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?