Cosmic acceleration rediscovered

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...
George Dishman wrote:
e. & o.e. It's too late and I haven't time to check
this one.

"greywolf42" wrote in message
.. .

George Dishman wrote in message
...

[snip]

And again you evade the real physics, the CMBR gives
us a way to test tired light theories and there is
nothing wrong with Ned's explanation of how it can be
used.

George, please be a bit more careful. As greywolf correctly
keeps pointing out, we can only test tired light theories
using the CMBR if we assume additionally that the CMBR
has an external source and does not simply originate in the
antenna.

For you and me, this is not an assumption, but a well-established
fact. But as long as he denies that fact, you should pay
attention to this.

I think I am but the thread has split so in one we
are considering the analysis assuming it is external
to the detector while in another series of posts we
are looking at his suggestion that it is internal.
It has arisen more by accident but it seems more
sensible than mixing the two models in the same posts.
Perhaps it's helpful to clear that up.

Have you noticed that he has now gone to his standard
modus operandi: calling me a troll and simply ignoring my
arguments?

It is a common tactic to first accuse others of what
you are doing yourself since it makes their later
claims appear to be merely "tit for tat".

I intend to start snipping a bit more to try to leave
only the discussion of the physics, name calling on
either side doesn't work for me.

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.


I never assumed it was.

You keep assuming that the source of the MBR is outside
of the antenna. I think he meant that here.

I think he was trying his usual trick. He is right
that, in this thread, I am considering the source
to be external to the antenna but that is not
"cosmogenic". He hopes to get you to agree to his
statement on the basis that you understand him to
mean just external and then later, when you deny
that you meant a remnant of the creation of the
universe, he can accuse you of changing your story.

A few posts back you asked him what he meant by
that term and his answer was quite specific so his
use of this alternative meaning is clearly intended
to create a trap. I'm not the only one who has to be
careful ;-)

[snip]


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.


That's up to the person claiming he has a workable tired
light theory. Without some assumptions, he won't be able
to demonstrate that he can explain the CMBR spectrum.
Remeber the onus is on the proposer to show this, not
on the rest of the community to show it doesn't.

Well, according to greywolf, tired light theories do not
have the responsibility to explain the CMBR...

I have agreed with that, but if it is external to the
antenna then they have to explain why tired light
doesn't appear to broaden the thermal peak and it isn't
easy (for the tired light protagonists) to do that. He
knows it hasn't been done yet, hence his denial of the
existence of the CMBR.

[snip]


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


Now you claim the signal arises in the antenna so
apparently you think the COBE and WMAP antennas are
made of hydrogen gas.

LOL! I missed that gem.

It gets better, in another reply to you he just said:

"greywolf42" wrote in message
. ..
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...

Why is the spectrum that of a blackbody?

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

We have had "electrons bound in hydrogen gas", "all
matter" and now "corpuscles in the aether".

George

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

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

snip

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

snip

{snip rocks and percentage coverages, now clarified}

Note that I have now clarified "percentage coverages"
to yor satisfaction. This is good.

snip

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*.

See the above clarification of "percentage coverages".

What are the absolute units and material?
Or are you assuming that a solid (i.e. opaque) blackbody radiator is being
used?

That's right, but it is only opaque if you make the
assumption that a blackbody emitter is also a perfect
absorber, the point I was making a few posts back and
which you considered irrelevant. Hopefully you now see
the relevance.

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.

Forget the paradox, consider the basis of the argument. You
do seem to get the wrong end of the stick wherever possible.

As an aside:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...ine%3A+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.

They can use anything appropriate to their theory but
they need to explain why the peak of the CMBR is not
broadened by tired light. One way is to have a "local"
source, by which I mean something that does not extend
more than a few hundred kilo-parsecs from us. Claiming
it is produced within the antenna is another, but each
method must withstand examination.

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.

