Tired Light

You cannot even state the Horizon problem correctly. Lyndon you are an irretrievably lost cause I fear.This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 03-20-2005 04:25 AM

I have added paragraphs to the following extract. The link Ashmore supplies is to the astro-ph/0105073 paper by Hawkins which looks for time dilation in Quasars and failed to find it.Although Lyndon's particular model is physically unworkable, there are other less immediately absurd hypotheses for tired light. (For example; some kind of interaction of photons with a universal graviton background?) So there is strong interest in evidence for and against such models.SN light curves are very strong evidence for cosmological expansion and against tired light models. Prior to this, the best direct evidence for expansion was and remains the cosmological redshift; but the light curves are a bonus as the tired light advocates have no explanation for this phenomenon at all. It is, in fact, falsification of tired light and confirmation of a prediction from expansion.Lyndon’s response to this is misdirected. He has no comment on the Supernova light curves at all; they remain inexplicable in his cosmology. Instead, he brings up a different instance in which dilation might have been expected to be found, and was not. His argument is thus something along the lines of the playground taunt so are you.There is an important difference between Lyndon’s reaction to a problem, and the reaction of scientists to a problem; and there is a significant difference in the empirical basis for the two arguments as well.First, on how to react to a problem. Hawkins demonstrates this in the cited paper. If there is a problem with your model (in this case, a problem with the Big Bang model arising from the failure to detect dilation in quasars) then you actually consider the problem and try to address it. Hawkins identifies three possible explanations.

1. The universe is not expanding. As Hawkins point out, this is very unlikely, given the wealth of evidence accumulated for the expansion models and also given the direct measurements of time dilation in other phenomena like supernovae.
2. Quasars are not actually at cosmological distances. This would imply that quasar redshifts are due to some effect intrinsic to quasars. This is not widely accepted, but it is taken seriously. There are some candidate ideas for this, involving things like a Wolf effect. Hawkins points out that a difficulty with this is measured redshifts in host galaxies at high z values.
3. Finally, Hawkins own preferred solution: which is that the observed time variations are actually due to some other process taking place between us and the quasars; and Hawkins argues that microlensing is just such a process. This would conflict with models in which time variation was a consequence of effects in the quasar accretion disk; and Hawkins reflects on this as well.

All in all, a fascinating paper, presenting a problem, and various alternatives as a basis for further research.Contrast this with Ashmore’s approach. He has no comment whatsoever on the SN light curves, other than to dismiss it as hardly convincing. But he is wrong about that; the evidence from SN light curves is very strong indeed; much more so that the quasars. And this brings us to a difference in the nature of the evidence itself in supernovae and quasars.The SN light curve effect is far more definite. There is a much larger set of samples studied; and there is also a much more uniform set of light curves, which is already well explained by independent models of how the SN Ia explosion occurs.With quasars, on the other hand, the sample set is smaller, and the dilation detection relies not on a common time values across all the curves, but on a more subtle Fourier analysis of the variation in light curves to find shifts in the distribution of time curves at a given redshift. This makes the quasar effect less definite and also more open to a local explanation.Ashmore’s final sentence is very revealing, and a stark contrast to the work of real scientists. He says: So you see, time dilation in supernovae light curves is not a problem for tired light. But Ashmore has done nothing whatsoever to justify that claim. It IS a problem, and he has not even attempted to reconcile the observed dilation with his model.You don’t get scientists saying that Quasar dilation is not a problem because we have supernova dilation to prove expansion. It is a problem, and hence very interesting. The microlensing explanation looks very sensible, but it is certainly not proved. So we have a research problem, and scope for progress and further investigation.Conversely, though Ashmore thinks he can just ignore the whole issue, the supernova light curve time dilation is a dreadful problem for tired light, and I am not aware of any proposed explanation for it in a tired light model, by anybody. Interestingly, it is one of Ashmore’s own favourite data sets that gives powerful evidence for time dilation in supernova light curves: the Supernova Cosmology Project that Permutter is associated with. This group also supplies the high redshift supernova data Ashmore mentions in his writings.See, for example, Timescale Stretch Parameterization of Type Ia Supernova B-band, at astro-ph/0104382, by many authors including Permutter. The abstract of the paper concludes: In the paper, they give evidence for this 1+z factor to 18 standard deviations.Cheers -- Sylas

Boggle. BOGGLE. B*O*G*G*L*E. This kind of stupidity makes it almost impossible to reply to Ashmore politely.The error is still Ashmore's problem, and Eta and I have both said consistently that it is Ashmore's error all along. All I did was scale in the wrong direction... because I was mislead by ANOTHER error in Ashmore's abstract. Ashmore used the phrase "per cubic meter", which indicates a m^-3 unit. It's actually a m³ unit. It doesn't matter; whether you multiply or divide you still demolish the co-incidence, and Ashmore's paradox is still a trivial elementary error in units which should be recognizable to a good high school student.I had corrected the numbers in my post already before Ashmore replied. Eta's posts, my posts, Percy's posts; we all point out the same error and Ashmore has not responded to the problem at all.Actually, I don't mind in the least. The mere fact that Ashmore still can't see a need to reply is ample demonstration of fundamental incompetence at work. The right thing to do is not "reply", but fix the error in the paper. That obviously is not going to happen.On the second error, Ashmore says: I'm not in error. In fact, this reply confirms, just as I said in the first post, that Ashmore has mixed up waves within a plasma and motions of electrons in photon interactions. The frequency Ashmore cites is not a frequency of vibrations of individual electrons, which is what his model assumes. The electrons in a thin plasma don't oscillate.On the third point, Ashmore is wrong. Electrons in a plasma don't absorb photons. This pretty trivial. That Ashmore wants references for this, or dismisses it as just opinion, is very revealing.On the fourth point, Ashmore says: The imputation of intent to deceive is the kind of thing that is going to get you intro trouble, Ashmore. Cut it out. The error, as I said in the first instance, is to speak of a double Mossbauer effect when in fact the Mossbauer effect is, according to French and every other real physicist, when the M₀ is very large. Ashmore uses the mass of the electron; so it ain’t Mossabauer. THAT is the error, and THAT is straight from French.Ashmore also completely misunderstood his fifth error. The point is that his version of the forumla with correct units introduces a value that (unlike h, r_e and m_e) is not a fundamental constant, and it is not known to sufficient accuracy to use the equation as evidence. It is, as I explained, a prediction. The failure to distinguish evidence and prediction is Ashmore’s error, and nothing in my comments is any reflection on any of the various estimates made by real scientists for n_e.Finally, and at last, Ashmore actually makes a real point in the sixth issue. I misspelled COSMIC. This is Ashmore’s only valid point in his whole post.He’s wrong about the near-perfect thermalization of CMBR being swept under the carpet. It has been pointed out a number of times in the thread that this is addressed by inflation in the modern cosmology. It is worth mentioning that an alternative explanation is the ekpyrosis model, which is an alternative way expansion might have got started. However, as I have pointed out and as Ashmore has ignored, his own model gives the wrong spectrum, and so his explanation for the CMBR is falsified.Cheers -- SylasAdded in edit: I hit submit too quickly. Ashmore raises three questions. 1. As has been pointed out several times in the thread, the horison problem is generally explained by the inflationary epoch.2. It turns out that I had answered this one in my previous post already. Supernovae have time dilation because of expansion. The lack of time dilation in quasars is most likely because the variations are actually due to effects not local to the quasar, such as microlensing. This is an open question, but there are possibilities on the table.3. The answer for where the energy goes in the cosmological redshift is very interesting. You can think of the loss as being compensated by a kind of gravitational potential energy bound up in the expansion of space; but for a full understanding of the matter one really has to get to grips with the fact the energy conservation is not quite the same in general relativity and in special relativity.In general relativity, you don't actually have a good handle on energy conservation except as a localized phenomenon. Put another way, it is analogous to the energy loss in a Doppler shift. The energy "loss" in regular Doppler shift is simply a consequence of a Lorentz transformation between frames. In a very crudely analogous way, the energy "loss" can also be thought of as just a consequence of transport from one frame to another. But I'd love to get a more informed comment from others on this.This matter of energy conservation is something that really worries people. But energy conservation is simply an abstraction to capture certain invariants in physics. We relate all kinds of diverse phenomena ... motions, placement in a field, mass, radiation, etc; with an quality called energy, and use the connection to express an invariant property. The invariant works out in a locally Euclidean geometry, but it becomes poorly defined over a non-Euclidean geometry.A discussion of the issue in a lot more detail is available at Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity? by Michael Weiss and John Baez.Cheers -- SylasThis message has been edited by Sylas, 03-20-2005 05:33 AM

Sylas all these posts are just a load of drivel.
To say that quasar ‘non time dilation’ is ‘interesting’ and yet to say that supernovae time dilation ‘proves tired light wrong’ is Hogwash. Either they are both ‘interesting’ or they are both wrong. The paper you cite is quite famous because of the ‘selection’ of the data to be used, and the way in which they do not look at the effect of peak intensity against ‘curve stretch’(p13, unlucky for some) — an essential if one is to do any proper science on time dilation as the greater the value of z the further away the supernova hence it has to be brighter in order to be seen. It may well just be a case of the brighter the supernovae the more stretched its light curve. I believe the Malmquist bias has something to say about this. There is a long way to go before this proves Tired Light wrong.
You say ‘inflation’ solves the problem of horizon problem. But this is just replacing one problem with another. Well if you are to ‘explain’ this little problem in terms of ‘inflation’ how did ‘inflation’ occur. You are not in the playground explaining to children now Sylas, replacing one ‘story’ with another. If you want to follow this route how did inflation occur and thus give us a thermalised CMB?
When you say that the question where did the energy go is ‘interesting’ I assume that you don’t know this either — as with the Quasars. When you say

quote:

---

This matter of energy conservation is something that really worries people. But energy conservation is simply an abstraction to capture certain invariants in physics. We relate all kinds of diverse phenomena ... motions, placement in a field, mass, radiation, etc; with an quality called energy, and use the connection to express an invariant property. The invariant works out in a locally Euclidean geometry, but it becomes poorly defined over a non-Euclidean geometry.

---

So if space is flat, energy will be conserved and the energy loss of the photons will be ‘Interesting’? Is this what you are saying?
Cheers
Lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

Yes, I saw that, but it doesn't add up and he has to stop the proton in the process which is another loss in energy. It seems that several steps of his proposal requires a net loss of energy beyond anything known in experimental evidence.His secondary photon radiation would also mean the the source of the CMB would be local as well as distant and that it would be patchy with the varying density of the universe matter involved, that there would be areas clear of it due to sweeping by planets etcetera, and that it would exhibit varying levels of redshift in it's data. These things are not observed.

---

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

"Wrong" does not make sense in this context. Both are data to be explained; not avoided -- as Ashmore avoids the SN dilation effect. Both results are interesting.There is no explanation on the table for SN time dilation, other than expansion. Tired light cannot explain it.There is a reasonable explanation on the table of the quasar effect as arising from effects far from the quasar and hence uncorrolated with redshift. Ashmore is incorrect. The effect reported in the paper is not in any credible dispute; subsequent work merely extends and refines. There is no general issue associated with selection here. What Ashmore means by "famous" here is anyone's guess. What the paper is famous for is a plain demonstration of expansion.Page 13 is the discussion section of the paper. This is pointers for future work. The authors suggest a future study of a relation between peak intensity and stretch factor. Ashmore's take on this perfectly standard proposal for future work is merely silly. You get such suggestions in nearly all research papers. Nothing in this can save the basic result of the paper of time dilation; it is rather a proposal intended to reveal more about supernovae themselves.As a matter of fact, such further research has been done since. The major focus, as I have said, is to learn more about the supernovae themselves, with the possibility of developing a standard candle. There is no joy here for tired light advocates who cannot accept or explain the unambiguous time dilation effect. Ashmore believes wrong. Malmquist bias won't help, and Ashmore's proposal is easily falsified by looking at supernovae with roughly similar z values. Actually, I think I must be in the playground explaining to children. It is not known how inflation got started. That's a good question, and one that is being explored. There are lot of unanswered questions in physics. But it remains the case that saying BB cannot explain isometry in the CMBR is wrong. The real point that Ashmore is avoiding, of course, is that his model definitely does not explain the CMBR, because it give the wrong spectrum.Finally, on energy conservation... No. What I am saying is posted already, and people should refer to my wording, not Ashmore's. More importantly, this is off topic in this thread. If you really want to disuss energy conservation in general relativity, start a new thread for it. This thread is for tired light.You are welcome to start new threads to discuss other topics.Cheers -- Sylas

I don't see it. If you can spell this out into a credible criticism, go for it. But note that there is no "proton" involved in his reactions.I strongly encourage you to expand on this more carefully, with reference to the paper, if you still feel there is an energy loss problem. As I have said, the real benefit in these exchanges is not that Ashmore will learn anything. It is that the rest of us might learn something by trying out our physics on the errors in his paper. Don't think of it as explaining to Ashmore. Try explaining to ME how he has an energy loss. I'm open to the possibility but I don't see it. So one of us might learn something in the exchange. This I agree with; through I'd drop "sweeping by planets". Planets don't make any difference. They are too small and only exist within galaxies anyway. Lyman alpha forests, on the other hand, definitely show that the IG medium is not uniform, but collects in clouds. This is enough to make your point, I think.Cheers -- Sylas

Yes, as you wrote, that's true of all your posts.

Thanks. Perhaps rather than planet sweeping on an individual basis think of the whole plane of the solar system being swept at a differential rate compared to out of plane nearby space, and this should show up as a bias in the data based on orientation to the plane of the solar system, and this being fairly close to the neighborhood should be a fairly dominant effect (but as you say, the known patchyness of space is sufficient).I will work on the energy loss aspect, and may need some help from those more knowledgeable, it is just my "first impression" at this point, and my physics is rather rusty. (added by edit - and it should have been electron instead of proton, my mistake)This message has been edited by RAZD, 03*20*2005 10:35 AM

---

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

quote:

---

You get the whole pack going at you, expecting more of you than they require of themselves in interpreting the forum guidelines.

---

Hardly.Very few of us here have the physics background to even begin to contribute intelligently, let alone provide analysis such as Eta has.I have virtually no background in physics, so I have pretty much no clue what's being discussed.Unlike many Creationists here, I don't generally open my yap unless I have a pretty good grasp of what I'm talking about.

we have been advised not to get into snit for snat posting. lyndon likes to provoke people rather than argue the points raised. it is poor debating approach on his part, but we do not need to follow suit, tempting as it is. I like Sylas's approach: reveal the problems so others can understand.

quote:

---

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.

---

I've got to agree with Buzsaw here.Eta, I did think that you came out with your gun barrels blazing a bit.I've little problem with stronger approaches after it has been made clear that the gentle ones are not working, but I think it's important to try the gentle ones first.

the goalposts moving by the actions of lyndonashmore.He has attempted to deflect the debate in four ways:1) Refusing to address the fact his primary basis for all his 'work' being a paradox that is really nothing fundamental at all but relies on the choice of his measuring rod - the metre2) Accusing Sylas of errors and falsely stating that the errors to do with point 1) were of Sylas' doing3) Shifting the subject matter to other topics such as inflation and energy conservation which are not really the subject of this thread4) Using other phenomena that he doesn't think are explained as "evidence" that phenomena that are explaine must be wrong - vis a vis supernovae time dilational effects versus lack of quasar spectra time dilation effects.Classic crank techniques I might add. If two physicists were arguing on a point the debate would consist of "my model predicts this and it is observed or your model says this but that isn't seen etc etc etc. Instead 'cranks' refuse to address points, shift to other topics or play poison the well by using an error/typo in another area nand repeatedly bringing it up a la the Sylas numerical gaffe earlier.Pathetic!!This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 03-20-2005 12:27 PM

quote:

---

Ashmore is incorrect. The effect reported in the paper is not in any credible dispute; subsequent work merely extends and refines. There is no general issue associated with selection here. What Ashmore means by "famous" here is anyone's guess. What the paper is famous for is a plain demonstration of expansion.

---

The paper is famous on forums because they are looking at supernovae Ia and ‘select’ or get rid of quite a large sample of supernovae. Why not include them all?

quote:

---

Page 13 is the discussion section of the paper. This is pointers for future work. The authors suggest a future study of a relation between peak intensity and stretch factor. Ashmore's take on this perfectly standard proposal for future work is merely silly. You get such suggestions in nearly all research papers. Nothing in this can save the basic result of the paper of time dilation; it is rather a proposal intended to reveal more about supernovae themselves.

---

This is not further work but work that should have been done at the time. We know that Cepheid variables periodicity increases with intrinsic brightness. That is, the brighter they are the longer they take to increase in brightness and then dim — brighter Cepheids have wider Light curves. Could it be that brighter supernovae do the same — ie the brighter they are the longer they take to brighten and then dim. We don’t know the answer to this because they didn’t do the work. Until the work is done this paper means nothing.
Why? Because of the Malmquist bias. The further out we go the dimmer supernovae disappear. As we go further out we no longer see the dimmer supernovae we only see the brighter ones. So, if the light curves get wider as they get brighter distant supernovae will have wider light curves and exhibit ‘time dilation’. What these workers did was to reduce them all to the same height that’s all. I am not saying that there is no curve broadening ( I hope there is) but there is no evidence for it until this ‘further work’ as Silas calls it is done.

quote:

---

As a matter of fact, such further research has been done since. The major focus, as I have said, is to learn more about the supernovae themselves, with the possibility of developing a standard candle. There is no joy here for tired light advocates who cannot accept or explain the unambiguous time dilation effect.

---

Then why did you not refer us to this?

quote:

---

Ashmore believes wrong. Malmquist bias won't help, and Ashmore's proposal is easily falsified by looking at supernovae with roughly similar z values.

---

This has nothing to do with Malmquist Bias.
I will reply to the off topic point in a moment (or tomorrow if the wife wont let me!)
Cheers
Lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

Sylas wrote

quote:

---

Actually, I think I must be in the playground explaining to children. It is not known how inflation got started. That's a good question, and one that is being explored. There are lot of unanswered questions in physics. But it remains the case that saying BB cannot explain isometry in the CMBR is wrong. The real point that Ashmore is avoiding, of course, is that his model definitely does not explain the CMBR, because it give the wrong spectrum.
Finally, on energy conservation...

​

No. What I am saying is posted already, and people should refer to my wording, not Ashmore's. More importantly, this is off topic in this thread. If you really want to disuss energy conservation in general relativity, start a new thread for it. This thread is for tired light.
You are welcome to start new threads to discuss other topics.

---

I am sure that Silas is aware that he has dug himself into a hole here. For inflation (which Silas rightly says no one knows how it started they are only grateful that it explains the effects) one needs a ‘flat’ universe and indeed most now believe this to be the case.
However to explain where the energy went I believe that he needs space to be curved.
The two replies are mutually exclusive. One must be wrong!
Which one is it Silas? Can we have consistent answers to the two questions of the Horizon problem and the where did the energy go problem?
They are very relevant to this thread as Silas says that Tired Light is wrong because he says it cannot explain the Black Body curve. Since the BB can’t explain it either then that argument goes out of the window.
Tired Light explains where the energy goes to. In being redshifted, photons lose energy to the electrons which in turn radiate this energy as a secondary photon. I show that this is in the microwave and say it is the CMB.
To claim that these questions are ‘off thread’ is clearly wrong. He is in trouble and pleading to a higher authority to rescue him by calling time — just as a wrestler clings to the ropes and waits for the referee to stop the bout that he has lost.
Can we have consistent answers to these problems please.
Cheers
LyndonThis message has been edited by lyndonashmore, 03-20-2005 01:48 PM

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!