Established Member
Is the abandonment of the Lerner conference presentation topic imply that you agree that the presentation is fatally flawed since he does not include galaxy evolution and uses an unphysical toy model?Originally Posted by Don J
Dark Matter annihilations in Pop III stars is a nice little bit of theory that calculates an upper limit on the density of WIMPs (otherwise stars would be older than the age of the universe).
Established Member
His choices make his Tolman SB tests invalid and so this conference presentation is invalid. The conclusion (based on the premises) is wrong regardless of how stupid the premises are.
Established Member
Galaxy evolution explains why any competent astronomer would "tweak" the contemporary big-bang cosmology (which does not include stellar and galaxy evolution) prediction.
In 2001 Lori M. Lubin and Allan Sandage, using big-bang cosmology and galaxy evolution shows that the surface brightness is inversely proportional to the about the third power of (1+z) .
Read the abstract and the paper:
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
We review a sample of the early literature in which the reality of the expansion is discussed, explain Hubble's reticence to accept the expansion as real, and contrast the Tolman surface brightness test with three other modern tests. We search for the Tolman surface brightness depression with redshift using the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) data from Paper III for 34 early-type galaxies from the three clusters Cl 1324+3011 (z=0.76), Cl 1604+4304 (z=0.90), and Cl 1604+4321 (z=0.92). Depressions of the surface brightness relative to the zero-redshift fiducial lines in the mean surface brightness, log linear radius diagrams of Paper I are found for all three clusters. Expressed as the exponent, n, in 2.5 log (1 + z)^n mag, the value of n for all three clusters is n = 2.59 +/- 0.17 in the R band and 3.37 +/- 0.13 in the I band for a q_o = 1/2 model. The sensitivity of the result to the assumed value of q_o is shown to be less than 23% between q_o = 0 and +1. For a true Tolman signal with n = 4, the luminosity evolution in the look-back time, expressed as the exponent in 2.5 log (1+z)^(4-n) mag, must then be between 1.72 to 1.19 in the R band and 0.94 to 0.45 in the I band. We show that this is precisely the range expected from the evolutionary models of Bruzual & Charlot. We conclude that the Tolman surface brightness test is consistent with the reality of the expansion. We have also used the high-redshift HST data to test the ``tired light'' speculation for a non-expansion model for the redshift. The HST data rule out the ``tired light'' model at a significance level of better than 10 sigma.
Established Member
So young galaxies have a different surface brightness than current galaxies. If we just include the main sequence burn down then the magnitude (and so SB) changes by 2.5 log (1 + z) or about 2.1 for a z = 6 galaxy.
Established Member
Plasma Redshift Cosmology Fails by Tim Thompson
The math errors in the pre-print by ben m
This is also a "tired light" cosmology so Ned Wright's Errors in Tired Light Cosmology web page is applicable.
Established Member
That is most certainly a fallacy. His conclusion is completely contingent on the assumptions and his conclusion is that surface brightness data match his assumptions. That statement can be correct without the assumptions actually being correct. Your position is illogical.
Established Member
The logic is that Lerner states he is attempting the Tolman SB test. This test requires that the SB be calculated. If you ignore galaxy evolution then you will calculate the wrong SB. Thus Lerner's tests are invalid.
ETA: Noticed more stuff that makes this conference presentation bad - his references. They include his previous presentation and "Scarpa, R, Falamo R. and Lerner, E., 2009, in preparation" that I cannot find (it is not on Renato Falomo's publications page).
Administrator
No, that is it and you are done.
You are more than advocating ATM outside of ATM, you are advocating nonsense. This has been beaten to death.
TooMany, you get an infraction. I would normally close this thread, but others are talking about things, and I won't punish them. You WILL NOT post any longer in this thread. If you do, you will be infracted. If you have ANYTHING further to say about this or related topics, you will start your own thread, and I suggest you start it in ATM.
Established Member
Can you provide comparative data made from direct observation than a new born star lets say a Main Sequence Star like our Sun is more luminous because it is a new born star versus the actual luminosity of the Sun ?
I always though than the luminosity of a star was defined like this (see quote below): ...., .. not by their age =new born star more luminous.???
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/rel_stars.html
-For a given chemical composition and stellar age, a stars' luminosity, the total energy radiated by the star per unit time, depends only on its mass. Stars that are ten times more massive than the Sun are over a thousand times more luminous than the Sun. -
Order of Kilopi
What 'TooMany' said was completely correct, though.
No, that is it and you are done.
You are more than advocating ATM outside of ATM,
you are advocating nonsense. This has been beaten
to death.
TooMany, you get an infraction. I would normally
close this thread, but others are talking about things,
and I won't punish them. You WILL NOT post any longer
in this thread. If you do, you will be infracted. If you
have ANYTHING further to say about this or related topics,
you will start your own thread, and I suggest you start
it in ATM.
The changes to the data that 'Reality Check' thinks Lerner
should have made were not appropriate for the test Lerner
was conducting. They would ruin it. In that regard,
Reality Check's criticism of Lerner is wrong.
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/
"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"
"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves
Moderator
I knew I could count on you
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
New blog 31-05-2013: Aurora and the Earth's Magnetotial Part 2: From Birkeland to Cluster
Administrator
Don't argue moderation in thread or you will be infracted
Established Member
No, Reality Check is completely correct. Galaxies are observed to be very different at high redshift. Their colors are different, their spectra are different, their luminosities are different, their shapes are different. We know that galaxy stellar populations change with redshift: we can observe it in the spectra. Since galaxies are made of stars, we also know something about how they will evolve with time, as the stellar populations change (passive aging, new star formation, blue stragglers, etc.). Ignoring this fact, particularly when assuming that redshift and distance (and thus time) are correlated--as Lerner does--invalidates any comparison one makes between high-redshift galaxies and local galaxies.
It's particularly bad when someone makes a claim that Lambda-CDM cosmology makes some prediction about how galaxies should look at different redshifts, without incorporating the known behavior of galaxies.
Order of Kilopi
No it does not. Lerner compared what his theoryNo, Reality Check is completely correct. Galaxies are
observed to be very different at high redshift.
Their colors are different, their spectra are different,
their luminosities are different, their shapes are different.
We know that galaxy stellar populations change with
redshift: we can observe it in the spectra. Since galaxies
are made of stars, we also know something about how
they will evolve with time, as the stellar populations
change (passive aging, new star formation, blue stragglers,
etc.). Ignoring this fact, particularly when assuming that
redshift and distance (and thus time) are correlated--as
Lerner does--invalidates any comparison one makes
between high-redshift galaxies and local galaxies.
predicted to what is seen. You want him to compare
what his theory predicted to what your theory says is
actually there.
What 'TooMany' said was completely correct. That
particular objection of 'Reality Check' and yours is wrong.
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/
"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"
"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves
Order of Kilopi
Oh, come on. Lerner's conclusion is wrong. His premises are wrong. How much more wrong do you want? Would you fight for someone with a "theory" that the Sun revolves around the Earth because that is "what is seen" from our vantage here on the surface? There are plenty of findings about which one might have a valid and worthwhile argument. This isn't one of them.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Order of Kilopi
I'm not suggesting that Lerner's premises aren't wrong
or that his conclusion isn't wrong. I'm saying that the
criticism of his method in this thread is wrong, and that
what 'TooMany' said in post #126 was completely correct.
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/
"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"
"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves
Established Member
This was put in dispute by the same author which even seem to find a correlation whith the plasma redshift mechanism.
http://search.arxiv.org:8081/paper.j...ner+supernova+
Established Member
No, I'm not talking about theory, I'm talking about observations. I gave a list of things that we've directly observed about galaxies at different redshifts that need to be taken into account when comparing across redshifts. They have nothing to do with theory. "What is seen" in this case includes the fact that you can't directly compare galaxies at z=0 with galaxies at z=1.
Administrator
Ari Brynjolfsson isn't really a credible reference here. If you'd like to start a thread in ATM arguing in favor of the position in the paper you cited, please do so. This reference really doesn't belong in the mainstream part of this forum.
Forming opinions as we speak
Established Member
So I will let that aside.Do you have any reference to a rebuttal paper published or not about the intrinsic redshift of galaxies that he talks about I remember something similar was proposed by Halton Arp but cannot find a polite and enlighting rebuttal discussion about that.
For example:
That is the kind of sterile discussion I try to avoid
Ned Wright talk about the tired light hypothesis ....that is not the same think that the intrinsic redshift of galaxies proposed by the plasma redshift mechanism.
Administrator
Wow, we had a lot of ATM discussion about intrinsic redshift about 10 years ago here, but it hasn't really come up since.
The basic idea behind it wasn't so much the Plasma cosmology, but rather Halton Arp trying to make his case that quasars might not be as far away as we think, but rather they are spewed from the cores of active galactic nuclei, and are proto galaxies that look really small and have a high intrinsic redshift until the blossom into large full galaxies. (I'm paraphrasing). As far as I know, he gave no physics interpretation for how this could all happen, but rather left it to unknown science. In Arp's defense, let me say that he came to this conclusion when quasars were a very new discovery, and our instrumentation was much less capable... and I suspect he stuck to the position because it was interesting to him to see how long he could hold out against the other side.
I don't remember any specific summary papers where someone bothered to enumerate all of the observations that seem to conflict with Arp's idea... Once again, if you'd like to try to defend that idea in ATM, go ahead. I suspect you'll get the references you're looking for pretty promptly. To me, one of the biggest issues was that galaxies each have very close to the same redshift over many kiloparsecs, but most physical arguments for intrinsic redshift should be isolated to the central part, and have a lot of variation over the large expanse of a whole galaxy (again paraphrasing and summarizing without citation).
Forming opinions as we speak
Established Member
Thanks ,that is right Halton Arp quasars hypothesis have nothing to do with the plasma red-shift mechanism that the author propose.
No, that is about Ari Brynjolfsson proposal of -intrinsic redshift of galaxies- based on the -plasma red-shift mechanism- . That i am looking for a rebuttal paper published or not.
Eta
I see that you have discussed about that in 2005.
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....asma-Red-shift
On post 3 you wrote:
Interesting time we are living in, isn't it?
Last edited by Don J; 2012-May-17 at 08:50 PM. Reason: Interesting finding
Administrator
I believe these times are interesting, but don't see how this illustrates that, or what this has to do with your new tangent about Intrinsic Redshift of galaxies. My earlier hand-waving argument that trying to get a uniform plasma cosmology only redshift for an entire galaxy spanning 30 kpc being just unworkable still applies... and was a major reason that proponents seven years ago gave up the argument.
Forming opinions as we speak
Established Member
The change in SB of a galaxy as it ages is caused by the change in the stellar population and other factors. This is something that you can look up yourself.
However a quick Google gives this lecture: STELLAR POPULATIONS AND THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE
Established Member
Ari Brynjolfsson's plasma redshift is about the measured redshift of galaxies that give rise to Hubble's law and is explained by an expanding universe in standard cosmology. He tries to replace it by scattering from a hot plasma. So the light is "tired" by scattering. This has the same major problem as the tired light idea - see Ned Wright's Errors in Tired Light Cosmology:
Brynjolfsson's plasma redshift is nothing to do with any intrinsic redshift of galaxies.There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work.
Order of Kilopi
Right, and these are both fringe ideas that have long been debunked. What is your interest in these things, Don J? Perhaps you're writing a book on kook science?
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Established Member
Maybe you are not talking about the same Brynjolfsson's
quote from the abstrac
Here the abstract where the quote is locatedIt predicts intrinsic redshifts of galaxies consistent with what is observed.
http://search.arxiv.org:8081/paper.j...ner+supernova+
Established Member
Not really !
Established Member
Thanks for pointing your objection. I see that you mention in (post 17 old thread) something about SNAP satellite., why do you think at this time it was needed to settle the issue about Brynjolfsson plasma redshifht model ?
----"My biggest obstacles to his work have to do with
- the unprovalble physical process of the plasma red-shift [similar to CREIL]
- the dubious claims of the Type II Malmquist bias on time dilation of Type Ia Supernova light curves [I can hardly wait for SNAP to be launched and start producing results]."----
- his claim that plasma red-shift also causes the CMB [his math is pretty sparse there]
Administrator
I do not recall precisely what I was thinking then (Post-edit: but it had to do with getting more statistics and data), but many other programs including OGLE and the supernova factory have given us what SNAP promised and more.
Last edited by antoniseb; 2012-May-18 at 03:08 AM.
Forming opinions as we speak
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote