- Thank you received: 0
Ashmore's Paradox
- tvanflandern
-
Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
19 years 9 months ago #12183
by tvanflandern
Reply from Tom Van Flandern was created by tvanflandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by lyndonashmore</i>
<br />a relationship between The Hubble constant ‘H’ and the parameters of the electron. Namely H is proportional to ‘hr/m per cubic metre of space’.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">H is still not a settled value, and arguments are still made for a variety of values between 40 and 80 or so. You had to "go fishing" to find people citing just the value you needed to match your theory.
But more to the point, H (whatever its true value), h, r, and m are all provided by nature; whereas a cubic meter of space is a totally arbitrary human convention that could just as easily have been any reference volume whatever. So the value of hr/m per unit volume can have any value depending on what one chooses as the unit for volume. If you had used the yard instead of the meter, your numerical "coincidence" would look pretty shakey. With any other choice, there would be no coincidence at all.
I recommend reading up on the subject of numerology, and why efforts to find such coincidences are in such disrepute in science. The short story is that, if one tries hard enough, many such coincidences are always available for any desired target number, yet the fact that there are so many coincidences tends to be counter-intuitive and therefore deceptive (not to mention seductive) to generation after generation.
Here at Meta Research, which has become a lightning rod for alternative theories, we receive numerological papers or ideas with some regularity. Yet none of them have held sway or proved useful. Your hypothesis about a hypothetical connection between the electron and the Hubble constant may or may not be well-motivated and testable. But it will have to stand or fall on its own merits. You will get no credible numerical support for it in the foreseeable future. -|Tom|-
<br />a relationship between The Hubble constant ‘H’ and the parameters of the electron. Namely H is proportional to ‘hr/m per cubic metre of space’.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">H is still not a settled value, and arguments are still made for a variety of values between 40 and 80 or so. You had to "go fishing" to find people citing just the value you needed to match your theory.
But more to the point, H (whatever its true value), h, r, and m are all provided by nature; whereas a cubic meter of space is a totally arbitrary human convention that could just as easily have been any reference volume whatever. So the value of hr/m per unit volume can have any value depending on what one chooses as the unit for volume. If you had used the yard instead of the meter, your numerical "coincidence" would look pretty shakey. With any other choice, there would be no coincidence at all.
I recommend reading up on the subject of numerology, and why efforts to find such coincidences are in such disrepute in science. The short story is that, if one tries hard enough, many such coincidences are always available for any desired target number, yet the fact that there are so many coincidences tends to be counter-intuitive and therefore deceptive (not to mention seductive) to generation after generation.
Here at Meta Research, which has become a lightning rod for alternative theories, we receive numerological papers or ideas with some regularity. Yet none of them have held sway or proved useful. Your hypothesis about a hypothetical connection between the electron and the Hubble constant may or may not be well-motivated and testable. But it will have to stand or fall on its own merits. You will get no credible numerical support for it in the foreseeable future. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- lyndonashmore
-
- Offline
- Junior Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 9 months ago #12208
by lyndonashmore
Replied by lyndonashmore on topic Reply from lyndon ashmore
Hi Tom,
Bit too hasty in your rejection I fear as this is not numerology.
The paradox is interesting but the theory is the main thing. I consider photons of light from distant galaxies being absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in the plasma of intergalactic space. At each interaction the electron recoils and some energy is lost to the electron. Since the photon has lost energy, its energy and hence frequency has been reduced which results in an increase of wavelength. When I include the photon - electron colision cross section I get a relationship for the redshift z as
z = exp(Hd/c) - 1
with H = 2nhr/m (n is the number of electrons per cubic metre) presently thought to lie between 0.1 and 10 electrons per cubic metre. To get H = 72 km/s per Mpc requires n to be 0.6 electrons per cubic metre. So the theory is in agreement with experiment.
Also you will see that it works in any system of units one likes,cubic inch, cubic yards or even cubic cubits!
Lyndon
lyndon ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to earth.
Bit too hasty in your rejection I fear as this is not numerology.
The paradox is interesting but the theory is the main thing. I consider photons of light from distant galaxies being absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in the plasma of intergalactic space. At each interaction the electron recoils and some energy is lost to the electron. Since the photon has lost energy, its energy and hence frequency has been reduced which results in an increase of wavelength. When I include the photon - electron colision cross section I get a relationship for the redshift z as
z = exp(Hd/c) - 1
with H = 2nhr/m (n is the number of electrons per cubic metre) presently thought to lie between 0.1 and 10 electrons per cubic metre. To get H = 72 km/s per Mpc requires n to be 0.6 electrons per cubic metre. So the theory is in agreement with experiment.
Also you will see that it works in any system of units one likes,cubic inch, cubic yards or even cubic cubits!
Lyndon
lyndon ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to earth.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 9 months ago #12209
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by lyndonashmore</i>
<br />Bit too hasty in your rejection I fear as this is not numerology.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I didn't reject your tired light theory because you did not present it. I rejected your argument for a numerical coincidence. In your new elaboration, I see that you verified my point. You must use an adjustable parameter n, and set its value so as to make theory and observations agree. There is no numerical coincidence at all, even an approximate one, to support the theory.
You need to be aware that, in scientific writing, you should take the most conservative position you can defend. Exaggerations are common through human society. But if you exaggerate in science, you will certainly be called on it, and you will lose future credibility. Your first message appears to argue for a numerical coincidence that supports the theory. That seems dangerously close to sounding like an exaggeration.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I consider photons of light from distant galaxies being absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in the plasma of intergalactic space. At each interaction the electron recoils and some energy is lost to the electron. Since the photon has lost energy, its energy and hence frequency has been reduced which results in an increase of wavelength.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This appears to be a minor variant on the standard tired light model. It is therefore subject to the same fatal objection: photon absorptions and re-emissions do cause a slight energy loss, but it is accompanied by a slight amount of photon scattering too. Many such absorption events, enough to produce a significant redshift, would also produce a significant scattering. This would make images of distant galaxies fuzzy instead of sharp, contrary to observations. Moreover, this model predicts the wrong surface brightness vs. redshift relationship, and has a few other similar problems. So this type of tired light model is considered definitively falsified by observational tests.
The model proposed by Meta Science that passes all these observational constraints is a "tired light" model too, but nothing like the one you describe. The energy losses accumulated by light waves arise from frictional drag with the graviton medium, where Le Sage-type gravitons are perhaps 20 orders of magnitude smaller than electrons. Such frictional energy losses affect the amplitude of both radial and transverse wave components while maintaining wave coherence without any scattering. Most importantly, this energy loss mechanism was not just dreamed up in some inspiration. It follows deductively from first principles for the entire Meta Model cosmology. You can find further details in various articles on this web site and in our publications.
We don't consider that this model is the only viable one, or even necessarily the best. But we do require that every aspect of the Meta Model have no contradiction with any credible observation or experiment or logical principle. So our models at least meet the standards of Scientific Method. -|Tom|-
<br />Bit too hasty in your rejection I fear as this is not numerology.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I didn't reject your tired light theory because you did not present it. I rejected your argument for a numerical coincidence. In your new elaboration, I see that you verified my point. You must use an adjustable parameter n, and set its value so as to make theory and observations agree. There is no numerical coincidence at all, even an approximate one, to support the theory.
You need to be aware that, in scientific writing, you should take the most conservative position you can defend. Exaggerations are common through human society. But if you exaggerate in science, you will certainly be called on it, and you will lose future credibility. Your first message appears to argue for a numerical coincidence that supports the theory. That seems dangerously close to sounding like an exaggeration.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I consider photons of light from distant galaxies being absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in the plasma of intergalactic space. At each interaction the electron recoils and some energy is lost to the electron. Since the photon has lost energy, its energy and hence frequency has been reduced which results in an increase of wavelength.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This appears to be a minor variant on the standard tired light model. It is therefore subject to the same fatal objection: photon absorptions and re-emissions do cause a slight energy loss, but it is accompanied by a slight amount of photon scattering too. Many such absorption events, enough to produce a significant redshift, would also produce a significant scattering. This would make images of distant galaxies fuzzy instead of sharp, contrary to observations. Moreover, this model predicts the wrong surface brightness vs. redshift relationship, and has a few other similar problems. So this type of tired light model is considered definitively falsified by observational tests.
The model proposed by Meta Science that passes all these observational constraints is a "tired light" model too, but nothing like the one you describe. The energy losses accumulated by light waves arise from frictional drag with the graviton medium, where Le Sage-type gravitons are perhaps 20 orders of magnitude smaller than electrons. Such frictional energy losses affect the amplitude of both radial and transverse wave components while maintaining wave coherence without any scattering. Most importantly, this energy loss mechanism was not just dreamed up in some inspiration. It follows deductively from first principles for the entire Meta Model cosmology. You can find further details in various articles on this web site and in our publications.
We don't consider that this model is the only viable one, or even necessarily the best. But we do require that every aspect of the Meta Model have no contradiction with any credible observation or experiment or logical principle. So our models at least meet the standards of Scientific Method. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- lyndonashmore
-
- Offline
- Junior Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 9 months ago #12330
by lyndonashmore
Replied by lyndonashmore on topic Reply from lyndon ashmore
Just a minor point here Tom, n is not an 'adjustable parameter' it consists of published values of the number of electrons per cubic metre of intergalactic space.
As you say, standard tired light models and their minor variants suffer from photon scattering and that is why I came up with a completely new approach. Instead of using the compton effect that you refer to I use a variation of the Mossbauer effect since it occurs in a straight line and therefore suffers no scatter.
When you are referring to the wrong brightnessvredshift relationship are you referring to the now archaic Tolman surface brightness test? The one where they had to invent a theoretical model in order to compare young galaxies seen at high redshifts with completely different but older ones at low redshifts? I didn't think that was still around. In any case you will no doubt remember that this test only confirmed the expanding universe in one band. In the other band it confirmed tired light correct and the expanding universe wrong.
I will have a look at the Meta model of frictional drag and we will no doubt get around to discussing it but isn't the "frictional drag with the graviton medium" a minor variation of Zwicky's gravitational drag of 1929? I believe he got z = exp(Hd/c) - 1. Just like I did.
Lyndon
lyndon ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to earth.
As you say, standard tired light models and their minor variants suffer from photon scattering and that is why I came up with a completely new approach. Instead of using the compton effect that you refer to I use a variation of the Mossbauer effect since it occurs in a straight line and therefore suffers no scatter.
When you are referring to the wrong brightnessvredshift relationship are you referring to the now archaic Tolman surface brightness test? The one where they had to invent a theoretical model in order to compare young galaxies seen at high redshifts with completely different but older ones at low redshifts? I didn't think that was still around. In any case you will no doubt remember that this test only confirmed the expanding universe in one band. In the other band it confirmed tired light correct and the expanding universe wrong.
I will have a look at the Meta model of frictional drag and we will no doubt get around to discussing it but isn't the "frictional drag with the graviton medium" a minor variation of Zwicky's gravitational drag of 1929? I believe he got z = exp(Hd/c) - 1. Just like I did.
Lyndon
lyndon ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to earth.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 9 months ago #12331
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by lyndonashmore</i>
<br />n is not an 'adjustable parameter' it consists of published values of the number of electrons per cubic metre of intergalactic space.<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by lyndonashmore</i><br />n is ... presently thought to lie between 0.1 and 10 electrons per cubic metre. To get H = 72 km/s per Mpc requires n to be 0.6 electrons per cubic metre. So the theory is in agreement with experiment.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Technically, shouldn't this have read "So there exists a value of n in the 2-orders-of-magnitude range allowed by observations that can accommodate the theory"? And isn't this meaningfully different from saying that the theory agrees with experiment? Aren't you painting the bull's-eye around the arrow already shot at the target?
What you are saying seems clear enough to me. How you are saying it seems, to my mind at least, to be ambiguous. Your wording allows a less careful reader to draw an entirely wrong meaning, but one that favors your theory. You know how reality is. Accountants can make honest mistakes. But we are less inclined to give the benefit of the doubt when the error resulted in a personal benefit to the accountant.
I am recommending a change of approach to you that has nothing to do with the merit of your ideas. Always try to understate what you are prepared to demonstrate or argue. Then you still have ammunition left for the critics. If you expend it all in one massive thrust, you will spend the rest of the battle on the defensive.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I use a variation of the Mossbauer effect since it occurs in a straight line and therefore suffers no scatter.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Perhaps you will elaborate how you see the physics of this happening sometime. I find it difficult to imagine how energy loss can occur in such discrete, highly local pulses, each isolated from other parts of the same wavefront, and yet produce no scattering and retain coherence for the whole wave. Doesn't each absorption/re-emission event effectively produce a new lightwave slightly retarded from the wave it replaced? Does none of the absorbing matter have any transverse speed that would slightly redirect the absorbed light?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">When you are referring to the wrong brightnessvredshift relationship are you referring to the now archaic Tolman surface brightness test?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes. I've seen lots of recent papers about the implications of surface brightness, and obviously didn't get the memo that it is now archaic. In fact, failures of the Big Bang to be able to accommodate the surface brightness data is one of the many arguments still being used against that model.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">isn't the "frictional drag with the graviton medium" a minor variation of Zwicky's gravitational drag of 1929? I believe he got z = exp(Hd/c) - 1. Just like I did.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There are likely to be many similarities. The Meta Model is not so much original work as it is a logical deductive process from first principles that takes full advantage of the products of thousands of brilliant minds that preceded us. See the footnote on p. 95 of my book "Dark Matter. Missing Planets and New Comets, where I give the dervied distance-redsgift relationship as d = [ln(1+z)]c/H, which is the same formula as you quote. I expect that it is intrinsic to all tired light models. -|Tom|-
<br />n is not an 'adjustable parameter' it consists of published values of the number of electrons per cubic metre of intergalactic space.<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by lyndonashmore</i><br />n is ... presently thought to lie between 0.1 and 10 electrons per cubic metre. To get H = 72 km/s per Mpc requires n to be 0.6 electrons per cubic metre. So the theory is in agreement with experiment.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Technically, shouldn't this have read "So there exists a value of n in the 2-orders-of-magnitude range allowed by observations that can accommodate the theory"? And isn't this meaningfully different from saying that the theory agrees with experiment? Aren't you painting the bull's-eye around the arrow already shot at the target?
What you are saying seems clear enough to me. How you are saying it seems, to my mind at least, to be ambiguous. Your wording allows a less careful reader to draw an entirely wrong meaning, but one that favors your theory. You know how reality is. Accountants can make honest mistakes. But we are less inclined to give the benefit of the doubt when the error resulted in a personal benefit to the accountant.
I am recommending a change of approach to you that has nothing to do with the merit of your ideas. Always try to understate what you are prepared to demonstrate or argue. Then you still have ammunition left for the critics. If you expend it all in one massive thrust, you will spend the rest of the battle on the defensive.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I use a variation of the Mossbauer effect since it occurs in a straight line and therefore suffers no scatter.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Perhaps you will elaborate how you see the physics of this happening sometime. I find it difficult to imagine how energy loss can occur in such discrete, highly local pulses, each isolated from other parts of the same wavefront, and yet produce no scattering and retain coherence for the whole wave. Doesn't each absorption/re-emission event effectively produce a new lightwave slightly retarded from the wave it replaced? Does none of the absorbing matter have any transverse speed that would slightly redirect the absorbed light?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">When you are referring to the wrong brightnessvredshift relationship are you referring to the now archaic Tolman surface brightness test?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes. I've seen lots of recent papers about the implications of surface brightness, and obviously didn't get the memo that it is now archaic. In fact, failures of the Big Bang to be able to accommodate the surface brightness data is one of the many arguments still being used against that model.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">isn't the "frictional drag with the graviton medium" a minor variation of Zwicky's gravitational drag of 1929? I believe he got z = exp(Hd/c) - 1. Just like I did.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There are likely to be many similarities. The Meta Model is not so much original work as it is a logical deductive process from first principles that takes full advantage of the products of thousands of brilliant minds that preceded us. See the footnote on p. 95 of my book "Dark Matter. Missing Planets and New Comets, where I give the dervied distance-redsgift relationship as d = [ln(1+z)]c/H, which is the same formula as you quote. I expect that it is intrinsic to all tired light models. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- lyndonashmore
-
- Offline
- Junior Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 9 months ago #12213
by lyndonashmore
Replied by lyndonashmore on topic Reply from lyndon ashmore
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by lyndonashmore</i>
<br />n is not an 'adjustable parameter' it consists of published values of the number of electrons per cubic metre of intergalactic space.<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by lyndonashmore</i><br />n is ... presently thought to lie between 0.1 and 10 electrons per cubic metre. To get H = 72 km/s per Mpc requires n to be 0.6 electrons per cubic metre. So the theory is in agreement with experiment.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Technically, shouldn't this have read "So there exists a value of n in the 2-orders-of-magnitude range allowed by observations that can accommodate the theory"? And isn't this meaningfully different from saying that the theory agrees with experiment? Aren't you painting the bull's-eye around the arrow already shot at the target?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not really, I derived a theory from first principles which gave H = 2nhr/m. It seems a natural progression to insert values of hr and m plus published values of n. That is when it came as one great shock when I found that hr/m itself just happened to have the same magnitude as supernovae values of H. Also, it makes sense to me that, in tired light theory" H should be equal to "this much of an electron in each cubic metre of space"
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What you are saying seems clear enough to me. How you are saying it seems, to my mind at least, to be ambiguous. Your wording allows a less careful reader to draw an entirely wrong meaning, but one that favors your theory. You know how reality is. Accountants can make honest mistakes. But we are less inclined to give the benefit of the doubt when the error resulted in a personal benefit to the accountant.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Accountants won't change views on something like the BB
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am recommending a change of approach to you that has nothing to do with the merit of your ideas. Always try to understate what you are prepared to demonstrate or argue. Then you still have ammunition left for the critics. If you expend it all in one massive thrust, you will spend the rest of the battle on the defensive.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
My sense of humour says I should reply that I have understated my position already but lets say this line of approach is just not in my nature.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I use a variation of the Mossbauer effect since it occurs in a straight line and therefore suffers no scatter.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Perhaps you will elaborate how you see the physics of this happening sometime. I find it difficult to imagine how energy loss can occur in such discrete, highly local pulses, each isolated from other parts of the same wavefront, and yet produce no scattering and retain coherence for the whole wave. Doesn't each absorption/re-emission event effectively produce a new lightwave slightly retarded from the wave it replaced? Does none of the absorbing matter have any transverse speed that would slightly redirect the absorbed light?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I need more time to answer this one (its late here, been working all day) The full theory is published on my website and there is also the preprint for GE but I will post something here either tomorrow or the day after. Promise
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">When you are referring to the wrong brightnessvredshift relationship are you referring to the now archaic Tolman surface brightness test?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes. I've seen lots of recent papers about the implications of surface brightness, and obviously didn't get the memo that it is now archaic. In fact, failures of the Big Bang to be able to accommodate the surface brightness data is one of the many arguments still being used against that model.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This is probably why they are quietly dropping it. The quote that it has gone is from one of Rees's books but the reasoning for dropping it is fair enough - it is impossible to compare like with like. No teo galaxies have exactly the same makeup and if they look identical then they must be at different stages of development because the one further away is younger.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">isn't the "frictional drag with the graviton medium" a minor variation of Zwicky's gravitational drag of 1929? I believe he got z = exp(Hd/c) - 1. Just like I did.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There are likely to be many similarities. The Meta Model is not so much original work as it is a logical deductive process from first principles that takes full advantage of the products of thousands of brilliant minds that preceded us. See the footnote on p. 95 of my book "Dark Matter. Missing Planets and New Comets, where I give the dervied distance-redsgift relationship as d = [ln(1+z)]c/H, which is the same formula as you quote. I expect that it is intrinsic to all tired light models. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Fair enough, but it is a bit too much of a coincidence for H to be related to h,r, and m since these quantities are used for determining the Hubble constant in the first place. You don't need me to remind anyone that we look at absorbtion/emission lines which are formed by electrons leaping from one energy level to another. The energy of a photon is E = hf and what do they tell us H is? Equal to hr/m in magnitude. No, any tired light theory needs to relate H to hr/m as mine does.
Lyndon
lyndon ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to earth.
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by lyndonashmore</i>
<br />n is not an 'adjustable parameter' it consists of published values of the number of electrons per cubic metre of intergalactic space.<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by lyndonashmore</i><br />n is ... presently thought to lie between 0.1 and 10 electrons per cubic metre. To get H = 72 km/s per Mpc requires n to be 0.6 electrons per cubic metre. So the theory is in agreement with experiment.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Technically, shouldn't this have read "So there exists a value of n in the 2-orders-of-magnitude range allowed by observations that can accommodate the theory"? And isn't this meaningfully different from saying that the theory agrees with experiment? Aren't you painting the bull's-eye around the arrow already shot at the target?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not really, I derived a theory from first principles which gave H = 2nhr/m. It seems a natural progression to insert values of hr and m plus published values of n. That is when it came as one great shock when I found that hr/m itself just happened to have the same magnitude as supernovae values of H. Also, it makes sense to me that, in tired light theory" H should be equal to "this much of an electron in each cubic metre of space"
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What you are saying seems clear enough to me. How you are saying it seems, to my mind at least, to be ambiguous. Your wording allows a less careful reader to draw an entirely wrong meaning, but one that favors your theory. You know how reality is. Accountants can make honest mistakes. But we are less inclined to give the benefit of the doubt when the error resulted in a personal benefit to the accountant.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Accountants won't change views on something like the BB
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am recommending a change of approach to you that has nothing to do with the merit of your ideas. Always try to understate what you are prepared to demonstrate or argue. Then you still have ammunition left for the critics. If you expend it all in one massive thrust, you will spend the rest of the battle on the defensive.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
My sense of humour says I should reply that I have understated my position already but lets say this line of approach is just not in my nature.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I use a variation of the Mossbauer effect since it occurs in a straight line and therefore suffers no scatter.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Perhaps you will elaborate how you see the physics of this happening sometime. I find it difficult to imagine how energy loss can occur in such discrete, highly local pulses, each isolated from other parts of the same wavefront, and yet produce no scattering and retain coherence for the whole wave. Doesn't each absorption/re-emission event effectively produce a new lightwave slightly retarded from the wave it replaced? Does none of the absorbing matter have any transverse speed that would slightly redirect the absorbed light?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I need more time to answer this one (its late here, been working all day) The full theory is published on my website and there is also the preprint for GE but I will post something here either tomorrow or the day after. Promise
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">When you are referring to the wrong brightnessvredshift relationship are you referring to the now archaic Tolman surface brightness test?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes. I've seen lots of recent papers about the implications of surface brightness, and obviously didn't get the memo that it is now archaic. In fact, failures of the Big Bang to be able to accommodate the surface brightness data is one of the many arguments still being used against that model.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This is probably why they are quietly dropping it. The quote that it has gone is from one of Rees's books but the reasoning for dropping it is fair enough - it is impossible to compare like with like. No teo galaxies have exactly the same makeup and if they look identical then they must be at different stages of development because the one further away is younger.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">isn't the "frictional drag with the graviton medium" a minor variation of Zwicky's gravitational drag of 1929? I believe he got z = exp(Hd/c) - 1. Just like I did.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There are likely to be many similarities. The Meta Model is not so much original work as it is a logical deductive process from first principles that takes full advantage of the products of thousands of brilliant minds that preceded us. See the footnote on p. 95 of my book "Dark Matter. Missing Planets and New Comets, where I give the dervied distance-redsgift relationship as d = [ln(1+z)]c/H, which is the same formula as you quote. I expect that it is intrinsic to all tired light models. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Fair enough, but it is a bit too much of a coincidence for H to be related to h,r, and m since these quantities are used for determining the Hubble constant in the first place. You don't need me to remind anyone that we look at absorbtion/emission lines which are formed by electrons leaping from one energy level to another. The energy of a photon is E = hf and what do they tell us H is? Equal to hr/m in magnitude. No, any tired light theory needs to relate H to hr/m as mine does.
Lyndon
lyndon ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to earth.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.262 seconds