- Thank you received: 0
Tired light and supernovae
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
20 years 7 months ago #9804
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
Referring to Jansen's talk referenced above, it has appeared now in a web-accessible technical paper at
arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0404/0404207.pdf
This shows some supernova lightcurves and makes some of the same points I mentioned at the start of this thread.
It appears this will prove to be a serious blow to the Big Bang, for it is hard to see how a belief in expansion can survive this new analysis of the Supernova data. -|Tom|-
arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0404/0404207.pdf
This shows some supernova lightcurves and makes some of the same points I mentioned at the start of this thread.
It appears this will prove to be a serious blow to the Big Bang, for it is hard to see how a belief in expansion can survive this new analysis of the Supernova data. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 7 months ago #9805
by Thomas
Replied by Thomas on topic Reply from Thomas Smid
<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>
If photon 1 is emitted at the instant of maximum supernova brightness (t1), and photon 2 is emitted at the instant when the lightcurve falls to half-maximum brightness (t2), then the time interval (t2-t1) is set at the source (assumed to be a fixed distance away), and cannot change anywhere along the journey to Earth unless the speed of photon 2 is different than the speed of photon 1. And if nothing affects the brightness of the two photons differently, the lightcurve (brightness vs. time) will be perfectly preserved regardless of any changes in wavelength or frequency.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes, I realize now that with a constant compression factor, the relative decay of the lightcurve should stay the same. However, as you indicated yourself earlier in this thread, the compression (reduction in intensity) should be a necessary consequence of the redshift in a steady state universe, which means that, unless you take this effect into account, you underestimate the absolute brightness of the supernova and hence conclude that the lightcurve must have broadened (because for the apparent brightness you would expect a faster decay of the lightcurve).
It is however also possible that the speed of light does actually slightly depend on its intensity: as suggested by me, the redshift is caused by the electric 'micro'field due to the intergalactic plasma if the wavelength and/or coherence length is smaller than the average distance between the charged particles, and the same condition might also be associated with a variation of the speed of light i.e. weaker signals travel slower than stronger signals. This would then obviously lead to a stretching of any lightcurve at least for the decaying part (one should bear in mind that a delay of the lightcurve of one week corresponds only to about a fraction 10^-11 of the total travel time (1 billion years); this is less than the accuracy with which the speed of light is known and this effect does therefore not contradict conventional physics (which made its experiments anyway for completely different physical conditions for which the effect would be unlikely to occur).
By the way, I don't think that at this stage the new paper you quoted above can be taken as definitive proof for the non-existence of the broadening of supernova lightcurves, simply because the statistical errors of the data are too large.
The main problem for any steady-state theory is anyway to explain the redshift in the first place, and in this respect the paper does not give any answers. The Radiative Transfer effect it suggests holds only for objects like quasars and does not apply generally. In my opinion, the intergalactic plasma is the only candidate for the 'cosmological' redshift of galaxies (as suggested on my website www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/#A11 ).
www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk
If photon 1 is emitted at the instant of maximum supernova brightness (t1), and photon 2 is emitted at the instant when the lightcurve falls to half-maximum brightness (t2), then the time interval (t2-t1) is set at the source (assumed to be a fixed distance away), and cannot change anywhere along the journey to Earth unless the speed of photon 2 is different than the speed of photon 1. And if nothing affects the brightness of the two photons differently, the lightcurve (brightness vs. time) will be perfectly preserved regardless of any changes in wavelength or frequency.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes, I realize now that with a constant compression factor, the relative decay of the lightcurve should stay the same. However, as you indicated yourself earlier in this thread, the compression (reduction in intensity) should be a necessary consequence of the redshift in a steady state universe, which means that, unless you take this effect into account, you underestimate the absolute brightness of the supernova and hence conclude that the lightcurve must have broadened (because for the apparent brightness you would expect a faster decay of the lightcurve).
It is however also possible that the speed of light does actually slightly depend on its intensity: as suggested by me, the redshift is caused by the electric 'micro'field due to the intergalactic plasma if the wavelength and/or coherence length is smaller than the average distance between the charged particles, and the same condition might also be associated with a variation of the speed of light i.e. weaker signals travel slower than stronger signals. This would then obviously lead to a stretching of any lightcurve at least for the decaying part (one should bear in mind that a delay of the lightcurve of one week corresponds only to about a fraction 10^-11 of the total travel time (1 billion years); this is less than the accuracy with which the speed of light is known and this effect does therefore not contradict conventional physics (which made its experiments anyway for completely different physical conditions for which the effect would be unlikely to occur).
By the way, I don't think that at this stage the new paper you quoted above can be taken as definitive proof for the non-existence of the broadening of supernova lightcurves, simply because the statistical errors of the data are too large.
The main problem for any steady-state theory is anyway to explain the redshift in the first place, and in this respect the paper does not give any answers. The Radiative Transfer effect it suggests holds only for objects like quasars and does not apply generally. In my opinion, the intergalactic plasma is the only candidate for the 'cosmological' redshift of galaxies (as suggested on my website www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/#A11 ).
www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 7 months ago #9749
by EBTX
Replied by EBTX on topic Reply from
arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0404/0404207.pdf
This ^ is what I dislike about scientists in general ... their reliance on PDF files on the internet. They are huge (often hundreds of times larger than a txt file with the same info. IE often chokes on them and they simply aren't needed on the net.
If a scientist doesn't know how to make an alternate .txt or .html file and load it onto a server, I have serious doubts about his abilities in all other areas. Or, possibly they don't want their views widely disseminated??
After 5 minutes of waiting, I gave up on this turkey ;o)
This ^ is what I dislike about scientists in general ... their reliance on PDF files on the internet. They are huge (often hundreds of times larger than a txt file with the same info. IE often chokes on them and they simply aren't needed on the net.
If a scientist doesn't know how to make an alternate .txt or .html file and load it onto a server, I have serious doubts about his abilities in all other areas. Or, possibly they don't want their views widely disseminated??
After 5 minutes of waiting, I gave up on this turkey ;o)
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 7 months ago #10107
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 EBTX</i>
<br />This ^ is what I dislike about scientists in general ... their reliance on PDF files on the internet. They are huge (often hundreds of times larger than a txt file with the same info. IE often chokes on them and they simply aren't needed on the net.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm no fan of PDF files, and don't use them myself. But a large fraction of the academic world does.
The file in question is about 1.2 MB, which may allow you to estimate a download time. It is that big because it is loaded with many nice color graphics and some elaborate equations, and it cites many references. These cannot be reduced to text messages, and HTML is clutsy and non standardized. So most of the world used MS Word or Adobe PDF.
Hopefully, there will soon be a convergence of standards. -|Tom|-
<br />This ^ is what I dislike about scientists in general ... their reliance on PDF files on the internet. They are huge (often hundreds of times larger than a txt file with the same info. IE often chokes on them and they simply aren't needed on the net.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm no fan of PDF files, and don't use them myself. But a large fraction of the academic world does.
The file in question is about 1.2 MB, which may allow you to estimate a download time. It is that big because it is loaded with many nice color graphics and some elaborate equations, and it cites many references. These cannot be reduced to text messages, and HTML is clutsy and non standardized. So most of the world used MS Word or Adobe PDF.
Hopefully, there will soon be a convergence of standards. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 7 months ago #9987
by Jan
Replied by Jan on topic Reply from Jan Vink
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br /> arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0404/0404207.pdf
This ^ is what I dislike about scientists in general ... their reliance on PDF files on the internet. They are huge (often hundreds of times larger than a txt file with the same info. IE often chokes on them and they simply aren't needed on the net.
If a scientist doesn't know how to make an alternate .txt or .html file and load it onto a server, I have serious doubts about his abilities in all other areas. Or, possibly they don't want their views widely disseminated??
After 5 minutes of waiting, I gave up on this turkey ;o)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The reason why PDF is so popular is that the typesetting is as indented when people receive your document. If you use a text processor, such as Word, there is a considerable chance that the layout (margins, font ect) may alter due to version differences and other application settings. Furthermore, and this is quite important, if you wish to print the document, you will have to install Word and cannot send it straight to a printer: PDF is a means to platform independent publishing. People using Intel, Apple, Sun, HP, Linux, or what have you, can use the free PDF reader to get a beautifully typeset document. Of course, PDF files can be large sometimes, but you will receive the document as intended. Now, this should count for something, shouldn't it?
Don't judge scientists too hard on their PDF documents. They just want you to get a proper document.
Jan
<br /> arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0404/0404207.pdf
This ^ is what I dislike about scientists in general ... their reliance on PDF files on the internet. They are huge (often hundreds of times larger than a txt file with the same info. IE often chokes on them and they simply aren't needed on the net.
If a scientist doesn't know how to make an alternate .txt or .html file and load it onto a server, I have serious doubts about his abilities in all other areas. Or, possibly they don't want their views widely disseminated??
After 5 minutes of waiting, I gave up on this turkey ;o)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The reason why PDF is so popular is that the typesetting is as indented when people receive your document. If you use a text processor, such as Word, there is a considerable chance that the layout (margins, font ect) may alter due to version differences and other application settings. Furthermore, and this is quite important, if you wish to print the document, you will have to install Word and cannot send it straight to a printer: PDF is a means to platform independent publishing. People using Intel, Apple, Sun, HP, Linux, or what have you, can use the free PDF reader to get a beautifully typeset document. Of course, PDF files can be large sometimes, but you will receive the document as intended. Now, this should count for something, shouldn't it?
Don't judge scientists too hard on their PDF documents. They just want you to get a proper document.
Jan
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 7 months ago #9753
by Thomas
Replied by Thomas on topic Reply from Thomas Smid
<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>
Of course, if the SN have no doppler red shift, then the big bang is in big trouble<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The answer to the question whether the Big-Bang theory is correct or not shouldn't really depend on observational results as the concept as such is logically inconsistent and not acceptable as a physical theory (see my page www.physicsmyths.org.uk/cosmology.htm ). Data such as supernova lightcurves could only help to work out the actual cause for the 'cosmological' redshift, but as indicated above, data of much better quality would be required here (it is in my opinion outrageous what sort of poor quality data are relased into publication by physicists in general and cosmologists in particular; I can only assume that the motivation behind this is the race to be the first to discover a certain effect and the associated fame and other material advantages; it goes without saying that any scientific and ethical principles go out of the window then; in this sense, I think that awards like the Nobel Prize only have an adverse effect and hinder science more than advance it).
www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk
Of course, if the SN have no doppler red shift, then the big bang is in big trouble<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The answer to the question whether the Big-Bang theory is correct or not shouldn't really depend on observational results as the concept as such is logically inconsistent and not acceptable as a physical theory (see my page www.physicsmyths.org.uk/cosmology.htm ). Data such as supernova lightcurves could only help to work out the actual cause for the 'cosmological' redshift, but as indicated above, data of much better quality would be required here (it is in my opinion outrageous what sort of poor quality data are relased into publication by physicists in general and cosmologists in particular; I can only assume that the motivation behind this is the race to be the first to discover a certain effect and the associated fame and other material advantages; it goes without saying that any scientific and ethical principles go out of the window then; in this sense, I think that awards like the Nobel Prize only have an adverse effect and hinder science more than advance it).
www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.387 seconds