Tired Light

To call 'tired' light a tired hypothesis is an understatement. I haven't read this entire thread but could the tired light supporters answer me one question (I have dozens more if need be by the way as to why it is a garbage hypothesis) please.What is the source of the CMB? When I say source I mean what distance does the CMB originate from?

Did you say Galilean Electrodynamics?That's a well known crank publication by some nutcases.It's not a recognised journal. If I remember its also famous for perpetual motion machines and such bullshit.This message has been edited by Admin_Eta, 03-19-2005 02:25 AM

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.

The units thing is the key as to why this is bullshit.If I invent a new unit of length, we'll call it the Eta and set its value to 0.86 microns then.....I have that the h*Re/Me is equal to Pi eta^3 per second. Therefore in a volume of 1 eta^3 we have Pi per second.Now isn't that EVEN MORE AMAZING!!!!! I have linked the Plancks constant the radius of the electron and it's mass to that most wonderful of numbers Pi.I'm a genius folks!!!!!

with this crank if he reappears. Just skimming his paper(cough cough) I can see many errors in his thought process where he hasn't thought through the implications of his mechanism versus observational results.Add onto that the myriads of known problems with standard tired light models.We have another Cresswell on our hands folks!

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!!!!!!!!!!

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.

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.

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.

The CMB spectrum is pretty much a perfect black body(=thermalised).Your mechanism needs to produce such a spectrum which requires a source in thermal equilibrium to produce it hence the term thermalised.One of the weaknesses of Steady State was the fact that it argued the CMB was reprocessed starlight BUT you need a mechanism to take starlight and out of this produce a perfect blackbody 2.73K spectrum.This could only be done by them hypothesising whiskers of iron to do this despite not having a source for these iron whiskers.You similarly require a way of producing such a spectrum. NOT only that you need it to be local in origin.This means you need a sufficient amount of whatever material is effecting the photons to cause this.WHERE IS THIS MATERIAL? You don't have the density of anything to cause this, be it other material or your IG plasma. The amounts required to cause the thermal 2.73K spectrum are RULED OUT observationally.This message has been edited by Admin_Eta, 03-19-2005 02:20 PM

ANSWER WHY YOUR EQUIVALENCE IS NOT BULLSHIT SUE TO LENGTH UNIT CHOICE!!!This is much more important than arguing Hawkins paper.ARE YOU A CRANK???????It seems very likely.You obviously have not thought through the physics of your mechanism, the observational consequences of this, you don't understand relativity very well based upon a post much earlier in this thread either.BUT THIS IS ALL MOOT since your entire bullshit is PREDICATED upon the "ASHMORE PARADOX" which is a numerological piece of crap.*** PLEASE TELL ME HOW IN THE HELL YOU TAKE THE COINCIDENCE AS ANYTHING SERIOUS WHEN IT REQUIRES THE LENGTH UNIT TO BE A SPECIFIC i.e. THE METRE????????????????????This is STUPID!!!*** Reduce number of consecutive exclamation marks and asterisks to obtain normal page widths. --AdminThis message has been edited by Admin, 03-19-2005 02:25 PM

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)

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

Now and again at least!