are there other universes?

[Michael]

Because it isn't false. It causes parallel photon paths to become unparallel.

No, it does not! They will simply experience "redshift" unless there is an actual change in the proton trajectory. *If* there is any actual change in photon trajectory, 99.999+ percent of such light would never reach Earth anyway.

That is blurring. We do not observe blurring. Therefore, plasma cosmology is falsified (along with a lot of other reasons).

I doubt you've read anything related to the Wolf effect or Stark redshift yet. Your irrational desire to oversimplify the issue is the problem. By your logic the fact your three metaphysical dark amigos are giant no-shows in the lab in enough to "falsify" your claims.

 

[JoeyArnold]

I think it would be more correct to say that I believe that we all live inside of God and interact with God physically.

If we are in God, then does that limit the possibilities of other universes?

 

[Michael]

You are using it as a derisive term.

I don't consider my "Christianity" to be a "derisive" term, but I do at least have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that it's an 'act of faith' on my part and a 'religion' as well.

Apparently your hierarchical belief systems, along with your inability to acknowledge your own 'acts of faith' is evidently a problem for you. Like I said before, too bad. There is an empirical difference between empirical physics and acts of faith in unseen entities (in the lab).

It is very obvious from the context. You think so little of religious belief that you use religion to smear the work of others.

I think a great deal of the teachings of Christ, unlike some folks around here.

It is the three spatial dimensions. It is defined by all measuring systems.

No. Each of those is included in "spacetime" and the have nothing to do with 'space', whatever the heck 'space' might be. Spacetime can expand, but only as the objects of mass move and spread out. They can't expand faster than light, so that kind of Doppler expansion won't work for your 'religion'.

How does it contract in SR and GR? Obviously, spacetime is malleable.

Spacetime is "malleable" in the sense that objects in motion stay in motion, and things "join" in spacetime. That has nothing to do with "space", and in fact you've never even properly defined it as separate and unique from "spacetime". As a matter of fact, you're trying to *undo* the importance of the connection of time to the distance dimensions as though they are somehow *disconnected* when nothing could be further from the truth in GR.

How can it not be a problem? You have light being abosrbed and then emitted along a different path. That produces blurring. Period. There is no way around it.

As that laser video demonstrated, the concept of a 'different path" is unique to your own personal belief systems, apparently based entirely on material you found on some unpublished website.

I am asking the wrong guy about what produces EM redshifts? Wow, that is interesting.

I'm asking you why the mainstream created something called 'cosmological redshift' if Doppler redshift would have done the trick? I'm essentially insisting you come come clean on that scientific issue.

I never said that. Again, why can't the redshift we see in stars be due to a Doppler shift? I am asking you, the supposed expert in what produces redshifts. I am not asking astronomers. I am not saying that astronomers believe that redshifted starlight is due to Doppler shift. I am asking you.

No, you've been intentionally failing to distinguish between your acts of faith (expanding space magic tricks) and Doppler redshift.

The Stark effect requires the absorption and emission of photons. Again, blurring will occur.

Pure personal handwave. I doubt you even have a website reference for that one that mentions Stark redshift by name.

It does result in blurriness because the momentum change requires that the emitted photon not be on the same path that it was absorbed on.

Compton scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So when can I expect you to deal with the Wolf effect form of redshift and provide more than just a handwave as it relates to Ari's work or as it relates to Stark Redshift? I've already stated that I serious doubt it's all related to Compton scattering, and in fact I don't thing I personally even suggested Compton scattering originally. You picked that out of Holushko's work, right after ignoring the fact he related his method to another author entirely.

Talk about shifting the burden of proof.

You are the one ignoring criticisms that are not peer reviewed when the very papers you are arguing from are not peer reviewed.

The peer reviewed material you've cited isn't even related to Ari's work, nor actually the "mechanism" used by Holushko. In fact, you've gone out of your way to ignore the Wolf effect and you've not even provided so much as a website that supports you claims about Stark Redshift. Your entire belief system seems to be a circular feedback loop at this point. If you don't deal with it, or simply handwave at it a little, without or without citing any mathematical flaw in their work, it must be false!

Yes, the subtract out the foreground when measuring the measuring the background. Why is this a problem?

Because it's not really smooth and isotropic as you claimed and there is actually evidence that it's not, just as I suggested.

The fact remains that we do not see the temperature gradient that your mechanism calls for. It is easily understood by anyone. Imagine that you have a stove on one side of the house pumping out heat. What will you notice as you approach the stove? It gets warmer and warmer, right? We should see the same thing with the CMB if your theory is right. We don't. The CMB is the same near a galaxy as it is far away from a galaxy.

You keep going in circles. First you ignore the fact that we 'strip out' the very effect you're whining about, and then you whine about the fact that the effect you're looking for isn't in the images! Sheesh!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/BigBangNoise.jpg

Notice that every single 'raw' image shows that the galaxy around us is 'warmer' than deep space?

The vast, vast majority of the scientific community disagrees.

Appeal to authority much?

 

[Michael]

If we are in God, then does that limit the possibilities of other universes?

Not unless you're insisting that there must be limits on God.

 

[Michael]

LM,

When have you provided anything other than your own opinion in terms of Stark redshift and the Wolf effect, and Ari's method, and the method that was mentioned in Holushko's work? When were any of those forms of redshift demonstrated to cause "blurriness"?

Even *if* I grant you may have a point as it relates to Compton redshift, that's only *one* of *several* known possible forms of plasma redshift.

 

[Michael]

Talk about shifting the burden of proof.

You are the one ignoring criticisms that are not peer reviewed when the very papers you are arguing from are not peer reviewed.

You actually have reality standing on it's head by the way. Plenty of material on non cosmological redshift has been published, whereas you have yet to provide a published rebuttal to anything other than Compton redshift, only *one* type of known plasma redshift mechanism.

Non-cosmological redshifts of spectral lines

 

[JoeyArnold]

They can't expand faster than light, so that kind of Doppler expansion won't work for your 'religion'.

Are you saying that some people believe that things cannot expand faster than the speed of light? Do you believe in this too, or what do you believe in? Under this view, does it mean that things cannot expand or move faster than light? Under this view, are futuristic warp drives possible? Do you think that it is possible to move faster than light? I am sure it would be almost impossible to move faster than light, but I don't want to say impossible. I am sure that when something moves faster than light, it would most likely fall apart. So, the first task would be finding a way to move faster than light. The second task would be the harder task. That task is in figuring out how to keep us together as we are moving faster than light. Are people saying that the universe is not expanding faster than light? As in, the universe cannot expand faster than light? It doesn't seem like it is possible to know. Because we would have to see the edges of the universes and then we would have to measure how fast it's expanding. But I doubt that our telescopes can see that far out. Then you have to figure out how to measure how fast the universe is expanding. But how do you figure out how far away those galaxies are? Because we use to think that some of those bigger stars are just stars.... then we discovered that the bigger stars in the skies are either planets or galaxies..... and if we can see the individual stars in a galaxy, then maybe we can know how far away the galaxy is moving... then we could probably measure where the galaxy is going and how fast....... but i am going to assume that even the best telescopes floating in space cannot see the individual stars in the farthest galaxies...... i am also guessing that some of the stars are actually clusters of galaxies.... which makes those farther-away stars even farther away than we can even imagine........... because we seem to know how far away the sun is... we can guess how far stars are... then how far galaxies are... and then how far clusters are... chains are... groups..... how many galaxies in a cluster or chain? and what are the ranks, the order? it goes star, galaxy, cluster, chain, groups, universe? something like that? there are so many things i want to learn............

 

[Loudmouth]

LM,

When have you provided anything other than your own opinion in terms of Stark redshift and the Wolf effect, and Ari's method, and the method that was mentioned in Holushko's work?

Ari and Holushko are not published so I am handwaving them away just as you do with Wright's webpage.

When were any of those forms of redshift demonstrated to cause "blurriness"?

Let's take this slowly. The Stark effect requires the photon to be absorbed and emitted, correct?

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't consider my "Christianity" to be a "derisive" term, but I do at least have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that it's an 'act of faith' on my part and a 'religion' as well.

So why do you use the word "religion" as a term of derision?

No. Each of those is included in "spacetime" and the have nothing to do with 'space', whatever the heck 'space' might be. Spacetime can expand, but only as the objects of mass move and spread out. They can't expand faster than light, so that kind of Doppler expansion won't work for your 'religion'.

Show that the cumulative expansion of space can not add up to greater than the speed of light. This is your claim. I expect you to support it.

Spacetime is "malleable" in the sense that objects in motion stay in motion, and things "join" in spacetime. That has nothing to do with "space", and in fact you've never even properly defined it as separate and unique from "spacetime". As a matter of fact, you're trying to *undo* the importance of the connection of time to the distance dimensions as though they are somehow *disconnected* when nothing could be further from the truth in GR.

So Lorentz transformations do not exist? I am sure that there are thousands and thousands of physicists who would be interested in your findings.

As that laser video demonstrated, the concept of a 'different path" is unique to your own personal belief systems, apparently based entirely on material you found on some unpublished website.

Unpublished like Holushko's website? Hypocrisy much?

I'm asking you why the mainstream created something called 'cosmological redshift' if Doppler redshift would have done the trick? I'm essentially insisting you come come clean on that scientific issue.

I asked first. Why can't Doppler shift explain the redshift of distant galaxies?

So when can I expect you to deal with the Wolf effect form of redshift and provide more than just a handwave as it relates to Ari's work or as it relates to Stark Redshift?

]

The wolf effect also scatters light and would blur distant images:

"Wolf outlines a more general -- and perhaps physically more plausible -- mechanism that could imitate Doppler shifts of any magnitude. Instead of requiring the microlamps in the source to fluctuate in some correlated fashion, he now proposes that a complex "scattering medium," such as the electrically charged and frenetic atmosphere thought to surround quasars, might serve as an unusual lens that restructures incoming light to have redshifting or blueshifting correlations upon leaving the medium. "A scattering medium of the right type between the source and an observer should produce these effects."[12] Wolf effect - (The Plasma Universe Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

Scattered light is blurred light.

I've already stated that I serious doubt it's all related to Compton scattering, and in fact I don't thing I personally even suggested Compton scattering originally. You picked that out of Holushko's work, right after ignoring the fact he related his method to another author entirely.

You claim that Holushko's work applies to all PC models, and that would include tired light models based on compton scattering.

The peer reviewed material you've cited isn't even related to Ari's work, nor actually the "mechanism" used by Holushko. In fact, you've gone out of your way to ignore the Wolf effect and you've not even provided so much as a website that supports you claims about Stark Redshift. Your entire belief system seems to be a circular feedback loop at this point. If you don't deal with it, or simply handwave at it a little, without or without citing any mathematical flaw in their work, it must be false!

Both the Stark and Wolf redshift require absorption and re-emission of photons. That will produce blurred images.

Because it's not really smooth and isotropic as you claimed and there is actually evidence that it's not, just as I suggested.

The difference is 1 part in 100,000. That is not consistent with galaxies heating up the surrounding plasma. If your model were true then we would see a temperature gradient around galaxies. We don't.

You keep going in circles. First you ignore the fact that we 'strip out' the very effect you're whining about, and then you whine about the fact that the effect you're looking for isn't in the images! Sheesh!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/BigBangNoise.jpg

Notice that every single 'raw' image shows that the galaxy around us is 'warmer' than deep space?

Those are stars, not the CMB.

Appeal to authority much?

That describes 99% of your posts. If it were not for your hero worship of Ari and Holushko what would you have to post?

 

[Jamin4422]

Are you saying that some people believe that things cannot expand faster than the speed of light?

CERN has a budget of 9 Billion dollars. Last year they said you could go slightly faster then light. Now they are saying they had a faulty instrument and you can NOT go faster then the speed of light. As far as science (Physics) is concerned, to go faster then light would take a LOT of energy.

