🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2 mai, 00:17, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote : "in static space. "

Do you really think that ?
"in static space. "
You agree with absolute space of Newton ?

It is the beginning of philosophy, the beginning of science.
It is the beginning of Newton's Principa ?
You agree?
=============================
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/tree/browse_frm/thread/64dccde4a3c3b3fe/eef9777dd1ee16e5?hl=fr&rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F64dccde4a3c3b3fe%3Fhl%3Dfr%26#doc_eef9777dd1ee16e5
=================================
Michael Helland a écrit : « dans l'espace statique.  »

Pensez-vous vraiment cela ?
« dans l'espace statique.  »
Vous êtes d'accord avec l'espace absolu de Newton ?

C'est le commencement de la philosophie, le commencement de la
science.
C'est le commencement de Principa de Newton ?
Vous convenez ?
=============================
迈克尔Helland写道： “在静态空间。 ”

您是否真正地认为那？
“在静态空间。 ”
您同意牛顿绝对空间？

它是哲学起点，科学起点。
它是牛顿的Principa起点？
您同意？

==============================
كتب مايكل [هلّند]: "في فراغ ساكن إستاتيكي. "

أنت حقّا تفكّر أنّ?
"في فراغ ساكن إستاتيكي. "
أنت توافق مع فراغ مطلقة نيوتن?

هو البداية الفلسفة, البداية العلم.
هو البداية من نيوتن [برينسبا]?
أنت توافق?
==============================
Michael Helland escribió: “en espacio estático. ”

¿Usted piensa realmente eso?
“en espacio estático. ”
¿Usted conviene con el espacio absoluto de Newton?

Es el principio de la filosofía, el principio de la ciencia.
¿Es el principio de Principa de Newton?
¿Usted conviene?
===============================
Майкл Helland написало: «в статическом космосе. »

Вы действительно думаете то?
«в статическом космосе. »
Вы соглашаетесь с абсолютным космосом Newton?

Начало общего соображения, начало науки.
Начало Principa Newton?
Вы соглашаетесь?
===============================

ミハエルHellandは書いた: 「静的なスペースで。 」

実際にそれを考えるか。
「静的なスペースで。 」
ニュートンの絶対スペースと同意するか。

それは哲学の始め、科学の始めである。
それはニュートンのPrincipaの始めであるか。
同意するか。
================================



> In all cosmological models, including expansion and tired-light, the
> speed of light is a constant c.
>
> Decelerating-Light is new and different.
>
> It interprets the Hubble redshift as the simplest and most elegant
> possibility:
>
> redshift is light naturally decelerating in static space.
>
> This is a rough implementation of Hubble's law through deceleration
> rather than expansion for 9 photons emitted at different times:
>
> photon_count = 0
>
> do while photon_count < 10
>
>         photon_count = photon_count + 1
>         dimension photon_array[photon_count]
>
>         photon_array[photon_count] = createobject("photon", photon_count)
>
>         * go a while before creating another photon
>         for iii = 1 to 4.2 * 10^5
>
>                 for jjj = 1 to photon_count
>                         photon = photon_array[jjj]
>                         photon.move()
>                 endfor
>
>         endfor
>
>         ?.t.
> enddo
>
> create cursor photons (n i, x n(20,5), c n(10,6))
> for jjj = 1 to photon_count
>         photon = photon_array[jjj]
>         insert into photons (n, x, c) values (photon.n, photon.x, photon.c)
> endfor
> browse
> copy to decelerated type csv
>
> define class photon as custom
>    x = 0 && position in light years
>    c = 1 && speed in light years per year
>    i = 0 && iterations
>    n = 0 && identification
>
>    function move
>
>       this.i = this.i + 1
>       this.x = this.x + this.c
>
>       * We've been traveling for 1 million light years, slow down
>       if this.i =  10^6
>         this.i = 0
>         this.c = this.c - 0.00002
>                 ?this.c, this.x, this.n
>       endif
>    return
>
>         function init(tnPhotonCount)
>                 this.n = tnPhotonCount
>         return
>
> enddefine
>
> That sends 10 photon's going around, and since they are emitted at
> different times, they are traveling at different decelerated
> velocities.
>
> Here is the result in CSV format:
>
> n,x,c
> 1,4199864.00020,0.999920
> 2,3779893.20022,0.999940
> 3,3359918.40022,0.999940
> 4,2939942.40020,0.999960
> 5,2519959.20014,0.999960
> 6,2099976.00007,0.999960
> 7,1679986.40005,0.999980
> 8,1259994.80002,0.999980
> 9,840000.00000,1.000000
> 10,420000.00000,1.000000
>
> Because
>
> E = hf
>
> and
>
> c = fw
>
> It seems that this rule, unlike expansion, drops the frequency without
> compensating in the wavelength.
>
> So expansion predicts redshift frequency and stretched wavelength.
>
> And deceleration predicts redshift frequency and static wavelength.
>
> It seems that deceleration is dead on arrival if that's the case.
>
> But, according to the code, every photon, upon emission, is traveling
> at c.
>
> Without a fuller QM model to work with, we would have to make some
> assumptions about what happens when this light is measured.
>
> It seems that the photons are absorbed, and re-transmitted in all
> sorts of ways.
>
> If that's the case, in the process of measuring the light, we're
> dealing with fresh new photons recently emitted from electrons in the
> measurement apparatus, and they would be traveling at c.
>
> So, maybe there's some other way to tell.