1. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,235
Originally Posted by dakini
Originally Posted by Tensor
Originally Posted by dakini
Originally Posted by Tensor
Now, now, dakini, if you want to believe in the tired light theory, you have to ignore this piece of evidence, as it doesn't fit.
but that lyndon guy tried to use the non-existant redshift to prove the tired light theory...

very silly of him, i think.
Sorry, I should have used the wink emoticon. I was joking with you.
i know, i was pretending to be naive to further point out how silly he is.
and I missed it. ops:

2. Banned
Join Date
Apr 2004
Posts
1,270
Originally Posted by Tensor
Originally Posted by dakini
could someone post a link abotu the signals from the probes being shifted one way or the other?
Here's another. But, Jerry Jensen's is probably better.
Why do people always quote Ned wrongs codsmology tutorial?, sory, bout my spelling

[/url] http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/Pioneer.htm

But if the acceleration is towards the Sun does that mean that this part of the Universe is collapsing with the outer part expanding so we will get a hollow ring of Universe inbetween? Unless the BB is wrong!

3. Established Member
Join Date
Apr 2004
Posts
588
actually, just because the acceleration is towards the sun, doesn't mean the signal is blueshifted.

The probe is receeding from us, that gives a redshift. Even though it is accelerating towards the sun, the signal is still a redshift, as the probe is still heading away (and always will since it has escape velocity).

What's happening is the recessional velocity (as measured by doppler shifts) is decreasing, so the signal is less redshifted (or more blueshifted, but it's not blue see what I'm saying?). Now, if its just doppler, this would mean the probes are slowing down, which makes sense, as they should slow down a bit as they head away from the sun.

The problem is, they're slowing down a bit too much.

And that means:

1) Our measurements are wrong (not the case though)

2) Our theory of gravity is missing a point or two (i.e. needs some revision)

3) The light is behaving differently than expected (Light theory requires a little work)

4. Established Member
Join Date
Apr 2004
Posts
283
actually, someone mentioned in another thread that the probes coudl be encountering dust in the outer solar system that is slowing them down. tiny pushes in the opposite direction of motion would result in tiny pushes in the opposite direction. see, dust particles woudl slow down a probe... they would not slow down light though, not in the sense that the tired light theory calls for anyways.
if you guys have ever done refractions and the like, you know that light passing through a different medium will have a different speed, but once it exists the medium, its speed will return to normal. what lyndon seems to call for with his tired light deal is that the light does not return to its normal speed, however if it didn't, then i'm not sure how well glasses would work, as they slow light down to bend it in a manner that makes things seem correct to their vision.
so the light is temporarily redshifted, and then it is returned to its normal frequency.

lyndon, as pointed out by ricimer, the probes should be redshifted as they're moving away from us... however, as pointed out in tensor's article, the tired light theory would require even more of a redshift (albeit a small one) instead, the light is becoming less redshifted. if we found a way to get the probes to stop moving away from us, we would not observe any redshift. if the tired light theory were to hold, then there would be a redshift.

5. Originally Posted by dakini
tensor, while jerry's was thorough, yours got to the point... but they're both good links
but yeah, if the shift is towards the sun, then what is that lyndon guy on about? he seems to be going with what the other tired light theorist mentioned in the paper calculated should be the acceleration... which was then compared to the observed value...

doesn't this kind of screw up the tired light theory? i mean, if the predicted acceleration is 4.5 times greater and in the opposite direction from what it would be predicted by tired light...?
It's FAR worse than that....
That's 4.5 orders of magnitude, aka 4.5 powers of 10, (i.e., a factor of roughly 30,000), and the wrong sign.

The reason people quote Ned Wright is because he understands an awful lot of astrophysics (as opposed to "knowing facts"). You don't get these qualifications by sitting in a dark closet, concocting a personal reality:

Educational Background:
ABscl, Harvard Physics, 1969
Ph.D., Harvard Astronomy, 1976

Brief Bio:
Edward L. (Ned) Wright received his AB and PhD degrees from Harvard University, and was a Junior Fellow in the Society of Fellows. After teaching in the MIT Physics Department, Professor Wright has been at UCLA since 1981.

Of course, these don't qualify him for never making a mistake. There are no such qualifications among scientists, contrary to opinions held by some frequenting this BB (...only pseudoscientists hold such distinction).

6. Originally Posted by dakini
see, dust particles would slow down a probe...
Anderson was able to eliminate dust (which would not cause constant acceleration in a radial direction), and every other conceivable source, Ricimers assessment is ok -

HOWEVER there is one 'tired light' explanation that does work: A CREIL radiation transfer process predicts blue shifts in low frequencies, such as the radio frequencies used by the pioneer probes, and redshift in high frequencies, eventually dumping everything into an infrared or near infrared continuum...well, almost everything; The Einstein coefficients also dictate a 'low frequency compliment' - that would be the CMB.

7. Banned
Join Date
Apr 2004
Posts
1,270
Originally Posted by Spaceman Spiff
Originally Posted by dakini
tensor, while jerry's was thorough, yours got to the point... but they're both good links
but yeah, if the shift is towards the sun, then what is that lyndon guy on about? he seems to be going with what the other tired light theorist mentioned in the paper calculated should be the acceleration... which was then compared to the observed value...

doesn't this kind of screw up the tired light theory? i mean, if the predicted acceleration is 4.5 times greater and in the opposite direction from what it would be predicted by tired light...?
It's FAR worse than that....
That's 4.5 orders of magnitude, aka 4.5 powers of 10, (i.e., a factor of roughly 30,000), and the wrong sign.

The reason people quote Ned Wright is because he understands an awful lot of astrophysics (as opposed to "knowing facts"). You don't get these qualifications by sitting in a dark closet, concocting a personal reality:

Educational Background:
ABscl, Harvard Physics, 1969
Ph.D., Harvard Astronomy, 1976

Brief Bio:
Edward L. (Ned) Wright received his AB and PhD degrees from Harvard University, and was a Junior Fellow in the Society of Fellows. After teaching in the MIT Physics Department, Professor Wright has been at UCLA since 1981.

Of course, these don't qualify him for never making a mistake. There are no such qualifications among scientists, contrary to opinions held by some frequenting this BB (...only pseudoscientists hold such distinction).
But what has he discovered? is there a wrights paradox?
I have nothing against the guy. I am sure that he is a good guy. BUT that doesn't make him the worlds authority. The site I cited, Stolman's brought a defence from wright, meaning he was threatened. The fun of science is the intrigue don't you think? I can quote lots of famous people (and he isn't) who were wrong. In any case, aren't we all well qualified in Physics?

8. Banned
Join Date
Apr 2004
Posts
1,270
Originally Posted by Jerry Jensen
Originally Posted by dakini
see, dust particles would slow down a probe...
Anderson was able to eliminate dust (which would not cause constant acceleration in a radial direction), and every other conceivable source, Ricimers assessment is ok -

HOWEVER there is one 'tired light' explanation that does work: A CREIL radiation transfer process predicts blue shifts in low frequencies, such as the radio frequencies used by the pioneer probes, and redshift in high frequencies, eventually dumping everything into an infrared or near infrared continuum...well, almost everything; The Einstein coefficients also dictate a 'low frequency compliment' - that would be the CMB.
So jerry, Is this CMB redshifted (see my earlier posts) or is it local?

9. Established Member
Join Date
Apr 2004
Posts
283
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
But what has he discovered? is there a wrights paradox?
hahaha. so because this guy didn't make up a paradox that is unverified, unpublished and doesn't seem to make any sense, he's not credible?
man, i coudl make up a malek paradox right now, doesn't give me the equivalent of wright's training, nor does it give me any more credibility or authority than him.

I can quote lots of famous people (and he isn't) who were wrong. In any case, aren't we all well qualified in Physics?
fame isn't really an indication of scintific ability. my dad's pretty good at what he does and he's not famous. one of his collegues borrowed an idea of my dad's (he mentioned it in passing to his collegue... who then went on to promote the idea as his... gaining a spot on the news in toronto talking about it) does that mean that the guy who just happened to repeat my dad's idea is any better of a scientist? simply because he got a little fame out of it? no.
and not everyone is well qualified in physics... i'm only in second year studies, so i wouldn't say i'm so qualified, but compared to the average person with no background in physics i'm qualified enough to bore and confuse to much accuracy.
i'm unsure of your qualifications, however, i thought you had a blurb on your site about your academic background, but all i coudl fin just now was that you're a physics teacher... which theoretically shoudl mean that you know what you're talking about... but not necessarily, especially as you're not a univ prof, but a secondary school teacher, and one of my secondary school physics teachers was dumb as a brick and i don't think he fully understood what he was talking about. he was mostly a gym teacher though, i suppose his minor teaching subject was physics.

10. Banned
Join Date
Apr 2004
Posts
1,270
Originally Posted by dakini
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
But what has he discovered? is there a wrights paradox?
hahaha. so because this guy didn't make up a paradox that is unverified, unpublished and doesn't seem to make any sense, he's not credible?
man, i coudl make up a malek paradox right now, doesn't give me the equivalent of wright's training, nor does it give me any more credibility or authority than him.

I can quote lots of famous people (and he isn't) who were wrong. In any case, aren't we all well qualified in Physics?
fame isn't really an indication of scintific ability. my dad's pretty good at what he does and he's not famous. one of his collegues borrowed an idea of my dad's (he mentioned it in passing to his collegue... who then went on to promote the idea as his... gaining a spot on the news in toronto talking about it) does that mean that the guy who just happened to repeat my dad's idea is any better of a scientist? simply because he got a little fame out of it? no.
and not everyone is well qualified in physics... i'm only in second year studies, so i wouldn't say i'm so qualified, but compared to the average person with no background in physics i'm qualified enough to bore and confuse to much accuracy.
i'm unsure of your qualifications, however, i thought you had a blurb on your site about your academic background, but all i coudl fin just now was that you're a physics teacher... which theoretically shoudl mean that you know what you're talking about... but not necessarily, especially as you're not a univ prof, but a secondary school teacher, and one of my secondary school physics teachers was dumb as a brick and i don't think he fully understood what he was talking about. he was mostly a gym teacher though, i suppose his minor teaching subject was physics.
I can believe that. But you must admit science is about DOING things. Don't be an observer like the guys in the balcony of the muppet show. The paradox is published, that is why we are discussing it now AND it is original and true. QED.
Did you know about it before I told you? NO!
SO, lets stop this 'my dads better than your dad" idea of science and get down to science. What is wrong with stolman's ideas. Its not me, so I have no personal gain. It doesn't matter who you are its the science that matters. What is wrong with Stolman's ideas. Ned wright felt he had to defend himself so there must be something in it

11. Established Member
Join Date
Apr 2004
Posts
283
just because someone doesn't have a theory or paradox named after them doesn't mean they don't do anything. take brahe for example, if not for his observations, kepler wouldn't have discovered his laws (kepler had poor eyesight so could not make the necessary observations, tyco brahe was very meticulous with his observations however, and since kepler was his assistant, he inherited the observations) but there isn't a brahe law or paradox or anything like that as far as i know.
also, where is your paradox published? is it out anywhere on paper? if so, why is that not mentioned on your site. your site says it is under consideration, does it not?
secondly, the units don't add up, this has been mentioned a number of times and you haven't addressed it properly. comparing m/s to 1/s is like comparing apples to oranges. sure, they're both fruits, but even if you have the same number of apples as you have oranges, they're still not the same thing. if i have 1m/s and 1/s, they're the same magnitude, yes, but different things entirely. how then is your paradox true?
also, i never said this would be a "my dad is better than your dad" contest. i simply brought up that one of my father's collegues borrowed one of his ideas and got somewhat famous for it and was saying that fame is no indication of intelligence. hell, my dad's got like 6 patents and no one's ever heard of him... he's a bright guy who isn't famous.
in any case, i don't know anything about this conflict between stoleman and wright. i'm just saying that because you named a paradox after yourself doesn't mean that you're smarter than wright and that what he says is somehow invalid or something.

12. Banned
Join Date
Apr 2004
Posts
1,270
Originally Posted by dakini
just because someone doesn't have a theory or paradox named after them doesn't mean they don't do anything. take brahe for example, if not for his observations, kepler wouldn't have discovered his laws (kepler had poor eyesight so could not make the necessary observations, tyco brahe was very meticulous with his observations however, and since kepler was his assistant, he inherited the observations) but there isn't a brahe law or paradox or anything like that as far as i know.
also, where is your paradox published? is it out anywhere on paper? if so, why is that not mentioned on your site. your site says it is under consideration, does it not?
secondly, the units don't add up, this has been mentioned a number of times and you haven't addressed it properly. comparing m/s to 1/s is like comparing apples to oranges. sure, they're both fruits, but even if you have the same number of apples as you have oranges, they're still not the same thing. if i have 1m/s and 1/s, they're the same magnitude, yes, but different things entirely. how then is your paradox true?
also, i never said this would be a "my dad is better than your dad" contest. i simply brought up that one of my father's collegues borrowed one of his ideas and got somewhat famous for it and was saying that fame is no indication of intelligence. hell, my dad's got like 6 patents and no one's ever heard of him... he's a bright guy who isn't famous.
in any case, i don't know anything about this conflict between stoleman and wright. i'm just saying that because you named a paradox after yourself doesn't mean that you're smarter than wright and that what he says is somehow invalid or something.
the units in ashmore's paradox are exactly right www.lyndonashmore.com
I didn't mention your error because I didn't want to embarass you in public.
If you would kike to pursue this then its fine by me.
secondly

"Brahe, Tycho , 1546–1601, Danish astronomer. The most prominent astronomer of the late 16th cent., he paved the way for future discoveries by improving instruments and by his precision in fixing the positions of planets and stars."

So what discoveries has ned wright paved the way for?

13. Established Member
Join Date
Apr 2004
Posts
283
umm... i went through the units myself. i have the page in front of me where i did so. hr/m is in m^3/s, but if you divide out the Mpc in the km/s/Mpc of the hubble constant you end up with units of 1/s.
i dont' know why you make it /m^3 other than to make your units match. that seems to be all you're doing.
not to mention that the numbers aren't even within the error ranges accptable by my school for labs... if i handed in a lab with that kind of error, i'd have to do an error calculation, and i think my school's decently lax with allowing errors to pass by. i'd think that the scientific community woudl want more precision than a univeristy undergraduate program though.

also, did i not say that i dont' know much about the man? and who knows if he won't pave the way for some future discoveries? perhaps if we jump 400 years into the future (the time since brahe) he'll have developped something that is then considered important, i don't know. honestly, i'm a little tired of you pretending that you're hot **** and so much better than this other guy just because he disagrees with you.
i also can't believe a man in his 50's (which according to your site, you are) is so childish to resort to name calling (i.e. ned "wrong" ignoring the imporoper grammar you employed in that insult) you are quite a petty person, you know. that's how you come accross at least.

14. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2003
Posts
1,315
Originally Posted by dakini
no, i meant the tired light theory... if there are no mechanisms to explain why it gets tired, then how is it that it's a theory?
&lt;>
it really seems to me that the tired light threory is just an attempt to provide an alternate explanation to the expanding universe, but it has no mechanisms for why it would be so other than this means that one can explain away the expanding universe and the big bang and allowing for a steady state universe.
It's not appropriate to refer to the "tired light theory", as though there is just one version of it to compete with the Big Bang theory. There are many tired light theories which have been proposed and, yes, they have been proposed to provide reasonable alternatives to the Big Bang.

The first such theory was given by Fritz Zwicky very soon after the cosmic redshift was discovered by Hubble. Zwicky supposed that the weakening of starlight ocurred because of a gravitational interaction with matter it passed along its trajectory. A great many other models have been proposed more recently, by Kierein, Jaakkola and others.

Each has its own mechanism and so each must be refuted according to its own postulates. I think Ned Wright's page debunking tired light models serves a useful purpose in setting forth some of the problems tired light models need to deal with. What I don't like about it is the implication that these arguments do away with tired light models forever and completely. Not so! The arguments Wright makes involve conventional physics. That is only proper. But we must keep open the very likley possiblility of 'new physics' being involved. If that seems like a cop-out, one can reflect on the almost certain invocation of new physics to bail out the Big Bang when, if current trends hold out, we will shortly see well-formed galaxies at redshifts where there should be no galaxies, because the universe didn't exist then. We'll really be in for a treat then. I just hope that the Ned Wrights of the world will do the same type of analysis on these whoppers!

15. Established Member
Join Date
Apr 2004
Posts
283
why will we be seeing red shifted galaxies where we shouldn't see them?
also: how did the universe come about if it is in a steady state? how does the light get tired? any theory to propose how it gets tired should be interesting. i see no reason for light to lose energy travelling through empty space, but surely there must be some theoretical explanation for it.

and i have another point for lyndon: this wright guy may not be out making discoveries, but you as a teacher should realise the importance of teachers... which wright is... he will impact a new generation of people who will come up with new theories and make discoveries. you seem to be putting down your own profession because you came up with your paradox. are you suddenly too good to teach or something?

edit: sorry, i won't be responding any time soon. probably not until thursday if my will power holds up, i have a test on electricity and magnetism tomorrow evening that i would like to review a little more for.

16. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2003
Posts
1,315
Originally Posted by dakini
why will we be seeing red shifted galaxies where we shouldn't see them?
I was just referring to the recent Hubble Ultra Deep Field observations and some similar observations which show that fully-formed galaxies existed more than 13 billion years ago, ie, only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. Of course the claim is made that those are infant galaxies, but we'll see what happens when the 'infants' are soon found to be older than the 'parent' (the universe).
also: how did the universe come about if it is in a steady state?
The great unknowable!

how does the light get tired? any theory to propose how it gets tired should be interesting. i see no reason for light to lose energy travelling through empty space, but surely there must be some theoretical explanation for it.
It could be due to an interaction effect with matter, an interaction effect with photons, a gravitational effect (which could be related to the aforementioned effects). The proposed mechanisms are sometimes quite complicated. (See for instance the topic CREIL in this forum), or they can be fairly simple, as in Paul Marmet's model. Here are some Apeiron papers you can look at to get an idea of some of the discussion:

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V02N3INT.PDF
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V03N3JAA.PDF
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/v05n3edw.pdf

The most likely cause in my opinion is that the energy that is lost from starlight goes into replenishing the energy of the gravitational field. This would be necessary in a static model.

17. Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
But what has he discovered? is there a wrights paradox? I have nothing against the guy. I am sure that he is a good guy. BUT that doesn't make him the worlds authority.[Snip!]
Celestial Mechanic: Today we are honored to have Lyndon Ashmore, who has a new theory ab...

Lyndon Ashmore: Actually, it's a paradox, you see, ...

CM: Yes, a new paradox relating to cosmology.

LA: Yes, it is Ashmore's Paradox, because it is on my website and it is mine.

CM: And indeed it is. Would you like to explain it to us?

LA: Yes. [Coughs] Ashmore's Paradox. [Cough] [Cough] [Clears throat] My paradox, which is Ashmore's Paradox and it is mine, is ... [Cough]

[Much coughing omitted in the interest of brevity!]

LA: My paradox is that the Hubble constant is equal to Planck's constant times the classical electron radius divided by the mass of the electron per meter cubed! Therefore the universe cannot expand!

CM: I see. Well, as others have pointed out, the units for the Hubble parameter, it is not necessarily constant, are in s^-1, but Planck's constant times the classical electron radius divided by the electron mass is in units of m^3/s, and there is no justification for division by a volume of one cubic meter. If you expressed everything in ounces, furlongs, and fortnights, you would get two very different numbers that you cannot reconcile by division through furlongs cubed. You have no paradox.

LA: [Cough] [Clears throat] Have you discovered anything? Is there a Celestial Mechanic's paradox?

CM:Please shut up or I shall release the 16-ton weight.

With massive apologies to Monty Python, especially the late Graham Chapman.

18. Established Member
Join Date
Feb 2004
Posts
1,065
Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
LA: My paradox is that the Hubble constant is equal to Planck's constant times the classical electron radius divided by the mass of the electron per meter cubed! Therefore the universe cannot expand!

CM: I see. Well, as others have pointed out, the units for the Hubble parameter, it is not necessarily constant, are in s^-1, but Planck's constant times the classical electron radius divided by the electron mass is in units of m^3/s, and there is no justification for division by a volume of one cubic meter. If you expressed everything in ounces, furlongs, and fortnights, you would get two very different numbers that you cannot reconcile by division through furlongs cubed. You have no paradox.
LOL! I was actually contemplating running through it again with furlongs; I even got as far as finding out that a furlong is 660 ft, or 1/8 mile. And the phrase "furlongs per fortnight" kept roaming around in my head, all the while....
Must be a Milwaukee thing. One long (N/S) block here = 1 furlong.
Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
LA: [Cough] [Clears throat] Have you discovered anything? Is there a Celestial Mechanic's paradox?

CM:Please shut up or I shall release the 16-ton weight.
What, you mean that 2.51 meter* weight? Well, you know, if you divide that length by the gravitational constant, and multiply by the product of the Boltzmann constant and the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow, you get THUD!
*The length of a side cube of water with a mass of 16 tonnes

19. Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
Originally Posted by Spaceman Spiff
Originally Posted by dakini
tensor, while jerry's was thorough, yours got to the point... but they're both good links
but yeah, if the shift is towards the sun, then what is that lyndon guy on about? he seems to be going with what the other tired light theorist mentioned in the paper calculated should be the acceleration... which was then compared to the observed value...

doesn't this kind of screw up the tired light theory? i mean, if the predicted acceleration is 4.5 times greater and in the opposite direction from what it would be predicted by tired light...?
It's FAR worse than that....
That's 4.5 orders of magnitude, aka 4.5 powers of 10, (i.e., a factor of roughly 30,000), and the wrong sign.

The reason people quote Ned Wright is because he understands an awful lot of astrophysics (as opposed to "knowing facts"). You don't get these qualifications by sitting in a dark closet, concocting a personal reality:

Educational Background:
ABscl, Harvard Physics, 1969
Ph.D., Harvard Astronomy, 1976

Brief Bio:
Edward L. (Ned) Wright received his AB and PhD degrees from Harvard University, and was a Junior Fellow in the Society of Fellows. After teaching in the MIT Physics Department, Professor Wright has been at UCLA since 1981.

Of course, these don't qualify him for never making a mistake. There are no such qualifications among scientists, contrary to opinions held by some frequenting this BB (...only pseudoscientists hold such distinction).
But what has he discovered? is there a wrights paradox?
I have nothing against the guy. I am sure that he is a good guy. BUT that doesn't make him the worlds authority. The site I cited, Stolman's brought a defence from wright, meaning he was threatened. The fun of science is the intrigue don't you think? I can quote lots of famous people (and he isn't) who were wrong. In any case, aren't we all well qualified in Physics?
This shouldn't be necessary, but for everyone else out there....

Like all scientists (as opposed to pseudoscientists), he does (reproducable) research that advances our understanding of some aspect of nature (in his case, his research is in the nature of the cosmic microwave background radiation), and then publishes his findings in peer-reviewed journals. Here is a listing of his papers, including peer-reviewed journal articles (139 of them) and conference proceedings. He acquires research grants -- another peer-reviewed activity. He teaches to undergraduate and graduate students at a university. He is also recognized by his peers as a leading researcher in his field (cosmic microwave background radiation). In short he does what scientists do.

Science does not rely on authority. Nobody is an ultimate authority on nature. The difference between Ned Wright and Mr. LA, is that the former is trained and operates as a scientist. I won't even comment on the latter.

20. Originally Posted by ExpErdMann
I was just referring to the recent Hubble Ultra Deep Field observations and some similar observations which show that fully-formed galaxies existed more than 13 billion years ago, ie, only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. Of course the claim is made that those are infant galaxies, but we'll see what happens when the 'infants' are soon found to be older than the 'parent' (the universe).
You've been informed by me and others that what we observe at lookback times of 13 billion years ARE NOT fully-formed galaxies. They are small (few 1000 light years across) superclusters of stars (for a lack of a better word or descriptor), FAR less massive than the Milky Way. Now, until we actually find one of these "fully formed" galaxies (presumably you mean like the MW or a giant elliptical) that you seem to know exist at great redshift, then the honest thing to do would be to not continue repeating false evidence.

21. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2003
Posts
1,315
Originally Posted by Spaceman Spiff
Originally Posted by ExpErdMann
I was just referring to the recent Hubble Ultra Deep Field observations and some similar observations which show that fully-formed galaxies existed more than 13 billion years ago, ie, only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. Of course the claim is made that those are infant galaxies, but we'll see what happens when the 'infants' are soon found to be older than the 'parent' (the universe).
You've been informed by me and others that what we observe at lookback times of 13 billion years ARE NOT fully-formed galaxies. They are small (few 1000 light years across) superclusters of stars (for a lack of a better word or descriptor), FAR less massive than the Milky Way. Now, until we actually find one of these "fully formed" galaxies (presumably you mean like the MW or a giant elliptical) that you seem to know exist at great redshift, then the honest thing to do would be to not continue repeating false evidence.
I'll stick to my guns on this one Spaceman! In an earlier discussion about the HUDF results you suggested I download one of NASA's files and scroll around. Not such an easy task with an ordinary computer like I have. So far I'm unaware of others who have done what you suggested and found the odd galaxies NASA claims are there. What one sees in the regular images released by the HUDF project for the public indeed show regular-type galaxies and nothing but. So the question of what is the 'evidence' here is inconclusive. I know NASA would like to see the odd galaxies - that would confirm BB. But are they really there?

There is another issue. The odd-shaped galaxies that they may have seen could only appear to be odd, if the images were not taken at the proper wavelengths. The BA posted an example of how the galaxy images appear different depending on whether they are seen in infrared or visual wavelengths, for instance. Such a consideration might also apply in the case of the galaxy mentioned in your link.

In any case, if I'm right, we could very soon observe galaxies (of whatever shape) at lookback times greater than 13.7 billion years, the so-called age of the universe. That's when it hits the fan, right? So let's relax and see what develops.

22. Banned
Join Date
Apr 2004
Posts
1,270
And remember, 13.7 billion years is within 12% of m/hr for the electron! Ashmore's paradox www.lyndonashmore.com

23. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
1,178
Now 12 % is another magic number ?

24. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2001
Posts
493
Sorry, did someone just hack Lyndon's account? If so, its a very amusing parody.

Back to the point, I'm completely confused as to why on the one hand we're using H in units per megaparsec, and on the other using per metre for this 'paradox'. Or did I just completely misread the calculations where you converted between the two distance measurements? Sorry, I'm being rather slow this afternoon.

edit - don't worry - found it now. Plugged the conversion factor in at the wrong place, and ended up with megaparsecs cubed last time.

25. Originally Posted by Spaceman Spiff

... NOT fully-formed galaxies. They are small (few 1000 light years across) superclusters of stars (for a lack of a better word or descriptor), FAR less massive than the Milky Way...
I have read (secondary reference only) the ultra deep survery locations were selected by identifying places where there were no known sources of radiation of any kind, including radio, soft Xray and infrared. If this is true, is there not a danger of a bias in these deep space samples, in that we should only expect to find small systems in radio cold, Xray cold Locations?

Since 3 point correlation functions refuse to yield effective estimates of morphological, luminsity and color evolution, (astro-ph/0403638, Kayo et al.,) we must be extremly careful about galactic evolutionary assertions.

26. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2001
Posts
493
Originally Posted by Jerry Jensen
I have read (secondary reference only) the ultra deep survery locations were selected by identifying places where there were no known sources of radiation of any kind, including radio, soft Xray and infrared. If this is true, is there not a danger of a bias in these deep space sames, in that we should only expect to find small systems in radio cold, Xray cold Locations?
This had to be done really - what "no known sources of radiation of any kind" means is that they were looking in the gaps between the known stars. Otherwise you'll see a really good picture of the nearby object, and not the distant ones behind it that you're really interested in.

27. On a more constructive note, let us take note that Einstein never called the tensor and pseudotensor named after him by those names, nor did Feynman call his diagrams "Feynman Diagrams", nor did Newton call his physics "Newtonian". Only Donald Trump gets to name stuff after himself, mainly because it's his money. (Well, actually, his bank's and his investors, and any taxpayers footing subsidies and other bits of corporate welfare.)

Maybe someday there might be a "Celestial Mechanic's Method of Orbit Determination", but I will always call it "Statistical Orbit Determination".

28. Originally Posted by ExpErdMann
Originally Posted by Spaceman Spiff
Originally Posted by ExpErdMann
I was just referring to the recent Hubble Ultra Deep Field observations and some similar observations which show that fully-formed galaxies existed more than 13 billion years ago, ie, only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. Of course the claim is made that those are infant galaxies, but we'll see what happens when the 'infants' are soon found to be older than the 'parent' (the universe).
You've been informed by me and others that what we observe at lookback times of 13 billion years ARE NOT fully-formed galaxies. They are small (few 1000 light years across) superclusters of stars (for a lack of a better word or descriptor), FAR less massive than the Milky Way. Now, until we actually find one of these "fully formed" galaxies (presumably you mean like the MW or a giant elliptical) that you seem to know exist at great redshift, then the honest thing to do would be to not continue repeating false evidence.
I'll stick to my guns on this one Spaceman! In an earlier discussion about the HUDF results you suggested I download one of NASA's files and scroll around. Not such an easy task with an ordinary computer like I have. So far I'm unaware of others who have done what you suggested and found the odd galaxies NASA claims are there. What one sees in the regular images released by the HUDF project for the public indeed show regular-type galaxies and nothing but. So the question of what is the 'evidence' here is inconclusive. I know NASA would like to see the odd galaxies - that would confirm BB. But are they really there?

There is another issue. The odd-shaped galaxies that they may have seen could only appear to be odd, if the images were not taken at the proper wavelengths. The BA posted an example of how the galaxy images appear different depending on whether they are seen in infrared or visual wavelengths, for instance. Such a consideration might also apply in the case of the galaxy mentioned in your link.

In any case, if I'm right, we could very soon observe galaxies (of whatever shape) at lookback times greater than 13.7 billion years, the so-called age of the universe. That's when it hits the fan, right? So let's relax and see what develops.
I am relaxed. I am just asking you to watch what you state as "observational fact". If you saw "normal" large galaxies everywhere in the HUDF, then you had better get another monitor.

Spectroscopic redshifts for large fraction of the objects will be released soon, and photometric redshift estimates for the dimmer objects too (some of which you can qualitatively gauge for yourself as you compare the ACS with the nicmos images). The reader is invited to look for him or herself at the HUDF.

In regards to the issue of the galaxy morphology changing with waveband, astronomers are well aware of this, and I, too, have posted links to discussions of this. For the original HDF, later ground-based and nicmos images in the infrared were taken to address this very issue. In the case of the HUDF, nicmos (IR) images were taken of the field over the same time interval. Go to this site to blink the optical-nearIR ACS image with the nicmos IR image.

Believe me, astronomers would love to find something totally unexpected. That's when the greatest leaps in understanding generally arise. This is something that non-scientists cannot seem to fathom. This seems especially true of those who have the answers and are looking for the data, and think that scientists see the world as they do but have the wrong answer. I simply don't give rat's hind end about any theory, big bang or other. However, I can recognize a theory that currently best explains, organizes observations, and predicts the behavior of nature.

29. Originally Posted by Spaceman Spiff
[
The reason people quote Ned Wright is because he understands an awful lot of astrophysics
For any of us attacking the underpinnings of the Big Bang, Ned Wright is a formidable opponent; and anyone interested in a primer on cosmology should become very familiar with his website. But one has to be a little careful: for example, in his analysis of radio point sources, he states "the" steady state model predicts a count factor of 1(1+z^7), whereas the big bang predicts 1/(1+z^4) and the actual count is 1/(1+z^3).

The big bang addresses this by adding another von eggle factor, throwing out a bunch of extra sources shortly after the big bang, and then attenuating them.

But the Steady State model he uses is a dynamic model in an expanding universe. A static steady state model actually predicts a radio source count of ~1(1+z^3), depending upon the attenuation factor; so in this case he takes a bit of a strawman approach.

Of course I have drawn swords with Ned over the Supernova and CMB issues and the banter will continue.

30. Established Member
Join Date
Apr 2003
Posts
131
Originally Posted by dakini
just because someone doesn't have a theory or paradox named after them doesn't mean they don't do anything. take brahe for example, if not for his observations, kepler wouldn't have discovered his laws (kepler had poor eyesight so could not make the necessary observations, tyco brahe was very meticulous with his observations however, and since kepler was his assistant, he inherited the observations) but there isn't a brahe law or paradox or anything like that as far as i know.
Just to clarify the historical events about Brahe and Kepler. Kepler didn't inherit the observations, he stole them (which turned out to be a good thing . ) because the sons of Brahe denied him access to the papers after Brahe's sudden death.

Tycho Brahe's life still fascinates
How Tycho Brahe Really Died

Now back to the original topic.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•