Cosmic acceleration rediscovered

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

For a quick reference, see Perlmutter, Figure 3, Physics Today, April
2003,
"Supernovae, Dark Energy, and the Accelerating Universe".
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C...perlmutter.pdf
snip
Figure 3 is a picture of SN 1998ba. I can only guess that greywolf
means figure 1. But even in that figure, I fail to see an
exponential relationship between redshift and distance.

So I *still* wonder where he gets the claim from that the
detected curve is "exponential".

The values at the right end of the graph are
above a straight line projection of the low
z values. That implies higher magnitude for
a given redshift or conversely less red shift
at a given magnitude. I think he interprets
this as a lower redshift than if the predicted
redshift were proportional to distance for all
values:

... Pure Hubble constant (linear assumption) lies on
the straight line.

Again, this is just his strawman version in
which H is constant in time.

Straight line in which figure? Fig. 1 is *not* showing the
relationship between redshift and distance!

BTW, the term "pure Hubble constant" makes little sense. In *no* version
of the BBT *ever*, the Hubble parameter was assumed to be constant *in
time*!

His entire argument relies on pretending that
the relationship Hubble noted can be applied
indefinitely. Of course that implies that, at
great distances, the frequency would become
negative, but it's only a strawman.

Aside from punting significant aspects of history; L&S once again trot
out
an old myth (popularized by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler; but never
quantified), that "As critics still point out, any scattering process
with
energy transfer from the photon beam to the scattering medium, as
required
for a redshift, must broaden (deflect) the beam. This effect would cause
images of distant galaxies to be fuzzier than their local counterparts,
which they are not." The claim of "fuzziness" requires photons to
scatter
off of interstellar matter like little bowling balls.

The last claim is simply wrong. Nowhere in the calculation are
the photons treated as "little bowling balls". One uses the known
relations for their energies and momenta (E = pc, following from
Maxwell's equations, and de Broglie's formulas).

I used the Klien-Nishina formula when I looked
at the blurring argument earlier this year. I
find it hard to understand how the idea could
have been seriously considered.

Merry Christmas
George

In article ,
greywolf42 wrote:
IIRC, cosmogenic emissions of the CMBR are a BB assumption.

Lucky for us observations of the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect show that
the CMBR is not a local effect.

LOL! Here we go again. Another circular claim. And it's Zel'dovich, again!

In what way is my comment a circular claim?

And I don't care about the apostrophy or not.

What fun.

Do you mean this effect?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...4452a1cfe33c0a

You mean the one where the values for Ho are around 60-70, about what
WMAP shows?

I can describe the SZ effect without having to look at a reference to
refresh my memory. Can you? If so, please describe it.

Greg Hennessy wrote in message
...
In article ,
greywolf42 wrote:

IIRC, cosmogenic emissions of the CMBR are a BB assumption.

Lucky for us observations of the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect show that
the CMBR is not a local effect.

LOL! Here we go again. Another circular claim. And it's Zel'dovich,
again!

In what way is my comment a circular claim?

Your comment isn't circular. The reasoning for the "S-Z effect" is
circular.

And I don't care about the apostrophy or not.

I wasn't commenting on the apostrophe. I was commenting on another
Zel'dovich claim being placed out for target practice. Similar to the last
time Zel'dovich was offered as an official source for support for the BB
theory:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...80ea678b332834
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...42e81e40a679dc

What fun.

Do you mean this effect?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...4452a1cfe33c0a

You mean the one where the values for Ho are around 60-70, about what
WMAP shows?

I mean the one that didn't match observations, of course.

I can describe the SZ effect without having to look at a reference to
refresh my memory. Can you? If so, please describe it.

Did you have a point to make?

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

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in message
news:rbWyd.1801$8e5.1762@fed1read07...
Gentlemen:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
...
The "formal definition" of the Hubble constant was made by
Eddington,
in
the 1930s. It didn't have an H_0, IIRC.

Citation please.

Certainly. I don't own a copy of Eddington's book.

Neither do I, and I haven't found his paper on-line.

I can perhaps complete some references anyway:
URL:http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0959-5309/44/1/303
A presidential address, titled "The expanding universe", 1932
(I don't have access)

Nor do I. So, this link is worthless to the open public, here.

URL:http://www.phys-astro.sonoma.edu/Bru...sts/Eddington/
... a little tiny bit on his life.

Irrelevant.

URL:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...02-6313517-538
1757?v=glance&st=*
"The Expanding Universe : Astronomy's 'Great Debate', 1900-1931"
published in 1933 (and I've seen this date as 1931, 1932, and 1933)
... be sure and click on "more"

A good source for a book that will probably will bear on the subject. Does
anyone have a copy that they can find a quote for or against either side?

--
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}

Citation please.

Certainly. I don't own a copy of Eddington's book.

Neither do I, and I haven't found his paper on-line.

So, I'll provide this
excerpt from "Einstein and the History of Relativity", Howard & Stachel
ed. "Cosmology from 1917 to 1960", by George Ellis. Section 2.6.2
begins:

"REDSHIFT-DISTANCE RELATION. Meanwhile observations to consolidate the
data on the Hubble diagram, confirm the linear velocity-distance
relation, and determine the slope of this relation ("the Hubble
constant') proceeded apace. The linear relation was criticized by
Shapley (1929), but confirmed by de Sitter (1931b). The data were
extended by Hubble and Humanson (1931), using a chain of distance
indicators and observations extending the redshift range by a factor of
5 to 32 x 10^6 pc. They determined a value of H = 558 km/sec/Mpc
for the Hubble constant. ..."

"By 1936, Hubble had accumulated considerable data, summarized in his
superb book THE REALM OF THE NEBLUAE, determining a value of
526 km/sec/Mpc for the Hubble constant. However, in all this work the
interpretation of the observed relation was still uncertain; the
velocities presented were regarded as APPARENT VELOCITIES
(see Section 2.7). ..."

{Italics in original as all capitals, above.}

I think it is customary to use /obliques/ to indicate
italics but it's less common than say asterisks for bold.

That would work, too. But IMHO does't carry the emphasis as well into
ASCII.

I should also provide summation of the "present day" (1986)
understanding of the BB model, from the same source (section
titled "preliminaries"):

"The present-day state of such a universe is characterized by three
parameters: the Hubble constant H_0 - (R*/R)_0, the deceleration
parameter q_0 = -(R'/R)_0 (H_0)^-2, and the present total density
parameter rho_0 (which may represent contributions from various
matter components); these quantities being related to Gamma by
q_0 = (kappa rho_0 c^2 / 2 - Gamma) / 3 H_0^2,
where kappa is the gravitational constant and c the speed of light."

Note the slight difference in terminology between H and H_0 in the
different quotes above; by the same author (Ellis). Both are claimed
to be the Hubble constant. "H" is apparently not Hubble's variable
choice.

The key phrase that illustrates my point is "apparent
velocities". When Hubble first published, he was noting
an entirely empirical relationship.

Then we agree entirely! The Hubble constant was not (originally)
time-dependent. The latter was only added in the mid-1900s.

In a steady state
universe, one might expect the redshift from galaxies
to be random regardless of distance and solely due to
gravitational redshift. Galaxies heavier than ours would
show a redshift while those lighter would be blueshifted.
Any equation can be approximated as a power series but
his data was too scattered to determine the second order
coefficient but good enough to rule out a non-zero
first order term. That alone was worthy of publication.

Yes. Even though Wirtz was the first to publish such a relation. Hubble
just confirmed Wirtz' observations.

To go beyond the observation would mean making an
assumption about the cause and something other than
speed would extrapolate differently.

Yes.

A naive extrapolation would be that the speed of a
galaxy remained constant over time.

But the (original) "hubble constant" made no such assumptions. It was
simply empirical.

With that model
separations would be zero at some finite time in the
past. At half that time, all the galaxies would have
the same speed as at present but be at half their
present distance. The Hubble constant would then have
twice the present value.

Your logic is impeccable -- within the "naive" theory you are discussing.

However, if you consider the
effect of gravity, the speeds in the past would be
higher, meaning the Hubble constant would be even
higher. That means that Hubble would have been aware
that the value he published would vary with time.

If Hubble had been 'naive' enough to assume that redshifts are always due to
velocities. However, as noted above, Hubble never made that assumption. He
always qualified his redshifts as "apparent velocities."

Ellis's use of H in the initial text relating to Hubble's
determination of the first order coefficient

You contradict the text. Ellis' quote was explicitly for the "Hubble
constant" -- not a "first order coefficient."

but H_0
when discussing the equations that involve the time
dependence is entirely understandable.

Of course it is "understandable" that way. However, it is not what was
written.

I am aware he showed the low z limit was
proportional from observation but I haven't seen his formal
statement of the law for other than the low-z case.

Eddington didn't *have* one for other than what we call the 'low-z case'
today. That's the point.

That's my point too. Hubble's data covered such a
small range of time that treating it as a constant
was legitimate, but trying to suggest higher order
coefficients could be determined from data with
such a large spread would not have survived peer
review.

Again, Hubble *never* assumed that his data was speed.

If you wanted to extrapolate from the low-z data to
a general equation based on expansion, then you would
use GR and in that H would be time dependent.

Only if you assumed that redshift was always and only due to
expansion/speed.

I don't know who first did that.

And that *IS* the core of our disagreement.

Certainly your previous
citation shows that Mattig did so in the 1950's, but
I expect it was done long before that. I don't believe
anyone ever published a version in which H was
independent of time before Guth suggested inflation
as a solution for the problems with the CMBR.

My citation indicates that Mattig was one of the first. So far, your
suspicions are just that.

and now pretends that he
thinks it a later addition to avoid admitting his
argument is baseless.

To which "definition" were you referring? Citation please.

OK, I've provided a citation last round, and this round.

Where is yours?

snip

However, the Mattig equations relate distance to observables
which is not the Hubble Law so your quote is relevant anyway.

I await your citation on when the change occurred.

My argument is that there there never was a change.

But you have no citations to support your claim.

Even assuming constant speed and a linear relation
between speed and distance, the Hubble constant
varies with time.

According to your modern theory, of course.

I can't offer you a citation to
prove that nothing suggesting otherwise was
published. I guess one approach might be to look at
Alan Guth's paper to see if he discusses any prior
work on exponentially increasing speed (which is
what a non-time varying Hubble Constant implies).

Well, I gave you a secondary citation, above, that contradicts your point.

Our disagreement in this thread revolved around whether the "Hubble
constant" has "always" (i.e. from first mention of the term) been considered
time-dependent. I don't see any advantage in us going around in this
fashion again. So, if you (or someone else) finds an actual citation to H
as a function of time -- prior to Eddington's 1933 book -- I'll agree that
you are correct.

snip

The object of science is to compare theory with observation. Yet,
Bjoern is well aware that the redshift-distance curve deviates away
from the old BB predictions. ....

Bjoern is well aware that the redshift-magnitude curve deviates
from the simpler prediction but that isn't a redshift-distance
curve.

???? It is just as much a redshift-distance curve as Hubble's initial
straight-line (and all other, subsequent lines/curves). The luminosity
(magnitude) is related to distance in standard-candle fashion.

The missing link is how tired light predicts the magnitude
will vary with distance.

Already provided, numerous times. Why do you say it is "missing?"

If you are saying it is just inverse square and the energy
reduction due to red-shift then you have said that before
but I thought you were also saying there was a reduction
due to extinction and you haven't given details of that.

There always is a reduction due to extinction, in any observation. However,
the details of extinction are a graduate-level class in themselves.
Extinction must be considered in making use of any 'standard candle'
methodology. Or for any determination of absolute luminosity.

{snip the "non-linear" misunderstanding}

snip
The cause is fractional removal of energy with incremental distance (the
physical cause of the fractional removal varies with the theory). The
resulting formula is I = I_0 exp (-mu x).

OK, I thought you relied on a degree of extinction as
well.

No. Extinction (scattering and absorption by matter) is separate from tired
light theory. Just like it is separate from standard candle assumptions.

snip more on this - my mistake

snip Tolman Test. You might like to find out about it
but I don't want to be guilty of what I discussed with
Bjoern, changing the subject before we sort out the
details. Note the Tolman Test is very difficult and not
very strong

Well, in your view, *DO* the "macroscopic properties" disprove any
version with exponential energy removal? (Regardless of whether you
made this claim earlier, or not.)

In my view, it falsifies Lerner's "intergalactis fog" as
the source of the CMBR, it probably falsifies TVF's thermal
equilibrium with a corpuscular aether ("Elyson particles")
though that is perhaps easier to falsify by observing red
shift at frequencies below the CMBR peak, and it falsifies
Aladar's integrated starlight.

Is that a 'yes' or a 'no?' (It was a general question. Not a request for a
list of different theories that you consider disproven by different
effects.)

More to the point, I believe it could falsify your aether
defect theory if you were to discuss it in sufficient
detail to allow a quantitative analysis.

That would depend on to which "macroscopic properties" you were referring.
I also wouldn't consider my theory an 'aether defect' theory. But that's
just word choice.

Aside from punting significant aspects of history; L&S once again
trot out an old myth (popularized by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler;
but never quantified), that "As critics still point out, any
scattering process with energy transfer from the photon beam to
the scattering medium, as required for a redshift, must broaden
(deflect) the beam. This effect would cause images of distant
galaxies to be fuzzier than their local counterparts, which they
are not." The claim of "fuzziness" requires photons to scatter
off of interstellar matter like little bowling balls.

Yes, that's why they said "any SCATTERING process ...".

It is not based on a
single tired light assumption ... anywhere.

It applies to those that used scattering to redden the
light.

But *NO* tired light theory uses scattering! A scattering theory would

not be called "tired light". Tired light theories are called that
because the light *itself* (photon or wave) loses energy
*intrinsically.* Scattering processes are normal extinction.

I disagree but it is perhaps just terminology. Extinction
is discussed by Perlmutter ss "grey dust". The normal dust
scattering reddens the light from distant objects by
scattering blue more than red, but that is an intensity
effect that leaves spectral lines unshifted. I think
some people have suggested that small-angle scattering can
reduce the energy of individual photons moving spectral
lines and it is this variant of tired light that Wright was
addressing.

Let's look at Ned's statement in his webpage (November, 2004 version):

"There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without
also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects
which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work."

Note that Ned's argument is not limited simply to Compton *variants* of
tired light. His argument is explicit tha changes in momentum *ALWAYS* lead
to blurring. This claim was made in MTW. And MTW -- in turn -- took it
from Zel'dovich. Who had no real support for his claim, either. Ned's
original page merely referred one to MTW.

Now, Ned attempts to address the Compton shift:
"The wavelength shift per scattering is proportional to 1-cos(theta) which
is about 0.5*theta^2. Thus there can be no redshift due to the Compton
effect unless there is a change in the direction of propagation. The change
in angle per scattering could be less if there were more electrons (but
Kierein already needs 1000 times too many electrons), but this would lead to
more scatterings, and with more scattering the variances of the angles would
add up to the same smearing."

Of course, Ned has no support for this false claim. While a single-scatter
event does follow Ned's equation, the multiple-scattering proposed by actual
proponents of Compton scattering does *NOT* "add up to the same smearing".
The proof of this is trivial. Take a double scatter, and assume that it is
in the same direction as the first scatter (even this is *VERY* improbable),
and use Ned's own equation. The scattering shift would be:
0.5 theta/2^2 + 0.5 theta/2^2 = 0.5 theta^2 (1/4+1/4)

Precisely half the value of Ned's original single-scatter event -- which Ned
says will be unchanged by multiple-scatter events. Of course, a random-walk
anaysis could be done to see what the actual "smearing" might be. But Ned's
analysis is completely false -- even for Compton electrons. Ned has simply
tried to recreate Zel'dovich's old claim. But in so doing, he doesn't
bother to address those little realities that Zel'dovich also ignored.

The "tired light" description in my experience
is a generic term that includes both the types using
intrinsic energy loss as well as though in which some
external agent is involved. That may explain why you
didn't understand my talking of subsets earlier.

I understand that your "experience" lumps strawman arguments with the actual
theories. That *IS* the purpose of a strawman argument, after all. To
confuse the issue, allowing an attack on a simpler (but ficticious) target.

Which is why I have pointed out (repeatedly) that scattering has nothing
whatsoever in common with tired light. Referentially or physically.

The only people that even CALL photon scattering a "tired light" theory
are people like Ned Wright -- who only use the claim as a strawman.

I haven't looked at who suggested it but the first link I
found on trying gives a number of pointers:

http://www.eitgaastra.nl/timesgr/part1/2.html

"According to Zwicky's tired light hypothesis the
vibrations of light are steadily slowed down over
long periods of time travelling through the universe,
and so the redshift is the result of fatigue."

That is what you seem to regard as tired light,

A very imprecise summation of Zwicky. And it makes no distinction about the
source of the redshift.

however the page goes on to say:

"[May 2003: Last year I noticed that many people have
suggested the same tired light idea, i.e. light loses
energy because of interaction with other (gravity/ether)
entities in extragalactic space, see for example
professor Assis2, professor Ghosh3, Dr. Van Flandern9
and various authors in Pushing Gravity5. End May 2003]"

Also vague. As we see, below, Assis does not call all non-standard redshift
"tired light."

and specifically:

"[October 2003: Also a mechanism like Compton scattering
may be classified as a tired light concept75.

I'm aware that this is the standard strawman classification. But I haven't
read Mitchell, W. C. "Bye Bye Big Bang Hello Reality", either.

Compton
scattering is scattering of photons by particles (like
electrons and protons) distributed in space, which are
believed to result in energy loses and wavelengths that
are redshifted in proportion to distance travelled. See
also an article by Assis and Neves76 (next to Mitchell's
book75) if you want to know more about the history and
variety of tired light concepts. End October 2003]"

Assis and Neves sounds like a reasonable reference: Assis, A.K.T., Neves,
M.C.D. "The redshift revisited," Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 227,
13-24 (1995). However, the work is primarily a theoretical evaluation of
steady-state cosmology versus big bang cosmology. It does give a series of
statements that purport to summarize different proposals (numbered by me,
not Assis):

1) "Louis de Broglie states a 'photon aging' due to a continuous loss of
energy by the photon."

2) "Findlay-Freundlich believed in a photon-photon interaction in the
intense radiation field of stars."

3) "Marmet believes in a redshift produced by inelastic collisions between
photons on atoms and molecules."

4) "Reber and Kierein pointed out the Compton effect."

5) "Vigier and Monti proposed the resistivity of the intergalactic medium."

6) "Arp believes in an effect due to the age of celestial bodies."

This is a listing of non-standard theories of the origin of redshift. It
most certainly is not a listing of "tired light" theories. There *IS* a
difference! Not all non-standard theories are tired light theories. Only
numbers 1 and 5 are tired light theories. I think we can safely agree that
6 has nothing to do with tired light. Numbers 2, 3, and 4 -- while not
standard cosmology -- rely upon the standard assumption that photons are
perfect (and unlike any other waves in known science).

"[May 2004: Professor Wright rules out Compton shift as a
tired light model option, because Compton shift (for
instance by electrons) would change the momentum of a
photon, which would lead to a blurring of distant objects
which is not observed94. He may be right about this.

As we've seen above, Ned Wright's claim can be trivially disproven by his
own assumptions and equations.

However, tired light caused by ether/gravity particles is
something completely different"

Which is why I insist upon being correct in my use of terminology.

Compton scattering (or any such scattering-off-matter process) does not
result from a "tired light" hypothesis. It assumes that photons are
perfect. Specifically, that they don't "tire" from mere propagation.

So I think Tired Light is a more all-encomapssing term.

That *IS* the purpose of creating such strawmen in the first place. Let's
briefly examine the claim in item 4), above: "Reber and Kierein pointed out
the Compton effect."

We find no reference given for "Kierein" in Assis.
(Kierein can be found at
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html)

Kierein does not use the term "tired light," in any variant.

For Reber Assis gives: Reber, G., 1986, "Intergalactic Plasma", IEEE Trans.
on Plasma Sci., Vol PS-14, pp 678-682. Only the abstract is available
online:

"Radio astronomy observations at 144-m wavelength suggest a plasma filling
intergalactic space. This plasma may have one electron and proton pair per
100 cu cm. The plasma radiates hectometer waves by free-free transitions.
The energy of electrons is replenished from visible light. It interacts with
electrons by compton transitions. Accordingly, light tires as it travels
through intergalactic space. Such is manifest by a shift in spectral lines
toward the red proportional to distance. There is no need for an expanding
universe."

So, indeed, here a proponent using the term "light tires", while seriously
proposing a compton effect for the redshift-distance relation! Though Reber
seems to be definitely in the minority among proponents.

--
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

H_0 has the empirical value 71km/s per MPc which
means dE/E is about 0.024% per MPc hence R is
about 4.2GPc.

Ah! Now I see where you are going. I think you are approaching this a
bit sideways, but we should be able use this approach.

However, my objection above to your use of H_0, was because H_0 is a
theoretical value of the BB theory, not an empirical relation.

The value isn't theoretical at all, in the sense
that it could not be predicted from theory alone.

But it isn't observable, either. H_0 contains "velocities". The observable
is redshift.

The empirical version would have units of delta lambda over lambda per MPc.

(What is
actually measured is *redshift* versus distance -- not speed per
distance.)

Exactly. Having made the measurement of redshift
versus distance, in a model that explains the
redshift by expansion or motion,

We don't use models to make measurements.

the measurements
can most meaningfully be expressed as speed per
distance while in a tired light interpretation
the same information makes more sense in the form
of a characteristic distance, or mu if you like,
but it is easy to switch between those units.
That's why I said the values were "related".

The measurements can most meaningfully be expressed as just the way they
were measured.

But since you are then working with dE/E, we don't need to worry about
the difference, here.

snip

And every photon loses about 63% of its energy
every 4.2GPc, true?

The current value of the slope of H_0 includes some specific BB
assumptions.

The best current value uses the angular power
spectrum measured by WMAP and that method I agree
is likely only to be applicable in a BB model.
However, the older technique of measurements of
nearby source for which distances can be found
from the distance ladder using parallax, Cepeids
and so on is equally valid for determining the
constant in tired light models. The difference
is that the uncertainty will be higher.

The uncertainty in the observation of redshift vs. distance is unchanged.
Regardless of how the WMAP theoreticians tweak their computer models.

However, for the purposes of this exercise, I will accept your values
are in the ballpark (roughly a factor of 2, if I converted correctly).

That's another test you can apply to a tired light
model. A factor of 2 is probably about as much as
the uncertainty would allow but it would be hard
to say without looking at the detail of the
determination so I'm happy to accept that for the
moment.

The point is, that tired light theoreticians usually don't require that
*ALL* the redshift be due to tired light. We try to avoid the trap that
caught the big bangers.

I.O.W., the redshift-distance relation may include contributions from
different effects (at least in theory). Which could shift the onset of the
nonlinear deviation. (For example, a combined Vigier-tired-light and
plasma-"fireworks"-expanding-galaxies model.)

Sidenote: LeSagians and tired light types usually use the variable mu;
which may be calculated from material/aether properties (EM and
gravitational). We typically don't use the resulting characteristic
distance, R (which is back-calculated, or ad hoc). R and mu are
inversely related.

Your last two sentences appear to be in conflict.
If mu can be derived from the theory, then just
tkae the uinverse

Tired light theories do not deal with universes. That's the big bang.

and you have a theoretical value
for R. That can then be compared to the observed
value described above as a test of the theory.
Neither value is ad hoc.

The ad hoc referred to the use of tired light theory *solely* to explain the
redshift (the way the big bang started). Values -- per se -- are never ad
hoc. It is how they are used that obtains the ad hoc description.

{brought over from parallel thread}

Agreed, and since the value is now being measured
by observation, it clearly meets your criterion.

The point is, that neither the shape, nor value was predicted by the BB.
It is another ad hoc fit to the BB. The shape of the curve *was*
predicted by *all* tired light theories. The value was predicted
by some.

Ok, you have been reading the posts between Bjoern and
me so can you clarify that.

Yes, I've amused myself watching you and Bjoern pat each other on the back.

You have said the exponential
form fits the measurements, but in most tired light
theories the energy is exponential with distance while
what is observed is redshift versus magnitude or some
other indirect measure of distance.

You are correct that what is observed is redshift versus some indirect
measure of distance (since we can't do parallax that far). Since energy is
exponential with distance in tired light theories, so is redshift.

Precisely which
relationship between _measured_ values is predicted by
tired light theories?

The relationship between redshift and actual distance will be exponential.
That is, at the low-redshift (low z) distances, you will have an apparently
linear relation that is equal to the first part of the exponential series
expansion. This relation will begin to deviate from linear as higher-order
terms become important at longer distance. The entire curve will be
exponential.

Using your data, above, dE/E is about 0.024% per MPc. And every photon
loses about 63% of its energy every 4.2GPc.

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

In message , greywolf42
writes


Which is why I insist upon being correct in my use of terminology.

Compton scattering (or any such scattering-off-matter process) does not
result from a "tired light" hypothesis. It assumes that photons are
perfect. Specifically, that they don't "tire" from mere propagation.

So I think Tired Light is a more all-encomapssing term.

That *IS* the purpose of creating such strawmen in the first place. Let's
briefly examine the claim in item 4), above: "Reber and Kierein pointed out
the Compton effect."

We find no reference given for "Kierein" in Assis.
(Kierein can be found at
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html)

Kierein does not use the term "tired light," in any variant.

For Reber Assis gives: Reber, G., 1986, "Intergalactic Plasma", IEEE Trans.
on Plasma Sci., Vol PS-14, pp 678-682. Only the abstract is available
online:

"Radio astronomy observations at 144-m wavelength suggest a plasma filling
intergalactic space. This plasma may have one electron and proton pair per
100 cu cm. The plasma radiates hectometer waves by free-free transitions.
The energy of electrons is replenished from visible light. It interacts with
electrons by compton transitions. Accordingly, light tires as it travels
through intergalactic space. Such is manifest by a shift in spectral lines
toward the red proportional to distance. There is no need for an expanding
universe."

So, indeed, here a proponent using the term "light tires", while seriously
proposing a compton effect for the redshift-distance relation! Though Reber
seems to be definitely in the minority among proponents.


You keep using the word "light", but hasn't a cosmological red shift
also been demonstrated at radio wavelengths?
--
What have they got to hide? Release the ESA Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...
In message , greywolf42
writes
snip
So, indeed, here a proponent using the term "light tires", while seriously
proposing a compton effect for the redshift-distance relation! Though
Reber
seems to be definitely in the minority among proponents.

You keep using the word "light", but hasn't a cosmological red shift also
been demonstrated at radio wavelengths?

Yes, in fact the paper I cited earlier this year
covers a frequency range of about 10^6 to 1 IIRC.
The CMBR itself peaks in the microwave band. I am
certainly using 'light' to mean EM in general in
this context and I think greywolf is too. The
phrase "Tired Light" is historical and refers to
the phenomenon rather than the frequency band.

George

In article ,
greywolf42 wrote:
Your comment isn't circular. The reasoning for the "S-Z effect" is
circular.

What is circular about the reasoning for the S-Z effect?

Let's start with on the same page. The following site seems best of a quick
scan:
http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/mthierbach/sz.html

Well, you proved you can look up the S-Z effect on a web page. That's
something I guess.

So much for the "effect." Now as to the application:

"Observations of the CMB with radio telescopes (low frequencies) towards
clusters of galaxies should show a diminution of the brightness temperature.
The value depends on the properties of the intracluster gas (temperature,
density, gas distribution), of course and is very small (~0.1...1*10-3
Kelvin). ... detection of the SZ effect verifies the cosmological origin of
the CMB. Furthermore, combining the radio with X-ray observations of the
measured cluster allows one to determine the distance of the cluster, and so
to determine the value of the famous Hubble constant H0 ...). "

The Hubble constant is used to determine the diminution of brightness. Then
that is used to determine the Hubble constant. quot erat demonstrandum

False. The "diminution of brightness" is an observable. You can then
use this observed value to determine a value for the Hubble
parameter.

In actual fact, the variants are simply down in the noise of the data (10^-4
kelvin).

You seem quite fond of claiming astronomical observations are noise.

A good place to see this is the following page:
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~aas/tenmeter/sz.htm
Note the three levels of "corrections" that must be added ... including an
ad hoc "optical depth" correction and ad hoc peculiar motion correction.

I don't know why you think corrections predicted by the theory are "ad
hoc", but they are needed for accurate work, and do not indicate a
flaw with the procedure.

