Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Tired Light
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 61 of 309 (192378)
03-18-2005 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by lyndonashmore
03-18-2005 2:35 PM


lyndonashmore writes:
I will respond to all points but in the meantime, can you find us a link to this 'perfect CMB cueve' for us all to see.
I didn't mention any "perfect CMB cueve", so I have no context to go by. You'll have to refer me to the message or source you're talking about.
Secondly look up Hawkins and Quasar time dilation.
Again, you've provided no context. My guess is that you're offering this in response to the supernova data, but a Google on "hawkins quasar time dilation" returns too many links with only ambiguous application to the topic. Anyway, we try to encourage people to make the arguments themselves in the messages they post.
If you still feel Sylas's points are worth discussing then discuss them we will.
Well, don't discuss it just for my sake. I expect you've gone over the same ground at many discussion boards, and I doubt I'm going to raise any issues you haven't seen before.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-18-2005 2:35 PM lyndonashmore has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-19-2005 8:14 AM Percy has replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 62 of 309 (192418)
03-19-2005 12:36 AM


Is this thread a fifty year old timewarp???
To call 'tired' light a tired hypothesis is an understatement. I haven't read this entire thread but could the tired light supporters answer me one question (I have dozens more if need be by the way as to why it is a garbage hypothesis) please.
What is the source of the CMB? When I say source I mean what distance does the CMB originate from?

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Sylas, posted 03-19-2005 2:05 AM Eta_Carinae has replied

Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 63 of 309 (192430)
03-19-2005 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Eta_Carinae
03-19-2005 12:36 AM


Re: Is this thread a fifty year old timewarp???
Eta_Carinae writes:
What is the source of the CMB? When I say source I mean what distance does the CMB originate from?
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 λD. 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-19-2005 12:36 AM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-19-2005 2:24 AM Sylas has not replied
 Message 71 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-19-2005 8:33 AM Sylas has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 64 of 309 (192432)
03-19-2005 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Sylas
03-19-2005 2:05 AM


LOL
Did you say Galilean Electrodynamics?
That's a well known crank publication by some nutcases.
It's not a recognised journal. If I remember its also famous for perpetual motion machines and such bullshit.
This message has been edited by Admin_Eta, 03-19-2005 02:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Sylas, posted 03-19-2005 2:05 AM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2005 1:18 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 65 of 309 (192434)
03-19-2005 3:26 AM


Has nobody commented on his bullshit coincidence?
He points out the coincidence of the value h*Re/Me and the Hubble constant of the present epoch.
THIS IS MEANINGLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It would have more meaning IF he was equating dimensionless numbers but his quantity is not dimensionless.
Here is an example:
He calculates h*Re/Me as approx. 2.1 x 10^-18 Metres^3 per second.
This is correct of course.
He then has the Hubble constant of say 70 km/s/Mpc and this is about
2 x 10^-18 per second. Again correct.
He then goes and divides his h*Re/Me by 1 m^3 and gets an equivalence.
Here is why this is bullshit.
Let's recalculate h*Re/Me in the old foot-pound-second system of the 19th century physics world.
We get that h*Re/Me is 7.03 x 10^-17 ft^3 per second. If I then divide by 1 ft^3 I get 7.03 x 10^-17 per second.
Let's do this for the Hubble constant in a different unit system.
70 km/s/Mpc is approx. 13.3 miles/s/Million light years.
This again gives approx. 2 x 10^-18 per second.
See what is going on here? The Hubble constant is (as long as we use seconds for our time unit) has the value 2 x 10^-18 per second.
But our h*Re/Me has to be in metres^3 per second and divided by 1 m^3 to get the same numerical equivalence as the Hubble constant.
WHY IS THE METRE ANY BETTER THAN THE FOOT? By choosing my length unit appropriately I can get pretty much any answer I want for h*Re/Me. That isn't science its numerology or game playing if you will.
Is he saying that the Universe has this equivalence just because of a stick in Paris that was based upon a guess at a fraction of the Earths circumference 200 years ago???? THAT IS NONSENSE OF COURSE.
This is why physicists when looking at variations of fundamental constants or coincidences of seemingly fundamental things use dimensionless parameters not ones that have values dependent on 18th century Frenchmen or medieval Englishmen or Romans or Greeks.
Crank science has always been crank science and it smells from a mile away even on the internet.

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Sylas, posted 03-19-2005 4:32 AM Eta_Carinae has replied

Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 66 of 309 (192437)
03-19-2005 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Eta_Carinae
03-19-2005 3:26 AM


Re: Has nobody commented on his bullshit coincidence?
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 ~ hre/me, 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-19-2005 3:26 AM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-19-2005 4:45 AM Sylas has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 67 of 309 (192438)
03-19-2005 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Sylas
03-19-2005 4:32 AM


Re: Has nobody commented on his bullshit coincidence?
The units thing is the key as to why this is bullshit.
If I invent a new unit of length, we'll call it the Eta and set its value to 0.86 microns then.....
I have that the h*Re/Me is equal to Pi eta^3 per second. Therefore in a volume of 1 eta^3 we have Pi per second.
Now isn't that EVEN MORE AMAZING!!!!! I have linked the Plancks constant the radius of the electron and it's mass to that most wonderful of numbers Pi.
I'm a genius folks!!!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Sylas, posted 03-19-2005 4:32 AM Sylas has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 68 of 309 (192439)
03-19-2005 4:49 AM


I'm bored this weekend so I might have fun..
with this crank if he reappears. Just skimming his paper(cough cough) I can see many errors in his thought process where he hasn't thought through the implications of his mechanism versus observational results.
Add onto that the myriads of known problems with standard tired light models.
We have another Cresswell on our hands folks!

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-19-2005 8:21 AM Eta_Carinae has replied

lyndonashmore
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 309 (192447)
03-19-2005 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Percy
03-18-2005 9:03 PM


Hi Percy,
Sorry about that,
Try this
The point is that BB'ers claim that supernovae light curves show direct evidence of expansion. Surprisingly enough even up to 2000 There was no direct evidence to show that the universe was expanding. They decided that supernovae with high redshifts would, according to their theory, be travelling at speeds approaching the speed of light and thus should show relativistic effects ie Time dilation.
They claimed to have found it,but the evidence was hardly convincing.
So Hawkins et al decided to look at quasars. Some of these varied in brightness in a regular pattern and these had redshifts of over three. Without relativity that would be three times the speed of light so here was a great test of time dilation. It should be staring them in the face.
It wasn't. There was no time dilation at all. The universe is not therefore expanding. We have to look elsewhere for an explanation for the stretching of light curves. So you see, time dilation in supernovae light curves is not a problem for tired light.
Cheers
Lyndon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 03-18-2005 9:03 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2005 1:44 PM lyndonashmore has replied
 Message 103 by Percy, posted 03-19-2005 2:23 PM lyndonashmore has not replied
 Message 152 by Sylas, posted 03-20-2005 4:33 AM lyndonashmore has not replied

lyndonashmore
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 309 (192448)
03-19-2005 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Eta_Carinae
03-19-2005 4:49 AM


Re: I'm bored this weekend so I might have fun..
Why should I not reappear? I am here for fun too and I can see a lot of it here!
As for your earlier post, where does the CMB come from, it is local. In my Tired Light Theory the photons are absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in Intergalactic space. Each time the electron recoils and gains some energy from the photon. The photon has lost energy, its frequency becomes less, its wavelength increases. It has been redshifted.
Now lets look at the recoiling electron. It is brought to rest by coulomb forces between it and the other electrons in the plasma and radiates this energy as a secondary photon. This is the CMB. I calculate the wavelength of these secondary photons and show them to be in the microwave region.
Cheers
Lyndon

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-19-2005 4:49 AM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-19-2005 1:32 PM lyndonashmore has replied

lyndonashmore
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 309 (192451)
03-19-2005 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Sylas
03-19-2005 2:05 AM


Re: Is this thread a fifty year old timewarp???
Hi Sylas,
Glad you came back. I appreciate that it must have been very humiliating for you - being shown up like that in public with all those errors of yours on scientific fact. But never mind, Have you sorted out your understanding of the BB yet? I am happy to help you more if you like.
You must remember that Ashmore's paradox is an embarassment for the Big Bang only. The fact that great scientists have been going on about it, pontificating about the age of the universe when it was only the electron in disguise! Why even a schoolchild could have whipped out their calculator and found the age of the universe by pressing a few buttons! It took a team of scientists years to find it! Have you been citing it too?
No, the paradox is only an embarassment for the BB. In my tired light theory, it is expected. Since I show that H = 2nhr/m and n is known to be around unity, one expects coincidences like this.
Cheers,
Lyndon
Of course, others must be wondering if your posts on other threads were correct too musn't they?

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Sylas, posted 03-19-2005 2:05 AM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by CK, posted 03-19-2005 8:49 AM lyndonashmore has replied
 Message 74 by NosyNed, posted 03-19-2005 9:39 AM lyndonashmore has replied
 Message 83 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-19-2005 1:36 PM lyndonashmore has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 72 of 309 (192455)
03-19-2005 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by lyndonashmore
03-19-2005 8:33 AM


Re: Is this thread a fifty year old timewarp???
Em..no I doubt that they are.
I read your site and then read the editoral "guidance" from the journal. Both have all the classic hallmarks of crack science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-19-2005 8:33 AM lyndonashmore has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-19-2005 9:18 AM CK has not replied

lyndonashmore
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 309 (192465)
03-19-2005 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by CK
03-19-2005 8:49 AM


Re: Is this thread a fifty year old timewarp???
Hi Charles,
Fifty year old Time warp? Nah! Zwicky first proposed Tired Light in 1929. trouble was no one knew what the light interacted with or how it did it until I came along. Mind you, I did have a big advantage, then they didn't have the correct value of the Hubble constant (500 km/s per Mpc then?) so they couldn't make the connection between H and the electron.
What is a 50 year time warp is vacuum energy now said to be propelling the accelerated expansion. This is the old Steady State theory under a different name (I thought the CMB proved that wrong!) Mass energy and equivalent so it is back to Fred Hoyles SS Theory if you don't believe Tired Light.
Cheers Lyndon

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by CK, posted 03-19-2005 8:49 AM CK has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 74 of 309 (192468)
03-19-2005 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by lyndonashmore
03-19-2005 8:33 AM


An embarassment?
... being shown up like that in public with all those errors of yours on scientific fact.
Oh really? I'm still waiting for you to clarify just what you are talking about and answer the questions put to you.
So far it seems you don't have your own story straight but I guess we'll see when you get time to clarify and answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-19-2005 8:33 AM lyndonashmore has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-19-2005 10:42 AM NosyNed has replied

lyndonashmore
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 309 (192473)
03-19-2005 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by NosyNed
03-19-2005 9:39 AM


Re: An embarassment?
Hi NosyNed
I thought that i had answered most questions (some will have wait until we are further intto the theory). What did you think of the Hawkins paper and how time dilation results prove the Bb wrong?What would you like to know?
Cheers
Lyndon

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by NosyNed, posted 03-19-2005 9:39 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by NosyNed, posted 03-19-2005 11:31 AM lyndonashmore has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024