Tired Light

Your right, the paradox is stupid and yet it is correct.
That Eta_Carinae is why it is a paradox.
A paradox is "something that outwardly appears to be stupid but contains an element of truth".
It is stupid that H = hr/m in each cubic metre of space.
But it is,
Therefore the Bb must be wrong.
Do you want to continue to believe in stupid things? Then stop believing in the BB.
Its as simple as that.
Ashmore's paradox
Cheers Lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

I just think it is very telling he wont answer the question about his paradox being unit dependent.That is bullshit science. That is why physicists when investigating cosmic coincidences work with dimensionless quantities.(I edited already, I keep forgetting the select author ID button - sorry)

Hi Eta_Carinae,
Are you having fun? I am!
Remember Kirchoff and Weber?
They both independently measured the speed of an electrical current down a wire and got it to be the speed of light!
What did they say it was/
A coincidence - leaving Maxwell to take the glory.
Real scientists are suspicious when coincidences occur.
Cheers Lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

But don't you see it's meaningless because it requires the use of a human construct (and a French one no less) the metre.If I live on Planet Eta where we use the Eta as our length unit which is equal to 0.86 microns then I get that we have Pi per second per Eta^3.I can get any number I want by choosing the length unit.Your paradox is nothing more than this.By the way to get exact equivalence with the latest H values you need the metre to be slightly different anyway.This is stupidity of the first magnitude.This message has been edited by Admin_Eta, 03-19-2005 02:31 PM

Lyndon for the last time.There is no paradox here. It is based upon the fact the metre was your length unit. The metre has NO cosmological significance. PERIOD!!!You have invested so much into this, it being the basis for your other nonsense, that your PRIDE is not allowing you to see the obvious a freshman physics major would realise is rubbish.Tell me, why is the metre so important to your paradox if this is truly fundamental when of course the metre is not.Also, how do you produce a thermal spectrum?The fact you didn't know what I meant by thermalise tells me much. You are an excellent example of 'a little knowledge (misapplied) is a very dangerous thing'.This message has been edited by Admin_Eta, 03-19-2005 02:36 PM

A hopefully apocryphal story:A young man seeking wisdom was told that if he went to EvC Forum he would find many wise scientists in deep discussion. And so he visited EvC Forum and went to the thread with the most recent activity, Tired Light. After a few minutes of reading he decided he'd been misinformed and went elsewhere.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Now and again at least!

Sorry Eta_Carinae,
I missed these posts in all the excitement.
You, and others, are asking me to explain a "thermalised Black Body CMB spectrum" But this is impossible to achieve in an expanding Universe. If it does exist then the Bb is wrong.
To get the whole of the universe at the same temp, 'thermalised', then there must be photon exchange to get thermal equilibrium.
The Universe is 28 billion light year or so across (edge to edge) Yet the Universe is only 14 billion years old ! Ergo, it is impossible in a BB situation for the CMB to be thermalised cos one lot of photons don't have time to get to the other side to thermalise it.
I believe it is called the "Horizon Problem".
Before you ask me to explain this please explain this to me in an expanding universe way.
Actually it is in the latest edition of New Scientist, Number two in fact of "thirteen things that don't make sense".
The Bb is wrong. The universe is not expanding. Time for bed said Zebedee! See Yah!
Cheers Lyndon.
PS You fell for that one didn't you!!!!!

Eta, You don't mind me calling you Eta do you?
My theory says that H = 2nhr/m. It works in Metres inches cubits anything you like.
My paradox is a coincidence that is OK in my theory but not in the BB.
Get it?
The units work fine anyway since I attach a 'per cubic metre' to it.
See yah, This is definately it. Going to bed.
Lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

Could you explain a bit more why this is an issue? I posted a message about the Ashmore Coincidence in the admin forum before Lyndon started posting. I'd taken a quick look at his website and just wanted to make sure he had the units and values correct. I wanted to see if he was like Cresswell, in which case I would have taken action to prevent him wasting too much of people's time. I found the units *do* come out to sec^-1, and that his values and calculations were correct except for his use of 64 for the value of the Hubble Constant. I felt uncomfortable that he felt the need to divide by unit volume, but couldn't come up with a specific objection. Can you explain this better?--Percy

haha New Scientist - I once had to explain to the science editor that he could use either Bacon foil or a "Focult" cage in an experiment.Forgetting all that - Can you answer ETA's very simple and straightforward question?If you are describing something fundamental about the universe why does it require you to use units that are a social construct?

You only can get the value for h*Re/Me of 2 x 10^-18 s-1 by dividing by the cube of your length unit.If you use the foot as your length unit you geth*Re/Me = 7 x 10^-17 ft^3 sec^-1.If I divide this by 1 ft^3 I get 7 x10^-17 per second.**** A different number ****.Yes I can get back to 2 x 10^-18 per second but only by rescaling with a factor of (ft/metre). Is this so hard to follow????The value of h*Re/Me goes as the inverse cube of the length unit of choice.If you choose the metre the you get a value of 2 x 10^-18 but if I choose a kilometre then I get 2 x 10^-18 divided by 10^9 which is 2 x 10^-27.See, the numerical value only holds based on my choice of length unit.

The value of h*Re/Me is what it is. That does not change.BUT when you try to equate that to 2 x 10^-18 per second then it only holds for a length unit of one metre (or thereabouts.)It's not that numerical value when I use the foot, or kilometre or inch or whatever.

Just so you don't get confused the Pronunciation is aay'-tah _ kah-rye'-nee.It's more catchy than his old name of SAO 238429.........

The units of h*Re/Me in SI units are m^3 s^-1. He has that correct and we all agree.BUT if I use feet instead of metres then the units of h*Re/Me are ft^3 s^-1 and the numerical value is not 2 x 10^-18 ft^3 s^-1 but 7 x 10^-17 ft^3 s^-1.Thus when I get rid of the ft^3 by dividing by it my value is 7 x 10^-17 sec^-1.It is just as valid to do this as it is for him to use metres and divide by 1 m^3.UNITS should NOT determine fundamental physical phenomena just as coordibates should not.I should get the same area of a circle in Cartesian or Polar coords. What he is doing is tantamount to violating this and saying one system is preferred to the other.