Thanks for the welcome, I am just passing through really — I will just sort this thing out on tired light and then move on.
You seem to be confused about the Hubble constant. You have WMAP at 71 plus or minus 3.5 meaning it lies between about 67 and 74? and yet you also quote other values of 60 or less and then Wendy’s of over 70. You can’t have them all. You cannot say it is 71 or it might be 60 or less but not 64. Make your mind up.
My original post should have been quite clear, and you'll see the same thing in many papers on this subject. As is standard in scientific writing, I give a quick survey of prior work and alternatives. There are two main groups, which have incompatible results. Saha, Sandage et al are the low values; and Freedman and the KST group have the high values. They can't both be right.
The WMAP group confirms the Freedman KST values, which means (as I said previously) that Sandage's group is in trouble. The error bounds from WMAP are 67.5 to 74.5 (71 plus or minus 3.5). Freedman's KST group is proposing 74 plus or minus 7. (67 to 81) So KST and WMAP are compatible; but Sandage is incompatible with both.
My post was clear: Sandage looks very shakey; so I'm betting on WMAP.
Your approach, of averaging, is precisely the wrong way to approach such a scientific dispute. If one group says 57 +/- 4, and another says 74 +/- 7, you don't average them. You try to find out who went wrong.
I see you are particularly keen on a value proposed by nine years ago by Riess, Press and Kirshner. These guys show the correct way to manage this kind of issue. It's no good just looking over the old papers and trying to combine incompatible claims. You have to look at the data. This is done in
Cepheid Calibrations from the Hubble Space Telescope of the Luminosity of Two Recent Type Ia Supernovae and a Re-determination of the Hubble Constant, by Kirshner et al, to appear in the Astrophysical Journal and now available at astro-ph/0503159.
They propose the source of error which led them to make the incorrect estimate back in 1996, and show how the errors arise from poor data. The explain how to deal with it, and perform an improved analysis on better data to obtain 73 +/- 4 (statistical) +/- 5 (systematic). So now we have three groups all around the low 70s, with error bars that exclude 64. (Kirshner et al 2005 arguably include 64 as an extreme; the others do not.)
The icing on the cake is that this means the very person you cite most prominently for your figure has now published their own analysis of the problems in their own work, and have revised appropriately.
Your suggestion that different results correspond to different electron density is bizarre. The groups are not looking in diverse directions; but using different yardsticks. More seriously, your invocation of varying electron densities immediately knocks out any association with an absolute value of hr/m, which has no component for density. So the hr/m equation is irrelevant.
This was always a consistent problem with your work. There was never a model that made sense of the hr/m coincidence; and if there was such a model then it would be falsified by a further dependence on density of electrons. So there is nothing to explain in H=hr/m, which is just as well because H is bigger than hr/m.
Then you actually give a different equation anyway! Your real analysis appears to use 2nhr/m, where n is a density figure.
Now we have another horrible problem with your model. You only consider electrons. That's not sensible; the intergalactic medium is not composed all of this one particle; and that blows the whole analysis out of the water. So does the Lyman Alpha forest, which shows clearly that the intergalactic medium scatters wavelengths preferentially.
But by far the most serious problem with your whole presentation is that you have merely ignored without any comment all the empirical refutations of tired light. Supernova light curves. Focus in large red shift objects. And blackbody spectrum of the CMBR.
One final point. When we name some model or theory or paradox after a person, WE do it. Not them. The only person who speaks of "Ashmore's paradox" is Ashmore. That is a bit of a give away. Also bizarre is your excitement at having a paper accepted for a peer reviewed publication; with no mention of what publication accepted it!
Sorry Lyndon. You’ve got nothing here but an avalanche of errors, and bitter experience tells me that nothing on earth could persuade you to see that.
Ah well. Thanks for dropping by. I’m happy to continue, but I see no prospects for a happy resolution.
Cheers -- Sylas
This message has been edited by Sylas, 03-15-2005 07:48 AM
™ Version 4.2
