Cosmic acceleration rediscovered

References lost due to ISP problem.

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

snip

Above you said that not all the red shift needed to
be due to tired light and suggested this was different
from BB.

Yes.

I agree that gravitational and proper motion
effects are present as well but that applies to BB too
so what did you mean above?

That the BB considers all redshift to be due to doppler due to
xpansion --
with miniscule corrections from peculiar motion dopplers and gravitational
shifts. The BB acknowledges that gravitational redshift, *real* motion
dopplers, and electron scattering do exist. But they are only minor
corrections on the whole.

Laying aside gravitational and other secondary effects
(S-Z etc.), the essential difference is that expansion
deals with the systematic motion while proper motion
is essentially that which departs from the overall trend.

Tired light theories presume the *additional* source of "tired light",
from
photon energy degradation.

Yep, got that.

But tired light theories therefore consider that
(non-expansion) doppler effects from "peculiar" or systematic motions will
not simply be small corrections to the cosmic expansion signature.

I still don't see the difference. To take a crude example,
the motions of individual galaxies in a cluster relative to
the centre of momentum would be proper motion while that of
the CoM itself would be mainly expansion but with an
equivalent proper motion relative to neighbouring clusters.
Is that not the same in both views?

Any systematic outward motion that would contribute to the
first order coefficient is simply expansion so you seem to
be suggesting that tired light could include an element of
expansion. Subtracting the tired light part would then give
you still a big bang model but with a much greater age.

To avoid a big bang scenario, you need to explain all the
systematic red shift with something other than motion and
at the moment I'll have to take that as photon energy loss
unless you can identify another contributor.

Tired
light theories agree with the BB that gravitational redshift and electron
scattering will be minor corrections on the whole.

Yes, I think those are common.

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.

Just doing the best you can with your view of Ned's site will be fine.
But
use a *real* tired light theory. (i.e. Vigiers.) I have no desire to
deal
with yet another strawman.

I'll ask you about your view. If that includes elements
of Vigiers then fine but if you want to make the case that
a tired light theory can satisfy the tests, it is for you
to make that case.

George

George Dishman wrote in message
...
References lost due to ISP problem.

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

snip

Above you said that not all the red shift needed to
be due to tired light and suggested this was different
from BB.

Yes.

I agree that gravitational and proper motion
effects are present as well but that applies to BB too
so what did you mean above?

That the BB considers all redshift to be due to doppler due to
expansion -- with miniscule corrections from peculiar
motion dopplers and gravitational shifts. The BB
acknowledges that gravitational redshift, *real* motion
dopplers, and electron scattering do exist. But they are only minor
corrections on the whole.

Laying aside gravitational and other secondary effects
(S-Z etc.), the essential difference is that expansion
deals with the systematic motion while proper motion
is essentially that which departs from the overall trend.

Closer. But many theories have systematic motions that are not due to
cosmic expansion. For example, the "plasma fireworks" model has systematic
doppler redshifts due to *true* motion. The BB theory incorporates an
additional assumption about physics and the expansion of *space* (or the
universe), that is not included in the plasma fireworks model.

Tired light theories presume the *additional* source of "tired light",
from photon energy degradation.

Yep, got that.

But tired light theories therefore consider that
(non-expansion) doppler effects from "peculiar" or systematic motions
will not simply be small corrections to the cosmic expansion signature.

I still don't see the difference. To take a crude example,
the motions of individual galaxies in a cluster relative to
the centre of momentum would be proper motion

The separation rate of the individual galaxies, relative to the CoM will
include a cosmic expansion coefficient in the BB.

while that of
the CoM itself would be mainly expansion but with an
equivalent proper motion relative to neighbouring clusters.
Is that not the same in both views?

No.

Any systematic outward motion that would contribute to the
first order coefficient is simply expansion

Not in the BB. There is spatial (universal) expansion and there is motion
through space expansion.

so you seem to
be suggesting that tired light could include an element of
expansion.

It could include an element of expansion by real motion through pre-existing
space.

Subtracting the tired light part would then give
you still a big bang model but with a much greater age.

It would not be a 'big bang' model. It would be a "real" explosion-type
model (i.e. "plasma fireworks"). And yes, the PF model has "ages of the
universe" of hundreds of billions to trillions of years. Though the meaning
of teh term "age of the univserse" is somewhat different between the two.

To avoid a big bang scenario, you need to explain all the
systematic red shift with something other than motion

But tired light models don't need a big bang scenario.

and
at the moment I'll have to take that as photon energy loss
unless you can identify another contributor.

Even plasma fireworks does not require the big bang. The latter adds
creation of space.

Tired
light theories agree with the BB that gravitational redshift and
electron scattering will be minor corrections on the whole.

