Tired Light

I always liked HD 93308 myself.

No it is not since the CMB photons are effectively decoupled except small peturbations like the integrated Sacks-Wolfe effect.The CMB decoupled and has since expanded uniformly preserving its shape.My God, this is almost high school level simplicity. Crap!!!

Eta,Doh! Thanks for the explanation!Lyndon,In case you were missing the point like I was, the value of your "constant" for hr/m is a function of your units. If you start with units of meters: You then divide by m³ to yield your value per unit volume of 2.05 x 10^-18s^-1, which is sort of close to the Hubble Constant. There are two problems with this. First, if your value were really per unit volume then the units would have volume in the denominator, but they don't. All you've done is arbitrarily divided by m³ to improperly address the disparity in your units .Second, your value is a function of the units you choose to work in. As Eta has pointed out, if you perform the calculation in units of feet you get a different constant: You then divide by ft³ to adjust the units, and you're now left with 7.25 x 10^-17s^-1 for your constant, which turns out not to be so constant and nowhere near the Hubble constant. Your paradox isn't really a paradox, only a result of playing games with numbers and mishandling units.--Percy

This isn't really an answer. I think it is true that explaining the isotropy is a challenge.I don't see why that makes LA think it supports his ideas though.

The 'Crap' comment was in reference to his last line. Having said that it really applies to his whole model, from the initial FALSE paradox to the mechanism of photon scattering and the observational consequences of this he fails to see to his getting realtivity wrong to him saying the redshift-distance relation is exponential (it isnt - it has no closed functional form actually). Crap crap crap.Lyndon is grasping at anything and everything to fit in his preconceived view of how things are based upon an initial false paradox he thinks he has.The Horizon problem is of course famous and was one of the 3 prime motivators for infaltionary cosmology.

This is all high school level dimensional analysis.Now if he used in his h*Re/Me the Planck Length and multipled by the Planck Time and divided by the Planck length cubed and this number was equal to the Hubble constant times the Planck Time then we might have a topic for discussion.Until then he should shut the hell up unless he wants ridicule.This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 03-19-2005 05:46 PM

Thanks for the explantion. It would probably best to ignore such childish comments. It is clear to most that you haven't "fallen for" anything.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-19-2005 05:34 PM

Hi Lyndon. Now you are likely beginning to see why we are so unbalanced here at EvC as to debate counterparts and why so few counterparts to the majority view remain for long. I know, having endured it for two years now. This's the treatment you get for your debut in this town You get the whole pack going at you, expecting more of you than they require of themselves in interpreting the forum guidelines.The thread topic is "tired light." Now you're being required to have an answer to every dang thing they can think up, whether it makes sense or not, or you, every source you cite, your journals and your website hypothesis are considered "crank" nonscience by the loud majority, {as if the majority haven't been wrong before in history}. Likewise, anyone associated with your views are so labeled.Now, if the topic were, "does space expand," with one of the best of these, your counterparts debating a forum packed with you and your ideological friends, likely you and yours would have a whole lot of problems with expanding space to throw at your lone counterpart who has five or six posters to keep up with.I apologize for the manner in which a few of my forum colleagues here have treated you as a junior member. I should think that they, and some admin, in particular, would be more greatful for someone as apprised and able as you are to even debate science and physics so intelligently and efficiently as you do, regardless of whether every question has been answered to their suiting.I appreciate your ability to endure this, all the while keeping your cool so well. Hopefully you're thick skinned enough to hang in here. What has kept me here so long is the confidence that truth will prevail in the end when you keep on keeping on with the truth. Your signature says a lot, i.e. bringing science down to earth.On the otherhand, you'll find this cite to be efficiently set up and that the more you get to know these folks, (Even Eta) the harder you'll find it to leave them. They are, for the most part, of above average intelligence and between them all, they leave no stone unturned as to challenges that can be thrown at the minority view posters. Thus they serve to keep us honest and each new challenge presents an opportunity for us to learn as well as to finetune our own thinking so as to arrive at the ultimate truth.I have immensely enjoyed the robust and informative contribution you've brought to EvC in the short time you've been here and I'm sure a host of our readers have also. Regardless of your faith or lack of same, may God bless you and yours for the time and effort you're expending for the advancement of truth via debate and interaction. "Iron is sharpening iron" here for the good of all of us. I'm also grateful as a non-degreed debater who until your arrival has had to rely a lot on logic and common sense (forbid the thought!)to receive some support for much of what I've been admonished as non-science; this support from one so able as you are to provide a science argument to these who are so adamantly allegeging that the expanding space concept is now an open and shut case.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-19-2005 06:22 PM

---

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

That is false. The problem is simply that Lyndon's physics is wrong, and nearly everyone can see some really trivial errors. Except you, of course.There have been no guidelines complaints that I have seen; except a few admonitions to people OTHER THAN Lyndon requesting them to calm down a bit. A request I echo as well. Thanks for that. The other side of the coin is that people here have ALSO expended enormous amounts of time and effort in explaining the models used in basic physics for you and others. That is, we ALSO leave no stone unturned in dealing with the so-called criticisms leveled at conventional physics.When you or others give actual meaningful criticisms other than personal convictions and intuitions (expressed as "it's logical" or "it's common sense", they get dealt with, swiftly and in detail.For example, the only actual criticism Lyndon has given so far for Big Bang cosmology that I have seen are that it fails to explain his paradox of H₀ = hr_e/m_e; and that it fails to explain CMB isotropy.Lyndon's first criticism is a basic units error; and the second is conventionally explained by the inflationary epoch.Cheers -- SylasThis message has been edited by Sylas, 03-19-2005 06:43 PM

Wasn't this also part of the predicted WMAP result based on Guth's model? I'll have to go back and check. And seems to me there other models that have no problem with this result, like the string theory and branes? It seems to me that both inflation and brane theory developed a large cloud of plasma that was expanding and cooling, reaching a point where {plasma condensed\space became transparent} and that the CMB is the last visible remnant of that point in time. As this would be a uniform temperature event that spread simultaneously to the far reaches of the universe the correlation of time to distance should be what it is. No later interaction of photons required.{added by edit}
yep:
Object not found! | The University of Chicago This message has been edited by RAZD, 03*19*2005 07:34 PM

---

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

The problem is that he is not providing information BUT disinformation. His physics is WRONG. No ifs ands or buts about it.I literally could type 3 pages of posts on just his basic misunderstandings let alone the implications of his rubbish.You will also notice I have not challenged him on anything other than things he has brought up - I have not extended the discussion as another part of your post indicates.I will also say that he started the poor tone of posts by him calling Sylas basically an idiot yet I didn't see anything directly in error in Sylas' posts.If 'bringing science down to Earth' means to butcher science then we should want no part of it.Your post as a whole reeks of just agreeing with someone because they have a view that challenges an orthodocy you have problems with. This is similar to Creationists I know who have said that even if they use false information as long as it defeats evolution and brings people to Christ then that is OK to do so. Methinks, that violates the bearing of false witness commandment.This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 03-19-2005 07:43 PM

You have to be careful about what, if anything, inflation predicts. That UofC paragraph is a tad misleading. There are many different possible inflationary models and the fluctuation distribution is a possible test of many of these. But I'd be hard pressed to say this is a prediction of inflation per se.

I have to disagree that my statement is false, my friend, but if I address it further, I'll take it to the proper place for comment, so as not to disrupt this most interesting and informative thread. Thanks, btw, for your contribution to it.Thanks also for the watchful eye of EvC town judge Minnemoosis, who appears to keep us all fairly in tow to the extent of his authority.

---

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

my recollection was that only small fluctuations on a uniform background were predicted at the time by Guth's {old} inflation, and that this was born out by the WMAP. subsequent theory has moved ahead, and all the "flavors" of inflation do muddy the waters.the original (nasa) links I had to the prediction information are broken (or rather updated to new information), hence the UofC one here.I also note that nasa reports:
"Expansion rate (Hubble constant) value: Ho= 71 (km/sec)/Mpc (with a margin of error of about 5%)" or generously somewhere between 67 and 75 ...
WMAP Mission: Results- Age of the UniverseThis message has been edited by RAZD, 03*19*2005 08:13 PM

---

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

Regardless of your assessment of Lyndon's views, Eta, I had hoped that you and others would show more respect and hospitality for someone so able to even discuss the science of cosmology to the extent that this obviously brilliant poster has been able to do, single handedly debating a host of counterparts in scientific terms, my point being that it is folks like Lyndon who are able to debate the things we all like to read and learn about who are sadly lacking here doing what our new friend is doing for the good of the board and it's readers.I say, go at your opponent with all your mental might, but do so in a nicer and more congenial way so he will sense a welcome and so good posters like him will be more inclined to participate on our board.The EvC forum name implies an invitation for guests and members of all ideologies. Therefore, may we all show hospitality, especially for quality new members, able to intelligently debate the issues we all want to discuss.

---

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