I am at a loss to understand how if it got colder after it was warm and previously it warmed after it was cold that when it gets warmer then some other factor that never existed before, that we cannot quantify, *must* be the main warming factor.
This is a repeat of past posts, but that obvious logic was understood to be a great threat to the AGW alarmist message. It was precisely that clear and irrefutable sense which prompted the great efforts by alarmists to rewrite history.
The very first IPCC report contained the following chart:
Every effort has been made to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period. Emails exist to show that Jones and Mann made attempts to hide the MWP and LIA (see here).
Deming reported to the Senate:
Quote:
I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
A poster on this forum even claimed that the MWP could be set aside because:
Quote:
MWP was caused by solar radiation and less volcanic activity.
I asked for the data showing that but not surprisingly he failed to reply.
You seem to be getting muddled up by "doppler shift"
Doppler shift is caused by movement during wave creation.
Necessarily from the observers point of view a wave attentuation thru an unknown principle of nature and a doppler shift via movement would be indistinguishable.
I do not think you can have read the link i provided
Hubble also makes it fairly clear that when he is talking about the velocity red shift relationship he is describing it from the point of view of the expanding universe point of view.
Hubble appears to have been a traditional scientist. Rather than todays 'internet/media scientist' who knows things he cannot know.
Yeah. Now you are talking about the subtle difference between cosmological red shift and doppler red shift. The cosmological red shift arises out of a relativistic universe that is expanding or contracting (i.e. think of the Universe as being like a giant pudding that is expanding/contracting, and the stars are just raisins in that pudding.) Since the universe has expanded in the time between the photon was emitted and when it is observed, its wavelength will be longer and hence it will have undergone red shift.
Doppler red shift however depends only on the relative velocity of an object.
But in terms of the observer, in either case red shift indicates recession and hence expansion.
Hubble only talks about doppler red shift. He does not mention cosmological red shift.
It does seem that Hubble had his doubts about the whole concept of an expanding universe, in particular because if you accept that, then you have to introduce a concept of curvature of space and also the concept of dark matter which he thought was "uneconomical."
But he also said that if you interpret red shift as indicating recession the you have no choice but to accept that the universe is expanding, and that other interpretations seemed "unlikely". It didn't stop him from proposing an alternative interpretation that got rid of the inconvenient consequences while saying that there was no empirical evidence for the second interpretation while there was ample evidence for the accepted interpretation.
But I am wondering if the exact values you would get for "cosmological red shift" as opposed to doppler red shift might have gone some way to Hubble's problem. An interesting thing to follow up on.
Interestingly, there are other independent observations that require dark matter to work. For example if you look at the speed with which star clusters revolve around the centre of the galaxy. Observation would suggest to us that well over 90% of the mass of the galaxy is in the centre, and hence the speed of rotation should conform to a first approximation to Kepler's law. (T^2 is proportional to r^3 where T is the period of rotation and r is the distance from the centre.) In fact it is nothing like that - much closer to T is proportional to r. This would suggest that mass is distributed pretty evenly through the galaxy, and this effect is observed as far out as observations can be made. In other words, the mass that can be observed is 10% or less than the mass that there is in the galaxy. So a conclusion from interpreting red shift as indicating recession that Hubble found unpalatable turns out to be very helpful in explaining other observed phenomena.
Incidentally, Einstein screwed up his first version of general relativity because he changed it to get rid of a consequence he didn't like. - an expanding universe. He later described that as the biggest blunder in his life.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. --Gloria Steinem AREPS™
Yeah. Now you are talking about the subtle difference between cosmological red shift and doppler red shift. The cosmological red shift arises out of a relativistic universe that is expanding or contracting (i.e. think of the Universe as being like a giant pudding that is expanding/contracting, and the stars are just raisins in that pudding.) Since the universe has expanded in the time between the photon was emitted and when it is observed, its wavelength will be longer and hence it will have undergone red shift.
Doppler red shift however depends only on the relative velocity of an object.
But in terms of the observer, in either case red shift indicates recession and hence expansion.
Hubble only talks about doppler red shift. He does not mention cosmological red shift.
It does seem that Hubble had his doubts about the whole concept of an expanding universe, in particular because if you accept that, then you have to introduce a concept of curvature of space and also the concept of dark matter which he thought was "uneconomical."
But he also said that if you interpret red shift as indicating recession the you have no choice but to accept that the universe is expanding, and that other interpretations seemed "unlikely". It didn't stop him from proposing an alternative interpretation that got rid of the inconvenient consequences while saying that there was no empirical evidence for the second interpretation while there was ample evidence for the accepted interpretation.
But I am wondering if the exact values you would get for "cosmological red shift" as opposed to doppler red shift might have gone some way to Hubble's problem. An interesting thing to follow up on.
Interestingly, there are other independent observations that require dark matter to work. For example if you look at the speed with which star clusters revolve around the centre of the galaxy. Observation would suggest to us that well over 90% of the mass of the galaxy is in the centre, and hence the speed of rotation should conform to a first approximation to Kepler's law. (T^2 is proportional to r^3 where T is the period of rotation and r is the distance from the centre.) In fact it is nothing like that - much closer to T is proportional to r. This would suggest that mass is distributed pretty evenly through the galaxy, and this effect is observed as far out as observations can be made. In other words, the mass that can be observed is 10% or less than the mass that there is in the galaxy. So a conclusion from interpreting red shift as indicating recession that Hubble found unpalatable turns out to be very helpful in explaining other observed phenomena.
Incidentally, Einstein screwed up his first version of general relativity because he changed it to get rid of a consequence he didn't like. - an expanding universe. He later described that as the biggest blunder in his life.
you are totally mixed up
Hubble is only saying that doppler shift is the most likely explanation for the red shift given our current knowledge.
An expanding universe would be moving away from us and therefore light emitted from it would be shifted by the doppler effect
As observers we do not know if the matter is moving away from us or if the light that somehow reaches us after very many years of travel is attenuated by some other effect we do not know about.
Apparently Hubble was out of kilta with the so called relativists and was attacked for his ideas.
The work he carried out in 1936 was obviously immediately attacked by the relativists. It was particularly attacked in 1937 by A. Eddington [ 10] and G.C. McVittie [ 11] .
In the same year Hubble answered his critics and reconfirmed the following [ 12] :
(Reply to Eddington) "Analysis of the luminosity of the galaxies enables experimental distinction between the two models of the universe this possibility has been partially fulfilled as discrepancies have been noted in the scale that the recessive model is based upon. These discrepancies can only be eliminated through a forced interpretation of the data � The interpretation of redshifts by means of the theory of the expanding universe is so plausible and so widely current that, in making a delicate test of the theory, it is desirable to push uncertainties in the favourable direction before admitting to a discordance. Nevertheless, - and this is perhaps the significant result of my investigation - when the observational data are shifted in favour of the expanding theory as heavily as can reasonably be allowed, they still fall short of expectation".
(Reply to McVittie) "Nevertheless, the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time"
[ 12] E. Hubble, Roy. Astron. Soc. M. N., 17, 506, 1937.
It really is most odd that history has been rewritten to ridicule Hubbles own belief, where he is praised for being the person who proved an expanding universe.
Hubble is only saying that doppler shift is the most likely explanation for the red shift given our current knowledge.
An expanding universe would be moving away from us and therefore light emitted from it would be shifted by the doppler effect
As observers we do not know if the matter is moving away from us or if the light that somehow reaches us after very many years of travel is attenuated by some other effect we do not know about.
Apparently Hubble was out of kilta with the so called relativists and was attacked for his ideas.
The work he carried out in 1936 was obviously immediately attacked by the relativists. It was particularly attacked in 1937 by A. Eddington [ 10] and G.C. McVittie [ 11] .
In the same year Hubble answered his critics and reconfirmed the following [ 12] :
(Reply to Eddington) "Analysis of the luminosity of the galaxies enables experimental distinction between the two models of the universe this possibility has been partially fulfilled as discrepancies have been noted in the scale that the recessive model is based upon. These discrepancies can only be eliminated through a forced interpretation of the data � The interpretation of redshifts by means of the theory of the expanding universe is so plausible and so widely current that, in making a delicate test of the theory, it is desirable to push uncertainties in the favourable direction before admitting to a discordance. Nevertheless, - and this is perhaps the significant result of my investigation - when the observational data are shifted in favour of the expanding theory as heavily as can reasonably be allowed, they still fall short of expectation".
(Reply to McVittie) "Nevertheless, the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time"
[ 12] E. Hubble, Roy. Astron. Soc. M. N., 17, 506, 1937.
It really is most odd that history has been rewritten to ridicule Hubbles own belief, where he is praised for being the person who proved an expanding universe.
We also don't know whether it has been captured by blue hamsters and re-emitted at a longer wavelength. So what?
Empirical evidence tells us that we get a wavelength shift from relative velocity, be that doppler shift or cosmological shift. At Hubble's time the only explanation seems only to have been doppler shift, which works at a first approximation but has problems at high relative velocities - as Hubble pointed out.
No empirical evidence exists for a photon losing energy as it traverses space other than climbing out of a gravity well. In fact the empirical evidence to date says that they do not.
What you are proposing is known as the "Tired Light" hypothesis which has, since Hubble's time, been shown to be inconsistent with many observations.
Incidentally, one of the tests that could distinguish between an expanding an static universe was proposed as long ago as 1930. Tolman Surface Brightness Test.
Incidentally, while Hubble does raise tired light in the 1937 paper, he did reject it in 1942, but left the door for some "hitherto unknown principle" mechanism that would make redshift consistent with a static universe. To date no such mechanism has been proposed that meets the requirements to get past first base.
Which explanation do you choose? The explanation accords with observations, or the one that does not? Hubble chose the one that fitted the observations, even if he found the consequences unpalatable. That's what real scientists do.
We also don't know whether it has been captured by blue hamsters and re-emitted at a longer wavelength. So what?
Empirical evidence tells us that we get a wavelength shift from relative velocity, be that doppler shift or cosmological shift. At Hubble's time the only explanation seems only to have been doppler shift, which works at a first approximation but has problems at high relative velocities - as Hubble pointed out.
No empirical evidence exists for a photon losing energy as it traverses space other than climbing out of a gravity well. In fact the empirical evidence to date says that they do not.
What you are proposing is known as the "Tired Light" hypothesis which has, since Hubble's time, been shown to be inconsistent with many observations.
Incidentally, one of the tests that could distinguish between an expanding an static universe was proposed as long ago as 1930. Tolman Surface Brightness Test.
Incidentally, while Hubble does raise tired light in the 1937 paper, he did reject it in 1942, but left the door for some "hitherto unknown principle" mechanism that would make redshift consistent with a static universe. To date no such mechanism has been proposed that meets the requirements to get past first base.
Which explanation do you choose? The explanation accords with observations, or the one that does not? Hubble chose the one that fitted the observations, even if he found the consequences unpalatable. That's what real scientists do.
What is all of this guff about cosmological red shift versus doppler red shift??
Hubble is only talking about doppler shift versus an unknown principle of nature leading to totally different interpretations of the universe where one is strange and dubious and suspicious and the other is ordinary and sensible.
And why are you attacking me using the usual goblims and mysticisim garbage when i am trying to draw your attention to something you were not aware of?
You keep arguing i am wrong.
I was not wrong at all.
It is bizarre the way you are carrying on when Hubble said:
"The interpretation of redshifts by means of the theory of the expanding universe is so plausible and so widely current that, in making a delicate test of the theory, it is desirable to push uncertainties in the favourable direction before admitting to a discordance. Nevertheless, - and this is perhaps the significant result of my investigation - when the observational data are shifted in favour of the expanding theory as heavily as can reasonably be allowed, they still fall short of expectation"
According to his student, Hubble maintained to the end of his writing the notion or at least favouring it, that the universe was not actually expanding
You replied
That's not the way I read it at all. Earlier in the article he says the shift is "indistinguishable from a doppler shift."
Essentially he's saying that either the universe is expanding, or it's not a doppler shift.
What actually are you talking about???
Hubble is saying he doubts the universe is expanding, the red shift is indistinguishable from a doppler shift but it could be due to a new principle of nature which his student is apparently saying he favoured till the end of his life.
What is all of this guff about cosmological red shift versus doppler red shift??
Are you serious? Because there is the doppler explanation of red shift and the cosmological explanation of red shift. At short distances they are the same. At very long distances they are not. BTW it fixes up some of the problems Hubble had with the expanding universe as it stood in 1943.
Hubble is only talking about doppler shift versus an unknown principle of nature leading to totally different interpretations of the universe where one is strange and dubious and suspicious and the other is ordinary and sensible.
And why are you attacking me using the usual goblims and mysticisim garbage when i am trying to draw your attention to something you were not aware of?
Because a "hitherto undiscovered principle of nature" is equivalent to goblins and other mysticism?
Because you present the current best explanation of how the universe works as some kind of conspiracy theory, trying to say that Hubble, who is a scientific hero and the one who really started the whole expanding universe hypothesis actually opposed the hypothesis. He didn't "oppose" the hypothesis. He pointed out problems with it as it stood at the time essentially as open problems, which is pretty normal for research in progress. His position was "the expanding universe hypothesis has these several problems, and this alternative explanation does not have those problems, but then you just have to come up with some other explanation for red shift and I have no idea what it is."
Well, those problems have been dealt with and now there is a whole new bunch of open problems, but we are still waiting for an alternative explanation for red shift that allows a non-expanding universe.
Quote:
You keep arguing i am wrong.
I was not wrong at all.
It is bizarre the way you are carrying on when Hubble said:
"The interpretation of redshifts by means of the theory of the expanding universe is so plausible and so widely current that, in making a delicate test of the theory, it is desirable to push uncertainties in the favourable direction before admitting to a discordance. Nevertheless, - and this is perhaps the significant result of my investigation - when the observational data are shifted in favour of the expanding theory as heavily as can reasonably be allowed, they still fall short of expectation"
So he is saying that there are open problems. I do not interpret this as in *any way* Hubble saying the expanding universe theory was not the best explanation of his observations then currently available. Quite the opposite. But he did point out a potential discovery that would turn things on their head if it happened.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. --Gloria Steinem AREPS™
Are you serious? Because there is the doppler explanation of red shift and the cosmological explanation of red shift. At short distances they are the same. At very long distances they are not. BTW it fixes up some of the problems Hubble had with the expanding universe as it stood in 1943.
Because a "hitherto undiscovered principle of nature" is equivalent to goblins and other mysticism?
Because you present the current best explanation of how the universe works as some kind of conspiracy theory, trying to say that Hubble, who is a scientific hero and the one who really started the whole expanding universe hypothesis actually opposed the hypothesis. He didn't "oppose" the hypothesis. He pointed out problems with it as it stood at the time essentially as open problems, which is pretty normal for research in progress. His position was "the expanding universe hypothesis has these several problems, and this alternative explanation does not have those problems, but then you just have to come up with some other explanation for red shift and I have no idea what it is."
Well, those problems have been dealt with and now there is a whole new bunch of open problems, but we are still waiting for an alternative explanation for red shift that allows a non-expanding universe.
So he is saying that there are open problems. I do not interpret this as in *any way* Hubble saying the expanding universe theory was not the best explanation of his observations then currently available. Quite the opposite. But he did point out a potential discovery that would turn things on their head if it happened.
This conversation is odd
You said this:
Now you are talking about the subtle difference between cosmological red shift and doppler red shift. The cosmological red shift arises out of a relativistic universe that is expanding or contracting (i.e. think of the Universe as being like a giant pudding that is expanding/contracting, and the stars are just raisins in that pudding.) Since the universe has expanded in the time between the photon was emitted and when it is observed, its wavelength will be longer and hence it will have undergone red shift.
Doppler red shift however depends only on the relative velocity of an object.
But in terms of the observer, in either case red shift indicates recession and hence expansion.
Hubble only talks about doppler red shift. He does not mention cosmological red shift.
I never once talked about the cosmological red shift
I was only saying that Hubble is talking about a red shift with two competing explanations where one is strange but has a simple red shift explanation and the other is sensible but has an unknown red shift explanation
But it seems you are compelled to put this thru some kind of garbage machine every time i talk about it.
Interestingly I notice the Canadians are able to read
Surprisingly, even though Hubble helped quantify the expansion of the universe, he did not really believe in it. He instead demonstrated how a scientist should let his results speak more loudly than any opinion or personal preference.
Unless it is your job to produce garbage in response to that text I am at a total loss as to how you come up with phrases such as
>>That's not the way I read it at all. Earlier in the article he says the shift is "indistinguishable from a doppler shift."
Now you are talking about the subtle difference between cosmological red shift and doppler red shift. The cosmological red shift arises out of a relativistic universe that is expanding or contracting (i.e. think of the Universe as being like a giant pudding that is expanding/contracting, and the stars are just raisins in that pudding.) Since the universe has expanded in the time between the photon was emitted and when it is observed, its wavelength will be longer and hence it will have undergone red shift.
Doppler red shift however depends only on the relative velocity of an object.
But in terms of the observer, in either case red shift indicates recession and hence expansion.
Hubble only talks about doppler red shift. He does not mention cosmological red shift.
I was giving you credit for knowing that the red shift we see from distant objects is actually not doppler shift.
Of course I gave you too much credit because you then start talking fringe science like "attenuation", and some horseshit about Hubble not "believing" in the expanding universe, for which there is no evidence in his writing.
He's saying: "a) There is this explanation which accords with the data but has some very inconvenient consequences, and b) There is this other explanation that is all very neat and clean that unfortunately requires the invention of a completely new cosmological phenomenon (pixies and goblins?). So until a better explanation comes along, I'll run with explanation (a)."
Despite the problems he pointed out with the "exploding universe theory" of the time (for example, the universe would have to be younger than the age of the earth given the current status at the time) Hubble still thought it was the best available explanation. He said in 1941: "While the expanding theory cannot be abandoned, present evidence is against it." He also thought the resolution would come through a better understanding of red shift, which was prescient because understanding of red shift did change afterwards. Has he said he doesn't think the universe is expanding? No. He has said that on balance he *does* think the universe is expanding, but acknowledges there are serious problems with the theory as it stands. Which there in fact were.
It's a standard technique of people trying to argue against the theory to try to show that the person who first put it forward didn't "believe" in it. Even better, prove that they were in some way persecuted for trying to recant. Very helpful to put forward that the expanding universe theory was put forward by a priest. (The fact that LeMaitre was a Jesuit scientist who seems to have understood Einstein's math in this regard better than Einstein did can be conveniently omitted.) In other words, discredit the theory by discrediting its initial proponents.
Next step in the playbook: Postulate that the Illuminati want us to submit to the expanding universe theory as part of their plan for world domination.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. --Gloria Steinem AREPS™
Next step in the playbook: Postulate that the Illuminati want us to submit to the expanding universe theory as part of their plan for world domination.
My original comments still stand
Big bang is irrational and the supposed discoverer of an expanding universe doubted it was possible until he died.
Big bang is a genesis type explanation that appeals to some people more than others.
Why are you compelled to be so disgusting towards me and others about the idea that light can be altered after travelling for millions of years? It seems perfectly reasonable that it could be altered.
Hubble seems to have kept an open mind about it whereas yours seems like concrete and you were the one saying that a gas could be at absolute zero when in contact with a hot solid because it was decoupled while you rambled about phonons.
Big bang is irrational and the supposed discoverer of an expanding universe doubted it was possible until he died.
Big bang is a genesis type explanation that appeals to some people more than others
And yet it is the currently best available explanation for the observations about the nature of the universe, and at the moment there is no credible competing explanation. Although most Scientists do not refer to it as "big bang" but "expanding universe.", the closed version of which is finite in volume and time and hence must have started at a singularity with no volume at t=0.
Seems like a great opportunity to go out and get a Nobel prize.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. --Gloria Steinem AREPS™
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy
