 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
John T
approved users
| Joined: | Mon Oct 17th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
|
Posted: Fri Oct 21st, 2005 07:41 pm |
|
Why do we need tired light when the Big Bang theory explains it all?
|
lyndonashmore
Administrator
|
Posted: Mon Oct 24th, 2005 02:44 pm |
|
Why Tired Light? How long have you got?
Apart from all the problems with the BB discussed in the inflation thread, the BB has it all back to front. They see a redshift and say 'Oh! the universe must be expanding!' They then measure the Hubble constant and tell us that 'this is the rate of the expansion' . I thought theories were supposed to predict things?
With tired light, we say this is how light travels through transparent materials, the same thing should happen in space, this leads to a redshift, we calculate the Hubble constant and then check it against the observed value and see that we have got it correct. Isn't that the way science works?
So if we can predict the redshift why do we need expansion.
Cheers.
Lyndon
|
Sylas
approved users
|
Posted: Mon Oct 24th, 2005 04:21 pm |
|
lyndonashmore wrote: Apart from all the problems with the BB discussed in the inflation thread, the BB has it all back to front. They see a redshift and say 'Oh! the universe must be expanding!' They then measure the Hubble constant and tell us that 'this is the rate of the expansion' . I thought theories were supposed to predict things?
With tired light, we say this is how light travels through transparent materials, the same thing should happen in space, this leads to a redshift, we calculate the Hubble constant and then check it against the observed value and see that we have got it correct. Isn't that the way science works?
So if we can predict the redshift why do we need expansion.
Light travelling through transparent materials does not get red shifted.
One of the difficulties with tired light is that there is no consistent mechanism known that could give a tired light effect. The effect is speculative. Back when it was a serious model, the mechanisms proposed generally involved some kind of interaction with gravity or background gravitons or an unknown vacuum process. It is not related to transmission in a transparent medium by anyone who knows any physics; that would be merely silly.
There are some tests that can distinguish the predictions of tired light and expanding space. These include the Tolman surface test, which measures the surface brightness of galaxies and compares to redshift; and the test for a time dilation in supernova light curves. Both these tests have ruled out the tired light model, and confirmed the expansion model. These results mean that tired light is no longer a realistic hypothesis.
The only other model still being proposed as a significant contributor to cosmological redshifts is a notion of Halton Arp, who suggests that the age of matter makes a difference to its emission spectra. Details as to how this works are entirely speculative, and the proposal can only work as an additional distortion on top of the conventional redshift mechanisms.
Cheers -- Sylas
|
lyndonashmore
Administrator
|
Posted: Tue Oct 25th, 2005 10:00 am |
|
Hi Sylas,
There is a lot to cover here so may I split your post into two parts?
One of the difficulties with tired light is that there is no consistent mechanism known that could give a tired light effect. The effect is speculative. Back when it was a serious model, the mechanisms proposed generally involved some kind of interaction with gravity or background gravitons or an unknown vacuum process. It is not related to transmission in a transparent medium by anyone who knows any physics; that would be merely silly.
Firstly, redshifts are not 'consistent' they are only consistent when one gets far enough away and into the Hubble flow. I say it is because one needs a large enough statistical sample in order for Tired Light to work. The Big Bang puts this 'inconsistency' down to 'local gravitational effects'.
Secondly,
Light travelling through transparent materials does not get red shifted.
My Tired Light theory relies on tried and tested 'recoil'. When light travels through a transparent medium it is absorbed and reemitted by the electrons/atoms in that medium. In glass these are fixed in place and so they cannot recoil. No energy is lost because the electron/atom does not recoil. In space we get the same process but I propose that the photons are absorbed and re emitted by the electrons in the plasma of space. Since this is sparesley populated these electrons recoil both on absorption and reemission. Photons of light lose energy to the recoiling electrons, reduce in frequency and therefore increase in wavelength. They are redshifted in space but not in glass even though the process is the same.
Thirdly,
Why is it that anyone who disagrees with the Big Bang 'knows no Physics'?
It is not related to transmission in a transparent medium by anyone who knows any physics; that would be merely silly.
I know Physics, and I relate it. - surprisingly enough, solar cells and the transmission of light is supposed to be my field, got a research degree in it too! When I got into cosmology on an interest basis I just applied what I knew of transparent marterials to space and out popped the Hubble constant!
I will get on to your other points later.
Cheers,
Lyndon
|
lyndonashmore
Administrator
|
Posted: Tue Oct 25th, 2005 07:38 pm |
|
Apologies for the large type on the last post - I don't know what happened all I was trying to do was insert a link. I won't edit it, just apologise for it.
There are some tests that can distinguish the predictions of tired light and expanding space. These include the Tolman surface test, which measures the surface brightness of galaxies and compares to redshift; and the test for a time dilation in supernova light curves. Both these tests have ruled out the tired light model, and confirmed the expansion model. These results mean that tired light is no longer a realistic hypothesis.
We will come back to the surface brightness test later but lets think about supernovae light curves for a moment. Supernovae take a certain time to fade away and it is said that type Ia supernovae decay at predictable rates. The expanding universe predicts that these curves be stretched due to relativity and it is said that tired light does not.
Now the further away the supernova the longer it takes to decay. This could be selection effects since the further away we look, the brighter the supernova must be for us to see it, and the brighter the supernova the longer it takes to decay!
However, lets assume that the observers have got that bit correct (though several dispute that) and assume that the light curves are indeed 'dilated' - though 'stretched' is a little less biased.
Big Bang gets it correct.
BUt quasars also have variable light curves and these are much further away than supernovae. So their light curves must be stretched considerably more. But they are not stretched at all. Big Bang gets that wrong.
You cannot cherry pick results. For the BB to be correct the light curves of BOTH suopernava and quasars must be stretched in the same way. If there is time dilation then it is not expansion that is causing it since quasar light curves are not stretched. Ergo, this 'test' proves neither tired light or the Big Bang wrong or right.
Cheers,
Lyndon
|
lyndonashmore
Administrator
|
Posted: Thu Oct 27th, 2005 03:31 pm |
|
So, lets look at surface brightness. I am not at all happy that this is a reliable test since one has to compare the brightness of similar galaxies at distant distances from us. Different distances means that the galaxy is further away and hence we are seeing it when it was younger - so how can we compare the two?
In anycase, should it be correct, using the Tolman test with Hubble deep field data, seems to confirm a non expanding universe and show a model such as tired light to be correct and a big bang expanding universe to be wrong.
Cheers, Lyndon
|
John T
approved users
| Joined: | Mon Oct 17th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
|
Posted: Mon Nov 7th, 2005 02:11 pm |
|
| But what evidence is there that light is absorbed and re-emitted by a plasma?
|
lyndonashmore
Administrator
|
Posted: Fri Dec 2nd, 2005 09:07 am |
|
John T wrote: But what evidence is there that light is absorbed and re-emitted by a plasma?
The evidence is in the data from Pioneer 10. This is a spacecraft launched some time ago to explain the outer planets and has now gone off into space.
To measure the distance to the craft they used to radar range it ie time how long it took for a radio signal to go there and back and use the speed to calculate how far away it is. They have to use a lesser speed than 3x10^8 m/s to allow "for the plasma of space". Since the photons are slowed down then they must be absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in the plasma with a delay each time.
QED
Tired Light
|
Arfur
approved users
|
Posted: Sun Jan 8th, 2006 11:59 am |
|
Hi,
I was just passing through and saw your site Lyndon. Interesting but if the reshift is caused by photons being absorbed and reemitted (and this is stochastic in nature) then how do the absorption lines remain intact?
Just a thought.
Arfur
|
lyndonashmore
Administrator
|
Posted: Tue Jan 10th, 2006 03:51 pm |
|
Hi Arfur,
welcome to the board. As long as you have eneough collisions the redshifts become predictable. Its like tossing a coin three times. If heads comes up all three times you are not unduly worried. Haowever, if you toss it 1000 times, then you wouls get pretty close to 500 heads and 500 tails.
On their way through space, some photons do make more collisions than others but this spread is well within the experimental results. I worked this out Here
Cheers,
Lyndon
|
Arfur
approved users
|
Posted: Fri Jan 20th, 2006 08:56 am |
|
OK,
But in stats, don't the photons have to have made a large enough number of interactions with the electrons before the redshifts become repeatable? We have redshifts for nearby stars and the photons from these can't have made that many interactions.
Arfur
|
lyndonashmore
Administrator
|
Posted: Thu Feb 2nd, 2006 02:51 pm |
|
Hi Arfur,
The redshift in nearby stars is caused by Doppler Effect and their actual or 'peculiar' motion. To get tired light redshift the galaxies have to be a long way away so that the stats become 'repeatable'.
This is what you find by observation. galaxies have to be between 5 to 50 million (depends upon who you listen to!) light year away before Hubbles law kicks in. As I Show HERE, this fits in nicely with Tired light treating space as a transparent medium.
Cheers,
Lyndon
|
madtom1999
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
|
Posted: Thu Mar 8th, 2007 10:15 pm |
|
Colliding with electrons - no - not fine enough and bound to cause bluring. How about virtual particles - if they can make a black hole leak they can probably make light leak too.
One thought - they have to hit light head on to avoid general blur. This suggests that there must be some target area. If this target area increases as the photons energy falls - possibly in line with its wavelength or wavelenth squared this suggests that the photon will loose energy increasingly as time passes. So you wont loose energy linearly.
This could fall out of Maxwells.
I bet if you get the figures right you get the expansion of the universes acceleration!
Last edited on Thu Mar 8th, 2007 10:20 pm by madtom1999
|
lyndonashmore
Administrator
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16th, 2007 02:34 pm |
|
Hi madtom1999,
Sorry to be late replying - been on my hols!
Welcome anyway.
No it is definitely electrons. This is how light travels in general so why make a special case for space. Why introduce 'new' physics when tried and tested works very well indeed.
They wouldn't scatter and blur either. The electrons are in a plasma and not entirely free. As with light in glass etc, about 98% of the photons are emitted in the forward direction and about 2% in the backward? otherwise they go straight.
There is a target area too and again this 'collision cross section' is from published results (2rλ) where r is the classical electron radius and λ is the wavelength of the photon.
And you are perfectly correct about acceleration, this theory predicts an exponential Hubble diagram which fits observed results perfectly without any contrive4d ‘acceleration’. I can find references if you like.
Cheers,
Lyndon
|
ulysses
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
|
Posted: Sun Aug 24th, 2008 07:15 am |
|
Deleted as the post contains no science.
If you would like to try to pull the theory to pieces then no problem. But do it with science.
Cheers,
Lyndon
Last edited on Sun Aug 24th, 2008 01:02 pm by lyndonashmore
|
ulysses
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 25th, 2008 12:41 am |
|
Now Now Ulysses, you must always be polite. Hence I have deleted the non scientific parts of your posts.
Firstly, a warning. Any more of these non scientific posts and you will be banned.
However, lets have a look at the scientific parts of your post - my answers in red
Geller J. et al. 1972, ApJ, 174, 1<p>Goldhaber et al. 2001 "Timescale Stretch Parameterization of Type Ia Supernova B-band Light Curves"
This is just a malmquist bias. The further away the supernova, the brighter it has to be to see it and brighter supernova take longer to die away. QED.
Lubin and Sandage 2001 "The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. IV. A Measurement of the Tolman Signal and the Luminosity Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies"
Afraid you are out of date here. No one believes in this anymore. When one performs this test on galaxies in the Hubble deep Field this test supports a static universe and tired light. When this happened, Main stream came up with several reasons as to why it was not reliable.
time dilatation of SN light curves.
Malmquist Bias. Also Quasars at distances up to z=6 show no time dilation.
Also: the blurring effect.
The scattering that you propose would wipe out all object at cosmological distance, yet we see quasars at z>6, right at the tip of the reionization.
Light travels through glass without blurring so why should it blur in space?
Prove that reionzation exists at all.
Also, what can you do with the CMB black body curve and its anisotropies?
Do you mean the 'axis of evil' where the anisotropies are symmetrically placed about our galactic plane? Hot Hydrogen clouds heated by radiation give out a Black body spectrum.
But I don't think I will ever convince someone, who's living in a box. Read this:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
Are you really serious!!!
Cheers,
Lyndon
Ulysses
Last edited on Mon Aug 25th, 2008 06:53 am by lyndonashmore
|
ulysses
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 25th, 2008 05:46 pm |
|
This is just a malmquist bias. The further away the supernova, the brighter it has to be to see it and brighter supernova take longer to die away. QED.
Do you have any idea AT ALL what the malmquist bias is, brother? Another part to your answer: do you know astrophysics? It has been pretty well understood how type Ia supernovae work. Do you know how they work? There are NO brighter or dimmer type Ia's. There is only one type, when a White Dwarf blows up, after accreting the mass needed for it to overrun. That's it. That's one limit. Has been known for decades. Was calculated by a smart smart Indian astronomer named Chandrasekhar. Please read up on what you are talking about. SN are standard candles in astronomy, there are no brighter or dimmer SNs. So no QED, brother. I don't think I am the one, living in a box, and hiding away from facts, that disprove me. It's you. Open your eyes, wake up, and smell the coffee.
Afraid you are out of date here. No one believes in this anymore. When one performs this test on galaxies in the Hubble deep Field this test supports a static universe and tired light. When this happened, Main stream came up with several reasons as to why it was not reliable.
I am afraid you have no clue what you re talking about.
time dilatation of SN light curves.
Malmquist Bias. Also Quasars at distances up to z=6 show no time dilation.
I will not explain it to you again, please read above. If you would know what time dilettation is, you would not talk about quasars. Quasars don't show it, because they are not periodic. Dumb. Holes, holes holes.
The scattering that you propose would wipe out all object at cosmological distance, yet we see quasars at z>6, right at the tip of the reionization.
Light travels through glass without blurring so why should it blur in space?
Since when do you have thomson scattering of light in glass? Read upon your astrophysics, before devoting a site to a nonsence. But to anwser in your style: If you take a big fat piece of glass, light will blur in the glass also, little Lyndon.
Prove that reionzation exists at all.
Gunn-Peterson troughs in the SDSS quasar sample at z>6. I don't think you will EVER need a bigger convincement than that. But if you want: the fact, that you, I and the world exists. If it remained neutral, you wouldn't even have electrons that are needed for your little sad theory. Or should I say Fritz Zwicky's theory, that you stole and clame to be yours.
Also: do you know what a paradox is: somethig, that seems to go against the laws of physics or common sence. Now what you are talking about, is neither. It's just plain stupid.
Also, what can you do with the CMB black body curve and its anisotropies?
Do you mean the 'axis of evil' where the anisotropies are symmetrically placed about our galactic plane? Hot Hydrogen clouds heated by radiation give out a Black body spectrum.
Read upon galactic astrophysics, and how the WMAP data were reduced. Nothing else. I will not argue with a dilettant, who is not aware of all the facts, but is sticking to his ideas.
Ulysses
|
lyndonashmore
Administrator
|
Posted: Tue Aug 26th, 2008 01:55 pm |
|
Getting better Eulysses, but we still need to go a little further to be polite.
Do you have any idea AT ALL what the malmquist bias is, brother? Another part to your answer: do you know astrophysics? It has been pretty well understood how type Ia supernovae work. Do you know how they work? There are NO brighter or dimmer type Ia's. There is only one type, when a White Dwarf blows up, after accreting the mass needed for it to overrun. That's it. That's one limit. Has been known for decades. Was calculated by a smart smart Indian astronomer named Chandrasekhar.
Wrong!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova
The current view (among astronomers who model Type Ia supernova explosions) is that this limit is never actually attained,
There are less Supernovae 1a at large z meaning that we are not seeing dimmer ones – only the brighter ones which take longer to decay. Malmquist bias.
I will not explain it to you again, please read above. If you would know what time dilettation is, you would not talk about quasars. Quasars don't show it, because they are not periodic. Dumb. Holes, holes holes.
Wrong!
In May of 2001 Hawkins published a paper called “Time Dilation and Quasar Variability”. Part of the Abstract reads as follows. Hawkins“We find that the timescale of quasar variation does not increase with redshift as required by time dilation. Possible explanations of this result all conflict with widely held consensus in the scientific community.”
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0105073
Gunn-Peterson troughs in the SDSS quasar sample at z>6.
Reference?
I don't think you will EVER need a bigger convincement than that. But if you want: the fact, that you, I and the world exists. If it remained neutral, you wouldn't even have electrons that are needed for your little sad theory. Or should I say Fritz Zwicky's theory, that you stole and clame to be yours.
There is no ‘if’s’ in science we need science results.
Certainly Zwicky was first with Tired light but his was gravitational drag and different from mine.
Do I detect that you are thinking of running away? Just when it was getting interesting?
Cheers,
Lyndon
"bringing cosmolgy back down to Earth!"
|
ulysses
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 26th, 2008 04:28 pm |
|
Why should I be polite, with a dilettante? I feel nothing inside me, that would drive me to be polite with you, I feel no respect for you, whatsoever.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova"
First of all, Wikipedia, as we know, is not the ULTIMATE source of information, although it is commonly used by even us scientists (you are not part of this group).
"The current view (among astronomers who model Type Ia supernova explosions) is that this limit is never actually attained,"
Alright, let's get this straight. First of all, people, who taught me this, are the ones who do these models. They still firmly believe in the chandrasekhar mass limit, at least, that they all reach the same limit before going off. It is below the 1.44 M_sun, but all the same. No differences. You should come up, with better references than that.
"There are less Supernovae 1a at large z meaning that we are not seeing dimmer ones – only the brighter ones which take longer to decay. Malmquist bias."
Stupid. Plain dumb. There is only one SN Ia. Another thing: this would be selection effect and not Malmquist bias. Read upon your statistics, please. Pathetic.
"In May of 2001 Hawkins published a paper called “Time Dilation and Quasar Variability”. Part of the Abstract reads as follows. Hawkins“We find that the timescale of quasar variation does not increase with redshift as required by time dilation. Possible explanations of this result all conflict with widely held consensus in the scientific community.”
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0105073"
Dear old Stephen Hawking has had SO MANY theories that he has recanted. I do not think, that whatever he publishes, is the ultimate truth. But if you want proof for that, HE RECANTED EVEN THIS PAPER OF HIS:
Hawkins. M.R.S. 2007, A&A, 462, 581
Read upon your literature, and make sure, what you use as evidence has been accepted.
Gunn-Peterson troughs in the SDSS quasar sample at z>6.
Reference?
Becker et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2850
I don't think you will EVER need a bigger convincement than that. But if you want: the fact, that you, I and the world exists. If it remained neutral, you wouldn't even have electrons that are needed for your little sad theory. Or should I say Fritz Zwicky's theory, that you stole and clame to be yours.
"There is no ‘if’s’ in science we need science results."
That's what I pointed OUT YOU IMBISLE! I just tried to put it in your language also.
"Do I detect that you are thinking of running away? Just when it was getting interesting?"
No, I just think you are the dumbest person in the world.
Ulysses
|
lyndonashmore
Administrator
|
Posted: Tue Aug 26th, 2008 06:15 pm |
|
Why should you be polite? because a) you are a guest here, b) you will get banned and that will be a pity and C) only people who have no substance to their arguments result to insults. Be polite!
First of all, Wikipedia, as we know, is not the ULTIMATE source of information, although it is commonly used by even us scientists (you are not part of this group).
Alright, let's get this straight. First of all, people, who taught me this, are the ones who do these models. They still firmly believe in the chandrasekhar mass limit, at least, that they all reach the same limit before going off. It is below the 1.44 M_sun, but all the same. No differences. You should come up, with better references than that.
Ok try this one:
“Some variations have been observed in Type Ia supernovae, but these are mostly reconcilable. Brighter Type Ia's take longer to rise to maximum brightness and longer to decline. When the time-scales of individual light curves are stretched to fit the norm, and brightness is scaled according to the stretch, Type Ia light curves match.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060920191626.htm
Stupid. Plain dumb. There is only one SN Ia. Another thing: this would be selection effect and not Malmquist bias. Read upon your statistics, please. Pathetic.
Try this one:
http://astroprofspage.com/archives/81
“The Malmquist bias is a sort of selection effect”
Dear old Stephen Hawking has had SO MANY theories that he has recanted. I do not think, that whatever he publishes, is the ultimate truth. But if you want proof for that, HE RECANTED EVEN THIS PAPER OF HIS:
Hawkins. M.R.S. 2007, A&A, 462, 581
Read upon your literature, and make sure, what you use as evidence has been accepted.
Then you had better tell him about it as he is presenting a paper on it in September. (I thought that you said earlier that there was no variation in Quasars? Did we get it wrong earlier did we?? By the way it is M.S. Hawkins not Stephen Hawking He is this guy
http://www.hawking.org.uk/home/hindex.html
Gunn-Peterson troughs in the SDSS quasar sample at z>6.
Reference?
Becker et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2850
I don't think you will EVER need a bigger convincement than that.
Have you read this paper? I think not.
I quote from the abstract:
Therefore, the existence of the Gunn-Peterson trough by itself does not indicate that the quasar is observed prior to the reionization epoch. However, the fast evolution of the mean absorption in these high-redshift quasars suggests that the mean ionizing background along the line of sight to this quasar has declined significantly from z~5 to 6, and the universe is approaching the reionization epoch at z~6.
Bolding is mine.
So you are wrong again.
Cheers,
Lyndon
Bringing cosmology back down to Earth
Last edited on Tue Aug 26th, 2008 06:17 pm by lyndonashmore
|
Current time is 04:47 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
|
|
|
