Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered

From: George Dishman (george_at_briar.demon.co.uk)
Date: 12/31/04 

Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:07:17 -0000

"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:JI2Ad.32992$Bw5.7490@news.flashnewsgroups.com...
> George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cqaapm$9k6$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>
>> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xg%xd.8382$SX.6047@news.flashnewsgroups.com...
>> > George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:cpvolq$dm2$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> {snip higher levels}
>
>> > But your "disproof" requires that Tired light theories be based on
>> > cosmogenic emissions.
>>
>> No it doesn't. That particular argument is generally
>> applicable to any tired light theory in which the CMBR
>> source is at broadly uniform temperature and the
>> extinction length is comparable to the length in the
>> exponential redshift relationship.
>
> I think we need to get back to the actual argument, from Ned Wright's
> webpage (11/04 version):
>
> " The tired light model can not produce a blackbody spectrum for the
> Cosmic
> Microwave Background without some incredible coincidences."
>
> Note that Ned is requiring ALL "tired light" models to generate a CMBR.
> He
> doesn't limit his argument to any "subset" of tired light models. *THE
> TIRED LIGHT MODEL*. Ned is deliberately attempting to impugn all variants
> of tired light by picking another strawman.

It isn't a strawman theory, he is describing a test that
can be applied to all cosmological theories, tired light
or otherwise, but rather than criticising his writing
style, how about getting back to the physics.

> Ned invokes the "expanding balloon analogy" for his effort. The expanding
> balloon analogy is only valid in BB cosmologies, of course. But Ned's
> effort is even worse. He states:
>
> "Assume that the CMB starts out as a T = (1+z)*To = 2.998 K blackbody."
> Of
> course, there is no reason to assume this in *any* tired light theory. It
> is only in the BB theory that the CMBR cools with time. If you take Ned's
> red curve (asserted to be from a tired light calculation), and match it to
> the peak of the 2.725 FIRAS data, it matches quite nicely within the
> marked
> error bars. It only misses the curve, because Ned arbitrarily adjusted
> the
> curve away from the data, using a higher temperature (which is only valid
> in
> the BB).

Which is the nature of the test that he is illustrating.
You are expected to understand the nature of the argument
from this and then apply it to whatever specific theory
you are considering.

>> >> > How many times do you have to repeat this BB assumption?
>> >>
>> >> Once would be a change. This is yet another fiction
>> >> that you invented.
>> >
>> > IIRC, cosmogenic emissions of the CMBR are a BB assumption.
>>
>> As you admitted above, I never said the emissions
>> had to be cosmogenic in tired light theories.
>
> I never claimed that you claimed this.

Then why did you ask how many times I was going to
repeat it? Can we snip this?

> I claimed that your/Neds' attempt at
> disproof rests on the cosmogenic source for the CMBR.

CMBR in the BB model is produced at z=1089. We can
observe galaxies out to z=6. Ned's example is at z=0.1,
so cannot be considered cosmogenic. The technique he is
illustrating works but you need to apply it to a specific
theory to find out whether it can falsify it or not.

>> The
>> nature of the source in BB theories is irrelevant
>> to our discussion.
>
> The source of the CMBR in Neds "disproof" (which you are proffering) *IS*
> relevant to our discussion.

I mean that the test he describes can equally well
be applied to non-cosmogenic sources. Obviously
aspects like the spectrum produced by the source
are going to matter but that wasn't what I was
talking about. (Splitting the paragraph somewhat
changed the context.)

> {snip higher levels}
>
>> >> To the best of my knowledge, Eddington didn't even
>> >> propose this as a model of the CMBR.
>> >
>> > Not surprising, as the CMBR was not discovered until more than 20 years
>> > after Eddington was dead.
>>
>> That wouldn't stop him predicting it, but you have
>> got my point. Eddington didn't propose it as a model
>> of the CMBR so what did you mean by "His model has
>> never been ruled out".
>
> His model of the temperature of space, of course. Nowadays, we call the
> "temperature of space" the CMBR.

His model of mean starlight is fine, but we don't
call it the CMBR since his spectrum has far too
much high frequency content. He pointed that out
himself and we have already discused it:

>> >> He calculated
>> >> the mean radiation and the effective temperature of
>> >> an equivalent black body but he also made it clear
>> >> that the spectrum was quite different:
>> >>
>> >> "Radiation in interstellar space is about as
>> >> far from thermodynamical equilibrium as it is
>> >> possible to imagine, and although its density
>> >> corresponds to 3.18K it is much richer in
>> >> high-frequency constituents than equilibrium
>> >> radiation of that temperature."
>> >>
>> >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Eddington.gif
>> >
>> > That would be expected, if starlight were the driving source.
>>
>> That is what Eddington calculated, mean starlight.
>
> Yes.

I wish you wouldn't keep going back on what you
agreed previously, it just means we have to go over
it yet again.

>> > But since we are at the periphery, we only have theory to guide us.
>>
>> I don't follow. We can measure the much higher level of
>> starlight near the core.
>
> We can *calculate* the level of starlight at the core. But we can't
> measure
> the CMBR temperature at the core. Because we are not at the core.

All astronomical work is calculated from remote
measurements. It's just as valid. The fact remains
whether you calculate it or measure the temperature
of gas clouds in the region, the mean starlight near
the core would carry more energy than near the
periphery but we don't see a corresponding increase
in the CMBR temperature.

>> >> > Or is the label 'coincidence' applied to cover ignorance?
>> >>
>> >> Still more interested in throwing insults than
>> >> discussing the physics, I see.
>> >
>> > I consider the term "coincidence" to be simple evasion. Sure,
>> > coincidences
>> > happen sometimes. But when the 'coincidence' beats the standard theory
>> > under discussion, it smacks more of ignorance.
>>
>> I don't see why you think that. Eddington calculated an
>> equivalent temperature for starlight within our galaxy
>> that is similar to that of the CMBR,
>
> ???? Because he did.

??? back at you, I didn't say he didn't. Did you miss
the period after "think that." ?

> His prediction is documented at 3 deg K. The measured
> microwave temperature in our region is 2.7 to 2.8 deg K. The closest the
> BB
> ever got was 50 deg K (prior to P&K's measurement).
>
>> but if he had
>> calculated for intergalactic space it would have been
>> far lower, and if he could have seen the core, he might
>> have calculated a higher value there.
>
> I don't believe that you are correct in either case.

Why not? The illumination from a galaxy will fall
tending to the inverse square law at large distances
such as in an intergalactic void.

>> >> In that range, why isn't it hotter near individual stars?
>> >
>> > Because the fractional depletion of light energy is tiny (i.e.
>> > negligible) over that range.
>>
>> Good, now we are getting somewhere. Can you confirm whether
>> this energy depletion is the same as the cause of the
>> observed redshift, that light leaving us gives up energy as
>> it moves away from us. If so, that suggests the energy from
>> a galaxy will be dumped into the aether at the same
>> exponential rate that can be inferred from H_0.
>
> You mean from the redshift-distance relation, of course. There is no H_0
> in
> tired light theory.

Perhaps you wrote that before we discusssed the
connection, the value implies a characteristic distance
of around 4.2GPc for tired light energy loss.

>> Is that
>> correct or is there a different relationship at work here?
>
> Light waves return a given fraction of their energy and momentum into the
> aether (or whatever is assumed by the specific tired light theory).
> Regardless of source. The "returning" is a local effect (at the point of
> fractional return). dE = - const E, at the point of inspection.

Yes but earlier in the thread you were talking about
"local" being tens of parsecs. The constant in the
tired light is the inverse of 4GPc so these statements
seem to conflict. Can you clarify this please.

<snip>
> Now, to anticipate the next round of questions, I will provide a quick
> summary of my personal favorite theory (a Maxwellian corpuscular aether,
> using Lorentz' charge theory for matter, coupled with a LeSagian
> gravitation). All matter gravitates by intercepting a tiny fraction of
> the
> energy and momentum of the random motions of the aether corpuscles. This
> energy will tend to heat the gravitating bodies. The heated bodies (such
> as
> the electron) will emit thermal EM radiation (organized wave motions in
> the
> aether). The EM radiation will slowly 'degrade', as the organized wave
> motions return the energy back to the original randomized internal motions
> of the corpuscles. A closed system, with complete energy conservation.

You see I follow that but it implies that energy in
starlight will be passed to the aether over billions
of light years, and since galaxies are generally
closer than that, the aether should be at a fairly
uniform temperature, something you said before, so
that seems consistent.

However, it also means that the CMBR should contain
contributions from electrons over a similar range
hence the test Ned illustrated can be applied. The
extra factor to be taken into account in this case
would be the electron density. The temperature might
be the same everywhere but the intensity radiated
would be higher in regions with more electrons.

>> <snip>
>
>> >> > The properties of an electron are set by the properties of the
>> >> > aether, of which the electron is composed.
>> >>
>> >> As far as I am concerned, the electron is fundamental
>> >> and not composed of smaller objects, but again this is
>> >> getting into the particle side and I'd rather stay on
>> >> topic.
>> >
>> > OK. I'm doing my best to answer your questions. The source of the
>> > electron 'hum' is one aspect of the aether theory. You don't need
>> > to agree with the theory, to understand where the prediction comes
>> > from.
>>
>> Sure, I just want to understand the consequences, but I
>> need you to realise that just because I don't pick up on
>> a point like that, it doesn't mean I am tacitly agreeing
>> with it. A lot of people would consider your theory
>> falsified on our knowledge of the electron alone.
>
> But they'd have no substantive basis for that belief. They'd simply be
> taking one theory on faith.

Nonsense, it is based on the upper limit placed
on the size of the electron in lab measurements,
but as I said this is more appropriate for a
particle group so I'd rather not get into that,
these posts are far too long anyway.

>> <snip>
>
>> >> By that I only meant that it was an energy source that
>> >> was distributed fairly uniformly throughout the vacuum
>> >> rather than being localised as energy from starlight
>> >> would be.
>> >
>> > I don't understand why you claim that starlight energy would be
>> > localized.
>>
>> I am asking because:
>
> That doesn't tell me why you claim that starlight energy would be
> localized.

There seems to be some confusion, you were the one
who said the CMBR was locally generated. I would
have assumed for your description that it would
be the intergral of the electron radiation reduced
by tired light hence exponentially decreasing with
a characteristic length of over 4GPc.

>> >> I am trying to get you to explain where the
>> >> energy comes from so that I can understand its spatial
>> >> distribution. You keep acusing people of giving hand-
>> >> waving analyses but without such information on your
>> >> model, there is little alternative.
>> >
>> > The original source of the energy of the aether corpuscles is not
>> > known.
>> > One can measure the pressure and density of the air -- and still not be
>> > able to determine how it got that way on the basis of the sample.
>>
>> No, but there are two posibilities, energy is conserved in
>> "aether corpuscles" or it isn't. I want you to say which
>> applies in your theory.
>
> Energy is conserved in the theory.

OK, thanks that helps a lot.

> I don't hold with non-conservations such
> as the BB. That appear out of nowhere, and undergo unphysical situations
> like "inflation."
>
>> If it is conserved then the energy
>> radiated as the CMBR must be in equilibrium
>
> or quasi-equilibrium

Yes, I assumed you would follow my meaning.

>> with some input such as starlight,
>> and I want you to say what that source
>> is. I'm not talking about 'aether-genesis', only the present
>> state of thermal equilibrium (or otherwise).
>
> I've stated that many times. The source is electron impedance noise, or
> electron hum. This comes from the energy contained within the aether.
> The
> same energy that gives rise to gravitation and supports the transmission
> of
> light.

Yes but if energy is conserved then the energy radiated
as the CMBR has to be replaced. I assume there is a
contribution from EM pasing through, which includes
both ambient starlight and the CMBR itself. However the
effect is not to remove photons as in extinction but just
to reduce their energy creating the tired light effect.

>> The phrase I used was "exponential photon energy degradation"
>> and what I was trying to do, was separate those theories in
>> which the energy of a photon degrades by itself, unlike those
>> in which collisions are involved where as you know there are
>> other arguments such as blurring. In other words, I was drawing
>> a distinction between "energy decay" and "energy removal".
>
> Energy is 'removed' in both cases. So I'd say that is a poor distinction.

OK, it's a phrase I coined at the time.

> The simplest distinction is between "tired light" (which is intrinsic
> exponential energy removal) and scattering theory.

I understand the usual use of "tired light" to include
theories where the energy loss is due to scattering,
Ned's page addressing that suggests he does too and the
other site I mentioned also included it so I don't think
my understanding is unusual. Anyway it's only a name so
as long as we are clear about what tests apply to what
models, there needn't be a problem.

>> > And you claimed that this "variant" was disproved by a hand-waving
>> > analysis on one of Ned Wright's pages, that was based upon the
>> > assumption of cosmogenic origin of the CMBR.
>>
>> No it isn't, Wright's page compares the FIRAS result
>> of 2.725K with a locally generated, thin, thermal
>> source of just 2.998K at a redshift of z=0.1
>
> z = 0.1 *IS* nonlocal.

Again, it's a subjective term. the BB has the CMBR at
z>1000 so 0.1 is local by comparison. Let's try to
give orders of magnitude for distances rather than
use such terms.

> And Ned's value of 2.998 K is totally arbitrary for
> a tired light theory. Ned came up with this value from BB theory,
> backcalculating temperature for z = 0.1.

That's right, it was an arbitrary number chosen to
illustrate the test.

> ONLY big bang theory requires the
> temperature to change with time.

No change with time is implied, in the example it
is a source at constant temperature of 2.998K at
z=0.1 Perhaps something like a spherical halo of
dust but again that's just for illustration, not
a strawman theory.

>> See above and think again. If your aether emits the CMBR at
>> a uniform (or slowly falling) temperature out as far as z=0.1
>> from us then Ned Wright's argument applies.
>
> Ned's argument assumes a slowly falling temperature.

No, it only assumes the temperature was 2.998K at the
time and location of emission.

> It does not assume a
> uniform temperature. If you apply a constant temperature, the red line on
> Ned's graph will fit the black line on Ned's graph, within the posted
> error
> bars.

Whether any specific theory matches or not depends
on both the change of temperature with time and
location but importantly the spatial distribution
of the source of the received radiation.

> In short, it *matches* the observed spectrum.

Which theory is "it". Until we look at each model
individually you cannot justify such a universal
claim.

>> >> Are you saying that TVF was wrong and this
>> >> "intergalactic fog" is not Lerner's suggestion
>> >> for the source of the CMBR? If so then by all
>> >> means correct me.
>> >
>> > I said -- quite clearly -- that TVF did not use a cosmogenic origin for
>> > the CMBR.
>>
>> Again I never said he did.
>
> And I never said that you said he did. I'm simply avoiding the "have you
> stopped beating your wife" question of yours above.

I understood TVF to say that Lerner's model used an
"intergalactic fog" or grey dust as I understand it
to produce the CMBR. If that is wrong please correct
it, otherwise I suggest you snip this as a side issue.

> {snip unnecessary digression into TVF's theory and claims about Lerner's
> theory}

George

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered
    ... >> attempting to impugn all variants of tired light by picking another ... be from a different temperature. ... > of around 4.2GPc for tired light energy loss. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Is the Big Bang Still Happening?
    ... E.g. the temperature of the CMBR remains the same, ... If the units for energy change, the ionization energy for hydrogen, ... Saying that he made a mistake is jumping to conclusions. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is the Big Bang Still Happening?
    ... E.g. the temperature of the CMBR remains the same, ... If the units for energy change, the ionization energy for hydrogen, ... Saying that he made a mistake is jumping to conclusions. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered
    ... I would be willing to consider that the emission could ... > That's because tired light theories do not include cosmogenic emissions. ... propose this as a model of the CMBR. ... >> the energy coming from starlight. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered
    ... > source is at broadly uniform temperature and the ... " The tired light model can not produce a blackbody spectrum for the Cosmic ... Note that Ned is requiring ALL "tired light" models to generate a CMBR. ... that light leaving us gives up energy as ...
    (sci.astro)
Loading