Hello!

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.
Michael Mozina
Posts: 2295
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:35 pm

Re: Hello!

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Thu Apr 23, 2020 6:21 am

crawler wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 11:08 pm If the universe is infinite then the numbers of stars is infinite in every direction.
And yet in terms of the number stars producing photons capable of reaching the Earth at any given second would result in a background temperature of around 3 degrees. You seem to be dismissing the whole distance aspect, the effect of the inverse square law, and ignoring the fact that suns aren't even infinite temperature to begin with. We only see about 8400 stars of the hundreds of billions of stars in our own galaxy, so your assertion is easily demonstrated to be false. If you were correct we would have to be able to see every star in our local galaxy cluster. It simply doesn't work like that.

At enough distance, suns at even a *finite* distance are incapable of producing photons that can reach the Earth, and photons only travel a *finite* distance before breing scattered or obsorbed and reimitted.

Ultimately the temperature of dust in space is determined by the number of photons (total lumens) striking a dust particle, and it's a *finite* amount, regardless of the size of the universe.

The only way the whole universe could be an infinite temperature is for every square inch of the whole universe to be contained inside of a infinitely dense, infinite temperature sun. In our *actual* universe, suns have a *limited* temperature, they have a limited size, they emit a *limited* number of photons at those limited temperatures, and their light travels a *limited* distance before being deflected, absorbed or blocked in some way. You're grossly ignoring the key differences between what would be required to sustain infinite temperature and what's actually possible in the *real* universe.
Stars would of course block starlight from other stars, but if energy is conserved then the temperature everywhere would be infinite,
No, suns are not infinite temperatures to begin with.
flux etc would be infinite in every direction,
False. See Scott's explanation. The distance light can travel is ultimately *finite*, not infinite.
no matter what the average temperature of stars.
That's not even remotely possible.
This is based on the universe being in existence for eternity, ie light has come from infinity.
You're still ignoring the whole "tired light" aspect by the way. Again, redshift is *observed* so the there is no possibility of light from infinitely distance suns ever reaching Earth.
The visibility of individual stars by the eye doesn't change this.
Of course it does. It's the same basic issue. The light from *finite* temperature suns can only travel so far before it becomes irrelevant tin terms of luminosity or temperature.

You're grossly distorting the problem by ignoring several key points which I've cited above. The suns are a finite temperature. Only finite number of stars will be capable of producing photons that will reach Earth. The *average density* of starlight ultimately determines temperature, and they can only be *finite* inside of our physical universe due to the distances between stars, the inverse square laws, and the scattering/absorbing effects of dust in space.

crawler
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Hello!

Unread post by crawler » Thu Apr 23, 2020 10:10 pm

Michael Mozina wrote: Thu Apr 23, 2020 6:21 am
crawler wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 11:08 pm If the universe is infinite then the numbers of stars is infinite in every direction.
And yet in terms of the number stars producing photons capable of reaching the Earth at any given second would result in a background temperature of around 3 degrees. You seem to be dismissing the whole distance aspect, the effect of the inverse square law, and ignoring the fact that suns aren't even infinite temperature to begin with. We only see about 8400 stars of the hundreds of billions of stars in our own galaxy, so your assertion is easily demonstrated to be false. If you were correct we would have to be able to see every star in our local galaxy cluster. It simply doesn't work like that.

At enough distance, suns at even a *finite* distance are incapable of producing photons that can reach the Earth, and photons only travel a *finite* distance before breing scattered or obsorbed and reimitted.

Ultimately the temperature of dust in space is determined by the number of photons (total lumens) striking a dust particle, and it's a *finite* amount, regardless of the size of the universe.

The only way the whole universe could be an infinite temperature is for every square inch of the whole universe to be contained inside of a infinitely dense, infinite temperature sun. In our *actual* universe, suns have a *limited* temperature, they have a limited size, they emit a *limited* number of photons at those limited temperatures, and their light travels a *limited* distance before being deflected, absorbed or blocked in some way. You're grossly ignoring the key differences between what would be required to sustain infinite temperature and what's actually possible in the *real* universe.
Stars would of course block starlight from other stars, but if energy is conserved then the temperature everywhere would be infinite,
No, suns are not infinite temperatures to begin with.
flux etc would be infinite in every direction,
False. See Scott's explanation. The distance light can travel is ultimately *finite*, not infinite.
no matter what the average temperature of stars.
That's not even remotely possible.
This is based on the universe being in existence for eternity, ie light has come from infinity.
You're still ignoring the whole "tired light" aspect by the way. Again, redshift is *observed* so the there is no possibility of light from infinitely distance suns ever reaching Earth.
The visibility of individual stars by the eye doesn't change this.
Of course it does. It's the same basic issue. The light from *finite* temperature suns can only travel so far before it becomes irrelevant tin terms of luminosity or temperature.

You're grossly distorting the problem by ignoring several key points which I've cited above. The suns are a finite temperature. Only finite number of stars will be capable of producing photons that will reach Earth. The *average density* of starlight ultimately determines temperature, and they can only be *finite* inside of our physical universe due to the distances between stars, the inverse square laws, and the scattering/absorbing effects of dust in space.
An infinite number of light sources in any/all directions must give an infinite temperature everywhere, if the universe is eternal. It doesn't matter whether the sources are 1 K or 6000 K. I am ok with each shell giving a small finite number of photons/square m, but if we have an infinite number of shells then we must have an infinite number of photons, & an infinite number of photons/square m.

I agree that there is some kind of extinction happening, hencely we don't see an infinitely bright sky or an infinite temperature. But that extinction has to involve energy being destroyed, ie being taken out of our quantum world & hidden in the subquantum world (eg the aether). Simple redshifting (eg simple tired light)(or the new tired light)(or scattering etc) wont do the trick, because it merely shifts the energy into the temperature of dust or plasma, or to the speed of dust or plasma, ie the energy is still in our quantum world.

The visibility of individual stars is not an issue. If u have lots of stars in near alignment then the eye will detect the resulting large number of photons entering the eye from that direction. One galaxy might not be visible to the naked eye (even if it subtends 3 deg), but if u align a large number of such galaxies then u will have a large number of photons from that direction.

The explanation for Olber's Paradox must involve an aether, ie a subquantum energy sink.
And as i said earlier, the official EU aether is made of neutrinos. Neutrinos would be able to absorb & hide energy, but if we are talking about an infinite universe & an infinite amount of energy then neutrinos cant hide all of that.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Hello!

Unread post by Aardwolf » Fri Apr 24, 2020 1:14 pm

crawler wrote: Thu Apr 23, 2020 10:10 pmAn infinite number of light sources in any/all directions must give an infinite temperature everywhere, if the universe is eternal.
Surely you would need to divide that infinite temperature by the amount of infinite space it needs to occupy. So what is the average ratio of star to surrounding space? In our galaxy the average star has a 5 light year sphere to fill so roughly 1:8000000000000000000000000000000000000000. And that's in a relatively densely populated part of space. Divide again for average space between galaxies...

I doubt the infinite amount of energy/light/temp provided by the stars can barely make a scratch on infinite amount of space it needs to fill. 2-3 kelvin is probably about right.

crawler
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Hello!

Unread post by crawler » Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:20 pm

Aardwolf wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 1:14 pm
crawler wrote: Thu Apr 23, 2020 10:10 pmAn infinite number of light sources in any/all directions must give an infinite temperature everywhere, if the universe is eternal.
Surely you would need to divide that infinite temperature by the amount of infinite space it needs to occupy. So what is the average ratio of star to surrounding space? In our galaxy the average star has a 5 light year sphere to fill so roughly 1:8000000000000000000000000000000000000000. And that's in a relatively densely populated part of space. Divide again for average space between galaxies...

I doubt the infinite amount of energy/light/temp provided by the stars can barely make a scratch on infinite amount of space it needs to fill. 2-3 kelvin is probably about right.
No that's not how it works. If a star emits only one photon per second then an infinite number of stars in every direction must yield an infinite number of photons. And don't forget that we have an infinite number of directions, ie stars behind u are doing the same. Don't forget, we are talking about an eternity, an eternal universe. If we are talking about a certain duration of time then your arithmetic would be ok-ish, but we are talking about eternity.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 2295
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:35 pm

Re: Hello!

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Fri Apr 24, 2020 3:40 pm

crawler wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:20 pm
Aardwolf wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 1:14 pm
crawler wrote: Thu Apr 23, 2020 10:10 pmAn infinite number of light sources in any/all directions must give an infinite temperature everywhere, if the universe is eternal.
Surely you would need to divide that infinite temperature by the amount of infinite space it needs to occupy. So what is the average ratio of star to surrounding space? In our galaxy the average star has a 5 light year sphere to fill so roughly 1:8000000000000000000000000000000000000000. And that's in a relatively densely populated part of space. Divide again for average space between galaxies...

I doubt the infinite amount of energy/light/temp provided by the stars can barely make a scratch on infinite amount of space it needs to fill. 2-3 kelvin is probably about right.
No that's not how it works.
Yes, it *is* how it works! You're ignoring the fact that suns do not even achieve an 'infinite" temperature to begin with, and the distance *between* suns is vast. You do end up with an infinitely large amount of energy being divided by an infinitely large amount of space, and you end up with a very small number, not a very large number as it relates to the *average* temperature of everything in vastness of "space".
If a star emits only one photon per second then an infinite number of stars in every direction must yield an infinite number of photons.
Nope because eventually that photon will be absorbed and remitted as "heat" from particles between suns which ultimately convert higher speed photons in a lower energy photons.
And don't forget that we have an infinite number of directions, ie stars behind u are doing the same. Don't forget, we are talking about an eternity, an eternal universe. If we are talking about a certain duration of time then your arithmetic would be ok-ish, but we are talking about eternity.
But you're ultimately talking about photons that were never 'infinitely hot" to start with being spread out over an infinite amount of "space". There's absolutely no possibility of achieving "infinite temperatures" from finite temperatures suns that are light years apart.

crawler
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Hello!

Unread post by crawler » Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:37 pm

Michael Mozina wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 3:40 pm
crawler wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:20 pm
Aardwolf wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 1:14 pm
crawler wrote: Thu Apr 23, 2020 10:10 pmAn infinite number of light sources in any/all directions must give an infinite temperature everywhere, if the universe is eternal.
Surely you would need to divide that infinite temperature by the amount of infinite space it needs to occupy. So what is the average ratio of star to surrounding space? In our galaxy the average star has a 5 light year sphere to fill so roughly 1:8000000000000000000000000000000000000000. And that's in a relatively densely populated part of space. Divide again for average space between galaxies...

I doubt the infinite amount of energy/light/temp provided by the stars can barely make a scratch on infinite amount of space it needs to fill. 2-3 kelvin is probably about right.
No that's not how it works.
Yes, it *is* how it works! You're ignoring the fact that suns do not even achieve an 'infinite" temperature to begin with, and the distance *between* suns is vast. You do end up with an infinitely large amount of energy being divided by an infinitely large amount of space, and you end up with a very small number, not a very large number as it relates to the *average* temperature of everything in vastness of "space".
If a star emits only one photon per second then an infinite number of stars in every direction must yield an infinite number of photons.
Nope because eventually that photon will be absorbed and remitted as "heat" from particles between suns which ultimately convert higher speed photons in a lower energy photons.
And don't forget that we have an infinite number of directions, ie stars behind u are doing the same. Don't forget, we are talking about an eternity, an eternal universe. If we are talking about a certain duration of time then your arithmetic would be ok-ish, but we are talking about eternity.
But you're ultimately talking about photons that were never 'infinitely hot" to start with being spread out over an infinite amount of "space". There's absolutely no possibility of achieving "infinite temperatures" from finite temperatures suns that are light years apart.
I agree that we don't see infinite brightness or infinite temperature. My explanation was/is that there is extinction of energy/photons.
Absorption or conversion to lower energy photons cant do the trick, because we are talking about infinite km & eternal years. Proper extinction must involve the removal of energy from our quantum universe.

Density of photons per cubic metre i admit needs thinking. If stars produced just one photon per star per eternity then photon density in the universe would be debatable. But my reasoning was based on stars emitting photons for eternity, ie each star has already emitted an infinite number of photons on its own (& will emit an infinite number in the future). And this is not changed by invoking a limited life to each star, at least not if dying stars are continuously replaced by new stars.

Old tired light, new tired light, black holes, none of these provide proper extinction of energy, they merely change the energy, or kidnap it for a short while.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 2295
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:35 pm

Re: Hello!

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Sat Apr 25, 2020 7:42 pm

crawler wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:37 pm I agree that we don't see infinite brightness or infinite temperature. My explanation was/is that there is extinction of energy/photons.
Absorption or conversion to lower energy photons cant do the trick, because we are talking about infinite km & eternal years. Proper extinction must involve the removal of energy from our quantum universe.
This conversation has essentially run it's course because you've become impervious to common sense and logic, and your beliefs have no mathematical basis or expression so it's impossible to show you the error in any math.

First of all, it's physically impossible for finite temperature suns to heat the universe to infinite temperatures even if you put them all together in a single location. Even photons associated with heat follow the inverse square law, and photons from our sun (and every sun) have a finite temperate and could only act to provided continuous heating to keep everything at a finite temperature at best case.

Secondly, energy *cannot* be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms so there simply is no such thing as 'extinction" as you're envisioning it. Photons however can be absorbed by dust particles and reemitted at lower energy states in the infrared, so essentially things can "cool off" over time.

Lastly, and most frustratingly, you're simply ignoring the vastness of the distances involved and the affect of the inverse square laws, tired light mechanisms, and dust in terms of the finite limitation of photons. We can only see about 8400 of the hundreds of billions of stars in our own galaxy.

You're essentially just latching onto the term "infinity' in terms of *space* and trying to inappropriately apply it to temperature. Thermodynamics simply doesn't work light that.

Density of photons per cubic metre i admit needs thinking.
Yes it does, but also the energy state of the photons themselves per cubic meter. You couldn't ever hope to take any number of 6000K suns and heat the space between them to greater than 6000K no matter what you did. In a *best* case scenario you could claim that the whole universe would radiate at the average temperature of suns, but there is simply no logical or rational basis for claiming the universe would achieve an infinite temperature from finite temperature suns, and finite energy photons.
If stars produced just one photon per star per eternity then photon density in the universe would be debatable. But my reasoning was based on stars emitting photons for eternity, ie each star has already emitted an infinite number of photons on its own (& will emit an infinite number in the future). And this is not changed by invoking a limited life to each star, at least not if dying stars are continuously replaced by new stars.
But again, you'd have to also accept the fact that there is "infinite space" between all those suns, so it's an infinite number of *limited energy* photons divided by an infinite volume. The net result is an average temperature that is *far lower* than the average temperature of suns.
Old tired light, new tired light, black holes, none of these provide proper extinction of energy, they merely change the energy, or kidnap it for a short while.
Regardless of what they do with it, the net effect of *every* tired light mechanism would be to put a physical limit on how far any number of photons could hope to travel through space. At some point the light is simply redshifted out of any value as it relates to sustaining temperature.

crawler
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Hello!

Unread post by crawler » Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:51 pm

Yes we have all pretty much exhausted our arguments, & nobody has changed their minds.
I want to remind the jury that one lone star shining for eternity will produce an infinite number of photons.

There can be no such thing as cooling off unless we have extinction of energy. But we do see cooling off, hencely we must have extinction of energy somewhere.

Energy is being created & destroyed all the time. Photons are created, & then sustained (they propagate for ever). Charge fields & magnetic fields are sustained, & electron orbits are sustained. Gravitational fields are sustained. All such creation & sustenance must be balanced by extinction, & i say that creation & extinction involve movement tween the subquantum aether & our quantum world.

Standard science says there was a bigbang, & a BB would too involve some kind of creation of energy etc. But because they believe in a finite universe then they don't need extinction (even if eternal).

We only need extinction if our universe is both (1) infinite & (2) eternal. And i should add a third requirement -- (3) that new energy is being created -- because being infinite & eternal would not of themselves require extinction unless we accept that new energy is being added.

In effect there are hidden energy pipelines in our aetheric universe, linking major zones of creation (mainly creation of photons) with major zones of annihilation (mainly in super stars)(mainly annihilation of photons).
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Hello!

Unread post by Aardwolf » Mon Apr 27, 2020 9:52 pm

crawler wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:51 pmI want to remind the jury that one lone star shining for eternity will produce an infinite number of photons.
True but the more distant the you are observing this star, the less likely you are able to receive any photons from it.

The error I think you are making is to expect a full continuous sphere of light at an infinite distance when in fact the light at further distances will be spread out more discretely. Light from a star can only emit photons relative to the area of its surface. On a sphere of 1 billion ly radius a single square meter of the sun needs to fill an area of 1.4 light years square. That's a miniscule amount of light over a vast area and the further away you go the more spread out the light is and it doesn't matter if you add infinite stars because you then need to add infinite distance and the ratio still equates to slightly greater than nil.

So yes you could have infinite light from all directions but you have to accept most of that light is at an infinite distance and we have an infinitely small chance of ever receiving a single photon from it. It's the reason why the Hubble Deep Field images need 30+ hours of exposure to build a single image.

crawler
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Hello!

Unread post by crawler » Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:31 am

Aardwolf wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 9:52 pm
crawler wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:51 pmI want to remind the jury that one lone star shining for eternity will produce an infinite number of photons.
True but the more distant the you are observing this star, the less likely you are able to receive any photons from it.

The error I think you are making is to expect a full continuous sphere of light at an infinite distance when in fact the light at further distances will be spread out more discretely. Light from a star can only emit photons relative to the area of its surface. On a sphere of 1 billion ly radius a single square meter of the sun needs to fill an area of 1.4 light years square. That's a miniscule amount of light over a vast area and the further away you go the more spread out the light is and it doesn't matter if you add infinite stars because you then need to add infinite distance and the ratio still equates to slightly greater than nil.

So yes you could have infinite light from all directions but you have to accept most of that light is at an infinite distance and we have an infinitely small chance of ever receiving a single photon from it. It's the reason why the Hubble Deep Field images need 30+ hours of exposure to build a single image.
I am pretty sure that all of them points have been covered by both sides. We all agree that there is extinction, the main difference being that i say that tired light etc is not true extinction (of energy). And then i use my infinity & eternity arguments to show why true extinction is needed, & why some kind of tired light faux-extinction cant do the trick. The key point is the true statement that each cosmic shell contributes about the same flux per square metre (because we have rr/rr), but this means that an infinity of shells potentially gives an infinite flux per square metre, unless (i say) there is true extinction happening, but my opposition says that faux-extinction is good enough.

We have an infinite universe with an infinite number of stars that have been emitting photons (adding energy) for an eternity. Here the energy aint in our quantum world & then is.
The answer is that out there somewhere there are things that have been eating photons for eternity. And here i mean the energy was in our quantum world & then aint. Tired light doesn't do the trick.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Hello!

Unread post by Aardwolf » Tue Apr 28, 2020 11:42 pm

crawler wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:31 amI am pretty sure that all of them points have been covered by both sides. We all agree that there is extinction, the main difference being that i say that tired light etc is not true extinction (of energy). And then i use my infinity & eternity arguments to show why true extinction is needed, & why some kind of tired light faux-extinction cant do the trick. The key point is the true statement that each cosmic shell contributes about the same flux per square metre (because we have rr/rr), but this means that an infinity of shells potentially gives an infinite flux per square metre, unless (i say) there is true extinction happening, but my opposition says that faux-extinction is good enough.

We have an infinite universe with an infinite number of stars that have been emitting photons (adding energy) for an eternity. Here the energy aint in our quantum world & then is.
The answer is that out there somewhere there are things that have been eating photons for eternity. And here i mean the energy was in our quantum world & then aint. Tired light doesn't do the trick.
I don't agree there is any extinction. There's just a very small amount of light in a very large amount of space.

Look at it this way.

I am standing at the centre of the universe surrounded by an infinite number of snipers in every direction. They all have an infinite amount of ammo and for each mile distant there are 5 times as many snipers, but they only have 10% accuracy over each additional mile and shoot once per hour. How many times will I be hit in a day? I assume you would think it should be infinite as I have 2 infinite multipliers in there, but let’s work it out;

1 mile sphere = 5 snipers shoot 24 times with 10% accuracy = Hit 12 times.
2 mile sphere = 25 snipers shoot 24 times with 1% accuracy = Hit 6 times.
3 mile sphere = 125 snipers shoot 24 times with 0.1% accuracy = Hit 3 times.
4 mile sphere = 625 snipers shoot 24 times with 0.01% accuracy = Hit 1.5 times.
And so on…

I will never be hit more than 24 times a day due to diminishing returns even if you continue to calculate to an infinite number of spheres with an infinite number of snipers. It is true that I will be eventually be hit with an infinite amount of bullets but it will take an infinite amount of time for that to accumulate. The measurement over a single hour/day/year etc. is tiny compared to that.

This is how we should understand light. Yes, you might expect to see an infinite amount of light but you need to stare at the sky for an infinite amount of time.

crawler
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Hello!

Unread post by crawler » Wed Apr 29, 2020 12:55 am

If the first sphere/shell is 1 mile radius, & if there are 5 snipers on the first sphere, then the next sphere will have 20 snipers, etc. If the 5 snipers on the 1 mile sphere have a 100% accuracy then the 2 mile sphere is likely to have a 25% accuracy, etc. If the 1 mile sphere has 120 hits per day then the 2 mile sphere will have 120 hits per day, etc.

This results in an infinite number of hits per day, if an infinite number of spheres. And if per eternity instead of per day then the number of hits is still an infinite number of hits per eternity. The numbers go like this (your numbers are in parenthesis)………….

1 mile sphere = 5 (5) snipers shoot (24) times with 100% (10)% accuracy = Hit 120 (12) times.
2 mile sphere = 5*4=20 (25) snipers shoot (24) times with 100/4% (1)% accuracy = Hit 120 (6) times.
3 mile sphere = 5*9=45 (125) snipers shoot (24) times with 100/9% (0.1)% accuracy = Hit 120 (3) times.
4 mile sphere = 5*16=80 (625) snipers shoot (24) times with 100/16% (0.01)% accuracy = Hit 120 (1.5) times. And so on…
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 2295
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:35 pm

Re: Hello!

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Wed Apr 29, 2020 5:42 pm

Aardwolf wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 9:52 pm
crawler wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:51 pmI want to remind the jury that one lone star shining for eternity will produce an infinite number of photons.
True but the more distant the you are observing this star, the less likely you are able to receive any photons from it.

The error I think you are making is to expect a full continuous sphere of light at an infinite distance when in fact the light at further distances will be spread out more discretely. Light from a star can only emit photons relative to the area of its surface. On a sphere of 1 billion ly radius a single square meter of the sun needs to fill an area of 1.4 light years square. That's a miniscule amount of light over a vast area and the further away you go the more spread out the light is and it doesn't matter if you add infinite stars because you then need to add infinite distance and the ratio still equates to slightly greater than nil.
I fear you're fighting a losing battle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincibl ... ce_fallacy

So yes you could have infinite light from all directions but you have to accept most of that light is at an infinite distance and we have an infinitely small chance of ever receiving a single photon from it. It's the reason why the Hubble Deep Field images need 30+ hours of exposure to build a single image.
That's really the key issue. A CCD can "add up" the total number of photons that it receives over time, whereas our eyes cannot. That's why we only "see" about 8400 of the hundreds of billions of star in our own galaxy with our own eyes, whereas we can see many more of them Hubble images.

It's also the case that *whatever* the cause of redshift, it has the net effect of putting a distance limit on how far photons can actually travel through spae, meaning that suns beyond a specific distance could not ever produce photons that actually reach Earth anymore. Furthermore, there's no possible way that finite temperature suns could ever heat the whole universe to an 'infinite' temperature. None of crawler's arguments hold any water, but alas he just doesn't care.

crawler
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Hello!

Unread post by crawler » Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:43 pm

Michael Mozina wrote: Wed Apr 29, 2020 5:42 pm
Aardwolf wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 9:52 pm
crawler wrote: Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:51 pmI want to remind the jury that one lone star shining for eternity will produce an infinite number of photons.
True but the more distant the you are observing this star, the less likely you are able to receive any photons from it.

The error I think you are making is to expect a full continuous sphere of light at an infinite distance when in fact the light at further distances will be spread out more discretely. Light from a star can only emit photons relative to the area of its surface. On a sphere of 1 billion ly radius a single square meter of the sun needs to fill an area of 1.4 light years square. That's a miniscule amount of light over a vast area and the further away you go the more spread out the light is and it doesn't matter if you add infinite stars because you then need to add infinite distance and the ratio still equates to slightly greater than nil.
I fear you're fighting a losing battle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincibl ... ce_fallacy

So yes you could have infinite light from all directions but you have to accept most of that light is at an infinite distance and we have an infinitely small chance of ever receiving a single photon from it. It's the reason why the Hubble Deep Field images need 30+ hours of exposure to build a single image.
That's really the key issue. A CCD can "add up" the total number of photons that it receives over time, whereas our eyes cannot. That's why we only "see" about 8400 of the hundreds of billions of star in our own galaxy with our own eyes, whereas we can see many more of them Hubble images.

It's also the case that *whatever* the cause of redshift, it has the net effect of putting a distance limit on how far photons can actually travel through spae, meaning that suns beyond a specific distance could not ever produce photons that actually reach Earth anymore. Furthermore, there's no possible way that finite temperature suns could ever heat the whole universe to an 'infinite' temperature. None of crawler's arguments hold any water, but alas he just doesn't care.
The essence of my argument is not how far a photon can travel, it is that a photon & its energy are eternal. A tired light that kills a photon must result in raising temperature, in which case eventually a new photon is created. And in this case it doesn't matter which way it travels. Hencely Olber's Paradox is not explained by any old or new tired light theory that i have seen, but it is explained by Ranzan's cosmic stretching of aether theory.

That there invincible ignorance fallacy describes u fellows. I am perfectly open to science. Show me where my sniper calculations are wrong & i will then have to change my mind.

And yes, it is a losing battle, because my arguments are true.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 2295
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:35 pm

Re: Hello!

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Fri May 01, 2020 3:53 pm

crawler wrote: Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:43 pm The essence of my argument is not how far a photon can travel, it is that a photon & its energy are eternal.
Therein lies the rub. You're ignoring the fact that there *is* a practical limit as to how far photons can travel in *all* tired light models. At some point (distance), there simply are no more photons reaching us from distant sources due to scattering, absorption, redshift, etc. There is no infinite energy source reaching every point in spacetime.
A tired light that kills a photon must result in raising temperature, in which case eventually a new photon is created.
Actually even that assumption is not necessarily accurate in all cases, and the new photon is going to typically be released at a *lower* energy state than the original photon. It's possible that multiple photons hit and are absorbed by the same piece of dust, but since they all come from different directions, the net result might be little or no net overall (total) directional movement of the dust particle itself, so all that happens is that high energy photon momentum is ultimately turned into lower energy photons. You're assuming that an absorbing particle has to always increase in temperature, but relative to what? If two photons hit the same dust particle from opposing directions, the net overall movement might be zero.
And in this case it doesn't matter which way it travels.
Actually it does matter since the emission might have some overall effect on the momentum of the absorbing particle too. It also matters that it's likely to result in a lower energy state photon.
Hencely Olber's Paradox is not explained by any old or new tired light theory that i have seen, but it is explained by Ranzan's cosmic stretching of aether theory.
This is a strange mantra that you have going which simply discounts the possibility of multiple photons being absorbed by the same particle but from different directions which results in little or no net overall movement of the absorbing particle, and a decrease in the energy state of the emitted particles.
That there invincible ignorance fallacy describes u fellows. I am perfectly open to science.
Not really. You have offered *no* mathematical model to support your "infinite temperature" argument, and your "verbal" explanation seems to ignore physics entirely, particularly the vast distances between suns, and the inability to light to propagate freely through any plasma medium over infinite distances. In fact your verbal explanation doesn't even deal with the fact that emitting sources are not emitting "infinite temperature" photons to begin with, and they're absorbed and scattered by the much larger medium.
Show me where my sniper calculations are wrong & i will then have to change my mind.
Well, for starters, photon "bullets" do not actually have an have an infinite range. Their range is limited by friction with the plasma medium, just like a bullet's range is limited by friction with air molecules. A better analogy would be to assume that any shots fired from more than say 1 mile away are physically incapable of reaching their target due to friction.
And yes, it is a losing battle, because my arguments are true.
No, it' s a losing battle because you *believe* that your arguments are true, when in fact they are *not* true.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest