TIRED LIGHT

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
To Jonathan S.-
You wrote,

But we know from COBE data that the
universe is not rotating.

Maybe you could clarify a bit; When you say "universe", do you mean the
sphere of our visible cosmos, or the totality of all that may reside
outside the horizon of visbiity?
From the COBE data, obviously our sphere of visibility is
isotropic and non-rotating (discounting the slight dipole anisotropy
from our Local Group's motion against the CMB rest frame).
But who's to say our 'bubble of visibility' is not itself
adrift, like a boat on a river, in some larger, rotating system?

The fact that rotating systems dominate in nature, from the atomic level
to the galactic, suggests that the macro universe may be a rotating
system (by application of Occams Razor and 'intuitive
extrapolation'g). The isotropy we observe in our 'bubble', and the
uniformity of galactic clustering from one side of the sky to the other,
suggests our 'bubble' would be on the scale of a marble embedded in a
'donut', and situated in the outer periphery of the donut (if it were
situated closer in toward the center, we would see some anisotropy of
galactic clustering). The center of the donut is the BB point in the
Continuous BB (CBB) model, a hypermassive, spinning BH 'engine',
exploding continuoulsy out its equatorial plane, while re-ingesting the
old, spent creation back thru its poles. (Mr. Zinni, here's your
"centrifugal pump").
Space itself is continuously exploding from the BB, carrying its
tagalong 'dustbunny', the material universe. Our 'marble of visibility'
would be adrift out in the 'Main Sequence' of the flow, visually
decoupled from the BB and ultimate re-assimilation in the 'Big Crunch'.
The analogy has been made with the freon cycle in
refrigeration (Ahem, a coot original). A central compressor forces hot,
liquid freon thru a tiny orifice (the 'BB' point), from whence it
flashes to a gas in the evaporator (the 'freezing unit' in the fridge).

You don't get out of your kitchen much, do you???

Tell us about the "Super-Duper Cosmic Toaster-Oven" Uncle Bill!!!


The gas flow eventually reenters the compressor, gets jammed thru the
condenser (the 'hot' coil on the back of the fridge) and out the tiny
orifice again. Out in the 'main sequence' of the gas flow, a cluster of
freon molecules represents our 'bubble of visibility' in the flow of
space from the BB to the Big Crunch.
The freon cycle analogy also ilustrates, in the
liquid-gas phase change, the pre-BB/ post BB phase change. The
externalized universe and all its thermodynamic laws, is the cold phase
of the cycle; the pre-BB state is the hottest.
Back to 'Tired Light'. All 'tired light' theories are predicated on
functionally void space and there being no _density gradient_ in the
fabric of space from the instant of the BB to now. But if there *is* a
density gradient, light propagating form denser space into less-dense
space will lose amplitude (this would apply even under the 'singular BB'
model). From great cosmological distances, closer in to the BB, the most
ancient light we observe would exhibit such a density-gradient amplitude
drop, as shown in the recent 1a supernova data. The most ancient light
appearing 'dimmer than it should be' at a given redshift, would be due
to the cosmological density drop of space itself, not 'tired light'.
But then there are those who don't believe in the BB and
believe space is functionally void. To them, there is no possibility of
an expanded cosmology that subsumes the 'singular BB' into the larger,
overarching Process of the Contiunous Big Bang. oc

Hi oc Just wanted to tell you to read my today's "what if" post. I
think you will like it. To think an EM force,and the photon its
messenger particle can get tired makes me very sleepy. Bert

Jonathan Silverlight:

You are using 'ad hominem' and 'non-sequitur' fallacies in your replies
in that
you demean the chartacter of the poster rather than logically
challenging the
opponents ideas point for point.

The use of fallacies, contradictions, faulty logic, lack of facts, and
other
impossibilities is simply not allowed in proper science.

The theory of the reduction of the energy levels of photons from inelastic
collisions with hydrogen atoms, electrons, gravitons, or other photons
(the causal identification of the nature of photons and properties of
photons
to be determined) uses the same observed and measured data that the
expansionist-creationists collect.

