|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Tired Light | |||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
That paper does not seem to be saying what you say it does.
"how time dilation results prove the Bb wrong?" Is not what I get out of reading the whole paper and it's conclusions. It does say:
quote: Is thte the line that you think "proves" the BB wrong? If so I suggest you read more carefully.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyndonashmore Inactive Member |
Hi NosyNed,
The point is this, Time dilation was put forward to disprove Tired Light and 'Prove' expansion. BB'ers saw some very unconvincing evidence and trumpeted the demise of Tired Light. hawkins et al went out and looked where time dilation would be obvious - quasars. there was none. Ergo, in the logic of Bb'ers and the several on this site who have asked me to explain how Tired Light 'explains' time dilation - there is none! Consequently, since Bb expects it the Bb is wrong. But we have a long way to go - you have to bring your sandwiches with Tired Light. remember, Hawkins is a respected scientist working at a respected observatory - not a quack. Cheers Lyndon. Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
you mean this one?
NO REDIRECT (note the professional website and company domain) or this one?#1 Lead Generation El Paso, TX | All-Inclusive Online Marketing (they are the same) Editorial Policy Galilean Electrodynamics aims to publish high-quality scientific papers that discuss challenges to accepted orthodoxy in physics, especially in the realm of relativity theory, both special and general. In particular, the journal seeks papers arguing that Einstein's theories are unnecessarily complicated, have been confirmed only in a narrow sector of physics, lead to logical contradictions, and are unable to derive results that must be postulated, though they are derivable by classical methods. On occasion, the journal will publish papers on other less relativity-related topics. But all papers are expected to be in the realms of physics, engineering or mathematics. Non-mathematical, philosophical papers will generally not be accepted unless they are fairly short and have something new and outstandingly interesting to say. Where there is more than one new theory that meets the criteria of consistency with experiment, faultless logic and greater simplicity than orthodoxy offers, none will be favored over the others, except where Ockham's razor yields an overwhelming verdict. All papers are reviewed by qualified physicists, astronomers, engineers or mathematicians. A reviewer's rejection of a submitted paper for the sole reason that it contradicts accepted opinion and interpretation will be ignored by the Editor. Sounds like a papermill for crank concepts all right. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
lyndonashmore
How does your model explain blueshifted light?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4405 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
He points out the coincidence of the value h*Re/Me and the Hubble constant of the present epoch. THIS IS MEANINGLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It would have more meaning IF he was equating dimensionless numbers but his quantity is not dimensionless. Here is an example: He calculates h*Re/Me as approx. 2.1 x 10^-18 Metres^3 per second.This is correct of course. He then has the Hubble constant of say 70 km/s/Mpc and this is about2 x 10^-18 per second. Again correct. He then goes and divides his h*Re/Me by 1 m^3 and gets an equivalence. Here is why this is bullshit. Let's recalculate h*Re/Me in the old foot-pound-second system of the 19th century physics world. We get that h*Re/Me is 7.03 x 10^-17 ft^3 per second. If I then divide by 1 ft^3 I get 7.03 x 10^-17 per second. Let's do this for the Hubble constant in a different unit system.70 km/s/Mpc is approx. 13.3 miles/s/Million light years. This again gives approx. 2 x 10^-18 per second. See what is going on here? The Hubble constant is (as long as we use seconds for our time unit) has the value 2 x 10^-18 per second. But our h*Re/Me has to be in metres^3 per second and divided by 1 m^3 to get the same numerical equivalence as the Hubble constant. WHY IS THE METRE ANY BETTER THAN THE FOOT? By choosing my length unit appropriately I can get pretty much any answer I want for h*Re/Me. That isn't science its numerology or game playing if you will. Is he saying that the Universe has this equivalence just because of a stick in Paris that was based upon a guess at a fraction of the Earths circumference 200 years ago???? THAT IS NONSENSE OF COURSE. This is why physicists when looking at variations of fundamental constants or coincidences of seemingly fundamental things use dimensionless parameters not ones that have values dependent on 18th century Frenchmen or medieval Englishmen or Romans or Greeks. Crank science has always been crank science and it smells from a mile away even on the internet. Lyndon, I noticed you avoided answering this. You're equivalence of h*Re/Me is NONSENSE as it can be any value you want it to be based upon an arbitrary choice of length unit. You have a near equivalance based upon a stick in Paris. If that stick was 5 times larger then your number is a factor of 5 different from the Hubble constant. This is numerology NOT science!!!!!!!!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyndonashmore Inactive Member |
Hi Razd,
I am happy to publish in this journal. I hadn't realised there was a problem and I am sure that there isn't. But would you be kind and post a link to one of your published papers so that I can see how it is done? Cheers, Lyndon Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4405 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
lyndonashmore writes: Why should I not reappear? I am here for fun too and I can see a lot of it here!As for your earlier post, where does the CMB come from, it is local. In my Tired Light Theory the photons are absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in Intergalactic space. Each time the electron recoils and gains some energy from the photon. The photon has lost energy, its frequency becomes less, its wavelength increases. It has been redshifted. Now lets look at the recoiling electron. It is brought to rest by coulomb forces between it and the other electrons in the plasma and radiates this energy as a secondary photon. This is the CMB. I calculate the wavelength of these secondary photons and show them to be in the microwave region. Cheers Lyndon You cannot produce a thermalised spectrum by this mechanism. In fact this mechanism wont work at all. You cannot have a "mossbauer like" effect with a plasma - ESPECIALLY such a rarefied one. Even if you invoke special physics to allow this to occur it still will not produce a thermalalised spectrum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4405 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
lyndonashmore writes: Hi Sylas,Glad you came back. I appreciate that it must have been very humiliating for you - being shown up like that in public with all those errors of yours on scientific fact. But never mind, Have you sorted out your understanding of the BB yet? I am happy to help you more if you like. You must remember that Ashmore's paradox is an embarassment for the Big Bang only. The fact that great scientists have been going on about it, pontificating about the age of the universe when it was only the electron in disguise! Why even a schoolchild could have whipped out their calculator and found the age of the universe by pressing a few buttons! It took a team of scientists years to find it! Have you been citing it too? No, the paradox is only an embarassment for the BB. In my tired light theory, it is expected. Since I show that H = 2nhr/m and n is known to be around unity, one expects coincidences like this. Cheers, Lyndon Of course, others must be wondering if your posts on other threads were correct too musn't they? YOU HAVE NO PARADOX!!!! It's a consequence of you using a dimensional quanitity that can give you any answer you want. It's bullshit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyndonashmore Inactive Member |
Good evening Mr Eta_carinae.
Whats all this about a thermalised spectrum. Please explain. Cheers Lyndon Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Hawkins disagrees with you as best as I read his conclusions. He offers other possibilities. The question regarding quasar time dilation is left open it appears to me.
Hawkins points out the existance of other evidence for the time dilation even he suggests that this paper does not trump the other evidence. WHy do you think it does?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
What Hawkins says about it:
Apart from the statistical evidence from quasar light curves (Hawkins 1996), microlensing has been unambiguously shown to take place in gravitationally lensed quasar systems (Pelt et al. 1998), and dominates at long timescales. If this were a general phenomenon in quasars at cosmological distances then the apparent absence of a time dilation effect in quasar light curves would be explained. Does not match your implication. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyndonashmore Inactive Member |
Hi NosyNed,
He had to give other possibilities otherwise he would be excommunicated for heresy (scuse spelling). But everything other than "the universe is not expanding" has been ruled out either by him or others. Which other possibility do you fancy? Cheers, Lyndon Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyndonashmore Inactive Member |
Hi RAZD,
What does he say is doing the microlensing? By hte way, can we have that link please. Cheers Lyndon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4405 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
How is the spectrum thermalised?
PLEASE ADDRESS THE POST I HAVE POSTED TWICE ABOUT THE FACT YOUR EQUIVALENCE IS A NUMEROLOGY EXERCISE AND DEPENDS ON THE CHOICE OF LENGTH UNIT. The metre is not a special unit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Ruled out? By this paper? If you want to use Hawkins as a source you will have to take what he says at face value. If you think he is being dishonest in the paper then I suggest you find other sources.
I'm not the one to offer other solutions. I'll wait for someone who is a cosmologist and I guess more work is needed. Meanwhile you can answer Eta's questions. It is already apparent that you aren't very much more knowledgeable in this area than I am. Which means you have a lot to get straightened out. It will be interesting to watch that get done.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024