Cosmic acceleration rediscovered

George Dishman wrote in message
...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
news "George Dishman" wrote in message
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_Law
...

It states my understanding of the Hubble Law so it
answers your question. Do you think the definition
it gives is wrong?

Obviously, yes. The "Hubble Law" predates your weblink. And your
definition.

Now, can you please answer the question? Do you understand the
difference between Hubble's data and the "Hubble law?"

Well I presume by "Hubble's data" you mean the
measurements on which he based his law.

That's part of it. Now, what *are* the measurements?

The law itself is what is on that web page.

Nope. That's not Hubble's Law. There's nothing like that in Hubble's
papers. Or any papers of that era.

When did you (or someone else) change the definition of Hubble's law?

but the Law pertains to the proportionality
of the speed with distance and that is not theoretical,

Au contraire. You cannot have one without the other.

Of course you can. For example you could measure
the speed by other means by the Hubble Law would
be unaffected.

How do you measure the speed of a galaxy without doppler shift?

Tie a string to a galaxy, ties knots in it and
count how fast they get pulled through your hand.

I see you abandoned your claim. You now admit that there is no way to do
so.

The point is that the law relates speed to
distance, not redshift to distance.

But the data relates redshift to distance. You are simply assuming that
redshift always equates to speed.

I agree, the two are independent. You cannot just
assume the presence or absence of a time dependence,
you have to derive it from the evidence either way,
and that is equally true whether the relationship
is linear with distance at a given epoch or not.

Or linear in all epochs.

I should have said "at any given epoch".

See the very next sentence:

You do realise I was agreeing with your correction
don't you?

Sigh......

The point is that there is no difference in the
data. It can be interpreted in different ways.

No comment I see.

None needed, I already listed some of the
alternatives I can see in an earlier post which
you snipped as irrelevant.

Sigh....

It is your attempt to distort the conventional
theory by changing the Hubble Law argument from
distance at the given epoch to distance at the
observed time of emission to which I object.

Nope. I'm not changing the Hubble law argument.

You are trying to change it from being "at a given
epoch" to "at a time in the past equal to the time
of observation minus the lookback time". That
changes the equations if, as you say later, you do
not assume H(t) is constant.

Those are your current assertions. They have nothing to do with the
Hubble Law.

Just pointing out the only reason we disagree.

We're not disagreeing about the modern big bang theory.

The one that simply connects nearby galactic distances to "speed" by
assuming a linear relationship between redshift and speed.

Strawman, the law relates speed to distance.

But we are discussing the basis of the law. And please learn the definition
of the term "straw man".

It is my intent to show
that other interpretations of the data are just as valid.

No comment I see.

I have no grounds to question your intent and don't
doubt what you say. I'm just waiting to find out
what other interpretation you want to suggest.

I've already discussed it in great detail. You simply ignore it, and parrot
the current paradigm.

Can you grasp the concept of "same data, different
interpretations?"

What I can't grasp is why you keep charging an open
door. I am aware of the current interpretation and
of Zwicky's 1929 alternative of exponential photon
energy degradation, commonly known as "Tired Light".
That has an exponential relationship between redshift
and distance but is ruled out in other ways.

Finally, we come to your real objections!

Citation(s), please. I suspect you'll simply parrot Misner, Thorne and
Wheeler's repetition of Zel'dovich's hand-waving and nonsubstative
statements. Even Zel'dovich acknowledged that there were many theories (not
just Zwicky's).

If you
have some new alternative, why don't you just say
what it is. If not, what point are you trying to make?

Well, there's Vigier's version of tired light. Then there's LeSage's
theory. How many alternatives do you want?

My point was simply that you are ignoring the possibility that your (and
Hubbles, and the BB's) primary assumption is simply incorrect. If all you
can do is parrot a claim that *one* 1929 theory is not currently accepted,
you are on very thin ice.

I am happy to acknowledge the possibility of a non-
linear relationship between redshift and distance at
a given epoch.

Will you quit with the "given epoch" strawman, already?

That is the Hubble Law. Check the page I gave above
or the one you cited earlier, they both say the same
and it is a fundamental part. If you leave out that
condition and assume some other distance then it is
no longer linear. This is the point of physics about
which we are arguing, the rest is mostly semantics.

