Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Tired Light
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 76 of 309 (192477)
03-19-2005 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by lyndonashmore
03-19-2005 10:42 AM


Hawkins Paper
That paper does not seem to be saying what you say it does.
"how time dilation results prove the Bb wrong?" Is not what I get out of reading the whole paper and it's conclusions.
It does say:
quote:
Firstly, time dilation might not in fact be a property of the Univerrse, which would effectively mean that the Universe is not expanding.
Is thte the line that you think "proves" the BB wrong?
If so I suggest you read more carefully.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-19-2005 10:42 AM lyndonashmore has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-19-2005 12:05 PM NosyNed has replied

lyndonashmore
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 309 (192485)
03-19-2005 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by NosyNed
03-19-2005 11:31 AM


Re: Hawkins Paper
Hi NosyNed,
The point is this,
Time dilation was put forward to disprove Tired Light and 'Prove' expansion. BB'ers saw some very unconvincing evidence and trumpeted the demise of Tired Light. hawkins et al went out and looked where time dilation would be obvious - quasars. there was none. Ergo, in the logic of Bb'ers and the several on this site who have asked me to explain how Tired Light 'explains' time dilation - there is none! Consequently, since Bb expects it the Bb is wrong. But we have a long way to go - you have to bring your sandwiches with Tired Light.
remember,
Hawkins is a respected scientist working at a respected observatory - not a quack.
Cheers
Lyndon.

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by NosyNed, posted 03-19-2005 11:31 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by sidelined, posted 03-19-2005 1:23 PM lyndonashmore has not replied
 Message 85 by NosyNed, posted 03-19-2005 1:38 PM lyndonashmore has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 78 of 309 (192501)
03-19-2005 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Eta_Carinae
03-19-2005 2:24 AM


Re: LOL
you mean this one?
NO REDIRECT
(note the professional website and company domain)
or this one?
#1 Lead Generation El Paso, TX | All-Inclusive Online Marketing
(they are the same)
Editorial Policy
Galilean Electrodynamics aims to publish high-quality scientific papers that discuss challenges to accepted orthodoxy in physics, especially in the realm of relativity theory, both special and general. In particular, the journal seeks papers arguing that Einstein's theories are unnecessarily complicated, have been confirmed only in a narrow sector of physics, lead to logical contradictions, and are unable to derive results that must be postulated, though they are derivable by classical methods.
On occasion, the journal will publish papers on other less relativity-related topics. But all papers are expected to be in the realms of physics, engineering or mathematics. Non-mathematical, philosophical papers will generally not be accepted unless they are fairly short and have something new and outstandingly interesting to say.
Where there is more than one new theory that meets the criteria of consistency with experiment, faultless logic and greater simplicity than orthodoxy offers, none will be favored over the others, except where Ockham's razor yields an overwhelming verdict.
All papers are reviewed by qualified physicists, astronomers, engineers or mathematicians. A reviewer's rejection of a submitted paper for the sole reason that it contradicts accepted opinion and interpretation will be ignored by the Editor.
Sounds like a papermill for crank concepts all right.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-19-2005 2:24 AM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-19-2005 1:28 PM RAZD has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 79 of 309 (192503)
03-19-2005 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by lyndonashmore
03-19-2005 12:05 PM


Re: Hawkins Paper
lyndonashmore
How does your model explain blueshifted light?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-19-2005 12:05 PM lyndonashmore has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 80 of 309 (192505)
03-19-2005 1:27 PM


****** I'll repost this ******
He points out the coincidence of the value h*Re/Me and the Hubble constant of the present epoch.
THIS IS MEANINGLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It would have more meaning IF he was equating dimensionless numbers but his quantity is not dimensionless.
Here is an example:
He calculates h*Re/Me as approx. 2.1 x 10^-18 Metres^3 per second.
This is correct of course.
He then has the Hubble constant of say 70 km/s/Mpc and this is about
2 x 10^-18 per second. Again correct.
He then goes and divides his h*Re/Me by 1 m^3 and gets an equivalence.
Here is why this is bullshit.
Let's recalculate h*Re/Me in the old foot-pound-second system of the 19th century physics world.
We get that h*Re/Me is 7.03 x 10^-17 ft^3 per second. If I then divide by 1 ft^3 I get 7.03 x 10^-17 per second.
Let's do this for the Hubble constant in a different unit system.
70 km/s/Mpc is approx. 13.3 miles/s/Million light years.
This again gives approx. 2 x 10^-18 per second.
See what is going on here? The Hubble constant is (as long as we use seconds for our time unit) has the value 2 x 10^-18 per second.
But our h*Re/Me has to be in metres^3 per second and divided by 1 m^3 to get the same numerical equivalence as the Hubble constant.
WHY IS THE METRE ANY BETTER THAN THE FOOT? By choosing my length unit appropriately I can get pretty much any answer I want for h*Re/Me. That isn't science its numerology or game playing if you will.
Is he saying that the Universe has this equivalence just because of a stick in Paris that was based upon a guess at a fraction of the Earths circumference 200 years ago???? THAT IS NONSENSE OF COURSE.
This is why physicists when looking at variations of fundamental constants or coincidences of seemingly fundamental things use dimensionless parameters not ones that have values dependent on 18th century Frenchmen or medieval Englishmen or Romans or Greeks.
Crank science has always been crank science and it smells from a mile away even on the internet.
Lyndon,
I noticed you avoided answering this.
You're equivalence of h*Re/Me is NONSENSE as it can be any value you want it to be based upon an arbitrary choice of length unit.
You have a near equivalance based upon a stick in Paris. If that stick was 5 times larger then your number is a factor of 5 different from the Hubble constant.
This is numerology NOT science!!!!!!!!!!

lyndonashmore
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 309 (192506)
03-19-2005 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by RAZD
03-19-2005 1:18 PM


Re: LOL
Hi Razd,
I am happy to publish in this journal. I hadn't realised there was a problem and I am sure that there isn't. But would you be kind and post a link to one of your published papers so that I can see how it is done?
Cheers,
Lyndon

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2005 1:18 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2005 1:53 PM lyndonashmore has replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 82 of 309 (192507)
03-19-2005 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by lyndonashmore
03-19-2005 8:21 AM


You have serious problems with this proposed mechanism
lyndonashmore writes:
Why should I not reappear? I am here for fun too and I can see a lot of it here!
As for your earlier post, where does the CMB come from, it is local. In my Tired Light Theory the photons are absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in Intergalactic space. Each time the electron recoils and gains some energy from the photon. The photon has lost energy, its frequency becomes less, its wavelength increases. It has been redshifted.
Now lets look at the recoiling electron. It is brought to rest by coulomb forces between it and the other electrons in the plasma and radiates this energy as a secondary photon. This is the CMB. I calculate the wavelength of these secondary photons and show them to be in the microwave region.
Cheers
Lyndon
You cannot produce a thermalised spectrum by this mechanism. In fact this mechanism wont work at all. You cannot have a "mossbauer like" effect with a plasma - ESPECIALLY such a rarefied one.
Even if you invoke special physics to allow this to occur it still will not produce a thermalalised spectrum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-19-2005 8:21 AM lyndonashmore has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-19-2005 1:38 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 83 of 309 (192508)
03-19-2005 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by lyndonashmore
03-19-2005 8:33 AM


Lyndon....
lyndonashmore writes:
Hi Sylas,
Glad you came back. I appreciate that it must have been very humiliating for you - being shown up like that in public with all those errors of yours on scientific fact. But never mind, Have you sorted out your understanding of the BB yet? I am happy to help you more if you like.
You must remember that Ashmore's paradox is an embarassment for the Big Bang only. The fact that great scientists have been going on about it, pontificating about the age of the universe when it was only the electron in disguise! Why even a schoolchild could have whipped out their calculator and found the age of the universe by pressing a few buttons! It took a team of scientists years to find it! Have you been citing it too?
No, the paradox is only an embarassment for the BB. In my tired light theory, it is expected. Since I show that H = 2nhr/m and n is known to be around unity, one expects coincidences like this.
Cheers,
Lyndon
Of course, others must be wondering if your posts on other threads were correct too musn't they?
YOU HAVE NO PARADOX!!!!
It's a consequence of you using a dimensional quanitity that can give you any answer you want. It's bullshit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-19-2005 8:33 AM lyndonashmore has not replied

lyndonashmore
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 309 (192509)
03-19-2005 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Eta_Carinae
03-19-2005 1:32 PM


Re: You have serious problems with this proposed mechanism
Good evening Mr Eta_carinae.
Whats all this about a thermalised spectrum. Please explain.
Cheers
Lyndon

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-19-2005 1:32 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-19-2005 1:47 PM lyndonashmore has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 85 of 309 (192510)
03-19-2005 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by lyndonashmore
03-19-2005 12:05 PM


Re: Hawkins Paper
Hawkins disagrees with you as best as I read his conclusions. He offers other possibilities. The question regarding quasar time dilation is left open it appears to me.
Hawkins points out the existance of other evidence for the time dilation even he suggests that this paper does not trump the other evidence. WHy do you think it does?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-19-2005 12:05 PM lyndonashmore has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-19-2005 1:44 PM NosyNed has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 86 of 309 (192513)
03-19-2005 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by lyndonashmore
03-19-2005 8:14 AM


What Hawkins says about it:
Apart from the statistical evidence from quasar light curves (Hawkins 1996), microlensing has been unambiguously shown to take place in gravitationally lensed quasar systems (Pelt et al. 1998), and dominates at long timescales. If this were a general phenomenon in quasars at cosmological distances then the apparent absence of a time dilation effect in quasar light curves would be explained.
Does not match your implication.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-19-2005 8:14 AM lyndonashmore has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-19-2005 1:47 PM RAZD has replied

lyndonashmore
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 309 (192515)
03-19-2005 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by NosyNed
03-19-2005 1:38 PM


Re: Hawkins Paper
Hi NosyNed,
He had to give other possibilities otherwise he would be excommunicated for heresy (scuse spelling). But everything other than "the universe is not expanding" has been ruled out either by him or others. Which other possibility do you fancy?
Cheers,
Lyndon

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by NosyNed, posted 03-19-2005 1:38 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by NosyNed, posted 03-19-2005 1:49 PM lyndonashmore has replied

lyndonashmore
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 309 (192516)
03-19-2005 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by RAZD
03-19-2005 1:44 PM


Hi RAZD,
What does he say is doing the microlensing?
By hte way, can we have that link please.
Cheers Lyndon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2005 1:44 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2005 2:04 PM lyndonashmore has replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 89 of 309 (192517)
03-19-2005 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by lyndonashmore
03-19-2005 1:38 PM


How do you get a blackbody curve out of your mechanism??
How is the spectrum thermalised?
PLEASE ADDRESS THE POST I HAVE POSTED TWICE ABOUT THE FACT YOUR EQUIVALENCE IS A NUMEROLOGY EXERCISE AND DEPENDS ON THE CHOICE OF LENGTH UNIT.
The metre is not a special unit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-19-2005 1:38 PM lyndonashmore has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-19-2005 1:58 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 90 of 309 (192518)
03-19-2005 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by lyndonashmore
03-19-2005 1:44 PM


Re: Hawkins Paper
Ruled out? By this paper? If you want to use Hawkins as a source you will have to take what he says at face value. If you think he is being dishonest in the paper then I suggest you find other sources.
I'm not the one to offer other solutions. I'll wait for someone who is a cosmologist and I guess more work is needed.
Meanwhile you can answer Eta's questions. It is already apparent that you aren't very much more knowledgeable in this area than I am. Which means you have a lot to get straightened out. It will be interesting to watch that get done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-19-2005 1:44 PM lyndonashmore has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-19-2005 1:55 PM NosyNed has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024