Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[RealityCheck01]

[/list]Attacking the individual.....

Wrong - pointing out that the individual is ignorant of the physics is not attacking them.
Pointing out someone's ignorance would be:
"X is very ignorant. He thinks that the Sun has an iron surface when the photospher has a measured temperature of ~5700 K at the top that increases to 9400K 100 kilometres down. The melting point of iron is 1811 K!".

An attack would be something like "X is so incredibly deluded that he thinks that the Sun has an iron surface when the photospher has a measured temperature of ~5700 K at the top that increases to 9400K 100 kilometres down. The melting point of iron is 1811 K!".
Poing

I read it, and *CRUSHED* it already.
Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Plasma redshift observed in the lab.

You are continuing with the inanity of linking to the Thunderbolts pit of delusions when you know that they have a policy of arbitariuly banning people, e.g. me!

Nonsense. Only a scientist would expect him to publish his claims.

Nonsense. A scientist would know that physics already and see that the debunking of tired light models is trivial physics.

P.S. the web page was last updated in 2008 if you want to go in with you fantasy that basic physics has a life time of a few years.

A change in momentum isn't the same as a change in direction and one can happen without the other.

You misunderstand - a change in momentum is not just a change in direction. You can also change the mass of the object! For a photon whic has no nass you can also chnage its wavelength.

You are also wrong: If there is a change in direction (scattering) then there is always a chnage in momentum.

Duh! They don't *always* change the direction of the photon!

Duh: Learn to read:

In bits easy to digest:Tired light theories change the energy of photons

False. I already explained how it can happen in coherent or polarized light.

False - you have not.
In any case stars do not give off coherent or polarized light.

That is a *false* statement! Only a change in the *direction* of the photon can cause blurring.

That is a really *false* statement!
There is a in the *direction* of the photons and so there is blurring.

Huh? A "scatter" at any significant angle will simply cause the photon to never reach Earth.
...snipped more ignorance...

Huh? The point is easy to understand.
Stars, galxies, plasma, etc. do not give off just 1 photon. They give off photons in all directions. All of these photons will be scattered.
Think about how a telescope collects light from a distant galaxy. Without scattering:

• It collects all of the light that falls on its mirror.
• It misses all of the light the does not fall on its mirror, no matter how close that light is to the mirror.

With scattering:

• It collects all of the light that is not scattered.
• It collects all of the light that is only scattered a small amount.
• It collects all of the light would have missed the mirror but has now been scattered onto its mirror.
• It misses all of the light that has been scattered so that it no longer hits the mirror.

The light from the mirror is then focused to make an image.
Without scattering there is a sharp image.
With scattering, photons enter the telescope at a wider range of angles than without scattering. This blurs the image.

This is basic astronomy 101!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Like Arp? Just out of curiosity, is there anyone that you disagree with on any subject in astronomy that isn't a 'crank' or a "crackpot"?

The citation is to a crank. More syptoms of a carnk - publishing in an rather obscure journal and no affilation (just an email address).
Arp is a good astronomer who had a couple of flawed ideas.

False. Kinetic energy changes to the photon can and do occur in the lab.

False. Light can made to travel at less than c in labs and so its speed changes. Its mass is still zero. Its kinetic energy remains as zero.

Holy cow - you do not seem to know what kinetic energy is!!!!!
A photon always has a mass of zero so its kinetic energy is always zero!

Do a little reading:
Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do a little reading, Michael:

Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

Note the photon has a mass of zero.
Note the lack of any mention of kinetic energy.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Were it not for the fact that they just found more mass in plasma around the galaxy t...

The irrelevance of that citation which does not mention any calculation of the electron density should be obvious even to you.

However I will cater to your obsession with that scientific observation. Let us guess that this means that the intergalactic medium electron density has doubled (that guess is way too much since the stars in a galaxy are a small fraction of the total mass of the galaxy).

Intergalactic medium = 2 electrons per cubic meter.
Electron density needed for the Chen redshift experiment = 10^28 electrons per cubic centimeter.
So we change that the intergalactic medium is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times thiner that Chen's plasma to:
The intergalactic medium is 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times thiner that Chen's plasma !

No, I understand current just fine. It's you that remain ignorant of the current that sustains those temperatures.

Please cite the papers showing that the temperature of the intergalactic medium is caused by current.

Birikeland's writings are available to anyone that wishes to read them.
PICTURES UNIVERSE ELECTRIFIED SPACE - Prof. Birkeland of Norway Holds That Suns and Stars Are Charged Negatively. - Article - NYTimes.com

Well - now you do actually lie! That is not Birkeland's writings. It is a new reporters writings.
Birkeland's writings are: ""It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. We have assumed that each stellar system in evolutions throws off electric corpuscles into space. It does not seem unreasonable therefore to think that the greater part of the material masses in the universe is found, not in the solar systems or nebulae, but in 'empty' space."
Birkeland, Kristian (1908 (section 1), 1913 (section 2)). The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903. New York and Christiania (now Oslo): H. Aschehoug & Co. out-of-print, full text online.

False....

False: A current is not a collection os electrons and postive ions traveliing in teh same direction (the solar winf).
That would make a rock loating through space into a current which would be really delutional

So let's see....

• Anyone I see who writes idiotic statement I will call an idiot.
• Errors in whose work?
  If you mean Birkeland then it is really easy to see his successes (aurora) and errors (galaxies are not electrical discharges from brass balls!)
• Stating basic physics is not "falsified nonsense"
• You are wrong about the time dilaiton of high redshift supernova light curves.
  Citing a crank yet again does not impress anyone.
• I guess that you are wrong yet again because I have "touched" his paper in the JREF fourm. It is fatally flawed.
• I was right - you will continue to tout Holushko and obsess on the trival fact that he has C# code !

The thing is RC, not only does his code work on paper, it works in the lab and it predicts behaviors that actually show up in the lab. That is more than will ever be said for Lambda-CDM theory and it's trio of invisible, impotent on Earth sky deities.

The usual ignorant rant about things having to be observed in labs (logically you must believe that stars do not exist bacuase they are not observed in the lab!).
And the usual ignotant rant about Lambda-CDM theory.

FYI, last year was a *terrible* year for SUSY theory.

The LHC results have cast doubts on the simplest versions of SUSY.
So what?

 

[RealityCheck01]

The fact you even have to ask me questions about it's content says volumes....

You answered too fast:
ETA: I actually read that not-even-a preprint back in August 2012.
It is called "Tired Light and Type Ia Supernovae Observations" so nothing to do with the Tolman test. But you are not quite a liar !
He cites Lerners flawed conference presentation.
He cites a pre-print on arXiv ("Sandage versus Hubble on the reality of the expanding universe" which is unpublished and more an editorial rather then a scientific paper.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You know RC, your ...!

And once again you answered too fast:
ETA: I actually that not-even-a preprint back in August 2012.
It is called "Tired Light and Type Ia Supernovae Observations" so nothing to do with the Tolman test. But you are not quite a liar !
He cites Lerners flawed conference presentation.
He cites a pre-print on arXiv ("Sandage versus Hubble on the reality of the expanding universe" which is unpublished and more an editorial rather then a scientific paper.

 

[Michael]

The citation is to a crank. More syptoms of a carnk - publishing in an rather obscure journal and no affilation (just an email address).

You've admitted that you're not an astronomer, yet every idea in astronomy you dislike is apparently a 'crank', a "crackpot", a "liar', yada, yada, yada. Since you don't have a clue about photons and the fact they carry kinetic energy, what exactly *does* make you such an "expert" on this topic anyway? What gives you the personal right to judge anyone considering how little you understand about photon kinetic energy?
Holy cow!

Holy cow - you do not seem to know what kinetic energy is!!!!!
A photon always has a mass of zero so its kinetic energy is always zero!

ENERGY OF PHOTON

You have absolutely, positively no idea what you're talking about on this topic or any other topic we've discussed in fact:

Energy Transfer, Photons, and Kinetic Energy
ENERGY OF PHOTON

Does these websites talk about photon kinetic energy RC? How deep does this denial thing run anyway, and what *exactly* are your qualifications to speak on this topic or any topic related to astronomy? I've never met a more verbally abusive individual on this topic, and you seem to have no clue about photon kinetic energy?!?!?!?

 

[Michael]

Wrong - pointing out that the individual is ignorant of the physics is not attacking them.

So when I point out that you're completely deluded as it relates to photon kinetic energy, that's not an attack, it's just fact.

 

[Michael]

Wrong - pointing out that the individual is ignorant of the physics is not attacking them.

Energy Transfer, Photons, and Kinetic Energy

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Even though a photon has no mass, it still has momentum and kinetic energy. The formulas we learn in introductory physics courses only apply to objects with significant mass. When you get to the level of single particles, such as electrons and photons, quantum physics takes over. It turns out that day-to-day physics (i.e. Newtonian physics) is an approximation of quantum physics for a set of many particles (e.g. a baseball).

The photon adds most of its energy to the kinetic energy of the electron. The photon, electron, and nucleus interact. Energy and momentum are conserved. Most of the energy enters the electron, raising it to a higher state. This is a rotational effect. In order to maintain momentum, a small amount of the energy enters the motion of the nucleus, giving the atom a new velocity through space and a new kinetic energy.

A simple model of this is a bullet entering a block of wood. After the collision, the block is moving. Some of the bullet's energy entered the motion of the block. A large portion of the bullet's energy was devoted to changing the structure of the block.

Dr. Ken Mellendorf
Physics Instructor
Illinois Central College

[/FONT]Either you or Dr. Mellendorf is ignorant of photons physics, and I'm sure the good Dr. Mellendorf knows what he's talking about. Which of you two is ignorant of photon kinetic energy RC? What are your credentials anyway?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Michael's favorite paper is actually support for the Lamda-CDM model!
A HUGE RESERVOIR OF IONIZED GAS AROUND THE MILKY WAY: ACCOUNTING FOR THE MISSING MASS?

Most of the baryons from galaxies have been "missing" and several studies have attempted to map the circumgalactic medium (CGM) of galaxies in their quest. We report on X-ray observations made with the Chandra X-Ray Observatory probing the warm-hot phase of the CGM of our Milky Way at about 106 K. We detect O VII and O VIII absorption lines at z = 0 in extragalactic sight lines and measure accurate column densities using both Kα and Kβ lines of O VII. We then combine these measurements with the emission measure of the Galactic halo from literature to derive the density and the path length of the CGM. We show that the warm-hot phase of the CGM is massive, extending over a large region around the Milky Way, with a radius of over 100 kpc. The mass content of this phase is over 10 billion solar masses, many times more than that in cooler gas phases and comparable to the total baryonic mass in the disk of the Galaxy. The missing mass of the Galaxy appears to be in this warm-hot gas phase.

The subject of this paper is the mass that is missing from the 4% of the universe that should be baryons. They have found that the circumgalactic medium is much more massive (in size and mass) than previously measured. It looks like the missing matter for our galaxy could be in the CGM.

What they have not found is that the CGM contains the ~25 times the mass of the galaxy disk that would be needed to replace dark matter and dark enengy with baryons.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Energy Transfer, Photons, and Kinetic Energy

I did not say that photons do not have kinetic energy. They have a kinetic energy which is always zero because their mass is always zero.

Or if you want you can use relativistic kinetic energy in which case all of the energy is relativistic kinetic energy. Thus no one bothers with the relativistic or kinetic qualifiers when talking about photons - it is just energy.

 

[Michael]

Michael's favorite paper is actually support for the Lamda-CDM model!

It's support for PC theory too silly.

Unfortunately it blows away your claims about already knowing electron density because it is new mass you had no idea was even there until last month! Mainstream models have never been updated to incorporate data from the past five or so years, in spite of overwhelming evidence that demonstrates that mainstream galaxy mass estimation techniques are not worth the paper they are printed on!

Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | STFC
NASA - Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount

What they have not found is that the CGM contains the ~25 times the mass of the galaxy disk that would be needed to replace dark matter and dark enengy with baryons.

Pssst. PC theory predicts that any remaining missing mass is also ordinary matter in the plasma state. Keep looking.

 

[RealityCheck01]

So when I point out that you're completely deluded as it relates to photon kinetic energy, that's not an attack, it's just fact.

No when you say I am deluded as it relates to photon kinetic energy then it is an attack because I know the physics:

• "photon kinetic energy" is always zero (1/2mv^2!)
• photon energy though is relativistic and kinetic and depends on wavelength

When you use the term "photon kinetic energy" is is not an attack from me to point out that you are wrong.
Strictly speaking, it is "photon relativistic kinetic energy" but most people drop the relativistic and the kinetic.

 

[Michael]

I did not say that photons do not have kinetic energy. They have a kinetic energy which is always zero because their mass is always zero.

You are utterly burying yourself in this thread. From the second link I provided earlier:

The energy of photon can be further sub-divided into two portions. There are the kinetic and potential energy of photon. The energy equation of photon is described below,
E = hf = pv+tf … eq. WD.1.2

Wow! I've seen blatant butchering of physics before, but not by someone who's been piling on the verbal abuse for days on this form (and actually years in my case). You're completely ignorant of even the most basic formulas of photon physics apparently.

 

[Michael]

No when you say I am deluded as it relates to photon kinetic energy then it is an attack because I know the physics:

No, you don't. You claimed the photon has a zero kinetic energy state. That's simply wrong. You know *absolutely nothing* about basic photon physics and you're just burying yourself in post after post after crackpot post.

 

[Michael]

Honestly RC, before you say another word about photon kinetic energy, do some actually reading on this topic

ENERGY OF PHOTON

You've put your foot in your mouth so deeply in this thread, it will take a miracle to take it back out! The more you keep demonstrating your ignorance about basic photon physics, the more you just bury yourself.

 

[Michael]

Since you're not an astronomer and you don't know the first thing about photons, what *exactly* are your qualification to be calling anyone a "crank"?

 

[RealityCheck01]

You've admitted that you're not an astronomer,

So what?
You are not an astronomer either. Yet you go on about "mythical sky dieties".

If we are going to brandish physics knowledge and credentials then:
I have a post graduate degree in physics. I have read textbooks and know that scattering blurs objects in telescopes. I know that the number 5700 (the solar photosphere temperature) is greater than the number 1811 (the melting point of iron)

You seem to have a high school level of scinece knowledge. You claim to have read up about astronimy and physics but have several ideas that a high school student would know are wrong. For example you think that scatering cannot blur telescope images. You think that the Sun has an iron surface (read your web site!).

Holy cow!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Since you're not an astronomer and you don't know the first thing about photons, what *exactly* are your qualification to be calling anyone a "crank"?

• A good general knowledge about science,
• a detailed knowledge of a specific area of physics (transport properties of nearly-magnetic alloys)
• An education about and experince of analyzing scientific literature. Thus I can detect the symptoms of a crank evej before I look at what they have written.

You need to stop lying about photons and my lack of knowledge of them. Photons have energy. A few people call this kinetic energy but the proper term is relativistic kinetic energy.
Most people drop relativistic and kinetic.

Michael
Since you're not an astronomer and you "don't know the first thing" about cosmology, the Sun, plasma physics or electromagnetism, what *exactly* are your qualifications to be calling dark matter, dark energy and inflation "mythical sky deities"?

Michael
Since you're not an astronomer, exactly what are your qualifications for denying the existence of stars since they are not studied in labs?

 

[Michael]

So what?
You are not an astronomer either. Yet you go on about "mythical sky dieties".

Dark energy, inflation and dark matter *combined* are apparently more impotent on Earth than your average concept of "God". You have no right to question anyone in the field of astronomy since you do not have the first clue about the nature of photons and everything we know about space comes from photons!

If we are going to brandish physics knowledge and credentials then:
I have a post graduate degree in physics.

Yet you never learned that photons have and transport kinetic energy?

I have read textbooks and know that scattering blurs objects in telescopes.

Duh.

I know that the number 5700 (the solar photosphere temperature) is greater than the number 1811 (the melting point of iron)

So? Quit hijacking this thread.

You seem to have a high school level of scinece knowledge.

Even if that were true, evidently I know more about photons than you do which doesn't say much for your education.

You claim to have read up about astronimy and physics but have several ideas that a high school student would know are wrong.

A high school student would probably actually read the material I offered them to evaluate before calling me and the author a "crackpot". Most folks actually read and respond to the materials presented during a debate. Only someone who's not interested in education, just their own options, acts like you do and that probably explains why you know so little about photons and photon kinetic energy today. You simply don't care what anyone else says about anything.

For example you think that scatering cannot blur telescope images.

No, that is not what I said and I dare you to quote me.

You think that the Sun has an iron surface (read your web site!).

Yep, and you've never commented intelligently on it based *strictly* upon the theory itself rather than your preconceived ideas about mainstream theory and 'opacity'. You apparently don't care about any idea other than your own.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You are utterly burying yourself in this thread.

You are utterlying wrong about this thread:
I did not say that photons do not have kinetic energy. They have a kinetic energy which is always zero because their mass is always zero.

They have (as in your second link and the textbooks that I have read) a non zero relativistic kinetic energy

Wow! I've seen blatant butchering of the ability to read before, but not by someone who's been piling on the verbal abuse for days on this form (and actually years in your case in the JREF and other forums).