Tired Light

Hi Lyndon; welcome to EvCforum. We're a basically friendly crowd, but pretty robust in debate. Criticism of your model in no wise mitigates a sincere hail fellow well met.With respect to tired light, the only kicking involved is spasms of the corpse. It has essentially no support whatsoever in the literature, and with good reason. This model is disproved by supernova light curves, by the perfect blackbody spectrum of the CMBR, and by the lack of scattering in very high red shift objects.You're also badly out of date with the so-called "oft-quoted" value of 64 km/s/MPsec value for the Hubble constant.There are two camps; neither of which much like the value 64. Alan Sandage continues to argue for low values: 60 or less. Wendy Freedman continues to plumb for values over 70.But most commentators now defer to the unprecedented precision of the WMAP team, using a wholly independent technique, which gives 71 km/sec/MPsec give or take 3.5.The debate is not over; but Sandage is IMO looking shakey. His most recent arxiv submission is much less definite about H₀ values, and recent work by Kanbur et al on the Cephid distance scale may point to a resolution. In any case your prefered value of 64 is not a serious contender; and your use of three significant figures in the inverse is not warranted by any observations.The ball park comparison of magnitudes for H₀ and hr/m is not interesting. Play around with constants and you can get all kinds of crude similarities. This does not mean anything; and the tired light notion is decisively ruled out by the other observations I mention.Cheers -- Sylas (with a "y", not an "i") (Copy of Message 122)

My original post should have been quite clear, and you'll see the same thing in many papers on this subject. As is standard in scientific writing, I give a quick survey of prior work and alternatives. There are two main groups, which have incompatible results. Saha, Sandage et al are the low values; and Freedman and the KST group have the high values. They can't both be right.The WMAP group confirms the Freedman KST values, which means (as I said previously) that Sandage's group is in trouble. The error bounds from WMAP are 67.5 to 74.5 (71 plus or minus 3.5). Freedman's KST group is proposing 74 plus or minus 7. (67 to 81) So KST and WMAP are compatible; but Sandage is incompatible with both.My post was clear: Sandage looks very shakey; so I'm betting on WMAP.Your approach, of averaging, is precisely the wrong way to approach such a scientific dispute. If one group says 57 +/- 4, and another says 74 +/- 7, you don't average them. You try to find out who went wrong.I see you are particularly keen on a value proposed by nine years ago by Riess, Press and Kirshner. These guys show the correct way to manage this kind of issue. It's no good just looking over the old papers and trying to combine incompatible claims. You have to look at the data. This is done in Cepheid Calibrations from the Hubble Space Telescope of the Luminosity of Two Recent Type Ia Supernovae and a Re-determination of the Hubble Constant, by Kirshner et al, to appear in the Astrophysical Journal and now available at astro-ph/0503159.They propose the source of error which led them to make the incorrect estimate back in 1996, and show how the errors arise from poor data. The explain how to deal with it, and perform an improved analysis on better data to obtain 73 +/- 4 (statistical) +/- 5 (systematic). So now we have three groups all around the low 70s, with error bars that exclude 64. (Kirshner et al 2005 arguably include 64 as an extreme; the others do not.)The icing on the cake is that this means the very person you cite most prominently for your figure has now published their own analysis of the problems in their own work, and have revised appropriately.Your suggestion that different results correspond to different electron density is bizarre. The groups are not looking in diverse directions; but using different yardsticks. More seriously, your invocation of varying electron densities immediately knocks out any association with an absolute value of hr/m, which has no component for density. So the hr/m equation is irrelevant.This was always a consistent problem with your work. There was never a model that made sense of the hr/m coincidence; and if there was such a model then it would be falsified by a further dependence on density of electrons. So there is nothing to explain in H=hr/m, which is just as well because H is bigger than hr/m.Then you actually give a different equation anyway! Your real analysis appears to use 2nhr/m, where n is a density figure.Now we have another horrible problem with your model. You only consider electrons. That's not sensible; the intergalactic medium is not composed all of this one particle; and that blows the whole analysis out of the water. So does the Lyman Alpha forest, which shows clearly that the intergalactic medium scatters wavelengths preferentially.But by far the most serious problem with your whole presentation is that you have merely ignored without any comment all the empirical refutations of tired light. Supernova light curves. Focus in large red shift objects. And blackbody spectrum of the CMBR.One final point. When we name some model or theory or paradox after a person, WE do it. Not them. The only person who speaks of "Ashmore's paradox" is Ashmore. That is a bit of a give away. Also bizarre is your excitement at having a paper accepted for a peer reviewed publication; with no mention of what publication accepted it!Sorry Lyndon. You’ve got nothing here but an avalanche of errors, and bitter experience tells me that nothing on earth could persuade you to see that.Ah well. Thanks for dropping by. I’m happy to continue, but I see no prospects for a happy resolution.Cheers -- Sylas (Copy of Message 126)