Yes, I think those are common.

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.

Just doing the best you can with your view of Ned's site will be fine.
But use a *real* tired light theory. (i.e. Vigiers.) I have no desire
to deal with yet another strawman.

I'll ask you about your view. If that includes elements
of Vigiers then fine but if you want to make the case that
a tired light theory can satisfy the tests, it is for you
to make that case.

These are *your* "tests." It is up to you to support your claim about their
use. Feel free to use the tired light defining equation: dE = - mu E dx.
And feel free to use 1/mu = 4.2GPc (your R, from prior posts). I would
expect that you will perform a calculation to reproduce something similar to
Ned's curves (which are unsupported on Ned's site -- and trivially
incorrect).

Please let me know if this is insufficiently defined for your test.

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

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

It would not be a 'big bang' model. It would be a "real" explosion-type
model (i.e. "plasma fireworks"). And yes, the PF model has "ages of the
universe" of hundreds of billions to trillions of years. Though the
meaning
of teh term "age of the univserse" is somewhat different between the two.

OK, this is more about terminology again, I would consider
that a variant of a big-bang model. If the theory includes
tired light to explain red shift then I would look on it
as a hybrid of the two. There's nothing wrong with that.
Regardless, it doesn't affect what we are trying to do.

To avoid a big bang scenario, you need to explain all the
systematic red shift with something other than motion

But tired light models don't need a big bang scenario.

and
at the moment I'll have to take that as photon energy loss
unless you can identify another contributor.

Even plasma fireworks does not require the big bang. The latter adds
creation of space.

Big bang describes the idea that at large scales, distances
between objects are systematically increasing. It doesn't
yet go back to creation since the theories break down at
least at the Planck time.

I'll ask you about your view. If that includes elements
of Vigiers then fine but if you want to make the case that
a tired light theory can satisfy the tests, it is for you
to make that case.

These are *your* "tests." It is up to you to support your claim about
their
use. Feel free to use the tired light defining equation: dE = - mu E dx.
And feel free to use 1/mu = 4.2GPc (your R, from prior posts). I would
expect that you will perform a calculation to reproduce something similar
to
Ned's curves (which are unsupported on Ned's site -- and trivially
incorrect).

Please let me know if this is insufficiently defined for your test.

That's fine. I have posted the example using exactly
those postulates. The id is



It may show up as a new thread though I used the same
subject line. Outlook Express is producing reference
lines in excess of 1000 characters, which is the
maximum according to the NNTP protocol, and my new
ISP's server is rejecting them. I had to post a new
message instead of a reply to get round it, sorry.

George

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


[snip]


Even plasma fireworks does not require the big bang. The latter adds
creation of space.


Big bang describes the idea that at large scales, distances
between objects are systematically increasing. It doesn't
yet go back to creation since the theories break down at
least at the Planck time.

I think he did not mean the initial creation of space here,
but wanted to say that the expansion of the universe required
a continuous "creation" of "new" space.


[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

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


[snip]


Even plasma fireworks does not require the big bang. The latter adds
creation of space.


Big bang describes the idea that at large scales, distances
between objects are systematically increasing. It doesn't
yet go back to creation since the theories break down at
least at the Planck time.

I think he did not mean the initial creation of space here,
but wanted to say that the expansion of the universe required
a continuous "creation" of "new" space.

[snip]

I think we are all on the same page on this one. (Thank goodness.)

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

greywolf42 wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...

George Dishman wrote:

"greywolf42" wrote in message
. com...


[snip]



Even plasma fireworks does not require the big bang. The latter adds
creation of space.



Big bang describes the idea that at large scales, distances
between objects are systematically increasing. It doesn't
yet go back to creation since the theories break down at
least at the Planck time.

I think he did not mean the initial creation of space here,
but wanted to say that the expansion of the universe required
a continuous "creation" of "new" space.

[snip]


I think we are all on the same page on this one. (Thank goodness.)

Good. And now please explain why continuous creation of
new space is a problem.


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...

I think he did not mean the initial creation of space here,
but wanted to say that the expansion of the universe required
a continuous "creation" of "new" space.

[snip]

I think we are all on the same page on this one. (Thank goodness.)

Good. And now please explain why continuous creation of
new space is a problem.

Who said it was a "problem," Bjoern? It's simply a part of BB theory, but
not a part of plasma fireworks theory or of tired light theory.

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

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


[snip]


Even plasma fireworks does not require the big bang. The latter adds
creation of space.


Big bang describes the idea that at large scales, distances
between objects are systematically increasing. It doesn't
yet go back to creation since the theories break down at
least at the Planck time.

I think he did not mean the initial creation of space here,
but wanted to say that the expansion of the universe required
a continuous "creation" of "new" space.

Possibly, but I don't think it makes much sense to
describe expansion this way. In the big bang version,
photons can be thought of as being "stretched" during
their journey by the same factor as space expands but
"creation of new space" raises the prospect of a photon
getting cut in half if it happened to straddle the
location where a bit of "new space" was "created".

Both pictures, cutting a piece of vacuum in two and
putting more new vacuum inbetween or taking a piece
of vacuum and stretching it sound equally odd. Just
saying that material objects end up farther apart is
true either way.

I suspect red shift can be considered in terms of the
relationship between worldlines and geodesics at the
emitter and receiver again without worrying about
what happens in flight (but I can't be sure of that as
I haven't studied GR) but it makes more sense to me
than thinking of photons as extended objects that get
stretched along with the underlying "fabric of space".

George

George Dishman wrote in message
...

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

[snip]

Even plasma fireworks does not require the big bang. The latter adds
creation of space.

Big bang describes the idea that at large scales, distances
between objects are systematically increasing. It doesn't
yet go back to creation since the theories break down at
least at the Planck time.

I think he did not mean the initial creation of space here,
but wanted to say that the expansion of the universe required
a continuous "creation" of "new" space.

Possibly, but I don't think it makes much sense to
describe expansion this way. In the big bang version,
photons can be thought of as being "stretched" during
their journey by the same factor as space expands but
"creation of new space" raises the prospect of a photon
getting cut in half if it happened to straddle the
location where a bit of "new space" was "created".

That is a false assertion. Changing words from "created" to "stretched"
doesn't change anything. They are both creation -- unless you have some
sub-space, into which space is being stretched.

Both pictures, cutting a piece of vacuum in two and
putting more new vacuum inbetween or taking a piece
of vacuum and stretching it sound equally odd. Just
saying that material objects end up farther apart is
true either way.

True, but this is also true of the plasma fireworks model. So saying
"material objects end up farther apart" doesn't add anything to the
clarification.

I suspect red shift can be considered in terms of the
relationship between worldlines and geodesics at the
emitter and receiver again without worrying about
what happens in flight (but I can't be sure of that as
I haven't studied GR) but it makes more sense to me
than thinking of photons as extended objects that get
stretched along with the underlying "fabric of space".

But the fabric of space doesn't get "stretched" or "created" in plasma
fireworks models. That's the point.

--
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
...

most snipped

It would not be a 'big bang' model. It would be a "real" explosion-type
model (i.e. "plasma fireworks"). And yes, the PF model has "ages of the
universe" of hundreds of billions to trillions of years. Though the
meaning of the term "age of the univserse" is somewhat different
between the two.

OK, this is more about terminology again, I would consider
that a variant of a big-bang model.

The plasma fireworks people disagree -- because space is pre-existing. And
all velocities are *real*.

If the theory includes tired light to explain red shift
then I would look on it as a hybrid of the two.

Fair enough.

There's nothing wrong with that.
Regardless, it doesn't affect what we are trying to do.

OK. One tangent killed.

To avoid a big bang scenario, you need to explain all the
systematic red shift with something other than motion

But tired light models don't need a big bang scenario.

and
at the moment I'll have to take that as photon energy loss
unless you can identify another contributor.

Even plasma fireworks does not require the big bang. The latter adds
creation of space.

Big bang describes the idea that at large scales, distances
between objects are systematically increasing. It doesn't
yet go back to creation since the theories break down at
least at the Planck time.

The current big bang model(s) are not limited to mere systematic increases
in distance. Take a look at any "expanding balloon" or "raisin loaf"
analogy. Space is continually "expanding" (i.e. being created) between
galaxies. The galaxies aren't moving *through* space, so much as being
carried along.

In a PF model, space is pre-existing. And all motion is *through* space.

I'll ask you about your view. If that includes elements
of Vigiers then fine but if you want to make the case that
a tired light theory can satisfy the tests, it is for you
to make that case.

These are *your* "tests." It is up to you to support your claim about
their use. Feel free to use the tired light defining equation:
dE = - mu E dx. And feel free to use 1/mu = 4.2GPc (your R,
from prior posts). I would expect that you will perform a
calculation to reproduce something similar to
Ned's curves (which are unsupported on Ned's site -- and trivially
incorrect).

Please let me know if this is insufficiently defined for your test.

That's fine. I have posted the example using exactly
those postulates. The id is



It may show up as a new thread though I used the same
subject line. Outlook Express is producing reference
lines in excess of 1000 characters, which is the
maximum according to the NNTP protocol, and my new
ISP's server is rejecting them. I had to post a new
message instead of a reply to get round it, sorry.

No problem. I've replied to that post he
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...b7ff68147cd2aa

I think we can abandon this threadling.

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