Cosmic acceleration rediscovered

George Dishman wrote in message
...
A minor correction and a bit more on "local".

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

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


{A correction to earlier post}

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.

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

{The starlight-localized issue}

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 ..

Then I think we can drop it.

_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

Light energy from a star drops off below the inverse square distance law in
the tired light model.

so we should see a higher CMBR
temperature looking along a line of sight that
passes near to a star.

No, because your starting assumption was wrong.

I argued that we don't see this.

I don't know of any reason that we should.

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.

Explanation provided above. Your hand-wave (unquantified) argument was
based on a bad assumption.

In other areas however, you have said that the
aether is at a uniform temperature.

I've said that we don't expect it to be heated in the local region of stars.
It is roughly uniform.

We can apply
the test on Prof. Wright's page to your theory

No, we cannot. Because Ned's page assumes that temperature decreases with
time; as a result of BB expansion. Temperature does not change with time in
tired light theory.

If we take your version of what Ned's trying to do, Ned's curves are
trivially incorrect.

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.

I've repeatedly given you that. There is no significant change in
temperature with distance and time.

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.

Completely disingenuous. Because you've never looked at a *real* tired
light theory. Only Ned's strawmen compton scattering theories. Which is
the purpose of strawmen, of course.

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

George Dishman wrote in message
...
Much snipped to try to get back to the physics.

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

"greywolf42" wrote in message
m...

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.

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.

Tired light theories presume the *additional* source of "tired light", from
photon energy degradation. 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. Tired
light theories agree with the BB that gravitational redshift and electron
scattering will be minor corrections on the whole.

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.

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.

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

Joseph Lazio wrote in message
...
"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

I never made any such claim. Or any similar claim.

and that the cosmological
constant was never considered by astronomers

I never made any such claim. Or any similar claim.

and is somehow not part of general relativity.

This is a claim I did make. Take a look at Einstein 1915-16. No
cosmological constant. The CC is part of Relativistic Cosmology (1918-19).
It is not part of GR. Relativistic cosmology *includes* GR, but it is not
*only* GR. GR is part of Relativistic Cosmology.

Could you provide some citations for these views?

Use google. I've provided the responses many times. If you provide a link
to any specific claim that I've actually made (instead of your trolling
falsehoods, above), I'll provide you with the link to the response.

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

Joseph Lazio wrote in message
...
"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.

Marvellous. But number of hits on a literature search tells us nothing
about the content of the papers.

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.

I don't dismiss papers without reading them. On the other hand, I don't
accept the results of papers without reading them. Especially when someone
starts counting without reading.

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

The majority of this reply addresses Ned Wright's page.
I'll deal with a tired light test in my other reply to
try to focus each branch of the thread. I'm hoping this
one can die soon.

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

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

snip
I've already repeatedly shown where you've misunderstood real tired light
theories, and why the test isn't applicable. You insist on examining only
strawman theories. The test isn't applicable, because Ned's "test"
assumes
CMBR temperature reduction from the BB cosmogenesis.

And I've repeatedly pointed out that there is no temperature
change implied or assumed. I'll snip some further comments
based on this misunderstanding.

snip

I want you to respond to what _I_ am writing.

I am responding to what you are writing. You keep writing about Ned's
page,
and Ned's test. Therefore, I must address Ned's page, and Ned's test.

And you claimed "you need to apply it to a specific theory to find out
whether it can falsify it or not". If you really believe that Ned needs
to
change his site to reflect this view, why not say so?

There is nothing wrong with Ned's page for what it tries
to do IMO. YMMV.

Nope. It can only be applied by assuming that the BB is correct, and
the temperature that Ned arbitrarily selected (solely to impugn the
actual theories) came from the BB.

Wrong, it comes from choosing an arbirtrary figure
of z=0.1 and choosing the temperature to match the
peak wavelength after tired light is applied. The
intensity then follows.

Well, this *is* a different rationale than Ned provided.

Thank you. That's all I meant by listening to my view.

However, this
can't be true for Ned's curves. Because the intensity between Ned's blue
and red curves is unchanged. Photon frequency lowers in a tired light
model, *because* energy is lost. Yet Ned's red curve shows energy per
photon as unchanged after (you claim) tired light shifting has taken
place.
It appears that when you include the energy loss, the red curve once again
drops to the black (observed) curve.

Note that the Y scale is in M Jy / sr. 1 Jansky is
10^-26 watts per square meter per Hz. The "per Hz"
factor compensates for this because an interval of
1Hz at the receiver started out as 1.1Hz at the
source. Tired light effectively compresses the power
emitted into a narrower band.

snip

So are you saying that the CMBR isn't produced within
tens of parsecs? I would assume it was the integral of
contributions over many GPc

That *IS* the BB assumption, again.

