swansont

We measure it with our clock, since we’re doing the measurement. Most clocks in galaxies run at about the same rate, unless you’re near a black hole or moving at a significant fraction of c. (it’s been estimated that the center of the earth is younger than the surface by ~2 years. A pittance compared to 4.5 billion years) So what? We know this. We’re not comparing notes with any observers in other reference frames. How, specifically, does this tie in with expansion? I don’t see how your conclusion follows.

Guille Yacante has bid us farewell. We’ve locked the door, just in case. We don’t need any more unsubstantiated claims posted in multiple threads on the same topic but placed in inappropriate sections.

Yeah, independent creation happens all the time*. Especially on a smaller scale than calculus. “you stole my idea” is pretty common, too *I’ve got a cartoon sketch about dinosaurs watching a triceratops and claiming to be tricurious, and Colbert made a similar joke on his show a few years later. Nobody stole the idea from me, and it’s a fairly obvious play on words. Not the only time something like this happened to me.

! Moderator Note One thread per topic, please.

Then the proportionality only works at T, and if you are considering particles moving away from each other, more than one time is involved. Why is it you can’t just admit the original statement was incorrect? You’ve already stated that the relative velocities are constant over time. Why the contortions to try and preserve the statement about varying with length?

! Moderator Note Stop soapboxing, and don’t advertise your other threads. Both of these actions are against the rules.

T isn’t a constant.

The separation velocity of any two particles will be constant in time; absent any interaction, the velocity of each particles is constant. There’s nothing proportional with distance.

Two particles traveling in opposite directions, each at v wrt to the explosion, will separate at 2v (for v<<c) and this will not change with time, and therefor not change with separation. For v to increase in such a scenario you’d violate both conservation of energy and Newton’s first law

Basically the point I made as well. Antibiotics use in children is rampant, a third to half of kids 4 and under are prescribed each year in the US, and in some countries the average is 5 per year “Children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are receiving an average of 25 antibiotic prescriptions during their first five years of life” https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/12/high-rate-of-antibiotic-use-in-low-income-countries-alarming/ https://meps.ahrq.gov/data_files/publications/st35/stat35.shtml You’d expect to see a bigger effect in countries where more antibiotics are used. Do we see such an effect?

They checked the engraver but no mention of checking the obituary listings for Roger?

mar_mar2 banned as a sockpuppet of mar_mar. We do not need a sequel

I don’t think lasers are used to measure anything outside of our solar system. Certainly nothing where relativity is a factor. We get distances from the light that comes from the entity being measured, and those aren’t lasers.

I don’t understand. Are you claiming that collision avoidance doesn’t exist? Can you provide a link to what you read? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_system https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afx/afs/afs400/afs410/airborne-collision-avoidance-system-acas

! Moderator Note No. This is a discussion forum. Soapboxing and promoting an agenda are against the rules. Stop it.

No, it reflects, but the emissivity is only going to reduce the blackbody power by a factor of 2 or so. This isn’t going to save your conjecture. Pick another solid that’s a better blackbody. But consider that you could paint a block of copper matte black, and this would make it a much better blackbody, yet this only changes the surface and not the bulk property of the copper. Negligible change in the thermal energy content. A model allows you to do calculations, and accounting for the photons is a critical part of your conjecture. If you can’t quantify the effects, you don’t have a model.

Then you don’t have a model. You’re proposing a new description for temperature and you need new physics to make it happen

Yes. Fermion number is conserved. (Anti-fermions have a negative fermion number, which is why we get matter and antimatter in pairs)

You won’t provide a calculation of your own. How do you get the number of photons your model requires? If you emit at the rate required for the blackbody radiation the number inside the material is negligible compared to the thermal energy.

I didn’t assume they emit at the same time. I assumed they emit at the same rate, because why wouldn’t they? They are identical atoms. And if they don’t emit and absorb at the same average rate, then some area would be emitting more or less than another, which would heat or cool it. But we have thermal equilibrium, so that can’t be the case. A photon that is absorbed by an atom ceases to exist. There is no more oscillating EM field. The energy and momentum are transferred to the atom, but there is no more photon. Boson number is not a conserved property. You can create and destroy bosons.

iNow has a point. You have a couple of threads where you start out in chicken little mode, and raise an issue that you could research yourself - which you’ve done here to some extent, but only after being challenged with regard to your assumptions and framing The evidence presented thus far is that there’s an effect (which nobody really challenged) but any possible permanent effect is not common.

Doesn’t really matter; you still can’t reconcile the emitted radiation with the photon gas density you need to account for the thermal energy, since the residence time of the photons is so short.

You would have to establish that it is, by quantifying the behavior and comparing it with experiment. You haven’t done this. A model is supposed to make predictions. I took your model and predicted how a solid would behave if it were true. If the established physics I used is wrong, you could point this out, but where? Calorimetry is pretty well-established, as is the value of speed of light. You’re basing your idea on the Stefan-Boltzmann law, so you obviously don’t have a problem with it. The rest is just pretty straightforward math. And a competing model has to be consistent with all the evidence the existing model covers. You can’t just cherry pick one or two data points. This is fallacious reasoning. Instances of physics being wrong in some aspect does not mean any arbitrary aspect of it is wrong. A model is wrong if it disagrees with observation. And your model disagrees with observation.

! Moderator Note I’m not sure what this has to do with ethics Soapboxing is against our rules, as is spamming.

It’s not opinion. Your idea is wildly incompatible with established physics. Shopping for a more credulous audience won’t change that.