In short it isn't the *idea* that is circular (hot electrons altering the
CMBR curve, via multiple compton effect collisions).

Well, here we agree, the S-Z effect is not a result of circular reasoning.

I also have my doubts about photons that move from "scattering events", then
only interact where we want them to (in specific "hot" regions, but not in
intervening "cool" regions).

Well, I don't know why you claim we "want" the scatterings in any
particular place, but you only get the scatterings in hot regions
because that is were the relativistic electrons are. You don't have
relativistic electrons in cold regions.

Because they are in reference to Zel'dovich's hand-waving style of
argumentation.

Well, as written, this is a ad hominem argument. Considering the
person you are accusing of "hand-waving" is Zeldovich, I had a good
laugh over it. The copy of the Sunyaev-Zeldovich paper is located at
http://members.cox.net/~greg.hennessy/sz.pdf. Tell me what you think
is "hand-wavy" about it.

The theory predicts a decrement in the microwave background behind
clusters of galaxies.

I believe you mean "in the same direction as clusters of galaxies?"

No, I don't mean that. If you understand the S-Z effect, you know it
predicts a decrement in the background behind a cluster as compared to
the background not behind a cluster.

A decrement in the surface brightness is observed.

And the value of this "decrement" is what? Please provide numbers,
statistical significance, and citation. I think you'll find that it merely
noise processing.

A pretty good listing is located at
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level...w/Birk9_1.html.

What part of this do you think doesn't match observations?

Circularity doesn't mean that it doesn't "match". It means that the
"matching" is illusory.

In your last post you claimed it didn't match observations. Now you
claim it does match, but the match is illusory. Please pick a stance and
stick with it.

I can describe the SZ effect without having to look at a reference to
refresh my memory. Can you? If so, please describe it.

Did you have a point to make?

Yes, my point is I don't think you know what the S-Z effect is, nor
why it is important to if the microwave background is a local effect
or not.

Then instead of simply claiming that I don't understand, why don't you
demonstrate your knowledge of the S-Z effect, and how it shows that
microwave background is not a local effect?

We observe a decrement in the brightness tempature in the background
when seen behing clusters. Since clusters are non-local, this proves
that the background is non-local.

Happy?

Greg Hennessy wrote in message
...
In article ,
greywolf42 wrote:

Your comment isn't circular. The reasoning for the "S-Z effect" is
circular.

What is circular about the reasoning for the S-Z effect?

Let's start with on the same page. The following site seems best of a
quick scan:
http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/mthierbach/sz.html

Well, you proved you can look up the S-Z effect on a web page. That's
something I guess.

So much for the "effect." Now as to the application:

"Observations of the CMB with radio telescopes (low frequencies) towards
clusters of galaxies should show a diminution of the brightness
temperature. The value depends on the properties of the intracluster
gas (temperature, density, gas distribution), of course and is very
small (~0.1...1*10-3 Kelvin). ... detection of the SZ effect verifies
the cosmological origin of the CMB. Furthermore, combining the radio
with X-ray observations of the measured cluster allows one to determine
the distance of the cluster, and so to determine the value of the famous
Hubble constant H0 ...). "

The Hubble constant is used to determine the diminution of brightness.
Then that is used to determine the Hubble constant. quot erat
demonstrandum

False. The "diminution of brightness" is an observable.

*Apparent* brightness is an observable. "Diminution" from an otherwise
expected value requires a theory for the expected value.

You can then use this observed value to determine a value for
the Hubble parameter.

In actual fact, the variants are simply down in the noise of the data
(10^-4 kelvin).

You seem quite fond of claiming astronomical observations are noise.

Only when we claim results in the region that is below the physical
resolution of our instruments (i.e. the CMBR). And the CMBR is not
necessarily an astronomical observation.

A good place to see this is the following page:
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~aas/tenmeter/sz.htm
Note the three levels of "corrections" that must be added ... including
an ad hoc "optical depth" correction and ad hoc peculiar motion
correction.

I don't know why you think corrections predicted by the theory are "ad
hoc", but they are needed for accurate work, and do not indicate a
flaw with the procedure.

Well, these are 'corrections' needed to make the observations match theory.
And the value for the optical depth and peculiar motion is not determined by
any independent method, but by how one can make the results match theory.
That's what makes them ad hoc. Ad hoc does not mean unreasonable.

In short it isn't the *idea* that is circular (hot electrons altering
the CMBR curve, via multiple compton effect collisions).

Well, here we agree, the S-Z effect is not a result of circular reasoning.

The idea isn't. The application is circular, however.

I also have my doubts about photons that move from "scattering events",
then only interact where we want them to (in specific "hot" regions,
but not in intervening "cool" regions).

Well, I don't know why you claim we "want" the scatterings in any
particular place, but you only get the scatterings in hot regions
because that is were the relativistic electrons are. You don't have
relativistic electrons in cold regions.

But you have non-relativistic electrons in cold regions. Which are assumed
(by the S-Z methodologies) to have no effect whatsoever. In short, the S-Z
theorists assume that the CMBR is affected solely by hot electrons, but
never by cold electrons .... which make up the vast majority of electrons
encountered by CMBR photons (from BB and S-Z theory).

{'invisibly' snipped higher levels replaced, for later reference}
===================
I wasn't commenting on the apostrophe. I was commenting on another
Zel'dovich claim being placed out for target practice. Similar to
the last time Zel'dovich was offered as an official source for
support for the BB theory:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...80ea678b332834
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...42e81e40a679dc

Since neither of those two url's have anything to do with the S-Z
effect I don't know why you think they are at all relavent.
===================

Because they are in reference to Zel'dovich's hand-waving style of
argumentation.

Well, as written, this is a ad hominem argument.

It appeared that way only because you {invisibly} snipped the prior portions
of the exchange. After first mistaking my comment for a complaint about
your spelling of Zel'dovich.

The original comment was an ironical laugh about big bangers on the group
trotting out an authority that had been recently shown to be totally
ignorant of the realities of astronomical observation. Zel'dovich really
truly believed that stellar images on photographic plates were mathematical
points (at least in 1963). And that basic misunderstanding was the
foundation of his 'hand-wavy' style.

Considering the
person you are accusing of "hand-waving" is Zeldovich, I had a good
laugh over it. The copy of the Sunyaev-Zeldovich paper is located at
http://members.cox.net/~greg.hennessy/sz.pdf.

You may want to check your source file. For some reason, I can only read
pages 1-9 from that download file (I tried twice). Could you verify that
all 17 pages are there? I obtained another copy from ADS (with all 17
pages).

Tell me what you think is "hand-wavy" about it.

AFAICT, the S-Z "effect" is a miniscule temperature shift (temperature
fluctuations of relic radiation) on the order of 10^-4 or -5. It is this
effect that S&Z spend all their time calculating. I only see one mention in
the S-Z paper of what might be what you call "decrements" or diminution of
brightness. This is a single sentence on page 5:

"The value delta T over T mentioned above is the change of temperature
measured by an observer moving together with the plasma: an observer on
Earth also measures a change of intensity (fluctuation) due to the Doppler
effect which equals delta T over T = (u / c) cos theta, where u is the
velocity of the plasma and theta is the angle between the velocity and the
direction of the observer."

The above sentence is a classic hand-wave. Either that, or it's a
poorly-worded reference to an effect derived by Sakharov (i.e. not the S-Z
effect). I don't see any mention of intensity decrements in either the
abstract, introduction, discussion (where details of predictions for delta T
over T exist), or conclusion sections. Did I miss something?

The theory predicts a decrement in the microwave background behind
clusters of galaxies.

I believe you mean "in the same direction as clusters of galaxies?"

No, I don't mean that. If you understand the S-Z effect, you know it
predicts a decrement in the background behind a cluster as compared to
the background not behind a cluster.

I understand that many people claim this as a "prediction" of the S-Z
effect. Again, how do you observationally determine whether you are
observing CMBR from "behind" a galaxy cluster, rather than from in front?
All we observe are angular locations on the celestial sphere.

A decrement in the surface brightness is observed.

And the value of this "decrement" is what? Please provide numbers,
statistical significance, and citation. I think you'll find that it
merely noise processing.

A pretty good listing is located at
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level...w/Birk9_1.html.

I get an error that http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/ and all permutations
cannot be found. Are you sure this is the link you wanted?

What part of this do you think doesn't match observations?

Circularity doesn't mean that it doesn't "match". It means that the
"matching" is illusory.

In your last post you claimed it didn't match observations. Now you
claim it does match, but the match is illusory. Please pick a stance and
stick with it.

I haven't changed "stance", I was discussing two references. Specifically:
===============
greywolf42:
Do you mean this effect?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...4452a1cfe33c0a
or
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...6741eab7ee267f

Greg: {after "invisibly" snipping the second link}
You mean the one where the values for Ho are around 60-70, about what
WMAP shows?

greywolf42:
I mean the one that didn't match observations, of course.
===============

I was pointing out the references, above, that the S-Z effect was not
matching BB theory. Current papers are fully circular, as I have pointed
out.

{snip higher levels}

Yes, my point is I don't think you know what the S-Z effect is, nor
why it is important to if the microwave background is a local effect
or not.

Then instead of simply claiming that I don't understand, why don't you
demonstrate your knowledge of the S-Z effect, and how it shows that
microwave background is not a local effect?

We observe a decrement in the brightness tempature in the background
when seen behing clusters.

How do we "see behind" a cluster? Or rather, how do you determine whether
you are seeing "behind" or just seeing in the same direction as?

Since clusters are non-local, this proves
that the background is non-local.

Happy?

Yes, thanks. It's been a wonderful holiday season, so far.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}