Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[mzungu]

Oh I see. When faced with the real possibility that your data fits/provides evidence for another theory that you simply don't care for, you ridicule the idea.

You claim to have empirical evidence that only your God exists yet you fail miserably to give us that supposed empirical evidence. You claim to have laboratory experimental evidence of the same yet you refuse to give us the details of the experiment(s) so that they can be tested by others. You have no peer reviewed work of any credence and your creationistic theories are nothing more than quackery and crackpot ideas. Now put your money where your mouth is and furnish us with the pertinent details so that we can reproduce your lab results that prove only your God exists. Also we need a scientific explanation of why you exclude other deities from existing apart from your God.

Science is hard isn't it Michael, eh!

 

[Michael]

You claim to have empirical evidence that only your God exists

Does more than one universe exist? Do I own the universe? My universe?

yet you fail miserably to give us that supposed empirical evidence.

You're in the wrong thread for starters. I have a whole thread devoted to that topic. In that thread I did in fact provide you with several *observational confirmations* to support Pantheism that are unique compared to Lambda-CDM, including plasma redshift, and the existence of currents in space. What type of "evidence" did you require of God that you don't require of "dark energy" or "inflation"?

You claim to have laboratory experimental evidence of the same yet you refuse to give us the details of the experiment(s) so that they can be tested by others.

Did you not read Chen's peer reviewed paper on the topic of plasma redshift? Have you read any of Emil Wolf's work? Can their lab work be replicated by others? Where do I get some dark energy to make sure it's not figment of your imagination?

You have no peer reviewed work of any credence

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0609/0609509.pdf

I guess you never read that work either then eh?

and your creationistic theories

You're the only one that is peddling a creation date, not me.

are nothing more than quackery and crackpot ideas.

More of the same tired childish name calling. Ya, ya, all atheist claims are "evil, crank, crackpots" ideas and all atheists are peddling nothing but "quackery".

Now put your money where your mouth is and furnish us with the pertinent details so that we can reproduce your lab results that prove only your God exists.

Did you find any error in the paper I wrote with Manuel? Did you find any errors in Chen's work? Did you find any error in Lerner's paper on the Tolman brightness tests? Did you find an error in Holushko's C# code?

Also we need a scientific explanation of why you exclude other deities from existing apart from your God.

How many universes are you claiming exist? Why would I personally own the universe rather than it owning me? What other "deities/universes" are you talking about? How many universes do you see exactly?

Science is hard isn't it Michael, eh!

Science is relatively easy. It's the arguing with creationist's like yourself that cannot support their timeline claims that tends to be the "hard" part. Debunking invisible supernatural entities that fail to show up in the lab is always so exhausting.

 

[Naraoia]

Sorry, but the warmth from the sunshine hitting my skin is no optical illusion.

Oh, but you're not just claiming that the sun shines. You're claiming that the universe is God and that you can empirically demonstrate this.

For that, "I can see my concept of God" is rather poor evidence to say the least. Many things people "see" only exist in their minds. The warmth of sunshine can be verified with methods independent of our heat receptors - you can stick a thermometer out in the sun, for instance. The existence of black dots in the optical illusion can't - you sample the image with a colour picker, you'll only find white at the intersections.

From my perspective, the black dots have more empirical support than your concept of God. At least they appear to all human beings with typical vision, even if they aren't detectable by other methods. I not only see no objective verification for the "awareness" of the universe, I can't even sense it subjectively.

 

[Michael]

Oh, but you're not just claiming that the sun shines. You're claiming that the universe is God and that you can empirically demonstrate this.

Well, I can empirically demonstrate a host of evidence that is consistent with Pantheism, including but not limited to plasma redshift, variable currents in space, layouts of matter that resemble a brain, and the accounts of human beings since the dawn of recorded civilization.

That's far more than can be said for "dark energy", "inflation" or exotic forms of "dark matter". When you combine all three metaphysical gap fillers into one theory, it can't even compete with Pantheism. Even awareness shows up in labs on Earth. I'm not ascribing anything to the universe that doesn't exist here, and have an effect right here on Earth.

For that, "I can see my concept of God" is rather poor evidence to say the least.

That's a whole lot more than can be said of all three metaphysical "gods" of scientific creation mythology. Inflation is a no show in the lab. Dark energy is no show in the lab. CDM was a gigantic flop in the lab. At least I "see" what I claim to exist.

Many things people "see" only exist in their minds. The warmth of sunshine can be verified with methods independent of our heat receptors - you can stick a thermometer out in the sun, for instance. The existence of black dots in the optical illusion can't - you sample the image with a colour picker, you'll only find white at the intersections.

In terms of pure physics, I'm likely to be limited to the information I can obtain by the relative sizes of the object in question (an entire universe), and puny humans. I might be able to measure the mechanical effects of a macroscopic awareness as it creates current flows that traverse galaxies and wire galaxies together, just as I might trace the working circuits of my own brain. I can't directly observe "awareness" however, just the effect of that awareness on the current carrying structures of my brain.

From my perspective, the black dots have more empirical support than your concept of God.

Why? You can see them both.

At least they appear to all human beings with typical vision, even if they aren't detectable by other methods.

Every sun (dot) in the universe is rather visible is it not? We can see the effect of currents on x-ray images in those Swift images, do we not? Those are standard photons we're receiving from space, right? I'm not claiming that God is invisible, or "dark" or anything of the sort. Nothing I'm ascribing to the universe is absent on Earth in the lab, not even awareness. By adding "awareness" as a property of the universe (it's optional of course), I'm able to explain and describe a whole host of other types of data, including the *reason* we see such large fluctuations in those Swift images, and why we observe so many active and variable circuits in solar atmospheric activity. More importantly, I can explain *why* humans have claimed to have a relationship with something they call "God" since the dawn of recorded human history. I can even explain cause/effect justification for external EM fields having an internal effect on human thought. I can literally connect every dot in "reality" just by adding one additional property to the universe, specifically 'awareness'.

Lambda-CDM can't even complete in terms of empirical physics, and it could *never* explain human experiences on Earth. It's more limited in scope *and* it's full of qualification problems galore.

I not only see no objective verification for the "awareness" of the universe, I can't even sense it subjectively.

I've "sensed" it subjectively during prayer and meditation, as have others. Not everyone prays and not everyone meditates, so maybe not everyone has that experience. If however we look at the *entire* range of human beliefs, and the percentages of theists to atheists on planet Earth, it's not even close. In a "subjective* sense God does have an effect on human beings today on Earth. Dark energy does not. Inflation does not. SUSY theories do not.

 

[Davian]

It doesn't. It's also not even close to being empirically competitive with a cosmology theory that does posit an aware and living universe.

I explained that in the other couple of threads that I started on that topic. I recently mentioned plasma redshift, and Holushko's C# code as being one such "observational test" of the theory. I also mentioned the Swift images.

But you cannot specifically demonstrate this 'awareness' that you posit?

Does Lambda-CDM attempt to fully explain our universe, or just a few minor things based on a metaphysical gap filler galore? Pantheism makes a whole host of predictions about the *functional* nature of the universe, and it's effect on human beings, not just it's mechanical attributes.

Any successful predictions, that do not have more parsimonious explanations?

Fair enough:

WIMP Wars: Astronomers and Physicists Remain Skeptical of Long-Standing Dark Matter Claim: Scientific American
Is Supersymmetry Dead?: Scientific American

We've tested what we can test so far, and nothing so far. More importantly, the energy state of the Higgs is such that it's not certain that SUSY theory is relevant or helpful.

Pointing out what a model does not address does not falsify it.

So what? I'll never be able to *completely* match every attribute of deep space (particularly distance). In terms of scaling, every theory deals with that problem.

So, it does not show up in the lab.

I didn't claim it was a "perpetual motion" machine by the way. That seems to be your take on things, but that isn't my actual belief. I simply said it "recycles" energy.

Yes, you are very vague on the details of how a static universe can stay static without working like a perpetual motion machine. Care to elucidate?

 

[Michael]

But you cannot specifically demonstrate this 'awareness' that you posit?

I can demonstrate that awareness exists in many forms here on Earth which is much more than you can do with any three of the mainstream claims related to dark energy, dark matter and inflation. I can't "see" my own 'awareness' because it doesn't emit any photons directly. I can see it's effect on my brain in PET scans however, just as I can see the effect of those variable currents in Swift images.

Any successful predictions, that do not have more parsimonious explanations?

In my experience the term "parsimonious" is a very subjective judgement call. I'm not having to *assume* that everyone that claims to have an experience of 'God' is crazy. To me that's a plus. Your mileage may vary.

Pointing out what a model does not address does not falsify it.

It does point out a now verified observation that Pantheism does predict that your theory does not predict. Already Lambda-CDM theory seems weak, but in terms of competing with functional aspects of the universe, it's not competitive at *all*! It doesn't predict the presence of currents at all, and nobody much touches the topic of currents in space in mainstream models. It's a "side issue" at best in mainstream theory. Mainstream theory can't compete with Pantheism in terms of function, nor can Lambda-CDM explain anything related to human experiences on Earth.

So, it does not show up in the lab.

A brain the size of a universe won't fit in a lab, but awareness exists in nature in a myriad of forms. I've even described some real experiments that might actually demonstrate external EM fields interacting with EM fields of a human brain. I don't really know what shows up and doesn't show up yet. What I do know is that awareness isn't limited to a single form, and it's prevalent on Earth. Awareness is not just a "made up" idea like dark energy. It's quite real.

Yes, you are very vague on the details of how a static universe can stay static without working like a perpetual motion machine. Care to elucidate?

I'm sorry, but Einstein's introduction of a non zero constant into GR didn't turn GR into a perpetual motion machine, and I'm not even accusing you of creating a perpetual motion machine (yet anyway) by the introduction of dark energy into that constant. According to Birkeland's cathode sun theories, all suns would be somewhat repulsive toward one another. It's a standard EM field that stabilizes the universe IMO, nothing exotic or magical.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You have no evidence at all that any of the rest of the missing mass is exotic matter

Wrong: Observational evidence for dark matter.

Notice however that "dark matter" is presumably found in a halo around the galaxy, and so is all that missing plasma,

Almost right, Michael!
It happens to be differnt haloes though. Dark matter exists throughout the galaxy but is denser in the galaxy halo (within the galaxy).
The no longer missing plasma is found in a halo outside of the galaxy.

You mean handwaved at by haters.

I mean addressed by posters in the JREF forum.
However a point about
Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | STFC
NASA - Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount
is then no one except you thinks that they make dark matter or dark energy unneccessary. Otherwise you would link to the papers (or even news articles ) that say so.

They (and you) apparently only "know" what Ned Wright personally tells them to believe, and his website hasn't been updated in *eons* in technological-cosmological terms.

Wrong: They and me know basic physics and that the points that Ned Wright raises (and others such as Fritz Zwicky) were and remain physically correct.
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]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-50/#post61578499

The simple physics is that redshift = change in photon energy. A change in photon energy is a change in photon momentum. A change in photon momentum is a change in trajectory. Thus distant objects blur in telescopes.

There isn't any evidence for "Dark energy".

Wrong: Observational evidence for dark energy.

He did make his best guess at what he believed to be the temperature of 'space' ...

So what? That does not chnage the fact that Eddington never made a calculation of the CMB temperature.

Ya, and CMB estimates for PC theories have also been updated,

Wrong: Any CMB estimates for pc theories based on Tired light are wrong.
You also have forgotten that the CMB does not only have temperature. It is the other properties of the CMB like ist prefect balckbody spectrum that Lambda-CDM matches and pc theories have not.

Of course you are since that is the *only* reference you have even cited.

Wrong: Tired light

Ned Wright's web page is a good summary of the physics that states that tired light theories are invalid.

That's because there's no physics in it past about 2006.

Thats because there is no need of any more physics beyond 2008.

No. Even an amateur like myself was able to pick it to pieces in 2012.

Wrong: You have not.

False. You're ignoring the fact that photon can pass it's momentum to a particle *in it's direction of travel*.

Wrong: You're ignoring the fact that photon can pass it's momentum to a particle *in it's direction of travel* and at any angle from its direction of travel..

There isn't any observed time dilation, just signal/pulse broadening, which is predicted in Holushko's model, Brynjolfsson's model and Ashmore's model.

Wrong: The observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves is ... observed!

All Tired light theories are wrong.

It's just the average temperature of space based on the effect of starlight on dust in space.

Really, really wrong!
A blackbody spectrum is a spectrum not a temperature !

Lerner's work blew that claim away in 2006.

Lerner's conference presnetions in 2006 blew nothing away.

It's not been updated since at least 2005 since it includes no mention of Lerner, Ashmore, Holushko or Brynjolfsson.

Wrong: Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

Blondin et al. (2008) also studied distant supernovae, but used spectra to judge the age of the supernovae. They found an aging rate that varied like 1/(1+z)(0.97 +/- 0.10),compatible with the expected 1/(1+z) for expanding Universes, but 9.7 standard deviations away from the constant aging rate expected in the tired light model
...
© 1996-2008 Edward L. Wright. Last modified 24 Apr 2008

All those Tired light theories are wrong.

Holushko's paper...

Wrong: Holushko's paper does not exist - it is a web page.
And the (not his!) tired light theory is wrong.

More bunk related to the fact that astronomer forgot to include any redshift calculations into the mathematical formulas...

Real bunk because redshift calculations (Hubbles law) were a basic part of the discovery of dark energy.
Observational evidence for dark energy

 

[RealityCheck01]

One thing I forgot to mention:

You're ignoring the fact that photon can pass it's momentum to a particle *in it's direction of travel*.

The simple physics is that redshift = change in photon energy. A change in photon energy is a change in photon momentum. A change in photon momentum is a change in trajectory. Thus distant objects blur in telescopes.

A photon that passes "it's momentum to a particle *in it's direction of travel*" suggests a photon that is completely reflected and never detected.

The point about the scattering is that the angle of scattering is random. There is a plasma containing electrons moving in every direction with various momenta. One photon may be scattered backward, another at a tiny angle, another photon at different angle, etc., etc. etc. ... and it is even possible that the occasional photon will be "scattered" at an angle of zero and just have its wavelength change.

Then all of these photons meet up with more electrons and scatter again! And again. And again.

The end result is that a telescope will not be able to focus the photons from a distant object to a sharp image because of this scattering. But they can and so photonas are not scattered and cosmological redshift is not caused by any scattering.

 

[Michael]

Wrong: Observational evidence for dark matter.

You have absolutely no evidence at all that any amount of "missing mass" requires exotic matter. We just discovered more ordinary matter in 2012 than we'd known to exist in the whole of human history RC, and we just discovered the universe is twice as bright as we imagined. Whatever lensing data you might point at, and whatever rotation patterns you might use, none of those distant observations tell us the *nature* that form of matter. They only tells us it's there. For all you or I know, it's plasma and nothing but plasma.

Almost right, Michael!
It happens to be differnt haloes though. Dark matter exists throughout the galaxy but is denser in the galaxy halo (within the galaxy).
The no longer missing plasma is found in a halo outside of the galaxy.

You ignored the point. The alignment of the 'missing mass' (now found), as well as the 'now found' (thanks to Ned) stars, all align themselves with your needed layout of 'dark matter'. We now know our technologies are *way* too primitive to be making up exotic forms of matter to explain missing mass, particularly when ordinary stars and hot plasma will do the trick as recently as 2012.

I mean addressed by posters in the JREF forum.
However a point about
Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | STFC
NASA - Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount
is then no one except you thinks that they make dark matter or dark energy unneccessary. Otherwise you would link to the papers (or even news articles ) that say so.

I'm well aware of what the haters think at JREF RC. If you really want to talk about JREF, go insist they raise me from the virtual dead or something, otherwise, they can't help you here.

Wrong: They and me know basic physics and that the points that Ned Wright raises (and others such as Fritz Zwicky) were and remain physically correct.
Tired light

Been there, trashed that:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-50/#post61578499

Let me know when Ned updates his website and recognizes that it's not 2000&late, it's 2012.

The simple physics is that redshift = change in photon energy. A change in photon energy is a change in photon momentum.

Yep.

A change in photon momentum is a change in trajectory.

Nope! A change in momentum *can* result in a change in trajectory, but not always, particularly in polarized and coherent light. That's not always a given. A photon can pass it's momentum to another particle toward/into it's direction of travel. The photon does not need to be "deflected" to lose momentum to the medium. They are not one and the same process. That's Ned's first fallacy in a nutshell.

Thus distant objects blur in telescopes.

"Earth to RC, come in RC"

A lot of distant objects *are* blurred in various wavelengths and they are blocked entirely in others. It's not like we observe no blurring in the most distant images. That part two of Ned's two part fallacy. It's evidently predicated upon two fallacies in a row! It's a two-fer fallacy extravaganza!

Wrong: Observational evidence for dark energy.

Nope, that is just observational evidence that astronomers left out all plasma redshift calculations out of their overly-simplistic math formulas, so now they need metaphysical gap filler to make up the difference. Four forms of plasma redshift show up in a lab, whereas space never does any magic expanding tricks in the lab. Only objects move in the lab. Space never does.

So what? IThat does not chnage the fact that Eddington never made a calculation of the CMB temperature..

He came up with an average temperate of space based on *very limited* knowledge and still was within .6 degrees of the correct temperature of spacetime. The first BB figures were off by a whole OOM! Ned has no right to complain about anyone 'fine tuning' another theory. Penrose's revelations alone make that argument absurd.

Wrong: Any CMB estimates for pc theories based on Tired light are wrong.

No, they are not. Ned simply handwaves away, while you and he both ignore Ashmore's paper entirely. You have a knack for never reading the relevant materials in fact. I'll bet you've still never read Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma, or Peratt's book either. You're like the atheist that refuses to read the Bible yet fancies himself as one of the worlds greatest "online debunkers" of "Christianity". "Jesus? Who's Jesus?"

You also have forgotten that the CMB does not only have temperature. It is the other properties of the CMB like ist prefect balckbody spectrum that Lambda-CDM matches and pc theories have not.

Oh boloney. It's not magical or mystical, it's pure kinetic energy! Light is absorbed and scattered in the IGM just like it's scattered and absorbed everywhere else. The IGM has an "average temperature' that is now known. So what? It's just an 'average temperature' caused by photons interacting with materials in the IGM. There's nothing mystical or special about space (and any sort) having an "average temperature". Ever Eddington knew that space had an average temperature based on the effect of starlight on molecules in space, even if he wasn't aware of how large it really was!

Wrong: Tired light

Ned Wright's web page is a good summary of the physics that states that tired light theories are invalid.

Your guru Ned hasn't kept up with the times. It's 2012, not 2000&late.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-50/#post61578499

I love how the entire industry of astronomy (and an IT guy) get all their knowledge about tired light theory from one guy's unpublished website with four physics errors in a row in 2012. Apparently the mainstream is hell bent on never allowing tired light theories to address newer data sets, and never recognizing them when they do so.

Thats because there is no need of any more physics beyond 2008.

Pfft. Sure, everything we ever needed to know was known in 2008. No progress ever happens if you simply ignore the literature, is that it?

Wrong: You have not.

Oh yes I did. Not a single point Ned made in 2000&late is true in 2012. Ned hasn't kept up with the times, which is why you can't find a problem in Holushko's C# code, and both of you are in denial of it's existence apparently.

Wrong: You're ignoring the fact that photon can pass it's momentum to a particle *in it's direction of travel* and at any angle from its direction of travel..

It doesn't have to be *toward* another other direction! It can lose momentum *in the direction it's already traveling*. The notion that a deflection *must* occur is false.

Wrong: The observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves is ... observed!

Nope. Signal broadening and plasma redshift are observed in those data sets as Holushko's work clearly demonstrates.

http://www.holushko.net/download/TiredLightAndSupernovae.pdf

Ignoring his work isn't going to make it go away RC. No amount of pure denial can change Google search results RC.

All Tired light theories are wrong.

So spoketh the IT guy that knows nothing about photon kinetic energy or C#, and hasn't pointed out a single flaw in Holushko's paper.

Really, really wrong!
A blackbody spectrum is a spectrum not a temperature !]

Yes, it is!

Lerner's conference presnetions in 2006 blew nothing away.

Yes, it blew Ned's Tolman brightness test claims out of the water, but of course Ned chose to simply ignore that paper as well.

It's not been updated since at least 2005 since it includes no mention of Lerner, Ashmore, Holushko or Brynjolfsson.

Wrong: Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

Still no mention of Lerner, Ashmore, Chen, Wolf, Holushko, or anyone else!

Holy cow, are you really that desperate that you're 'best' evidence comes from an unpublished website that hasn't been updated in *at least* four years?

Wrong: Holushko's paper does not exist - it is a web page.
And the (not his!) tired light theory is wrong.

LOL! Ned's paper does not exist it's an unpublished web page stuck in 2000&late. I love your constant use of double standards. Somehow Ned's unpublished website is "gospel" even though it's stuck in 2008.

Real bunk because redshift calculations (Hubbles law) were a basic part of the discovery of dark energy.
Observational evidence for dark energy

The mainstream left out plasma redshift in their calculations, hence the need for placeholder terms for human ignorance. You can't even tell me where "dark energy" comes from or where to go to get a quantity of it. The whole mainstream theory is a metaphysical Franken-kludge of a theory all because they never learned about plasma redshift because Ned Wright didn't personally tell them anything about Chen's plasma redshift, the Wolf effect, Stark redshift, or anything discovered about plasma redshift in the lab after about 1929. Apparently the only option Ned ever considered was Compton Redshift, so that's all you or anyone else knows about.

 

[Michael]

One thing I forgot to mention:

A photon that passes "it's momentum to a particle *in it's direction of travel*" suggests a photon that is completely reflected and never detected.

No. It suggests that a photon 'hits' the particle, moving the particle forward a little bit, and losing a little bit of forward momentum in the process. It's like billiards. It all depends on the angle of the shot, and some shots are "straight".

The point about the scattering is that the angle of scattering is random. There is a plasma containing electrons moving in every direction with various momenta. One photon may be scattered backward, another at a tiny angle, another photon at different angle, etc., etc. etc. ... and it is even possible that the occasional photon will be "scattered" at an angle of zero and just have its wavelength change.

Bingo on the last point!

Then all of these photons meet up with more electrons and scatter again! And again. And again.

Indeed.

The end result is that a telescope will not be able to focus the photons from a distant object to a sharp image because of this scattering. But they can and so photonas are not scattered and cosmological redshift is not caused by any scattering.

No. The net result is that a lot of the light will be scattered and absorbed and never reach the Earth. The net result is the mainstream grossly underestimates the *brightness* of galaxies at a distance. The light that experiences large scattering angles simply never reaches Earth RC, it doesn't result in blurring. Only a *tiny* photon deflection, extremely close to the Earth would result in blurring.

In terms of scattering effects, how are Compton scattering, The Wolf effect, Stark redshift and what Chen called 'plasma redshift" different and unique as it relates to this deflection issue? Do you even know? Of course you know nothing about it because Ned Wright never told you and Ned is apparently the only guy that knows anything about tired light theory in your denial-go-round.

 

[RealityCheck01]

No. The net result is that a lot of the light will be scattered and absorbed and never reach the Earth.

No. The net result is that the light that would have entered a telescope as photons traveling in parallel paths will enter as photons traveling in slightly non-parallel paths. That is what scattering does. The result is that distant objects will be blurred.

I do hope that I do not have to explain to you how a telescope works, Michael !

P.S. Tired light

In general, any "tired light" mechanism must solve some basic problems, in that the observed redshift must:

• admit the same measurement in any wavelength-band
• not exhibit blurring
• follow the detailed Hubble relation observed with supernova data (see accelerating universe)
• explain associated time dilation of cosmologically distant events.

A number of tired light mechanisms have been suggested over the years. Fritz Zwicky, in his paper proposing these models investigated a number of redshift explanations, ruling out some himself
...
For example, Zwicky considered whether an integrated Compton Effect could account for the scale normalization of the above model:

... light coming from distant nebulae would undergo a shift to the red by Compton effect on those free electrons [in interstellar spaces] [...] But then the light scattered in all directions would make the interstellar space intolerably opaque which disposes of the above explanation. [...] it is evident that any explanation based on a scattering process like the Compton effect or the Raman effect, etc., will be in a hopeless position regarding the good definition of the images.[6]
​

[6] Zwicky, F. 1929. On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space. PNAS 15:773-779. Abstract (ADS) Full article (PDF)


You should laso look at the article citations for the probelms with tired light theories:Wright, E. L. Errors in Tired Light Cosmology.
Tommaso Treu, Lecture slides for University of California at Santa Barbara Astrophysics course. page 16.

P. J. E. Peebles The Standard Cosmological Model in Rencontres de Physique de la Vallee d Aosta (1998) ed. M. Greco p. 7

In a tired light model in a static universe the photons suffer a redshift that is proportional to the distance travelled, but in the absence of absorption or emission the photon number density remains constant. In this case a significant redshift makes an initially thermal spectrum distinctly not thermal and inconsistent with the measured CBR spectrum. One could avoid this by assuming the mean free path for absorption and emission of CBR photons is much shorter than the Hubble length, so relaxation to thermal equilibrium is much faster than the rate of distortion of the spectrum by the redshift. But this opaque universe is quite inconsistent with the observation of radio galaxies at redshifts​

z ∼ 3 at CBR wavelengths. That is, the universe cannot have an optical depth large enough to preserve a thermal CBR spectrum in a tired light model.​

 

[RealityCheck01]

Tommaso Treu, Lecture slides for University of California at Santa Barbara Astrophysics course. page 16.

Only lecture slides but the relevant one is slide 12:

Main observational facts vs tired light​

• The night sky is dark​

• No!​

• Spectra of distant objects appear redshifted​

• Ok​

• Helium abundance is ~25% very homogeneously​

• No explanation​

• Deuterium in distant gas clouds​

• No (deuterium is only burned in stars)​

• The Universe is filled with a blackbody radiation at ~3K​

• No! (cannot be a blackbody all the time)​

• This blackbody radiation is extremely isotropic​

• No! (see above)​

• No object older than ~15 Gyrs has ever been found​

• No explanation​

• Galaxies at high redshift look different than today​

• No!​

• The cosmic star formation rate changes as a function of time​

• No!​

• No detections of cosmic annhilations​

• Ok​

• Light curves of supernovae are observed to be stretched at high-z​

• No!​

• Surface brightness at high-z fades as (1+z)^​

​

-4​

• No!​

• The universe is flat [inflation]​

• No explanation​

• No magnetic monopoles have ever been observed inflation]​

• No!​

• The CMB is isotropic over the entire sky [inflation]​

• No!

 

[RealityCheck01]

The plasmas in the paper have nothging to do with astronomical plasmas.
The lab work involved large electron densities -- 10^18 e/cm^3 and low temperatures.
Intergalactic space has a particle density is about one atom per cubic meter (10^-6 per cm^3) and high temperatures.
This is twenty-four (!!) orders of magnitude difference in particle density and three or four orders of magnitude difference in temperature.
The paper even confirms that the redshift depends on electron density!

C.S.Chen et al. “Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas”. Optik
120 (2009) 473-478

 

[RealityCheck01]

Whoops - forgot that I told you this on 15th October 2012, Michael!
So here is is again and expanded.
Scattering is directly related to blurriness in all cases.

• With no scattering, photons arrive at a telescope mirror in parallel paths and get focused to a sharp point.
• With scattering, photons arrive at a telescope mirror in slightly different paths and get focused to a less sharp (diffuse) point.
  The scattering also scatters photons that would have arrived at the telescope away from the telescope.
  The scattering also scatters photons that would not have arrived at the telescope into the telescope.

Astronomers look at a distant galaxy, e.g. 13 billion light years away, in our universe and get a focused image.

Astronomers look at a distant galaxy, e.g. 13 billion light years away, in a "plasma redshift" universe and get an unfocused (blurred) image.

 

[Michael]

No. The net result is that the light that would have entered a telescope as photons traveling in parallel paths will enter as photons traveling in slightly non-parallel paths. That is what scattering does. The result is that distant objects will be blurred.

No. There are no "slightly non-parallel paths" that will reach Earth unless they occur *extremely close to Earth*! Nothing even a little deflected is likely to ever reach Earth in the first place, particularly if the deflection took place near the source. There's no blurring other than deflection events *close to Earth*.

I do hope that I do not have to explain to you how a telescope works, Michael !

After our conversations on photons and electrical discharges in plasma, I wouldn't believe anything you say on any topic related to astronomy.

P.S. Tired light

Apparently all your understanding of plasma redshift is related to Zwicky's 1929 paper on Compton scattering and that is the last type of redshift ever considered by the mainstream.

[6] Zwicky, F. 1929. On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space. PNAS 15:773-779. Abstract (ADS) Full article (PDF)

How about fast forwarding almost 100 years to 2012 and how about dealing with a *modern* tired light theory?

You should laso look at the article citations for the probelms with tired light theories:Wright, E. L. Errors in Tired Light Cosmology.
Tommaso Treu, Lecture slides for University of California at Santa Barbara Astrophysics course. page 16.

The infinitely sad part of your supposed "sources" plural, is they all come right back to Ned Wrights antique of a website, and the claims he makes on that unpublished website that is apparently only capable of dealing with *one* kind of plasma redshift, and one theory from 1929.

P. J. E. Peebles The Standard Cosmological Model in Rencontres de Physique de la Vallee d Aosta (1998) ed. M. Greco p. 7

Oh look, another antique of a paper stuck in 1998. Like I said, you guys cannot handle tired light theory in 2012, just 2000&late brands of tired light theory. You don't have any clue what the difference is between Stark redshift and Compton redshift, let alone understand the difference between the Wolf effect and Compton redshift.

Apparently the only way you can keep this denial game going is by pretending that Brynjolfsson, Ashmore and Hulushko never existed.

 

[Michael]

Only lecture slides but the relevant one is slide 12:

Main observational facts vs tired light​

• The night sky is dark

No duh. Absorption happens. You're still in denial of every tired light proposal from the 21st century RC! Sure, just keep pretending it's 2000&late.

​

• No! - False
[/QUOTE]
​

[QUOTE]• Spectra of distant objects appear redshifted​

• Ok - Plasma redshift also shows up in the lab unlike your mythical sky deities.
[/QUOTE]

​

[QUOTE]• Helium abundance is ~25% very homogeneously

• Deuterium in distant gas clouds​

• No (deuterium is only burned in stars)​

​

• No explanation - False. It's directly related to solar wind composition and the fact that the lightest, most highly charged elements most easily escape the gravity well of Earth.
[/QUOTE]

​

[QUOTE]• The Universe is filled with a blackbody radiation at ~3K​

• No! (cannot be a blackbody all the time) - False. It's been covered by so many authors it's hard to count them, including Ashmore. You ran from Ashmore's paper.

​

​

[QUOTE]• This blackbody radiation is extremely isotropic​

• No! (see above) - False. It's not all that isotropic, since we strip all the foreground effects from the images to start with. It's isotropic because that's the effect of starlight on molecules and dust in space.

[/QUOTE]

​

[QUOTE]• No object older than ~15 Gyrs has ever been found​

• No explanation - Any object that might be older, the mainstream simply *ASSUMES* is young enough to fit inside their creation event window.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]
​

• Galaxies at high redshift look different than today​

• No! - Galaxies come in all configurations, including "mature" galaxies at high redshifts. We simply don't see that far yet. Let's see how things go in James Webb images.
[/QUOTE]

​

[QUOTE]• The cosmic star formation rate changes as a function of time​

• No detections of cosmic annhilations
No! - False. Star formation can take place anywhere, anytime in PC theory.
[/QUOTE]

The rest of your nonsense is addressed by Holushko and Lerner, but of course you can't find any flaw in his C# code, so you're up an IT creek without a paddle.
[QUOTE]

• The universe is flat [inflation][/QUOTE]

According to Penrose it's flatness precludes it from being related to inflation by 10 to the 100th power! So much for that argument!

​

[QUOTE]• No magnetic monopoles have ever been observed inflation]​

• No!

[/QUOTE]

No unicorns have been observed either. So what? Monopoles do not exist, with or without inflation. Nothing like a pure non sequitur.

​

Your link essentially spews the same ancient nonsense from Ned's ancient website. How about dealing with Brynjolfsson's work, or Ashmore's work, or Holushko's 2012 presentation? Oh ya, you can't! Ned didn't talk about the Wolf effect or Stark redshift of Chen's "plasma redshift", so you have no idea what to say about it.

 

[Michael]

I tried three times to fix that mess of a post, but it's not worth my time. You kludged the colors and fonts and intermixed them so badly that the system won't even recognize the end of quotes.

 

[Michael]

Whoops - forgot that I told you this on 15th October 2012, Michael!

Apparently you don't care about external references. If you personally "say" something, you expect everyone to accept your amateur statements as factually true and above question, with or without supporting statements from an external resource.

So here is is again and expanded.
Scattering is directly related to blurriness in all cases.

No! We went though that false handwave of a claim already. You're *assuming* that is true without any actual laboratory support. Apparently someone studied *one* type of redshift in 1929 and that's the last anyone inside the mainstream community thought twice about it.

Essentially you're just handwaving away with claims you pulled out of your back pocket, without a single published resource to your name, and not a single paper you can even site that addresses any *modern* version of tired light theory. Apparently you get all your information from yourself and from one unpublished website that doesn't deal with Lerner, Ashmore, Brynjolfsson, or Holushko, and is time locked in 2000&late.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, let's all disregard mainstream science to accept this thing that most reputable scientists have rejected as false.

Now, Michael, I haven't been following this thread much, mainly because it seems you try to bog it down with technobabble links and name dropping, so forgive me if you've already said the answer to this question (and please answer it again for me).

Can you tell me something that is observed and yet is impossible according to standard cosmology?

 

[Michael]

Yes, let's all disregard mainstream science to accept this thing that most reputable scientists have rejected as false.

Who exactly are all these "reputable scientists" that have "rejected as false" all concepts of tired light theory? Ned Wright seems to be the only guy that anyone cites in terms of a resource of "rejecting" plasma physical processes that show up in the lab, but that's the *only* reference ever cited! Worse yet, the content is stuck in 2008 and doesn't address any modern tired light/plasma redshift theories. Hubble talked about *TWO* solutions to the redshift problem not one, so he must not be "reputable" in your book?

Now, Michael, I haven't been following this thread much, mainly because it seems you try to bog it down with technobabble links and name dropping, so forgive me if you've already said the answer to this question (and please answer it again for me).

Can you tell me something that is observed and yet is impossible according to standard cosmology?

Well, yes. A static universe is actually observed and that configuration of matter in the universe is impossible in standard theory:

http://www.holushko.net/download/TiredLightAndSupernovae.pdf

I'm not sure any 'expansion" option/configuration is actually "impossible" in mainstream theory because it contains so many "fudge factors" (96 percent) that it can be made to do just about anything and everything *except* remain static.

The basic problem with Lambda-CDM theory is that SUSY theory died at LHC, and it's incapable of including any amount of plasma redshift in it's calculations without it completely starting to unravel, starting with dark energy.