#262 Requesting feedback on new ACG page - Re tired-light
Hi everyone,
I’m requesting feedback on an addition to the ACG website https://github.com/a-cosmology-group/acg/pull/261.
The addition is a page, Errors in “Errors in Tired Light Cosmology” https://github.com/a-cosmology-group/acg/blob/add-errors-page/redshift/rebut/errorswright.md to challenge this blog post, https://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm, unfortunately highly ranked on Google and highly cited on Wikipedia and causing the miseducation of many professional and aspiring astrophysicists.
People search for “tired light” and immediately get the big bang propaganda. Something better has to outrank it.
1❤️ 1
Big Bang cosmologists “never get around to …” studying tired-light properly because the strawman model they use
From these incorrect assumptions their logic can only fail, and they dismiss T-L without further consideration.
@sahil5d I fully agree with an addition to the ACG website of a page debunking Ned Wright’s blog “Errors in Tired Light Cosmology”, and I wish to support your effort. As you noted, Google searches often fall on his website. The ‘popularity’ of his site is perhaps because it is the one who gives the most comprehensive list of challenges (he lists four) involved in using tired-light cosmology, so I think we have to give him credit for that. (This is why I refer to his website on my cosmology calculator.) When the page is published online, I will try to use Google Webmaster Tools to improve its position on Google searches.
But before posting the page there is a lot of work to do, your draft also contains errors :open_mouth: and some arguments are incomplete.
As a first iteration I suggest:
Sounds good. Also Eric, @HanDeBruijn, and other members of ACG with personal physics websites could link to it.
What are the errors? Could you edit the file and make a new commit?
What parts are incomplete? My opinion is this post should be brief, almost like a thread of tweets and not a dense research paper proving tired light. And for that brevity, better than titled sections, the format should be line-by-line responses.
Also if you plan to write about your Spectral-Transfer-CMB mechanism to correct my comments on the CMB, I recommend keeping it as short as possible without going into QED, because that’s not for this audience. The audience for this post is someone who wants to know whether tired light is plausible within 30 seconds of googling it.
Okay, I’ll bite. There already is a section on my personal physics websites about Tired-Light. It will make me happy if this broken link could be repaired in the first place. Other suggestions for improvement are welcome too. But as you probably know, I have the Variable Mass Theory as my personal preference. So further advertizing for TL will be limited as far as I am concerned.
Thirty seconds of googling ?! Homo zappiens shall reap the harvest they deserve: ignorance.
@HanDeBruijn reading your website, why do you think “Larger Intrinsic redshift corresponds with younger matter” is better than “Larger TiredLight redshift corresponds with older photons”?
Why do you think the galaxies very far away all have “younger matter”? JWST saw a galaxy at z=14 with emission lines of oxygen. Think of all the steps and all the time it takes for a galaxy to get to oxygen! JWST (and even HST) saw galaxies at various stages of development, young and old.
Well, they will catalyze this scientific revolution. ACG just has to make the facts accessible. It’s more likely that [Homo zappiens will understand tired light and demand big bang cosmologists resign] than [Homo zappiens not understand tired light and big bang cosmologists voluntarily resign]. There are millions of astro and general science enthusiasts online everyday.
Did you see this? https://youtu.be/yeUtzZuMEB8?si=5kgbr-ksTduWZ3hv&t=3458. “So I want to say about tired light.. you guys had actually mentioned that in the pre-interview.. and I had wanted to read more and never got around to it but much smarter people than I am have spent time actually working on this and debunking this and one interesting example that I did see when I was skimming some stuff about this is time dilation so…” He probably stumbled upon the “Errors in Tired Light Cosmology” blog post. How much time did he spend reading it? And this wasn’t an average astro enthusiast. This was a PhD.
@sahil5d
Where did I say that VM is “better” than TL? I thought that both theories have been given a fair chance.
Are the electrons and protons in oxygen younger than the electrons and protons in hydrogen?
There is NO real substitute for hard work.
Four messages above you wrote, “I have the Variable Mass Theory as my personal preference. So further advertizing for TL will be limited as far as I am concerned.”
In the same galaxy, no. What is your point?
This is hard work. It’s not easy to create a page that outranks Dr. Wright’s wrong claims. And this is hard work that has a shot at succeeding. Hard work like trying to get through peer review when the peers are big bang cosmologists is hard work to a dead end.
@sahil5d . >Hard work like trying to get through peer review when the peers are big bang cosmologists is hard work to a dead end.
Publishing in a peer reviewed journal makes me think of Raiders of the Lost Ark , the ending: [ .. ] moved to an undisclosed location for “top men” to study. In a vast warehouse [i.e. a library] , the Ark [i.e. your article] is crated up and stored among countless other crates [i.e. journal volumes].
