Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[davidbilby]

The "principle" in question is directly related to inflation theory. Inflation supposedly caused matter to spread out evenly and homogeneously. Structures of this size should *not* exist if inflation did it. Inflation clearly didn't do it, but no type of falsification is ever accepted. Inflation theory is a religious faith in the unseen (in the lab) that defies *any* falsification method possible. You simply turn a blind eye toward everything you don't want to hear or deal with.

Er. No. Sorry. You just keep demonstrating you don't understand inflationary theories. Inflation did NOT simply cause matter to spread out evenly and homogeneously in the context of a quasi-de Sitter space-time; instead it tends, (to a point) to smooth out inhomogeneities and explains the extreme scarcity of magnetic monopoles despite the strong likelihood of their existence.

(by the way, how does PC explain that???)

The question is whether gravity is enough, in a FLRW metric or more complex solutions of the field equations, to explain the presence of large anisotropies and whether the fractal math used by Yadav and co. is applicable. Their math is merely strongly suggestive of the largest structures we should observe if the cosmological principle is true, not a kind of 'law'. Not everybody agrees with their methodology either.

Quit using armchair physics to make grand claims that you don't understand, please.

 

[RealityCheck01]

That's absurd IMO. An ordinary $20 plasma ball demonstrates plasma acceleration, but you can't accelerate a single atom in a controlled experiment using "dark energy", not even if I handed you *billions* of dollars!

That is actually absurd!
There is no "plasma acceleration" in an ordinary $20 plasma ball. There are electrical discharges that generate plasma. That plasma could be acceleterd invaruous directions. This has nothing to do with the woo that is plasma cosmology.
It is probably impossible and certainly awesomely expensive to create an experiment to detect dark energy It is absurd to think that means that dark energy does not exist.


We have never had iron at the temperture and pressure of the Earth's core in the lab - does that mean that the Earth is wollow, Michael?
We have never had stellar plasma in the lab - does that mean that stars do not exist, Michael?
We have never had "neutronium" in the lab - does that mean that neutron stars do not exist, Michael?

A simple bomb exploding in space demonstrates *object* expansion, but you cannot demonstrate "space" does any expansion tricks.

That is actually absurd!
You canot be so ignorant that you think that the expansion of the universe is the same as an actual explosion, Michael !

But lets make sure: Michael: Is the Big Bang an explosion of matter?
First asked 17 January 2013.

 

[davidbilby]

And Michael - the bomb analogy is atrocious....a simple bomb exploding in space demonstrates expansion?

Er, not so much. After a bomb explodes in space, is what you end up with...a bigger bomb that looks just like the original bomb, just bigger in all directions? I don't think so.....

 

[Elendur]

Then you can understand why I reject mainstream dogma. Even when the data *falsifies* inflation, and dark matter, they simply ignore it. Why look for dark matter at the LHC if you don't intend to abide by the findings (or lack thereof) in the first place?

Dunno about that (whether they've done so or not), but to me it seems like you're not putting your own pet theory to the same standards.

That's absurd IMO. An ordinary $20 plasma ball demonstrates plasma acceleration, but you can't accelerate a single atom in a controlled experiment using "dark energy", not even if I handed you *billions* of dollars! A simple bomb exploding in space demonstrates *object* expansion, but you cannot demonstrate "space" does any expansion tricks.

You'll have to ask yourself, are your demands reasonable regarding the space expansion?
Also, does that plasma ball really demonstrate what you're claiming?

In this case you're claiming to have an invisible pony, you don't know here it comes from, and you have no clue how to control it. Why would I bother checking your claims *anywhere*?

You have a point there. However it's extremely different from what I've been mentioning.

Yes. The burden of proof lies at the claimants.
You, however, are one of those.
It's one thing to reject their claims, it's another to claim the negative.

Their claim:
The space expands.
This position holds the burden of proof.

Neutral claim (in this case, mine):
The space may or may not expand.
This position doesn't hold the burden of proof.

Your claim:
The space doesn't expand.
This position holds the burden of proof.

You're trying to lend validity to your position by stating that no expansion has been observed in the lab. It doesn't, because it's not expected to be observable at that level.

You then take it even further by stating that no expansion occurs in the lab (notice the difference), a statement that implies that you've produced an experiment that would detect expansion at that scale and have produced evidence that it doesn't expand.

You can reject their claims all you want, I won't argue.
However, when you make demands that seem to be related to the discussion, dude up high knows why, you're out of bounds.
When you're making claims of your own, back them up!

I know it comes from ordinary energy and reverts back to ordinary energy. I can name a source of matter, explain how to control it in experiments, convert matter into energy, etc.

And how many years did it take humanity to figure that out?
(I was referring to the origin of all mass and energy, but I'll go with your line for now)

No, it shows up in ordinary labs and it's not falsified by observation unlike dark stuff or inflation.

That wasn't the problem was it? The problem was that nobody really knows what gravity is (or where it came from, for that matter).

Well, it's a lot more scientifically viable that "dark stuff and inflation did it".

I doubt that, god concepts came long before science (or so I have reason to believe), how can it have scientific validity?

Well, you sure seem to be interested in supporting or arguing in favor of metaphysics.

It's your claims that I have a beef with, they're subpar and you're (at least in the past) not even aware them.
I'm not entirely sure I've supported metaphysics ever, feel free to prove (heh, prove) me wrong though.

By definition dark energy and inflation cannot and does not affect me directly so they have no value to me, and I'm not really interested in them either. On the other hand, if I am right (or virtually any theist is right) about the existence of God, God *does* have a direct effect on humans on Earth including you.

Exactly! Right on the spot! Wouldn't you demand some greater/better evidence for something that important?

I'd still be quite interested in your mathematical opinion/critique of Holushko's work by the way. So far I've not heard of any valid mathematical objections to his work.

It's physics and programming mostly, I don't have the background for the former and don't have the skills to get a proper overview for the latter.
The mathematics can be entirely sound but still produce something that is wrong, all by application.

 

[davidbilby]

The mathematics can be entirely sound but still produce something that is wrong, all by application.

Exactly this. I could theorize the moon is made of blancmange, and then build a mathematical model showing how well the blancmange theory works with the observations we have of the moon, its characteristics etc. It would not show that the moon was made of blancmange, and our other measurements falsify the premise, irrespective of how good the math happened to be!

It doesn't matter how good the math is, if the initial premise is faulty, then its conclusions are worthless in the wider context. Same goes for C# code; or any form of argument, for that matter.

If you assume, for the purposes of creating a mathematical argument, that light propagates through a luminiferous aether such that you can apply a Gaussian distribution curve to photon travel time, it really doesn't matter how good the math is thereafter. Truth be told we don't NEED to read any further. The math is not generic - it does not and cannot apply to a model where C is considered a constant.

The initial premise has been repeatedly shown wrong over the last century, in the labs that Michael so loves, with extreme precision. The initial experiments were the very reason that SR and GR were arrived at in the first place.

 

[RealityCheck01]

(by the way, how does PC explain that???).

You may want to start with the basics by asking him to cite the textbook that explains the pc cosmological model or even a coherent definition of pc. Otherwise we will be talking about what he imagines pc to be which may change on a daily basis depending on what side of the bed he got up on !

The definition of "plasma cosmology" that I have from one pc proponent is that it is a collection of scientific theories (not one consistent scientific theory) with a common thread. This thread seems to be that the theory either emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe or is a steady state cosmological theory. IOW, starts with excluding any cosmological theory that explains the observations.
This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection.

The concept of a sceintific model seems to have escaped pc proponents.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Michael, you seem to have missed this post by davidbilby

PS...did you actually ever carefully read Herman Holushko's page and see what the 'C# code' you so love to cite as 'generic' math actually says?
...
To build the code, he first assumes an aether, and from that (and only from that, notice) assumes he may apply a random Gaussian distribution curve to the photon travel time, with arrival time of the redshifted photon being t' = t + Gauss (T,&#963.

Can you see the contradiction here?
The experimental evidence done in labs here on Earth is that the ether does not exist.
You insist that things be detected in labs before they can be said to exist.
Thus by your own standards Herman Holushko's C# code is a case of Garbage In Garbage Out.

Can you see the double contradiction here?
There are no experiments that have shown that light travels at different speeds in vacuum.
Thus by your own standards Herman Holushko's C# code is a case of Garbage In Garbage Out.

Can you see the circular reasoning here?
Herman Holushko builds in the result that he wants, i.e. a random Gaussian distribution curve to the photon travel time.

 

[jgold]

Sorry, jgold, but your is the one on display at the moment .
You cannot cite the publication of Santilli's experiment demonstrating the existence of isoredshift in a scientific journal.

You should probably copy and paste the link from my previous post.

santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-isoredshift.pdf

N.B. citing a religious web site like answersingenesis rather than the scientific literature makes your scientific knowledge look dubious.

I used google image search. I linked for the image, k?

 

[davidbilby]

You should probably copy and paste the link from my previous post.

santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-isoredshift.pdf

The reason peer reviewed journals are the only ones respected is that I could publish my own journal tomorrow declaring incontrovertible scientific proof that the moon was made of blancmange. Santilli's journal is not respected and not impartially peer-reviewed.

You just looked for astronomical images with blue in them. My duvet cover is blue. Is that a Santilli isoblueshift too? Unfortunately, peer review makes people whose work is rejected - for being, you know, wrong - generally hop up and down and shout conspiracy. Well, actually, they don't; most people go away and try and fix things such that it conforms with known science, or explain how known science is wrong (but for that, the burden of proof is on them to explain all known observations equally well or better).

Incidentally, you never showed a mathematical rebuttal to my objection to Santilli's bogus expansion diagram. Do you have one? All observers in that diagram observe the other galaxies expanding away from them at the rate one would expect in an expanding universe, accelerating or not - doesn't matter. Trigonometrically the observer at G would see the two close by galaxies accelerating away from each other at a rate consistent with their distance *from each other*, not as respects to G. The whole diagram expands. The reason you're getting confused (which is what the diagram intends) is the circles make you think the locations of E and G are fixed. They're not.

I'd also point out that since the stress-energy-momentum tensor curves space-time itself there is really no such thing as a "local tangent plane" in spacetime exactly - somewhat like the fact you can't travel from London to Singapore using just a "local tangent plane". But since you don't get simple Cartesian geometry I think unbounded Riemannian geometry might be a stretch.

 

[Michael]

Er. No. Sorry. You just keep demonstrating you don't understand inflationary theories. Inflation did NOT simply cause matter to spread out evenly and homogeneously in the context of a quasi-de Sitter space-time; instead it tends, (to a point) to smooth out inhomogeneities and explains the extreme scarcity of magnetic monopoles despite the strong likelihood of their existence.

Um, you last argument is like claiming inflation did it, and it explains the extreme scarcity of unicorns. Monopoles do not exist. I don't *need a reason* for the fact they do not exist anymore than I need a "reason" that unicorns do not exits. The lack of monopole supports inflation about as much as a lack of unicorns supports inflation.

Is there any *logical* way to falsify your faith inflation? If so, how? Even is "tendency to smooth out inhomogeneities" as you put it, was recently falsified, and you simply do not care. Like any good dogma, your "falsified predictions" don't matter one iota in terms of actually verifying or in this case *falsifying* your claims. Nothing matters.

(by the way, how does PC explain that???)

It doesn't have to because it doesn't "predict" anything related to "smoothness" or any lack of smoothness. Since you theory does make such predictions, it "should" rise and fall based on the accuracy of that prediction. It *failed*.

The question is whether gravity is enough, in a FLRW metric or more complex solutions of the field equations, to explain the presence of large anisotropies and whether the fractal math used by Yadav and co. is applicable. Their math is merely strongly suggestive of the largest structures we should observe if the cosmological principle is true, not a kind of 'law'. Not everybody agrees with their methodology either.

So effectively there is no way to actually falsify your theory.

Quit using armchair physics to make grand claims that you don't understand, please.

Quit using "lazy physics" when it suits you. What evidence actually *supports* inflation if a uniform layout of matter does not exist, and therefore it isn't evidence of inflation? What evidence would falsify your faith that "inflation did it"?

 

[Michael]

You may want to start with the basics by asking him to cite the textbook that explains the pc cosmological model or even a coherent definition of pc.

Two years ago I suggested Alfven's book "Cosmic Plasma' and Peratt's book "Physics of the Plasma Universe". You're too lazy to read either one, and there you go pretending I didn't already tell you that answer a dozen times over. Typical denial based BS.

Otherwise we will be talking about what he imagines pc to be which may change on a daily basis depending on what side of the bed he got up on !

Why shouldn't it change over time? BB theory changes with every new observation.

The concept of a sceintific model seems to have escaped pc proponents.

No, it simply escapes you personally because you're too darn lazy to educate yourself on the topic.

 

[Michael]

And Michael - the bomb analogy is atrocious....a simple bomb exploding in space demonstrates expansion?

Sure. If all that existed in the universe was a hydrogen bomb, and it goes off, all the energy and matter contained in the bomb will "expand". It won't expand faster than C however.

Er, not so much. After a bomb explodes in space, is what you end up with...a bigger bomb that looks just like the original bomb, just bigger in all directions? I don't think so.....

Some of the matter in the bomb will certainly turn into pure energy and it will 'spread out' in all directions. Whatever mass is left will also expand from the point of the explosion and result in *decelerating", but expanding universe.

 

[Loudmouth]

Two years ago I suggested Alfven's book "Cosmic Plasma' and Peratt's book "Physics of the Plasma Universe". You're too lazy to read either one, and there you go pretending I didn't already tell you that answer a dozen times over. Typical denial based BS.

In which of those books can we find a process of inelastic scattering for plasmas that causes redshift without a change in the trajectory of the photon, and where did they show that this mechanism was in action in intergalactic space?

 

[Loudmouth]

Is there any *logical* way to falsify your faith inflation? If so, how?

Show a lack of correlation for galactic distance and redshift. Demonstrate that the cosmic microwave background differs greatly from blackbody radiation. Those are just two off the top of my head.

Even is "tendency to smooth out inhomogeneities" as you put it, was recently falsified, and you simply do not care.

It said smooth out inhomogeneities, not get rid of them entirely.

 

[davidbilby]

It said smooth out inhomogeneities, not get rid of them entirely.

Eh. He doesn't read what's there, just what he wants to see.

He forgets that any matter at all is technically an anisotropy on some scale. The question is whether the Yadav and co. scale devised via fractal math is correct for the cosmological principle, and we have but a single observation - clearly grounds for further research but not for final conclusions.

But no, in Michaelscience a single observation that 'looks like something', in a photo perhaps, or in a paper that looks suitably grand and written in a certain font, irrespective of publishing location or review, is enough to confirm a theory completely without further discussion.

Vis-a vis:

a) The Chen paper on the AC Stark effect which "demonstrates plasma redshift in the lab" and therefore "proves tired light theories" (despite only demonstrating the AC Stark effect in carbon nanotubes induced by a laser, a wavelength and specially dependent effect that produces both red and blue shifts and doesn't make sense as 'part of' the cosmological redshift (because how do you balance it out with something that just operates to cancel the dependence out?))

b) The Brynjolfsson paper (not peer-reviewed, has mathematical mistakes in the early equations)

c) The MAGIC findings on Markarian 501 (where even the authors point out the observed delay could be due to source effects and nobody has repeated their findings), not to mention the point that Ashmore has no mathematical model for why and how the delay should occur and what delay should be expected such that we can distinguish it from other effects).

d) The Holushko paper which you cite as "generic math" any time anybody points out you have little or more likely no math to back up your grand and insulting claims towards the intelligence and work of the oh-so-evil "mainstream"...a paper assuming the non-constancy of C and applying Gaussian distributions to photon travel time because light is supposedly propagating through a luminiferous aether is somehow generic to tired light theories which assume the constancy of C? Please.

...and now you've finally decided inelastic scattering "must" be the cause of the cosmological redshift or a significant portion thereof, and that therefore redshift is evidence of inelastic scattering of some hypothetical kind we don't know about, despite being shown how ludicrous that is mathematically.

I notice you completely ignored the math regarding inelastic scattering and conservation of momentum, once again. Did you not understand it?

Do you still think that it is possible for there to be an inelastic scattering with zero scattering angle and photon momentum loss, despite the simple mathematical demonstration that it is impossible?

If you can admit that it is impossible, which frankly to have any credibility at all you must, unless you any mathematical objections to present...you're left with some "process" that reorders the scattered photons just so such that we can resolve images of anything at intergalactic distance at all, and not observe an opaque space.

That's a "dark sky deity" of sillier probability than any other you would accuse others of propagating, since we know the preconditions involved.

You've finally cited an irrelevant paper on gallium arsenide wafers, one that I don't think you actually read (I think you just read the popular science reduction...here's the actual paper - http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.3428.pdf ).

In case you didn't know, direct propagation of light was actually inhibited in this instance via etching...that's kind of the point of what they were doing. When they talk about correlation, it's not quite what you think they mean (which would involve vectors), and even if it were not so, the effect is nonuniversal. Not so good as a component of the cosmological redshift.

And lastly, to reiterate another ignored questions, what is "Plasma Cosmology's" explanation of the late-time ISW effect observations almost to 4σ? That's around a 99.8% degree of confidence, by the way.

 

[davidbilby]

Sure. If all that existed in the universe was a hydrogen bomb, and it goes off, all the energy and matter contained in the bomb will "expand". It won't expand faster than C however.

Quite right - because it's matter and energy. But unfortunately, that's ostensibly not all that exists in the universe, which is why the analogy is irrelevant at best and laughable at worst.

If matter and energy were all that existed in our universe, how would one explain the observed curved travel path of photons (which travel on null geodesics by definition)?

If photons can travel curved paths whilst travelling null geodesics, which we know they can and do - they must be traveling in a space-time that at that point is curved as described very well indeed by Riemannian manifold geometry. We came to it the other way round - GR predicts a curved space-time from the stress-energy-momentum tensor and subsequently we observed the curvature of light in gravitational lensing of both the sun's light AND distant quasars. See:

Measurement of the solar gravitational deflect... [Phys Rev Lett. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI

Essentially, and in super layman terms, all the energy and matter in your explosion has to expand into something, and that something - space-time - CAN expand faster than C.

There is no limitation in GR on space itself expanding. Matter - sure. Space - no. Those that go "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" as an objection at that juncture haven't understood what that phrase really means - consider the definition of 'speed' for starters and 'travel' and then realise it's a little more complex than is taught at high school.

 

[Michael]

Quite right - because it's matter and energy. But unfortunately, that's ostensibly not all that exists in the universe, which is why the analogy is irrelevant at best and laughable at worst.

You only *assume* other stuff exists in the universe and you *assume* it has various properties. Since your assumptions are constantly being falsified on a regular basis, one starts to wonder why you cling to such assumptions in the first place. SUSY theory bit the dust at LHC, yet failures in the lab mean nothing to your faith in your dogma. Inflation didn't "smooth out" anything to the level you believed, yet that cannot falsify your faith either. Other tangible and empirical alternatives to your beliefs do exist, but you put all your eggs of faith in a *single* basket. Why? Somewhere in this thread I posted a paper describing something like 55 alternatives you might choose from, yet you fixate on one?

If matter and energy were all that existed in our universe, how would one explain the observed curved travel path of photons (which travel on null geodesics by definition)?

If you mean that photons are "bent" by gravitational wells, that would still occur in my analogy as well as least as long as the explosion continues to release both matter and energy in the form of photons. The trajectory of those photons will also be changed as they pass slower moving objects of mass.

If photons can travel curved paths whilst travelling null geodesics, which we know they can and do - they must be traveling in a space-time that at that point is curved as described very well indeed by Riemannian manifold geometry.

In my analogy, the same would be true, particularly during the light emission phase of the explosion.

We came to it the other way round - GR predicts a curved space-time from the stress-energy-momentum tensor and subsequently we observed the curvature of light in gravitational lensing of both the sun's light AND distant quasars. See:

Measurement of the solar gravitational deflect... [Phys Rev Lett. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI

Essentially, and in super layman terms, all the energy and matter in your explosion has to expand into something, and that something - space-time - CAN expand faster than C.

Actually that 'something' is simply a pure vacuum that goes on "forever". That is what the photons would "expand into".

There is no limitation in GR on space itself expanding."

"Space" isn't even physically defined or described in GR, just "spacetime". What exactly *is* "space" as you call it, and how is it physically capable of "expanding"? I hope you realize that this sounds *remarkably* like an expanding aether theory.

Matter - sure. Space - no.

Matter and spacetime are defined in GR. What is "space"?

Those that go "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" as an objection at that juncture haven't understood what that phrase really means - consider the definition of 'speed' for starters and 'travel' and then realise it's a little more complex than is taught at high school.

Sure. Then again it's all a matter of how you describe GR. Einstein's GR didn't include "dark energy". It didn't include a *non zero* constant. The only time he even toyed with the idea of a non zero constant was to describe a *static*, not an expanding universe.

 

[Michael]

Eh. He doesn't read what's there, just what he wants to see.

Wow, irony overload. From my perspective you keep making various predictions that all fail. You then ignore all those failed predictions and see what you want to see anyway, including make-believe forms of energy. Instead of letting BB theory die a natural scientific death, the mainsteam simply *invents* new physics and new physical entities to stuff the gaps of their falsified expansion theory.

He forgets that any matter at all is technically an anisotropy on some scale. The question is whether the Yadav and co. scale devised via fractal math is correct for the cosmological principle, and we have but a single observation - clearly grounds for further research but not for final conclusions.

What evidence for a final conclusion would suffice? SUSY theory went up in smoke last year at the LHC. This year inflation failed it's most important "tests". You can't even name a single source of "dark energy". What would it take for you to "give up your acts of pure faith" in invisible things that keep failing every "test" we put them to?

But no, in Michaelscience a single observation that 'looks like something', in a photo perhaps, or in a paper that looks suitably grand and written in a certain font, irrespective of publishing location or review, is enough to confirm a theory completely without further discussion.

No. Empirical science shows up in the lab, just like all the laws of plasma physics. Plasma does scatter light. Redshift is the outcome. Your stuff has never been demonstrated, therefore there is no actual physics to support any of your claims. Dark energy has *never* cause a photon to be redshifted in a lab. "Space" never expands in the lab. SUSY theories were *destroyed* by the LHC results thus far.

Vis-a vis:

a) The Chen paper on the AC Stark effect which "demonstrates plasma redshift in the lab" and therefore "proves tired light theories" (despite only demonstrating the AC Stark effect in carbon nanotubes induced by a laser, a wavelength and specially dependent effect that produces both red and blue shifts and doesn't make sense as 'part of' the cosmological redshift (because how do you balance it out with something that just operates to cancel the dependence out?))

I simply pointed out to you that *many* forms of inelastic scattering take place in the lab. There is no need to *invent* new physics to explain redshift.

b) The Brynjolfsson paper (not peer-reviewed, has mathematical mistakes in the early equations)

Name one.

c) The MAGIC findings on Markarian 501 (where even the authors point out the observed delay could be due to source effects and nobody has repeated their findings), not to mention the point that Ashmore has no mathematical model for why and how the delay should occur and what delay should be expected such that we can distinguish it from other effects).

Um, Ashmore does explain why and how the delay should occur, and he even makes "predictions" that can be tested. Your claims about photons all traveling at the same speed cannot even be "tested" because when it does fail, you simply claim the delay occurred at the source. Again, your predictions failed, so you 'compensate" by making even more claims that you can't support.

d) The Holushko paper which you cite as "generic math" any time anybody points out you have little or more likely no math to back up your grand and insulting claims towards the intelligence and work of the oh-so-evil "mainstream"...a paper assuming the non-constancy of C and applying Gaussian distributions to photon travel time because light is supposedly propagating through a luminiferous aether is somehow generic to tired light theories which assume the constancy of C? Please.

How is your "expanding space" not an "expanding aether" exactly? What *physically* expands in "space"?

...and now you've finally decided inelastic scattering "must" be the cause of the cosmological redshift or a significant portion thereof, and that therefore redshift is evidence of inelastic scattering of some hypothetical kind we don't know about, despite being shown how ludicrous that is mathematically.

It's not ludicrous. I even found you a recent paper demonstrating that the path of the photons is determined by other photons around it as it passes through materials. It's not simply "random" as you presume(d).

I notice you completely ignored the math regarding inelastic scattering and conservation of momentum, once again. Did you not understand it?

I understand your claims, I simply don't agree with them. I don't agree that photons cannot "forward scatter" in every scenario as you *assume*.

Do you still think that it is possible for there to be an inelastic scattering with zero scattering angle and photon momentum loss, despite the simple mathematical demonstration that it is impossible?

When did you show me that it's impossible in Brillioun scattering or anything *other than Compton scattering*? You showed nothing of the sort.

If you can admit that it is impossible,

When you show me the math on *every* form of inelastic scattering and how it demonstrates you claim in *every type of scattering*, that might happen.

which frankly to have any credibility at all you must, unless you any mathematical objections to present...you're left with some "process" that reorders the scattered photons just so such that we can resolve images of anything at intergalactic distance at all, and not observe an opaque space.

Of course you simply *ignored* that article I cited that shows that the scattering is *wave* depending, not simply particle dependent. You ignored that finding entire apparently.

That's a "dark sky deity" of sillier probability than any other you would accuse others of propagating, since we know the preconditions involved.

You don't actually *know* anything. You can't even tell me where dark energy comes from, let alone how or why it's the never dissipating energy supply.

You've finally cited an irrelevant paper on gallium arsenide wafers, one that I don't think you actually read (I think you just read the popular science reduction...here's the actual paper - http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.3428.pdf ).

Again, you simply *assume* it doesn't apply in space the way it SHOWS UP IN THE LAB!

In case you didn't know, direct propagation of light was actually inhibited in this instance via etching...that's kind of the point of what they were doing. When they talk about correlation, it's not quite what you think they mean (which would involve vectors), and even if it were not so, the effect is nonuniversal. Not so good as a component of the cosmological redshift.

Non universal in what sense? Spacetime selectively scatter light of various wavelengths quite differently. Some wavelengths are completely scattered whereas some or not. I'd call that effect "non universal" too.

And lastly, to reiterate another ignored questions, what is "Plasma Cosmology's" explanation of the late-time ISW effect observations almost to 4σ? That's around a 99.8% degree of confidence, by the way.

Got a paper on that claim for me to review?

 

[Michael]

Milky Way Galaxy Mass Only Half As Large As Previously Thought, Astronomers Say

So much for your need for all the invisible matter. Apparently there isn't as much 'dark matter" as you though you needed.

 

[Michael]

FYI David,

I apparently missed several of your most recent posts, some of which include links and info that I asked your for again (ISW for instance). Give me some time to go through your most recent posts.