Yo!, "Keith Stein" <***@gmail.com>, Kudos!:
I appreciated and agree with all of your incisive & poignant
If it tickles your fancy, belabor the mentioned link to the
concatenated ***** 1234-cosmic envelope**** expression.
(note the sequence of its exponents)
*** c^(1) = (GM/R)^(1/2) = (GMH)^(1/3) = (GM*b_r)^(1/4)
wherein the term **b_r** may confirm, bolster and give
support to your conclusion that "c may slow down", since
that b_r appears to be part of a multiple of Sommerfeld's
Finestructure constant (a), and been in use, in many of
the venerable deSitter models, since ca. 1926.
To clarify my stance on (E) Experimental physics vs. (T)
Theoretical physics: Both types, E & T, have arisen since
physics, in the broadest sense, is a social enterprise, incl.
a scathing view in <http://tinyurl.com/Best-posting-of-the-year>
My organization has devoted its efforts to the E-type which
has provided many hundreds of folks with a financially great
and intellectually satisfying living. I will leave the current thread
now, as I regard the issues discussed here to be a thing of the
past. But by all means, Keith, do carry on with your T-mission.
Your question as to what ROTFLMAO means is hilarious as
it made me "Roll On The Floor, Laughing My Ass Off".
PS: Poster "HGW" appears to be Aussie "Henry G Wilson"??
Take care, Keith,
"Keith Stein" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22/03/2018 20:25, hanson wrote:
>> "Keith Stein" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
>>> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
>>> will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
>>> as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
>>> Merely by assuming dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
>>> I was led to c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
>>> and on to Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)
>>> K ~= 10^-10 /year
>>> t = time in years
>>> Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to
>>> enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more
>>> accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........
>>> K = H = Hubble's Constant
>>> and t = -t ( so times past become +ve)
>>> which substituted in (3) gives:
>>> Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)
>>> then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
>>> to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
>>> e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)
>>> So for t << 1/H we have:
>>> Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)
>>> which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
>>> for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).
>>> As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore
>>> further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law
>>> expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
>>> exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
>>> in observatories all around the world eh!
>>> 1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
>>> 2. There was no "Big Bang"
>>> 3. There was no "Inflation"
>>> 4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
>>> 5. There is no "Dark Energy"
>> hanson wrote:
>> Very nice and cool post, Keith.,
> Thank you very much Mr.Hanson, i really do appreciate that.
> I thought it was pretty cool myself, to be honest, and have been surprised
> by the general lack of enthusiasm with which it has been received by
> sci.physics.relativity readers.
> Not quite all the feedback has been negative though, HGW, who i guess you
> know, did say my conclusions where correct, and we have progressed on to a
> civilized discussion of the merits of 'photons' versus 'e-m waves'
> Thank you again Mr.Hanson
> (when praise is in such short supply one does tent to milk it eh!)
>> All of your conclusions, except [ > 1.] are in vogue today.
> I am rather confused by what you say here, Mr.Hanson.
> If folk are not going for "1. The speed of light... is slowing down",
> and yet are rejecting the Big Bang, then what are they attributing the
> Hubble red-shifts to?
>> Also consider that there are very many ways to skin the cat.
>> IOW, it's story telling about nature...
> I suppose so, but it's surely an improvement on "The Universe Rests on the
> Back of a Turtle" eh!
>> It's all just theorizing.
> You are right, but what else is theoretical physics meant to be doing,
>> Just like you using your MO above, all of this was done already
>> a full century ago, by folks like Hartree-Fock, etc.
>> and <http://www.shodor.org/chemviz/overview/hfa.html> , etc
>> and even earlier by D'alembert (for black holes), see:
>> and by by others who were gesticulating in/with Gedanken-XPs,
>> using Nature's -Scaling-Laws- & it's obvious -Self-Similarity-
>> whose addressed domain or realm does always span many
>> dozens of orders of magnitudes, up or down... as exampled
>> by the great old timers of Physics such as Max Planck who
>> published stuff like the above in 1899...
> As you say, Mr.Hanson. Physics has a long and proud history eh!
>> BUT then, unfortunately,
>> in 1905 Einstein entered and his "Juden physics" got into
>> the Lime-light with its immense Zionist propaganda machine......
>> ... which was the beginning of the end of the golden age of
>> physics, which is the science of quantitatively MEASURING
>> items, events & processes, & it began to decay & to deteriorate
>> into the current free-for-all socio-physic-philosophy-palaver
>> that we see to day on social media, TV shows, and here
> As you say, Mr.Hanson, (but i wouldn't dare to say myself :) )
>> on Usenet by cranks and crackpots, who proudly state
>> that they do physics-without-math, & insist that that their
>> own Weltbild is the absolute truth which they try to cram
>> and stuff down everybody else's throat. When "dissidents"
>> laugh at the posted excrements of these Usenet cranks, the
>> cranks get vicious and criminally homicidal. The cranks
>> threaten to shit into the mouths of the dissidents and want
>> them to be murdered so that the cranks can urinate onto
>> their graves.
> Yes indeed Mr.Hanson, the level of discussion on the net can be a little
> coarse eh!
>> So much for the physics-of-the-cranks, which in a way
>> is reflected in the artistry of, e.g., the melancholy of:
> not all your links seem to be working for me Mr.Hanson, but that's just as
> well, or it would take forever to get finished here eh!
>> "There's so many different worlds -- So many different suns
>> And we have just one world -- But we live in different ones..."
> Yes indeed Mr.Hanson, and no pain feels half as bad as our own eh!
>> Warnings about this sorry trend of real physics came early
>> on, out of the ivy-league of academia:
>> by John Beckman, an astronomy prof & Einstein disciple:
>> "The theory of relativity lives on. Is it a true picture of reality?
>> That is more a matter of faith than of proof."
>> or by Edward Teller, the inventor of the H-Bomb, who said:
>> "Einstein didn't know what he was talking about,
>> or that Einstein was lying, or both".
>> or Prof. Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman),
>> who wrote: "It is my firm belief that the 20th century will be
>> characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."
>> or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
>> Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition, all
>> associated with the names of Marx, Freud and Einstein"
> If i were to pick a hero from history it would be Giordano Bruno,
> who said "In the future all men will believe as I believe", and do you
> know Mr.Hanson, i rather think that about light slowing down too. I hope
> they don't burn me, like they did my hero G.B. eh!
>> ______ The Dossier _________
>> So, here is a set of links which belabor such issues:
>> _____ Examples of quantifications: _______
>> The Proton- and Electron-mass can be expressed in terms
>> of their measured properties & fundamental Physics constants:
>> m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
>> or the proton with mass m_p as:
>> m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
>> Both of these particle masses have characteristics of nucleon-sized
>> Black holes. See detailed explanation for the above in here:
> Thank you for all your links Mr.Hanson, and i will study them in due
> course, but must get on eh!
>> ...of course you can make the case/conjecture that an uncharged
>> mini-black-hole of 1 Planck-mass having the radius of 1 Planck-length,
>> is manifest/has half-life of only one 1 Planck-time-unit after which
>> it disintegrates into exactly 1 mole of particles that consist of stable,
>> charged particles with the average mass of the electron. .. in which
>> their fundamental electrical charge, will endow them with
>> "immortality", of a duration that vastly exceeds the life-time
>> span of our universe.
>> What "charge" is, or where it comes from, is unknown.
>> All we know is what the said charge does....
> I can see you have given quite some thought to this Mr.Hanson, which makes
> your kind reception of my little piece all the more gratifying.
>> _____________ Up shot: ________________
>> "The only thing that new changes is Change itself"
>> IOW no matter how "logical", rigorous one "calculates
>> solutions, they are always limited to comparatives
>> relative to each other, at best, but mostly just only
>> consist of belletristic philosophical palcer.
>> The Dirty little secret, that nobody likes to admit to,
>> is that no, none, not a single "absolute" is known to
>> exist. What is advertised as "absolute/s" is/are
>> edicts that are arbitrated and issued by human
>> cabals or committee and declared to be "absolutes"
>> so that searches and workers can comparatively
>> well communicate rationally with each other.
> Socrates put it like this:
> "I KNOW THAT I KNOW NOTHING,
> and in this i know more than any other man"
> Whereas i put it like this:
> "I KNOW THAT I DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER THAN YOU,
> and in this i know more than Socrates eh""
>> Cranks OTOH take refuge and invoke their "god"
>> of faith as the "real" manifest "absolute", instead of
>> just humbly admitting to saying: "I don't know"
>> Interestingly, faith, which is an emotional notion,
>> is a million times stronger than any obviously rational
>> logic. The force of Faith and religious beliefs are so
>> deep that societies and potentates have elected
>> to protect and enshrine Faith in societies' laws
>> and its constitutions, even in today's modern society.
> I really don't know Mr.Hanson,
> what does ROTFLMAO mean ?
> keith stein
> P.S. Remember this?
> The Big Bang Myth ... Keith Stein - Mountain Man's News Archive
> Date: 22 Feb 1997 06:57:03 +0000. From: Keith Stein Organization: My
> Organisation Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.physics.electromag.
> Subject: THE BIG BANG MYTH ...