|
Author
|
Topic: An Alternate Creation Theory: Genic Energy
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
Tired light!! Wowie kerzowie, talk about behind the times! Tired light was dead already when it was first proposed, in 1929, and it's deader now. E.g Errors in Tired Light Cosmology Ah, the entire Hubble & Tolman article is available on-line, but unfortunately not OCR'd. Here's an OCR'd copy: Two Methods of Investigating the Nature of the Nebular Redshift:
quote:
Light arrivig from the extra-galactic nebulae exhibits a shift toward the red in the position of its spectral lines which is approximately proportional to the distance to the emitting nebula. The most obvious explanation of this finding is to regard it as directly correlated with a recessional motion of the nebulae, and this assumption has been commonly adopted in the extensive treatments of nebular motion that have been made with the help of the relativistic theory of gravitation, and also in the more purely kinematical treatment proposed by Milne. Nevertheless, the possibility that the redshift may be due to some other cause, connected with the long time or distance involved in the passage of light from nebula to observer, should not be prematurely neglected; and several investigators have indeed suggested such other causes, although without as yet giving an entirely satisfactory detailed account of their mechanism. Until further evidence is available, both the present writers wish to express an open mind with respect to the ultimately most satisfactory explanation of the nebular red-shift and, in the presentation of purely observational findings, to continue to use the phrase "apparent" velocity of recession. They both incline to the opinion, however, that if the red-shift is not due to recessional motion, its explanation will probably involve some quite new physical principles. ... In the case of the non-recessional theory, which predicts smaller effects from the red-shift, approximate agreement with the data could be attained, provided we disregard the possibility of any appreciable light-absorption on the way from the nebulae, and then take for the correction delta mI values calculated from equation (58') with the aid of a KI corresponding to the high effective temperature of about 6000 degrees, and at the same time neglect any possible effects of spatial curvature. On the other hand, in the case of the recessional theory, which predicts larger effects from the red-shift, approximate agreement with the data would seem attainable, in accordance with equation (58), only by also making use of possible effects from spatial curvature which correspond to the appearance of the third term in the expression for the correction delta mI. ... In conclusion it may be repeated that the main function of the present article has been to provide a formulation for the two theoretical methods of investigating the nature of the red-shift which would be applicable under actual circumstances, the length of the article being due to the real complexity of these circumstances. In addition it seemed of interest to give some tentative statement as to the present status of the data for the tests, even though their complete presentation and analysis must be reserved for a later time. It also seemed desirable to express an open-minded position as to the true cause of the nebular red-shift, and to point out the indications that spatial curvature may have to play a part in the explanation of existing nebular data.
{Emphasis added} Doesn't sound to me like
Hubble and Tolman publishing in 1935 stated that the "Tired Light Model," rather than the Doppler Interpretation, fit the Cosmological Redshift data better than the "Expanding Universe" Model. We've made a few advances since 1935, and made a few more observations. The jury is long in; space is expanding, this causes cosmological redshift, and the expansion is accelerating. Lots to learn yet. But there are some things we do know; tired light is exhausted.
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
It appears you haven't read anything by proponents of the mainstream theories.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 7:18 PM | | TheRestOfUs has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
Your question about Pioneer has been answered. Not embarrassed by being caught in a false claim, I see. Ignore your failure and try to change the subject. So far you're batting 000. Just another ignorant crackpot. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 7:44 PM | | TheRestOfUs has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
Sounds more like it's your mind that's exhausted buddy. Hubble and Tolman merely admitted that they knew of no other "mechanism" by which to explain the redshift than the Doppler Interpretation. Indeed a new physics is required. Like I said in the OP You have grossly misrepresented them. They said that any non-recessional theory required new physics. Even then it was obvious which theory fit the data best. Now we have almost unimaginably more dat and the recessional explanation is the only one that fits the data. No other "explanation" comes close.
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
(1)
| |
| |
| |
You're going to have to come up with much more that 80-odd year old quotes from very smart people who turned out to be wrong. I see you're in love with ancient history on the Pioneer anomaly (which is now off topic) too. I sense a pttern here. You claim you have new physics. Can the appeals to ancient authority and let's see the math. Ooh, oooh, wait, wait, don't tell me. Your "new physics" is based solely on your common sense, doesn't explain any evidence, makes no testable predictions to differentiate it from mainstream science, and involves absolutely no mathematical analysis. Sound about right? Hubble's paper and Tesla's claim have some historical interest. And, of course, by comparing what you claimed about Hubble's paper to what's contained in Hubble's paper we've learned quite a bit about you. But as far as science is concerned, there may have been some there once but there's nothing now. We've moved literally billions of light-years beyond those days. If you want to refere to an authority, stick to those published in this century.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 43 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 12:52 PM | | TheRestOfUs has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
He predicted that blue supergiant stars are much more likely to go supernova where the conventional view was that only red supergiants did so. Really? Reference for that claim about red supergiants please. Hint: tain't so.
In 1987 Supernova 1987A was observed in the Large Magellenic Cloud. Yup.
I believe this was the closest supernova in history. Nope. Out of date again. Pattern continues.
Astronomers located its precursor star on old photographic plates and were surprised to find that the precursor was a blue super giant! Yup (except perhaps for the surprise part, I find no trace of that). So what? Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Not enough.
"Nucleon Core Field - prevailing concept (1978): The electric field in the core of a nucleon is assumed to be aperiodic and to rise to a sharp cusp at the particle's center." "Prediction No.1 (1973 - 1978): Subquantum kinetics predicted that the electric potential field in the core of a subatomic particle should be Gaussian-shaped and should continue outward as a periodic field pattern of diminishing amplitude having a radial wavelength equal to the particle's Compton wavelength, further that this field pattern should be positively biased in positively charged particles. Prediction published in: 1985 (IJGS), 1994 (Subquantum Kinetics), and 1995 (Beyond the Big Bang)." "Verification (2002) Particle scattering form factor data for the proton and neutron is found to be best fit by a model in which the nucleon core electric charge density distribution has characteristics similar to those that subquantum kinetics had predicted. Energy boosting during collision, however, did cause the target nucleons to exhibit a wavelength slightly shorter than had been predicted." "2. Gravatational Repulsion - Prevailing concept (1985): Electrons are assumed to produce matter attracting fields just like protons. Gravatational Repulsion is considered a speculative idea." "Prediction No. 2 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicted that gravity should have two polarities correlated with charge and that the electron should produce a matter-repelling gravity field. Furthermore it predicted that monopolar electric discharges should produce longitudinal electric potential waves accompanied by a gravity potential component. Published in: 1985 (IJGS), and 1994 (Subquantum Kinetics)." "Verification (2001): Podkletnov and Modanese discover that an axial high-voltage electron discharge produces a matter-repelling gravity wave that travels in the direction of the discharge exerting a longitudinal repulsive gravatational force on a distant test mass." "Concept No. 3 : Energy Conservation and Photon Reshifting - prevailing concept (1978): The cosmological redshift is conventionally attributed to the assumed expansion of space. Photon energy is assumed to be perfectly conserved." "Prediction No. 3 (1978: As a basic requirement of the validity of its methodology, subquantum kinetics predicted that photons should gradually redshift with time when passing through regions of low (less negative) gravatational field potential, e.g. intergalactic space. It predicted a "tired light effect," that distant galaxies should appear redshifted without the need of postulating recessional motion." "Verification (1979- 1986): I check this photon redshifting prediction by comparing the tired light non-expanding universe model and the expanding universe model (standard Friedman cosmology) to observational data on four different cosmology tests (AP.J., 1986). The tired light model is found to make a closer fit to observational data on all tests confirming subquantum kinetics tired-light prediction and the notion that the universe is cosmologically stationary. These findings at the same time undermine a key support of the big bang theory. An update of this evidence is presented in Chapter 7 of Subquantum Kinetics (2003)." I see a lot of claims, and claims about claims, but no math and no verifiable tests
Want more? He's got 9 in this book alone. We want to see the math and the details of the tests that he claims to have caried out.
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Really? Reference for that claim about red supergiants please. Hint: tain't so. "Concept 9. Supernova Precursor Stars - prevailing concept (1985): It is conventionally believed that supernovae are produced by red giant stars which have exhausted their supply of nuclear fuel. It is presumed that once the red giant's nuclear reactions subside, the star collapses and subsequently rebounds as a supernova explosion. Prediction No. 9 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicts that supernovae are produced not by red giant stars, but by blue supergiant stars, that is, by stars that are exceedingly luminous and hence energetically unstable. It predicts that, rather than collapsing, the star undergoes a nonlinear increase in its production of genic energy which leads to a stellar explosion. This prediction was published in 1985 (IJGS, pp. 342-343). Verification (1987): Supernova 1987A is observed in the Large Magellenic Cloud. This is the closest supernova in the history of modern astronomy. Astronomers locate its percursor star on old photographic pltes. Surprisingly, they find that this precursor was a blue supergiant star contradicting established theory and confirming the subquantum kinetics prediction." Above from Subquantum Kinetics (2003) p. 272 Repeating a bare assertion isn't a reference for your claim. Peer-reviewed literature, please, from this century if possible. And "the closest supernova in the history of modern astronomy" was correct in 1987 but is no longer.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 77 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 11:32 AM | | TheRestOfUs has replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
Re: Not enough.
Quote from JonF:
I find that claimed predictions re not always as good as they appear. So I did a little research, choosing this one: quote: "Prediction No. 2 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicted that gravity should have two polarities correlated with charge and that the electron should produce a matter-repelling gravity field. Furthermore it predicted that monopolar electric discharges should produce longitudinal electric potential waves accompanied by a gravity potential component. Published in: 1985 (IJGS), and 1994 (Subquantum Kinetics)." "Verification (2001): Podkletnov and Modanese discover that an axial high-voltage electron discharge produces a matter-repelling gravity wave that travels in the direction of the discharge exerting a longitudinal repulsive gravatational force on a distant test mass." It turns out that Podkletnov's work sounds very dubious, and hasn't been replicated. Eugene Podkletnov It's not a good sign that this should be mentioned high up the list, without mentioning the questionable nature of the alleged verification. End of Quote from JonF LaViolette writes; "...In his article in Janes Defense Weekly, Nick Cook reports that a laboratory installation in Russia has demonstrated that this beam is able to repel objects one kilometer away and that it exhibits negligible power loss at distances of up to 200 kilometers!"* "Podkletnov and Modanese acknowledge that conventional theories of gravity fail to explain the action of their gravity impulse beam." "* Cook writes that Boeing Aerospace Corporation was actively interested in investigating this beam technology with the aim of developing it into an R&D project named GRASP (Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion). A GRASP briefing document states "If gravity modification is real, it will alter the entire areospace business." Other interested areospace companies included BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin. He reported, however, that the Russian government had resisted allowing this gravity research beam technology to be exported." Everything above in quotation marks are from Subquantum Kinetics (2003) pp. 126-127. Below are the references in the notes section. "Podkletnov, E. and G., Modanese, "Impulse gravity generator based on charged YBa2 CU3 O7-y Superconductor with composite crystal structure." August 2001, Eprint: arXiv.org/abs/ physics/ 0108005. "Podkletnov, E. and G., Modanese, "Investigation of high voltage discharges in low pressure gases through large ceramic superconducting electrodes." September 2002, Eprint: arXiv.org/abs/ physics/ 0209051 "*Cook, N. "Antigravity propulsion comes out of the closet." Janes Defense Weekly, July 31, 2002" "*Cook, N. "Airpower Electric." Janes Defense Weekly, July 24, 2002" The quote isn't from me, and you need a [/qs] instead of a [qs] at the end of the quote. So, his work hasn't been replicated (as PaulK noted) and is suspect (as PaulK noted). I see that Boeing's involvement is also suspect. Repeating claims isn't a useful debate tactic. You are being challenged to support your claims,m which means amplifying on them and providing references, especially references other than LaViolette. The Podkletnov references are good, but his work isn't very convincing without replication.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 78 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 12:12 PM | | TheRestOfUs has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
Re: Not enough.
Dupe. Edited by JonF, : Duplicate.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 78 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 12:12 PM | | TheRestOfUs has replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
Re: Not enough.
Let's see the math for the existence and characteristics of the Cosmic Microwave Background, which is notable by its exclusion from your list of claims.
The power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation temperature anisotropy in terms of the angular scale (or multipole moment).
E polarization measurements as of March 2008 in terms of angular scale (or multipole moment).
You don't need to laboriously copy the math. Assuming you are using a PC, press Alt-PrtSc to copy the current window to the clipboard as a picture. You can then use any of many programs (Windows includes paint.exe) to paste that and save it as an image (usually .PNG format is best for equations and line work). Then upload to any of the many free photo sharing sites (I use photobucket.com, which will do the [img]...[/img] tags for you) and paste it in your message.
An example of the process I described. Click Peek to see the coding. I might read the book if you can convince me that LaViolette isn't an ignorant crank. You're not doing a great job of that thus far.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 83 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 12:30 PM | | TheRestOfUs has replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
What? The International Journal of General Systems isn't a peer reviewed publication? I think you are wrong about that Restoring the context:
Really? Reference for that claim about red supergiants please. Hint: tain't so. "Concept 9. Supernova Precursor Stars - prevailing concept (1985): It is conventionally believed that supernovae are produced by red giant stars which have exhausted their supply of nuclear fuel. It is presumed that once the red giant's nuclear reactions subside, the star collapses and subsequently rebounds as a supernova explosion. Prediction No. 9 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicts that supernovae are produced not by red giant stars, but by blue supergiant stars, that is, by stars that are exceedingly luminous and hence energetically unstable. It predicts that, rather than collapsing, the star undergoes a nonlinear increase in its production of genic energy which leads to a stellar explosion. This prediction was published in 1985 (IJGS, pp. 342-343). Verification (1987): Supernova 1987A is observed in the Large Magellenic Cloud. This is the closest supernova in the history of modern astronomy. Astronomers locate its percursor star on old photographic pltes. Surprisingly, they find that this precursor was a blue supergiant star contradicting established theory and confirming the subquantum kinetics prediction." Above from Subquantum Kinetics (2003) p. 272 I don't see any reference to International Journal of General Systems saying that conventional wisdom was that only red supergiants go supernova, and given the subject classifications at that link I'd be very surprised if a relevant paper were to be found there.
And LaViolette has a PHD in Systems Science. Ah, so there's no reason to assume he has relevant expertise.
And I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to say to your second sentence. Well, I suggest "Thank you for pointing out my error in saying that SN1987A is the closest supernova in modern times". See LMGTFY - Let Me Google That For You. It's not a major error, but it does confirm that you are unfamiliar with the field you claim to be evaluation. Edited by JonF, : Clzarify reference to IJGS
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 86 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 12:43 PM | | TheRestOfUs has replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
Re: Not enough.
Hey. I don't do this for a living Jon. If you don't want to defend or discuss the theory, stop posting.
I assume you are referring to claims about Prediction No. 3 regarding the cosmological redshift Try assuming that I am referring to what I explicitly wrote that I was referring to: the Cosmic Microwave Background.
I'll include similar details for the remaining two tests titled "The Hubble Diagram Test" and "The Galaxy Number Count Magnitude Test" later Don't bother. None of those and none of what you posted have anything to do with the Cosmic Microwave Background. The CMB is the elephant in the room. Big time. If his theory doesn't predict that a CMB exists and a provide a reasonable approximation of its temperature 1, he's dead in the water. No matter what else he's got. This is numero uno in any evaluation of a cosmological theory. I do notice that his "Galaxy Angular Separation" goes only to a redshift Z of 1. That's ignoring the vast majority of the Universe. I don't know off-hand what his claims and tests mean, but the fact that they aren't addressing the most important observations of astronomers over the past hundred years or so sets off alarm bells. Ah, and I see that The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. IV. A Measurement of the Tolman Signal and the Luminosity Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies (2001) includes:
quote:
For a true Tolman signal with n = 4, the luminosity evolution in the look-back time, expressed as the exponent in 2.5 log (1+z)^(4-n) mag, must then be between 1.72 to 1.19 in the R band and 0.94 to 0.45 in the I band. We show that this is precisely the range expected from the evolutionary models of Bruzual & Charlot. We conclude that the Tolman surface brightness test is consistent with the reality of the expansion. We have also used the high-redshift HST data to test the "tired light'' speculation for a non-expansion model for the redshift. The HST data rule out the "tired light'' model at a significance level of better than 10 sigma.
{emphasis added} 10 sigma is a lot. A whole freakin' lot. Also, in Fundamental Questions of Practical Cosmology: Exploring the Realm of Galaxies (2011) I find:
Looks as if you are not the only one who's using out-of-date data. Again, let's concentrate on this century, please. ------------ 1If it predicts other characteristics of the CMB, that's a big plus.
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
I don't see any reference to International Journal of General Systems saying that conventional wisdom was that only red supergiants go supernova, and given the subject classifications at that link I'd be very surprised if a relevant paper were to be found there. That's funny I found his publication. It's in "Volume 11 Issue 4 November 1985" And they cite the book: AN INTRODUCTION TO SUBQUANTUM KINETICS: III. The Cosmology of Subquantum Kinetics DOI:10.1080/03081078508934920 PAUL A. LAVIOLETTEa pages 329-345 Received: 26 Feb 1985 Accepted: 28 May 1985 Version of record first published: 10 May 2007 You were saying? Well, I was saying that "I don't see any reference to International Journal of General Systems saying that conventional wisdom was that only red supergiants go supernova", and I still don't see any indication of a reference for the claim that conventional wisdom was that only red supergiants go supernova. The book that makes the claim isn't a valid reference. A paper written by the guy who makes the claim isn't a valid reference. What reference do you have not written by LaViollette that says that conventional wisdom was that only red supergiants go supernova? Oh, and I found the publication too, but it's behind a paywall. If you know its contents, what does it say about red supergiants and what references ( other than his writings) does he give for whatever he says about red supergiants?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 98 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 3:15 PM | | TheRestOfUs has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Not enough.
So, there's nothing about the CMB? And, I see a Google search for"Laviolette cosmic microwave" turns up no evidence that he has any explanation for the CMB, except for a few nutjobs denying the existence of the CMB. That's the last nail in the coffin. No CMB explanation, no theory. The only remaining question, a minor one, is WTF are you doing? You obviously don't understand LaViolette's theory, you can't post anything other than quotes from his writings, you can't explain or expand on or discuss the theory, you can't respond meaningfully to any questions or criticisms… so what's the point?
|
™ Version 4.2
