Cosmic acceleration rediscovered

George Dishman wrote:
[This may not thread correctly, my server rejected
a reply as the references line was too long.]

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...

Then why did you never ask him why he keeps talking about
a "detected exponential curve"?


I have had many conversations with people putting
up unconventional theories. Usually I will point
out some flaw where observation rules out what they
propose and there will be some discussion of that
until they start to realise they are having
difficulty finding a flaw in my argument. Once that
happens, in my experience, they start trying to
change the subject. The smarter ones will often
drop in a throw-away line that looks innocuous but
if you pick up on it, they make it the main topic
and quietly snip any discussion of the data that
falsifies their theory.

His comment that the exponential is observed strikes
me as such an attempt to deflect the conversation so
I did not intend to take the bait.

Didn't he make that claim right from the start? So how
can it be an attempt to distract?


Since you asked, I have brought up the point in my
latest post so maybe he will address it, but I really
want to stick to seeing whether he can identify any
cosmological model based on tired light that can
explain the frequency spectrum of the CMBR.

It's really hard to get anything quantitative out of him...


I really wonder if there are some severe reading comprehension
problems on his side, or if he does do that fully consciously,
for trolling...


I have found frequently with cranks and trolls that
they have so convinced themselves of their case that
they will read web pages, books and posts to mean
what they expect you to say without making much
attempt to actually understand the text. His reading
of the Ned Wright graph I cited is a case in point.
He assumed it was talking of a distant source and
therefore not relevant when, if he had looked and
considered carefully, he should have realised it was
talking of a local source.

Now that might be just carelessness or it might be
a deliberate ploy to try to discredit the argument,
but for the real cranks I know it is a self-imposed
blindness, they cannot allow such an idea to form
in their minds unless they already have a way to
rationalise it away. It is fscinating to take one
through all the steps needed to disprove their theory
without giving the game away and get them to agree
each step, then put them together at the end and show
how the combination rules out their idea. Suddenly
things that were obvious and agreed become
unacceptable as their minds rebel against the logic.

Sounds like Morton's demon:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html
(be prepared that greywolf will now cry that I use ad hominems
by comparing him to creationists...)


[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...
George Dishman wrote:
[This may not thread correctly, my server rejected
a reply as the references line was too long.]

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...

Then why did you never ask him why he keeps talking about
a "detected exponential curve"?


I have had many conversations with people putting
up unconventional theories. Usually I will point
out some flaw where observation rules out what they
propose and there will be some discussion of that
until they start to realise they are having
difficulty finding a flaw in my argument. Once that
happens, in my experience, they start trying to
change the subject. The smarter ones will often
drop in a throw-away line that looks innocuous but
if you pick up on it, they make it the main topic
and quietly snip any discussion of the data that
falsifies their theory.

His comment that the exponential is observed strikes
me as such an attempt to deflect the conversation so
I did not intend to take the bait.

Didn't he make that claim right from the start? So how
can it be an attempt to distract?

Actually you are right, he did, and mentioned it
again later after the thread had drifted. I really
haven't decided whether he is a troll or whether
it just appears that way because of his debating
style. The test for me is if he is willing to lay
aside those aspects and really look at the physics.

I have found frequently with cranks and trolls that
they have so convinced themselves of their case that
they will read web pages, books and posts to mean
what they expect you to say without making much
attempt to actually understand the text. ...

snip

Sounds like Morton's demon:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html

I haven't seen that before, it's perfect, exactly
the behaviour I was describing, thanks.

(be prepared that greywolf will now cry that I use ad hominems
by comparing him to creationists...)

I could understand he might, but was really thinking
of Gerald Kelleher and Aladar Stolmar and a few
others. I haven't decided about greywolf yet. He
might genuinely not have understood Wright's argument
so I give him the benefit of the doubt on principle
so far. Time will tell if he is willing to really
look at the physics instead of trying to win a
debating contest. You never know, he might just be
able to come up with a model that fits the data.

George