A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Little Red Riding Hood asks Grey Wolf



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 3rd 03, 08:58 PM
greywolf42
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Little Red Riding Hood asks Grey Wolf


Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
m...
greywolf42 ) wrote in thread "Myth or Science?
(Tired Light)"


{snip the references to the other thread, addressed in the other thread}
..
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.

I intentionally put these questions to your thread and make a new one,
"Little Red Riding Hood asks Grey Wolf", as I want much to hear your
answer.


First off, I have no desire to tie up my phone line for hours reading your
missive. Might I suggest you provide an acrobat version? I did copy the
pages one at a time -- then copied the figures. After killing a half hour
this way, I noted that your equations are all graphics, too.

So I read your abstract, and your abstract contained a very elementary
logical flaw. You reference a proof in your paper based on "The alternative
theory of the quanta ageing also cannot provide the necessary rigour of the
red shift substantiation, since, on one hand, it contradicts the postulates
of photon hypothesis..." This is not a scientific argument.

Hence, rather than spend another half-hour or 45 minutes trying to download
the pieces of your webpages, could you just send me an e-mail with the
equation graphics?

Thanks,

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas


Ads
  #2  
Old July 12th 03, 07:31 PM
greywolf42
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Little Red Riding Hood asks Grey Wolf


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

...
Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
m...
greywolf42 ) wrote in thread "Myth or Science?
(Tired Light)"


{snip the references to the other thread, addressed in the other thread}
.
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.

I intentionally put these questions to your thread and make a new one,
"Little Red Riding Hood asks Grey Wolf", as I want much to hear your
answer.


First off, I have no desire to tie up my phone line for hours reading

your
missive. Might I suggest you provide an acrobat version? I did copy

the
pages one at a time -- then copied the figures. After killing a half

hour
this way, I noted that your equations are all graphics, too.


Yes I can send it, though in future you may be interesting to know
that there exists an option "Save as html". Copy each page and then
walk through the paper to your heart's content, as all links will be
inside your machine.


If one "saves as html" one does indeed get the text. That's what I started
by doing. However, the "links" in that html document are links to the
equation graphics. Which do NOT get downloaded when one "saves as html."

But I suspend, not this is a problem... You are
saying, you are Wolf, but play cunning as Fox.


Your attitude is showing.

We intentionally divide
our papers into logic fragments, light and immediately appearing at
your screen. Could you explain, how have you succeed to copy first
pages, then figures? You turned off the pictures? But you know, the
pictures and formulas will be for certain in a paper. Why do you
accuse me that you had to copy again with figures?


I'm not "accusing" you of anything. I merely pointed out that your method
of displaying a paper as a web page, with equations inserted as graphics
forces one to either read on-line (tying up a phone line for however long it
takes to read the document), or to spend a long time downloading each
equation one at a time. I simply refuse to invest that amount of time.

So I read your abstract, and your abstract contained a very elementary
logical flaw. You reference a proof in your paper based on "The

alternative
theory of the quanta ageing also cannot provide the necessary rigour of

the
red shift substantiation, since, on one hand, it contradicts the

postulates
of photon hypothesis..." This is not a scientific argument.


From which moon have you fallen, Wolf? You don't think a scientific
argument the substantiation that there is a mistake in the
conventional statement of problem? Terrific!! It remains only to speak
a little of your objective estimations. Though, when looking through
your thread, I already have convinced that you haven't it. Could you
explain me for example, why have you cut the citation from our
abstract:

"The alternative theory of the quanta ageing also cannot provide the
necessary rigour of the red shift substantiation, since, on one hand,
it contradicts the postulates of photon hypothesis..."

(of course, this is yet not argument as such, but it was necessary to
mention it, or in the view of conventional paradigm our statement
would be incomplete), just cutting our

"...and on the other hand, it is unable to substantiate the consistent
mechanism of ageing. The mechanism suggested by Atsukovsky (grounded
on the viscosity of the aether) does not provide the regularity of the
shift of light frequency with the growing distance from the source.

In the course of additional analysis of the properties of interstellar
medium, we have revealed the necessary and sufficient conditions of
spontaneous radio luminescence excitation..."

This is just because of what you dispense virtual encouragement to
your like-minded colleagues. You point-blank don't see what is
disadvantageous for you? Maybe, this was the real reason, why you had
problems with copying our paper? But one oughtn't to be so biased.



I didn't cut anything from you abstract. I simply pointed out that one
piece of your abstract contains a very elementary logical flaw. And it
remains a very elementary logical flaw -- and you have not even attempted to
address a response to my point. You simply diverted into other parts of
your abstract.

If you begin your paper with elementary errors of logic, my motivation to
continue through your paper is seriously reduced.

Hence, rather than spend another half-hour or 45 minutes trying to

download
the pieces of your webpages, could you just send me an e-mail with the
equation graphics?


Well, find this paper in your e-mail box. Please reply here on thread.


Thanks,

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas


  #3  
Old July 13th 03, 12:21 AM
Gregory L. Hansen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Little Red Riding Hood asks Grey Wolf

In article ,
greywolf42 wrote:

Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
. com...


Yes I can send it, though in future you may be interesting to know
that there exists an option "Save as html". Copy each page and then
walk through the paper to your heart's content, as all links will be
inside your machine.


If one "saves as html" one does indeed get the text. That's what I started
by doing. However, the "links" in that html document are links to the
equation graphics. Which do NOT get downloaded when one "saves as html."


In Netscape I can "Open Page in Composer" and then save it, and it will
save all the pictures, too, if the pictures use relative links. If the
pictures have absolute links, the phone will dial whenever I try to read
the page.
--
"When fighting with sharpened Bronze, or harder Metals from the Heavens,
it is Wise to kick thy Opponent, be he a Chaldean or a man of Uruk, in his
Man Sack, that thou mayst defeat him more handily than by Arms. So sayeth
INNAMURUTUSHIMMILODEK, who hath slain threescore Ammelekites."
  #4  
Old July 13th 03, 07:17 PM
greywolf42
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Little Red Riding Hood asks Grey Wolf


wrote in message
...
In sci.astro Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

In Netscape I can "Open Page in Composer" and then save it, and it

will
save all the pictures, too, if the pictures use relative links. If

the
pictures have absolute links, the phone will dial whenever I try to

read
the page.


The Safari browser under Mac OS X (Unix) has
a "save as PDF" option. Pretty cool.


I hope you paid your license fee to Adobe for creating PDFs.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas


  #5  
Old July 14th 03, 02:41 AM
Carl R. Osterwald
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Little Red Riding Hood asks Grey Wolf

In article , greywolf42
wrote:

wrote in message
...
In sci.astro Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

In Netscape I can "Open Page in Composer" and then save it, and it

will
save all the pictures, too, if the pictures use relative links. If

the
pictures have absolute links, the phone will dial whenever I try to

read
the page.


The Safari browser under Mac OS X (Unix) has
a "save as PDF" option. Pretty cool.


I hope you paid your license fee to Adobe for creating PDFs.


Not needed, it is built into the Print Manager. Every application
running on Mac OS X now has this ability.


-=-=-=-=-

"what part of "GOVERNMENT/media" disinformation agent
DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?"

-- Raymond Karczewski©, aka bRay, Kazoo, Raymoid, etc.
  #6  
Old July 23rd 03, 06:33 AM
Sergey Karavashkin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Little Red Riding Hood asks Grey Wolf

(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message ...
In article ,
greywolf42 wrote:

Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
. com...


Yes I can send it, though in future you may be interesting to know
that there exists an option "Save as html". Copy each page and then
walk through the paper to your heart's content, as all links will be
inside your machine.


If one "saves as html" one does indeed get the text. That's what I started
by doing. However, the "links" in that html document are links to the
equation graphics. Which do NOT get downloaded when one "saves as html."


In Netscape I can "Open Page in Composer" and then save it, and it will
save all the pictures, too, if the pictures use relative links. If the
pictures have absolute links, the phone will dial whenever I try to read
the page.


This is the principle of our e-journal - all links to formulas and
figures within the papers are relative. These are usual html-pages -
the text, formulas and figures inserted into a hidden table. This is
why I'm surprised: many hundreds of people have loaded our papers to
their machines, and no one had such problems. As I see, should he had
a wish to consider the issue, he would not have this problem, too.
Perhaps something other disturbs him.

He said me not to discuss in his thread but to create a new one - I
did so. He said me to send this paper to his e-mail box - I did so.
Another thing is, he defends the hypothesis of 'tired light', whilst
our paper PROVES this hypothesis wrong and PROVES another explanation
of the Hubble's red shift. After quite long posting in which he says
different reasons preventing him from reading this paper and that I'm
every time in some way wrong, I came to a mind that he 'has no wish to
read' what he factually has read but was unable to disprove. So he has
cut our citation, 'lest to see' our arguments, in order to 'prove' me
anyway wrong and him having a right to do not read. How banal.

The professional has to meet such scientific challenges with an
objective criticism and scientific argumentation, if any. If he has
not, he has to take the truth as it is, irrespectively to, which
'truth' would be more convenient for him. Otherwise this would be
already not the science.

Regrettably, it concerns you too. Not for the sake of opposition I
asked you to solve the problem. It's a very simple problem, only not
for conventional techniques. As I see, you are escaping to answer. In
vain. It's disadvantageous not for me. You are escaping the
opportunities that give development.

Regards,
Sergey.
  #7  
Old July 23rd 03, 05:50 PM
greywolf42
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Little Red Riding Hood asks Grey Wolf


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

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

...
Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
m...
greywolf42 ) wrote in thread "Myth or Science?
(Tired Light)"

{snip the references to the other thread, addressed in the other

thread}
.
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.

I intentionally put these questions to your thread and make a new

one,
"Little Red Riding Hood asks Grey Wolf", as I want much to hear

your
answer.

First off, I have no desire to tie up my phone line for hours

reading
your
missive. Might I suggest you provide an acrobat version? I did

copy
the
pages one at a time -- then copied the figures. After killing a

half
hour
this way, I noted that your equations are all graphics, too.

Yes I can send it, though in future you may be interesting to know
that there exists an option "Save as html". Copy each page and then
walk through the paper to your heart's content, as all links will be
inside your machine.


If one "saves as html" one does indeed get the text. That's what I

started
by doing. However, the "links" in that html document are links to the
equation graphics. Which do NOT get downloaded when one "saves as

html."

Of course, you had to choose in "save as" the option "save as a whole"
or "save as a frame".


Those two options do not exist on my web browser.

About two thousand people have loaded pages from
our journal to their machines, but you are the first who had such
problems.


Then you certainly don't need my review.

But I suspend, not this is a problem... You are
saying, you are Wolf, but play cunning as Fox.


Your attitude is showing.


You yet have responded no questions you were asked, but already
created so many problems lest to respond or to get off with chatter,
as you used to. My attitude is in full accordance with such behaviour.
;-)


I do not need to answer your request. You were asking me to do you a favor.

We intentionally divide
our papers into logic fragments, light and immediately appearing at
your screen. Could you explain, how have you succeed to copy first
pages, then figures? You turned off the pictures? But you know, the
pictures and formulas will be for certain in a paper. Why do you
accuse me that you had to copy again with figures?


I'm not "accusing" you of anything. I merely pointed out that your

method
of displaying a paper as a web page, with equations inserted as graphics
forces one to either read on-line (tying up a phone line for however

long it
takes to read the document), or to spend a long time downloading each
equation one at a time. I simply refuse to invest that amount of time.


It's an usual way - to put the formulas as gif files, only you have
these difficulties.


Perhaps I'm not the only one. Maybe I'm the only one who bothered to
complain.

Why? ;-) There simply is no way to type the
formulas for sites in a normal appearance. If you have some difficulty
with your software, this is not my guilt but your difficulty. Rather,
you have a great wish to do not see this paper, but this is another
matter.


I have no difficulty with my software. I merely refuse to tie up my phone
line for hours, while reading your website.

So I read your abstract, and your abstract contained a very

elementary
logical flaw. You reference a proof in your paper based on "The

alternative
theory of the quanta ageing also cannot provide the necessary rigour

of
the
red shift substantiation, since, on one hand, it contradicts the

postulates
of photon hypothesis..." This is not a scientific argument.

From which moon have you fallen, Wolf? You don't think a scientific
argument the substantiation that there is a mistake in the
conventional statement of problem? Terrific!! It remains only to speak
a little of your objective estimations. Though, when looking through
your thread, I already have convinced that you haven't it. Could you
explain me for example, why have you cut the citation from our
abstract:

"The alternative theory of the quanta ageing also cannot provide the
necessary rigour of the red shift substantiation, since, on one hand,
it contradicts the postulates of photon hypothesis..."

(of course, this is yet not argument as such, but it was necessary to
mention it, or in the view of conventional paradigm our statement
would be incomplete), just cutting our

"...and on the other hand, it is unable to substantiate the consistent
mechanism of ageing. The mechanism suggested by Atsukovsky (grounded
on the viscosity of the aether) does not provide the regularity of the
shift of light frequency with the growing distance from the source.

In the course of additional analysis of the properties of interstellar
medium, we have revealed the necessary and sufficient conditions of
spontaneous radio luminescence excitation..."

This is just because of what you dispense virtual encouragement to
your like-minded colleagues. You point-blank don't see what is
disadvantageous for you? Maybe, this was the real reason, why you had
problems with copying our paper? But one oughtn't to be so biased.



I didn't cut anything from you abstract. I simply pointed out that one
piece of your abstract contains a very elementary logical flaw. And it
remains a very elementary logical flaw -- and you have not even

attempted to
address a response to my point. You simply diverted into other parts of
your abstract.

If you begin your paper with elementary errors of logic, my motivation

to
continue through your paper is seriously reduced.


This is not "other part of my abstract", these are just next words of
the same sentence to which you refer and which you have actually cut,
in order to obtain the "logic flaw" which is factually absent.


The logic flaw exists, regardless of whether you tag on additional
information.

I
understand so that you have read the paper without any difficulty, but
you felt it disadvantageous for you, and you are unable to disprove it
by way of honest criticism.


But I have no need to "disprove" it.

This is why you are ready to 'invent'
however incredible reasons to excuse, why you 'didn't read' it and
have no intention to read. You can speak however much of MY attitude,
but I have sent this paper to your e-mail box on 16 July, what are the
next problems?

What prevents you now to discuss our results that hit
just the nail of your scientific interest, as you ought being a
professional? I don't see you discussing this material which you
already have in your machine, even not an acknowledgement, but again
the 'reasons', why you will not read it. When the scientist rejects to
take disadvantageous arguments into consideration, he stops to be a
scientist, all the rest is playing cunning.


I thank you for the e-mail attachment with the figures. The only "problem"
that exists is my finding the time to wade through your missive. Your
missive is a low priority for me, and I've had many other "real world"
activities to keep me busy.


Hence, rather than spend another half-hour or 45 minutes trying to

download
the pieces of your webpages, could you just send me an e-mail with

the
equation graphics?

Well, find this paper in your e-mail box. Please reply here on thread.


greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas


  #8  
Old July 23rd 03, 05:54 PM
greywolf42
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Little Red Riding Hood asks Grey Wolf


Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
om...
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message

...
In article ,
greywolf42 wrote:

Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
. com...


Yes I can send it, though in future you may be interesting to know
that there exists an option "Save as html". Copy each page and then
walk through the paper to your heart's content, as all links will be
inside your machine.

If one "saves as html" one does indeed get the text. That's what I

started
by doing. However, the "links" in that html document are links to the
equation graphics. Which do NOT get downloaded when one "saves as

html."

In Netscape I can "Open Page in Composer" and then save it, and it will
save all the pictures, too, if the pictures use relative links. If the
pictures have absolute links, the phone will dial whenever I try to read
the page.


This is the principle of our e-journal - all links to formulas and
figures within the papers are relative. These are usual html-pages -
the text, formulas and figures inserted into a hidden table. This is
why I'm surprised: many hundreds of people have loaded our papers to
their machines, and no one had such problems. As I see, should he had
a wish to consider the issue, he would not have this problem, too.
Perhaps something other disturbs him.

He said me not to discuss in his thread but to create a new one - I
did so. He said me to send this paper to his e-mail box - I did so.
Another thing is, he defends the hypothesis of 'tired light',


I am not defending "tired light" in the thread you attempted to hijack. The
thread was explicitly and ONLY to identify historic arguments against tired
light.

whilst
our paper PROVES this hypothesis wrong and PROVES another explanation
of the Hubble's red shift.


Papers never "prove" anything. And there are many tired-light hypotheses.
Did you disprove them all? (I guess I'll find out.)

After quite long posting in which he says
different reasons preventing him from reading this paper and that I'm
every time in some way wrong, I came to a mind that he 'has no wish to
read' what he factually has read but was unable to disprove. So he has
cut our citation, 'lest to see' our arguments, in order to 'prove' me
anyway wrong and him having a right to do not read. How banal.

The professional has to meet such scientific challenges with an
objective criticism and scientific argumentation, if any. If he has
not, he has to take the truth as it is, irrespectively to, which
'truth' would be more convenient for him. Otherwise this would be
already not the science.

Regrettably, it concerns you too. Not for the sake of opposition I
asked you to solve the problem. It's a very simple problem, only not
for conventional techniques. As I see, you are escaping to answer. In
vain. It's disadvantageous not for me. You are escaping the
opportunities that give development.

Regards,
Sergey.





  #9  
Old July 23rd 03, 09:09 PM
greywolf42
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Little Red Riding Hood asks Grey Wolf


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?


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.)

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.

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.

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.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas








  #10  
Old August 8th 03, 09:45 PM
Sergey Karavashkin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Little Red Riding Hood asks Grey Wolf

"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?


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.)

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.

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.

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.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas


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. ;-)

In particular, you are writing, I didn't present all existing
hypotheses. 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. 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. 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. 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. So all substantiations
of red shift based on the photon theory are beforehand known to be
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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.