Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[RealityCheck01]

Here, I copied and pasted the text for you:

Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

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".

The first error - a loss of momentum is never called "redshift". A change in frequency toward the red end of the spectrum is called redshift.

An elastic loss of momentum (Thompson scattering) is just scattering without a change in frequency.
An inelastic loss of momentum (Compton scattering) is scattering with a change in frequency.
So in both cases we have scaterring and How scattering affects telescopes - it blurs images

It's not *necessarily* the cause of "blurriness".
...wall of text snipped...

It is a cause of blurriness (How scattering affects telescopes - it blurs images).

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.
​

...
http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0062v1.pdf
Menu
http://lyndonashmore.com/tired_light_ex ... novae_.htm

The first link is to Herman Holushko's not-even-a-preprint!

The second link is to Ari Brynjolfsson's web site! Defintely a crank but at least a better quality one than Holushko or Ashmore since he has actual (but old - 2006) ArXiv preprints. Old preprints that show no sign of being published are a sign that the author is a crank.
Ari Brynjolfsson is a crank and Ari Brynjolfsson cannot get the math right
22nd July 2011: Plasma Redshift Cosmology Fails

The third link is to Ashmore's web site - he is obviously a crank because he cannot understand that Chen's paper (electron densities of 10^18 per cubic centimeters that need lasers to be induced) will not apply to intergalactic plasmas which have electron densities of 10^-6 per cubic centimeters. But hey let us fantasize about the intergalactic plasmas being off by 100,000 ! Then intergalactic plasmas are still 1000,000,000,000,000,000 times too thin Duh !

While his criticism may have held merit in back in 2000, it's clearly false today.

Wrong again - the web page was updated in 2008.

The tired light model can not produce a blackbody spectrum for the Cosmic Microwave Background without some incredible coincidences.
​

...snipped a dumb wall of text about inflation!...
History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson
...more ignoring of plasma redshift...

The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test.
​

Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF

That is a rather ignorant citation to Lerners conference presentation.

• 12th September 2008: Why has he never published his conference presentation in the last 6 years?
• 25th June 2012: Lerner ignores galaxy evolution. This invalidates his test

 

[mzungu]

The first error - a loss of momentum is never called "redshift". A change in frequency toward the red end of the spectrum is called redshift.

I admire your resolute but Michael has no intention in learning anything. He is set in his ways and just like the moon landing conspiracy theorists; He will stick to his guns no matter what. I dare say you are essentially knocking on a deaf man's door!

 

[RealityCheck01]

How about addressing this question honestly this time.

Nothing to do with the thread.
But the science verion of your question is:
Since standard physics says that tired light theories can never be correct, and your beliefs on the topic of light theories are the minority viewpoint, does that make you a liar, a crackpot and a crank on the topic of tired light theories ? If not, why not?

ETA: Tired light

Tired light is a class of hypothetical redshift mechanisms that was proposed as an alternative explanation for the redshift-distance relationship. These models have been proposed as alternatives to the metric expansion of space of which the Big Bang and the Steady State cosmologies are the most famous examples. The concept was first proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky, who suggested that if photons lost energy over time through collisions with other particles in a regular way, the more distant objects would appear redder than more nearby ones. Zwicky himself acknowledged that any sort of scattering of light would blur the images of distant objects more than what is seen. Additionally, the surface brightness of galaxies evolving with time, time dilation of cosmological sources, and a thermal spectrum of the cosmic microwave background have been observed — these effects that should not be present if the cosmological redshift was due to any tired light scattering mechanism.[1][2][3] Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not been supported by observational tests[4] and has lately been
consigned to consideration only in the fringes of astrophysics.[5]

Wright, E. L. Errors in Tired Light Cosmology.
Tommaso Treu, Lecture slides for University of California at Santa Barbara Astrophysics course. page 16.
- actually lecture 16. The page listing the Main observational facts vs tired light is page 12.
P. J. E. Peebles The Standard Cosmological Model in Rencontres de Physique de la Vallee d Aosta (1998) ed. M. Greco p. 7

PS, can you even read C# or did your IT experience end with punch cards and Cobol?

Actually my IT experinece started with punch cards - my high school math class did some simple programs on punch cards and sent them off to the local bank to be run.
Then Pascal in the first couple of years in university.
Then Fortran. My MSc thesis included a way to efficiently compute the complex digamma function. The series in that link takes millions of summations to get 1 value to a good precision. My work then needed to integrate over the complex digamma function! The solution was to find an asymptotic expansion for it in Abramowitz and Stegun (I thnk) and use the reflection formula to avoid poles and get values that the asymptotic expansion worked for.
Then COBOL!

And now - lots and lots of C#.

 

[Michael]

The first error - a loss of momentum is never called "redshift". A change in frequency toward the red end of the spectrum is called redshift.

Oy vey! What you do not know about photon kinetic energy could fill volumes!

So in both cases we have scaterring and How scattering affects telescopes - it blurs images


It is a cause of blurriness (How scattering affects telescopes - it blurs images).

So what? The dust in space blurs and blocks all sorts of wavelengths depending on the dust between us and distant objects. It's not like highly redshift objects show *zero* blurring!

The first link is to Herman Holushko's not-even-a-preprint!

Ya, and you've never dealt with it. When might I expect you to do so?

The second link is to Ari Brynjolfsson's web site! Defintely a crank but at least a better quality one than Holushko or Ashmore since he has actual (but old - 2006) ArXiv preprints. Old preprints that show no sign of being published are a sign that the author is a crank.

So let's compare the "cranks" credentials on photon redshift to the credentials of an IT guy:

Ari Brynjolfsson Curriculum Vitae

Oh look, your credentials on this topic make *you* the crank RC!

Dr. Ari Brynjolfsson was born and raised in Iceland where he graduated in the math and sciences line from Mentaskólinn a Akureyri in 1948. He studied nuclear physics at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, 1948-1954, where he received Cand. Mag. and Mag Scient. (Ph.D) in 1954. Dr. Brynjolfsson was a special research fellow of University of Iceland from 1954 to 1955, and an Alexander von Humboldt fellow of the University of Göttingen, Germany, from 1955 to 1957. In 1973, he received a Doctor Philosophiae (DSc) from the Niels Bohrs Institute, University of Copenhagen.

The third link is to Ashmore's web site - he is obviously a crank

Apparently your method of debate involves labeling everyone that disagrees with you a crank, then running like hell from their work, from Phd's to programmers that know programming languages that you know nothing about. Nobody measures up except some retired old IT guy with a Phd in verbal abuse and personal attacks that has no clue that photons actually have a non zero amount of kinetic energy. Sheesh. I've seen desperation in debate before, but most YEC have more to offer than you do.

 

[Michael]

Nothing to do with thread.

Sure it does. Inflation and dark energy are total duds in the lab! Ditto for SUSY theory. You cannot show any cause/effect relationship in the lab between dark energy and photon redshift, you just keep waving at the sky ranting about how your dark energy sky deity did it!

But the science verion of your question is:
Since standard physics says that tired light theories can never be correct,

Science doesn't say that. RC and Ned said that, only Ned said it 10 years ago and simply never got around to updating his webpage. What's your excuse for playing science god?

and your beliefs on the topic of light theories are the minority viewpoint,

As an atheist at a Christian website, so is your belief system as it relates to the topic of God. So what?

does that make you a liar, a crackpot and a crank on the topic of tired light theories ? If not, why not?

Nope. My ideas show up in the lab, whereas your claims do not.

Quit dodging my question and answer it for real this time.

Since standard cosmology says that plasma cosmology can never be correct,

Who cares what another theory says?

and your beliefs on the topic of cosmology are the minority viewpoint, does that make you a liar, a crackpot and a crank on the topic of plasma cosmology? If not, why not?

Absolutely not. Only cults and verbal abusers need to villianize individuals that hold a minority viewpoint like you do.

Actually my IT experinece started with punch cards - my high school math class did some simple programs on punch cards and sent them off to the local bank to be run.
Then Pascal in the first couple of years in university.
Then Fortran. My MSc thesis included a way to efficiently compute the complex digamma function. The series in that link takes millions of summations to get 1 value to a good precision. My work then needed to integrate over the complex digamma function! The solution was to find an asymptotic expansion for it in Abramowitz and Stegun (I thnk) and use the reflection formula to avoid poles and get values that the asymptotic expansion worked for.
Then COBOL!

And now - lots and lots of C#.

If you can't pick out the error in his C# code, you haven't found any mistake in his work. Until you do, I actually fail to believe you have any of the experience and knowledge that you claim to have, particularly after you claimed that a photon has no kinetic energy, and no mass. It may have no *REST* mass, but it has a non zero amount of kinetic energy. A person that actually had the skills that you claim to have would not be reduced to handwaves and personal insults when asked to find errors in a serious scientific presentation. Your credentials pale to Ari's credentials. You have no relevant experience in the area of his expertize, and yet you smear him like you smear everyone else that you disagree with. You're not a scientist RC, and not physicist, just a sleazy debater with sleazy debate tactics.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I admire your resolute but Michael has no intention in learning anything. He is set in his ways and just like the moon landing conspiracy theorists; He will stick to his guns no matter what. I dare say you are essentially knocking on a deaf man's door!

Actually I have conversed with Michael since 2009 so I know that his arguments are mostly

• this is "mythical dead sky deities",
• "I see bunnies in the clouds",
• "I refuse to learn physics" (ask him about negatives pressures sometime, e.g. the Casimir effect or a non-zero cosmological constant!),
• "this is wrong, I have no idea why and I am right"
• an inability to learn about science (he still thinks that empirical excludes observations thus his demand that everything be tested in the lab).
• a reliance on Internet physics cranks rather than actual published science. He seems to think that a random web page, conference presentation or unpublished pre-print is somehow valid because he thinks it is. And then he demands that we waste our time analyzing these in full!

But he does sometimes come up with an interesting paper (usually not saying what he thinks it states ).

 

[Michael]

• a reliance on Internet physics cranks rather than actual published science.

Irony overload considering the fact that everything you believe about tired light theory comes from some guy's unpublished website written in 2001, and who hasn't updated the site in a decade.


RC's debate methods:


A) Villianize the minority and smear them with idiotic labels.
B) Ignore their work entirely, maybe handwave at a sentence or two.
C) Throw in ad homs in every post
D) Keep pointing to Ned Wright's ancient website that's been thoroughly debunked by multiple authors and even amateurs over the past decade
E) Lather, rinse, repeat.


Yawn. Are you *ever* going to deal with Holushko's presentation in an intellectually honest way, yes or no?

 

[Michael]

Actually I have conversed with Michael since 2009 so I know that his arguments are mostly

• this is "mythical dead sky deities",

That's also quite an irony coming from an atheist. Why are you an atheist and why do you believe in dark sky stuff that can be *easily* replaced with plasma physics? You can't even rationally explain where dark energy comes from, or show it isn't a figment of your imagination, so you simply handwave away and pretend that you are science god.

 

[Michael]

And then he demands that we waste our time analyzing these in full!

You're not an astronomer RC, just an IT guy, so who asked you to even get involved in this topic? Nobody. You cyberstalked your way in here all on your own! If you're going to participate in the discussion as an *amateur IT guy*, I will at least expect you to respond logically to the material presented. You don't speak for astronomers RC, just yourself. Your just a two bit bully, not an astronomer. Quit flattering yourself with terms like "we".

 

[Nabobalis]

If you can't pick out the error in his C# code, you haven't found any mistake in his work.

The two aren't related. You can have a correct code base but an incorrect model/assumptions.

 

[Nabobalis]

You're not an astronomer RC, just an IT guy, so who asked you to even get involved in this topic?

But you aren't an astronomer either.

 

[Michael]

I admire your resolute but Michael has no intention in learning anything.

Have you even "learned" that I'm not a "creationists" yet?

He is set in his ways and just like the moon landing conspiracy theorists;

There you go again, taking my inspiration for my lifelong love of astronomy, and trying to smear me with beliefs which I do not hold. Why not compare me to Hitler while you're at it? Haters are all alike. It's never the material they focus on, it's the individual. They can't actually handle the material.

He will stick to his guns no matter what. I dare say you are essentially knocking on a deaf man's door!

No, I'll just need a better argument than "Everyone that disagrees with RC, the legend in his own mind, the science god of the universe, is a lying two bit crank, crackpot, yada, yada, yada".

It will take actual an physics argument to change my mind, not someone ranting on about how photons have no kinetic energy. For goodness sake.....

 

[Michael]

But you aren't an astronomer either.

True, but I'm not handwaving away other peoples opinions simply by labeling the author a "crackpot/crank/liar". I'm addressing the work and presenting work that shows another way to explain redshift. He's simply handwaving at the individual and attacking the individual and ignoring their work entirely! Big difference.

 

[Michael]

The two aren't related. You can have a correct code base but an incorrect model/assumptions.

You haven't demonstrated that either the model or the code is flawed.

 

[Nabobalis]

You haven't demonstrated that either the model or the code is flawed.

I wasn't saying that I have. I was saying that your suggestion that the code is correct therefore his model is correct is wrong. The two don't follow.

 

[someguy14]

The truth is, God can't be proven wrong.

 

[Michael]

I wasn't saying that I have. I was saying that your suggestion that the code is correct therefore his model is correct is wrong. The two don't follow.

I would concede that point, but I'm still waiting for someone to point out an actual flaw in his work. I'm not holding my breath mind you.

 

[someguy14]

If God is proven in His own, then one must admit, believers in God or not, that God is in fact truth. In order to go against that, one must provide evidence against it. The burden of proof against God lies squarely on the shoulders of the those that don't believe in God. God is eternal. The truest of the true. Truth itself, is God.

 

[mzungu]

You're not an astronomer RC, just an IT guy, so who asked you to even get involved in this topic? Nobody. You cyberstalked your way in here all on your own! If you're going to participate in the discussion as an *amateur IT guy*, I will at least expect you to respond logically to the material presented. You don't speak for astronomers RC, just yourself. Your just a two bit bully, not an astronomer. Quit flattering yourself with terms like "we".

Wow; The arrogance! Michael this is an open debate forum. Now if you think that you own this thread and forum then you need a wake up call!

 

[mzungu]

The truth is, God can't be proven wrong.

Of course God cannot be proven wrong just as he cannot be proven right. God is an unfalsifiable notion and as such cannot be included in matters concerning the physical world; He or it or whatever can only be included in matters concerning the supernatural or spiritual world!