Tired Light

Oh come Asgara. Parasomniums HALT ON ARP pun is pretty darn funny. Plus no one is replying to the physics anymore.Lyndon I think may have buggered off for good - or at least he wont answer specifics about his model being crap. He's in deflect attention and poison the Sylas well mode for the last day or so.

I do understand the joke, and yes it was funny. I haven't been crawling my way through this thread to reach anything by Ashmore, but the information supplied by yourself, Sylas and Percy has been some of the best we get. Mr. Ashmore is not the main focus of your reach, it is the lurkers, the misguided, and the just plain ignorant like me.

Several comments, but first some clarity:FROM: Anomalies of the CMB (click)
Comments on the lyndonashmore quote above:(1) Nowhere does the article say that the anomalies are actually bonafide guaranteed local: the closest you get is a speculation that there may be local contamination (by either production OR absorption), and that there are other possibilities.(2) I did not say that the motion of the solar system would have a differential effect (in fact I rather stated the opposite, that both models would show a motion effect), but that the orientation of the solar system should show up in the data different for ATL than for redshift. This is may actually sound like a stronger statement for the data than what ashmore misquoted, but that doesn't make it any more true: rather the effect I was talking about should show a consistent trend (if not a smooth correlation) from the plane of the solar system to the solar poles, and this is not observed in the data. It appears that the anomalies are out of plane and more due to a {dipole\quadpole\octopole\(harmonic)} effect from the motion and not the orientation except as it relates to that motion.(3) The experimental evidence is not what ashmore implies either. His statement makes it sound like hard solid confirmed evidence of locally produced CMB, and as noted above, that is not consistent with the facts as presented. Just as {improbable\possible} is a loss of CMB signal due to {interference\absorption}.On things like this I usually remain cautious, waiting for further confirmation from other sources and the like (the fact that I am still waiting on that for dark matter and energy is another issue), but additionally not one of these comments says that it is a local phenomenon -- just an alignment.Which way the alignment goes is not clear either: Do you know what the solar system alignment is from looking at this picture? I don't. I can make some assumptions, but I don't know.The paper that Sylas links is much more precise on what the actual analysis involves. You can also find the actual solar system orientation there too (it did not match my expectations, but it was not a big expectation).Claiming this is proof of tired light is just a(nother) post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. What ashmore needs to do (actually, to have already done) is make predictions based on his model that can differentiate it from the standard model and then go look for them. That is what brought credibility to Einstein, among others. Rather it looks to me like a whole lot of homework needs to be done to make this data fit the model, explain the process and generate differential predictions.These predictions need to be specific: the alignment of anomalies, the relative intensities, other causes that could result in the same pattern and how to differentiate them. Picking up what ever leaf falls at your feet and calling it a correlation is not science (but that approach does appear to have a bit of company on this board).That's my (humble) take. For what it is worth.Enjoy.ps -- if anyone suggests it is due to "dark gravity" ... well, just say you were warned eh?

---

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

Hi Melchior,
Correct in nearly every way except...
n is not 'set by' me the value of n from the literature is between 0.1 and 10 electrons per cubic metre. As you say if oy use feet etc then this number will change accordingly and confirm my expression for H as:
H = 2nhr/m
the '2' is not a typo. The collision cross section depends upon the size of the particle which is the diameter (2r) and the wavelence but in any case, the expression I use comes from experiments using low energy X rays and matter.
Cheers,
Lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

your problem is you've invested so much time and ego into this that pride is not allowing to see the basic stupidity. You never bring the electron density in 'til later. As I have pointed out numerous times (which you never really address) your equivalence is only because of unit choice. Then later you multiply by the electron density - which by the way you have completely wrong for the IGM. But then you claim the CMB source is more local than that anyway, which gives you the problem that n is either too large or too variable. You can't play it every which way you know. You absolutely are a complete amateur at physics and just are pissing in the wind and getting really wet.Not only is the initial premise based on an error, your mechanism does not work even if we allow you your paradox. The problem is that you are using the equations of magnetohydrodynamics because you require the plasma to act in unison so as to act in a "Mossbauer" way. BUT the plasma is way way way too tenuous for that. Work out the Debye length? Calculate the restoring forces?DO YOU JUST NOT HAVE A CLUE ON THIS???The Debye length is so large and the restoring forces so weak that you cannot treat this as anything but a scattering event. That leaves you with a huge problem. The plasma is so rarefied that it is not in Thermal Equlibrium????? DOES THIS SINK IN????? You cannot produce 2.73K radiation from this let alone as a blackbody.DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT ELECTRONS SEPARATED BY SAY A METRE ON AVERAGE (FAR MORE IN THE IGM) REALLY CAN BEHAVE AS A COHERENT STRUCTURE AND ACT IN THE WAY YOU WANT IT TOO???????
DO SOME REALISTIC CALCULATIONS !!!! Instead of playing with formulae you don't understand. You mention Bremsstrahlung - ever seen a spectrum of this??? Not exactly a blackbody is it.The sad thing is you put a lot of time into NONSENSE but even sadder is the fact you didn't have a clue that it was a complete waste. Tell me, why do you think h*Re/Me has any significance?????This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 03-22-2005 12:32 AM

At last!
Eta_Carinae and I agree on something and it is Physics! On my website I say that when the energy of the photon is above the KE of the electron my effect (the effect with no name since you don’t like double Mossbauer?) breaks down and Compton scatter takes over. Fine call it ‘inverse Compton’ if you like. This point marks a watershed in the CMB because for photons with an energy greater than the KE of the electrons in the plasma we will not get the secondary microwave photons that form the CMB. On my website I work this out and show that this point, where the photon energy equals the average KE of the electrons in the plasma marks the peak of the CMB curve. Photons with less energy undergo the ‘effect with no name’ and produce CMB photons. Photons with more energy than the average KE of the electrons in the plasma of IG space undero Compton — inverse as Eta calls it, and we don't get the CMB photons so the intensity dips. It works out perfectly. My theory predicts the Peak in the CMB curve.
Struth, Does anyone listen on this site!
Cheers,
Lyndon.

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

Ashmore gives himself two orders of magnitude to play with, which makes the word "confirm" another error. This a prediction which is not confirmed until a more accurate value for n is found. The more serious problem remains the errors in his "derivation" of the forumla.Ashmore still makes no comment on his units error in "Ashmore's paradox", which is the comparison of H and hr/m. The collision cross section Ashmore uses is for photoabsorption with a neutral hydogen atom; another spectacular error.

it doesn't matter about n. Because the IGM n value is way less than 0.1 -10 anyway.The problems with his mechanism are that he is applying a fluid approx. when it absolutely cannot apply & the spectrum so obtained cannot ever be a blackbody or even close.Lyndon - calculate your Debye lengths?? They tell you instantly that your treatment cannot apply.Also in know way can you ever get a Planckian distribution for the spectrum.Do you even understand what I am talking about?

http://ads.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bbrowse?book=hsaa&page=286You use it yourself on your website.Look at the numbers closely!!!!!!!!!!Look at the Debye lengths and the plasma frequencies!!!!!Do you know what these imply???This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 03-22-2005 12:58 AMThis message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 03-22-2005 02:39 AM

We know the debye lengths, What about the way the theory predicts the wavelength at which the CMB curve peaks?
Pretty good eh!
Lyndon.
Got work to do now
See Yah!
Lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

You are just refusing to face the obvious.I don't think you know what the Debye length is.Hint: It means your entire picture of how a diffuse plasma behaves is BULLSHIT!!!

Eta,
I appreciate that you and others are hopeless when it comes to units and their usage so let me help you out. The IGM density of electrons is 10^-5 per cm^3 ie PER CENTIMETRE CUBED. Now I work in SI units which is METRE CUBED. So 10^-5 electrons per CUBIC CENTIMETRE is 10 electrons per CUBIC METRE.
Got that now?
The 0.1 is the value presently being used in the literature.
Cheers,
Lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

Correct I missed the table was in CGS and not SI.That still doesn't change you needing metres for your initial equivalence does it???And how can electrons many cm apart act in unison???That cannot happen.

Hi, Eta carinae,
I am not getting any work done here But....
The force between two electrons 1 metre apart is 2.3x10^-28N. This produces an acceleration of 253m/s^2 ie. 25 times that due to gravity on Earth So why do you doubt that they can act in unison?
Secondly, yes i do know about Debye lenghth and suprisingly an electron interacts with other electrons within a sphere of radiius equal to the Debye length. In IG space the Debye length is 20km so the number of electrons each individual electron acts with is 3.5x10^13 I believe.
Thirdly you and many more are expending a lot of time on Ashmore's paradox. Remember this is a 'novelty' to pour scorn on the BB. It is there to point out that whenever a BB'er states the age of the universe it is equal in magnitude to m/hr for the electron, a metre length of space according to the BB expands by hr/m for the electron each second. This is nonsense because in the BB they are not supposed to be related.
Its a very unlikely coincidence in the BB, thats all. But in my theory you expect this sort of numerical coincidence because my expression for H is H = 2nhr/m and 'n' is about 1.
Cheers,
Lyndon
P.S. is your home town really near Preston?This message has been edited by lyndonashmore, 03-22-2005 03:17 AM

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

It has been pointed out to me in other threads, and I find merit in the point, that I and my fellow moderators tolerate worse behavior in evolutionists than Creationists. Could you do me a great favor and make a greater effort to maintain a dispassionate and constructive discourse with someone you find frustrating and wrongheaded. That will often mean patiently reexplaining things. There will be more benefit from this than you might think - Asgara is not alone in having trouble following this, and repetition is helpful.You've drawn the attention of two moderators now, hopefully this convinces you that an adjustment is called for.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director