Cosmic acceleration rediscovered

George Dishman wrote in message
...

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

I've already discussed it in great detail. You simply ignore it, and
parrot the current paradigm.

Actually, you haven't discussed any alternative, you
have only acussed me of assuming the conventional
theory is the only possibility. That isn't true.

Yes, that's his usual modus operandi. Probably he will soon start
calling you a troll...

Could be, I thought he was trolling when we started.

Wrong again.

[snip]

you'll simply parrot Misner, Thorne and
Wheeler's repetition of Zel'dovich's hand-waving and nonsubstative
statements.

I don't have MTW so I don't know what is said. Give
me a hint.

The relevant post would be the one with Google MessageID
.

Thanks. Two things puzzle me about that post. First,
quoting MTW, item (3) it says:

"If there does not exist any such decay process,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
then simple arguments ... probability per second of
'photon decay' ..."

It seems odd to give the probability of something
that doesn't happen,

Yes. The entire argument is hokey.

and then quoting Zel'dovich the text is:

"We ask the question: if there were such a process,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
how could the decay probability w for a photon
depend on its frequency?"

Is there a typo somehere in these as the condition
seems to be reversed between the passages.

No typo.

Second, item (2) appears to deal with a reduction
in energy of the photon by decay into two products
while item (3) seems to be talking of a complete
loss of the particle. Wouldn't the latter only
reduce the intensity rather than change the
frequency? Perhaps I am misunderstanding the
passage as it is out of context.

It is not out of context. That is the entire passage.

It is also worthwile to look at the other posts in that thread
by greywolf42 - and at the discussion between him and Franz Heymann in
the thread "Comments on lack of Lightcurve Evidence?" in sci.physics.

The thread seems to be just repeating the more recent
version above. I've sampled most of Franz's posts and
I'll try to find his quantitative analysis over the
weekend as his conclusion seem a little different to
mine, but my approach was perhaps less general.

Don't sweat too hard. Franz never posted it. However, he did
admit that he had assumed compton scattering to get his numbers.

Thanks for the pointers.

You are welcome.

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

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

George Dishman wrote:

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

I've already discussed it in great detail. You simply ignore it, and
parrot the current paradigm.

Actually, you haven't discussed any alternative, you
have only acussed me of assuming the conventional
theory is the only possibility. That isn't true.

Yes, that's his usual modus operandi. Probably he will soon start
calling you a troll...

Could be, I thought he was trolling when we started.

I also often thought this...

Hey, careful! You guys will break your arms, patting each other on the
back!

[snip]

you'll simply parrot Misner, Thorne and
Wheeler's repetition of Zel'dovich's hand-waving and nonsubstative
statements.

I don't have MTW so I don't know what is said. Give
me a hint.

The relevant post would be the one with Google MessageID
.

Thanks. Two things puzzle me about that post. First,
quoting MTW, item (3) it says:

"If there does not exist any such decay process,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
then simple arguments ... probability per second of
'photon decay' ..."

It seems odd to give the probability of something
that doesn't happen, and then quoting Zel'dovich
the text is:

"We ask the question: if there were such a process,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
how could the decay probability w for a photon
depend on its frequency?"

Is there a typo somehere in these as the condition
seems to be reversed between the passages.

I have not read the original text,

Of course, you didn't read the original, Bjoern! That's what was so funny.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10....supernews.com

but yes, this indeed looks like a typo.

But, no. It's not a typo.

Didn't you learn from the prior exchange when you were claiming that MTW's
quotes "looked like" a mere summarization of Zel'dovich's conclusions. Go
read Zel'dovich, if you want to question my typing skills, lazybones.

Second, item (2) appears to deal with a reduction
in energy of the photon by decay into two products
while item (3) seems to be talking of a complete
loss of the particle. Wouldn't the latter only
reduce the intensity rather than change the
frequency? Perhaps I am misunderstanding the
passage as it is out of context.

I'm also not entirely sure about this, but I think when he
talks about the "decay" of a photon, he does not mean here
that it is completely lost - he means that its *energy*
"decays".

Items 2 and 3 are two separate arguments. But they're both pretty dippy
arguments, don't you think?

[snip]

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

George Dishman wrote in message
...

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

{snip higher levels}

Hubble's data was all low z so the question didn't arise.

Precisely!!!!!! Thank you for proving my point.

If your point is that Hubble didn't have access
to modern data, then I never contested it.

That wasn't my point.

The
fact remains that linearity in the Hubble Law
is between speed and distance.

That was my point. Repeatedly.

Now that we're on the same page, I will snip any repetitions of the issue
about what is contained ... or not contained ... in the Hubble Law.

{snip "content of Hubble Law" arguments}

In other models
such as Tired Light, there is no such relationship.

Finally! There is no such assumption required to meet the data.

I have said repeatedly that I'm open to considering
alternative assumptions. Whether they can "meet the
data" remains to be seen.

Wrong. Google search proves that the first occurrence of the word
"alternative" in this thread is your mention of Zwicky, 1929, above.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=co...dom2surf.ne t

No, we are discussing your claims that linearity of the
Hubble Law is assumed in modern Big Bang theory.

No, we are discussing the assumption that redshift and speed are always
directly related. We aren't discussing the BB theory.

