Hubble derivation & Age of the universe

In Hubble derivation & Age of the universe
aka Faye Kane wrote:
Can I derive Hubble's constant from nothing but c
and the age of the universe, would that be important?
snip crap I'm not proposing a new "theory". I just
do a simple calculation involving ct² & get for H-zero
(71.4 km/s)/Mpc using a calculator.
______

"Koobee Wublee" wrote:
Hubble's constant is strictly a conjecture, and that should
answer your question. It was decided on what it means
during Hubble's time where he could only see up to 500k
parsecs at best. shrug
______

"SolomonW" wrote :
Hubble's original released data does not really show
the expansion of the universe.
______

Jail bird & olde kacker Hebe-Herbie "G=EMC^2"
wrote:
snip senile crap I'm on the money I get laughed at.
They fudge I never fudge I add up time lapses they
rather sweep under the rug. TreBert
______

Faye Kane wrote:
Please give me a serious answer, because I think I know
how. But I don't want to bother doing the calculations if
it's already been done.
If I can derive Hubble's constant from nothing but c
and the age of the universe, would that be important?
______

hanson wrote:
It depends on what & which paradigm you believe in.
The first 2 posters gave you a serious answers, while
the 3rd one above can be safely swept under the rug.

Now, of course H0 (here H) calculations have been
done since the 1920's... but not with a calculator...

You also chose for "H" a unit system in km/s)/Mpc,
that should be changed to a time unit like Hertz, "/sec"
& you get: H =71.4 km/s)/Mpc = 2.3E-18/s... which
lets you see the "age" of the universe easier... by
simply inverting H into 1/H = T that gives you
T = 4.35E+17 s, or = 13.75E9 years,

..... which is a misnomer, a blatant conjecture only,
and a lie to entertain the peasantry with a great
sounding story that brings funding to astronomy.
Nothing wrong with the latter one, though!
_____ No money - No Science ____ ... ahahaha....

Conjectures of expanding- or other fancy universe
types are just pure fantasy, including the notion that
"space itself expands", without showing what space
expands into... but justify that mental masturbation
by invoking SR/GR crap which has prevented the
development of fundamental physics for over 100
years now.

A bit less far fetched is the assumption that time T
is simply the time for the distance it takes for the
light to travel with "c" from the Light Wall to here,
which is by definition the limit of how far back in
time & space we can see, using EM radiation aka
photons.

Doppler Shift is defined as the pitch change (the shift)
of SOUND in air by the acoustics of COMPRESSION
waves due to moving objects in air.
________ That is a measured, first principle.

Hubble Shift is defined as the frequency change
(the shift) of COLOR of light in empty space by the
optics of TRAVERSE EM waves due to moving
Galaxies.
_______ That is an Assumption.

Nobody has ever seen a galaxy move.
___ We get only celectial snapshots _____.
The Hubble Redshift of galaxy/star light is _assumed_
to be a Doppler Redshift, and that is the 1st rub.

This ASSUMPTION though is used as the basis
for all modern Cosmologies,... which then become..
Assumptions. Further & even more fundamental
assumptions are made in that EM waves do NOT
require a medium (No-Aether paradigm) to the make
waves of/in, and can move thru "empty" space that
is not empty and do so at a fixed speed of "c"....

So, instead of re-hashing that the Hubble shift represents
(assumed) distances, recession velocities, expanding
space and a host of fantasy universes that come and go,
etc, one can speculate with equal justification that H0,
the Hubble constant, represents aspects of the following
relations ships, all of which do match H in size and
dimensionality with other physical constants in many
surprising ways. Here are a few of them:

=1= H = sqrt(G*rho)
wherein rho is the average cosmic mass-density
which "locally" fluctuates and explain the variations
of measurements about H.

=2= H = c^3 / (G*M)
wherein M is the conjectured total mass of the
accessible universe (within the span of the Light Walls).

=3= H = * [L^2 / (2*r_e)^3] * [(3/2)*pi*]
H may simply just be a differnt expression for
fL Hydrogen light emssions in celestial objects.

wherein
L is the Plank length defined as L= sqrt (hbar*G/c^3).
& r = the classical electron radius (r _e= r_H*a^2),
where r_H is the H-Bohr radius, which is inferred
from the MEASURED Hydrogen emission
frequency, fL, of the Lyman series limit radiation
r_e = a^3*c/ (4pi*fL), resp. fL = a^3*c/ (4pi* r_e)

There are a lot more of such self-similar/fractal events
which show the Hubble constant to mean something
else then what it is used for today, ... in possibilities
which I have pontificated and mused about.
Check'em out if you are interested:

Theoretical value of the Hubble constant:
--- http://tinyurl.com/63t42j
--- http://tinyurl.com/64hnrz
--- http://tinyurl.com/5frv6b

Theoretical value of the Hubble constant (1999):
--- http://tinyurl.com/5evjm4
--- http://tinyurl.com/5rrgkx
--- http://tinyurl.com/6fghub

Big Bang - Temp & Hubble:
--- http://tinyurl.com/5f3k5f

Big Bang - Temp & Hubble (z):
--- http://tinyurl.com/68rb65

Finestructure & Hubble constant:
--- http://tinyurl.com/6dkwrt

The alpha cascade:
--- http://tinyurl.com/6cr369
--- http://tinyurl.com/6xyrk9

CMBR refs: http://tinyurl.com/5l6ldt



--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

On Jul 3, 1:34*am, "hanson" wrote:
In Hubble derivation & Age of the universe
aka Faye Kane wrote:
Can I derive Hubble's constant from nothing but c
and the age of the universe, would that be important?
snip crap I'm not proposing a new "theory". I just
do a simple calculation involving ct² & get for H-zero
(71.4 km/s)/Mpc using a calculator. ______

"Koobee Wublee" wrote:

Hubble's constant is strictly a conjecture, and that should
answer your question. *It was decided on what it means
during Hubble's time where he could only see up to 500k
parsecs at best. *shrug ______

"SolomonW" wrote :
Hubble's original released data does not really show
the expansion of the universe. ______

Jail bird & olde kacker Hebe-Herbie wrote:

snip senile crap I'm on the money I get laughed at.
They fudge * I never fudge *I add up time lapses they
rather sweep under the rug. TreBert ______

Faye Kane wrote:

Please give me a serious answer, because I think I know
how. But I don't want to bother doing the calculations if
it's already been done.
If I can derive Hubble's constant from nothing but c
and the age of the universe, would that be important? ______

hanson wrote:

It depends on what & which paradigm you believe in.
The first 2 posters gave you a serious answers, while
the 3rd one above can be safely swept under the rug.

Now, of course H0 (here H) *calculations have been
done since the 1920's... but not with a calculator...

You also chose for "H" a unit system in km/s)/Mpc,
that should be changed to a time unit like Hertz, "/sec"
& you get: H =71.4 km/s)/Mpc = 2.3E-18/s... which
lets you see the "age" of the universe easier... by
simply inverting H into 1/H = T * that gives you
T = *4.35E+17 s, or = 13.75E9 years,

.... which is a misnomer, a blatant conjecture only,
and a lie to entertain the peasantry with a great
sounding story that brings funding to astronomy.
*Nothing wrong with the latter one, though!
_____ * No money - No Science ____ ... ahahaha....

Conjectures of expanding- or other fancy universe
types are just pure fantasy, including the notion that
"space itself expands", without showing what space
expands into... but justify that mental masturbation
by invoking SR/GR crap which has prevented the
development of fundamental physics for over 100
years now.

A bit less far fetched is the assumption that time T
is simply the time for the distance it takes for the
light to travel with "c" from the Light Wall to here,
which is by definition the limit of how far back in
time & space we can see, using EM radiation aka
photons.

Doppler Shift is defined as the pitch change (the shift)
of SOUND in air by the acoustics of COMPRESSION
waves due to moving objects in air.
________ That is a measured, first principle.

Hubble Shift is defined as the frequency change
(the shift) of COLOR of light in empty space by the
optics of TRAVERSE EM waves due to moving
Galaxies.
_______ * That is an Assumption.

