Expansion-what formula for redshift?

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:43:28 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"John C. Polasek" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 02:22:57 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"John C. Polasek" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:24:56 -0500, John C. Polasek
wrote:

On 30 Mar 2007 14:43:54 -0700, "Steve Willner"
wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
Wiki shows L = L0(1+z)*gamma. Also sqrt(1+z)/sqrt(1-z).
What is the formula used by the dark energy investigators?

The correct ones, I expect. :-)

For details, see Ned Wright's cosmology calculator -- and in
particular the explanatory material -- at
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

snip
John Polasek
Thank you Steve for your response regarding cosmological redshift.

To simplify this discussion, see http://en.wikipedia.org Relativistic
Doppler effect. I believe their equation wrong.

Very good, John. I know it is wrong too.

Under the topic "The Mechanism", it says in effect that frequency is
reduced by (1-b) and then * increased* by gamma:
fob = femit(1-b)*gamma

Yes, but gamma cannot be derived ***,

It's their gamma and I don't like it but saying it can't be derived is
tantamount to saying v doesn't exist.

Since we have a velocity between the "stationary" frame K and
the "moving" frame k, what is the velocity between the "moving"
frame k and "moving" frame kappa?

Follow me through, CAREFULLY, with references to
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein

1) Domain is the "stationary" frame K.
2) Codomain (or Image) is the "moving" frame k.

3) "If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time." - Einstein.

4) Function: f(x) = x' = x-vt

|----x-vt----| (train)
|0--------------x| (place on track)

"Puff, puff, puff, whooo-who".... (train noises)

|--vt--|----x-vt----|
|0-------------------------x|

"Puff, puff, puff... " (more train noises)

|----vt----|----x-vt----|
|0-----------------------------x|


"Puff, puff, puff... " (more train noises)

|------vt------|----x-vt----|
|0---------------------------------x|

"Puff, puff, puff, puff, puff, puff... " (even more train noises)

|---------------vt-------------------|----x-vt----|
|0-------------------------------------------------------x|

The length of the train is INDEPENDENT of time.
It will still be the same length today as it was last year.

3) "If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time." - Einstein.

IT IS CLEAR the length of the train is independent of time.


5) Domain is "moving" frame k.

k is the "moving" train which has length x-vt.
K is the "stationary" frame, the track.
We are DONE with v. Finito. Finis. The End. v has been used.

|--vt--|-----x'----| (train)
|0-----------------------x| (place on track)

6) Codomain is "moving" frame kappa.

|----------x'*gamma---------| (ghost train, longer that x')
|-----x'----------------| (train)
|0------------------------x| (place on track)



7) xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) (given)

x = position on track as a function of time.
x' = length of train.
xi = LENGTH OF GHOST TRAIN.


8) but x' = x-vt, so xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and so we have
9) xi = g(f(x)) where g(x) = x/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) or gof: x |- xi.

10) Question: What is the velocity v between the "moving" frame k
and the "moving" frame kappa?


You give me v and I'll give you
gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v2/c2).


*You* give *me* a velocity between the train and the ghost train
and then I'll give *you* gamma.

I don't believe in ghosts, gamma = 1.

As my old grandfather used to say, "It's like a bloody German
coffee shop around here, everybody talking and nobody listening".


so it's dead in the water
right there. No point in investigating further. So what is the
REAL cause of redshift? We cannot deny empirical data,
but we can try to determine the mechanism.
When relativity annointed time as a 4th stick to their coordinate
bundle, they foreclosed the possibility of a model that works, being
ha homogeneous, isotropic and just generally all round blah. Their v (and
ours) is Hubble x D.
But use time instead as a radial highway to launch the visible stars
at c, as in Fig. 2 and they maintain angular separation as they go
their way. Hubble's expansion becomes automatic. Then we have
v = c*the angle a
fo/fe = 1 - a
and the projection on our frame is via cos a giving
fo/fe = (1-a)cos a
something like
fo/fe = (1-a)/gamma (they use x gamma, an apparent blunder)



1-b reasonably reduces observed frequency, but then why would gamma
speed it up? They say time is dilated at the observer so the time
between crests is reduced, which would increase frequency.
Time dilation is often applied as an anodyne, but I believe that in
this case they should be dividing by gamma to further reduce fob. What
mechanism could possibly amplify a given frequency?

John Polasek

No mechanism can, but "amplify" is not the correct term to use.
What you should ask is "What mechanism could possibly
INCREASE a given frequency?"
No increase is observed, so why even ask?
Seems to me you are arguing over how Santa gets down the
chimney when you should be asking why mom and pop tell fibs
to the kids.

