No Evidence of Time Dilation in Gamma-Ray Burst Data

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

What do you think of this paper? Will this alter the thinking in cosmology.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.4169
No Evidence of Time Dilation in Gamma-Ray Burst Data

Authors: David F. Crawford
(Submitted on 27 Jan 2009)

Abstract: Gamma-Ray Bursts have been observed out to very high redshifts and provide time measures that are directly related to intrinsic time scales of the burst. Einstein's theory of relativity is quite definite that if the universe is expanding then the observed duration of these measures will increase with redshift. Thus gamma-ray burst measures should show a time dilation proportional to redshift. An analysis of gamma-ray burst data shows that the hypothesis of time dilation is rejected with a probability of 4.4$\times10^{-6}$ for redshifts out to z=6.6. Traditionally the lack of an apparent time dilation has been explained by an inverse correlation between luminosity and time measures together with strong luminosity selection as a function of redshift. It is shown that the inverse correlation between luminosity and some time measures is confirmed, but using concordance cosmology strong luminosity selection cannot be achieved. It may be possible to explain the apparent lack of time dilation with a combination of gamma-ray burst selection, some luminosity evolution and some time measure evolution. But this requires a remarkable coincidence in order to produce the apparent lack of time dilation. However the data are consistent with a static cosmology in a non-expanding universe.

[JimJast]

Einstein's theory of relativity is quite definite that if the universe is expanding then the observed duration of these measures will increase with redshift. [...] However the data are consistent with a static cosmology in a non-expanding universe.

Even in a non-expanding universe (so called "Einstein's universe"), higher redshift is associated directly with time dilation since in any theory the redshift is just the slowing of time rate (either through the luminous objects moving away from us, as in the Big Bang cosmology, or through a distance from us, as in Einstein's original cosmology). That's why Einstein's theory can't separate redshift from time dilation and that's why "tired light effect" (redshift without time dilation) had to be be abandoned: there seems to be is no mechanism in nature for redshift without time dilation. That's why "No Evidence of Time Dilation in Gamma-Ray Burst Data" is a puzzle (or an observational error).

[JimJast]

To clarify the issue a little more: The shft in the frequency of pulses (redshift) and the time between pulses (time dilation) are related to each other through the speed of the signal (c in this case). E.g. Doppler shift happens since some pulses come to us delayed, so the time rate in remote location can be measured either through measuring frequency shift or through measuring the time between pulses (as long as the speed of the signal is the same c). Different results indicate that we have results depending on the method that we use to obtain them. Since it shouldn't happen in physics it looks like one of the method of obtaining data (or both) are not too reliable. They should be checked by independent guys (or even better, gals, since they have clearer minds) to find out what's going on.

[aristarchusinexile]

Altering the thinking of cosmology takes very little if the cosmologist is open minded. However, the prospering of altered thinking seemingly requires: courage combined with overcoming of the dense walls of ivory tower establishments; the complete exhaustion of all posible alternatives; or exhaustion of the publishing industry's profit margins to the degree that great excitment must be generated to promote sales of books.

[JimJast]

[...] or exhaustion of the publishing industry's profit margins [...]

That's probably it...

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

jimjast that was very interesting.

What do you thing of this paper

http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.4172
Observations of type 1a supernovae are consistent with a static universe

Authors: David F. Crawford
(Submitted on 27 Jan 2009)

Abstract: Analysis of type 1a supernovae observations out to a redshift of $z$=1.6 shows that there is good agreement between the light-curve widths and $(1+z)$ which is usually interpreted as a strong support for time dilation due to an expanding universe. This paper argues that a strong case can be made for a static universe where the supernovae light-curve-width dependence on redshift is due to selection effects. The analysis is based on the principle that it is the total energy (the fluence) and not the peak magnitude that is the best `standard candle' for type 1a supernovae. A simple model using a static cosmology provides an excellent prediction for the dependence of light curve width on redshift and the luminosity-width relationship for nearby supernovae. The width dependence arises from the assumption of constant absolute magnitude resulting in strong selection of lower luminosity supernovae at higher redshifts due to the use of an incorrect distance modulus. Using a static cosmology, curvature-cosmology, and without fitting any parameters the analysis shows that the total energy is independent of redshift and provides a Hubble constant of $63.1\pm2.5$ kms$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. There is no indication of any deviation at large redshifts that has been ascribed to the occurrence of dark energy.

Science is not a matter of altering peoples thinking its about proving something over and over and questioned and questioned without emotional hang ups. People get offended when you do not think the same.

[Chris Peterson]

Altering the thinking of cosmology takes very little if the cosmologist is open minded. However, the prospering of altered thinking seemingly requires: courage combined with overcoming of the dense walls of ivory tower establishments; the complete exhaustion of all posible alternatives; or exhaustion of the publishing industry's profit margins to the degree that great excitment must be generated to promote sales of books.

You obviously have little experience with academic astronomy. There really aren't any ivory towers. There isn't much pressure to support any particular theory. It doesn't require much courage to propose alternate theories (which is why there are so many)- but of course, if you want to be respected, you need to be able to offer good evidence. That's really all it takes. There's no publishing industry here, either.

[Chris Peterson]

Science is not a matter of altering peoples thinking its about proving something over and over and questioned and questioned without emotional hang ups. People get offended when you do not think the same.

I'm guessing you've never been to an astronomical conference. Discussions are often dynamic. You find an extremely wide range of opinion, and I've never seen anybody get offended by that! You certainly don't find many people who "think the same".

You have an image in your mind of how professional science works that simply doesn't reflect reality.

[aristarchusinexile]

Altering the thinking of cosmology takes very little if the cosmologist is open minded. However, the prospering of altered thinking seemingly requires: courage combined with overcoming of the dense walls of ivory tower establishments; the complete exhaustion of all posible alternatives; or exhaustion of the publishing industry's profit margins to the degree that great excitment must be generated to promote sales of books.

You obviously have little experience with academic astronomy. There really aren't any ivory towers. There isn't much pressure to support any particular theory. It doesn't require much courage to propose alternate theories (which is why there are so many)- but of course, if you want to be respected, you need to be able to offer good evidence. That's really all it takes. There's no publishing industry here, either.

My experience with science is that no matter what the evidence is, the ancient consensus's fossilized bones are difficult to extract dna from, especially when the evidence will be used to revise the fossilized consensus. There are many examples. Thor Hyerdhal knew for a fact Balsa rafts crossed from Peru to Polynesia, yet caucasian scienctists told him Balsa logs would absorb water and sink long before the islands were gained. A more primitive logger of that jungle, half breed I believe, told Hyderdhal that if the Balsa logs were harvested when full of sap they would not absorb water to anywhere near dangerous amounts .. and he was 100 percent correct. Similarly 'The People of the Sea' who oversaw the pyramid building civilizations of Central and South America were said in tribal histories to have red and blonde hair, yet modern science could see no way for europeans to have crossed the oceans, so said the red and blonde hair of mummies found in the mountains of those lands were caused by solar bleaching. Bleaching was still taught in universities here 20 years ago, probably still today, despite accounts by Captain Cook of finding caucassian people with red and blonde hair living among Polynesian islands. And you say, Chris, that there are no ivory towers in science? Or will you insist that your field of science is pure and free of such gross defects of pride which blinds both eye and intellect? ( The People of the Sea were almost certainly Phoenicians, or predecessors of the Phoenicians, from the Mediterranean, forefathers of the Norse Vikings.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicians

[aristarchusinexile]

Science is not a matter of altering peoples thinking its about proving something over and over and questioned and questioned without emotional hang ups. People get offended when you do not think the same.

I'm guessing you've never been to an astronomical conference. Discussions are often dynamic. You find an extremely wide range of opinion, and I've never seen anybody get offended by that! You certainly don't find many people who "think the same".

You have an image in your mind of how professional science works that simply doesn't reflect reality.

My reading, Chris, reveals that while astronomers, like most humans, are almost always openly polite to each other, they gravitate into little clusters and guard their pet theories like cornered animals.

[Chris Peterson]

My reading, Chris, reveals that while astronomers, like most humans, are almost always openly polite to each other, they gravitate into little clusters and guard their pet theories like cornered animals.

Nope. Theories in astronomy and cosmology are very fluid. It is very difficult to sustain any theory in modern, rigorous sciences (which includes astronomy) in the face of counter evidence. I can't think of an example of that happening, in fact.

Astronomers make their name and reputation by coming up with new ideas. Nobody get ahead by sticking with dogma. Like I said, your view on this matter doesn't reflect reality. I think you're seeing the poor reception that a few bad ideas receive and extending this to astronomy as a whole. Bad ideas are, of course, received poorly.

[Chris Peterson]

My experience with science is that no matter what the evidence is, the ancient consensus's fossilized bones are difficult to extract dna from, especially when the evidence will be used to revise the fossilized consensus. There are many examples. Thor Hyerdhal knew for a fact Balsa rafts crossed from Peru to Polynesia...

I wouldn't compare this "science" to any rigorous science like astronomy. I've presented at archaeology conferences, and there's no doubt that archaeology operates very differently. In fact, I gave a paper arguing that communication between astronomers and archaeologists is very difficult because archaeology doesn't operate scientifically (this paper was very well received, considering I was presenting it to archaeologists!)

And you say, Chris, that there are no ivory towers in science?

No, I said that astronomy isn't a field where one finds much in the way of ivory towers. It is open to new ideas, ideas change frequently, and young scientists are generally able to get instrument time and are easily published. Astronomers are rarely ostracized for their ideas.

I don't mean this as an insult- do you have any experience with the academic astronomical community at all? From your past posts, it seems to me that much of your thinking in this comes from reading books written for the public, and in many cases by a few people with pretty off-the-wall ideas who are disgruntled about the lack of acceptance of those ideas in professional circles. If so, that is giving you an awfully biased view of how astronomy works in practice.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Chris it sounds that you are well educucated and have followed main stream right to the letter T.

You need to get out and check up stream for a better reality.

So far you have not presented any evidence to support your ideas.

[makc]

So far you have not presented any evidence to support your ideas.

Such as?

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Such as what ever Chris picks as evidence to whatever point.

[JimJast]

What do you thing of this paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.4172
Observations of type 1a supernovae are consistent with a static universe

I have found several years ago that "observations of type 1a supernovae are consistent with a static universe" (so called "Einstein's universe"). Unfortunately I'm not yet a PhD (just a doctoral student) so I can't publisch in arXiv.org. "Phys. Rev. Lett." declined to publish this piece of evidence for Einstein's universe as well as all others that I found since the time I started suspecting that Einstein was right about our universe (and I didn't find yet any evidence that Einstein was wrong ). The editors of "Phys. Rev. Lett." just didn't think that evidence consistent with a static universe is interesting to their readers so they wanted to spare the valuable space of their journals for more interesting news. It is the same in all scientific journals that I ever tried. When I tried to inform astronomers about the overlooked by them features of Einstein's general relativity, through moderated astronomy and physics fora that some of them might read, I was banned for life from a couple of them, which doesn't provide a good support for Chris Peterson's opinion about free exchange of ideas in astronomy (my impressions, while I studied astronomy, were just opposite). My topic "Einsteinian reason for Hubble redshift" in this forum has been locked too. So if I don't want to get banned from another astronomy forum (which I don't) I better don't comment on the subject of possibility of a static universe. I don't think you have to wait long before some astronomy professors, with access to scientific press, start noticing that nothing really contradicts the possibility that Einstein was right (excep prejudice of course). My own promoter is to shy to try to publish my results, so I have to wait until my PhD materializes to be allowed to write about them at least in arXiv.org and then, after thay are already published, in moderated fora and even in wikipedia .

[JimJast]

Astronomers are rarely ostracized for their ideas.

So why Halton Arp was consistently denied telescope time and had to move to Germany to be able to work in astronomy? Wasn't it for seeing things inconsistent with the expending universe? At least this is what he thinks. Is he wrong?

[Chris Peterson]

Astronomers are rarely ostracized for their ideas.

So why Halton Arp was consistently denied telescope time and had to move to Germany to be able to work in astronomy? Wasn't it for seeing things inconsistent with the expending universe? At least this is what he thinks. Is he wrong?

Because Halton Arp finally proved himself a first class whack job, and there was no hiding it anymore. His earlier reputation carried him a lot farther than it ought to have- the community was very tolerant. But in the end, he gave up on rational science and had nothing left but dogma. He would make observations, others would demonstrate the flaws in those observations, and he'd stick with them anyway.

You can't expect astronomers- or any other scientists- to indefinitely support what is pretty obviously unsupportable. That does not mean they aren't open to new ideas that can be justified by theory and observation. As I noted, there are plenty of alternative theories out there, which aren't very widely accepted, but are not getting their proponents tossed from the clubhouse.

[JimJast]

Because Halton Arp finally proved himself a first class whack job, and there was no hiding it anymore.

I don't know what "a first class whack job" Arp did but I wouldn't mind you explaining it. AFAIK Arp was trying to demonstrated that some quasars are much closer to us than the Big Bang hypothesis allows (which seems OK to me), and he, and Narlikar, are trying to explain it with "diminishing mass of elementary particles" which I consider silly and unnecessary but only to provide the reason for the spacetime of the universe being flat (which again, seems OK to me, why not?) and consistent with the principle of conservation of energy. Is there some other silly stuff in Arp's and Narlikar's cosmology?

[bystander]

My topic "Einsteinian reason for Hubble redshift" in this forum has been locked too.

Your topic was locked because when asked repeatedly for anything to back your rhetoric, you either pretended not to understand, or spouted more rhetoric. At first, makc was interested in what you had to say, but your refusal to back up your words with anything more than speculation is what got your topic locked. If the paper you tried to have published had no more substance than what you have demonstrated here, it is no wonder that it was not published.

[Chris Peterson]

Because Halton Arp finally proved himself a first class whack job, and there was no hiding it anymore.

I don't know what "a first class whack job" Arp did but I wouldn't mind you explaining it. AFAIK Arp was trying to demonstrated that some quasars are much closer to us than the Big Bang hypothesis allows (which seems OK to me), and he, and Narlikar, are trying to explain it with "diminishing mass of elementary particles" which I consider silly and unnecessary but only to provide the reason for the spacetime of the universe being flat (which again, seems OK to me, why not?) and consistent with the principle of conservation of energy. Is there some other silly stuff in Arp's and Narlikar's cosmology?

He is very hung up on his claims of connected galaxies as an argument against using cosmological redshift. But his examples were nearly all rejected based on additional, high quality observational evidence. But he can't give up those examples and move on. IMO it is his inability to let theories follow the evidence (as opposed to the opposite) that has marginalized him in the astronomical community. I wouldn't really say he has been ostracized, simply that he has lost a great deal of respect. He continues to publish, present at conferences, etc.

[Chris Peterson]

Unfortunately I'm not yet a PhD (just a doctoral student) so I can't publisch in arXiv.org.

I don't follow. You don't need a PhD to get an author account at arXiv. If you're unpublished, or they have some reason to doubt your veracity, you may need an endorser. That shouldn't be any problem for a PhD candidate. I had no problem getting an arXiv author account without a PhD, and carrying two institution affiliations, Cloudbait Observatory and Denver Museum of Nature and Science.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Chris said

Because Halton Arp finally proved himself a first class whack job, and there was no hiding it anymore. His earlier reputation carried him a lot farther than it ought to have- the community was very tolerant. But in the end, he gave up on rational science and had nothing left but dogma. He would make observations, others would demonstrate the flaws in those observations, and he'd stick with them anyway.

You can't expect astronomers- or any other scientists- to indefinitely support what is pretty obviously unsupportable. That does not mean they aren't open to new ideas that can be justified by theory and observation. As I noted, there are plenty of alternative theories out there, which aren't very widely accepted, but are not getting their proponents tossed from the clubhouse.

I want readers of this forum to make their own opinion over Halton Arp not through a person who has very little understanding of cosmology. I have always been taught not to attack the writer only the science issues. ooops

Halton C. Arp - The Official Website.
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles

Halton Arp arXiv papers
http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Ar ... /0/all/0/1

SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Halton Arp
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-basic_connect

Halton Arp has devoted his life to cosmology and does not need people like Chris to write words as above.

[Chris Peterson]

Halton Arp has devoted his life to cosmology and does not need people like Chris to write words as above.

There is no doubt at all that Arp has marginalized himself from the astronomical community because of his unorthodox, and often unscientific beliefs.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Chris you do not get it?

I have heard of ultra dense plasma matter , but you get the cake.