Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[Michael]

Holy Cow, Michael!
If you continue displaying ignorance then I will continue pointing out your ignorance!
If you continue displaying an inability understand science then I will continue pointing out your inability to understand science!
If you continue to cite cranks then I will continue pointing out that you are citing cranks!

There you go again trying to *bully* everyone, intimidate everyone and smear individuals. Why must you do that? Because in terms of plasma physics, you have no scientific arguments to offer, just something Alfven himself called pseudoscience, and denial of all forms of plasma redshift and signal broadening in plasma. You might as well give it up RC. I won't be intimidated by your bullying tactics and no amount of a lack of a real argument on your part is going to make plasma redshift go away anytime soon. Get over it. If Ned was your hero in 2001, you *really* need a new one in 2012. Where is your valid rational argument, or did you just intend to attack me personally on a daily basis like always?

 

[RealityCheck01]

They just "discovered" a huge ball of million degree plasma around our galaxy which contains *lots* of free electrons!

Wrong - They just "discovered" a huge ball of million degree plasma around our galaxy which contains *a tiny amount of the enormous density (which is the requirement for the "plasma redshift"* of free electrons compared to Chen's plasma !

 

[Michael]

Wrong - They just "discovered" a huge ball of million degree plasma around our galaxy which contains *a tiny amount of the enormous density (which is the requirement for the "plasma redshift"* of free electrons compared to Chen's plasma !

You don't account for any of the electron density that keeps that plasma at millions of degrees, so what do you know about the electron density? Oh ya, you finally figured out plasma was there as PC theorists have been telling you for years!

 

[RealityCheck01]

You've never shown that there is a problem, you just keep flailing away with claims you pulled out of your back pocket and from some guys website that cant tell the difference between momentum changes and trajectory changes! Pitiful, just pitiful.

It is pitiful, just pitiful, Michael that you have forgotten what momentum is!

Momentum is a vector (basically mass * velocity). A change in momentum without a change in mass is a change in speed or a change in direction (or both!). Photons cannot change speed so they change directions.

Fo light: momentum changes are trajectory changes.
That is a problem - it produces blurred images.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You don't account for any of the electron density that keeps that plasma at millions of degrees, so what do you know about it? Oh ya, you finally figured out it was there as PC theorists have been telling you for years!

What makes you think that an electrion density that is 1000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 less than in Chen's experiment has anything to do with the plasma temperature?

It is basic plasma physics that the temperature of a plasma is higher when lower plasma densities since the electrons have a higher mean free path and so electric fields (gasp! I mentioned that word!) can accelerate then more. A faster moving electron is hotter.

pc proponents have never predicted that the Milky way is surrounded by a hot halo AFAIK: Citations, Michael, to the published papers on this.

It is an expectation in BBT that there is more ordinary matter to be found - that is the "missing matter" problem and we still are not up to that 4% of the universe that is plasma being detected!

 

[Michael]

It is pitiful, just pitiful, Michael that you have forgotten what momentum is!

Momentum is a vector (basically mass * velocity). A change in momentum without a change in mass is a change in speed or a change in direction (or both!). Photons cannot change speed so they change directions.

Nope, that is your error in a nutshell. When photons gain or lose momentum, it's called *blueshift* and *redshift* RC! Only in your denial process is there no differentiation between a loss of momentum, and a change in direction. Go look up Doppler Redshift RC, and wake me up when you grasp basic photon physics. It doesn't matter if you personally are incapable of accepting basic photon physics RC, but a simple test of Doppler redshift blows away your claim. Momentum change and direction change are *not* necessarily exactly the same thing. As long as you and Ned remain in denial of Doppler redshift and blueshift, what is there to discuss?

 

[Michael]

What makes you think that an electrion density that is 1000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 less than

Where did you get that figure? Oh ya, you simply made it up!

It is basic plasma physics that the temperature of a plasma is higher when lower plasma densities since the electrons have a higher mean free path and so electric fields (gasp! I mentioned that word!) can accelerate then more. A faster moving electron is hotter.

Yes, which is exactly why all that missing mass they found in plasma is radiating at a million degrees RC. It's got a very high electron density that you simply ignore.

pc proponents have never predicted that the Milky way is surrounded by a hot halo AFAIK: Citations, Michael, to the published papers on this.

Show me one that predicts the existence of any exotic matter RC. I've been telling you for *years* that there are no exotic forms of matter and LHC just killed SUSY theory dead, or at least put it on life support! Do you really think any PC proponent is surprised to discover that your "missing mass" is found in ordinary plasma?

It is an expectation in BBT that there is more ordinary matter to be found - that is the "missing matter" problem and we still are not up to that 4% of the universe that is plasma being detected!

You still never addressed the fact that the universe is twice as bright as your mathematical models claimed, and you grossly underestimate the number of smaller star in a galaxy. You've never fixed *any* of your "dark" fudge factors.

NASA - Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount
New View: Universe Suddenly Twice as Bright | Space.com

 

[Michael]

You also completely misunderstand the concept of scattering.

No, that would be you and Ned since you do not differentiate between momentum changes (redshift/blueshift) and directional changes of the photon. They are not one and the same. A photon can pass it's momentum towards it's direction of travel, and never experience a change in direction. This is particularly true of polarized and coherent light. So long as you continue to play with toy versions of physics, of course the universe will remain a dark mystery to you.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Nope, that is your error in a nutshell.

Nope, that is your ignorance in a nutshell.
Blueshift and redshift are a change in frequency. That is why astronomers use spectra to look at blue and red shifts.

When photons gain or lose momentum, it is called a change in momentum. It means that the photon velocity has changed. Velocity is a vector with speed and direction. Light does not chnage speed and so the direction must chnage. That is scattering ans leads to blurred objects.

Only in your ignorance process does a change of momentum not mean a change in direction.

Go look up momentum (especially for photons) ,Michael, and wake me up when you grasp basic photon physics.

Go look up Doppler shift which is a change in frequency, Michael, and wake me up when you grasp basic photon physics.

 

[Michael]

Oh dear: you cite a 2005 news article on a paper by Oliver Manuel who has the crazy idea that there is a neutron star at the center of the Sun!

Every idea that you disagree with is a "crazy", "crank" or "crackpot" idea in your bullying world of physics by force.

This is just another example of his obsession with neutron stars.

Like you don't need them in your belief system RC?

Sagittarius A* is 4.1 million solar masses packed into a volume less than the orbit or Mercury. There is no known physics that allows it to be a neutron star.

Sure there is. There all of Manuel's work on neutron repulsion measurements from the lab, and there is work on the structure of the neutron itself that demonstrates that neutrons are "layered" with a negative shell on the interior and exterior and a positively charged middle section. It's that "charge" on the outer layer you're effectively ignoring.

And you ignore the fact that a neutron star is not free space!

Huh? When did I ever claim it was "free space"? That sounds like something else you simply made up.

Your attitude thus far RC really does demonstrate everything that is wrong with astronomy today. Every idea brought before you that doesn't jive with your preconceived ideas is met with brute irrational force, and a "kill the messenger" mentality followed by verbal abuse galore. Thanks for demonstrating the necessity of this thread RC.

 

[RealityCheck01]

How about the Wolf effect? Stark redshift? Just going to ignore those are you?

I will look at them when you cite the evidence that they can produce comsological redshift.

Sure but the photon can also simply pass it's kinetic energy to another particle,

That is more ignorance- if a photon p[asses kinetic energy thehn its speed must change!
The speed of light for a photon in vacuum is constant.

Compton scattering involves the loss of energy (red shift) and a change in momentum (scattering:

Compton scattering is an inelastic scattering of a photon by a free charged particle, usually electron. It results in a decrease in energy (increase in wavelength) of the photon (which may be an X-ray or gamma ray photon), called the Compton effect. Part of the energy of the photon is transferred to the scattering electron. Inverse Compton scattering also exists, in which a charged particle transfers part of its energy to a photon.

So long as you are repeating your ignorance of photins. I will try to correct that ignorance. Wikipedia: Photon

A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force, even when static via virtual photons. The effects of this force are easily observable at both the microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has no rest mass; this allows for interactions at long distances
...
In empty space, the photon moves at c (the speed of light) and its energy and momentum are related by E = pc, where p is the magnitude of the momentum vector p.
...
The energy and momentum of a photon depend only on its frequency (ν) or inversely, its wavelength (λ):

 

[RealityCheck01]

No, it's your ignorance of plasma redshift that requires that you parrot mistakes made by Ned over a decade ago, and never updated in all that time.

You are the one parotting mistakes. Ned Wright stated what is taught in high school science (or at least undergraduate physics) courses.
If a photon changes momentum then it has scattered from something and that causes distant objects to be blurred.

His next point is:

The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves. This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1.
In 2001 Goldhaber and the Supernova Cosmology Project published results of a time dilation analysis of 60 supernovae. A plot of their width factor w versus the redshift z is shown below
...
If the redshift were due to a tired light effect, the width of a supernova light curve would be independent of the redshift, as shown by the red horizontal line. If the redshift is due to an expanding Universe, the width factor should be w = (1+z) as shown by the blue line. The best fit to the data is the black line, and it is clearly consistent with the blue line and rules out the tired light model.

Where is your plot of width factor w versus the redshift z for the redshifts you are supporting as cosmological redshift?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Ned Wright's next point is:
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

The tired light model can not produce a blackbody spectrum for the Cosmic Microwave Background without some incredible coincidences.
...
The FIRAS data limit this prefactor to 1.00001+/-0.00005, which requires that the CMB come from redshifts less than 0.00005, or distances less than 0.25 Mpc. This is less than the distance to the Andromeda Galaxy M31, and we know the Universe is transparent well beyond this distance. In fact, since millimeter wave emission is observed to come from galaxies at redshifts of 4.7 or higher, the tired light model fails this test by 100,000 standard deviations.

This is a conclusion from 10 year old data. I suspect that millimeter wave emission has been observed to come from galaxies at redshifts much more than 4.7 making the tired light fit even worse.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Ned Wright's next point is:
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test. This is essentially the same effect as the CMB prefactor test, but applied to the surface brightness of galaxies instead of to the emissivities of blackbodies. Lubin & Sandage (2001) show that tired light fails this test by 10 standard deviations.

The citation is to
The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. IV. A Measurement of the Tolman Signal and the Luminosity Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies

We conclude that the Tolman surface brightness test is consistent with the reality of the expansion to within the combined errors of the observed depression and the theoretical correction for luminosity evolution. We have also used the high-redshift HST data to test the "tired light'' speculation for a nonexpansion model for the redshift. The HST data rule out the tired light model at a significance level of better than 10 σ.

 

[TheBear]

It's been 14 years already and they've started handing out Nobel prizes already. How long must I wait?

It was several decades from the discovery of the double helix, to DNA sequencing. Think about that for a moment.

 

[Michael]

More ignorance - Chen's electron density is in the abstract of the paper!

So what? You have have no idea about the electron density in space. You don't account for it, nor acknowledge it! Who cares what you think about current density of space based upon your *non electric* universe model? You can't judge PC/EU theory based upon *mainstream* beliefs RC. That's always been your mistake.

The electron density of intergalactic plasma is of the order of 10^-6 cm^-3.

That is pure speculation on your part. You've not accounted for any of the currents between the surface of the sun and the heliosphere, so why should I believe you can correctly account for the current density of the ISM and IGM?

So some simple math for you, Michael: What is 10^18 by 10^-6?
Hint: Does 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 look familiar?

As long as you do "oversimplified math", based upon your own erroneous assumptions about the nature of the universe, and as long as you refuse to recognize the electrical nature of our universe, you will forever come up with totally useless and meaningless maths. That's been true of your maths since Guthanity first began, and it's more true today than ever. All of your placeholder terms for human ignorance can be traced right back to your ignorance of plasma redshift.

So you have a delusion that this hot halo gas has a electron density of 1018 cm−3?

No, I have no "delusions" of any sort. I make no particular claim about the density of *one* area of space. It's not even the simple in the first place. You're always trying to "dumb everything down" so you can attempt to "debunk" some strawman concept and ignore the laws of physics.

I call it a delusion because it is easy to look up plasma densities:
Wikipedia: Plasma (physics)

"If you look at the numbers based upon *my belief systems*......".

RC, I have no faith whatsoever in those numbers. You just found million degree plasma all around our galaxy that you never knew even existed until this year. It's a million degrees, and you're ignorant of the current that sustains those million degree temperatures. Why should I believe anything you say in terms of the current density of space?

You are lying. That was addressed in the JREF forum.

There you go again calling people liars, attacking *people*, being a rude bully and hoping like hell it works for you here. I think you have rude surprise in store if you keep treating everyone here like this. You'll get eaten up alive by theist and atheist alike and the moderators will probably have to explain the rules to you. Pssst. Most atheists here can get their points across without attacking people, just ideas. What's your excuse?

No mathematical models involved.
It is the observations that are involved.

False. All we actually observe is "redshift", not expansion, and not acceleration, and not plasma redshift either. You and I *interpret* that redshift observation *differently*. You observe "signal broadening" features in plasma and claim them to be related to "time dilation". You observe plasma redshift and subjectively interpret it to be 'caused' by something you call "inflation" and "dark energy". The problem is that you cannot demonstrate them to be anything other than figments of your overactive imagination. There are five empirical "causes" of photon redshift in the lab and your invisible friends aren't one of them!

And where do you calculate the effect that this has?

Don't look at me. I account for all missing mass as "plasma", or at least 99 percent of it. Your the one holding the mathematical model that just bit the dust, not me. Fix it already! Be a little bit creative this time and arrange the small stars around the outside and you'll probably need a lot less of your metaphysical fudge factor. Of course you'll probably opt to do damage control to protect your dark falsified SUSY theory dogma instead.

Because I do not have to. I am not an astronomer.
Astronomers know that your idea that these reults have a significant effect on the calculation for ordinary or dark matter are delusional. Otherwise you would be lining to the papers doing those recalculations instead of regurgitating news articles.

You can't even have a normal conversation without packing it full of loaded terms like "delusional", crackpot, crank, crazy, yada yada, yada. It's very clear you're not an astronomer based upon your statements over the years, and it's very clear that you know very little if anything about plasma physics, certainly nothing about Alfven's PC theories. I know for a fact that you've never read his book!

The only one regurgitating old new articles, and Ned's 12 year old website with four physics errors in a row, is you. When did you intend to embrace a 21st century model of a PC universe by someone like Holushko, or did you intend to continue to regurgitate Ned's falsified nonsense forever?

 

[Michael]

It was several decades from the discovery of the double helix, to DNA sequencing. Think about that for a moment.

Ya, but all that shows up in the lab, or has the potential to show up in the lab. I've got five empirical cause/effect links to explain photon redshift via empirical physics, and I can mix them and match them as necessary to explain just about any type of cosmological redshift. What need do I have for metaphysical explanations for photon redshift in the first place? According to mainstream theory I must have faith in "inflation" and "dark energy" for all time because even if their theory is correct, I will never see them show up in the lab. Even more dubious, I have to ignore the results from LHC and "pretend" that SUSY theory didn't just bite the dust in a big way.

Why should I be reduced to such nonsense when Holushko's generic plasma redshift/tired light theory explains all the same supernova data?

Lambda-CDM theory would require that photons traverse millions of light years of plasma, yet *miraculously* never experience even a tiny bit of signal broadening or plasma redshift. In short I have to believe that the laws of physics in space work differently in space than they work in the lab. Sorry. I lack belief in such a belief system.

 

[Michael]

Ned Wright's next point is:
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

This is a conclusion from 10 year old data. I suspect that millimeter wave emission has been observed to come from galaxies at redshifts much more than 4.7 making the tired light fit even worse.

Pure nonsense. Eddington was about 1/2 a degree off in his temperature of space calculations, whereas early BB theory was off by almost 50 degrees! Get a grip! BB theory had to be "fine tuned" with three different forms of metaphysics to even start to compete with Eddington! According to Penrose the odds of inflation being responsible for what we observe are 10 to the 100th power! Talk about "fine tuning" to get a "miraculous" fit! Ned has *absolutely* nothing to complain about, particularly since you are just figuring out that a lot of light never reaches Earth due to all that plasma and dust you don't account for either.

 

[Michael]

Ned Wright's next point is:
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology


The citation is to...

The citation is to a paper from 2001 and that ignores all the work done by Lerner, Holushko, Ari and Ashmore and many others. It also ignores work by Wolf himself. In fact, in 2012 (not 2001), those statements are meaningless. When did you intend to fast forward 5 years to Lerner's work and Holushko's work, or did you intend to keep ignoring the physics that makes you uncomfortable and unhappy?

The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. IV. A Measurement of the Tolman Signal and the Luminosity Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies

Already dealt with by *many* authors since 2001. How about finding the error in Lerners paper for me RC. I went to all the trouble to cite it for you and everything.

 

[Michael]

You are the one parotting mistakes. Ned Wright stated what is taught in high school science (or at least undergraduate physics) courses.

Nope. You're doing the two things you do best, attacking the individual and ignoring the law of (plasma) physics. Ned's first statement was *never* true, not even when it was first written (and never published). The fact you and Ned are incapable of distinguishing between photon redshift and photon deflection is no skin off my nose. It just makes you look bad, not that you care.

If a photon changes momentum then it has scattered from something and that causes distant objects to be blurred.

NO! It can "hit" something, push it *forward*, and lose momentum in a FORWARD direction, never experiencing any type of *deflection* from it's original course. This is *particularly* true of coherent light and polarized light. You are intentionally "dumbing it down" again, but that seems to be a necessity in your case. You can't handle a more complex picture.

Where is your plot of width factor w versus the redshift z for the redshifts you are supporting as cosmological redshift?

http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0062v1.pdf

Holushko even provides a C# download to test the redshift and a second program to test the spectral aging. When did you intend to address a *21st* century presentation of plasma redshift/tired light theory? Where did Holushko make any errors RC?