Here, I copied and pasted the text for you:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
Ya know, after going through every single link that your friend handed you, and looking at what information the objections to plasma redshift are actually based upon, they all point us right back to this single unpublished website by Ned Wright, originally written 1996 and apparently last updated in 1998! Not only is Ned's page hopelessly outdated, apparently the website has *never* been updated, at least not since 2000. Even if we gave Ned the benefit of the doubt that he believed all of his statements were true way back in 1996-2000, none of it is true in 2012. I think since all the mainstream objections come back to this single website from 1996-1999(?), we should look at some of the advancements in plasma redshift that have occurred since then, and delve a bit deeper into Ned's claims in 2012.
There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work.
First of all, a loss of momentum is called "redshift". It's not *necessarily* the cause of "blurriness". Only a photon *deflection* can actually cause blurriness. Apparently Ned has an incredibly hard time distinguishing between photon redshift (loss of photon momentum), and photon deflection, and he makes no allowances for one without the other. Furthermore, only a very *tiny* deflection, very close to the Earth would result in blurriness. Most of the photons that experience large scattering angles would simply be lost and never reach Earth, particularly such events that occur at great distances from Earth. I'll grant him that Compton redshift by itself probably won't work to explain *all* the redshift we observe, but so what? There are at least three more options to work with *and* Compton redshift. How about Stark redshift Ned? Chen's plasma redshift Ned? How about the Wolf effect Ned? How about various combinations of factors Ned?
It's also *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)!
Ned's entire argument is actually bogus.
Keep in mind that PC theory predict that a lot of light is lost to the medium. We also have recent evidence that the mainstream *grossly* underestimates the effect of plasmas/dust on light from distant objects:
Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | STFC
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.
No, and there is no observed time dilation. PC/EU theory does correctly predict the observed *signal broadening* and *plasma redshift* features that are observed in supernova data. The feature they explain as time dilation in mainstream theory is a result of signal broadening in plasma redshift theory:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0062v1.pdf
http://plasmaredshift.org/Menu.html
http://lyndonashmore.com/tired_light_ex ... novae_.htm
Ned's website simply ignores all the work that has gone into plasma redshift/tired light theory since the supernova data was released. Apparently Ned intends to leave the reader with the impression that the supernova data was never addressed by tired light/plasma redshift proponents, when in fact it has been addressed by several authors. While his criticism may have held merit in back in 2000, it's clearly false today. Ned *really* needs to update (or take down) his website since his claims are all based upon *ancient* plasma redshift theories, not present, modern day plasma redshift theory. Considering the fact that Ned seems to be the sole mainstream guru on plasma redshift, it's unconscionable that he never updated his website!
The tired light model can not produce a blackbody spectrum for the Cosmic Microwave Background without some incredible coincidences.
This statement is so ridiculous, it's hard to even know where to begin. Let's first discuss the "incredible coincidences" that we must accept to accept mainstream theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_ ... Criticisms
A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data we could get. Paul J. Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics. He calls bad inflation a period of accelerated expansion whose outcome conflicts with observations, and good inflation one compatible with them: Not only is bad inflation more likely than good inflation, but no inflation is more likely than either.
Roger Penrose considered all the possible configurations of the inflaton and gravitational fields. Some of these configurations lead to inflation
Other configurations lead to a uniform, flat universe directly without inflation. Obtaining a flat universe is unlikely overall. Penroses shocking conclusion, though, was that obtaining a flat universe without inflation is much more likely than with inflation by a factor of 10 to the googol (10 to the 100) power![100]
Talk about incredible coincidences, and we haven't even talked about the fine tuning that goes on with "dark energy' and "dark matter'! 10 to the 100th power? Holy cow! For Ned to even talk about "coincidences' as a reason to dismiss another theory, is utterly and completely *laughable*! Wow! Talk about pot/kettle claims.
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pr ... 2N3ASS.PDF
Secondly, as far back as the first predictions by Guillaume in the mid 1800's and later Eddington around the end of the 1800's, the calculated temperature of 'space' based upon the kinetic effect of starlight on molecules in space was within a single degree of the correct number, 3.18 degrees vs. 2.725 K. Eddington was actually within 1/2 of a degree of the correct number in fact. Early BB models were more than a whole order of magnitude off (over 50 degrees Kelvin), whereas early predictions based on scattering and absorption of starlight were nearly right on the money from the very beginning! No fine tuning was required to get Eddington into the correct ballpark, whereas they need three forms of metaphysics to get to the correct figure in the model. Talk about coincidences and fine tuning! That was probably Ned's most absurd claim on the page!
The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test.
Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF
Absolutely and completely false. Apparently Ned's page was never updated since the day it was written.
So, there you have it. Ned's page is stuck more than a decade in the past, it's wrong on all four points today, and that is in fact the *primary* reference that astronomers use today to attempt to 'debunk' PC/EU static universe theories. I'd say that is most pitiful excuse for a modern website I've ever seen. I'd be embarrassed as hell to be Ned Wright and have never updated my material in 12 years. Holy cow! If that's the very best "guru' that they have on tired light/plasma redshift theory, the mainstream is in really sad, sad, sad shape. They would not last 5 minutes in an honest and open debate about these claims in 2012.
Keep in mind that four unique forms of plasma redshift have *already* been documented to exist, including Compton redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect, and what Chen et all call 'plasma redshift'. There are potentially several more forms that might exist as well for all I know. Mainstream theory doesn't incorporate *any* amount of plasma redshift into their calculations. The "smoking gun" that kills their theory dead is found in the math formulas they use. They are devoid of any amount of redshift cased by any form of plasma redshift. Is it any wonder then why they need placeholder terms like 'dark energy' for what amounts to human ignorance? They are clearly ignorant of plasma physics, specifically plasma redshift and signal broadening effects in plasma!
The "dirty little secret" in mainstream theory is directly related to it's inability to deal with modern plasma redshift theories in 2012. It can only compete with plasma redshift theory from 1998 apparently, so they remain stuck in the past, they all cite Ned's ancient data, and they all ignore the laws of empirical plasma physics. In the real world of plasma and plasma physics, plasma redshift has been well documented in the lab. Unless the laws of plasma physics in space work differently than they work in the lab, plasma redshift must happen in space. The fact that Lambda-CDM includes *zero* tolerance for plasma redshift explains why must resort to ignoring all the advancements in plasma physics and plasma redshift theory that have occurred since 1998. So long as they simply ignore the advancements in plasma redshift theory for the past decade, it must not exist!
Pathetic......to cite an Internet physics crank who is ignorant of a lot of physics and seems to be parroting another Internet physics crank.