Consider this:
Light is energy.
Light is emitted by molecules/atoms/ions.
Light comes as packets of energy we call photons.
Light obeys an inverse square law, the further away
a source is the dimmer it is.
Ergo, fewer photons arrive in a given eyeball from a
distant source than a near one of the same energy output.
But we also know (from double slit experiments) that
light will pass through more than one slit or hole.
So... the amount of energy that falls on a unit area
remaining constant, say one photon per second,
would imply that a 1/4 of a photon will fall on
4 unit areas for a total of 1 per second, but there are no
1/4 photons.
So maybe, just maybe, E = h(nu) total means
E = h(1/4 nu) * 4.

Since your photon pellets are landing at random you have already
capitulated from the absolute to the statistical, which exonerates
your partial-photon debacle. But there's no solution there. The
redshift happens without consideration of square law.
The cosmicists are concerned because their square law luminosity does
not "square" with their redshift equation. They believe in the square
law, but do not question their equation, looking instead for dark
energy. I believe their formulation is defective. Time dilation is
part of their adjustments when viewing SN1A's.

Ok, that is a simplification, because the inverse
square law is an approximation. What we cannot do
is increase or decrease the total energy over the surface
of a sphere, but we can dodge snowflakes when few
are falling. Enough snowflakes can coat a surface, but
the size of the snowflakes cannot change. Or can they?
If we employ a photon energy package model, then the
snowflakes may melt to raindrops and we'd be fooled into
thinking the surface was coated when it wasn't.
So what if photons got bigger and slower?
That would agree with empirical data, but no theoretical
big bang.
What is the empirical data anyway?
The further away the source, the greater the redshift. That's it.
All else is conjecture.
I abhor conjecture which is why I engage in those dreary derivations
on my website. I think my case for (1-a)cos a is defensible. It is
dawning on me that you are a closet proponent of tired light or its
variants, and if so my exhortations might be all in vain.

***
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mart/Smart.htm

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org Relativistic Doppler effect.
I think there's room for both terms, 1-b and gamma, in Wiki's
derivation.

Maybe you missed where I said above
" but gamma cannot be derived, so it's dead in the water right there. "

However I think they use gamma backwards,

Maybe you missed where I said above
" but gamma cannot be derived, so it's dead in the water right there. "

which is
algebraically mandatory if the expression is to convert to the
standard form. That's why I mention the distinct possibility that the
discrepancy in luminosity and redshift may only be algebraic.

You are clearly conversant with mathematics.
Follow me through, with references to
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein


1) Domain is the "stationary" frame K.
2) Codomain (or Image) is the "moving" frame k.


3) "If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time." - Einstein.

4) Function: f(x) = x' = x-vt

5) Domain is "moving" frame k.
6) Codomain is "moving" frame kappa.

7) xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) (given)
8) but x' = x-vt, so xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and so we have
9) xi = g(f(x)) where g(x) = x/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) or gof: x |- xi.

10) Question: What is the velocity v between the "moving" frame k
and the "moving" frame kappa?

I repeat, " but gamma cannot be derived, so it's dead in the water right there. "

If you search cosmological redshift you will find a wide variety of
interpretations including MTL Gravitation where they are comfortable
with cosmological fluid, and cosmic standing circular waves from atoms
that expand with the universe.

Misner, Thorne and Wheeler are not mathematicians. Nor was Einstein.
I'm not sure who "L" is or if we are talking about the same book.
The question now is, are you a mathematician?
Answer the question at 10) above and we'll find out.

The idea that there is a "right" one is a careless assumption.
Wiki has the following equations:
fo/fe = (1-b)*gamma is relativity expression comes to
= sqt[(1-b)/(1+b)], the standard recipe
Take a numerical example. You will find one term lowers frequency
while the other raises it:
Let beta = b = .95 fe = 10 Ghz then 1-b = .05 & gamma = 3.2
1st term 1-b makes fo = 0.5 Ghz 0.6 meter WL
2d term x gamma UP fo = 1.6 Ghz 0.187 meter (!)
gamma increases the frequency? This is not likely.

"Likely" has nothing to do with anything in mathematics.
The probability of increasing frequency by magic is zero.


Therefore we prefer to divide by gamma:

I repeat, " but gamma cannot be derived, so it's dead in the water right there. "

fo/fe = (1-b)/gamma = (1-b)sqrt(1-b^2)
which makes our succession of frequencies decrease at all times:
10Ghz, 0.5Ghz, 0.156 Ghz (vs 1.6Ghz)
Lambda = .03m 0.6m 1.9m (vs 0.187 m)
In my own interpretation 1/gamma is replaced by cos b and then the
last frequency is 0.291Ghz and WL 1.03 m.

I repeat, the discrepancy in luminosity and redshift may only be
algebraic not any lurking dark energy, and the standard expression
seems to be wrong.

I've told you why it is wrong, unless you can find a velocity between
the "moving" frame k and the "moving" frame kappa even then you'll
have to prove gamma. Any motion between k and kappa is...err...
unlikely. :-)

It requires knowledge of just what time dilation is
supposed to do in this case.
John Polasek

There is no such animal as "time dilation"; time is not a vector,
it has no additive inverse.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...tor/Vector.htm

I repeat:
Seems to me you are arguing over how Santa gets down the
chimney when you should be asking why mom and pop tell fibs
to the kids.

John, you KNOW there is a problem. You can highlight that
there is a problem. What you have done is ASSUMED Santa
comes down the chimney and wish to argue with me that he
cannot, Santa is too large and the chimney too small. I agree.

The sad reality is that there is no Santa and gamma = 1.
Mom, Pop, Einstein, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler are all telling lies.

But we still have a problem. How do the prezzies get under the
tree and why do distant galaxies show redshift?

I'd like to address that very real issue without bringing Santa
and gamma into it, Santa and gamma are fairy tales for children.

Now please, debate the real issue instead of showing something
is wrong. We both know something is wrong with conventional
stupidity, and it is the conventionally stupid that spend $118 on
MTW's "Gravitation" fairy tales.

I stole mine for $72 at Borders. You're right, there's a whole more to
snipping than meets the eye.

John Polasek

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:33:05 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"John C. Polasek" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:43:28 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"John C. Polasek" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 02:22:57 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"John C. Polasek" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:24:56 -0500, John C. Polasek
wrote:

On 30 Mar 2007 14:43:54 -0700, "Steve Willner"
wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
Wiki shows L = L0(1+z)*gamma. Also sqrt(1+z)/sqrt(1-z).
What is the formula used by the dark energy investigators?

The correct ones, I expect. :-)

For details, see Ned Wright's cosmology calculator -- and in
particular the explanatory material -- at
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

snip
John Polasek
Thank you Steve for your response regarding cosmological redshift.

To simplify this discussion, see http://en.wikipedia.org Relativistic
Doppler effect. I believe their equation wrong.

Very good, John. I know it is wrong too.

Under the topic "The Mechanism", it says in effect that frequency is
reduced by (1-b) and then * increased* by gamma:
fob = femit(1-b)*gamma

Yes, but gamma cannot be derived ***,

It's their gamma and I don't like it but saying it can't be derived is
tantamount to saying v doesn't exist.

Since we have a velocity between the "stationary" frame K and
the "moving" frame k, what is the velocity between the "moving"
frame k and "moving" frame kappa?

Follow me through, CAREFULLY, with references to
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein

1) Domain is the "stationary" frame K.
2) Codomain (or Image) is the "moving" frame k.

3) "If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time." - Einstein.

4) Function: f(x) = x' = x-vt

|----x-vt----| (train)
|0--------------x| (place on track)

"Puff, puff, puff, whooo-who".... (train noises)

|--vt--|----x-vt----|
|0-------------------------x|

"Puff, puff, puff... " (more train noises)

|----vt----|----x-vt----|
|0-----------------------------x|


"Puff, puff, puff... " (more train noises)

|------vt------|----x-vt----|
|0---------------------------------x|

"Puff, puff, puff, puff, puff, puff... " (even more train noises)

|---------------vt-------------------|----x-vt----|
|0-------------------------------------------------------x|

The length of the train is INDEPENDENT of time.
It will still be the same length today as it was last year.

3) "If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time." - Einstein.

IT IS CLEAR the length of the train is independent of time.


5) Domain is "moving" frame k.

k is the "moving" train which has length x-vt.
K is the "stationary" frame, the track.
We are DONE with v. Finito. Finis. The End. v has been used.

|--vt--|-----x'----| (train)
|0-----------------------x| (place on track)

6) Codomain is "moving" frame kappa.

|----------x'*gamma---------| (ghost train, longer that x')
|-----x'----------------| (train)
|0------------------------x| (place on track)



7) xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) (given)

x = position on track as a function of time.
x' = length of train.
xi = LENGTH OF GHOST TRAIN.


8) but x' = x-vt, so xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and so we have
9) xi = g(f(x)) where g(x) = x/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) or gof: x |- xi.

10) Question: What is the velocity v between the "moving" frame k
and the "moving" frame kappa?


You give me v and I'll give you
gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v2/c2).


*You* give *me* a velocity between the train and the ghost train
and then I'll give *you* gamma.

I don't believe in ghosts, gamma = 1.

As my old grandfather used to say, "It's like a bloody German
coffee shop around here, everybody talking and nobody listening".

SR is totally artificial and all this booshwah about synchronizing
clocks is just a waste. But you are misinterpreting (excuse me for not
analyzing this SR sophistry in great detail) gamma.
In SR a moving train will look shorter to you by the Lorentz transform
or 1/gamma, not longer by gamma. The reason it will look shorter (in
my opinion) is it's rotated by asin v/c in 4-space. A radio signal
from the train will be reduced also by 1/gamma. I dealt with these
things in my diagrams on my website.
In relativity's treatment of redshift there is a simple kinematic
reason to reduce perceived frequency just due to Hubble's v = HD.
But then there is a geometric effect,(but no model in SR), that
involves gamma or the Lorentz transform. The trick for the relativists
is to interpet whether to use gamma or 1/gamma, because they appear to
take it as an effect of time dilation. But if time is shorter or
clocks are faster or what what, they simply guessed gamma in place of
1/gamma,thus raising fo back up.
Both effects are present in redshift and it is clear from Fig. 1 in
the gravitation paper that the velocity v not only produces angle a,
but also projects on the observer further reduced by cosine a. (For
whatever reason, cos a from a = asin(v/c) gives a different result
then sqrt(1-v2c2).
I repeat. Wiki's equation seems wrong but it is a derivation that
agrees with the widely accepted 1 + z = sqrt(1-b/1+b). Where did I go
wrong?


so it's dead in the water
right there. No point in investigating further. So what is the
REAL cause of redshift? We cannot deny empirical data,
but we can try to determine the mechanism.
When relativity annointed time as a 4th stick to their coordinate
bundle, they foreclosed the possibility of a model that works, being
ha homogeneous, isotropic and just generally all round blah. Their v (and
ours) is Hubble x D.
But use time instead as a radial highway to launch the visible stars
at c, as in Fig. 2 and they maintain angular separation as they go
their way. Hubble's expansion becomes automatic. Then we have
v = c*the angle a
fo/fe = 1 - a
and the projection on our frame is via cos a giving
fo/fe = (1-a)cos a
something like
fo/fe = (1-a)/gamma (they use x gamma, an apparent blunder)



1-b reasonably reduces observed frequency, but then why would gamma
speed it up? They say time is dilated at the observer so the time
between crests is reduced, which would increase frequency.
Time dilation is often applied as an anodyne, but I believe that in
this case they should be dividing by gamma to further reduce fob. What
mechanism could possibly amplify a given frequency?

John Polasek

No mechanism can, but "amplify" is not the correct term to use.
What you should ask is "What mechanism could possibly
INCREASE a given frequency?"
No increase is observed, so why even ask?
Seems to me you are arguing over how Santa gets down the
chimney when you should be asking why mom and pop tell fibs
to the kids.

Consider this:
Light is energy.
Light is emitted by molecules/atoms/ions.
Light comes as packets of energy we call photons.
Light obeys an inverse square law, the further away
a source is the dimmer it is.
Ergo, fewer photons arrive in a given eyeball from a
distant source than a near one of the same energy output.
But we also know (from double slit experiments) that
light will pass through more than one slit or hole.
So... the amount of energy that falls on a unit area
remaining constant, say one photon per second,
would imply that a 1/4 of a photon will fall on
4 unit areas for a total of 1 per second, but there are no
1/4 photons.
So maybe, just maybe, E = h(nu) total means
E = h(1/4 nu) * 4.

Since your photon pellets are landing at random you have already
capitulated from the absolute to the statistical, which exonerates
your partial-photon debacle. But there's no solution there. The
redshift happens without consideration of square law.
The cosmicists are concerned because their square law luminosity does
not "square" with their redshift equation. They believe in the square
law, but do not question their equation, looking instead for dark
energy. I believe their formulation is defective. Time dilation is
part of their adjustments when viewing SN1A's.

Ok, that is a simplification, because the inverse
square law is an approximation. What we cannot do
is increase or decrease the total energy over the surface
of a sphere, but we can dodge snowflakes when few
are falling. Enough snowflakes can coat a surface, but
the size of the snowflakes cannot change. Or can they?
If we employ a photon energy package model, then the
snowflakes may melt to raindrops and we'd be fooled into
thinking the surface was coated when it wasn't.
So what if photons got bigger and slower?
That would agree with empirical data, but no theoretical
big bang.
What is the empirical data anyway?
The further away the source, the greater the redshift. That's it.
All else is conjecture.
I abhor conjecture which is why I engage in those dreary derivations
on my website. I think my case for (1-a)cos a is defensible. It is
dawning on me that you are a closet proponent of tired light or its
variants, and if so my exhortations might be all in vain.

***
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mart/Smart.htm

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org Relativistic Doppler effect.
I think there's room for both terms, 1-b and gamma, in Wiki's
derivation.

Maybe you missed where I said above
" but gamma cannot be derived, so it's dead in the water right there. "

However I think they use gamma backwards,

Maybe you missed where I said above
" but gamma cannot be derived, so it's dead in the water right there. "

which is
algebraically mandatory if the expression is to convert to the
standard form. That's why I mention the distinct possibility that the
discrepancy in luminosity and redshift may only be algebraic.

You are clearly conversant with mathematics.
Follow me through, with references to
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein


1) Domain is the "stationary" frame K.
2) Codomain (or Image) is the "moving" frame k.


3) "If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time." - Einstein.

4) Function: f(x) = x' = x-vt

5) Domain is "moving" frame k.
6) Codomain is "moving" frame kappa.

7) xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) (given)
8) but x' = x-vt, so xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and so we have
9) xi = g(f(x)) where g(x) = x/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) or gof: x |- xi.

10) Question: What is the velocity v between the "moving" frame k
and the "moving" frame kappa?

I repeat, " but gamma cannot be derived, so it's dead in the water right there. "

If you search cosmological redshift you will find a wide variety of
interpretations including MTL Gravitation where they are comfortable
with cosmological fluid, and cosmic standing circular waves from atoms
that expand with the universe.

Misner, Thorne and Wheeler are not mathematicians. Nor was Einstein.
I'm not sure who "L" is or if we are talking about the same book.
The question now is, are you a mathematician?
Answer the question at 10) above and we'll find out.

The idea that there is a "right" one is a careless assumption.
Wiki has the following equations:
fo/fe = (1-b)*gamma is relativity expression comes to
= sqt[(1-b)/(1+b)], the standard recipe
Take a numerical example. You will find one term lowers frequency
while the other raises it:
Let beta = b = .95 fe = 10 Ghz then 1-b = .05 & gamma = 3.2
1st term 1-b makes fo = 0.5 Ghz 0.6 meter WL
2d term x gamma UP fo = 1.6 Ghz 0.187 meter (!)
gamma increases the frequency? This is not likely.

"Likely" has nothing to do with anything in mathematics.
The probability of increasing frequency by magic is zero.


Therefore we prefer to divide by gamma:

I repeat, " but gamma cannot be derived, so it's dead in the water right there. "

fo/fe = (1-b)/gamma = (1-b)sqrt(1-b^2)
which makes our succession of frequencies decrease at all times:
10Ghz, 0.5Ghz, 0.156 Ghz (vs 1.6Ghz)
Lambda = .03m 0.6m 1.9m (vs 0.187 m)
In my own interpretation 1/gamma is replaced by cos b and then the
last frequency is 0.291Ghz and WL 1.03 m.

I repeat, the discrepancy in luminosity and redshift may only be
algebraic not any lurking dark energy, and the standard expression
seems to be wrong.

I've told you why it is wrong, unless you can find a velocity between
the "moving" frame k and the "moving" frame kappa even then you'll
have to prove gamma. Any motion between k and kappa is...err...
unlikely. :-)

It requires knowledge of just what time dilation is
supposed to do in this case.
John Polasek

There is no such animal as "time dilation"; time is not a vector,
it has no additive inverse.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...tor/Vector.htm

I repeat:
Seems to me you are arguing over how Santa gets down the
chimney when you should be asking why mom and pop tell fibs
to the kids.

John, you KNOW there is a problem. You can highlight that
there is a problem. What you have done is ASSUMED Santa
comes down the chimney and wish to argue with me that he
cannot, Santa is too large and the chimney too small. I agree.

The sad reality is that there is no Santa and gamma = 1.
Mom, Pop, Einstein, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler are all telling lies.

But we still have a problem. How do the prezzies get under the
tree and why do distant galaxies show redshift?

I'd like to address that very real issue without bringing Santa
and gamma into it, Santa and gamma are fairy tales for children.

Now please, debate the real issue instead of showing something
is wrong. We both know something is wrong with conventional
stupidity, and it is the conventionally stupid that spend $118 on
MTW's "Gravitation" fairy tales.

I stole mine for $72 at Borders. You're right, there's a whole more to
snipping than meets the eye.

John Polasek
I'm not snipping but ides of April may delay rebuttals.
John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:33:05 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"John C. Polasek" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:43:28 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"John C. Polasek" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 02:22:57 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"John C. Polasek" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:24:56 -0500, John C. Polasek
wrote:

On 30 Mar 2007 14:43:54 -0700, "Steve Willner"
wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
Wiki shows L = L0(1+z)*gamma. Also sqrt(1+z)/sqrt(1-z).
What is the formula used by the dark energy investigators?

The correct ones, I expect. :-)

For details, see Ned Wright's cosmology calculator -- and in
particular the explanatory material -- at
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

snip
John Polasek
Thank you Steve for your response regarding cosmological redshift.

To simplify this discussion, see http://en.wikipedia.org Relativistic
Doppler effect. I believe their equation wrong.

Very good, John. I know it is wrong too.

Under the topic "The Mechanism", it says in effect that frequency is
reduced by (1-b) and then * increased* by gamma:
fob = femit(1-b)*gamma

Yes, but gamma cannot be derived ***,

It's their gamma and I don't like it but saying it can't be derived is
tantamount to saying v doesn't exist.

Since we have a velocity between the "stationary" frame K and
the "moving" frame k, what is the velocity between the "moving"
frame k and "moving" frame kappa?

Follow me through, CAREFULLY, with references to
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein

1) Domain is the "stationary" frame K.
2) Codomain (or Image) is the "moving" frame k.

3) "If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time." - Einstein.

4) Function: f(x) = x' = x-vt

|----x-vt----| (train)
|0--------------x| (place on track)

"Puff, puff, puff, whooo-who".... (train noises)

|--vt--|----x-vt----|
|0-------------------------x|

"Puff, puff, puff... " (more train noises)

|----vt----|----x-vt----|
|0-----------------------------x|


"Puff, puff, puff... " (more train noises)

|------vt------|----x-vt----|
|0---------------------------------x|

"Puff, puff, puff, puff, puff, puff... " (even more train noises)

|---------------vt-------------------|----x-vt----|
|0-------------------------------------------------------x|

The length of the train is INDEPENDENT of time.
It will still be the same length today as it was last year.

3) "If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time." - Einstein.

IT IS CLEAR the length of the train is independent of time.


5) Domain is "moving" frame k.

k is the "moving" train which has length x-vt.
K is the "stationary" frame, the track.
We are DONE with v. Finito. Finis. The End. v has been used.

|--vt--|-----x'----| (train)
|0-----------------------x| (place on track)

6) Codomain is "moving" frame kappa.

|----------x'*gamma---------| (ghost train, longer that x')
|-----x'----------------| (train)
|0------------------------x| (place on track)



7) xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) (given)

x = position on track as a function of time.
x' = length of train.
xi = LENGTH OF GHOST TRAIN.


8) but x' = x-vt, so xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and so we have
9) xi = g(f(x)) where g(x) = x/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) or gof: x |- xi.

10) Question: What is the velocity v between the "moving" frame k
and the "moving" frame kappa?


You give me v and I'll give you
gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v2/c2).


*You* give *me* a velocity between the train and the ghost train
and then I'll give *you* gamma.

I don't believe in ghosts, gamma = 1.

As my old grandfather used to say, "It's like a bloody German
coffee shop around here, everybody talking and nobody listening".

SR is totally artificial and all this booshwah about synchronizing
clocks is just a waste.

Correct.

But you are misinterpreting (excuse me for not
analyzing this SR sophistry in great detail) gamma.

No, I will not excuse you, nor am I misinterpreting anything.


In SR a moving train will look shorter to you by the Lorentz transform
or 1/gamma, not longer by gamma.

Do not be silly.
sqrt(1-[something]) is less than one.
1/ [something less than one] is greater than one.


The reason it will look shorter (in
my opinion)

Your opinion is of no consequence in mathematics.
My apologies for presuming you were a mathematician
when you don't even know 1/0.5 = 2. My mistake, I will
not trouble you further. Have a nice day.

John C. Polasek wrote:
To simplify this discussion, see http://en.wikipedia.org Relativistic
Doppler effect. I believe their equation wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler looks OK to me. You
have to be very careful about what reference frame you measure things
in, but that shouldn't be a surprise.

The cosmological formulas have nothing to do with relativistic Doppler
shift. (At very small redshifts, everything is linear, and it makes
no difference what formula you use, but as soon as you get into the
non-linear range, you have to use the correct formula for whatever you
are trying to calculate.)

"Steve Willner" wrote in message oups.com...

John C. Polasek wrote:
To simplify this discussion, see http://en.wikipedia.org Relativistic
Doppler effect. I believe their equation wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler looks OK to me. You
have to be very careful about what reference frame you measure things
in, but that shouldn't be a surprise.

HAHAHAHA!
Looks OK to you, huh?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...er/Doppler.htm

You are ****in' blind as well as stooopid...

On 4 Apr 2007 14:33:04 -0700, "Steve Willner"
wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
To simplify this discussion, see http://en.wikipedia.org Relativistic
Doppler effect. I believe their equation wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler looks OK to me. You
have to be very careful about what reference frame you measure things
in, but that shouldn't be a surprise.

The cosmological formulas have nothing to do with relativistic Doppler
shift. (At very small redshifts, everything is linear, and it makes
no difference what formula you use, but as soon as you get into the
non-linear range, you have to use the correct formula for whatever you
are trying to calculate.)

Things are a little tricky in Wiki which has several layers, one for
wavelength and one for frequency, the second being hard to find.
If you click Rel. Doppler effect you find the heading Rel. Dop. etc.
which has the relation for wavelength:
for WL 1+z = Lo/Le = (1+b)*gamma
OK. Next to the heading is a hyperlink Main Article Rel. Dop. etc.
which when you click it, goes to a 2d layer that is headed up as "The
Mechanism". Here their formula for Frequency redshift reduces to
for FRS fo/fe = (1-b)*gamma = 1/1+z
a new breed of z.
My intuition sensed an algebraic blunder if gamma were to shore up
both wavelength and frequency versions of z. But in fact the product
of the two expressions do equal unity.
Lofo/Lefe = (1-b^2)/(1-b^2) = (1+z)*(1/1+z)
So we have algebraic integrity, but it's a sticking point, hard to
assimilate, that gamma can increase the frequency as it does the
wavelength. The fact is that in both cases gamma is shoring up not z
but 1+z or for frequency, shoring up 1/1+z.
That clears it up for me, and I hope, for you. Intuition capitulates
to mathematics.

John Polasek

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message ...
On 4 Apr 2007 14:33:04 -0700, "Steve Willner"
wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
To simplify this discussion, see http://en.wikipedia.org Relativistic
Doppler effect. I believe their equation wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler looks OK to me. You
have to be very careful about what reference frame you measure things
in, but that shouldn't be a surprise.

The cosmological formulas have nothing to do with relativistic Doppler
shift. (At very small redshifts, everything is linear, and it makes
no difference what formula you use, but as soon as you get into the
non-linear range, you have to use the correct formula for whatever you
are trying to calculate.)

Things are a little tricky in Wiki which has several layers, one for
wavelength and one for frequency, the second being hard to find.
If you click Rel. Doppler effect you find the heading Rel. Dop. etc.
which has the relation for wavelength:
for WL 1+z = Lo/Le = (1+b)*gamma
OK. Next to the heading is a hyperlink Main Article Rel. Dop. etc.
which when you click it, goes to a 2d layer that is headed up as "The
Mechanism". Here their formula for Frequency redshift reduces to
for FRS fo/fe = (1-b)*gamma = 1/1+z
a new breed of z.
My intuition sensed an algebraic blunder if gamma were to shore up
both wavelength and frequency versions of z. But in fact the product
of the two expressions do equal unity.
Lofo/Lefe = (1-b^2)/(1-b^2) = (1+z)*(1/1+z)
So we have algebraic integrity, but it's a sticking point, hard to
assimilate, that gamma can increase the frequency as it does the
wavelength. The fact is that in both cases gamma is shoring up not z
but 1+z or for frequency, shoring up 1/1+z.
That clears it up for me, and I hope, for you. Intuition capitulates
to mathematics.


There is no gamma, ignorant lazy incompetent ****head.

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 08:35:59 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"John C. Polasek" wrote in message ...
On 4 Apr 2007 14:33:04 -0700, "Steve Willner"
wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
To simplify this discussion, see http://en.wikipedia.org Relativistic
Doppler effect. I believe their equation wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler looks OK to me. You
have to be very careful about what reference frame you measure things
in, but that shouldn't be a surprise.

The cosmological formulas have nothing to do with relativistic Doppler
shift. (At very small redshifts, everything is linear, and it makes
no difference what formula you use, but as soon as you get into the
non-linear range, you have to use the correct formula for whatever you
are trying to calculate.)

Things are a little tricky in Wiki which has several layers, one for
wavelength and one for frequency, the second being hard to find.
If you click Rel. Doppler effect you find the heading Rel. Dop. etc.
which has the relation for wavelength:
for WL 1+z = Lo/Le = (1+b)*gamma
OK. Next to the heading is a hyperlink Main Article Rel. Dop. etc.
which when you click it, goes to a 2d layer that is headed up as "The
Mechanism". Here their formula for Frequency redshift reduces to
for FRS fo/fe = (1-b)*gamma = 1/1+z
a new breed of z.
My intuition sensed an algebraic blunder if gamma were to shore up
both wavelength and frequency versions of z. But in fact the product
of the two expressions do equal unity.
Lofo/Lefe = (1-b^2)/(1-b^2) = (1+z)*(1/1+z)
So we have algebraic integrity, but it's a sticking point, hard to
assimilate, that gamma can increase the frequency as it does the
wavelength. The fact is that in both cases gamma is shoring up not z
but 1+z or for frequency, shoring up 1/1+z.
That clears it up for me, and I hope, for you. Intuition capitulates
to mathematics.


There is no gamma, ignorant lazy incompetent ****head.

It's their gamma, not mine. My original point was that rather than
looking for dark energy to explain why their luminosities did not
match their redshift numbers, there is a good possibility their
algebra is wrong.
Aslo, notice that gamma is not only about variable train lengths.
Broaden your outlook.
John Polasek

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 08:35:59 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"John C. Polasek" wrote in message ...
On 4 Apr 2007 14:33:04 -0700, "Steve Willner"
wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
To simplify this discussion, see http://en.wikipedia.org Relativistic
Doppler effect. I believe their equation wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler looks OK to me. You
have to be very careful about what reference frame you measure things
in, but that shouldn't be a surprise.

The cosmological formulas have nothing to do with relativistic Doppler
shift. (At very small redshifts, everything is linear, and it makes
no difference what formula you use, but as soon as you get into the
non-linear range, you have to use the correct formula for whatever you
are trying to calculate.)

Things are a little tricky in Wiki which has several layers, one for
wavelength and one for frequency, the second being hard to find.
If you click Rel. Doppler effect you find the heading Rel. Dop. etc.
which has the relation for wavelength:
for WL 1+z = Lo/Le = (1+b)*gamma
OK. Next to the heading is a hyperlink Main Article Rel. Dop. etc.
which when you click it, goes to a 2d layer that is headed up as "The
Mechanism". Here their formula for Frequency redshift reduces to
for FRS fo/fe = (1-b)*gamma = 1/1+z
a new breed of z.
My intuition sensed an algebraic blunder if gamma were to shore up
both wavelength and frequency versions of z. But in fact the product
of the two expressions do equal unity.
Lofo/Lefe = (1-b^2)/(1-b^2) = (1+z)*(1/1+z)
So we have algebraic integrity, but it's a sticking point, hard to
assimilate, that gamma can increase the frequency as it does the
wavelength. The fact is that in both cases gamma is shoring up not z
but 1+z or for frequency, shoring up 1/1+z.
That clears it up for me, and I hope, for you. Intuition capitulates
to mathematics.


There is no gamma, ignorant lazy incompetent ****head.

It's their gamma, not mine.

I *proved* gamma doesn't exist. You are too ignorant, lazy and
incompetent to understand that, you called it "sophistry", you
opinionated moron.
Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one and they all
stink.
Yours is particularly obnoxious since you accept the existence
of "their" gamma as you call it and have no foundation to base it on.

Androcles wrote:

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 08:35:59 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
...
On 4 Apr 2007 14:33:04 -0700, "Steve Willner"
wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
To simplify this discussion, see http://en.wikipedia.org Relativistic
Doppler effect. I believe their equation wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler looks OK to me. You
have to be very careful about what reference frame you measure things
in, but that shouldn't be a surprise.

The cosmological formulas have nothing to do with relativistic Doppler
shift. (At very small redshifts, everything is linear, and it makes
no difference what formula you use, but as soon as you get into the
non-linear range, you have to use the correct formula for whatever you
are trying to calculate.)

Things are a little tricky in Wiki which has several layers, one for
wavelength and one for frequency, the second being hard to find.
If you click Rel. Doppler effect you find the heading Rel. Dop. etc.
which has the relation for wavelength:
for WL 1+z = Lo/Le = (1+b)*gamma
OK. Next to the heading is a hyperlink Main Article Rel. Dop. etc.
which when you click it, goes to a 2d layer that is headed up as "The
Mechanism". Here their formula for Frequency redshift reduces to
for FRS fo/fe = (1-b)*gamma = 1/1+z
a new breed of z.
My intuition sensed an algebraic blunder if gamma were to shore up
both wavelength and frequency versions of z. But in fact the product
of the two expressions do equal unity.
Lofo/Lefe = (1-b^2)/(1-b^2) = (1+z)*(1/1+z)
So we have algebraic integrity, but it's a sticking point, hard to
assimilate, that gamma can increase the frequency as it does the
wavelength. The fact is that in both cases gamma is shoring up not z
but 1+z or for frequency, shoring up 1/1+z.
That clears it up for me, and I hope, for you. Intuition capitulates
to mathematics.


There is no gamma, ignorant lazy incompetent ****head.

It's their gamma, not mine.

I *proved* gamma doesn't exist. You are too ignorant, lazy and
incompetent to understand that, you called it "sophistry", you
opinionated moron.
Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one and they all
stink.
Yours is particularly obnoxious since you accept the existence
of "their" gamma as you call it and have no foundation to base it on.

Looks like you'd better "plonk" him now.

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert