Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[Michael]

jgold, am I to understand from your last post that you deny that time dilation exists?

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

The problem is that what you're interpreting as/calling 'time dilation' can also be "explained' as signal broadening.

 

[Michael]

http://santilli-foundation.org/docs/IRS-confirmations-212.pdf

Has there been any *mathematical* or *physical* refutation of this paper that anyone is aware of? It certainly looks like an intriguing bit of work. I'll definitely read through it, but it's going to take me awhile.

 

[Elendur]

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

The problem is that what you're interpreting as/calling 'time dilation' can also be "explained' as signal broadening.

Isn't signal broadening about light / radio waves (can't find anything referring to the term with an easy explanation)?

If so, how the he*k does it explain time dilation?

Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RealityCheck01]

The paths of photons are random - but coordinated

Nice bit of physics but nothing to do with this thread.

Researchers at the Niels Bohr Institute have demonstrated that photons (light particles) emitted from light sources embedded in a complex and disordered structure are able to mutually coordinate their paths through the medium.

www.geo.mtu.edu/~scarn/teaching/GE4250/scattering_lecture.ppt
http://web.eng.fiu.edu/wangc/EMA6518-2.pdf

The reading I've done thus far would suggest that the forward momentum scattering process actually shows up as a forward diffraction "peak" in the scattering output (see page 21 of the PPT presentation).

The slide about rainbows and backward scattering?

Neither link mentions any "forward momentum scattering process" as in the one you mentioned (scattering angle of zero).
Robert d'Escourt Atkinson used conservation laws on the initial and final states of a photon that changes energy and a particle that gains momenyum in the forward direction only (by any interaction) and shows that momentum conservation is violated.
But if you just mean forward scattering then the research is redundant. It was covered in the Wikipedia articles.

 

[Michael]

Isn't signal broadening about light / radio waves (can't find anything referring to the term with an easy explanation)?

If so, how the he*k does it explain time dilation?

Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I suppose this would be an "easier" explanation to follow:

Tired Light Explains Supernovae Light Curve Broadening

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

The problem is that what you're interpreting as/calling 'time dilation' can also be "explained' as signal broadening.

I seriously doubt it. Can it be applied to the time dilation that must be corrected for in devices that you use every day?

 

[RealityCheck01]

What I can say however is that it is *utterly impossible* for scattering to *not* occur, and it therefore would be impossible for redshift to not occur.

What everyone can say however is that it is *utterly impossible* for scattering to *not* occur, and it therefore would be impossible for redshift or blueshift or both to not occur for the scattered photons.

Wht you need however is for there to be some magic to happen.
Every photon has to scattered otherwise there will be spectral line bradinging of the unshifted line, not spectral line redshift.
The scattering has to be wavelength independent to produce a shift.

 

[Michael]

Here was scattering pattern image from the PPT presentation. FYI, I normally *hate* PPT presentations with a passion, but that one was pretty darn helpful IMO.

http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~scarn/teaching/GE4250/scattering_lecture.ppt

 

[Elendur]

I suppose this would be an "easier" explanation to follow:

Tired Light Explains Supernovae Light Curve Broadening

Ah, I thought you meant the whole phenomena time dilation (I wonder when I'll learn to reread things I don't understand twice ).

As for:

They describe the effect as brighter supernovae take longer to reach maximum brightness and then dim again so we see broader light curves at greater redshifts.

That sounds like it's an easy thing to check and I find it unlikely that it's been overlooked.

Also, why test that in fiber optics? The cable would bring scattered photons back on track (kind of like the mechanism I've been asking for you to explain on cosmological level), photons we would've missed otherwise. Of course it gets 'broadened'.

Extra note:
Sloppy graph...

 

[Michael]

That sounds like it's an easy thing to check and I find it unlikely that it's been overlooked.

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

It's not all that easy to check and it wasn't overlooked.

 

[RealityCheck01]

..usual rants and insults snipped...
Objects can expand but only at C.

You are making Santilli look really stupid.
If Santilli is disproving that space expands then he has to start with that space is expanding and show that it leads to a paradox or physical impossibility. He cannot start with that space only expands but only at C.

..usual rants and insults snipped...
I still haven't seen anyone debate his *SCIENTIFIC POINTS*!

You obviously did read the the debate of his *SCIENTIFIC POINTS*!
Some of Santilli's ideas have been addressed in the JREF forum, e.g. this post by ben m and the posts that follow it.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Things explode in the lab and on Earth. I'm sure they explode in space too.

Great logic Michael: Things expand in the lab too. Thus space expands!

You seem to be persisting in the delustion that only things that are deteted in the in lab exist.

And persisting in stating the obvious!
Of course observations are interpreted, e.g. we observe things like neutron stars and interpreted them as compact stars made of a state of matter that has never been observed in the lab (and thus cannot exist acceding to you!) - electrons and protrons crushed by gravity to make neutrons which are then further squeezed together.

Hubbles law is best interprested as cosmological redshift because there is supporting evidence which other theories cannot explain.

 

[RealityCheck01]

*What* physical thing 'expands' in "space"?

Oh dear - you do not know that there is no physical thing that expands in an expanding space!
What is expanding is the distance between any 2 points.

 

[RealityCheck01]

With all due respect, I have to repeat again, again, and again that all of these "learned" explanations collapse into dust because they do not explain the acceleration of the expansion in a way equal to all observers in the universe.

With all due respect, I have to state for the first time that all of these "learned" explanations from Santilli via you collapse into dust because they do not have anything to do with the science.

There is no problem with having the expansion or acceleration of the expansion equal to all observers in the universe. That is what happens for an expanding universe. Have a look at the balloon analogy.

 

[Michael]

You are making Santilli look really stupid.

No, you're just making yourself look stupid like you did with Alfven and current carrying coronal loops. I haven't even read Santilli's work yet so I can't make him look any particular way. Just go away RC. You know NOTHING about this or any other space related topic.

 

[Michael]

With all due respect,

You don't know the meaning of that term.

I have to state for the first time that all of these "learned" explanations from Santilli via you collapse into dust because they do not have anything to do with the science.

Thus concludes the guy that didn't know Alfven's views on current in coronal loops after two solid years of online debates on that topic.

 

[RealityCheck01]

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

It's not all that easy to check and it wasn't overlooked.

It is extremely complex to check and it wasn't overlooked.
Forget about that simplistic conference presentation that Lerner has so little confidence in that he has not submitted it for publication in 6 years (if he did it was rejected).

Instead look at the actual science and what it concludes.
Tolman surface brightness test

To date, the best investigation of the relationship between surface brightness and redshift was carried out using the 10m Keck telescope to measure nearly a thousand galaxies' redshifts and the 2.4m Hubble Space Telescope to measure those galaxies' surface brightness.[1] The exponent found is not 4 as expected in the simplest expanding model, but 2.6 or 3.4, depending on the frequency band. The authors summarize:
We show that this is precisely the range expected from the evolutionary models of Bruzual & Charlot. We conclude that the Tolman surface brightness test is consistent with the reality of the expansion.Allan Sandage and Lori M. Lubin, 2271-88; Lori M. Lubin and Allan Sandage, "The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. II. The Effect of the Point-Spread Function and Galaxy Ellipticity on the Derived Photometric Parameters," Astronomical Journal 121 (2001): 2289-300; Lori M. Lubin and Allan Sandage, "The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. III. Hubble Space Telescope Profile and Surface Brightness Data for Early-Type Galaxies in Three High-Redshift Clusters," Astronomical Journal 122 (2001): 1071-83; Lori M. Lubin and Allan Sandage, "The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. IV. A Measurement of the Tolman Signal and the Luminosity Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies," Astronomical Journal, 122 (2001): 1084-1103.

ETA: I can actually cite myself again, Michael !
25th June 2012 JREF post

This is basically a trivial bit of nonsense from a non-astronomer straying out of his area of expertise. If it has any science in it then he would have published it and you would be linking to a peer-reviewed paper.
That it was presented at a fairly obscure conference may explain why there are only 4 citations to it in the last 6 years!
The basic problems are:

• The Tolman Surface Brightness Test is very complex.
  Astronomers know that there are many factors to consider and Lerner ignores many of these. See the Sandage, et. al. papers:
  • The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. I. Calibration of the Necessary Local Parameters
  • The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. II. The Effect of the Point-Spread Function and Galaxy Ellipticity on the Derived Photometric Parameters
  • The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. III. Hubble Space Telescope Profile and Surface Brightness Data for Early-Type Galaxies in Three High-Redshift Clusters
  • The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. IV. A Measurement of the Tolman Signal and the Luminosity Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies
  • The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. V. Provenance of the Test and a New Representation of the Data for Three Remote Hubble Space Telescope Galaxy Clusters
• Lerner ignores galaxy evolution. This invalidates his test.
  ETA: It is his assumption that "In other words, the maximum FUV surface brightness depends only on the ratio of FUV power to dust production for the stellar population, not on the density of stars in the galaxy." that invalidates his test because he assumes that the stellar population is constant. This is wrong because UV producing stars move alng the main sequence, i.e. the stellar population evolves.

What Lerner basically states is that by constructing a toy model that has little connection to the real universe and doing what he thinks is a valid Tolman surface brightness test, he can get a better fit to this toy model than the basic FWR model.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...usual rans and insullts snipped....

You are the one that stated "Objects can expand but only at C."
If C is a point on Santilli's graphic then you are saying that he is stpid because an examning universe does not expand at only one point.

But maybe C is c (the speed of light). In that case the statement is fairly dumb because objects do not expand at only c.
This may be the bit of ignorance that some people have: They think of the Big Bang as an actual explosion. Thus space is not expanding, objects are just exploding away from each other. In the explosion no object can be travelling faster than the speed of light (special relativity).

Can objects move away from us faster than the speed of light?

Again, this is a question that depends on which of the many distance definitions one uses. However, if we assume that the distance of an object at time t is the distance from our position at time t to the object's position at time t measured by a set of observers moving with the expansion of the Universe, and all making their observations when they see the Universe as having age t, then the velocity (change in D per change in t) can definitely be larger than the speed of light. This is not a contradiction of special relativity because this distance is not the same as the spatial distance used in SR, and the age of the Universe is not the same as the time used in SR. In the special case of the empty Universe, where one can show the model in both special relativistic and cosmological coordinates, the velocity defined by change in cosmological distance per unit cosmic time is given by v = c ln(1+z), where z is the redshift, which clearly goes to infinity as the redshift goes to infinity, and is larger than c for z > 1.718. For the critical density Universe, this velocity is given by v = 2c[1-(1+z)-0.5] which is larger than c for z > 3 .
For the concordance model based on CMB data and the acceleration of the expansion measured using supernovae, a flat Universe with OmegaM = 0.27, the velocity is greater than c for z > 1.407.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You don't know the meaning of that term.

I do know the meaning of the term. I have respect for jgold because he does not resort to ranting and insults (e.g. calling me a ignorant IT guy all the time) rather than addressing the science.

I do suspect that he is a bit obsessed about Ruggero Santilli though .
It is easy to see that Santilli has the apperance of a crackpot, e.g. states of matter that only he knows about, he overturns just about all of physics and it is pretty well ignored, supervisng an experiment not worthy of a first year student, major part of his work published in his own journal, etc. Add in the special feature that he sues journals!

Some of Santilli's ideas have been addressed in the JREF forum, e.g. this post by ben m and the posts that follow it. Which you have ignore3d so here is the scinetific bit of ben m's post

That said, let's look at Santilli's actual "isoredshift" theory. He supposes that light interacts with matter in a way that "adds energy" (blueshift, apparently in dense matter) or "removes energy" (redshift, apparently in thin matter) gradually.

The number of problems with Santilli's actual theory is, um, large. The obvious problem is coherence. Take a 1MHz radio emitter. Run it for 1 second. It emits a sine wave with 1,000,000 cycles---a million swings of your electric-field detector. Go to a detector 1km away, and listen for 1 second; you'll detect 1,000,000 cycles. Now, suppose Santilli's theory is true, and gas in between you and the detector can "redshift" the light, say to 900kHz. So the near detector sees 1,000,000 swings "emitted", but the far detector only detects 900,000. I challenge you to write an equation for the electric field---E(x,t)---along the path of such a beam, such that the emitter and the detector disagree about how many cycles occurred. It can't be done. You need either a flat-out discontinuous function, or you need to "hide" an arbitrary number of missing peaks somewhere along the path.

(Or, rather, it can be done by *special relativity*, which allows the observers to agree on the cycle count---"yeah, I saw 1,000,000 peaks go by ... "---while disagreeing on the frequency---"... and they took 1.11 seconds to do so on my clock")

The neat thing about *real*, observed (and GR/SR predicted) redshifts is that they're completely wavelength-independent. Wherever you see red-light (600nm) appearing as IR (say, 1200nm), you also see the same fractional shift in everything from radio (100 MHz shifts to 50MHz) to x-rays (6 keV shifts to 3 keV) and so on. It is utterly trivial to show that Santilli's theory disagrees with this. He thinks that light, passing through the Earth's atmosphere at sunset, shifts from yellow (let's say 580 nm) to red (630nm) due to a wavelength-independent, SR/GR-faking redshift? Great, then we can predict that radio waves---say, from a satellite broadcasting at 2 GHz---would have signals arriving at Earth somewhere between 2.0 and 1.8 GHz, depending on the angle through the atmosphere. This does not happen; it's wrong by five or six orders of magnitude. Real-life materials have different effects at different frequencies. The atmosphere attenuates radio waves, a little bit, but it emphatically does not redshift or blueshift them.

Lunar ranging invalidates isoredshift:

While you are working up a reply to ben, you ought to consider that the theory has been conclusively disproved, and was done so inadvertently about 40 years ago. Please read http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy...doc/Bender.pdf. Laser rangefinding of the moon's surface commenced in 1969, using a retroreflector installed by Apollo 11. The laser involved was a ruby laser, so the experiment used red light. The receiver used a narrow-band spectral filter. If red light cannot penetrate the atmosphere, there would have been no return pulse detected, especially since the laser light involved made 2 passes, one outgoing and one returning. Since this was a laser, there was no blue light transmitted which could have been red-shifted. The received amplitudes are, as one might expect, very low. Thery are so low that any unaccounted-for attentuation would have made detection impossible, so the sort of attenuation Santilli claims is just preposterous.

My simplifying of ben m's post:

He read what Santilli wrote. There were obvious flaws in what he wrote so ben m said there were flaws.

• The "well known No Reduction Theorems" are not well known - they were just in previous papes by Santilli.
• He states that science cannot explain how photons transmit through transparent media. But science has known the QM explanation for almost a century. AFAIK there has been a classical explanation for centuries.
• He states his ignorance about the explanation for the refraction of light.
• He states his ignorance about the explanation for the slower speed of light in a medium.

ben m then states the practical problems with Santilli's "isoredshift" theory For example: We receive signals from spacecraft in radio dishes here on Earth. These spaceraft move. Their signals thus pass through different paths through the atmosphere. Isoredshift predicts large enough reshifts (e.g. the redshifts of light from the Sun) that we would lose the signals. There are no reports of this signal lose.

 

[RealityCheck01]

W.D.Clnger looks at Santilli comments on The Current Historical Moment in Gravitation.

The following remarks are extracted from his comments on The Current Historical Moment in Gravitation.

Originally Posted by Santilli
Another historical objection...is the impossibility of representing with curvature the free fall along a straight radial line.

Actually, Einstein himself provided that representation in §9 of Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie. If you compare Einstein's equation (22) with Misner/Thorne/Wheeler's equation (20.41), which is written using more modern notation, you'll see that MTW equation (20.41) reduces to Einstein's equation (22) for free fall (when the force components are zero).

Yet Santilli says, in capitalized italics,

Originally Posted by Santilli
THESE HISTORICAL OBJECTIONS HAVE REMAINED UNRESOLVED IN REFEREED JOURNALS TO THIS DAY because of known manipulation by Einstein's "followers."

As I noted just above, Santilli is wrong about that.

Here's another example of Santilli's style:

Originally Posted by Santilli
Then, there are serious geometric and structural problems on the very essence of the Riemannian treatment of gravity. In fact, a sad episode is the suppression of the Freud identity of the Riemannian geometry for about one century to protect the followers view of gravitation, rather than that by Einstein.

Freud discovered that identity in 1939. I'm writing this in the year 2012. How could the identity have been suppressed "for about one century"?

Originally Posted by Santilli
I rediscovered this identity in the 1980s...

Following my rediscovery of the Freud identify, unpublished papers have appeared claiming that the identity is verified in the general field equations....These political "disproofs" essentially illustrate the very reason the Freud identify was suppressed in the literature of the field for about one century.

One of those "unpublished" papers was published in a refereed journal:

Eduardo A. Notte-Cuello and Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr. Freud's identity of differential geometry, the Einstein-Hilbert equations and the vexatious problem of the energy-momentum conservation in GR. Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras, volume 19, 2009, pages 113-145. Published online August 13, 2008. DOI 10.1007/s00006-008-0122-7​

The main purposes of that paper were (1) to refute Santilli's bogus claims about the Freud identity and (2) to explain a genuine problem with attempts to formulate energy-momentum conservation laws in general relativity.

Santilli's dismissal of this and other "unpublished" papers was made on 11 March 2010, over a year after the paper had been published.