|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Tired Light | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4375 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5260 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4375 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4375 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
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 about2 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5260 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4375 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
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!!!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4375 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyndonashmore Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyndonashmore Inactive Member |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyndonashmore Inactive Member |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4128 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyndonashmore Inactive Member |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
... 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyndonashmore Inactive Member |
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!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024