Cosmic acceleration rediscovered

In article ,
greywolf42 wrote:
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.

Wrong. You compare the surface brightness seen behind a cluster with
the surface brightenss elsewhere. The fraction of the sky behind a
cluster is quite small. The change in the surface brightness is *NOT*
related to the value of the Hubble parameter. If you think so you show
you do not understand the S-Z effect.

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.

Wether or not a particular observation is below the physical
resolition of an instrument depends on the instrument. Many different
instruments have looked for the S-Z effect, and found them.

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.

Those are the corrections *predicted* by the theory.

If I use a radar to detect the distance to a plane, will you then
object that the value of the distance I find is "ad hoc" because I've
made my observation match theory?

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

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

There is not circularity in the application of the S-Z effect. You are
incorrect when you claim the surface brightness decrement is related
to the value of the Hubble parameter.

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 .


And your problem with that is? If I try to measure the velocities of
moving cars by using a doppler radar, will you complain that the still
cars won't cause a doppler shift?

We think we have photons moving from the remnants of the big bang. We
think these photons sometimes move in areas with hot electrons,
sometimes they move in areas with cold electrons. When the photons
move through hot electrons, we think they are inverse compton
scattered in a way to change their power spectrum. When the photons
move through the areas with cold electrons, we don't think anything
happens.

You have a problem with that because????

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.

Well, if given the choice between Zeldovich and yourself as whom I
consider totally ignorant of the realities of astronomical
observation, I choose you.

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.

Do you use "hand wave" to mean "arguments I don't understand"?

The sentence you quote simply says that in addition to the change in
surface brightness changes from cosmological changes there is a
brightness change from doppler shifts from the earths orbit around the
sun. Given that Sunyaev and Zeldovich give the formula for such a
tempature shift, I'm clueless as to why you call this handwaving.

However, every time Sunyaev and Zeldovich talk about delta T over T
that is the temperture decrement I am talking about. Although even
there the essence of the S-Z effect is that the inverse compton
scattering alters the background spectrum by taking flux from the
Rayleigh Jeans side and moving to the Wein side of the spectrum.

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.

Well, if the photons that are attributed to the background are indeed
local, then you won't see the S-Z effect. And obviously, the photons
we are observed don't have tags on them saying "I was emitted umpty
squat light years away". However, if you have two models, one that
says the photons in the 3 degree background come from recombination at
z 1000, and a second theory that says the photons from the 3 degree
background come from local sources, and the first predicts a S-Z
effect, and the second doesn't, and you observe a S-Z effect, then you
conclude that the photons are being emitted from behind the cluters.

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?

That url works fine for me, both at work and at home. It is indeed the
link I want.

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.

The second reference you posted wasn't about the S-Z effect, and so is
irrelevent. The first link
(http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...4452a1cfe33c0a)
claims that the value of Ho obtained (64 +- 8) is "too low". Given
that the WMAP value of Ho (the best we have) is that Ho is 72, please
explain to me why 64 +- 8 doesn't match 72.

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

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

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.

snip stuff on units

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.

The uncertainty in the value if you exclude the
WMAP observations on the basis that they assume
a BB model will be poorer than if you include
them. However, I think it will still be within
a factor of 2 even limiting the data to methods
that don't assume a BB model. It is for the tired
light proponents to do that calculation though but
I think we can use a factor of two for the sake of
discussion.

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.

OK, it only makes your task harder as there are more
unknowns for you to tie down before you can claim you
have a workable theory. However, you haven't mentioned
this before so bear in mind my previous comments were
made on the basis of what you had said.

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.

I don't understand your comment. If mu can be found
from theory and R is just the inverse of mu then R
can equally well be said to be derived from theory.

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.

Tired light AIUI is suggested to explain only the
large scale variation with distance. Obviously
gravitational redshift and Doppler due to proper
motion add to this. If you are now introducing
another factor perhaps you could explain the
details.

{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.

"in .. theories"

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

The relationship between redshift and actual distance will be exponential.

