Little Red Riding Hood asks Grey Wolf

Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote in message news:...

Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
om...

{snip}

Near the beginning of your Hubble paper, the following paragraph exists:

""The discussion of possibility to explain otherwise the metagalactic
red
shift showed that all other physical processes that have been used for
such
explanation, both hypo-thetical and actual, are insufficient. They
either
cannot at all cause the red shift (such is, for instance, the photon
scattering on the Dirac's electron background or the spontane-ous
splitting
of photons) or they cause too small red shift (such is, for instance,
the
gravity waves radiation by the EM waves) or they have to cause, except
the
red shift, such spurious phenomena which are actually absent (such is,
for
instance, the photon scattering at some particles). Thus, the
longitudinal
Doppler effect (in relation to the ac-companying reference frame) is the
only physical phenomenon with whose help we can explain the properties
of
metagalactic red shift" [8, p. 511?512]."

That reference is a 1962 article, in Russian, "8. Zelmanov, A.L. Red
shift.
In: Physical encyclopaedia, v. 2, p. 511?512. Sovet-skaya encyclopedia,
Moscow."

As it stands, there is no reason to merely accept the bald statement
that
"all other physical processes... are insufficient." That WAS the point,
after all. Merely referencing somebody else's claim is not valid
science.

What ARE the "physical processes" that were considered?

No reply.

Sections 1-3 of your (word) document focuses entirely on theoretical
considertations within the big bang cosmology -- and assumes a pure,
doppler-only source of redshift.

Sections 4 and 5 brings up the subject of "tired light" once more. Your
conclusion (section 9) remains as in your abstract -- fallacious:

"The hypothesis of quanta ageing in the light propagation in space, on
one
hand, contradicts the photon theory postulates, and on the other, it is
unable to substantiate the consistent mechanism of ageing. The mechanism
of
ageing caused by the viscosity of aether proposed by Atsukovsky does not
provide the relationship of the light frequency shift with respect to
distance from the source. "

I note simply that you only attempted two extreme cases. Absolute
purity
and infinite range of photons ("contradicts the photon theory
postulates").
And one, single, flawed theory of the aether (Atsukovsky's) as a normal
(though unknown) gas. The first "option" is fundamentally flawed,
because
one cannot use one theory (photons, here) as evidence against another
theory
(ageing photons). It remains a logical fallacy. The second part is a
valid
scientific effort -- but ignorant of history. Together, they form the
fallacy of the excluded middle. (There are more options available than
the
two extreme ones you provided.)

No reply.

I highly recommend that you take a look at Maxwell's initial derivation
of
Maxwell's equations (and more) in "On Physical Lines of Force" -- 1861.
Maxwell utilized a particulate, superfluid aether as the substance
needed to
support electric and magnetic phenomena. And determined from that, the
speed of light relative to the medium. By noting that Maxwell's aether
is a
superfluid (which is a requirement for EM waves) you will find that your
argument against Atsukovsky's "normal" fluid falls apart when dealing
with
physically-required aethers.

In short, you can't claim that because you were able to show
Atsukovsky's
fluid didn't work, that NO aether will work.

No reply.

You also assume that the redshift must be ENTIRELY due to one process,
OR
ENTIRELY due to another process. Again, this is the fallacy of the
excluded
middle. The observed redshifts may be partly due to more than one
process.

No reply.

And in your evaluation, you utilize the argument that the relation of
distance-to-redshift holds only for doppler. You need to be aware that
ALL
of the distances to the galaxies are determined by FIRST assuming that
distance-to-redshift is ONLY the result of doppler shift. Real
measurments
(i.e. the distant supernovae) do NOT match this assumption. In other
words,
you may not assume the distances calculated by the big bang assumption,
when
you do your analysis.

No reply.

You Wolf wrote much, indeed. Your wish not to study the issue but to
grind me to powder is clearly seen. But to do so, you would more
correctly treat the scientific logic and follow the classical system
of proof. Or you are unable to get at me. ;-)

You are apparently unwilling to deal with any of my specific objections to
your paper.

In particular, you are writing, I didn't present all existing
hypotheses.

??? I only provided disproofs of the hypotheses that you put forward.

Yes, and I'm not married with all women in the world!
Happily, in physics we have no need to doubt all hypotheses without
exception. Physics can be divided into few levels. At the first level
we have the basic phenomenology on which we can rely when constructing
the model of phenomenon. At the second level we have the regularities
taking into account the revelations of basic phenomenology under
different conditions. And further downstairs. If the basic
phenomenology is beyond questions and if it fully satisfies the entire
COMPLEX of observed properties, we pass to the second level. If we see
it okay, too - we can go further downstairs, too.

Your own, personal view of how to approach physics is irrelevant. For I
don't have to follow your method. You provide nothing but logical fallacies
as reasoning. Hence, I reject your conclusions.

In the citation
which raised your indignation, we said that a broad spectrum of
substantiations of red shift has been considered and thoroughly
discussed at the level of phenomenology.

But you didn't discuss any of them! How am I supposed to know whether
you've considered 'all possible' views?

Most of hypotheses have been
rejected, as they were unable to substantiate the entire complex of
observed properties. You don't like it? This is your difficulty.

No, this is *your* difficulty. You cannot simply claim that nothing exists.
*You* must *support* your claim. You did not even imply that you had
studied more than two extreme cases.

The
same as it's your difficulty, if you don't understand a simple ABC of
physics - if you haven't rigorously substantiated the basis of model
on which you ground the phenomenology of studied phenomenon, all your
further computations will be built on the sand.

Precisely my point. And all you provided was elementary fallacies.

So all substantiations
of red shift based on the photon theory are beforehand known to be
wrong,

If you think that merely claiming that the photon theory is known to be
'wrong' before you started, why did you bother to try to prove it? And if
you believe it, then it should be elementary to provide the reference that
proves it. Otherwise, you're just providing your own personal wish.

as the photon theory per se doesn't stand any criticism and
doesn't answer not only the full complex of questions, it answers
satisfactorily no one question.

Such are the matters.

Sergey, you asked for my comments and I provided them. Sorry I don't agree
with your analysis.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

"greywolf42" wrote in message ...
Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote in message news:...

Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
om...

{snip}

Near the beginning of your Hubble paper, the following paragraph exists:

""The discussion of possibility to explain otherwise the metagalactic
red
shift showed that all other physical processes that have been used for
such
explanation, both hypo-thetical and actual, are insufficient. They
either
cannot at all cause the red shift (such is, for instance, the photon
scattering on the Dirac's electron background or the spontane-ous
splitting
of photons) or they cause too small red shift (such is, for instance,
the
gravity waves radiation by the EM waves) or they have to cause, except
the
red shift, such spurious phenomena which are actually absent (such is,
for
instance, the photon scattering at some particles). Thus, the
longitudinal
Doppler effect (in relation to the ac-companying reference frame) is the
only physical phenomenon with whose help we can explain the properties
of
metagalactic red shift" [8, p. 511?512]."

That reference is a 1962 article, in Russian, "8. Zelmanov, A.L. Red
shift.
In: Physical encyclopaedia, v. 2, p. 511?512. Sovet-skaya encyclopedia,
Moscow."

As it stands, there is no reason to merely accept the bald statement
that
"all other physical processes... are insufficient." That WAS the point,
after all. Merely referencing somebody else's claim is not valid
science.

What ARE the "physical processes" that were considered?

No reply.

You so much would like it to be so. Perhaps this is why you so
thoroughly 'omit' all replies inconvenient for you. I can repeat, we
had not an intention to write a survey. We chose from all existing
hypotheses those which the relativists themselves didn't unambiguously
reject. They are the predominant theory based on the Doppler effect
and the light ageing hypothesis. Which physical processes have been
considered? I intentionally took the quotations from the encyclopaedia
in which it has been indicated for a competent physicist. If you think
the rejected hypotheses grounded, please do prove, we'll listen. But
your opinion that our reference to the encyclopaedia is
unsubstantiated only corroborates your bias which is seen in all your
posts in this thread. I can repeat, it's just the advantage of physics
that we have not to consider all hypotheses without exception, it is
sufficient to consider the basic. And what concerns the hypotheses
based on gravitational red shift - by all substantiation which the
relativists find correct, the value of this shift is too small to
substantiate the Hubble's shift. Of course, one can play with
coefficients and to yield an elephant from a fly, but factually there
is not even a fly.


Sections 1-3 of your (word) document focuses entirely on theoretical
considertations within the big bang cosmology -- and assumes a pure,
doppler-only source of redshift.

Sections 4 and 5 brings up the subject of "tired light" once more. Your
conclusion (section 9) remains as in your abstract -- fallacious:

"The hypothesis of quanta ageing in the light propagation in space, on
one
hand, contradicts the photon theory postulates, and on the other, it is
unable to substantiate the consistent mechanism of ageing. The mechanism
of
ageing caused by the viscosity of aether proposed by Atsukovsky does not
provide the relationship of the light frequency shift with respect to
distance from the source. "

I note simply that you only attempted two extreme cases. Absolute
purity
and infinite range of photons ("contradicts the photon theory
postulates").
And one, single, flawed theory of the aether (Atsukovsky's) as a normal
(though unknown) gas. The first "option" is fundamentally flawed,
because
one cannot use one theory (photons, here) as evidence against another
theory
(ageing photons). It remains a logical fallacy. The second part is a
valid
scientific effort -- but ignorant of history. Together, they form the
fallacy of the excluded middle. (There are more options available than
the
two extreme ones you provided.)

No reply.

Sorry, here was not a question but only your ungrounded and quite
unsupported opinion as to Atsukovsky to which I have replied. I can
repeat more intelligible: first, I chose Atsukovsky because this is
the ONLY physically grounded hypothesis of quanta ageing. You haven't
other PHYSICALLY grounded conception, though there is written much
silly things. Second, the predominant hypothesis of Doppler effect and
hypothesis of quantum ageing are not the extreme cases, mathematically
they calculate something similar. The first part of our paper has been
devoted just to the thorough analysis of these hypotheses. If you have
a substantiated hypothesis, who prevents you from presenting it? We
will listen. But such expressions with the vague ending don't speak
well of one who's saying.

As to the historiography, have you some specific claim to the sequence
of events stated in our paper? If not, you are displaying only your
wish to see nothing except your wish to nag at something. What concern
has the original part of our paper to historiography? Can you make
some reference, where our conception has been presented before us? You
envy that you didn't grasp it first? Well, with such approaches one
can yield only such results. You would better not to turn up your nose
but attentively dig in the essence, not sitting on dogmas as a
capercailzie on a tree.



I highly recommend that you take a look at Maxwell's initial derivation
of
Maxwell's equations (and more) in "On Physical Lines of Force" -- 1861.
Maxwell utilized a particulate, superfluid aether as the substance
needed to
support electric and magnetic phenomena. And determined from that, the
speed of light relative to the medium. By noting that Maxwell's aether
is a
superfluid (which is a requirement for EM waves) you will find that your
argument against Atsukovsky's "normal" fluid falls apart when dealing
with
physically-required aethers.

In short, you can't claim that because you were able to show
Atsukovsky's
fluid didn't work, that NO aether will work.

No reply.

Here also, you require my reply without your question? To the point,
you hardly can find more adherent of aether than me. And you know it
well without reminding. The more that you have neither theoretical nor
experimental works in this area which would be comparable with our
results in EM field theory, acoustics either in vibration theory.
Solve at least one of problems which we have solved, then we will
speak about, what works and what doesn't, and who is adherent to what.


You also assume that the redshift must be ENTIRELY due to one process,
OR
ENTIRELY due to another process. Again, this is the fallacy of the
excluded
middle. The observed redshifts may be partly due to more than one
process.

No reply.

Again you require my reply to your ungrounded opinion? You are saying,
we state in our paper the luminescent red shift as the only process?
Clear untrue! We prove phenomenologically and mathematically that
luminescence is the basic process of the HUBBLE red shift. With it we
multiply show and indicate that this regularity can be violated
because of more weak and local effects, and Doppler effect can be in
that number. It is not worthy to turn our work inside out in order to
find a black cat in a dark room, the more that it is not there. I see
your strong wish to mud our work, but the fact speaks itself - you
none the less couldn't find at what to nag in the essence of subject.
This is just the answer which you wouldn't like to write, but just so
you answered.


And in your evaluation, you utilize the argument that the relation of
distance-to-redshift holds only for doppler. You need to be aware that
ALL
of the distances to the galaxies are determined by FIRST assuming that
distance-to-redshift is ONLY the result of doppler shift. Real
measurments
(i.e. the distant supernovae) do NOT match this assumption. In other
words,
you may not assume the distances calculated by the big bang assumption,
when
you do your analysis.

No reply.

You even don't note, how you are showing yourself unaware in the
subject - and require my reply. Well. Please answer first you, on
which basis Sleipher and Hubble have determined distances to galaxies?
On the basis of red shift? Don't hang noodles on the ears, okay? The
fact is that now the distances are determined on the basis of
REGULARITY FOUND BY HUBBLE, not by the Doppler shift, and one is only
associated with another - our paper was aimed just to disprove this
association. And the calculations didn't become incorrect because of
non-Doppler nature of Hubble's shift. But this thesis which you
expressed shows your bias, nothing more. Well, what an answer you
wanted? Is there any necessity for you in my answers? Anyway you have
no intention to understand either analyse. And you already gave me an
answer. Very clear and boresome. ;-)


You Wolf wrote much, indeed. Your wish not to study the issue but to
grind me to powder is clearly seen. But to do so, you would more
correctly treat the scientific logic and follow the classical system
of proof. Or you are unable to get at me. ;-)

You are apparently unwilling to deal with any of my specific objections to
your paper.

I would like first to see these SPECIFIC objections, then to hear such
'opinion'.


In particular, you are writing, I didn't present all existing
hypotheses.

??? I only provided disproofs of the hypotheses that you put forward.

Please show SPECIFICALLY, where you provided disproofs of the
hypotheses that I DIDN'T put forward.


Yes, and I'm not married with all women in the world!
Happily, in physics we have no need to doubt all hypotheses without
exception. Physics can be divided into few levels. At the first level
we have the basic phenomenology on which we can rely when constructing
the model of phenomenon. At the second level we have the regularities
taking into account the revelations of basic phenomenology under
different conditions. And further downstairs. If the basic
phenomenology is beyond questions and if it fully satisfies the entire
COMPLEX of observed properties, we pass to the second level. If we see
it okay, too - we can go further downstairs, too.

Your own, personal view of how to approach physics is irrelevant.

First obtain the results like ours that coincide with the experiment,
then 'raise a leg'.

For I
don't have to follow your method. You provide nothing but logical fallacies
as reasoning. Hence, I reject your conclusions.

How categorically! ;-) If such energy would peacefully applied - we
wouldn't need electric power stations! ;-)

Local PS:
I understand, it has hurt you, and you made one great mistake in the
very beginning: you didn't take a deep breath and full exhalation
before saying whatever. A chain of great mistakes followed from it.
You shouldn't cry so passionately that you will read this paper not
for the world. You shouldn't 'make me a favour' with your 'review' -
you know, I didn't ask for it, I suggested you to look through the
material having a direct concern to your work. Logically, this is in
your interest, as you, not me, are interesting, your work to be a
contribution to the science, not to trash. Well, of course, if you
don't care, what you publish, if your only aim is an item in CV - this
is your right, I don't care too. The next chain of mistakes were your
attempts to trample anyway what we have done. We have rigorous
phenomenology and computations - you oppose nothing except crying. Of
course, I would be grateful for any objective criticism, but you said
no one word as to the crux of the matter. Now you are blaming me, as
if I left your disproof without reply. I answered your questions - you
make appearance as if not. Of course, I answered not all, as some were
not scientific questions but simply emotional crying. In fact you
perfectly understand how unjust are your posts.

Generally, Wolf, it's so unexpected and shame, how you react. You
looked before much more balanced. Please, stop, take a deep breath and
full exhalation. If you need this material for your work - I referred
you. If you needn't - you needn't. I needn't your review, so please do
stop crying things about which you feel sorry deep inside.



In the citation
which raised your indignation, we said that a broad spectrum of
substantiations of red shift has been considered and thoroughly
discussed at the level of phenomenology.

But you didn't discuss any of them! How am I supposed to know whether
you've considered 'all possible' views?

I have proved that the 'light ageing' doesn't work as such. Have I to
prove additionally that all shades of this hypothesis don't work too?
If 'cold' colours don't suit to my wife, she doesn't buy dress of any
possible 'cold' colours to make sure, she simply buys 'warm' colours.


Most of hypotheses have been
rejected, as they were unable to substantiate the entire complex of
observed properties. You don't like it? This is your difficulty.

No, this is *your* difficulty. You cannot simply claim that nothing exists.
*You* must *support* your claim. You did not even imply that you had
studied more than two extreme cases.

I showed the principal directions of thought in the area. I repeat,
this is not a survey but a research paper, and I hadn't to sort out
all hypotheses in the world. It simply is not done, as you perfectly
know.


The
same as it's your difficulty, if you don't understand a simple ABC of
physics - if you haven't rigorously substantiated the basis of model
on which you ground the phenomenology of studied phenomenon, all your
further computations will be built on the sand.

Precisely my point. And all you provided was elementary fallacies.

You have cried this perhaps 50 times, but still didn't tell a word on
the crux of matter - this is quite revealing as such. Again, Wolf:
what except emotions?


So all substantiations
of red shift based on the photon theory are beforehand known to be
wrong,

If you think that merely claiming that the photon theory is known to be
'wrong' before you started, why did you bother to try to prove it? And if
you believe it, then it should be elementary to provide the reference that
proves it. Otherwise, you're just providing your own personal wish.

Guy, have you yourself understood what you said? I was 'incorrect'
where I proved only two cases - I am 'incorrect' here that am proving
at all?! Should I don't prove but refer you, it would be a fact - but
if I prove, it's my personal wish, yes? Do you want a reference?
Please read Niels Bohr's opinion as to photon theory. If you are
unable to find, I'll quote here. ;-)

How much nonsense can one tell wishing to get rid of inconvenient
thing. Whilst there exists only one correct way, and you know it well.
You have to thoroughly scientifically disprove what I proved - that
red shift is not luminescence. Why don't you?



as the photon theory per se doesn't stand any criticism and
doesn't answer not only the full complex of questions, it answers
satisfactorily no one question.

Such are the matters.

Sergey, you asked for my comments and I provided them. Sorry I don't agree
with your analysis.


Again, I didn't ask your comment. I asked you, why do you take out of
naphthalene the 'light ageing' - hypothesis whose inability has been
already proven? I gave you a reference which made you furious. Well,
let us stop until you take yourself in hand and write real scientific
arguments against red shift as effect of luminescence and pro 'light
ageing'.

Sergey.


greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote in message news:...

Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
om...

{snip}

Near the beginning of your Hubble paper, the following paragraph
exists:

""The discussion of possibility to explain otherwise the
metagalactic
red
shift showed that all other physical processes that have been used
for
such
explanation, both hypo-thetical and actual, are insufficient. They
either
cannot at all cause the red shift (such is, for instance, the photon
scattering on the Dirac's electron background or the spontane-ous
splitting
of photons) or they cause too small red shift (such is, for
instance,
the
gravity waves radiation by the EM waves) or they have to cause,
except
the
red shift, such spurious phenomena which are actually absent (such
is,
for
instance, the photon scattering at some particles). Thus, the
longitudinal
Doppler effect (in relation to the ac-companying reference frame) is
the
only physical phenomenon with whose help we can explain the
properties
of
metagalactic red shift" [8, p. 511?512]."

That reference is a 1962 article, in Russian, "8. Zelmanov, A.L. Red
shift.
In: Physical encyclopaedia, v. 2, p. 511?512. Sovet-skaya
encyclopedia,
Moscow."

As it stands, there is no reason to merely accept the bald statement
that
"all other physical processes... are insufficient." That WAS the
point,
after all. Merely referencing somebody else's claim is not valid
science.

What ARE the "physical processes" that were considered?

No reply.

You so much would like it to be so. Perhaps this is why you so
thoroughly 'omit' all replies inconvenient for you.

I omitted nothing from your posts.

I can repeat, we
had not an intention to write a survey. We chose from all existing
hypotheses those which the relativists themselves didn't unambiguously
reject. They are the predominant theory based on the Doppler effect
and the light ageing hypothesis. Which physical processes have been
considered? I intentionally took the quotations from the encyclopaedia
in which it has been indicated for a competent physicist. If you think
the rejected hypotheses grounded, please do prove, we'll listen. But
your opinion that our reference to the encyclopaedia is
unsubstantiated only corroborates your bias which is seen in all your
posts in this thread. I can repeat, it's just the advantage of physics
that we have not to consider all hypotheses without exception, it is
sufficient to consider the basic. And what concerns the hypotheses
based on gravitational red shift - by all substantiation which the
relativists find correct, the value of this shift is too small to
substantiate the Hubble's shift. Of course, one can play with
coefficients and to yield an elephant from a fly, but factually there
is not even a fly.

Again, you did not reply to my question. What ARE all the "physical
processes" that *you* considered, that *you* consider 'insufficient?' The
'light ageing hypothesis' is not a physical process -- it can be the result
of one or more of many different physical processes.

Sections 1-3 of your (word) document focuses entirely on theoretical
considertations within the big bang cosmology -- and assumes a pure,
doppler-only source of redshift.

Sections 4 and 5 brings up the subject of "tired light" once more.
Your
conclusion (section 9) remains as in your abstract -- fallacious:

"The hypothesis of quanta ageing in the light propagation in space,
on
one
hand, contradicts the photon theory postulates, and on the other, it
is
unable to substantiate the consistent mechanism of ageing. The
mechanism
of
ageing caused by the viscosity of aether proposed by Atsukovsky does
not
provide the relationship of the light frequency shift with respect
to
distance from the source. "

I note simply that you only attempted two extreme cases. Absolute
purity
and infinite range of photons ("contradicts the photon theory
postulates").
And one, single, flawed theory of the aether (Atsukovsky's) as a
normal
(though unknown) gas. The first "option" is fundamentally flawed,
because
one cannot use one theory (photons, here) as evidence against
another
theory
(ageing photons). It remains a logical fallacy. The second part is
a
valid
scientific effort -- but ignorant of history. Together, they form
the
fallacy of the excluded middle. (There are more options available
than
the
two extreme ones you provided.)

No reply.

Sorry, here was not a question but only your ungrounded and quite
unsupported opinion as to Atsukovsky to which I have replied.

You did *not* reply. And my opinion was supported within the same
statement, above.

I can
repeat more intelligible: first, I chose Atsukovsky because this is
the ONLY physically grounded hypothesis of quanta ageing.

You are incorrect. There are many different physical hypotheses of 'tired
light.' That was the point of my first question. You have apparently
ignored the vast literature on the subject, and picked one theory that you
have ready to hand (Atsukovsky).

You haven't
other PHYSICALLY grounded conception, though there is written much
silly things.

You need to *show* how all these other hypotheses are 'silly.' You can't
simply not mention them and say that Atsukovsky stands for all tired light
theories. Then -- when caught -- claim every one else was 'silly.'

Second, the predominant hypothesis of Doppler effect and
hypothesis of quantum ageing are not the extreme cases, mathematically
they calculate something similar. The first part of our paper has been
devoted just to the thorough analysis of these hypotheses.

This is a classic case of the fallacy of the excluded middle.

If you have
a substantiated hypothesis, who prevents you from presenting it? We
will listen. But such expressions with the vague ending don't speak
well of one who's saying.

There are dozens of hypotheses available. And the universe may operate with
a method that has not yet been tried by humans! You can't claim that
because your two straw men don't work, that nothing will work!

As to the historiography, have you some specific claim to the sequence
of events stated in our paper? If not, you are displaying only your
wish to see nothing except your wish to nag at something. What concern
has the original part of our paper to historiography? Can you make
some reference, where our conception has been presented before us? You
envy that you didn't grasp it first? Well, with such approaches one
can yield only such results. You would better not to turn up your nose
but attentively dig in the essence, not sitting on dogmas as a
capercailzie on a tree.

??? There is no 'sequence of events' in your paper. I'm going to presume
that what you'd like to see is whether I have a viable 'tired light'
hypothesis (other than Atsukovsky or Doppler)?


I highly recommend that you take a look at Maxwell's initial
derivation
of
Maxwell's equations (and more) in "On Physical Lines of Force" --
1861.
Maxwell utilized a particulate, superfluid aether as the substance
needed to
support electric and magnetic phenomena. And determined from that,
the
speed of light relative to the medium. By noting that Maxwell's
aether
is a
superfluid (which is a requirement for EM waves) you will find that
your
argument against Atsukovsky's "normal" fluid falls apart when
dealing
with
physically-required aethers.

In short, you can't claim that because you were able to show
Atsukovsky's
fluid didn't work, that NO aether will work.

No reply.

Here also, you require my reply without your question?

Yes. Because you took issue with my comments on your paper. But you
refused to address the actual comments. You simply aimed a broad attack at
at the fact that I didn't agree with your approach.

To the point,
you hardly can find more adherent of aether than me. And you know it
well without reminding. The more that you have neither theoretical nor
experimental works in this area which would be comparable with our
results in EM field theory, acoustics either in vibration theory.
Solve at least one of problems which we have solved, then we will
speak about, what works and what doesn't, and who is adherent to what.

This was not a comment about the validity or invalidity of any aether
theory. You made a statement that because Atsukovsky's fluid didn't 'work
for tired light', that NO aether theory could give a reasonable 'tired
light.'

You also assume that the redshift must be ENTIRELY due to one
process,
OR
ENTIRELY due to another process. Again, this is the fallacy of the
excluded
middle. The observed redshifts may be partly due to more than one
process.

No reply.

Again you require my reply to your ungrounded opinion?

Yes -- since you berated me for not embracing your personal theory. You
asked for comments, and I gave you comments. It is more than simply
courtesy to focus on the comments I've given -- instead of your bruised egos
because I didn't agree with your methods.

You are saying,
we state in our paper the luminescent red shift as the only process?
Clear untrue! We prove phenomenologically and mathematically that
luminescence is the basic process of the HUBBLE red shift.

You do no such thing. Your paper contains major fallacies and false logic.

With it we
multiply show and indicate that this regularity can be violated
because of more weak and local effects, and Doppler effect can be in
that number. It is not worthy to turn our work inside out in order to
find a black cat in a dark room, the more that it is not there. I see
your strong wish to mud our work, but the fact speaks itself - you
none the less couldn't find at what to nag in the essence of subject.
This is just the answer which you wouldn't like to write, but just so
you answered.

I provided detailed comments on each issue that I found. Per your request.
Unfortunately, you have tricked yourself into believing you have a 'proof'
of something. But that 'proof' is based on ignoring alternatives.

And in your evaluation, you utilize the argument that the relation
of
distance-to-redshift holds only for doppler. You need to be aware
that
ALL
of the distances to the galaxies are determined by FIRST assuming
that
distance-to-redshift is ONLY the result of doppler shift. Real
measurments
(i.e. the distant supernovae) do NOT match this assumption. In
other
words,
you may not assume the distances calculated by the big bang
assumption,
when
you do your analysis.

No reply.

You even don't note, how you are showing yourself unaware in the
subject - and require my reply.

Your specific reply is required to a specific comment because (1) you asked
for my comments, and (2) you made a general attack on my comments.

Well. Please answer first you, on
which basis Sleipher and Hubble have determined distances to galaxies?

The first couple dozen galactic distances were estimated by using Cepheid
variables in the galaxies, and estimating the distance to the Cepheid
variables. Cepheids were not resolvable in more than these few nearest
galaxies.

On the basis of red shift? Don't hang noodles on the ears, okay?

Beyond those few nearby galaxies, the Hubble constant is used to 'calculate'
the distance to a galaxy (from the observed redshift).

The
fact is that now the distances are determined on the basis of
REGULARITY FOUND BY HUBBLE, not by the Doppler shift,

The use of the Hubble constant *assumes* the effect is pure doppler shift.

and one is only
associated with another - our paper was aimed just to disprove this
association.

Which is why you can't use distances that were determined by using the
Hubble constant in your paper.

And the calculations didn't become incorrect because of
non-Doppler nature of Hubble's shift.

If you disprove the theoretical foundation of the Hubble shift, then you are
going to have to provide some other theoretical basis for using the Hubble
constant to calculate distance. Only the nearest couple dozen galaxies
contain visible Cepheids. And the Hubble line is drawn through the center
of the 'buckshot' pattern. But that line is based on the assumption that
redshift = doppler. You now say that redshift doppler. You therefore
have to go back to square one, or otherwise justify your use of distances
calculated by assuming redshift = doppler.

But this thesis which you
expressed shows your bias, nothing more. Well, what an answer you
wanted? Is there any necessity for you in my answers? Anyway you have
no intention to understand either analyse. And you already gave me an
answer. Very clear and boresome. ;-)

My comment does not express a bias about *your* theory. It points out a
flaw in the support of that theory.

You Wolf wrote much, indeed. Your wish not to study the issue but to
grind me to powder is clearly seen. But to do so, you would more
correctly treat the scientific logic and follow the classical system
of proof. Or you are unable to get at me. ;-)

You are apparently unwilling to deal with any of my specific objections
to
your paper.

I would like first to see these SPECIFIC objections, then to hear such
'opinion'.

They are each listed above.

In particular, you are writing, I didn't present all existing
hypotheses.

??? I only provided disproofs of the hypotheses that you put forward.

Please show SPECIFICALLY, where you provided disproofs of the
hypotheses that I DIDN'T put forward.

??? Obviously, I provided no disproof of what you didn't write about.

Yes, and I'm not married with all women in the world!
Happily, in physics we have no need to doubt all hypotheses without
exception. Physics can be divided into few levels. At the first level
we have the basic phenomenology on which we can rely when constructing
the model of phenomenon. At the second level we have the regularities
taking into account the revelations of basic phenomenology under
different conditions. And further downstairs. If the basic
phenomenology is beyond questions and if it fully satisfies the entire
COMPLEX of observed properties, we pass to the second level. If we see
it okay, too - we can go further downstairs, too.

Your own, personal view of how to approach physics is irrelevant.

First obtain the results like ours that coincide with the experiment,
then 'raise a leg'.

You asked -- nay, demanded -- that I comment on your paper. I did so. I
therefore have no need to 'obtain results like yours' (whatever that means).

For I
don't have to follow your method. You provide nothing but logical
fallacies
as reasoning. Hence, I reject your conclusions.

How categorically! ;-) If such energy would peacefully applied - we
wouldn't need electric power stations! ;-)

Local PS:
I understand, it has hurt you,

Huh? Your paper hasn't 'hurt' me in the least. There are parts of your
hypotheses that I find interesting, but your method is a house of cards. I
pointed out the major flaws at your request.

and you made one great mistake in the
very beginning: you didn't take a deep breath and full exhalation
before saying whatever. A chain of great mistakes followed from it.
You shouldn't cry so passionately that you will read this paper not
for the world. You shouldn't 'make me a favour' with your 'review' -
you know, I didn't ask for it, I suggested you to look through the
material having a direct concern to your work.

LOL! After several demands in another thread, you started *this* thread.
Specifically to get an opinion from me on your theory:
===========================
"You arranged such ceremonies, as if this is of the most importance - and I
wonder, what for? What guides your choose when you reject my grounded
explanation and mathematical substantiation which you cannot, as far as I
know, find in other publications? Or, none the less, you are feeling a wish
to find something at least outwardly alike, in order to prove at least
yourself that the authorship isn't mine? ;-) Well, Joseph Lazio said you
clearly in your thread, there is no phenomenological substantiation for the
light 'ageing'. One of attempts to substantiate belongs to V.A. Atsukovsky
and is based on his supposition of the aether viscosity. We analyse this
substantiation in our paper "On the nature of red shift of Metagalaxy"

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...s3.html#hubble

to which I referred you, and you shouldn't ignore it. In the view of
scientific objectivity, you can only find our mistake, substantiate and show
me, in what specifically are we wrong. I'm not Henri Wilson, I will not
clutch at a wrong derivation. But I will substantiate.

If you are pro such SCIENTIFIC approach, please do answer. I will be pleased
to hear from you."
===========================

Logically, this is in
your interest, as you, not me, are interesting, your work to be a
contribution to the science, not to trash. Well, of course, if you
don't care, what you publish, if your only aim is an item in CV - this
is your right, I don't care too. The next chain of mistakes were your
attempts to trample anyway what we have done. We have rigorous
phenomenology and computations - you oppose nothing except crying. Of
course, I would be grateful for any objective criticism, but you said
no one word as to the crux of the matter. Now you are blaming me, as
if I left your disproof without reply. I answered your questions - you
make appearance as if not. Of course, I answered not all, as some were
not scientific questions but simply emotional crying. In fact you
perfectly understand how unjust are your posts.

Generally, Wolf, it's so unexpected and shame, how you react. You
looked before much more balanced. Please, stop, take a deep breath and
full exhalation. If you need this material for your work - I referred
you. If you needn't - you needn't. I needn't your review, so please do
stop crying things about which you feel sorry deep inside.

It seems that your ego is bruised. I did not reject your hypothesis.
Merely the invalid structure that you claimed supported it.

In the citation
which raised your indignation, we said that a broad spectrum of
substantiations of red shift has been considered and thoroughly
discussed at the level of phenomenology.

But you didn't discuss any of them! How am I supposed to know whether
you've considered 'all possible' views?

I have proved that the 'light ageing' doesn't work as such.

You have done no such thing! You have looked at two possible explanations
(Atsukovsky and Doppler). You reject those two, and -- solely on this
basis -- claim that you've disproved light aging!

Have I to
prove additionally that all shades of this hypothesis don't work too?

Precisely!

If 'cold' colours don't suit to my wife, she doesn't buy dress of any
possible 'cold' colours to make sure, she simply buys 'warm' colours.

The question is -- 'what suits your wife?' or 'what are 'cold colors'?

Most of hypotheses have been
rejected, as they were unable to substantiate the entire complex of
observed properties. You don't like it? This is your difficulty.

No, this is *your* difficulty. You cannot simply claim that nothing
exists.
*You* must *support* your claim. You did not even imply that you had
studied more than two extreme cases.

I showed the principal directions of thought in the area.

You cannot make this claim without reference to how you came up with the
conclusion that Atsukovsky and Doppler are the 'principle directions of
thought in the area.' And you didn't even mention that these were only
representative. Your paper addressed ONLY those two possibilities.

I repeat,
this is not a survey but a research paper, and I hadn't to sort out
all hypotheses in the world. It simply is not done, as you perfectly
know.

It certainly *IS* done in research papers. If the research papers are
valid, and claim to disprove 'all possible' theories of one kind or another.

The
same as it's your difficulty, if you don't understand a simple ABC of
physics - if you haven't rigorously substantiated the basis of model
on which you ground the phenomenology of studied phenomenon, all your
further computations will be built on the sand.

Precisely my point. And all you provided was elementary fallacies.

You have cried this perhaps 50 times, but still didn't tell a word on
the crux of matter - this is quite revealing as such. Again, Wolf:
what except emotions?

The crux of the matter is that you have no proof of your hypothesis. You
could be correct. But you have provided no evidence.

So all substantiations
of red shift based on the photon theory are beforehand known to be
wrong,

If you think that merely claiming that the photon theory is known to be
'wrong' before you started, why did you bother to try to prove it? And
if
you believe it, then it should be elementary to provide the reference
that
proves it. Otherwise, you're just providing your own personal wish.

Guy, have you yourself understood what you said? I was 'incorrect'
where I proved only two cases - I am 'incorrect' here that am proving
at all?!

The key word here is 'beforehand.' You claimed prior knowledge that
redshift due to photon theory was wrong. If you 'knew' this beforehand,
there was no reason for you to prove it again.

Should I don't prove but refer you, it would be a fact - but
if I prove, it's my personal wish, yes? Do you want a reference?
Please read Niels Bohr's opinion as to photon theory. If you are
unable to find, I'll quote here. ;-)

No need. Bohr's opinion is irrelevant.

How much nonsense can one tell wishing to get rid of inconvenient
thing. Whilst there exists only one correct way, and you know it well.
You have to thoroughly scientifically disprove what I proved - that
red shift is not luminescence. Why don't you?

I only showed that your claimed 'proof' is fundamentally flawed. I have no
need to prove your hypothesis wrong.

as the photon theory per se doesn't stand any criticism and
doesn't answer not only the full complex of questions, it answers
satisfactorily no one question.

Such are the matters.

Sergey, you asked for my comments and I provided them. Sorry I don't
agree
with your analysis.


Again, I didn't ask your comment.

LOL! Look at the title of the thread!

I asked you, why do you take out of
naphthalene the 'light ageing' - hypothesis whose inability has been
already proven?

1) Please provide the reference that had 'already proven' this, prior to
your paper.

2) Why did you feel the need to duplicate the reference?

I gave you a reference which made you furious. Well,
let us stop until you take yourself in hand and write real scientific
arguments against red shift as effect of luminescence and pro 'light
ageing'.

I provided my scientific arguments. You refused to even acknowledge their
existence.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

"greywolf42" wrote in message ...
Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote in message news:...

Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
om...

{snip}
Wolf,

Do you ever read what you are writing? ;-) I will try to help you to
arrange your responds by relevance. You are writing:

I provided my scientific arguments. You refused to even acknowledge
their
existence.

Basically, what are your arguments to which you are saying I didn't
answer? There are only two:

1. I didn't analyse all gibberish without exception which the virtual
West way of thinking created,
2. I may not use the Hubble law to calculate distances.

Does this directly concern to the essence of phenomenology of
luminescent nature of red shift that we substantiated in our paper?
No. Does this concern to the question which I asked you in your thread
where you mustered the references substantiating the light ageing?
Also no. And you mean it scientific analysis? Rather, this was all
what you were able to suck from your pen. Don't make colleagues
laughing.

As to your first argument. We intentionally considered the hypothesis
of light ageing, basing on the Atsukovsky's analysis, as on one hand
he is a successive supporter of the aether (not as many relativistic
chameleons!). On the other hand, he is able for thorough analysis, and
on the third, simply some wind carried him away at this point and he
intended to fit the aether with photon theory. But this in no case
means that all aether theories are wrong. Never! If classical physics
stops developing, where from all relativistic 'pumps' will take their
theoretical substantiation and mathematical tool? ;-)

Photon theory can combine with no physical theory, as is it false
itself. I understand, it is an inconvenient argument for you, and all
what disturbs the quiet of relativism raises yours, deep-rooted
relativist (I will prove it below), rejection trivial for you all
relativists. Just so you thought non-scientific our argument against
the photon tiredness of light - bankruptcy of the very photon theory.
None the less, it's a 'truculent' fact. ;-) If you write a
multiplication table as products of numbers with some chance results,
there will be no correspondence to real apples, balls, chairs and so
on (of course, if you don't deepen into sophistry as you relativists
so much admire). Which phenomenon such mathematics can explain?
Therefore it's important, the theory to be grounded on correct,
checked interpretation. Photon theory doesn't satisfy this condition.
To disprove me in this issue, you have first to answer a number of
basic questions on photon phenomenology which I'm tired to ask - and
you colleagues are tired to fly away from them.

First of all, which is the linear size of photon and how it correlates
with the wavelength of EM emission (especially for long and super-long
waves)? ;-) Next, how much strong is in photon the correlation between
its size and period of EM wave? If the correlation is not strong,
photon will appear a charged particle! Next, which is the
between-photon distance and how it correlates with the monochromatic
light and time of coherence? Next, in accordance with Bose, boson
energies are added arithmetically, whilst E-components of light in
diffraction and interference are added geometrically. Next, which is
the transverse size of photon and how it affects their interaction
with electrons? Next, if EM field is distributed within photon and
varies along its length, how it affects EM mass of photon and its
non-interaction with other photons? At the boundary of photon particle
there has to be a field of definite direction and strength. How the
boundary fields of neighbouring photons do correlate in the flow?

These all are not simply questions - these are principal, basic
questions which show discrepant properties of 'photon' determined on
the basis of photon conception. These questions existed as long ago as
in the beginning of past century, and they have not been answered, but
by the known manner of Einstein's followers they were simply
'forgotten'. No questions - no answers. Sleep sweet, people, it's all
quiet in Baghdad! Just so for you

[Grey Wolf]
Bohr's opinion is irrelevant

[Sergey]
It's how to put it...

In the view of quantum theory, the discussed hypothesis cannot be
nonetheless considered as a satisfying solution. As is known, just
this hypothesis brings insurmountable difficulties in explanation of
interference phenomena - the main means in studying the radiation
properties [see: H.A. Lorentz. Phys. Zs., 1910, *11*, 349]. In any
case we can ascertain that the underlying statement of the hypothesis
of light quanta basically excludes the possibility to comprehend the
concept of frequency nu playing the main part in this theory. So the
hypothesis of light quanta is invalid to give general pattern of
processes which might include the entire amount of phenomena
considered in quantum theory applications

[Niels Bohr. On the quantum theory application to the structure of
atom. 1. The main postulates of quantum theory. Chapter 3. On formal
nature of quantum theory. Item 1. Hypothesis of light quanta].

If not Planck and Bohr, we wouldn't have QM. Perhaps you know what a
shock made Bohr's work "On the structure of atoms and molecules" even
upon Rutherford who was Bohr's teacher and to whom Bohr referred in
his paper, beginning with the introduction. I would also mark that
Bohr in his paper referred not to Einstein but to Planck (who also was
against Einstein's photon theory), despite Einstein's work "Theory of
light quanta and the problem of localisation of electromagnetic
energy" has been already published.

Alas, for you colleagues it means nothing. At the same time and just
by this reason, the supporters of photon theory haven't and cannot
have the answers to these questions. And it follows from this that no
physical phenomena can be correctly modelled on the basis of this
theory. And vice versa, if the photon theory is included to the
phenomenology of any event, the phenomenology becomes wrong due to
wrong phenomenology of the very conception of photon. Of course, you
don't understand it. The same as you 'don't understand' that ALL
hypotheses of the light ageing which I as if ignored (only contoured
in the introduction!) - and you permanently accuse me in it - ALL are
grounded on photon theory and/or on gravitation theory. Everything is
clear with photon theory from times of Einstein, and with gravitation
theory everything is long ago clear too, as
(a) the values calculated with its help are small, and the relativists
themselves have admitted it;
(b) should the Hubble's regularity be described just by the warping of
space-time, the red shift won't be isotropic.
And this is also a 'truculent' fact which even relativists admit. You
understand it, too. Just this is why you have pretended so
misunderstanding:

[Grey Wolf]
I'm going to presume
that what you'd like to see is whether I have a viable 'tired light'
hypothesis (other than Atsukovsky or Doppler)?

[Sergey]
And this is understandable. As soon as we touch your VIABLE conception
of tired light, photons will appear immediately, will not they? Just
therefore I have no necessity to consider all versions of this
hypothesis. And your requirement to analyse them all doesn't disparage
a least our investigation and its result. The same as your opinion
that

[Grey Wolf]
You need to *show* how all these other hypotheses are 'silly.' You
can't
simply not mention them and say that Atsukovsky stands for all tired
light
theories. Then -- when caught -- claim every one else was 'silly.'

[Sergey]
is not a least grounded and only shows you having no other
fault-finds. The more that you yourself are saying:

[Grey Wolf]
And the universe may operate with
a method that has not yet been tried by humans! You can't claim that
because your two straw men don't work, that nothing will work!

[Sergey]
Indeed. This is just what we have substantiated in our work. Moreover,
we substantiated the mechanism which yet never was considered and
which has all advantages of a stable hypothesis. Anyway, during all
our communication you never touched our hypothesis, but only
unsubstantiatedly stated that

[Grey Wolf]
I provided detailed comments on each issue that I found. Per your
request.
Unfortunately, you have tricked yourself into believing you have a
'proof'
of something. But that 'proof' is based on ignoring alternatives.

[Sergey]
Untrue. There were much more items, and the paper is much wider than
you are trying to say. And not two straw men as you would like to
represent it. Again, in absence of actually scientific
counter-arguments, you have concentrated your attention only on few
paragraphs of the first half of our work and on this grounds reject
the entire work. Show me any your paper - and after such 'analysis' it
will be raised to the ground. If I'm wrong, show me a paper in which,
before presenting an original investigation, the authors thoroughly
disprove ALL existing hypotheses. I already wrote you that in physics
there is no necessity to analyse ALL hypotheses. If it doesn't suit
you - it's your matter that has no concern to our material, the more
to its quality.

We analyse in our paper two LEADING conceptions of Hubble shift. And
the light ageing is analysed in the view of aether. Atsukovsky is the
only who attempted to substantiate the tiredness in the view of aether
theory. This attempt gave not him success, as we showed. But it
doesn't mean that the aether theory is unable to explain the effect.
Our conception of luminescent nature of red shift can be also
interpreted as the 'tiredness of light', as the resulting EM wave
energy decreases with the distance. Of course, you didn't see it all.
But see below.

Now I will some deviate from the sequence of items, in order to follow
the sequence of your exclamations.

In your post you are expressing quite definite opinion as to our
conception of luminescent nature of Hubble red shift:

[Sergey]
Clear untrue! We prove phenomenologically and mathematically that
luminescence is the basic process of the HUBBLE red shift.

[Grey Wolf]
You do no such thing. Your paper contains major fallacies and false
logic.

[Sergey]
Excellent! Please do point the mistakes in our conception.

You are unfoundedly stating

[Grey Wolf]
Unfortunately, you have tricked yourself into believing you have a
'proof'
of something. But that 'proof' is based on ignoring alternatives.

And

The crux of the matter is that you have no proof of your hypothesis.
You
could be correct. But you have provided no evidence.

[Sergey]
Untrue. Take specifically items 6 - 8 of our paper and show me, where
is the breakage of our logic? Or these are just the places which you
like? ;-)

[Grey Wolf]
There are parts of your
hypotheses that I find interesting, but your method is a house of
cards. I
pointed out the major flaws at your request.

[Sergey]
If so, please do blow away our house of cards. Only don't break off
your teeth - I made the bricks myself.

In this connection, with such negative estimation of our work, what
your following words can mean?

[Grey Wolf]
My comment does not express a bias about *your* theory. It points
out a
flaw in the support of that theory.

And the following:

If you disprove the theoretical foundation of the Hubble shift, then
you are
going to have to provide some other theoretical basis for using the
Hubble
constant to calculate distance.

[Sergey]
Granny, why are your eyes as if of glass? Have you received a paper
from me either conclude from so-so taken from our site first pages?
And with it you are saying,

[Grey Wolf]
Yes -- since you berated me for not embracing your personal theory.
You
asked for comments, and I gave you comments. It is more than simply
courtesy to focus on the comments I've given -- instead of your
bruised egos
because I didn't agree with your methods.

[Sergey]
Wolf, what are you saying? ;-) I berated you? Or you are taking any
effort to mud our conception? We proved nothing, we didn't
substantiate, there is no logic, there is nothing at all except a
citation to which you every time refer. To the point, when describing
the state-of-the-art, we gave not only this citation. On the subject
of your interest there was also another citation. Here it is:

Citation:
These observations qualitatively corroborated the hypothesis
expressed by Soviet scientist Fridman (1923) about the expanding
Universe which can be considered as the corollary of general
Relativity, but the grandiose realm of phenomenon required to
interpret and discuss it both physically and philosophically. In the
course of this discussion, some astrophysical aspects of the problem
have been refined and some suppositions of possible additional causes
of the observed phenomenon have been expressed. We have to reject some
of such suppositions as contradicting the entire amount of
experimental facts (for example, the hypothesis of 'quanta ageing'
that was popular at due time; it meant the frequency variation of
light reaching us from the far galaxies and being the result of the
energy lost which grows during the way the light has passed)
[Kalitievsky, N.I. Wave optics. Nauka, Moscow, 1971 (Russian)].

Uncitation

This citation from another author says the same as we do. Thus, when I
said you,

[Sergey]
Perhaps this is why you so
thoroughly 'omit' all replies inconvenient for you,

I meant not only my answers to which you actually turned your large
grey deaf ear, but also definite aspects of our work which you 'don't
mention', too. ;-) Well, these are your difficulties. It's only
strange that you are saying of some *my* bruised egos. Wolf, we have
different weight categories. When the physicist has developments made
not for his advisor's satisfaction, he has no need to write as
follows:

[Grey Wolf]
I therefore have no need to 'obtain results like yours' (whatever
that means).

[Sergey]
I didn't ask you to replicate our results. Just so I wrote so and not
otherwise:

First obtain the results like ours that coincide with the
experiment,
then 'raise a leg'.

In some or other way we will sort out our results ourselves. But
before you 'raise your leg' onto other's research, it would be not so
bad to have yours of the same level. In this specific case - in the
field of aetherodynamics. But to make 'glass eyes' and to don't care
of the meaning of what you say - it's a destiny of West
students-crammers and retarding relativists. Their manners are so
alike and have so much in common with your approach to the discussion
that there remain no illusions. What you are saying pro aether yet
doesn't evidence you as a sequential supporter of aether. Relativists
like much to pose as supporters of aether, forgetting that SR denies
whatever aether, and GR never abrogated SR. The same they don't try to
think that photons are incompatible with material substance in space.
For them aether is a convenient fiction which they introduce when feel
convenient and remove when inconvenient. And you the same. On one
hand, you call "straw man" the conception based on Doppler shift, but
on the other, it's an indisputable fact, and Hubble's regularity is
unambiguously caused only by this effect. You are not interesting in
proof that in reality the Hubble's regularity is not connected with
any conception; you are not interesting that Doppler's explanation is
contradictive. There for you exists only a dogma and it's never under
question. If you think me trying to offend you - it's not so. Simply
this all is so boresome and in one and the same manner. When we touch
specifically the physics of processes, all your much-vaunted
specialists fly from threads and shut their e-mail boxes, as snails
do. But in some short time they come to other threads as if nothing
happened and go on brandishing with their rotten banners. You required
from me a reference to the literature, where the photon theory has
been disproved before? I quoted you Niels Bohr above. I can quote many
others of that time and after, but do you need them? Hardly. It's
easier for you to state,

[Grey Wolf]
But you refused to address the actual comments.

[Sergey]
But do you want to hear my comments? Hardly, too.

You are stating,

[Grey Wolf]
The use of the Hubble constant *assumes* the effect is pure doppler
shift.

[Sergey]
And this is all your unbiased approach and analysis. And all our
analysis is for you an empty phrase, since in any case for you

[Grey Wolf]
And the Hubble line is drawn through the center
of the 'buckshot' pattern. But that line is based on the assumption
that
redshift = doppler.

[Sergey]
But this is not so. Hubble's law doesn't reflect any specific
conception substantiating it. The fact that it outwardly resembles the
Doppler shift says yet nothing, and Hubble derived his law not for
some specific phenomenology. The same as first distances to galaxies
have been determined not by the red shift but by Cepheids, though in
your previous post you stated - just by the red shift. And so in
everything other.

Thus, Wolf, everything would be well if, requiring from me a perfect
logic, you would demonstrate me an example of constructive
non-dogmatic approach - of which I just said you in your thread.
Otherwise all your marks cost nothing.

Sergey.