Conspiracy theories don't impress me, try telling it
to the scientists working on quintessence and ask them
if they have bothered to check if the WMAP results are
valid.

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.

I know, I just agreed with you. Are you sure you don't
have a reading problem?

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.

AIUI Lorentz published the transforms which is why they
bear his name. They solved a lot of the problems in 19th
century physics and I think he should get far more of the
credit for that progress than he does. However, he was
still assuming Newton's "absolute" space and time. If you
apply the transforms to an object moving through absolute
space, you find it is shorter than if it is at rest. I
believe Lorentz tried to explain that with an extended
model of the electron which is distorted, as you said
above, by an interaction with the aether. However, the
same process also shows that any time dependent process
is also affected by motion through the aether is slowed.
AFAIK, he didn't manage to explain that part but it is
a feature of his theory nonetheless.

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.

I disagree as I understand "Lorentz Aether Theory" to be
the effects inferred from the combination of his transforms
with the Newtonian assumption. Perhaps you use the term to
mean his attempts to explain those effects.

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.

In the few years I have been discussing LET on the web
with a variety of aether supporters, the common use of
the term has been to mean an aether in which effects of
interactions of matter and the aether conspire to produce
measurements that match the 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.

We have a different understanding of the term. Fair enough,
what do you mean by LET? Is it only the effect on the
electron that produces the contraction or do you include
other effects too?

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.

I just said that. You do have trouble reading.

snip
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.

The characterization includes noise and what you describe
would appear as a noise source in these tests.

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:

P&W disconnected the antenna and the signal went away.
If your claim that "all matter" produces the signal
were true then it would still be produced in the cable
to the antenna and would not have gone.

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

The previous groups were looking for a signal characteristic of
a temperature around 50K. The intensity scales as T^4 so at 3K
the signal power is reduced by a factor of 10^5.

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

That comment says far more about your attitude and
understanding of science than anything anyone else
could say about you.

George

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...
However contraction isn't the only effect.


It *is* the only effect in Lorentz' theory.

Wrong. Why on earth do you think so? LET has also other
effects, like time dilation.

It seems you mostly share my understanding of what is
meant by Lorentz Aether Theory.

The predictions of SR and LET are indistinguishable,
if you didn't know. So it is irrelevant if we use
SR or LET to analyze this.

Agreed.

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.

Again, wrong. LET and SR are mathematically completely equivalent.

Agreed.

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.

LET does not use coordinate transformations, true.

Hmmm. If the theories are identical, then measured
coordinates in one frame of reference (FoR) will
convert to coordinates in another FoR which is in
relative motion by the same transforms. Part of the
derivation in aether theory is to take account of
the contraction of measuring rulers and slowing of
clocks moving through the aether, but the end result
is identical.

But
that does not change the fact that its predictions are
the same as the ones of SR.

The coordinates of events that would be measured
in a moving frame based measurements made in the
aether frame are just such predictions.

George

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

snip

Oh dear, this is all getting rather silly.

I think that might be one of the possible coincidences
that Ned mentions,

Ned doesn't mention any possible coincidences.

"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.

Err, where did George claim that Ned does do that?

Look up four statements.

I just looked. I didn't say anything about "specific coincidences".

I talked of "possible coincidences".

You said "Ned doesn't mention any possible coincidences." so I
quoted the part where he talks of "possible coincidences" to
remind you.

snip
Ned's statement is statement of pure guilt-by-association, that implies
that there are "coincidences" in tired light theories

No, the statement which George quoted above implies nothing
like that. Why on earth do you think so?

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

Omitting the distracting comment, you said "Ned's statement ...
implies that there are 'coincidences' in tired light theories."

In this case I agree you are correct, Ned is saying that it is
not possible to resolve this problem without at least one
coincidence.

However, there is usually more than one way to skin a cat so
he doesn't give an example of a _specific_ coincidence, that
phrase is your own little alteration.

The statement George made: "I think that might be one of the possible
coincidences that Ned mentions"

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

Bye in this thread, Troll.

Both those quotes are correct, but who changed "possible
coincidences" into "any specific 'coincidence'"? There
is only one troll in this conversation.

Now if you are done playing these pointless word games,
can we get back to discussing the physics?

George

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

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.

Actually, it is you whose assertion that my exposition
differs from Ned's that is unsupported. Bjoern is
supporting my assertion that they are the same.

George

"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g Joseph Lazio wrote in message
g ...

[Regarding Reber's assertion that the CMB arises within radio telescopes.]

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.

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

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

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

My statement may be false, but I made it in good faith based on my
reading of their papers. Moreover, your response doesn't address my
objections. Why are the electrons within the antenna itself special?
Why don't the electrons in the backend generate emission by the same
mechanism?

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.

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

Steve Carlip has now cited the paper twice.

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. [...]

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.

g The classic special plead evasion.

g I don't have to demonstrate to you. If you can't address my
g specific comments about the effect and the signals, you have no
g scientific support for your position.

As far as I can tell, your only objection is that you claim that
COBE's result is below what you believe to be below its physical
resolution. Others have already addressed how this is not the case,
it is well known that one can make specific kinds of measurements
below the resolution limit of an instrument, and COBE's measurements
aren't directly relevant to the S-Z effect. Feel free to try agin.

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

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

greywolf42 wrote:

snip

... The electrons themselves are
distorted by their motion through the aether. Hence, so is the
emission.

snip

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.

Huh? We observe a Doppler shift, don't we? Where does this
come from?

Careful Bjoern, you are assuming the source is external
to the antenna ;-)

2) It leads to an anisotropy.

How?

I think what gw is suggesting is that an electron is
compressed in the direction of its motion through the
aether and hence radiates different frequencies in
the longitudinal and transverse directions. (That's
assuming it is the electrons that are emitting of
course.) Anisotropic temperature? "How" is still a
very pertinent question.

George

"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g Not one CMBR device -- to my knowledge -- has ever attempted an
g isolation test. That is, a test to determine whether the signal
g was actually produced "within" the antenna -- or whether it had an
g external source. For example, I know for a fact that Penzias and
g Wilson did not do this test. They *did* cut out the antenna
g connection.

Right, so in the case of the P&W horn antenna, that means that the
signal must be generated "upstream" of the input of the antenna
backend.

g But they did not put their antenna in an isolation chamber.

I'm not sure if that was/is logistically possible. In any event, I'm
trying to figure out if one would expect a signal in such a case.
Given the shape of the P&W horn, would one expect a signal at the
backend. To the extent that I understand your suggestion (and I am
not an RF engineer), it seems to me that the antenna would not radiate
into the backend but out its front.

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

In article ,
Joseph Lazio wrote:
As far as I can tell, your only objection is that you claim that
COBE's result is below what you believe to be below its physical
resolution.

Sensitivity, not resolution. That mistakes grates on my nerves like
fingers on a blackboard, and while gw might make it, I'd hate to have
you make it.

Besides, aren't you supposed to be busy at the AAS meeting?

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

However contraction isn't the only effect.


It *is* the only effect in Lorentz' theory.

Wrong. Why on earth do you think so? LET has also other
effects, like time dilation.


It seems you mostly share my understanding of what is
meant by Lorentz Aether Theory.

Yes. Some years ago, I had an e-mail discussion with
someone favoring LET over SR, and during that discussion
learned that both make the same predictions and use
essentially the same math. There was a good paper on that,
but unfortunately I don't remember the reference. Maybe
I can dig it out...


[snip]


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.

LET does not use coordinate transformations, true.


Hmmm. If the theories are identical, then measured
coordinates in one frame of reference (FoR) will
convert to coordinates in another FoR which is in
relative motion by the same transforms.

Well, I am not sure if LET even uses the concept of
different FoR's. I have to look that up again...


[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern