Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Tired Light
lyndonashmore
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 309 (193645)
03-23-2005 8:03 AM


SHM Simply
I have shown above how particles in a plasma perform SHM. Whilst that is from a paper, there are lots of stuff on it on the Internet here for instance though they do not look at it from a photon point of view and they also ignore recoil.
There is an easy way to find a solution to this dispute. Sylas and Eta_Corinae say that in the sparse plasma of Intergalactic space, the electrons etc are so far apart that we can ignore the forces between them and treat them separately. I say that this may well be the case in a laboratory but these plasma fields extend for billions of km and so we cannot ignore these effects. Well, I am a scientist and the only way to solve this problem is to solve it scientifically — that is, does the theory agree with experiment. If Sylas and Eta are correct then it will not. If I am correct then it will.
I say that the electrons in the plasma of IG space can oscillate and thus absorb and re-emit photons. They say that it cannot. Experimental evidence? Radio signals from the voyager and other probes are known to be slowed by the plasma of the solar system. This happens because the photons are absorbed and re-emitted and there is a delay each time as with normal transmission of light. If the photons did not interact then they would not be delayed. Theory agrees with experiment.
I say that the electron recoils on absorption and re-emission so that some energy is lost to the photon and that this results in a redshift. I work this out and get H = 2nhr/m. Substituting published values of n into this (N = 0.1 to 10 electrons per m^3) gives H in the range 41x10^-18 to 0.41x10^-18 s^-1. Accepted value of H is 2.1x10^-18s^-1 (for this we need n = 0.6 m^-3). Theory is consistent with experiment.
I calculate an expression for the redshift z as; z = exp(hr/m) — 1. This is now accepted physics — the Hubble diagram is exponential. Theory agrees with experiment.
The theory says that the energy transferred to the electron is radiated as a secondary photon of the CMB. Calculations indeed show that this radiation is microwave. Theory agrees with experiment.
Theory states that this effect breaks down when the energy of the incoming photon is more than the electron energy. Calculations show that this situation agrees with experiment and the theory has great success in predicting the wavelength at which the CMB curve peaks.
Black Body radiation curve? Yet to work out completely but suspect that it is a local effect caused by dust clouds etc absorbing the recoil radiation, smoothing it and emitting it as Black Body. Experiment shows that the Larger clumps in the CMB follow the solar system. If nothing else this is a possibility.
Supernovae and Quasar light curves and time dilation? Tired light has a mechanism for this under review.
To achieve all this, all I had to do was to refuse to ignore the forces which are known to exist but said by others to be too small. If the theory is so wrong as Eta and Sylas say, Then how can it be so right?
Cheers
lyndon

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-23-2005 12:57 PM lyndonashmore has not replied

lyndonashmore
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 309 (193646)
03-23-2005 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by RAZD
03-23-2005 7:52 AM


Re: Do electrons in a thin plasma act in unison? Yes they do! not.
Hi razd,
Firstly treating the electrons at rest is standard Physics (on the basis that you win some you lose some).
Secondly, as to the thermal motion - an electron only radiates when it accelerates so as far as we are concerned, we can ignore this motion at constant speed.
Cheers Lyndon

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2005 7:52 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2005 7:23 PM lyndonashmore has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4365 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 243 of 309 (193686)
03-23-2005 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by lyndonashmore
03-23-2005 6:50 AM


To all the lurkers on here...
Lyndon is playing bait and switch.
Electrons in wires to your computer have NOTHING to do with electrons in a diffuse intergalactic plasma.
The density of an IG plasma is about say 1 per m^3. The density of electrons in a copper wire is about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 per m^3.
These are not comparable physical situations. The electrons going slowly down a wire are like the old trick with dominoes where they hit each other and fall down. The elcectrons in a wire is analogous to this and they dribble out the end. I think most people know electricity seems to travel fast because its the electric field that is set up very quickly but the individual electrons move very slowly.
DOES anyone think dominoes topple each other if they are a mile apart????
That is what in analogy lyndon is suggesting? Of course they don't because when it topples over it isn't reaching the next one. Whereas electrons in a wire have an electron (domino!) right next to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-23-2005 6:50 AM lyndonashmore has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Percy, posted 03-23-2005 1:23 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4365 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 244 of 309 (193692)
03-23-2005 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by lyndonashmore
03-23-2005 8:03 AM


More nonsense from lyndon
have shown above how particles in a plasma perform SHM. Whilst that is from a paper, there are lots of stuff on it on the Internet here for instance though they do not look at it from a photon point of view and they also ignore recoil.
**** Please note that I am not disagreeing with regular plasma physics but the link provided by lyndon does not appy to very diffuse plasmas ****
If he's take time to work out his plasma frequencies and the like he would see this.
There is an easy way to find a solution to this dispute. Sylas and Eta_Corinae say that in the sparse plasma of Intergalactic space, the electrons etc are so far apart that we can ignore the forces between them and treat them separately. I say that this may well be the case in a laboratory but these plasma fields extend for billions of km and so we cannot ignore these effects. Well, I am a scientist and the only way to solve this problem is to solve it scientifically — that is, does the theory agree with experiment. If Sylas and Eta are correct then it will not. If I am correct then it will.
Look at the plasma frequencies involved. The more diffuse the plasma the longer the wavelength.
*** Your mechanism requires the diffuse plasma to interact in a collective manner with photons of light but the equations you are using, the MHD approx., tells you that your plasma frequency is miniscule. In fact you cannot even really use this anyway because the whole assumption behind this treatment assumes the plasma is OBEYING the fluid approx. ***** News just in ***** Electrons a metre apart are NOT a fluid ****
I say that the electrons in the plasma of IG space can oscillate and thus absorb and re-emit photons. They say that it cannot. Experimental evidence? Radio signals from the voyager and other probes are known to be slowed by the plasma of the solar system. This happens because the photons are absorbed and re-emitted and there is a delay each time as with normal transmission of light. If the photons did not interact then they would not be delayed. Theory agrees with experiment.
Yes radio waves are affected because their wavelengths are so large and are larger than the Debye length. You however require your mechanism to act upon light photons yet your Debye length is many orders of magnitude too large.
**** Also the plasma density in the solar system is about 10^5 - 10^7 per m^3 ******
Do you see those numbers lyndon!!!!!!
At those densities radio waves are going to see effects of the plasma. No one is arguing solar system plasmas effect radio waves.
But you want the IG plasma to effect photons of light..
See the discrepancy. The IG plasma won't effect even radio waves never mind visible light photons.
***** You are applying equations in a regime so far removed from applicability it's a joke ******
I say that the electron recoils on absorption and re-emission so that some energy is lost to the photon and that this results in a redshift. I work this out and get H = 2nhr/m. Substituting published values of n into this (N = 0.1 to 10 electrons per m^3) gives H in the range 41x10^-18 to 0.41x10^-18 s^-1. Accepted value of H is 2.1x10^-18s^-1 (for this we need n = 0.6 m^-3). Theory is consistent with experiment.
More rubbish based upon INCORRECT physics.
I calculate an expression for the redshift z as; z = exp(hr/m) — 1. This is now accepted physics — the Hubble diagram is exponential. Theory agrees with experiment.
The Hubble relation is NOT an strictly an exponential function. It does rise sharply and can be approximated somewhat by an exponential fit but it isn't a pure exponential.
The theory says that the energy transferred to the electron is radiated as a secondary photon of the CMB. Calculations indeed show that this radiation is microwave. Theory agrees with experiment.
Theory states that this effect breaks down when the energy of the incoming photon is more than the electron energy. Calculations show that this situation agrees with experiment and the theory has great success in predicting the wavelength at which the CMB curve peaks.
More rubbish from incorrect application of physics.
Black Body radiation curve? Yet to work out completely but suspect that it is a local effect caused by dust clouds etc absorbing the recoil radiation, smoothing it and emitting it as Black Body. Experiment shows that the Larger clumps in the CMB follow the solar system. If nothing else this is a possibility.
Supernovae and Quasar light curves and time dilation? Tired light has a mechanism for this under review.
To achieve all this, all I had to do was to refuse to ignore the forces which are known to exist but said by others to be too small. If the theory is so wrong as Eta and Sylas say, Then how can it be so right?
It's not riht - it's actually stunningly wrong and is an excellent example of the rubbis you get when you apply physics in the areas it does not apply.
**** What we have here people is an excellent example of what Langmuir in 1953 coined "pathological science". Google it ****

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-23-2005 8:03 AM lyndonashmore has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 245 of 309 (193695)
03-23-2005 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Eta_Carinae
03-23-2005 12:24 PM


Re: To all the lurkers on here...
Eta Carinae writes:
These are not comparable physical situations. The electrons going slowly down a wire are like the old trick with dominoes where they hit each other and fall down. The elcectrons in a wire is analogous to this and they dribble out the end. I think most people know electricity seems to travel fast because its the electric field that is set up very quickly but the individual electrons move very slowly.
Just for clarification for others, Eta is talking about what is referred to in electrical engineering as drift velocity. If you push an electron into one end of a wire, another electron will fall out the other end almost instantly, the speed of propagation being very close to the speed of light. But it wasn't the same electron that fell out the other end. A loose analogy is ball bearings in a garden hose. If you push a ball bearing in one end, another will instantly fall out the other.
But if you continually push electrons into one end of the wire and establish an electric current, the time it takes an individual electron to travel from one end of the wire to the other is nowhere near the speed of light. It isn't even near the speed of your car. You can even walk faster. Typical electron drift velocities are around 0.1 millimeters/second, depending upon the voltage and the nature of the conductor.
Apparently, electrons also have a thermal velocity that at normal temperatures is an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. As one site puts it (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SpeedOfElectrons), "So they are buzzing about at random at high speeds, with a small superimposed drift velocity caused by the electric field."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-23-2005 12:24 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-23-2005 1:48 PM Percy has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4365 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 246 of 309 (193699)
03-23-2005 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Percy
03-23-2005 1:23 PM


Percy
that is correct. I didn't complicate it unduly but the drift velocity is a superimposed effect.
But the analogy holds be it dominoes or ball bearings in a garden hose.
By Lyndons argument we should be able to make wires out of a vacuum with electrons spaced every metre or so.
*** How many people on here think your monitor is going to turn on if that was the case?? ***

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Percy, posted 03-23-2005 1:23 PM Percy has not replied

Sylas
Member (Idle past 5250 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 247 of 309 (193718)
03-23-2005 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by lyndonashmore
03-23-2005 6:50 AM


Re: Do electrons in a thin plasma act in unison? Yes they do!
One useful feature of this thread is that it shows such a range of basic kinds of error in physics, which can show up for students in many other contexts.
Previously I showed
  • Errors of scale. Failing to work with number magnitudes correctly for things that are very large or very small.
  • Errors of units. Ashmore’s abstract has two formulae: H = hr/m and H = 2nhr/m. The first one is a units error; the second is not.
  • Errors of invalid analogy. I’ve done the sums for thin plasma. Ashmore has not; he introduces sums for electrons in a wire.
Another common basic error is mixing up the behaviour of individuals in a composite object with behaviour of the whole composite. Here is an example:
lyndonashmore writes:
Now I gave an example of a voltage of one nanovolt (10^-9V) across a wire 10m long still produced a current event though the wire was at room temp. Sylas told us that at room temp the average KE of the electrons is 2x10^-20J. Well in our wire, a voltage of one nanovolt means that every coulomb that travels from one end to the other gains 1x10^-9 Joule of energy. Our little electron has 1.6x10^-19 Coulombs, so it gains 1.6x10^-28Joule of energy electrically.
This is off topic. We are discussing tired light, and that is a putative phenomenon in thin plasmas in space; not in wires. However, I doubt that Ashmore is capable of recognizing this, or of doing the sums in the correct context (perhaps because deep down he actually knows enough physics to see that in plasma he’ll get different results).
So let’s look at the errors in the above description.
A Coulomb is a unit, not a physical object. To speak of a Coulomb traveling in a wire is odd at best; but it becomes actively wrong as soon as he compares to an electron.
An electron does not travel from one end to the other. The net drift velocity of an electron is such that it would take hours to pass along the wire. Long before this we have completed our experiment and left the lab; but in fact current appears as soon as with connect to a voltage source. Current is a collective phenomenon; and it cannot be extrapolated simply to motions of one electron.
Here is a picture from Current in a Wire (by R. Vawtner at Western Washington University) of what is really happening.

The thermal velocity given here is too high; it should be more like 100 km/s. The main point is that it is eight orders of magnitude or so more than the drift velocity. What this means is that if you are looking at one individual electron, you will not be able to tell whether the battery is connected or not! It has almost the same probability of moving left to right as it does from right to left. The current only appears as an average of many billions of electrons.
Lyndon makes exactly the same error in the plasmas. In message Message 241 Lyndon says I have shown above how particles in a plasma perform SHM. This is not true; he has never done this. He has taken a collective phenomenon of plasma waves, and merely asserted that this corresponds to particles in SHM. It is not, just as current in a wire does not correspond to particles moving steadily in a linear motion. In both cases the motions of particles are highly random; with a negligible additional effect that is our interest. This additional effect (current, plasma waves) is not seen in individual particles; it is many orders of magnitude too small to be detected in individuals. It only shows up as a trend when you average over billions of particles.
Also in Message 241 there is another interesting error. Lyndon says:
lyndonashmore writes:
I say that the electrons in the plasma of IG space can oscillate and thus absorb and re-emit photons. They say that it cannot. Experimental evidence? Radio signals from the voyager and other probes are known to be slowed by the plasma of the solar system. This happens because the photons are absorbed and re-emitted and there is a delay each time as with normal transmission of light. If the photons did not interact then they would not be delayed. Theory agrees with experiment.
This is again wrong on many levels. Ashmore offers no analysis to justify any match; and the bare assertion is trivially seen to be another ludicrous error, because in fact the Pioneer anomaly is a slight additional blue shift in the light (not a redshift) and it is about 4 orders of magnitude larger than the cosmological redshift at this scale. If the effect is due to photon energy changes, it would have to be a GAIN in energy, not a loss. The standard reference on the Pioneer anomaly is Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11 by Anderson et al (2001), at gr-qc/0104064.
Cheers -- Sylas
PS. By the way, Lyndon; just so you know when it happens. There is a convention here at EvCforum that when a thread reaches 300 messages it should be closed. This stops everyone going around in circles endlessly. You've made your point, or failed to make your point, already in the thread. The rest of discussion is lots of more of the same; and soon it will come to an end.
This message has been edited by Admin, 03-23-2005 05:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-23-2005 6:50 AM lyndonashmore has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-23-2005 4:42 PM Sylas has replied
 Message 258 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2005 8:38 PM Sylas has not replied

lyndonashmore
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 309 (193721)
03-23-2005 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Sylas
03-23-2005 4:16 PM


Re: Do electrons in a thin plasma act in unison? Yes they do!
Thanks Sylas.
When you said.
quote:
One useful feature of this thread is that it shows such a range of basic kinds of error in physics
it explained everything.
Up till then I thought you where just a complete idiot, now i know you are sacrificing your integrity for the sake of the board.
When we get neer 300 posts i will inform everyone where i am so that we can continue our discussion. I thought we were all enjoying ourselves.
Actually, anyone with a brain, I will now pay out of my own pocket a forum on my site http://www/lyndonashmore.com for a forum so that we can continue this discussion. Please note that prats like Sylas Who close the discussion because he is losing is not welcome. percy, this software is great. Where can I get it to set up my own forum?
This was a good site until Sylas introduced censorship.
Its up to you!
cheers
lyndon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Sylas, posted 03-23-2005 4:16 PM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Sylas, posted 03-23-2005 5:23 PM lyndonashmore has replied

Sylas
Member (Idle past 5250 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 249 of 309 (193731)
03-23-2005 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by lyndonashmore
03-23-2005 4:42 PM


Clarification on forum conventions for long threads
Just for clarification, Lyndon, I am not the one who will be closing this thread; so the insults directed at me are not appropriate.
I am just letting you know about a long standing convention in this forum, which was in place before I arrived, and which occurs without my doing anything. The convention seems to be that a moderator asks for closing statements from all parties, and closes up. It won't be me. Look around the forum for any thread with 300 or more posts, and have a look at the last few messages to see how this seems to work.
I personally think it is a very sensible principle, but it is not my principle and I'm not the one who will be applying it. It is no more censorship than time limits in spoken debate.
You can start new threads, if you like; although new threads should bring up new issues and topics.
For example, we could do a thread on the Pioneer anomaly. You claim to be able to explain this; which would be quite a trick given that the anomaly is a blue shift.
Cheers -- Sylas
This message has been edited by Sylas, 03-23-2005 05:26 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-23-2005 4:42 PM lyndonashmore has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-23-2005 5:54 PM Sylas has not replied
 Message 256 by Buzsaw, posted 03-23-2005 8:03 PM Sylas has not replied
 Message 257 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2005 8:14 PM Sylas has not replied

lyndonashmore
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 309 (193740)
03-23-2005 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Sylas
03-23-2005 5:23 PM


Re: Clarification on forum conventions for long threads
Not a problem Syrus We all know that when I brought in experimental evidence that this was a problem for you. You where out of your depth and had to run, No problems. if i could not get myself out of a difficult situation I , no I wouldn't, you lack ethics Sylus and Percy too.
quote:
"The convention seems to be that a moderator asks for closing statements from all parties.
When did you ask anyone? When did you ask me?
But no probs. You have provided no Physics whatsoever. Be happy Sylas. You can be king of four people on this board. that is success for you. Don't feel guilty. You had a peer reviewed scientist who visited board and you told him to piss off. No Probs. We all understand that.
Chees Lyndon
PS Within the next two days thwere will be a science site4 on http://www.lyndonashmore.com with no prats like Sylas where anyone can discuss science,

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Sylas, posted 03-23-2005 5:23 PM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-23-2005 6:30 PM lyndonashmore has not replied

gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 251 of 309 (193746)
03-23-2005 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Sylas
03-19-2005 8:27 PM


http://www.lyndonashmore.com/preprintpdf.pdf
I have gotten to about message 136 in this thread so far.
I have also noticed very quickly in reading the above paper that it is written in language that would not be acceptable in most scientific journals.
Examples:
"when one considers that, if we are to believe in an expanding Universe, H could have had any value from zero up to the speed of light and is not supposed to be related to the electron. We must ask the question, why is the measured value of H so close to a simple
combination of the parameters of the electron if they are not related?"
It is not customary to speak of alternative theories in terms of one's belief in them, only if they are considered correct or not. Only a poor scientific writer would put in rhetorical questions such as this. Mind you, there might be questions asked, but they would never be worded like that.
re-worded to be more scientific:
"...when one considers that within the standard BB model the value of H should have no correlation with properties of the electron. If the value of H and the value of certain properties of the electron do correlate, how does this occur?"
It's not the best rewording, but it's an improvement.
Reading through most of the paper, it does look like a high school term paper.
This message has been edited by gnojek, 03-23-2005 06:20 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Sylas, posted 03-19-2005 8:27 PM Sylas has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4365 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 252 of 309 (193751)
03-23-2005 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by lyndonashmore
03-23-2005 5:54 PM


Well...
since I have over 150 peer reviewed publications of which over 120 are in either ApJ and MNRAS I can tell you all without a doubt that lyndons paper would be tossed in the trach can. By the way, I haven't been run off the board.
Not only does it not conform to the format and language expected of such papers ------- it's also a complete piece of crap. There is now way around this, as I have attempted on several posts to get over to Lyndon, he's just applying equations willy-nilly in total disregard of when or where these equations apply. Like a kid in a candy store really.
***** Lyndon, you said it was sent to ApJ - could you tell me who it was who gave you comments and who actually replied to you?? *****
Because quite simply I don't believe you, or at least I don't believe you got any positive feedback. Because I know professionally the majority of the science editors at ApJ and they would criticise oyur nonsense in an identical manner as I am doing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-23-2005 5:54 PM lyndonashmore has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 253 of 309 (193769)
03-23-2005 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by lyndonashmore
03-23-2005 8:07 AM


Re: Do electrons in a thin plasma act in unison? Yes they do! not.
ah, so you cannot counter the points I made, and agree that treating the electrons as stationary is a false representation of the actual behavior. that's okay.
your second sentence is a complete non-sequitur to my comments.
enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-23-2005 8:07 AM lyndonashmore has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 254 of 309 (193771)
03-23-2005 7:30 PM


Forum Guidelines Advisory
Please don't anyone respond in kind to posts violating the Forum Guidelines. Thanks!

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 255 of 309 (193775)
03-23-2005 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by lyndonashmore
03-20-2005 1:25 PM


Re: Malmquist Bias
lyndonashmore writes:
The paper is famous on forums because they are looking at supernovae Ia and ‘select’ or get rid of quite a large sample of supernovae. Why not include them all?
DUH!
because Type 1A supernova are a result of a very specific phenomenon which occurs with a specific energy, thus giving observers sort of a standard candle. They all have the same light output and so you can calculate distance using the luminosity of the supernova
But, being a physicist, you already knew that.
buzsaw writes:
......and if the BB had never been invented an alleged expanding space would likely not have been concocted up, because the BB is just that - contrived.
Actually, you've got that backward.
(This is my ill-informed cartoon of events. Please correct me where I am wrong.)
Hubble saw all this redshift all over the place.
He very roughly showed that the redshift was proportional to distance.
(Distance that was measured by other means.)
He looked everywhere and saw just about every galaxy was redshifted.
He proposed that this might be due to the Doppler effect.
The conclusion from that is that galaxies are moving away from each other.
This implies that at some previous point all the galaxies were much closer to each other (but only if you extrapolate continouosly like creationists have done with the earth's magnetic field to say that it can't possibly be 4 billion years old).
Then, the theorists chimed in.
They looked at the equations of general relativity (without the cosmological constant) and said that space must either be expanding or contracting.
They then took this to say that the redshift is not only due to the relative velocity of the matter in galaxies, but also due to the expansion of space itself.
They also did some complicated extrapolations, and bang! we have the big bang theory.
So the BB theory is built on some serious assumptions that may or may not be correct, but they didn't just make it up.
Again, please don't kick over your chair if you want to correct me, just do it!
This message has been edited by gnojek, 03-23-2005 07:44 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-20-2005 1:25 PM lyndonashmore has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Sylas, posted 03-23-2005 9:42 PM gnojek has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024