A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Static Universe



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old May 14th 11, 11:19 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Thomas Smid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default Static Universe

On May 13, 7:21*am, Craig Markwardt wrote:

Mr. Smid has known about these issues for over five years now, so it's
dismaying to see him advocating the same misconceptions today, as if
he completely forgot about past history.



I am advocating whatever I consider appropriate and correct. And no, I
have not forgotten about the past discussion, but on the contrary
drawn from it. And whereas I don't see any reason to change my
previous position in view of the new measurements (in fact they are
very much consistent with it), hopefully you learn something new from
this thread.(but may be you don't want to learn)..

Thomas
  #42  
Old May 15th 11, 12:42 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Thomas Smid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default Static Universe

On May 9, 7:57*am, Eric Gisse wrote:

So it is impossible to have a Maxwell distribution of gas, say, in the
presence of a hot plate?

Interesting. Especially because this condition is not invoked in the
derivation of the distribution - just in how the particles are
distinguishable, largely non-interacting, etc...


If you can't get this from your books, then I am telling you it again:
not only is the conditions of a closed system required for a Maxwell-
Boltzmann distribution, but it is indeed the *only* condition required
(apart from of course that the particles must be able to share their
energy amongst each other by some kind of interaction (e.g.
collisions)). The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is then the
distribution to which the gas must relax (see my page
http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/maxwell.htm ).


The thing is, you have not read the papers on the subject at all. I
originally saw this like a day after you replied, but then my computer
crapped itself mid-stride and I was too ****ed off about both what you
wrote and the circumstances to reply immediately.

The problem of how the states were excited via thermal broadening and
collisional excitation was explained. In the paper. If you are
complaining about it, you have either not read the paper or did not
understand what you read. I am personally leaning towards the latter
option given that the details are still quoted in the block of text
below this.

I am curious to know which option you will embrace.



There is a third option, suggested by your profile "About me". I
quote:

"I'm a physics student - as in, I actually study physics unlike most
of the people I laugh at on these newsgroups."

This very much suggests that you essentially have no interest in a
scientific discussion in this newsgroup at all, but only in bullying
people who have a different opinion you don't agree with or are
unfamiliar with. If you think your young age and lack of experience is
an excuse for such a behaviour then think again.

Anybody who is actually interested in the scientific issue and has
enough experience to allow himself a judgment in this respect will
agree there is is nothing in those papers mentioned that you claim is
there (in some respects even the authors themselves would agree).

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to put you off physics, and neither
do I expect that you agree with my arguments, but you should really
try to get more experience (do actually some research, write some
papers) before you think you can challenge or even laugh at people who
have decades more experience in any respect than you have.

Thomas
  #43  
Old May 16th 11, 08:02 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Static Universe

On May 15, 4:42*am, Thomas Smid wrote:
On May 9, 7:57*am, Eric Gisse wrote:

So it is impossible to have a Maxwell distribution of gas, say, in the
presence of a hot plate?


Interesting. Especially because this condition is not invoked in the
derivation of the distribution - just in how the particles are
distinguishable, largely non-interacting, etc...


If you can't get this from your books, then I am telling you it again:
not only is the conditions of a closed system required for a Maxwell-
Boltzmann distribution, but it is indeed the *only* condition required
(apart from of course that the particles must be able to share their
energy amongst each other by some kind of interaction (e.g.
collisions)). The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is then the
distribution to which the gas must relax (see my pagehttp://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/maxwell.htm).


No, I will not read your page because I have actual textbooks on the
subject. You've demonstrated no competency in the subject.

The only real requirement is that the particles in question be
identical but distinguishable. It really is a straight forward
concept, and you are invoking unnecessary extra requirements that
exist only to buttress a failed argument.

The same points I raised here were raised in 2006 by Craig Markwardt,
with some of the *same* references. You didn't read them then, and you
didn't read them now. So it rather looks like this discussion has
ended.

I'll of course highlight the same arguments again the next time you
bring them up. But don't expect the assumption of intellectual honesty
on your part the next time through.

[snip rest]
  #44  
Old May 18th 11, 05:25 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Craig Markwardt[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Static Universe

On May 14, 6:19*pm, Thomas Smid wrote:
On May 13, 7:21*am, Craig Markwardt wrote:

Mr. Smid has known about these issues for over five years now, so it's
dismaying to see him advocating the same misconceptions today, as if
he completely forgot about past history.


I am advocating whatever I consider appropriate and correct. And no, I
have not forgotten about the past discussion, but on the contrary
drawn from it. And whereas I don't see any reason to change my
previous position in view of the new measurements (in fact they are
very much consistent with it), hopefully you learn something new from
this thread.(but may be you don't want to learn)..


In a free society, you are certainly able to consider whatever you
wish to be appropriate or correct. However, in a scientific society,
one needs to substantiate one's considerations with observations and
other evidence, which you did not do five years ago, nor today. What
I learned from this thread is that you are still advancing erroneous
misconceptions at a quite fundamental level. Let's consider:

FIVE YEARS AGO you claimed erroneously that there was no evidence of
T=2.73 in the local universe. Your assertion is incorrect because
temperatures *are* measured in the local universe using the same
techniques (McKellar 1940, McKellar 1941; Hertzberg 1950; Thaddeus &
Clauser 1966; Thaddeus 1972; Roth et al 1993) as well as different
techniques (ground-based: Penzias & Wilson 1965; space-based: COBE and
balloon measurements), the results of which are all consistent.
TODAY, you still make the same erroneous claim.

FIVE YEARS AGO you claimed erroneously that it was possible to use a
constant T=8K temperature for the microwave background at all
redshifts. You justified this presupposition by assuming that you
could discard the COBE temperature measurement, or any other single
measurement. Even if this assumption were valid - it's not -
discarding one measurement at low redshift still leaves many
measurements at low redshift which anchor the plot at T=2.73K.
TODAY, you advance the same erroneous canard about fitting a constant
T=8K.

FIVE YEARS AGO, you claimed erroneously that the theoretical work
assumed a simplistic Boltzmann (equilibrium) distribution for
radiative transfer, without explicit excitation rate calculations, and
were thus unreliable. Your assertion is incorrect because numerous
analyses *actually do* treat a full detailed balance with excitation
calculations (Meyer et al 1986; Molaro et al 2002; Silva & Viegas 2002
etc). The Silva & Viegas paper actually provided verification source
code, which you could have investigated but did not.
TODAY, you are making the same erroneous claim about Boltzmann
distributions.

FIVE YEARS AGO, you claimed that redshift was due to some kind of
refractive effect, but would not elaborate on its precise properties
(and indeed you confused refraction and diffraction, and also confused
chromatic and achromatic effects).
TODAY, nothing has changed; no new enlightenment of how your proposed
mechanism actually works.

FIVE YEARS AGO, you criticized refereed papers because you felt that
they "ride on a lot of empirical
approximations, assumptions and estimates and offer little in the way
of a coherent physical argument." And yet, you could not offer a
coherent physical argument of your own theory, and could not
substantiate it based on observational data. Your own
"estimates" (the ones I have seen) are often based on toy assumptions.
TODAY, nothing has changed; no new evidence, no new justification of
assumptions.

I learned a lot when I debated you six years ago, and because of my
literature searches, I appreciated the extensive observational and
theoretical underpinnings of research into the cosmic microwave
background. Based on the presentation above, I would argue that the
same could not be said of yourself.

CM

References
(I apologize for not updating with more references since the
mid-2000s, but even these references are sufficient to support my
argument)
Herzberg, G. 1950, *Molecular Spectra and Molecular Structure*,
* v. 1, 2nd Ed., (van Nostrand: Princeton, NJ) *-- p. 496
McKellar, A. 1940 PASP 52, 187
McKellar, A. 1941, Publ Dominion Astrophys. Obs., Victoria, BC, 7,
251
Molaro, P., et al. 2002, A&A, 381, L64
Meyer et al 1986, ApJL 308, L37
Penzias & Wilson 1965, ApJ, 142, 419
Roth, Meyer & Hawkins 1993, ApJL 413 L67
Silva, A. I. & Viegas, S. M. 2002 MNRAS, 329, 135
Srianand, R. Petitjean, P. & Ledoux, C. 2000, Nature, 408, 931
Thaddeus & Clauser, 1966, PRL, 16, 819
Thaddeus, P. 1972, Ann. Rev. Ast. Ap., 10, 305
  #45  
Old May 21st 11, 10:00 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Static Universe

On May 19, 9:18*am, Thomas Smid wrote:

[...]

