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.
Big bang sounds preposterous
The simple idea that light can be altered by travelling thru space for millions of years sounds very plausible.
How can a preposterous idea be the best explanation when far simpler ones are less incredible?
Hubble obviously did not know if the universe was expanding or not and needed more information. But you have already decided you know better than Hubble about Hubble.
And it appears that you are in good company with the likes of Ned Wright who decides that anybody who disagrees with you on the subject is in need of psychological help.
Until today i never heard of Ned Wright but the attitude seems very very familiar.
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.
This is APF mate. You will get called on stuff. If you find it disgusting to have someone disagree with you, then perhaps you are on the wrong forum. If you think that my not agreeing with you is more disgusting than your telling me my mind is "like concrete" then maybe you have been reading the wrong book on good manners.
One of the fundamental principles on which current physical understanding rests is that the energy of a photon cannot be changed without also changing its momentum. This is a huge problem for all the "tired light" theories that by the way was acknowledged by Fritz Zwicky who originally proposed it and also by Edwin Hubble. If anyone can postulate how the energy of a photon could be changed without changing its momentum, then the idea that the perceived wavelength of light could be changed other than by gravity, expansion/contraction of space or relative velocity would be reasonable. If they were able to defend this for a few years they would get a Nobel prize. Until then, it is not reasonable, and there is plenty of observational evidence that it is not the case.
Re: "Light being altered after travelling for millions of years": In an expanding universe and under cosmological red-shift, the wavelength of light does get longer as it travels across the universe. This is because over the millions of years it travels, the universe gets bigger and the waves get "stretched out". So in fact Hubble gets what he wants as a direct consequence of the expansion of the universe. Chalk up another win to "big bang".
Hubble lived at a time when they had nothing. The static universe had been shown not to work. The expanding universe also had serious theoretical problems even though the observations supported it. On balance he (perhaps reluctantly) subscribed to expanding universe. So far that looks like a good move.
Andrew Judd
13 Dec 2012, 04:02 AM
Big bang sounds preposterous
The simple idea that light can be altered by travelling thru space for millions of years sounds very plausible.
As far as I am concerned, everything concerned with relativity and quantum theory sounds preposterous.
On the other hand, Newtonian mechanics, which is much simpler than relativistic mechanics, doesn't fit the observations.
Semiconductor devices absolutely depend on quantum theory to work. Nobody can explain how they work any other way. Do you use the simple idea that doesn't work or the more complex idea that does? Shit - I would have loved to do solid state physics without having to worry about Schroedinger's equations. They suck. But they work.
Einstein wrote: "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."
or, as he is more often quoted: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler"
The idea that light loses energy as it travels across non-expanding space is simple and perhaps even seductive, but it conflicts with the observations, so it has been discarded into the dustbin of nice ideas that didn't work out.
This is APF mate. You will get called on stuff. If you find it disgusting to have someone disagree with you, then perhaps you are on the wrong forum. If you think that my not agreeing with you is more disgusting than your telling me my mind is "like concrete" then maybe you have been reading the wrong book on good manners.
One of the fundamental principles on which current physical understanding rests is that the energy of a photon cannot be changed without also changing its momentum. This is a huge problem for all the "tired light" theories that by the way was acknowledged by Fritz Zwicky who originally proposed it and also by Edwin Hubble. If anyone can postulate how the energy of a photon could be changed without changing its momentum, then the idea that the perceived wavelength of light could be changed other than by gravity, expansion/contraction of space or relative velocity would be reasonable. If they were able to defend this for a few years they would get a Nobel prize. Until then, it is not reasonable, and there is plenty of observational evidence that it is not the case.
Re: "Light being altered after travelling for millions of years": In an expanding universe and under cosmological red-shift, the wavelength of light does get longer as it travels across the universe. This is because over the millions of years it travels, the universe gets bigger and the waves get "stretched out". So in fact Hubble gets what he wants as a direct consequence of the expansion of the universe. Chalk up another win to "big bang".
Hubble lived at a time when they had nothing. The static universe had been shown not to work. The expanding universe also had serious theoretical problems even though the observations supported it. On balance he (perhaps reluctantly) subscribed to expanding universe. So far that looks like a good move. As far as I am concerned, everything concerned with relativity and quantum theory sounds preposterous.
On the other hand, Newtonian mechanics, which is much simpler than relativistic mechanics, doesn't fit the observations.
Semiconductor devices absolutely depend on quantum theory to work. Nobody can explain how they work any other way. Do you use the simple idea that doesn't work or the more complex idea that does? Shit - I would have loved to do solid state physics without having to worry about Schroedinger's equations. They suck. But they work.
Einstein wrote: "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."
or, as he is more often quoted: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler"
The idea that light loses energy as it travels across non-expanding space is simple and perhaps even seductive, but it conflicts with the observations, so it has been discarded into the dustbin of nice ideas that didn't work out.
Called out on what?
Hubble evidently really struggled with the idea of an expanding universe and it seems fairly clear he was hoping all of his life he could disprove it.
You seem to have either bent over backwards to create a misleading impression of what Hubble wrote, or just could not grasp what he did write, where along the way you have attacked me for considering the kind of ideas that you now tell me Hubble was considering.
By the way I got some satisfaction to see that it appeared to be -11C in Beijing Saturday and even better there was a bit of wind.
Hubble evidently really struggled with the idea of an expanding universe and it seems fairly clear he was hoping all of his life he could disprove it.
Hubble spent his life gathering evidence that supported to the expanding universe theory. He may not have liked it intuitively, but if he didn't, at least he had the intellectual honesty to admit it was the best explanation available, even if it had problems. He may even have hoped that something he felt was more elegant might come along, but to say he did not accept the expanding universe theory as the best current theory is just tosh.
Quote:
You seem to have either bent over backwards to create a misleading impression of what Hubble wrote, or just could not grasp what he did write, where along the way you have attacked me for considering the kind of ideas that you now tell me Hubble was considering.
No. I have not bent over backwards to give a misleading impression of what Hubble wrote. He wrote quite clearly. He had problems with the expanding universe theory as it then stood, as would anyone, but was quite honest that the alternative explanation required some "hitherto unknown principle" in order to work. On the assumption that he was a good scientist, and on the assumption that he did not want to be laughed off stage for being a nutter, I would say he was not seriously proposing the alternative explanation. It would be like proposing manna from heaven as a serious solution to famine. I might fantasise about Claudia Fischer teleporting herself into my bedroom tonight, but I don't actually believe it is a realistic solution to my likely celibacy in the supermodel arena over the next week.
AND BTW I have not attacked you. As far as I know you are a perfectly nice person. I have attacked the notion that the any of the "tired light" cosmologies represent anything but fringe science and the province of the stubborn and deluded these days. They just don't stand up in the face of observations. The only current alternatives are all various "big bang" cosmologies.
Quote:
By the way I got some satisfaction to see that it appeared to be -11C in Beijing Saturday
To the extent that it is relevant, it bottomed out at -8.8 at about 5am Saturday morning. It was a toasty -5 by the time I struggled out in bright sunshine to do some shopping. I hope it does not detract from your satisfaction to let you know that I, just like every 5-year-old here, know how to put on a warm coat.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. --Gloria Steinem AREPS™
Hubble spent his life gathering evidence that supported to the expanding universe theory. He may not have liked it intuitively, but if he didn't, at least he had the intellectual honesty to admit it was the best explanation available, even if it had problems. He may even have hoped that something he felt was more elegant might come along, but to say he did not accept the expanding universe theory as the best current theory is just tosh.
No. I have not bent over backwards to give a misleading impression of what Hubble wrote. He wrote quite clearly. He had problems with the expanding universe theory as it then stood, as would anyone, but was quite honest that the alternative explanation required some "hitherto unknown principle" in order to work. On the assumption that he was a good scientist, and on the assumption that he did not want to be laughed off stage for being a nutter, I would say he was not seriously proposing the alternative explanation. It would be like proposing manna from heaven as a serious solution to famine. I might fantasise about Claudia Fischer teleporting herself into my bedroom tonight, but I don't actually believe it is a realistic solution to my likely celibacy in the supermodel arena over the next week.
AND BTW I have not attacked you. As far as I know you are a perfectly nice person. I have attacked the notion that the any of the "tired light" cosmologies represent anything but fringe science and the province of the stubborn and deluded these days. They just don't stand up in the face of observations. The only current alternatives are all various "big bang" cosmologies.
To the extent that it is relevant, it bottomed out at -8.8 at about 5am Saturday morning. It was a toasty -5 by the time I struggled out in bright sunshine to do some shopping. I hope it does not detract from your satisfaction to let you know that I, just like every 5-year-old here, know how to put on a warm coat.
Hubble evidently was looking for something totally unexpected
The way you paint the idea as insane is the way you destroy the reality hubble was very unhappy with the notion the universe was expanding and was actively looking for an alternative explanation.
You are twisting what hubble is saying
Hubble says the expanding idea is suspicious dubious strange, the evidence has to be seen favourably because the idea is so widely supported and then pushed even further and yet still is unsatisfactory.
But he admits the theory cannot be abandoned until more is known, because so far it is all they have that can be considered known.
But quite obviously he is seriously considering that there are two rival explanations where one relies on a still to be discovered principle of nature.
Your view that he is not actively considering there are two rival ideas is just an invention by you. In his final paper he say "However, the data now available is insufficient for a critical test of the two interpretations: either one is permitted by the uncertainities".
nowhere does he say it is crazy to consider there are two possibilities, even if others might judge him so.
Andrew Freedman Climate Central, January 8th, 2013
It’s official: 2012 was the warmest year on record in the lower 48 states, as the country experienced blistering spring and summer heat, tinderbox fire weather conditions amid a widespread drought, and one of the worst storms to ever strike the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2012 had an average temperature of 55.3°F, which eclipsed 1998, the previous record holder, by 1°F. That was just off Climate Central’s calculation in mid-December, which projected an expected value of 55.34°F, based on historical data.
The 1°F difference from 1998 is an unusually large margin, considering that annual temperature records are typically broken by just tenths of a degree Fahrenheit. In fact, the entire range between the coldest year on record, which occurred in 1917, and the previous record warm year of 1998 was just 4.2°F.
The year consisted of the fourth-warmest winter, the warmest spring, second-warmest summer, and a warmer-than-average fall. With an average temperature that was 3.6°F above average, July became the hottest month ever recorded in the contiguous U.S. The average springtime temperature in the lower 48 was so far above the 1901-2000 average — 5.2°F, to be exact — that the country set a record for the largest temperature departure for any season on record.
“Climate change has had a role in this [record],” said Jake Crouch, a climate scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. He said it isn’t clear yet exactly how much of the temperature record was due to climate change compared to natural variability, but that it’s unlikely such a record would have occurred without the long-term warming trend caused in large part by emissions of greenhouse gases.
During the summer, nearly 100 million people experienced 10 or more days with temperatures greater than 100°F, which is about one-third of the nation’s population, NOAA reported.
With 34,008 daily high temperature records set or tied the year compared to just 6,664 daily record lows — a ratio of about five high temperature records for every one low temperature record — 2012 was no ordinary weather year in the U.S. It wasn’t just the high temperatures that set records, though. Overnight low temperatures were also extremely warm, and in a few cases the overnight low was so warm that it set a high temperature record, a rare feat.
Even more astonishing is the imbalance between all-time records. According to data from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, there were 356 all-time high temperature records set or tied across the entire U.S. in 2012, compared to four all-time low temperature records. All of the all-time record lows occurred in Hawaii.
As the climate has warmed during the past several decades, there has been a growing imbalance between record daily high temperatures in the contiguous U.S. and record daily lows. A study published in 2009 found that rather than a 1-to-1 ratio, as would be expected if the climate were not warming, the ratio has been closer to 2-to-1 in favor of warm temperature records during the past decade (2000-2009). This finding cannot be explained by natural climate variability alone, the study found, and is instead consistent with global warming.
Driven largely by the warm temperatures and the massive drought, one measure of extreme weather conditions, known as the Climate Extremes Index, shows that it was the second-most extreme year on record, second only to 1998. Studies show that in response to global warming, some extreme events, such as heat waves, are already becoming more likely to occur and more intense.
Nineteen states had their warmest year on record in 2012, mainly in the Plains and Midwest, where summer heat and drought was the most intense. An additional 26 states had one of their top 10 warmest years on record. Remarkably, every state in the lower 48 experienced an above-average annual temperature.
The extreme heat is even more vivid when examined at the local level. Cities such as New York, Boston, Washington, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Denver, Des Moines, and Chicago all set records for their warmest year.
Marquette, Mich., which is well-known for its cold and snowy winters, not only set a record for the warmest year, but also set a record for the most amount of days above freezing (32°F) in a single year, with 293 such days, and the number of consecutive days above freezing, with 237.
In Des Moines, which set a record for its warmest year smashing the old 1931 record by 1.5°F, it was the first year not to reach 0°F. In addition, March had the largest monthly temperature departure from average of any month on record there, coming in at 16.4°F above average.
The year was also characterized by extreme drought, and two states — Nebraska and Wyoming — also had their driest year on record. Eight more states had annual precipitation totals that ranked in the bottom 10.
At its maximum extent in July, drought conditions encompassed 61 percent of the nation, with the most intense conditions in the Great Plains, West, and Midwest. The nationally averaged annual precipitation total was 2.57 inches below average, making 2012 the 15th-driest year, and the driest year since 1988, which also featured a major drought.
The drought of 2011-12, which is still ongoing, is comparable in size to severe droughts that occurred in the 1950s, and is already being blamed for more than $35 billion in crop losses alone, according to the reinsurance company Aon Benfield. In fact, it’s quite possible that damage from the drought will eclipse the total bill from Hurricane Sandy, which some estimates place at more than $100 billion. Overall, the drought could end up robbing the limping U.S. economy’s GDP of a full percentage point, said Deutsche Bank Securities.
The drought was instigated in large part of very low snow cover and warm temperatures during the winter of 2011, and record warmth during the spring, which allowed for an early start to the growing season and depleted soil moisture earlier than normal. The record March heat wave put the drought into overdrive, accelerating its development across the Plains and Midwest in particular.
The drought conditions created ideal conditions for wildfires, as 9.2 million acres went up in smoke in the West, the third-highest on record.
The same weather patterns that led to the drought helped suppress severe thunderstorms and tornadoes, with a final tornado count that is likely to be under 1,000, which would be the fewest twisters since 2002.
According to NOAA, the year saw 11 natural disasters that cost at least $1 billion in losses, including Hurricane Sandy, which struck the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast on October 29-30.
Globally, 2012 is expected to be ranked as the eighth-warmest year on record, with that announcement coming later in the month.
This thread hasnt been active for a while, so thought I would revisit MIWs contention that most of what we think is smog in China is actually plain and simple, Alan Jones moisture.
ie fog!
Been foggy enough for you lately MIW?
Beijing chokes on lingering smog English.news.cn 2013-01-23 12:11:50
BEIJING, Jan. 23 (Xinhua) -- The air quality in Beijing Municipality on Wednesday hit serious levels again, as smog blanketed the city.
At 9 a.m., air quality indices in most monitoring stations in the city proper exceeded 300, or Level VI, a serious level, according to statistics from the Beijing Municipal Environmental Monitoring Center.
A high concentration of fine particle pollutants was spotted moving from southeast Beijing from 3 p.m. Tuesday before shrouding the entire city, said an official with the center.
The PM2.5 data, a gauge monitoring airborne particles of 2.5 microns or less in diameter which can embed deep in people's lungs, reached 200 to 300 micrograms per cubic meter, indicating heavy pollution, he said.
The weather forecasting bureau has issued yellow alerts for both fog and smog, the third highest level.
Visibility in south Beijing will fall below 500 meters on Wednesday, and most of the city will see visibility drop to less than 3,000 meters.
According to the weather forecast, strong winds with speeds of 20 to 30 km per hour will sweep the city on Wednesday evening and are expected to disperse the smog.
Beijingers suffered from heavy smog from Jan. 10 to 16, before the putrid air was dispersed by a cold front bringing strong winds. Air quality indices were off the charts during the seven days, exceeding the "maximum" level of 500 in the city, as well as many other cities in central and north China.
Actually, the pollution has been horrible this month. But it doesn't mean the photo that was shown was necessarily anything but fog.
High PM2.5 by itself doesn't actually hurt visibility that much. It can be very polluted with great visibility. Yesterday, for example. Bright sunshine and PM2.5 was still well above 200.
Or it can be foggy without necessarily much pollution. Or it can be both. But the visibility problem comes from the fog, not the pollution. In fact they usually come together in Beijing in winter, because the inversion layer and no wind it usually means you have is conducive to both.
Anyone who thinks they can look at a low-visibility photograph and tell whether it is pollution or fog hasn't got a clue. If you had visibility like that and you had no fog, you would be gasping for breath within seconds. Ever been near a bushfire?
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. --Gloria Steinem AREPS™
Actually, the pollution has been horrible this month. But it doesn't mean the photo that was shown was necessarily anything but fog.
High PM2.5 by itself doesn't actually hurt visibility that much. It can be very polluted with great visibility. Yesterday, for example. Bright sunshine and PM2.5 was still well above 200.
Or it can be foggy without necessarily much pollution. Or it can be both. But the visibility problem comes from the fog, not the pollution. In fact they usually come together in Beijing in winter, because the inversion layer and no wind it usually means you have is conducive to both.
Anyone who thinks they can look at a low-visibility photograph and tell whether it is pollution or fog hasn't got a clue. If you had visibility like that and you had no fog, you would be gasping for breath within seconds. Ever been near a bushfire?
does the pollution drop now all the workers are heading home?
edit:
Also, how much effect would you say the pollution has on infrastructure, such as buildings etc.
does the pollution drop now all the workers are heading home?
edit:
Also, how much effect would you say the pollution has on infrastructure, such as buildings etc.
Well, people won't be heading home until early Feb. CNY eve is 8th Feb, so that's when people will want to be home. People will start to stream home about a week before that, but pollution effect, if any, won't happen until the 9th. In the past holiday weeks have been in general pretty pollution-free but this winter has been so bad (easily the worst I have experienced except perhaps 1998/9 when they were still burning coal briquettes everywhere for heating and there were still coal-burning factories inside Beijing) that I will believe it when I see it.
I guess pollution must be having some effect on the infrastructure, but maintenance is so poor most of the time that things fall apart faster than the pollution can get at it. Bit like Italy actually. Chinese are extremely good at building and renovating but they are crap at maintenance.
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
