I am sure that you have all been waiting for this in order to pull it to pieces, but since my theory has now been accepted for publication, I have put a pdf preprint (for personal use only) at http://www.lyndonashmore.com/preprintpdf.pdf
Alternately you can go to my new and full of mistakes webpage at www.lyndonashmore.com and click on the button there. I will sort out the problems with the page and extend it as I go on.
Have a look and if you like, lets discuss.
cheers Lyndon

Just one question remains (at least from me), Mr. Ashmore:

Publication by whom?

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?

Galilean electrodynamics. peer reviewed, no page charges. See what I mean. You havn't read the paper and you are starting to whinge already!

I read it, though I want to read it again more carefully just to double check things. I'm not understanding your point about the Hubble constant and the electron constants, since these numbers appear to be contrived from nowhere. I'd prefer to see you derive the relationship from some guiding principle. but it seems more like you fudged around with the numbers until it fit. I'm not saying it isn't an interesting coincidence, but as yet it appears unmotivated. I'll probably have more to say once I read through it again.

have another look. The paper starts from first principles and derives the Hubble constant, something the the Bb cannot do.

From here

I'm totally unqualified to comment on the validity of your paper Mr Ashmore but it seems to me that publication in a 'Journal' with a clearly stated bias is questionable.

Surely there was a more reputable publication that would consider your paper....or maybe there wasn't.

P.

You haven't derived anything here. In fact, you make the assumption that v=Hd, and use it as a substitution. Then you equate the two, without having given any reason to believe that it is true. You can't use what you are trying to derive as part of the derivation.

I did read the article, in fact, though not being a cosmologist by any means I had significant difficulty understanding it. I can't refute specific stuff from the article, though the basis of this "paradox" does seem rather dodgy to me - as I have mentioned before, it could be some property of the universe that we as yet do not know or simply coincidence.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?

Galilean Electrodynamics is somewhat like Apeiron, a peer-reviewed journal where the 'peers' are scientists also contesting various parts of mainstream thinking. You won't see Martin Rees, for instance, on the editorial boards of these journals. The problem is that we don't have enough journals like these. Physics Essays is another good one.

In any case, congrats Lyndon! It's not easy to get non-mainstream ideas published even in the non-mainstream journals.

Hmmm I'll take you word for that.

I don't have any experience in the field of Cosmology and this journal in particular but any sort of implied bias makes me extremely sceptically about the quality of the contents. Seems to me if the science is good you shouldn't have to resort to non-mainstream journals.

But maybe that's a shortfall in the field.

For example, my wife works in medical research. She recently performed a series of experiments that overturned an accepted convention in her field. The first journal she tried rejected her paper so she went to a slightly less prestigious (but still mainstream) journal and was accepted. This paper has subsequently been quoted by Reuters and mentioned in a 'Nature' review article.

In medical research it is possible for heretical ideas to be published by the mainstream as long as the data is good and the science is sound.

Shouldn't cosmology be the same?

P.

It is. The reason why it doesn't happen that often is because the data doesn't agree with them, or there is a significant flaw in the paper. Einstein's work was certainly against the mainstream, but it was published in a mainstream science journal. There was also opposition to it at first, but eventually the data agreed with him.

Now I will admit that there is likely a bias against non-mainstream papers. However, I'm willing to bet that any reasonable scientist when confronted with experimental evidence proving something they didn't believe in previously would admit that they were wrong and go with the new ideas. If they don't, then they are not real scientists. Note that this is different from abandoning an idea when there is still hope for it, i.e., Michael Duff and supergravity.

In addition to the above, you also present the result H=hr/m per cubic meter of space, a result you made up, or at least you have not shown the derivation.

As far as the above quote is concerned, how can you argue that the Hubble constant equals these (dimensionally consistent) parameters, but then deny that very fact by saying that the age of the universe cannot be equal to these numbers, and so it's nonsense. Again, there is no logical consistency here. You take the electron constants, put them together in some convenient form and then say it equals the Hubble constant (not proven). Then you say that since the Hubble constant is related to the age of the universe, it cannot be related to the age of the universe because of these arbitrarily chosen numbers. It just doesn't work that way.

I'm going through more carefully now and I have two mathematical problems so far:

1) On page 5, you say that


Sum(x=0..N-1) [lambda + x(h/mc)]^-1=2nrd


(I'm dropping all subscripts right now to make things a bit easier to read, and type)

You then say that this is equal to an integral of [lambda + x(h/mc)]^-1 dx. My problem is, where is the dx coming from? You can't just stick it in there, because an integral is defined as the limit of a Riemann sum, and your first expression is just a sum without any infinitessimally small area element to integrate over. If the left side has a dx (or any vanishingly small element), the right side must have this also.

2) Let's assume your desire to integrate is correct. My final answer for N differs from yours (I've done it a few times now, but I might still be making a mistake, so someone else should check too). When I evaluate the integral at the limits, I get (L=lambda)

L+(h/mc)(N-1)-L=exp(2nrdh/mc)

or N=(mc/h)[exp(2nrhd/mc)+(h/mc)], which has no lambda dependence, which in turn is the basic for the rest of your discussion.

I might have made a mistake which is why I'm asking others to double check me and see if I made an error, as well as check my reasoning for why I don't think you can do the integral in the first place.

Thanks for taking the time to go through the paper. I don't make the assumption v = Hd, Hubble did that. In order to put the Hubble constant used in science today into the equation, I have to [/u]compare[/u] v = Hd with my own. I don't need v = Hd and dont want it as velocity has nothing to do with the observed redshift.

Thanks ExpErdMann.
I agree with you entirely. Peer reviewed is peer reviewed, I am happy, nay, honoured. Anyone can publish a paper on a website, we do need more of these journals.
cheers

[quote="Normandy6644"]

In the paper I show that H = 2nhr/m and it is known that n has values between 0.1 and 10(Zombeck) electrons per cubic metre of space. For the observed value of H as 64 km/s per Mpc you just need n = 0.6. What is the value of H calculated by the BB?

Exactly, the consequences of the paradox can't work that way. The paradox is true so it must be the Bb that is wrong

Edited cos I missed a zero off on the Zombeck number. However, Zombeck n 'less than 10' is 1990, n about 0.1 is 2002. This is why I only include this ref in the paper itself

[quote]A summation approximates to an integral if the increments are small and the number of terms are very large. In any case there are other (and longer) ways of doing this to give the same answer. As to the integration - keep checking!

lyndonashmore,

I skimmed through your paper and I have a few questions.

What is the physdical meaning of "hr/m per cubic metre"?

As far as I understand, you explain the observed red-shift as the result of photons being absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in the plasma in the intergalactic space.
You use in this context the photoabsorption cross section for electrons in atoms. Since in a plasma electrons are not bound to nuclei, how do you justify the use of that formula for the plasma in intergalactic space?

Mössbauer effect is the recoil-less emission of gamma-photons by excited nuclei of atoms in a lattice (there is no recoil because there is not enough energy to excite a quantum of lattice vibration).
What has this to do with electrons in a plasma?
What you described looks more like the Compton effect (scattering of a photon by an electron).

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

[quote]hr/m per cubic metre has no meaning. I use it only to pour scorn on the BB theory. That is, after years of trying to measure H they ended up with a combination of the parameters of the electron and didn’t realize it. Now the paper is out in the open I prefer to use the full version ie H = 2nhr/m.

An electron is an electron is an electron. The effect of the electron being bound to a nucleus in the atom i.e. the energy levels and whether the electron remains in an excited state or not, is taken care of by the atomic scattering factor, f. 2x(radius)x(wavelength) is the probability of the photon bumping into an electron.


Glad you mentioned this, as this point answers Gritmongers objection to tired light in a post on another topic i.e. why don’t we get a redshift when light passes through glass? As I show, the Mossbauer effect produces a shift in wavelength of h/mc each time a photon is absorbed and reemitted. However, if the electron is bound in a single atom then it is the whole atom that recoils and m is the mass of the atom (redshift is already much smaller). For an electron in glass it is the whole glass block that recoils and so m is the mass of the block of glass and we can forget the effect, as the redshift is too small. In the same way, you only get my redshift mechanism when the plasma is very rarefied. In dense plasmas the effective mass of the electron increases and so one gets less redshift not more. Mossbauer effect is only recoilless for atoms bound in a solid. Under no way of the imagination is the effect described in my paper remotely the same as the Compton effect as there is no shift in wavelength in the forward direction with this effect.
Check out Landau and lif****z "Quantum Electrodynamics" page 161, bottom of the page.
Cheers

A sum only becomes an integral as you take the limit of a line element (or any well defined variable). For example, in E&M one derives an expression for the total potential energy of a system of charges as U=(1/2)SUM(i,j) (qiqj/rij, but you can't just say U equals the integral of that. You have to get it in terms of something that can be integrated, i.e., over a vanishingly small surface. In this case the sum over both q's is equal to an integral over the charge density times the infinitessimal volume, and so you can construct an integral. But nowhere do you just say that a sum approximates an integral without proper motivation.

Regardless, the result you present from the integration in your paper seems to be incorrect, so you have more than one mathematical problem to deal with.

Well, since I appear to have been brought into the discussion- the conjecture appears to be the fewer electrons the photon hits, the more the redshift- then shouldn't very large very close objects be much more redshifted than smaller or even point-like objects? I mean, their light goes through more electrons, essentially mimicking a dense plasma, if spread over time.

Additionally, it appears that there should be redshifting in light going through glass or water: small, as you state, but small does not imply immeasurable. This would be a perfect test of your theory! Where could we get an appropriately large amount of transparent material? Fiber optics?

Quote:

Amazingly thin strands of glass ... that can be thousands of miles long are used to deliver the optical network’s payload. http://web10.eppg.com/betabooks/oct01/velte/ch01.html

This same book excerpt mentions attenuation of the light- but not by redshifting: by absorption when hitting impurities. On, or off: no redshift. Very pure optical glass thousands of miles long produces no redshift in a single-frequency laser light passing through it; just attenuation from some absorption.

So far the test does not appear to bear out tired light through photon absorption and re-emmision.

It should be the same but it isn't. Biology and medicine offer a much wider freedom of expression regarding newer theories than do physics/cosmology. I've seen this first hand with my own publications. I've thought about the reasons for this a long time and have concluded it's because the people doing biology/medicine research are different as a group than the ones doing physics/astronomy.

There are a lot more women in the life sciences, for instance, and this has made a big difference. In the physical science there seems to be a sort of macho aspect that pervades everything. Things tend to get dismissed out of hand. Guys like to think there is just one proper way to do things. Even the non-mainstream types like Arp and Van Flandern have a bit of the gunslinger/Jedi aspect to them. Maybe they have to be that way to be heard at all.

Still biology does have its core doctrines, like neo-Darwinism, that are hard to fight. This is changing though, and there have been a number of recent books discussing other possibilities for evolutionary mechanisms than just "survival of the fittest".

As far as I know, Hubble constant is not derived from hr/m.
It might be just a coincidence. Why do you link them?

Photoabsorption is still referred to electrons bound to nuclei (where the electrons can absorb and emit photon by changing their state).
In a plasma they are not.

Mössbauer effect is referred to nuclei bound in a lattice.
How do you apply it to electrons in a plasma?


The atoms in a glass can vibrate.
The recoil is transmitted to the whole mass of the block only if the atom cannot vibrate. Otherwise the recoil just excites lattice vibrations.

By the way, the Doppler effect is observable in spectrocopy.

Why?
According to your picture, a denser plasma means more absorption and emission processes.
And why would the effective mass of the electron be larger?

Mössbauer effect happens if the recoil cannot excite lattice vibrations.
How do you apply it to electrons in a plasma?

Compton effect deal with scattering of photons on free electrons?
Why can't you apply to electrons in a plasma?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Not really. Biological and medical conclusions are based on studies and analysis of trends. If a paper does an analysis of a trend, and the data is available to other scientists, and the math appears correct, those would be criteria for acceptance, whether or not the paper agreed with other ideas.

If a study claimed that analysis of trends in heterozygous sickle-cell-anemia acute cases did not justify the risk of removal of the spleen, that would be a conclusion backed (hopefully) by data, backed by proper trend analysis.

If, however, a study claimed that sniffing daisies made one live longer, and this was backed because the author's uncle Ernie lived in an area that had a lot of daisies, and the conclusion was daisies would help everyone to be cured of cancer, that paper would not be accepted.

Many new cosmological models do not meet these base criteria: they do not do analysis, use data available to other scientists, and very often don't use proper trend analysis or mathematics. These are the primary reasons for rejection: vague conclusions, unrepeatable results, bad mathematics and trend analysis, and indeterminate data, rather than the conjecture illustrated by the following:

Not really. If anything, it is more imperative to review medical conclusions, as these can have immediate effect on treatment and patient outcomes.

I'm just trying to picture Albert Einstein in a Padawan outfit.

By the way, the above is an excellent example of pure conjecture backed by no trend analysis and unsupported conclusions. Had you statistics of the number of medical journals, the number of physics journals, their reviewer breakdown by sex, their contributor breakdown by sex, and comparative reviews of content that has been retracted or refuted, and content that had been rejected...

Ah. Well, "survival of the fittest" is the simplest explanation of all of evolutionary theory that I have ever heard. There are many other pieces to the puzzle, and should one care to look, many hypotheses extending beyond this initial conjecture. Understanding this, however, would require reading and analysis and data collection. .

I don't want to knock Lyndon's thread off-topic here, so I'll be very brief.

That was Albert's problem. He refused Padawan training and instead wanted to be a Jedi knight straight off. Kinda like Annikin Skywalker, except he never got pulled to the dark side. Obewon was the better Jedi.

Hey, I just said it was my personal impression!

Actually, more like Luke: he came very late to training, and had to work harder than other Jedi/Physicists who recieved training from birth... Think of the Swiss patent office as Tatooine...

Not really...

It's stated more as a conclusion based on logic, rather than "my opinion is it might be sex-based bias."

Language is important in theory and analysis, just like in legal-speak.

Objects can be reffered to with "is" and "are" - theories and opinions, on the other hand, stated "it is most likely that" and "my thoughts are that."

This is another point of difficulty in many people getting papers published: statement of opinion and theory as absolute and factual, in addition to logic errors such as confusion of correlation and causation, ad hominem, post hoc, ergo propter hoc, argument from authority, non sequitur, and so on.

Tatooine is the Swiss patent office, but that's where Annikin started off too. Unlike Luke, who was doing nothing until Obewon took him away, Annikin was building robots, pod racers, etc. Annikin was recognized by Quigon as being Jedi-like. Nope, Annikin for the Einstein role, maybe Luke for Lorentz. Obewon possibly as Kelvin. But who did Darth Vader play?

There are a lot of points to reply to here and I will get around to them all, but firstly, lets just pause to reflect a moment here. I showed you all some time ago that the expanding universe just could not be correct because the Hubble constant had the same value as hr/m in each cubic metre of space. At that time I was accused of coming up with a 'numerical coincidence' so I have now shared with you all the theory behind it. This theory:
Explains the relationship between H and hr/m so there is no need of the BB theory.
This theory derives a relationship for the Hubble constant H = 2nhr/m which gives a value in agreement with that measured when one inserts the known parameters.
This theory derives from first principles z = exp(Hd/c)-1 which was the formula first proposed by zwicky in 1929 but abandoned because no one knew where it came from.
This theory gives an exponential hubble relation that agrees with supernova data - the Bb has to resort to acceleration to do that
This theory is a tired light theory that predicts a CMB
This theory gives microwave radiation when one inserts known parameters into the CMB relation.
This theory does all this without resorting to 'new science'.
Lets just reflect upon this for a moment.
Lyndon

Okay. Done.

Didn't change anything, by the way: light still manages to get through a fiber-optic cable.

This shows nothing. It is exactly a numerical coincidence.

Your theory does nothing. Your math is incorrect, and there is no logical basis for anything you present in the paper. If you fixed the math and the answers came out the same, I'd be less skeptical, but even then the whole thing seems contrived.