No, I mean that it will be a number of times the
characteristic length we worked out for tired light,
i.e. several times 4.2GPc.

unless extinction plays a
significant part. You need to tell me over what range
extinction becomes important if we are to move forward.

I have no need to feed your attempts to throw random objections around.

At the moment, we are discussing Ned's argument. Or your version of it.
Please do so, or drop it.

Fine, but don't complain later that my argument is
flawed because I didn't take extinction into account.

small snip - moved later

big snip

Let me make it simple,
is the temperature of the aether constant, falling
or rising in your model, or doing something else I
haven't thought of?

As repeatedly noted, it is approximately constant with time. Which is why
I
favor it. See the very next statement of my post:

OK, that's fine. (Your next statement didn't address the
time variation of the temperature.)

I assume there is a
contribution from EM pasing through, which includes
both ambient starlight and the CMBR itself. However the
effect is not to remove photons as in extinction but just
to reduce their energy creating the tired light effect.

That is my favorite assumption at the moment. However, there is no a
priori need for such an assumption.

There is a need to have a specific model to work
with if you want specific comments. Otherwise all
you can get is hand-waving.

We agree then, that Ned's page is merely hand-waving. For he attempts to
address all tired light theories with his claims. But Ned doesn't
actually
address even one single, specific model.

No, it is not handwaving. It is an accurate quantitaive
explanation of a test that can be applied but you need
to know the details of the theory before applying it.

snip
Ned's
source is at 420MPc which I can understand would be
non-local by normal standards, but could be 'local'
by cosmological standards. Where do you want to draw
the line?
snip
3) The local region for the MMBR (measured microwave background radiation)
is the antenna of the device you are using. According to the matter
theory
that I favor.

If you are suggesting the instrument designers didn't
consider locally generated thermal noise in the receiver,
that is obvious nonsense. It is a major problem and has
to be designed for, tested and calibrated.

Ned's model is at a single temperature. Time
variation of that temperature is of no
relevance to the argument.

Ned's model is at a temperature of 2.998 K at emission (time #1) and a
temperature of 2.73 at reception (time #2).

section snipped from above
At a temperature of 2.998 K, instead of the 2.73 K measured "here". That
*IS* two different temperatures at two different locations (420 MPc
apart).

... It's as if you were
additionally assuming that the temperature
was 2.725K now as well as 2.998K at the time
of emission.

That's what Ned's graph is based upon --

This is where you are making your mistake. The page is
based on one fact, that the temperature measured here
and now is 2.725K. As an example, he then considers the
postulate that it was emitted at 2.998K at a distance
of 400MPc and the peak has been moved by tired light
to coincide with the peak frequency of a black body of
2.725K. There is no suggestion that the actual source
is at 2.725K at any time.

aside from being an obviously
incorrect calculation.

See above, the units are not what you thought.

snip

ONLY big bang theory requires the
temperature to change with time.

No change with time is implied, in the example it
is a source at constant temperature of 2.998K at
z=0.1

The time used by Ned is the time it takes for light to travel from
z=0.1. That's where he got the temperature (the BB).

Wrong, he got it from by back-calculating from
the current observed temperature, and you already
said that.

Then why did you say "wrong?"

Because you said "The time used by Ned" suggesting
there is a time variation involved. There isn't,
only the shift of peak frequency due to tired light
acting over a distance.

If the distant source is still at that temperature,
in the future we will continue to see
the CMBR at the same temperature as at present.

This is a spurious argument. For we can only measure the present.

I hope you now follow the above comment. Your model has
the temperature as constant so the measured spectrum
would also be constant in time.

No, it only assumes the temperature was 2.998K at the
time and location of emission.

Which is a slowly falling temperature. You aren't dumb. Tell me, why
do you feel the need to make excuses for Ned's slime site?

Because you are making an incorrect assumption that
means you fail to understand the test. I intend to
apply the same test but to your distributed source
which is at uniform temperature so you need to open
your mind a bit and take the blinkers off.

To what "distributed source" are you referring? I think you are again
looking at nonlocal sources.

I thought you said the CMBR was emitted by electrons
being excited by the aether, though now you seem to be
claiming that the people who designed COBE, WMAP and
all the other instruments that have measured the CMBR
can't tell the difference between the CMBR and thermal
noise in the instrument. If that's your best alternative
to the big bang, I don't think much of it!

snip
He doesn't, you need to re-appraise the page.

Not based on Ned's writings. *You* have come up with a different
rationalization than Ned states. However, your reasoning does not support
Ned's graph. (Or vice versa.)

snip

That's what I intend to disprove, but you have to get
rid of your preconceptions and start thinking about
the physics instead.

The classic ad hominem. If you intend to disprove it, feel free.

It was not intended as an insult of any form, above
you say my view differs from Ned's and that suggests
you have considered my words separately which is all
I wanted.

within the posted error bars." In
short, only theories with changing temperature of space (specifically
those that use the BB rate-of-change) have a problem with Ned's false
assertions in the first place. There is no reason to expect a change
of
temperature ... except in the BB.

I think you will eventally start arguing the opposite
of that, but see what comes.

Nonsubstantive, ad hominem.

Again that was not an insult, just an expectation
of where the physics will lead us.

Sigh. Extinction due to grey dust is not contained in any tired light
theory. Only in strawmen. Hence I frankly don't care to go out on
another
tangent.

That's fine. That means I don't need to worry about
including what-if's to cover it. It'll make the
discussion easier.

George

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:
Much snipped to try to get back to the physics.

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

(replying to greywolf here, not to George...)


[snip]

I thought you and Bjoern were being deliberately obtuse,

Well, that's one of the big problems when discussing with you:
that you constantly invent motives for your discussion partners,
instead of actually trying to understand what they are asking
and saying.

And yes, this is indeed an ad hominem. An eye for an eye...


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.

Yes, we can indeed get such a curve from the luminosity-redshift curve
in the reference you gave.


And the observed curve is exponential.

I don't think so. Where do you get this from?


At least within error bars.

If you think so: Care to test if an exponential curve, or the curve
predicted by the BBT, using the parameters from WMAP, fits
better to the data, including the error bars?



[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

References lost due to ISP problem.

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

snip higher stuff

[You wrote: (attribution lost somewhere)]
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

Light energy from a star drops off below the inverse square distance law
in
the tired light model.

so we should see a higher CMBR
temperature looking along a line of sight that
passes near to a star.

No, because your starting assumption was wrong.

My starting assumption was the same as you say above:

"The 'returning' is a local effect (at the point of fractional
return). dE = - const E, at the point of inspection."

The E in that equation falls as the inverse square
hence so does dE.

I argued that we don't see this.

I don't know of any reason that we should.

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.

Explanation provided above. Your hand-wave (unquantified) argument was
based on a bad assumption.

I don't think so. It still seems to me that dE in
the equation you posted will follow an inverse square
from each (point) source of E.

In other areas however, you have said that the
aether is at a uniform temperature.

I've said that we don't expect it to be heated in the local region of
stars.
It is roughly uniform.

I'll respond separately on that basis, this
is just a point of curiosity.

George

First I'll draw together a few bits that I think
sum up most of the relevant parts of the discussion
though it's quite possible I'll miss some.

line length reduced in quoted material to minimise
problems later

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

snip

In other areas however, you have said that the
aether is at a uniform temperature.

I've said that we don't expect it to be heated in
the local region of stars. It is roughly uniform.

snip
.... There is no
significant change in temperature with distance
and time.

"greywolf42" wrote:
George Dishman wrote in message
...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
.. .
snip
For example, in my favorite theory (a Maxwellian/
LeSage theory), the CMBR is simply an EM hum from
electrons bound to hydrogen.

But that doesn't produce the spectrum we see,

Sure it does. It's a thermal emission.
....
lambda = (1.0E-30) (2.99e+8) / (1.602E-19) = 1.87 E-3 m

Computing the equivalent blackbody temperature spectrum
of this emission gives:

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


"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
snip
... Extinction due to grey dust is not contained in
any tired light theory. Only in strawmen. Hence I
frankly don't care to go out on another tangent.



"greywolf42" wrote
George Dishman wrote:
snip
If he can come up with one that explains the spectrum
of the CMBR

Electron vortex noise from the aether. A local effect
due to electrons bound in hydrogen gas.

and its dipole moment

The motion of the solar system through the aether.

as well as why the
cosmological red-shift is exponential with distance

Any tired light theory. (In this case, the slight
imperfection in the aether.)


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

snip
Cloud emissions show different spectra
which we can use to determine temperature while the
CMBR is remarkably uniform.

The local region of space (a few tens of parsecs) is
expected to have an aether that is remarkably uniform
in temperature.


"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
George Dishman wrote in message
...
snip
The
extra factor to be taken into account in this case
would be the electron density.

Nope. Electron density wouldn't change anything.

The temperature might
be the same everywhere but the intensity radiated
would be higher in regions with more electrons.

Again, you are thinking cosmogenic.

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

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.

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.


Ok, I think we have enough to try this with what
you've said. The aim is partly show how Ned's test
can be applied and also to give a starting point so
that you can try to produce a self-consistent model
that explains the spectrum of the CMBR. If you want
to use Vigier or whatever, feel free but I don't
expect you to say explanation A can produce the
spectrum while explanation B can explain the dipole
if A and B are mutually exclusive. As you said, we
don't need to have all the answers at the beginning
but we should be able to sort them out in the course
of the discussion. So the strawman is this:

-:-

Postulates:

The CMBR is produced by "Electron vortex noise
from the aether, a local effect due to electrons
bound in hydrogen gas."

The electrons are producing a blackbody spectrum
at an equivalent temperature of roughly 2.73K.

The solar system is moving through this hydrogen
and as a result there is a Doppler effect which
produces the cosmic dipole moment.

This "electron hum" is produced everywhere roughly
uniformly as the electron density does not affect
the emitted intensity.

Each photon of this emitted radiation loses energy
at a rate given by dE/E = dl/L due to a slight
imperfection in the aether. The value of L is
approximately 4.2GPc give or take a factor of 2.
This is independent of frequency producing an
exponential reduction of energy with distance.

While the defect reduces the energy of individual
photons, it does not absorb photons. There is no
significant reduction of photon numbers due to
grey dust or other possible causes of extinction.

The energy lost is transferred to the aether and
replaces the energy used locally to emit the CMBR
photons, hence energy is locally conserved.

-:-

To analyse the above using Ned's test, we split
the universe around the solar system into thin,
concentric spherical shells or thickness dR at
radius R. The surface area of each shell can be
thought of as composed of many small cells of
volume dV and the number of such cells is
R^2*dR/dV. Ignoring tired light energy loss, the
amount of radiation we receive from each cell is
proportional to R^-2 (inverse square law) and
proportional to dV hence the total rate of photons
from each shell is independent of R. However,
depending on the "cross section" of an electron,
it may be only a fraction k of the amount that
would be emitted by a solid (opaque) surface. This
factor k is adjustable.

The total radiation we receive is then the sum of
the photons from all the shells, however each
photon will be measured at a frequency which has
been reduced from that at which it was transmitted
by the tired light effect.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.gif

Looking at Ned's graph, the local (z ~ 0) electron
hum would be measured as the black line other than
being scaled down by the factor k. However, to that
we must add contributions from greater distances
since there is no appreciable extinction.

First think of a series of shells at z=0.1, z=0.2,
etc.. Each would produce a curve similar to the
black line with the same peak intensity but with
the peak frequency moved to the left. The total
would then be the sum of an infinite series of
such curves. It should be clear that essentially
the total observed curve becomes something like a
straight line to the left (lower frequency) of the
locally generated peak. Of course the series of
discrete shells is an approximation as the source
is continuous so to find the real prediction let
dR tend to zero and integrate instead of summing.
The overall intensity of the curve can be adjusted
by changing k but the intensity will always be too
high at frequencies below the peak for a blackbody.
In fact I don't think you will get a peak at all.

I've spent too much time putting this together
and I don't want to spend more time doing the
integration, I think I've said enough so you can
if you wish. The point is that, with the stated
strawman, the observed spectrum will not match a
blackbody. So the question is can you change the
strawman, or indeed discard it entirely and
replace it with a real tired light theory, and
show that you can then match the observed
spectrum while still explaining the dipole?

George

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

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

snip higher stuff

[You wrote: (attribution lost somewhere)]
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

Light energy from a star drops off below the inverse square distance law
in the tired light model.

so we should see a higher CMBR
temperature looking along a line of sight that
passes near to a star.

No, because your starting assumption was wrong.

My starting assumption was the same as you say above:

"The 'returning' is a local effect (at the point of fractional
return). dE = - const E, at the point of inspection."

Sorry, I did not consider that your starting assumption, because of the
large gap -- and because the next statement does not follow from the above.

The E in that equation falls as the inverse square

This is your incorrect assumption. The E in the above equation does not
fall as the inverse square. The equation above is the pure linear form.
The only degradation is due to the fractional removal from every photon
(which continues in a straight line). Inverse square is the reduction in
the number of photons per unit area, as a spherical source spreads over the
surface of larger spherical shells.

hence so does dE.

I argued that we don't see this.

I don't know of any reason that we should.

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.

Explanation provided above. Your hand-wave (unquantified) argument was
based on a bad assumption.

I don't think so. It still seems to me that dE in
the equation you posted will follow an inverse square
from each (point) source of E.

As demonstrated above, you are incorrect. A tired light model will always
be (slightly) below a pure inverse square model.

In other areas however, you have said that the
aether is at a uniform temperature.

I've said that we don't expect it to be heated in the local region of
stars. It is roughly uniform.

I'll respond separately on that basis, this
is just a point of curiosity.

Curiosity is good. Though it is rough on cats.

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