The Doppler-Hubble-creationist-expansionist theory, or BB, is in serious
trouble,
especially in that the Doppler theory seems to be plausible. It has been an
excellent hypothesis, and was a brilliant supposition. The problem is
that it
uses the fallacy of 'wrong application of a concept or principle'. The
change
of frequency of the spectral 'apparent red shift' of light from distant
sources
has, instead of an epistemological cause in Euclidean geometery (extension
and compound ratios), an actual physical cause, namely the interaction with
other entities which cause the reduction of the energy of the photon, and
presumably a transference of that energy fraction to the interceding
existent.

Scientists have been trying to prop up the BB (closest packing or singular
balloon) theory for many years, and they have spent a fortune in resources
on a theory that simply doesn't explain the causes of actual events.
Rather it
measures some local relationships. Scientists should have instead been
identifying the stuff of photons and gravitational existents, their
properties,
potentials, and relationships.

The BB advocates have swept all contrary theories and evidence for other
causes for the 'apparent red shift' under the celestial rug. That is pure
mysticism of method, and no knowledge can come of it. All data must be
considered according to identified causes. Modern scientists have gone
in for tenured social agreement as the arbiter of facts rather than to see
the evidence according to the physical principles of cause and effect, and
also logical proof.

Ralph Hertle






Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message , lyndonashmore
writes

Tired light is the 'in theory' now. Once it was shown that the Hubble
constant or 'rate of the expansion of the Universe' was just the
electron in disguise (See www.lyndonashmore.com) then there was no way
that the Big Bang theory could have been correct.
Cheers Lyndon

Only in your dreams, I'm afraid. Tired light doesn't come close to the
right properties for a cosmological red shift. Complete frequency
independence, for one.

John Z. writes,

You don't get out of your kitchen much,
do you???

Naw, still tryin' to fix the busted Cuisinart, uncle John. Still
enjoyin'=A0your void-space paradigm I presume? Best wishes. oc.

Dave:

You've switched contexts. The experiment to which I refer is Lord Rayeigh's
photon experiment that involved the inelastic collisions of photons with
hydrogen atoms, and that resulted in measured reductions of the energy
levels
of photons. I was not refering to inelastic backscattering or scattering.

Sorry, I can't find that experiment on the Internet. It was there, and I
forgot the
necessary keyword for the search. I would be grateful for help from
readers of
alt.astronomy on that point.

I cam't beleive that the experiment has been taken down from display on
the Internet,
however, not much worse travesties upon honesty have occurred in history.

That experiment is a most important theoretical path, that I think leads to
an entitre realm of new discoveries. That path may lead to discoveries
such as
ultra-low frequency science, possibly including gravity, or the
discovery of Apparent
Red Shifts for photon frequencies of sub-1 Hz, or of practical
anti-gravity machines
for use in factories or transportation.


Ralph Hertle





Dave wrote:
"Ralph Hertle" wrote in message

{snip}


Interestingly the raw data regarding photons that have been collected by
the BB
expansionist-cerationists just as well supports the theory of the
reduction of the energy level
of photons in inelastic collisions.




In general, inelastic scattering leads to a change in angle. As there is no
real evidence that images of more distant objects are more blurred than
nearby objects, I can only surmise that tired light does not explain the
redshift. If "tired light" theories can account for this, perhaps you can
point me in the right direction?


DaveL



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

Theres lots of things I don't understand Jonathan but one thing I do understand is that you have not answered my question. Why is the Hubble constant the same as hr/m per cubic metre of space if it is entirely due to expansion and not related to the electron at all? This is the signature of tired light.
As to latest WAP measurement of 71 km/s per Mpc, what is the uncertainty in this result and why this particular result? others get around 58. Messages posted here quote the UCLA sitte and that gives 64. If you take the average of all the last 25 measurements of H over the last 5 years (a better way to do it) you get 64 km/s per Mpc - hr/m per metre cubed for the electron (see www.lyndonashmore.com).
So how does the expanding Universe explain this?

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

In message ,
lid writes

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

In message , lyndonashmore
writes
Tired light is the 'in theory' now. Once it was shown that the Hubble
constant or 'rate of the expansion of the Universe' was just the
electron in disguise (See www.lyndonashmore.com) then there was no way
that the Big Bang theory c




----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.net/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

In message , lyndonashmore
writes
Theres lots of things I don't understand Jonathan but one thing I do
understand is that you have not answered my question. Why is the Hubble
constant the same as hr/m per cubic metre of space if it is entirely
due to expansion and not related to the electron at all? This is the
signature of tired light.
As to latest WAP measurement of 71 km/s per Mpc, what is the
uncertainty in this result and why this particular result? others get
around 58. Messages posted here quote the UCLA sitte and that gives 64.
If you take the average of all the last 25 measurements of H over the
last 5 years (a better way to do it) you get 64 km/s per Mpc - hr/m per
metre cubed for the electron (see www.lyndonashmore.com).
So how does the expanding Universe explain this?

You just don't get it. I don't have to explain your numerical
coincidence because that's all it is - and it would have more
credibility if you posted the working for your equation.
It doesn't explain anything, and tired light doesn't work.
If you look at http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101expand.html you
will find that the best estimate from the Hubble Key project is 70 km/s
per Mpc, and the result from WMAP is 71 (km/sec)/Mpc, +0.04/-0.03.
Allan Sandage is apparently still holding out for 47 (km/sec)/Mpc, and
"a recent statistical synthesis by G.F.R. Ellis and his collaborators of
the published literature yields a value between 66 and 82 (km/sec)/Mpc".
"Statistical synthesis" probably means they've applied some weighting to
the various figures, rather than simply taking a mean.
--
Save the Hubble Space Telescope!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

There are a lot of things I don't get Jonathan but I do feel that now we are getting somewhere.
You accept that if one is to believe in the BB and expanding Universe then one has to claim that H being equal to 'hr/m per cubic metre' for the electron is pure coincidence. Actually it is not just a 'numerical' coincidence as you say but they are the same in every way; ie the same value, the same type of quantity (1/time).
Now before we can reject this as pure coincidence we as scientists must work out the probability of this happening by 'pure chance'.
The WMAP result of H=71 you cite is not a result but a prediction so we will reject it here.
As you say , the best estimate is 70km/s per Mpc but you forgot to mention that this is to plus or minus 10%; so best estimate is the range 63H77 km/s per Mpc and hr/m per cubic metre of space is 64.
In BB codsmology, H is a sort of velocity so presumably it could have any value between 0 and the speed of light 3exp(5) km/s. A rough way to find the probability of this coincidence happening by chance would be to divide the range in the measured value (+/-7 or 14)by the range of possible values 3exp(5). This tells us that the probability of H being equal to hr/m per metre cubed is 1 in 21,428! I always thought that if the probability of




----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.net/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

The best estimate is 70km/s per Mpc but you forgot to mention that this is to =/-10%; ie 63H77 km/s per Mpc and hr/m per cubic metre of space is 64.
In BB codsmology, H is a sort of velocity so presumably has values between 0 and 'c', 3exp(5) km/s. A rough way to find the probability of this coincidence happening by chance would be to divide range in the measured value (+/-7 or 14)by the range of possible values 3exp(5). This gives the probability of H being equal to hr/m per metre cubed is 1 in 21,428! I always thought that if the probability of a relationship happening by chance was less than 1 in 20 (5% confidence limit) then there was something in it; ie tired light.
Cheers Lyndon
http://www.lyndonashmore.com

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

In message , lyndonashmore
writes
Theres lots of things I don't understand Jonathan but one thing I do
understand is that you have not answered my question. Why is the Hubble
constant the same as hr/m per cubic metre of space if it is entirely
due to expansion and not related to the electron at all? This is the
signature of tired light.
As to latest WAP measu




----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.net/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

Sorry, message doesn’t fit. Ignore other two postings!
WMAP of H=71 is not a result it is a prediction. As you say best estimate of H is 70+/-10% ie 63H77 km/s per Mpc. which includes ‘hr/m /metre cubed’ for electron at 64.
The probability of this happening by chance is roughly the range in experimental values (+/-7 or 14) divided the possible values of H. Since H is a sort of velocity, 0Hc or 3exp(5)km/s per Mpc. This gives a probability of them being the same by coincidence of 1 in 21,428. No way. It is tired light.

Lyndon. http://www.lyndonashmore.com
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

In message , lyndonashmore
writes
Theres lots of things I don't understand Jonathan but one thing I do
understand is that you have not answered my question. Why is the Hubble
constant the same as hr/m per cubic metre of space if it is entirely
due to expansion and not related to the electron at all? This is the
signature of tired light.
As to latest WAP measurement of 71 km/s per Mpc, what is the
uncertainty in this result and why this particular result? others get
%




----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.net/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals