Cosmic acceleration rediscovered

"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:
"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

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...
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.

LOL! Getting your jollies by patting George on the back, Bjoern?

[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...

What, pointing out the obvious? I especially like your chiming in after
Bill performs the Kindergarten, "well what about you?" attempt to divert.


[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...

LOL! Like Bjoern's understanding about the physical arguments of MTW and
Zel'dovich? At least I make the attempt to read them.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10....supernews.com

[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.

LOL! Keep that nose brown, Bjoern. Hey! Is Bill on one of your review
committees?


[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.

ROTFLMAO!

He tried that game with me several times...

A pathetic lie.



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...

No need, its in black and white (or light and dark).


[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,

I identify problems with arguments. I don't generally insult people.

but never bothers to actually back up his claims
with hard data and references.

A completely fraudulant claim.

He only uses references when
he thinks they disprove the BBT or show a weak point in it.

ROTFLMAO! Bjoern, your own personal fixation on the BB is your problem, not
mine.

[snip]

--
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}

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.

That wasn't my point.

The
fact remains that linearity in the Hubble Law
is between speed and distance.

That was my point. Repeatedly.

Now that we're on the same page, I will snip any repetitions of the issue
about what is contained ... or not contained ... in the Hubble Law.

{snip "content of Hubble Law" arguments}

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.

Wrong. Google search proves that the first occurrence of the word
"alternative" in this thread is your mention of Zwicky, 1929, above.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=co...dom2surf.ne t

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.

I did, and you are wrong again. The message that began this was my post in
sci.astro, of a reply that was banned in s.a.r:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=pD...ewsgroup s.co
m

There is no mention of the big bang at all in that post. I quote: "The
"Hubble's law" to which you are referring is a theoretical construct.
Hubble's data connects distance with redshift -- not with recession
velocity."

The first mention of the big bang in the thread was my correction of your
confusing the Big Bang with GR. Which was about your fifth post in the
sequence.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=RL...lashnews grou
ps.com

Now, can we get back to the physics of redshift and speed, and the SN1a
data?

{snip higher levels}

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.

You finally admitted that tired light theories were conceivable in the prior
round. That was the first mention of any alternative.

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.

My statement was that you had finally admitted to an alternative in that
post. Not that you admitted to refusing to consider them, prior to that
post.

(A)

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.

It wasn't clear at all. All you are doing is demonstrating a fundamental
ignorance of the subject.

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 assuming that the number of particles is conserved, *while* the big
bang expansion is going on. It also assumes that the CMBR is the BB
afterglow. Which is a second-order BB assumption. Eddington first
predicted 3 deg K for the temperature of local "space" simply based on local
stellar light inputs -- in 1923. A prediction that the BB never made.

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.

But there is no 'subset'. By definition, all "tired light" theories have
energy degredation with distance or time. That's what the term *means.*
Some theories are QM based, retaining photons as a QM entity. Others don't.

(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.

The data from FIRAS is not a confirmation that the universe expanded. That
is the BB assumption of the origin of the CMBR, again.

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.

Huh? I never stated that I didn't understand Ned Wright's graphic. My
prior response was the first one after you brought that strawman in.

snip more ad hominems

Let's look at this claim. First, let us provide the rest of the paragraph
that you snipped:
=======================
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.)
=======================
The first sentence addresses the web pages proffered by you and not an
individual (hence they are not ad hominem). The second page describe the
vague, handwavy assertion that you made (again not an ad hominem).

And finally, I provided some links to back up my evaluations of the
arguments on Ned Wright's page, and the ones you provided. So that you can
evaluate my characterizations of Ned's arguments.


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.

I did. Pretty pathetic wriggling, don't you think?

Either something
got damaged in the cut & paste (maybe MTW's ;-) or I misread
the quotes.

Nope. Those are direct quotes. No typos. And you didn't misread them.
Those disjointed, hand-waving arguments are all that orthodoxy has to offer.
That was the whole point of the thread.

For whatever reason, I don't follow the third one.

That's because it makes no sense at all. As I point out in the linked
posts.

Anyway, as you can see, I gave you a different argument above.

Hey, I enjoy being proved wrong on that kind of prediction. Even if your
argument was just a repetition of a vague and hand-wavy effort by Ned
Wright, instead of MTW. (Ned seems to have replaced his original MTW
references after my posts, above.) At least I got to see a new argument!

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.

Look up to (A), above.

(1) "I am aware of the current interpretation and of Zwicky's 1929
alternative"
(2) "exponential photon energy degradation, commonly known as 'Tired
Light'."
(3) "ruled out in other ways"

And -- laughably -- you provide your own link, below. To the post where you
claim that all tired light theories *are* Zwicky's theory ... because they
have
energy degradation.

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.

My first sentence, above, is a conclusion. You admitted to not reading MTW,
before. And Ned's website wasn't around in the 1930s. In this thread, it
didn't appear that you'd read even Ned's webpage (which used to refer to
MTW) until the post immediately before. My conclusion was incorrect, but
not without foundation.

My claim in the second sentence is shown in (A), and above, item (3). And
in your own link, farther below. You wouldn't listen to Aladar's claims
that his theory was different. You insisted that *all* theories are the
same as Zwicky's.

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.

Not in the least. You wouldn't even consider the option (of a nonlinear
spatial relationship of redshift and distance) as a possibility, until your
mention of Zwicky, above. You always insisted on a "constant of
proportionality."

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

Wrong again. Google search proves that the first occurrence of the word
"alternative" in this thread is your mention of Zwicky, 1929, above.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=co...dom2surf.ne t

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

That's a lie too. Provide a reference.

Another false claim disproved. From:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Z9...lashnews grou
ps.com
=============
Why are you so fixated

Fixated? I mentioned it once purely in the context of
the source of the term.

You've used it at least a dozen times in the thread. I'm not talking about
the word use. I'm talking about the assumption that you keep making.

on a "constant of proportionality," to the exclusion of
the beginning of an exponential function?

Apparently it's my turn to expand your mind, they are not
exclusive.

Then why do you constantly ignore the possibility that the redshift-distance
relation is an exponential curve?
=============
And many other locations, where you insist on only considering *only* a
"constant of proportionality."

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.

Strawman? It's the starting point of the original post in the thread in
this newsgroup! As documented, above.

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.

Yes. That's my point.

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:


mon.co.uk

That was over three years ago.

LOL! And that old post demonstrates that you haven't learned much. You are
fighting by invoking the same set of strawman sources as you were then!
Aladar was trying to point this out, but you simply avoided the issue by
claiming that Zwicky's theory was considered disproved, so his theory must
be too. Even though Aladar pointed out the strawman nature of Ned's
(repeated) argument.

And since you knew better, why did you play dumb for so long in this thread?
(Your position in this thread was that a nonlinear distance-redshift
relationship was not an option.)

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

LOL!

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,

It's not a strawman. It is the first statement of the first post in the
thread in this newsgroup.

I am not aware
of _any_ theory that uses such a relationship other than
as an approximation when vc.

Yet we just discussed tired light a few lines above.

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).

Here comes the "epoch" stuff again. And "conventional" theory.

Yet the subject is the difference between observation and theory.

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

ROTFLMAO!!! They all have to be tested against the *same* 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.

Well, one test was the prediction of the nonlinearity discovered in the SN1a
data. That big-bangers now classify as "dark energy."

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

I'm going to reply in full to this but it's already
much too long. Can I suggest either you do some severe
snipping or I will on my next reply.


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

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

{snip higher levels}

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.

That wasn't my point.

The
fact remains that linearity in the Hubble Law
is between speed and distance.

That was my point. Repeatedly.

Now that we're on the same page, I will snip any repetitions of the issue
about what is contained ... or not contained ... in the Hubble Law.

OK, let's put a stake in the ground and stick to that
from now on, but bear in mind that the distance is
measured at a given epoch, not at the time of emission.
Changing to time of emission makes it non-linear. Sorry
to be repetitious, I know I've pointed it out many times
already, but you seem to keep forgetting it.

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

Wrong. Google search proves that the first occurrence of the word
"alternative" in this thread is your mention of Zwicky, 1929, above.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=co...dom2surf.ne t

However, two posts before that in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...uk.clara. net

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

I am happy to consider causes of redshift other than
motion.

I just didn't use the word "alternative"

In my following post
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...s.uk.clara.net

I said
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

... the observed relation
between red-shift and distance is a combination of
the relation between redshift a given epoch together
with the time variation of any parameters in the
former. Either or both (or even neither) could be
non-linear but the combination should match the
(non-linear) observed data. ...

Prior to those the conversation was mostly about
the proportionality in the Hubble Law.

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.

I did, and you are wrong again. The message that began this was my post
in
sci.astro, of a reply that was banned in s.a.r:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=pD...ewsgroup s.co
m

There is no mention of the big bang at all in that post. I quote: "The
"Hubble's law" to which you are referring is a theoretical construct.
Hubble's data connects distance with redshift -- not with recession
velocity."

True, I got that wrong.
snip

Now, can we get back to the physics of redshift and speed, and the SN1a
data?

I think it better not to reintroduce that, let's finish
discussing Tired Light first.

{snip higher levels}

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.

You finally admitted that tired light theories were conceivable in the
prior
round. That was the first mention of any alternative.

You miss my point, I have never admitted "assuming the
conventional theory is the only possibility." because
it isn't true. Whether we have talked about alternatives
or not is beside the point. You may have incorrectly
presumed that I thought the conventional model was "the
only possibility" but that is not the case. As I point
out elsewhere, I was aware of alternatives at least three
years ago.

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.

My statement was that you had finally admitted to an alternative in that
post. Not that you admitted to refusing to consider them, prior to that
post.

