Dark energy is based on a dubious assumption.

[Michael]

What a pathetic attempt at obfuscation and character assassination.

More projection I see. See my previous post. You two are the only one's engaging in character assassination in this thread.

Since I have already stated it was my conclusion I don’t have to show support for the reasons given previously.

That's an utterly *irrational* statement! If it's "your conclusion", it's up to you to show support for it. Period. You can't. You simply "made it up" and then tried to switch the burden of proof. That's worse than most creationist arguments.

However since you are now desperately trying to portray me as a liar by making things up to sidetrack the issues, I’m perfectly prepared to take you on.

In 1929 Fritz Zwicky the father of tired light theory recognized that Thompson scattering cannot work.

You have to go back to 1 specific tired light model from decades ago that suggested that Thompson scattering probably isn't the *only* cause of cosmological redshift? So what? Where did Zwicky state that absolutely no Thompson scattering occurs in space?

While I don’t have a copy of his 1929 paper this commentary came up in a moderated SF analysing the paper.

What paper, page number and paragraph?

So it while it was my conclusion it wasn’t a terribly original one as it was known as far back as 1929!!

FYI, you're *blatantly* misrepresenting what Zwicky said. I have read that paper and it certainly doesn't support your assertion.

Two can play this game Michael.
Show me a citation, text book reference or comments from a moderated SF that supports your claims a static universe doesn’t collapse due to some weird combination of electrostatic repulsion and gravity.

Nope, just Einstein's work on a non-zero constants. He doesn't describe the *nature* of that non-zero constant, so he certainly doesn't *forbid* EM fields as being the culprit. It certainly doesn't require anything exotic since he wasn't using a non-zero constant to drive an acceleration process, he was simply keeping it from collapsing.

Furthermore now that obfuscating nonsense has been cleared up you can now address the primary issue of observed Thomson scattering in the universe proving tired light models are wrong.

No, I am *not* required to do any such thing because A) you haven't demonstrated your claim, and B) most tired light models aren't even based on Thompson scattering to start with, nor do they assert that no Thompson scattering ever happens in plasma! You are simply asserting something as "fact" which turned out to be nothing more than you own unsupported (and unsupportable) conclusion.

 

[SelfSim]

.. the lack of Thompson scattering at cosmological scales is a logical outcome for any tired light model and forms a prediction that can be tested.
This is my conclusion and doesn’t shift the burden of proof as in this case the proof is in the logic and further supported by the fact Thompson scattering can be tested for as photons are polarized.
...
Whether you like it or not the onus is on you to prove it is wrong and the only way you can do that is to show the photons are not polarized.

The problem I see here, is that Michael doesn't recognise logical proofs .. I mean, need I cite anything more than his outright rejection of his famous '1=0.5', as evidence of his general denial of proofs by logic?

The problem is Michael has an abnormal emotional attachment to his pet theory where logic flies out the window.
Anyone challenging the pet theory is automatically vilified as illustrated in this thread.

When you two can't win a particular debate in "scientifically", you both resort to attacking the individual. How sad.

None of the sequence of discussion above is in any way a personal attack.

Its about recognising the testability of logical outcomes as a way of constraining the preferability of one model over another.
That you don't recognise that, and then interpret it as a personal attack, is evidence of a strong attachment you hold to a belief, where a belief is: that which is held to be true, out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests and is not beholden to the rules of logic.

You got caught out! That's all that's happened here.

 

[Michael]

None of the sequence of discussion above is in any way a personal attack.

Of course it was. You made up a complete strawman of my statements and used it to suggest something that I never personally said! I recognize a personal attack and a strawman when I see it. Even the person you cited in that thread said you made bigger deal of it that it warranted and yet you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge your own errors.

You got caught failing your own "test" and got caught building a strawman argument out of my statements. Period.

 

[SelfSim]

Of course it was. You made up a complete strawman of my statements and used it to suggest something that I never personally said! I recognize a personal attack and a strawman when I see it.

No .. you don't .. and that was the purpose of my immediately prior post.

Even the person you cited in that thread said you made bigger deal of it that it warranted and yet you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge your own errors.

My only error I accepted and acknowledged in the original thread .. which was then also acknowledged buy the other poster. That he had an opinion about the 'magnitude of the deal' has no bearing on the logic which demonstrated the contradictions you persist with in your arguments.
That is the point here.

You got caught failing your own "test" and got caught building a strawman argument out of my statements. Period.

Rubbish! I did the honest thing ... We're still waiting for you to do the same thing .. years later .. and until you do, you are out of integrity and your '1=0.5' blunder will continue to plague you as a result of such dishonest behavior.

 

[sjastro]

More projection I see. See my previous post. You two are the only one's engaging in character assassination in this thread.



That's an utterly *irrational* statement! If it's "your conclusion", it's up to you to show support for it. Period. You can't. You simply "made it up" and then tried to switch the burden of proof. That's worse than most creationist arguments.

You have gone to scraping the bottom of the barrel in pure desperation.

You have accused me of making up a some random conclusion that has no support; I have shown a comment on a moderated SF where the poster not only comes to the same conclusion but goes into greater detail including using Zwicky as an example.

This completely repudiates your accusation and if you continue it constitutes an ad hom attack and I will start reporting your posts.

You have to go back to 1 specific tired light model from decades ago that suggested that Thompson scattering probably isn't the *only* cause of cosmological redshift? So what? Where did Zwicky state that absolutely no Thompson scattering occurs in space?

You keep on repeating this nonsense because you don't seem to have the intellectual capacity in understanding that Thompson scattering contradicts all tired light models because they all postulate photon energy loss.

What paper, page number and paragraph?

This doesn’t make sense; I don’t have the paper so why are requesting details from me.

FYI, you're *blatantly* misrepresenting what Zwicky said. I have read that paper and it certainly doesn't support your assertion.

Since you have read the paper post it here so I and other readers can form their own conclusions.

Nope, just Einstein's work on a non-zero constants. He doesn't describe the *nature* of that non-zero constant, so he certainly doesn't *forbid* EM fields as being the culprit. It certainly doesn't require anything exotic since he wasn't using a non-zero constant to drive an acceleration process, he was simply keeping it from collapsing.

This brazen refusal to support your claims is not only a confession you made up this nonsense but it totally hypocritical to make the same demands on me.

No, I am *not* required to do any such thing because A) you haven't demonstrated your claim, and B) most tired light models aren't even based on Thompson scattering to start with, nor do they assert that no Thompson scattering ever happens in plasma! You are simply asserting something as "fact" which turned out to be nothing more than you own unsupported (and unsupportable) conclusion.

I noticed you edited the post as the original version must have had a few profanities that were picked up by the filter.
I have obviously struck a nervous chord.

This sanitized version is an insult to the intelligence of the reader.
Apart from again showing you don't comprehend the significance of Thomson scattering this is a pitiful example of trying to spin story your way out of giving an answer because you have been well and truly painted into a corner.

I ask you the question again this time from your perspective; how are tried light models not contradicted by the observation of Thomson scattering.

 

[Michael]

No .. you don't .. and that was the purpose of my immediately prior post.

Yes I do, and that's proven by your *continued* reliance upon the very same strawman argument which I never personally made. I use *one* (single variable) in my example, and the constant was on the *outside* of the sqrt() function. I even used it properly *and* explain how to take the constant out of the sqrt() function, regardless of the sides of the die, and you ignored all of it.

My only error I accepted and acknowledged in the original thread .. which was then also acknowledged buy the other poster. That he had an opinion about the 'magnitude of the deal' has no bearing on the logic which demonstrated the contradictions you persist with in your arguments.
That is the point here.

The "contradiction" was a "contradiction" which you invented out of whole cloth! It was a strawman argument since I *never* used multiple variables.

Rubbish! I did the honest thing ... We're still waiting for you to do the same thing .. years later .. and until you do, you are out of integrity and your '1=0.5' blunder will continue to plague you as a result of such dishonest behavior.

The only dishonest behavior came from you when you *steadfastly refused* to acknowledge the fact that I used one and only one variable in my formula and the constant was on the *outside* of the sqrt function. That was your own dishonesty, not mine.

 

[Michael]

You have gone to scraping the bottom of the barrel in pure desperation.

Your use of projection is really amusing.

You have accused me of making up a some random conclusion that has no support; I have shown a comment on a moderated SF where the poster not only comes to the same conclusion but goes into greater detail including using Zwicky as an example.

Actually, no he didn't claim that all redshift models require Compton or Thomspon scattering or forbid it. Zwicky only talked about Compton scattering and only for like one line of the entire paper as a justification so he could introduce his *own* tired light model that *was not based on either Compton or Thomspon* scattering! Holy cow. Have you even read Zwicky's tired light model for yourself?

A random website quote (without a link no less) isn't a valid scientific argument and the quote you cited doesn't even support your erroneous assertion in the first place! Show me where Ashmore's tired light model requires Thompson scattering, or forbids it! For that matter, show me where Zwicky's model uses, requires or forbids it!

This completely repudiates your accusation and if you continue it constitutes an ad hom attack and I will start reporting your posts.

Do what you want, but you're not going to beat me into agreeing with you by threatening to report my disagreement with your erroneous and unsupported claim.

You keep on repeating this nonsense because you don't seem to have the intellectual capacity in understanding that Thompson scattering contradicts all tired light models because they all postulate photon energy loss.

You don't seem to realize that no (or very few) tired light models require Thomson scattering, nor do they forbid Thompson scattering. Show me one that even does! You do realize that you can't even show me a single example of a z>1 measurement where the whole spectrum was directly measured, from gamma rays down to radio waves, right?

This doesn’t make sense; I don’t have the paper so why are requesting details from me.

You're making inaccurate assertions about all tired light models. Zwicky's tired light model isn't even based on either Thompson or Compton scattering in the first place!

Since you have read the paper post it here so I and other readers can form their own conclusions.

It's your claim, and your responsibility to support it.

This brazen refusal to support your claims is not only a confession you made up this nonsense but it totally hypocritical to make the same demands on me.

I haven't even made in specific claims about *all* tired light models being somehow affected by Thompson scattering!

I noticed you edited the post as the original version must have had a few profanities that were picked up by the filter.

No, I used a three letter abbreviation for exasperation that included the term G for God, as it om*. It wasn't necessary so I simply removed it.

I have obviously struck a nervous chord.

No, you're exasperating, that's all. All I asked for was a valid source to support your erroneous claim which would usually take the form of a printed paper and I've yet to see it.

This sanitized version is an insult to the intelligence of the reader.
Apart from again showing you don't comprehend the significance of Thomson scattering this is a pitiful example of trying to spin story your way out of giving an answer because you have been well and truly painted into a corner.

Wow. You're so off base it's not even funny. You're making erroneous claims about *all* redshift models, none of which actually rely upon, necessitate, or forbid Thompson scattering, and refusing to provide any valid published referrences to support it. How is that my fault?

I ask you the question again this time from your perspective; how are tried light models not contradicted by the observation of Thomson scattering.

Most of them don't even discuss or care about Thomson scattering to start with! How can those models *possibly* be contradicted by Thomson scattering? You aren't even making any logical sense!

(2) Tired light models predict Thomson scattering doesn’t occur at cosmological scales.

Please quote Ashmore making this claim since you are implying that *all* tired light models make some claim about Thomson scattering. I can't recall Ashmore or Marmet or anyone else making such a claim yet you are suggesting that they all make such a claim.

 

[sjastro]

Your use of projection is really amusing.



Actually, no he didn't claim that all redshift models require Compton or Thomspon scattering or forbid it. Zwicky only talked about Compton scattering and only for like one line of the entire paper as a justification so he could introduce his *own* tired light model that *was not based on either Compton or Thomspon* scattering! Holy cow. Have you even read Zwicky's tired light model for yourself?

A random website quote (without a link no less) isn't a valid scientific argument and the quote you cited doesn't even support your erroneous assertion in the first place! Show me where Ashmore's tired light model requires Thompson scattering, or forbids it! For that matter, show me where Zwicky's model uses, requires or forbids it!



Do what you want, but you're not going to beat me into agreeing with you by threatening to report my disagreement with your erroneous and unsupported claim.



You don't seem to realize that no (or very few) tired light models require Thomson scattering, nor do they forbid Thompson scattering. Show me one that even does! You do realize that you can't even show me a single example of a z>1 measurement where the whole spectrum was directly measured, from gamma rays down to radio waves, right?



You're making inaccurate assertions about all tired light models. Zwicky's tired light model isn't even based on either Thompson or Compton scattering in the first place!



It's your claim, and your responsibility to support it.



I haven't even made in specific claims about *all* tired light models being somehow affected by Thompson scattering!



No, I used a three letter abbreviation for exasperation that included the term G for God, as it om*. It wasn't necessary so I simply removed it.



No, you're exasperating, that's all. All I asked for was a valid source to support your erroneous claim which would usually take the form of a printed paper and I've yet to see it.



Wow. You're so off base it's not even funny. You're making erroneous claims about *all* redshift models, none of which actually rely upon, necessitate, or forbid Thompson scattering, and refusing to provide any valid published referrences to support it. How is that my fault?



Most of them don't even discuss or care about Thomson scattering to start with! How can those models *possibly* be contradicted by Thomson scattering? You aren't even making any logical sense!



Please quote Ashmore making this claim since you are implying that *all* tired light models make some claim about Thomson scattering. I can't recall Ashmore or Marmet or anyone else making such a claim yet you are suggesting that they all make such a claim.

Since your post has degenerated to an infantile level for its surrender of basic comprehension of the English language resulting in randomized responses I'm not going to waste my time on it.
One of your randomized responses was to my request for a link to Zwicky's paper which you must have for the frequent references to it.
I ask you again to supply the link.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You do realize that you can't even show me a single example of a z>1 measurement where the whole spectrum was directly measured, from gamma rays down to radio waves, right?

I read this line and I went to look for some examples and the first item I found with google was this paper:

Measuring redshifts using X-ray spectroscopy of galaxy clusters: results from Chandra data and future prospects

on correlations (matches) between x-ray and optical red shifts. Then I remembered that I. Already. Went. Over. This. Paper. which includes galaxies of redshift out to z ~ 1.4.

Now as for extending the spectra range to gamma-rays and radio:

The only line sources (which are needed to measure a redshift) in the gamma-ray range come from nuclear decay lines which have been detected locally, but would require enormous amounts of radioactive materials to be detectable, so gamma-ray line redshifts are just not going to be.

In the radio (or mm-wave) line emission comes from molecular lines and the neutral hydrogen 21 cm hyperfine structure line. These have been detected in some nearby galaxies, but none at high redshift. During my quick search, I did see some plans for using the 21 cm line for cosmology directly, but I think that would involve some telescopes under development.

To summarize, all observations are consistent with the cosmological redshift affect applying an identical proportionate shift at all wavelengths.

 

[Michael]

I read this line and I went to look for some examples and the first item I found with google was this paper:

Measuring redshifts using X-ray spectroscopy of galaxy clusters: results from Chandra data and future prospects

on correlations (matches) between x-ray and optical red shifts. Then I remembered that I. Already. Went. Over. This. Paper. which includes galaxies of redshift out to z ~ 1.4.

Now as for extending the spectra range to gamma-rays and radio:

The only line sources (which are needed to measure a redshift) in the gamma-ray range come from nuclear decay lines which have been detected locally, but would require enormous amounts of radioactive materials to be detectable, so gamma-ray line redshifts are just not going to be.

In the radio (or mm-wave) line emission comes from molecular lines and the neutral hydrogen 21 cm hyperfine structure line. These have been detected in some nearby galaxies, but none at high redshift. During my quick search, I did see some plans for using the 21 cm line for cosmology directly, but I think that would involve some telescopes under development.

To summarize, all observations are consistent with the cosmological redshift affect applying an identical proportionate shift at all wavelengths.

Thanks for the link. Now that you mention it, I think that I have discussed x-ray redshift observations/methodologies before, possibly with you in a previous conversation. I'll reread the paper however since I have a some other questions about it now. I seem to recall it failing in some instance, but I need to refresh my memory of the paper before I comment further.

As I recall, a lot of high redshift observation tend to require the use of "templates" to figure out the Z values because some wavelengths don't travel well over long distances and through dust, but I'll check that out more as well before I get ahead of myself. Suffice to say that in a dusty and dirty environment it's unlikely that all highest energy photons will correlate with all the lower energy photons in terms of the Z values they come up with.

 

[Michael]

Since your post has degenerated to an infantile level for its surrender of basic comprehension of the English language resulting in randomized responses I'm not going to waste my time on it.
One of your randomized responses was to my request for a link to Zwicky's paper which you must have for the frequent references to it.
I ask you again to supply the link.

It's really not my job to round up links for you since you're the one making claims about redshift models, not me. I think we're done now unless you have some published references to support your claims.

 

[Michael]

I read this line and I went to look for some examples and the first item I found with google was this paper:

Measuring redshifts using X-ray spectroscopy of galaxy clusters: results from Chandra data and future prospects

on correlations (matches) between x-ray and optical red shifts. Then I remembered that I. Already. Went. Over. This. Paper. which includes galaxies of redshift out to z ~ 1.4.

I reread the paper. I realized as a read it that it wasn't the first time, so apparently I've discussed that paper in the past. I'd say it's an interesting paper in terms of showing a fairly large range of consistency in terms of wavelengths, and also interesting in terms of the percentage of "catastrophic" failures about 17 percent of the time. Still, an 83 percent consistency rate is obviously still pretty impressive, but it does make one wonder as to the cause of the failures as well. Apparently it's somewhat affected by total photon count which makes sense to me. With a smaller data set, there's just more room for error.

In terms of higher energy wavelengths, it seems like SN1A events might produce enough gamma ray activity to allow for some comparison between various lower energy wavelengths. I'll have to start looking for such studies as I get some free time.