Prev: The P=NP problem solved!
Next: proof of rearrangement inequality for >2 sequences?
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 22 May 2010 02:21


Craig Markwardt wrote:
> On May 21, 2:01 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
(snipped)
>
> Your reasoning is turned around. The Hubble "Law" is not a law of
> nature, but rather an observational correlation.
>

Laws in science are "laws of nature", so if the Hubble Law is not
really
a law, then astronomers should hold a convention and downgrade it
to Hubble algorithm or Hubble rule or Hubble correlation.

> Astronomers use **OTHER INDEPENDENT** measures of distance - not
> redshift. See "standard candles" on wikipedia, for example. These

Trouble here is that astronomers have never used an independent
measure
of whether a body is moving towards Earth or away from Earth. On that
question the Hubble law was the singular modes operandi. That is why
my Telescope Eclipse Technique is so important for it draws attention
to the possibility that Hubble's law is wrong over 90% of the time.

You and the astronomers missed the best measure of distance of all--
the telescope itself. Wikipedia does not even mention the telescope as
the finest standard candle.

Here I play around and played around astronomy for about a full year
out of
my life and find a brand new way of measuring distance in astronomy
that
is the most reliable of all distance measures in astronomy--
telescopic
eclipse technique. So I contributed to astronomy the best measuring
distance
tool. Craig, how many years have you been in astronomy, 30 or 40? And
in all
that time what new techniques and tools have you contributed?

> independent distance measures are completely separate from a redshift
> measurement. Once this independent estimate has been made, as Edwin

Cepheid variables have as many assumptions as does Hubble Doppler
redshift.
Those candles are mostly as unreliable as the redshift itself. Only
the telescope
is reliable.

> Hubble did first, it is possible to compare the two measures and by
> gosh, redshift is a pretty good indicator of distance. Not a perfect
> one - we have known about "peculiar" velocities since the beginning.
>

Most every astronomer, including Craig thinks Doppler redshift means
the body is moving away from the viewer. Once those astronomers
use the Telescope Eclipsing Technique, they begin to realize most
every Doppler redshift is a body moving towards Earth. Over 50% wrong
distances and wrong direction of motion causes Craig to exclaim
"pretty good indicator.."


> Formally, no cosmologist ever assumes that redshift can be converted
> to a distance using Hubble's "law." How distance and redshift are
> related is governed by a cosmological model - and models can be
> *tested* by comparing the two measures.
>

From someone who does not have a degree in mathematics, trying to
tell someone who does have a degree in mathematics about formal
systems.


> So you have it the wrong way around. Cosmological models are tested,
> and rejected or accepted, by comparing independent distance measures
> to redshift measures. The Hubble "law" is not assumed to be correct.
>
> CM

Craig has no degree in mathematics, and a few weeks ago, this was
evidently
clear to alot of folk reading his replies. A mathematician worth his
weight in
salt, knows that if refraction can invert an entire image, then
refraction can
shift the wavelength. This is everyday commonsense to a mathematician
that he knows a "more general" includes the "particular". Yet Craig to
this
very same day, still does not realize his gaffe mistake about
refraction and
the Doppler shift.

Why not try out the telescope-eclipse-technique on a quasar, Craig.
Test your
firmly held belief that quasars are moving away from Earth at near or
above
the speed of light, yet the image in a telescope seems to be crisper,
larger
every decade it is sighted and reported. Why is that Craig? Is it
because
all that you have known and come to believe in astronomy is mostly
goobledygook? When those quasars become crisper and sharper and
larger in image Craig, is it not because they are moving towards
Earth,
in contradiction to the Hubble law of Doppler redshift.

Why not experiment rather than mouthing off all the time-- try the
Telescope
Eclipsing Technique on the highest redshifted objects. Or have you
stopped experimenting altogether?

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
From: Craig Markwardt on 25 May 2010 00:59
On May 22, 2:21 am, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Craig Markwardt wrote:
> > On May 21, 2:01 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
> (snipped)
>
> > Your reasoning is turned around.  The Hubble "Law" is not a law of
> > nature, but rather an observational correlation.
>
> Laws in science are "laws of nature", so if the Hubble Law is not
> really
> a law, then astronomers should hold a convention and downgrade it
> to Hubble algorithm or Hubble rule or Hubble correlation.

Astronomers most commonly use the phrase "Hubble relation." You're
barking up the wrong tree.

> > Astronomers use **OTHER INDEPENDENT** measures of distance - not
> > redshift.  See "standard candles" on wikipedia, for example.  These
>
> Trouble here is that astronomers have never used an independent
> measure
> of whether a body is moving towards Earth or away from Earth. On that
> question the Hubble law was the singular modes operandi. That is why
> my Telescope Eclipse Technique is so important for it draws attention
> to the possibility that Hubble's law is wrong over 90% of the time.

Actually, the distance-redshift relationship by itself has nothing to
do with "moving towards Earth or away from Earth." The Hubble
relation is merely a correlation between two measured quantities -
distance of an object and wavelength shift in a spectrum - which can
also separately be predicted by a cosmological theory.

I doubt that any astronomer believes that galaxies are actually
receding with a certain velocity. Rather, v = cz = Hd is merely a
convenient short-hand notation, expressed in the commonly understood
language of Doppler shift. Whether or not it is a physical Doppler
shift due to velocity is an interpretation that may or may not be
true.


> > independent distance measures are completely separate from a redshift
> > measurement.  Once this independent estimate has been made, as Edwin
>
> Cepheid variables have as many assumptions as does Hubble Doppler
> redshift.
> Those candles are mostly as unreliable as the redshift itself. Only
> the telescope
> is reliable.

Uhh, intensity variations of cepheid variable stars are measured with
telescopes.

We have thousands of examples of cepheid variables, and also a
theoretical understanding of the interiors of those stars to
understand how they work.

> > Formally, no cosmologist ever assumes that redshift can be converted
> > to a distance using Hubble's "law."  How distance and redshift are
> > related is governed by a cosmological model - and models can be
> > *tested* by comparing the two measures.
>
> From someone who does not have a degree in mathematics, trying to
> tell someone who does have a degree in mathematics about formal
> systems.

I note your diversion. If you wish, you can remove the word
"formally." The meaning is the same.

> > So you have it the wrong way around.  Cosmological models are tested,
> > and rejected or accepted, by comparing independent distance measures
> > to redshift measures.   The Hubble "law" is not assumed to be correct..

I note no response.

....
> ... knows that if refraction can invert an entire image, then
> refraction can
> shift the wavelength. This is everyday commonsense to a mathematician
> that he knows a "more general" includes the "particular". ...

Your argument by "everyday common sense" is not substantiated. There
are no measurements of pure refraction which cause the wavelength of
light to change from one to another.

> Why not try out the telescope-eclipse-technique on a quasar, Craig.

You act as if there is some great conspiracy that I would not heed
your suggestion, but it is not.

Thousands of observers have made millions of images of the cosmos
which I can rely upon. There is no evidence that objects are getting
"bigger" or "crisper" in telescope images, progressively over time.
But there is no evidence of the opposite either. The distances of
objects do not change enough over a human lifetime, such that their
apparent size would change appreciably. You could have done the
simple calculation to understand this, but you did not.

CM
From: spudnik on 26 May 2010 16:25
beamsplitters "downgrade" the lightwave
into two waves of half the freq., I read;
does that count, like in gravitational lensing
with two or more images?

as for AP, he is a one-man echo-chamber
with a degree in maths!

> Your argument by "everyday common sense" is not substantiated.  There
> are no measurements of pure refraction which cause the wavelength of
> light to change from one to another.

thusNso:
there's only one possible cure for that kind of thing;
sit back & read Shakespeare, aloud;
switch-off with the KJV Holy Bible (translated
by WS & co. .-)... unless, you hate Shakespeare
more than the British Petroleum oligarchy.

thusNso:
that is not an "image of a photon,"
but an "artist's impression" of some heuristic statement
by a theoretician (deBroglie e.g., as much status as any
of us can have, hereinat).
the wave & particle are merely mathematical duals,
not that the object in question is both at the same time,
or neccesarily both at different times.
> http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/foton.gif

thusNso:
Death to the lightconeheads; long-live Minkowsksi!

thusNso:
"real-valued time" is why, we have quaternions;
it's the "scalar" in Hamilton's lingo of vectors.
now, you mentioned tensors, and that is apropos, because
it is used for stress & strain, which are clearly irrereversible;
perhaps, that is one of the first math-physics examples
of it.

thusNso:
I haven't read _Disquisitiones_ in Latin, either, but
there are good translations & it is highly recommended
by the LaRouchies ... they should put it
on their website, like they have *Les OEuvres du Fermatttt*, but
you can look at some cool tutorials, in the meantime,
at wlym.com.

thusNso:
I never read a word about Palin's hubbie's Seccesh "movement"
in the Liberal Media (Owned by consWervatives) and
that is sort-of the issue in AZ. I'm all for kids whose parents
managed to sneak
across the border & give birth, but I was taken aback
by the "sense of entitlement" that the older kids have, about college
(the DREAM Act; I stated to a group of them, that
crossing the border is essentially a Mexican "rite of passage," and
it is certainly not very dangerous as a proper hike, if you check the
FAQs
and maps & so forth from the Mexican goment (and those advocacy/
haven groups in the USA). well, it's either that or college *in*
Mexico, or
you'll probably be made to join a gang.

La Raza d'Atzlan are openly racist, not just by their title; at least,
that's the impression that I got, attending one of their meetings
at UCLA, two or three years ago -- it's in their God-am constitution.

of course, teh real problem is "free trade," and this is already here
to roost;
the little spill in the Gulf is being used by British Petroleum --
which is also
the #1 driller in the Alaska North Slope, that Ted Palin works for --
to creata an "outsourcing" mandate to solve the problem, because
we can't do it with our post-industrial cargo cult.

well, screw it;
read LaRouche, if you want to know the history with Lincoln
and his "Spot Resolutions;"
Cinco de Mayo should be a pan-american holiday!

thusNso:
Dear AG candidate Kelly;
no change from Jerry Brown's '69 "platform," eh?

it is intolerably stupid, insofar as we do need "fossilized fuels TM
(sik),"
to not get our share from our own "reserves." really, though,
it is merely biomass, and the techniques have progressed since '69.

Dubya's bro's ban offshore of Florida (and Louisiana) seemed like
a tactical maneuver to support the oilcos' scarcity programme
in our state. (why O why O why do folks believe,
that the oilcos did not support the Kyoto Protoccol,
which was just another cap'n'trade "free trade" nostrum,
that Dubya'd have undoubtdely signed, if he had been told?)

British Petroleum, the balls-out advocate of cap'n'trade,
"Beyond Petroleum," is also the biggest company
in the Alaska North Slope -- doesn't any body wonder,
why no-one asked Palin about her BP-employed hubbie, and
his Seccesionist ideals?

one must take into consideration, with all of the hype about it,
that oil comes out of the ground underwater in "seeps,"
under pressure. so, how much would come out, if
BP et al ad vomitorium were not pumping like crazy?

Waxman's current cap'n'trade bill just mandatorizes the huge,
voluntary cap'n'trade since 2003 -- tens of billions
in hedging per annum. what the Liberal Media (Ownwd
by consWervative) don't talk about, is that
he brought the first cap'n'trade bill in '91,
under HW (who worked with Gore on the Kyoto cap'n'trade).

what it amounts to, as Waxman basically admitted to,
when he was at UCLA, is "let the arbitrageurs raise the price
of energy, as much as they can in the 'free market' --
free beer, freedom!"

a small, adjustable carbon tax would achieve the same ends
-- as I even read "in passing" in a guest editorial in the WSUrinal,
as well as from an "expert" in a UCLA seminar, but who said that
it was (some how) "politically impossible" --
without being the Last Bailout of Wall Street (and the City of
London).


--mister Kelly, please, take me off of your list,
Brian H.

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: The P=NP problem solved!
Next: proof of rearrangement inequality for >2 sequences?