Ben m: Are we *ever* allowed to try to write a physical model for this idea? And to propose methods for testing it other than sort-of-fitting straight lines through Hubble diagrams?
Sure ben, but it's technically beyond the scope of Eric's paper, just like it's beyond the scope of
this test of the tired light model, much as that irks you personally. In fact however, the real beauty of tired light theories is that they *can* be empirically tested in laboratory plasma, and there seem to be any number of different tired light models to choose from.
Compare and contrast that potential to "lab test" tired light theories with the inability to empirically demonstrate the "expanding space" claim in controlled lab tests with real photons in real controlled experiments. We can't even "test" the Lamba claim in any ordinary controlled laboratory experiment, and it's the entire basis of the LCDM claim! You therefore have *zero* right to complain about the fact that A) tired light models are beyond the scope of Eric's (or any) particular paper, or B) about the ability of the various tired light models to be "tested" in real laboratory plasma.
Because right now I can think of lots of problems with your suggested model.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =3&t=15850
I have compiled a whole list of problems with your suggested model over the past decade ben, and I haven't seen anyone in your thread address any of those complaints. So what if you personally can think of some problems? I can think of *lots* of problems with Lambda-CDM starting with CDM claims.
(I mean, seriously, it's a godawful theory from the point of view of E&M, particle physics, and relativity)
That's is pure nonsense, and it easily demonstrated to be false in the lab too. Inelastic scattering is an entirely *predictable* theory anytime we introduce *light* into a *plasma medium*. Based upon what we have already seen in the lab, we would necessarily need to "predict" some amount of pulse spreading, and some amount of inelastic scattering if we pass light through a plasma. It's not only compatible with particle physics and everything else on your list, your claim is easily demonstrated to be false by any number of lab experiments that verify that inelastic scattering occurs in plasma.
and is trivially disproven by the existence of emitting and absorbing systems at different redshifts.)
Bah. No. In fact it's trivially proven by those very same observations as both Eric's paper demonstrates and they other "tired light" test demonstrates. Tired light theories *pass* many types of tests Ben. You're just going to have to accept it.
If I try to post such criticism, I suspect you'd say "no, no, you're not supposed to criticize the model itself yet, let's start by showing that it's a good fit and counting the parameters". To which I say, preemptively:
Your ability to invent the model is the only thing that allows us to count the parameters at all. (Nobody cares how many parameters there are in the best-vague-polynomial-drawn-through-something.)
The existence of multiple models---"one tired light model gives d=z, another gives d = log(1+z), another gives ..."---is, by definition, a free parameter in modeling; you chose to emphasize the d=z version over the d=log(1+z) version or the d=z+z^2/2 version because you think it agrees with the data, not for any other reason.
LOL! That's the whole point Ben. He's simply using the observations themselves to determine a "best fit" to the existing data, just like "expanding space", inflation, dark energy and dark matter. You however need a grand total of four unique fudge factor parameters to do what a tired light theory does with *one* at worst case!
You *should* care how many parameters you have to introduce into your claim to get a fit to the data set Ben. You should also care about how many of them *defy* any laboratory support too.
Since we already know that inelastic scattering happens in plasma, and pulse spreading happens in plasma, Eric is technically not even even adding an *extra* parameter, just a *necessary* parameter in terms of actual empirical physics. In *real* plasma, inelastic scattering and pulse spreading happen. Eric's method simply provides us with an *averaged mathematical model*/distance.
But you forget (or pretend) that you made this choice when it comes time to talk about the number of parameters in your theory. (Recall that if the data had come in looking like d = log(1+z), you'd be talking about the one-parameter nature of your fit to THAT, and poking fun at any cosmologist who ran hypothesis-tests on a dark-matter-inspired d=z model.)
You're basically saying "we should describe the data simply and accurately first, and worry about the physical nature of the best-fit model later" here, which is exactly the behavior that invites your scorn.
In his case however, Eric is not introducing anything that cannot be demonstrated and tested in a lab. You however are introducing four unique parameters into your claim, including space expansion, inflation, dark energy and dark matter, all of which were *postdicted* exactly the same way Eric postdicted a fit. The *worst* you could do is accuse him of doing it *once* with a *known* empirical cause of photon redshift, whereas you're doing it four different times with *unknown* causes of photon redshift that you simply "made up" to save your otherwise falsified theory from empirical falsification.
We have a great, predictive cosmological model, Eric,
That's simply not true. You have an entirely *postdictied* cosmological model. Guth postdicted a fit for inflation, and he *never* predicted those hemispheric variations we now see in Planck data sets. Your "dark matter" models were postdicted from galaxy rotation patterns and lensing data sets, and they have been falsified left an right at LHC, LUX, PandaX, AMDX, CresstII, and those electron roundness "tests" as well. I'd say your model really stinks to high heaven in terms of what it actually "predicted" vs what we see in Planck hemispheric variations, and in terms of cold dark matter results from the lab. In fact I'd say it's been a complete disaster in terms of cold dark matter "predictions" over the past decade. Dark energy theory didn't "predict" that SN1A events come in *at least* two varieties either, so you notion "prediction success" sounds pretty dubious at best.
which describes the data simply and accurately.
Accurately: "maybe", simply: absolutely positively not. You require *four* unique "fudge factors" in your theory to get a "fit" to the very same data set. Eric needs but one at worst case, and inelastic scattering and pulse spreading show up in real lab experiments. Unless you expect plasma in space to not work the way it works in the lab, we *must* including a parameter for inelastic scattering over distance. In fact, the fact that Lambda-CDM *does not* predict a *known process in plasma* is the very heart of it's obvious error.
It's called "LCDM". It includes three ingredients (something that looks like dark matter, something that looks like dark energy, and an inflaton mechanism that kicks in at high energy)
You left out the "space expansion" requirement which brings you up to *four* supernatural ingredients to get your theory to fit the very same data set. At *worst* case, you still lose the Occam's razor argument by 4 to 1.
whose detailed physical nature we don't know ... and don't need to know for further model computations, although it'd be nice to find out.
Er, if that 'excuse' works for LCDM theory, why doesn't it work for Eric and tired light? Talk about pure hypocrisy. Your entire complaint about his paper is that he doesn't limit himself to or define a "specific" model, yet your own four supernatural constructs all have "variations on the same theme". How many "inflation" models are there to choose from now ben? Dark matter models? Are SN1A events really all the same or not?
It would be nice to find out *which* tired light model(s) are the best fit to the data set *and* the lab results, but it's not required for the purposes of Eric's 'test' of the tired light model. Ditto for the other paper I cited in this thread. They both simply use a "generic" approach to which tired light theory might be best.
The resulting fits are superb, and theorists tell us that the new-physics-inferred is not implausible or otherwise ruled out.
The fits aren't really "superb" in terms of those hemispheric variations that we observe in Planck data sets. They aren't "superb" with respect to your track record on "cold dark matter" experiments over the past decade. They aren't "superb" in terms of the revelation that so called "standard candles" aren't really as standard as first advertised. Your model requires *four* unique "statements of faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab) in order to even compete with a purely *empirical* theory, an empirical theory that is simply based upon *empirically demonstrated* methods of photon redshift.
