#41
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
I read your comments. I like it very much. You have really managed it very well. You mention here bundle of information here.
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
http://indjst.org/archive/vol.4.issu...r11jamal-5.pdf |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |