Cosmic acceleration rediscovered

"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. The law
itself is what is on that web page.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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. 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.

George

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

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...
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...

Well, correctly addressing the distinction between theory and observation
*is* my usual modus operandi. And I probably would have called Bill a troll
.... if he started acting like one.

[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
.

Yep, that's a good thread. After that, I just loved Bjoern's hilarious
attempts to distance himself from some of his earlier statements:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10....supernews.com

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.

That's not bad, either.

HTH.

DHRs always assert that somebody, somewhere, at some unknown time must have
done the calculation that disproves things. They just don't know where.

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

George Dishman wrote in message
...

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


{snip higher levels}

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.

I wasn't coining a 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.

Precisely!!!!!! Thank you for proving my point.

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.

Now, can we dispense with the silliness about the "Hubble Law" containing
the high-z "time dependence" that was *later* added to save the Big Bang?

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.

I could see the attempt to bail out of the unsupportable position you took
that you could measure the speed of a galaxy without doppler shift.

The
method of measurement is unrelated to the fact that
the law relates speed to distance, not redshift.

But the discussion is about the observational basis for the law. The
"method of measurement" *assumes* the law is correct.

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.

And that is assuming that redshift always equates to speed. Why did you
start with "no?"

In other models
such as Tired Light, there is no such relationship.

Finally! There is no such assumption required to meet the data.

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.

No, we are discussing the assumption that redshift and speed are always
directly related. We aren't discussing the BB theory.

{snip higher levels}

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.

You finally admitted it on the last round. So, while your statement is
literally true, it is disingenuous.

{snip higher levels}

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

Which one? *ALL* tired light theories have energy degradation! (Even if
Ned Wright's strawmen don't fit into this category.)

would reduce the energy of each photon but not the flux.

That is the assumption of the BB. It is not part of all tired light
theories. (It is true of Vigier's QM version, I believe. But not of
Maxwell's, Olber's, or LeSages.)

Quite simply, here Ned assumes that the Big Bang is true, and shows how
tired light theories fail under this assumption. However, tired light
theories usually don't result in a big bang model. So this is simply another
straw man of Ned's.

The
graphic is from Ned Wright's page but I'm sure you
understand the objection without a specific citation.

Oh, I understand it all right. Ned Wright's pages are just chock full of
spurious, hand-waving, and downright dishonest assertions. I also
understand why BB supporters constantly have to resort to vague, hand-wavy
assertions, such as yours.

(See the links below.)

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.

Here's a link discussing both Ned Wright and MTW:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10....supernews.com

And another with more detail:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10....supernews.com

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.

I could, but I won't bother. My point was that the only defense you had was
a 1929 theory by Zwicky (The best you could do was find a different
strawman). You aren't even sure *why* Zwicky is out of favor. But yet, you
use it to claim that *ALL* tired light theories are disproved.

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.

You don't even know *WHY* Zwicky's theory is out of favor! Yet, you claimed
that *ALL* such theories are disproved, simply because Zwicky's was. That
is not taking each theory 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.

Precisely!!!!! Yet you dismissed them all, without even looking.

{snip repetition of the modern-vs-original Hubble Law arguments}

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

You stated that you would only consider alternatives that included the
redshift-speed relationship a constant.

but until the last few posts, you have griped almost
entirely about 'linearity'.

And that is still the issue. The nonlinearity of the data. Versus the
linearity of the theory.

Eventually, you wore down to admitting that tired light theories existed.
But you claimed they were not viable on other grounds. Even though you
didn't know offhand what those "grounds" were.

I hope you now realise
that criticism of current conventional cosmology is
not valid.

We aren't discussing criticism of "conventional cosmology." But about a
single issue. Whether the assumption direct, linear relationship between
redshift and speed is valid. Or whether tired light theories -- which
predicted the data that big bangers now claim for "dark energy" -- can be
considered.

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

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

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


{snip higher levels}

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.

I wasn't coining a 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.

Precisely!!!!!! Thank you for proving my point.

If your point is that Hubble didn't have access
to modern data, then I never contested it. The
fact remains that linearity in the Hubble Law
is between speed and distance.

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.

Now, can we dispense with the silliness about the "Hubble Law" containing
the high-z "time dependence" that was *later* added to save the Big Bang?

No, you still can't make the assumption that H(t) is
independent of t and then pretend you aren'. Hubble
had data over a short lookback time hence the variation
was less than the spread. He didn't have to addres it
but it was always there.

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.

I could see the attempt to bail out of the unsupportable position you took
that you could measure the speed of a galaxy without doppler shift.

Just as I could see you attempt to bail out of the claim
that Hubble's Law related redshift to speed.

The
method of measurement is unrelated to the fact that
the law relates speed to distance, not redshift.

But the discussion is about the observational basis for the law. The
"method of measurement" *assumes* the law is correct.

If you look back, you will find the original discussion
was about the non-linearity high z SNe measurements and
your claim that I was "fixated" with linearity.

I'm quite happy for it to drift onto Tired Light but
don't try to pretend we were ever talking about
linearity in any other context.

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.

And that is assuming that redshift always equates to speed. Why did you
start with "no?"

Because the conversation was about the linear
reationship in the Hubble Law, and that relates
speed to distance at a given epoch. The relationship
between redshift and speed is only linear for vc.
Your attempts to sugggest I argued something other
than that are just a waste of time.

In other models
such as Tired Light, there is no such relationship.

Finally! There is no such assumption required to meet the data.

I have said repeatedly that I'm open to considering
alternative assumptions. Whether they can "meet the
data" remains to be seen.

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

No, we are discussing the assumption that redshift and speed are always
directly related. We aren't discussing the BB theory.

Sorry, go check the messages that started this.

{snip higher levels}

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.

You finally admitted it on the last round.

I admitted no such thing. What I said was that the fact
that I am willing to consider alternatives hadn't been
clear in previous posts. It still remains true.

So, while your statement is
literally true, it is disingenuous.

I would say the same of your attempt to suggest I
admitted something when it is obvious I didn't.

{snip higher levels}

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

Which one? *ALL* tired light theories have energy degradation! (Even if
Ned Wright's strawmen don't fit into this category.)

I think it was clear I meant those where individual
photons lose energy but are not destroyed.

would reduce the energy of each photon but not the flux.

That is the assumption of the BB.

Nonsense, it is simply a consequence of the fact that
the number of particles is conserved.

It is not part of all tired light
theories.

Which is why I tried to indivcate that that argument
only applied to a specific subset.

(It is true of Vigier's QM version, I believe. But not of
Maxwell's, Olber's, or LeSages.)

There may be others as well. I don't pretend to know
of all the possibilities but the point is that those
in which the red-shift mechanism does not also reduce
the flux of photons need to find a way to "meet the
data" as you put it from FIRAS.

snip

The
graphic is from Ned Wright's page but I'm sure you
understand the objection without a specific citation.

Oh, I understand it all right.

Then why waste time above pretending you didn't.

snip more ad hominems

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.

Here's a link discussing both Ned Wright and MTW:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10....supernews.com

And another with more detail:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10....supernews.com

See my reply to Bjoern on those threads. Either something
got damaged in the cut & paste (maybe MTW's ;-) or I misread
the quotes. For whatever reason, I don't follow the third one.
Anyway, as you can see, I gave you a different argument above.

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.

I could, but I won't bother.

Fair enough.

My point was that the only defense you had was
a 1929 theory by Zwicky (The best you could do was find a different
strawman). You aren't even sure *why* Zwicky is out of favor. But yet,
you
use it to claim that *ALL* tired light theories are disproved.

That's a lie. Provide a reference.

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.

You don't even know *WHY* Zwicky's theory is out of favor! Yet, you
claimed
that *ALL* such theories are disproved,

That's a lie too. Provide a reference.

simply because Zwicky's was. That
is not taking each theory 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.

Precisely!!!!! Yet you dismissed them all, without even looking.

I have never made any such claim. What I said was:

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.

So again you are lying.

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

You stated that you would only consider alternatives that included the
redshift-speed relationship a constant.

That's a lie too. Provide a reference.

but until the last few posts, you have griped almost
entirely about 'linearity'.

And that is still the issue. The nonlinearity of the data. Versus the
linearity of the theory.

And again you try to create the strawman. The linearity
in the theory is between speed and distance while the
data relates redshift and distance, or more accurately
redshift and magnitude of standard candles.

Eventually, you wore down to admitting that tired light theories existed.

ROFL! You really are a card. Do your research, find out
who told Aladar Stolmar that he wasn't the first to
propose that tired light had an exponential relationship
to distance:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=99...ws.demon.co.uk

That was over three years ago. Still you seem to be
enjoying yourself, beating about the bush, so I'll
just wait for you to get wherever your're going.

But you claimed they were not viable on other grounds. Even though you
didn't know offhand what those "grounds" were.

I hope you now realise
that criticism of current conventional cosmology is
not valid.

We aren't discussing criticism of "conventional cosmology." But about a
single issue. Whether the assumption direct, linear relationship between
redshift and speed is valid.

Again you try to slip in the strawman, I am not aware
of _any_ theory that uses such a relationship other than
as an approximation when vc. In conventional theory
the proportionality is between speed and distance at
a given epoch while redshift is given by the change in
scale factor a(t).

Or whether tired light theories -- which
predicted the data that big bangers now claim for "dark energy" -- can be
considered.

Of course they can be considered, but as you said, they
must be consistent with the data. Different theories
may be best tested against different data so stop
handwaving and start discussing specifics. Otherwise
all I can do is give you general indications of the
tests that can be applied.

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

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

George Dishman wrote in message
...


[snip]


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.

And that is assuming that redshift always equates to speed. Why did you
start with "no?"


Because the conversation was about the linear
reationship in the Hubble Law, and that relates
speed to distance at a given epoch. The relationship
between redshift and speed is only linear for vc.
Your attempts to sugggest I argued something other
than that are just a waste of time.

I'm quite sure that greywolf simply did not understand your arguments.


[snip]



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.

You finally admitted it on the last round.


I admitted no such thing. What I said was that the fact
that I am willing to consider alternatives hadn't been
clear in previous posts. It still remains true.


So, while your statement is
literally true, it is disingenuous.


I would say the same of your attempt to suggest I
admitted something when it is obvious I didn't.

greywolf's usual debating tactics...


[snip]


would reduce the energy of each photon but not the flux.

That is the assumption of the BB.


Nonsense, it is simply a consequence of the fact that
the number of particles is conserved.

greywolf displays his usual problems with understanding actual
physical arguments...


[snip]


The
graphic is from Ned Wright's page but I'm sure you
understand the objection without a specific citation.

Oh, I understand it all right.


Then why waste time above pretending you didn't.

Because he likes trolling, probably.


[snip]


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.

I could, but I won't bother.


Fair enough.

And yet again a favorite of greywolf's tactics: first whine
endlessly that your opponent does not want to consider alternatives,
but when asked where one can read up on these alternatives, simply
refuse to provide references.

He tried that game with me several times...


My point was that the only defense you had was
a 1929 theory by Zwicky (The best you could do was find a different
strawman). You aren't even sure *why* Zwicky is out of favor. But yet,
you use it to claim that *ALL* tired light theories are disproved.


That's a lie. Provide a reference.

Either he won't bother, or he will try to misrepresent one of
your arguments so that it looks like as if it supports his
assertion above...



[snip]



Or whether tired light theories -- which
predicted the data that big bangers now claim for "dark energy" -- can be
considered.


Of course they can be considered, but as you said, they
must be consistent with the data. Different theories
may be best tested against different data so stop
handwaving and start discussing specifics.

He won't. He is good at trolling, at making broad, sweeping
claims - but when backed to a corner, he resorts to insults
and the like, but never bothers to actually back up his claims
with hard data and references. He only uses references when
he thinks they disprove the BBT or show a weak point in it.


[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern