The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.
jackokie
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by jackokie » Sat Sep 17, 2022 4:55 pm

@BeAChooser, @nick c, @robertus maximus, and others The back-and-forth on Arp and quasars is a welcome change from the slash-and-burn dialogs encountered elsewhere. It has already challenged what I thought I knew about both Halton Arp and quasars. How much more could science achieve if there were more of these "collaborative disagreements"?

Some questions occur: Why do quasars so often appear in pairs? What is the mechanism that creates the quasars with such synchronicity? Where do quasars fit in the evolution of galaxies and stars in the EU model?
Time is what prevents everything from happening all at once.

jacmac
Posts: 890
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:36 pm

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by jacmac » Sat Sep 17, 2022 5:09 pm

After reading along on this thread for awhile I have but a couple of comments.
In reading parts of Seeing Red, Arp does not agree with the tired light view.
Also, Arp talks about an Intrinsic redshift component of redshift,
separate from the speed /distance part,
which makes the whole subject more complicated.

In his recent video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2TFmg6NdGY
At around 13;30...
Lerner does believe redshift equals distance but comes to the opposite conclusion
of a non expanding universe.

They both differ from the standard model for different reasons,
As Nick says.

BeAChooser
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by BeAChooser » Sat Sep 17, 2022 6:02 pm

Robertus Maximus wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:31 pm Excellent thread BeAChooser.
Thanks, Robertus Maximus, and thanks for deciding to participate. I think we all should be thinking about ways to assist Lerner, now that he has started his video debate and the *science communicators*, who are getting bombarded with doubt from the public, are scrambling to quiet the mob.

I also want to thank jackokie for reminding me that there’s a comment section below the YouTube videos in question. There are now over 556 comments in Dr Keating’s thread, and both he and Dr Lerner (as LPPFusion) are exchanging comments back and forth. I'm thinking of joining in on the discussion because the dishonesty, illogic and handwaving in the comment from Keating that jackokie quoted is outright astonishing.

I encourage others to join that YouTube discussion as well. We finally have the mainstream’s attention and we should take the opportunity to make our views known. And from the looks of it, there are a lot of people expressing doubts about Big Bang on the thread. For my part, I promise to tone down my comments and I also recommend we stick to plasma cosmology related comments rather than introducing EU ones (like discussion of the electric sun). We need to help Lerner focus the debate rather than diffuse it.
Robertus Maximus wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:31 pmIt was interesting to see David Malone introducing the Institute of Art and Ideas ‘Heretics, Heresies…’ discussion, in the first link you provided.
I was unaware of him before this. He sounds like a very interesting, talented fellow, to whom I'll pay more attention.
Robertus Maximus wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:31 pmHalton Arp is given the final opportunity to reply to his critics who suggest that he is creating complete anarchy in orthodox thinking when he is asked: “How do you prevent anarchy?”, “Well, er… not by tyranny.” came the reply.
Wow! Now there’s a lesson that all of us should take to heart … especially in these times.
Robertus Maximus wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:31 pmBig Bang Industrial Complex
I like that phrase. Quite descriptive of what’s developed. And just like the Defense Industrial Complex, the Big Bang Industrial Complex's number one goal is to grow bigger and it will sell whatever product allows it to do so, regardless of whether the product is scientifically valid.
Robertus Maximus wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:31 pmAs with many others it was Lerner’s book (BBNH) that, by a circuitous route, led me to the electrical nature of the universe; … snip … I agree with his evolving infinite eternal universe model (BBNH Chapter 7, p 295). Ironically, in that chapter he mentions “tiny trickles of electricity” but also refers to energy flow, this suggests to me that Lerner is well aware of the electrical nature of the universe.
I don’t think it’s irony. Lerner was very much aware of the electrical nature of the universe. The chapter of his book titled “The Spears Of Odin” is all about ways in which electricity might dominate the universe. He opened it by quoting Birkeland says “Space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds.” He then devoted many pages to how electrical currents create magnetic fields and how they interact with plasmas. How auroras are electrical. The electrical nature of his plasma focus device and how plasmoids might power quasars. He presented what I think is still the best explanation for the formation of the solar system and the transfer of angular momentum to the planets … the one developed by Alfven and Arrhenius. It too is electrical in nature. He talked about the “Cosmic Power Grid” and how current carrying, force free, helically wound plasma filaments are observed at all scales from laboratory to stellar nebula (this was before observations proved they exist at even the scale of galaxy clusters). Then he talked about MHD being an electrical phenomena, followed by a discussion of the possible electrical formation of protostars and galaxies.

In the next chapter, “The Plasma Universe”, the electrical theme continued. After a detour to discuss Alfven’s and Klein’s ideas about antimatter (their ambiplasma theory), he talks about Anthony Peratt’s experiments on currents traveling through wires creating helically wound plasmas, and how that led Peratt to study the possible formation of galaxies using what were state of the art plasma simulation computer codes ... codes which accounted for the effects of electric current on plasmas. A long sub-chapter is titled “How A Galaxy Forms” and leads one, step by step, through the process of two electric current carrying, galaxy sized plasma filaments interacting to form a spiral galaxy, as happened in his simulations. Then he proceeds to show how Peratt’s model explained the rotation curves of spirals WITHOUT requiring dark matter or MOND.

Note that the complete quote you mentioned is "Tiny trickles of electricity will flow together into might rivers." Yes, Lerner was very much aware of the electrical nature of the universe and promoted what I think he believed at the time would be the easiestly accepted, least controversial, aspects of it.
Robertus Maximus wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:31 pmLikewise in BBNH, Lerner promotes Alfven’s anti-matter or ‘fireworks’ proposal to explain cosmic expansion and redshift; this was always a point I never agreed with, it’s good to see he now favours a non-expanding universe.
Yes, Lerner has demonstrated that he's able to adapt to new information. I think he'll go wherever good science takes us, even if it diminishes the ideas he has pushed. His primary goal is not to offer a specific alternative to the Big Bang, but to topple the Big Bang community's unscientific control of the process of finding the truth of the matter.
Robertus Maximus wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:31 pmI’m not too sure what Lerner now favours to explain redshift but I tend to lean toward the Wolf Effect (https://docslib.org/doc/6770234/arxiv-a ... of-quasars and https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf ... .359...67J).
I too favor the Wolf Effect. I suspect Lerner does as well, but after the way he was dragged through the mud over “tired light” and it’s still being used against him, maybe he’s decided to just stick with calling the alternative an “unknown process”, like he did in his latest scientific paper.
Robertus Maximus wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:31 pmGenerally, Lerner’s cosmology is one of the universe ‘winding up’ presenting a future of hope and possibility, compared to the winding down, degenerating, hopeless Big Bang model. The fact that a future of hopelessness is promoted by the controlling authorities is no accident. In that sense then, the Big Bang serves a wider cultural purpose which is one reason it is not going away any time soon.
A very astute observation. I like that a lot.
Robertus Maximus wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:31 pmFinally, the Big Bang theory cannot be falsified (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability), no amount of evidence will be allowed to disprove the theory, more ‘epicycles’ or “knobs and whistles” will simply be added. By definition it is pseudoscience, it is ‘settled science’ and it is but one of a number of new religions.
I agree that Big Bang is pseudoscience and a religion, but I’m not sure it can’t be falsified. That is the essence of what Lerner is trying to do with his Tolman Test paper, article and videos. And I think the mainstream realizes the danger to their “Industrial Complex” in his argument, which is why they’ve come out of the woodwork to attack him after basically ignoring him (and us) for 3 decades.

jackokie
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by jackokie » Sat Sep 17, 2022 7:09 pm

Interesting comment from Lerner's latest video (Debate #2):
Lemuel Pitkin
17 hours ago (edited)
Hi Eric. I have an interesting theory! It's inspired by Voltaire when he said,

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

Had you considered that there might be something bigger afoot than what appears to be bad science at this superficial level of "Big bang backward science"?

We've seen a strange corruption and failure to apply the scientific method in various scientific disciplines lately. Could this big bang theory be some kind of a test run to see what people are willing to believe due to authority alone? Dark energy, dark matter, expanding universe? And if they can get supposedly sober scientists steeped in the scientific method to go along with this without skepticism, maybe it demonstrated something bigger for more practical-minded purposes such as reorganizing society, forcing everyone to wear cloth masks as though they stopped coronaviruses for instance, or go along with a mandatory vaccination program whose evidence for efficacy versus harm had not been fully demonstrated?

Forcing every medical practitioner to forego the use of effective therapeutics such as hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin (please see the latest research/review articles)? What next?

Refusing to acknowledge the lab leak hypothesis as being the most likely hypothesis? Even going so far as to censor such debate?

Refusing to acknowledge the drum beat of data suggesting high risk to young males receiving the Pfizer and moderna mRNA vaccines with very little benefit what's the advent of Omicron, a lopsided risk benefit ratio?

There are other fields besides medicine that are less practical such as the field of archeology where major dogmas involving the first advanced human societies starting only 8,000bce or so are being toppled by new archaeological evidence, with prior hints and data having been buried literally and figuratively for years. That's unforgivable in science and yet it is forgiven.

And then there's the SSRI scandal where serotonin no longer is acknowledged as being significant and depression, and the fake data that helped screw up Alzheimer's research involving beta amyloid plaques. How many years of wasted research were created by this red herring and falsified data?

But again, the application of bad science in the medical realm and public health realm seems to have been templated upon what's happened with "the credulity in cosmology problem".

Just looking for the bigger picture. I just hope skepticism can ride to the rescue in all of these areas and I thank you for doing your part in this!

And don't get me started on climate science! Apparently, there's no limit to what we can be forced to believe simply due to authority. Bad things will follow.
Also a pointed video linked in the comments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7zRrqqbc9c
Time is what prevents everything from happening all at once.

crawler
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by crawler » Sat Sep 17, 2022 10:16 pm

crawler wrote: Sat Aug 27, 2022 10:16 pm I think i have posted here before that....
Krafft 1930-60 said that a photon stretches as it approaches a say star....
Conrad Ranzan say 2017 said that a photon also stretches as it departs a say star....
Hence old light is redshifted.
I can add that TL exists together with Doppler redshift due to velocity or due to relative velocity.
And together with Arp's idea of redshift due to juvenile low mass.
And together with any other kind of redshift.
There is no need for any ORs.
Except that the BB is an impossibility.
Just like a singularity BH is an impossibility.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

BeAChooser
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by BeAChooser » Sat Sep 17, 2022 10:48 pm

nick c wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:31 pm Arp's work does not need Lerner.
Isn't that what I said? All Lerner would have done is muddy the water if he’d made Arp’s work any larger part of his book because Lerner added to the controversy.
nick c wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:31 pmArp is not trying to disprove the Big Bang.
You sure about that? In 1992, in Physics Letters A, Arp and T. Van Flandern published an article titled "The Case Against the Big Bang", whose abstract begins "A number of independent observations now violate the assumptions and predictions of the big bang model." And Arp certainly took delight when he thought Big Bang was down for the count. For example, in 2002 he states here (https://www.haltonarp.com/articles/the_ ... ge_gravity) that “The greatest part of the progress independent researchers have made in the past decades, in my opinion, is to break free of the observationally disproved dogma of curved space time, dark matter, Big Bang, no primary reference frame and no faster than light information.”

In fact, here's what Arp wrote in regards to and in his book "Seeing Red". “There is now a fashionable set of beliefs regarding the workings of the universe, greatly publicized as the Big Bang, which I believe is wildly incorrect.” Then, “in spite of determined opposition, I believe the observational evidence has become overwhelming, and the Big Bang has in reality been toppled.” He wrote “Chapter 9 discusses the theory. It points out how the Friedmann/Einstein expanding universe (the so-called “Big Bang”) is based on a mistaken assumption—and why it cannot explain the observations." Later in the book he writes “So a simple glance at the evidence discussed in this Chapter shows that extragalactic astronomy and Big Bang theory is swept away.”
nick c wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:31 pmThere is no reason for Arp to reference Lerner.
I didn't say there was. Nor was there a reason for Lerner to reference Arp, because as you said, "Arp's work [did] not need Lerner." Nor would the controversial nature of Arp's work help Lerner. They were taking different roads to the same goal.
nick c wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:31 pmHis work is independent of Lerner, whose stated goal is to prove the Big Bang never happened. In contrast, Arp is focused on the meaning of redshift observations.
Which only mattered in the context of toppling Big Bang so that some other tree could take root.

crawler
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by crawler » Sun Sep 18, 2022 12:22 am

crawler wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 10:16 pm
crawler wrote: Sat Aug 27, 2022 10:16 pm I think i have posted here before that....
Krafft 1930-60 said that a photon stretches as it approaches a say star....
Conrad Ranzan say 2017 said that a photon also stretches as it departs a say star....
Hence old light is redshifted.
I can add that TL exists together with Doppler redshift due to velocity or due to relative velocity.
And together with Arp's idea of redshift due to juvenile low mass.
And together with any other kind of redshift.
There is no need for any ORs.
Except that the BB is an impossibility.
Just like a singularity BH is an impossibility.
Olbers' Paradox has not been mentioned by Lerner nor anybody else.
Olbers' P is one of the pillars of the BB mafia.
Why havent the BB mafia brought up Olbers' ???????????????
Lerner (or someone) would need to (or should) provide an answer to Olbers' -- ordinary tired light stuff wont do the trick -- it needs a new kind of tired light.
Anyhow -- i am happy to wait -- its only a matter of time before Olbers comes up re the BB etc -- this will be funny.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

User avatar
nick c
Posts: 2879
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:12 am

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by nick c » Sun Sep 18, 2022 1:45 am

BeAChooser,
I stand by what I wrote. I don't have time for anymore of this. Your questions and contentions of what I wrote obfuscates the simple point that Arp has convincingly demonstrated with numerous examples, that high redshift quasars are actually at similar distances as the low redshift galaxy with which they have a physical connection.

So, if I were writing a book titled THE BIG BANG NEVER HAPPENED, the work of Halton Arp would be an essential element of that book. Which led to my question, why is Arp's work on quasars not included in Lerner's book?

The question is probably rhetorical since I do not expect the author to explain why that is the case. And I doubt that anyone here can read Lerner's mind.

BeAChooser
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by BeAChooser » Sun Sep 18, 2022 6:57 am

I just read through all the comments so far on Dr Keating’s YouTube Video thread. the Big Bang proponents are rather nasty. I guess Lerner and all the doubters seem to have struck a nerve. Especially a poster named ian w whose made remarks seem over the top in unpleasantness.

The comments from some of the doubters are priceless. They show that the attempts of Dr Keating and some of the BB proponents who have chimed in to support him (particularly ian w who must have posted at least a 100 times) aren’t convincing anyone who isn’t already convinced. And apparently there’s a lot of doubt about Big Bang. I especially like this one response to poster ian w for criticizing Lerner’s and Alfven’s credentials …
@Jared Moore
Yeah good points. These high IQ individuals like Alfven really need to stay in their expertise and out of the expertise of the high IQ individuals in other fields (like the guys in this podcast for example). Like, we know from measuring "G" that it's not a very general correlation to various aspects of societal success thought to indicate intelligence but rather a factor that correlates primarily to demonstrated intelligence in a field that person chose later in life.

And good points on the lack of degrees of Mr Lerner. If people don't go up through the maximum of our education systems they simply won't know how think correctly in their fields that they need to stay in. Our education systems are one of our greatest achievements and produce historical levels of literacy and mathematical prowess and we should be proud of this.

I'm with you. I just wish these anti science folks would stick to the system which we know works and not waste our time challenging it or going outside of it.
LOL! That sort of sarcastically sums up the attitude that is prevalent in the thread amongst the claimed BB *experts* and their followers. But the truth is that ian w only shows himself to be an ass and a liar … especially when he makes such obviously false statements like “there is no evidence that contradicts the [BB] theory. And there is zero evidence that favours PC.” If he’s the best they can come up to help Keating defend BB, it may indeed be in trouble. And it’s note worthy that that Dr Keating invited him to join his mailing list, despite his unpleasantness and his lying. Maybe Keating needs someone to stroke his ego.

In any case, it’s possible Ian is a mainstream astrophysicist or a professor who REALLY doesn’t like Lerner (notice when a poster said to him "Don't know much about Eric Lerner, ..... “, he responded “Consider yourself lucky”). He might even be a known friend of Keating and their banter about him joining the mailing list is just a deception to hide that fact. Or, perhaps, as one poster suggested, he’s Mrs Keating. Anyway, with all the nasty, perhaps libelous statements ian w made about Lerner, I can see why he might hide his identity.

Now, I have to admit that one thing I’ve learned is that Lerner actually must believe in some form of tired light model. I was wrong to claim he doesn’t just because he stopped talking about tired light after his book came out. Tired Light is a apparently a broad term encompassing many possibilities for light losing energy as it passes through space … and something like it is needed to explain redshift if expansion is not cause.

Now the bulk of the criticisms of Lerner in the Keating video comments involve the claim that the tired light concept, in any form, was totally discredited years ago, thus need not be even entertained. That is not true. First, there are now many tired light models, many of them quite recent, based on various possible mechanisms for energy loss in space that have not been ruled out. Here’s a long list of possibilities, recently complied by Louis Marmet: https://cosmology.info/essays/tired-lig ... armet.html “Tired Light Redshift Models “.

And here’s an example of a very recent paper that concludes astronomical observations of Supernova agree with a tired light model … that in fact a tired light model agrees with the observations better than any other. I quote the relevant parts …

https://vixra.org/pdf/2202.0008v2.pdf
Exponential Energy Loss and Observational Deviation from the Hubble Law

By Barry Mingst and Paul Stowe

Feb 13, 2022

Abstract:

In this work we plot the observational measurements of 240 SNIA events in standard astronomical Hubble fashion. We demonstrate that there is a greater than 98% correlation to an exponential loss of energy with distance.

… snip …

The assumption that the red shift was caused wholly or partially by motion was not universally accepted by many early astronomers. The most well-known of these was Fritz Zwicky, who proposed in 1929 that light might lose energy as it traveled cosmic distances. According to Fred Hoyle, Zwicky’s proposal was “generally ignored, as is inevitably the case when the establishment has made up its mind, as it had by around 1930.”. Correspondingly, Zwicky’s proposal as such is not even referenced in many standard cosmological histories such as Peebles’ “Principals of Physical Cosmology” and Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler’s “Gravitation.”

Currently we can safely state that there is no accepted physical cause for light to lose energy while traveling cosmological distances. Such loss of energy with distance is sometimes named “Tired Light.” Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler summarize the establishment view that “(n)o one has ever put forward a satisfactory explanation for the cosmological redshift other than the expansion of the universe.”.

As an aside, we can note that light scattering off of matter does not offer a physical basis for this exponential energy loss. This is a near-universal straw man for “proofs” that tired light cannot exist – beginning with a one-sentence dismissal from Zwicky. However, light scattering off of matter is already subtracted out of local brightness measurements when allowing for extinction. There is none left for further energy degradation.

… snip the paper’s presentation and analysis of 240 SN1A Data points …

Energy Loss and the Redshift:

The data supports an exponential variant of the “tired light” hypothesis. Tired light has been proposed several times over the past 90 years by theorists dissatisfied by various aspects of the ΛCDM model. Tired Light is in general described as the concept that light naturally loses energy as it travels astronomical distances through space. One can consider this postulate to be ad hoc (hypothesis non fingo). However, every other instance of wave propagation known to science has the observed physical property of the loss of energy with distance traveled. The lack of such loss for light (electromagnetic waves) would make it the only known exception to this otherwise universal rule.

While there is no currently-accepted model for light-wave energy loss, light is experimentally seen to lose energy exponentially with distance as it passes through matter. This is true for both high-energy light and solar radiation passing through water.

The common units given for the initial slope of the Hubble diagram is 70 km/sec per Mpc. Converting to inverse meters, the value of μ becomes 7.5E-27 m-1. The magnitude of this value far too small to exhibit any observable effects except at very great distances such as Hubble’s measurements. The exponential decay profile is a unique property of a tired light effect. No other known cosmological model naturally incorporates this profile.

Conclusions:

The deviation from the linear Hubble profile was not predicted by the Big Bang model – nor was the point at which this deviation would begin. The addition of “dark energy” – an ad hoc unphysical anti-gravity force of arbitrary strength – was added to account for these observations.

The observed curve fits a standard wave energy loss or “tired light” observation extremely well. There is no need for any additional ad hoc postulates. Using published observations from Nobel Prize winning research fit its predictive curve almost perfectly.

There is a common demand that a “tired light” model provide an alternate cosmology before it can even be considered. With exponential energy loss from the electromagnetic waves, there is simply no unique data that could define the origin and evolution of the universe – and all expanding universe models would lose their foundation.

This would certainly disappoint many who desire to be certain of the beginnings and endings of all things. It will disappoint cosmologists – who would lose the underpinnings of ΛCDM that generate most cosmological research papers. But there will be no lack of work for astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists. The remoter rungs of the cosmological distance ladder which are currently tied to the linear Hubble law and the velocity/redshift assumptions would be re-evaluated. All distances to extragalactic objects would need to be reevaluated. Apparent anomalies such as quasar redshifts and distances could be examined anew.

And best of all, physicists could begin searching for the physical foundational process of this energy loss. One that would be acceptable to a large number of newly-disappointed theorists.
Continuing ... I think the most damaging part of the thread (to Lerner) comes in the @LPPFusion comment portion. By the way, I was wrong when I assumed, based on jackokie’s earlier post, that Lerner is actively participating in the thread). He’s not. People are just commenting about Lerner’s statements on the thread. Anyway, the only really noteworthy post is, surprisingly, by ian w who wrote the following directly addressing Lerner’s video use of a linear formula to model energy loses:
ian w
11 days ago
 @LPPFusion  "It is that redshift is linearly proportional to distance. z = HD/c"

Nuh-uh! That rearranges to d = cz/H0! Are you not seeing the problem there? It was pointed out to you ~ 6 years ago on ISF by 'ben m' a physicist. I would link the relevant posts, but I doubt that links are allowed on here.
To summarise, quoting Ben;

"He insists on:

d= cz/H0

And calls it a static-universe tired-light theory. On top of the (unjustified) idea of tired light to begin with, Eric has chosen a totally unphysical implementation of it.

Consider sources at d = c/H and d=2c/H. Lerner tells us that these will be detected with redshifts of z=1 and z=2 respectively. A photon from a z=1 source has only half of its original energy (or has doubled in wavelength). A photon from a z=2 source has only 1/3rd of its original energy left (or has tripled in wavelength). Tired Light theory attributes this to some property of space that saps energy from light passing through.

Here's the especially broken thing about Lerner's version. I will set c/H = 1 for simpler typing.

Emit an E=8 eV photon at d=1, which Lerner says is z=1. When it gets to d=0 it has E= 4 eV.

Emit an E= 12 eV photon at d=2, which Lerner says is z=2. When it gets to d=0 it has E= 4 eV.

But a photon from d=2 has to pass by d=1 on the way to d=0. The two halves of its journey are, according to Eric's curve, very different.

Are we supposed to conclude that the z=2 photon went from 12 eV to 8 eV (a factor of 0.66) in the first half of its journey, then went from 8 eV to 4 eV (a factor of 0.5) in the second half? Because that's what Lerner's equation says. Surely the path between d=1 and d=0 has the same effect on (a) a photon that travels that path only, vs (b) photons arriving from further away. (If not, Lerner's theory is even weirder.) (It) says that the tired-light-ness of distant space is less effective than the tired-light-ness of nearby space. He wrote something that looks simple on paper (d = cz/H) but which implies ridiculous physical complication---including putting the Earth at the geometric center of a set of spherical shells of different tired-light effects, all stacked and fine-tuned in some weird way to make Lerner's equation look linear in conventional notation.

If you insist on attributing tired-light properties to space, the only remotely parsimonious thing to write is, say,

1/(z+1) = e^(-d/d0)

with some scale factor d0. That's a well-behaved, one-parameter, "local" theory of energy-loss-while-traversing-a-medium. (And that's the theory I tested. It disagrees horribly with the supernova data. Oh well.)

Lerner's theory is a tired-light, static, heliocentric theory, with an unknown number of free parameters tossed in (and their values chosen) solely to yield a linear d-z relation. Contra Lerner, a linear d-z is not some simple minimal theory that we should default to except under strong compulsion---a linear d-z is a bizarre trainwreck of two variables that really don't want to be related linearly."

Or, as he put it in a later post;

"Eric, your equation says that redshifts should disagree when measured in emission spectra than in absorption spectra. For example: suppose we see a distant quasar at distance D0 emitting broadband white light. Suppose we see that the quasar's light passes through the halo of a galaxy at distance D1 and encounter a atomic absorption line. This galaxy may also emit light, including emission lines.

Let's say the quasar is at d=2, the galaxy is at d=1, and the atomic absorption feature is at 1 eV. From the galaxy's perspective, the quasar is at d=1. Therefore, when the galaxy is absorbing 1 eV photons out of the quasar spectrum, it's removing photons which were emitted at 2 eV. However, the quasar photons are all said to be redshifting down to z=2 on their way to Earth. We'll therefore see a quasar spectrum with an absorption line whose energy at arrival is 0.66 eV. In other words, this quasar has an absorption-line spectrum indicating an intervening z=0.5 galaxy.

But the galaxy is actually at d=1. All of its emission features are at z=1.

Your "mathematical description" of redshift, Eric, includes a specific prediction: if photons obey that redshift-distance relation, then absorption-line redshifts and emission-line redshifts should differ hugely. They don't."

QED.
Now I have to agree that Lerner appears to have used a first order approximation of the tired light equation in his first video, and maybe in his papers and article. And that what ian w says it implies about photon energy reduction at various distances is problematic. Only for small distances does the exponential tired light redshift distance relation reduce to z = Hd/c. That criticism seems valid. So … I’m going to have to go back and look more carefully at what Lerner, et. al., said in his last published papers, his post-JWST article, and his first video presentation of this so-called *debate*. His opponents may have a scored a valid point in saying his analysis is too simplified to conclude what he concludes.

Of course, I want to give Dr Lerner the benefit of the doubt so in the meantime, I hope he himself takes the time to address specifically what ian w posted, even if ian w acted like a jackass throughout most of the Keating thread. I hope Lerner addresses more carefully why he believes his simplified equation is valid over distances far beyond the point where tired light type energy loss models are linear.

One last note. I found this blog article discussing a QED explanation for redshift (labeled New Tired Light). The blog says …

https://qedradiation.scienceblog.com/tag/tired-light/
Redshift by Cosmic Dust trumps Hubble and Tired Light Theories

… snip …

Zwicky proposed that galaxy photons redshift because they lose energy as they scatter upon collision with cosmic dust particles (DPs) before entering the Earth, a redshift theory called Tired Light. See www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light. Recently, Ashmore extended Tired Light to loss of energy in galaxy photons upon collisions with electrons. See www.lyndonashmore.com/.

Objections to Tired Light theories are generally based on the argument that scattered light should blur the galaxy image, and therefore are dismissed because the images are clear and not blurred.

… snip …

An alternative to the Hubble and Tired Light theories is the theory of QED induced redshift caused by the absorption of galaxy light in DPs. QED stands for quantum electrodynamics. See http://www.nanoqed.org/ at “Dark Energy and Cosmic Dust” and “Reddening and Redshift”, 2009. QED theory asserts the redshift Z is spontaneous upon the absorption of light.

… snip …

QED induced redshift may be understood by treating the absorbed galaxy photon as electromagnetic (EM) energy confined within the DP geometry. … snip … If the QED induced redshift in DPs at Z = 5 is erroneously interpreted by the Hubble law, the galaxy recession velocity is 95 % of the speed of light when in fact the Universe is not expanding.

Tolman Test and Supernovae Spectra Aging


Shortly after the Hubble discovery, Tolman devised a test to distinguish between a static and expanding Universe. See www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman_surfac ... tness_test. In a static Universe, the light intensity of an object drops inversely with the square of its distance from the observer, but the apparent area of the object also drops inversely with the square of the distance, so the brightness given as the intensity per unit area of the object is independent of the distance. However, if the Universe is expanding, astronomers claim the brightness is reduced by the fourth power of (1+Z). In 2001, Lubin and Sandage showed the redshift gave a reduction in brightness by the cube of (1+Z). Although the brightness is not reduced by the fourth power of (1+Z), the conclusion was the brightness test is consistent with the reality of Universe expansion.

However, there is a problem with the Tolman test because the brightness B of an object in the static Universe is not assumed reduced by absorption in DPs. By QED theory, a single interaction with a DP emits light at wavelength Lo = (1+Z)L. Therefore the brightness Bo at the observer is Bo = hc/Lo = hc/L(1+Z) = B/(1+Z), or the object brightness is reduced by (1+Z), but not by the cube of (1+Z) as measured. Closer agreement is found for multiple interactions, e.g., for N interactions, B drops inversely with the product (1+Z1)(1+Z2)…(1+ZN), where ZK is the redshift for interaction K.

The Tolman test aside, the aging of Supernovae spectra is found to drop inversely with (1+Z) at the observer. See Blondin et al. at www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm. For spectra defined by brightness/unit area, Bo = B divided by the respective wavelength. Equivalence is found by Bo/Lo = B/L(1+Z). Hence, QED theory for the spectra at the Supernovae is consistent with the measured spectra showing an inverse drop by (1+Z).
There’s more info regarding New Tired Light here … http://tiredlight.org. Also, I found a Thunderbolts thread discussing it from several years ago: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... 8&start=30. Perhaps this theory might address ian w’s criticisms about tired light energy absorption and non-linearity. Lerner did say there might be an “unknown process” that would explain the JWST results. Maybe this is it? Note that there seem to be at least some formal scientific papers confirming NTL predictions. Did anyone here reach a conclusion about it several years ago?

crawler
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by crawler » Sun Sep 18, 2022 8:38 am

I will look at the links & papers etc when i have time. But i know what i will find. The only TL model that makes any sense is Conrad Ranzan's (which Marmet shows that Marmet duznt understand in Marmet's paper)(actually i think i am referring to a later paper).
All others have no mechanism for breaking conservation of energy. Ranzan's has such a mechanism.
In other words Ranzan's is the only one that explains Olbers' Paradox.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

jackokie
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by jackokie » Sun Sep 18, 2022 3:50 pm

@BeAChooser Having read almost all of ian w's comments on both Lerner's and Keating's videos, ian w seems to have a kind of Jekyll and Hyde vibe going - scientific arguments on the one hand vs snark, condescension, and ad homs on the other. From Keating's approving remarks to ian w on Keating's video's comment threads, I'm convinced that ian w's scientific-sounding comments are coached, if not composed by, Keating.

The organization and formatting of youtube comments can make it difficult to separate the commenter from a reference to the commenter in another's comment. Lerner is indeed responding in the comments of both videos. Here is a snippet of an exchange from Lerner's Debate 1 video. In it we get a glimpse of ian w's actual scientific knowledge:
LPPFusion 7 days ago 3 (reply)▼
@ian w Troll, you don't even know the definition of the word plasma while pretending to know more about the field than its founder. You know absolutely zero physics. Less than zero because what you claim to know is wrong. Plasma is gas that conducts electricity. It does not have to be 100% ionized. No actual physicist would disagree that stars are made of plasma. Read wiki for a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics). Your basic inability to understand the vital importance of laboratory experiments in validating the existence of new scientific phenomena shows you don't even know what science is. You also seem to lack a knowledge of sarcasm. I mentioned dragons and fairies because there is exactly as much evidence for the existence of dark energy and dark matter and inflatons as there is for dragons and fairies. Which is zero. There is not a single quantitative prediction based on theories of these imaginary entities that have been confirmed by subsequent observation. On the contrary, there are tons of observations, including many elaborate scientific experiments, that have contradicted the existence of dark matter. Alfven's (and my own) plasma-based theories make predictions that are confirmed by subsequent observations. You can use plasma physics to do useful things--like produce fusion reactions in the laboratory. We do that in our lab, and have published record-breaking papers in leading journals about it. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4989859 You can't use dark energy or dark matter for any purposes, because they don't exist. Just like you can't fly a dragon across the country. For that you need aerodynamics: laboratory-tested science.
ian w
ian w 11 days ago (reply)▼
@LPPFusion I've read plenty of Alfven, thanks. And your self-published, non-peer-reviewed nonsense does not show any maths as to how EM forces can accelerate charge neutral stars around on flat rotation curves.
Time is what prevents everything from happening all at once.

BeAChooser
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by BeAChooser » Sun Sep 18, 2022 5:29 pm

jackokie wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 3:50 pm @BeAChooser Having read almost all of ian w's comments on both Lerner's and Keating's videos
I started looking at the comments on Lerner's video threads this morning.
jackokie wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 3:50 pm ian w seems to have a kind of Jekyll and Hyde vibe going
That's for sure.
jackokie wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 3:50 pmFrom Keating's approving remarks to ian w on Keating's video's comment threads, I'm convinced that ian w's scientific-sounding comments are coached, if not composed by, Keating
Could be. In his video, Keating himself displayed a sort of Jekyll and Hyde personality at times.
jackokie wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 3:50 pmThe organization and formatting of youtube comments can make it difficult to separate the commenter from a reference to the commenter in another's comment. Lerner is indeed responding in the comments of both videos.

Yes, I see that now. It's too bad we have to go back and forth between the threads to see the complete picture of what's said. Maybe some sort of tool to automatically place all the comments in several threads in order by their time stamp would be helpful. Oh well.
jackokie wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 3:50 pm Here is a snippet of an exchange from Lerner's Debate 1 video. In it we get a glimpse of ian w's actual scientific knowledge:
You're right. His ignorance about plasma, electromagnetic effects on plasma, and plasma cosmology is pretty stark. He seems to be totally unaware of Anthony Peratt's work on galaxies and rotation curves. To be that ignorant, he's either not read Lerner's book (which says a lot) or this is how desperate the mainstream has become to discredit Lerner. I had my doubts about whether Dr Keating read Lerner's book so, again, maybe they are one and the same individual.

Anyway, thanks for continuing to give us a heads up about these threads. As I said, I'm now working my way through the comments on the Lerner threads to see what answers Lerner has given to ian w's and Keating's comments. I'll report if I find anything noteworthy. In the meantime, do you know anything about the QED New Tired Light theory?

jacmac
Posts: 890
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:36 pm

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by jacmac » Sun Sep 18, 2022 5:55 pm

I watched Dr. Keating's Sept 1 video for about 36 minutes.
He is a more professional and courteous version of prof Dave.
He needs to show that he knows something about everything,
and that's when he is not setting up a strawman to debunk.
If the rest of his video changes my opinion I'll say so.

My hat is off to you BeAChooser, for being able to wade through all the bloviation.

BeAChooser
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by BeAChooser » Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:53 pm

jacmac wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 5:55 pm My hat is off to you BeAChooser, for being able to wade through all the bloviation.
Well, I'm now officially overwhelmed. The YouTube threads have too many comments to respond to, and in no organized form. I would need to turn into the next rendition of ian w / plasma physics101 to do so ... and I refuse to stoop that low. And I thought this was a very revealing statement …
ian w
11 days ago
Lerner: EM forces can explain galaxy rotation curves.

Maths: Errrr, no it can't. Not if you understand plasma physics and EM and solar physics and... Where are the equations? Peratt had none.
It proves that Ian, like Dr Lerner said, is downright ignorant. Of course there are equations. They were embedded in the state of the art plasma analysis computer code that Peratt used at LANL to reach his conclusions. These sorts of codes are used to model many complex phenomena … from nuclear explosions … to the impact of an asteroid into the ocean … to the earth’s atmosphere ... to the sun. Codes that model the dynamics of tall skyscrapers also contain equations. To suggest such computer code don’t have equations (which is exactly what ian w did), is either stupidity or dishonesty.

Peratt’s results clearly showed that current carrying plasma filaments could create a galaxy like spiral structure from interacting with each other, and the rotation curve of the spiral matched observed spiral galaxy rotation curves … with no dark matter needed. What’s interesting is that no one apparently has ever tried to reproduce Peratt’s results using more modern plasma codes. No one ever showed his work was flawed … they just simply ignored it. Why? Because they were already so invested in dark matter? They had blinders on … just like ian w and Keating? That's my suspicion. If we get rid of the Big Banger’s who are controlling funding and the operation of installations like LANL, we might get the chance to duplicate Peratt’s work. THAT would be far more valuable to cosmology and society, then spending another billion on the next DM experiment or gravity telescope.

I’m actually quite impressed with many of the comments on these video threads. The one who really deserves accolades now is jackokie who signed in and has been commenting on all three of the Keating and Lerner video threads. Some of the comments (by him and others) show thinking that’s way outside the box … things that I certainly never considered but will now. And Dr Lerner has done a good job of responding to the jabs against him by Keating and Ian w, but he too must be feeling overwhelmed. I’m going to make a copy of these threads, lest they be lost because YouTube could decide it's going to support the Big Bang. I’m not kidding about that.

I really think the mainstream *science communicators* and astrophysics have misjudged the public sentiment. What I see in these 100s of comments is just a taste of how I think most people feel. Like I said earlier, many of us simply don't believe the mainstream any longer because they’ve had 50 to 60 years to prove their model isn’t just composed of imaginary gnomes AND THEY’VE FAILED. We’ve watched them ignore important observations (like helical winding of galaxy sized filaments) time and time again. We’ve watched them lie about the theories of their opponents. We’ve watched their predictions fail and then watched them add layer after layer of more nonsense to their models. And we’re tired of them spending countless billion of OUR dollars on more fruitless searches that even if they did find proof of their gnomes wouldn’t really affect our lives one iota. Talk about useless endeavors. Clearly , the ONLY real purpose of Big Bang astrophysics now is to buy astrophysicists and their sycophant supporters (like science communicators) nice houses, expensive cars, great meals, wonderful vacations, expensive educations in progressive Ivy League schools for their kids, and retirement plans that most people can’t even imagine. Maybe people are finally starting to wake up to the scam that Big Bang Big Science has become.

By the way, I saw that two days ago, Verschlungen asked Lerner about the New Tired Light hypothesis. I hope he responds.

BeAChooser
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by BeAChooser » Wed Sep 21, 2022 6:08 pm

Here’s an interview with the former Deputy Director of the Space Telescope Science Institute, Garth Illingworth … notice the title of the article …

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolo ... r-AA125wMp
The JWST's Data Is So Incredible That Even Those Who Built It Are Questioning Previous Science

… snip …

One particularly juicy takeaway from the James Webb is that some new data appears to contradict previous findings. Can you tell us more about that early galaxy that was a lot more massive than previously expected?

Yes, sure. So this one, which we gave the name GNZ11 — … snip … — pointed to something unusual at these very early times.

So in the in the first four days after the Webb images were released, we wrote these papers, and we realized that GNZ11 wasn't unique — there were others of these very bright, very luminous galaxies, which we interpreted as being unusually massive. Then, within weeks, there was another one even further back in time, closer to the Big Bang, that was still very massive. That has really been a surprise. We have to ask ourselves: is it really massive? Or does it have really unusual stars in it that are very bright, but not so much mass? We just don't know at this point, but Webb can answer these questions.

… snip … Theorists are now wondering: how do you build a galaxy like this so quickly, and does it have a black hole that's been building extremely rapidly in there as well? … snip …

What do you think that a situation like this says about the scientific process itself?

… snip … You have to recognize you can be wrong at any point, but when you're wrong, you learn new things.
But that’s the problem. The mainstream has refused to recognize they are wrong … no matter how many contradictions have turned up … no matter how many unexplainable phenomena using current theory have turned up. As a result they can't learn. It’s a religion … not science.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest