Not as intersting as you might think because no matter what some people say about me I do listen. As a consequence whenever a peer reviewer complained about some aspect I did more research and corrected it. For instance, at the beginning I knew that the collision cross section had to be 2r(lamda) for the whole thing to work. I came up with a logical argument as to why this had to be so but the paper was quite rightly rejected "until I had published cross sections". I carried on researching the literature and then I found the Lawrence Bragg labs had published it ... and so on. towards the end, I would submit it there would be a long wait (up to six months) and then a sorry but with no reason and then it was finally accepted.
Proof copies have been done, end of this year beginning of next.
Got to go and earn some money now, see yah!
Cheers,
Lyndon

So it has been peer reviewed by journals 'even Sylas would not libel', but the final version will not appear in one of those.
I'm sceptical of this explanation.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

I think that the idea came up already, and it involved three outgoing photons.
My issue with this idea was its likelihood.
Somebody explained that these probabilities go like (1/alpha)^N, where N is the number of photons and alpha is the coupling constant for \coulomb interaction.
So, an interaction involving three photons is (1/alpha)^2 ~ 5*10^(-5) times less likely than a process with only one photon.

Considering that the electrons are distributed nearly uniformly, the net force tend to cancel out (which is why the electrons in a plasma can be considered free).
The potential energy of an electron is nearly constant, and usually the potential is substituted by its average value (you could look up Hartree and Hartree-Fock approximation).

__________________
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)

Hi Lyndon
I thought about your Tired Light. Every Neutron Star or Black Hole produce electron-positron pairs. They use a transformation of the energy into matter.
It could be possible that in enormous Cosmic space are many AGN, magnetars and they absorb matter and energy, transform energy into ejected matter and make a kind of the redshift.
I do not think , the whole redshift is caused by this energy-matter transformation, but may be a part of it ?

Thanks for not answering.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Sylas expressed the same opinion I have expressed before.
The reviewers working for Galilean Electrodynamics are incompetent for not spotting the obvious errors, misapplied formulae and unsubstantiated claims in your paper.
Publishers of a journal with a stated bias against well established theories, should at least bother to have proper scientific standards for the papers they accept.
Unfortunately they do not and seem to prefer style over substance, and make a mockery of proper scientific journals, hence calling them "clowns" is appropriate and justified.

__________________
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)

Your actions on this board (and this very post) contradict your words.

Following the link in the references of your paper we find:Ashmore was never able to justify the use of these formulae for a rarified plasma and the interaction between a free electron and a photon.
It is the same error he comits when he equates plasma with glass.


Wasn't your paper accepted at the beginning of 2004? (This was the reason for starting the other thread.)

__________________
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)

Well, why not lead by example and give everyone here a link to one of your published papers - so we can all see how it is done - one where you are the sole author would be best.
That would be a great help.
Thanks
Lyndon

But you do not give quantitative estimates of your own, and besides hand-waving you do nothing to show he was wrong.

So, that's why you never give quantitative estimates for your "mechanism".

So, your "effect" does not work.

You keep cliaming that it is not Compton effect.
Why do use this constant?

You still have not justified using this formula for electrons in a plasma.

Except that your " the electron oscillates and tales up the energy" is an unphysical process in the case of a free electron in a plasma.


We tried it, and it did not taste very good.


You still use the "broken record" tactic.


I see that you do not give any numbers.


Sylas justified his quantitative estimates.
You, on the other hand, have not justified any of your hand-waving.


So, an equation that "works" only with specific units.
Sounds like numerology, not physics.


The answer is: Ashmore played around with constants until he got that result. As I sadi, numerology, not physics.

__________________
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)

I see that you do not shy away from ad hominem attacks.
I have explained on this board what is wrong with your "theory".
I justified my low opinion about that journal.
Whether I am author of a paper published in a proper peer-reviewed journal is irrelevant.

The burden of proving your "theory" right is yours.

__________________
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)

I believe papageno has properly addressed your other points (and this one as well), but I'll ask again. Since you acknowledge that it's completely arbitrary without the 2n (since the similarity of the two numbers depends on the system of units chosen), why do you still maintain (as you seem to) that it's meaningful to compare H with hr/m?

I'm an engineer, too. And, what is said here is correct. For a formula - any formula - to be correct, it must hold true in all internally consisent systems of units. (I had a professor who made us understand this by solving problems set on Mars and using units of furlongs per fortnight. Danged if it didn't work!)

So, lyndon, would you please translate H = 2nhr/m into another internally consistent system of units? (You can use English units if you want; the furlongs thing was Dr. Schechter's idea.)

Also, as an engineer, I am used to approximations. ("Ten percent is close enough for engineering.") But, your margin is 100x; isn't that a bit large to claim success?

And I'll rejoin MrO on the sidelines for awhile.

(fixed a spelling error... hey, speling dusn't count in enjuneering!)

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Hi Grey, I was just about to post an answer to this to Fram as i was a bit rushed earlier - so this is for both of you.
Numerical coincidences are important. They really are because they can point you to a relationship.
Both Weber and Kirchoff independently measured the speed of an electrical pulse down a wire and found it to be 3x10^8 m/s. They said, "Ah! its just a coincidence" and forgot about it. Both of them. It was left to Maxwell to realise the relationship.
One cannot discount a 'coincidence' numerical or otherwise, as a 'coincidence' without making absolutely sure that there is nothing in it.
In the BB, H and the electron are not supposed be related and yet H and hr/m ane numerically the same. Supporters of the Bb must make sure that there is nothing in it before they discount it. Some Followers of the BB on this board have done just that - discounted it without further thought. And yet they have used the electron and h in their determination of the Hubble constant. Before followers of the Bb discount something like this they must work out the probability of it happening, and it is a very small probability of it happening by chance.
In Tired Light I show H = 2nhr/m so we ask what is the probability of H = hr/m by chance? And its is fairly likely because they are related.
So, if it is fairly likely for this coincidence to happen in tired light and very unlikely for it to happen in the Bb - And it does happen, then which theory is more likely to be right? Answer is Tired Light.
So, yes, it is a result to quote. Even though it is units based the probabilities show that Tired Light is more likely to be correct than the Bb
Does that answer your question?
Cheers,
Lyndon

Hi Jim,
I am very strict on units too. I have explained above the importance of the 'numerical coincidence' H = hr/m in magnitude.
I could if you really insisted,
but it could take a while so try this first.
In 2nhr/m, n has dimensions (L^-3), h is energy multiplied by time (h = E/f)
and so has dimensions (ML^2T^-1) r has dimensions of (L) and Mass has dimensions of M
so 2nhr/m is dimensionally T^-1 or 'per sec'.
On the other hand, H is km/s per Mpc. Both km and Mpc are lengths so this too has dimensions of T^-1 or per sec.
So you see Jim H = 2nhr/m is perfectly correct in units.
What is strange is the Bb interpretation, 'km/s per Mpc'.
Why use two different units for distance in the same relation. Why not km/s per km? Or Mpc/sec per Mpc?
You see H is not a 'velocity' at all, it is a rate - a 'per sec'
I believe they use these units (which would have your professor tearing his hair out) to confuse people - to con them into thinking that distant galaxies are moving away from us. The units of H have nothing to do with 'velocity' at all. It is not km/s per Mpc, not km/s per km nor is it Mpc/s per Mpc it is 'per sec'. There is no velocity in it at all.
So you see Jim, it is not I who has my units wrong it is the BB.
Cheers,
Lyndon
PS if you still want the formula H = 2nhr/m in imperial let me know - it still works.

I still don't see how this follows. Suppose the metric system had never been invented and the yard was an unpopular unit, so that we used the foot as our primary distance measurement. In that case, hr/m and H wouldn't be anywhere close, right? So how can this possibly indicate something fundamental about the universe?