No, your claim was that I had admitted "assuming the
conventional theory is the only possibility." That is
untrue. It is true that we only discussed alternatives
recently but that is another matter.


(A)

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.

It wasn't clear at all.

If it wasn't clear, you should have looked back at the
quoted text for the context to see that I was taking
a specific example, not claiming a general result.

... All you are doing is demonstrating a fundamental
ignorance of the subject.

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 assuming that the number of particles is conserved, *while* the big
bang expansion is going on.

No, the proof applies if the number is conserved even in
a steady state universe. Suppose we were at the centre of
a hot steel sphere of constant size, billions of light
years in diameter (silly, I know but it illustrates the
point), the energy of individual photons would be reduced
in transit by Tired Light but the rate of photons arriving
would not. The result would not match what was measured by
FIRAS.

snip
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.

But there is no 'subset'. ...
Some theories are QM based, retaining photons as a QM entity. Others
don't.

Thanks for illustrating those two subsets.

(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.

The data from FIRAS is not a confirmation that the universe expanded.

I didn't say it was, my point stands.

Then why waste time above pretending you didn't.

Huh? I never stated that I didn't understand Ned Wright's graphic. My
prior response was the first one after you brought that strawman in.

My thinking was that, if you understand the graphic,
you must understand that it applies to some Tired
Light theories but not others so why did you pretend
I was saying it disproved _all_ Tired Light theories.

snip
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.

I did. Pretty pathetic wriggling, don't you think?

Either something
got damaged in the cut & paste (maybe MTW's ;-) or I misread
the quotes.

Nope. Those are direct quotes. No typos. And you didn't misread them.


If Zel'dovich said:
"We ask the question: if there were such a process,

and MTW supposedly copied it but it became:
"If there does not exist any such decay process,

something is wrong. Anyway, it's academic at present
since I didn't use those arguments.

snip
Anyway, as you can see, I gave you a different argument above.

Hey, I enjoy being proved wrong on that kind of prediction. Even if your
argument was just a repetition of a vague and hand-wavy effort

It gives a quantitative analysis for an example source
temperature. The only thing hand-wavy is that he cannot
use a specific temperature without a specific Tired Light
model to test. The example illustrates the method.

by Ned
Wright, instead of MTW. (Ned seems to have replaced his original MTW
references after my posts, above.) At least I got to see a new argument!

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.

Look up to (A), above.

I did, and nowhere did I claim it applied to *ALL* tired light
theories.

(1) "I am aware of the current interpretation and of Zwicky's 1929
alternative"
(2) "exponential photon energy degradation, commonly known as 'Tired
Light'."
(3) "ruled out in other ways"

And -- laughably -- you provide your own link, below. To the post where
you
claim that all tired light theories *are* Zwicky's theory ... because they
have
energy degradation.

The relevant text hasn't been snipped and is still above but
let me repeat it he

... 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.

Nowhere did I claim the FIRAS data ruled out *ALL* tired
light theories, that was your extrapolation.

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.

My first sentence, above, is a conclusion. You admitted to not reading
MTW, before.

True.

And Ned's website wasn't around in the 1930s.

Also true.

In this thread, it
didn't appear that you'd read even Ned's webpage (which used to refer to
MTW) until the post immediately before.

I've been using his pages since the late 1990's which
is why I knew I could go there to get the FIRAS data
comparison, but he does update them ocassionaly so you
may have got the wrong impression.

My conclusion was incorrect,

Thank you.

but
not without foundation.

I think in fact what misled you was not realising I was
commenting only on those Tired Light theories that lose
energy in a specific way. However, as long as we have
cleared that up, let's move on.

My claim in the second sentence is shown in (A), and above, item (3). And
in your own link, farther below. You wouldn't listen to Aladar's claims
that his theory was different. You insisted that *all* theories are the
same as Zwicky's.

Aladar's claim was that he was the first person ever to
suggest that Tired Light would produce an exponential
relationship between distance and frequency. I also
pointed out that _his_ theory was falsified by the FIRAS
data. That isn't the same as claiming "*all* Tired Light
theories are the same as Zwicky's."

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.

Not in the least. You wouldn't even consider the option (of a nonlinear
spatial relationship of redshift and distance) as a possibility, until
your
mention of Zwicky, above.

Technically I mentioned it two posts earlier as I said
way back but that's not the point.

You always insisted on a "constant of
proportionality."

Again that is misleading, what I have repeatedly pointed
out is that the proportionality in the Hubble Law is
between speed and distance at_a_given_epoch_. It is also
true that Hubble's data was linear but only because it
covered a very short time span.

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

Wrong again. Google search proves that the first occurrence of the word
"alternative" in this thread is your mention of Zwicky, 1929, above.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=co...dom2surf.ne t

See the beginning of this post.

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

That's a lie too. Provide a reference.

Another false claim disproved. From:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Z9...lashnews grou
ps.com
=============
Why are you so fixated

Fixated? I mentioned it once purely in the context of
the source of the term.

You've used it at least a dozen times in the thread. I'm not talking
about
the word use. I'm talking about the assumption that you keep making.

on a "constant of proportionality," to the exclusion of
the beginning of an exponential function?

The "constant of proportionality" applies to distance at
a given epoch versus speed. The lie is that I have ever
suggested that I "would only consider alternatives that
included the redshift-speed relationship a constant." To
be clear on that, I have never suggested the redshift was
prportional to speed other than in the first order
approximation for vc, and I have specifically said that
redshift is not proportional to speed for high z.

redshift-speed relationship a constant.
Apparently it's my turn to expand your mind, they are not
exclusive.

Then why do you constantly ignore the possibility that the
redshift-distance
relation is an exponential curve?

As I said:
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

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

I am happy to consider causes of redshift other than
motion.

If you ask about a specific theory in which the
relationship is exponential, we can discuss it.

=============
And many other locations, where you insist on only considering *only* a
"constant of proportionality."

I thought we had agreed on that:

It is clear to me that Hubble's Law (specifically
relating recessional velocity to distance at a given
epoch) can be derived from short range linearity of
velocity if the universe is homogenous and isotropic
at large scales. (You have to show a flaw in some
very simple logic to change my mind on that.)

To which you replied:
I never questioned it. ...

so I am prepared to consider alternatives but only if
you can show a flaw in that logic.

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.

Strawman? It's the starting point of the original post in the thread in
this newsgroup! As documented, above.

Yes it was, and it was a strawman then too.

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.

Yes. That's my point.

You said "The nonlinearity of the data. Versus the linearity
of the theory." implying these were in conflict. That would
only be true if the linearity in the theory applied to the
relationship between redshift and distance. The strawman
theory you are trying to imply is one in which that was the
case. Of course it would be easy to demonstrate such a theory
was wrong, but then that's the purpose of a strawman, it's
easy to knock down.

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:


mon.co.uk

That was over three years ago.

LOL! And that old post demonstrates that you haven't learned much. You
are
fighting by invoking the same set of strawman sources as you were then!

The same data is just as effective now as it was then.

Aladar was trying to point this out, but you simply avoided the issue by
claiming that Zwicky's theory was considered disproved, so his theory must
be too. Even though Aladar pointed out the strawman nature of Ned's
(repeated) argument.

Ned's argument was valid but he made a mistake in
thinking the upper limit in Aladar's Basic program
was a physical limit in the theory. I talked to
Aladar about that and he told me it was a bodge he
put in because his software took about 20 hours to
run. He needed to integrate to infinity but couldn't
do the maths so ran it until he felt the results had
stabilised as very distant sources had negligible
effect on the results. Correcting Ned's error would
make the fit worse.

And since you knew better, why did you play dumb for so long in this
thread?
(Your position in this thread was that a nonlinear distance-redshift
relationship was not an option.)

Again that is a lie. My 'postion' as you call it was
that Aladar's theory could not match the FIRAS data.

As a separate topic, I pointed out that the exponential
form was obvious and that Zwicky had published it first.
Aladar's claim to originality was false.

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

LOL!

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,

It's not a strawman. It is the first statement of the first post in the
thread in this newsgroup.

You are describing a ficticous theory in which redshift
should be proportional to distance even at high redshift.
That is a strawman, a distrotion of the actual Big Bang
models that you would find easier to discredit.

I am not aware
of _any_ theory that uses such a relationship other than
as an approximation when vc.

Yet we just discussed tired light a few lines above.

I am only aware of exponential or near-exponential
relationships in Tired Light theories as we discussed
before. I don't know of any theories, tired light or
otherwise, in which redshift is proportional to distance
for all distances.

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).

Here comes the "epoch" stuff again. And "conventional" theory.

And it will continue to appear until you stop trying
to create a strawman theory in which it is redshift
would be proportional to distance.

Yet the subject is the difference between observation and theory.

Whatever the subject, I will continue to correct you
each time you try to raise your strawman.

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

ROTFLMAO!!! They all have to be tested against the *same* data!

Heh, you got me on that one. I meant that particular
data may be able to falsify some theories but not others.

so stop
handwaving and start discussing specifics. Otherwise
all I can do is give you general indications of the
tests that can be applied.

Well, one test was the prediction of the nonlinearity discovered in the
SN1a
data. That big-bangers now classify as "dark energy."

Again you imply the strawman of expected linearity in the
SNe data. What is described as "dark energy" is the unknown
cause of the _deviation_ from the predicted _non-linearity_
which, in the conventional model, implies expansion is now
accelerating. The Hubble Law remains linear.

George

George Dishman wrote in message
...

I'm going to reply in full to this but it's already
much too long. Can I suggest either you do some severe
snipping or I will on my next reply.

OK, I'll cut out all the discussions re the definitions of the Hubble Term.
We reached closure there, I think....

I'll also cut the I said/ no I saids......

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

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


{snip}

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.

{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.

It is assuming that the number of particles is conserved, *while* the
big bang expansion is going on.

No, the proof applies if the number is conserved even in
a steady state universe.

Not in Ned's example. But let's look at your version.

Suppose we were at the centre of
a hot steel sphere of constant size, billions of light
years in diameter (silly, I know but it illustrates the
point), the energy of individual photons would be reduced
in transit by Tired Light but the rate of photons arriving
would not. The result would not match what was measured by
FIRAS.

There is no reason that they should. Because you are again assuming that
the CMBR is the result of a cosmic, universal and simultaneous event (or
events). This is a Big Bang assumption. It could be shoehorned into a
steady-state theory, but it is not a requirement of steady-state theory or
tired light theory. Eddington first calcuated that temperature by using
simple starlight.

For example, in my favorite theory (a Maxwellian/LeSage theory), the CMBR is
simply an EM hum from electrons bound to hydrogen.

snip

(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.

The data from FIRAS is not a confirmation that the universe expanded.

I didn't say it was, my point stands.

Your argument is based on the CMBR being BB afterglow. Or some other cosmic
event.

{snip}

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.

I did. Pretty pathetic wriggling, don't you think?

Either something
got damaged in the cut & paste (maybe MTW's ;-) or I misread
the quotes.

Nope. Those are direct quotes. No typos. And you didn't misread them.

If Zel'dovich said:
"We ask the question: if there were such a process,

and MTW supposedly copied it but it became:
"If there does not exist any such decay process,

something is wrong.

That part is the noted shortening of the argument done by MTW. Note the
lack of quotation marks on #3, by MTW.

Anyway, it's academic at present since I didn't use those arguments.

True.

snip
Anyway, as you can see, I gave you a different argument above.

Hey, I enjoy being proved wrong on that kind of prediction. Even if
your argument was just a repetition of a vague and hand-wavy effort

It gives a quantitative analysis for an example source
temperature.

But not one that is used in tired light theories.

The only thing hand-wavy is that he cannot
use a specific temperature without a specific Tired Light
model to test. The example illustrates the method.

But it is based entirely on the assumption of the CMBR being the BB
afterglow. Which is not part of tired light theories. (Because the BB
isn't.)

{snip}

in your own link, farther below. You wouldn't listen to Aladar's claims
that his theory was different. You insisted that *all* theories are the
same as Zwicky's.

Aladar's claim was that he was the first person ever to
suggest that Tired Light would produce an exponential
relationship between distance and frequency.

Uh, no. What Aladar claimed was that his was the first theory that included
causation. Zwicky's did not.

I also
pointed out that _his_ theory was falsified by the FIRAS
data. That isn't the same as claiming "*all* Tired Light
theories are the same as Zwicky's."

You claimed that his theory was the same as Zwicky's *because* they both had
exponential energy removal. Then you claimed that all such theories were
falsified by FIRAS.

Which is simply assuming your conclusion (the BB).

{snip}

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.

Strawman? It's the starting point of the original post in the thread in
this newsgroup! As documented, above.

Yes it was, and it was a strawman then too.

It is not a strawman. The SN1a data curve was not predicted by the hubble
law -- even the epoch-dependent version. (That is why we have "dark
energy.") It *was* predicted by tired light theories.

{snip}

so stop
handwaving and start discussing specifics. Otherwise
all I can do is give you general indications of the
tests that can be applied.

Well, one test was the prediction of the nonlinearity discovered in the
SN1a data. That big-bangers now classify as "dark energy."

Again you imply the strawman of expected linearity in the
SNe data.

"Dark energy" was not predicted by the big bang. Dark energy is an ad hoc
modification to the BB, to explain a deviation between the form of the
observed redshift-distance curve versus the theoretical redshift-distance
curve. The form of the observed redshift-distance curve was predicted by
tired light.

What is described as "dark energy" is the unknown
cause of the _deviation_ from the predicted _non-linearity_
which, in the conventional model,

Yes, we agree.

implies expansion is now accelerating.

Only if you refuse to consider the alternative.

The Hubble Law remains linear.

The question is, does the "Hubble law" reflect the real universe.

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

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

I'm going to reply in full to this but it's already
much too long. Can I suggest either you do some severe
snipping or I will on my next reply.

OK, I'll cut out all the discussions re the definitions of the Hubble
Term.
We reached closure there, I think....

I'll just note the bit at the bottom:

What is described as "dark energy" is the unknown
cause of the _deviation_ from the predicted _non-linearity_
which, in the conventional model,

Yes, we agree.

That wrapped it up for me, thanks.


I'll also cut the I said/ no I saids......

That's what I really meant. I'm not really interested in
that sort of argument though I can't allow a mis-statement
of my views to pass without correcting it once. I'm sure
you will pick me up if I mis-state your views too.


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

snip

No, the proof applies if the number is conserved even in
a steady state universe.

Not in Ned's example. But let's look at your version.

Suppose we were at the centre of
a hot steel sphere of constant size, billions of light
years in diameter (silly, I know but it illustrates the
point), the energy of individual photons would be reduced
in transit by Tired Light but the rate of photons arriving
would not. The result would not match what was measured by
FIRAS.

There is no reason that they should. Because you are again assuming that
the CMBR is the result of a cosmic, universal and simultaneous event (or
events).

No, but I am assuming that whatever the source, it is
essentially a blackbody spectrum, i.e. thermally generated


This is a Big Bang assumption. It could be shoehorned into a
steady-state theory, but it is not a requirement of steady-state theory or
tired light theory. Eddington first calcuated that temperature by using
simple starlight.

It meets my assumption though because he used starlight
to heat interstellar material which then re-radiated
thermally. The above argument then applies.

For example, in my favorite theory (a Maxwellian/LeSage theory), the CMBR
is
simply an EM hum from electrons bound to hydrogen.

But that doesn't produce the spectrum we see, hydrogen
radiates in discrete lines. How does it get to the
observd spectrum?

snip repeat of above


If Zel'dovich said:
"We ask the question: if there were such a process,

and MTW supposedly copied it but it became:
"If there does not exist any such decay process,

something is wrong.

That part is the noted shortening of the argument done by MTW. Note the
lack of quotation marks on #3, by MTW.

Perhaps but the condition seems to be inverted. Anyway,
I don't see any benefit in pursuing that at the moment

Anyway, it's academic at present since I didn't use those arguments.

True.

snip
Anyway, as you can see, I gave you a different argument above.

Hey, I enjoy being proved wrong on that kind of prediction. Even if
your argument was just a repetition of a vague and hand-wavy effort

It gives a quantitative analysis for an example source
temperature.

But not one that is used in tired light theories.

It is in some. This is partly why you get what you call
hand-waving answers. There are so many Tired Light
theories, no one analysis applies to all.

snip repetition of above arguments

in your own link, farther below. You wouldn't listen to Aladar's
claims
that his theory was different. You insisted that *all* theories are
the
same as Zwicky's.

Aladar's claim was that he was the first person ever to
suggest that Tired Light would produce an exponential
relationship between distance and frequency.

Uh, no. What Aladar claimed was that his was the first theory that
included
causation. Zwicky's did not.

I spent nearly two years discussing this with him. I won't
start digging out Google references but I can asure you it
took me a long time to convince him he wasn't the first.

I also
pointed out that _his_ theory was falsified by the FIRAS
data. That isn't the same as claiming "*all* Tired Light
theories are the same as Zwicky's."

You claimed that his theory was the same as Zwicky's

No, I never did that. Zwicky could not have known of the
the CMBR but Aladar claimed it was integrated red-shifted
galactic light in an infinite universe. He claimed nobody
had realised this because everyone else thought the energy
loss was linear (IIRC), not exponential.

snip
Strawman? It's the starting point of the original post in the thread
in
this newsgroup! As documented, above.

Yes it was, and it was a strawman then too.

It is not a strawman. The SN1a data curve was not predicted by the hubble
law -- even the epoch-dependent version. (That is why we have "dark
energy.") It *was* predicted by tired light theories.

I wonder if you mean the same as me. What you say is
true, but unrelated. A strawman is producing a false
version of a theory which can be shown to be false
when the real theory could not. I was talking of your
attempts to suggest the red-shift should be proportional
to distance even at high z in Big Bang theories.

{snip}

so stop
handwaving and start discussing specifics. Otherwise
all I can do is give you general indications of the
tests that can be applied.

Well, one test was the prediction of the nonlinearity discovered in the
SN1a data. That big-bangers now classify as "dark energy."

Again you imply the strawman of expected linearity in the
SNe data.

"Dark energy" was not predicted by the big bang. Dark energy is an ad hoc
modification to the BB, to explain a deviation between the form of the
observed redshift-distance curve versus the theoretical redshift-distance
curve.

Again I don't disagree but your strawman was to imply that
the theoretical redshift-distance in BB is linear.

The form of the observed redshift-distance curve was predicted by
tired light.

Now we are getting somewhere, this is what i would rather
discuss. Which tired light theory predicts this and what
is the formula for the curve?

What is described as "dark energy" is the unknown
cause of the _deviation_ from the predicted _non-linearity_
which, in the conventional model,

Yes, we agree.

implies expansion is now accelerating.

Only if you refuse to consider the alternative.

That was in reference to the expansion model only of course.

The Hubble Law remains linear.

The question is, does the "Hubble law" reflect the real universe.

No, the question is does the conventional model reflect
the real universe. There's lots more than just the Hubble
Law involved and many tests that it could yet fail.

George

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


[snip]

"Dark energy" was not predicted by the big bang. Dark energy is an ad hoc
modification to the BB, to explain a deviation between the form of the
observed redshift-distance curve versus the theoretical redshift-distance
curve.