"will be"

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

"will be"

exponential.

All the above say that it should be exponential in theory,
but what we are asking is how you turn that into the claim
that the exponential has been observed as a result of the
paper you cited.

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

Actually that is now wrong if you are saying that part of
the redshift is due to "plasma fireworks", "expanding
galaxies" or whatever. How does the 0.024% split between
tired light and these other mechanisms?

(I'll reply to your other posts as time permits).

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

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

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

I don't understand your comment. ...

Jeff Root just pointed out the source of the
confusion, I messed up. The last sentence of
my previous post should read

"If mu can be derived from the theory,
then just take the inverse."

Sorry for the confusion. Thanks Jeff.

Happy New Year to all.

George

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

{snip higher levels}

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.

Wrong. You compare the surface brightness seen behind a cluster

How do you see "behind" something? Your *theory* tells you it's from
behind, correct?

with
the surface brightenss elsewhere. The fraction of the sky behind a
cluster is quite small. The change in the surface brightness is *NOT*
related to the value of the Hubble parameter. If you think so you show
you do not understand the S-Z effect.

Sigh. Look, *you* claim that the S-Z effect results in a diminution of
surface brightness. (I don't see it in S-Z's paper, but that's another
matter.) Many people (including S&Z in the paper you referenced)
claim that the S-Z effect is related to the Hubble parameter. Simple logic
implies because change in surface brightness is related to the S-Z effect,
and the S-Z effect is related to the Hubble parameter; that change in
surface brightness is related to the Hubble parameter.

{snip higher levels}

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.

Wether or not a particular observation is below the physical
resolition of an instrument depends on the instrument. Many different
instruments have looked for the S-Z effect, and found them.

Variations in the CMBR are typically found at less than the physical
resolutions of the instruments. Specifically, all instruments up to and
including COBE found no variations from pure thermal down to the physical
resolution of the instruments. Variations were all based on computer
modelling of the remaining noise.

Specifially, to what "many different instruments" are you referring?

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.

{An "invisible" snip by Greg}
=============
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.
=============

Those are the corrections *predicted* by the theory.

That's the problem. The "corrections" are not independent of the theory.

If I use a radar to detect the distance to a plane, will you then
object that the value of the distance I find is "ad hoc" because I've
made my observation match theory?

Bad analogies usually indicate that one has realized one has lost the
argument. Of course, "invisible" snipping of selected parts of a sentence
guarantee it.

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

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

There is not circularity in the application of the S-Z effect. You are
incorrect when you claim the surface brightness decrement is related
to the value of the Hubble parameter.

If the Hubble parameter is related to the S-Z effect, and the surface
brightness decrement is related to the S-Z effect, then they are related to
each other.

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 .

And your problem with that is?

Given by the rest of the sentence that you "invisibly" snipped:
=============
.... which make up the vast majority of electrons
encountered by CMBR photons (from BB and S-Z theory).
=============

Snipping the argument, and implying that it didn't exist, does not make it
go away.

If I try to measure the velocities of
moving cars by using a doppler radar, will you complain that the still
cars won't cause a doppler shift?

Bad analogies usually indicate that one has realized one has lost the
argument. Of course, "invisible" snipping of selected parts of a sentence
guarantee it.

We think we have photons moving from the remnants of the big bang. We
think these photons sometimes move in areas with hot electrons,
sometimes they move in areas with cold electrons. When the photons
move through hot electrons, we think they are inverse compton
scattered in a way to change their power spectrum. When the photons
move through the areas with cold electrons, we don't think anything
happens.

You have a problem with that because????

Because you ignore the "forward" Compton scattering effect.

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.

{Another classic "invisible" snip by Greg.}
===============
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.
===============

Well, if given the choice between Zeldovich and yourself as whom I
consider totally ignorant of the realities of astronomical
observation, I choose you.

But you have no basis for this choice, except perhaps worship of authority.
Zel'dovich's misunderstanding (at least in 1963) is in black and white.
Which is why you snipped the evidence.

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.

