So you have shown, in the lab, that plasma redshifts will preserve a crisp image of distant galaxies? I would really like to see those lab experiments.
No, I have spectral aging software by Holushko that tests that concept and it's fine.
I'm really sick and tired of going in circles with you over the Doppler shift claims you keep making. You're apparently in hardcore denial of scientific fact. No professional astronomer even uses Doppler redshift to explain cosmological redshift. If you refuse to the distinguish between Doppler redshift and cosmological redshift, what's the point of trying to have a conversation with you in the first place? It's like talking to dad because you're just making things up as you go!
What verified mechanisms did I ignore?
Besides the Wolf effect and Stark redshift? You've ignored pretty much every other possible mechanism related to plasma redshift and I don't think you've even provided a single published rebuttal of anything.
C# code is not a mechanism.
It's a *quantified* explanation of the observations based on *generic* models related to plasma redshift. It could apply to any and all of them. It's just a valid of a quantification as any that the mainstream have provided.
I can write a program based on gravity fairies if I want, and write the program so that the gravity fairies produce orbits that are consistent with what we observe.
That is *exactly* what the mainstream is doing, only they use "dark energy" faeries to make the match. I'm simply using *known physics* to explain those same features.
Such a program does not evidence gravity fairies. It is garbage in, garbage out. What you need to show is that plasmas act as the program models, and you haven't done that.
Boloney. I've done exactly what the mainstream did. I provided you mathematical support of concept. Your criticism are rather ironic from my perspective since 96 percent of mainstream theory is composed of invisible sky faeries that only show up in one and only one cosmology theory, certainly never in the lab.
Any time you absorb and emit you blur the image. Images of distant galaxies are not blurred.
Your first statement isn't necessarily true, so your second statement is a moot point.
Right, and that prediction fails. The CMB is not starlight.
Cosmology FAQ: Can the CMBR be redshifted starlight?
Pure unpublished handwaving. I'm amazed at the way folks argue their case based on unpublished website material. It's bizarre. Even the first sentence is highly suspect:
The CMB radiation is such a perfect fit to a blackbody that it cannot be made by stars. The reason for this is that stars are at best only pretty good blackbodies, and the usual absorption lines and band edges make them pretty bad blackbodies.
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Stars/color.html
That's devastating news to the mainstream because they use 'blackbody' calculations to determine the temperature of every star in the universe and they describe them as "black bodies" with "opaque" surfaces. Suddenly stars are "bad blackbodies' based on one web author's unpublished claims? Nobody is claiming or requiring that the stars act like a "black body" in the first place, it's the *plasma and particles of spacetime* that emit the light we observe in the CMB, not the stars themselves. The stars are actually 'filtered out' on purpose. Wow, what a lame website.
The light given off by stars does not match the curve for black body radiation.
Boloney. It may not be a "perfect' fit, but it's certainly good enough for astronomers to use in terms of guestimating the temperature of the object in question. I love how you simply ignore the whole method they use to determine the temperature of a star.
If the CMB was produced by starlight then we would expect to see deviations from the black body curve as seen in stars. It isn't there.
No we would not. Again, that's pure handwaving on your part. It's not the suns that produce the background light we're observing, it's the *particles in spacetime* that do that. The original emitter doesn't even need to be a "black body' to begin with because we filtering out he emitters themselves to that all we observe is the background temperature of spacetime.
The CMB exactly matches black body radiation just as it should if the BB model is correct. PC fails this very important test.
That isn't a "test", that's a ridiculous handwave from some guys website that clearly makes a "questionable' set of assumptions to begin with. When astronomers calculate the temperature of stars they consider them to be a "black body". Suddenly now you're going to simply ignore that fact, and make just the opposite claim that suns are "bad blackbodies". Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too. If sun's are actually "bad blackbodies" you just falsified mainstream theory. Congrats for falsifying every mainstream theory under the sun.
Why good is a GIGO program? The map is not the territory.
What good is you code related to invisible sky entities. You put 96 percent garbage in, so you got 96 percent garbage out.
The current PC model still does not match the measured CMB. It isn't starlight as the PC model requires.
Boloney. Your simply handwaving based on false statements from some guys website. Your opinions aren't even based upon *published* materials, and the very first paragraph, if actually true, would necessarily falsify mainstream claims about the temperatures of every sun in the universe.