Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
28 online now:
14174dm, DrJones*, ringo (3 members, 25 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,715 Year: 18,751/19,786 Month: 1,171/1,705 Week: 423/518 Day: 41/58 Hour: 0/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Tired Light
Sylas
Member (Idle past 3548 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 16 of 309 (191818)
03-15-2005 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Loudmouth
03-15-2005 5:07 PM


Re: Millisecond Pulsars
Tired light is also ruled out by Millisecond Pulsars (MP hereafter). These stars are extrememly dense. They also rotate at fantastic speed. In fact, this is how they got their name. Because we know the mass of these stars and their speed of rotation, we also know that if they were going any faster they would be torn apart by centrifugal force. If light were slowing down (ie Tired Light) this would mean that we are actually watching a slow motion replay of these MPs, an impossibility as stated above. These MPs can not spin any faster than what we observe meaning that Tired Light is also an impossibility.

I do not believe this is correct. Tired light models involve light losing energy, not slowing down.

Ironically, it is the expansion model which means distant objects are seen in slow motion; and this effect is confirmed with supernova light curves. The supernova appear to fade more slowly due to the extra distance travelled by light after a period of time.

However, this is not really a problem for Millisecond Pulsars, because they are basically all within our galaxy, and so don't have any cosmological redshift.

Cheers -- Sylas


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Loudmouth, posted 03-15-2005 5:07 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 309 (191821)
03-15-2005 9:39 PM


Re: Halton Arp
I can't remember whether we've discussed Dr. Halton Arp, noted physicist and cosmologist who rebuts spatial expansion in previous threads. He wrote "Seeing Red" among much more.

He made the following statement in "Seeing Red.":

An enormous amount of modern telescope time and staff is devoted to measuring redshifts of faint smudges on the sky. It is called "probing the universe." So much time is consumed, in fact, that there is no time at all available to investigate the many crucial objects which disprove the assumption that redshift measures distance. (p. 69) Halton Arp

He, like Lyndon Ashmore has an interesting website as follows. I'm wondering what both Sylas and Lyndon think about his arguments.
www.haltonarp.com


The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Sylas, posted 03-15-2005 9:54 PM Buzsaw has responded

Sylas
Member (Idle past 3548 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 18 of 309 (191822)
03-15-2005 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Buzsaw
03-15-2005 9:39 PM


Re: Halton Arp
Let's keep this thread focussed on tired light models please. I would love to discuss Halton Arp, but he belongs in his own thread. It would also be cool to expand a bit on Arp in this thread I set up ages ago: Message 1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 03-15-2005 9:39 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 03-15-2005 11:06 PM Sylas has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 309 (191838)
03-15-2005 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Sylas
03-15-2005 9:54 PM


Re: Halton Arp
OK, Sylas. I thought the name rang a bell. Thanks for the link.


The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Sylas, posted 03-15-2005 9:54 PM Sylas has not yet responded

lyndonashmore
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 309 (191874)
03-16-2005 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Loudmouth
03-15-2005 5:07 PM


Re: Millisecond Pulsars
Hi Loudmouth,
As Sylas says, Tired Light does not mean the light slows down – the speed of light is a universal constant.
Forget all this nonsense about an expanding universe, the Universe is static.
What we find from experiment is that photons of light from distant galaxies have a longer wavelength when they arrive at the Earth, than when they set off. This is called ‘redshift’. The BB theory gets hot and bothered and somehow interprets this as the universe expanding out of nothing. They say that as the universe expands it ‘stretches’ the photons. This is overcomplicating things. All we need to explain, is “why do photons of light have a longer wavelength on arrival than when they set off”?
Tired light says that the photons interact with electrons on their way (after all, some of them have been travelling for hundreds of millions of years so one expects them to have bumped into something on the way – unless you are a Big Banger that is!). At each interaction, the photon loses a little energy. Since the speed of light is a constant, it can’t slow down. With Photons, their energy is proportional to their frequency and the constant of proportionality is the Planck constant (E = hf). Twice as much energy means twice the frequency of a photon and so on. So if the photon loses energy to an electron on the way, its frequency must reduce. Lower frequency means longer wavelength. It has been redshifted. Doesn’t that make more sense than all these ‘bangs’ and ‘expansions”?
When I showed that the Hubble constant itself was related to a combination of the planck constant and the electron - it shows just who is correct.
Tired light.
The Universe is not expanding.
Cheers,
lyndon


Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Loudmouth, posted 03-15-2005 5:07 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 03-16-2005 9:06 AM lyndonashmore has not yet responded

sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 309 (191875)
03-16-2005 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by lyndonashmore
03-15-2005 2:52 PM


lydonashmore

In Tired light, we say that the Universe is static and that redshifts are caused by photons of light interacting with electrons in Intergalactic Space on the way.

So if we are given that there is,on averge, roughly the same amount of material between us and distant galaxies,then do you have a formula that allows us to determine just how much energy the light loses as it interacts with each electron on the way?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-15-2005 2:52 PM lyndonashmore has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-16-2005 7:50 AM sidelined has not yet responded

lyndonashmore
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 309 (191876)
03-16-2005 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Sylas
03-15-2005 5:51 PM


Hi Sylas,
This post of yours is so full of holes, I don’t know where to start.
Sylas is wrong when he says:
quote:
Which ever model is used, the Hubble constant still ends up being constant; there is no good evidence for inconstancy in the linear relationship between redshift and distance. This has nothing to do with the Big Bang; tired light models also have a linear relationship. This relation is the basic data that both conventional astronomy and tired light models try to explain.

It is an accepted fact that the redshift distance relationship is exponential. All agree (except Sylas it would seem) that it is exponential. An exponential function is linear for nearby galaxies but rises sharply the more distant one goes. Tired Light shows this relationship and derives it. The Big Bangers made a quick about turn and dreamt up ‘inflation’ to explain the experimental result. Unlike Tired light, where this exponential relationship has a firm grounding, there is no basis for inflation in the Bb - other than making a false theory fit the experimental results.
Sylas is wrong when he says:
quote:
Supernova light curves. The light from a type Ia supernova has a characteristic light curve. It peaks in about 20 days and then fades at a fixed rate. However, there is a linear relationship between redshift and the fade time. The more redshifted the supernova, the more slowly the light fades. The data is a good match with expectations arising from modeling redshift as recessions. After 20 days, the supernova is that much further from earth as it recedes with the Hubble flow, and the light takes correspondingly longer to reach us. Tired light models predict no change in light curves; and are falsified by the data.

In the Big bang theory, Supernovae light curves are ‘said to have a relationship between redshift and fade time because of relativistic effects – when the speed approaches that of the speed of light, the slower time clocks go. This post of Sylas’s is just gobbledy gook. I thought I was here to correct your misleading posts on Tired light and now I am having to correct your misleading posts on your own pet theory – the BB! You would be well advised to stop ‘cherry picking’ from scientific papers, and get a good book on the BB - and then come back to defend it.
However, let us return to the fact of the nonconstant Hubble constant. I see that you are clinging to the belief that the BB Theory must be correct and that the experimental evidence must be wrong.
The paper you quote and your response to it shows that you know nothing of experimental uncertainties. The error bars are not the ‘maximum permitted range’ but give the range ‘one standard deviation’ each side – that is random errors will give results 60 odd percent of the time within this range. It is like the odds on a horse. A horse may be unlikely to win a race with odds of 33 to 1 but it still, and does, win – sometimes. In your quoted paper, where distances don’t overlap within their ranges of uncertainties, they are not that much further out and the probability of this happening is still fairly high. With experimental values of H from 50 to 80 then no way! This is far too unlikely to happen and so H must not be a constant. The Big Bang Theory must be wrong.
To say that it is the experimental result is wrong rather than the theory is just bad science and closed mindedness.
Sylas:
quote:
By the way, I am not a real scientist myself. I'm an interested amateur who does a lot of reading

I think we had already gathered this Sylas.
Cheers,
Lyndon


Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Sylas, posted 03-15-2005 5:51 PM Sylas has not yet responded

lyndonashmore
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 309 (191877)
03-16-2005 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by sidelined
03-16-2005 7:21 AM


Hi Sidelined,
Yes I have but I have got to go out now, I will get back to you.
Cheers,
Lyndon


Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by sidelined, posted 03-16-2005 7:21 AM sidelined has not yet responded

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 309 (191883)
03-16-2005 8:39 AM


If its true that photons are smacking into things, shouldn't there be a lot of scatter? One would think that if a photon hit something it would be deflected off into a new direction - shouldn't space exhibit things like rainbows and white noise as a result? Just curious.

Percy
Member
Posts: 18873
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 25 of 309 (191890)
03-16-2005 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by lyndonashmore
03-16-2005 6:52 AM


Re: Millisecond Pulsars
lyndonashmore writes:

So if the photon loses energy to an electron on the way, its frequency must reduce.

Are photons really able to give up just a portion of their energy to an electron? My understanding is that a photon is either fully absorbed by an electron or not. If it is absorbed then the electron rises to a higher energy level. When the electron returns to a lower energy level it emits another photon. If the energy level it returns to is higher than the electron's original energy level, then the photon it emits will be lower in energy than the photon it absorbed.

Because the direction of the outgoing photon is not governed by the direction of the original photon, there should be scattering of light. Is this observed?

Statistically, some photons will encounter more of the matter in the intergalactic medium than others, so some arriving photons will be more "tired" than others. Is this observed?

Also, the degree to which light becomes tired in your theory must be a function of how much of the intergalactic medium it interacts with. Do we observe differences in red shift according to density of intergalactic medium?

Added by edit: Since in your theory the decrease in energy of photons is due to interaction with electrons, and since electrons can only change energy by quantum amounts, light can only become tired by quantum amounts. Is this observed?

--Percy

This message has been edited by Percy, 03-16-2005 09:11 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-16-2005 6:52 AM lyndonashmore has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Melchior, posted 03-16-2005 9:28 AM Percy has responded

  
Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 309 (191893)
03-16-2005 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Percy
03-16-2005 9:06 AM


Re: Millisecond Pulsars
Yes, via something called the Compton effect. It's commonly used as a theoretical basis for experiments with Xrays, so you might have encountered it if you attended basic physics in university.

Essentially, photons can 'collide' with electrons. When this happens, some of the photons energy transfers into kinetic energy for the electron.

The effects are that the path of the photon is changed (you can check up the formulas for the change in angle on the net) and it's frequency is lowered.

So there is still the problem with shattering, although energetic light DO become tired by interacting with free electrons.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 03-16-2005 9:06 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-16-2005 9:55 AM Melchior has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 03-16-2005 9:57 AM Melchior has not yet responded

lyndonashmore
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 309 (191896)
03-16-2005 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Melchior
03-16-2005 9:28 AM


Re: Millisecond Pulsars
Hi Melchior
My effect is not compton, more mossbauer type of thing. So scatter is is not a problem- see below.
Cheers Lyndon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Melchior, posted 03-16-2005 9:28 AM Melchior has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18873
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 28 of 309 (191897)
03-16-2005 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Melchior
03-16-2005 9:28 AM


Re: Millisecond Pulsars
Melchior writes:

Yes, via something called the Compton effect.

The entry on the Compton Effect at Wikipedia talks of a re-emited photon:

Because the photons have such high energy, the interaction results in the electron being given enough energy to be completely ejected from its atom, and a photon containing the remaining energy being emitted in a different direction from the original, so that the overall momentum of the system is conserved. (If the photon still has enough energy, the process may be repeated.) Because of the overall reduction in energy of the photon, there is a corresponding increase in its wavelength. Thus overall there is a slight 'reddening' and scattering of the photons as they pass through the material. This scattering is known as Compton Scattering.

After thinking about this a bit, perhaps it doesn't matter whether the original photon gives up some of its energy to the electron, or whether the electron absorbs all the photon's energy then re-emits another photon at a lower energy, keeping some of the energy for itself. I took a peek over at Hyperphysics, and it echoed your description. I guess I'm not yet convinced which is correct, but as I said, it might not be an important point, at least for this discussion.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Melchior, posted 03-16-2005 9:28 AM Melchior has not yet responded

  
lyndonashmore
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 309 (191900)
03-16-2005 10:00 AM


Thanks for the interest in the theory. Let me explain how my tired light theory works, but first we must look at how light travels through a medium.
When light travels through a medium such as glass it is constantly absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in the atoms of the glass. The photon comes along, bumps into an electron and is absorbed (– regardless of its frequency) and the electrons in the atom are set into oscillation. What happens next depends upon the frequency of the photon compared to the natural frequency of oscillation of the electron in the atom.
If the two frequencies are the same then the photon is absorbed and the energy dissipated to all the atoms in the block (resonance absorption).
It the two frequencies are way apart (as happens with most photons of light and glass) then the electrons in the atom emit a new photon exactly the same as the incoming one and in the same direction as the first. However, the absorption re-emission process takes a little time and so the light is slowed down. Photons travel at the speed of light between atoms but because of all the delays suffered by the photon as it is absorbed and re-emitted its average speed is reduced.
In glass
1) light travels in straight lines.
2) The speed is reduced because of absorption re-emission of the photns.
Now I say that the same thing happens with the electrons in the plasma of Intergalactic space. Over 99% of space is in the form of plasma and because of long range coulomb forces, the electrons act collectively and can oscillate. Therefore they can absorb and re-emit photons of light. But there is a difference between IG space and glass. In glass the electrons and atoms are firmly held together, they cannot recoil. No energy is lost to the electrons in the atom and so the new photon emitted has the same energy as the one absorbed - there is no redshift in glass.
In IG space it is different. It is ‘squidgy’. When an electron absorbs a photon the electron recoils. When the electron re-emits the new photon it recoils again. Some of the energy of the incoming photon is transferred to the recoiling electron. The new photon that is emitted has less energy than the one that arrived. This means that its frequency is less and its wavelength greater – it has been redshifted.
Now on this journey through intergalactic space, photons will make many collisions such as this and be redshifted each time.
In tired light the distance redshift relation becomes:
Photons of light from a galaxy twice as far away, travel twice as far through the intergalactic medium, make twice as many collisions and thus undergo twice the shift in wavelength.
Now doesn’t that make much more sense?
Cheers
Lyndon


Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 03-16-2005 10:08 AM lyndonashmore has responded
 Message 31 by NosyNed, posted 03-16-2005 10:11 AM lyndonashmore has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18873
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 30 of 309 (191902)
03-16-2005 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by lyndonashmore
03-16-2005 10:00 AM


You must have clicked on the General Reply button, and you didn't quote any text, so I can't tell if you're replying to me or to someone else. In case you're replying to me, I was already aware of the information you provided, but you didn't address any of my questions from Message 25:

Because the direction of the outgoing photon is not governed by the direction of the original photon, there should be scattering of light. Is this observed?

Statistically, some photons will encounter more of the matter in the intergalactic medium than others, so some arriving photons will be more "tired" than others. Is this observed?

Also, the degree to which light becomes tired in your theory must be a function of how much of the intergalactic medium it interacts with. Do we observe differences in red shift according to density of intergalactic medium?

Since in your theory the decrease in energy of photons is due to interaction with electrons, and since electrons can only change energy by quantum amounts, light can only become tired by quantum amounts. Is this observed?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-16-2005 10:00 AM lyndonashmore has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-16-2005 10:28 AM Percy has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019