{Now Greg's invisible snips reach the downright dishonest, in light of his
following comment:}
===================
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?
===================

I take it by Greg's snip, that he can't provide any support for the claim of
intensity decrements; as part of the S-Z effect.

Do you use "hand wave" to mean "arguments I don't understand"?

No, I mean arguments that have no supporting logic or calculations contained
within them.

The sentence you quote simply says that in addition to the change in
surface brightness

The problem is that there is no support given for the claim of change in
surface brightness. This does not mean that there *is* no such effect. It
simply means that the paper gives no support for the idea.

changes from cosmological changes there is a
brightness change from doppler shifts from the earths orbit around the
sun. Given that Sunyaev and Zeldovich give the formula for such a
tempature shift, I'm clueless as to why you call this handwaving.

Temperature shift is not intensity decrement.

However, every time Sunyaev and Zeldovich talk about delta T over T
that is the temperture decrement I am talking about.

???? Temperature is not intensity. You've never mentioned "temperature
decrement" before.

Although even
there the essence of the S-Z effect is that the inverse compton
scattering alters the background spectrum by taking flux from the
Rayleigh Jeans side and moving to the Wein side of the spectrum.

According to the S-Z paper, it is an apparent temperature increase in the
CMBR, that arises from collision with hot electrons. Though S-Z use the
term "fluctuation." And that would be an apparent temperature increase, not
decrement.

{snip higher levels}

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.

Well, if the photons that are attributed to the background are indeed
local, then you won't see the S-Z effect.

True, but that's a theoretical argument.

And obviously, the photons
we are observed don't have tags on them saying "I was emitted umpty
squat light years away".

That is my point.

However, if you have two models,

We don't. We only have one under discussion. The S-Z effect.

one that
says the photons in the 3 degree background come from recombination at
z 1000, and a second theory that says the photons from the 3 degree
background come from local sources, and the first predicts a S-Z
effect, and the second doesn't, and you observe a S-Z effect, then you
conclude that the photons are being emitted from behind the cluters.

But *real* observations do not depend upon even one theory. Let alone
requiring two theories (one you are claiming to test, and another chosen
solely as a throw-away strawman).

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?

That url works fine for me, both at work and at home. It is indeed the
link I want.

OK, it works now. Seems to have been a temporary glitch.

Looking at Table 4, we see that the error bars on all the measurements are
substantial fractions (and often many times the value of) the claimed
"measured" value. Which clearly demonstrates my point about noise
processing.

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.

The second reference you posted wasn't about the S-Z effect, and so is
irrelevent. The first link
(http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...4452a1cfe33c0a)
claims that the value of Ho obtained (64 +- 8) is "too low". Given
that the WMAP value of Ho (the best we have) is that Ho is 72, please
explain to me why 64 +- 8 doesn't match 72.

But WMAP does not measure H_0. WMAP *assumes* H_0. (More noise
processing.)

And the reason that I said that the above link contradicts the BB, is
because the paper claimed that it did.

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

George Dishman wrote in message
...

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

{snip higher levels}

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.

The uncertainty in the value if you exclude the
WMAP observations on the basis that they assume
a BB model will be poorer than if you include
them.

That may be. But only redshift-distance is actually measure of
redshift-distance. WMAP is not a measure of this relationship. It includes
many other assumptions.

However, I think it will still be within
a factor of 2 even limiting the data to methods
that don't assume a BB model. It is for the tired
light proponents to do that calculation though but
I think we can use a factor of two for the sake of
discussion.

OK

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.

OK, it only makes your task harder as there are more
unknowns for you to tie down before you can claim you
have a workable theory.

Not at all. The theory is workable even if we don't have all the answers.

However, you haven't mentioned
this before so bear in mind my previous comments were
made on the basis of what you had said.

That's OK, too. There is no need to inundate you with all the variations
that can exist, ab initio.

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.

I don't understand your comment. If mu can be found
from theory and R is just the inverse of mu then R
can equally well be said to be derived from theory.

