Tired Light

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. By far the dominant signal in CMBR is a dipole caused by Doppler effects from our own local motions in space. This shows that the Solar System is moving at about 369 km/sec the the direction of the constellation of Virgo. After motions with the galaxy are considered, there is an inference that the whole local group of galaxies is moving at 600 km/s in the CMBR rest frame. On top of this, there is a lot of microwave noise from the plane of the Milky Way galaxy. Both these effects must be removed from the data before the thermalized CMBR is apparent.I don't see how this has any real relevance. I'm happy to help on the energy budget of the tired light model, and will put on a tired light hat if necessary to argue that there is no unaccounted loss of energy.Cheers -- Sylas

I have made a new thread at Message 1. Discussion on Cosmic Background Radiation in Big Bang cosmology can go there.This thread here, on Tired Light, was created to discuss the tired light model of Lyndon Ashmore, and further posts back here should remain focused on that.This is intended to help keep discussion on topic. I won't be policing any of this myself, since I am directly involved in the discussions.AdminSylas

As we have all realised by now, "H = hr/m bla bla" isn't Ashmore's paradox. It's Ashmore's delusion. We can live with that.But there is of course Ashmore's Real Paradox, which, although most of us can probably live with that too, is a genuine reason for the people of 'Gulf' to be very worried. It is best expressed not as a formula - unit errors are not to be feared - but as a question.

LOL!!

.....Who appointed you spokesman for the board, Parasomnium?

---

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

The problem with Ashmore's Paradox is that his constant, the one that is supposedly equal to the Hubble Constant, is not actually a constant. The value of Ashmore's constant changes according to the units of distance used. This has been explained several times in posts by Sylas and Eta, and the precise math illustrating the problem is given in Message 123. That Ashmore is wrong isn't ambiguous - there's no doubt. Go through the math yourself.--Percy

Parasomnium does not speak for me on anything, Percy.
Both Ashmore, you, and the others are the astute physics folks here and certainly not me. I've debated on the basis of an unbounded static space as you know for a long time from a more logical viewpoint, but one which I have shown to be thermodynamically compatible and one which imo has a more difinitive space than the expansionist view. I do understand some fundamental basics of science such as the thermodynamic laws to the extent that I can use them some to debate the science of my arguments.I'm not astute enough to judge Asmore or his opponents as to the math, et al. Nevertheless his paradox makes more logical sense to me than the counterparts and that's what I need to go with, given the knowledge I have about it until something more sensible comes up.

---

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

quote:

---

I'm not astute enough to judge Asmore or his opponents as to the math, et al.

---

So, this means you have no idea if he is correct or not, right?

quote:

---

Nevertheless his paradox makes more logical sense to me than the counterparts and that's what I need to go with, given the knowledge I have about it until something more sensible comes up.

---

In other words, you prefer to believe him, someone without a physics degree and clearly having trouble following Eta's arguments and maths, for the sole reason that you like his views better, even though you don't understand the math enough to tell if he's right or not.Just so you know, buzsaw, this is a prime example of something Percy and others have noticed that you tend to do.You are extremely biased towards accepting things you agree with even when you don't understand them enough to be able to judge if they are correct or not.If you really were to be unbiased, or even just biased towards the evidence, you would simply say "I don't understand any of this physics or math to the degree needed to make a determination of who is right here.Instead, you believe what you like in the absence of evidence or understanding.This is a good way to become very wrong on very many things.

I believe Lyndon has an honours degree in physics. But the rest about his apparently not being able to follow a simple units argument is fair enough.

I'm not sure I can make myself clear here (and I could be wrong about it) but here goes:Let me start with a thought experiment: we enclose a volume of space around the solar system with a thin bubble. For the radius we can pick something far enough away to appear to be outside the normal solar system interactions yet close enough to have a fairly good idea of what is in the immediate neighborhood: the pioneer 10\11 satellites (due to their anomalous orbital behavior)"All things being equal" there should be no significant difference in behavior in either the standard redshift model or ashmore's "tired light" model (hereafter called "ATL") outside this radius (assuming that other problems are resolved), thus both would show the dipole effect of the motion of the solar system etc. etc.Within this bubble there is a distribution of matter and of free electrons that is not homogeneous, but rather more of an ordered distribution. As a result the free space electron density within this sphere will not be homogeneous, but should be higher out of plane than in plane due to the motion and gravity of the planets.It seems to me that as a result, ashmore's model should produce more local effect in both ATL and CMB⁽¹⁾, hereafter designated CMB_ASH, outside the plane of the solar system than in it, and that this should be a measurable effect.(There are also other effects like the earth's magnetic field that will effect the distribution of electrons in specific locations. But that is a different issue)Because ashmore's model is dependent on, and therefore sensitive to, the distribution of electrons in space while the standard model of redshift is not, there should be some pretty simple tests to determine if his model has any validity. And there should be variations in ATL or in CMB_ASH that should be observable, but which have not been seen.WMAP was put into the LaGrange (L2) orbits specifically to get it sufficiently out of the range of effects from earth (to where it could be aimed and shielded to remove the earth from the data) and yet be in the earth's shadow to shield it from the sun's effects. In addition, as you say the standard image has been corrected to account for the known speed of the solar system Doppler effect.It seems to me any anomalies in the image would have been noted, specifically if they were related to the positions of the planets (and magnetic fields) and did not match predicted values based on the current model, values that should be in error if ashmore is correct in his model.This picture: from APOD: 2003 February 17 - Universe Age from the Microwave Background is not corrected and it shows the line of radiation due to our galaxy. There is no mention of any effect due to our solar system and its orientation or to any local anomalies due to planets and magnetic fields.Conclusion: there are no local anomalies, there is no local production of CMB_ASH, there is no ATL effect, this model for "tired light" is wrong.That would be my take on it.

---

⁽¹⁾ CMB_ASH is given as hf_cmb = (1/2m_e)(p² — p’²)
(Where p = m_ev and p’ = m_ev’ are the initial and final momentum of the electron after the "redshifted" photon has already been emited)ps -- given that ashmore's model generates the CMB_ASH with leftover energy siphoned off by the redshift (via "double Mssbauer" effect) I don't think you can effectively divide these topics.The biggest problem I can see with his model for this is that it has to happen continuously through space, and that once generated, the CMB_ASH is equally subject to redshift as all other photons, thus the band of CMB_ASH frequencies should be spread out and wider than the predicted (and validated) frequency spread of the actual CMB.

---

Enjoy.This message has been edited by Admin, 03-21-2005 09:38 AM

---

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

I stand corrected about his degree in physics.

brain atrophy in the 30+ years since he was at Polytechnic. (He went to school near my home town I might add.)

Not a useful contribution to the discussion Eta. Thanks.

If you peruse the thread he basically has shit on Sylas repeatedly for no other reason than to deflect away from the problems I brought up.Pretty much he will not respond to my posts at all yet I was the one who criticised his argument at the most fundamental level.I also truly am appalled that someone who (according to him) has a physics degree yet is so fundamentally flawed in his physics application. I know the old Polytechnics in England were kind of like US Junior colleges (read - not worth a shit) but even so it's still appalling.This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 03-20-2005 11:15 PMThis message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 03-20-2005 11:16 PM

I am not familiar with the english school system Is that like a bachelor degree (york) and a masters degree (preston)?"Dubai College" sounds like high school to me, or is this more advanced?If so, that's a pretty high pedestal for someone to be "talking trash" at others.