|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Tired Light | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyndonashmore Inactive Member |
I have shown above how particles in a plasma perform SHM. Whilst that is from a paper, there are lots of stuff on it on the Internet here for instance though they do not look at it from a photon point of view and they also ignore recoil.
There is an easy way to find a solution to this dispute. Sylas and Eta_Corinae say that in the sparse plasma of Intergalactic space, the electrons etc are so far apart that we can ignore the forces between them and treat them separately. I say that this may well be the case in a laboratory but these plasma fields extend for billions of km and so we cannot ignore these effects. Well, I am a scientist and the only way to solve this problem is to solve it scientifically — that is, does the theory agree with experiment. If Sylas and Eta are correct then it will not. If I am correct then it will. I say that the electrons in the plasma of IG space can oscillate and thus absorb and re-emit photons. They say that it cannot. Experimental evidence? Radio signals from the voyager and other probes are known to be slowed by the plasma of the solar system. This happens because the photons are absorbed and re-emitted and there is a delay each time as with normal transmission of light. If the photons did not interact then they would not be delayed. Theory agrees with experiment. I say that the electron recoils on absorption and re-emission so that some energy is lost to the photon and that this results in a redshift. I work this out and get H = 2nhr/m. Substituting published values of n into this (N = 0.1 to 10 electrons per m^3) gives H in the range 41x10^-18 to 0.41x10^-18 s^-1. Accepted value of H is 2.1x10^-18s^-1 (for this we need n = 0.6 m^-3). Theory is consistent with experiment. I calculate an expression for the redshift z as; z = exp(hr/m) — 1. This is now accepted physics — the Hubble diagram is exponential. Theory agrees with experiment. The theory says that the energy transferred to the electron is radiated as a secondary photon of the CMB. Calculations indeed show that this radiation is microwave. Theory agrees with experiment.Theory states that this effect breaks down when the energy of the incoming photon is more than the electron energy. Calculations show that this situation agrees with experiment and the theory has great success in predicting the wavelength at which the CMB curve peaks. Black Body radiation curve? Yet to work out completely but suspect that it is a local effect caused by dust clouds etc absorbing the recoil radiation, smoothing it and emitting it as Black Body. Experiment shows that the Larger clumps in the CMB follow the solar system. If nothing else this is a possibility. Supernovae and Quasar light curves and time dilation? Tired light has a mechanism for this under review. To achieve all this, all I had to do was to refuse to ignore the forces which are known to exist but said by others to be too small. If the theory is so wrong as Eta and Sylas say, Then how can it be so right?Cheers lyndon Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyndonashmore Inactive Member |
Hi razd,
Firstly treating the electrons at rest is standard Physics (on the basis that you win some you lose some). Secondly, as to the thermal motion - an electron only radiates when it accelerates so as far as we are concerned, we can ignore this motion at constant speed. Cheers Lyndon Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4405 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
Lyndon is playing bait and switch.
Electrons in wires to your computer have NOTHING to do with electrons in a diffuse intergalactic plasma. The density of an IG plasma is about say 1 per m^3. The density of electrons in a copper wire is about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 per m^3. These are not comparable physical situations. The electrons going slowly down a wire are like the old trick with dominoes where they hit each other and fall down. The elcectrons in a wire is analogous to this and they dribble out the end. I think most people know electricity seems to travel fast because its the electric field that is set up very quickly but the individual electrons move very slowly. DOES anyone think dominoes topple each other if they are a mile apart???? That is what in analogy lyndon is suggesting? Of course they don't because when it topples over it isn't reaching the next one. Whereas electrons in a wire have an electron (domino!) right next to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4405 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
have shown above how particles in a plasma perform SHM. Whilst that is from a paper, there are lots of stuff on it on the Internet here for instance though they do not look at it from a photon point of view and they also ignore recoil. **** Please note that I am not disagreeing with regular plasma physics but the link provided by lyndon does not appy to very diffuse plasmas **** If he's take time to work out his plasma frequencies and the like he would see this.
There is an easy way to find a solution to this dispute. Sylas and Eta_Corinae say that in the sparse plasma of Intergalactic space, the electrons etc are so far apart that we can ignore the forces between them and treat them separately. I say that this may well be the case in a laboratory but these plasma fields extend for billions of km and so we cannot ignore these effects. Well, I am a scientist and the only way to solve this problem is to solve it scientifically — that is, does the theory agree with experiment. If Sylas and Eta are correct then it will not. If I am correct then it will. Look at the plasma frequencies involved. The more diffuse the plasma the longer the wavelength. *** Your mechanism requires the diffuse plasma to interact in a collective manner with photons of light but the equations you are using, the MHD approx., tells you that your plasma frequency is miniscule. In fact you cannot even really use this anyway because the whole assumption behind this treatment assumes the plasma is OBEYING the fluid approx. ***** News just in ***** Electrons a metre apart are NOT a fluid ****
I say that the electrons in the plasma of IG space can oscillate and thus absorb and re-emit photons. They say that it cannot. Experimental evidence? Radio signals from the voyager and other probes are known to be slowed by the plasma of the solar system. This happens because the photons are absorbed and re-emitted and there is a delay each time as with normal transmission of light. If the photons did not interact then they would not be delayed. Theory agrees with experiment. Yes radio waves are affected because their wavelengths are so large and are larger than the Debye length. You however require your mechanism to act upon light photons yet your Debye length is many orders of magnitude too large. **** Also the plasma density in the solar system is about 10^5 - 10^7 per m^3 ****** Do you see those numbers lyndon!!!!!! At those densities radio waves are going to see effects of the plasma. No one is arguing solar system plasmas effect radio waves. But you want the IG plasma to effect photons of light.. See the discrepancy. The IG plasma won't effect even radio waves never mind visible light photons. ***** You are applying equations in a regime so far removed from applicability it's a joke ******
I say that the electron recoils on absorption and re-emission so that some energy is lost to the photon and that this results in a redshift. I work this out and get H = 2nhr/m. Substituting published values of n into this (N = 0.1 to 10 electrons per m^3) gives H in the range 41x10^-18 to 0.41x10^-18 s^-1. Accepted value of H is 2.1x10^-18s^-1 (for this we need n = 0.6 m^-3). Theory is consistent with experiment. More rubbish based upon INCORRECT physics.
I calculate an expression for the redshift z as; z = exp(hr/m) — 1. This is now accepted physics — the Hubble diagram is exponential. Theory agrees with experiment. The Hubble relation is NOT an strictly an exponential function. It does rise sharply and can be approximated somewhat by an exponential fit but it isn't a pure exponential.
The theory says that the energy transferred to the electron is radiated as a secondary photon of the CMB. Calculations indeed show that this radiation is microwave. Theory agrees with experiment. Theory states that this effect breaks down when the energy of the incoming photon is more than the electron energy. Calculations show that this situation agrees with experiment and the theory has great success in predicting the wavelength at which the CMB curve peaks. More rubbish from incorrect application of physics. Black Body radiation curve? Yet to work out completely but suspect that it is a local effect caused by dust clouds etc absorbing the recoil radiation, smoothing it and emitting it as Black Body. Experiment shows that the Larger clumps in the CMB follow the solar system. If nothing else this is a possibility.
Supernovae and Quasar light curves and time dilation? Tired light has a mechanism for this under review. To achieve all this, all I had to do was to refuse to ignore the forces which are known to exist but said by others to be too small. If the theory is so wrong as Eta and Sylas say, Then how can it be so right? It's not riht - it's actually stunningly wrong and is an excellent example of the rubbis you get when you apply physics in the areas it does not apply. **** What we have here people is an excellent example of what Langmuir in 1953 coined "pathological science". Google it ****
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Eta Carinae writes: These are not comparable physical situations. The electrons going slowly down a wire are like the old trick with dominoes where they hit each other and fall down. The elcectrons in a wire is analogous to this and they dribble out the end. I think most people know electricity seems to travel fast because its the electric field that is set up very quickly but the individual electrons move very slowly. Just for clarification for others, Eta is talking about what is referred to in electrical engineering as drift velocity. If you push an electron into one end of a wire, another electron will fall out the other end almost instantly, the speed of propagation being very close to the speed of light. But it wasn't the same electron that fell out the other end. A loose analogy is ball bearings in a garden hose. If you push a ball bearing in one end, another will instantly fall out the other. But if you continually push electrons into one end of the wire and establish an electric current, the time it takes an individual electron to travel from one end of the wire to the other is nowhere near the speed of light. It isn't even near the speed of your car. You can even walk faster. Typical electron drift velocities are around 0.1 millimeters/second, depending upon the voltage and the nature of the conductor. Apparently, electrons also have a thermal velocity that at normal temperatures is an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. As one site puts it (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SpeedOfElectrons), "So they are buzzing about at random at high speeds, with a small superimposed drift velocity caused by the electric field." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4405 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
that is correct. I didn't complicate it unduly but the drift velocity is a superimposed effect.
But the analogy holds be it dominoes or ball bearings in a garden hose. By Lyndons argument we should be able to make wires out of a vacuum with electrons spaced every metre or so. *** How many people on here think your monitor is going to turn on if that was the case?? ***
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5290 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
One useful feature of this thread is that it shows such a range of basic kinds of error in physics, which can show up for students in many other contexts.
Previously I showed
Another common basic error is mixing up the behaviour of individuals in a composite object with behaviour of the whole composite. Here is an example:
lyndonashmore writes: Now I gave an example of a voltage of one nanovolt (10^-9V) across a wire 10m long still produced a current event though the wire was at room temp. Sylas told us that at room temp the average KE of the electrons is 2x10^-20J. Well in our wire, a voltage of one nanovolt means that every coulomb that travels from one end to the other gains 1x10^-9 Joule of energy. Our little electron has 1.6x10^-19 Coulombs, so it gains 1.6x10^-28Joule of energy electrically. This is off topic. We are discussing tired light, and that is a putative phenomenon in thin plasmas in space; not in wires. However, I doubt that Ashmore is capable of recognizing this, or of doing the sums in the correct context (perhaps because deep down he actually knows enough physics to see that in plasma he’ll get different results). So let’s look at the errors in the above description. A Coulomb is a unit, not a physical object. To speak of a Coulomb traveling in a wire is odd at best; but it becomes actively wrong as soon as he compares to an electron. An electron does not travel from one end to the other. The net drift velocity of an electron is such that it would take hours to pass along the wire. Long before this we have completed our experiment and left the lab; but in fact current appears as soon as with connect to a voltage source. Current is a collective phenomenon; and it cannot be extrapolated simply to motions of one electron. Here is a picture from Current in a Wire (by R. Vawtner at Western Washington University) of what is really happening. The thermal velocity given here is too high; it should be more like 100 km/s. The main point is that it is eight orders of magnitude or so more than the drift velocity. What this means is that if you are looking at one individual electron, you will not be able to tell whether the battery is connected or not! It has almost the same probability of moving left to right as it does from right to left. The current only appears as an average of many billions of electrons. Lyndon makes exactly the same error in the plasmas. In message Message 241 Lyndon says I have shown above how particles in a plasma perform SHM. This is not true; he has never done this. He has taken a collective phenomenon of plasma waves, and merely asserted that this corresponds to particles in SHM. It is not, just as current in a wire does not correspond to particles moving steadily in a linear motion. In both cases the motions of particles are highly random; with a negligible additional effect that is our interest. This additional effect (current, plasma waves) is not seen in individual particles; it is many orders of magnitude too small to be detected in individuals. It only shows up as a trend when you average over billions of particles. Also in Message 241 there is another interesting error. Lyndon says:
lyndonashmore writes: I say that the electrons in the plasma of IG space can oscillate and thus absorb and re-emit photons. They say that it cannot. Experimental evidence? Radio signals from the voyager and other probes are known to be slowed by the plasma of the solar system. This happens because the photons are absorbed and re-emitted and there is a delay each time as with normal transmission of light. If the photons did not interact then they would not be delayed. Theory agrees with experiment. This is again wrong on many levels. Ashmore offers no analysis to justify any match; and the bare assertion is trivially seen to be another ludicrous error, because in fact the Pioneer anomaly is a slight additional blue shift in the light (not a redshift) and it is about 4 orders of magnitude larger than the cosmological redshift at this scale. If the effect is due to photon energy changes, it would have to be a GAIN in energy, not a loss. The standard reference on the Pioneer anomaly is Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11 by Anderson et al (2001), at gr-qc/0104064. Cheers -- Sylas PS. By the way, Lyndon; just so you know when it happens. There is a convention here at EvCforum that when a thread reaches 300 messages it should be closed. This stops everyone going around in circles endlessly. You've made your point, or failed to make your point, already in the thread. The rest of discussion is lots of more of the same; and soon it will come to an end. This message has been edited by Admin, 03-23-2005 05:08 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyndonashmore Inactive Member |
Thanks Sylas.
When you said. quote:it explained everything. Up till then I thought you where just a complete idiot, now i know you are sacrificing your integrity for the sake of the board. When we get neer 300 posts i will inform everyone where i am so that we can continue our discussion. I thought we were all enjoying ourselves. Actually, anyone with a brain, I will now pay out of my own pocket a forum on my site http://www/lyndonashmore.com for a forum so that we can continue this discussion. Please note that prats like Sylas Who close the discussion because he is losing is not welcome. percy, this software is great. Where can I get it to set up my own forum? This was a good site until Sylas introduced censorship. Its up to you! cheers lyndon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5290 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
Just for clarification, Lyndon, I am not the one who will be closing this thread; so the insults directed at me are not appropriate.
I am just letting you know about a long standing convention in this forum, which was in place before I arrived, and which occurs without my doing anything. The convention seems to be that a moderator asks for closing statements from all parties, and closes up. It won't be me. Look around the forum for any thread with 300 or more posts, and have a look at the last few messages to see how this seems to work. I personally think it is a very sensible principle, but it is not my principle and I'm not the one who will be applying it. It is no more censorship than time limits in spoken debate. You can start new threads, if you like; although new threads should bring up new issues and topics. For example, we could do a thread on the Pioneer anomaly. You claim to be able to explain this; which would be quite a trick given that the anomaly is a blue shift. Cheers -- Sylas This message has been edited by Sylas, 03-23-2005 05:26 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyndonashmore Inactive Member |
Not a problem Syrus We all know that when I brought in experimental evidence that this was a problem for you. You where out of your depth and had to run, No problems. if i could not get myself out of a difficult situation I , no I wouldn't, you lack ethics Sylus and Percy too.
quote:When did you ask anyone? When did you ask me? But no probs. You have provided no Physics whatsoever. Be happy Sylas. You can be king of four people on this board. that is success for you. Don't feel guilty. You had a peer reviewed scientist who visited board and you told him to piss off. No Probs. We all understand that. Chees Lyndon PS Within the next two days thwere will be a science site4 on http://www.lyndonashmore.com with no prats like Sylas where anyone can discuss science, Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
http://www.lyndonashmore.com/preprintpdf.pdf
I have gotten to about message 136 in this thread so far. I have also noticed very quickly in reading the above paper that it is written in language that would not be acceptable in most scientific journals. Examples:"when one considers that, if we are to believe in an expanding Universe, H could have had any value from zero up to the speed of light and is not supposed to be related to the electron. We must ask the question, why is the measured value of H so close to a simple combination of the parameters of the electron if they are not related?" It is not customary to speak of alternative theories in terms of one's belief in them, only if they are considered correct or not. Only a poor scientific writer would put in rhetorical questions such as this. Mind you, there might be questions asked, but they would never be worded like that. re-worded to be more scientific:"...when one considers that within the standard BB model the value of H should have no correlation with properties of the electron. If the value of H and the value of certain properties of the electron do correlate, how does this occur?" It's not the best rewording, but it's an improvement. Reading through most of the paper, it does look like a high school term paper. This message has been edited by gnojek, 03-23-2005 06:20 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4405 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
since I have over 150 peer reviewed publications of which over 120 are in either ApJ and MNRAS I can tell you all without a doubt that lyndons paper would be tossed in the trach can. By the way, I haven't been run off the board.
Not only does it not conform to the format and language expected of such papers ------- it's also a complete piece of crap. There is now way around this, as I have attempted on several posts to get over to Lyndon, he's just applying equations willy-nilly in total disregard of when or where these equations apply. Like a kid in a candy store really. ***** Lyndon, you said it was sent to ApJ - could you tell me who it was who gave you comments and who actually replied to you?? ***** Because quite simply I don't believe you, or at least I don't believe you got any positive feedback. Because I know professionally the majority of the science editors at ApJ and they would criticise oyur nonsense in an identical manner as I am doing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
ah, so you cannot counter the points I made, and agree that treating the electrons as stationary is a false representation of the actual behavior. that's okay.
your second sentence is a complete non-sequitur to my comments. enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Please don't anyone respond in kind to posts violating the Forum Guidelines. Thanks!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
lyndonashmore writes: The paper is famous on forums because they are looking at supernovae Ia and ‘select’ or get rid of quite a large sample of supernovae. Why not include them all? DUH!because Type 1A supernova are a result of a very specific phenomenon which occurs with a specific energy, thus giving observers sort of a standard candle. They all have the same light output and so you can calculate distance using the luminosity of the supernova But, being a physicist, you already knew that.
buzsaw writes:
Actually, you've got that backward. ......and if the BB had never been invented an alleged expanding space would likely not have been concocted up, because the BB is just that - contrived.(This is my ill-informed cartoon of events. Please correct me where I am wrong.) Hubble saw all this redshift all over the place. He very roughly showed that the redshift was proportional to distance. (Distance that was measured by other means.) He looked everywhere and saw just about every galaxy was redshifted. He proposed that this might be due to the Doppler effect. The conclusion from that is that galaxies are moving away from each other. This implies that at some previous point all the galaxies were much closer to each other (but only if you extrapolate continouosly like creationists have done with the earth's magnetic field to say that it can't possibly be 4 billion years old). Then, the theorists chimed in. They looked at the equations of general relativity (without the cosmological constant) and said that space must either be expanding or contracting. They then took this to say that the redshift is not only due to the relative velocity of the matter in galaxies, but also due to the expansion of space itself. They also did some complicated extrapolations, and bang! we have the big bang theory. So the BB theory is built on some serious assumptions that may or may not be correct, but they didn't just make it up. Again, please don't kick over your chair if you want to correct me, just do it! This message has been edited by gnojek, 03-23-2005 07:44 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024