Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered
From: greywolf42 (mingstb_at_marssim-ss.com)
Date: 12/13/04
- Next message: greywolf42: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- Previous message: greywolf42: "Re: Smoot's Book: Quadrupoles and Omega=1"
- In reply to: George Dishman: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- Next in thread: George Dishman: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- Reply: George Dishman: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 07:25:45 GMT
George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cph65m$e23$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:AjOud.18570$I8.17805@news.flashnewsgroups.com...
> > George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:cpesm1$p8j$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
{snip higher levels}
> >> 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.
I
Am
Not
Talking
About
Atomic
Energy
Levels!
> However
> I would rather stick to the macroscopic arguments as
> this is an astronomy group so I'll drop this next time.
Good!
> <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'.
Since we were discussing cosmogenic origen versus non-cosmogenic origin, it
is not hard to guess properly.
> > 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.
Huh? The argument you gave was the CMBR was emitted cosmogenically, and the
light had travelled many billions of years.
> Why is the temperature of the
> CMBR not higher when we look on paths that pass
> close to the Sun
Why would it be? The Sun is not doing the heating.
> and why isn't the shape of the
> spectrum the integral along the path of a variable
> temperature?
Because the temperature does not vary significantly.
> 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,
To what observed data are you referring? There have been many analyses that
have explained many observations.
> then I have to think it's
> not representative of the real world.
The fact that something has not yet been done, does not mean that it cannot
be done. However, I've already given you part of the analysis.
> >> > 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 ;-)
Oops.
> Yes, that's the equation you need to derive if a
> Tired Light theory is to _predict_ the exponential
> form.
That is the form that is required by gravitation, as well.
> So far all I see is an ad-hoc assumption that
> this will be the case.
Except that it isn't ad hoc, for two reasons. First, it is a requirement of
any LeSagian method that has a mass-equivalent form. Second, it was
explicitly predicted years before the SN1a data, by several different
people. Including Vigier and many of the authors in the book "Pushing
Gravity."
> The MTW arguments suggest it would not be,
The MTW arguments are pure hand-waving, value-free myths.
Search on the name "Zel'dovich" in the thread "tired light" in this
newsgroup.
> but there may be additional factors
> they don't take into account
Not according to gravitational theory.
> so show me how this
> equation is derived from the Tired Light model you
> claim predicts the SNe data.
It's the other way around. The tired light effect results from the above
equation. Which is the result of the LeSagian graviational model.
> 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.
I'm always happy to address physical models and observations. Even if I
don't have all the answers.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
- Next message: greywolf42: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- Previous message: greywolf42: "Re: Smoot's Book: Quadrupoles and Omega=1"
- In reply to: George Dishman: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- Next in thread: George Dishman: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- Reply: George Dishman: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
