"Tired" light

vonroach wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:10:14 -0700, "greywolf42"
wrote:

vonroach wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 11:32:33 -0700, "greywolf42"
wrote:

Fractional energy loss, leading to exponential removal *is* the
commonly observed result of interactions with light. Why
would you consider this unusual or special?

Can this be translated into English?

It *is* English. Are you aware of fractional photon energy loss in thin
shields, and how it leads to an exponential curve?

photoelectric effect.

Irrelevant.

I = I_0 exp(- mu x)

or, for thick shields:
I = B(mu x) I_0 exp(- mu x)

spare me the math. I prefer to see it (as with x-ray absorption)

Then you already knew and were just trolling.

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

Dear greywolf42:

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message
news:bs0Hc.12478$nc.3238@fed1read03...
Dear greywolf42:

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message
news:qZHGc.10816$nc.5461@fed1read03...

{Snip higher levels}

A true scientist will never assume that he knows it all. Just
look
at the folks at the end of the 1800s. They had all the
fundamental
forces done. Radioactivity was a complete surprise.

And Euclidean flat space, with velocity-based expansion died when?

I'm not sure what your point is. 'Euclidean flat space' and
'velocity-based expansion' are concepts from one single cosmological
theory (relativistic cosmology).

Both features of Marcel's cosmology.

Actually, it seems that the reference to a specific cosmology was made by
Johnathon Silverlight.

Actually, Marcel's cosmology is evident in this thread, and the parallel
thread he started.

In his post of July 2nd (to which you were replying), Johnathan referred
to
"Charlier cosmology" and a static universe. By definition, there is no
'velocity-based expansion' in a static universe.

On July 3rd, Marcel then requested support of your claims, on July
3rd:"But
what are 'the observations made to date', which cannot be described by
the
'other hypotheses'?" And here we are.

Now can you provide even a single reference or calculation to support the
claim you keep repeating? (The observations that cannot be described by
the
hypothesis of tired light.)

I don't know of a single, experimentally verifiable, tired light theory
that covers all the observations, no. I hear noises from you, but nothing
much deeper than "well, real media dissipates energy, so the aether must
too".

{snip higher levels}

I must disagree, not with the aether, but with "imparting momentum"
to
passing photons. GR alters the "time base" of the receiver, and
leaves the photon unaltered after emission. So no momentum is
altered, but the *relative* energy is.

I don't see a basis for your disagreement. You implied that no tired
light mechanisms or theories could impart momentum. Now you
claim you disagree, because of GR -- which is not a tired-light
theory.
As such, GR is irrelevant to your prior statement.

This is Marcel's thread. Are you going to contribute to his
understanding?

It's also Johnathan's and Bjoern's and vonroach's and yours and mine.

I am contributing by countering commonly repeated myths. Your lack of
references or calculations assists in identifying these as mere debating
tactics, with no substantive content. Thus, you continue the tradition
of
Zel'dovich and Misner, Thorne and Wheeler of simply denigrating any
questions about standard BB cosmology.

"Denigrating any questions"? What the heck does that mean? Who here is
asking questions... except you and me?

Because what you have said doesn't seem to pertain, to *me*.

I am sorry, but we aren't discussing GR (which is not a tired light
theory).

And aether theory is not a tired light theory, yet it seems to have cropped
up.

Tired light
theories must remove energy, but leave the vector part of momentum
untouched. No mechanism has been detected for this, only the
theoretical requirement has been established.

Whatever makes you say this? There is no tired light theory ever
constructed (AFAIK) that makes such a silly claim. Is this a new
relativist
strawman (or have I missed this one)?

What do you find silly? Images are not distorted, or are uniformly
distorted over large areas of space. So removal of energy cannot affect
the vector component of momentum, only the magnitude. What is the
mechansim that allows this?

GR does this, quite easily.

GR (gravitational redshift) has nothing to do with tired light.

If you are referring to some form of relativistic cosmology (which is not
GR, but includes it) such as the big bang, there is a specific assumption
that there is no such thing as tired light.

Actually there is. The redshift is all inferred to be due to expansion,
therefore the requirements for Dark Energy are set to match this phenomenon
(and counteract the Dark Matter).

Do you have an aether theory in mind that is
different than this?

All aether theories are 'different' in at least one fundamental
respect
from GR. Any physical aether theory can impart momentum.

But the vector part of momentum is untouched, or touched uniformly from
a
contiguous area of the sky. How can an aether theory consume energy,
with
no change in vector?

This appears to be a misunderstanding on your part. There is no tired
light
theory ever proposed with this property. You seem to be trying to find a
way to imply Zel'dovich's 'blurriness' argument, without mentioning it by
name.

So your only answer is to say that I am bringing up a stale argument.
Well, I missed the stale answer. What is the mechanism?

Because any particular "chunk" of aether will be
required to consume other energies, from other photons, travelling in
other directions. I don't see how this can be made to work.

It works the same way waves diffuse in any other physical medium. You'll
have to do better than make vague, unquantified claims about 'changes to
vectors' in order to identify that a problem even exists.

So this medium absorbs energy, just a slight amount from light, and
delivers it... where?

{snip higher levels}

If the medium accepts energy/momentum from passing photons, how can
it
not in turn impart the same?

For the same reason that this happens to waves in any fluid medium.
Wave energy is always dissipated in a medium. The rate of
dissipation
is controlled by physical attributes of the medium and the type of
wave.

No such dissipation has been noted in spaces the size of the Solar
System.

As noted before, this is irrelevant to interactions on the scale of
parsecs
and up.

You say this, but GR does not have an issue with even this scale. An
experimentally-repeatable mechanism that describes redshift without
blurring. So tired light via aether knows what is light, and draws its
toll for passage of light. But does nothing to other c-moderated forces,
like charge. It exacts no toll there.

And such dissipation would make itself felt in the c-moderated forces
that
bind this solar system together.

To what effects -- specifically -- are you referring? And what are the
quantitative limits you expect?

Red shift seems to have drawn, say 1/2 of the energy from light that has a
z of 1. This is just a couple of billion light years. In the last 2
billion years, has the Earth lost 50% of its heat, or 50% of its orbital
momentum, or are its elements chemical bonds 50% less effective? How about
the Moon?

We have billions of years of data that
indicate no such dissipation there.

Actually, we have no more than a few hundred years of data. We theorize
that we can extrapolate to billions of years.

Tidal rhythmites and the fossil record provide quite a bit of data that is
germaine.

Why has this not been seen locally?

Simply because the effect cannot be seen on solar system scales.

Are you going to place us in a special place in the Unvierse again? Are
the laws of physics not the same everywhere? I think your "cannot be seen"
is incorrect.

Your argument is the same as was applied by the Ptolemaics against the
Copernicans: "If the Sun is the center of the solar system, then the
stars
would appear to shift as the Earth orbited. Why has this not been seen?"

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (The scale of the
unknown
question.)

Your argument is unwarranted, and indefensible. You have no mechanism.
You claim that energy loss is required or expected, but is too small to
verify. You make no attempt to describe where this energy goes.

Even a neutron star is diverted, however
slightly, by each photon it deflects.

A true, but irrelevant statement. Zel'dovich's little fantasy about
'blurring' remains a myth. May I suggest that you refer to something
specific (or provide a calculation) about how much blurriness you
expect.

None. I expect the only alteration to be between the source and the
receiver. Anything else that occurs along the path is Compton
scattering.

I meant a reference for your 'blurriness' argument against tired light
theories. (We had already agreed compton scattering was irrelevant.)

I E X P E C T N O B L U R R I N G. That is what I meant when I say
"None", in answer to the question you asked. I would have expected that to
be interpreted as zero.

The only mathematics on such claims are based on a strawman of
compton scattering of photons off of electrons (which is
irrelevant
to 'tired light' theories).

I agree that Compton scattering is invalid in describing "spectral"
redshift.

And since (AFIAK) there are no 'tired light' theories that use this
mechanism, the argument is irrelevant to tired light theories.

And since tired light theories provide no mechanism at all, this leaves
us
where?

The same place as Newton's law of gravitation: Hypothesis non fingo.

Actually your argument is specious. There are 'tired light' theories
that
provide mechanisms (i.e. Maxwell's aether)

Unverfiable, non-mechanisms, perhaps. Maxwell had no loss terms, that I am
aware of. Nothing on the order of Einstein's cosmological constant, to
describe redshift in EM propagation. Do you have a citation?

{snip higher levels}

Because the momentum of the original photon is altered... at issue
is
the vector component.

Again, alteration of the momentum of the original photon and it's
vector
component are commonly observed with normal, everyday light
interactions. Why would you consider this unusual or special?

Because this does not occur in tired light.

Why do you make this claim? This is specifically the relation that comes
up
in most (if not all) tired light theories.

It cannot affect the vector component, without blurring the light. Unless
it is uniform blurring across some area of space.

If such evaluations are unfamiliar to you, may I suggest you look up
basic gamma-ray interactions with matter? The concepts are clearer,
because there are fewer complications as with lower energy light.

Because the known mechanisms don't work with tired light. Which is
what I
have been trying to point out.

A simply proof-by-assertion.

To what specific tired light theory are you referring?
To what specific mechanisms are you referring?
Please provide explicit quantitative analysis, or reference to same.

{snip David's flame}

We are done. End this thread as you will.

David A. Smith

Dear greywolf42:

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message
news:bs0Hc.12478$nc.3238@fed1read03...
Dear greywolf42:

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message
news:qZHGc.10816$nc.5461@fed1read03...

{Snip higher levels}

A true scientist will never assume that he knows it all. Just
look
at the folks at the end of the 1800s. They had all the
fundamental
forces done. Radioactivity was a complete surprise.

And Euclidean flat space, with velocity-based expansion died when?

I'm not sure what your point is. 'Euclidean flat space' and
'velocity-based expansion' are concepts from one single cosmological
theory (relativistic cosmology).

Both features of Marcel's cosmology.

Actually, it seems that the reference to a specific cosmology was made by
Johnathon Silverlight.

Actually, Marcel's cosmology is evident in this thread, and the parallel
thread he started.

In his post of July 2nd (to which you were replying), Johnathan referred
to
"Charlier cosmology" and a static universe. By definition, there is no
'velocity-based expansion' in a static universe.

On July 3rd, Marcel then requested support of your claims, on July
3rd:"But
what are 'the observations made to date', which cannot be described by
the
'other hypotheses'?" And here we are.

Now can you provide even a single reference or calculation to support the
claim you keep repeating? (The observations that cannot be described by
the
hypothesis of tired light.)

I don't know of a single, experimentally verifiable, tired light theory
that covers all the observations, no. I hear noises from you, but nothing
much deeper than "well, real media dissipates energy, so the aether must
too".

{snip higher levels}

I must disagree, not with the aether, but with "imparting momentum"
to
passing photons. GR alters the "time base" of the receiver, and
leaves the photon unaltered after emission. So no momentum is
altered, but the *relative* energy is.

I don't see a basis for your disagreement. You implied that no tired
light mechanisms or theories could impart momentum. Now you
claim you disagree, because of GR -- which is not a tired-light
theory.
As such, GR is irrelevant to your prior statement.

This is Marcel's thread. Are you going to contribute to his
understanding?

It's also Johnathan's and Bjoern's and vonroach's and yours and mine.

I am contributing by countering commonly repeated myths. Your lack of
references or calculations assists in identifying these as mere debating
tactics, with no substantive content. Thus, you continue the tradition
of
Zel'dovich and Misner, Thorne and Wheeler of simply denigrating any
questions about standard BB cosmology.

"Denigrating any questions"? What the heck does that mean? Who here is
asking questions... except you and me?

Because what you have said doesn't seem to pertain, to *me*.

I am sorry, but we aren't discussing GR (which is not a tired light
theory).

And aether theory is not a tired light theory, yet it seems to have cropped
up.

Tired light
theories must remove energy, but leave the vector part of momentum
untouched. No mechanism has been detected for this, only the
theoretical requirement has been established.

Whatever makes you say this? There is no tired light theory ever
constructed (AFAIK) that makes such a silly claim. Is this a new
relativist
strawman (or have I missed this one)?

What do you find silly? Images are not distorted, or are uniformly
distorted over large areas of space. So removal of energy cannot affect
the vector component of momentum, only the magnitude. What is the
mechansim that allows this?

GR does this, quite easily.

GR (gravitational redshift) has nothing to do with tired light.

If you are referring to some form of relativistic cosmology (which is not
GR, but includes it) such as the big bang, there is a specific assumption
that there is no such thing as tired light.

Actually there is. The redshift is all inferred to be due to expansion,
therefore the requirements for Dark Energy are set to match this phenomenon
(and counteract the Dark Matter).

Do you have an aether theory in mind that is
different than this?

All aether theories are 'different' in at least one fundamental
respect
from GR. Any physical aether theory can impart momentum.

But the vector part of momentum is untouched, or touched uniformly from
a
contiguous area of the sky. How can an aether theory consume energy,
with
no change in vector?

This appears to be a misunderstanding on your part. There is no tired
light
theory ever proposed with this property. You seem to be trying to find a
way to imply Zel'dovich's 'blurriness' argument, without mentioning it by
name.

So your only answer is to say that I am bringing up a stale argument.
Well, I missed the stale answer. What is the mechanism?

Because any particular "chunk" of aether will be
required to consume other energies, from other photons, travelling in
other directions. I don't see how this can be made to work.

It works the same way waves diffuse in any other physical medium. You'll
have to do better than make vague, unquantified claims about 'changes to
vectors' in order to identify that a problem even exists.

So this medium absorbs energy, just a slight amount from light, and
delivers it... where?

{snip higher levels}

If the medium accepts energy/momentum from passing photons, how can
it
not in turn impart the same?

For the same reason that this happens to waves in any fluid medium.
Wave energy is always dissipated in a medium. The rate of
dissipation
is controlled by physical attributes of the medium and the type of
wave.

No such dissipation has been noted in spaces the size of the Solar
System.

As noted before, this is irrelevant to interactions on the scale of
parsecs
and up.

You say this, but GR does not have an issue with even this scale. An
experimentally-repeatable mechanism that describes redshift without
blurring. So tired light via aether knows what is light, and draws its
toll for passage of light. But does nothing to other c-moderated forces,
like charge. It exacts no toll there.

And such dissipation would make itself felt in the c-moderated forces
that
bind this solar system together.

To what effects -- specifically -- are you referring? And what are the
quantitative limits you expect?

Red shift seems to have drawn, say 1/2 of the energy from light that has a
z of 1. This is just a couple of billion light years. In the last 2
billion years, has the Earth lost 50% of its heat, or 50% of its orbital
momentum, or are its elements chemical bonds 50% less effective? How about
the Moon?

We have billions of years of data that
indicate no such dissipation there.

Actually, we have no more than a few hundred years of data. We theorize
that we can extrapolate to billions of years.

Tidal rhythmites and the fossil record provide quite a bit of data that is
germaine.

Why has this not been seen locally?

Simply because the effect cannot be seen on solar system scales.

Are you going to place us in a special place in the Unvierse again? Are
the laws of physics not the same everywhere? I think your "cannot be seen"
is incorrect.

Your argument is the same as was applied by the Ptolemaics against the
Copernicans: "If the Sun is the center of the solar system, then the
stars
would appear to shift as the Earth orbited. Why has this not been seen?"

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (The scale of the
unknown
question.)

Your argument is unwarranted, and indefensible. You have no mechanism.
You claim that energy loss is required or expected, but is too small to
verify. You make no attempt to describe where this energy goes.

Even a neutron star is diverted, however
slightly, by each photon it deflects.

A true, but irrelevant statement. Zel'dovich's little fantasy about
'blurring' remains a myth. May I suggest that you refer to something
specific (or provide a calculation) about how much blurriness you
expect.

None. I expect the only alteration to be between the source and the
receiver. Anything else that occurs along the path is Compton
scattering.

I meant a reference for your 'blurriness' argument against tired light
theories. (We had already agreed compton scattering was irrelevant.)

I E X P E C T N O B L U R R I N G. That is what I meant when I say
"None", in answer to the question you asked. I would have expected that to
be interpreted as zero.

The only mathematics on such claims are based on a strawman of
compton scattering of photons off of electrons (which is
irrelevant
to 'tired light' theories).

I agree that Compton scattering is invalid in describing "spectral"
redshift.

And since (AFIAK) there are no 'tired light' theories that use this
mechanism, the argument is irrelevant to tired light theories.

And since tired light theories provide no mechanism at all, this leaves
us
where?

The same place as Newton's law of gravitation: Hypothesis non fingo.

Actually your argument is specious. There are 'tired light' theories
that
provide mechanisms (i.e. Maxwell's aether)

Unverfiable, non-mechanisms, perhaps. Maxwell had no loss terms, that I am
aware of. Nothing on the order of Einstein's cosmological constant, to
describe redshift in EM propagation. Do you have a citation?

{snip higher levels}

Because the momentum of the original photon is altered... at issue
is
the vector component.

Again, alteration of the momentum of the original photon and it's
vector
component are commonly observed with normal, everyday light
interactions. Why would you consider this unusual or special?

Because this does not occur in tired light.

Why do you make this claim? This is specifically the relation that comes
up
in most (if not all) tired light theories.

It cannot affect the vector component, without blurring the light. Unless
it is uniform blurring across some area of space.

If such evaluations are unfamiliar to you, may I suggest you look up
basic gamma-ray interactions with matter? The concepts are clearer,
because there are fewer complications as with lower energy light.

Because the known mechanisms don't work with tired light. Which is
what I
have been trying to point out.

A simply proof-by-assertion.

To what specific tired light theory are you referring?
To what specific mechanisms are you referring?
Please provide explicit quantitative analysis, or reference to same.

{snip David's flame}

We are done. End this thread as you will.

David A. Smith

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in message
news:gplHc.2680$ys.1148@fed1read03...
Dear greywolf42:

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message
news:bs0Hc.12478$nc.3238@fed1read03...
Dear greywolf42:

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message
news:qZHGc.10816$nc.5461@fed1read03...

{Snip higher levels}

Now can you provide even a single reference or calculation to support
the claim you keep repeating? (The observations that cannot be
described by the hypothesis of tired light.)

I don't know of a single, experimentally verifiable, tired light theory
that covers all the observations, no. I hear noises from you, but nothing
much deeper than "well, real media dissipates energy, so the aether must
too".

I see you have no reference. You make bald assertions that no theory can
work, but you have not a single shred of evidence of even a single theory
that has a single problem.

{snip higher levels}

This is Marcel's thread. Are you going to contribute to his
understanding?

It's also Johnathan's and Bjoern's and vonroach's and yours and mine.


I am contributing by countering commonly repeated myths. Your lack of
references or calculations assists in identifying these as mere debating
tactics, with no substantive content. Thus, you continue the tradition
of Zel'dovich and Misner, Thorne and Wheeler of simply denigrating any
questions about standard BB cosmology.

"Denigrating any questions"? What the heck does that mean? Who here is
asking questions... except you and me?

You do not allow any question of the key *assumption* of the big bang
theory. Rather than address the assumption directly, Zel'dovich, MTW and
you all make vague, wild, undocumented claims that anything else is
unworkable. But none of you can ever identify a single, specific example of
such a failure.

Because what you have said doesn't seem to pertain, to *me*.

I am sorry, but we aren't discussing GR (which is not a tired light
theory).

And aether theory is not a tired light theory, yet it seems to have
cropped up.

'Tired light' is an unavoidable effect in most aether theories. So, aether
theory is one type of tired light theory. (there are QM tired light theories
and ad hoc tired light theories, as well.) A 'tired light theory' is simply
a theory in which light is not the perfect particle that the standard
cosmology assumes -- and light loses a small fraction of its energy as it
travels.

Tired light
theories must remove energy, but leave the vector part of momentum
untouched. No mechanism has been detected for this, only the
theoretical requirement has been established.

Whatever makes you say this? There is no tired light theory ever
constructed (AFAIK) that makes such a silly claim. Is this a new
relativist strawman (or have I missed this one)?

What do you find silly? Images are not distorted,

There is no reason to expect images to be distorted in tired light theories.
The claim is a relativist's strawman.

or are uniformly
distorted over large areas of space. So removal of energy cannot affect
the vector component of momentum, only the magnitude.

You claim is a non-sequiteur.

What is the mechansim that allows this?

There is no need for any mechanism, because there is no such effect. And no
need for one.

GR does this, quite easily.

GR (gravitational redshift) has nothing to do with tired light.

If you are referring to some form of relativistic cosmology (which is
not GR, but includes it) such as the big bang, there is a specific
assumption that there is no such thing as tired light.

Actually there is. The redshift is all inferred to be due to expansion,
therefore the requirements for Dark Energy are set to match this
phenomenon (and counteract the Dark Matter).

Cosmological redshift is not tired light.

{snip higher levels}

But the vector part of momentum is untouched, or touched uniformly
from a contiguous area of the sky. How can an aether theory consume
energy, with no change in vector?

This appears to be a misunderstanding on your part. There is no tired
light theory ever proposed with this property. You seem to be trying to
find a way to imply Zel'dovich's 'blurriness' argument, without
mentioning it by name.

So your only answer is to say that I am bringing up a stale argument.
Well, I missed the stale answer. What is the mechanism?

You repeatedly made a claim that the "vector part of the momentum is
untouched" in tired light theories. Not a single tired light theory in
existence makes such a claim. It is up to you to support your claim, that
such a property rests latent in theories (that you haven't yet identified).

Because any particular "chunk" of aether will be
required to consume other energies, from other photons, travelling in
other directions. I don't see how this can be made to work.

It works the same way waves diffuse in any other physical medium.
You'll have to do better than make vague, unquantified claims about
'changes to vectors' in order to identify that a problem even exists.

So this medium absorbs energy, just a slight amount from light, and
delivers it... where?

The energy is diffused into the medium itself. Just like any other wave
energy absorption. And this is the same answer you have received many
times. Just like in the exchange immediately below.

{snip higher levels}

If the medium accepts energy/momentum from passing photons, how
can it not in turn impart the same?

For the same reason that this happens to waves in any fluid medium.
Wave energy is always dissipated in a medium. The rate of
dissipation is controlled by physical attributes of the medium and
the type of
wave.

No such dissipation has been noted in spaces the size of the Solar
System.

As noted before, this is irrelevant to interactions on the scale of
parsecs and up.

You say this, but GR does not have an issue with even this scale.

GR is irrelvant to your repeated and unsupported claims against tired light
theories. No matter how often you try this tangential distraction.

An
experimentally-repeatable mechanism that describes redshift without
blurring.

There is no experimental (laboratory) evidence for GR cosmological redshift.
It is an assumption of the nonlocal effects. The very same nonlocal effects
that tired light theories use.

So tired light via aether knows what is light, and draws its
toll for passage of light. But does nothing to other c-moderated forces,
like charge. It exacts no toll there.

Light is merely a wave in the medium (lightspeed does not 'moderate'
anything). And like all media, waves dissipate, eventually. Matter is not
a light wave. Therefore, the effects may be different, because the object
is different.

And such dissipation would make itself felt in the c-moderated forces
that bind this solar system together.

To what effects -- specifically -- are you referring? And what are the
quantitative limits you expect?

Red shift seems to have drawn, say 1/2 of the energy from light that has a
z of 1. This is just a couple of billion light years. In the last 2
billion years, has the Earth lost 50% of its heat, or 50% of its orbital
momentum, or are its elements chemical bonds 50% less effective? How
about the Moon?

Where are you getting these bizarre non-sequiteurs?

If a wave loses about 1/2 of it's energy when travelling over a couple of
billion light years before it reaches us, this has no effect whatsoever on
local matter (which is not light) that is not travelling this distance.

We have billions of years of data that
indicate no such dissipation there.

Actually, we have no more than a few hundred years of data. We theorize
that we can extrapolate to billions of years.

Tidal rhythmites and the fossil record provide quite a bit of data that is
germaine.

That data is no more than a few hundred years old. Our *theory* is that
these fossils are very old.

Why has this not been seen locally?

Simply because the effect cannot be seen on solar system scales.

Are you going to place us in a special place in the Unvierse again?

Nope, never did. I see you floundering back to your original vague claims.

Are the laws of physics not the same everywhere?

That is the assumption of the scientific method.

I think your "cannot be seen" is incorrect.

What is the specific problem you see?

Your argument is the same as was applied by the Ptolemaics against the
Copernicans: "If the Sun is the center of the solar system, then the
stars would appear to shift as the Earth orbited. Why has this not been
seen?"

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (The scale of the
unknown question.)

Your argument is unwarranted, and indefensible. You have no mechanism.

Neither did the Ptolemaics. Neither does GR.

You claim that energy loss is required or expected, but is too small to
verify.

A false statement. I've merely said that it is too small to verify at local
experimental scales. Just like 99% of astronomy. And just like GR.
Welcome to the real universe.

You make no attempt to describe where this energy goes.

A false statement. I've given you this answer a half a dozen times in this
thread alone. And the answer depends upon the specific tired light theory
used.

Even a neutron star is diverted, however
slightly, by each photon it deflects.

A true, but irrelevant statement. Zel'dovich's little fantasy about
'blurring' remains a myth. May I suggest that you refer to
something specific (or provide a calculation) about how much
blurriness you expect.

None. I expect the only alteration to be between the source and the
receiver. Anything else that occurs along the path is Compton
scattering.

I meant a reference for your 'blurriness' argument against tired light
theories. (We had already agreed compton scattering was irrelevant.)

I E X P E C T N O B L U R R I N G. That is what I meant when I say
"None", in answer to the question you asked.
I would have expected that to be interpreted as zero.

I wasn't disputing the difference between 'zero' and 'none.' I was pointing
out that you are dodging the question, by answering for standard BB
cosmology, instead of trying to support your false argument about tired
light theories.

Obviously, you don't know of any references or calculations to support your
position. (I suspect you are merely parroting Zel'dovich and MTW.)

{snip higher levels}

And since tired light theories provide no mechanism at all, this
leaves us where?

The same place as Newton's law of gravitation: Hypothesis non fingo.

Actually your argument is specious. There are 'tired light' theories
that provide mechanisms (i.e. Maxwell's aether)

Unverfiable, non-mechanisms, perhaps.

The knee-jerk dismissal.

Maxwell had no loss terms, that I am
aware of. Nothing on the order of Einstein's cosmological constant, to
describe redshift in EM propagation. Do you have a citation?

Do you understand Maxwell's aether ("On Physical Lines of Force", 1861)? Do
you understand that no fluid is absolutely perfect? And that Maxwell was
recreating local laboratory approximations when he created "Maxwell's
equations?"

{snip higher levels}

Because the momentum of the original photon is altered... at issue
is the vector component.

Again, alteration of the momentum of the original photon and it's
vector component are commonly observed with normal, everyday
light interactions. Why would you consider this unusual or special?

Because this does not occur in tired light.

Why do you make this claim? This is specifically the relation that
comes up in most (if not all) tired light theories.

It cannot affect the vector component, without blurring the light.
Unless it is uniform blurring across some area of space.

You keep repeating this unsupported assertion. This does not advance the
argument. Provide a reference or provide a calculation, or drop it.

If such evaluations are unfamiliar to you, may I suggest you look up
basic gamma-ray interactions with matter? The concepts are clearer,
because there are fewer complications as with lower energy light.

Because the known mechanisms don't work with tired light. Which is
what I have been trying to point out.

A simply proof-by-assertion.

To what specific tired light theory are you referring?
To what specific mechanisms are you referring?
Please provide explicit quantitative analysis, or reference to same.

{snip David's flame}

We are done. End this thread as you will.

A shame. I had hoped for better from you David. You are one of the few
relativists that seems to be capable of actually doing physics.

But in this thread, all you have done is to repeat and repeat and repeat
some tired, old myths. You haven't been able to identify a single specific
theory or a single specific problem, numerically. Yet you stubbornly claim
that all such theories fail.

I guess the problem is simply that the position that you have adopted is
fundamentally indefensible. Yet you cannot simply admit this, without
suffering ostracism from the herd.

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

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in message
news:gplHc.2680$ys.1148@fed1read03...
Dear greywolf42:

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message
news:bs0Hc.12478$nc.3238@fed1read03...
Dear greywolf42:

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message
news:qZHGc.10816$nc.5461@fed1read03...

{Snip higher levels}

Now can you provide even a single reference or calculation to support
the claim you keep repeating? (The observations that cannot be
described by the hypothesis of tired light.)

I don't know of a single, experimentally verifiable, tired light theory
that covers all the observations, no. I hear noises from you, but nothing
much deeper than "well, real media dissipates energy, so the aether must
too".

I see you have no reference. You make bald assertions that no theory can
work, but you have not a single shred of evidence of even a single theory
that has a single problem.

{snip higher levels}

This is Marcel's thread. Are you going to contribute to his
understanding?

It's also Johnathan's and Bjoern's and vonroach's and yours and mine.


I am contributing by countering commonly repeated myths. Your lack of
references or calculations assists in identifying these as mere debating
tactics, with no substantive content. Thus, you continue the tradition
of Zel'dovich and Misner, Thorne and Wheeler of simply denigrating any
questions about standard BB cosmology.

"Denigrating any questions"? What the heck does that mean? Who here is
asking questions... except you and me?

You do not allow any question of the key *assumption* of the big bang
theory. Rather than address the assumption directly, Zel'dovich, MTW and
you all make vague, wild, undocumented claims that anything else is
unworkable. But none of you can ever identify a single, specific example of
such a failure.

Because what you have said doesn't seem to pertain, to *me*.

I am sorry, but we aren't discussing GR (which is not a tired light
theory).

And aether theory is not a tired light theory, yet it seems to have
cropped up.

'Tired light' is an unavoidable effect in most aether theories. So, aether
theory is one type of tired light theory. (there are QM tired light theories
and ad hoc tired light theories, as well.) A 'tired light theory' is simply
a theory in which light is not the perfect particle that the standard
cosmology assumes -- and light loses a small fraction of its energy as it
travels.

Tired light
theories must remove energy, but leave the vector part of momentum
untouched. No mechanism has been detected for this, only the
theoretical requirement has been established.

Whatever makes you say this? There is no tired light theory ever
constructed (AFAIK) that makes such a silly claim. Is this a new
relativist strawman (or have I missed this one)?

What do you find silly? Images are not distorted,

There is no reason to expect images to be distorted in tired light theories.
The claim is a relativist's strawman.

or are uniformly
distorted over large areas of space. So removal of energy cannot affect
the vector component of momentum, only the magnitude.

You claim is a non-sequiteur.

What is the mechansim that allows this?

There is no need for any mechanism, because there is no such effect. And no
need for one.

GR does this, quite easily.

GR (gravitational redshift) has nothing to do with tired light.

If you are referring to some form of relativistic cosmology (which is
not GR, but includes it) such as the big bang, there is a specific
assumption that there is no such thing as tired light.

Actually there is. The redshift is all inferred to be due to expansion,
therefore the requirements for Dark Energy are set to match this
phenomenon (and counteract the Dark Matter).

Cosmological redshift is not tired light.

{snip higher levels}

But the vector part of momentum is untouched, or touched uniformly
from a contiguous area of the sky. How can an aether theory consume
energy, with no change in vector?

This appears to be a misunderstanding on your part. There is no tired
light theory ever proposed with this property. You seem to be trying to
find a way to imply Zel'dovich's 'blurriness' argument, without
mentioning it by name.

So your only answer is to say that I am bringing up a stale argument.
Well, I missed the stale answer. What is the mechanism?

You repeatedly made a claim that the "vector part of the momentum is
untouched" in tired light theories. Not a single tired light theory in
existence makes such a claim. It is up to you to support your claim, that
such a property rests latent in theories (that you haven't yet identified).

Because any particular "chunk" of aether will be
required to consume other energies, from other photons, travelling in
other directions. I don't see how this can be made to work.

It works the same way waves diffuse in any other physical medium.
You'll have to do better than make vague, unquantified claims about
'changes to vectors' in order to identify that a problem even exists.

So this medium absorbs energy, just a slight amount from light, and
delivers it... where?

The energy is diffused into the medium itself. Just like any other wave
energy absorption. And this is the same answer you have received many
times. Just like in the exchange immediately below.

{snip higher levels}

If the medium accepts energy/momentum from passing photons, how
can it not in turn impart the same?

For the same reason that this happens to waves in any fluid medium.
Wave energy is always dissipated in a medium. The rate of
dissipation is controlled by physical attributes of the medium and
the type of
wave.

No such dissipation has been noted in spaces the size of the Solar
System.

As noted before, this is irrelevant to interactions on the scale of
parsecs and up.

You say this, but GR does not have an issue with even this scale.

GR is irrelvant to your repeated and unsupported claims against tired light
theories. No matter how often you try this tangential distraction.

An
experimentally-repeatable mechanism that describes redshift without
blurring.

There is no experimental (laboratory) evidence for GR cosmological redshift.
It is an assumption of the nonlocal effects. The very same nonlocal effects
that tired light theories use.

So tired light via aether knows what is light, and draws its
toll for passage of light. But does nothing to other c-moderated forces,
like charge. It exacts no toll there.

Light is merely a wave in the medium (lightspeed does not 'moderate'
anything). And like all media, waves dissipate, eventually. Matter is not
a light wave. Therefore, the effects may be different, because the object
is different.

And such dissipation would make itself felt in the c-moderated forces
that bind this solar system together.

To what effects -- specifically -- are you referring? And what are the
quantitative limits you expect?

Red shift seems to have drawn, say 1/2 of the energy from light that has a
z of 1. This is just a couple of billion light years. In the last 2
billion years, has the Earth lost 50% of its heat, or 50% of its orbital
momentum, or are its elements chemical bonds 50% less effective? How
about the Moon?

Where are you getting these bizarre non-sequiteurs?

If a wave loses about 1/2 of it's energy when travelling over a couple of
billion light years before it reaches us, this has no effect whatsoever on
local matter (which is not light) that is not travelling this distance.

We have billions of years of data that
indicate no such dissipation there.

Actually, we have no more than a few hundred years of data. We theorize
that we can extrapolate to billions of years.

Tidal rhythmites and the fossil record provide quite a bit of data that is
germaine.

That data is no more than a few hundred years old. Our *theory* is that
these fossils are very old.

Why has this not been seen locally?

Simply because the effect cannot be seen on solar system scales.

Are you going to place us in a special place in the Unvierse again?

Nope, never did. I see you floundering back to your original vague claims.

Are the laws of physics not the same everywhere?

That is the assumption of the scientific method.

I think your "cannot be seen" is incorrect.

What is the specific problem you see?

Your argument is the same as was applied by the Ptolemaics against the
Copernicans: "If the Sun is the center of the solar system, then the
stars would appear to shift as the Earth orbited. Why has this not been
seen?"

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (The scale of the
unknown question.)

Your argument is unwarranted, and indefensible. You have no mechanism.

Neither did the Ptolemaics. Neither does GR.

You claim that energy loss is required or expected, but is too small to
verify.

A false statement. I've merely said that it is too small to verify at local
experimental scales. Just like 99% of astronomy. And just like GR.
Welcome to the real universe.

You make no attempt to describe where this energy goes.

A false statement. I've given you this answer a half a dozen times in this
thread alone. And the answer depends upon the specific tired light theory
used.

Even a neutron star is diverted, however
slightly, by each photon it deflects.

A true, but irrelevant statement. Zel'dovich's little fantasy about
'blurring' remains a myth. May I suggest that you refer to
something specific (or provide a calculation) about how much
blurriness you expect.

None. I expect the only alteration to be between the source and the
receiver. Anything else that occurs along the path is Compton
scattering.

I meant a reference for your 'blurriness' argument against tired light
theories. (We had already agreed compton scattering was irrelevant.)

I E X P E C T N O B L U R R I N G. That is what I meant when I say
"None", in answer to the question you asked.
I would have expected that to be interpreted as zero.

I wasn't disputing the difference between 'zero' and 'none.' I was pointing
out that you are dodging the question, by answering for standard BB
cosmology, instead of trying to support your false argument about tired
light theories.

Obviously, you don't know of any references or calculations to support your
position. (I suspect you are merely parroting Zel'dovich and MTW.)

{snip higher levels}

And since tired light theories provide no mechanism at all, this
leaves us where?

The same place as Newton's law of gravitation: Hypothesis non fingo.

Actually your argument is specious. There are 'tired light' theories
that provide mechanisms (i.e. Maxwell's aether)

Unverfiable, non-mechanisms, perhaps.

The knee-jerk dismissal.

Maxwell had no loss terms, that I am
aware of. Nothing on the order of Einstein's cosmological constant, to
describe redshift in EM propagation. Do you have a citation?

Do you understand Maxwell's aether ("On Physical Lines of Force", 1861)? Do
you understand that no fluid is absolutely perfect? And that Maxwell was
recreating local laboratory approximations when he created "Maxwell's
equations?"

{snip higher levels}

Because the momentum of the original photon is altered... at issue
is the vector component.

Again, alteration of the momentum of the original photon and it's
vector component are commonly observed with normal, everyday
light interactions. Why would you consider this unusual or special?

Because this does not occur in tired light.

Why do you make this claim? This is specifically the relation that
comes up in most (if not all) tired light theories.

It cannot affect the vector component, without blurring the light.
Unless it is uniform blurring across some area of space.

You keep repeating this unsupported assertion. This does not advance the
argument. Provide a reference or provide a calculation, or drop it.

If such evaluations are unfamiliar to you, may I suggest you look up
basic gamma-ray interactions with matter? The concepts are clearer,
because there are fewer complications as with lower energy light.

Because the known mechanisms don't work with tired light. Which is
what I have been trying to point out.

A simply proof-by-assertion.

To what specific tired light theory are you referring?
To what specific mechanisms are you referring?
Please provide explicit quantitative analysis, or reference to same.

{snip David's flame}

We are done. End this thread as you will.

A shame. I had hoped for better from you David. You are one of the few
relativists that seems to be capable of actually doing physics.

But in this thread, all you have done is to repeat and repeat and repeat
some tired, old myths. You haven't been able to identify a single specific
theory or a single specific problem, numerically. Yet you stubbornly claim
that all such theories fail.

I guess the problem is simply that the position that you have adopted is
fundamentally indefensible. Yet you cannot simply admit this, without
suffering ostracism from the herd.

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

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 10:15:31 -0700, "greywolf42"
wrote:

It's also Johnathan's and Bjoern's and vonroach's and yours and mine.

Count me out. I have never seen empiric evidence of this, Seems like
another shadowy theory to me.

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 10:15:31 -0700, "greywolf42"
wrote:

It's also Johnathan's and Bjoern's and vonroach's and yours and mine.

Count me out. I have never seen empiric evidence of this, Seems like
another shadowy theory to me.

revisiting Freundlich?
Bondo




Marcel Luttgens wrote:

In an expanding Euclidian universe, the reddening of light
emitted at a distance d is given by

z = d/(Ro - d), with Ro = c/Ho.

Mutatis mutandi, d = Ro * z/(1+z) = (c/Ho) * z/(1+z)

According to GR,

(1+z)^2 = (1+d/Ro)/(1-d/Ro).

But GR considers the frequency shifts of light from distant
sources in terms of special-relativistc Doppler shifts.
This is wrong, because expansion is symmetrical. In other words,
a clock situated on a galaxy moving at v from an observer
situated on Earth will show the same time as an Earth clock,
which moves at -v wrt the galaxy. The two relativistic effects
cancel each other.
On the other hand, GR ignores that the frequency of light is
affected by the gravitational field of the universe (cf. Steven
Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology, 1972, p. 417).

It is claimed that the whole redshift can be explained by the
gravitational field of a stable universe.

Let's consider a thought experiment:

A light ray is sent vertically from the bottom of the tower of Pisa.
For an observer situated at the top of the tower, the light will
redden in proportion to the height of the tower.

Assuming that the original wavelength is lambda, the wavelength
at the top is lambdaO, the height of the tower is d, and the
acceleration of gravity g is constant, the formula linking lambdaO,
lambda, d, and g is

lambdaO = lambda/(1-gd/c^2), thus

z = gd/(c^2-gd), and

d = (c^2/g) * z/(1+z)

In "Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11",
John D. Anderson and al. wrote (arXiv: gr- qc/ 0104064 19 April 2001):
"As a number of people have noted, a_H = cH, or 8E-8 cm/s^2 if
H=82 km/s/Mpc."

Assuming that the observed acceleration cH is cosmological,
light should undergo a red shift in proportion to the distance
of its source.

By replacing g by cHo in the formula d = (c^2/g) * z/(1+z),
one gets

d = (c/Ho) * z/(1+z),

which is exactly the formula given above for an expanding
Euclidian universe.

Taking into account the existence of the "anomalous"
acceleration, the hypothesis of "tired" light should be preferred
to that of an expanding universe.

Marcel Luttgens