Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
om...
wrote in message
...
In sci.astro Alan Morgan wrote:
It simply arises directly and
obviously out of a misintpretation of the Red Shift as being
due to a Doppler shift.

To what should we ascribe it? Sunburn? Cosmic embarassment? It's
believed
to be due to redshift because (a) that fits the facts and (b) none of
the
alternatives do.

My, my. Just can't help yourself. Just have to be vain and
arrogant! No wonder Ed feels like he does! :-)

I think in your sentence above you really meant to say that
it [redshift] is due to Doppler shift because (a) that fits the
facts and (b) none of the alternatives do.

Sure, that was apparently the case so far. But once string theory
opened the possiblity of multidimensional reality,

Err, you *do* know that according to string theory, the extra
dimension
are "curled up" (compactified) on the Planck scale, don't you?

Precisely how does a 'dimension' physically 'curl up'? And how does it know
when to stop curling?

one needs
to go back and re-think old views rather than simply make
snide comments to defend traditional theories.

Personally I haven't seen much evidence that the universe is
expanding if one discards red shift data.

What about the cooling of the CMBR? There is evidence that it was
"hotter" in the past; see e.g.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm#Tvsz.

"In addition, the temperature of the cosmic background can be measured in
some very distant clouds that produce absorption lines in the spectra of
quasars. The neutral carbon atoms in these clouds are excited to an
excitation temperature that can be measured using line ratios. These
excitation temperatures are upper limits to the CMB temperature and are
shown as triangular data points at right."

2 specially-selected data points! Whose only advantage is that they "miss"
the BB prediction. Sure, if you play with coarse enough "upper bounds" you
can miss your target enough to claim that it isn't disproved. Then there's:

"In some clouds corrections for other sources of excitation can be made,
giving a direct measure of TCMB, shown as a round data point. This data
agrees very well with the evolution expected in the Big Bang model: TCMB =
To(1+z), which is shown as the red line in the figure."

If you get to "correct" the data for unnamed and undefined processes, you
can match anything. And then you plot 4 whole data points. Too bad Ned
didn't bother with any references for any of these.

I think this is
why "tired light" theories are popular (though such light
properties do not appear to have ever been measured).

Why do you think that "tired light" theories are still popular? I know
no cosmologist who still thinks that such theories are viable; do you?

That's because you define a 'cosmologist' as someone who believes in the big
bang.

Have you ever read the following page?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

As you well know*, Dr. Wright has already been shown to be either less than
principled or less than competent in his 'disproofs' of theories in his
webpages (and if the latter, he is also unwilling to correct known
mis-statements).

See:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com
and
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vk....supernews.com

At least in Ned's anit-TBBNH thread, Ned referenced the opposing view. (He
screwed it up, royally, but at least it was possible to check his
statements.) In the 'tired light' page, there's not a single reference to
an actual tired-light theory paper or book. Why don't you at least
identify what *you* think is correct about Ned's page on tired light?

- - - - - -

* From your achingly quibbly defense of Ned's 'rewording' of opposing
theories. At least someone did, since Ned wasn't willing to respond
publicly or privately -- except a one-shot repeat in defense of French's
travesty.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}