Did Hubble can it wrong?

[Surgenator]

You're using this formula wrongly. In that link, they are talking about a light emanating from inside a star with a radius less than a Schwarzchild radius, which is the radius of a black hole. The point the author is making is in that case, light won't be able to escape. My thought experiment is not about light emanating from the inside of the earth, but from an emitter standing at a distance d above the ground. Different experiments require that you use the math properly.

I am using the equation correctly.

and R^* the distance between the center of mass of the gravitating body and the point at which the photon is emitted. The redshift is not defined for photons emitted inside the Schwarzschild radius, the distance from the body where the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. Therefore this formula only applies when R^* is at least as large as r_s.

Sorry but if you can't do the math, you're not in a position to criticize.

Oh, I can do the math. I don't want to waste my time doing so when I can't point out that your claim is wrong through a thought experiments.

My two arguments address your claim that "Doppler Effect = Gravitational Shift" through thought experiments. The first one takes the case of the same gravitational potential but at different distances away.

That's why I put 3 different emitters at 3 different distances. But I show that for all these cases, you get one general equation.

The wavelength shift of your 3 emitters would be the same when they're light years away.

The second is different gravitational potentials but at the same distance away.

That is not possible for a gravitational potential. It's inversely proportional with distance. So at equal distance, the gravitational potential has to be the same.

Your forgetting about the mass of the object. Gravitational potential = GM/r.

[little_monkey]

You're using this formula wrongly. In that link, they are talking about a light emanating from inside a star with a radius less than a Schwarzchild radius, which is the radius of a black hole. The point the author is making is in that case, light won't be able to escape. My thought experiment is not about light emanating from the inside of the earth, but from an emitter standing at a distance d above the ground. Different experiments require that you use the math properly.

I am using the equation correctly.

and R^* the distance between the center of mass of the gravitating body and the point at which the photon is emitted. The redshift is not defined for photons emitted inside the Schwarzschild radius, the distance from the body where the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. Therefore this formula only applies when R^* is at least as large as r_s.

Read it again: The redshift is not defined for photons emitted inside the Schwarzschild radius, later on in the same paragraph, "When the photon is emitted at a distance equal to the Schwarzschild radius, the redshift will be infinitely large. When the photon is emitted at an infinitely large distance, there is no redshift." The author is specifically talking about a black hole.

Sorry but if you can't do the math, you're not in a position to criticize.

Oh, I can do the math. I don't want to waste my time doing so when I can't point out that your claim is wrong through a thought experiments.

So far you have shown that you can't read your own link properly, and you still can't do the math. My derivations is over 10 steps, and they are elementary. You have no excuses. You want to see the kind of math I'm capable of. See my other blogs. Here's a sample:

On GENERAL RELATIVITY:
http://soi.blogspot.ca/2014/01/the-essen...ivity.html

On QUANTUM FIELD THEORY:
http://soi.blogspot.ca/2014/04/the-essen...heory.html

On QFT IN CURVED SPACETIME:
http://soi.blogspot.ca/2014/06/quantum-f...-time.html

That's why I put 3 different emitters at 3 different distances. But I show that for all these cases, you get one general equation.

The wavelength shift of your 3 emitters would be the same when they're light years away.

You're speculating without proof. Show me with hard equations derived from fundamental principles, not just spurting an unfounded opinion.

That is not possible for a gravitational potential. It's inversely proportional with distance. So at equal distance, the gravitational potential has to be the same.

Your forgetting about the mass of the object. Gravitational potential = GM/r.

I haven't forgotten. The equations shows that it depends only on the mass of the source, which is

10) d = H Δv,

where H = (cR2source)/ (GMsource)

[Surgenator]

I am using the equation correctly.

Read it again: The redshift is not defined for photons emitted inside the Schwarzschild radius, later on in the same paragraph, "When the photon is emitted at a distance equal to the Schwarzschild radius, the redshift will be infinitely large. When the photon is emitted at an infinitely large distance, there is no redshift." The author is specifically talking about a black hole.

How can you miss "Therefore this formula only applies when R^* is at least as large as r_s." I bolded for you. You also missed the "not defined" part in your bolded region. How can the equation give a value of the redshift if it is not defined for R^* < r_s? Reading comprehension FAIL.

Oh, I can do the math. I don't want to waste my time doing so when I can't point out that your claim is wrong through a thought experiments.

So far you have shown that you can't read your own link properly, and you still can't do the math. My derivations is over 10 steps, and they are elementary. You have no excuses. You want to see the kind of math I'm capable of. See my other blogs.

So far you have shown that you can't read what is clearly being bolded for you.

Also, you are forgetting the most fundamental rule of scientific proofs, your model predictions have to match the observations. Your model fails this on some basic observations. You can add any simple or fancy math you want. If you can't match the observations, your model is wrong.

In equation 5, you did binomial expansion that works only if d1/R is much less than one. Later, your trying to apply your solution to cases where d1/R will no longer be much less than one. It will be much greater than one. Your binomial approximation is longer justified.