I then showed (post #20) that these papers do not constitute a serious
problem at all for a non-cosmological redshift, by taking the results
from Srianand's paper and modifying their plot to actually include all
the error bars, which shows that without constraining the data by the
local COBE measurement, they are consistent with a temperature
independent of z as well (http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/imgs/srianand.gif
) .


Yeah, except that requires you assume the CMB temperature everywhere
is the same...everywhere but here. Your argument makes no logical or
physical sense.

Not that it matters, I've given you more recent articles that have a
far larger sample of data so I have no idea why you return to
discredited talking points.

[...]

Fine, I have never questioned that the data are consistent with a
(1+z) increase, but the point is that, due to the poor data quality,
each of the sets of measurements on their own is consistent with
almost any other dependence as well (in particular a constant
temperature). And due to the complexity and associated uncertainties
that enter the data analysis for each of the methods, and the
associated possible systematic errors, it is simply unacceptable that
such poor data are only made valid by constraining them externally. As
long as the (1+z) dependence can not be demonstrated consistently by
each of the methods separately, it is even pointless to discuss the
physics involved here. And nothing about that has changed in the last
5 years.

Thomas


Since the data quality has improved in a rather substantial manner,
the only thing that has not changed is your reflexive opposition.
Nobody is impressed by your arbitrary slander of the work of a LOT of
scientists.

How much data must contradict you before you finally give in?
  #46  
Old May 26th 11, 08:21 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Thomas Smid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default Static Universe

On May 25, 7:20*am, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On May 19, 12:18*pm, Thomas Smid wrote:


Fine, I have never questioned that the data are consistent with a
(1+z) increase, but the point is that, due to the poor data quality,
each of the sets of measurements on their own is consistent with
almost any other dependence as well (in particular a constant
temperature). And due to the complexity and associated uncertainties
that enter the data analysis for each of the methods, and the
associated possible systematic errors, it is simply unacceptable that
such poor data are only made valid by constraining them externally. As
long as the (1+z) dependence can not be demonstrated consistently by
each of the methods separately, it is even pointless to discuss the
physics involved here. ...



It's pretty convenient for you to arbitrarily divide the data sets
into small enough pieces so that you don't perceive a trend, and then
declare that a trend can't be measured! *


Small enough pieces? If your specific method of temperature
determination can not even clearly detect a temperature increase of a
factor 2 or so, you've got to ask yourself some serious questions, but
first and foremost the question, why you would want to bother the
scientific community with this.

These papers have 'We've tried but we failed' written all over them,
and I don't know why you keep on plugging them as evidence if not
proof for the (1+z) temperature increase..

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing more to say in this
respect.

Thomas
  #47  
Old May 26th 11, 12:41 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Static Universe

On May 26, 12:21 am, Thomas Smid wrote:
On May 25, 7:20 am, Craig Markwardt wrote:









On May 19, 12:18 pm, Thomas Smid wrote:
Fine, I have never questioned that the data are consistent with a
(1+z) increase, but the point is that, due to the poor data quality,
each of the sets of measurements on their own is consistent with
almost any other dependence as well (in particular a constant
temperature). And due to the complexity and associated uncertainties
that enter the data analysis for each of the methods, and the
associated possible systematic errors, it is simply unacceptable that
such poor data are only made valid by constraining them externally. As
long as the (1+z) dependence can not be demonstrated consistently by
each of the methods separately, it is even pointless to discuss the
physics involved here. ...


It's pretty convenient for you to arbitrarily divide the data sets
into small enough pieces so that you don't perceive a trend, and then
declare that a trend can't be measured!


Small enough pieces?


Yes, Thomas. You take each group of measurements in isolation (S-Z
effect, CO, neutral C, etc) then remark at how they cannot possibly
display the effect. Then you dismiss them all.

Regardless, your claim of a constant temperature has been firmly
excluded by observation. Time to give it up.

If your specific method of temperature
determination can not even clearly detect a temperature increase of a
factor 2 or so, you've got to ask yourself some serious questions, but
first and foremost the question, why you would want to bother the
scientific community with this.


You have been shown how these methods have measured the CMB locally
and consistent with what WMAP/COBE/etc have measured.