Again I don't disagree but your strawman was to imply that
the theoretical redshift-distance in BB is linear.

Well, I disagree. True, dark energy was not predicted by the BBT
directly. But it is neither an ad hoc modification of it! The
cosmological constant is essentially a free parameter in the equations
of GR. In previous times, people set it to zero (because there were no
observations which showed differently, and there were some *very* hand
waving arguments that it probably is zero), but when the new
measurements of the SNs came in, we found out that this parameter in
reality is not zero. That's science: determining parameters of a
theory by observations.

I explained this several times to greywolf42, but he simply refuses to
understand my argument...

OTOH, some alternative models to explain the accelerated expansion, like
e.g. quintessence, I would perhaps call "ad hoc" - because there is
indication at all that such a scalar field exists. It was really only
introduced in order to save some problems in the theory.



The form of the observed redshift-distance curve was predicted by
tired light.


Now we are getting somewhere, this is what i would rather
discuss. Which tired light theory predicts this and what
is the formula for the curve?

And which tired light theory predicted the new data, which shows
(according to the standard GR explanation) that at earlier times, the
expansion was decelerating? (astro-ph/0402512)

Which of the tired light theories agree with all the other established
theories, i.e. GR and QFT, by the way?


[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

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


[snip]

"Dark energy" was not predicted by the big bang. Dark energy is an ad
hoc
modification to the BB, to explain a deviation between the form of the
observed redshift-distance curve versus the theoretical redshift-distance
curve.


Again I don't disagree but your strawman was to imply that
the theoretical redshift-distance in BB is linear.

Well, I disagree. True, dark energy was not predicted by the BBT directly.
But it is neither an ad hoc modification of it! The cosmological constant
is essentially a free parameter in the equations of GR. In previous times,
people set it to zero (because there were no observations which showed
differently, and there were some *very* hand waving arguments that it
probably is zero), but when the new measurements of the SNs came in, we
found out that this parameter in
reality is not zero. That's science: determining parameters of a
theory by observations.

Before you can determine a parameter, you need an
equation to put it into, but many laws have started
as empirical correlations and the theory came later.
In fact some consider empirical laws to be the purest
form of science, uncorrupted by the limitations of
our understanding.

I explained this several times to greywolf42, but he simply refuses to
understand my argument...

That I can appreciate. He does seem very determined to
avoid understanding.

OTOH, some alternative models to explain the accelerated expansion, like
e.g. quintessence, I would perhaps call "ad hoc" - because there is
indication at all that such a scalar field exists. It was really only
introduced in order to save some problems in the theory.

That's really what I meant, they are ad hoc mechanisms
to explain the empirical relationship. I used "dark
energy" as a generic term for whatever is causing the
acceleration, which is perhaps not the way it is used
in more professional circles.

The form of the observed redshift-distance curve was predicted by
tired light.


Now we are getting somewhere, this is what i would rather
discuss. Which tired light theory predicts this and what
is the formula for the curve?

And which tired light theory predicted the new data, which shows
(according to the standard GR explanation) that at earlier times, the
expansion was decelerating? (astro-ph/0402512)

Which of the tired light theories agree with all the other established
theories, i.e. GR and QFT, by the way?

If he can come up with one that explains the spectrum
of the CMBR and its dipole moment as well as why the
cosmological red-shift is exponential with distance
he'll do better than anyone else I've talked to on
the subject.

George

George Dishman wrote in message
...

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

snip higher levels

No, the proof applies if the number is conserved even in
a steady state universe.

Not in Ned's example. But let's look at your version.

Suppose we were at the centre of
a hot steel sphere of constant size, billions of light
years in diameter (silly, I know but it illustrates the
point), the energy of individual photons would be reduced
in transit by Tired Light but the rate of photons arriving
would not. The result would not match what was measured by
FIRAS.

There is no reason that they should. Because you are again assuming
that the CMBR is the result of a cosmic, universal and simultaneous
event (or events).

No, but I am assuming that whatever the source, it is
essentially a blackbody spectrum, i.e. thermally generated

Because you require that the photons all travel cosmic distances before
detection; you are also assuming a distant, essentially simultaneous, cosmic
source from everywhere in the universe.

This is a Big Bang assumption. It could be shoehorned into a
steady-state theory, but it is not a requirement of steady-state theory
or tired light theory. Eddington first calcuated that temperature by
using simple starlight.

It meets my assumption though because he used starlight
to heat interstellar material which then re-radiated
thermally. The above argument then applies.

But Eddington's photons didn't have to travel cosmic distances after
emission. They were local, recent emissions.

For example, in my favorite theory (a Maxwellian/LeSage theory), the
CMBR is simply an EM hum from electrons bound to hydrogen.

But that doesn't produce the spectrum we see,

Sure it does. It's a thermal emission.

hydrogen radiates in discrete lines.

Not thermal emission, it doesn't. You are simply assuming that I'm talking
about a balmer or lyman-type emission from excited atoms.

How does it get to the observd spectrum?

Notice that I didn't say "atomic" hum. I said "electron" hum. Based on the
reduced mass of the electron in bound, ground-state hydrogen.

With the units of divergence of momentum for charge (which is the "natural"
units for an aether theory), the charge to mass ratio is indicative of the
intrinsic frequency of the basic matter particles. The corresponding
wavelength for the electron is:

lambda = m c / q

For the bound electron with a typical relativistic mass of approximately
1E-30 kilograms we get:

lambda = (1.0E-30) (2.99e+8) / (1.602E-19) = 1.87 E-3 meters.

Computing the equivalent blackbody temperature spectrum of this emission
gives:

T = .51 / 100 lambda = 2.73 deg K.

A completely local effect, without any experimental disproof (the
experiments have never tested for local effects, by placing the detectors in
isolation chambers).

Now, my favorite theory may be incorrect. However, even if my theory is not
correct, it doesn't change the fact that you cannot use a BB assumption as
the basis to claim that non-BB theories are not correct.

snip repeat of above

{snip exchange on Zel'dovich}

snip
Anyway, as you can see, I gave you a different argument above.

Hey, I enjoy being proved wrong on that kind of prediction. Even if
your argument was just a repetition of a vague and hand-wavy effort

It gives a quantitative analysis for an example source
temperature.

But not one that is used in tired light theories.

It is in some.

Which ones? I'm not aware of any. (And I mean a tired light theory source
that is actually promoting the tired light theory. Not one of the usual
straw men trotted out by folks like Ned and MTW.)

This is partly why you get what you call
hand-waving answers. There are so many Tired Light
theories, no one analysis applies to all.

Then why do people like Ned and MTW (and dozens on this newsgroup, like
Franz) constantly prattle about a single or a few simplistic arguments
"disprove" all tired light models?

Then again, we can get back to the non-linear, spatial correlations that
arise from tired light.

snip repetition of above arguments

Aladar's claim was that he was the first person ever to
suggest that Tired Light would produce an exponential
relationship between distance and frequency.

Uh, no. What Aladar claimed was that his was the first theory that
included causation. Zwicky's did not.

I spent nearly two years discussing this with him. I won't
start digging out Google references but I can asure you it
took me a long time to convince him he wasn't the first.

Fine. In the one link you did give, Aladar was not arguing the point that
you claim that he was.

I also
pointed out that _his_ theory was falsified by the FIRAS
data. That isn't the same as claiming "*all* Tired Light
theories are the same as Zwicky's."

You claimed that his theory was the same as Zwicky's

No, I never did that.

I don't want to get into this again. Read the link.

{snip the rest of the Aladar argument}


snip

it was a strawman then too.

It is not a strawman. The SN1a data curve was not predicted by the
hubble law -- even the epoch-dependent version. (That is why we have
"dark energy.") It *was* predicted by tired light theories.

I wonder if you mean the same as me. What you say is
true, but unrelated. A strawman is producing a false
version of a theory which can be shown to be false
when the real theory could not.

We agree on the definition of strawman.

I was talking of your
attempts to suggest the red-shift should be proportional
to distance even at high z in Big Bang theories.

I said the *observed* redshift-distance curve was not predicted by the big
bang theorists. As a result we have "dark energy." But that observed
redshift-distance curve *was* predicted by tired light theorists.

{snip}

Again you imply the strawman of expected linearity in the
SNe data.

"Dark energy" was not predicted by the big bang. Dark energy is an ad
hoc modification to the BB, to explain a deviation between the form
of the observed redshift-distance curve versus the theoretical
redshift-distance curve.

Again I don't disagree but your strawman was to imply that
the theoretical redshift-distance in BB is linear.

It is -- not counting the ad hoc modification for cosmic epochs. But we can
get past that, and go directly to:

The form of the observed redshift-distance curve was predicted by
tired light.

Now we are getting somewhere, this is what i would rather
discuss. Which tired light theory predicts this and what
is the formula for the curve?

All tired light theories predict the exponential form of the curve that was
detected. The value of the extinction constant is ad hoc in most of them.
(Just like the value of the dark energy / cosmological constant is an ad hoc
value in the new, improved BB theory.)

What is described as "dark energy" is the unknown
cause of the _deviation_ from the predicted _non-linearity_
which, in the conventional model,

Yes, we agree.

implies expansion is now accelerating.

Only if you refuse to consider the alternative.

That was in reference to the expansion model only of course.

We weren't discussing *only* the expansion model. So, I inserted the
clarifier.

The Hubble Law remains linear.

The question is, does the "Hubble law" reflect the real universe.

No, the question is does the conventional model reflect
the real universe. There's lots more than just the Hubble
Law involved and many tests that it could yet fail.

I sure don't disagree with that statement. However, *this* thread was
limited to the correlation between redshift and distance. Not all the rest
of the "conventional model."

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