 

[Michael]

Are you saying that some people believe that things cannot expand faster than the speed of light? Do you believe in this too, or what do you believe in? Under this view, does it mean that things cannot expand or move faster than light? Under this view, are futuristic warp drives possible? Do you think that it is possible to move faster than light?

Special relativity suggests that nothing with rest mass can move faster than the speed of light. I'm inclined to agree with that viewpoint. So much for warp drives.

That doesn't necessarily mean that nothing can travel faster than light. There are particles proposed in QM that might be able to travel faster than light, but none of them have been demonstrated in the lab.

I am sure it would be almost impossible to move faster than light, but I don't want to say impossible. I am sure that when something moves faster than light, it would most likely fall apart.

The limitation is really related to the energy required to accelerate items with rest mass, not so much that it would 'fall apart'. However it would take some powerful shielding to protect anything traveling even 1/2 of the speed of light.

So, the first task would be finding a way to move faster than light. The second task would be the harder task. That task is in figuring out how to keep us together as we are moving faster than light. Are people saying that the universe is not expanding faster than light? As in, the universe cannot expand faster than light? It doesn't seem like it is possible to know.

It may not be possible to "know" for sure at the present moment, but our technologies are steadily improving. I suspect we'll have enough newly acquired knowledge in a few decades to really decide one way or another.

Because we would have to see the edges of the universes and then we would have to measure how fast it's expanding. But I doubt that our telescopes can see that far out.

They don't just see that far out yet, but the James Webb satellite should improve their view of space rather dramatically. SDO is already having a dramatic impact on solar physics. The James Webb Telescope with have that same kind of effect on cosmology theory IMO. I believe they will see galaxies for as far as that telescope can see, just as is the case with Hubble.

Then you have to figure out how to measure how fast the universe is expanding. But how do you figure out how far away those galaxies are?

If they can be sure that expansion is the cause of redshift (not demonstrated at the moment), then it's relatively straight forward to determine the distance to various objects in space. The problem is that we can't rule out other plasma redshift options at the moment. The mainstream simply *assumes* that all the redshift is related to "expansion of space".

Because we use to think that some of those bigger stars are just stars.... then we discovered that the bigger stars in the skies are either planets or galaxies..... and if we can see the individual stars in a galaxy, then maybe we can know how far away the galaxy is moving... then we could probably measure where the galaxy is going and how fast....... but i am going to assume that even the best telescopes floating in space cannot see the individual stars in the farthest galaxies...... i am also guessing that some of the stars are actually clusters of galaxies.... which makes those farther-away stars even farther away than we can even imagine........... because we seem to know how far away the sun is... we can guess how far stars are... then how far galaxies are... and then how far clusters are... chains are... groups..... how many galaxies in a cluster or chain? and what are the ranks, the order? it goes star, galaxy, cluster, chain, groups, universe? something like that? there are so many things i want to learn............

Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | STFC
Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Part of the problem is that the plasmas of spacetime scatter and absorb much more light than we realized when the mainstream built all their mathematical models. We also discovered that they grossly underestimate the number of smaller stars that we cannot see compared to the larger ones we can observe. They've also done very little in terms of modeling things differently to minimize the need for exotic matter. In short they've pretty much ignored all the contradictory data of the past decade.

 

[Michael]

Ari and Holushko are not published so I am handwaving them away just as you do with Wright's webpage.

First of all Ned's page included no maths at all. I didn't "handwave it away" either, in fact I agree with Ned that Compton scattering isn't likely to be the primary cause of plasma redshift. Unfortunately you have never provided any source for any criticism related to other known forms of plasma redshift. You're essentially trying to apply a criticism related to Compton scattering toward all kinds of proposed redshift mechanisms. That isn't even logical.

Let's take this slowly. The Stark effect requires the photon to be absorbed and emitted, correct?

Did the laser light absorption by the gas in the chamber in that lab experiment video change the information encoded in the light after it was released? You keep acting as though every interaction between light and matter must necessarily make things "blurry" based on a website that is devoid of any mathematical presentation, or even mentions other forms of redshift. Handwave much?

 

[Michael]

So why do you use the word "religion" as a term of derision?

When did I do that? I simply noted the difference between empirical physics that require no acts of faith on the part of the believer, and acts of faith on the part of the believer! Evidently that irks you for some reason because you have a negative viewpoint of "religion", even though you engage in exactly those same kind of acts of faith in the unseen (in the lab).

Show that the cumulative expansion of space can not add up to greater than the speed of light. This is your claim. I expect you to support it.

I don't have to support it. I don't have to support any of *your* claims. You haven't even properly defined *space* in the first place, and you're the one that subjectively decided to stuff every Higgs in the universe into something smaller than a single atom. Don't blame me if you can't demonstrate your claims.

So Lorentz transformations do not exist? I am sure that there are thousands and thousands of physicists who would be interested in your findings.

You can't demonstrate that "space" does anything. It has nothing to do with Lorentz transformation, and everything to do with your lack of empirical support for your claims related to "space expansion".

Unpublished like Holushko's website? Hypocrisy much?

You aren't even bothering to cite a reference outside of yourself that actually deals with the mechanisms I've proposed. Hypocrisy much yourself?

I asked first. Why can't Doppler shift explain the redshift of distant galaxies?

Because astronomers use "cosmological redshift" to explain the expansion not Doppler shift. Don't blame me for *their* choices, but you must at least accurately represent them. You haven't even done that much.

The wolf effect also scatters light and would blur distant images:
....
Scattered light is blurred light.

Your reference doesn't even make that claim! You're just making this up as you go apparently. Where did the website even claim that?

You claim that Holushko's work applies to all PC models, and that would include tired light models based on compton scattering.

No, it applies generically to all models and combination of models that can actually explain the observations. Compton scattering by *itself* is unlikely to do that. That doesn't rule out all tired light models! You're just winging this whole argument and ignoring the parts you don't like.

Both the Stark and Wolf redshift require absorption and re-emission of photons. That will produce blurred images.

You have never demonstrated this claim and it flies in the face of laboratory tests that *preserve information* in the laser light even after it's been absorbed and emitted. You're just parroting a personal mantra at this point, one that is completely devoid of mathematical support and defies the support provided by Ari and many other authors.

The difference is 1 part in 100,000. That is not consistent with galaxies heating up the surrounding plasma. If your model were true then we would see a temperature gradient around galaxies. We don't.

The heck we don't. We do. All the close galaxies have be "filtered out" lest they blow your whole claim out of the water.

Those are stars, not the CMB.

All the light that comes from the CMB originate in stars. That light is simply absorbed and emitted by gas in the ISM and the IGM.

That describes 99% of your posts. If it were not for your hero worship of Ari and Holushko what would you have to post?

Huh? You're the one that keeps appealing to authority in nearly every single post.

The problem has to do with the fact you keep ignoring their work and the work of Wolf and many other authors too. There is no hero worship involved, you just keep ignoring the information that you don't personally like. Effectively you're claiming Holushko's mathematical models don't matter because no matter what anyone else says, you're personally sticking to your *own personal* claim that all forms interactions with photons cause "blurriness'. Worse yet, you've never cited any work outside yourself to demonstrate that claim is true *other than* as it applies to pure Compton scattering, a method I never championed in the first place!

 

[Loudmouth]

First of all Ned's page included no maths at all. I didn't "handwave it away" either, in fact I agree with Ned that Compton scattering isn't likely to be the primary cause of plasma redshift. Unfortunately you have never provided any source for any criticism related to other known forms of plasma redshift. You're essentially trying to apply a criticism related to Compton scattering toward all kinds of proposed redshift mechanisms. That isn't even logical.

It is logical. Every form of plasma redshift you have offered has the same problem as Compton scattering. First, the photon is absorbed. Second, another photon is emitted that is not on the same flight path as the photon that was absorbed. The only mechanism that differs in each is how the transfer of momentum is handled. In the Stark effect the elasticity of the particle emitting the photon is defined by the forces of the surrounding electrical field. This causes a quantized splitting of the spectral lines as defined by the energy levels of the electrons. However, the photons that are emitted are not moving along the same paths as the photons that were absorbed. Again, this causes blurring.

Did the laser light absorption by the gas in the chamber in that lab experiment video change the information encoded in the light after it was released? You keep acting as though every interaction between light and matter must necessarily make things "blurry" based on a website that is devoid of any mathematical presentation, or even mentions other forms of redshift. Handwave much?

You keep ignoring the scattering that absorption and emission produce. Handwave much?

Refraction can only occur if the density of the material overcomes the wavelength of the light. That is, the distance between the particles is less than the wavelength of the light. This can not be the case for intergalactic plasma, which is more than obvious. Other effects require inelastic interactions where the atoms are not free to move. This is also not a property of intergalactic plasma where electrons are free moving.

And we haven't even moved to the problems of wavelength selectivity.

 

[Michael]

It is logical. Every form of plasma redshift you have offered has the same problem as Compton scattering.

Boloney. You're making that claim without external support of any kind. It's your own personal feedback loop that you go to anytime you want to.

First, the photon is absorbed.

Not every proposed plasma redshift method *requires* this step! You keep *insisting* on something that has never been claimed by Ari or by the author Holushko's code is based upon either.

Second, another photon is emitted that is not on the same flight path as the photon that was absorbed.

Pure handwave. That video I handed you shows that the laser light continues on it's path. It does *not* have to be on a different flight path.

The only mechanism that differs in each is how the transfer of momentum is handled. In the Stark effect the elasticity of the particle emitting the photon is defined by the forces of the surrounding electrical field. This causes a quantized splitting of the spectral lines as defined by the energy levels of the electrons. However, the photons that are emitted are not moving along the same paths as the photons that were absorbed. Again, this causes blurring.

Again, you're just making this up as you go and you've provided no supporting references outside of yourself. Your stuck in an internal feedback loop.

In fact the rest of your post is just more of the same internal handwaving that doesn't even come with any reference outside of yourself. It's all back-pocket physics apparently and you're not even an astronomer by trade, nor do you have any special qualifications in terms of light absorption/scattering. You're literally just making it up as you go.

 

[Loudmouth]

When did I do that? I simply noted the difference between empirical physics that require no acts of faith on the part of the believer, and acts of faith on the part of the believer! Evidently that irks you for some reason because you have a negative viewpoint of "religion", even though you engage in exactly those same kind of acts of faith in the unseen (in the lab).

I don't mind at all. It proves my point. Every time you use "magical sky entities" to describe scientific concepts you are proving to everyone that religion sits below science, and that the only tactic you have left is to drag science down to the level of religion.

I don't have to support it.

Then don't claim it.

You haven't even properly defined *space* in the first place,

The SI definitions work for me:

International System of Units - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can't demonstrate that "space" does anything. It has nothing to do with Lorentz transformation, and everything to do with your lack of empirical support for your claims related to "space expansion".

So now you have to ignore Einstein as well. Go figure.

You aren't even bothering to cite a reference outside of yourself that actually deals with the mechanisms I've proposed. Hypocrisy much yourself?

"There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work."
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

"Objections to Tired Light theories are generally based on the argument that scattered light should blur the galaxy image, and therefore are dismissed because the images are clear and not blurred."
Tired Light | QED Radiation

"Zwicky himself acknowledged that any sort of scattering of light would blur the images

of distant objects more than what is seen. But despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not been supported by observational tests and has lately been consigned to consideration only in the fringes of astrophysics."​

http://templesociety.com/Our Environment/Astronomy/U3A/TIRED LIGHT.pdf

"But the Tired Light Theory quickly gathered up its own set of problems. There was no way within the known laws of physics that a photon's energy could be degraded without also changing its momentum. This would cause a blur of distant starlight, which is not observed. "
Big Bang Tired Light

"With our present waveform model for light “tired light” observed images would blur as the period of the waveform increased due to scattering from dust or gases. This does not appear to be the case from observations. Therefore, either “tired light” is not valid or a new model for light is needed."
http://charleshickman.com/


It's not just me who is saying it.

Because astronomers use "cosmological redshift" to explain the expansion not Doppler shift.

I don't care. Please answer my question. Why can't the redshift of distant stars be explained by a Doppler redshift?

No, it applies generically to all models and combination of models that can actually explain the observations. Compton scattering by *itself* is unlikely to do that. That doesn't rule out all tired light models! You're just winging this whole argument and ignoring the parts you don't like.

So one set of equations applies to compton scattering, stark effect, wolf effect, etc? Why do I find that hard to accept? Please explain how this can be.

You have never demonstrated this claim and it flies in the face of laboratory tests that *preserve information* in the laser light even after it's been absorbed and emitted.

Is that plasma the same as in intergalactic space? Does it have the same density? If not, then you have not shown anything.

The heck we don't. We do. All the close galaxies have be "filtered out" lest they blow your whole claim out of the water.

Yes, they have to remove the stars as radiowave sources to find out what the background looks like. How else could they measure the background?

This doesn't change anything for you. We should find a huge halo of temperature differences around galaxies. We don't.

All the light that comes from the CMB originate in stars.

Evidence please.

The problem has to do with the fact you keep ignoring their work and the work of Wolf and many other authors too.

You are ignoring the scattering problem, and pretending as if unpublished work by Ari somehow dismantles decades of published papers by others.

Effectively you're claiming Holushko's mathematical models don't matter because no matter what anyone else says, you're personally sticking to your *own personal* claim that all forms interactions with photons cause "blurriness'.

Holushko's mathemtaical models don't matter because they don't take scattering into account. It is that simple.

 

[Michael]

I don't mind at all. It proves my point. Every time you use "magical sky entities" to describe scientific concepts you are proving to everyone that religion sits below science, and that the only tactic you have left is to drag science down to the level of religion.

There is no 'tactic' except in your head. There is however a significant difference between empirical physics and "acts of faith" in things one cannot demonstrate. It's not my fault you're attached to "science" and so disillusioned with "religion" and incapable of noting the difference between empirical physics and acts of personal faith.

Then don't claim it.

SR makes that claim, not me, and astronomers use cosmological redshift, not Doppler redshift. You're apparently incapable of noticing that fact.

The SI definitions work for me:
International System of Units - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those describe "spacetime' measurements not measurements of "space". Give it up. You can't even physically define space, let alone clearly explain how it could magically start "expanding".

So now you have to ignore Einstein as well. Go figure.

Strawman. Einstein never claimed "space" did any expanding that was caused by inflation or dark energy.

"There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work."

This all relates to *one and only one* form of plasma redshift!

It's not just me who is saying it.

Yes, it is only you that claims that this issue relates to *non Compton* forms of scattering. None of your authors make such a claim. Only you keep repeating that mantra.

I don't care. Please answer my question. Why can't the redshift of distant stars be explained by a Doppler redshift?

Because if they could be explained that way, the mainstream would have done so. Since they don't, you're up a metaphysical space expanding creek without an empirical paddle.

So one set of equations applies to compton scattering, stark effect, wolf effect, etc? Why do I find that hard to accept? Please explain how this can be.

It's a "postdicted fit' to a known observation! It most likely involves a *combination* of factors, not simply one.

Is that plasma the same as in intergalactic space? Does it have the same density? If not, then you have not shown anything.

I don't have to show you anything related to *your* claims. You keep handwaving away, and expecting me to disprove your handwaves. Nothing about a *raw* image on the wavelength in question shows a *smooth homogenous background*. Only a *highly processed image* that has intentionally *removed* the non homogenous elements in the image shows a 'homogenous' background.

Yes, they have to remove the stars as radiowave sources to find out what the background looks like. How else could they measure the background?

You can't ignore the fact that the effect you claim should be there is actually there around our own galaxy. It's "brighter" than the background, as is every galaxy in the local cluster! Why? Because every galaxy emits these wavelengths, and it takes times for that light to be "scattered" sufficiently to produce a "homogenous' background. There's also a gamma ray background by the way and it shows the same features.

This doesn't change anything for you. We should find a huge halo of temperature differences around galaxies. We don't.

We do observe a *huge* halo around our galaxy and every galaxy in the local cluster too! We remove that effect from galaxies and other objects that are so close that they aren't "smoothed out" by scattering effects.

Evidence please.

I've cited it for you several times now. The original "predictions" of the background temperature based upon starlight were *much* closer than early BB models. That's another reference you simply keep ignoring.

You are ignoring the scattering problem, and pretending as if unpublished work by Ari somehow dismantles decades of published papers by others.

I'm not ignoring anything except the "problems" created by your personal handwaving. Nobody by you claims that blurring is a problem in models that do not involve a "Compton only" form of scattering. You're handwaving away at *every* type of proposed mechanism regardless of whether you even have any external material to support it. You don't have any material that is external to self to support your "blurriness" claims, because all those references relate only to a pure Compton scattering process, and nobody is proposing such a thing. It's only you that keeps making this handwave of a claim, and you've provided no data outside of yourself to demonstrate it.

Holushko's mathemtaical models don't matter because they don't take scattering into account. It is that simple.

At this point you're bordering outright lying. It's that simple. You're making this up as you go apparently and you simply don't care about the facts. Holushko even provided separate C# code to test the spectral aging characteristics and they are fine. You don't care. All you care about is distorting the truth, starting with the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the difference between Compton scattering and other proposed plasma redshift mechanisms, and you refusal to note the difference between Doppler redshift and cosmological redshift.

 

[Michael]

"Objections to Tired Light theories are generally based on the argument that scattered light should blur the galaxy image, and therefore are dismissed because the images are clear and not blurred."
Tired Light | QED Radiation

LOL! This link was a *riot* in terms of absolutely destroying your argument:

Alternative QED Induced Light Theory
An alternative to the Hubble and Tired Light theories is the theory of QED induced redshift caused by the absorption of galaxy light in DPs. QED stands for quantum electrodynamics. See nanoqed at “Dark Energy and Cosmic Dust” and “Reddening and Redshift”, 2009. QED theory asserts the redshift Z is spontaneous upon the absorption of light. Here Z = (Lo – L)/L, where L is the wavelength of galaxy light and Lo is the wavelength of the light emitted from the DP.
QED induced redshift may be understood by treating the absorbed galaxy photon as electromagnetic (EM) energy confined within the DP geometry. Recall from quantum mechanics (QM) that photons of wavelength Lo are created by supplying EM energy to a QM box with walls separated by Lo/2. For a spherical DP of diameter D, the QED photons are produced at a wavelength Lo = 2Dn, where n is the index of refraction which for the typical DP of amorphous silicate has n = 1.45. Hence, DPs having D = 0.25 microns redshift the Lyman-alpha line at 0.121 microns to a red line at 0.725 microns with Z ~ 5. If the QED induced redshift in DPs at Z = 5 is erroneously interpreted by the Hubble law, the galaxy recession velocity is 95 % of the speed of light when in fact the Universe is not expanding.

Your cited author actually prefers an Ari type of plasma redshift theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

LOL! This link was a *riot* in terms of absolutely destroying your argument:

How does a mechanism invented from whole cloth destroy my argument?

Also, it is not just my argument. It is an argument made by astronomers who have looked at tired light cosmologies, including plasma comsologies. The author I quoted acknowledges this fact. Too bad you can't.

Your cited author actually prefers an Ari type of plasma redshift theory.

Yes, redshift through an unverified and, at this point, completely hypothetical mechanism.

 

[Michael]

How does a mechanism invented from whole cloth destroy my argument?

Because it describes a QED redshift that has nothing to do with absorption.

Also, it is not just my argument. It is an argument made by astronomers who have looked at tired light cosmologies, including plasma comsologies. The author I quoted acknowledges this fact. Too bad you can't.

Unlike those "astronomers' you're talking about, you don't distinguish between Doppler redshift and cosmological redshift, and none of them made a single claim about *non Compton* scattering methods.

Yes, redshift through an unverified and, at this point, completely hypothetical mechanism.

Even if that is the case, so what? You've certainly never demonstrated your expanding space claims, and you therefore have no valid justification for rejecting the idea. Talk about hypocritical arguments.