But that "condition" is not part of the Hubble Law. ...

Check your sources, you'll find that it is.

My sources are Hubble and Eddington. You haven't cited anything but a
current webpage. And the definition either isn't correct in the webpage
..... or the definition has changed.

That is
the point that _I_ am bringing to _your_ attention,
and as far as I am aware, it is the only real point
of contention.

The point of contention is your bullheaded refusal to even consider
something not containing the assumption that redshift is always-and-only
connected to motion.

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

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
George Dishman wrote in message
...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

Now, can you please answer the question? Do you understand the
difference between Hubble's data and the "Hubble law?"

Well I presume by "Hubble's data" you mean the
measurements on which he based his law.

That's part of it. Now, what *are* the measurements?

You tell me, you coined the term.

The law itself is what is on that web page.

Nope. That's not Hubble's Law. There's nothing like that in Hubble's
papers. Or any papers of that era.

Hubble's data was all low z so the question didn't arise.

When did you (or someone else) change the definition of Hubble's law?

I don't know the history but if you want to prove there
was a change and the old version was wrong, I won't argue
with you. Science moves on.

How do you measure the speed of a galaxy without doppler shift?

Tie a string to a galaxy, ties knots in it and
count how fast they get pulled through your hand.

I see you abandoned your claim. You now admit that there is no way to do
so.

I see you cannot recognise a facetious reply intended
to prompt you to think again about what was said. The
method of measurement is unrelated to the fact that
the law relates speed to distance, not redshift.

The point is that the law relates speed to
distance, not redshift to distance.

But the data relates redshift to distance. You are simply assuming that
redshift always equates to speed.

No, I am saying that in one model, where speed is taken
as the cause, speed is then proportional distance provided
distance is defined at a specific epoch. In other models
such as Tired Light, there is no such relationship.

snip sighs
Just pointing out the only reason we disagree.

We're not disagreeing about the modern big bang theory.

Good, that'll save a lot of time.

The one that simply connects nearby galactic distances to "speed" by
assuming a linear relationship between redshift and speed.

Strawman, the law relates speed to distance.

But we are discussing the basis of the law. And please learn the
definition
of the term "straw man".

No, we are discussing your claims that linearity of the
Hubble Law is assumed in modern Big Bang theory.

It is my intent to show
that other interpretations of the data are just as valid.

No comment I see.

I have no grounds to question your intent and don't
doubt what you say. I'm just waiting to find out
what other interpretation you want to suggest.

I've already discussed it in great detail. You simply ignore it, and
parrot
the current paradigm.

Actually, you haven't discussed any alternative, you
have only acussed me of assuming the conventional
theory is the only possibility. That isn't true.

Can you grasp the concept of "same data, different
interpretations?"

What I can't grasp is why you keep charging an open
door. I am aware of the current interpretation and
of Zwicky's 1929 alternative of exponential photon
energy degradation, commonly known as "Tired Light".
That has an exponential relationship between redshift
and distance but is ruled out in other ways.

Finally, we come to your real objections!

Citation(s), please.

Well the most obvious is the intensity of the CMBR:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.gif

The energy degradation variant of Tired light would
reduce the energy of each photon but not the flux. The
graphic is from Ned Wright's page but I'm sure you
understand the objection without a specific citation.

I suspect you'll simply parrot Misner, Thorne and
Wheeler's repetition of Zel'dovich's hand-waving and nonsubstative
statements.

I don't have MTW so I don't know what is said. Give
me a hint.

Even Zel'dovich acknowledged that there were many theories (not
just Zwicky's).

If you
have some new alternative, why don't you just say
what it is. If not, what point are you trying to make?

Well, there's Vigier's version of tired light. Then there's LeSage's
theory. How many alternatives do you want?

Though I've heard of these, I'm not familiar in detail
with either so can you provide an on-line primer? I'm
quite open to considering alteratives.

My point was simply that you are ignoring the possibility that your (and
Hubbles, and the BB's) primary assumption is simply incorrect. If all you
can do is parrot a claim that *one* 1929 theory is not currently accepted,
you are on very thin ice.

I take each on it's merits. "Tired Light" is a generic
term which is why I described energy decay specifically.
Obviously different mechanisms for the energy loss could
be subject to different tests.

I am happy to acknowledge the possibility of a non-
linear relationship between redshift and distance at
a given epoch.

Will you quit with the "given epoch" strawman, already?

That is the Hubble Law. Check the page I gave above
or the one you cited earlier, they both say the same
and it is a fundamental part. If you leave out that
condition and assume some other distance then it is
no longer linear. This is the point of physics about
which we are arguing, the rest is mostly semantics.

But that "condition" is not part of the Hubble Law. ...

Check your sources, you'll find that it is.

My sources are Hubble and Eddington. You haven't cited anything but a
current webpage. And the definition either isn't correct in the webpage

Look around, you'll find the same definition in any
modern text. It is an accurate statement of the law
as currently formulated.

.... or the definition has changed.

Possibly it has, I only know what it is now. My view
is that Hubble's data was at low z so he didn't need
to consider the problem of non-linearity, it was far
less than the spread of measurements, but without
researching the original papers that is only a guess.
I'm mainly interested in current cosmology, less so
in the history of how it got to be what it is.

That is
the point that _I_ am bringing to _your_ attention,
and as far as I am aware, it is the only real point
of contention.

The point of contention is your bullheaded refusal to even consider
something not containing the assumption that redshift is always-and-only
connected to motion.

I have repeatedly said I would consider alternatives
but until the last few posts, you have griped almost
entirely about 'linearity'. I hope you now realise
that criticism of current conventional cosmology is
not valid.

George

George Dishman wrote:
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

George Dishman wrote in message
...

[snip]

I have no grounds to question your intent and don't
doubt what you say. I'm just waiting to find out
what other interpretation you want to suggest.

I've already discussed it in great detail. You simply ignore it, and
parrot the current paradigm.


Actually, you haven't discussed any alternative, you
have only acussed me of assuming the conventional
theory is the only possibility. That isn't true.

Yes, that's his usual modus operandi. Probably he will soon start
calling you a troll...


[snip]


you'll simply parrot Misner, Thorne and
Wheeler's repetition of Zel'dovich's hand-waving and nonsubstative
statements.


I don't have MTW so I don't know what is said. Give
me a hint.

The relevant post would be the one with Google MessageID
.

It is also worthwile to look at the other posts in that thread
by greywolf42 - and at the discussion between him and Franz Heymann in
the thread "Comments on lack of Lightcurve Evidence?" in sci.physics.

HTH.


[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...
George Dishman wrote:
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

I've already discussed it in great detail. You simply ignore it, and
parrot the current paradigm.

Actually, you haven't discussed any alternative, you
have only acussed me of assuming the conventional
theory is the only possibility. That isn't true.

Yes, that's his usual modus operandi. Probably he will soon start
calling you a troll...

Could be, I thought he was trolling when we started.

[snip]


you'll simply parrot Misner, Thorne and
Wheeler's repetition of Zel'dovich's hand-waving and nonsubstative
statements.


I don't have MTW so I don't know what is said. Give
me a hint.

The relevant post would be the one with Google MessageID
.

Thanks. Two things puzzle me about that post. First,
quoting MTW, item (3) it says:

"If there does not exist any such decay process,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
then simple arguments ... probability per second of
'photon decay' ..."

It seems odd to give the probability of something
that doesn't happen, and then quoting Zel'dovich
the text is:

"We ask the question: if there were such a process,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
how could the decay probability w for a photon
depend on its frequency?"

Is there a typo somehere in these as the condition
seems to be reversed between the passages.

Second, item (2) appears to deal with a reduction
in energy of the photon by decay into two products
while item (3) seems to be talking of a complete
loss of the particle. Wouldn't the latter only
reduce the intensity rather than change the
frequency? Perhaps I am misunderstanding the
passage as it is out of context.

It is also worthwile to look at the other posts in that thread
by greywolf42 - and at the discussion between him and Franz Heymann in the
thread "Comments on lack of Lightcurve Evidence?" in sci.physics.

The thread seems to be just repeating the more recent
version above. I've sampled most of Franz's posts and
I'll try to find his quantitative analysis over the
weekend as his conclusion seem a little different to
mine, but my approach was perhaps less general.

Thanks for the pointers.

George

George Dishman wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...

George Dishman wrote:

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

I've already discussed it in great detail. You simply ignore it, and
parrot the current paradigm.

Actually, you haven't discussed any alternative, you
have only acussed me of assuming the conventional
theory is the only possibility. That isn't true.

Yes, that's his usual modus operandi. Probably he will soon start
calling you a troll...


Could be, I thought he was trolling when we started.

I also often thought this...


[snip]


you'll simply parrot Misner, Thorne and

Wheeler's repetition of Zel'dovich's hand-waving and nonsubstative
statements.


I don't have MTW so I don't know what is said. Give
me a hint.

The relevant post would be the one with Google MessageID
.


Thanks. Two things puzzle me about that post. First,
quoting MTW, item (3) it says:

"If there does not exist any such decay process,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
then simple arguments ... probability per second of
'photon decay' ..."

It seems odd to give the probability of something
that doesn't happen, and then quoting Zel'dovich
the text is:

"We ask the question: if there were such a process,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
how could the decay probability w for a photon
depend on its frequency?"

Is there a typo somehere in these as the condition
seems to be reversed between the passages.

I have not read the original text, but yes, this indeed looks
like a typo.


Second, item (2) appears to deal with a reduction
in energy of the photon by decay into two products
while item (3) seems to be talking of a complete
loss of the particle. Wouldn't the latter only
reduce the intensity rather than change the
frequency? Perhaps I am misunderstanding the
passage as it is out of context.

I'm also not entirely sure about this, but I think when he
talks about the "decay" of a photon, he does not mean here
that it is completely lost - he means that its *energy*
"decays".


[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...
George Dishman wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in
message
...

George Dishman wrote:

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

I've already discussed it in great detail. You simply ignore it, and
parrot the current paradigm.

Actually, you haven't discussed any alternative, you
have only acussed me of assuming the conventional
theory is the only possibility. That isn't true.

Yes, that's his usual modus operandi. Probably he will soon start
calling you a troll...

Could be, I thought he was trolling when we started.

I also often thought this...

Hey, careful! You guys will break your arms, patting each other on the
back!

[snip]

you'll simply parrot Misner, Thorne and
Wheeler's repetition of Zel'dovich's hand-waving and nonsubstative
statements.

I don't have MTW so I don't know what is said. Give
me a hint.

The relevant post would be the one with Google MessageID
.

Thanks. Two things puzzle me about that post. First,
quoting MTW, item (3) it says:

"If there does not exist any such decay process,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
then simple arguments ... probability per second of
'photon decay' ..."

It seems odd to give the probability of something
that doesn't happen, and then quoting Zel'dovich
the text is:

"We ask the question: if there were such a process,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
how could the decay probability w for a photon
depend on its frequency?"

Is there a typo somehere in these as the condition
seems to be reversed between the passages.

I have not read the original text,

Of course, you didn't read the original, Bjoern! That's what was so funny.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10....supernews.com

but yes, this indeed looks like a typo.

But, no. It's not a typo.

Didn't you learn from the prior exchange when you were claiming that MTW's
quotes "looked like" a mere summarization of Zel'dovich's conclusions. Go
read Zel'dovich, if you want to question my typing skills, lazybones.

Second, item (2) appears to deal with a reduction
in energy of the photon by decay into two products
while item (3) seems to be talking of a complete
loss of the particle. Wouldn't the latter only
reduce the intensity rather than change the
frequency? Perhaps I am misunderstanding the
passage as it is out of context.

I'm also not entirely sure about this, but I think when he
talks about the "decay" of a photon, he does not mean here
that it is completely lost - he means that its *energy*
"decays".

Items 2 and 3 are two separate arguments. But they're both pretty dippy
arguments, don't you think?

[snip]

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

"greywolf42" wrote in message
.. .
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...

I'm also not entirely sure about this, but I think when he
talks about the "decay" of a photon, he does not mean here
that it is completely lost - he means that its *energy*
"decays".

Items 2 and 3 are two separate arguments. But they're both pretty dippy
arguments, don't you think?

2) doesn't show the working so I can't comment. It is
valid if it can be shown that there was a minimum value
for the energy of particle k but I don't see that it
follows if the energy loss can be arbitrarily small.

I would have tackled the situation described by 3) in a
different way and I might have applied the method in 3)
to the type of decay described in 2), but then I'm only
an amateur.

George

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...
George Dishman wrote:
snip
Second, item (2) appears to deal with a reduction
in energy of the photon by decay into two products
while item (3) seems to be talking of a complete
loss of the particle. Wouldn't the latter only
reduce the intensity rather than change the
frequency? Perhaps I am misunderstanding the
passage as it is out of context.

I'm also not entirely sure about this, but I think when he
talks about the "decay" of a photon, he does not mean here
that it is completely lost - he means that its *energy*
"decays".

Ah, that's what I meant when I talked of "energy
degradation", I wanted to separate it from "decay"
in the radioactive sense. Thanks.

George

George Dishman wrote in message
...

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...
George Dishman wrote:
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

I've already discussed it in great detail. You simply ignore it, and
parrot the current paradigm.

Actually, you haven't discussed any alternative, you
have only acussed me of assuming the conventional
theory is the only possibility. That isn't true.

Yes, that's his usual modus operandi. Probably he will soon start
calling you a troll...

Could be, I thought he was trolling when we started.

Wrong again.

[snip]

you'll simply parrot Misner, Thorne and
Wheeler's repetition of Zel'dovich's hand-waving and nonsubstative
statements.

I don't have MTW so I don't know what is said. Give
me a hint.

The relevant post would be the one with Google MessageID
.

Thanks. Two things puzzle me about that post. First,
quoting MTW, item (3) it says:

"If there does not exist any such decay process,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
then simple arguments ... probability per second of
'photon decay' ..."

It seems odd to give the probability of something
that doesn't happen,

Yes. The entire argument is hokey.

and then quoting Zel'dovich the text is:

"We ask the question: if there were such a process,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
how could the decay probability w for a photon
depend on its frequency?"

Is there a typo somehere in these as the condition
seems to be reversed between the passages.

No typo.

Second, item (2) appears to deal with a reduction
in energy of the photon by decay into two products
while item (3) seems to be talking of a complete
loss of the particle. Wouldn't the latter only
reduce the intensity rather than change the
frequency? Perhaps I am misunderstanding the
passage as it is out of context.

It is not out of context. That is the entire passage.

It is also worthwile to look at the other posts in that thread
by greywolf42 - and at the discussion between him and Franz Heymann in
the thread "Comments on lack of Lightcurve Evidence?" in sci.physics.

The thread seems to be just repeating the more recent
version above. I've sampled most of Franz's posts and
I'll try to find his quantitative analysis over the
weekend as his conclusion seem a little different to
mine, but my approach was perhaps less general.

Don't sweat too hard. Franz never posted it. However, he did
admit that he had assumed compton scattering to get his numbers.

Thanks for the pointers.

You are welcome.

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

"greywolf42" wrote in message
. ..
George Dishman wrote in message
...

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...
....

Yes, that's his usual modus operandi. Probably he will soon start
calling you a troll...

Could be, I thought he was trolling when we started.

Wrong again.

We'll see, you are still trying to use a strawman
and it still looks as though your motive is to
generate an argument. When you stop, I'll be
pleased to know my first impression was incorrect.

... I've sampled most of Franz's posts and
I'll try to find his quantitative analysis over the
weekend as his conclusion seem a little different to
mine, but my approach was perhaps less general.

Don't sweat too hard. Franz never posted it. However, he did
admit that he had assumed compton scattering to get his numbers.

Since you haven't spoken about specific theories but
discuss Tired Light in general, that's either you
get general answers or he has to illustrate the point
with specific examples. That's why I say I'm willing
to consider alternatives to conventional theories but
I'm still waiting for you to identify which alternative
you want to consider. Until you do that, I can only
speak in generalisations too.

George