Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered
From: George Dishman (george_at_briar.demon.co.uk)
Date: 12/03/04
- Next message: robert casey: "Re: Seismic Shaking Erased Small Impact Craters On Asteroid Eros"
- Previous message: David B. Lowry: "Re: How far away - and how big - is Betelgeuse?????????"
- In reply to: greywolf42: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- Reply: greywolf42: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:58:22 -0000
"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:f5Nrd.1533$fi2.68@news.flashnewsgroups.com...
> George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:colk2c$r33$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>
>> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
>> news:Lxord.598$fi2.119@news.flashnewsgroups.com...
>> > George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:coiqg4$ss$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>> >>
>
> {snip higher levels}
>
>> >> Well I presume by "Hubble's data" you mean the
>> >> measurements on which he based his law.
>> >
>> > That's part of it. Now, what *are* the measurements?
>>
>> You tell me, you coined the term.
>
> I wasn't coining a term.
>
>> >> The law itself is what is on that web page.
>> >
>> > Nope. That's not Hubble's Law. There's nothing like that in Hubble's
>> > papers. Or any papers of that era.
>>
>> Hubble's data was all low z so the question didn't arise.
>
> Precisely!!!!!! Thank you for proving my point.
If your point is that Hubble didn't have access
to modern data, then I never contested it. The
fact remains that linearity in the Hubble Law
is between speed and distance.
>> > When did you (or someone else) change the definition of Hubble's law?
>>
>> I don't know the history but if you want to prove there
>> was a change and the old version was wrong, I won't argue
>> with you. Science moves on.
>
> Now, can we dispense with the silliness about the "Hubble Law" containing
> the high-z "time dependence" that was *later* added to save the Big Bang?
No, you still can't make the assumption that H(t) is
independent of t and then pretend you aren'. Hubble
had data over a short lookback time hence the variation
was less than the spread. He didn't have to addres it
but it was always there.
>> >> > How do you measure the speed of a galaxy without doppler shift?
>> >>
>> >> Tie a string to a galaxy, ties knots in it and
>> >> count how fast they get pulled through your hand.
>> >
>> > I see you abandoned your claim. You now admit that there is no way to
>> > do so.
>>
>> I see you cannot recognise a facetious reply intended
>> to prompt you to think again about what was said.
>
> I could see the attempt to bail out of the unsupportable position you took
> that you could measure the speed of a galaxy without doppler shift. :)
Just as I could see you attempt to bail out of the claim
that Hubble's Law related redshift to speed.
>> The
>> method of measurement is unrelated to the fact that
>> the law relates speed to distance, not redshift.
>
> But the discussion is about the observational basis for the law. The
> "method of measurement" *assumes* the law is correct.
If you look back, you will find the original discussion
was about the non-linearity high z SNe measurements and
your claim that I was "fixated" with linearity.
I'm quite happy for it to drift onto Tired Light but
don't try to pretend we were ever talking about
linearity in any other context.
>> >> The point is that the law relates speed to
>> >> distance, not redshift to distance.
>> >
>> > But the data relates redshift to distance. You are simply assuming
>> > that
>> > redshift always equates to speed.
>>
>> No, I am saying that in one model, where speed is taken
>> as the cause, speed is then proportional distance provided
>> distance is defined at a specific epoch.
>
> And that is assuming that redshift always equates to speed. Why did you
> start with "no?"
Because the conversation was about the linear
reationship in the Hubble Law, and that relates
speed to distance at a given epoch. The relationship
between redshift and speed is only linear for v<<c.
Your attempts to sugggest I argued something other
than that are just a waste of time.
>> In other models
>> such as Tired Light, there is no such relationship.
>
> Finally! There is no such assumption required to meet the data.
I have said repeatedly that I'm open to considering
alternative assumptions. Whether they can "meet the
data" remains to be seen.
>> No, we are discussing your claims that linearity of the
>> Hubble Law is assumed in modern Big Bang theory.
>
> No, we are discussing the assumption that redshift and speed are always
> directly related. We aren't discussing the BB theory.
Sorry, go check the messages that started this.
> {snip higher levels}
>
>> >> I have no grounds to question your intent and don't
>> >> doubt what you say. I'm just waiting to find out
>> >> what other interpretation you want to suggest.
>> >
>> > I've already discussed it in great detail. You simply ignore it, and
>> > parrot the current paradigm.
>>
>> Actually, you haven't discussed any alternative, you
>> have only acussed me of assuming the conventional
>> theory is the only possibility. That isn't true.
>
> You finally admitted it on the last round.
I admitted no such thing. What I said was that the fact
that I am willing to consider alternatives hadn't been
clear in previous posts. It still remains true.
> So, while your statement is
> literally true, it is disingenuous.
I would say the same of your attempt to suggest I
admitted something when it is obvious I didn't.
> {snip higher levels}
>
>> >> What I can't grasp is why you keep charging an open
>> >> door. I am aware of the current interpretation and
>> >> of Zwicky's 1929 alternative of exponential photon
>> >> energy degradation, commonly known as "Tired Light".
>> >> That has an exponential relationship between redshift
>> >> and distance but is ruled out in other ways.
>> >
>> > Finally, we come to your real objections!
>> >
>> > Citation(s), please.
>>
>> Well the most obvious is the intensity of the CMBR:
>>
>> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.gif
>>
>> The energy degradation variant of Tired light
>
> Which one? *ALL* tired light theories have energy degradation! (Even if
> Ned Wright's strawmen don't fit into this category.)
I think it was clear I meant those where individual
photons lose energy but are not destroyed.
>> would reduce the energy of each photon but not the flux.
>
> That is the assumption of the BB.
Nonsense, it is simply a consequence of the fact that
the number of particles is conserved.
> It is not part of all tired light
> theories.
Which is why I tried to indivcate that that argument
only applied to a specific subset.
> (It is true of Vigier's QM version, I believe. But not of
> Maxwell's, Olber's, or LeSages.)
There may be others as well. I don't pretend to know
of all the possibilities but the point is that those
in which the red-shift mechanism does not also reduce
the flux of photons need to find a way to "meet the
data" as you put it from FIRAS.
<snip>
>> The
>> graphic is from Ned Wright's page but I'm sure you
>> understand the objection without a specific citation.
>
> Oh, I understand it all right.
Then why waste time above pretending you didn't.
<snip more ad hominems>
>> > I suspect you'll simply parrot Misner, Thorne and
>> > Wheeler's repetition of Zel'dovich's hand-waving and nonsubstative
>> > statements.
>>
>> I don't have MTW so I don't know what is said. Give
>> me a hint.
>
> Here's a link discussing both Ned Wright and MTW:
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10apn1e3n8ehn7e%40corp.supernews.com
>
> And another with more detail:
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=103sf11m3v5a575%40corp.supernews.com
See my reply to Bjoern on those threads. Either something
got damaged in the cut & paste (maybe MTW's ;-) or I misread
the quotes. For whatever reason, I don't follow the third one.
Anyway, as you can see, I gave you a different argument above.
>> Though I've heard of these, I'm not familiar in detail
>> with either so can you provide an on-line primer? I'm
>> quite open to considering alteratives.
>
> I could, but I won't bother.
Fair enough.
> My point was that the only defense you had was
> a 1929 theory by Zwicky (The best you could do was find a different
> strawman). You aren't even sure *why* Zwicky is out of favor. But yet,
> you
> use it to claim that *ALL* tired light theories are disproved.
That's a lie. Provide a reference.
>> > My point was simply that you are ignoring the possibility that your
>> > (and
>> > Hubbles, and the BB's) primary assumption is simply incorrect. If all
>> > you can do is parrot a claim that *one* 1929 theory is not currently
>> > accepted, you are on very thin ice.
>>
>> I take each on it's merits.
>
> You don't even know *WHY* Zwicky's theory is out of favor! Yet, you
> claimed
> that *ALL* such theories are disproved,
That's a lie too. Provide a reference.
> simply because Zwicky's was. That
> is not taking each theory on it's merits!
>
>> "Tired Light" is a generic
>> term which is why I described energy decay specifically.
>> Obviously different mechanisms for the energy loss could
>> be subject to different tests.
>
> Precisely!!!!! Yet you dismissed them all, without even looking.
I have never made any such claim. What I said was:
>> Actually, you haven't discussed any alternative, you
>> have only acussed me of assuming the conventional
>> theory is the only possibility. That isn't true.
So again you are lying.
>> > The point of contention is your bullheaded refusal to even consider
>> > something not containing the assumption that redshift is
>> > always-and-only
>> > connected to motion.
>>
>> I have repeatedly said I would consider alternatives
>
> You stated that you would only consider alternatives that included the
> redshift-speed relationship a constant.
That's a lie too. Provide a reference.
>> but until the last few posts, you have griped almost
>> entirely about 'linearity'.
>
> And that is still the issue. The nonlinearity of the data. Versus the
> linearity of the theory.
And again you try to create the strawman. The linearity
in the theory is between speed and distance while the
data relates redshift and distance, or more accurately
redshift and magnitude of standard candles.
> Eventually, you wore down to admitting that tired light theories existed.
ROFL! You really are a card. Do your research, find out
who told Aladar Stolmar that he wasn't the first to
propose that tired light had an exponential relationship
to distance:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=995811704.12706.0.nnrp-10.9e989a91@news.demon.co.uk
That was over three years ago. Still you seem to be
enjoying yourself, beating about the bush, so I'll
just wait for you to get wherever your're going.
> But you claimed they were not viable on other grounds. Even though you
> didn't know offhand what those "grounds" were.
>
>> I hope you now realise
>> that criticism of current conventional cosmology is
>> not valid.
>
> We aren't discussing criticism of "conventional cosmology." But about a
> single issue. Whether the assumption direct, linear relationship between
> redshift and speed is valid.
Again you try to slip in the strawman, I am not aware
of _any_ theory that uses such a relationship other than
as an approximation when v<<c. In conventional theory
the proportionality is between speed and distance at
a given epoch while redshift is given by the change in
scale factor a(t).
> Or whether tired light theories -- which
> predicted the data that big bangers now claim for "dark energy" -- can be
> considered.
Of course they can be considered, but as you said, they
must be consistent with the data. Different theories
may be best tested against different data so stop
handwaving and start discussing specifics. Otherwise
all I can do is give you general indications of the
tests that can be applied.
George
- Next message: robert casey: "Re: Seismic Shaking Erased Small Impact Craters On Asteroid Eros"
- Previous message: David B. Lowry: "Re: How far away - and how big - is Betelgeuse?????????"
- In reply to: greywolf42: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- Reply: greywolf42: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