Depends how you look at it. The paradox - H has the same magnitude to hr/m is not, by itself, fundamental to the universe. It is a 'quirk' of nature that is a 'nice' coincidence. It is when one takes the whole thing together that it becomes 'fundamental'.
The Bb is based largely on redshifts and the CMB and here we have a theory that not only explains them but calculates their value. There is no need for the BB anymore.
The paradox is a 'result' a 'quirk' but the whole thing ( H = 2nhr/m, the CMB ) is what one has to look at,
Cheers,
Lyndon

This may be just me, but... We wouldn't have known to look for a CMB w/o GR and QM... right? :-?

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

While hr/m and H wouldn't be close in that case, hr/m per cubic metre and H would still be the same because both have units of 1/s. Lyndon seems to use hr/m per cubic metre in his paradox, not hr/m, at least according to his website.

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]

No, McKellar 'prediscovered' the CMB in 1945 (ish) at 2.73K and published it. The followers of the Bb ignored this and claimed the 1968 rediscovery because it suited them.
Cheers,
Lyndon

So you agree then that it is in fact just a coincidence of no particular significance, which perhaps sent you off in the direction you went with your ideas, but is of no importance by itself?

It is a numerical coincidence, because the equality does not hold in any system of units.
Hence it is not a physical relation (let alone fundamental).

Where is your calculated spectrum of the CMB? (Peak wavelength is not the spectrum.)
Without it you cannot claim that your "theory" is better.

The whole thing is based on a mechanism which has been proven to be unphysical, hence it is unsupported and unfounded.

__________________
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)

McKellar he determined a "rotational" temperature of 2.3 K for the gas of interstellar space where CN absorption takes place. http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...ht=1941#461762
Later, George Gamow and his colleagues Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman predicted the CMB temperature at around 5K.

Still beggs me to ask how your theory comes up with the spectrum? Or even the need to look for one, other than the fact that the BB already predicted it for yas...

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

Oh, I insist.

Smoke and mirrors, lyndon. Added: It's not that you can get any form to reduce to 1/sec, you need to show that the Hubble Constant in any given set of units will give the same numerical value as 2nhr/m in those same units.

Please show us. And please show all your work.

Start with the value for H in Imperial units.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

What is the basic unit of time in Imperial?
Also, Lyndon, please state what base units you are using for your calculations so we can follow along.

I thought I already stated that... fortnights. :wink:

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

How about cubic cubits? its not a problem, once one has seen the dimensional analysis the whole thing works. But it takes time and this software, whilst extremely good, does not lend itself to mathematical notation.
The relation H = 2nhr/m holds true in any units. its a fact and true. The Bb cannot predict H, I do.
end of story.
Cheers,
lyndon.
might take a day or two (invigilating all day tomorrow)

No way,
Gamow knew of McKellar 's work. Hence the prediction of around '5K', so it was predicted for the Bb and me . In his last prediction, before Penzias and wilson discovered what we had all already seen on our T/V sets after the epilogue, (you see I discovered the cmb too) Gamow had the CMB at over 50 K.
I lost a dime and found a quarter as george said to me.
Don't be taken in by them!
Cheers,
lyndon

Well, hr/m per cubic meter is not the same as nhr/m for two reasons. One is that n is not always in cubic meters (or cubits or whatever). The second is that you're not specifying that hr/m per cubic meter is mulitplied by the number of electrons in that volume. So your units still don't match.

Do Jim's exercise and show us that hr/m (or nhr/m, or both) is equal to H in Imperial units.

It's at least a valid relationship, which won't change with a change of units, though it's truth would depend on the values of the constants in question (especially H and n). Do you agree, though, that H = hr/m is not a valid relationship, and has no particular significance, since the units don't balance?

Remember, though, that since your estimate of n is 0.1 to 10 particles (out of curiosity, where is that figure from?) per cubic meter, your estimate of H is anywhere from roughly 10 km/s/Mpc to 1000 km/s/Mpc. That's hardly an impressive constraint, even if the physics you invoked to come to that conclusion were valid.

No way!
I derived the relationship and the Tired Light theory predicted this result.
Tut Tut Grey,don't mistake wishful thinking with scientific results.
remeber, My theory is the only one that can predict the value of the Hubble constant.
Cheers,
lyndon