Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[Michael]

Yes, it does. The change in momentum changes the path of the photon. That is how it works. You have to change the laws of physics in order for this to not be true.

File:Compton-scattering.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, this is why PC theory is not taken seriously. It requires you to ignore basic physics.

How sad. Evidently you and Ned cannot tell the difference between redshift (loss of photon momentum) and a change in photon direction (trajectory change). That's just sad that you don't know the difference between them. Ned has at least *four* errors on that website that I picked out in less than 5 minutes. You didn't catch even one of them!

Ned's little website is pure trash. The fact his second point makes no mention at all of signal broadening says volumes about his complete lack of scientific integrity. He also ignored Lerners work entirely on point four. Again, Ned makes no attempt at all to be "honest". Every single point that Ned tries to make on that website is based on false information. He made no attempt at all to be "fair", "scientifically honest", or scientifically accurate. His last two points were patently absurd, and downright funny from my perspective since they apply more toward mainstream theory than to PC/EU theory. Mainstream theory was a whole order of magnitude off in it's early temperature predictions of the universe, whereas PC/EU temperature predictions based on starlight were within a single degree of the correct number as far back as *Eddington*!

 

[mzungu]

many objects in space are not visible to us from Earth due to all the dust that obscures our view.

Not true. X-rays pass through the dust and that is why the Chandra space telescope could peer through the dust and see the centre of our galaxy. This photo taken by the Chandra space telescope is of the centre of our galaxy.

Also we have filmed stars orbiting a black hole at this area as seen by a video I posted earlier. I know you insist it is a neutron star but the issue here is that you claim that we cannot see the centre of our galaxy.

 

[Michael]

The failure seems to be your unwillingness to fess up to plasma scattering.

No, it's related to your unwillingness to embrace plasma physics and to embrace the fact that high redshift objects in space *are* blurry! You can't toss out four types of redshift on a handwave and one test of *one* type of redshift.

Also, how are scientists supposed to respond to research that has not been published in peer reviewed journals and backed by research?

Wolf's work was published and peer reviewed and you never touched it. I expect them to do what they always do, specifically to ignore anything and everything that doesn't fit with their preconceived ideas and their love of dark metaphysical gap fillers.

 

[Michael]

Not true. X-rays pass through the dust and that is why the Chandra space telescope could peer through the dust and see the centre of our galaxy. This photo taken by the Chandra space telescope is of the centre of our galaxy.

Also we have filmed stars orbiting a black hole at this area as seen by a video I posted earlier. I know you insist it is a neutron star but the issue here is that you claim that we cannot see the centre of our galaxy.

It depends on what wavelength we're talking about! You won't see the center in white light will you?

 

[Loudmouth]

No, it's related to your unwillingness to embrace plasma physics . . .

I have embraced it. All photon interactions with plasma that cause a change in the momentum in photons also causes a change in trajectory. that is plasma physics. Why are you unwilling to embrace plasma physics?

Wolf's work was published and peer reviewed and you never touched it.

The Wolf effect requires two coherent light sources which stars are not. There are simply way too many conditions needed for the Wolf effect to occur in order for it to effect every single observation, especially in a distance related manner.

The Wolf effect also failed in another way. It was first put forward as an attempt to explain why certain quasars were redshifted more than the galaxies they were supposedly associated with. However, it turned out that this was not the case. It was simply a case of a closer galaxy being in the foreground of a much more distant quasar. The redshifts were correlated with distance, not the Wolf effect.

Also, the Wolf effect is also associated with Brillouin scattering:

Brillouin scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[davidbilby]

I have embraced it. All photon interactions with plasma that cause a change in the momentum in photons also causes a change in trajectory. that is plasma physics.

Further to that, photon-electron interactions in plasma at the energy levels that would occur in this situation would lead to scattering angles of greater than 1 degree and sometimes as great as 90 degrees and above, depending on the photon energy level. There is no know photon electron interaction at the energy levels found here that does not introduce scatter if there is a change in energy level.

Even 0.1 degree of scatter, factored across billions and billions of miles of deep space...yeah, that would be a problem. .000001 of a degree of scatter...equally, too big a problem. You're asking that all photons - lots and lots and lots of them - from a distant source have undergone the same electron interactions each with a scatter angle involved depending on energy level - yet somehow have all managed to keep on track, and do so consistently? You were talking about probabilities in another thread...maybe you should figure out the probability of that.....

