As expected a totally fact less, totally ignorant and ranting
You have nothing in the way of empirical lab evidence to support any of your cause/effect claims about photons and redshift, therefore you simply *cheat* at debate, over and over and over again by attacking and belittling *individuals* rather than sticking to the topic. The only ignorance going on here is yours and yours alone. In fact your commentary about a 3-4 K imaginary background temp is simply laughable because your own LCDM theory *depends upon it's existence at that specific temperature*. Wow!
Why (psychologically speaking), do you feel the need to post my name in every single post? Is that another of the ways that you simply *cheat* perhaps, by making it all "personal" instead of sticking to the topic, in this case the real *cause* of photon redshift?
There is no imaginary "very cold medium that is approximately 3-4 degrees Kelvin".
Um, hate as I might to have to educate you about the finer points of your own beloved LCDM theory, but that is the "average background temperature" of spacetime at the moment, and your own theory *depends upon* it's existence at that temperature. In fact, the temperature itself as well as the age of the universe is actually rather*critical* to your own beliefs. You can't deny it's existence if your own theory *depends upon it's existence*! Eddington even calculated the average temperature of dust by starlight to within 1/2 of a degree of the correct temperature.
As photons pass through the relatively cold materials of spacetime (on average mind you), they lose some of their momentum to the plasma medium. They "bump" into EM field gradients, temperature gradients, and even particles directly on their path to Earth. There is no "imaginary" pristine expanding vacuum, it's full of *dusty plasma*.
The media that photons travel through have temperatures up to millions of degrees,
That's only really true *inside of galaxies/clusters* perhaps, but that's not the bulk of the "space" that photons must pass through. The bulk of the "space" they traverse is the same temperature as the background temperature of "spacetime", the same temperature that your theory depends upon. It's relatively cold.
]It is basic scattering theory that it is possible for some photons to traverse the very thin plasma that is the ISM for millions of light years without scattering.
The mainstream has been grossly *underestimating* the amount of dust and plasma since 2006. I've got plenty of documented papers to show how badly they've botched those estimates, hence their constant need for magical invisible forms of matter.
A fantasy or lie of "*numerous templates* at various redshifts".
The only fantasy is your notion that absorption or scattering is exactly the same in every direction, in every wavelength. That's physical fantasy that would require a "perfect medium" that simply doesn't exist. In the real universe, dust isn't evenly distributed, it's not the same composition of elements in every direction either. It's messy and dusty, and not as neatly "predictable" as you keep suggesting, or you could show us a *non blurry* image of a galaxy at say Z>10. It's never going to happen.
Your use of the term "lie" and "fantasy" is another example of your unethical methods of debate.
Why are your an "atheist" exactly, and why do you doubt the "cause/effect" relationship between humans and the thing they claim they have experiences with?
In this issue we're debating the exact empirical *cause/effect* relationships. The parallels here should set you free as long as you're willing to be open and honest about your rejection of the cause/effect relationships described in say the Bible between humans and "God".
If I called it "God energy", at least I would have defined the "source" of this energy thingy you believe in, as well as why it might be violating every law of conservation of energy we know of. What makes your beloved "dark energy" any more viable that "God energy" in your mind?
A lie of "every photon that reaches Earth would have to be the "luckiest photon in the universe...".
In LCDM they would have to be the single luckiest photon in the whole universe to miss every type of inelastic scattering process in plasma. That's your entire theory in a nutshell. It's dependent upon *pristine* photons that are *only* affected by "space expansion" and "space acceleration" for all redshift.
Even a *fraction* of the redshift that might come from "scattering" would immediately call the whole dark energy claim into question. It's only sigma three now. How in the universe would it survive if *any* redshift is not expansion/acceleration related?
It is his imaginary universe that needs every photon to be scattered.
First of all, it doesn't need *every* photon to be scattered, just the "majority" of them. Secondly a *known and demonstrated* process in plasma cannot be considered *imaginary*. Only in your *imagination* would it *not* ever happen.
In the real universe we do not observe any non-red shifted photons from galaxies.
We wouldn't and couldn't see non-redshifted photons from any "tired light(Hubble)/inelastic scattering(modern terminology)" theory. You keep ignoring that both theories (expansion/tired light) predict exactly the same amount of photon redshift, and Hulushko's tired light ideas were "tested" in that paper that I handed you and his model *passed* those very same "tests".
You're just in denial that there are *empirical* alternatives to your *mythological* claims. There is no empirical cause/effect laboratory evidence to support your *blind faith* in "space expansion" having any tangible effect on any photon in any lab. Only in your *imaginary universe* does that cause/effect relationship exist. It's a form of *blind faith* that you hold in the "unseen" in the lab.
Inelastic scattering however is a *demonstrated empirical cause* of photon redshift! No faith needed, it's lab *demonstrated*.
A lie of "We do see scattering at *twice* the rate you expected at *low* redshifts!".
You apparently are in denial of the paper that I previously handed you. It specifically demonstrated that the galaxies were emitting twice as much light as we "predicted" in 2006 when your precious "dark matter" paper was published.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/gallery/universe-now-twice-as-bright/
You are only lying to yourself RC. The article above explains how you've been routinely underestimating the effects of dust on photons and the amount of "scattering" that is going on in spacetime. Deal with it.
He cites a press release about a paper on the scattering of light (not cosmological redshift
) by dust being twice that expected.
It directly demonstrates the very nature of your error and the evidence that demonstrates that you are in error. The mainstream has continuously treated spacetime as a gigantic vacuum, when in fact it has very "dusty" and dirty regions associated with it too, and it's much more messy and less mathematically 'predictable" than you ever imagined it to be. Hubble didn't "prove" that space does magic expansion tricks. He even personally preferred a *tired light* explanation to the photon redshift distance relationship. The mainstream *lied to itself* when it *assumed* the observation had only one possible explanation, and Hubble never said anything of the sort.
A lie about Compton scattering which is used in gamma spectroscopy and not for visible light in astronomy (see the OP).
Eh? You're just making up the "lies" as you go, and sticking words in my mouth apparently. In other words, it's par for the course with all your posts.
A delusion about "creation mythology" and the use of inverse Compton scattering in astronomy.
You are peddling a creation (of all matter) mythology, and you're forced to misuse the concept of inverse Compton scattering because you don't like to acknowledge the fact that every star in every galaxy is emitting microwave photons at a rate that is *much higher* than the background rate. There is no need whatsoever to introduce inverse Compton scattering in the first place to explain microwave "bright regions" near and around galaxies and galaxy clusters. That's just another example of the irrational nature of LCDM theory in general.
Space is not a solid so
Brillouin scattering would not be observed
!
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...maintenance.++Apologies+for+the+inconvenience.
Psst. It also occurs in *plasma*, and it's been written about for *decades* in astronomy. Doh!
But more generally this is scattering from changes in the distribution of periodic structures. Plasma is not a periodic structure.
You're misrepresenting the whole phenomenon as it relates to plasma, but what's new?
[*]A fantasy that
Raman scattering that gives blue and red shift is to do with imaginary "*conditions* of spactime itself".
[/LIST]
You are reduced to describing *documented and demonstrated* forms of scattering as "fantasies", only to support a *trio* of invisible constructs, including "expansion space", "inflation", and "dark energy". We can replace the need for all three with *empirical realities* in plasma.
Then again, you can continue to bash and belittle every single individuals that points out to you that your invisible friends are more impotent on Earth that an average *supernatural* definition of the term "God". You have simply *assumed* the cause/effect relationships to be true on *pure faith* RC, *pure faith*. Photons never told you that "space acceleration did it", whereas humans since the dawn of recorded civilization have reported the *cause* of their experiences. Why do you deny their testimony again?
.
