New Hubble constant measurement adds to mystery of universe's expansion rate

New Hubble constant measurement adds to mystery of universe's expansion rate
These galaxies are selected from a Hubble Space Telescope program to measure the expansion rate of the universe, called the Hubble constant. The value is calculated by comparing the galaxies' distances to the apparent rate of recession away from Earth (due to the relativistic effects of expanding space). By comparing the apparent brightnesses of the galaxies' red giant stars with nearby red giants, whose distances were measured with other methods, astronomers are able to determine how far away each of the host galaxies are. This is possible because red giants are reliable milepost markers because they all reach the same peak brightness in their late evolution. And, this can be used as a "standard candle" to calculate distance. Hubble's exquisite sharpness and sensitivity allowed for red giants to be found in the stellar halos of the host galaxies. The red giants were searched for in the halos of the galaxies. The center row shows Hubble's full field of view. The bottom row zooms even tighter into the Hubble fields. The red giants are identified by yellow circles. Credit: NASA, ESA, W. Freedman (University of Chicago), ESO, and the Digitized Sky Survey

Astronomers have made a new measurement of how fast the universe is expanding, using an entirely different kind of star than previous endeavors. The revised measurement, which comes from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, falls in the center of a hotly debated question in astrophysics that may lead to a new interpretation of the universe's fundamental properties.

Scientists have known for almost a century that the is expanding, meaning the distance between galaxies across the universe is becoming ever more vast every second. But exactly how fast space is stretching, a value known as the Hubble constant, has remained stubbornly elusive.

Now, University of Chicago professor Wendy Freedman and colleagues have a new measurement for the rate of expansion in the modern universe, suggesting the space between galaxies is stretching faster than scientists would expect. Freedman's is one of several recent studies that point to a nagging discrepancy between modern expansion measurements and predictions based on the universe as it was more than 13 billion years ago, as measured by the European Space Agency's Planck satellite.

As more research points to a discrepancy between predictions and observations, scientists are considering whether they may need to come up with a new model for the underlying physics of the universe in order to explain it.

"The Hubble constant is the cosmological parameter that sets the absolute scale, size and age of the universe; it is one of the most direct ways we have of quantifying how the universe evolves," said Freedman. "The discrepancy that we saw before has not gone away, but this new evidence suggests that the jury is still out on whether there is an immediate and compelling reason to believe that there is something fundamentally flawed in our current model of the universe."

In a new paper accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal, Freedman and her team announced a new measurement of the Hubble constant using a kind of star known as a red giant. Their new observations, made using Hubble, indicate that the expansion rate for the nearby universe is just under 70 kilometers per second per megaparsec (km/sec/Mpc). One parsec is equivalent to 3.26 light-years distance.

This measurement is slightly smaller than the value of 74 km/sec/Mpc recently reported by the Hubble SH0ES (Supernovae H0 for the Equation of State) team using Cepheid variables, which are stars that pulse at regular intervals that correspond to their peak brightness. This team, led by Adam Riess of the Johns Hopkins University and Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, recently reported refining their observations to the highest precision to date for their Cepheid distance measurement technique.

How to Measure Expansion

A central challenge in measuring the universe's expansion rate is that it is very difficult to accurately calculate distances to distant objects.

In 2001, Freedman led a team that used distant stars to make a landmark measurement of the Hubble constant. The Hubble Space Telescope Key Project team measured the value using Cepheid variables as distance markers. Their program concluded that the value of the Hubble constant for our universe was 72 km/sec/Mpc.

But more recently, scientists took a very different approach: building a model based on the rippling structure of light left over from the big bang, which is called the Cosmic Microwave Background. The Planck measurements allow scientists to predict how the early universe would likely have evolved into the expansion rate astronomers can measure today. Scientists calculated a value of 67.4 km/sec/Mpc, in significant disagreement with the rate of 74.0 km/sec/Mpc measured with Cepheid stars.

Astronomers have looked for anything that might be causing the mismatch. "Naturally, questions arise as to whether the discrepancy is coming from some aspect that astronomers don't yet understand about the stars we're measuring, or whether our cosmological model of the universe is still incomplete," Freedman said. "Or maybe both need to be improved upon."

Freedman's team sought to check their results by establishing a new and entirely independent path to the Hubble constant using an entirely different kind of star.

Certain stars end their lives as a very luminous kind of star called a red giant, a stage of evolution that our own Sun will experience billions of years from now. At a certain point, the star undergoes a catastrophic event called a helium flash, in which the temperature rises to about 100 million degrees and the structure of the star is rearranged, which ultimately dramatically decreases its luminosity. Astronomers can measure the apparent brightness of the red giant stars at this stage in different galaxies, and they can use this as a way to tell their distance.

The Hubble constant is calculated by comparing distance values to the apparent recessional velocity of the target galaxies—that is, how fast galaxies seem to be moving away. The team's calculations give a Hubble constant of 69.8 km/sec/Mpc—straddling the values derived by the Planck and Riess teams.

"Our initial thought was that if there's a problem to be resolved between the Cepheids and the Cosmic Microwave Background, then the red giant method can be the tie-breaker," said Freedman.

But the results do not appear to strongly favor one answer over the other say the researchers, although they align more closely with the Planck results.

NASA's upcoming mission, the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST), scheduled to launch in the mid-2020s, will enable astronomers to better explore the value of the Hubble constant across cosmic time. WFIRST, with its Hubble-like resolution and 100 times greater view of the sky, will provide a wealth of new Type Ia supernovae, Cepheid variables, and red giant to fundamentally improve distance measurements to galaxies near and far.

The Hubble Space Telescope is a project of international cooperation between NASA and ESA (European Space Agency). NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, manages the telescope. The Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) in Baltimore, Maryland, conducts Hubble science operations. STScI is operated for NASA by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy in Washington, D.C.


Explore further

Mystery of the universe's expansion rate widens with new Hubble data

Journal information: Astrophysical Journal

Citation: New Hubble constant measurement adds to mystery of universe's expansion rate (2019, July 16) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-07-hubble-constant-mystery-universe-expansion.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1984 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jul 16, 2019
ROTHLMFAO! The "new" Hubble "constant". What a joke!

Jul 16, 2019
ROTHLMFAO! The "new" Hubble "constant". What a joke!


Honey, what are you torqued about? Even the measurements of G and alpha have been refined over time.

Jul 16, 2019
What happened to the principle of action/reaction? It is missing-in-action from the Standard Model.

https://youtu.be/4goInwbOix4

It is not unheard of for the "real world" to be more complicated than scientists first assumed. Why not include the principle of action/reaction in our model of the cosmos? A more realistic model of the universe might make sense of the observations.

Jul 16, 2019
What happened to the principle of action/reaction? It is missing-in-action from the Standard Model.

https://youtu.be/4goInwbOix4

It is not unheard of for the "real world" to be more complicated than scientists first assumed. Why not include the principle of action/reaction in our model of the cosmos? A more realistic model of the universe might make sense of the observations.

It's also not unheard of for the "real world" to be SIMPLER than our calculated assumptions...

Jul 16, 2019
Dark Matter and the Redshift
The presence of H2 also has important consequences regarding the origin of the
universe and the interpretation of the cosmological redshift. This author has been arguing for several years that this huge amount of transparent H2 in space is interacting
with light received from the cosmos (Marmet 1988, 1990a, b). The essential argument is summarized as follows:
Even when H2 is not excited to specific quantum states, there is another kind of
interaction that perturbs and slows down the moving photon. We know that light interacts with a transparent medium, because its velocity is reduced, without scattering, as calculated and observed using the simple index of refraction of gases. Cosmic light, moving across billion of light years, suffers an almost unimaginable number of collisions with those transparent molecules of hydrogen in the universe.
http://www.newton...ydrogen/ 18/04/2019, 17

Jul 16, 2019
Light is a wave-train of electromagnetic radiation. As a result of its coherence, which is maintained during a time span (known as the time or length of coherence), the phase of the electromagnetic field progresses regularly in time. Using the Fourier transform, we can calculate that an electromagnetic wave train (which never can last an infinite time), always possesses two frequency components: the usual high-frequency component, but also a very low frequency component, which depends on the time of coherence.
From the electron-proton structure of hydrogen, it can be calculated that some energy is lost (scattered) during the interaction of light with hydrogen, which depends on that low-frequency component (time of coherence). We have shown that the passage of light through hydrogen, either atomic or molecular, is always (slightly) inelastic. It is also known that the energy loss is compatible with the relationship "

Jul 16, 2019
Consequently, the redshift following the collision of a photon with H2 is
indistinguishable from the phenomenon caused by the Doppler effect.

We know that the H2 molecule produces about the same (non-Doppler) redshift as monoatomic hydrogen, but the number of H2 molecules is much larger. Because atomic
and molecular hydrogen have an approximately homogenous distribution in the universe, this induces a non-Doppler redshift, which is proportional to the distance of the light source (just as for an apparently expanding universe, assumed with a Doppler interpretation).
The recent discovery of an enormous quantity of molecular hydrogen not only solves the problem of missing mass; it also solves the problem of the redshift, in a non- expanding unlimited universe.

Jul 16, 2019
Since a much larger amount of molecular hydrogen than previously admitted has been observed in the universe, we can now see how this hydrogen is responsible for the redshift observed. That molecular hydrogen is responsible for the redshift which is erroneously believed to have a cosmological doppler origin


Published in 21st CENTURY Science & Technology, Spring 2000, Pages 5 - 7
Discovery of H2, in Space
Explains Dark Matter and Redshift
by Paul Marmet

Jul 16, 2019
Since a much larger amount of molecular hydrogen than previously admitted has been observed in the universe, we can now see how this hydrogen is responsible for the redshift observed. That molecular hydrogen is responsible for the redshift which is erroneously believed to have a cosmological doppler origin


Published in 21st CENTURY Science & Technology, Spring 2000, Pages 5 - 7
Discovery of H2, in Space
Explains Dark Matter and Redshift
by Paul Marmet


In all honesty, I wouldn't take anything by Marmet seriously.

Jul 16, 2019
The Hubble constant depends on which star takes your fancy

Astronomers
Have made a new measurement
Of how fast the universe is expanding
Using an entirely different kind of star than previous endeavours
Using a kind of star known as a red giant

For if you're into stars
Cepheid variables give 74.0 km/sec/Mpc
Red giants give 69.8 km/sec/Mpc
Where as
The Cosmic Microwave Background rippling structure of light gives 67.4 km/sec/Mpc
As
The average is 70.4 km/sec/Mpc
For
After all the heart ache
The anguish
The handwringing
After all is said and done
From when the first estimate was written in stone on the mount
The most accurate Hubble consent
Staring us in the face all this time
Was
These Red giants giving 69.8 km/sec/Mpc
So close to 70.4 km/sec/Mpc average
It Makes No Never Mind

p.s. till another star comes along

Jul 16, 2019
Interesting; they got a value midway between SH0ES and CMB using a different method than either. This implies either that we've left something out (new physics?) or that there are measurement errors in both SH0ES and Planck. It will be fascinating to see how this gets resolved.

Jul 16, 2019
The speed of light in refraction
MolecularHydrogen> We know that light interacts with a transparent medium, because its velocity is reduced, without scattering, as calculated and observed using the simple index of refraction of gases

Does the speed of light slow in refraction?
Or is it simply light is refracted over a longer path
Proportional to its refractive index
That if you then measure the shortest path
Light appears to have slowed down
For this is simply
An Illusion of Refraction

Jul 16, 2019
ongoing cosmic expansion does not all add up.
using SCM-LCDM consensus there is assumed to be ongoing cosmic expansion averaging cumulative 3.26 B LY per annum of the radius of the visible universe. The galaxies are alleged to be gravitationally bound so no ongoing cosmic expansion w/in those pockets. The galaxies are not moving (outside their normal orbits, just the space between them is distancing them via metric expansion.
of course to be valid requires the missing dark energy, and it reacts to, does not explain why cosmological redshift to begin with.
also consensus does not explain why CMB near blackbody vs patchwork-checkerboard if ongoing expansion in some zones and not others...
the obvious solution is SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model. There has been no ongoing cosmic expansion subsequent to the cosmic inflation expansion epoch relatively early in the history of the universe. The CR is due to past cosmic expansion.
reference SPIRAL vs Hubble and CMB chapters..

Jul 16, 2019
And BTW none of this denies that the universe is expanding. It's about the rate at which it's expanding. See ya #buttbuttbutttehooovivurseisntexpandulung!!!11!!oneoneeleventyone!!11 liar deniers. Wouldn't wanna be ya.

Just sayin'.

Jul 16, 2019
Since a much larger amount of molecular hydrogen than previously admitted has been observed in the universe, we can now see how this hydrogen is responsible for the redshift observed. That molecular hydrogen is responsible for the redshift which is erroneously believed to have a cosmological doppler origin


Published in 21st CENTURY Science & Technology, Spring 2000, Pages 5 - 7
Discovery of H2, in Space
Explains Dark Matter and Redshift
by Paul Marmet


In all honesty, I wouldn't take anything by Marmet seriously.

Why not?


Jul 16, 2019
@Whyde, https://en.wikipe...l_Marmet

That he wrote one book questioning oddities of Modern physics, hardly rates total dismissal...

Jul 16, 2019
Apparently Marmet denied the Lorentz transform. Since this has been tested experimentally many, many times it's obvious he was a nutjob.

Jul 16, 2019
okay, i'm still on the fence about the universe expanding

oh, i except that the math requires it, but in my admittedly limited capability?
i am dubious about the methods being used & the assumptions claiming proof for or against the concept?

why should i agree that the red-shift & blue-shift have anything to do with Universal Expansion?

cause my understanding of the Doppler effect is that it is determined by the placement of the observers

that is what being observed is light projected from one galaxy towards a second galaxy

as they separate, for whatever reason, observers in both galaxies see light red-shift between them

Another observer, in a third galaxy, in the path of either or both of the first two galaxies
is seeing the oncoming light as blue-shifting

isn't that a local, temporary effect of observer-placement-dependent Relativity?

why opinionate RS/BS have any relevancy to describe Universal Expansion?

Jul 16, 2019
Apparently Marmet denied the Lorentz transform. Since this has been tested experimentally many, many times it's obvious he was a nutjob.

I don't think that he denied it.
It seems more to me (from a cursory reading of his abstract) that he felt it was incomplete in it's structure.
Take a look for yourself at;
http://www.newton...dex.html

Jul 16, 2019
We also present a numerical example to the Lorentz transformation, which confirms that the velocity of light is not constant for the observer in the moving frame.
That right there is denial of experimental evidence. That is all there is.

Jul 16, 2019
Sorry if this sounds stupid, but if the factor time is changing, wouldn't that seem to affect our perception of the expansion rate? Like if time goes faster, like a lot of people seem to be experiencing?

Jul 16, 2019
okay, i'm still on the fence about the universe expanding

oh, i except that the math requires it, but in my admittedly limited capability?
i am dubious about the methods being used & the assumptions claiming proof for or against the concept?

why should i agree that the red-shift & blue-shift have anything to do with Universal Expansion?

I don't think it's the FACT of redshift, as much as it is the gradient level of redshift, that is a measurement bar...
For some reason, tho, I'm kinda diggin' @Pearlman_CTA's conjecture...

Jul 16, 2019
Marmet's problem was that he was just plain wrong. He tried to refute the Michelson-Morley experiment, for instance. He had a downer on relativity for some reason, and set about trying to show it was wrong, despite a huge amount of evidence that it is correct. He would have needed to systematically refute every single experiment and observation that shows GR and SR to be correct. Anybody tilting at those particular windmills these days is definitely on the crackpot fringe. Or would be if he was still alive. There is a brief thread on some of Marmet's nonsense, here;

http://forum.cosm...periment

Jul 16, 2019
Hmm, aging stars at the red giant stage suffer a hot flash and that is a usable standard candle.
As Da Schneib notes:
This implies either that we've left something out (new physics?) or that there are measurement errors in both SH0ES and Planck. It will be fascinating to see how this gets resolved.
This is how science is done.

Jul 16, 2019
hot flash
I think that's the "helium flash" and if I understand correctly it lasts millions of years. That would make it a good standard candle, yes.

Jul 16, 2019
I was wrong; the helium flash happens in minutes, but the effects last thousands of years or more, interesting article on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipe...um_flash

Still should be plenty of them around to serve as standard candles.

Jul 16, 2019
The more interesting question is "Where does Hubble expansion start?" A megaparsec away (3.3 million light years)? A million light years? One light year? A million miles? No, it starts inside every particle that makes up our universe. And gravity isn't a force, it's a side effect.

Jul 16, 2019
If we believe that our World has started sometimes ago we are still in the position to decide which hypothesis, Lemaître's or Gamow's was closer to reality. There is an opinion that the problems in the standard cosmology could be solved by adjusting of details. Our suggestion is that we have to go back to the conceptions and use the observations accumulated since.
https://www.acade...osmology

Jul 16, 2019
I have recently written about this topic. The latest redshift observations do not challenge my thesis.

See my essay, "Faster Dark Energy?" within astronomy (hyphen) links (dot) net

Jul 16, 2019
The more visible matter is generated the bigger the Universe gets.
The "deepest" masses in our Universe are approx. 10^2500000^2500000 light seconds underneath us, which means the expansion is going to continue for a very very very long time.

As to the rate, we will need to explore the interaction between the G space and the 3d space to understand why the universe is expanding at all.

As the visible matter increases, the amount of work available should decrease, but as we don't fully understand the G space/3d Space interactions (yet) it's impossible to define what the "work rate" versus the expansion rate actually is.

The only possible explanation is the visible matter growth is widening the 0 weight aperture of the heaviest mass(es).

Jul 16, 2019
Somebody needs to get the EXPANSION message to Andromeda, "to knock it off with the planned collision with our galaxy or planet Earth inhabitants will unleash schneibo & castrov on you".

Jul 16, 2019
hah! & i thought i was confused...

people may not be willing to accept that this is a stochastic universe?

well. here in these comments?
Pandemonium rules!


Jul 17, 2019
@Whyde, https://en.wikipe...l_Marmet

That he wrote one book questioning oddities of Modern physics, hardly rates total dismissal...

Thank you @Da Schneib for that link. That Paul Marmet looks to be impressive. I'm sold on getting his book.

I have yet to find any paper or book that describes actual observational proof that space expands, or that the cosmic red-shift is related to a doppler effect. Until that happens, all this "space expanding" illusion is mumbo jumbo. But I guess some people need a paycheck.

Jul 17, 2019
I believe they also got a measurement of around 70 from last August's kilonova, the collision between two neutron stars. This is important because it is an independent method.

Jul 17, 2019
here in these comments? Pandemonium rules!
A dearth of cogent sentences again from Little Willy, but we get the idea. Where you see pandemonium, others see a lively conversation between folks of different backgrounds, education and viewpoints. You bring your demons with you, Willy.

So, @DS makes a good point about the helium flash from red giants, but it needs to be pointed out that we're talking about shell helium flashes here. Core helium flashes, occurring in stars of less than 2 solar masses, and which change the density and degeneracy of the core, are entirely absorbed by the star's core.

Shell helium flashes, on the other hand, occurring in a shell outside of the core in AGB stars, lead to brightening of the star over a period of several hundred years, and can also lead to the expulsion of circumstellar shells of gas and dust. Just sayin'...

Jul 17, 2019
Re Marmet - his book "Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution" appears to reproduced here http://www.newton...senberg/ in full, for those who feel the need to browse through a turgid pile of opinionated nonsense.

Readers can at least console themselves that they would be saving some $280+ if trying to purchase the thing at amazon.

Jul 17, 2019
Not the only purveyor of opinionated nonsense. Smolin comes immediately to mind; jumped up and down claiming string physics was wrong and research should be on LQG, only to finally admit that it's a branch of string physics. He probably regrets writing his book, but at least he's willing to admit he was wrong, which is better than Marmet.

Jul 17, 2019
Benni:
Somebody needs to get the EXPANSION message to Andromeda, "to knock it off with the planned collision with our galaxy or planet Earth inhabitants will unleash schneibo & castrov on you".


Oh dear, you have confused yourself. You have misunderstood the respective scales of effect.

If you can ask an intelligent question we would be more than willing to clear up your ignorance.

Jul 17, 2019
If you can ask an intelligent question we would be more than willing to clear up your ignorance.


Optimistic on two fronts!

Jul 17, 2019
I have yet to find any paper or book that describes actual observational proof that space expands, or that the cosmic red-shift is related to a doppler effect. Until that happens, all this "space expanding" illusion is mumbo jumbo. But I guess some people need a paycheck.


Then try reading science by scientists, instead of woo by unqualified idiots like Thornhill at Dunderdolts.

Jul 17, 2019
Smolin comes immediately to mind; jumped up and down claiming string physics was wrong and research should be on LQG, only to finally admit that it's a branch of string physics
I'm not familiar with Smolin's work, being these days very much an outsider looking in, but I take it you're referring to his book "The Trouble with Physics" published in 2006?

According to the Wiki, the book
focused on the issue of the falsifiability of string theory due to the proposals that the anthropic principle be used to explain the properties of our universe in the context of the string landscape
An earlier book of his, however (Three Roads to Quantum Gravity (2002)), argued that that
loop quantum gravity and string theory were essentially the same concept seen from different perspectives
so pre-dating the other, perhaps more controversial book.

One good outcome of this discussion is that I discover that I'm a mathematicist. Who'd'a'thunk?

Jul 17, 2019
Somebody needs to get the EXPANSION message to Andromeda, "to knock it off with the planned collision with our galaxy or planet Earth inhabitants will unleash schneibo & castrov on you".


Another jackass comment by a jackass.

Jul 17, 2019
From the paper: "Recent measurements of the local expansion rate have been made based on a
number of alternative methods including ... All of these studies find H0 values in the range of 70-74 km s−1 Mpc−1 ... uncertainties ... 2-7 km s−1 Mpc−1 ...".

To sum up recent measurements of Hubble parameter at current universe age [km*s^-1*Mpc^-1]:

Planck CMB [2018] consensus [Planck w/dust+lowE+lensing+BAO]* 67.66 +0.42/-0.42
GW170817 star merger [2019] consensus [GW+EM+VLBI+LC+PLJ]** 68.1 +4.5/-4.3
CMASS cosmic voids [2019] consensus [Planck+LOWZ+CMASS+voids] 67.71 +0.43/-0.43
CCHP tip of red giant branch [2019] LMC calibration [TRGB (LMC)] 69.8 +2.5/-2.5

* I got this value slightly wrong in the last few days comment on the new measurements.
** The jet model is picked to cover parameter space, the jet space (HD model) value is 70.3.

TL;DR: The precise values move slowly up, the imprecise move rapidly down: meet at 68-70.


Jul 17, 2019
@torbjorn, as you well know, 70 seems to be the right number. The question now is why the Planck results came out lower. There's Something Going On. We haven't figured it all out yet.

That's how science works.

Jul 17, 2019
Good summary, @torbjorn, thanks.

Jul 17, 2019
as you well know, 70 seems to be the right number
Strange, I keep getting 42. Need another bottle of elderberry wine...

Jul 17, 2019
Smolin comes immediately to mind; jumped up and down claiming string physics was wrong and research should be on LQG, only to finally admit that it's a branch of string physics.


It is not really when considered as physics, though as math they have similarities. String physics used in simulations has dynamics, while LQG is not a physics - it has no harmonic oscillators but is statis only, so you cannot build fields. Smolin is a fringe wannabe.

Re "falsifiability" that is even worse since it is philosophy, not a measure against usefulness as in science. The useful measure here is testing, and there has been several tests proposed for selection bias in cosmology ("anthropic principle"); we'll see how they come out when we get there.

@Fred Doe: "if the factor time is changing".

It isn't, space comes out flat on large scales, so gravity is a very weak effect on top of that in BAO measurements of Hubble rate [ https://en.wikipe...e_effect ].

Jul 17, 2019
I'm not familiar with Smolin's work, being these days very much an outsider looking in, but I take it you're referring to his book "The Trouble with Physics" published in 2006?
Yes. It was irresponsible in that it may have discouraged budding scientists and mathematicians from continuing to research string physics. I am convinced that ultimately this will prove out, but if we don't do the math we'll never know.

Jul 17, 2019
Da Schneib, yes it looks that way from different single measurements but I like the consensus models for obvious reasons (well, I think so at least).

And Planck consensus show that it is very hard to keep unmodified physics if Hubble rate is not close to 68 (though flat space is robust now). I refer to Fig. 17 in the new paper [ https://arxiv.org...5922.pdf ]. It too speculates in history and future of measurement trends, and the Cepheids (Riess et al) is the one that goes up while the others are trending 68-70.

But YMMV with speculation, as you say: let's find out!

Edit: In my comment on Smolin, I meant to write that LQG has statics.
****************

@MH: "H2 in space is interacting with light".

Essentially a "tired light" idea that we know a) does not work and b) is correlated with creationism and their magical ideas on the age of the universe (which are *also* wrong).

Blocked by me for inane trolling.

Jul 17, 2019
Higher gravity seems to make things move faster while simultaneously slowing down light-frequency-based time, at least to my way of looking at it. These different methods of determining Hubble's constant could have some sensitivity to gravity source effects unique to each method. Maybe mass is being estimated incorrectly from gravity, as affected by method-to-method differences, attributable to major distance or source-mass differences separating the ranges of each method.

Jul 17, 2019
I have yet to find any paper or book that describes actual observational proof that space expands, or that the cosmic red-shift is related to a doppler effect. Until that happens, all this "space expanding" illusion is mumbo jumbo. But I guess some people need a paycheck.


Then try reading science by scientists, instead of woo by unqualified idiots like Thornhill at Dunderdolts.

See what I mean. Even you can't point to any evidence, instead only insults as is typical of those who pretend to know something.

Jul 17, 2019
Quoting myself here- "Higher gravity seems to make things move faster while simultaneously slowing down light-frequency-based time, at least to my way of looking at it."

This is true for falling or orbits. Things falling appreciably faster can create more friction-heating faster while red-shifting of the scene drops by some tiny bit it takes an atomic clock to differentiate. The stress energy tensor is changing at a faster rate while time is supposedly slowing down as evidenced by redshift.

Jul 17, 2019
Sez: torbjorn_b_g_larsson

@MH: "H2 in space is interacting with light".

Essentially a "tired light" idea that we know a) does not work and b) is correlated with creationism and their magical ideas on the age of the universe (which are *also* wrong).


It was Fritz Zwicky who concocted the TIRED LIGHT THEORY in the 1930's. He got into a dandy of a battle with Einstein & a few others over it, whereupon he started calling his detractors "Spherical bastards". The concept had nothing to do with "creationism" from 100 years earlier.

......and while you're doing some fact checking on the Tired Light Theory, upgrade your nuclear physics reading skills a bit and study ELASTIC & INELASTIC PHOTON SCATTER EFFECTS, start with Compton Scattering & learn how it creates REDSHIFT.


Jul 18, 2019
Sez: torbjorn_b_g_larsson

@MH: "H2 in space is interacting with light".

Essentially a "tired light" idea that we know a) does not work and b) is correlated with creationism and their magical ideas on the age of the universe (which are *also* wrong).


It was Fritz Zwicky who concocted the TIRED LIGHT THEORY in the 1930's. He got into a dandy of a battle with Einstein & a few others over it, whereupon he started calling his detractors "Spherical bastards". The concept had nothing to do with "creationism" from 100 years earlier.

......and while you're doing some fact checking on the Tired Light Theory, upgrade your nuclear physics reading skills a bit and study ELASTIC & INELASTIC PHOTON SCATTER EFFECTS, start with Compton Scattering & learn how it creates REDSHIFT.


And it could be as simple as that. There is nothing that shows that the cosmic redshift is due to a radial velocity.

Jul 18, 2019
The following pre-print predicted a Hubble constant of 71.03 back 3 years ago. Sphere Theory Calculates a Hubble Constant in Line with Average of Wikipedia Summary

Jul 18, 2019
Compton Scattering & learn how it creates REDSHIFT.
Compton scattering only works on X-rays and gamma rays. Bzzzzzztttt.

@Benni is lying again.

Jul 18, 2019
Compton Scattering & learn how it creates REDSHIFT. Compton scattering only works on X-rays and gamma rays. .
......ONLY because COMPTON SCATTERING is defined within a specific wavelength of the EM Energy Spectrum, gamma & x-ray, other photon scattering & absorption occurring outside those wavelengths does not carry the Compton Scattering label.

i simply gave Compton scattering as one proven example of PHOTON SCATTERING that is most easily detected within the scales of the limited measurement knowledge we have of nuclear physics. The photo-electric effect is the process by which the effects of energy transfer of an electro-magnetic wave to ambient atomic electron shells give up energy resulting in redshift effects.

Schneibo, you need to find a way of extirpating yourself from 19th Century Cosmology as well as Zwicky's Tired Light theories, you still haven't learned how to do it.

Jul 18, 2019
I find the discussion stimulating. This is definitely a field of study that is far above my level of comprehension, though I do gain new knowledge from the articles and debates. The discussions are refreshing given the rancorous arguments we are bombarded with these days. My interest in all things related to the universe began in the late 50s when my father worked as a rocket propulsion test engineer. From a rank amateur (and that is giving more credit than I probably deserve) to all you large brains - thank you.

Jul 18, 2019
i simply gave Compton scattering as one proven example of PHOTON SCATTERING that is most easily detected within the scales of the limited measurement knowledge we have of nuclear physics. The photo-electric effect is the process by which the effects of energy transfer of an electro-magnetic wave to ambient atomic electron shells give up energy resulting in redshift effects.


......another good example is Raman inelastic scattering, here the incident photon interacts with ambient matter and the frequency of the photon is shifted to red or blue. A red shift occurs when the energy of a photon is transferred to the interacting ambient matter.

Jul 18, 2019
Scattering of light to explain redshift is a long debunked idea. It really is very silly. It would cause blurring, for a start. And, iirc, the various wavelengths of light would be scattered by differing amounts. Nobody takes that nonsense seriously anymore.

Jul 18, 2019
Scattering of light to explain redshift is a long debunked idea. It really is very silly. It would cause blurring, for a start. And, iirc, the various wavelengths of light would be scattered by differing amounts. Nobody takes that nonsense seriously anymore.
......you no concept of present day Chemistry in making a statement like this.

Jul 18, 2019
Scattering of light to explain redshift is a long debunked idea. It really is very silly. It would cause blurring, for a start. And, iirc, the various wavelengths of light would be scattered by differing amounts. Nobody takes that nonsense seriously anymore.
......you no concept of present day Chemistry in making a statement like this.


Chemistry? WTF has that got to do with anything, you clown?

Jul 18, 2019
Scattering of light to explain redshift is a long debunked idea. It really is very silly. It would cause blurring, for a start. And, iirc, the various wavelengths of light would be scattered by differing amounts. Nobody takes that nonsense seriously anymore.
......you have no concept of present day Chemistry in making a statement like this.

Chemistry? WTF has that got to do with anything, you clown?
...... thus making my point in that you comprehend so little about issues of science like this, or you wouldn't have asked your question.

Jul 18, 2019
...... thus making my point in that you comprehend so little about issues of science like this, or you wouldn't have asked your question.


So answer the question, dickhead.

Jul 18, 2019
Compton scattering is wavelength dependent. As I noted earlier. See? Debunked with absolutely zero reference to chemistry!

Jul 18, 2019
Compton scattering is wavelength dependent. As I noted earlier. See? Debunked with absolutely zero reference to chemistry!
........that's what I already said:
......ONLY because COMPTON SCATTERING is defined within a specific wavelength of the EM Energy Spectrum, gamma & x-ray, other photon scattering & absorption occurring outside those wavelengths does not carry the Compton Scattering label.
.......at least you know how to read what I write while mistakenly thinking YOU wrote it.

Jul 18, 2019
Compton scattering is wavelength dependent. As I noted earlier. See? Debunked with absolutely zero reference to chemistry!
........that's what I already said:
......ONLY because COMPTON SCATTERING is defined within a specific wavelength of the EM Energy Spectrum, gamma & x-ray, other photon scattering & absorption occurring outside those wavelengths does not carry the Compton Scattering label.
.......at least you know how to read what I write while mistakenly thinking YOU wrote it.


No, you idiot. I meant it is ruled out as a cause of cosmological redshift because it scatters wavelengths of light differently. That is not what is observed in reality. The same applies to any other scattering mechanism you want to invoke.

Jul 18, 2019
No, you idiot. I meant it is ruled out as a cause of cosmological redshift because it scatters wavelengths of light differently. That is not what is observed in reality.
....... and you own the "idiocy", photo-electric effect & Raman Inelastic Scattering is in fact observed in reality, you just never heard of it till Benni brought it to your attention.

Jul 18, 2019
No, you idiot. I meant it is ruled out as a cause of cosmological redshift because it scatters wavelengths of light differently. That is not what is observed in reality.
....... and you own the "idiocy", photo-electric effect & Raman Inelastic Scattering is in fact observed in reality, you just never heard of it till Benni brought it to your attention.


I have heard of it you stupid poser, and the same applies.

Jul 18, 2019
No, you idiot. I meant it is ruled out as a cause of cosmological redshift because it scatters wavelengths of light differently. That is not what is observed in reality.
....... and you own the "idiocy", photo-electric effect & Raman Inelastic Scattering is in fact observed in reality, you just never heard of it till Benni brought it to your attention.

I have heard of it you stupid poser, and the same applies.
........admitted Anthropologist, show us your posting Comment from the past that you have "heard of it"? Oh, I know, you have "heard of it" because you recall my past references to these same things, you just forgot it was Benni who introduced you to these various kinds of redshifting events.

Jul 18, 2019
a small fraction of the scattered photons (approximately 1 in 10 million) are scattered inelastically, with the scattered photons having an energy different from, and usually lower than, those of the incident photons—these are Raman scattered photons.


https://en.wikipe...attering

One in ten million? @Benni is lying again. Another #BenniFactoid™® bites the dust.

Jul 18, 2019
But exactly how fast space is stretching, cough - vacuum is stretching

Scientists have known
For almost a century
That the universe is expanding
Meaning the distance between galaxies across the universe
Is becoming ever more vast every second
But exactly how fast space is stretching
A value known as the Hubble constant
Has remained stubbornly elusive.

Now, University of Chicago professor Wendy Freedman
And
Colleagues have a new measurement
For this rate of expansion in the modern universe
Suggesting the space between galaxies
Is stretching faster than scientists would expected

Does this mean
When we walk away from each other
This vacuum stretches proportional to this distance
Foreth
This vacuum
Can
Be no longer stretched or compressed
For as you cannot have half a hole
Equally
You cannot have half a vacuum

Jul 18, 2019
Benni has experience with Castrovagina's obfuscating and twisting of facts so that CastroV comes out seemingly smelling like a rose. It is one of the reasons for Castrovagina's vicious ad hominems, to draw attention away from his errors, twists and turns, so that the reader will think that CastroV's opinions must be true, leaving the reader to doubt Benni's veracity when Benni doesn't return fire in the same way. It is to Benni's credit that he doesn't resort to ugly verbiage the way that CastroV does on a regular basis.

Jul 18, 2019
Benni has experience with Castrovagina's obfuscating and twisting of facts so that CastroV comes out seemingly smelling like a rose. It is one of the reasons for Castrovagina's vicious ad hominems, to draw attention away from his errors, twists and turns, so that the reader will think that CastroV's opinions must be true, leaving the reader to doubt Benni's veracity when Benni doesn't return fire in the same way. It is to Benni's credit that he doesn't resort to ugly verbiage the way that CastroV does on a regular basis.

So, it would seem that this is how current science advances? That is, whoever has the wittiest insults, whoever shouts the loudest wins the argument, and therefore we must all swallow the angriest version of physics, and not necessarily the most correct based on observations. One would hope things improve for the next generation.

Jul 18, 2019
Yes, it has come to that, at least in these physorg phorums where innocent and fact-filled comments are made by an individual, where he is almost immediately set upon with strongly worded curses and lies to beat him down as quickly as possible. Then the ruffian is declared the winner by those who give him high plus ratings. Not much room for common courtesy in such a discourse, just meanness and foul-mouthed attitudes by the one side that is the most vociferous and aggressive.

Jul 18, 2019
@Castro.

Why are you wasting time with @Benni? Anyhow, while you're here, did you see my post, dated Jul 13, 2019, to you and others?...in thread:

https://phys.org/...ion.html

Why don't you spend your time/intellect on more important things...such as explaining the coupling mechanism by which 'expanding spacetime' can 'carry galaxies away from each other' as the expansionist hypotheses claim for the alleged cosmic radial recession velocities that 'explain cosmic redshift'? Thanks. :)

Jul 18, 2019
Benni has experience with Castrovagina's obfuscating and twisting of facts so that CastroV comes out seemingly smelling like a rose. It is one of the reasons for Castrovagina's vicious ad hominems, to draw attention away from his errors, twists and turns, so that the reader will think that CastroV's opinions must be true, leaving the reader to doubt Benni's veracity when Benni doesn't return fire in the same way. It is to Benni's credit that he doesn't resort to ugly verbiage the way that CastroV does on a regular basis.


Give up you idiot. Benni doesn't know **** about science. And I have made no errors. If there are errors in the science I talk about and link, then it should not be difficult to reply to the papers in which that science is reported. By real scientists. Not me. I'm only the messenger.
Fact is, idiots like Benni haven't got clue one about the relevant science. He is just a scientifically illiterate poser with Dunning-Kruger syndrome. End of.

Jul 18, 2019
Yes, it has come to that, at least in these physorg phorums where innocent and fact-filled comments are made by an individual, where he is almost immediately set upon with strongly worded curses and lies to beat him down as quickly as possible. Then the ruffian is declared the winner by those who give him high plus ratings. Not much room for common courtesy in such a discourse, just meanness and foul-mouthed attitudes by the one side that is the most vociferous and aggressive.


Wrong. You don't understand the first thing about science. Nor does Benni. If you want to discuss your idiotic ideas, go post them on a physics forum. See how long you last. You'd be a laughing stock, just like you are here. Science is not done in places like this. Nor Youtube. Real scientists study for years, get degrees, get experience, and some of them write up their science in respectable, peer-reviewed journals. You just talk crap on a comments section.
Has Voyager left the Oort cloud yet? Lol.

Jul 18, 2019
@Castro.

Why are you wasting time with @Benni? Anyhow, while you're here, did you see my post, dated Jul 13, 2019, to you and others?...in thread:

https://phys.org/...ion.html

Why don't you spend your time/intellect on more important things...such as explaining the coupling mechanism by which 'expanding spacetime' can 'carry galaxies away from each other' as the expansionist hypotheses claim for the alleged cosmic radial recession velocities that 'explain cosmic redshift'? Thanks. :)


Not my job. I would suggest that coming up with an alternative to the observed expansion redshift, that doesn't belong on a Looney Tunes cartoon, would be a start. Nobody has managed it so far.

Jul 18, 2019
Castrovagina's "give up you idiot", etc is proof positive that CastroV has a likely mental/emotional issue that eliminates any normal verbiage from his vocabulary. Quite possibly, CastroV's aggressions are designed to scare away any from the scientific community who might have wanted to say a few words in regard to their own science experiments. In such a case where a REAL scientist wishes to convey their own opinions, they will find that CastroV, and possibly Schneib would interfere by demanding the papers as evidence before any possibility of accepting it as true. I have never seen such a great example of pseudoscientists hating any science other than what they know, or think they know already.

Jul 18, 2019
So, it would seem that this is how current science advances?


Only if you are stupid enough to think science is advanced in comments sections like this! Lol. Who would be that stupid? Go sign up for email notifications for the latest papers from A & A, MNRAS, etc. Then you can see how science advances. Newsflash: It ain't here. It ain't Youtube. It ain't crackpot Velikovskian websites.

Jul 18, 2019
I have never seen such a great example of pseudoscientists hating any science other than what they know, or think they know already.
Says the poser who claims to be a mind-reading alien.

Jul 18, 2019
Castrovagina's "give up you idiot", etc is proof positive that CastroV has a likely mental/emotional issue that eliminates any normal verbiage from his vocabulary. Quite possibly, CastroV's aggressions are designed to scare away any from the scientific community who might have wanted to say a few words in regard to their own science experiments. In such a case where a REAL scientist wishes to convey their own opinions, they will find that CastroV, and possibly Schneib would interfere by demanding the papers as evidence before any possibility of accepting it as true. I have never seen such a great example of pseudoscientists hating any science other than what they know, or think they know already.


Show me where I've called a real scientist on here an idiot? I reserve that sort of thing for idiots like you.

Jul 18, 2019
I have never seen such a great example of pseudoscientists hating any science other than what they know, or think they know already.
Says the poser who claims to be a mind-reading alien.


Still telling LIES about me, Schneib? I have never claimed to be a mind reading alien, but I know that you love telling lies. But you will get your just deserts in the near future, Schneib. So enjoy it while you are still able.

Jul 18, 2019
Castrovagina's "give up you idiot", etc is proof positive that CastroV has a likely mental/emotional issue that eliminates any normal verbiage from his vocabulary. Quite possibly, CastroV's aggressions are designed to scare away any from the scientific community who might have wanted to say a few words in regard to their own science experiments. In such a case where a REAL scientist wishes to convey their own opinions, they will find that CastroV, and possibly Schneib would interfere by demanding the papers as evidence before any possibility of accepting it as true. I have never seen such a great example of pseudoscientists hating any science other than what they know, or think they know already.


Show me where I've called a real scientist on here an idiot? I reserve that sort of thing for idiots like you.


There are many true scientists who read and comment on physorg, castro. You are not aware of them because they don't identify themselves as scientists.

Jul 18, 2019
Nope. Just noting past behavior.

Where is @PhyllisHarmonic?

So now who's lying?

Jul 18, 2019
I have talked to real scientists who are busy in their labs, and invited them to have an account with physorg so that they may acquire a FEEL for what is being said about the science that they have been writing papers on that have been published in popular journals. They are aware of your filthy language, jonesy, and they think you're insane.

Jul 18, 2019
There are many true scientists who read and comment on physorg, castro. You are not aware of them because they don't identify themselves as scientists.


Really? And how do you know? Or is it the mind reading alien telling you this?

Jul 18, 2019
What "real scientists?"

Again, now who's lying?

Is this like your Intertubes "degree" from the university of mommy?

Jul 18, 2019
I have talked to real scientists who are busy in their labs, and invited them to have an account with physorg so that they may acquire a FEEL for what is being said about the science that they have been writing papers on that have been published in popular journals. They are aware of your filthy language, jonesy, and they think you're insane.


Lol. What a freak! You mean you've talked to fellow inmates of your asylum who think they are scientists? Jesus, what a clown. Like I said - you are a laughing stock, lizard boy.

Jul 18, 2019
There are many true scientists who read and comment on physorg, castro. You are not aware of them because they don't identify themselves as scientists.


Really? And how do you know? Or is it the mind reading alien telling you this?


I know because I talk with them, jonesy. Although I am not at their level of knowledge, they give me pointers on the science experiments that they're working on.

Jul 18, 2019
Then name them. We'll be checking CVs. You won't of course. And if you make claims, we'll be contacting them and posting the results, so don't bother lying.

Jul 18, 2019
And Schneib is like the shortest bloke in a gang of high school boys who have found a geek to beat up on. And when the boys have done with him, out comes the dwarf Schneib from behind them and kicks the victim in the head and stomach to show how brave he is. That's Schneib with a dwarf mentality.

Jul 18, 2019

I know because I talk with them, jonesy. Although I am not at their level of knowledge, they give me pointers on the science experiments that they're working on.


Hahahahahaha. Take your pills and go have a lie down.

Jul 18, 2019
So you can't actually name any scientists you've "talked with."

That was all we really needed to know.

Jul 18, 2019
Then name them. We'll be checking CVs. You won't of course. And if you make claims, we'll be contacting them and posting the results, so don't bother lying.
says the ugly dwarf, Schneib

Why would you think that I would reveal the names and private information of these illustrious scientists who enjoy looking in on these physorg phorums for laughs, Schneib. Do you imagine that they are on the lower level of society as you and Castrovagina are, with your constant presence here in this website? You clown.
I would not want a lawsuit, similar to a breach of contract for telling you about them. They are good and honest humans and I admire them greatly. They are not the lowest of the low, like you are, Schneib.

Jul 18, 2019
a small fraction of the scattered photons (approximately 1 in 10 million) are scattered inelastically, with the scattered photons having an energy different from, and usually lower than, those of the incident photons—these are Raman scattered photons.


https://en.wikipe...attering

One in ten million?
.......and how many uncountable 1 in 10 million Raman events have occurred in the few seconds it took me to write this post? Add to this all the Compton events & other redshifting inelastic events all up & down the span of the EM Energy Spectrum..............yeah, uncountable gazillions per second here, gazillions more there, & pretty soon it becomes obvious there's a lot of redshifting at all wavelengths going on all over the Universe.

Jul 18, 2019
In fact, two of them have encouraged me to write an Abstract regarding my theory of the nonexistence of Time. I have explained that I'm not a duly trained scientists, and they say that isn't a problem because no one else has come up with such an idea, and it would be interesting to see how well it's taken.
I said I will think about it.

Jul 18, 2019
.......and how many uncountable 1 in 10 million Raman events have occurred in the few seconds it took me to write this post? Add to this all the Compton events & other redshifting inelastic events all up & down the span of the EM Energy Spectrum..............yeah, uncountable gazillions per second here, gazillions more there, & pretty soon it becomes obvious there's a lot of redshifting at all wavelengths going on all over the Universe.


Wrong dumbo. How many times do you need telling, you uneducated poser? Those scatterings are wavelength dependent. Do you know what that means, you ignorant fool? It means that the amount of scattering varies depending upon the incident wavelength. So, one end of the spectrum is scattered more than the other. Is that what we observe? Hint: no, it bloody well isn't. Get back to cleaning those toilets.

Jul 18, 2019
Schneib is now in:
https://phys.org/...ont.html

apparently in there giving RealityCheck some grief.

Jul 18, 2019
In fact, two of them have encouraged me to write an Abstract regarding my theory of the nonexistence of Time. I have explained that I'm not a duly trained scientists, and they say that isn't a problem because no one else has come up with such an idea, and it would be interesting to see how well it's taken.
I said I will think about it.


Hahahahahaha. The delusion is strong in this fool! If time doesn't exist, you cretin, how can it be affected by altitude and velocity? Hmmm? Trust me - nobody sane would encourage you to write crap like that. It is probably just your imaginary lizard whispering in your ear.

Jul 18, 2019
I have talked to real scientists who are busy in their labs, and invited them to have an account with physorg so that they may acquire a FEEL for what is being said about the science that they have been writing papers on that have been published in popular journals. They are aware of your filthy language, jonesy, and they think you're insane.


I know several colleagues of mine who visit this website, Phd & Master degreed engineers & physicists. They have had a good time in recent months laughing themselves silly over the fact that schneibo, castro, and few others who don't even know the difference between 14.7 minute Beta Particle Decay of a neutron & the Gamma Radiation Decay of atomic isotopes. They have compared themselves to my Comments on the subject & suggested that anyone of themselves may in fact be Benni.

Jul 18, 2019
I know several colleagues of mine who visit this website, Phd & Master degreed engineers & physicists. They have had a good time in recent months laughing themselves silly over the fact that schneibo, castro, and few others who don't even know the difference between 14.7 minute Beta Particle Decay of a neutron & the Gamma Radiation Decay of atomic isotopes. They have compared themselves to my Comments on the subject & suggested anyone of themselves may in fact be Benni.


Oh Jesus! Another deluded idiot! You don't understand the first thing about neutron decay, you moron. As has been proven multiple times. You don't even know what a half-life is, janitor boy.

Jul 18, 2019
Yes, Schneib has resumed his sniping at RealityCheck in the above phorum with Schneib's vast collection of claimed lies made by RC. Must have hit a nerve in calling Schneib a "dwarf".

And I see that Castrovagina has resumed his vicious barking here.
It is only one or two of the proofs that humans have gone berserk in the 21st century.

Jul 18, 2019


And I see that Castrovagina has resumed his vicious barking here.
It is only one or two of the proofs that humans have gone berserk in the 21st century.


Lol. Says a loon who knows Jack about science, and claims to be possessed by an alien lizard! Irony, much?

Jul 18, 2019
In fact, two of them have encouraged me to write an Abstract regarding my theory of the nonexistence of Time. I have explained that I'm not a duly trained scientists, and they say that isn't a problem because no one else has come up with such an idea, and it would be interesting to see how well it's taken.
I said I will think about it.


Hahahahahaha. The delusion is strong in this fool! If time doesn't exist, you cretin, how can it be affected by altitude and velocity? Hmmm? Trust me - nobody sane would encourage you to write crap like that. It is probably just your imaginary lizard whispering in your ear.
says Castrovagina

hahahahahahaHAAA
No delusion whatsoever, boy. As I've told you already, the nonexistent "Time" is definitely NOT affected by altitude, velocity, direction, etc. IT IS ONLY THE CLOCK'S MECHANISM THAT IS AFFECTED BY ALTITUDE, VELOCITY, DIRECTION, WORLD TIME-ZONES, MOISTURE, AGING OF THE CLOCK'S MECHANISM.
Can you absorb that into your brain?

Jul 18, 2019

No delusion whatsoever, boy. As I've told you already, the nonexistent "Time" is definitely NOT affected by altitude, velocity, direction, etc. IT IS ONLY THE CLOCK'S MECHANISM THAT IS AFFECTED BY ALTITUDE, VELOCITY, DIRECTION, WORLD TIME-ZONES, MOISTURE, AGING OF THE CLOCK'S MECHANISM.
Can you absorb that into your brain?


Idiot. How the **** can we do a bunch of equations involving SR and GR and predict, beforehand, what the time dilation will be? You are a complete moron. Leave science alone, because you are not even at high school level. Not even close , you uneducated retard.

Jul 18, 2019
THE CLOCK'S MECHANISM, GET IT? A Nuclear clock has a mechanism that is powered by a radioactive element; it is that element that provides the ENERGY to run the mechanism in the clock. As it goes tick tock or the numbers change on the face of the clock, that isn't time being affected, it is THE CLOCK'S MECHANISM that is being made to MOVE by the radioactive element inside it. Do you think that you are able to comprehend such a hard premise, CastroV?

Jul 18, 2019
YOU leave science alone. You and Scneib = Stupid and son of Stupid.
There is NO SUCH THING AS TIME DILATION. There never has. Time cannot be dilated because Time doesn't exist. This story of Time is all a crock. Get used to it.

Jul 18, 2019
@Castro.
Why are you wasting time with @Benni? Anyhow, while you're here, did you see my post, dated Jul 13, 2019, to you and others?...in thread:

https://phys.org/...ion.html

Why don't you spend your time/intellect on more important things...such as explaining the coupling mechanism by which 'expanding spacetime' can 'carry galaxies away from each other' as the expansionist hypotheses claim for the alleged cosmic radial recession velocities that 'explain cosmic redshift'?
Not my job.
I humbly submit it *is* your "job", for as long you subscribe to/promulgate the claim that 'spacetime expands to force distant galaxies to recede from each other" while ALSO that SAME "spacetime" expands THROUGH galaxies close enough to be gravitationally closing/merging.

You cant have it both ways, mate; if you don't reconcile such inconsistencies, then your cosmic recession velocity interpretation of cosmic redshift is unscientific. Yes? :)

Jul 18, 2019
THE CLOCK'S MECHANISM, GET IT? A Nuclear clock has a mechanism that is powered by a radioactive element; it is that element that provides the ENERGY to run the mechanism in the clock. As it goes tick tock or the numbers change on the face of the clock, that isn't time being affected, it is THE CLOCK'S MECHANISM that is being made to MOVE by the radioactive element inside it. Do you think that you are able to comprehend such a hard premise, CastroV?


You really are thick! It is a predictable and observed effect of GR and SR. That is why we can predict it, dumbo. That is why we observe it. That is why your GPS works. Only a cretin would suggest it is something to do with the mechanism! Jeez, ain't it strange how every clock launched into space just happens to have its mechanism affected in a way that Einstein predicted a hundred bloody years ago! Sod off, you thick clown. Science is not for retards. And you are most definitely a retard.

Jul 18, 2019
I humbly submit it *is* very much your "job"; at least for as long you subscribe to/promulgate the claim that 'spacetime expands to force distant galaxies to recede from each other" while ALSO that SAME "spacetime" expands THROUGH galaxies close enough to be gravitationally closing/merging.

You cant have it both ways, @Castro; if you don't reconcile such inconsistent 'explanations' then your "expansion" belief is unscientific. Yes? :)


You can humbly p!ss off. It is not me promulgating it. Go read the scientific literature. That is where it is promulgated, and that is where it should be challenged. Not by posers on a comments section with zero understanding of the subject.

Jul 18, 2019
hahahahahaaa Did he REALLY SAY: 'spacetime expands to force distant galaxies to recede from each other"?

I am speechless. There is no such thing as "Spacetime or Space-time. Space consists of quantum Matter and Energies FLOATING in that Space. Time is but a figment of man's imagination to use as a MEASUREMENT of events, activities, actions, and how long it takes.
Minkowski got his own way with Einstein and they BOTH have fooled the world

Jul 18, 2019
YOU leave science alone. You and Scneib = Stupid and son of Stupid.
There is NO SUCH THING AS TIME DILATION. There never has. Time cannot be dilated because Time doesn't exist. This story of Time is all a crock. Get used to it.


Nothing to get used to. Nobody sane is claiming such a thing. Let's have a quick look in the literature ......................................... nope, zilch.

Jul 18, 2019
GPS IS ONLY A MECHANISM, you idiot. SR and GR are only math equations invented by Einstein to put his ideas into numbers. One of Einstein's ideas was to place the premise of Spacetime in with his equations to please his old Professor. If it wasn't for Minkowski's harassment, Einstein would NEVER have included the Time factor in Spacetime.

Jul 18, 2019

Minkowski got his own way with Einstein and they BOTH have fooled the world


And have been proven correct. Countless times, moron. You, on the other hand, are just a scientifically illiterate cretin on a comments section, who appears to have severe mental problems.

Jul 18, 2019
GPS IS ONLY A MECHANISM, you idiot. SR and GR are only math equations invented by Einstein to put his ideas into numbers. One of Einstein's ideas was to place the premise of Spacetime in with his equations to please his old Professor. If it wasn't for Minkowski's harassment, Einstein would NEVER have included the Time factor in Spacetime.


So explain why we can use those equations to predict, precisely, what the observed time dilation will be? Scientifically. Get to it you prawn.

Jul 18, 2019
@RC and Benni
I fully intend to write that Abstract. And maybe idiots like CastroV and Schneib will be able to handle the truth someday. Science has been fooled into thinking that a "nothing" is something.

Jul 18, 2019
You are predicting with regard to SPACE, not a nothing. I've already said the SPACE is REAL. I've told you what it is made of. I have also asked you what time is made of, which you could not or refused to answer.

Jul 18, 2019
You are predicting with regard to SPACE, not a nothing. I've already said the SPACE is REAL. I've told you what it is made of. I have also asked you what time is made of, which you could not or refused to answer.


Answer the question, dickhead. Explain why we can use those equations to predict, precisely, what the observed time dilation will be? Scientifically.

Jul 18, 2019
So tell us, bright boy. What is time made of? How is time able to dilate, increase, expand, shrink or move galaxies?

Jul 18, 2019
So tell us, bright boy. What is time made of? How is time able to dilate, increase, expand, shrink or move galaxies?


Answer the question, dickhead. Explain why we can use those equations to predict, precisely, what the observed time dilation will be? Scientifically.

Jul 18, 2019
I've already said that time does not dilate. It is only a CONCEPT, AN IDEA, A NOTHING. You are only measuring the DILATION of SPACE, BECAUSE SPACE HAS ALL THE CAPABILITIES OF DILATING, MOTION, EXPANSION, SHRINKING.

You are too THICK to understand these truths, CastroV. So I can only surmise that you have a slight case of Down's Syndrome and possibly Autism.

Jul 18, 2019
@Castro.
I humbly submit it *is* very much your "job"; at least for as long you subscribe to/promulgate the claim that 'spacetime expands to force distant galaxies to recede from each other" while ALSO that SAME "spacetime" expands THROUGH galaxies close enough to be gravitationally closing/merging.

You cant have it both ways, @Castro; if you don't reconcile such inconsistent 'explanations' then your "expansion" belief is unscientific. Yes? :)
It is not me promulgating it. Go read the scientific literature.
Are you saying you uncritically believe/repeat "spacetime expansion" claims/interpretations made in the so-called 'scientific literature' that gives such self-contradictory 'explanations' for their alleged "expanding spacetime recessional velocity" interpretations for cosmic redshift as being due to such illogical 'recessional velocity'? Mate, you're either a scientist or you're not. If you are, then its your "job" to check/think before you just believe/repeat. :)

Jul 18, 2019
I've already said that time does not dilate. It is only a CONCEPT, AN IDEA, A NOTHING. You are only measuring the DILATION of SPACE, BECAUSE SPACE HAS ALL THE CAPABILITIES OF DILATING, MOTION, EXPANSION, SHRINKING.

You are too THICK to understand these truths, CastroV. So I can only surmise that you have a slight case of Down's Syndrome and possibly Autism.


Wrong you moron. We compare two f***ing clocks. That is not a measure of space you retard. Answer the question you thick idiot. How can we predict how the two clocks will differ? Get on with it, you uneducated clown.

Jul 18, 2019
No names, you lied again. And it's you who harass science, not us. We just harass you back.

Typical troll. Always got an excuse.

Jul 18, 2019
Are you saying you uncritically believe/repeat "spacetime expansion" claims/interpretations made in the so-called 'scientific literature' that gives such self-contradictory 'explanations' for their alleged "expanding spacetime recessional velocity" interpretations for cosmic redshift as being due to such illogical 'recessional velocity'? Mate, you're either a scientist or you're not. If you are, then its your "job" to check/think before you just believe/repeat. :)


Show me where a real scientist is making these claims and I might look at it. Otherwise.....................

Jul 18, 2019
I've already said that time does not dilate. It is only a CONCEPT, AN IDEA, A NOTHING. You are only measuring the DILATION of SPACE, BECAUSE SPACE HAS ALL THE CAPABILITIES OF DILATING, MOTION, EXPANSION, SHRINKING.

You are too THICK to understand these truths, CastroV. So I can only surmise that you have a slight case of Down's Syndrome and possibly Autism.


Wrong you moron. We compare two f***ing clocks. That is not a measure of space you retard. Answer the question you thick idiot. How can we predict how the two clocks will differ? Get on with it, you uneducated clown.


Your comparing 2 f***ing clocks at altitude, velocity, geologic and spatial direction, at surface and in space, only means that you are comparing the SPEED at which the clocks are ticking. And they are ticking due to the radioactive element effect on the MECHANISMS OF THE CLOCKS, you dingbat.

Tell us, you coonass, WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?

Jul 18, 2019
Snicker. No, clocks don't tell time with radioactive elements. Atomic clocks use electron transitions, not nuclear radiation.

What a dumbshit.

Jul 18, 2019
Your comparing 2 f***ing clocks at altitude, velocity, geologic and spatial direction, at surface and in space, only means that you are comparing the SPEED at which the clocks are ticking. And they are ticking due to the radioactive element effect on the MECHANISMS OF THE CLOCKS, you dingbat.

Tell us, you coonass, WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


And why the **** would the difference in time between the two clocks be precisely predictable using SR and GR, you ignorant cretin? Answer.

Jul 18, 2019
THE BIG difference between 2 nuclear clocks, one at surface and one in LEO is GRAVITY, YOU DUMB TWIT. The gravitational drag on the clock at surface makes it run faster than the clock in LEO which has far LESS gravitational drag on it, so that it runs slower. You should have learned this in high school, jonesy.

Jul 18, 2019
If there's no such thing as time, what do the clocks measure?

Idiot.

Jul 18, 2019
THE BIG difference between 2 nuclear clocks, one at surface and one in LEO is GRAVITY, YOU DUMB TWIT. The gravitational drag on the clock at surface makes it run faster than the clock in LEO which has far LESS gravitational drag on it, so that it runs slower. You should have learned this in high school, jonesy.


What a moron! Show me which textbook that is in. I must have gone through the whole of school and university without encountering that. Links. Now. Liar.

PS; clocks at the surface run slower.

Jul 18, 2019
I see that the dwarf has returned. ROFLOL

Hey Schneib, tell us in your own words, WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?

Jul 18, 2019
I have already told you I will answer when you answer what space is "made of."

You haven't yet. Maybe you forgot.

Idiot.

Jul 18, 2019
I see that the dwarf has returned. ROFLOL

Hey Schneib, tell us in your own words, WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


And why the **** would the difference in time between the two clocks be precisely predictable using SR and GR, you ignorant cretin? Answer. Come on thicko. We are waiting.

Jul 18, 2019
THE BIG difference between 2 nuclear clocks, one at surface and one in LEO is GRAVITY, YOU DUMB TWIT. The gravitational drag on the clock at surface makes it run faster than the clock in LEO which has far LESS gravitational drag on it, so that it runs slower. You should have learned this in high school, jonesy.


What a moron! Show me which textbook that is in. I must have gone through the whole of school and university without encountering that. Links. Now. Liar.
says thickheaded CastroV

You will have to wait until I finish my Abstract submission, it peer review, and its published paper.

Jul 18, 2019
@S_E_U
@Castro.

Careful, you two, you're talking at cross-purposes because you both are conflating different things while screaming insults at each other re time/clocks.

Consider: the internal and external energies of any closed system are TWO components of the OVERALL system's energy/motional dynamics as observed/analysed by us using clocks and rulers to give values' for inputting to our equations/graphs to convey COMPARATIVE behaviour of system under study relative to STANDARD systems of clocks/rulers.

For example: when an atom or clock etc is accelerated, its overall energy/process is EFFECTIVELY RE-APPORTIONED between its overall linear motions through space AND its internal constituents' closed-cycle/periodic motions WITHIN the system itself.

Hence why a particle/clock moving linearly across space approaching a BH's EH can BOTH be SLOWED in its INTERNAL 'timing rate' processes WHILE OVERALL the particle/clock STILL proceeds faster, UN-SLOWED, across space into EH. :)

Jul 18, 2019
@114LiarRC, there aren't any "standard" clocks or positions or movements. That's why it's called "relativity." There is no absolute motion. It's all relative.

Duhhhhh ummmmm.

Jul 18, 2019
I have already told you I will answer when you answer what space is "made of."

You haven't yet. Maybe you forgot.

Idiot.
says the LYING SCHNEIB

Maybe YOU forgot that I have submitted it twice already and everyone has seen it, but you have ignored it so that you could demand to see it again and again - for laughs.
Your lying is continuing to go against you, Schneib. You will face justice just as soon as your bag of cells expire.

Jul 18, 2019
RealityCheck
37 minutes ago
@Castro.
Why are you wasting time with @Benni? Anyhow, while you're here, did you see my post, dated Jul 13, 2019, to you and others?.
.......I agree with you on this one rare occasion, he loses his arguments so badly in the light of real science that I can reduce him to the usual foul mouthed name calling rants very quickly.

Now, hows-about you Unreal? What's your gripe with Benni that you advise castro against "wasting time with Benni"? Or is this a tongue in cheek comment because you are becoming weary with watching him lose the high ground with Benni based on his Pop-Cosmology fantasies? Yourself as well........hey, at least I don't go on name calling rants against you, your new partner doesn't share my level of decency I have always extended towards you.

Jul 18, 2019
OK, so post it a third time.

Can't be that hard.

Unless you're a lying troll.

So let's see it; I'm paying attention right now. Bring it, alien lizard dude. What's space "made of?"

Jul 18, 2019
THE BIG difference between 2 nuclear clocks, one at surface and one in LEO is GRAVITY, YOU DUMB TWIT. The gravitational drag on the clock at surface makes it run faster than the clock in LEO which has far LESS gravitational drag on it, so that it runs slower. You should have learned this in high school, jonesy.


What a moron! Show me which textbook that is in. I must have gone through the whole of school and university without encountering that. Links. Now. Liar.
says thickheaded CastroV

You will have to wait until I finish my Abstract submission, it peer review, and its published paper.


Lol. Translation: "I haven't got a clue what I'm talking about, and cannot answer the question due to not understanding Jack about science." And it really does need translating!

Jul 18, 2019
Back to you, RC. I'm tired of all this BS from Schneib and Castrovagina. Going to watch a movie with friends. Have fun, RC

Jul 18, 2019
@Da Schneib.
@114LiarRC, there aren't any "standard" clocks or positions or movements. That's why it's called "relativity." There is no absolute motion. It's all relative.

Duhhhhh ummmmm.
*Sigh* Here we go again...

Listen, mate, the term "standard measure/method" is a lab/analysis term for the CHOSEN 'standard' clock/ruler/scale etc to which the system under study is COMPARED 'relative to' when formulating the analytical CONSTRUCT by which the essential factors/values/effects are made clear for understanding/concluding what is happening during a changing/comparative situation. If you didn't already understand that, then you are not a scientist of any kind, let alone a 'relativist'. Please, DS, try and keep your own ego/misconstruing to yourself if you have no actual cogent contributions to make to the discussion. Thanks. :)

Jul 18, 2019
Snicker. No, clocks don't tell time with radioactive elements. Atomic clocks use electron transitions, not nuclear radiation.
......and that is kinetic energy when electrons start moving around, a mechanical mechanism.

Jul 18, 2019
.......I agree with you on this one rare occasion, he loses his arguments so badly in the light of real science that I can reduce him to the usual foul mouthed name calling rants very quickly.


I have never lost an argument to a retard like you! What is a half-life, janitor boy? What is 2 + 2/2? Does visible light cause heating? Does a neutron have a half-life? Can light scattering explain cosmological redshift? Etc. You lost them all bozo. Remember?

Jul 18, 2019
Snicker. No, clocks don't tell time with radioactive elements. Atomic clocks use electron transitions, not nuclear radiation.
......and that is kinetic energy when electrons start moving around, a mechanical mechanism.


Oh dear. Get your foot out of your mouth, moron, because you just shot yourself in it! Again.

Jul 18, 2019
Snicker. No, clocks don't tell time with radioactive elements. Atomic clocks use electron transitions, not nuclear radiation.
......and that is kinetic energy when electrons start moving around, a mechanical mechanism.


Oh dear. Get your foot out of your mouth, moron, because you just shot yourself in it! Again.
.....and more of the same coming out in you mister Anthropologist. Movement of mass, no matter how small, is kinetic energy in action......1/2mv². Capiche? No, probably you NEVER will.

Jul 18, 2019
@Castro.
Are you saying you uncritically believe/repeat "spacetime expansion" claims/interpretations made in the so-called 'scientific literature' that gives such self-contradictory 'explanations' for their alleged "expanding spacetime recessional velocity" interpretations for cosmic redshift as being due to such illogical 'recessional velocity'? Mate, you're either a scientist or you're not. If you are, then its your "job" to check/think before you just believe/repeat. :)
Show me where a real scientist is making these claims and I might look at it. Otherwise.....................
Which claims do you allude to?...that spacetime expands THROUGH closing galaxies?...or...that spacetime expands to FORCE distant galaxies AWAY from each other?

My point: the scientific literature does NOT explain a 'coupling mechanism' that can do BOTH.

That INCONSISTENT 'set' of 'explanations' is the whole problem with "expanding spacetime" interpretations.

Not my problem. :)

Jul 18, 2019
Snicker. No, clocks don't tell time with radioactive elements. Atomic clocks use electron transitions, not nuclear radiation.
......and that is kinetic energy when electrons start moving around, a mechanical mechanism.


Oh dear. Get your foot out of your mouth, moron, because you just shot yourself in it! Again.
.....and more of the same coming out in you mister Anthropologist. Movement of mass, no matter how small, is kinetic energy in action......1/2mv². Capiche? No, probably you NEVER will.


Really? So explain, with the requisite maths and equations, how this is used to keep time. I'll wait.

Jul 18, 2019
CHOSEN 'standard' clock/ruler/scale etc to which the system under study is COMPARED 'relative to'
And that's precisely the point: there isn't any "standard" one like you claimed above.

Do try to keep up.

Jul 18, 2019


And my point was that the scientific literature does NOT explain a 'coupling mechanism' that can do BOTH. :)


So go write it up. Writing your woo on here is impressing nobody. Do I need to tell you again where these things are actually debated and discussed? Hint: it isn't on the comments sections of sci-news aggregates.

Jul 18, 2019
Noticed that yet again I have not received an answer to what space is "made of."

Just sayin'.

Jul 18, 2019
@Da Schneib.
CHOSEN 'standard' clock/ruler/scale etc to which the system under study is COMPARED 'relative to'
And that's precisely the point: there isn't any "standard" one like you claimed above.

Do try to keep up.
That was YOUR misconstruing, mate. The "standard clock" etc is a scientifically indispensable comparison 'standard' for the values of the system under study to be compared relative to. Any 'absoluteness' implication is YOURS not mine, DS. Please try to read in context and allowing for common scientific usage/terminology. Thanks. :)

Jul 18, 2019
Snicker. No, clocks don't tell time with radioactive elements. Atomic clocks use electron transitions, not nuclear radiation.
......and that is kinetic energy when electrons start moving around, a mechanical mechanism.


Oh dear. Get your foot out of your mouth, moron, because you just shot yourself in it! Again.
.....and more of the same coming out in you mister Anthropologist. Movement of mass, no matter how small, is kinetic energy in action......1/2mv². Capiche? No, probably you NEVER will.


Really? So explain, with the requisite maths and equations, how this is used to keep time. I'll wait.
....I gave it to you even before you thought to ask the question: KE=1/2mv² thus making my prediction come so quickly to pass that you did not "Capiche?", I predicted you wouldn't & you didn't disappoint.

Jul 18, 2019
There isn't any "standard clock." There's "the clock in my frame of reference," and every other differently moving or differently accelerating frame of reference's clocks disagree with it.

You're lying again @115LiarRC.

Jul 18, 2019
Snicker. No, clocks don't tell time with radioactive elements. Atomic clocks use electron transitions, not nuclear radiation.
......and that is kinetic energy when electrons start moving around, a mechanical mechanism.


Oh dear. Get your foot out of your mouth, moron, because you just shot yourself in it! Again.
.....and more of the same coming out in you mister Anthropologist. Movement of mass, no matter how small, is kinetic energy in action......1/2mv². Capiche? No, probably you NEVER will.


Really? So explain, with the requisite maths and equations, how this is used to keep time. I'll wait.
....I gave it to you even before you thought to ask the question: KE=1/2mv² thus making my prediction come so quickly to pass that you did not "Capiche?", I predicted you wouldn't & you didn't disappoint.


Nope, dickhead. I said, "how is this used to keep time." I am not seeing a T in that equation. Get on with it.

Jul 18, 2019
@Catrogiovanni.
Which claims do you allude to?...that spacetime expands THROUGH closing galaxies?...or...that spacetime expands to FORCE distant galaxies AWAY from each other?

My point: the scientific literature does NOT explain a 'coupling mechanism' that can do BOTH.

That INCONSISTENT 'set' of 'explanations' is the whole problem with "expanding spacetime" interpretations.

Not my problem. :)
So go write it up. Writing your woo on here is impressing nobody. Do I need to tell you again where these things are actually debated and discussed? Hint: it isn't on the comments sections of sci-news aggregates.
So, I again point out the glaring egregious inconsistency in expanding spacetime interpretations of cosmic recession velocity redshift 'explanations' that effectively makes your own beliefs/repetitions re same in this forum so far just a heap of illogical unscientific nonsense...and all you have to say is "write it up"? Where is your curiosity/objectivity, man! :)

Jul 18, 2019
There isn't any "standard clock." There's "the clock in my frame of reference," and every other differently moving or differently accelerating frame of reference's clocks disagree with it.
....and everyone of them run as a result of KE= 1/2mv².

Expenditure of Kinetic energy cannot transition into a fourth dimension called TIME, & expenditure of energy is what makes ALL measurements of TIME possible.

Jul 18, 2019
There isn't any "standard clock." There's "the clock in my frame of reference," and every other differently moving or differently accelerating frame of reference's clocks disagree with it.
....and everyone of them run as a result of KE= 1/2mv².

Expenditure of Kinetic energy cannot transition into a fourth dimension called TIME, & expenditure of energy is what makes ALL measurements of TIME possible.


Wrong.

Jul 18, 2019
Snicker. No, clocks don't tell time with radioactive elements. Atomic clocks use electron transitions, not nuclear radiation.
......and that is kinetic energy when electrons start moving around, a mechanical mechanism.


Bennie-Skippy,
I am not a nuclear engineer like you are not either, just a regular engineer. But that is wrong. I guess now you want to know how I know you got it wrong?

Movement of mass, no matter how small, is kinetic energy in action......1/2mv². Capiche? No, probably you NEVER will.


That's how I know you got it wrong. You give the formula for Newton-Skippy's kind of kinetic energy.

KE=1/2mv² thus making my prediction come so quickly to pass that you did not "Capiche?"


And since you do it twice we know it's not the typo.

You can not use the Newton-Skippy's maths to do the electron transitions, you got to use the quantum formulas that my computer won't write the letters for.

Jul 18, 2019
.....and all you have to say is "write it up"? Where is your curiosity/objectivity, man! :)


Why should I be interested in the musings of an unqualified clown on a comments section? Far smarter people than you are working in this field. If one of them has written something that agrees with whatever nonsense you are pushing, then link to it. For instance, how do they explain cosmological redshift from expansion?

Jul 18, 2019
@Da Schneib.
There isn't any "standard clock." There's "the clock in my frame of reference," and every other differently moving or differently accelerating frame of reference's clocks disagree with it.

You're lying again @115LiarRC.
*Sigh*

DS, what exactly is it about the term "comparing" the chosen system under study's values with a chosen 'standard clock' system (of whatever construction) that you don't get? Of course there must BE at least TWO systems, each in their respective 'frame of reference' which is 'relative to the others' frame of reference. So your comment wasn't necessary at all.

Why do you do this to yourself, DS? Is it because you really cannot read/understand properly in context? Or is it you need to 'show off' but instead make a fool of yourself like this and like in that other thread? It's not healthy, mate. Try to avoid doing that and just concentrate on the salient/contextual points that matter. Thanks. Good luck. :)

Jul 18, 2019
Your initial use of "standard clock" made it clear you were asserting absolute spacetime, that's what.

Don't say it if you don't mean it.

Jul 18, 2019
Why should I be interested in the musings of an unqualified clown on a comments section?
.....so why does your worthless degree in Anthropology qualify you for Commenting on anything in the field of science?

Jul 18, 2019
@Da Schneib.
Your initial use of "standard clock" made it clear you were asserting absolute spacetime, that's what.

Don't say it if you don't mean it.
Not so, mate; that was YOUR misreading of what I said in context and in common scientific terms about measurement systems chosen as the 'standard' for a particular observation/experiment/analysis comparison construct.

Please drop it, mate. No hard feelings this end. :)

Jul 18, 2019
Why should I be interested in the musings of an unqualified clown on a comments section?
.....so why does your worthless degree in Anthropology qualify you for Commenting on anything in the field of science?


I don't have a degree in anthropology, so the question is meaningless. I do, however, know more about physics than you do. Mind you, so does the average chimp.

Jul 18, 2019
Why should I be interested in the musings of an unqualified clown on a comments section?
.
....so why does your worthless degree in Anthropology qualify you for Commenting on anything in the field of science?


I don't have a degree in anthropology, so the question is meaningless.
I do, however, know more about physics than you do. Mind you, so does the average chimp.
........ then why are you unable, like schneibo, to comprehend that measurement of TIME requires an expenditure of kinetic energy, 1/2mv²? And as a reminder, kinetic energy does not operate in some silly 4th dimension that exists only in your head.......so much for your knowledge of physics.

Jul 18, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
.. For instance, how do they explain cosmological redshift from expansion?
I AM in the process of "writing it up", mate. But THAT is beside the point.

The point right NOW, between you and me, is the fact that those who formulated/promulgate the 'spacetime expansion' hypotheses/interpretations have a glaring inconsistency in their arguments/logics/claims, meaning that THEY (and now you) are NOT doing their/your "job" (as you put it).

Moreover, the Scientific Method says that FALSIFICATION can be done via reference to reality consistency and internal logical consistency of the hypothesis/claims. If they FAIL in any one of those things, then the hypotheses/claims are ipso facto falsified. No 'alternative' hypothesis/claim is required for falsification of the original hypothesis/claims. If an alternative hypothesis/explanation is available, that's a bonus, sure, but its absence would NOT mitigate the falsification of the original hypothesis/claims. See? :)

Jul 18, 2019
I'll drop it when you drop your bullshit.

Tit for tat.

Stop lying about what I said in order to make yourself look better. That would be a good start.

Jul 18, 2019
@Da Schneib.
I'll drop it when you drop your bullshit.

Tit for tat.
I didn't bring bullshit, so have nothing to drop. Whereas you on the other hand, DS, have been bringing a lot of it, here and in that other thread...so please drop it asap, mate. Thanks. No hard feelings. :)

Jul 18, 2019
Given you just lied about absolute spacetime, that's a pretty hollow thing to say.

Just say it, @116LiarRC: "Sorry, I fucked that one up. Thanks for correcting me."

It's not that hard. Unless you're another narcissistic troll.

Jul 18, 2019
@Da Schneib.
Given you just lied about absolute spacetime, that's a pretty hollow thing to say. Just say it, @116LiarRC: "Sorry, I fucked that one up. Thanks for correcting me." It's not that hard. Unless you're another narcissistic troll.
That is entirely a delusion of your own, mate, not supported by the actual posts themselves. You are fast falling into old bad habits, DS; please resist and reverse direction asap. For your own sake and for the sake of science. Thanks. :)

Jul 18, 2019
No, it's not a delusion. It's what you said, and if you're going to make a fuss about everything I say, you can expect me to make a fuss about everything you say.

Tit for tat.

Simple game theory.

Jul 18, 2019
please resist and reverse direction asap. For your own sake and for the sake of science. Thanks. :)
.......Unreal, you're confused about something here, "the sake of science" has NOTHING to do with the existence of schneibo, he believes so little that is based in science that he can never affect it's outcomes in any manner shape or form. He doesn't even know the difference between the 14.7 Beta Particle Decay of a neutron versus the Gamma Radiation Decay 1/2 life decay rates of atomic isotopes, and maybe you don't either?

Jul 18, 2019
@Da Schneib.
No, it's not a delusion. It's what you said, and if you're going to make a fuss about everything I say, you can expect me to make a fuss about everything you say.

Tit for tat.

Simple game theory.
Science discourse is NOT a "game", mate. It's serious and important human activity for the benefit of all. Your ego is making you treat it like a "game" you want to "win" at all costs even if you have to drag science discourse and your intellect/character into the gutter (or so it seems so far). Please stop playing 'games' and start being responsible scientist/human, at least while you are conversing with me re the science/logics involved. Thanks. :)

Jul 19, 2019
Given you just lied about absolute spacetime, that's a pretty hollow thing to say.

Just say it, @116LiarRC: "Sorry, I fucked that one up. Thanks for correcting me."

It's not that hard. Unless you're another narcissistic troll.


Uhhh What exactly IS Spacetime, Schneib? And what is the time part of Spacetime made of, Schneib? Explain Spacetime and its components. If you think that time is a dimension, such as what Einstein mistakenly included in his math equations in GR/SR, then you must KNOW without having to equivocate what time is and what it is comprised of. Is time a particle? Is it a palm tree? What is time made of, Schneib. YOU TOO, Carcinogen.

Jul 19, 2019
LOL I find it extremely amusing that those such as Schneib and Carcinogen can gravitate so well to the concepts of quarks, leptons and all those other new sub-particles as though they were discovered in the 1800s instead of relatively recently. But they cannot give us a proper description of what time is made of.
In order for time to be a real "object" as is Space, it has to have definite properties, capabilities, precise energies and motion/momentum.
So do tell us all that you know about TIME, Schneib. You too, Carcinogen aka Castrovagina

Jul 19, 2019
Schneib knows all about Bottom Beauty Quarks (sounds perverted), but can't tell us anything with regard to the composition of Time - the Time that he believes in.

Jul 19, 2019
LOL I find it extremely amusing that those such as Schneib and Carcinogen can gravitate so well to the concepts of quarks, leptons and all those other new sub-particles as though they were discovered in the 1800s instead of relatively recently. But they cannot give us a proper description of what time is made of.
In order for time to be a real "object" as is Space, it has to have definite properties, capabilities, precise energies and motion/momentum.
I am starting to suspect that time is nonexistent. Rather, clocks are measuring a change in entropy. When its spring is wound tight, and orderly, it is at a low entropy, as it unwinds, expending energy its entropy increases while changing the hands on the clock. Thus recording the progress of its change in entropy. ... The same would apply to any timing mechanism or process that changes over "time".

Jul 19, 2019
The impression on most humans that Time is a "thing" that is quantifiable and describable is SO ingrained in the Mind that it is virtually impossible to remove it and replace it with the correct idea that Time is ONLY a concept that was an invention of the human mind.
IF time was a real commodity, then it would have a purpose, just as Space and the 3 dimensions have a purpose and have their own qualities that are well defined. Time has none of those things. It isn't even a "thing". EM, magnetic fields, electric currents, Plasma, Hydrogen atoms are "things", for example. They have substance, whether or not observable.

Jul 19, 2019
........ then why are you unable, like schneibo, to comprehend that measurement of TIME requires an expenditure of kinetic energy, 1/2mv²? And as a reminder, kinetic energy does not operate in some silly 4th dimension that exists only in your head.......so much for your knowledge of physics.


Because it has nothing to do with kinetic energy, you cretin. Just link me to whoever is claiming this. Other than a Dunning-Kruger afflicted retard.

Jul 19, 2019
The impression on most humans that Time is a "thing" that is quantifiable and describable is SO ingrained in the Mind that it is virtually impossible to remove it and replace it with the correct idea that Time is ONLY a concept that was an invention of the human mind.


As not a single sane person is claiming such idiocy, there is no need to even contemplate such gibberish. Answer the question, dumbo;
How can we predict the time dilation before we've even sent up our satellite? What are the equations? Why do they work with astonishing precision? Why can you not explain this? Hint: because you are as thick as pigsh!t. Get back in your vivarium, lizard boy. You are out of your depth.

Jul 19, 2019
He doesn't even know the difference between the 14.7 Beta Particle Decay of a neutron versus the Gamma Radiation Decay 1/2 life decay rates of atomic isotopes, and maybe you don't either?


Errrr, no. That is you being thick again. The neutron decays with a half-life of ~ 10 mins. Its mean lifetime is ~ 14.7 mins. This is beta decay. Nothing to do with gamma decay, and nobody has ever claimed such idiocy. The fact that you can't figure this out is why people p!ss themselves laughing when you hilariously claim to be a nuclear engineer! Hint: you are a retard. Back to cleaning toilets, janitor boy.

Jul 19, 2019
I am starting to suspect that time is nonexistent. Rather, clocks are measuring a change in entropy. When its spring is wound tight, and orderly, it is at a low entropy, as it unwinds, expending energy its entropy increases while changing the hands on the clock. Thus recording the progress of its change in entropy. ... The same would apply to any timing mechanism or process that changes over "time".


And another fruitcake! All clocks have springs, do they? Lol. Tell us how this affects the electron transitions in a cesium atom. And how we are able to predict the difference between one clock in a satellite, and another on Earth, using equations that have nothing to do with entropy. Were you born stupid, or did you have to practice?

Jul 19, 2019
Can't you agree to disagree? It does not change ANYTHING if neither of you is right or wrong and neither of you can prove each other wrong. This is like an adult version of "I'm right" "No, I'm right" kind of child debate.

Respect other peoples' opinions even if they contradict yours. You can tell them your opinion and what it is based on but if the other party still has a different opinion, don't start a childish fight.

Jul 19, 2019
Can't you agree to disagree? It does not change ANYTHING if neither of you is right or wrong and neither of you can prove each other wrong. This is like an adult version of "I'm right" "No, I'm right" kind of child debate.

Respect other peoples' opinions even if they contradict yours. You can tell them your opinion and what it is based on but if the other party still has a different opinion, don't start a childish fight.


Science is not based on the opinions of unqualified fruitloops. Either relativistic time dilation occurs, or it doesn't. The overwhelming evidence is that it does. Any challenge to that needs to show how our calculations keep coming out right. Given that we are dealing with people who have no idea about either science or mathematics, that is never going to happen.

Jul 19, 2019
The whole point of science is that it's not based on opinions. It's based on facts, that is, on repeatable experiments and repeatable observations. Like time dilation for example.

Jul 19, 2019
Yes, I understand both of your points schneib and castrogiovanni. But as SEU claims, there's another mechanism that explains time dilation. So you both parties agree on time dilation but you are just arguing about what "makes" it. There's no way of proving either correct or wrong. At least I can't come up with a way.

So it's not that you have different opinions. It's more like you have different theories.

Jul 19, 2019
Yes, I understand both of your points schneib and castrogiovanni. But as SEU claims, there's another mechanism that explains time dilation. So you both parties agree on time dilation but you are just arguing about what "makes" it. There's no way of proving either correct or wrong. At least I can't come up with a way.

So it's not that you have different opinions. It's more like you have different theories.


No, and that is the point - SEU doesn't have a mechanism! Just a bunch of untutored word salad. I can prove that what the real scientists say is correct. I can use a couple of equations to figure out the offset needed in a GPS clock due to relativistic effects. And people have obviously done this. It matches precisely with observation . SEU can do no such thing, nor even give us an equation for his idiocy. Heck, he even claimed that clocks tick slower at altitude than at sea level! Which is arse about face.
There is no reason to give these people head space. They are clueless

Jul 19, 2019
Tell us how this affects the electron transitions in a cesium atom.
.......KE=1/2mv², there I just gave it you for about the fourth time, but your tiny brain is unable to process it because ENERGY of any kind is incomprehensible nuclear physics for you as an Anthropologist.

You are simply unable to comprehend an electron as being MASS & that being mass it cannot move even the smallest distance without the input of energy to move it, it's also called WORK. Again, capiche? No, most likely you don't.


Jul 19, 2019
Yes, I understand both of your points schneib and castrogiovanni. But as SEU claims, there's another mechanism that explains time dilation. So you both parties agree on time dilation but you are just arguing about what "makes" it. There's no way of proving either correct or wrong. At least I can't come up with a way.
......there certainly is a way to understanding the concept when viewed through "distance dilation" of an observer at lightspeed versus lesser distance dilation of an observer traveling at less than lightspeed.

At the speed of light the distance to an object appears much closer to an observer than if the observer were moving at 50k mph. For example if I were approaching the east coast of the U.S. from the Atlantic Ocean traveling at lightspeed, the distance to Los Angeles will appear to be about half of what it really is at 50k mph, this is "distance contraction" in GR & should not be confused with "length contraction" at relativistic speeds.


Jul 19, 2019
Tell us how this affects the electron transitions in a cesium atom.
.......KE=1/2mv², there I just gave it you for about the fourth time, but your tiny brain is unable to process it because ENERGY of any kind is incomprehensible nuclear physics for you as an Anthropologist.

You are simply unable to comprehend an electron as being MASS & that being mass it cannot move even the smallest distance without the input of energy to move it, it's also called WORK. Again, capiche? No, most likely you don't.



And for the umpteenth time, how is this used to measure time, you clown? Where is it written up? Because I can show you how it really works, and it has nothing to do with the crap you have written. Get yourself an education, janitor boy.

Jul 19, 2019
If there's no such thing as time, what do the clocks measure?

Idiot.

Clocks measure an hour just as a ruler measures a meter. But a meter is only a man made concept just as is an hour.

Jul 19, 2019
If there's no such thing as time, what do the clocks measure?

Idiot.

Clocks measure an hour just as a ruler measures a meter. But a meter is only a man made concept just as is an hour.

Sooo…. by SEU's definition, Space is only a figment of mind, too...
Might as well continue on and say the same of particles...

Jul 19, 2019
Space is only a figment of mind, too...

Space is a three dimensional place, particles are three dimensional objects, these are real.
Those who conflate space and time into space-time are delving into pseudoscientific claptrap as time is a measurement. In this sense, one may as well refer to space-length or box-time but all should know those concepts are meaningless, just as is space-time.

Jul 19, 2019
At the speed of light the distance to an object appears much closer to an observer than if the observer were moving at 50k mph.
....actually what I meant to say is that: At RELATIVISTIC speeds approaching that of light the distance to an object appears much closer to an observer than if the observer were moving at 50k mph. At about 95% the speed of light the distance between New York City & Los Angeles will appear to be about half of what it appears to a non-relativistic observer.

At the speed of light "relative distance contraction" becomes ZERO, that is to say distances between objects appear as zero & no time expires for travel between the two objects. This is why Minkowski totally screwed up the concept of "spacetime", it's because at lightspeed TIME ceases to exist, something Einstein knew & Minkowski didn't.

So anyone who thinks TIME is another dimension needs to come up with an explanation for why it disappears at lightspeed when ALL perception of distance disappears.

Jul 19, 2019
@Benni

You can not use the Newton-Skippy's maths to do the electron transitions, you got to use the quantum formulas that my computer won't write the letters for.

Come now Benni what say you to a direct challenge to your non-existent nuculer degree.

Jul 19, 2019
Sez Egg:

I've already said that time does not dilate. It is only a CONCEPT, AN IDEA, A NOTHING. You are only measuring the DILATION of SPACE, BECAUSE SPACE HAS ALL THE CAPABILITIES OF DILATING, MOTION, EXPANSION, SHRINKING.
.......absolutely correct, it is distance that dilates not time.

When distance along the path of travel between two objects reaches lightspeed TIME as a measurable parameter ceases to exist, this because at lightspeed the distance caused by Relativist distance contraction is zero, therefore the kinetic energy principle by which we measure TIME ceases to exist at lightspeed.

Egg, be sure you write this up in your proposed abstract, I've written about this before here in this blessed little chatroom, but words out of sight are often words out of mind.


Jul 19, 2019
Space is only a figment of mind, too...

Space is a three dimensional place, particles are three dimensional objects, these are real.
Those who conflate space and time into space-time are delving into pseudoscientific claptrap as time is a measurement. In this sense, one may as well refer to space-length or box-time but all should know those concepts are meaningless, just as is space-time.

Annndddd... What are we measuring? For all practical purposes -Sequential motion...
The word defines those "3-d objects" sequential "event" phases.
Time is very much an integral component of space.
Time is "touched" in every single femto-second you continue to exist , at every single change event, by every single particle of matter or energy in your body.
(or anything else, for that matter)
Ha! See what I did there?

Jul 19, 2019
Sez Egg:

I've already said that time does not dilate. It is only a CONCEPT, AN IDEA, A NOTHING. You are only measuring the DILATION of SPACE, BECAUSE SPACE HAS ALL THE CAPABILITIES OF DILATING, MOTION, EXPANSION, SHRINKING.
.......absolutely correct, it is distance that dilates not time.

When distance along the path of travel between two objects reaches lightspeed

Distance does not ever reach light speed. The object travelling a distance does.
TIME as a measurable parameter ceases to exist, this because at lightspeed the distance caused by Relativist distance contraction is zero, therefore the kinetic energy principle by which we measure TIME

Pure gobbledy gook. It's just happening faster than OUR time frame..
ceases to exist at lightspeed.

MORE pure gobbledy gook...

Jul 19, 2019
If there's no such thing as time, what do the clocks measure?

Idiot.

Clocks measure an hour just as a ruler measures a meter. But a meter is only a man made concept just as is an hour.


An hour is a man made concept. Time is not. ET will have different measures of time and distance. But they will still measure them.

Jul 19, 2019
Egg, be sure you write this up in your proposed abstract, I've written about this before here in this blessed little chatroom, but words out of sight are often words out of mind.


Christ, what a laugh! Two mentally retarded clowns trying to rewrite science as we know it! One of them thinks he is possessed by an alien lizard, and that Voyager has reached the Oort cloud; the other does not even know what a half-life is, and cannot even do basic arithmetic! You can see why they post on here, rather than physics forums!

Jul 19, 2019
Space is only a figment of mind, too...

Space is a three dimensional place, particles are three dimensional objects, these are real.
Those who conflate space and time into space-time are delving into pseudoscientific claptrap as time is a measurement. In this sense, one may as well refer to space-length or box-time but all should know those concepts are meaningless, just as is space-time.


Wrong woo boy. As theorised by Einstein a century ago. And proven countless times since. Does space get warped by mass? Yep. See gravitational lensing. Does time get altered in SR and GR? Yep, see GPS. Take a clock for a ride on a plane. Take it up a mountain. Just because your lack of intellect and education renders you incapable of understanding such things, does not invalidate them. Especially when the person claiming such things thinks Earth used to orbit Saturn, Venus came flying out of Jupiter, and the Sun is a giant lightbulb!

Jul 19, 2019
Pure gobbledy gook. It's just happening faster than OUR time frame...

Correction. Slower.
ceases to exist at lightspeed.

(Still)
MORE pure gobbledy gook...


Jul 19, 2019
Sorry, @cortezz, I don't see where @SEU has said what either time or space is made of, all I see is @SEU saying time doesn't exist. Which is stupid given clocks and GPS. Not to mention all of classical mechanics, and the fact that time can be calculated and the calculations predict what will happen in the future accurately.

And incidentally "the future" is a time. So is "the past." So @SEU is saying neither the future nor the past exist. Ridiculous. There's no "theory" here, just a bunch of bullshit.