@HanDeBruijn
Why do you think “Larger Intrinsic redshift corresponds with younger matter” is better than “Larger TiredLight redshift corresponds with older photons”? Why do you think the galaxies very far away all have “younger matter”? JWST saw a galaxy at z=14 with emission lines of oxygen. Such a galaxy is not young.
@sahil5d . >Why do you think “Larger Intrinsic redshift corresponds with younger matter” is better than “Larger TiredLight redshift corresponds with older photons”? Why do you think the galaxies very far away all have “younger matter”? JWST saw a galaxy at z=14 with emission lines of oxygen. Such a galaxy is not young.
There is a general formula for energy levels $E$ in all atoms and molecules (inluding e.g. oxygen). It is
$$ E = mc^2 \times (\mbox{dimensionless function of quantum numbers}) $$
where $m=$ electron (rest) mass (combined with proton mass eventually), $c=$ speed of light in vacuum. Examples are the theoretical energy levels for classical and (special) relativistic hydrogen, respectively:
$$ E = m c^2\frac{\alpha^2}{2}\frac{1}{n^2} \quad ; \quad E = m c^2 \left[\left(1 + \frac{\alpha^2}{\left[ \sqrt{(j+\frac{1}{2})^2 - \alpha^2 } + n \right]^2 }\right)^{-1/2}-1\right] $$
where $\alpha=$ fine structure constant and $n,j=$ quantum numbers.
According to the Variable Mass Theory (VM) cosmic redshift is explained by assuming that very far away [ .. ] younger matter is less heavy than the old matter which is here and now (= subscript 0).
$$ 1+z = \frac{\lambda}{\lambda_0} = \frac{h\nu_0}{h\nu} = \frac{E_0-E’_0}{E-E’} = \frac{m_0}{m} \gt 1 $$
where $z=$ redshift, $\lambda=$ wavelength of emitted radiation, $h=$ Planck’s constant, $E=$ energy level, $\nu=$ frequency.
I find this explanation “better” than the TiredLight one because of Occam’s razor: it is simple and effective. The mean difference between VariableMass and TiredLight is that radiation with VM is redshifted at the source and not along the way.
The second of an atomic clock is inversely proportional to the frequency of emitted radiation of certain atoms. In this way the Variable Mass Theory automatically takes care of Time Dilated Past as observed in supernovae and quasars. According to the above, we have for (infinitesimal) periods $dt$ of an atomic clock:
$$ \frac{dt}{dt_0} = \frac{h\nu_0}{h\nu} = \frac{m_0}{m} \gt 1 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad dt \gt dt_0 $$
Can the above serve as an answer for at least part of your question?
Thanks for your answer.
I strongly disagree that Occam’s razor is in favor of VM. Weighing [TL light loses energy along the way] versus [VM hydrogen atoms increase in mass over time, all the galaxies far away are very low mass, the Milky Way has been increasing in mass over many billions of years, the Sun has been increasing in mass over many billions of years, and light loses no energy traversing intergalactic space], the latter is way way more extravagant.
Your hypothesis of VM means chaos for a model of the solar system.
The main motivator for your hypothesis appears to be the need to explain “time dilation of supernovae and quasars”. What if those studies are wrong? What if Crawford is right? Or if you take Louis’s view that it’s 50-50, then what if there’s a 50% chance Crawford is right? Also, there are studies that show no time dilation in GRB. Assign those studies a likelihood of being correct. Meanwhile, what do we know for sure?: big bang cosmologists’ data analysis skills have led to insane conclusions like faster-than-light inflation, two-free-parameter-per-galaxy-invisible-blob dark matter, and wide-errors-bars-misread-as-signal dark energy. What else do we know for sure?: big bang cosmologists’ public behavior since the first JWST images in July 2022 after total failure of their predictions, hindering and antagonizing hypotheses that challenge big bang theory, has been appalling and nothing short of academic crime, and their internal political pressures oppose the publishing of any paper that gives even the slightest idea that the expanding space hypothesis is wrong. So, as to “time dilation of supernovae and quasars”, what is the likelihood those studies have no errors?
@sahil5d .
Systematically ordering your objections:
The issue with such qualitative arguments is that they sound quite alarming, at first sight. But what if they are made quantitative? What then are we talking about? Formally:
$$ \Large \frac{m}{m_0} = e^{H_0.t} $$
where $m=$ mass, $0=$ here and now, $H=$ Hubble parameter, $t=$ atomic time relative to (0).
It is up to you to prove this, given the extremely slow exponential increase of the VM as shown in the formula. And by the way, I’ve shown you only the first half of my theory - I mean at this place - which is not about gravity.
Main motivator? Not at all! The Time Dilated Past thread has been initiated by @mikehelland, not by me. Admittedly I found it interesting, because it seems to be confirmative for (my version of) the VM theory.
I disagree. You have to prove how a solar system that supposedly 1.4 x’s its mass during 4.6 billion years (e^(4.6 / 13.8)) arrives at stable, delicate planetary orbits.
Also, the Sun loses about 10^17 kg per year. According to your model, the Sun gains about 10^20 kg per year. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=mass+of+sun+*+%28e%5E%281%2F13.8+billion%29+-+1%29 No way that’s real.
@sahil5d . >You have to prove how a solar system that supposedly 1.4 x’s its mass during 4.6 billion years (e^(4.6 / 13.8)) arrives at stable, delicate planetary orbits.
I don’t think I have to prove it. We are talking about a truly big timespan. Most probably the planetary orbits haven’t been so stable and delicate as suggested.
Yes, so the net gain is about 10^3 kg per year. Maybe that keeps the sun more stable than suggested.As another example, take the distance between the earth and the moon. The light that we use for measuring that distance shows a blueshift over a forward period of a year. Agreed? And thus the variable mass causes an expansion of the empty space between the moon and the earth, at least as is observed with the measuring equipment at hand.
There is a Lunar distance page on the internet. There it is stated that the lunar orbit is gradually expanding. The rate of recession is $3.830\pm 0.008$ cm per year. According to Wikipedia the expansion is caused entirely by Tidal dissipation. I don’t think that explanation is conclusive.
You should have some proof if your hypothesis implies that the Sun’s mass has increased to 1.4x and somehow planetary orbits continued for 4.6 Gy and somehow the T^2 ~ R^3 relation stands today.
10^20 - 10^17 is not 10^3.
There’s no blueshift. If anything there would be a redshift. But fyi the Moon’s radial velocity is known not by Doppler shift but by time of flight change over years.
Why do you say the VM hypothesis means that the Earth-Moon distance increases? Your hypothesis implies the Earth’s mass increases, so that should increase the force of gravity and reduce the orbit radius.
There is another problem with VM’s “radiation is redshifted at the source and not along the way”. As you claim that mass everywhere is continuously increasing, then so should the hf/c^2 of a photon. So a photon in flight should be increasing its hf/c^2, and thus its frequency! So a photon even though “VM redshifted” at the source, would be “VM hf/c^2 boosted” during travel, and thus arrive with no detectable redshift, contradicting observation.
Means the same thing.
Momentum is a vector.
Does the photon lose energy by interacting with something moving in exactly the opposite direction?
In LCDM, from z=1100, CMB photons were emitted from ~12 Mpc away.
There’s a tonal difference. ‘invoke’ isn’t really for science, and the way it’s used by the author appears like choice of associating a mystic-related word with tired light. Somebody needs to point that out about the author. Also, ‘invoke’ is typically for references to prior ideas, whereas ‘hypothesize’ is for new ideas.
Sorry I should correct that sentence. That phrase isn’t false but rather silly, because E=pc, so why even bring up “degrade a photon’s energy without also changing its momentum”? That isn’t even a possibility. The relevant thing is whether the momentum value can decrease while direction stay the same.
Also, I had updated the post before your feedback, so please refer to the latest version.
According to what? I’m talking about LCDM’s claim that the CMB traveled > 10 Gly to the Milky Way.
A stronger response would be that the standard model of cosmology invokes expanding space, an inflation period, dark energy, and dark matter.
We observe a redshift-distance relationship.
That would only be the case, if I’m not mistaken, only if whatever the photon was interacting with happened to moving in the exact opposite direction.
The alleged size of the universe at the time that CMB photons would have been emitted, was about ~1100 times smaller than it is today. So the closer you get back to the big bang singularity, the closer everything gets to each other.
That’s a perfect use of ‘invoke’.
I would like to keep the focus on tired light only at the beginning of the post, so I’m thinking.. where else could that be added.
Why would that be required? There are redshifts without that condition like gravitational redshift and magnetic redshift. And there is a momentum-downshift phenomenon for particles without that condition, like that associated with Lenz’s law.
Is that the LCDM ~ 45 Gly / 1100? But take a survey of big bang cosmologists’ papers on the CMB.. they write that CMB photons were emitted either ~ 14 Gly or ~ 45 Gly away. I think they’ll understand when we criticize them for the idea that the CMB photons were emitted > 10 Gly away.
Conservation of momentum applies not just in magnitude, but direction as well.
What happens when a ball traveling north to south collides with a ball traveling east to west?
They would be wrong, but I doubt you’ll find actual papers that say.
~14 Gly is the light travel time distance, which is c times the amount of time it’s traveled. (Middle) ~45 Gly is the comoving distance, where the light source has moved to due to expansion (Bottom)
The distance light is emitted from is the angular diameter distance. (Top)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvRsXYHW2RU&t=9s
There are other possibilities. The interactingthing might not need to be moving in the exact opposite direction, and maybe the energy the photon lost in redshift comes out as another photon also moving forward. Or maybe it’s the 2 photon-1 electron interaction Louis explained. Momentum conservation is possible with tired light.
Big bang cosmologists also say that the CMB was emitted behind the galaxies seen by JWST, and they affirm > 10 Gly distances to those galaxies.
Here’s a possibility for a format, a “panel” or “roundtable” type document. Made from different replies here. (Hopefully more to come.)
There are 4 points:
It could be formatted like this:
LM: Louis’ response SG: Sahil’s response HDB: Han’s response
etc.
There isn’t one tired light model, and that should be made clear in the response.
I agree with this. We can’t just say TL is a complete model like the BB and then try to compare them. From the start there is a big gap between TL models which attribute TL to a classical interaction of light with matter and those that ascribe a deeper role to TL in explaining physics generally. An example of the former is the original TL model of Zwicky, where the photon energy loss was due to a gravitational drag of matter on light. The model of @RedshiftDrift would also be in this category. Toivo Jaakkola was one who advocated for a ‘deeper physics’ approach to TL.
I consider my shell model to be a TL model, even though the Hubble redshift in that model is a gravitational redshift. Though not in my recent paper, I argue that the gravitational redshift is a TL effect. It is the energy lost from photons as they pull away from masses which eventually pushes masses together in gravity.
So, if I was to format this, I would say for my model:
Blurring - does not occur because gravitational redshift does not cause scattering, only refraction
Time dilation in SN - is due to the gravitational redshift induced by the shell, i.e., the Hubble redshift
CMB blackbody spectrum - is created by the CMB being enclosed and processed within the shell, as decribed in my recent paper
Tolman test - the Big bang model predicts the surface brightness diminishes as (1+z)^-4, while a ‘typical’ TL model has it as (1+z)^-1. The actual observations put the negative exponent at close to 2. This fits my model, as there is an extra factor of (1+z)^-1 due to the gravitational redshift. As far as I’m aware, my model is the only one which predicts this correctly.
@ExpEarth >CMB blackbody spectrum - is created by the CMB being enclosed and processed within the shell, as decribed in my recent paper
From that recent paper: >this would create a spatial pattern in CMB temperature ($T_{CMB}$) similar to the one observed. [ .. ] In this model, the CMB near the shell will be shown to have $T_{CMB}$~29 K [ .. ] The outermost zone near the shell is estimated below to have $T_{CMB}$~29 K
Etcetera. A question that keeps ringing in my ears: Has that CMB temperature of ~29 K ever been measured ? The only $T_{CMB}$ I know of is 2.73 K !!
No, the 29 K value is just a prediction based on several lines of reasoning. The highest redshift at which the CMB temperature has been estimated is z = 6.34, using an absorption line in the water molecule. They found a temperature in the range 16.4–30.2 K ( a wide range!). In the shell model, it is important to note that both redshift and CMB temperature will rise to maximum values. In fact, within the shell (which is very thick), there is no redshift at all, as seen from another point in the shell (see Fig. 1 below, at position 3). There is even a blueshift in light hitting the shell from the other side.
Hi Matt, is your hypothetical H-rich shell collapsing? It’s spherical. Does it accelerate to the sphere center?
Also, I share Lerner’s criticism about [CMB temp increasing with distance]. The idea is
Here is an example of big bang cosmologists making that error. https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2011/02/aa16140-10/aa16140-10.html#:~:text=Assuming%20the%20CMB%20is%20the%20only%20source%20of%20excitation “Assuming the CMB is the only source of excitation, Songaila et al. (1994) measured T_CMB” “assumed the CMB to be the only source of excitation to provide stringent upper-limits on T_CMB”
Hi Sahil,
No, the shell is not collapsing! There are two reasons for this, which may be related. Firstly, the effect of the Ni relativistic solutions in spherical mass distributions is to push them into shell configurations. From the general relativity side, there is nothing more to add: it’s just stable. But there is a quantum side to it. My model also relies on the Hubble luminosity and it is the Hubble luminosity of the entire universe which radiates outwardly against the shell. The radiation actually rebuilds the CMB. In my paper, the outward forces of this higher-energy CMB radiation perfectly balance the inward forces of gravity on the shell. I see the quantum side and the GR side as two expressions of the same basic thing.
The temperature measurements of the CMB at high redshifts are not directly related to temperatures of interstellar space in galaxies, but there could indeed be other sources of radiation involved. Some of the studies involve excitation of gas molecules in large clouds. These clouds would have their own sources, including the Hubble luminosity. So I would not entirely disagree that there could be factors contaminating the results. Each study would have to be examined closely to find the problems, if any. I spent a lot of time trying to break it down, as I had the same intuition as you and others here, that they must be wrong. I couldn’t find the error, but there could still be some there. If someone can pinpoint the errors in these studies, that would make an important finding on its own, worth publishing.
While recognizing the possibility of systematic errors in the BB analyses, I realized first that it is unlikely that so many errors could be made in different kinds of studies all having the same general effect on the results. While the BB model has elements of a grand conspiracy theory, many of the people doing the research are just ordinary scientists, with no particular axe to grind. But what really changed my mind on all this was the recognition that the higher CMB temperatures at high redshifts actually made sense in my own model, which involves recycling of the CMB and processing of the CMB by the outer shell. This gives a cosmic CMB cycle generating gravity and a cosmological constant in my eggshell model.
Assuming the Ni solution, shouldn’t the inside of the shell be empty?
Also, is your hypothetical 29K shell emitting a blackbody spectrum? If so, how do you explain the received 2.7K blackbody spectrum? A redshifted blackbody spectrum will not be a blackbody spectrum.
Could you clarify your idea of that luminosity? Is it the hypothetical 29K CMB? I thought your model has that radiating inward.
The error is big bang cosmologists’ assumption that the “CMB is the only source of excitation”. https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2011/02/aa16140-10/aa16140-10.html#:~:text=Assuming%20the%20CMB%20is%20the%20only%20source%20of%20excitation
As unlikely as thousands of academics believing in LCDM? Any estimation of likelihood of errors should include as a prior the fact of the enormity of the errors today.
That depends. According to Planck’s law (Wikipedia) the spectral radiance of a body for frequency $\nu$ at absolute temperature $\Theta$ is given by
$$ B(\nu,\Theta) = \frac{2h\nu^3}{c^2}\frac{1}{\exp\left(\frac{h\nu}{k_B.\Theta}\right)-1} $$
where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, $h$ is the Planck constant, and $c$ is the speed of light in vacuum. In standard cosmology the CMB temperature is redshifted from $\Theta$ to its observed value $\Theta_0=2.725 \pm 0.002\mbox{ }K$ according to
$$ \Theta(z) = \Theta_0(1+z) $$
The definition of redshift is an increase from $\lambda=$ wavelength at the source to $\lambda_0=$ observed value
$$ z = \frac{\lambda_\mbox{obs}-\lambda_\mbox{emit}}{\lambda_\mbox{emit}} \quad \Longrightarrow \quad 1+z = \frac{\lambda_\mbox{obs}}{\lambda_\mbox{emit}} \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \lambda_0=\lambda(1+z) $$
The frequency of the (blackbody) radiation is inversely proportional to wavelength and thus redshifted according to
$$ \nu = \nu_0(1+z) \quad \mbox{because} \quad \lambda = c/\nu $$
Therefore the argument of the exponential function in the blackbody radiation is redshifted according to
$$ \frac{h\nu}{k_B\Theta} = \frac{h\nu_0(1+z)}{k_B\Theta_0(1+z)} = \frac{h\nu_0}{k_B\Theta_0} $$
Simply meaning that the shape of the blackbody spectral radiance remains the same. There is no redshift noticed in there. The only thing that happens is scaling:
$$ B(\nu_0,\Theta_0) = \frac{2h\nu_0^3}{c^2}\frac{1}{\exp\left(\frac{h\nu}{k_B.\Theta}\right)-1} = (1+z)^{-3}B(\nu,\Theta) $$
Is the Shell model by @ExpEarth analogous to standard cosmology according to some $\Theta(z) = \Theta_0(1+z)$ ? That’s the question.
Hi Sahil,
Assuming the Ni solution, shouldn't the inside of the shell be empty?The inner region is just a relative void compared to the shell region. At the centre, though, we have the KBC Void, in which the Milky Way lies. That most inner region should be the emptiest of matter in my model.
Also, is your hypothetical 29K shell emitting a blackbody spectrum? If so, how do you explain the received 2.7K blackbody spectrum? A redshifted blackbody spectrum will not be a blackbody spectrum.The shell radiation originates as blackbody radiation. To see how it stays blackbody, you would need to read sections 3 and 4 of my paper. Basically, it requires a specific model of spacetime, in which spacetime is photonic. This is all part of my CMB gravity model too. The the energy of inwardly moving photons is absorbed by spacetime, due to the gravitational (Hubble) redshift. The CMB waves decrease in photon number and photon energy, as energy is redistributed with spacetime photons.
Could you clarify your idea of that luminosity? Is it the hypothetical 29K CMB? I thought your model has that radiating inward.Again, you have to see the whole cycle to understand what is happening. The Hubble luminosity is just the reverse process of what I described just above, with energy in spacetime filaments reenergizing CMB photons. Inside masses, the Hubble luminosity heats them up. The blue shifted CMB photons go back to the shell and heat it up again, so that the shell stays at 29 K. Radiation moving inward from the shell starts a new cycle.
As unlikely as thousands of academics believing in LCDM? Any estimation of likelihood of errors should include as a prior the fact of the enormity of the errors today.My view has changed a lot. Before I also would have been tempted to write off every result claimed to support the BB model. But even though most cosmologists and astrophysicists trust the Big Bang, that does not necessarily mean their results are all biased in favour of it. There is good science in there and our hard task is to separate out the good from the bad.
Considering your message above, it still seems to me that the 29K H-rich shell hypothesis has discrepant explanations. For example, you said we’re inside a black hole, then said this black hole isn’t empty but rather relatively empty. Also your hypothesis required a decrease in CMB photon count, and your explanation is that the photon count decreases just so.
There are other conflicts with your hypothesis. There are Milky Way-like spiral galaxies at the farthest distances. There are also galaxies with their stars burned out, like galaxy XMM-2599. These are not younger galaxies.
It’s not necessarily. That’s why I’m providing exact quotes of the bias.
“Assuming the CMB is the only source of excitation, Songaila et al. (1994) measured T_CMB” “assumed the CMB to be the only source of excitation to provide stringent upper-limits on T_CMB” https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2011/02/aa16140-10/aa16140-10.html#:~:text=Assuming%20the%20CMB%20is%20the%20only%20source%20of%20excitation
Will you please allow ACG to move forward with the draft as it is written here, https://github.com/a-cosmology-group/acg/blob/add-errors-page/redshift/rebut/errorswright.md?
@sahil5d . >Will you please allow ACG to move forward with the draft as it is written here?
As if ACG only consists of those who firmly believe that the Cosmos is a Giant Laser Game. Who says that the majority of us is interested in defending Tired-Light as THE Alternative?
Do you really think that A Cosmology Group like this can teach Standard Cosmology a lesson? With people like ours? Have we ever learned to collaborate then? Do we really form a GROUP?
@sahil5d
There are sure to be many points to work out in my model. I don’t think you have identified significant discrepancies, however. You can’t just compare my model to existing black hole models. It’s totally new. It’s not even a black hole as usually defined, as there is an internal energy source, the Hubble luminosity. There is thus no singularity. The gravastar model would be closer.
"Assuming the CMB is the only source of excitation, Songaila et al. (1994) measured T_CMB" "assumed the CMB to be the only source of excitation to provide stringent upper-limits on T_CMB"I would say this not an example of bias, but actually a fair scientific argument. It is common to make certain assumptions in studies. It is okay, as long as they are clearly identified and seem reasonable. Almost all cosmologists would say this is a reasonable assumption. You would need to do the hard work to show it is not.
On your tired light page, I feel the answers lie in a different direction. I think tired light is right, but only if we suppose the gravitational redshift is a tired light process. I think I am the only one saying that, so it might not fit in your general defense of TL.
Han, this is still unanswered https://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/262#discussioncomment-10538092.
Matt, I think your hypothesis conflicts with the distant, developed galaxies already observed. Your hypothesis also posits a supersupersupermassive H-shell surrounding everything, and that is, well, unreasonable to the point of fantasy. And I think you’re mistaken in calling a patent example of a conclusion assumed in a premise a “fair scientific argument”. Louis also pointed the problem in this paper, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1697/1/012013/pdf, in the caption of Figure 1.
Great
I don’t mind having gravitational redshift as a possible explanation. The page doesn’t say anything against gravitational redshift.
@sahil5d
Matt, I think your hypothesis conflicts with the distant, developed galaxies already observed.No, the distant regions are extremely old, just not as old as the nearby ones. New matter can be added to the shell from outside, causing the radius to increase slowly. This new matter could have a younger appearance.
Your hypothesis also posits a supersupersupermassive H-shell surrounding everything, and that is, well, unreasonable to the point of fantasy.Make sure you are reading my newer, published paper, in #256 , not the older one in #204 . In the old one I did posit a shell which surrounds everything, but in the new one the shell is extremely thick. It includes most of the observable galaxies and gas in the universe. There is much evidence that there is such a massive shell. See the papers by Colgain and others. There is so much mass in the remote regions in fact that it vexes the dark energy hypothesis in the LCDM model.
Louis also pointed the problem in this paper, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1697/1/012013/pdf, in the caption of Figure 1.Louis made the same general argument that you did (and I did previously), that the assumptions used in the Big Bang contaminate results such as these. I counter that you really need to go at it more vigorously to prove the errors. No one has done this yet, as far as I am aware.
@sahil5d .
Honestly Sahil, I don’t know what the question is.
I find Figure 2 far more disturbing. It would undermine my whole theory about the CMB, if it is real.
Galaxy XMM-2599 does not have a younger appearance.
I wondered what your paper would say for what happens to the energy the thick shell radiates into “Exterior space”. If that were occurring, the shell would cool and eventually disappear. And then I found it, “It is assumed that the CMB does not substantially leak out to an exterior space”. Another special mechanism!!
You say that it’s ok to make assumptions. Is it ok to assume the whole conclusion (“CMB temp increases with distance”) in the premise (“CMB temp increases with distance”)?
I wondered what your paper would say for what happens to the energy the thick shell radiates into "Exterior space". If that were occurring, the shell would cool and eventually disappear. And then I found it, "It is assumed that the CMB does not substantially leak out to an exterior space". Another special mechanism!!No, it’s not special! Remember, this is a black hole universe. In general, radiation cannot escape to the exterior space. But we already know in supermassive black holes that it seems to escape, in jets. We don’t jet know why this happens. I’m just allowing for some escape of radiation, while keeping the notion of a black hole. It is the fact that it can’t escape which sets up the CMB gravity cycle.
You say that it's ok to make assumptions. Is it ok to assume the whole conclusion ("CMB temp increases with distance") in the premise ("CMB temp increases with distance")?That would be poor form. I’m assuming the increase with distance is correct, based on the CMB studies we talked about.
@sahil5d .
Is that true? Quite curious about your thoughts. Would you please answer this question and do me a favor in return?
I don’t think it does.
I think the CMB-emitter might be within the local supercluster, occupying the volume within 50 Mly. The CMB power/area is similar to the power/area of the Milky Way as well as neighboring galaxies.
CMB ~ 3 microWatts / m^2 https://wolframalpha.com/input?i=stefan+boltzmann+constant+*+%282.7+K%29%5E4
Milky Way ~ 9 microWatts / m^2 https://wolframalpha.com/input?i=milky+way+luminosity+%2F+%284pi+*+milky+way+radius%5E2%29
Andromeda ~ 2 microWatts / m^2 https://wolframalpha.com/input?i=+%283.3++10%5E10+solar+luminosity%29+%2F+%284pi++%28radius+of+andromeda+galaxy%29%5E2%29
Pinwheel Galaxy ~ 1 microWatt / m^2 https://wolframalpha.com/input?i=%2830+billion++solar+luminosity%29+%2F+%284pi++%2885000+light+year%29%5E2%29
Whirlpool Galaxy ~ 2 microWatts / m^2 https://wolframalpha.com/input?i=%2810++10%5E9++luminosity+of+sun%29+%2F+%284pi+*+%2838000+lightyear%29%5E2%29
Sunflower Galaxy ~ 18 microWatts / m^2 https://wolframalpha.com/input?i=%281.9++milky+way+luminosity%29+%2F+%284pi++%2849000+lightyear%29%5E2%29
Messier 60 ~ 6 microWatts / m^2 https://wolframalpha.com/input?i=%2860++10%5E9+solar+luminosity%29+%2F+%284pi++%2860000+light+year%29%5E2%29
@sahil5d .
You answer is very much appreciated ! Actually I don’t care too much if that rather complicated CMB theory of mine would turn out to be unreal. Indeed, from my (VM) perspective I see that there are two possibilities:
However, what do you think about the Figure 2 in that paper as copied in a previous reply ?
It’s not accurate. Their graphed “measurements” are not measurements but estimates, specifically calculations where one of the inputs is a measurement and one of the inputs is a theoretical value. “Other parameters of the fit were fixed to T_CMB = 11.6 K”. Where did that “11.6 K” come from??
Original analysis: https://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/178#discussioncomment-7435822
IMHO a still relevant treatise on the subject is the following: On the Interpretation of Spectral Red-Shift in Astrophysics: A Survey of Red-Shift Mechanisms - II by Louis Marmet, $24^{th}$ January, 2018. Tired-Light is found on page 33 as: 9 Red-Shifts produced by an interaction between light and matter. The arguments given by Wright against tired light models [85] are incorrect, because of a number of reasons listed on page 34. It is well known to ACG members that TL is a bias of @RedshiftDrift, the author of the paper. No further advertising on my part is required.
Jumping on my hobby horse, and to page 11 of the paper we find: 5 Red-Shifts produced by a time-dependent property of matter. In Discussion and comments Louis writes: An objection to this model is based on experimental results. As I have demonstrated ad nauseam, this is based upon a complete misunderstanding of the theory. Some other arguments (biased toward the Big Bang cosmology) are given by Wright. The same Wright as our opponent to Tired-Light? Shouldn’t we rather collaborate?
@RedshiftDrift .
Skipping again to page 11 of your article. Honestly, I have no idea where the expression for $H(z)$ comes from - in relationship to the Variable Mass Theory. It is anyway not found in the work by Arp and Narlikar, as far as I know. As a next isue we have among the Functional relationships (for the VMT):
$$ d_A = (1+z)^{-1}\int_0^z\frac{dz’}{H(z’)} $$
Which is dimensionally incorrect in the first place: a distance expressed in seconds. I think there is at least a factor $c=$ lightspeed missing. Apart from this, the formula for $d_A$ in (our version of) the VMT seems to be the same as in SSTz cosmology, so what’s the big deal:
$$ d_A = (1/H_z)\ln(1+z) \quad \mbox{with} \quad H_z = H_0 $$
For the bolometric luminosity distance the VMT has
$$ d_L = (1+z)d_A \quad \mbox{not} \quad d_L =^{?}\sqrt{1+z}\mbox{ }d_A $$
Surface Brightness:
$$ d_L = \sqrt{1+z}\mbox{ }d_A \quad \Longrightarrow \quad (\mbox{SB}) \sim (d_A/d_L)^2 = \frac{1}{1+z} \ne (1+z)^{-4} $$
Instead we have, in concordance with a finding by @ExpEarth: Tolman test - the Big bang model predicts the surface brightness diminishes as (1+z)^-4, while a ‘typical’ TL model has it as (1+z)^-1. The actual observations put the negative exponent at close to 2. This fits my model, as there is an extra factor of (1+z)^-1 due to the gravitational redshift. As far as I’m aware, my model is the only one which predicts this correctly. Which is too much credit for the Shell model: the VMT also predicts the SB correctly (and also does Tired-Light, if you ask me).
$$ d_L = (1+z)d_A \quad \Longrightarrow \quad (\mbox{SB}) \sim (d_A/d_L)^2 = (1+z)^{-2} $$
The dilated time is defined as the ratio of the observed duration of an event to the duration of that same event as would be measured at the object. With the VMT we have that atomic clock frequency is emitted wavelength divided by lightspeed and so, indeed:
$$ F_\tau = 1+z $$
@RedshiftDrift .
We are not finished yet: jumping on your hobby horse and skipping to page 33 of your article. A red-shift $1+z(N) = \lambda_1/\lambda_0$ caused by the interaction with a column density of matter $N$ is valid everywhere so that $1+z(N) = \lambda_{i+1}/\lambda_i$ for any $i$. Repeated redshifts follow the relation (minor correction by me):
$$ 1+z(kN) = \lambda_k/\lambda_0 = \Pi_{i=1}^k \mbox{ } \lambda_i/\lambda_{i-1} = (1+z(N))^k $$
which is satisfied by [81,82]. These references may be left unread if you jump to the OnlyMathFans section below. Continuing with the main stuff:
$$ N = \rho_0 D_H \ln(1+z) \qquad (1) $$
where $\rho_0$ is the density of the interacting matter and the column density is given by
$$ N(d) = \int_0^d \rho(x)dx $$
On the other hand it is known that the distance-redshift formula for Tired-Light is given by
$$ d = D_H \ln(1+z) \quad \Longrightarrow \quad N(d)/\rho_0 = \int_0^d \rho(x)dx/\rho_0 = d $$
Wherefrom it is concluded that $\rho_0$ is just the arithmetic mean of $\rho$ over a distance $d$ - what else?
$$ \rho_0 = \int_0^d \rho(x)dx / d $$
OnlyMathFans
Ignore the references [81,82] as given in the paper and define
$$ f(x) = 1+z(x) \quad \Longrightarrow \quad f(kN) = f(N)^k \quad \Longrightarrow \quad g(kN)=\ln(f(kN))=k.\ln(f(N))=k.g(N) $$
A functional relationship for $g$ is found. In particular we have, for any $k$ and $N=1$ that : $g(k) = k.g(1)$ . This results in an equivalent functional relationship, valid for all values of $a$ and $b$.
$$ g(k_1+k_2) = (k_1+k_2).g(1) = k_1g(1) + k_2g(1) = g(k_1) + g(k_2) \quad \mbox{or} \quad g(a+b)=g(a)+g(b) $$
A relevant question on Mathematics SE is: Additive functions and measure theory. Because there exist no pathological functions in physics, any $g$ must be of the form
$$ g(x) = C.x \quad \mbox{with} \quad C = \mbox{constant} $$
And therefore
$$ \ln(f(N))=g(N)=C.N \quad \Longrightarrow \quad f(N) = 1 + z(N) = e^{C.N} \quad \Longrightarrow \quad N = (1/C)\ln(1+z) $$
which indeed is similar to equation (1) as cited above.
There was an upgrade of some functions used by the ACG website which cause an error when GitHub generates the website. @sahil5d your page (and the other corrections) has been merged with the ACG repository but that does not appear on the website. I’ll fix that when I find the time…
All working without warnings… New page is on the web!