When they say blurring, it should really read "destruction of the image in any meaningful form". We actually see distant galaxies, therefore until tired light theorists come up with some mechanism in plasma that yields essentially no scatter angle whatsoever, the theory is inconsistent with observation.

 

[mzungu]

Further to that, photon-electron interactions in plasma at the energy levels that would occur in this situation would lead to scattering angles of greater than 1 degree and sometimes as great as 90 degrees and above, depending on the photon energy level. There is no know photon electron interaction at the energy levels found here that does not introduce scatter if there is a change in energy level.

Even 0.1 degree of scatter, factored across billions and billions of miles of deep space...yeah, that would be a problem. .000001 of a degree of scatter...equally, too big a problem. You're asking that all photons - lots and lots and lots of them - from a distant source have undergone the same electron interactions each with a scatter angle involved depending on energy level - yet somehow have all managed to keep on track, and do so consistently? You were talking about probabilities in another thread...maybe you should figure out the probability of that.....

When they say blurring, it should really read "destruction of the image in any meaningful form". We actually see distant galaxies, therefore until tired light theorists come up with some mechanism in plasma that yields essentially no scatter angle whatsoever, the theory is inconsistent with observation.

And that is why the mainstream dismiss your hypotheses Michael!

 

[mzungu]

It depends on what wavelength we're talking about! You won't see the center in white light will you?

Light is light; Just because humans see only what we call visible light, means nothing. We can see through dust clouds with light albeit at the x-ray wavelength. The resulting images are what we are after.

 

[Michael]

I have embraced it.

Nope. I've handed you four empirical causes of plasma redshift, five if we include the movement of objects. Instead of choosing any of those natural causes, you keep claiming 'dark stuff did it' without so much as a shred of empirical evidence that 'dark energy' isn't a figment of your overactive imagination.

All photon interactions with plasma that cause a change in the momentum in photons also causes a change in trajectory. that is plasma physics.

No, that's your erroneous handwave of an allegation that is easily disproved by simple lab experiments that slow light down to a crawl speed and let loose again. Momentum changes in plasma do *not* equate to blurriness. You're wrong and you've been consistently wrong on this point. I've even showed you laboratory evidence that demonstrates that you're wrong, and you keep repeating the same falsified nonsense over and over and over again.

Prof. Lene Hau: Stopping light cold - YouTube

How about dealing with reality now and accepting the fact that a change in momentum is not the same thing as blurriness. If you can't get real, there's no point in continuing to handwave at me with pure baloney.

Holy smokes! Is your "best" rebuttal to plasma redshift really some guy's website that contains *at least* four obvious physics errors? Really?

Why are you unwilling to embrace plasma physics?

In real plasma physics, plasma redshift happens. Only in "dark mythos" do photons traverse plasma without redshifting.

The Wolf effect requires two coherent light sources which stars are not. There are simply way too many conditions needed for the Wolf effect to occur in order for it to effect every single observation, especially in a distance related manner.

Talk about silly handwaves. The guy that discovered the theory in question offered you a published, peer reviewed paper for your consideration, and you simply handwaved it away without so much as a website reference. Wow!

The Wolf effect also failed in another way. It was first put forward as an attempt to explain why certain quasars were redshifted more than the galaxies they were supposedly associated with. However, it turned out that this was not the case. It was simply a case of a closer galaxy being in the foreground of a much more distant quasar. The redshifts were correlated with distance, not the Wolf effect.

Not surprising to me actually. He should have applied it to the entire galaxy, not simply the quasar itself.

Also, the Wolf effect is also associated with Brillouin scattering:

Brillouin scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And? In real spacetime, scattering happens. So does absorption. That is why we cannot see the core of our own galaxy in some wavelengths, and we can image it in other wavelengths. In the real world of plasma physics, scattering and absorption happen all the time. Only in dark sky mythologies does scattering and absorption occur *without* causing redshift.

 

[Michael]

Light is light; Just because humans see only what we call visible light, means nothing. We can see through dust clouds with light albeit at the x-ray wavelength. The resulting images are what we are after.

I'll grant you that my verbiage was sloppy, but LM is attempting to ignore the laws of plasma physics. Some wavelengths are "blurred". Some wavelengths are blocked entirely. Some wavelengths pass on through without a lot of problems. It depends on the *medium* and the wavelength in question. The bottom line is that scattering and redshift occur in plasma!

 

[Michael]

Further to that, photon-electron interactions in plasma at the energy levels that would occur in this situation would lead to scattering angles of greater than 1 degree and sometimes as great as 90 degrees and above, depending on the photon energy level.

Any such scattering angles would simply result in the loss of the photon itself.

There is no know photon electron interaction at the energy levels found here that does not introduce scatter if there is a change in energy level.

Including this one?
ScienceDirect.com - Optik - International Journal for Light and Electron Optics - Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas

Stark redshift? The Wolf effect?

Just out of curiosity, why must the exact redshift mechanism be "known" in the first place? Why are you imposing a *much greater* restriction on PC theory than you impose upon Lamdba-CDM theory? The mainstream has never produced a source of dark energy, nor a control mechanism, nor even proposed a mechanism that might explain how dark causes "space" (physically undefined not less) to expand. It's all "unknown" at this time. Ditto for inflation. That doesn't prevent them from handing out Nobel Prizes on these topics does it?

Even Ari's approach (field to field kinetic energy transfers) is preferable to a "I don't know" as a proposed "mechanism" IMO. At least there are proposals of possible mechanisms on the table in theoretical forms of plasma redshift. Even *that* blows the doors off of "I don't have a clue where dark energy comes from".

Even 0.1 degree of scatter, factored across billions and billions of miles of deep space...yeah, that would be a problem. .000001 of a degree of scatter...equally, too big a problem. You're asking that all photons - lots and lots and lots of them - from a distant source have undergone the same electron interactions each with a scatter angle involved depending on energy level - yet somehow have all managed to keep on track, and do so consistently? You were talking about probabilities in another thread...maybe you should figure out the probability of that.....

Most plasma redshift theories assume that light which does not "pass on through" at the same angle it started, is simply lost. PC theory would in fact "predict/require" that a lot of light is simply lost between the source and the Earth. Indeed astronomers just discovered that the universe is twice as bright at they predicted. Big fail for maintream theory. Big plus in terms of validating PC theory.

When they say blurring, it should really read "destruction of the image in any meaningful form". We actually see distant galaxies, therefore until tired light theorists come up with some mechanism in plasma that yields essentially no scatter angle whatsoever, the theory is inconsistent with observation.

Again, you're *assuming* that a loss of momentum equates to a scattering angle, and I doubt that assumption has even been tested in Chen's observation of "plasma redshift". You're essentially *assuming* it's true.

 

[Michael]

And that is why the mainstream dismiss your hypotheses Michael!

Right. Even if it turns out the scattering angles that you're so worried about actually even apply to Chen's plasma redshift, the mainstream provides absolutely no "known mechanisms" to explain dark energy! You're going to toss out other theories based on a perceived lack of one in PC theory? Hypocrisy isn't much of an impressive motivation for tossing out other theories I'm afraid. It just points out the irrational nature of mainstream dogma. They impose *greater* standards on everyone else than they impose upon themselves!

 

[Michael]

FYI, it occurs to me that you folks are blowing smoke even as it relates to the *need* for photon deflection, particularly in polarized light and coherent light.

It's *entirely* possible for photons to pass on their kinetic energy to electrons/protons in the direction of the photon's travel path, particularly polarized light and coherent light. As long as the photons pass on their collective energy to the particle in question, in it's direction of travel, no defection of the photons occur, and the loss of momentum/kinetic energy is towards it's original travel path. There's not even any guarantee that every redshift event will result in a deflection of the photon(s)!

 

[mzungu]

Right. Even if it turns out the scattering angles that you're so worried about actually even apply to Chen's plasma redshift, the mainstream provides absolutely no "known mechanisms" to explain dark energy! You're going to toss out other theories based on a perceived lack of one in PC theory? Hypocrisy isn't much of an impressive motivation for tossing out other theories I'm afraid. It just points out the irrational nature of mainstream dogma. They impose *greater* standards on everyone else than they impose upon themselves!

Science will toss out ANY hypothesis if it is deemed to be wrong, baseless, nonsense, etc. Your logical fallacy that because dark matter has not been discovered; You therefore claim that your hypothesis is therefore true is laughable to say the least. All hypotheses must conform to the fundamental rules governing science and yours has been debunked time and time again. Why are you beating a dead horse

 

[Michael]

Science will toss out ANY hypothesis if it is deemed to be wrong, baseless, nonsense, etc. Your logical fallacy that because dark matter has not been discovered; You therefore claim that your hypothesis is therefore true is laughable to say the least. All hypotheses must conform to the fundamental rules governing science and yours has been debunked time and time again. Why are you beating a dead horse

FYI, your claim about "debunking" plasma redshift, a known and *demonstrated* process in plasma physics, is akin to a YEC proponent claiming to have "debunked" evolutionary theory based on some guy's website named Ned, who's website contains four physics error in a row!

Talk about laughable.

The fundamental rule of science and plasma physics is that light passing through plasma *will* be redshift over distance and time. There is no *possibility* that plasma redshift will not occur in space, unless you're pulling a "DAD" claim out of your back pocket and suggesting that laws of physics in space are different from the laws of plasma physics as observed in the lab.

Talk about dead horses!

 

[davidbilby]

The fundamental rule of science and plasma physics is that light passing through plasma *will* be redshift over distance and time. There is no *possibility* that plasma redshift will not occur in space, unless you're pulling a "DAD" claim out of your back pocket and suggesting that laws of physics in space are different from the laws of plasma physics as observed in the lab.

Talk about dead horses!

Even assuming that were true (it's not at all true in all cases - demonstrably so, since for starters photons of high enough energy will annihilate and pair production will ensue), you haven't proved that plasma redshift would be the sole cause of the observed cosmological redshift. Appealing to a perceived authority (something you enjoy criticizing in others) in some random C# code doesn't do that.

 

[mzungu]

FYI, your claim about "debunking" plasma redshift, a known and *demonstrated* process in plasma physics, is akin to a YEC proponent claiming to have "debunked" evolutionary theory based on some guy's website named Ned, who's website contains four physics error in a row!

Talk about laughable.

The fundamental rule of science and plasma physics is that light passing through plasma *will* be redshift over distance and time. There is no *possibility* that plasma redshift will not occur in space, unless you're pulling a "DAD" claim out of your back pocket and suggesting that laws of physics in space are different from the laws of plasma physics as observed in the lab.

Talk about dead horses!

Sorry but Mainstream Astronomy has debunked your SS hypothesis and your plasma redshift too. There is no need to keep beating a dead horse.

You may as well move on into the 21st century and leave the 60s where they belong.

 

[Michael]

Even assuming that were true (it's not at all true in all cases - demonstrably so, since for starters photons of high enough energy will annihilate and pair production will ensue), you haven't proved that plasma redshift would be the sole cause of the observed cosmological redshift. Appealing to a perceived authority (something you enjoy criticizing in others) in some random C# code doesn't do that.

First of all, I'm not required to "prove" that plasma redshift is responsible for *all* the redshift. I'm personally very open to a "movement of objects" type of an expansion process. I'm not open to a "magic did it" type of an expansion however, and that is exactly what "space expansion" claims are, *magic*.

Let's get "real" here in terms of empirical physics. The mainstream *left out* important features of plasma, specifically it's ability to absorb kinetic energy from photons and lengthen light signals over time and distance. Since it did not include several known plasma physics processes (broadening/redshift), they are stuck with a "mystery", and "placeholder terms" for what amounts to human ignorance. I can even clearly explain exactly what the mainstream is ignorant of, they are ignorant of plasma physics, and I can demonstrate it in a lab. That's really all I actually need to *reject* all forms of "dark dogma". I don't need to completely falsify every aspect of your theory (although simple SUSY theory was falsified at LHC), I simply need a logical empirical alternative.

Secondly, the mainstream constantly points to their "quantification" as the be-all-end-all of "evidence" in favor of their belief system. I handed you a "quantified" explanation in this thread for A) the redshift, B) the background temperature that is the result of the effect on starlight on material in space (CMBR), the Tolman brightness test, etc, all based on pure form of plasma physics. Why isn't that evidence of the validity of EU/PC theory in your mind?

The mainstream *only* has quantification which they attempt to use as evidence, without qualification (from the lab) of their claims. I have both. What need do I have for a ridiculous dark sky religion, when I can explain every important observation in space based on pure plasma physics, and I know for a fact that they left out parts of plasma physics in their calculations?

Let's face it, the mainstream is using a *toy* version of plasma physics, one that leaves out important aspects of plasma physics, like signal broadening and plasma redshift, and circuit theory. It's no wonder they can't figure anything out with they toy brand of plasma theory. They don't understand it at all! Alfven called they beliefs "pseudoscience" till the day that he died! They really are clueless when it comes to plasma physics, as we can see from their math formulas. They leave out *major* features of plasma physics research, specifically everything that's been learned about plasma since Alfven's double layer paper in 1986. They've essentially been using a toy brand of plasma physics theory for over 30 years and counting!

 

[Michael]

Sorry but Mainstream Astronomy has debunked your SS hypothesis and your plasma redshift too. There is no need to keep beating a dead horse.

Ned Wright's pitiful tired light website is stuck 30 years in the past. It contains four obvious physics errors in a row and includes no mention of the advancements of plasma redshift theory over the past decade, nor any mention of Lerner's work and Holushko's work that debunks every single claim on that page.

The really sad part is, that Ned's page is *the* source that the mainstream points to when attempting to "debunk" PC/EU theory. It's like using a creationist website that contains four known physics errors as a "debunk" of evolutionary theory. That's how absurd it is to claim that Ned's website with four physics errors is a "debunk" of PC theory. What a sad commentary on mainstream theory that they are reduced to falsified creationist handwave arguments from some guys unpublished website to attempt to "debunk" a form of pure empirical physics.

You may as well move on into the 21st century and leave the 60s where they belong.

As always, you have empirical physics standing on it's head. It's the mainstream understanding of plasma physics that is stuck 60 years in the past, and it's the mainstream that is incapable of embracing plasma physics research. That is why they still cling to what Alfven himself call "pseudoscience" till the day that he died, and why they cannot and will not incorporate any knowledge of plasma redshift and signal broadening that we have learned over the past 3 decades! That is why they are incapable of accepting the fact that plasma redshift theory continues to evolve, and that is why that are reduced to pointing at Ned's pathetic little website from 2001 as a "refute" of redshift theory.

I've already moved on to the 21st century, including all the advancements in plasma physics research over the past 30 years. So long as the mainstream clings to the 20th century understanding of plasma physics, they will grope around in the dark ages of astronomy forever. It's a plasma universe. In a plasma universe, plasma redshift is given. Only in creation mythos must the laws of plasma physics work differently in space than they work in the lab. You guys are peddling another Dad claim, nothing more.

 

[davidbilby]

First of all, I'm not required to "prove" that plasma redshift is responsible for *all* the redshift. I'm personally very open to a "movement of objects" type of an expansion process. I'm not open to a "magic did it" type of an expansion however, and that is exactly what "space expansion" claims are, *magic*.

Objects do not "move" in inflationary theory, depending on how you define "move". We don't know what the mechanism for the cosmological constant is, yet you look at that and say we think it must be "magic"! Strawman much?

You don't know what the electron-photon interaction is in your theory, yet you're entirely ok with that gap. Not only are you insulting in your choice of words - some kind of inferiority complex perhaps - but you then accuse others of holding double standards. You complain about appeals to authority...and then appeal to that which you hold as authority (be it Brynjolfsson, Lerner, Holusko, or Alfven as you do here). Pot, meet kettle.

I've lost count of the number of times you've appealed to Chen's paper, knowing full well the limitation that it was on a tiny scale in carbon nanotubes as opposed to the plasma one might find in space. But no...you're entirely happy to make the sweeping statement that your cosmological theory has been demonstrated "in the lab". You've not attempted to replicate the work, scale it up, or empirically test the implications that you have. You've admitted the ac stark effect probably isn't the sole mechanism...but hello, that is what the Chen paper talks about! That is how they explain all their results!!

I simply need a logical empirical alternative.

Great. So why haven't you tested your theory empirically? You said that it makes predictions about the time delay of high energy photons. Superb. I pointed out that you could easily test that by showing data from across the night sky of pinpoint events and seeing whether the time delay is essentially uniform dependent on distance (since the redshift we see is uniform and specially independent across the night sky).

Immediately you fall into a problem - the data from the Markarian cluster alone shows a wildly varying time delay, one that varies from seconds to hours, despite similar redshifts. Your explanation and citation of this paper relies wholly on the assumption that the photons were emitted more or less simultaneously at higher and lower energy levels. My explanation would be that emission was asynchronous - most likely due to varying electron injection levels (see Zheng/Zhang, 2011).

Why aren't you testing your idea empirically? The Markarian results were published before Ashmore published his paper, so his prediction was actually a postdiction. That is fine and good provided you all go out and test it again! If you really believed in it you'd be all over this like a rash...here is a way to empirically show you might be right? I'm baffled as to why you (plural) don't.

(Snip generalized insulting rant about the competency of the mainstream, most of whom you don't know well enough to judge)