The wavelength shift of your 3 emitters would be the same when they're light years away.

You're speculating without proof. Show me with hard equations derived from fundamental principles, not just spurting an unfounded opinion.

Observations are not unfounded opinions. Hard equations are not proofs. Your doing too much theory not enough experiment.

Your forgetting about the mass of the object. Gravitational potential = GM/r.

I haven't forgotten. The equations shows that it depends only on the mass of the source, which is

10) d = H Δv,

where H = (cR2source)/ (GMsource)

I'm sure the masses galaxies that were determined via virial theorem and confirmed via graviational lensing agree with your Msource. Oh wait, they don't.

[little_monkey]

Read it again: The redshift is not defined for photons emitted inside the Schwarzschild radius, later on in the same paragraph, "When the photon is emitted at a distance equal to the Schwarzschild radius, the redshift will be infinitely large. When the photon is emitted at an infinitely large distance, there is no redshift." The author is specifically talking about a black hole.

How can you miss "Therefore this formula only applies when R^* is at least as large as r_s." I bolded for you. You also missed the "not defined" part in your bolded region. How can the equation give a value of the redshift if it is not defined for R^* < r_s? Reading comprehension FAIL.

And what do you think the "s" stands for in "r_s"? It stands for the Schwarzchild radius. And what is that? Google it, you are embarrassing yourself.

The author makes it clear: if the light emanates when R > "r_s", the Scwarzschild radius, meaning OUTSIDE the black hole, it will go to infinity. If R is equal to "r_s" or smaller than "r_s", meaning the light emantes from INSIDE the black hole, it won't escape.


AND THIS HAS SWEETFUCK ALL WITH MY CLAIM, FUCKiNG MORON.

Also, you are forgetting the most fundamental rule of scientific proofs, your model predictions have to match the observations.

My derivation predicts Hubble equation which is an OBSERVATION.

Can you get it , FUCKING MORON.

In equation 5, you did binomial expansion that works only if d1/R is much less than one. Later, your trying to apply your solution to cases where d1/R will no longer be much less than one. It will be much greater than one. Your binomial approximation is longer justified.

Which part of "Rsource is infinite" don't you get? If the universe is infinite then 1/Rsource is zero. As I said before and will repeat, the only argument against my calculation is if the universe is finite.

AND YOU SAY YOU KNOW MATH. WHAT A FUCKING LAUGH.

Observations are not unfounded opinions. Hard equations are not proofs. Your doing too much theory not enough experiment.

Your statement was not backup by any proof. I'm giving you proof of my claim, yet you reject with no valid reasons so far but you expect me to accept your statement which was given without proof. That's pure hypocrisy on your part.

I haven't forgotten. The equations shows that it depends only on the mass of the source, which is

10) d = H Δv,

where H = (cR2source)/ (GMsource)

I'm sure the masses galaxies that were determined via virial theorem and confirmed via graviational lensing agree with your Msource. Oh wait, they don't.

Virial theorem involves objects which are in orbit. There is none of that part in the situation I have presented, when are you going to get on page with what I have presented. What are you a 10-year old? Instead of trying to learn your mistake, you keep repeating them. YOU ARE A TOTAL WASTE.

[Surgenator]

How can you miss "Therefore this formula only applies when R^* is at least as large as r_s." I bolded for you. You also missed the "not defined" part in your bolded region. How can the equation give a value of the redshift if it is not defined for R^* < r_s? Reading comprehension FAIL.

And what do you think the "s" stands for in "r_s"? It stands for the Schwarzchild radius. And what is that? Google it, you are embarrassing yourself.

The author makes it clear: if the light emanates when R > "r_s", the Scwarzschild radius, meaning OUTSIDE the black hole, it will go to infinity. If R is equal to "r_s" or smaller than "r_s", meaning the light emantes from INSIDE the black hole, it won't escape.

Your lack of reading comprehension is impressive. Do you actually think this equation is for the photon going inward instead of outward? Do you actually think they're only talking about black holes? Do you think that the mention of the Scwarzchild radius means it only applies to black holes? I have news for you then. Everything that has mass has a Scwarzchild radius: electrons, protons, humans, planets, stars, galaxies, etc...

Also, you are forgetting the most fundamental rule of scientific proofs, your model predictions have to match the observations.

My derivation predicts Hubble equation which is an OBSERVATION.

No they don't. Take any two galaxy's average redshifts and mass, and do the calculations.

In equation 5, you did binomial expansion that works only if d1/R is much less than one. Later, your trying to apply your solution to cases where d1/R will no longer be much less than one. It will be much greater than one. Your binomial approximation is longer justified.

Which part of "Rsource is infinite" don't you get?

hock: Wow, I didn't realize how stupid your hypothesis is.

Do you not realize the Gauss's law breaks down when you make thing infinitely big? Guass's law is derived conservatation of flux that enters the enclosed region has to exit it. When the enclosed region is infinite, the flux can enter but not exit.

You conclusions are flawed.

YOU ARE A TOTAL WASTE.

So much for a civil discussion.