I hold no hope of persuading you that there is anything wrong with your model. But you are discussing topics that have been of interest to people here, and so I am quite happy to continue. Let us have views on the table for others to compare. I think I can show to the satisfaction of people on the fence that your model is fundamentally wrong. It may also give readers a sharper appreciation of why I have been so dismissive of the scientific value in tired light models. That is false. In normal scientific debate such conflicts mean that one or other of the groups has a problem with their model. The model is not simply "Big Bang". It is a check of the redshift distance relation, and it is based on models for light from supernova and any nearby Cepheid variable stars. Those interested should glance at the papers I am citing. They are very technical, but even a novice will seen see that the models have to do with photometry, and not assumptions about the Big Bang.Normal scientific debate also actually reads the literature, and notes that the two teams get different distance estimates for exactly the same supernovae. Real scientists thus don't come up with trivially incorrect resolutions like differing amounts of gas for the two teams.For an example where the two teams obtain different results with non-overlapping error bars for the same supernova, see The Distance to Supernova 1998aq in NGC3982, by PB Stetson and BK Gibson at astron-ph/0110062 and published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 328 (2001) L1. Again, full understanding is not required. Just read the "note added in proof" on page 4, and note that the difference between Freedman and Sandage arises basically from the use of different Cepheid Period-Luminosity relations. Since they are using the same supernova, and the same Cepheids, Lyndon's invocation of different cloud densities as an explanation for the discrepancy is useless.Real scientists try to resolve such problems by looking at the models and data more carefully, and the resolutions need to be tested every bit as stringently as the original models before they can be generally accepted. Lyndon's suggestion, that the differences are just due to variations in electron density, is a dreadful howler, as is his error of merely averaging inconsistent results.By the way, I am not a real scientist myself. I'm an interested amateur who does a lot of reading. That's a strawman. It is not polite or honest to rephrase my comments in that way, and it merely avoids dealing with what I actually say.What I actually say is simply that Lyndon Ashmore's model and methodlogy is incorrect, and I list the reasons why. I have not said anything at all about the Big Bang. The topic here is the tired light model, and THAT is what I have addressed, substantively. Lyndon should engage that, and not a strawman of his own devising. I have said now twice that I suspect the lower numbers proposed by Saha and Sandage are incorrect. I cited a paper which explains some of the many potential sources of error, and explicitly identifies a number of galaxies for which these problems are particularly severe. I am not anything like as dogmatic as Lyndon tries to suggest. It the lower values turn out to be correct after all, I would be surprised but not greatly put out. On my reading of the literature Sandage's numbers are a long shot; but it is not all ironed out quite yet.Amusingly, the real problem for big bang cosmology would be if H₀ was too high (85 or more, for example) because that would make the universe too young. But that is a side issue. Actually, all I did was point out that Reiss himself revised his own ideas. This is not me assuming errors in Reiss's work; I'm just reporting Reiss himself describing more accurate work. Those interested should read the paper I cited.Lyndon's snide suggestion that Reiss is fiddling data is a despicable and baseless slander, and my opinion of Lyndon has just dropped calamitously. He posted this one hour after I cited the paper; so Lyndon has plainly made no attempt to look at the date or analysis in the new paper, but just leapt in immediately with this tripe. That's really odious, Lyndon.Robert Kirshner and Adam Reiss were both co-authors of the 1996 paper with the 64 value, and of the 2005 paper with the revised value of 73. Lyndon often cites Kirshner's work; and now he suggests fraud, on the basis of nothing but poisonous lack of respect and honour.I have now gone past amusement at Lyndon's incompetance and into cold contempt. Lyndon has made in an open international forum an explicit imputation of scientific misconduct against Adam Reiss and Robert Kirshner, without the slightest foundation. Lyndon, if you have a srap of personal integrity left you should retract and apologise. We've seen that Lyndon is wrong, since the variant values of H₀ are based on different luminosity models and yardsticks applied to the same galaxies. Clearly one of the models is inaccurate, and there is a growing consensus that Sandage's model gives results that are too low. Stay tuned, however. These guys are real scientists, and have a genuine concern for integrity and honesty with the data. I expect convergence as the many difficulties with this kind of work continue to be ironed out, and photometry measurements made more accurate.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.Lyndon has yet to make any comment on the empirical evidence that falsifies tired light models. I have given three lines of evidence that refute tired light, and Lyndon has yet to even acknowledge that I've made them. Here they are for the third time, in a bit more detail:

1. 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.
2. Blurring. Lyndon's model involves a loss of photon energy from repeated interactions with the intergalactic medium. But when a photon loses energy it also loses momentum; and momentum is a vector. A change in momentum also means a change in direction; and this is (contra claims in Lyndon's papers) an observed fact of life where there really are significant interactions with gas; and it is a prediction of theory. This change in momemtum should lead to blurring of high redshift objects. The effect does not exist; hence the particle interations model for redshift is falsified.
3. Blackbody CMBR. Energy lost to the intergalactic medium will inevitably heat the medium, and result in more radiation. Such radiation would not have a blackbody spectrum, which is a distinctive feature of the cosmic background. In much the same vein, such interactions should distort the spectrum of stars. Such distortions are seen as a result of interactions with known gas clouds; but not with the uniformity or magnitude required if the large cosmological redshifts we see were due to loss of energy to the medium.

Sylas

Lyndon's maths is correct. You guys are using h = 6.6260693 x 10^-31. That should be 6.6260693 x 10^-34 in SI units, according to NIST Codata values.

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

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

Have a look at Lyndon's preprint paper. It’s quite short; and the CMB is explained in section 6.I've been in the process of composing a reply to other posts in this thread, but the sheer number and scope of errors in Ashmore's work is overwhelming. I have been focussed on other more pressing matters in real life recently; so this is now a low priority for me.Basically he invokes Compton scattering, but calls it a "double Mssbauer" effect (I'm not kidding; this is actually in the paper) apparently for no other reason than to associate his interactions with a different process in which there is almost no scattering of the light. Anyhow, he has photons giving up energy to electrons in the intergalactic medium, and then the background arising from Bremsstrahlung radiation from the electrons that were accelerated in the photon interactions.This is impossible, of course. For one thing, it gives the wrong spectrum. Anyhow, here is the first paragraph from section 6, on the CMB:

quote:

---

The recoiling electron will be brought to rest by Coulomb interactions with all the electrons contained within a Debye sphere of radius λ_D. The decelerating electron will emit transmission radiation (TR) i.e. bremsstrahlung. There are two emission channels of the system, ‘intrinsic emission’ by the decelerating electron, and ‘emission by the medium’ where the background electrons radiate energy.

---

ROFL. By the way, this paper has been accepted for publication in a "peer reviewed" journal: Galilean Electrodynamics. It appears the reviewers must truly have been peers of Ashmore.Cheers -- Sylas

In answer to the question of the title; yes. I commented on the worthlessness of the coincidence in Message 6, and made the same point you have made, though less emphatically, and I was not explicit about the units problem.Basically, the only real coincidence is with H₀ ~ hr_e/m_e, and this is the ratio he quotes in brief statements of "Ashmore's Paradox". However, as you have noted, and as I have noted in the cited message, this is not the ratio he actually uses in the derivation; and so his own theory does not explain the so-called paradox at all.By the way, have a look at the actual derivations of his ratio in his paper. I want to watch the reaction you have; I'm sadistic that way. Ensure medical experts are on hand; primed to treat acute apoplexy.Cheers -- Sylas

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

Here is the abstract of Lyndon's paper. Each sentence of this abtract encapsulates errors in basic physics. Lyndon himself is not really capable of recognizing or dealing with the errors. Thus I am not posting this as questions for Lyndon; but simply as a summary of the errors for anyone who might think that this is some kind of credible physical model. There may be one person here other than Lyndon himself who is in that unhappy situation.1. The units error.The first sentence is a simple units error, as has been explained in the thread. The expression: ‘hr_e/m_e per cubic metre of space’ (2.1x10^-18 s^-1) should really say that ‘hr_e/m_e = 2.1x10^-18 s^-1m³’. (Added in edit: Ashmore's use of the word "per" is thus wrong also.) The Hubble constant is about 2.1x10^-18 s^-1. The similar magnitudes mean nothing, because the units are different. If we use CGS units rather than SI units, then hr_e/m_e = 2.1x10^-12 s^-1cm³. And if we use Imperial units, then hr_e/m_e = 7.4x10^-17 s^-1ft³. Lyndon on his web site indicates that he teaches physics at a secondary college. It would be a good exercise for high school students to explain why a close similarity of values for H₀ and hr_e/m_e is meaningless.Later in the abstract there is an equation with correct units. We'll get to that. Added in edit. Eta pointed out an error in my own work, in Message 138. Thanks! In SI Units, h is kg m² s^-1, r_e is m and m_e is kg. Thus hr_e/m_e has units m³ s^-1. I originally gave units as m^-3 s^-1, and then scaled everything the wrong way. My excuse is that I used Ashmore's phrase "per cubic meter", which encapsulated the same error! Argh. I have corrected the CGS from 2.1x10^-24 s^-1cm^-3 to 2.1x10^-12 s^-1cm³, and the Imperial from 5.9x10^-20 s^-1ft^-3 to 7.4x10^-17 s^-1ft³.2. The free electrons error.The second sentence of the abstract introduces another fundamental phsysical error in Lyndon's "analysis"; the treatment of electrons in a rarified plasma. The second sentence includes this phrase: "electrons in the plasma of intergalactic space that act collectively and oscillate if displaced." This is false. Lyndon's analysis assumes a very thin plasma indeed; having on order of magnitude one particle every cubic meter or so. Such electrons are free electrons. They don't "oscillate" when displaced. They just fire off in a new direction with no restoring forces that would set up oscillations. It seems likely that Lyndon has mixed up waves within a plasma and motions of electrons in photon interactions.3. Absoption.The third sentence speaks of absoption and emission of photons by electrons. While this is certainly crucial for electrons that are bound to a nucleus, which can absorb photons by moving up an energy level, and emit a photon again as they drop back, I do not believe this is correct for electrons in a plasma. A free electron can only take up energy by a boost in kinetic energy (motion), and the only way this gets emitted again is by effects like bremsstrahlung, or the radiation of energy from an accelerated or decelerated charged particle. But bremsstrahlung is invoked by Ashmore in quite a different context, to slow the electron that has received an energy kick from the original photon. Ashmore has mixed up the physics of bound and free electrons again.4. The double Mssbauer effectThe fourth sentence of the abstract includes this phrase, which is physically gibberish. There is no such thing. The Mssbauer effect applies when you have tightly bound electrons in a large lattice. Ashmore appeals frequently to an old text on Special Relativity by French, which I have borrowed to compare. Within his paper, Ashmore quotes the energy change in emission or absorbtion as Q²/2m_ec²; which is a special case of the the relation given by French for photons recoiling of a particle in a collision,, which is Q²/2M₀c². French explains the Mssbauer as something that occurs when M₀ is extreme large; effectly the mass of the crystalline lattice to which the electron is bound. Ashmore's use of Mssbauer effect with the mass of an electron is physically ludicrous.5. The plasma density, and the electron radiusThe fifth sentence is where there is a term with correct units for a meaningful comparison with the Hubble constant; 2n_ehr_e/m_e. The new variable n_e has dimensions m^-3, and so the whole term now has the right units for comparison with H₀. On the other hand, the resulting value is much too small. Lyndond resolves this in the paper simply by speculating that n_e is significantly larger than existing estimates propose; which is a reasonable proposal in itself since estimates of the density of the inter Galactic medium are not remotely accurate. This does, however, demolish the alleged "Ashmore's paradox", since he only obtains the similarly of values by tuning the variable n_e to get the correspondence.Properly speaking, therefore, the equation H₀ = 2n_ehr_e/m_e is not evidence for Ashmore's model; but a prediction yet to be confirmed by some good independent measure of n_e. The actual interactions proposed by Ashmore are, however, based on a wide range of other trivial errors, and so the whole exercise is just a waste of time.I am also dubious that using the classical electron radius is correct in this context for calculating the scatting cross-section of an electron. But I will defer on this to any physicist willing to comment.6. The CMBThe sixth and final sentence speaks of bremsstrahlung radiation from the accelerated electron. The relevance of this is that Ashmore, in his paper, associates this with the Comic Microwave Background. Since the spectrum bremsstrahlung is not a blackbody spectrum, this is physically ludicrous as well.Conclusion. These points are not given as questions for Ashmore to answer. Going on past experience, I expect him to have some comments that tell me my physics is all wet; while most of the substance simply ignored or "refuted" with more errors. I'm not out to convince Ashmore of anything. I'd be much more worried if he thought my physics was correct than if he thinks it is wrong.I guess I am trying to point out why there is so much of a pile-on effect happening here. Ashmore's physics is trivially wrong, and as you dig into it the errors merely multiply. It can be refuted at any almost any level; there are errors here than even a beginner could pick up, and other errors that require a more sophisticated analysis than I can manage at short notice. So we are bound to get a pile of people jumping in to point out the various errors.Demanding Ashmore respond to various criticisms is a waste of time. As one guy against the whole of modern physics, he can't hope to address all the concerns. And if he was capable of giving a good response, he wouldn't be making these errors in the first place. So calm down everyone. We don't need bad language to be emphatic. We don't need to convince Ashmore (and we clearly can't). So relax, sit back, pick a thread of the tired light model and unravel it a bit for yourself.If you really want to help, try looking for errors made by the people who are being critical of Ashmore. This is how people who are capable of learning can actually learn. For example, I will be very grateful for any credible criticisms of the comments I have made in this post. Hint, hint.Cheers -- SylasThis message has been edited by Sylas, 03-19-2005 09:39 PM

Thanks Eta. I have fixed up my original post, with due acknowledgement of the fix. Any more criticisms will be gratefully received!

Before I edit my post to fix this, I just want to confirm. What is the Thomson cross section? If I take a cross section using the classical radius, I get 3/8 of the Thomson cross section. I think.

Not as far as I can tell. There are people who propose tired light models that are a bit less ridiculous, but Ashmore seems to be quite the loner. I have not looked into it carefully, but there may one other usenet crank who has a similar set of errors. They don't seem to refer to each other. Lyndon's argument is wrong; and some of the errors are really really trivial.You don't seem to be even willing to entertain the possibility that there might be a real difference in expertise and validity in the maths and physics involved. You seem determined to elevate all criticism up to the same status. But as your own physics is so dreadful, you can't actually tell the difference between an interesting and unusual hypothesis, and a lot of errors.From your personal perspective, knowing effectively nothing about physics, you might think of this as a maverick scientist who is not getting a hearing. But Lyndon is not actually a scientist, or a researcher, or even a theorist except in his own mind. He is an enthusiastic amateur who IS getting a hearing, and a lot of useful feedback on his ideas, but he is incapable of even recognizing errors as they are pointed out.Have a look how quickly and efficiently Eta and I can resolve differences. It is not because we are in some kind of collusion. It is because we both know some physics. (I know a bit; and Eta knows a hell of a lot.) You keep saying silly things like "ideology", but that is just not true. There is considerable interest in realistic alterative cosmological ideas, and new ideas get tossed into the ring all the time by scientists. Modern cosmology is a ferment of competing ideas; it is one of the really active and exciting areas of science at present. Ashmore, however, is not part of this; his ideas are just wrong.You'll just have to get used to the hard fact of life that if a paper is written with a lot of errors, and put up for discussion, people will point out the errors. What else would you have us do?Cheers -- Sylas

If you dig into Ashmore's preprint paper, you find the following at the start of section 4. Now this all looks like nonsense to me. I think he is using the wrong formulae for interactions with free electrons such as are found in thin plasmas. Thomson scattering in a thin plasma makes sense (though of course it will not have the effects required to match cosmological redshift), but that uses a different cross section formula.The sentence in my longer review does not go into this. I said simply: I’m still not sure if I really need to reword that. Is it even worth adding?Cheers -- Sylas

Actually, I think it might be. Your claim in Message 95 was: There are indeed all kinds of problems and mismatches with the real world. But if you read the paper, you will see that Lyndon proposes the electrons in the IG medium absorb the energy lost by photons as they get redshifted, and then that the electrons radiate that energy again as the cosmic background.Cheers -- Sylas