Expansion-what formula for redshift?

There is a big effort to determine dark energy's effects, based only
on the fact that Super Novae at high z appear to be fainter than the
redshift calculations show, i.e. if the redshift shows z = 3, the
luminosities appear fainter than expected for z =3.

This has been attributed to early sudden expansion of the universe, an
unlikely circumstance but it could be they are simply using the wrong
formula for redshift.

I could not find any reference that cited their formulation. Wiki
shows L = L0(1+z)*gamma. Also sqrt(1+z)/sqrt(1-z).
What is the formula used by the dark energy investigators?

John Polasek

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

In practical calculations, there are three values to put in: the
luminosity distance, an extra (1+z) for time dilation, and a "K-
correcton" that depends on the spectral energy distribution of the
object and on details of how the measurement is made.

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

In practical calculations, there are three values to put in: the
luminosity distance, an extra (1+z) for time dilation, and a "K-
correcton" that depends on the spectral energy distribution of the
object and on details of how the measurement is made.

I am thinking that the universally accepted formula for relativistic
wavelength redshift is wrong. We know that the standard answer is
1+z = sqrt(1+b/1-b)
which obscures its origin:
(1) 1+z = (1+b)*gamma, b = beta = v/c
Ignoring gamma, let b = 1, which gives z = 1. With b = 1, the light
ray can never reach its target, that is receding at c. The WL should
compute as infinite, not 2L.
I suggest redshift calclulation based on the frequency received at a
receding observer, which would be reduced as
fobs = femit(1 - b),
that is, that the "impact velocity" of light reaching a target
receding at v is reduced to c - v.
So fob/fem = (1-b) and for wavelength, the inverse
Lob/Lem = 1/(1-b)
Now as b approaches 1, Lob approaches infinity.
So, tacking on gamma yields a modfied redshift formula:
(2) 1+z = gamma/(1-b) in place of (1)
John Polasek

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.
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
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

"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 ***, 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.


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.
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.

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

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 ***, 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.


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.
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.

***
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. However I think they use gamma backwards, 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.

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.
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.
Therefore we prefer to divide by gamma:
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. It requires knowledge of just what time dilation is
supposed to do in this case.
John Polasek

"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 ***, 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.


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.
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.

***
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.

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.

IT'S HARD TO KNOW WHERE TO CHOP; IT'S SUFFICIENT TO KNOW WHEN.

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.

As to my use of time dilation, I was merely accommodating the
relativists and simply testing their algebra and criticizing their use
of gamma as a mulltiplier. I have total replacements for all of
relativity including time dilation. You can get a better idea if you
see diagrams in my #2 Gravity paper at http://www/dualspace.net.
I use c and v at right angles to study these relationships.

Fig. 4b in my paper shows relativity's gamma, in which greater v leads
to greater c. In this format, c becomes gamma c =c sec alpha, an
out-size c. This is impossible, but it appears if you factor the total
energy equation.

If a lab moving at v on the diagonal in Fig. 4b, sends a signal, the
received frequency must be reduced by cos alpha. In other words WIKI
should be dividing frequency by gamma in their derivation, not
multiplying.

Fig. 1 shows my method in which we assume our star in the universe has
the time-velocity c (our 'time arrow') to which we add v at right
angles in a special way. In this way, the lab's 'time arrow' is an
equivalent inertial frame, also at c, but separated by angle a.

We would receive signal frequencies from the lab in Fig. 1b on the
hypotenuse reduced by
cos a = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
taking the place of 1/gamma.

Likewise if in Fig. 1a the two arrows represent two stars whose time
arrows are separated by angle a, with radial velocity of c, their
separation velocity is
v = c*a
Thus the received frequency would be reduced by
(c-v)/c = (1-a) and further by cos a.
fo/fe = (1-a)cos a.
These are believable sequences if we accept that our universe is
expanding radially in time at c.

Notice also in Fig. 1b how applied accelerating forces are reduced,
again by the cosine of the angle, as again we notice that our
accelerative efforts merely act to increase the angle a.
Relativity flatly equates all the applied effort (100 Gev e.g.) as if
it resulted in that much output, but the fact is that the efficiency
simply diminishes with a by the cosine.

Hint: this is also where you get relativistic mass; the higher the v,
the more massive it seems, due to cos a.

This business of compound addition of velocities is illustrated in our
Fig. 4a where the furthest frame still has time-velocity c, in
constrast with Fig. 4b, relativity's spurious construction, where c
grows without limit.

Relativity is too nebulous to offer the opportunity of meaningful
vector diagrams. Time dilation is not real, and the faithful use of it
where it will do the most good has stultifying (and damaging)
effects.

John Polasek

"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.

IT'S HARD TO KNOW WHERE TO CHOP; IT'S SUFFICIENT TO KNOW WHEN.

There was never any need to chop at all, but if you must, I will too.

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