Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered
From: greywolf42 (mingstb_at_marssim-ss.com)
Date: 01/01/05
- Next message: greywolf42: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- Previous message: greywolf42: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- 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: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 18:08:54 GMT
George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cr3fbi$u8i$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:JI2Ad.32992$Bw5.7490@news.flashnewsgroups.com...
> > George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:cqaapm$9k6$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
{snip higher levels}
> >> 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.
Tired light isn't a cosmological theory. That's the point. Hence Ned's
claimed disproof of *THE TIRED LIGHT MODEL* is a slimy strawman tactic.
> > 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.
But it is not a test of any tired light theory at all. Tired light will not
be from a different temperature.
> You are expected to understand the nature of the argument
> from this and then apply it to whatever specific theory
> you are considering.
LOL! Ned is quite specific. *THE* tired light theory is assumed (by Ned)
to have a cosmogenic CMBR. Specifically, cosmogenic by the BB.
{snip he said - I said}
> > 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.
A non sequiteur argument. Ned's example is BB cosmogenic because he assumes
that the source of the CMBR at a given time was at a higher temperature when
it was generated. And the temperature assumed was the BB temperature of the
time.
> 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.
Your statment is tranparently false. Ned is quite clear that he claims it
applies to *THE* tired-light theory. You are simply trying to bail out
Ned's slime site.
> >> 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.
Nope. It can only be applied by assuming that the BB is correct, and the
temperature that Ned arbitrarily selected (solely to impugn the actual
theories) came from the BB.
> 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.)
The context wasn't changed in the least.
{snip higher levels}
> >> 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
I never said that he did. But the name is not the issue.
> since his spectrum has far too
> much high frequency content. He pointed that out
> himself and we have already discused it:
{snip higher levels, and more Eddington vs. BB}
> >> 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.
On the contrary, *NO* astronomical work is calculated from "remote"
measurements. The only measurements we have are from this little region
near the surface of the Earth. Out in the periphery of the Milky Way
galaxy. We must use theory to help us determine what values of observables
are in other areas.
> 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
According to which theory?
> but we don't see a corresponding increase
> in the CMBR temperature.
There is no reason that it should, in tired light theory. What theory are
you using?
{snip higher levels, and more on the Eddington-BB issue}
> >> >> 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.
That was just a clarification. H_0 is a theoretical relation between
velocity and distance -- and doesn't exist in tired light theory.
> >> 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.
Sure. There is no conflict at all. Why do you think there is a conflict?
The extinction length is not the definition of local region. I gave you
tens of parsecs as a scale to see why your claims were merely uninformed.
> <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,
Yes.
> 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.
Yes.
> However, it also means that the CMBR should contain
> contributions from electrons over a similar range
> hence the test Ned illustrated can be applied.
Except that Ned's "test" required that the CMBR from different locations be
at *DIFFERENT* temperatures.
> The
> extra factor to be taken into account in this case
> would be the electron density.
Nope. Electron density wouldn't change anything.
> The temperature might
> be the same everywhere but the intensity radiated
> would be higher in regions with more electrons.
Again, you are thinking cosmogenic.
{snip higher levels, and particle-nature discussion}
> >> > 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.
??? The CMBR is not starlight. You still haven't let me know why you think
that starlight energy would be "localized."
{snip higher levels}
> >> 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.
Actually, no. In general, the energy would not have to be replaced. This
would lead to a slow weakening of effects that arise from random motions of
the aether (i.e. gravity and inductive heating). As energy was slowly
converted (not destroyed) into organized wave motions.
> 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.
That is my favorite assumption at the moment. However, there is no a priori
need for such an assumption.
> >> 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,
As noted dozens of times by now, that is simply a straw man.
> Ned's page addressing that suggests he does too
That's because Ned's site is a slimy strawman site. Ned has no interest in
giving tired light theories an honest appraisal.
> and the other site I mentioned also included it
> so I don't think my understanding is unusual.
That's the whole point of the big lie (aka strawman) tactic.
> 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.
But there *IS* a problem. The problem is that you are lumping completely
different causative theories together for the purpose of impugning actual
theories by attacking strawmen.
> >> > 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.
Not at all.
> 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.
Local is at the same temperature. (No assumed change in emission
temperature.)
> > 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.
Ahem. It didn't *illustrate* the test. It *WAS* Ned's "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
The time used by Ned is the time it takes for light to travel from z=0.1.
That's where he got the temperature (the BB).
> Perhaps something like a spherical halo of
> dust but again that's just for illustration, not
> a strawman theory.
It *IS* a strawman theory. It is not just an illustration.
> >> 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.
Which is a slowly falling temperature. You aren't dumb. Tell me, why do
you feel the need to make excuses for Ned's slime site?
> > 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.
Bingo. Now why do you suppose that Ned required that tired light theories
conform the the BB CMBR cosmogenic source?
> > 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.
"IT" is "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." In
short, only theories with changing temperature of space (specifically those
that use the BB rate-of-change) have a problem with Ned's false assertions
in the first place. There is no reason to expect a change of temperature
... except in the BB.
{snip the rest of the TVF and Lerner discussions}
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
- Next message: greywolf42: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- Previous message: greywolf42: "Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered"
- 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
|
