Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[Michael]

Well, real derived examples at best

You're right of course, but my point still stands. They're not even sure if it's actually an "energy" at all, yet they're running around calling it "dark energy" and claiming that "dark energy" makes up about 70 percent of the mass/energy of the universe. Like I said, "false advertizing".

If you mean you as in the general sense, then I'd agree fully (within reasonable bounds of "show anyhing").
If you mean you as in me, then I'd have to protest and state that I'm not claiming anything of the sorts.

Sorry, I'll try to be more careful and leave "you" out if it. It was a "hypothetical situation" that might involve you. ")

And that is a prime example of the power of conclusions from observations.

Notice however that we can test all of our core assumptions in the lab and none of it involves "unseen" (in the lab) forces of nature? There's an empirical connection between cause->effect and observation.

Well I'll give you that it's a kind of evidence, however strictly speaking one can't really trust that evidence because you'd still, fundamentally, have to assume that you exist.

To 'observe' (a fundamental necessity in science) requires that we assume that the observer exists. We can't have anything like human "science" without an observer to collect the data.

I've yet to find a way around that. Of course, I haven't explored it so much since it feels as a reasonable assumption.

At least we seem to agree on something.

It's an issue because I'm trying to keep the discussion at a level where we can sort out fundamental differences (and hopefully learn something on the way there).
It's obvious we have different knowledge of the issues we discuss and that we've got different opinions in 'high-level' issues.
Since I cannot spend enough time to take my knowledge to your level and then work from there I'd have to take the discussion down to a level where we can come to an agreement and then work our way upward to the point where we had the original issues (if we still remember it ) or, at some point, agree to disagree.

I like to exemplify it by imagining two persons standing and getting ready to fence only to discover that they're standing on two completely separate mountains.
They can fence around all they want on each side, without any real use coming from it, or work their way down to common ground.

We could start with what we *do* know. For instance we know that electrical discharges emit gamma rays and release positrons. Lots of observations and published papers confirm that.

Do you have any evidence that exotic forms of matter exist or emit positrons?

From the standpoint of science, and Occum's razor, the "most likely" explanation for gamma ray emissions from space is what?

Of course, it may seem unnecessary if one doesn't value the path to the goal as much as the goal (or even more, as I do)

I'll try to get there with you. I won't guarantee you I'll ever 'defend' mainstream theory as you do, but I'll "try" to see things "neutrally" and stop picking on them, if you'll try to see things my way. I'm happy to go where the evidence lead *us*.

If there occurs scattering in plasma and there is plasma in space then there occurs scattering in space.

Which part of that statement don't you accept since the net result would be 'redshift'?

However, to me there seems to be an obvious lack of amount of said scattering to explain the redshift due to lack of expected consequences.

Can you show me any galaxy at the highest redshifts that are completely devoid of any and all amount of scattering?

I'd have to answer "I don't know".
Depending on how I divide that sentence and analyze each part I find things I agree with, things I disagree with and things I honestly, and quickly, can state that I don't know. All depending on definitions and base assumptions.

I'll have to hear you justify the positron answer to get much further. I'll drop this point (and several below) until you have a chance to respond.

I don't think I possess enough knowledge of the matter to form an honest educated opinion. I don't even think I could start to evaluate most of the evidence before educating myself on several areas.

I think you do. You can peruse the data on positron emissions and electrical discharges on Earth as well as anyone. You can also look up the results of SUSY studies done to date at LHC on Google as well as the next scientist.

Sure, it's a hassle to falsify things. But if they have no bearing on your life, do they need to be falsified?

They do have a bearing on my life since my tax dollars are being wasted on this nonsense, and they keep making false public claims to support that waste. If they weren't spending my money, and they weren't being dishonest about *common* causes of these observations, I might be inclined to ignore them.

I'd rather take an arduous road to inform myself and then properly state my opinion along with my reasons for doing so than to state my opinion and do a lot of research retroactively to inform others of what I haven't taken into account.

Do most atheists do that before evangelically crusading against all forms of "religion"?

Why I'd to that research retroactively is because I want my thought process to be as transparent as possible so that others, who'd take part of my opinion, would be helped in forming their own. Or, more importantly, point out the errors in my reasoning.

That's my ideal, for now. I have my goal and strive to accomplish as much of it as I possibly can.

Our goals are apparently not that far apart. Our *perceptions* seem to be light years apart however. I can't for the life of me understand why you would publicly support Lambda-CDM and reject 'simple and demonstrated' alternatives like inelastic scattering events in plasma. Why would you support and accept metaphysical constructs like inflation and dark energy?

 

[Michael]

FYI, it occurs to me that the detection of high energy positrons in the gamma ray flux actually confirms Alfven's concept of an ambiplasma, another "successful prediction" of PC/EU theory.

 

[davidbilby]

FYI, it occurs to me that the detection of high energy positrons in the gamma ray flux actually confirms Alfven's concept of an ambiplasma, another "successful prediction" of PC/EU theory.

As you may have figured out I got kinda bored with debating with you, partly since no valid point ever goes answered (how's inelastic scattering coming along by the way, still fishing for a nonexistent solution there?) - but more though because, like the above, you sometimes just make stuff up when you hear words like...positron.

You then just looked for other sources of positrons, thinking that you could then say "but ah, look at this, don't they come from here, he omitted this source! Positrons don't prove anything!"....not realising that that isn't what the observation hinges on. Hence your citing dark lightning stuff above...you didn't read the work.

Please read carefully:

The detection that is significant in all these experiments is not merely the detection of positrons - as you seem to misunderstand in the above posts - but the detection of a multi-GeV positron excess over electrons that is isotropic in terms of direction. The positron fraction is not steady but varies depending on energy level. If you measure, as AMS does, the ratio of positrons to electrons and draw a curve of this against energy range, the curve observed can only be explained (so far) by either pulsars or dark matter annihilation. Particularly see the PAMELA curves - see here, page 20.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.3522v1.pdf

Do you get that? How do you explain this with your model, or the alternatives you suggested? Are they convincing explanations, or even vaguely relevant, or is the limit of their relevance the simple fact the word 'positron' is in there? I think you just looked up sources of positrons because you didn't get the point of the positron-electron ratio.

Perhaps, since you think it's a 'confirmation' of this ambiplasma idea, you could show why "ambiplasma" would be predicted to produce an excess of positrons over electrons, observed isotropically?

More importantly, I don't know if you saw the latest from CDMS from the last couple of days...maybe you did and hadn't wanted to post it since it's such clear evidence against your position...but here is is.

http://cdms.berkeley.edu/CDMSII_Si_DM_Results.pdf

They are now up to a 3 Sigma confidence on non-baryonic dark matter detection at 8.6 GeV/c² (surprisingly low but interesting)...large orders of confidence beyond that which 'dark flow' managed (at best not even to 1.4 sigma, and with better statistical analysis including CMB channel correlations, around 0.6 sigma at best). Did you not tout dark flow as evidence, as fact? Hmmm...yes, you did, you used it as evidence thus:

Considering the fact that it requires 96 percent "make believe" forces of nature to get a "fit", and considering those dark flows and giant structures that shouldn't be there, yep, pretty shoddy alright.

You still won't much address the dark flows, the *high temperature plasma* we keep finding in space, the stuff that falsifies your theories, and/or supports an electric universe concept.

(and many other references you've made to it, this is just two I picked from recent pages)

Putting aside the merits of a 3 sigma confidence level, it doesn't actually matter....if the dark flow evidence (at around 0.6 sigma in the better statistical analysis) was sufficient for you to acknowledge a factual discovery as you so obviously do, you must now acknowledge the likely existence of non-baryonic dark matter which it seems has been detected to vastly greater statistical significance...or your position can only be described as untenable and irrational.

But of course...this is just 'false advertizing". (sic)

 

[davidbilby]

I can't for the life of me understand why you would publicly support Lambda-CDM and reject 'simple and demonstrated' alternatives like inelastic scattering events in plasma.

Six lines of algebra very clearly demonstrate this alternative is impossible. Impossible. Not possible. The very opposite of possible.

You have no answer to the objection, you just merely repeated the false assertion, again. You've not even bothered to try and work out if the derivations given were correct and whether the math shown you holds accurate, which is what most physicists would do first (and what referees do on papers).

Until you have something credible, like a model that gets around the objection, your claim of 'simple and demonstrated' is a simple lie. Sorry. You know that you have no model, yet you claim that it exists and is "simple and demonstrated".

It is not either of these things, because you cannot "simply demonstrate" a way around a very simple, basic objection, as clear as any objection as one might hope for in physics. You just ignore it and hope it will be forgotten.

 

[Michael]

As you may have figured out I got kinda bored with debating with you,

You mean you got bored of attacking the messenger? Let's hope that's true.

partly since no valid point ever goes answered

Oh boloney. I answered your "question/accusation" from day one when I explained that the momentum of the photon is lost to the particles in the IGM, much like the cue ball analogy. It's not breaking any energy conservation processes. I even showed you an article that talked about the fact that the entire "wave" had an effect on individual interactions with particles, and you flippantly handwaved it away. You've never shown me a "non blurry" high redshift galaxy either.

(how's inelastic scattering coming along by the way,

I find QM to be a bit "slow going" actually. If you're talking about "tests of concept", they're coming along quite nicely actually.

BBC News - Hawc gamma-ray telescope captures its first image

Lots of new equipment comes on line every year in fact. With any luck, they'll replicate those MAGIC experiments for us.

still fishing for a nonexistent solution there?)

I'm fishing for an *empirical* and demonstrated solution, unlike your "make-believe" dark sky thingies that your wave at every observation you see.

- but more though because, like the above, you sometimes just make stuff up when you hear words like...positron.

No, it's *you* that is simply "making things up". Whereas positron (and electron) releases have been empirically linked to "electrical discharges", both on Earth and in the solar atmosphere, "dark matter" is a total dud in terms of actually "doing" anything in a real science experiment with real control mechanisms. It's never released a single positron in any observed test of concept.

You then just looked for other sources of positrons, thinking that you could then say "but ah, look at this, don't they come from here, he omitted this source!

You folks *conveniently* ignored the *single most common* way of emitting high energy positrons, and you utterly ignored the fact that solar flare emit them and sometimes flares emit charged particles at a significant portion of the speed of light! You simply *ignored* nature's most common way of creating/emitting them!

Positrons don't prove anything!"....not realising that that isn't what the observation hinges on. Hence your citing dark lightning stuff above...you didn't read the work.

Your false accusations are really getting old at this point. It seems you need a regular "fix" of personal insult in your posts. Why is that david? Can't you have a rational discussion and clean debate about a *topic* rather than a person?

Please read carefully:

The detection that is significant in all these experiments is not merely the detection of positrons - as you seem to misunderstand in the above posts - but the detection of a multi-GeV positron excess over electrons that is isotropic in terms of direction. The positron fraction is not steady but varies depending on energy level. If you measure, as AMS does, the ratio of positrons to electrons and draw a curve of this against energy range, the curve observed can only be explained (so far) by either pulsars or dark matter annihilation.

False! The fact that electrical discharges *near Earth* don't emit such high energy positrons doesn't mean that *no electrical discharge* could do so! You're simply *assuming* things again. Pulsars are simply rapidly spinning neutron stars surrounded by *gigantic* sized "electrical discharges" that are induced in the plasma and created by the rapidly spinning EM field. The only *known* way to emit high energy positron is with *electrical discharges*! Your mythical sky entities have never been observed to emit a single positron on Earth or in the solar atmosphere. You simply "pray to your sky thingy" that they finally show up in a couple of years at the next round of LHC tests, or it's pretty much curtains for your sky mythology.

Particularly see the PAMELA curves - see here, page 20.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.3522v1.pdf

Do you get that? How do you explain this with your model, or the alternatives you suggested? Are they convincing explanations, or even vaguely relevant, or is the limit of their relevance the simple fact the word 'positron' is in there?

Let me ask you this david: Have you ever sat down and actually read any (preferably all) of Birkeland's work? He's the first person in published history to claim that "space" was charged "positively" with respect to the cathode sun. He *predicted* that space has an overabundance of positively charged particles david. That's what the cathode suns interact with!

I'd "explain" the abundance of positrons because once they are released in "electrical discharges" in space, along with electrons, they pretty much "blend in" with the other positively charged high energy particles, whereas the electrons are "attractive" to all the high energy cosmic ray particles. Some electrons interact with protons in the IGM, leaving some leftover high energy positrons without "pairs". It's doesn't take mythical forms of matter to explain a positron abundance in spacetime. Birkeland *predicted* that space was positively charged with respect to every cathode sun.

I think you just looked up sources of positrons because you didn't get the point of the positron-electron ratio.

I think you just thrive on picking on people when/because the science isn't actually on your side. Your mythical forms of matter are a total dud in terms of producing *any* positrons at all, and you don't have Birkeland like figure who *predicted* that space was positively charged with respect to a sun.

Perhaps, since you think it's a 'confirmation' of this ambiplasma idea, you could show why "ambiplasma" would be predicted to produce an excess of positrons over electrons, observed isotropically?

You simply lose more electrons to the protons in the IGM, and therefore you end up with an "excess of positrons". Big deal! It's *easily* explained in Birkeland's theories, probably even in Alfven's theories.

I'm going to deal with your so called "dark matter detectors" in a separate post, since it warrants a whole separate post.

 

[Michael]

More importantly, I don't know if you saw the latest from CDMS from the last couple of days...maybe you did and hadn't wanted to post it since it's such clear evidence against your position...but here is is.

http://cdms.berkeley.edu/CDMSII_Si_DM_Results.pdf

They are now up to a 3 Sigma confidence on non-baryonic dark matter detection at 8.6 GeV/c² (surprisingly low but interesting)...large orders of confidence beyond that which 'dark flow' managed (at best not even to 1.4 sigma, and with better statistical analysis including CMB channel correlations, around 0.6 sigma at best).

BBC News - Dark matter experiment CDMS sees three tentative clues

Ok, lets "talk" about the so called "dark matter detector" experiments, and let's note some of the facts that you *failed* to mention:

The facility reported two potential dark matter sightings in 2010, but those later turned out to come from the instrument itself.

The last couple of times that this facility "cried wolf", they had something like 67 "possible hits". This time they only have three. Worse yet, there is a 5.4 percent chance it's simply 'background noise". You got your three sigma number by "subjectively interpreting" the energy ranges the way you want.

Note too that you have absolutely no 'control mechanism" involved in this experiment, nor in the last 'cry wolf' studies either. What they do is "guestimate" how many neutron hits and such they "should see" and then they use a "dark matter the the gaps" argument to stuff into anything they can find that falls outside of that "guestimation".

Unlike neutrino experiments where we could turn on and off a known/theorized source of neutrinos, you have absolutely no control mechanism at all to verify these three events are in any way related to "dark matter".

Further, it does not match up with results published in Physical Review Letters from another underground experiment in Italy called Xenon.

You're just going to ignore that problem, as well as their track record problems eh?

Just like those detections of high energy positrons in space, you're playing a 'dark matter of the gaps' card from the start. You have no evidence whatseover that "dark matter" is related to the three events in question, nor to the release of any positron at any energy state. They whole thing is one big *mathematical mythology based upon pure assumption*!

I 'predict' that the energy states of this exotic matter will continue to rise every single time there is another failure at LHC to find exotic forms of matter. Even if they do find other particles at high energy ranges, there's absolutely no guarantee that such mythical particles would have the longevity or other "properties" that you need to save your precious dark sky mythology from a standard scientific death.

If you "actually" had any *controlled experimental evidence* that exotic matter exists, and that it emits positrons at various energy states, and it has an effect on these detectors, and these particles have the longevity and other properties you need, I'd actually be impressed.

What you have however is a "dark matter of the gaps" argument, and a group that has a known "history" of crying wolf, now running around claiming that they have evidence for exotic matter with a three sigma confidence!

Yawn.

Ya know.....

The most telling part of this conversation IMO was your reaction to that 4 billion light year long structure in space. Never once during the conversation did you ever concede that it would be a falsification of your theory. You apparently wouldn't give up your dark sky mythology even *if* there are in fact structures that are larger than 'predicted'. What you have conclusively demonstrated is that your theory is unfalsifiable. There is no logical method to falsify a theory with ever moving goal posts. There is no logical method to demonstrate a negative either, so nobody can "prove" that dark matter does not exist, or that it does not emit positrons, or that it does not interact with these underground detectors. In short, as long as you keep moving the goal posts, and crying wolf every few years, the funding keeps flowing. The minute you folks stop moving the goal posts, and limit your arguments to empirically demonstrated claims, the whole theory falls apart.

A) You can't demonstrate that exotic forms of matter exist.
B) You can't demonstrate they have the lifespan required to explain cosmological events.
C) You can't demonstrate exotic matter has some any effect on the detectors in question in controlled experimentation.
D) You can't demonstrate they have the *same* effect as the three events observed
E) You can't demonstrate that exotic matter emits positron.
F) Your theory is an *epic fail* at every level, in every LHC experiment run to date
G) Your group has a demonstrated history of 'crying wolf' in the past.

Sure, other than these "few" problems, you might have a prayers chance in pagan hades of actually demonstrating your claims.

 

[Michael]

Six lines of algebra very clearly demonstrate this alternative is impossible. Impossible. Not possible. The very opposite of possible.

Ya, ya, and someone probably had six lines of algebra to demonstrate we could never travel faster than sound too.

It's a tad irritating frankly that you *abuse* the fact that we can actually "empirically link" redshift to plasma, and this 'typically' shows photon deflection. You then *abuse* that "typical deflection" observation in *some* forms of scattering to the point of absurdity. I've explained now several times that no energy conservation laws are violated. Any loss of momentum from the photons is simply transferred to the medium. You on the other hand keep claiming that 'dark energy remains constant' throughout volume increases. You never even bat an eye at your violation of energy conservation laws simply because it makes GR "complicated enough" that nobody can disprove your claim based on conservation laws! Oy Vey.

You have no answer to the objection, you just merely repeated the false assertion, again.

I'm still learning about inelastic scattering! I already provided you with one study that showed that the wave itself influences the individual *particle interactions*. You don't care. You've also never once produced an image at the highest redshifts that *are not blurred*! When can I expect you to do that?

Until you have something credible, like a model that gets around the objection,

I have many laboratory experiments that link photon redshift to inelastic scattering and I've seen zero support of your claim that the highest redshifted objects exhibit no blurring.

your claim of 'simple and demonstrated' is a simple lie.

You're little 'quick on the trigger' with that "lie" claim considering the fact you've never produced a high redshift galaxy that has zero blurring. It's also rather premature since you've never linked photon redshift with 'expanding space' in controlled experiments, nor with "dark energy". The only reason you can 'complain' about inelastic scattering is because *it can be tested*!

Sorry. You know that you have no model, yet you claim that it exists and is "simple and demonstrated".

Inelastic scattering has been demonstrated to cause photon redshift in the lab, including that experiment by Chen. Yes, I know your industry has an aversion to AC and DC in space, but you'll eventually have to get over it.

It is not either of these things, because you cannot "simply demonstrate" a way around a very simple, basic objection, as clear as any objection as one might hope for in physics. You just ignore it and hope it will be forgotten.

You seem to simply ignore the fact that inelastic scattering *can* be tested in the lab, in a variety of configurations. Until you can actually demonstrate that the highest redshifted objects are not blurred, you don't even have a valid objection.

 

[Michael]

FYI david, others are starting to notice that inflation theory is in deep trouble:

Higgs data could spell trouble for leading Big Bang theory : Nature News & Comment

[1304.2785] Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck2013

The recent Planck satellite combined with earlier results eliminate a wide spectrum of more complex inflationary models and favor models with a single scalar field, as reported in the analysis of the collaboration. More important, though, is that all the simplest inflaton models are disfavored by the data while the surviving models -- namely, those with plateau-like potentials -- are problematic. We discuss how the restriction to plateau-like models leads to three independent problems: it exacerbates both the initial conditions problem and the multiverse-unpredictability problem and it creates a new difficulty which we call the inflationary "unlikeliness problem." Finally, we comment on problems reconciling inflation with a standard model Higgs, as suggested by recent LHC results. In sum, we find that recent experimental data disfavors all the best-motivated inflationary scenarios and introduces new, serious difficulties that cut to the core of the inflationary paradigm. Forthcoming searches for B-modes, non-Gaussianity and new particles should be decisive.

 

[davidbilby]

FYI david, others are starting to notice that inflation theory is in deep trouble:

Higgs data could spell trouble for leading Big Bang theory : Nature News & Comment

[1304.2785] Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck2013

Oh man. You're like a bad sub-editor.

Firstly, 'others' aren't 'starting' to do anything...Steinhardt has been a cyclic proponent for years. There have been cyclic models for years. There are other models in addition to his. There are many alternatives that are being discussed, have been discussed, and probably will be discussed in the future to inflationary theory. Those (like tired light) that are demonstrably wrong fall by the wayside.

If you want to resurrect them you have to post evidence in FAVOR of your position, and rebuttals to the valid points made against your position...not just merely spew out anything you find on google that matches "evidence against inflation".

If you notice, as I knew before I read it being reasonably familiar with this particular idea (Penrose's cyclic cosmology was more interesting, btw, which is why I'm familiar with it...)...the article also goes on to point out (as have many people in the field) that LHC constrains Steinhardt's ideas more than it does inflationary ideas, and that you have to make certain likelihood assumptions (as you do with Penrose's work) about the prior state of the universe before the Planck time.

