I concede

[KickLaBuka]

<p>In my studies, I submit that you are right.&nbsp; The observations become harder to explain without inventing new physics.&nbsp; SpeedFreak, would you mind if I formally quote you?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In my studies, I submit that you are right.&nbsp; The observations become harder to explain without inventing new physics.&nbsp; SpeedFreak, would you mind if I formally quote you? <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>Err... <em>formally</em> quote me? I'm not sure in what context you mean "formally", but for serious work I would rather you quoted my sources, the peer reviewed papers I have posted links to. Feel free to paraphrase my explanations in your own way, if you like, but remember that all I am doing is interpreting the currently favoured cosmological model for the layman. Perhaps if you could explain how "formally" you want to quote me, and what things I have said that you want to quote - I make mistakes too <em>(like "microwaves are not involved"!)</em> and don't want them spread around!</p><p>(I think KickLaBuka is referring to the Expanding Universe thread, by the way)&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Feel free to paraphrase my explanations in your own way, if you like&nbsp; <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /><br />One quote.&nbsp; something along the lines of "our observations actually become harder without inventing new physics."</p><p>And your real name, if you want recognition in my acknowledgments.&nbsp; You deserve it for helping to draw the picture.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One quote.&nbsp; something along the lines of "our observations actually become harder without inventing new physics."And your real name, if you want recognition in my acknowledgments.&nbsp; You deserve it for helping to draw the picture.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>Without expansion, our observations actually become <strong>harder</strong> to explain without inventing new physics. </p><p>We have to be careful in which context this is used. Expansion is consistent with General Relativity and doesn't require new physics to describe it. <strong>Accelerating</strong> expansion, on the other hand, does!</p><p>(Note to moderators: Is there any way to tack this thread onto the end of the other one?)&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Without expansion, our observations actually become harder to explain without inventing new physics. Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /><br />OK, the quote is fixed.&nbsp; Would you like&nbsp;your name attached to this&nbsp;observation or do you want me to refer to you as SpeedFreek <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>OK, the quote is fixed.&nbsp; Would you like&nbsp;your name attached to this&nbsp;observation or do you want me to refer to you as SpeedFreek <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>Neither, considering I have no idea what you are doing with it! If you understand the assertion, simply make it as your own.</p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /> </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Neither, considering I have no idea what you are doing with it! If you understand the assertion, simply make it as your own. &nbsp; <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /><br />Understood.</p><p>-Justin</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Neither, considering I have no idea what you are doing with it! If you understand the assertion, simply make it as your own. &nbsp; <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /><br />May I use the words "space dot com" as an acknowledgement?&nbsp; There is nothing derogatory made directly to space dot com. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>May I use the words "space dot com" as an acknowledgement?&nbsp; There is nothing derogatory made directly to space dot com. <br />Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV><br /><br />Can you show us where you are using it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Can you show us where you are using it? <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I need to find someone with an intimate knowledge of partial differential equations, calculus, linear algebra, and forier series.&nbsp; I also need to find the raw data from the chart of the nucleotides.&nbsp; I also need to find the raw data from all of the tolman exercises.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I have an equation for lamda as a function of distance, mass and charge density, which can be checked in chemistry and your Hubble data, but without the mathematical knowledge, it cannot be done properly.&nbsp; I don't know enough maple or mathcad to utilize them.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I need to find someone with an intimate knowledge of partial differential equations, calculus, linear algebra, and forier series.&nbsp; I also need to find the raw data from the chart of the nucleotides.&nbsp; I also need to find the raw data from all of the tolman exercises.&nbsp;I have an equation for lamda as a function of distance, mass and charge density, which can be checked in chemistry and your Hubble data, but without the mathematical knowledge, it cannot be done properly.&nbsp; I don't know enough maple or mathcad to utilize them.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>On a hunch, please draw the tolman graph with emperical data for ONLY the lamda where Z=1 through Z=>7</p><p>That is, lamda on the x axis and erg/(cm^2 x second)&nbsp; ONly for when Z=1 through >7</p><p>I suggest you will see a very nice curve with emperical data.&nbsp; PLEASE, cooperating with these two fields is the only way. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;On a hunch, please draw the tolman graph with emperical data for ONLY the lamda where Z=1 through Z=>7That is, lamda on the x axis and erg/(cm^2 x second)&nbsp; ONly for when Z=1 through >7I suggest you will see a very nice curve with emperical data.&nbsp; PLEASE, cooperating with these two fields is the only way. <br />Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV><br /><br />Who are you talking to? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[greddytalon]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Who are you talking to? <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I think to himself.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I think to himself.&nbsp; <br />Posted by greddytalon</DIV></p><p>But does anyone know what he is talking about?&nbsp; Nucleotides are&nbsp;organic molecules that are the structural units of RNA and DNA.&nbsp; I can't find any relevent reference to "tolman exercises" or a "tolman graph".&nbsp; I found something related to fluid dynamics, a naval warship, a text on statistical mechanics, and psychology.&nbsp; Feynman was the Richard C. Tolman professor of physics at Cal Tech and Tolman was an emminent physicist of an earlier generation, but I know nothing of "Tolman exercises".</p><p>What this might have to do with expansion of the universe, red shift, general relativity or the price of eggs in China is a mystery to me.</p><p>I think I know what to do about the intimate knowledge of partial differential equations, calculus, linear algebra, and&nbsp;Fourier series.&nbsp; But I have no idea how he intends that such knowledge be applied.&nbsp; GIGO.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But does anyone know what he is talking about?<br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I think this is a fair assessment. KickLaBuka came into the "Expanding Universe" thread, asking questions about the evidence that the universe is expanding. He seemed to be claiming that he had developed his own solution for increasing redshift that did not require an expanding universe, a solution that didn't require unknown forces. We pointed out that redshift is not the only evidence for an expanding universe and went on to explain some other kinds of data that support expansion - the time-dilation of SN1a supernovae and the angular diameter-redshift relationship. I asked if his solution could account for the other data that supports the expansion view. </p><p>I think this thread is about KickLaBuka admitting that his previous solution cannot account for those other observations, but I'm not sure where it's headed! </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think this is a fair assessment. KickLaBuka came into the "Expanding Universe" thread, asking questions about the evidence that the universe is expanding. He seemed to be claiming that he had developed his own solution for increasing redshift that did not require an expanding universe, a solution that didn't require unknown forces. We pointed out that redshift is not the only evidence for an expanding universe and went on to explain some other kinds of data that support expansion - the time-dilation of SN1a supernovae and the angular diameter-redshift relationship. I asked if his solution could account for the other data that supports the expansion view. I think this thread is about KickLaBuka admitting that his previous solution cannot account for those other observations, but I'm not sure where it's headed! <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br />&nbsp;</p><p>I followed the thread&nbsp; and agree with your assessment up until the last two posts by KickLaBuka.&nbsp; But those two posts leave me baffled, as noted in my post above.&nbsp; I have no idea what the connection with nucleotides or tolman excercises/graphs might be (or what a tolman exercise or graph is).&nbsp; I'm not quite sure what the problem is, but I am pretty sure that the mathematical disciplines that he mentioned, with which I am quite familiar, are not the heart of the problem.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have no idea what the connection with nucleotides or tolman excercises/graphs might be (or what a tolman exercise or graph is).&nbsp; I'm not quite sure what the problem is, but I am pretty sure that the mathematical disciplines that he mentioned, with which I am quite familiar, are not the heart of the problem. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>He is referring to the Tolman Surface Brightness Test but the connection with nucleotides has lost me. I posted links to the most recent relevant papers on the Tolman test on the last page of that "expanding universe" thread. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He is referring to the Tolman Surface Brightness Test but the connection with nucleotides has lost me. I posted links to the most recent relevant papers on the Tolman test on the last page of that "expanding universe" thread. <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>Thanks for the clarification.&nbsp; That test strikes me as something that looked like a promising idea when proposed, and a logical approach.&nbsp; But it appears that it did not work out as definitively or cleanly as Tolman might have anticipated.&nbsp; I'm not sure what conclusions can really be reached from the observations.&nbsp; The brief description in the Wiki article makes it sound like people who have tried to apply the test in practice are reaching a bit. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not sure what conclusions can really be reached from the observations.&nbsp; The brief description in the Wiki article makes it sound like people who have tried to apply the test in practice are reaching a bit. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The way I see it is this. We have observed an apparent increase in angular size at high redshift, and if the theory is correct we should also see the surface brightness of those galaxies dim by a certain factor. Surface brightness is a test for the mass of the galaxy, relative to its size, used to help establish the absolute size of the object.</p><p>We see a dimming in the surface brightness, but not as much as expected. So we have to ask whether a galaxy of a given mass was the same size then as it would be now. Were galaxies actually larger in the past, or not? Were those dim galaxies large and distant, or were they small and close? The margin for error increases as the distance we are looking at increases.</p><p>The difference in the actual amount of dimming compared to the expected amount of dimming is nowhere near enough to preclude expansion, nor to confirm it works exactly as is currently thought, but it does confirm expansion. The size of the error-bars for surface brightness and angular size over increasing distance may or may not account for the difference. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The way I see it is this. We have observed an apparent increase in angular size at high redshift, and if the theory is correct we should also see the surface brightness of those galaxies dim by a certain factor. Surface brightness is a test for the mass of the galaxy, relative to its size, used to help establish the absolute size of the object.We see a dimming in the surface brightness, but not as much as expected. So we have to ask whether a galaxy of a given mass was the same size then as it would be now. Were galaxies actually larger in the past, or not? Were those dim galaxies large and distant, or were they small and close? The margin for error increases as the distance we are looking at increases.The difference in the actual amount of dimming compared to the expected amount of dimming is nowhere near enough to preclude expansion, nor to confirm it works exactly as is currently thought, but it does confirm expansion. The size of the error-bars for surface brightness and angular size over increasing distance may or may not account for the difference. <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>That sounds about right.&nbsp; I am inherently skeptical of statistics arguments because they quite often involve a great many unstated and unverifiable assumptions, not the least of which is the nature of the probability distribution on which the statistics are based.&nbsp; I will go along with rough estimates based on such analyses, but when the techniques start to exhibit a false sense of "sophistication" and too much slicing and dicing of the data, I generally look for a better approach to the analysis.&nbsp; Statistics is a poor substitute for physics.&nbsp; The assumption that a normal distribution describes reality is OK near the mean, but generally pretty poor away from the mean.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But does anyone know what he is talking about?&nbsp; Nucleotides are&nbsp;organic molecules that are the structural units of RNA and DNA.&nbsp; I can't find any relevent reference to "tolman exercises" or a "tolman graph".&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Sorry for the delay and for the mis-statement.&nbsp; I meant to say nuclides.&nbsp; O. Manuel's chart of the Nuclides.&nbsp; It was a series of studies since 1971.&nbsp; He also&nbsp;shows 10^43 H+ ions leaving the sun per year, which happens to be a pretty substantial electric field, but he also uses mass fractionation and radioactive decay (woah) which&nbsp;reveals several nuclear reactions necessary to produce Pu244 which, along with the date coding of the solar system components, indicates that the solar system was formed from a supernova explosion.&nbsp; Each of these reactions include lots of energy released, as well as accumulation of H+ ions as they migrate to the surface.</p><p>This thought pattern about chemistry led me to a plethera of conclusions that nearly drove me insane, as Mr. Rocket would be happy to know.</p><p>Chemistry ignores everything&nbsp;inside the valence shell, even though the space between the electrons and the nucleus cause emission which is unique even for atoms of the same valance.&nbsp; I couldn't help but make the connection to the very large emission that you speak of in the observational study of the Universe.</p><p>The Hypothesis I'm developing will account for emission, and graph it as a function of&nbsp;enclosed mass&nbsp;and enclosed charge, as well as the time to get to the observer.&nbsp;&nbsp;Simply, the interaction between mass and charge density, on every scale.&nbsp; It's scary to think about, but maxwell's mathematics make it pretty simple if we can develop the equation using observational data on both the small and large extremes.&nbsp; That's where the tolman surface brightness test comes into play.&nbsp; Since distance was assumed in accepted cosmology, we have to retreat to direct observational data.&nbsp; From Z=1 to Z>7, the size of the galaxies get larger because there is less charge density (electromagnetic fields)&nbsp;holding them in place.&nbsp; This is simply as far as we can see, and we can utilize&nbsp;this data along with known data of atomic forces&nbsp;to help draw the constants in the equation.</p><p>Call me crazy if you want; it's been done plenty.&nbsp; I call it electromass and I'm open to any questions.</p><p>-Justin</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>