Cosmic acceleration rediscovered

Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

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

snip

I'm also not familiar with the term "a wash". Probably
you meant it in the sense of definition 4 at
www.m-w.org?

wash (noun)

4 a : worthless especially liquid waste : REFUSE
b : an insipid beverage
c : vapid writing or speech

It still dosn't any much sense to me.

Try this one:
American Heritage Dictionary
Noun, #13...
Informal: An activity, action, or enterprise that yields neither marked
gain nor marked loss: "[The company] doesn't do badly. That is, it's a
wash" (Harper's).

David A. Smith

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:vbFDd.23645$CH5.19089@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

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

snip

I'm also not familiar with the term "a wash". Probably
you meant it in the sense of definition 4 at
www.m-w.org?

wash (noun)

4 a : worthless especially liquid waste : REFUSE
b : an insipid beverage
c : vapid writing or speech

It still dosn't any much sense to me.

Try this one:
American Heritage Dictionary
Noun, #13...
Informal: An activity, action, or enterprise that yields neither marked
gain nor marked loss: "[The company] doesn't do badly. That is, it's a
wash" (Harper's).

Thanks David, that matches a description I got by
email, but it still doesn't seem to make much sense
in the context. For the example of a single thin
shell, the value can be determined empirically if
th distance is known and in that sense is what
greywolf usually calls an "adjustable parameter".

If the shell is only part of an integration then
other parts of the larger model can place constraints
on the form of k(r) and that can be significant. For
example if the universe is homogenous, isotropic and
static, k(r) will be exponential.

George

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

[snip]

I don't see the difference (unless you mean the specific
temperature). Does this "electron vortex noise" have a
blackbody spectrum or not?

Yes, the spectrum mimics the blackbody shape. No the source is not the
temperature of the electron.

Why is the spectrum that of a blackbody?

Because it arises from the motions of the corpuscles in the aether.

[snip]

See my other post. If the hydrogen (or whatever is the
source of the radiatin) isn't moving relative to the
detector then you don't get a Doppler effect and you
don't explain the dipole.

That's relativity, not aether theory. The electrons themselves are
distorted by their motion through the aether. Hence, so is the
emission.

So electrons have a finite size and are compressible, or
what?

Yes and yes.

How exactly is the radiation produced by the electrons,
and why does a compressing of the electrons by the Lorentz
factor lead to a Doppler shift in the emitted radiation?

1) It doesn't lead to a doppler shift. 2) It leads to an anisotropy.

[snip]

To analyse the above using Ned's test,

Correction: *YOUR* test. This isn't Ned's test.

IMO it is.

We've been through that, and agreed that I will listen to *your*
version.

Which is identical to Ned's version, as far as I can see.

Your unsupported assertion is useless.

[snip]

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.

Since the k applies to all source densities (distant and local), the
"k" factor here will be a wash.

I'm not familiar with that term, what do you mean?

"k" is *your* term, above.

Err, he *obviously* asked for the meaning of your term "wash",
not for the meaning of "k" - see the next question directly
below!

*Who* is deliberately obtuse here?

LOL! *Obviously,* you are.

(Because you have to determine the source
density from what you measured.)

The factor is present in the equations but may be
able to be determined empirically, is that what
you meant by "a wash"?

Close enough.

I'm also not familiar with the term "a wash". Probably
you meant it in the sense of definition 4 at
www.m-w.org?

No idea. Your link doesn't go to a definition.

It means that it makes no difference, or insiginficant.

[snip]


No, each shell would produce a different red curve
depending on the source temperature, the distance
(hence z), the k factor for that shell and the
integral of k for all shells closer to us which
will partially hide more distant shells.

Why are you now assuming that the temperatures are different at each
source?

He is not necessarily assuming that above. Why do you think
so? He merely takes the *possibility* into account that this
is so.

George is explicitly assuming that the temperature at 0.1 z is higher than
the local temperature. And that the temperature at 0.2 z is higher than at
0.1 z, etc.

For the peak of each curve to match the black curve,
each shell must be at a temperature of (1+z)T so
the farther back into the past you look, the higher
the temperature.

But we don't need each individual curve to match the black curve. If
you are arguing against your uniform-external-source model, you
need to show that the integrated signature doesn't match the shape
of the received curve.

Well, how likely is it that the integrated signature would
give a blackbody curve again if the individual curves
do not match a blackbody spectrum? That would indeed be an
incredible coincidence.

That's why we have calculus, Bjoern. In order to find these things out. If
you want to claim that something is disproved, you actually have to do the
calculation -- not some other calculation.

(Of course you'd also have to justify your Earth-centered universal
temperature distribution.)

What would work better against that strawman is an integration over
constant density and constant temperature sources.

Which is exactly what George suggested originally, IIRC.

You don't RC. George has never done this. Ned has never done this. You
have never done this.

[snip]

I hope my other post cleared that up. The peaks
are equal if you allow for the energy loss due to
graphing against frequency. They are not equal if
you don't.

A substantive physics test will not rely upon the type of graphing used.

I get the faint suspicion that you did not understand the
argument.

I get the faint suspicion that you don't have any substantive physics to
post.

[snip]

{snip higher levels}

No, tired light reduces the energy by (1+z) while
the Stefan-Boltzmann Law increases the total power
by (1+z)^4 leaving the discrepancy of (1+z)^3. That
is the point of Ned's page.

Based on what assumption of source density? You keep ignoring this
question.

He obviously uses the simplest possible assumption (constant
density) here.

He hasn't even got that far. But constant at what *value,* Bjoern? Those
are absolute values on the ordinate of the graph, not relative ones.

[snip]

Since the volume of any region of space increases as the
cube of its dimensions, that reduces the photon density
and hence the intensity.

You've fallen into the BB assumptions again. Photon density remains
constant per unit volume as you arbitrarily expand the volume of space
you are considering in your "region". Unless you expand space
(which is a BB assumption). PF does not expand space. TL does not
expand space.

And George was also not talking about expansion of space above.
Your point?

Then what *was* he talking about, Bjoern? How does photon density get
reduced, if space is *not* expanding?

[snip]

then there
will be an error in intensity of (1+z)^3 while if the
motion causes expansion by a scaling of exactly 1+z then
the result exactly matches a black body. Intermediate
amounts of motion would give an intermediate intensity
factor.

Total non-sequiteur. That's the BB model again.

No, it isn't. Why on earth do you think so?

The past dozen exchanges or so. Why do you feel the need to jump in late
with random ignorances?

[snip]

I don't currently know of any such theories.

Which is what I said a long time ago, I'm prepared to
consider tired light theories but I don't know of any
that can explain the dipole and the spectrum of the CMBR.

TIRED
LIGHT
THEORIES
HAVE
NO
NEED
TO
EXPLAIN
BIG BANG
ASSUMPTIONS!

Neither the dipole nor the spectrum of the CMBR are
"big bang assumptions". They are data.

ROTFLMAO!!!!! The BB assumes that the CMBR is an afterglow of the big bang.

Why do tired light
theorists think that they have to explain only one set
of data which the BBT addresses (the red shift), but can
ignore others?

Because of my very next sentence. Try reading for a change, Bjoern.

Cosmic origin of the MBR is a BB assumption. It does not exist in any
tired light theory.

George did not say it does.

But it *is.* Regardless of what George says.

[snip]

You have been
claiming that you approach this as a "test", that can only be applied to
a specific theory at a time. Now, you slip back into several universal
claims that "tired light" is disproved.

I have not seen George saying in any of these posts that
"tired light" is disproved by this.

Perhaps you should have actually read the text you snipped.

[snip]

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

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


[snip]

I also don't understand how this would explain observations of the
temperature of the CMBR in other galaxies

Since we aren't in other galaxies, there are no such observations.
Claims otherwise are based on circular logic.

Please explain what exactly the circular logic is there.

Sure. Please provide the specific citation that you claim is an observation
of CMBR temperature in other galaxies, and I'll point out the circularity.
(Since neither you nor Joseph were specific in your claims, I can't be more
specific.)

nor how it would explain the
SZ effect. (The antenna "knows" when we are looking at a cluster of
galaxies and adjusts the resulting signal accordingly?)

Quite simply, the claimed observation "SZ effect" is an artifact of
circular theories and dedicated theorists.

In other words: you simply deny the data.

Not at all. I see the data, but I don't agree with the theorists
conclusions. I conclude that the claimed "data" is merely noise. If you'd
like, we can discuss the quality and source of the data, and the basis for
the theoretical conclusions in each case.

As noted in recent posts, my understanding of the S-Z effect is that the
inspiration behind the S-Z effect is fine (if there IS as CMBR, then hot
electrons will distort the CMB spectrum toward the blue). The problem
arises in execution. Where excessive zeal and sloppy terminology leads
one to hunt for miniscule reductions in intensity of specific MBR
wavelengths. Literally dozens of experiments were done that
"should have been" sufficient precision -- but all they found was noise.
A few more recent experiments have "removed systematic errors" by
computer processing. And claim resolutions below the physical
resolutions of the apparatus.

Yet again your nonsensical claims about being below the
physical resolution.

Special plead evasion noted.

Is it below the physical resolution of the instrument -- or not -- Bjoern?
If not, please point me to the reference for the physical resolution of
these instruments.

--
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 You did miss the fundamental point that the MBR in my favorite
g theory comes from the antennae of our measuring devices.

This was a favorite statement of Grote Reber, the first radio
astronomer. I've never quite known what to make of it.

g Thanks, I hadn't heard of Reber. Did he do any work with Bell
g Labs?

IIRC, no.

Reber essentially invented the field of radio astronomy, so I'm
inclined to take seriously any of his suggestions. On the other
hands, he was wrong at times.
[...]
Moreover, he never suggested a physical mechanism by which the MBR
would be produced, and he knew as much about radio antennas as
anybody.

g One doesn't have to have a theory for the mechanism, in order to
g experimentally identify the difference between an internal signal
g and an external signal.

I just read the Penzias & Wilson (1965) paper and an associated
Penzias & Wilson (1965) paper. From that, my understanding is that
they did distinguish between an internal signal and an external
signal. Specifically, they were able to show that, whatever the
signal is, it must be entering through the antenna.

A completely false assertion. Because your claim is based on the following
distortion:

It is not
generated within the electronics at the backend of the antenna.

ROTFLMAO! No one claimed that it was generated in the electronics that are
attached to the antenna! The point is that it is generated by the electrons
contained *IN* the antenna.

I also don't understand how this would explain observations of the
temperature of the CMBR in other galaxies

g Since we aren't in other galaxies, there are no such observations.
g Claims otherwise are based on circular logic.

I'm disinclined to believe proofs by assertion. In lieu of some
concrete statements based on papers cited to you, I stand by my objection.

LOL! How many observations have we done with detectors located in other
galaxies?

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to support your claim that you have observations
of CMBR temperature in other galaxies. Then I'll be happy to show you the
circularity in your citation.

nor how it would explain the SZ effect. (...)

g Quite simply, the claimed observation "SZ effect" is an artifact of
g circular theories and dedicated theorists.

g As noted in recent posts, my understanding of the S-Z effect is
g that the inspiration behind the S-Z effect is fine (...). The
g problem arises in execution. Where excessive zeal and sloppy
g terminology leads one to hunt for miniscule reductions in intensity
g of specific MBR wavelengths. Literally dozens of experiments were
g done that "should have been" sufficient precision -- but all they
g found was noise. A few more recent experiments have "removed
g systematic errors" by computer processing. And claim resolutions
g below the physical resolutions of the apparatus.

You haven't demonstrated to me either that you understand the S-Z
effect nor that you understand signal processing. Therefore, I stand
by objections.

The classic special plead evasion.

I don't have to demonstrate to you. If you can't address my specific
comments about the effect and the signals, you have no scientific support
for your position. You are free to maintain your belief system, however.

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

George Dishman wrote in message
...

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

{snip higher levels}

It is just what you said, quoted above.

The quote above never mentions "postulates". It is a conclusion, not an
assumption (postulate).

_I_ am stating these as postulates based on my understanding
of what you have said previously with the noted exception
of the motion of the source that we discuss elsewhere.

Ah. But they aren't postulates in the theory under discussion. Your
understanding is incorrect. Which was my point.

{snip higher levels}

I don't see the difference (unless you mean the specific
temperature). Does this "electron vortex noise" have a
blackbody spectrum or not?

Yes, the spectrum mimics the blackbody shape. No the source is not the
temperature of the electron.

I wasn't claiming it was, note the word "equivalent".

{snip higher levels}

See my other post. If the hydrogen (or whatever is the
source of the radiatin) isn't moving relative to the
detector then you don't get a Doppler effect and you
don't explain the dipole.

That's relativity, not aether theory. The electrons themselves are
distorted by their motion through the aether. Hence, so is the
emission.

As noted in another reply, it applies to both since
both derive the measured effects (length contraction,
time dilation, mass anisotropy, etc.) from the Lorentz
Transforms. It surprised me that two quite different
philosophies should produce identical predictions but
that's the way it is.

No, that's not the way it is. Lorentz' theory does not contain the
Relativists' "Lorentz transforms." Don't get confused by the name.

Sorry, it's not possible to explain the dipole in
that case. I'm not pushing the strawman, feel free
to change your suggested source in any way you think
can explain the dipole.

You are incorrect. However, I must apologize for overly simplifying my
responses -- to the point where I was apparently not clear.

That's ok, you only mentioned motion which is entirely
reasonable and Lorentz factors cannot change the
frequency measured by a real detector. Of course it will
change the "absolute" frequency by the time dilation
factor but that is unmeasureable because the aether
affects the detector too.

Again, you confuse SR with Lorentz' theory.

{snip higher levels}

I missed a quote, it was in one of your recent
posts. I'll try to find it if you like.

You have a short memory. That was you on 12/27: "Extinction is
discussed by Perlmutter ss 'grey dust'."

Nope, found it:

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

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.

"Grey dust is still *your* term, not mine. My quote simply identifies that
no such term exists in tired light theory.

{snip higher levels}

Black body radiators are also perfect absorbers.

Did you have a relevant point to make?

No, it was a side issue that you might like to
consider separately from this discussion. A
degree of extinction will be a consequence of
your model.

No. Tired light models have nothing whatsoever to do with extinction.

Photons will return some energy to
the aether producing the tired light effect as
you say but also some photons will be absorbed
by electrons.

The latter has nothing to do with the tired light model.

The cross section could be very
small though so we can continue to ignore this.

Please.

snip

{snip higher levels}

Again, I'm not pushing the strawman, correct me if
if that is in error.

Ned's theory requires an electron density for cosmic origin. Your
theory requires an electron density for emission at intermediate
location. Mine does not ... because it is a signal internal to the
antenna.

OK, as explained, the dipole (and the correlation of
the anisotropy between missions) rule out an internal
source

No. Your explanation was simply assuming SR, as corrected above.

so I guess we need to consider the source
density again. It's covered by the 'k' factor I
mentioned so I'll leave it for the moment unless you
want to go into it more. BTW, I'm not assuming k is
constant with time but it is the same for a given
shell.

Nope. Your assumption of SR is invalid.

snip

{snip the wash confusion}

{snip higher levels}

No, each shell would produce a different red curve
depending on the source temperature, the distance
(hence z), the k factor for that shell and the
integral of k for all shells closer to us which
will partially hide more distant shells.

Why are you now assuming that the temperatures are different
at each source?

The above is only a statement of fact, the curve would
depend on the source temperature.

It is not a statement of fact, it is a statement of assumption. Yes, a
single curve from a single shell will depend upon the temperature of the
specific source that you assumed. However, you keep increasing temperature
of the shell with distance.

For the peak of each curve to match the black curve,
each shell must be at a temperature of (1+z)T so
the farther back into the past you look, the higher
the temperature.

But we don't need each individual curve to match the black curve. If
you are arguing against your uniform-external-source model, you
need to show that the integrated signature doesn't match the shape
of the received curve. (Of course you'd also have to justify your
Earth-centered universal temperature distribution.)

I suppose it could be Earth centered and constant in
time at each location but that's not what I meant. I
was considering that the temperature is the same
everywhere at any time from which the conclusion would
be that it was higher in the past.

That is the BB assumption. Tired light can be constant in time and constant
in space. Indeed, it can be any variant that you assume. But *you* have to
support any assumed changes in temperature with time and/or space. Because
that isn't part of any tired light theory.

{snip higher levels}

I hope my other post cleared that up. The peaks
are equal if you allow for the energy loss due to
graphing against frequency. They are not equal if
you don't.

A substantive physics test will not rely upon the type of graphing used.

I am saying that you need to reconsider the above
paragraph because you previously dismissed it for
a reason that you now know to be incorrect due to
your misreading of what was being graphed.

My point is that you will have to do better than picking arbitrary distances
and assuming temperatures that support only your strawman.

Ned's graph is correct for tired light.

Here you violate your own rule that Ned's test / *your* test can only be
used against a single theory at a time. Yet here you throw out another
blanket claim that "tired light" is disproved.

{snip higher levels}

No, tired light reduces the energy by (1+z) while
the Stefan-Boltzmann Law increases the total power
by (1+z)^4 leaving the discrepancy of (1+z)^3. That
is the point of Ned's page.

Based on what assumption of source density? You keep ignoring this
question.

Ned's graph is for 100%,

100% of what? The graph is absolute units. Not relative.

in this discusson I have defined
the coverage as 'k' for any shell. That can be generalised
further as k(t) assuming the source is homogeneous and
isotropic.

Based on what assumption of source density. In physical units of physical
objects. Not percentages.

{snip higher levels}

Yes and no. Think back to how we got the value of 0.024%
per MPc for mu in the tired light theory. It comes from
the observed redshift versus distance.

Of starlight, yes.

Now note that in
the Plasma Fireworks model, some of the redshift is due
to motion

Yes.

so the amount of energy loss due to tired light
would be less

Yes.

hence mu would have a smaller value

Yes.

which we could find if we could separate out the motion part.

Which we can't, of course without other theoretical calculations.

If objects were moving apart fast enough, that could
explain all the redshift and hence mu would be zero.

Yes. You can have a PF model without tired light. And you can have a
tired light model without PF. Redshift-distance alone cannot
determine which is real.

Since the volume of any region of space increases as the
cube of its dimensions, that reduces the photon density
and hence the intensity.

You've fallen into the BB assumptions again. Photon density remains
constant per unit volume as you arbitrarily expand the volume of
space you are considering in your "region". Unless you expand space
(which is a BB assumption). PF does not expand space. TL does not
expand space.

If there is no motion

If there is no motion, then there is no PF model. Why are you throwing
around these self-contradictory arguments? Have you now abandoned
discussion of the pure PF model and gone back to pure tired light?

Interesting, I need to think about that. PF effectively
means the source density is falling but does that
compensate the measured intensity? I'll need to think
a bit more about that.

I'm not sure what you are compensating for.

then there
will be an error in intensity of (1+z)^3 while if the
motion causes expansion by a scaling of exactly 1+z then
the result exactly matches a black body. Intermediate
amounts of motion would give an intermediate intensity
factor.

Total non-sequiteur. That's the BB model again.

Assuming you are right above then it is much simpler. PF
fails by (1+z)^3 as well.

Wrong again. You are again assuming BB generation of MBR.

As I said before and you said you
understood, the Wein Displacement Law means that the source
temperature T is proportional to (1+z) to get the peak at
the right frequency, the Stephan-Boltzmann Law means the
intensity is raised by T^4 and tired light then reduces the
intensity by (1+z). The remaining ratio is (1+z)^3 which
can be cancelled by expansion. I had thought the expansion
in PF would do but maybe not.

That's because you can't get your mind out of the BB rut. PF also does not
have cosmogenic MBR.

In other words, the amount by which the observed intensity
deviates from that of a black body is an indirect measure
of the value of mu, and if there is no difference then
mu=0, and that means light doesn't tire.

Mu is based on starlight ... not the CMBR.

Once they have been emitted, tired light applies to
_all_ photons.

But MBR is an "emitted" photon only in the BB theory. It may be electron
hum in PF and TL.

{snip higher levels}

I'm prepared to
consider tired light theories but I don't know of any
that can explain the dipole and the spectrum of the CMBR.

TIRED
LIGHT
THEORIES
HAVE
NO
NEED
TO
EXPLAIN
BIG BANG
ASSUMPTIONS!

Tired light doesn't have to explain the workings of
stars, but as you said above "Mu is based on starlight"

Yes, but this has nothing to do with the "workings of stars."

Tired light must affect the photons observed as the
CMBR so the CMBR can be used to test tired light.

Only if you first assume something about the specific source(s) of the CMBR.

By
considering the spectrum and intensity, that is what
we are doing. Tired light doesn't have to explain
what causes the CMBR but it does have explain why it
doesn't flatten the low-frequency end of the spectrum.
I think you can only do that for specific theories
regarding the source hence I do not claim it applies
to all.

But you *DID* claim that it applies to all tired light theories, above.
("Ned's graph is correct for tired light.") And *NONE* of those tired light
theories are tied to any one theory of CMBR source.

Cosmic origin of the MBR is a BB assumption. It does not exist in any
tired light theory.

BB does explain them and tired light could, in theory,
also occur in a BB universe,

That is a combination that we have not specifically discussed. But what
you are attempting to do is arbitrarily force TL into a BB cosmos. If
you have one, you don't *need* the other.

but the expansion scales as
(1+z)^3 which means that mu has the empirical value of 0
to the limit of the resolution of our measurements.

Total non-sequiteur.

You have been
claiming that you approach this as a "test", that can only be applied to
a specific theory at a time.

I am only applying it to this strawman which, I think,
is similar to your ideas other than having the hydrogen
outside the detctor as required by the dipole.

I have no such ideas. The dipole does not require a MBR source outside the
detector. That arose from your own tortured logic.

If you
now think it would apply to many others too that's fine,
but I am not claiming this test applies to all tired
light theories.

A pathetically misleading statement. See above: ("Ned's graph is correct for
tired light.") Now you say it's for all "external" sources.

Now, you slip back into several universal claims
that "tired light" is disproved.

You may make that claim, I do not.

LOL! Disingeneousness on top of distortion.

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

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

[snip stuff discussed elsewhere]

{snip higher levels}

Why not?

Becuase the MBR is not part of the theory, of course. The fact that the
BB assumes that the MBR is "relic radiation" does not mean that other
theories have to explain it.

So tired light theories only attempt to explain red shift?

Or they predict it.

They don't try to model other cosmological observations?

Why would they. Tired light theories only model things related to the
theory. No theory does otherwise.

Ned's claims (based on cosmogenic CMBR) are not valid.

What, exactly, do you mean with "cosmogenic"?

Created by the origin of the cosmos.

Ned's example of a tired light theory does not use a
CMBR which is created by the origin of the cosmos.

Then there is no reason to presume that temperature increases with
increasing z.

[snip]

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

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}

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}

George Dishman wrote in message
...

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

snip

{snip quibbling}

{snip sections uncommented by George}

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PlanckLaw.html

Just plot the curves for the two temperatures to get
the black and blue curves. I'll say more below.

I understand Planck's law, thanks. ...

Apparently not:

Special plead noted. And ignored.

"The Planck law gives the intensity radiated by a
blackbody as a function of frequency (or wavelength)."

"where I_v is called the specific intensity or brightness
and in MKS has units of J s^-1 m^-2 ster^-1 Hz^-1, or
energy per unit time per unit area per solid angle per
frequency interval."

Note that Hz^-1 and "per frequency interval" are in the
definition, so Ned's usage of the term is completely
appropriate and standard in Plank's Law.

Anyway, this has now been cleared up so let's concentrate
on more interesting matters.

No, the term "intensity" does not include "per frequency interval." Even if
you'd like it to.

Now, where did you get the "intensity" that gave you the original
blue curve?
...
I understand Planck's law, thanks. But that doesn't answer the
question.

Now, where did you get the "intensity" that gave you the original blue
curve?

snip

{snip rocks and percentage coverages, now clarified}

You've got it now. The connection is that you could think
of your humming electrons as very small rocks (neglecting
the frequency dependence that would result).

The electrons could not be considered very small rocks. As they aren't in
the 'sky' at all.

Yet the question remains unanswered. Where did you get the intensity
used in your graph / Ned's graph?

As I said the intensity comes from Planks Law but I see
now you are really asking where the assumption of 100%
coverage comes from. Ned doesn't say so I'll give you
my understanding of why I would do the same if I was
writing the page.

No, I'm asking 100% of *what*. What are the absolute units and material?
Or are you assuming that a solid (i.e. opaque) blackbody radiator is being
used?

Think of Olber's Paradox. The basis
is that every line drawn outward from the observer will
eventualy intercept the surface of a star.

There is no such paradox. Olber *solved* Halley's documentation of the
pub-stumper, in 1823. Oddly enough, with the first exponential "tired
light" theory. (Olbers estimated the "defect" as equivalent to losing 1 of
800 light rays emitted by Sirius and received by us.)

Similarly,
if the rocks aren't confined to a thin shell but are
homogenously distributed through space then any line
from the observer will eventually hit a rock.

Take a look at the thread "Myth of Olber's Paradox", from June, 2003 in
sci.physics and sci.astro. "Olber's paradox" is a creation of sloppy
cosmologists and bad history.

(I'm not seriously suggesting the
CMBR is emitted by warm rocks.)

Then there was no need to impugn tired light theory with the following
claim of "coincidence."

{snip higher levels}

"The tired light model can not produce a blackbody
spectrum for the Cosmic Microwave Background without
some incredible coincidences."

You aren't that dumb. Ned doesn't make any mention of any specific
"coincidence" of a tired light model.

{snip higher levels}

Gratuitous insult noted and ignored.

Let's try this in more genteel terms.

Ned's statement is statement of pure guilt-by-association, that implies
that there are "coincidences" in tired light theories -- without
identifying a single such coincidence.

The obvious one

It may be 'obvious' to you, but Ned never mentioned a single coincidence.
His statement is still slime.

is that the sky coverage is exactly the
right fraction to reduce the intensity by a factor of
1.331 (generally (1+z)^3), or that there is sufficient
extinction to do the same. I guess it is so obvious, he
didn't need to spell it out. After all, you spotted that
one yourself.

But no tired light theory includes this strawman. Nor do they need it.

In short, it is slime.

In short, you cannot fault the physics so you impugn the
author.

LOL! The physics was shown false long ago. So you resorted to the
last-ditch claim of "coincidence".

snip more covered above and on jargon

That doesn't explain why the pattern of temperatures
on the sky seen by the two separate missions matches.

The COBE detector didn't see any patterns -- aside from a slight dipole.

After removal of the dipole, it also saw the upper diagram:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_ig/030628/030628B_s.jpg

No, that's simply artifacts of computer processing of noise.

WMAP saw the lower diagram and the correlation is
obvious even by eye.

Of course it is. WMAP is also computer generated, by people with a vested
interest in finding what they expect.

I'm not aware of any other missions that look at temperature directly.
(WMAP doesn't, for example.)

For the CMBR, the only thing we can measure directly
is the EM radiation that we receive. There are other
ways to measure temperature in other situations but
I don't believe they are applicable to the CMBR.

Then they aren't applicable to WMAP.

snip

In this case, the bell (electron) *itself* is changes shape by the
motion of the breeze. It's called Lorentz contraction. Because this
is aether theory, and not SR, this is a "real" compression of the
object. This compression changes the frequencies emitted by the
bell in different directions.

However, listen to a bell ringing on
a train as it passes and you will hear the Doppler
effect.

I'm well aware of the doppler effect, thanks.

The fact that the aether is moving cannot explain the
dipole in the CMBR if it is emitted by the electrons
bound in hydrogen, either the hydrogen is moving or
the CMBR must be emitted by the aether itself if you
are to use the motion to explain the dipole.

You are laboring under the misconception that matter (i.e. electrons or
your bell) are unaffected by their motion through the aether. Lorentz
showed that they *are* affected, back in 1904.

However contraction isn't the only effect.

It *is* the only effect in Lorentz' theory. And aether theory. It is not
the only effect in SR.

All the effects
can be derived by applying the Lorentz Transforms

This is not true in Lorentz theory, or aether theory. It is only true in
SR.

and when
you do that you find that the effects cancel out so that it
is impossible to sense the motion of the aether in any way.

That is the result of e-sycnhing -- not even of SR.

This is obvious when you realise that LET uses exactly the
same equations as special relativity,

This is simply a false statement. LET does not use the Lorentz transforms.

and of course there
is no change of frequency due to motion of the aether in
that because there is no aether in it. Hence it follows
logically that there can be no frequency change in any
Lorentz invariant aether theory either.

Your logic fails because you made the false assumption that LET uses the
same equations as SR.

Sorry I wasn't clear. If all matter radiates, you don't
need to test the COBE or WMAP equipment, every test house
in the world with a screened room would have measured
the microwave peak the moment they tried to check that
the room was properly shielded.

snip P&W tangent, nobody is claiming that P&W mapped
the anisotropy

LOL! The P&W discussion wasn't about the anisotropy at all.

and the correlation of the anisotropy
map over different missions is the argument that the
radiation is not due to errors in individual detectors

Nor is the argument about "errors" in individual detectors. The issue is
the unwillingness of you and other Believers to do a simple experiment to
verify that the MBR is coming from outside the antenna.
==========================
If it is of cosmic origin, then you will be able to screen it out.
If
it is of antenna matter origin, you won't. That's why one would do
the test. To show that the "cosmic" MBR really is external to the
detector. The test appears to have been ignored, because popular
theory did not predict any such thing.

Sorry I wasn't clear. If all matter radiates, you don't
need to test the COBE or WMAP equipment, every test house
in the world with a screened room would have measured
the microwave peak the moment they tried to check that
the room was properly shielded.

Which may be what every technician at Bell Labs did ... until Penzias
and
Wilson 'forgot' to do the test. Physicists simply began calling the
earlier
non-identifications "false zeroes." But without ever explaining what
the
prior groups had done wrong.
==========================

So all we need to do is to find a paper that shows that such a test was
done. But no one on these newsgroups is aware of any such test actually
being done and reported. Some even claimed that such a test was
impossible. (Any excuse is sufficient to defend the Faith.)

This paper gives information about WMAP on-orbit testing
which is an equally valid method.

LOL! No, it's not the same. It still doesn't test whether the signal
arises in the detector.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302224

There are other papers on characterisation he

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/pub_papers/firstyear.html

But characterization isn't the issue under discussion. It's the fact that
no one has ever done a test to see if the signal arises outside the antenna
of the detector .. at least since Penzias and Wilson. To wit:

"Physicists simply began calling the earlier non-identifications 'false
zeroes.' But without ever explaining what the prior groups had done wrong."

I take your inability to come up with such a test to be confirmation that
one has never been done. Welcome to the house of cards.

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