What makes Steinhardt necessarily correct in your eyes? Evidence? Did you examine his position? Or just that you think he agrees with you (despite the fact that he'd most certainly laugh at your tired light nonsense, and your cosmologies don't even vaguely agree).

Secondly, because you have no actual evidence for your own position (e.g. a mathematical model, and data to agree with it, and predictions from that model we can test) you think, in a creationist-like manner, that all you have to do is present evidence 'against' inflation, just like they think invalidating evolutionary theory. P.S. If you think the cycle is complete and now it's time to bring Holushko up again...as 'generic math' perhaps, because you think we didn't notice how you didn't bother to actually engage in any discussion about the myriad errors and false assumptions in his work. Or maybe it's time for some Ashmore. I don't know. I don't care. Since you don't bother to rebutt valid points, debating you is a waste of time.

 

[davidbilby]

Ya, ya, and someone probably had six lines of algebra to demonstrate we could never travel faster than sound too.

No, they didn't. Because that isn't mathematically impossible, just like many other things aren't mathematically impossible. Basically you're evading the point by saying "yeah, yeah, I've not got a clue, maybe somebody else didn't have a clue once upon a time"...

It's a tad irritating frankly that you *abuse* the fact that we can actually "empirically link" redshift to plasma

What kind of redshift? Cosmological, species and wavelength independent redshift? No, you can't. Nice try.

and this 'typically' shows photon deflection.

If the frequency changes, the photon is always deflected, due to conservation of momentum. Simple quantum mechanics. Rebut or move on.

You then *abuse* that "typical deflection" observation in *some* forms of scattering to the point of absurdity.

Show me one event in any experiment anywhere ever which has shown a different result. One. If the photon frequency changes in an interaction with an electron, the emitted photon will be in a different direction. Simple quantum mechanics.

I've explained now several times that no energy conservation laws are violated.

Six lines of algebra demonstrate that is untrue. We take the state before and the state after and check the budget. You're simply wrong.

Any loss of momentum from the photons is simply transferred to the medium.

Yes, but that doesn't actually speak as to photon travel path. To know that you have to calculate whether a transverse velocity component is required to make it work, which it is. If the frequency changes the photon is deflected off at an angle. This is simple quantum mechanics.

You on the other hand keep claiming that 'dark energy remains constant' throughout volume increases.

Once again, you ignore swathes of rebuttal. Classical energy conservation does not hold in GR the way it does in QM unless you invoke certain special cases like the Hamiltonian of the entire universe being equal to zero.

Unfortunately, for you, it DOES hold in QM, and you can't ignore budget balancing there. If you don't like that, tough, that's the way the universe seems to work. In small discrete closed packets we can say energy is conserved...but as to the whole universe, we cannot.

You never even bat an eye at your violation of energy conservation laws simply because it makes GR "complicated enough" that nobody can disprove your claim based on conservation laws! Oy Vey.

Nobody? Pardon? Just because you haven't done any real studying of GR to understand why you are wrong doesn't mean others haven't figured out the simple truth of what I'm saying. Please point me to a major textbook or any physics work whatsoever that says that energy conservation in the classical or QM sense holds under GR, as regards the 'energy of the whole universe, for example. Find a single person who agrees with you and disagrees with what I just stated.

Bet you can't. Maybe that's another big conspiracy, starting with Einstein onwards. Sure. Or maybe it's because I'm right and you're wrong, because I've studied it extensively and you haven't.

I'm still learning about inelastic scattering!

Then how on earth can you make statements about energy conservation under GR? How on earth can you judge whether an inelastic scattering approach is applicable to the cosmological redshift? How can you sit there and tell me how wrong I am when you don't even have a grasp on the subject?

I already provided you with one study that showed that the wave itself influences the individual *particle interactions*. You don't care.

Again, because it's not relevant to the cosmological redshift, which is wavelength independent...

You've also never once produced an image at the highest redshifts that *are not blurred*! When can I expect you to do that?

Your straw man is busy poisoning the well today, isn't it? Let's be clear...are you saying that blurring does take place? Are you admitting that, because that would be the only way you could get around some simple QM?

Because that would be the only reason you'd ask for blurred images...right? (This is also forgetting any more simple concepts of the optical resolution of telescopes and digital images which you ignore entirely, but never mind).

I have many laboratory experiments that link photon redshift to inelastic scattering

No, you have some irrelevant papers talking about entirely different effects which you think are relevant because you don't understand them.

How many link the cosmological redshift with inelastic scattering?

That'd be none.

and I've seen zero support of your claim that the highest redshifted objects exhibit no blurring.

A deflection angle of 1 trillionth of a degree from the Cartwheel galaxy would cause said photon to miss Earth entirely by around 40 million miles. Maybe you should forget blurring, as I've stated before, and consider "complete destruction of any useful image whatsoever". The sky would be an even light, nothing else, nothing would be discernible, certainly not at 500 million miles. Zwicky figured that out....decades ago....

You're little 'quick on the trigger' with that "lie" claim considering the fact you've never produced a high redshift galaxy that has zero blurring.

Again, see above. Strawman, and irrelevant since blurring is really not the word. Forget 'fuzzy'. Think 'completely destroyed image', or 'entire night sky just one big blur". Curious again that now you WANT blurring to be happening, when you're railing against me for 'assuming that it's happening in all cases of photon-electron interaction', which implies you don't want blurring to be happening because you realise how catastrophic it is. Which is it?

It's also rather premature since you've never linked photon redshift with 'expanding space' in controlled experiments, nor with "dark energy".

Do you deny that an expanding space-time would redshift the observed light from galaxies thus receding away from us, in a wavelength independent manner exactly as seen with the observed cosmological redshift, in all directions? Put your objections aside for a second as to whether it does or is....as a theoretical model, would it produce the observed redshift? Yes or no, with an explanation if the answer is 'no'...which I'd love to hear.

The only reason you can 'complain' about inelastic scattering is because *it can be tested*!

As regards the observed cosmological redshift, yes it can be, with simple quantum mechanics mathematics. It's demonstrably wrong. Struck out on the very first pitch.

Inelastic scattering has been demonstrated to cause photon redshift in the lab, including that experiment by Chen. Yes, I know your industry has an aversion to AC and DC in space, but you'll eventually have to get over it.

And the carbon nanotubes in space are where? The carbon nuclei in intergalactic plasma....are where? The temperatures shown in the Chen paper are shown to exist in intergalactic plasma...where? The mathematical model scaling the Chen work up to the cosmological redshift...is where? The link between the species and wavelength dependent AC Stark effect (what is actually discussed in the paper) and the wavelength independent cosmological redshift...is where? The lasers inducing the effect evenly in all directions such that we observe a cosmological redshift that appears the same in all directions...are where?

These are all prior rebuttals to which you have had no comment whatsoever, that show the Chen paper to be completely irrelevant to the cosmological redshift (but very nice for certain fields of optics).

Our industry has a very strong aversion to being completely, utterly, factually, demonstrably wrong, which is why it doesn't support your idea.

You seem to simply ignore the fact that inelastic scattering *can* be tested in the lab, in a variety of configurations. Until you can actually demonstrate that the highest redshifted objects are not blurred, you don't even have a valid objection.

Again, see above on blurring. Do you want blurring to happen in your model of tired light (I'd understand why, since then you don't have to answer six lines of algebra, which seems to scare you immensely)...but then...how much should we observe? If you define a photon electron interaction as you do, we can very simply (using QM) calculate the blurring angles that should be observed for a given redshift.

Assuming that a photon from the Cartwheel galaxy could not deviate from its path by any more than say... one trillionth of a degree, what frequency change can be expected? I'm sure you're able to work that out, that's basic QM. (incidentally, one trillionth of a degree for said galaxy would put the photon somewhere near Mars instead of on Earth...and we can resolve clear structures within said Galaxy. That shouldn't be possible according to you....)

You've constructed this strawman entirely yourself. Just because we say "tired light would cause blurring" (where blurring should really read...forget about seeing another galaxy at all...does not mean that your principle task is to look for fuzzy looking objects (ignoring anything about optical resolutions) and say 'look! Blurring! Tired light is right!".

Blurring is the wrong word. Total destruction of the image would be better. Ok?

 

[Michael]

No, they didn't. Because that isn't mathematically impossible, just like many other things aren't mathematically impossible. Basically you're evading the point by saying "yeah, yeah, I've not got a clue, maybe somebody else didn't have a clue once upon a time"...

Yes there absolutely were "skeptics" that claimed that humans could not break the sound barrier, and I'm sure they used a few useless math formulas to support those false assertions, just like you'd love to insist that your 6 lines of algebra somehow falsify the whole of PC theory. Foregetaboutit.

How do your formulas even apply to something like Brillouin scattering? You mean to tell me that photons traverse billions of light years and *never* encounter a single change in temperature or EM field density?

What kind of redshift? Cosmological, species and wavelength independent redshift? No, you can't. Nice try.

Even if that's true, an honest "I don't know" is a whole lot better than claiming "my dark sky entity did it".

FYI, there are new studies that call suggest the same thing that Brillouin scattering, and Holushko suggest, namely light is affected by the *medium* in which it travels!

Speed-of-light fluctuations prompted by ephemeral vacuum particles | TG Daily

Oh look, it's an "aether" of sorts, but we won't call it an aether.

If the frequency changes, the photon is always deflected, due to conservation of momentum. Simple quantum mechanics. Rebut or move on.

How do your formulas address Brillouin scattering, or the recent papers I suggested?

Show me one event in any experiment anywhere ever which has shown a different result. One. If the photon frequency changes in an interaction with an electron, the emitted photon will be in a different direction. Simple quantum mechanics.

I still have no idea why you *insist* it has to interact with particle directly, as opposed to simply a "heat gradient", or a EM field gradient along the way. Care to explain?

Six lines of algebra demonstrate that is untrue. We take the state before and the state after and check the budget. You're simply wrong.

Your six lines of algebra prove absolutely nothing other than than the fact that you're incapable of even being scientifically open minded.

Yes, but that doesn't actually speak as to photon travel path. To know that you have to calculate whether a transverse velocity component is required to make it work, which it is. If the frequency changes the photon is deflected off at an angle. This is simple quantum mechanics.

Ya know...

For several posts now I've asked you to provide me with a *high* (near the limit) redshifted object that isn't "blurry". You've yet to do that. Do you think anyone else has noticed how you run from that request?

Once again, you ignore swathes of rebuttal. Classical energy conservation does not hold in GR the way it does in QM unless you invoke certain special cases like the Hamiltonian of the entire universe being equal to zero.

It's unfathomable to me how you can be so obviously intelligent, yet so obviously closed minded toward basic empirical physics. Somehow in your mind, if you address *only Compton scattering*, you've ruled out every type of inelastic scattering in the universe, including Brillouin scattering. How did you become so *absolutely* certain that your beliefs have merit, when the overwhelming evidence shows that the "predictions" of your theory keep being refuted by the observations?

Early Galaxies Were Ahead of Their Time - SpaceRef

Astronomers using Europe's Herschel Space Observatory have discovered a distant galaxy that challenges the current theories of galaxy evolution. Seen when the universe was less than a billion years old, it is forming stars at a much faster rate than should be possible according to existing predictions.

Ooops?

Unfortunately, for you, it DOES hold in QM, and you can't ignore budget balancing there. If you don't like that, tough, that's the way the universe seems to work. In small discrete closed packets we can say energy is conserved...but as to the whole universe, we cannot.

Nobody is ignoring the budget balancing. Any moment lost by the photon is simply passed on to the *medium* it traverses. Unlike your magical acceleration component, no "constant acceleration" is required to balance any budgets, and no fudging of the numbers has to take place!

Nobody? Pardon? Just because you haven't done any real studying of GR to understand why you are wrong doesn't mean others haven't figured out the simple truth of what I'm saying.

There is no "absolute truth" in your claims, just "personal opinions" of one guy that clearly has no ability to even question their own beliefs.

Please point me to a major textbook or any physics work whatsoever that says that energy conservation in the classical or QM sense holds under GR, as regards the 'energy of the whole universe, for example. Find a single person who agrees with you and disagrees with what I just stated.

In other words, if enough "experts" agree that stuffing *magic* into a GR formula is "ok", it's "ok". Anyone that disagrees is to be personally attacked and called "uneducated".

Bet you can't. Maybe that's another big conspiracy, starting with Einstein onwards. Sure. Or maybe it's because I'm right and you're wrong, because I've studied it extensively and you haven't.

Have you studied EU theory extensively too, or just your own "religion" that requires absolutely "faith" in three unseen (in the lab) entities?

Then how on earth can you make statements about energy conservation under GR?

If we were discussing Newtons ideas, this would be a "no brainer". Anything that causes "acceleration" is "extra energy". Any energy that fails to disparate over exponential volume increases would clearly be a "supernatural" construct. Apparently you figure if you muck it up inside of a GR formula, and complicate the hell out of the concept, the problem magically goes away. That just shows you how much a "religion" it's become.

Name one thing that runs on "dark energy"?

How on earth can you judge whether an inelastic scattering approach is applicable to the cosmological redshift?

Because in the lab, real plasma has a real effect on real photons. That's far more than can be said for your impotent sky thingamabobs.

How can you sit there and tell me how wrong I am when you don't even have a grasp on the subject?

If I didn't actually "grasp" the subject, I wouldn't be here at all. The fact of the matter is that I've watched your industry kludge simple observations for almost 30 years now. I know you're wrong about dark energy just like I know your wrong about suns being simple balls of plasma. I've watched your industry ignore the data that falsifies your claims for more than 30 years. Now that the WMAP "anomalies" have been confirmed in more recent studies, there's now a full court press to move the goalposts again.

Again, because it's not relevant to the cosmological redshift, which is wavelength independent...

Is Brillouin scattering wavelength independent, or wavelength dependent?

Your straw man is busy poisoning the well today, isn't it? Let's be clear...are you saying that blurring does take place? Are you admitting that, because that would be the only way you could get around some simple QM?

Absolutely not! I'm calling you out. You keep claiming that the highest redshift objects are not blurry and I fail to believe you. Prove it.

Because that would be the only reason you'd ask for blurred images...right? (This is also forgetting any more simple concepts of the optical resolution of telescopes and digital images which you ignore entirely, but never mind).

I've seen a lot of various wavelength images in all sorts of directions. I happen do know for a fact that "dust" does in fact interfere with our views in *many* directions, and *many* wavelengths. You're *oversimplifying* the claims.

I'll pick up where I left off after I get a cup of coffee.

 

[Michael]

No, you have some irrelevant papers talking about entirely different effects which you think are relevant because you don't understand them.

Baloney. I have entirely relevant papers and experiments that all demonstrate that inelastic scattering happens in plasma. What you have is a sky mythology that begin and ends by suspending the known laws of physics. Somehow your magic photons weave and dodge their way around every temperature variation in space, every EM field gradient in space, every plasma particle and every piece of dust in space to arrive on Earth "unaffected" and unchanged by the medium in which they travel.

How many link the cosmological redshift with inelastic scattering?

That'd be none.

That would be because your entire industry is too arrogant to actually test anything in a real lab. I guess you folks figure if you never collectively *test* any of your ideas in the lab, it can't fail that test. As LHC demonstrates, even *outright failures* of *the* most "popular" brands of SUSY fails to deter your unshakable "faith" in exotic forms of matter. Even when more mass in the form of million degree plasma is 'found' right where your "dark matter" is supposed to be located, you folks blithely ignore it!

A deflection angle of 1 trillionth of a degree from the Cartwheel galaxy would cause said photon to miss Earth entirely by around 40 million miles.

You completely ignored that article/paper I cited that showed that photons tend to travel in *waves*, and the *wave* has an affect on individual particle interactions. You have a track record now of simply *ignoring* all the "observations" that don't fit with your mythology, and you've demonstrated conclusively that there is no way to actually "falsify" your ever changing beliefs.

Maybe you should forget blurring, as I've stated before, and consider "complete destruction of any useful image whatsoever". The sky would be an even light, nothing else, nothing would be discernible, certainly not at 500 million miles. Zwicky figured that out....decades ago....

Apparently one guy from 1925 knew everything there was to know about QM and inelastic scattering apparently. Zwicky was busy *selling his own theory*, and his calculations have nothing at all to do with Brillouin scattering, or anything other than perhaps two types of scattering.

Again, see above. Strawman, and irrelevant since blurring is really not the word. Forget 'fuzzy'. Think 'completely destroyed image', or 'entire night sky just one big blur".

In other words, "think" they way your tell me to think or else you'll attack me as a person, it that the concept? Somehow I'm ignorant if I don't think like you do?

Curious again that now you WANT blurring to be happening, when you're railing against me for 'assuming that it's happening in all cases of photon-electron interaction', which implies you don't want blurring to be happening because you realise how catastrophic it is. Which is it?

I realize two things you don't wish to deal with. I realize that you are incapable of accepting the fact that Brillouin scattering, and all sorts of particle interactions will take place in spacetime, and your theory doesn't account for that. I also realize that your theory is predicated upon a false claim. At the highest redshifts the images *are blurry*. There are telltale signs of scattering in those objects. Your entire claim is bogus at both ends of the spectrum. Your scattering claims are based upon *oversimplification* fallacies from 1925, and bogus claims about objects not being "blurred". They *are* blurred, particularly at the highest redshifts. Your arguments is based upon two individual fallacies.

Do you deny that an expanding space-time would redshift the observed light from galaxies thus receding away from us, in a wavelength independent manner exactly as seen with the observed cosmological redshift, in all directions? Put your objections aside for a second as to whether it does or is....as a theoretical model, would it produce the observed redshift? Yes or no, with an explanation if the answer is 'no'...which I'd love to hear.

"Assuming" you were talking about the "expansion of objects", and stuck to to the concept of "time dilation" in terms of the observations, I might buy your "explanation". For instance, I might buy an "expansion" theory like this one:

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

When you folks *assume* that "space" does magic expanding tricks however, I want to hurl.

As regards the observed cosmological redshift, yes it can be, with simple quantum mechanics mathematics. It's demonstrably wrong. Struck out on the very first pitch.

The "very first pitch" claim is akin to a YEC proponent claiming that evolutionary theory strikes out on some "very first pitch" they throw out there in some absurd attempt to "debunk" EV theory with a handwavy argument, in your case from 1925 apparently.

And the carbon nanotubes in space are where? The carbon nuclei in intergalactic plasma....are where? The temperatures shown in the Chen paper are shown to exist in intergalactic plasma...where?

Did you even bother to read that article about those million degree plasmas that surround every galaxy that contain more mass than the rest of the galaxy? Did you even consider the implications of photons traversing a *real medium* rather than an oversimplified "vacuum"?

The mathematical model scaling the Chen work up to the cosmological redshift...is where?

I believe that was in Ashmore's work which you flippantly handwaved away because it wasn't "demonstrated" in the lab, as if your sky entities has enjoyed such luxuries.

The link between the species and wavelength dependent AC Stark effect (what is actually discussed in the paper) and the wavelength independent cosmological redshift...is where?

Holy Cow! Your entire industry hasn't even figure out that stars are "electrical" in nature yet, and you want published papers on AC and DC in space? Really? Give me a break. The pure phobia towards electricity in space is palpable in your industry. You folks simply ignore that possibility entirely. Why would you folks write about it?

The lasers inducing the effect evenly in all directions such that we observe a cosmological redshift that appears the same in all directions...are where?

Again, it's just *one* kind of redshift. How about Brillouin scattering? How did all those photons manage to traverse billions of light years, and never experience any temperature or EM gradients in all that time/distance? Talk about *miracles* that are necessary in a "religion"! Wow!

These are all prior rebuttals to which you have had no comment whatsoever, that show the Chen paper to be completely irrelevant to the cosmological redshift (but very nice for certain fields of optics).

You show everyone just how closed minded you've become IMO. Chen simply demonstrates *one* type of inelastic scattering, yet there are *many* to choose from. Your superhero Zwicky was *selling* another "static universe" theory when dissing inelastic scattering, and he'd only "seen" galaxies that were relatively "close" compared to the ones we observe today at the highest redshifts.

Our industry has a very strong aversion to being completely, utterly, factually, demonstrably wrong, which is why it doesn't support your idea.

Oh boloney. It has a pure aversion to empirical physics, and particularly any mention of electricity in space. The entirely belief system is that *zero* Brillouin scattering and *zero* other types of scattering take place in the plasma of spacetime, even though they take place in plasmas on Earth.

Again, see above on blurring. Do you want blurring to happen in your model of tired light (I'd understand why, since then you don't have to answer six lines of algebra, which seems to scare you immensely)...but then...how much should we observe? If you define a photon electron interaction as you do, we can very simply (using QM) calculate the blurring angles that should be observed for a given redshift.

You're asking me to do the job that you should be doing. Why? I'm not getting "paid" to study photon redshift.

Assuming that a photon from the Cartwheel galaxy could not deviate from its path by any more than say... one trillionth of a degree, what frequency change can be expected? I'm sure you're able to work that out, that's basic QM. (incidentally, one trillionth of a degree for said galaxy would put the photon somewhere near Mars instead of on Earth...and we can resolve clear structures within said Galaxy. That shouldn't be possible according to you....)

It would be a lot easier to communicate if you didn't stick words in my mouth in every post.

You've constructed this strawman entirely yourself. Just because we say "tired light would cause blurring" (where blurring should really read...forget about seeing another galaxy at all...does not mean that your principle task is to look for fuzzy looking objects (ignoring anything about optical resolutions) and say 'look! Blurring! Tired light is right!".

Inelastic scattering is a given in the lab. Why should I *assume* it magically never occurs in the million degree plasmas around our galaxy, or anywhere else in spacetime?

Blurring is the wrong word. Total destruction of the image would be better. Ok?

No, it's not "ok" for you to make "assumptions" and toy around with words like that. If you're going to claim your reason from embracing expansion over inelastic scattering is based upon "knowledge", I'll need real laboratory evidence to support that assertion. All I have so far from you is some paper written in 1925 by a guy that was *intentionally selling an alternative theory*, and six lines of algebra that you "swear" eliminate the possibility of photons loosing momentum to the medium in which they travel. I simply don't buy your claim.

 

[davidbilby]

Yes there absolutely were "skeptics" that claimed that humans could not break the sound barrier, and I'm sure they used a few useless math formulas to support those false assertions

Not so much, no. In fact not at all. Nobody ever used math to show that, partly because a simple whip would show they were wrong!

In fact, the 'barrier' notion actually came about because of an aerodynamicist called William Hilton, who used the word not in the sense of 'it's impossible'. What he actually said was "the resistance of a wing shoots up like a barrier against high speed as we approach the speed of sound" which got misinterpreted by the press as "it's impossible to break the sound barrier", which again, is demonstrably false (and a good reason not to trust press releases as "science").

There was no math to show why we couldn't go faster than the speed of sound. Anywhere, ever. There's no mathematical construct that could show that. It's not like C!

So you're just flat out wrong, making it up as you go along and drawing incorrect parallels with irrelevant subjects....

I'm going to skip the usual froth and jump to showing you in vivid terms how wrong you are on inelastic scattering, Brillouin or otherwise. Brillouin scattering is wavelength dependent, by the way - sorry. I'm surprised you didn't know that, given your 'grasp' of this subject. Worse, however, it is only relevant to light in a medium, and a medium - funnily enough, has a refractive index. Even worse, it requires that medium have phonons or other modes, and just a simple bit of thought about how those would have to be aligned, even if we did assume that an aether existed and Michelson-Morley nulls were wrong, would show that the idea is silly. At best it's almost a geocentric model of the universe!

There is no lumineferous aether that light must propagate through. Holushko is saying that there is - that light would not propagate without it, that it is just like sound, that light is a wave in medium. Do you get the implication of what he's saying? He is not saying light just hits stuff sometimes - he is saying light propagates through a medium and only through a medium.

He is invalidating GR. There is no way around that, no way to fudge what he's saying to pretend it's relevant to what your saying. It's just woo. It's just...wrong. It's absurd given the empirical evidence of the last century, especially verification of GR to extraordinarily precise degrees.

Absolutely not! I'm calling you out. You keep claiming that the highest redshift objects are not blurry and I fail to believe you. Prove it.

Please define "blurry". This is where (well one of the places anyhow) you're going wrong. You've grasped on to a word - a throwaway word really, because the subject deserves so little attention as it as so little merit, and now you think that you see even the slightest fuzziness on a picture and boom, you found your blurring! Blurring should be seen. There's a blurry picture! Job Done!

Yeah...er...no. Let's prove why, with that thing you just hate - math. It's pretty absurd math, and really shouldn't need demonstrating (btw, Zwicky didn't say blurring - in 1929 he said anybody who thought blurring would occur would be in a "hopeless position", which is a rather better way of describing it).

For a close galaxy - the Cartwheel - (not even z=1) the offset to photon travel path has to be less than 1 forty million trillionth of a degree such that the spread of the image, the "blurring", would encompass a mile (which is still too big, but just for illustration). A trillionth of a degree off course causes a miss of forty million miles - as previously shown in this thread - so we need 1 forty million trillionth of a degree to reduce the offset to about a mile.

Still way too big (we're really talking millimeters or much less to ever so "slightly" blur an image, 500 million miles away), but whatever.

You are saying that the photons are interacting with plasma causing redshift, so we are pretty much inescapably talking photon-electron interactions in terms of QM...

We know the relationship between scattering angle - the blurring offset shall we say - and the frequency shift that goes along with it.

They are related in all photon-electron interactions of sufficient energy where the photoelectric effect would not take place instead, such that you would find the frequency shift λ′ − λ thus:

λ′ − λ = h/mc times (1 - cos&#952 where m is the mass of the electron.

So h/mc - which we know is equal to 2.43 x 10_-12 (10 to the minus twelfth power)

...is multiplied by (1 - cos&#952

so:

θ = 0.00000000000000000025 degrees (one forty million trillionth of a degree)

therefore

cosθ = 0.99999999999999999975

(1 - cos&#952 = 0.00000000000000000025

λ′ − λ - the frequency shift for that tiny deflection that is already still too big - is going to equal

0.00000000000000000025 times 2.43 x 10_-12

so

0.00000000000000000025 x 0.00000000000243

= 6.075 x 10 to the minus 31st power.

λ′ − λ = 0.0000000000000000000000000000006075 meters

That's a rough overestimation - a considerable overestimation - and the angle is still orders of magnitude too big. And then, to compound that - for a distant galaxy of many billions of light years away, the problem is orders of magnitude worse. This is for a close galaxy!

Do you possibly see now why inelastic scattering - any kind - is not right? It's a completely ridiculous notion that images from deep space are somehow blurred due to inelastic scattering. Absurd. Monumentally crazy to no less than 31 powers for a close galaxy.

"Blurring" doesn't occur as part of the cosmological redshift. It simply doesn't occur. Even the tiniest of angles off course from a distant object means that we don't get to see said object at all and the sky is just a big giant "blur". Forget even seeing distant galaxies, certainly not as point objects many billions of light years away.

I don't know how more starkly I can put it. You're just....wrong. It is a "hopeless position".

And others have been wrong before you - you are clinging to BKS theory, in essence. You want to describe photons and electrons (and the entire universe, ironically) using classical physics. It doesn't work, and it hasn't worked for a long, long, long time. Eight decades, or so. Come join us in the 21st Century.

BKS theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[davidbilby]

Incidentally - the frequency shift - the redshift observed there is not very much bigger than the Planck length...which should illustrate how silly the idea is, given that it's still order of magnitude too big and we're talking about a close galaxy - not even a distant one, not even z=1 let alone higher redshifts....

 

[Elendur]

Just popping in fast:
I've been over the math before.

Ok. I'm going to ask you something about some math.

Closest star, except our sun:
Alpha Centauri
Distance
4.2421(16) light years
4.0118*10^13 to 4.0149*10^13 km

Radius of our earth (mean value):
6,371.0 km

The maximum angle accepted before photons won't reach earth at all (the photons starting point on the star won't matter as an assumption):
Scattered at the object: invtan(6,371/(4.0118*10^13))
That results in about 1.5881*10^-10 degrees of scattering allowed.
Scattered at half the distance: invtan(6,371/(2.059*10^13))
That results in about 3.094*10^-10 degrees of scattering allowed.

Note: This is working on the assumption of one event of scattering over the entire distance, occurring at one of those two points.

Those angles would result in a nice, cosy, blanket of light from that star (since it would be scattered all over earth we wouldn't be able to discern its shape). Given that it's our closest one, it's easy to tell that all other stars would produce the same blanket effect.

Could you tell me what the maximum redshift of those scatterings would be?
Could you tell me what the maximum scattering would be (at those two points) in order for us to observe Abell 1835?
Could you tell me what the maximum redshift of those scatterings would be?

(I know there are several flaws with this, but it's a start)



Edit: I used the larger distance to calculate the maximum scattering allowed where I should have used the smaller (fixed now).

Problems with point 1a:
If the photons are going to re-align with the path the photons originally had it has to be within an angle that is much smaller than the previously calculated angle of 3.094*10^-10 degrees. (Due to sharp images)
That is:
Degrees of deviation from original path after scatterings << 3.094*10^-10
(This is at half the distance, it's lower near its source and higher the closer you get)

 

[Michael]

I'll try to get to your posts later today david, but let's recap for a moment:

In just the past five years we've learned that:

A) You botched the mass estimates of galaxies.
B) You grossly miscalculated even the correct number of stars that exist in given galaxies!
C) You never accounted for any of the mass found in million degree plasma that surrounds the galaxy in your 'dark matter' equations since none of them put the missing baryonic material *outside* the galaxy.
D) It turns out that so called "ancient" galaxies are more massive than our own, and more 'mature' as well, defying all the "predictions" of your theory.
E) The most popular SUSY theories, the prevailing exotic matter of the gaps theory went up in smoke at LHC.
F) In spite of your insistence to the contrary, it turns out that MAGIC observations, and other experiments would suggest that an "aether" of sorts does in fact have an effect on the speed of travel of photons.
G) Many type of inelastic scattering experiments show that redshift is caused by photons interacting with plasma.
H) The largest structures we've found in the universe *outright falsify* Lambda-CDM theory.
I) Recent lensing studies suggest that "dark matter" can be explained purely by baronic matter alone, again in alignment with the fact that galaxies are surrounded by ordinary million degree plasma.
J) Inflation theory is *not supported* by the energy state of the Higgs boson, and it was already 10 to the 100th power *less* likely that a "flat" universe came from inflation than without inflation in the first place, according to the very same author who was once a *proponent* of inflation theory!

Not a single "fact" we've learned in the past five years is congruent with your beloved sky mythos, yet you expect to continue to spend my tax dollars on this invisible sky entity nonsense? Why?

 

[Michael]

FYI, I *loved* this paper on SUSY theory by the way:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0004v1.pdf

A lost generation?

It is easy to estimate the total number of active high-energy theorists. Every day hep-th and hep-ph bring us about thirty new papers. Assuming that on average an active theorist publishes 3-4 papers per year, we get 2500 to 3000 theorists. The majority of them are young theorists in their thirties or early forties. During their careers many of them never worked on any issues beyond supersymmetry-based phenomenology or string theory. Given the crises (or, at least, huge question marks) in these two areas we currently face, there seems to be a serious problem in the community. Usually such times of uncertainty as to the direction of future research offer wide opportunities to young people, in the prime of their careers. To grab these opportunities a certain reorientation and reeducation are apparently needed. Will this happen?

 

[Michael]

There was no math to show why we couldn't go faster than the speed of sound. Anywhere, ever. There's no mathematical construct that could show that. It's not like C!

You folks don't even limit yourselves to C in the first place!

So you're just flat out wrong, making it up as you go along and drawing incorrect parallels with irrelevant subjects....

I'll admit that I probably should have just started with C since you're violating that "limit" too. You worm around the limits of C with 'expanding space' claims without bothering to define 'space'. Spacetime and distance are defined in GR, but not "space".

I'm going to skip the usual froth and jump to showing you in vivid terms how wrong you are on inelastic scattering, Brillouin or otherwise. Brillouin scattering is wavelength dependent, by the way - sorry. I'm surprised you didn't know that, given your 'grasp' of this subject.

I thought that I was quite clear that I had a lot to learn about this particular topic. Perhaps you could save us some time and just explain each type of scattering and explain why it's not applicable. I'd also be curious how these magic photons avoid every possible scattering mechanism in space, including Brillouin scattering. By definition you're claiming there are no EM field variations or temperature variations in space?

Worse, however, it is only relevant to light in a medium, and a medium - funnily enough, has a refractive index.

That million degree plasma around our galaxy is a 'medium', and I'm sure it has a refractive index as well.

Even worse, it requires that medium have phonons or other modes,

How would that million degree plasma *not* have phonons or other modes?

and just a simple bit of thought about how those would have to be aligned, even if we did assume that an aether existed and Michelson-Morley nulls were wrong, would show that the idea is silly. At best it's almost a geocentric model of the universe!

No it's not! It's nothing of the sort. Its simply another 'tired light' theory, much like Ashmore's brand of "new tired light". This galaxy isn't special in any way.

There is no lumineferous aether that light must propagate through.

In spite of these papers you say that?
Speed-of-light fluctuations prompted by ephemeral vacuum particles | TG Daily

How do you *know* this stuff with such conviction even though other scientists claim even VP's might have an influence?

Holushko is saying that there is - that light would not propagate without it, that it is just like sound, that light is a wave in medium. Do you get the implication of what he's saying?

I don't "hear him saying that", at least not in the paper I cited. I simply hear him talking about a non uniform medium that could be made of VP's or just EM fields for all I know.

He is not saying light just hits stuff sometimes - he is saying light propagates through a medium and only through a medium.

If so, you can quote him from the paper I cited I presume?

He is invalidating GR. There is no way around that, no way to fudge what he's saying to pretend it's relevant to what your saying. It's just woo. It's just...wrong. It's absurd given the empirical evidence of the last century, especially verification of GR to extraordinarily precise degrees.

I would think that you would already know that I'm personally quite a strong supporter of GR theory without the magical matter and energy claims. I simply don't see his 'bumpy road' concepts to be any direct threat to GR as you do, certainly not from the paper I cited at least. Perhaps you're bringing in claims from *outside* of that paper?

One gets the distinct impression from reading your posts that you're simply unwilling to even second guess yourself, or leave open any room for 'honest doubt' for that matter.

Yeah...er...no. Let's prove why, with that thing you just hate - math.

Care to quote me where I claimed to "hate math", or is that some sort of made up mental justification that you go through when you "trash" individuals like you do?

You are saying that the photons are interacting with plasma causing redshift, so we are pretty much inescapably talking photon-electron interactions in terms of QM...

Based on time constraints, I'm going to have to respond to part of this post later, but this seems to be your critical error. You have no certain evidence that the bulk of the redshift phenomenon is directly related to photon-electron interactions. I just handed you two papers that claimed that it could be due to photon-VP interactions. Brillioiun scattering doesn't require photon-electron interactions either. You're *assuming* the interaction you wish, and *assuming* the outcome you wish in the process of assuming the redshift relationship is related to photons-electron interactions. Why?

 

[Michael]

NASA video shows 3 years of the Sun’s activity in 3 minutes

And to top it all off, in over three years of high resolution images of the sun, and 100 years worth of active laboratory experimentation, the mainstream still hasn't figured out that electrical current lights up those images. Wow!

 

[Michael]

Scientists detect dark lightning linked to visible lightning - environmentalresearchweb

Oh ya, and by the way.....

As if by magic, it turns out that all those 'dark lightning' discharges that release high energy gamma rays and positrons are related to plain old "electrical discharges".

Of course NASA never mentioned naturally occurring electrical discharges as a possible source of positrons or gamma rays. Why is that?