Nobody has ever seen a galaxy move.
___ *We get only celectial snapshots _____.
The Hubble Redshift of galaxy/star light is _assumed_
to be a Doppler Redshift, and that is the 1st rub.
*
This ASSUMPTION though is used as the basis
for all modern Cosmologies,... which then become..
Assumptions. * *Further & even more fundamental
assumptions are made in that EM waves do NOT
require a medium (No-Aether paradigm) to the make
waves of/in, and can move thru "empty" space that
is not empty and do so at a fixed speed of "c"....

So, instead of re-hashing that the Hubble shift represents
(assumed) distances, recession velocities, expanding
space and a host of fantasy universes that come and go,
*etc, one can speculate with equal justification that H0,
the Hubble constant, represents aspects of the following
relations ships, all of which do match H in size and
dimensionality with other physical constants in many
surprising ways. *Here are a few of them:

=1= * * * * * * H = sqrt(G*rho)
*wherein rho is the average cosmic mass-density
which "locally" fluctuates and explain the variations
of measurements about H.

=2= * * * * * * *H = *c^3 / (G*M)
wherein *M is the conjectured total mass of the
accessible universe (within the span of the Light Walls).

=3= * * * * * * *H = * [L^2 / (2*r_e)^3] * *[(3/2)*pi*]
H may simply just be a differnt expression for
fL Hydrogen light emssions in celestial objects.

wherein
L is the Plank length defined as L= sqrt (hbar*G/c^3).
& r = the classical electron radius (r _e= r_H*a^2),
where r_H is the H-Bohr radius, which is inferred
from the MEASURED Hydrogen emission
frequency, fL, of the Lyman series limit radiation
r_e = a^3*c/ (4pi*fL), resp. fL = a^3*c/ (4pi* r_e)

There are a lot more of such self-similar/fractal events
which show the Hubble constant to mean something
else then what it is used for today, ... in possibilities
which I have pontificated and mused about.
Check'em out if you are interested:

Theoretical value of the Hubble constant:
---http://tinyurl.com/63t42j
---http://tinyurl.com/64hnrz
---http://tinyurl.com/5frv6b

Theoretical value of the Hubble constant *(1999):
---http://tinyurl.com/5evjm4
---http://tinyurl.com/5rrgkx
---http://tinyurl.com/6fghub

Big Bang - Temp & Hubble:
---http://tinyurl.com/5f3k5f

Big Bang - Temp & Hubble (z):
---http://tinyurl.com/68rb65

Finestructure & Hubble constant:
---http://tinyurl.com/6dkwrt

The alpha cascade:
---http://tinyurl.com/6cr369
---http://tinyurl.com/6xyrk9

CMBR refs:http://tinyurl.com/5l6ldt

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

xxein: When do I laugh?

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 22:34:51 -0700, "hanson" wrote:

In Hubble derivation & Age of the universe


Theoretical value of the Hubble constant (1999):
--- http://tinyurl.com/5evjm4
--- http://tinyurl.com/5rrgkx
--- http://tinyurl.com/6fghub

Big Bang - Temp & Hubble:
--- http://tinyurl.com/5f3k5f

Big Bang - Temp & Hubble (z):
--- http://tinyurl.com/68rb65

Finestructure & Hubble constant:
--- http://tinyurl.com/6dkwrt

The alpha cascade:
--- http://tinyurl.com/6cr369
--- http://tinyurl.com/6xyrk9

CMBR refs: http://tinyurl.com/5l6ldt


Hanson, old chap, you are completely up the wrong creek.

One important reason for cosmic redshift is that planet Earth lies well away
from the centre of our galaxy whilst average light reaching us comes from
regions closer to galactic centres (where most stars lie).

Consequently, the photon acceleration as it falls to Earth under gravity is
generally less than the slowing as it escapes its source region. That means
the average speed of cosmic light reaching planet Earth is less than c (wrt
us). It is therefore redshifted. Add random source speeds to that and you
end up with a spread of spectral shifts biased towards the red end.

None of that is distance dependent. However photons lose energy a they
travel due to a number of factors, causing more redshift that IS
proportional to distance.

It is a sad fact that the whole of astronomy is wrong because it is based on
the Einsteinian presumption that all light in the universe travels at
exactly c wrt little planet Earth.

I just want to be around to see all the red faces when they finally wake up.

"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
...

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 22:34:51 -0700, "hanson" wrote:

In Hubble derivation & Age of the universe


Theoretical value of the Hubble constant (1999):
--- http://tinyurl.com/5evjm4
--- http://tinyurl.com/5rrgkx
--- http://tinyurl.com/6fghub

Big Bang - Temp & Hubble:
--- http://tinyurl.com/5f3k5f

Big Bang - Temp & Hubble (z):
--- http://tinyurl.com/68rb65

Finestructure & Hubble constant:
--- http://tinyurl.com/6dkwrt

The alpha cascade:
--- http://tinyurl.com/6cr369
--- http://tinyurl.com/6xyrk9

CMBR refs: http://tinyurl.com/5l6ldt


Hanson, old chap, you are completely up the wrong creek.

One important reason for cosmic redshift is that planet Earth lies well away
from the centre of our galaxy whilst average light reaching us comes from
regions closer to galactic centres (where most stars lie).

Consequently, the photon acceleration as it falls to Earth under gravity is
generally less than the slowing as it escapes its source region. That means
the average speed of cosmic light reaching planet Earth is less than c (wrt
us). It is therefore redshifted. Add random source speeds to that and you
end up with a spread of spectral shifts biased towards the red end.

None of that is distance dependent. However photons lose energy a they
travel due to a number of factors, causing more redshift that IS
proportional to distance.

It is a sad fact that the whole of astronomy is wrong because it is based on
the Einsteinian presumption that all light in the universe travels at
exactly c wrt little planet Earth.

I just want to be around to see all the red faces when they finally wake up.

================================================== ==================
Good thought, but it has some serious problems. The Milky Way is a disc
and from our viewpoint it is seen edge on, although we are inside it. Light
from distant galaxies that are above and below the disc would, if your
gravity
theory held water, be mostly blue-shifted as it accelerated toward us.
Your second theory, that light loses energy, doesn't work either.
Energy is a conserved quantity. Instead of losing energy the energy is
spread
over a greater area. As the photons get larger you need a bigger mirror to
collect them and focus them down to a point again.

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 23:56:12 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:



"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
.. .

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 22:34:51 -0700, "hanson" wrote:

In Hubble derivation & Age of the universe


Hanson, old chap, you are completely up the wrong creek.

One important reason for cosmic redshift is that planet Earth lies well away
from the centre of our galaxy whilst average light reaching us comes from
regions closer to galactic centres (where most stars lie).

Consequently, the photon acceleration as it falls to Earth under gravity is
generally less than the slowing as it escapes its source region. That means
the average speed of cosmic light reaching planet Earth is less than c (wrt
us). It is therefore redshifted. Add random source speeds to that and you
end up with a spread of spectral shifts biased towards the red end.

None of that is distance dependent. However photons lose energy a they
travel due to a number of factors, causing more redshift that IS
proportional to distance.

It is a sad fact that the whole of astronomy is wrong because it is based on
the Einsteinian presumption that all light in the universe travels at
exactly c wrt little planet Earth.

I just want to be around to see all the red faces when they finally wake up.

================================================= ===================
Good thought, but it has some serious problems. The Milky Way is a disc
and from our viewpoint it is seen edge on, although we are inside it. Light
from distant galaxies that are above and below the disc would, if your
gravity
theory held water, be mostly blue-shifted as it accelerated toward us.

Only a small fraction would. ALL of it has left its own galaxy at c
relative to that galaxy (and on average relative to us). Only that which
arrives from points perpendicular to our plane would accelerate back to near
c.
Incidentally, light from sources directly opposite the MW's centre (ie.,
having to pass through or near the centre) should be affected in exactly the
same way as light coming to us from the opposite direction, although there
might be some additional slowing of the former due to interaction with the
higher densities it passes through.

Your second theory, that light loses energy, doesn't work either.
Energy is a conserved quantity. Instead of losing energy the energy is
spread
over a greater area. As the photons get larger you need a bigger mirror to
collect them and focus them down to a point again.

I agree they get larger..... and I also reckon they coalesce.....
But I also think they are affected very very slightly by any stray field or
matter they pass through. Every interaction must result in some kind of
energy loss to space.
It is also reasonable to believe that no significant object in the
observable universe moves at anywhere near c wrt any other object.

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote:
-- Androcles wrote:
--- Mental patient Doseki-kike Stein/Klein "xxein" wrote:

hanson wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/Hubble-Derivtn-Age-of-Universe
wherein possibilities were pontificated and mused
over, about connections of the Hubble constant H
with/to other physical constant, like "H = sqrt(G*rho)",
"H = c^3 / (G*M)" or H = * [L^2 / (2*r_e)^3] * [(3/2)*pi*]
and more, all of which were known since 1920's....

.... except for Klein and Wilson who didn't and who
could not add any more equations which for some
reason did emotionally disturb them and appeared
to have threatened their own Weltbild.... ahahahaha...
________

Henry wrote:
Hanson, old chap, you are completely up the wrong creek.
edited for clarity & brevity ... ... cosmic redshift's
photon acceleration as it falls to Earth under gravity
means that the average speed of cosmic light reaching
planet Earth is less than c (wrt us). It is therefore redshifted.
None of that is distance dependent. However redshift IS
proportional to distance. --- It is a sad fact that the whole
of astronomy is wrong because it is based on the Einsteinian
presumption that all light in the universe travels at exactly c
wrt little planet Earth. -- I just want to be around to see all
the red faces when they finally wake up.
______

hanson wrote:
Henry, "creek" or not, you simply added yet another scenario
(albeit no equations) to the possibilities I discussed for/of
the use/interpretation of the Hubble constant H.
I personally don't take ANY theory for serious since they
are only stories of Perceptions turned into Personal Beliefs.
.... and here is (abbreviated) what Andro had to say about
YOUR BELIEFS, with him adding still another possibility:
________

Androcles wrote:
Henry, good thought, but it has some serious problems.
If your Henry theory held water, light would be mostly
blue-shifted as it accelerated toward us. Your 2nd theory,
that light loses energy, doesn't work either.
________

Patient xx/Kl/ein, in his sorry state of mind, wrote:
When do I laugh?
________

hanson wrote:
Wow, what kind of draconian Mental Clinic are you
locked up in, that you have to beg for permission
to laugh?. Sheesh, dude! Klein, you poor Dreidel,
start laughing and ADD your laughs to your other-
wise always pathetic Yiddisher street corner acts. As
for the physics of your illusions show what possibilities
they do have... ... Till then, thanks for playing & for the
laughs, guys... ahahaha ... ahahahanson


BTW Klein, don't take it so hard that your idol
____ Einstein became a relativity denier ______
himself already in 1954 when he said:

||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] no nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta [photons]?'
||AE|| In that case nothing remains of my entire castle
||AE|| in the air, my gravitation theory included."

Consequently, Klein, in today's paradigm it holds that

.. __ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"___ or that
.. ___ SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"____,&
.. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____.

Now, let's see your KleinStein Meta theory for which
xxein:] On this scale, there are no physicists who
[xxein:] would defy Einstein. _Except for me, xxein._.

AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHA... ROTFLMAO....

"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
...

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 23:56:12 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:



"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
.. .

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 22:34:51 -0700, "hanson" wrote:

In Hubble derivation & Age of the universe


Hanson, old chap, you are completely up the wrong creek.

One important reason for cosmic redshift is that planet Earth lies well
away
from the centre of our galaxy whilst average light reaching us comes from
regions closer to galactic centres (where most stars lie).

Consequently, the photon acceleration as it falls to Earth under gravity is
generally less than the slowing as it escapes its source region. That means
the average speed of cosmic light reaching planet Earth is less than c (wrt
us). It is therefore redshifted. Add random source speeds to that and you
end up with a spread of spectral shifts biased towards the red end.

None of that is distance dependent. However photons lose energy a they
travel due to a number of factors, causing more redshift that IS
proportional to distance.

It is a sad fact that the whole of astronomy is wrong because it is based
on
the Einsteinian presumption that all light in the universe travels at
exactly c wrt little planet Earth.

I just want to be around to see all the red faces when they finally wake
up.

================================================= ===================
Good thought, but it has some serious problems. The Milky Way is a disc
and from our viewpoint it is seen edge on, although we are inside it. Light
from distant galaxies that are above and below the disc would, if your
gravity
theory held water, be mostly blue-shifted as it accelerated toward us.

Only a small fraction would. ALL of it has left its own galaxy at c
relative to that galaxy (and on average relative to us). Only that which
arrives from points perpendicular to our plane would accelerate back to near
c.

================================================== ========
If you toss a ball in the air it will decelerate until its velocity is zero
and then accelerate until its velocity is the same as it left with, at
which point it hits the ground. Same with your photon gravity theory,
so unless the MW is significantly smaller than others there is no shift
to find.
=================



Incidentally, light from sources directly opposite the MW's centre (ie.,
having to pass through or near the centre) should be affected in exactly the
same way as light coming to us from the opposite direction, although there
might be some additional slowing of the former due to interaction with the
higher densities it passes through.
================================================== =====
Not something we have data for, the galactic centre is obscured by
clouds. The Horsehead nebula is part of the cloud.
http://desktopwallpaper-s.com/49-Spa..._Orion_Nebula/


Your second theory, that light loses energy, doesn't work either.
Energy is a conserved quantity. Instead of losing energy the energy is
spread
over a greater area. As the photons get larger you need a bigger mirror to
collect them and focus them down to a point again.

I agree they get larger..... and I also reckon they coalesce.....
But I also think they are affected very very slightly by any stray field or
matter they pass through. Every interaction must result in some kind of
energy loss to space.

================================================== ===
Yes, of course, but then they never get here. We are not discussing
diffraction or refraction or fog here, but the appearance of a distant
galaxy seen through nothing at all. You can't say all distant galaxies
are seen through the same stray field or matter unless it is a very local
field or matter.


It is also reasonable to believe that no significant object in the
observable universe moves at anywhere near c wrt any other object.
================================================== =====
Yeah well, Big Bonk is a ridiculous theory anyway.

"hanson" wrote in message ...

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote:
-- Androcles wrote:
--- Mental patient Doseki-kike Stein/Klein "xxein" wrote:

hanson wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/Hubble-Derivtn-Age-of-Universe
wherein possibilities were pontificated and mused
over, about connections of the Hubble constant H
with/to other physical constant, like "H = sqrt(G*rho)",
"H = c^3 / (G*M)" or H = * [L^2 / (2*r_e)^3] * [(3/2)*pi*]
and more, all of which were known since 1920's....

.... except for Klein and Wilson who didn't and who
could not add any more equations which for some
reason did emotionally disturb them and appeared
to have threatened their own Weltbild.... ahahahaha...
________

Henry wrote:
Hanson, old chap, you are completely up the wrong creek.
edited for clarity & brevity ... ... cosmic redshift's
photon acceleration as it falls to Earth under gravity
means that the average speed of cosmic light reaching
planet Earth is less than c (wrt us). It is therefore redshifted.
None of that is distance dependent. However redshift IS
proportional to distance. --- It is a sad fact that the whole
of astronomy is wrong because it is based on the Einsteinian
presumption that all light in the universe travels at exactly c
wrt little planet Earth. -- I just want to be around to see all
the red faces when they finally wake up.
______

hanson wrote:
Henry, "creek" or not, you simply added yet another scenario
(albeit no equations) to the possibilities I discussed for/of
the use/interpretation of the Hubble constant H.
I personally don't take ANY theory for serious since they
are only stories of Perceptions turned into Personal Beliefs.
.... and here is (abbreviated) what Andro had to say about
YOUR BELIEFS, with him adding still another possibility:
________

Androcles wrote:
Henry, good thought, but it has some serious problems.
If your Henry theory held water, light would be mostly
blue-shifted as it accelerated toward us. Your 2nd theory,
that light loses energy, doesn't work either.
________

Cha cha, it's only another possibility if the hypothesis of a
finite universe with a beginning holds valid. There is no evidence
for a finite universe, no evidence for a beginning and no evidence
for a god... they are all rumours that one man thinks of first and
then spreads like wildfire.
More narrowly, if cosmological redshift is valid data (is it?) then
it demands explanation which is all H was attempting. He has
displayed no belief in an expanding universe, his conjecture is for
slow light to redshift as it climbs away from the gravity well of its
source, which is plausible, but that is countered by a blueshift as
it falls into the gravity well of our own galaxy.
As to his energy loss hypothesis, that holds no validity at all.
A radio transmitter can spew 100 kW into the surrounding
area and ten million receivers can pick it up a microwatt each,
amplify it and produce sound. A radio receiver 100 miles away
doesn't pick it up due to the inverse square law but that law can
be circumvented by a parabolic dish which focuses the energy
into a beam, making it possible to receive a signal from Saturn
from a 25 watt transmitter. The existence of beams gives meaning
to the idea of a stream of photons.

"Androcles" wrote
in message ...


"hanson" wrote in message ...
"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote:
-- Androcles wrote:
--- Mental patient Doseki-kike Stein/Klein "xxein" wrote:

hanson wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/Hubble-Derivtn-Age-of-Universe
wherein possibilities were pontificated and mused
over, about connections of the Hubble constant H
with/to other physical constant, like "H = sqrt(G*rho)",
"H = c^3 / (G*M)" or H = * [L^2 / (2*r_e)^3] * [(3/2)*pi*]
and more, all of which were known since 1920's....

... except for Klein and Wilson who didn't and who could not add any more
equations which for some reason did emotionally disturb them and appeared
to have threatened their own Weltbild.... ahahahaha...
________

Henry wrote:
Hanson, old chap, you are completely up the wrong creek.
edited for clarity & brevity ... ... cosmic redshift's photon
acceleration as it falls to Earth under gravity means that the average
speed of cosmic light reaching planet Earth is less than c (wrt us). It is
therefore redshifted. None of that is distance dependent. However redshift
IS proportional to distance. --- It is a sad fact that the whole of
astronomy is wrong because it is based on the Einsteinian presumption that
all light in the universe travels at exactly c wrt little planet
arth. -- I just want to be around to see all the red faces when they
finally wake up.
______

hanson wrote:
Henry, "creek" or not, you simply added yet another scenario
(albeit no equations) to the possibilities I discussed for/of the
use/interpretation of the Hubble constant H. I personally don't take ANY
theory for serious since they are only stories of Perceptions turned into
Personal Beliefs. ... and here is (abbreviated) what Andro had to say
about YOUR BELIEFS, with him adding still another possibility:
________

Androcles wrote: Henry, good thought, but it has some serious problems. If
your Henry theory held water, light would be mostly blue-shifted as it
accelerated toward us. Your 2nd theory, that light loses energy, doesn't
work either.
________

Androcles wrote:
Cha cha, it's only another possibility if the hypothesis of a finite
universe with a beginning holds valid. There is no evidence
for a finite universe, no evidence for a beginning and no evidence
for a god... they are all rumours that one man thinks of first and then
spreads like wildfire. More narrowly, if cosmological redshift is valid
data (is it?) then
it demands explanation which is all H was attempting. He has displayed no
belief in an expanding universe, his conjecture is for
slow light to redshift as it climbs away from the gravity well of its
source, which is plausible, but that is countered by a blueshift as
it falls into the gravity well of our own galaxy.
As to his energy loss hypothesis, that holds no validity at all.
A radio transmitter can spew 100 kW into the surrounding
area and ten million receivers can pick it up a microwatt each,
amplify it and produce sound. A radio receiver 100 miles away
doesn't pick it up due to the inverse square law but that law can
be circumvented by a parabolic dish which focuses the energy
into a beam, making it possible to receive a signal from Saturn
from a 25 watt transmitter. The existence of beams gives meaning
to the idea of a stream of photons.
__________

hanson wrote:
In link http://tinyurl.com/Hubble-Derivtn-Age-of-Universe
I have doubted & nodded to much of the same as you did
above. -- In that link though, there are additional entirely
different possibilities for the interpretation of Hubble's
constant... which Henry side-stepped to sell his own tripe...
I am out of this thread.... ahahahaha... hahahahanson

"hanson" wrote in message ...

"Androcles" wrote
in message ...


"hanson" wrote in message ...
"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote:
-- Androcles wrote:
--- Mental patient Doseki-kike Stein/Klein "xxein" wrote:

hanson wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/Hubble-Derivtn-Age-of-Universe
wherein possibilities were pontificated and mused
over, about connections of the Hubble constant H
with/to other physical constant, like "H = sqrt(G*rho)",
"H = c^3 / (G*M)" or H = * [L^2 / (2*r_e)^3] * [(3/2)*pi*]
and more, all of which were known since 1920's....

... except for Klein and Wilson who didn't and who could not add any more
equations which for some reason did emotionally disturb them and appeared
to have threatened their own Weltbild.... ahahahaha...
________

Henry wrote:
Hanson, old chap, you are completely up the wrong creek.
edited for clarity & brevity ... ... cosmic redshift's photon
acceleration as it falls to Earth under gravity means that the average
speed of cosmic light reaching planet Earth is less than c (wrt us). It is
therefore redshifted. None of that is distance dependent. However redshift
IS proportional to distance. --- It is a sad fact that the whole of
astronomy is wrong because it is based on the Einsteinian presumption that
all light in the universe travels at exactly c wrt little planet
arth. -- I just want to be around to see all the red faces when they
finally wake up.
______

hanson wrote:
Henry, "creek" or not, you simply added yet another scenario
(albeit no equations) to the possibilities I discussed for/of the
use/interpretation of the Hubble constant H. I personally don't take ANY
theory for serious since they are only stories of Perceptions turned into
Personal Beliefs. ... and here is (abbreviated) what Andro had to say
about YOUR BELIEFS, with him adding still another possibility:
________

Androcles wrote: Henry, good thought, but it has some serious problems. If
your Henry theory held water, light would be mostly blue-shifted as it
accelerated toward us. Your 2nd theory, that light loses energy, doesn't
work either.
________

Androcles wrote:
Cha cha, it's only another possibility if the hypothesis of a finite
universe with a beginning holds valid. There is no evidence
for a finite universe, no evidence for a beginning and no evidence
for a god... they are all rumours that one man thinks of first and then
spreads like wildfire. More narrowly, if cosmological redshift is valid
data (is it?) then
it demands explanation which is all H was attempting. He has displayed no
belief in an expanding universe, his conjecture is for
slow light to redshift as it climbs away from the gravity well of its
source, which is plausible, but that is countered by a blueshift as
it falls into the gravity well of our own galaxy.
As to his energy loss hypothesis, that holds no validity at all.
A radio transmitter can spew 100 kW into the surrounding
area and ten million receivers can pick it up a microwatt each,
amplify it and produce sound. A radio receiver 100 miles away
doesn't pick it up due to the inverse square law but that law can
be circumvented by a parabolic dish which focuses the energy
into a beam, making it possible to receive a signal from Saturn
from a 25 watt transmitter. The existence of beams gives meaning
to the idea of a stream of photons.
__________

hanson wrote:
In link http://tinyurl.com/Hubble-Derivtn-Age-of-Universe
I have doubted & nodded to much of the same as you did
above. -- In that link though, there are additional entirely
different possibilities for the interpretation of Hubble's
constant... which Henry side-stepped to sell his own tripe...
I am out of this thread.... ahahahaha... hahahahanson

=================================================
We've just got a new leap in hyperbole -- the Heter Piggs hoaxon.
Makes me puke when Cox gets on TV and says the universe is
filled with 'em -- it's aether all over again.