Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,101 Year: 5,358/9,624 Month: 383/323 Week: 23/204 Day: 23/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Tired Light
lyndonashmore
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 309 (191722)
03-15-2005 2:52 PM


Just a small point here Silas, Tired light is still alive and kicking and doing very well thank you. In Tired light, we say that the Universe is static and that redshifts are caused by photons of light interacting with electrons in Intergalactic Space on the way.
In the Big bang Theory, the Hubble constant, H is the rate at which the Universe is expanding. An oft quoted value for H is 64 km/s per Mpc and this is found from supernova data.
However, these are strange units so let us change them to SI units;
64 km/s per Mpc is 2.06x10^-18 s^-1.
I show on my site that this is just about exactly equal to ‘hr/m for the electron in each cubic metre of space’. (h = planck constant, r = classical radius of electron and m = rest mass of electron)
hr/m per cubic metre of space = 2.05x10^-18 s^-1.
Tired Light says that redshifts and the Hubble constant are due to photons interacting with electrons in intergalactic space.
Experiment shows that the value of H is ‘this much of an electron (hr/m) in each cubic metre of space.
What more do you want.
Tired Light.
The Universe is not expanding.
Cheers Lyndon
Ashmore’s paradox — ‘H = hr/m per cubic metre of space therefore the Universe is not expanding’.
This thread began life as Message 121 of the What's the Fabric of space made out of? thread. --Admin
{Added the blank lines between the paragraphs - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-15-2005 03:04 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Sylas, posted 03-15-2005 4:44 PM lyndonashmore has not replied
 Message 21 by sidelined, posted 03-16-2005 7:21 AM lyndonashmore has replied

AdminSylas
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 309 (191748)
03-15-2005 4:40 PM


This most interesting topis is fallout from a comment I made as Sylas in Message 105, where I said:
quote:
The alternative explanations for cosmological redshift are such things as "tired light" and scattering. These models are emphatically and decisively disproved by evidence such as the perfect blackbody sectrum of the CMBE (which rules out scattering) and the time dilation effects seen in supernova light curves (which rules out tired light AND scattering).
The major followup posts have now been copied from the other thread to this one. I have used a special account called "proxy for Lyndon Ashmore" to copy Lyndon's posts. The content is unchanged; but a few blank lines were added to break up paragraphs. Each copied message has a link back to the original supplied as a footnote.
Apologies for any confusion; this was the best workaround I could find for moving posts, and I felt it were best done quickly, given the interest in the thread.
Cheers -- AdminSylas
This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 03-15-2005 08:38 PM

Sylas
Member (Idle past 5368 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 3 of 309 (191749)
03-15-2005 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lyndonashmore
03-15-2005 2:52 PM


lyndonashmore writes:
Just a small point here Silas, Tired light is still alive and kicking and doing very well thank you.
Hi Lyndon; welcome to EvCforum. We're a basically friendly crowd, but pretty robust in debate. Criticism of your model in no wise mitigates a sincere hail fellow well met.
With respect to tired light, the only kicking involved is spasms of the corpse. It has essentially no support whatsoever in the literature, and with good reason. This model is disproved by supernova light curves, by the perfect blackbody spectrum of the CMBR, and by the lack of scattering in very high red shift objects.
You're also badly out of date with the so-called "oft-quoted" value of 64 km/s/MPsec value for the Hubble constant.
There are two camps; neither of which much like the value 64. Alan Sandage continues to argue for low values: 60 or less. Wendy Freedman continues to plumb for values over 70.
But most commentators now defer to the unprecedented precision of the WMAP team, using a wholly independent technique, which gives 71 km/sec/MPsec give or take 3.5.
The debate is not over; but Sandage is IMO looking shakey. His most recent arxiv submission is much less definite about H0 values, and recent work by Kanbur et al on the Cephid distance scale may point to a resolution. In any case your prefered value of 64 is not a serious contender; and your use of three significant figures in the inverse is not warranted by any observations.
The ball park comparison of magnitudes for H0 and hr/m is not interesting. Play around with constants and you can get all kinds of crude similarities. This does not mean anything; and the tired light notion is decisively ruled out by the other observations I mention.
Cheers -- Sylas (with a "y", not an "i")
(Copy of Message 122)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-15-2005 2:52 PM lyndonashmore has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by proxy for Lyndon Ashmore, posted 03-15-2005 5:04 PM Sylas has replied

proxy for Lyndon Ashmore
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 309 (191753)
03-15-2005 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Sylas
03-15-2005 4:44 PM


Hi Sylas, sorry about the spelling before, unintentional — wrong glasses on.
Thanks for the welcome, I am just passing through really — I will just sort this thing out on tired light and then move on.
You seem to be confused about the Hubble constant. You have WMAP at 71 plus or minus 3.5 meaning it lies between about 67 and 74? and yet you also quote other values of 60 or less and then Wendy’s of over 70. You can’t have them all. You cannot say it is 71 or it might be 60 or less but not 64. Make your mind up.
Unless you are you saying that the rate of expansion is different in different directions?
I believe that we get different values of H because the electron density varies slightly from place to place so all these values are fine with my theory — but not with the BB.
In any case 64 is an average of recent values
I am surprised that you don’t find H = hr/m per cubic metre (in magnitude and dimensions) interesting because this is not any old coincidence. We use these quantities to find H in the first place!
To measure redshift we look at the shift in wavelength of absorption/emission lines. These are caused by electrons leaping about from energy level to energy level in an atom. So why is H = hr/m for the electron in magnitude if they are not related?
The shift in wavelength is also a shift in frequency(f). photon energy, E = hf so why is H= hr/m in magnitude if they are not related? and then I show you that H = hr/m per cubic metre of space. Interesting.
You see when the answer you get is a combination of the quantities you used to get that answer, especially when they are not supposed to be related, you smell a rat. We have to be interested if only to disprove it. In my theory of course it is not the electrons in the atoms surrounding stars that causes the redshift but those in IG space. I say that H = 2nhr/m where n is the electron density (known to lie between 0.1 and 10)
Tied Light.
Universe is not expanding.
Cheers Lyndon
all units for h are km/s per Mpc

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!
(Copy of Message 124, reposted by admins from a proxy account. Spaces added between paragraphs.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Sylas, posted 03-15-2005 4:44 PM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Sylas, posted 03-15-2005 5:10 PM proxy for Lyndon Ashmore has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 309 (191754)
03-15-2005 5:07 PM


Millisecond Pulsars
Tired light is also ruled out by Millisecond Pulsars (MP hereafter). These stars are extrememly dense. They also rotate at fantastic speed. In fact, this is how they got their name. Because we know the mass of these stars and their speed of rotation, we also know that if they were going any faster they would be torn apart by centrifugal force. If light were slowing down (ie Tired Light) this would mean that we are actually watching a slow motion replay of these MPs, an impossibility as stated above. These MPs can not spin any faster than what we observe meaning that Tired Light is also an impossibility.

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Sylas, posted 03-15-2005 9:06 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 20 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-16-2005 6:52 AM Loudmouth has not replied

Sylas
Member (Idle past 5368 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 6 of 309 (191755)
03-15-2005 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by proxy for Lyndon Ashmore
03-15-2005 5:04 PM


Thanks for the welcome, I am just passing through really — I will just sort this thing out on tired light and then move on.
You seem to be confused about the Hubble constant. You have WMAP at 71 plus or minus 3.5 meaning it lies between about 67 and 74? and yet you also quote other values of 60 or less and then Wendy’s of over 70. You can’t have them all. You cannot say it is 71 or it might be 60 or less but not 64. Make your mind up.
My original post should have been quite clear, and you'll see the same thing in many papers on this subject. As is standard in scientific writing, I give a quick survey of prior work and alternatives. There are two main groups, which have incompatible results. Saha, Sandage et al are the low values; and Freedman and the KST group have the high values. They can't both be right.
The WMAP group confirms the Freedman KST values, which means (as I said previously) that Sandage's group is in trouble. The error bounds from WMAP are 67.5 to 74.5 (71 plus or minus 3.5). Freedman's KST group is proposing 74 plus or minus 7. (67 to 81) So KST and WMAP are compatible; but Sandage is incompatible with both.
My post was clear: Sandage looks very shakey; so I'm betting on WMAP.
Your approach, of averaging, is precisely the wrong way to approach such a scientific dispute. If one group says 57 +/- 4, and another says 74 +/- 7, you don't average them. You try to find out who went wrong.
I see you are particularly keen on a value proposed by nine years ago by Riess, Press and Kirshner. These guys show the correct way to manage this kind of issue. It's no good just looking over the old papers and trying to combine incompatible claims. You have to look at the data. This is done in Cepheid Calibrations from the Hubble Space Telescope of the Luminosity of Two Recent Type Ia Supernovae and a Re-determination of the Hubble Constant, by Kirshner et al, to appear in the Astrophysical Journal and now available at astro-ph/0503159.
They propose the source of error which led them to make the incorrect estimate back in 1996, and show how the errors arise from poor data. The explain how to deal with it, and perform an improved analysis on better data to obtain 73 +/- 4 (statistical) +/- 5 (systematic). So now we have three groups all around the low 70s, with error bars that exclude 64. (Kirshner et al 2005 arguably include 64 as an extreme; the others do not.)
The icing on the cake is that this means the very person you cite most prominently for your figure has now published their own analysis of the problems in their own work, and have revised appropriately.
Your suggestion that different results correspond to different electron density is bizarre. The groups are not looking in diverse directions; but using different yardsticks. More seriously, your invocation of varying electron densities immediately knocks out any association with an absolute value of hr/m, which has no component for density. So the hr/m equation is irrelevant.
This was always a consistent problem with your work. There was never a model that made sense of the hr/m coincidence; and if there was such a model then it would be falsified by a further dependence on density of electrons. So there is nothing to explain in H=hr/m, which is just as well because H is bigger than hr/m.
Then you actually give a different equation anyway! Your real analysis appears to use 2nhr/m, where n is a density figure.
Now we have another horrible problem with your model. You only consider electrons. That's not sensible; the intergalactic medium is not composed all of this one particle; and that blows the whole analysis out of the water. So does the Lyman Alpha forest, which shows clearly that the intergalactic medium scatters wavelengths preferentially.
But by far the most serious problem with your whole presentation is that you have merely ignored without any comment all the empirical refutations of tired light. Supernova light curves. Focus in large red shift objects. And blackbody spectrum of the CMBR.
One final point. When we name some model or theory or paradox after a person, WE do it. Not them. The only person who speaks of "Ashmore's paradox" is Ashmore. That is a bit of a give away. Also bizarre is your excitement at having a paper accepted for a peer reviewed publication; with no mention of what publication accepted it!
Sorry Lyndon. You’ve got nothing here but an avalanche of errors, and bitter experience tells me that nothing on earth could persuade you to see that.
Ah well. Thanks for dropping by. I’m happy to continue, but I see no prospects for a happy resolution.
Cheers -- Sylas
(Copy of Message 126)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by proxy for Lyndon Ashmore, posted 03-15-2005 5:04 PM proxy for Lyndon Ashmore has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by proxy for Lyndon Ashmore, posted 03-15-2005 5:15 PM Sylas has replied

proxy for Lyndon Ashmore
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 309 (191758)
03-15-2005 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Sylas
03-15-2005 5:10 PM


quote:
Ah well. Thanks for dropping by. I’m happy to continue, but I see no prospects for a happy resolution.
Giving up already Sylas? You surprise me.
It is a fact that different groups of workers find differing values for the Hubble constant. In an expanding universe the values of H should overlap within their uncertainty ranges. They do not. In any normal scientific debate the consensus would be that this means that the Hubble constant is not constant — hence the Big Bang must be wrong.
But here you are just ignoring the ‘nonconstant’ Hubble constant and blaming the experimentalists! Unbelievable.
Just read your post again.
What it says is
Sylas the BB is correct. I will not hear anything against the BB.
Lyndon But Sylas, different groups are finding different values for the Hubble constant which are mutually exclusive.
Sylas the BB is correct. I will not hear anything against the BB. The experimentalists are wrong, I don’t know who, but one of them must be because the theory must be correct.
Lyndon Reiss et al got 64 km/s per Mpc which is hr/m for the electron in each cubic metre of space and photns are known to interact with the electron.
Sylas the BB is correct. I will not hear anything against the BB. Reiss et al have gone back and ‘stastically’ changed (fiddled?) that result so they could agree with everybody else. Anyone who disagrees with the Bb will be ex communicated.
I am only on my third post and the BB has been blown wide open. Experiment shows that the Hubble constant is not a constant. It has slight variations in it. Tired Light can explain this (variations in the electron density) The BB and an expanding Universe cannot explain it.
Possible explanations.
Silas the BB is correct. I will not hear anything against the BB. It is the experimental results that are wrong.
Lyndon. Since the theory does not agree with experimental results, the theory must be wrong.
Cheers
Lyndon
(Copy of Message 127; blank lines added)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Sylas, posted 03-15-2005 5:10 PM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Sylas, posted 03-15-2005 5:51 PM proxy for Lyndon Ashmore has not replied
 Message 10 by sidelined, posted 03-15-2005 7:11 PM proxy for Lyndon Ashmore has not replied

proxy for Lyndon Ashmore
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 309 (191760)
03-15-2005 5:17 PM


Hi Trae, nice to meet you.
I am proud nay honoured to say that the paper has been accepted for publication in the peer reviewed paper "Galilean Electrodynamics" editors from Tufts University, University of Conneticut and Academy of Aviation St Petersburg.
When I say passing through I don't mean passing through in a day or so, I am just staying until I have converted Sylas to tired Light.
Cheers
Lyndon

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!
(Copy of Message 128; blank lines added. This was a reply to Message 125 by Trae.)

Sylas
Member (Idle past 5368 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 9 of 309 (191769)
03-15-2005 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by proxy for Lyndon Ashmore
03-15-2005 5:15 PM


Giving up already Sylas? You surprise me.
I hold no hope of persuading you that there is anything wrong with your model. But you are discussing topics that have been of interest to people here, and so I am quite happy to continue. Let us have views on the table for others to compare. I think I can show to the satisfaction of people on the fence that your model is fundamentally wrong. It may also give readers a sharper appreciation of why I have been so dismissive of the scientific value in tired light models.
It is a fact that different groups of workers find differing values for the Hubble constant. In an expanding universe the values of H should overlap within their uncertainty ranges. They do not. In any normal scientific debate the consensus would be that this means that the Hubble constant is not constant — hence the Big Bang must be wrong.
That is false. In normal scientific debate such conflicts mean that one or other of the groups has a problem with their model. The model is not simply "Big Bang". It is a check of the redshift distance relation, and it is based on models for light from supernova and any nearby Cepheid variable stars. Those interested should glance at the papers I am citing. They are very technical, but even a novice will seen see that the models have to do with photometry, and not assumptions about the Big Bang.
Normal scientific debate also actually reads the literature, and notes that the two teams get different distance estimates for exactly the same supernovae. Real scientists thus don't come up with trivially incorrect resolutions like differing amounts of gas for the two teams.
For an example where the two teams obtain different results with non-overlapping error bars for the same supernova, see The Distance to Supernova 1998aq in NGC3982, by PB Stetson and BK Gibson at astron-ph/0110062 and published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 328 (2001) L1. Again, full understanding is not required. Just read the "note added in proof" on page 4, and note that the difference between Freedman and Sandage arises basically from the use of different Cepheid Period-Luminosity relations. Since they are using the same supernova, and the same Cepheids, Lyndon's invocation of different cloud densities as an explanation for the discrepancy is useless.
Real scientists try to resolve such problems by looking at the models and data more carefully, and the resolutions need to be tested every bit as stringently as the original models before they can be generally accepted. Lyndon's suggestion, that the differences are just due to variations in electron density, is a dreadful howler, as is his error of merely averaging inconsistent results.
By the way, I am not a real scientist myself. I'm an interested amateur who does a lot of reading.
What it says is Sylas the BB is correct. I will not hear anything against the BB.
That's a strawman. It is not polite or honest to rephrase my comments in that way, and it merely avoids dealing with what I actually say.
What I actually say is simply that Lyndon Ashmore's model and methodlogy is incorrect, and I list the reasons why. I have not said anything at all about the Big Bang. The topic here is the tired light model, and THAT is what I have addressed, substantively. Lyndon should engage that, and not a strawman of his own devising.
Sylas the BB is correct. I will not hear anything against the BB. The experimentalists are wrong, I don’t know who, but one of them must be because the theory must be correct.
I have said now twice that I suspect the lower numbers proposed by Saha and Sandage are incorrect. I cited a paper which explains some of the many potential sources of error, and explicitly identifies a number of galaxies for which these problems are particularly severe. I am not anything like as dogmatic as Lyndon tries to suggest. It the lower values turn out to be correct after all, I would be surprised but not greatly put out. On my reading of the literature Sandage's numbers are a long shot; but it is not all ironed out quite yet.
Amusingly, the real problem for big bang cosmology would be if H0 was too high (85 or more, for example) because that would make the universe too young. But that is a side issue.
Lyndon Reiss et al got 64 km/s per Mpc which is hr/m for the electron in each cubic metre of space and photns are known to interact with the electron.
Sylas the BB is correct. I will not hear anything against the BB. Reiss et al have gone back and ‘stastically’ changed (fiddled?) that result so they could agree with everybody else. Anyone who disagrees with the Bb will be ex communicated.
Actually, all I did was point out that Reiss himself revised his own ideas. This is not me assuming errors in Reiss's work; I'm just reporting Reiss himself describing more accurate work. Those interested should read the paper I cited.
Lyndon's snide suggestion that Reiss is fiddling data is a despicable and baseless slander, and my opinion of Lyndon has just dropped calamitously. He posted this one hour after I cited the paper; so Lyndon has plainly made no attempt to look at the date or analysis in the new paper, but just leapt in immediately with this tripe. That's really odious, Lyndon.
Robert Kirshner and Adam Reiss were both co-authors of the 1996 paper with the 64 value, and of the 2005 paper with the revised value of 73. Lyndon often cites Kirshner's work; and now he suggests fraud, on the basis of nothing but poisonous lack of respect and honour.
I have now gone past amusement at Lyndon's incompetance and into cold contempt. Lyndon has made in an open international forum an explicit imputation of scientific misconduct against Adam Reiss and Robert Kirshner, without the slightest foundation. Lyndon, if you have a srap of personal integrity left you should retract and apologise.
I am only on my third post and the BB has been blown wide open. Experiment shows that the Hubble constant is not a constant. It has slight variations in it. Tired Light can explain this (variations in the electron density) The BB and an expanding Universe cannot explain it.
We've seen that Lyndon is wrong, since the variant values of H0 are based on different luminosity models and yardsticks applied to the same galaxies. Clearly one of the models is inaccurate, and there is a growing consensus that Sandage's model gives results that are too low. Stay tuned, however. These guys are real scientists, and have a genuine concern for integrity and honesty with the data. I expect convergence as the many difficulties with this kind of work continue to be ironed out, and photometry measurements made more accurate.
Which ever model is used, the Hubble constant still ends up being constant; there is no good evidence for inconstancy in the linear relationship between redshift and distance. This has nothing to do with the Big Bang; tired light models also have a linear relationship. This relation is the basic data that both conventional astronomy and tired light models try to explain.
Lyndon has yet to make any comment on the empirical evidence that falsifies tired light models. I have given three lines of evidence that refute tired light, and Lyndon has yet to even acknowledge that I've made them. Here they are for the third time, in a bit more detail:
  1. Supernova light curves. The light from a type Ia supernova has a characteristic light curve. It peaks in about 20 days and then fades at a fixed rate. However, there is a linear relationship between redshift and the fade time. The more redshifted the supernova, the more slowly the light fades. The data is a good match with expectations arising from modeling redshift as recessions. After 20 days, the supernova is that much further from earth as it recedes with the Hubble flow, and the light takes correspondingly longer to reach us. Tired light models predict no change in light curves; and are falsified by the data.
  2. Blurring. Lyndon's model involves a loss of photon energy from repeated interactions with the intergalactic medium. But when a photon loses energy it also loses momentum; and momentum is a vector. A change in momentum also means a change in direction; and this is (contra claims in Lyndon's papers) an observed fact of life where there really are significant interactions with gas; and it is a prediction of theory. This change in momemtum should lead to blurring of high redshift objects. The effect does not exist; hence the particle interations model for redshift is falsified.
  3. Blackbody CMBR. Energy lost to the intergalactic medium will inevitably heat the medium, and result in more radiation. Such radiation would not have a blackbody spectrum, which is a distinctive feature of the cosmic background. In much the same vein, such interactions should distort the spectrum of stars. Such distortions are seen as a result of interactions with known gas clouds; but not with the uniformity or magnitude required if the large cosmological redshifts we see were due to loss of energy to the medium.
Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by proxy for Lyndon Ashmore, posted 03-15-2005 5:15 PM proxy for Lyndon Ashmore has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by lyndonashmore, posted 03-16-2005 7:42 AM Sylas has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 6016 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 10 of 309 (191795)
03-15-2005 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by proxy for Lyndon Ashmore
03-15-2005 5:15 PM


proxy for Lyndon Ashmore
hr/m per cubic metre of space = 2.05x10^-18 s^-1.
h = planck constant, r = classical radius of electron and m = rest mass of electron)
NIST Codata values.
Planck's constant is 6.6260693 x 10^-31 Joule seconds {Kgm^2s^3}
Radius of the electron is 2.817940325 x 10^-15 Meters
Rest mass of electron is 9.1093826 x 10^-31 Kilograms
Le'ts see now.
{h}6.6260693 x 10^-31 Kgm^2s^3 multiplied by {r}2.817940325 x 10^-15 divided by {m}9.1093826 x 10^-31 Kg equals 2.05x10^-18 s^-1. ?
My math is rusty could someone run the numbers and see if this works out?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by proxy for Lyndon Ashmore, posted 03-15-2005 5:15 PM proxy for Lyndon Ashmore has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by bob_gray, posted 03-15-2005 8:26 PM sidelined has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


Message 11 of 309 (191799)
03-15-2005 7:19 PM


I just want to make one thing perfectly clear
"proxy for Lyndon Ashmore" is an ID that AdminSylas created to move lyndonashmore's messages from the other topic. That information is in the fine print at the bottom of the "proxy for Lyndon Ashmore" messages. I had missed that info, and was confused about the situation, until someone cleared it up for me in the "Private Administration Forum".
Carry on.
Adminnemooseus

bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5121 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 12 of 309 (191806)
03-15-2005 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by sidelined
03-15-2005 7:11 PM


I get a different answer
I plugged his numbers into Mathematica and got the following:
In[1]:=
(6.6260693 x 10^-31)(2.817940325 x 10^-15)/(9.1093826 x 10^-31)
Out[1]=
2.0497402180378856`*10^-15
Off by a magnitude of 1000.
A quick glance at the exponents on the 10's get you this as well
10^-31*10^-15/10^-31 = 10^-15

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by sidelined, posted 03-15-2005 7:11 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Sylas, posted 03-15-2005 8:36 PM bob_gray has replied

Sylas
Member (Idle past 5368 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 13 of 309 (191811)
03-15-2005 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by bob_gray
03-15-2005 8:26 PM


Re: I get a different answer
Lyndon's maths is correct. You guys are using h = 6.6260693 x 10-31. That should be 6.6260693 x 10-34 in SI units, according to NIST Codata values.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by bob_gray, posted 03-15-2005 8:26 PM bob_gray has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by bob_gray, posted 03-15-2005 8:44 PM Sylas has not replied
 Message 15 by sidelined, posted 03-15-2005 8:52 PM Sylas has not replied

bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5121 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 14 of 309 (191812)
03-15-2005 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Sylas
03-15-2005 8:36 PM


Re: I get a different answer
Thank you. I did not know that. (obviously)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Sylas, posted 03-15-2005 8:36 PM Sylas has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 6016 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 15 of 309 (191816)
03-15-2005 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Sylas
03-15-2005 8:36 PM


Re: I get a different answer
Sylas
That should be 6.6260693 x 10-34 in SI units, according to NIST Codata values.
Oops my error.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Sylas, posted 03-15-2005 8:36 PM Sylas 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