Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered
From: George Dishman (george_at_briar.demon.co.uk)
Date: 12/12/04
- Next message: nibblenot_at_lycos.com: "Re: What Were The Liberals Thinking?"
- Previous message: Anonymous: "Re: What Were The Liberals Thinking?"
- In reply to: greywolf42: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- Next in thread: greywolf42: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- Reply: greywolf42: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 10:23:27 -0000
"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:AjOud.18570$I8.17805@news.flashnewsgroups.com...
> George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cpesm1$p8j$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>
>> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
>> news:Bbrtd.549$6N2.13@news.flashnewsgroups.com...
>> > Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
>> > news:cp3ulp$d7e$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
>> >> George Dishman wrote:
>> >
>> >> > If he can come up with one that explains the spectrum
>> >> > of the CMBR
>> >
>> > Electron vortex noise from the aether. A local effect due to electrons
>> > bound in hydrogen gas.
>> >
>> >> > and its dipole moment
>> >
>> > The motion of the solar system through the aether.
>>
>> The dipole moment is valid, that's what expected.
>> Radiation from bound electrons is discrete
>
> No, it is not. I'm not discussing changes of energy levels of electrons
> in
> QM theory.
Nor am I, I am pointing out that your idea conflicts
with lab data that shows that atoms have discrete
states and not a continuous range of energy. However
I would rather stick to the macroscopic arguments as
this is an astronomy group so I'll drop this next time.
<snip>
>> You say this is a "local effect" which I guess might
>> mean that the energy is provided by starlight within
>> the galaxy.
>
> Nope. A poor strawman, or a bad guess.
The latter. You hadn't given any indication of what
scale you meant by 'local'.
> It simply means that it is not cosmogenic (as is normally assumed in the
> BB
> theory). It's produced in the local region (circa solar system and local
> region of the galaxy). Of course it will also be produced elsewhere.
Ok, so the principle of the argument remains the
same, just replace "the core of the galaxy" by the
Sun or nearby stars. Why is the temperature of the
CMBR not higher when we look on paths that pass
close to the Sun and why isn't the shape of the
spectrum the integral along the path of a variable
temperature?
The bottom line here is that I am prepared to
_consider_ such ideas, but when nobody can publish
an analysis that shows that making the assumption
of a locally generated effect can produce a match
to the observed data, then I have to think it's
not representative of the real world.
>> > Any tired light theory. (In this case, the slight
>> > imperfection in the aether.)
>>
>> So to explain the exponential form against distance,
>> you need to show why this imperfection produces an
>> energy loss which is proportional to the frequency.
>
> The light wave loses energy with distance.
>
> dE = -mu E
You forgot dx but anyone can make a mistake ;-)
Yes, that's the equation you need to derive if a
Tired Light theory is to _predict_ the exponential
form. So far all I see is an ad-hoc assumption that
this will be the case. The MTW arguments suggest it
would not be, but there may be additional factors
they don't take into account so show me how this
equation is derived from the Tired Light model you
claim predicts the SNe data.
The rest follows as you say:
> E = E_0 exp (-mu x)
>
> Because light frequency is proportional to energy:
>
> f = f_0 exp (-mu x)
You can also demonstrate it empirically since it
is equivalent to showing that z is independent of
frequency.
Of course that's only half the problem but we can
address the prediction of apparent magnitude
separately.
George
- Next message: nibblenot_at_lycos.com: "Re: What Were The Liberals Thinking?"
- Previous message: Anonymous: "Re: What Were The Liberals Thinking?"
- In reply to: greywolf42: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- Next in thread: greywolf42: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- Reply: greywolf42: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