Sorry, go check the messages that started this.

I did, and you are wrong again. The message that began this was my post in
sci.astro, of a reply that was banned in s.a.r:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=pD...ewsgroup s.co
m

There is no mention of the big bang at all in that post. I quote: "The
"Hubble's law" to which you are referring is a theoretical construct.
Hubble's data connects distance with redshift -- not with recession
velocity."

The first mention of the big bang in the thread was my correction of your
confusing the Big Bang with GR. Which was about your fifth post in the
sequence.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=RL...lashnews grou
ps.com

Now, can we get back to the physics of redshift and speed, and the SN1a
data?

{snip higher levels}

Actually, you haven't discussed any alternative, you
have only acussed me of assuming the conventional
theory is the only possibility. That isn't true.

You finally admitted it on the last round.

I admitted no such thing. What I said was that the fact
that I am willing to consider alternatives hadn't been
clear in previous posts. It still remains true.

You finally admitted that tired light theories were conceivable in the prior
round. That was the first mention of any alternative.

So, while your statement is
literally true, it is disingenuous.

I would say the same of your attempt to suggest I
admitted something when it is obvious I didn't.

My statement was that you had finally admitted to an alternative in that
post. Not that you admitted to refusing to consider them, prior to that
post.

(A)

What I can't grasp is why you keep charging an open
door. I am aware of the current interpretation and
of Zwicky's 1929 alternative of exponential photon
energy degradation, commonly known as "Tired Light".
That has an exponential relationship between redshift
and distance but is ruled out in other ways.

Finally, we come to your real objections!

Citation(s), please.

Well the most obvious is the intensity of the CMBR:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.gif

The energy degradation variant of Tired light

Which one? *ALL* tired light theories have energy degradation! (Even
if Ned Wright's strawmen don't fit into this category.)

I think it was clear I meant those where individual
photons lose energy but are not destroyed.

It wasn't clear at all. All you are doing is demonstrating a fundamental
ignorance of the subject.

would reduce the energy of each photon but not the flux.

That is the assumption of the BB.

Nonsense, it is simply a consequence of the fact that
the number of particles is conserved.

It is assuming that the number of particles is conserved, *while* the big
bang expansion is going on. It also assumes that the CMBR is the BB
afterglow. Which is a second-order BB assumption. Eddington first
predicted 3 deg K for the temperature of local "space" simply based on local
stellar light inputs -- in 1923. A prediction that the BB never made.

It is not part of all tired light theories.

Which is why I tried to indivcate that that argument
only applied to a specific subset.

But there is no 'subset'. By definition, all "tired light" theories have
energy degredation with distance or time. That's what the term *means.*
Some theories are QM based, retaining photons as a QM entity. Others don't.

(It is true of Vigier's QM version, I believe. But not of
Maxwell's, Olber's, or LeSages.)

There may be others as well. I don't pretend to know
of all the possibilities but the point is that those
in which the red-shift mechanism does not also reduce
the flux of photons need to find a way to "meet the
data" as you put it from FIRAS.

The data from FIRAS is not a confirmation that the universe expanded. That
is the BB assumption of the origin of the CMBR, again.

snip

The
graphic is from Ned Wright's page but I'm sure you
understand the objection without a specific citation.

Oh, I understand it all right.

Then why waste time above pretending you didn't.

Huh? I never stated that I didn't understand Ned Wright's graphic. My
prior response was the first one after you brought that strawman in.

snip more ad hominems

Let's look at this claim. First, let us provide the rest of the paragraph
that you snipped:
=======================
Ned Wright's pages are just chock full of
spurious, hand-waving, and downright dishonest assertions. I also
understand why BB supporters constantly have to resort to vague, hand-wavy
assertions, such as yours.

(See the links below.)
=======================
The first sentence addresses the web pages proffered by you and not an
individual (hence they are not ad hominem). The second page describe the
vague, handwavy assertion that you made (again not an ad hominem).

And finally, I provided some links to back up my evaluations of the
arguments on Ned Wright's page, and the ones you provided. So that you can
evaluate my characterizations of Ned's arguments.


I suspect you'll simply parrot Misner, Thorne and
Wheeler's repetition of Zel'dovich's hand-waving and nonsubstative
statements.

I don't have MTW so I don't know what is said. Give
me a hint.

Here's a link discussing both Ned Wright and MTW:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10....supernews.com

And another with more detail:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10....supernews.com

See my reply to Bjoern on those threads.

I did. Pretty pathetic wriggling, don't you think?

Either something
got damaged in the cut & paste (maybe MTW's ;-) or I misread
the quotes.

Nope. Those are direct quotes. No typos. And you didn't misread them.
Those disjointed, hand-waving arguments are all that orthodoxy has to offer.
That was the whole point of the thread.

For whatever reason, I don't follow the third one.

That's because it makes no sense at all. As I point out in the linked
posts.

Anyway, as you can see, I gave you a different argument above.

Hey, I enjoy being proved wrong on that kind of prediction. Even if your
argument was just a repetition of a vague and hand-wavy effort by Ned
Wright, instead of MTW. (Ned seems to have replaced his original MTW
references after my posts, above.) At least I got to see a new argument!

Though I've heard of these, I'm not familiar in detail
with either so can you provide an on-line primer? I'm
quite open to considering alteratives.

I could, but I won't bother.

Fair enough.

My point was that the only defense you had was
a 1929 theory by Zwicky (The best you could do was find a different
strawman). You aren't even sure *why* Zwicky is out of favor. But yet,
you use it to claim that *ALL* tired light theories are disproved.

That's a lie. Provide a reference.

Look up to (A), above.

(1) "I am aware of the current interpretation and of Zwicky's 1929
alternative"
(2) "exponential photon energy degradation, commonly known as 'Tired
Light'."
(3) "ruled out in other ways"

And -- laughably -- you provide your own link, below. To the post where you
claim that all tired light theories *are* Zwicky's theory ... because they
have
energy degradation.

My point was simply that you are ignoring the possibility that your
(and Hubbles, and the BB's) primary assumption is simply incorrect.
If all you can do is parrot a claim that *one* 1929 theory is not
currently accepted, you are on very thin ice.

I take each on it's merits.

You don't even know *WHY* Zwicky's theory is out of favor! Yet, you
claimed that *ALL* such theories are disproved,

That's a lie too. Provide a reference.

My first sentence, above, is a conclusion. You admitted to not reading MTW,
before. And Ned's website wasn't around in the 1930s. In this thread, it
didn't appear that you'd read even Ned's webpage (which used to refer to
MTW) until the post immediately before. My conclusion was incorrect, but
not without foundation.

My claim in the second sentence is shown in (A), and above, item (3). And
in your own link, farther below. You wouldn't listen to Aladar's claims
that his theory was different. You insisted that *all* theories are the
same as Zwicky's.

simply because Zwicky's was. That
is not taking each theory on it's merits!

"Tired Light" is a generic
term which is why I described energy decay specifically.
Obviously different mechanisms for the energy loss could
be subject to different tests.

Precisely!!!!! Yet you dismissed them all, without even looking.

I have never made any such claim. What I said was:

Actually, you haven't discussed any alternative, you
have only acussed me of assuming the conventional
theory is the only possibility. That isn't true.

So again you are lying.

Not in the least. You wouldn't even consider the option (of a nonlinear
spatial relationship of redshift and distance) as a possibility, until your
mention of Zwicky, above. You always insisted on a "constant of
proportionality."

The point of contention is your bullheaded refusal to even consider
something not containing the assumption that redshift is
always-and-only connected to motion.

I have repeatedly said I would consider alternatives

Wrong again. Google search proves that the first occurrence of the word
"alternative" in this thread is your mention of Zwicky, 1929, above.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=co...dom2surf.ne t

You stated that you would only consider alternatives that included the
redshift-speed relationship a constant.

That's a lie too. Provide a reference.

Another false claim disproved. From:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Z9...lashnews grou
ps.com
=============
Why are you so fixated

Fixated? I mentioned it once purely in the context of
the source of the term.

You've used it at least a dozen times in the thread. I'm not talking about
the word use. I'm talking about the assumption that you keep making.

on a "constant of proportionality," to the exclusion of
the beginning of an exponential function?

Apparently it's my turn to expand your mind, they are not
exclusive.

Then why do you constantly ignore the possibility that the redshift-distance
relation is an exponential curve?
=============
And many other locations, where you insist on only considering *only* a
"constant of proportionality."

but until the last few posts, you have griped almost
entirely about 'linearity'.

And that is still the issue. The nonlinearity of the data. Versus the
linearity of the theory.

And again you try to create the strawman.

Strawman? It's the starting point of the original post in the thread in
this newsgroup! As documented, above.

The linearity
in the theory is between speed and distance while the
data relates redshift and distance, or more accurately
redshift and magnitude of standard candles.

Yes. That's my point.

Eventually, you wore down to admitting that tired light theories
existed.

ROFL! You really are a card. Do your research, find out
who told Aladar Stolmar that he wasn't the first to
propose that tired light had an exponential relationship
to distance:


mon.co.uk

That was over three years ago.

LOL! And that old post demonstrates that you haven't learned much. You are
fighting by invoking the same set of strawman sources as you were then!
Aladar was trying to point this out, but you simply avoided the issue by
claiming that Zwicky's theory was considered disproved, so his theory must
be too. Even though Aladar pointed out the strawman nature of Ned's
(repeated) argument.

And since you knew better, why did you play dumb for so long in this thread?
(Your position in this thread was that a nonlinear distance-redshift
relationship was not an option.)

Still you seem to be
enjoying yourself, beating about the bush, so I'll
just wait for you to get wherever your're going.

LOL!

But you claimed they were not viable on other grounds. Even though you
didn't know offhand what those "grounds" were.

I hope you now realise
that criticism of current conventional cosmology is
not valid.

We aren't discussing criticism of "conventional cosmology." But about a
single issue. Whether the assumption direct, linear relationship
between redshift and speed is valid.

Again you try to slip in the strawman,

It's not a strawman. It is the first statement of the first post in the
thread in this newsgroup.

I am not aware
of _any_ theory that uses such a relationship other than
as an approximation when vc.

Yet we just discussed tired light a few lines above.

In conventional theory
the proportionality is between speed and distance at
a given epoch while redshift is given by the change in
scale factor a(t).

Here comes the "epoch" stuff again. And "conventional" theory.

Yet the subject is the difference between observation and theory.

Or whether tired light theories -- which
predicted the data that big bangers now claim for "dark energy" -- can
be considered.

Of course they can be considered, but as you said, they
must be consistent with the data. Different theories
may be best tested against different data

ROTFLMAO!!! They all have to be tested against the *same* data!

so stop
handwaving and start discussing specifics. Otherwise
all I can do is give you general indications of the
tests that can be applied.

Well, one test was the prediction of the nonlinearity discovered in the SN1a
data. That big-bangers now classify as "dark energy."

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

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

George Dishman wrote in message
...

[snip]

No, I am saying that in one model, where speed is taken
as the cause, speed is then proportional distance provided
distance is defined at a specific epoch.

And that is assuming that redshift always equates to speed. Why did you
start with "no?"

Because the conversation was about the linear
reationship in the Hubble Law, and that relates
speed to distance at a given epoch. The relationship
between redshift and speed is only linear for vc.
Your attempts to sugggest I argued something other
than that are just a waste of time.

I'm quite sure that greywolf simply did not understand your arguments.

LOL! Getting your jollies by patting George on the back, Bjoern?

[snip]

Actually, you haven't discussed any alternative, you
have only acussed me of assuming the conventional
theory is the only possibility. That isn't true.

You finally admitted it on the last round.

I admitted no such thing. What I said was that the fact
that I am willing to consider alternatives hadn't been
clear in previous posts. It still remains true.

So, while your statement is
literally true, it is disingenuous.

I would say the same of your attempt to suggest I
admitted something when it is obvious I didn't.

greywolf's usual debating tactics...

What, pointing out the obvious? I especially like your chiming in after
Bill performs the Kindergarten, "well what about you?" attempt to divert.


[snip]


would reduce the energy of each photon but not the flux.

That is the assumption of the BB.

Nonsense, it is simply a consequence of the fact that
the number of particles is conserved.

greywolf displays his usual problems with understanding actual
physical arguments...

LOL! Like Bjoern's understanding about the physical arguments of MTW and
Zel'dovich? At least I make the attempt to read them.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10....supernews.com

[snip]


The
graphic is from Ned Wright's page but I'm sure you
understand the objection without a specific citation.

Oh, I understand it all right.

Then why waste time above pretending you didn't.

Because he likes trolling, probably.

LOL! Keep that nose brown, Bjoern. Hey! Is Bill on one of your review
committees?


[snip]


Though I've heard of these, I'm not familiar in detail
with either so can you provide an on-line primer? I'm
quite open to considering alteratives.

I could, but I won't bother.

Fair enough.

And yet again a favorite of greywolf's tactics: first whine
endlessly that your opponent does not want to consider alternatives,
but when asked where one can read up on these alternatives, simply
refuse to provide references.

ROTFLMAO!

He tried that game with me several times...

A pathetic lie.



My point was that the only defense you had was
a 1929 theory by Zwicky (The best you could do was find a different
strawman). You aren't even sure *why* Zwicky is out of favor. But yet,
you use it to claim that *ALL* tired light theories are disproved.

That's a lie. Provide a reference.

Either he won't bother, or he will try to misrepresent one of
your arguments so that it looks like as if it supports his
assertion above...

No need, its in black and white (or light and dark).


[snip]


Or whether tired light theories -- which
predicted the data that big bangers now claim for "dark energy" -- can
be considered.

Of course they can be considered, but as you said, they
must be consistent with the data. Different theories
may be best tested against different data so stop
handwaving and start discussing specifics.

He won't. He is good at trolling, at making broad, sweeping
claims - but when backed to a corner, he resorts to insults
and the like,

I identify problems with arguments. I don't generally insult people.

but never bothers to actually back up his claims
with hard data and references.

A completely fraudulant claim.

He only uses references when
he thinks they disprove the BBT or show a weak point in it.

ROTFLMAO! Bjoern, your own personal fixation on the BB is your problem, not
mine.

[snip]

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

I'm going to reply in full to this but it's already
much too long. Can I suggest either you do some severe
snipping or I will on my next reply.


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

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

{snip higher levels}

Hubble's data was all low z so the question didn't arise.

Precisely!!!!!! Thank you for proving my point.

If your point is that Hubble didn't have access
to modern data, then I never contested it.

That wasn't my point.

The
fact remains that linearity in the Hubble Law
is between speed and distance.

That was my point. Repeatedly.

Now that we're on the same page, I will snip any repetitions of the issue
about what is contained ... or not contained ... in the Hubble Law.

OK, let's put a stake in the ground and stick to that
from now on, but bear in mind that the distance is
measured at a given epoch, not at the time of emission.
Changing to time of emission makes it non-linear. Sorry
to be repetitious, I know I've pointed it out many times
already, but you seem to keep forgetting it.

I have said repeatedly that I'm open to considering
alternative assumptions. Whether they can "meet the
data" remains to be seen.

Wrong. Google search proves that the first occurrence of the word
"alternative" in this thread is your mention of Zwicky, 1929, above.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=co...dom2surf.ne t

However, two posts before that in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...uk.clara. net

I said:
I am happy to acknowledge the possibility of a non-
linear relationship between redshift and distance at
a given epoch.

I am happy to consider causes of redshift other than
motion.

I just didn't use the word "alternative"

In my following post
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...s.uk.clara.net

I said
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

... the observed relation
between red-shift and distance is a combination of
the relation between redshift a given epoch together
with the time variation of any parameters in the
former. Either or both (or even neither) could be
non-linear but the combination should match the
(non-linear) observed data. ...

Prior to those the conversation was mostly about
the proportionality in the Hubble Law.

No, we are discussing your claims that linearity of the
Hubble Law is assumed in modern Big Bang theory.

No, we are discussing the assumption that redshift and speed are always
directly related. We aren't discussing the BB theory.

Sorry, go check the messages that started this.

I did, and you are wrong again. The message that began this was my post
in
sci.astro, of a reply that was banned in s.a.r:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=pD...ewsgroup s.co
m

There is no mention of the big bang at all in that post. I quote: "The
"Hubble's law" to which you are referring is a theoretical construct.
Hubble's data connects distance with redshift -- not with recession
velocity."

True, I got that wrong.
snip

Now, can we get back to the physics of redshift and speed, and the SN1a
data?

I think it better not to reintroduce that, let's finish
discussing Tired Light first.

{snip higher levels}

Actually, you haven't discussed any alternative, you
have only acussed me of assuming the conventional
theory is the only possibility. That isn't true.

You finally admitted it on the last round.

I admitted no such thing. What I said was that the fact
that I am willing to consider alternatives hadn't been
clear in previous posts. It still remains true.

You finally admitted that tired light theories were conceivable in the
prior
round. That was the first mention of any alternative.

You miss my point, I have never admitted "assuming the
conventional theory is the only possibility." because
it isn't true. Whether we have talked about alternatives
or not is beside the point. You may have incorrectly
presumed that I thought the conventional model was "the
only possibility" but that is not the case. As I point
out elsewhere, I was aware of alternatives at least three
years ago.

So, while your statement is
literally true, it is disingenuous.

I would say the same of your attempt to suggest I
admitted something when it is obvious I didn't.

My statement was that you had finally admitted to an alternative in that
post. Not that you admitted to refusing to consider them, prior to that
post.

No, your claim was that I had admitted "assuming the
conventional theory is the only possibility." That is
untrue. It is true that we only discussed alternatives
recently but that is another matter.


(A)

What I can't grasp is why you keep charging an open
door. I am aware of the current interpretation and
of Zwicky's 1929 alternative of exponential photon
energy degradation, commonly known as "Tired Light".
That has an exponential relationship between redshift
and distance but is ruled out in other ways.

Finally, we come to your real objections!

Citation(s), please.

Well the most obvious is the intensity of the CMBR:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.gif

The energy degradation variant of Tired light

Which one? *ALL* tired light theories have energy degradation! (Even
if Ned Wright's strawmen don't fit into this category.)

I think it was clear I meant those where individual
photons lose energy but are not destroyed.

It wasn't clear at all.

If it wasn't clear, you should have looked back at the
quoted text for the context to see that I was taking
a specific example, not claiming a general result.

... All you are doing is demonstrating a fundamental
ignorance of the subject.

would reduce the energy of each photon but not the flux.

That is the assumption of the BB.

Nonsense, it is simply a consequence of the fact that
the number of particles is conserved.

It is assuming that the number of particles is conserved, *while* the big
bang expansion is going on.

No, the proof applies if the number is conserved even in
a steady state universe. Suppose we were at the centre of
a hot steel sphere of constant size, billions of light
years in diameter (silly, I know but it illustrates the
point), the energy of individual photons would be reduced
in transit by Tired Light but the rate of photons arriving
would not. The result would not match what was measured by
FIRAS.

snip
It is not part of all tired light theories.

Which is why I tried to indivcate that that argument
only applied to a specific subset.

But there is no 'subset'. ...
Some theories are QM based, retaining photons as a QM entity. Others
don't.

Thanks for illustrating those two subsets.

(It is true of Vigier's QM version, I believe. But not of
Maxwell's, Olber's, or LeSages.)

There may be others as well. I don't pretend to know
of all the possibilities but the point is that those
in which the red-shift mechanism does not also reduce
the flux of photons need to find a way to "meet the
data" as you put it from FIRAS.

The data from FIRAS is not a confirmation that the universe expanded.

I didn't say it was, my point stands.

Then why waste time above pretending you didn't.

Huh? I never stated that I didn't understand Ned Wright's graphic. My
prior response was the first one after you brought that strawman in.

My thinking was that, if you understand the graphic,
you must understand that it applies to some Tired
Light theories but not others so why did you pretend
I was saying it disproved _all_ Tired Light theories.

snip
I suspect you'll simply parrot Misner, Thorne and
Wheeler's repetition of Zel'dovich's hand-waving and nonsubstative
statements.

I don't have MTW so I don't know what is said. Give
me a hint.

Here's a link discussing both Ned Wright and MTW:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10....supernews.com

And another with more detail:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10....supernews.com

See my reply to Bjoern on those threads.

I did. Pretty pathetic wriggling, don't you think?

Either something
got damaged in the cut & paste (maybe MTW's ;-) or I misread
the quotes.

Nope. Those are direct quotes. No typos. And you didn't misread them.


If Zel'dovich said:
"We ask the question: if there were such a process,

and MTW supposedly copied it but it became:
"If there does not exist any such decay process,

something is wrong. Anyway, it's academic at present
since I didn't use those arguments.

snip
Anyway, as you can see, I gave you a different argument above.

Hey, I enjoy being proved wrong on that kind of prediction. Even if your
argument was just a repetition of a vague and hand-wavy effort

It gives a quantitative analysis for an example source
temperature. The only thing hand-wavy is that he cannot
use a specific temperature without a specific Tired Light
model to test. The example illustrates the method.

by Ned
Wright, instead of MTW. (Ned seems to have replaced his original MTW
references after my posts, above.) At least I got to see a new argument!

My point was that the only defense you had was
a 1929 theory by Zwicky (The best you could do was find a different
strawman). You aren't even sure *why* Zwicky is out of favor. But yet,
you use it to claim that *ALL* tired light theories are disproved.

That's a lie. Provide a reference.

Look up to (A), above.

I did, and nowhere did I claim it applied to *ALL* tired light
theories.

(1) "I am aware of the current interpretation and of Zwicky's 1929
alternative"
(2) "exponential photon energy degradation, commonly known as 'Tired
Light'."
(3) "ruled out in other ways"

And -- laughably -- you provide your own link, below. To the post where
you
claim that all tired light theories *are* Zwicky's theory ... because they
have
energy degradation.

The relevant text hasn't been snipped and is still above but
let me repeat it he

... I am aware of the current interpretation and
of Zwicky's 1929 alternative of exponential photon
energy degradation, commonly known as "Tired Light".
That has an exponential relationship between redshift
and distance but is ruled out in other ways.

Nowhere did I claim the FIRAS data ruled out *ALL* tired
light theories, that was your extrapolation.

My point was simply that you are ignoring the possibility that your
(and Hubbles, and the BB's) primary assumption is simply incorrect.
If all you can do is parrot a claim that *one* 1929 theory is not
currently accepted, you are on very thin ice.

I take each on it's merits.

You don't even know *WHY* Zwicky's theory is out of favor! Yet, you
claimed that *ALL* such theories are disproved,

That's a lie too. Provide a reference.

My first sentence, above, is a conclusion. You admitted to not reading
MTW, before.

True.

And Ned's website wasn't around in the 1930s.

Also true.

In this thread, it
didn't appear that you'd read even Ned's webpage (which used to refer to
MTW) until the post immediately before.

I've been using his pages since the late 1990's which
is why I knew I could go there to get the FIRAS data
comparison, but he does update them ocassionaly so you
may have got the wrong impression.

My conclusion was incorrect,

Thank you.

but
not without foundation.

I think in fact what misled you was not realising I was
commenting only on those Tired Light theories that lose
energy in a specific way. However, as long as we have
cleared that up, let's move on.

My claim in the second sentence is shown in (A), and above, item (3). And
in your own link, farther below. You wouldn't listen to Aladar's claims
that his theory was different. You insisted that *all* theories are the
same as Zwicky's.

Aladar's claim was that he was the first person ever to
suggest that Tired Light would produce an exponential
relationship between distance and frequency. I also
pointed out that _his_ theory was falsified by the FIRAS
data. That isn't the same as claiming "*all* Tired Light
theories are the same as Zwicky's."

simply because Zwicky's was. That
is not taking each theory on it's merits!

"Tired Light" is a generic
term which is why I described energy decay specifically.
Obviously different mechanisms for the energy loss could
be subject to different tests.

Precisely!!!!! Yet you dismissed them all, without even looking.

I have never made any such claim. What I said was:

Actually, you haven't discussed any alternative, you
have only acussed me of assuming the conventional
theory is the only possibility. That isn't true.

So again you are lying.

Not in the least. You wouldn't even consider the option (of a nonlinear
spatial relationship of redshift and distance) as a possibility, until
your
mention of Zwicky, above.

Technically I mentioned it two posts earlier as I said
way back but that's not the point.

You always insisted on a "constant of
proportionality."

Again that is misleading, what I have repeatedly pointed
out is that the proportionality in the Hubble Law is
between speed and distance at_a_given_epoch_. It is also
true that Hubble's data was linear but only because it
covered a very short time span.

The point of contention is your bullheaded refusal to even consider
something not containing the assumption that redshift is
always-and-only connected to motion.

I have repeatedly said I would consider alternatives

Wrong again. Google search proves that the first occurrence of the word
"alternative" in this thread is your mention of Zwicky, 1929, above.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=co...dom2surf.ne t

See the beginning of this post.

You stated that you would only consider alternatives that included the
redshift-speed relationship a constant.

That's a lie too. Provide a reference.

Another false claim disproved. From:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Z9...lashnews grou
ps.com
=============
Why are you so fixated

Fixated? I mentioned it once purely in the context of
the source of the term.

You've used it at least a dozen times in the thread. I'm not talking
about
the word use. I'm talking about the assumption that you keep making.

on a "constant of proportionality," to the exclusion of
the beginning of an exponential function?

The "constant of proportionality" applies to distance at
a given epoch versus speed. The lie is that I have ever
suggested that I "would only consider alternatives that
included the redshift-speed relationship a constant." To
be clear on that, I have never suggested the redshift was
prportional to speed other than in the first order
approximation for vc, and I have specifically said that
redshift is not proportional to speed for high z.

redshift-speed relationship a constant.
Apparently it's my turn to expand your mind, they are not
exclusive.

Then why do you constantly ignore the possibility that the
redshift-distance
relation is an exponential curve?

As I said:
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

I am happy to acknowledge the possibility of a non-
linear relationship between redshift and distance at
a given epoch.

I am happy to consider causes of redshift other than
motion.

If you ask about a specific theory in which the
relationship is exponential, we can discuss it.

=============
And many other locations, where you insist on only considering *only* a
"constant of proportionality."

I thought we had agreed on that:

It is clear to me that Hubble's Law (specifically
relating recessional velocity to distance at a given
epoch) can be derived from short range linearity of
velocity if the universe is homogenous and isotropic
at large scales. (You have to show a flaw in some
very simple logic to change my mind on that.)

To which you replied:
I never questioned it. ...

so I am prepared to consider alternatives but only if
you can show a flaw in that logic.

but until the last few posts, you have griped almost
entirely about 'linearity'.

And that is still the issue. The nonlinearity of the data. Versus the
linearity of the theory.

And again you try to create the strawman.

Strawman? It's the starting point of the original post in the thread in
this newsgroup! As documented, above.

Yes it was, and it was a strawman then too.

The linearity
in the theory is between speed and distance while the
data relates redshift and distance, or more accurately
redshift and magnitude of standard candles.

Yes. That's my point.

You said "The nonlinearity of the data. Versus the linearity
of the theory." implying these were in conflict. That would
only be true if the linearity in the theory applied to the
relationship between redshift and distance. The strawman
theory you are trying to imply is one in which that was the
case. Of course it would be easy to demonstrate such a theory
was wrong, but then that's the purpose of a strawman, it's
easy to knock down.

Eventually, you wore down to admitting that tired light theories
existed.

ROFL! You really are a card. Do your research, find out
who told Aladar Stolmar that he wasn't the first to
propose that tired light had an exponential relationship
to distance:


mon.co.uk

That was over three years ago.

LOL! And that old post demonstrates that you haven't learned much. You
are
fighting by invoking the same set of strawman sources as you were then!

The same data is just as effective now as it was then.

Aladar was trying to point this out, but you simply avoided the issue by
claiming that Zwicky's theory was considered disproved, so his theory must
be too. Even though Aladar pointed out the strawman nature of Ned's
(repeated) argument.

Ned's argument was valid but he made a mistake in
thinking the upper limit in Aladar's Basic program
was a physical limit in the theory. I talked to
Aladar about that and he told me it was a bodge he
put in because his software took about 20 hours to
run. He needed to integrate to infinity but couldn't
do the maths so ran it until he felt the results had
stabilised as very distant sources had negligible
effect on the results. Correcting Ned's error would
make the fit worse.

And since you knew better, why did you play dumb for so long in this
thread?
(Your position in this thread was that a nonlinear distance-redshift
relationship was not an option.)

Again that is a lie. My 'postion' as you call it was
that Aladar's theory could not match the FIRAS data.

As a separate topic, I pointed out that the exponential
form was obvious and that Zwicky had published it first.
Aladar's claim to originality was false.

Still you seem to be
enjoying yourself, beating about the bush, so I'll
just wait for you to get wherever your're going.

LOL!

But you claimed they were not viable on other grounds. Even though you
didn't know offhand what those "grounds" were.

I hope you now realise
that criticism of current conventional cosmology is
not valid.

We aren't discussing criticism of "conventional cosmology." But about
a
single issue. Whether the assumption direct, linear relationship
between redshift and speed is valid.

Again you try to slip in the strawman,

It's not a strawman. It is the first statement of the first post in the
thread in this newsgroup.

You are describing a ficticous theory in which redshift
should be proportional to distance even at high redshift.
That is a strawman, a distrotion of the actual Big Bang
models that you would find easier to discredit.

I am not aware
of _any_ theory that uses such a relationship other than
as an approximation when vc.

Yet we just discussed tired light a few lines above.

I am only aware of exponential or near-exponential
relationships in Tired Light theories as we discussed
before. I don't know of any theories, tired light or
otherwise, in which redshift is proportional to distance
for all distances.

In conventional theory
the proportionality is between speed and distance at
a given epoch while redshift is given by the change in
scale factor a(t).

Here comes the "epoch" stuff again. And "conventional" theory.

And it will continue to appear until you stop trying
to create a strawman theory in which it is redshift
would be proportional to distance.

Yet the subject is the difference between observation and theory.

Whatever the subject, I will continue to correct you
each time you try to raise your strawman.

Or whether tired light theories -- which
predicted the data that big bangers now claim for "dark energy" -- can
be considered.

Of course they can be considered, but as you said, they
must be consistent with the data. Different theories
may be best tested against different data

ROTFLMAO!!! They all have to be tested against the *same* data!

Heh, you got me on that one. I meant that particular
data may be able to falsify some theories but not others.

so stop
handwaving and start discussing specifics. Otherwise
all I can do is give you general indications of the
tests that can be applied.

Well, one test was the prediction of the nonlinearity discovered in the
SN1a
data. That big-bangers now classify as "dark energy."

Again you imply the strawman of expected linearity in the
SNe data. What is described as "dark energy" is the unknown
cause of the _deviation_ from the predicted _non-linearity_
which, in the conventional model, implies expansion is now
accelerating. The Hubble Law remains linear.

George

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

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

Yes, that's his usual modus operandi. Probably he will soon start
calling you a troll...

Could be, I thought he was trolling when we started.

Wrong again.

We'll see, you are still trying to use a strawman
and it still looks as though your motive is to
generate an argument. When you stop, I'll be
pleased to know my first impression was incorrect.

... I've sampled most of Franz's posts and
I'll try to find his quantitative analysis over the
weekend as his conclusion seem a little different to
mine, but my approach was perhaps less general.

Don't sweat too hard. Franz never posted it. However, he did
admit that he had assumed compton scattering to get his numbers.

Since you haven't spoken about specific theories but
discuss Tired Light in general, that's either you
get general answers or he has to illustrate the point
with specific examples. That's why I say I'm willing
to consider alternatives to conventional theories but
I'm still waiting for you to identify which alternative
you want to consider. Until you do that, I can only
speak in generalisations too.

George

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...
George Dishman wrote:
snip
Second, item (2) appears to deal with a reduction
in energy of the photon by decay into two products
while item (3) seems to be talking of a complete
loss of the particle. Wouldn't the latter only
reduce the intensity rather than change the
frequency? Perhaps I am misunderstanding the
passage as it is out of context.

I'm also not entirely sure about this, but I think when he
talks about the "decay" of a photon, he does not mean here
that it is completely lost - he means that its *energy*
"decays".

Ah, that's what I meant when I talked of "energy
degradation", I wanted to separate it from "decay"
in the radioactive sense. Thanks.

George

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

I'm also not entirely sure about this, but I think when he
talks about the "decay" of a photon, he does not mean here
that it is completely lost - he means that its *energy*
"decays".

Items 2 and 3 are two separate arguments. But they're both pretty dippy
arguments, don't you think?

2) doesn't show the working so I can't comment. It is
valid if it can be shown that there was a minimum value
for the energy of particle k but I don't see that it
follows if the energy loss can be arbitrarily small.

I would have tackled the situation described by 3) in a
different way and I might have applied the method in 3)
to the type of decay described in 2), but then I'm only
an amateur.

George

[Jumping into the fray...]
"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g That's part of it. Now, what *are* the measurements?

In the general sense, strictly, the measurements are of a wavelength
shift(s) of an emission (or absorption) line(s) which are then
combined with a distance estimate. The wavelength shift is described
as the redshift (because in practice essentially all galaxies spectra
are shifted toward the red end of the spectrum).

Observationally, redshift and distance are correlated.

The question to be answered is what effect(s) is responsible for this
redshift and therefore for producing this correlation. I'm aware of 4
that have been proposed.

1. Expansion of the Universe. Assuming that GR is the correct theory
of gravity, one can start with a universe filled with particles
exerting no pressure on each other and show that the universe
should either expand or contract. During the time it takes
radiation to propagate in an expanding universe, the universe
expands, leading to an increase in the wavelength or a redshift.
The magnitude of the redshift should be related to the distance, as
this is related to the time it takes the radiation to propagate.
This is the accepted explanation.

2. Doppler shift. This is the more "popular science" explanation, but
it is more of an approximation, valid at small values of the
redshift. (See previous Usenet discussions about the somewhat
subtle distinctions between this and the previous explanation.)

3. Gravitational redshift. In GR, massive bodies produce a redshift
of light. However, the magnitude of the redshift that can be
produce is much smaller than what is observed, and it is not clear
why there would be any correlation with distance.

4. Other ideas. Typically these are "tired light" ideas in which
light somehow loses energy as it propagates. Somewhat ad-hoc in
nature, they can be difficult to evaluate.

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

"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g "Joseph Lazio" wrote in message
news ...
"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g Then why do you constantly ignore the possibility that the
g redshift-distance relation is an exponential curve?
Do the data support such a notion?

g Yes.

O.k. I suppose that I am not surprised by that answer.

g For a quick reference, see Perlmutter, Figure 3, Physics Today,
g April 2003, "Supernovae, Dark Energy, and the Accelerating
g Universe".
g http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C...perlmutter.pdf

Figure 3? Is this the correct reference?

g Just notice that instead of "accelerating universe" and
g "decelerating universe" (...), one should read: "exponential
g redshift-distance relation" and "inverse exponential
g redshift-distance relation," respectively. Pure Hubble constant
g (...) lies on the straight line.

So write it up.

You're surely aware that the accelerating Universe was deemed one of
the greatest achievements of 1998(?) by the journal Science. If
that's wrong, you've got something even bigger.

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