Why don't you just fess up and say there's nothing anyone can do to
convince you, and stop hiding behind the false and dishonest guise of
scientific doubt?


These papers have 'We've tried but we failed' written all over them,
and I don't know why you keep on plugging them as evidence if not
proof for the (1+z) temperature increase..


In what way have they failed?

Other than the apparently impossible task of convincing those who do
not wish to be convinced, of course.


As far as I am concerned, there is nothing more to say in this
respect.

Thomas

  #48  
Old May 29th 11, 02:19 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Craig Markwardt[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Static Universe

On May 26, 3:21*am, Thomas Smid wrote:
On May 25, 7:20*am, Craig Markwardt wrote:

On May 19, 12:18*pm, Thomas Smid wrote:
Fine, I have never questioned that the data are consistent with a
(1+z) increase, but the point is that, due to the poor data quality,
each of the sets of measurements on their own is consistent with
almost any other dependence as well (in particular a constant
temperature). And due to the complexity and associated uncertainties
that enter the data analysis for each of the methods, and the
associated possible systematic errors, it is simply unacceptable that
such poor data are only made valid by constraining them externally. As
long as the (1+z) dependence can not be demonstrated consistently by
each of the methods separately, it is even pointless to discuss the
physics involved here. ...


It's pretty convenient for you to arbitrarily divide the data sets
into small enough pieces so that you don't perceive a trend, and then
declare that a trend can't be measured! *


Small enough pieces? If your specific method of temperature
determination can not even clearly detect a temperature increase of a
factor 2 or so, you've got to ask yourself some serious questions, but
first and foremost the question, why you would want to bother the
scientific community with this.


You are certainly welcome to declare whatever "serious questions" you
wish to ask yourself - however unsubstantiated they might be. It
should be clear to most rational people that when faced with
observational evidence which contradicts your world view, you simply
move the goal a little further away.

The "scientific community" looks at rational and substantiated
evidence. The papers already cited provide estimates of the CMB
temperature at various redshifts, with credible estimates of
uncertainties which are also based on evidence (which can be found
within those papers). Remarkably, the measures of the CMB temperature
at different redshifts, and by different techniques, are all
consistent with one simple a priori model, with very tight confidence
levels. By any measure, the temperature of the CMB was higher in the
past (taking the entire set of measurements, or by looking at
individual measurement techniques). That is why the scientific
community "bothers" with it.

While you advocate the "complexity and associated uncertainties," you
still have not substantiated what those uncertainties might be, or
whether their magnitude is relevant to the issue at hand. I note
that you could have substantiated your claim, but still have not.

CM
  #49  
Old July 20th 11, 12:19 PM
res1122 res1122 is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jul 2011
Posts: 1
Default

I read your comments. I like it very much. You have really managed it very well. You mention here bundle of information here.
  #50  
Old July 21st 11, 12:59 PM
Jamahl Peavey Jamahl Peavey is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: May 2011
Posts: 25
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh No View Post
On Apr 4, 8:31*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 3, 1:27 am, Thomas Smid wrote:


See my pagehttp://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/redshift.htmformore.


Thomas


When you say "physics myths" would that be you have about physics?
Because what you wrote is rather wrong.

Oh, I thought that was Physic Smyths - to do with bashing physics
about with a hammer and anvil in order to make it into something else.
Based on empirical evidence the universe appears to have dynamic regions. These dynamic regions are generally in a state of expansion and in rare cases these regions are contracting (i.e Dark Flow). These conclusions are based on how gravitational and electromagnetic fields are synchronized in binary star systems. The results were published in the Indian Journal of Science and Technology (Peer-Reviewed) and presented at Bulgaria's Physic Days Conference 2011 at the Sofia Technical University. See publication below:

http://indjst.org/archive/vol.4.issu...r11jamal-5.pdf
 




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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ago fancy her static range [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 0 November 7th 07 06:55 AM
Static = no Inertia G=EMC^2 Glazier Misc 1 January 19th 06 08:51 PM
baloon static in air Keith Harwood Science 7 September 9th 04 04:07 PM
baloon static in air Michael Smith Science 0 July 22nd 04 12:18 PM
static electricity/MER-A breakdown Science 0 January 24th 04 11:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.