That is irrelevant to my comment. Which addressed your phrase "just take
the universe". Only the BB theory attempts to explain the origin of the
universe. Tired light theories are usually only focused on explaining one
or more observations.

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.

Tired light AIUI is suggested to explain only the
large scale variation with distance. Obviously
gravitational redshift and Doppler due to proper
motion add to this. If you are now introducing
another factor perhaps you could explain the
details.

I am not attempting to introduce another factor. I believe we agree that
gravitational redshifts and "true" doppler shifts (from real velocity
differences, not cosmological expansion) are not a factor in tired light
theories. We have to allow for them in some fashion, but they aren't
central to the theory.

{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.

"in .. theories"

Yes.

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

The relationship between redshift and actual distance will be
exponential.

"will be"

Yes. In theory.

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

"will be"

exponential.

All the above say that it should be exponential in theory,
but what we are asking is how you turn that into the claim
that the exponential has been observed as a result of the
paper you cited.

I thought you and Bjoern were being deliberately obtuse, and implying that
you didn't understand how luminosity (magnitude) could be considered
distance. I was specifically addressing your statement: "what is observed
is redshift versus magnitude or some other indirect measure of distance."
Magnitude is an indirect measure of distance (since the days of Wirtz and
Hubble). So, we have a curve of redshift vs. distance. And the observed
curve is exponential. At least within error bars.

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

Actually that is now wrong if you are saying that part of
the redshift is due to "plasma fireworks", "expanding
galaxies" or whatever. How does the 0.024% split between
tired light and these other mechanisms?

That's why I said I'd work with your numbers. Let's keep it simple.

One does not need to have all the answers at the beginning.....

(I'll reply to your other posts as time permits).

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

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

{snip to clarification}

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.

I don't understand your comment. If mu can be found
from theory and R is just the inverse of mu then R
can equally well be said to be derived from theory.

That is irrelevant to my comment. Which addressed your phrase "just take
the universe". Only the BB theory attempts to explain the origin of the
universe. Tired light theories are usually only focused on explaining one
or more observations.

I just noted the typo-created confusion between "inverse" and "universe" in
your parallel post. We can drop the resulting confusion.

{snip the rest}

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

"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g Joseph Lazio wrote in message
g ...

g "Dark energy" was not predicted by the big bang. Dark energy is an
g ad hoc modification to the BB, to explain a deviation between the
g form of the observed redshift-distance curve versus the theoretical
g redshift-distance curve. The form of the observed
g redshift-distance curve was predicted by tired light.
Recall that Einstein inserted the cosmological constant because,
at the time he developed general relativity, everybody "knew" the
Universe to be static. After Hubble's discovery,
[...]
there was no observational basis for the cosmological constant, so
it was reasonable to set its value to 0. Once sufficient evidence
for a non-zero value accumulated, people were quite happy to
include it. "Dark energy" is just the fancy modern name given to
the cosmological constant because it has since been realized that
the cosmological constant might not be constant.

g Dark Energy was the name given because Cosmologists had thrown out
g Einstein's cosmological constant ... not just set it to zero (or,
g more precisely, unknown). Hence, when the SN1a data arrived, they
g couldn't think outside their pet paradigm. And simply added
g another epicycle.

You persist in asserting that dark energy is somehow radically
different than the cosmological constant and that the cosmological
constant was never considered by astronomers and is somehow not part
of general relativity. Could you provide some citations for these
views?

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g Greg Hennessy wrote in message
g ...

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

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

Greg has covered many of these points quite well. I'll just point out
that a quick literature search reveals over 200 papers containing "SZ
effect" in their abstracts. I'm sure that the number would probably
double were I to also search with the names spelled out.

No doubt all of these papers will be dismissed because none of the
hundreds of people who have worked on the observations of the SZ
effect realized the "circularity" of their noise measurements.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

Much snipped to try to get back to the physics.

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

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

snip
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.

Next you seem to go back on this but I don't think
it's important at present.

snip stuff resulting from my typo

Tired light AIUI is suggested to explain only the
large scale variation with distance. Obviously
gravitational redshift and Doppler due to proper
motion add to this. If you are now introducing
another factor perhaps you could explain the
details.

I am not attempting to introduce another factor. I believe we agree that
gravitational redshifts and "true" doppler shifts (from real velocity
differences, not cosmological expansion) are not a factor in tired light
theories. We have to allow for them in some fashion, but they aren't
central to the theory.

Above you said that not all the red shift needed to
be due to tired light and suggested this was different
from BB. I agree that gravitational and proper motion
effects are present as well but that applies to BB too
so what did you mean above?

All the above say that it should be exponential in theory,
but what we are asking is how you turn that into the claim
that the exponential has been observed as a result of the
paper you cited.

I thought you and Bjoern were being deliberately obtuse, and implying that
you didn't understand how luminosity (magnitude) could be considered
distance. I was specifically addressing your statement: "what is observed
is redshift versus magnitude or some other indirect measure of distance."
Magnitude is an indirect measure of distance (since the days of Wirtz and
Hubble). So, we have a curve of redshift vs. distance. And the observed
curve is exponential. At least within error bars.

As I said to Bjoern, I didn't want to get another topic
going in this thread. I've asked the question and you've
given an answer so I'll leave it to him to pick this up
if he wishes.

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

Actually that is now wrong if you are saying that part of
the redshift is due to "plasma fireworks", "expanding
galaxies" or whatever. How does the 0.024% split between
tired light and these other mechanisms?

That's why I said I'd work with your numbers. Let's keep it simple.

One does not need to have all the answers at the beginning.....

OK, that will let me illustrate how I think Ned's test
applies. I'll essentially throw a strawman at you and
you can then correct the errors in my understanding of
your model and we will see if that solves the problem.

George

A minor correction and a bit more on "local".

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

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


Ned's page assumes the temperature at the time of
emission was 2.998K. the material that emitted that
radiation, a thin shell at a distance of about
420MPc (0.1 * 4.2GPc) is still there.

I guessed the difference between linear and
exponential wouldn't be too great at 0.1 but
it is more than I expected.

4200GPc * ln(1.1) = 400MPc

Rather than retype this, can you replace
"420MPc" by "400MPc" where appropriate.

-------------------------------------

That doesn't tell me why you claim that starlight energy would be
localized.

There seems to be some confusion, you were the one
who said the CMBR was locally generated. I would
have assumed for your description that it would
be the intergral of the electron radiation reduced
by tired light hence exponentially decreasing with
a characteristic length of over 4GPc.

??? The CMBR is not starlight. You still haven't let me know why you
think that starlight energy would be "localized."

I don't think it would be localised.

Thinking back, I did argue this although ..

_You_ said the
CMBR was generated within tens of parsecs ...

that is also true, so let me clarify.

You said a couple of posts back:

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

Light waves return a given fraction of their energy and momentum into
the aether (or whatever is assumed by the specific tired light theory).
Regardless of source. The "returning" is a local effect (at the point
of fractional return). dE = - const E, at the point of inspection.

The energy removed by tired light reduces over
GPc distances so at short range is negligible.
The energy per unit volume from a star then
varies as the inverse square of the distance
from the source so we should see a higher CMBR
temperature looking along a line of sight that
passes near to a star. I argued that we don't
see this. The same applies at greater distances
if we look along a line that passes close to,
but not through a distant galaxy. Again this is
not observed so conflicts with the suggestion
that the source is illuminated in this way. Now
I'm quite willing to believe I have simply not
understood your model, but you need to explain
this point if I am to understand.

In other areas however, you have said that the
aether is at a uniform temperature. We can apply
the test on Prof. Wright's page to your theory
and find out whether it holds up but obviously
you need to tell me the spatial and temporal
variation of the temperature (or more accurately
the emitted radiation spectrum) before we can do
that. As I've said before, I haven't seen anyone
propose a tired light theory that would survive
that test but maybe you'll be the first.

George