Re: Reconsidering Halton Arp

Randy Poe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:13:10 -0800, "greywolf42"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Randy Poe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Describe those methods and tell me where this assumption comes into
> >> the method, or stop repeating this ridiculous bit of nonsense.
> >
> >You can easily show me my error by describing (i.e. not just naming) one
> >method that does NOT use the big-bang assumption -- either directly or
> >indirectly (i.e. for calibration).
>
> I posted another message asking you to explain what that last
> statement means, since I expect you'll use "it uses the Big Bang for
> calibration" as a catch all for everything, whether it has anything to
> do with the Big Bang or redshifts at all. You've already illustrated a
> willingness to grossly misread with your "circular argument" post.

Yes, you avoided the question in the parallel post, too.

> Meanwhile, I'll just note that Hubble's red shift data was published
> in 1929 (with distances measured by parallax), but the calibration
> curve for Cepheid variables was published by Henrietta Leavitt in
> 1912.

Did you have a point to make?

> Big Bang theory in its present form is mostly credited to Gamow
> in the 1940s with a successful prediction of the 3-degree background,

Which was a false claim, as the lowest temperature predicted by Gamow, prior
to Penzias and Wilson was 50 degrees (a factor of 10,000 error in energy
density -- which was the basis for his estimate).

> though Lemaitre in 1927 did propose an explosive-origin theory.

Yes.  Carl Wirtz first published an empirical redshift-distance relation in
1924 (pre Cepheid variable identification).  Lemaitre's publication of the
'expanding universe' theory came in 1927, and was based partly on Wirtz'
empirical work. Hubble's version of the redshift relation was not published
until 1929 (after Cephied variable identification made Wirtz' relationship
more certain).

There have been at least five major revisions of the "explosive origin
theory" that is now called the 'big bang.'  Which one are you defending?

> Explain to me how Leavitt managed to use Big Bang theory for her
> calibration in 1912,

I never claimed that the cepheid period-luminosity relationship was based on
the big bang theory.  What I noted was that Hubble's law was based on the
cepheid curve.

> and what "use Big Bang for calibration" means,
> and I'll explain both Leavitt's calibration and the Cepheid variable
> method.

Not necessary.  All I've (repeatedly) asked you to do was simply describe
one, modern distance estimatation method -- applicable beyond the range of
cepheid variable resolution -- that does not depend upon the hubble
constant, and/or is not calibrated by same.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}