Re: Reconsidering Halton Arp

Randy Poe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:54:57 -0800, "greywolf42"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Randy Poe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> 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?
>
> Cepheid calibration 1912.
> Big Bang Theory post-1940s.

1927.  See below, from prior post.

> Cepheid calibration can't be based on Big Bang Theory.

I did not claim that cepheid period-luminosity calibration was based on the
big bang theory -- exactly as I said below, in the prior post.

> Only understand short sentences?

You apparently have a reading comprehension problem.

> >> 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?

Well?  Which version of the big bang 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
>
> As I asked in your other post, what would "beyond the range of cepheid
> variable resolution" be, since those are as far as I know the most
> distant sources used for Hubble Law tests?

As I pointed out in my posts of yesterday, you could read the section
entitled "Secondary Distance Indicators" in the book "The Cosmological
Distance Ladder" for more information.  Or simply have read the excerpt from
the book that I provided.

The supernovae data, for example, exceed the range of the cepheids (although
these are primary data). They also disprove the hubble assumption, being
non-linear.  Which requires the new ad hoc postulation of 'dark energy' to
save the theory.

Now, I've defined everything for you, and yet you still refuse to identify a
method.  I'm done with you in the thread, unless you care to proffer a
single counterexample.

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