?
> > Second, you have made a very basic error. You are confusing the
> > emission of a given number of entities (photons, or light waves)
> > with the actions that affect the entities during their travels.
> > The number of entities may not change, but the energy contained
> > in those entities certainly *can* change.
No response again, I see.
> >>I'm at a complete loss to understand your inability to grasp that this
> >>is nothing more than the premise of one reality, the reality that we
> >>just happen to live in.
> >
> > The entire span of human thought, philosophy, and the scientific method
> > is nothing more than the attempt to understand the reality we happen to
> > live in. And yet, people *do* have different views of how things work.
Yet another non-response.
> >>The theory in which this statement is a required premise is simply "any
> >>theory that portends to be empirically consistent". The equation is an
> >>empirically derived premise,
> >
> > There is no such thing as a "premise" that is "empirically derived."
> > One can never derive a premise, for a premise must exist before a
> > derivation begins.
No response, again.
{snip higher levels and more uncommented stuff}
> >>Until then I have no interest in delving into details of theories,
> >>about an effect that is already made pellucid in the simple equation
> >>that I provided above. The subject is just that simple, there is no
> >>wiggle room, no stranger than life fictions that can alter the reality
> >>expressed by that equation.
> >
> > The problem is that you confused the emission of photons with the
> > parameters of the photons.
>
> So finally we get around to your belief that there is a distinction
> between the frequency shifts of pulses and photons. I wanted you to
> make the distinction yourself, because I see none, and didn't want to
> put any words into your mouth.
The fact that you see no difference doesn't change the substance of the
world. Either address the issue, or not. Your choice. But simply claiming
that you don't agree (and simply repeating your argument) is not sufficient.
> My argument holds without further qualification. We need only shift the
> argument to radio frequency waves, which are just pulses of photons,
> i.e. *pulses*.
Nope. Radio waves are not pulses. They are continuous, if the emitter is
continuous.
> You are contending that the frequency of pulses can
> remain unchanged in transit, while the photons of which they are
> composed can simultaneously shift in frequency in transit.
The pulses, themselves, don't *have* a frequency. Each pulse is unique.
> IOW, you
> contend that the frequency of my flashlight pulses can be measure
> equally by both source and detector, but that the color of its light can
> be simultaneously different wrt these two.
Yes. Because the "pulse" of your flashlight must be input by your hand,
flipping the switch. It is not a characteristic of the light emitted by
flashlight.
> But in the case of the radio waves, the frequency of the photons is
> equal to the frequency of pulses, and must remain so throughout transit.
Again, you are completely in error. There is no difference between your
hand holding a flashlight, and your hand holding a radio transmitter. If
both only emit when your hand pushes the button.
The frequency of the (visible or radio) light wave is determined by the
characteristics of the transmitter in your hand. The frequency of the
pulses is determined by your finger. And I don't think your thumb can even
keep up with the kilocycle band.
> A shift in the photon frequency would necessarily result in a shift in
> the pulse frequency as well, an equal shift, it being just several
> superposed photons.
A non sequiteur.
> Your argument is thus based upon a misconception
> about what it means for a photon to have a given frequency. Frequency
> is cycles per unit time,
Not in physics. Frequency can be applied to cycles. All waves have both
cycles and frequency -- by definition. However, we can apply frequency to
situations that *don't* have cycles. For example, we can say that someone
eats 3 meals a day. But eating isn't a cycle (it's not continuously
varying). And it may only be an average. Some days the person may eat 4
meals. Sometimes none.
> so that regardless of the accepted universality
> of the expression
>
> E = hf
This isn't universal. It simply relates energy to the frequency of a light
photon in standard theory. It doesn't apply to anything else.
> It is obviously a limiting case for source and detector at rest wrt each
> other, i.e. h isn't constant over time.
Wrong again. But irrelevant to this issue.
> The only other option is that
> the empirically observed redshift is just a doppler shift due to
> recession of the source.
There are many other options. The problem is that you are simply misusing
units. Shared units do not mean that the processes are equivalent.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>greywolf42 wrote:\n> Mike Helland <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message\n> news:11990c07.0412020910.5fb3312c@posting.google.c om...\n>\n>>"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message\n>\n> news:<F8sod.216\\$jP6.43@news.flashnewsgroups.com> ...\n>\n>>>Again, \'tired\' photons are not \'slow\' photons. Your entire premise is\n>>>based on ignorance of the \'tired light\' postulates. \'Tired light\' (such\n>>>as Vigier\'s theory) postulates that photons lose energy. Not speed.\n>>>This results in a red shift. Not a slowing of photons.\n>>\n>>This is interesting. Is there any existing information on a\n>>"slowed-light" hypothesis?\n>\n>\n> I don\'t know of any.\n>\n>\n>>I was thinking about the expansion, which says that the distance that\n>>light travels through expands during the trip, and I just thought it\n>>would be natural to investigate whether or not the distance stays the\n>>same and the time is what exands.\n>\n>\n> If one has "tired light", then there need be no expansion.\n>\n>\n>>Obviouslly, the duration of the trip could be expanded if the light\n>>were to actually slow down, which would give the illusion that its\n>>travelling through more space.\n>\n>\n> Well, yes. But I don\'t know of any theories that predict this.\n>\n>\n>>And, obviouslly:\n>>\n>>c = fw\n>>\n>>So if the light did slow down over huge HUGE interglactic differences\n>>without changing the wavelength of the light, the frequency would drop\n>>too, which is red-shift.\n>>\n>>Someone told me that this is "tired-light", but it obviouslly isn\'t.\n>>Has anyone thoroughly refuted "slowed-light" or am I the first to\n>>think about it?\n>\n>\n> You are probably not the first. Try looking around corpuscular light\n> theories. Light corpuscles (the Newtonian version) would have no problems\n> being slowed down.\n\nA continuous slow down of the propagational speed would cause waves to\npile up, thus shortening the wavelength. The reduced speed would thus be\nexactly offset by the increasing wave density, i.e. the frequency would\nremain unchanged. This is observed every day as light passes through\nmedia with high refractive index. A gradation in index will provide\nexactly the same effect as proposed here, and yet no frequency shift has\never been observed to occur within such a media. In every case where\nredshift is observed, relative motion to the source is required, or else\nthe source has simply emitted a lower frequency than it was assumed to\nemit.\n\nRichard Perry\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>greywolf42 wrote:
> Mike Helland <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:11990c07.0412020910.5fb3312c@posting.google.c om...
>
>>"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
>
> news:<F8sod.216$jP6.43@news.flashnewsgroups.com>...
>
>>>Again, 'tired' photons are not 'slow' photons. Your entire premise is
>>>based on ignorance of the 'tired light' postulates. 'Tired light' (such
>>>as Vigier's theory) postulates that photons lose energy. Not speed.
>>>This results in a red shift. Not a slowing of photons.
>>
>>This is interesting. Is there any existing information on a
>>"slowed-light" hypothesis?
>
>
> I don't know of any.
>
>
>>I was thinking about the expansion, which says that the distance that
>>light travels through expands during the trip, and I just thought it
>>would be natural to investigate whether or not the distance stays the
>>same and the time is what exands.
>
>
> If one has "tired light", then there need be no expansion.
>
>
>>Obviouslly, the duration of the trip could be expanded if the light
>>were to actually slow down, which would give the illusion that its
>>travelling through more space.
>
>
> Well, yes. But I don't know of any theories that predict this.
>
>
>>And, obviouslly:
>>
>>c = fw
>>
>>So if the light did slow down over huge HUGE interglactic differences
>>without changing the wavelength of the light, the frequency would drop
>>too, which is red-shift.
>>
>>Someone told me that this is "tired-light", but it obviouslly isn't.
>>Has anyone thoroughly refuted "slowed-light" or am I the first to
>>think about it?
>
>
> You are probably not the first. Try looking around corpuscular light
> theories. Light corpuscles (the Newtonian version) would have no problems
> being slowed down.
A continuous slow down of the propagational speed would cause waves to
pile up, thus shortening the wavelength. The reduced speed would thus be
exactly offset by the increasing wave density, i.e. the frequency would
remain unchanged. This is observed every day as light passes through
media with high refractive index. A gradation in index will provide
exactly the same effect as proposed here, and yet no frequency shift has
ever been observed to occur within such a media. In every case where
redshift is observed, relative motion to the source is required, or else
the source has simply emitted a lower frequency than it was assumed to
emit.
Richard Perry
ohwilleke
Dec9-04, 11:33 AM
The best empirical test of tired light would be to improve non-red shift methods for estimating distance and compare them to red shift data. For example, if you had two Hubble class space telescopes at Oort Cloud distance from Earth and knew their locations with precision, one could dramatically extend the distance at which parallax distance measurements were accurate and use those to compare to red shift data. In a tired light scenario one would expect detectable anomolies that increased proportionate to distance. In a conventional approach, one would expect that values to match closely.
greywolf42
Dec10-04, 10:18 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nohwilleke <ohwilleke@hotmail.com> wrote in message\nnews:ohwilleke.1gysye@physicsforums.com.. .\n>\n>\n> The best empirical test of tired light would be to improve non-red shift\n> methods for estimating distance and compare them to red shift data. For\n> example, if you had two Hubble class space telescopes at Oort Cloud\n> distance from Earth and knew their locations with precision, one could\n> dramatically extend the distance at which parallax distance\n> measurements were accurate and use those to compare to red shift data.\n> In a tired light scenario one would expect detectable anomolies that\n> increased proportionate to distance. In a conventional approach, one\n> would expect that values to match closely.\n\nBut this has already been done, with the SN1a data. There is no need to go\nto the effort to extend the baseline of parallax. Though this could help\nverify things. And it\'s not feasible for awhile, so we\'ll have to make do.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for return e-mail}\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>ohwilleke <ohwilleke@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ohwilleke.1gysye@physicsforums.com...
>
>
> The best empirical test of tired light would be to improve non-red shift
> methods for estimating distance and compare them to red shift data. For
> example, if you had two Hubble class space telescopes at Oort Cloud
> distance from Earth and knew their locations with precision, one could
> dramatically extend the distance at which parallax distance
> measurements were accurate and use those to compare to red shift data.
> In a tired light scenario one would expect detectable anomolies that
> increased proportionate to distance. In a conventional approach, one
> would expect that values to match closely.
But this has already been done, with the SN1a data. There is no need to go
to the effort to extend the baseline of parallax. Though this could help
verify things. And it's not feasible for awhile, so we'll have to make do.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.