are there other universes?

[Michael]

http://www.nanoqed.org/resources/Einstein.pdf

FYI, here's another paper that explains the CMB *without* BB theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

I am not the one disillusioned with religion since I am not the one using religion as a derisive term. That would be you.

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

I am not asking what astronomers use. Again, why can't the redshift of distant stars be explained by doppler redshift? Why can't you answer this question?

Those describe "spacetime' measurements not measurements of "space".

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

Einstein did claim that spacetime is curved due to differences in velocity and gravity demonstrating that it is malleable. Do you really think that Einstein never offered a metric for measuring spacetime changes?

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

It relates to all of them:

"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

Compton scattering is just one example.

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.

It applies to all of the interactions since all of them produce changes in momentum which result in scattering.

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.

The same applies to plasma redshift then. I guess we can ignore that as well.

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

So how are those factors calculated in? How is the scattering due to the Stark Effect calculated in? How does Holushko deal with the blurring of strongly redshifted galaxies?

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.

The background is smooth to 1 part in 100,000. You can run away from the data all you want, but it is still there.

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.

Light is scattered? What? I thought you said it wasn't scattered?

Also, if it takes time then we should see temperature gradients 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. Please show this temperature gradient around galaxies.

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.

This is false:

Cosmology FAQ: Can the CMBR be redshifted starlight?

Nobody by you claims that blurring is a problem in models that do not involve a "Compton only" form of scattering.

"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

Scattering is involved in all of the reactions with compton scattering being just one example.

Holushko even provided separate C# code to test the spectral aging characteristics and they are fine.

The code does not model scattering. It uses changes in the speed of light without scattering. That doesn't happen in intergalactic plasma. Holushko is modeling a fictitious universe. Also, it is not even peer reviewed so it doesn't even meet your own standards.

 

[Loudmouth]

http://www.nanoqed.org/resources/Einstein.pdf

FYI, here's another paper that explains the CMB *without* BB theory.

Which peer reviewed journal is that published in?

 

[Michael]

Which peer reviewed journal is that published in?

Who cares? What publication was Ned's handwavy website published in?

 

[Loudmouth]

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

It describes an unverified mechanism. It is a mechanism invented to save PC from falsification due to the blurring of distant images.

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.

Instead, they made comments on all interactions since all of them involve absorption and emission. Compton scattering is just one type of scattering. The Stark effect also involves scattering. The Wolf effect is limited to the source of radiation, so it is focused on emission.

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.

False dichotomy.

 

[Loudmouth]

Who cares?

You do. You are ignoring criticisms of PC because they are not peer reviewed.

 

[Michael]

I am not the one disillusioned with religion since I am not the one using religion as a derisive term. That would be you.

Not me. I'm quite happy to own my "religion" and I acknowledge my own "faith". You're the one that can't accept the difference between empirical physics and your own personal "faith in the unseen".

I am not asking what astronomers use. Again, why can't the redshift of distant stars be explained by doppler redshift? Why can't you answer this question?

I have already done that for you which is why you keep avoiding the age and size related questions about the universe, and you refuse to acknowledge the fact that astronomers do not use Doppler shift to explain it. If Doppler shift worked, why aren't they using it?

I have no idea what you're laughing about because spacetime includes all three spacial dimensions and time and links time to them. You're the one ignoring that fact and making metaphysical claims about "space" without even defining what it is, let alone explaining how it might "expand".

Einstein did claim that spacetime is curved due to differences in velocity and gravity demonstrating that it is malleable. Do you really think that Einstein never offered a metric for measuring spacetime changes?

Spacetime changes require the movements of objects, not the movement of "space".

It relates to all of them:

"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

It's a complete fabrication from start to finish. Loss of momentum isn't a cause of "blurriness" in the first place. That is an error, one you've never acknowledged. It's also utterly irrelevant in terms of how it applies to QED ideas and Air's redshift mechanisms. Who cares what Ned thinks? He's just one guy!

Compton scattering is just one example.

It's apparently the only one hes actually "tested" in any meaningful way, and even that seems to be highly dubious. Other authors have pointed out several flaws in Ned's maths.

It applies to all of the interactions since all of them produce changes in momentum which result in scattering.

False. You're handwaving again. You've never provided even a shred of math that demonstrates your claims related to *other* forms of redshift.

The same applies to plasma redshift then. I guess we can ignore that as well.

No, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're going to "entertain" one non demonstrated mechanism of redshift, then you have to entertain them all, or be a blatant hypocrite, one or the other. Which is it going to be?

So how are those factors calculated in? How is the scattering due to the Stark Effect calculated in? How does Holushko deal with the blurring of strongly redshifted galaxies?

He produced both the code to demonstrate the broadening and the spectral aging. You've produced *nothing* quantitative to support your claims.

The background is smooth to 1 part in 100,000. You can run away from the data all you want, but it is still there.

Who cares that it's there? So are the effects you claimed were not there. I've handed you several papers that explain that average temperatures without any "bangs" of any sort, and you've ignored them all.

 

[Michael]

You do. You are ignoring criticisms of PC because they are not peer reviewed.

No, I have not. I have acknowledged that Compton redshift alone won't suffice. You're the one ignoring everything you dislike based on some publishing requirement. You however ignored not only their maths, but also their ideas, their statements and everything else you didn't like.

 

[Michael]

Light is scattered? What? I thought you said it wasn't scattered?

All light is scattered in space to some degree or another and every object is slightly "blurry" as well.

Also, if it takes time then we should see temperature gradients around galaxies. We don't.

That's easily demonstrated to be a false statement as any raw image will demonstrate. Every local galaxy in the our cluster shows up in the raw images. Only the "doctored" images show a smooth background temperature.

Evidence please. Please show this temperature gradient around galaxies.

I already did that! You keep asking me for stuff I've given you!

http://www.esa.int/images/PLANCK_FSM_03_Black.jpg

The galaxy has to be *removed*, otherwise it overwhelms the images!

This is false:

Cosmology FAQ: Can the CMBR be redshifted starlight?

We went through that website already. The error on that website is related to the fact that the *plasmas* of spacetime (not the stars) are emitting most of the light. It's not simply a scattering effect, most of the light is absorbed and emitted by the plasma *in* spacetime. It's the average temperature of that plasma that we observe in these images, not simply a scattering effect of that wavelength or several wavelengths.

"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

Repeating the same false assertion simply demonstrates the absurdity of your claim. The part you highlighted is false. A loss of momentum isn't a cause of blurriness! Only a change in the direction of the photon can do that! The line you highlighted is scientifically false!

Scattering is involved in all of the reactions with compton scattering being just one example.

You've never demonstrated that claim with *other* effects like the Wolf effect or Stark redshift. You keep handwaving your personal opinions as fact without a shred of supporting evidence.

The code does not model scattering.

False.

It uses changes in the speed of light without scattering.

False again.

That doesn't happen in intergalactic plasma. Holushko is modeling a fictitious universe. Also, it is not even peer reviewed so it doesn't even meet your own standards.

You're totally misrepresenting his work. Then again, what else should I expect from a guy peddling Doppler shift as cosmological redshift, and who's also blatantly misrepresenting the mainstream position? At least you misrepresent everyone consistently.

 

[JoeyArnold]

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.

Is the James Webb Telescope on earth, or up in orbit, or out in space, all ready? So JWT is suppose to be better than the Hubble? Sounds really exciting. I would love to see the new discoveries, stars, things, etc... by the newer telescopes, satellites, etc.... But I thought they already sent telescopes or satellites out into space, or out towards Pluto, right? Like, did they ever get a satellite to orbit Pluto or to orbit anything way out there? Because wouldn't that be a better spot for telescopes to pick up stars & space better without the interference from the bright shinning sun right? Can they make those satellites solar-power? Or maybe they could send out a new battery to a satellite orbiting Pluto every ten years, so that they can keep it running forever, right? Or is it easier just to send out new satellites & let the old satellites die? because technology is advancing so fast, old satellites are not worth preserving?

 

[NGC 6712]

A loss of momentum isn't a cause of blurriness! Only a change in the direction of the photon can do that! The line you highlighted is scientifically false!

And what do you think is occurring when the momentum changes? You do realise momentum is a vector not a scalar. You can only get what you want in a scattering interaction with violation of momentum conservation.

The statement of Ned Wright is correct. Blurring rules out tired light or similar fantasies.

 

[Michael]

And what do you think is occurring when the momentum changes?

Redshift or blueshift depending on whether it's decreasing or increasing.

You do realise momentum is a vector not a scalar.

Sure but the speed of light cannot change, only the wavelength. There is still a distinct difference between a change in vector momentum and a change in vector *direction*. These are entirely different issues as that video on slowing down laser light demonstrates. The momentum change is simply a "shift" (blue or red). Only a *deflection* of the photon causes blurriness.

You can only get what you want in a scattering interaction with violation of momentum conservation.

Not according to that work that was done in a lab with lasers. In the video she's clearly explaining that data is preserved and directional information is preserved.

The statement of Ned Wright is correct. Blurring rules out tired light or similar fantasies.

No it does not. Ned didn't even provide any useful math that someone else didn't debunk for him in rebuttal. For instance:

No Errors in Stolmar's CMB Model

FYI, it's a "fantasy" that "space" exists independently of "spacetime", let alone that it *does* anything, including but not limited to "expanding".

Spacetime describes all three spatial dimensions and time and links them altogether at the point of mass. Any expansion of spacetime relates to the expansion of the objects of mass that makeup spacetime. "Space" isn't even defined in GR and nobody has every properly defined it.

 

[Michael]

Is the James Webb Telescope on earth, or up in orbit, or out in space, all ready?

The James Webb Space Telescope

It will be launched into space in 2018, but parts of it are already being assembled and tested on Earth.

So JWT is suppose to be better than the Hubble?

In terms of deep space imaging, and exploring cosmological redshift issues, significantly so.

Sounds really exciting. I would love to see the new discoveries, stars, things, etc... by the newer telescopes, satellites, etc.... But I thought they already sent telescopes or satellites out into space, or out towards Pluto, right?

They've sent various equipment just about everywhere now. That's one of the coolest things about NASA. Not all of the probes are "telescopes" on the order of a Hubble or JWST instrument for exploring deep space however. JWST is more like a Spitzer and Hubble on steroids.

Like, did they ever get a satellite to orbit Pluto or to orbit anything way out there? Because wouldn't that be a better spot for telescopes to pick up stars & space better without the interference from the bright shinning sun right? Can they make those satellites solar-power? Or maybe they could send out a new battery to a satellite orbiting Pluto every ten years, so that they can keep it running forever, right? Or is it easier just to send out new satellites & let the old satellites die? because technology is advancing so fast, old satellites are not worth preserving?

Deep space telescopes are typically put into orbit or in the case of JWTS, the L2 Lagrange point where gravity isn't an issue and communication speeds are much faster. Probes of various sorts are a different story. They can go just about anywhere, and they aren't necessarily designed to study deep space. Solar satellites and space telescopes tend to be put into closer proximity to Earth (Stereo being the exception) so that communication problems are minimized and data uplink speeds can be maximized. Telescopes also tend to be solar powered and have shields to block solar emissions when required.

Space probes tend to be "mission oriented" by design, like Curiosity. They can go anywhere and they can be powered in a variety of ways, nuclear power being the most exotic and the most "reliable" in terms of long term missions. Keep mind that the Voyager probes are still working and operational, over 25 years after launch, and they are nowhere near the sun now. Curiosity carries a nuclear heat source (and equipment to turn heat into electrical current) so that it can operate day and night and it's power source will not be dependent upon Martian weather conditions.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not me. I'm quite happy to own my "religion" and I acknowledge my own "faith". You're the one that can't accept the difference between empirical physics and your own personal "faith in the unseen".

The problem for you is that we can see the effects of space expansion, therefore no faith is needed.

I have already done that for you which is why you keep avoiding the age and size related questions about the universe, and you refuse to acknowledge the fact that astronomers do not use Doppler shift to explain it.

Then I will also ignore plasma cosmology because astronomers do not use PC to explain redshifts.

I have no idea what you're laughing about because spacetime includes all three spacial dimensions and time and links time to them. You're the one ignoring that fact and making metaphysical claims about "space" without even defining what it is, let alone explaining how it might "expand".

No metaphysical claims made. I pointed to the use of SI units earlier. They still apply. Why you want to keep arguing this point is beyond me. You try to differentiate between empirical science and religion in your statement above, and now you want to throw out empiricism. Go figure.

Spacetime changes require the movements of objects, not the movement of "space".

Evidence please.

Loss of momentum isn't a cause of "blurriness" in the first place.

Yes, it is. The loss of momentum requires that the particle absorb and then re-emit a photon. The photon that is emitted will not be on the same path as the photon that was absorbed.

It's also utterly irrelevant in terms of how it applies to QED ideas and Air's redshift mechanisms. Who cares what Ned thinks? He's just one guy!

Astronomers do not explain redshift in terms of plasma. When will you admit this?

It's apparently the only one hes actually "tested" in any meaningful way, and even that seems to be highly dubious. Other authors have pointed out several flaws in Ned's maths.

You offered the Stark effect earlier, but that has the same problems as compton scattering. You are now pushing the Wolf effect, but it has the same problems as well, and doesn't apply to intergalactic plasma anyway. The Wolf effect applies to the radiating source, so it would apply to the stars themselves, not the intervening plasma. It is also an effect that occurs when a photon is emitted, so you still have scattering problems with the Wolf effect.

Now you are pushing quantum electrodynamics. What is it? Just the quantum description of how light is absorbed and then emitted by particles. It is the quantum description of Compton scattering.

Quantum electrodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

False. You're handwaving again. You've never provided even a shred of math that demonstrates your claims related to *other* forms of redshift.

False? It is a well known effect of light absorption and emission. Why you continue to deny this is beyond me.

No, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're going to "entertain" one non demonstrated mechanism of redshift, then you have to entertain them all, or be a blatant hypocrite, one or the other. Which is it going to be?

So then show us why space expansion is not capable of producing the redshift we see in distant galaxies.

He produced both the code to demonstrate the broadening and the spectral aging. You've produced *nothing* quantitative to support your claims.

Holushko produced code that doesn't even model real interactions between light and plasma. His code is irrelevant because that is not how reality works.

Who cares that it's there? So are the effects you claimed were not there. I've handed you several papers that explain that average temperatures without any "bangs" of any sort, and you've ignored them all.

Your explanation would result in blurred images of distant galaxies. That is not observed, therefore your explanation is falsified.

 

[Loudmouth]

All light is scattered in space to some degree or another and every object is slightly "blurry" as well.

We shouldn't be getting crisp images of distant galaxies if PC is correct. We do get crisp images.

I already did that! You keep asking me for stuff I've given you!

http://www.esa.int/images/PLANCK_FSM_03_Black.jpg

The galaxy has to be *removed*, otherwise it overwhelms the images!

Do you even know what a gradient is? There is no gradient in that picture. What we see is a sharp drop off in temperature as soon as you move out of the galaxy. We shouldn't see that sharp drop off if your theory is correct. Instead, we should see a steady drop in temperature as you move away from the galaxy. That is NOT what that picture shows.

It's not simply a scattering effect, most of the light is absorbed and emitted by the plasma *in* spacetime.

Do you even understand what is wrong with this sentence? Absorption and emission IS WHAT PRODUCES THE SCATTERING.

A loss of momentum isn't a cause of blurriness! Only a change in the direction of the photon can do that!

THOSE ARE THE SAME THING. The loss of momentum is what produces the change in direction in plasmas that have the densities you are proposing.

You've never demonstrated that claim with *other* effects like the Wolf effect or Stark redshift. You keep handwaving your personal opinions as fact without a shred of supporting evidence.

The Stark effect and the Wolf effect require absorption and emission of photons. True or False?

False.

False again.

Then show me how Holushko's model incorporates scattering.

Then again, what else should I expect from a guy peddling Doppler shift as cosmological redshift, and who's also blatantly misrepresenting the mainstream position?

Says the person who is pushing PC which is not the mainstream position.

 

[Michael]

We shouldn't be getting crisp images of distant galaxies if PC is correct. We do get crisp images.

We should get relatively crisp images of distant galaxies if PC is correct. We do get relatively crisp images, albeit somewhat imperfect images, just as PC theory predicts.

Universal, primordial magnetic fields discovered in deep space by UCLA, Caltech physicists / UCLA Newsroom

"While this process by itself does not blur the image significantly, even a small magnetic field along the way can deflect the electrons and positrons, making the image fuzzy," he said.

From such blurred images, the researchers found that the average magnetic field had a "femto-Gauss" strength, just one-quadrillionth of the Earth's magnetic field. The universal magnetic fields may have formed in the early universe shortly after the Big Bang, long before stars and galaxies formed, Ando and Kusenko said.

Notice that comment about the blurriness of the images?

Do you even know what a gradient is? There is no gradient in that picture. What we see is a sharp drop off in temperature as soon as you move out of the galaxy. We shouldn't see that sharp drop off if your theory is correct. Instead, we should see a steady drop in temperature as you move away from the galaxy. That is NOT what that picture shows.

It is what the picture shows and you're whistling Dixie! Without stripping out the effects of the galaxies, there is no smooth "black body" image as you assert. The raw images look *nothing* like a 'black body' because every galaxy in our local cluster emits many more photons than are emitted by background plasmas. The temperatures around the galaxies must also be affected by the greater concentration of photons near galaxies. There is no way to stick your head in the sand because our own galaxy sticks out like a sore thumb in those raw images, as does every galaxy in the local cluster, and many other recognizable objects.

Do you even understand what is wrong with this sentence? Absorption and emission IS WHAT PRODUCES THE SCATTERING.

You keep repeating that mantra in spite of those scientists demonstrating in the lab that information is preserved even in such transactions. In other words, you're in pure denial of the fact that such interactions do not *always* lead to a trajectory change in photons. As long as you keep ignoring the lab results, I'll keep pointing them out to you.

THOSE ARE THE SAME THING. The loss of momentum is what produces the change in direction in plasmas that have the densities you are proposing.

No. The loss of momentum is simply "redshift". Trajectory changes are a *different issue*. You keep trying to stuff them together, when they *must* be treated separately. Oversimplify much?

The Stark effect and the Wolf effect require absorption and emission of photons. True or False?

You tell me for a change. You keep acting like an expert, and I personally doubt that you've read any of the relevant materials.

Then show me how Holushko's model incorporates scattering.

You clearly didn't look at the first download of C# code. It includes the effects of scattering and not all light reaches Earth as a result. Some 'events" wouldn't even show up on Earth as a result of the loss of light from scattering processes that act to elongate (broaden) the signal. In essence, your approach to physics is 'ignorance is bliss'.

Says the person who is pushing PC which is not the mainstream position.

Who cares? At least I'm not blatantly misrepresenting their statements and ignoring the differences between Doppler shift and cosmological redshift as you're doing. You aren't even capable of fully understanding, or correctly representing *either* theory apparently. How sad. No wonder you can't make an informed choice in the matter, and no wonder you're therefore highly dependent on appeal to authority fallacies and oversimplification fallacies.

 

[Michael]

The problem for you is that we can see the effects of space expansion, therefore no faith is needed.

No. You see the effects of plasma redshift, and you "have faith" that magic space expanding sky entities did it. You can't even tell the difference between *observation* (of redshift) and a subjective *interpretation* of that phenomenon (cause).

Then I will also ignore plasma cosmology because astronomers do not use PC to explain redshifts.

You can do what you want for whatever reason you want. In your case I have no faith you understand either theory properly. Who cares what you think?

No metaphysical claims made. I pointed to the use of SI units earlier. They still apply. Why you want to keep arguing this point is beyond me.

You're violating the tenants of GR theory. You're attempting to ignore the fact that time and distance are *related*. They are *not* separate as you claim. Spacetime can expand as the objects of mass spread out and expand. "Space" isn't even physically defined in GR, and it can't be a simple distance measurement because TIME cannot be stripped from space in GR.

You try to differentiate between empirical science and religion in your statement above, and now you want to throw out empiricism. Go figure.

No, I insist we stick with empirical physics as Einstein himself taught it, with a constant set a zero unless and until you can explain why it should not be set to zero, and you can demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between your 'constant' and the movement of mass.

Evidence please.

Do you even understand GR at all? Did Einstein use the term "spacetime"? Why did he do that? What makes you think you can separate space from time?

Yes, it is. The loss of momentum requires that the particle absorb and then re-emit a photon. The photon that is emitted will not be on the same path as the photon that was absorbed.

You cannot demonstrate that claim as those laser experiments demonstrate. In the lab they were able to preserve trajectory, even while stopping the photons in their tracks for some period of time. They claimed that information was also preserved, including the length of the signal and everything. The more you simply ignore the lab results, the more desperate you appear.

Astronomers do not explain redshift in terms of plasma. When will you admit this?

They don't explain it with Doppler shift either, but you've never admitted that fact. What's up with your denial routine, and why are you immune from 'coming clean', yet have the audacity to demand such things of others? Wow! Hypocrisy seems to be one of your strong suits in debate.

You offered the Stark effect earlier, but that has the same problems as compton scattering.

You never demonstrated that in a lab, or even with a published paper. You keep asserting your personal opinions as fact based evidently on one guy's website that never once mentioned stark redshift nor compared it to Compton redshift.

You are now pushing the Wolf effect, but it has the same problems as well, and doesn't apply to intergalactic plasma anyway. The Wolf effect applies to the radiating source, so it would apply to the stars themselves, not the intervening plasma. It is also an effect that occurs when a photon is emitted, so you still have scattering problems with the Wolf effect.

And yet Wolf himself rejected your claims, stated it did apply to objects in space, and yet the mainstream continues to "oversimply" the idea so that they can include *no* such effects of any sort. In short they are stuck in the unenviable position of claiming *no* other kinds of redshift *ever* occur in space. It's an absurdly pitiful position that is utterly indefensible over time as you're discovering. You're reduced to pure handwaves at this point, and ignoring lab tested physics entirely.

Now you are pushing quantum electrodynamics. What is it? Just the quantum description of how light is absorbed and then emitted by particles. It is the quantum description of Compton scattering.

Quantum electrodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The author of the article disagrees with you because he supports that idea whereas he does not support other options. I don't think you've correctly explained *anyone's* position on this topic. You're batting a thousand in terms of misinformation and misunderstanding the statements of various authors.

False? It is a well known effect of light absorption and emission. Why you continue to deny this is beyond me.

I don't have to deny anything. I can combine various effects that are observed in the lab until they add up to exactly what I'm looking form. I don't have to deny that *some* Compton redshift is inevitable. I don't have to deny that *some* Wolf effects occur in space. I don't have to deny that *some* Stark redshift occurs in space. I don't have to deny that *some* QED forms of redshift occur in space. I don't have to deny any of these things, whereas the mainstream must forever deny the fact that they have any significant effect on photons in space.

So then show us why space expansion is not capable of producing the redshift we see in distant galaxies.

You're shifting the burden of proof again. You didn't demonstrate that space does any magic expanding tricks, and until you do, I lack belief in magical expansion of space thingies that have never been physically defined and that are not defined in GR or by GR.

Holushko produced code that doesn't even model real interactions between light and plasma. His code is irrelevant because that is not how reality works.

Boloney. You have reality standing on it's head. He's using known observations from supernova events, and building general plasma redshift models that explain them. That's how science is *always* done, and that's how the mainstream decided to include 'dark energy' by the way. You can't fault PC theory for doing exactly what the mainstream does. Mathematical modeling is always a good thing, never a bad thing. It gives us clues about which plasma redshift process or processes might be involved.

You (and the mainstream) are stuck trying to deny that *any* significant amount of plasma redshift occurs, even though physics *insists* that some types of redshift *must* occur. You're essentially denying the fundamental tenants of QM in fact.

Your explanation would result in blurred images of distant galaxies. That is not observed, therefore your explanation is falsified.

Your understanding of every one of these issues has been falsified. You don't differentiate between Doppler redshift and cosmological redshift, and you don't differentiate between various types of plasma redshift. In short your entire belief system on this topic is based on blind ignorance of all the various ideas. You properly understand any of them, not even the mainstream model.

 

[Loudmouth]

We should get relatively crisp images of distant galaxies if PC is correct. We do get relatively crisp images, albeit somewhat imperfect images, just as PC theory predicts.

Universal, primordial magnetic fields discovered in deep space by UCLA, Caltech physicists / UCLA Newsroom

Your reference agrees with me. Images are blurred when light is scattered by these interactions. This will necessarily blur the image. In the reference above only a tiny portion of the photons go through these reactions, and even that tiny portion is enough to produce noticeable blurring. You are requiring all photons to go through this process since the entire spectra is redshifted. We don't see 50% of the light redshifted. We see that ALL of the photons are redshifted.

Notice that comment about the blurriness of the images?

Did you?

It is what the picture shows and you're whistling Dixie!

There is no gradient in the picture. Do you even understand what a gradient is? Look at the sharp edge between the galaxy and the background. That shouldn't be there if your theory is true.

The raw images look *nothing* like a 'black body' because every galaxy in our local cluster emits many more photons than are emitted by background plasmas.

So galaxies are hotter than the background? Why is this a problem again?

The temperatures around the galaxies must also be affected by the greater concentration of photons near galaxies.

Why?

There is no way to stick your head in the sand because our own galaxy sticks out like a sore thumb in those raw images, as does every galaxy in the local cluster, and many other recognizable objects.

They shouldn't stick out like a sore thumb if your theory is correct. Instead, they should be surrounded by clouds of hotter plasma with a temperature gradient. They aren't.

You keep repeating that mantra in spite of those scientists demonstrating in the lab that information is preserved even in such transactions.

At what densities?

No. The loss of momentum is simply "redshift".

And scattering.

You clearly didn't look at the first download of C# code. It includes the effects of scattering and not all light reaches Earth as a result.

Where?

Some 'events" wouldn't even show up on Earth as a result of the loss of light from scattering processes that act to elongate (broaden) the signal.

Now you are contradicting yourself. Is the light broadened, or is it not detected? Which is it?

Who cares? At least I'm not blatantly misrepresenting their statements and ignoring the differences between Doppler shift and cosmological redshift as you're doing. You aren't even capable of fully understanding, or correctly representing *either* theory apparently. How sad. No wonder you can't make an informed choice in the matter, and no wonder you're therefore highly dependent on appeal to authority fallacies and oversimplification fallacies.

What statements am I misrepresenting? Please point them out. Have NEVER said that astronomers are proposing that redshift is due to Doppler redshift. I am asking YOU, and only YOU, why the redshift can not be due to Doppler redshift. You refuse to answer the question. Why is that?

 

[Michael]

quantumredshift

Not that you're actually interested, but this provides some historical background in terms of the actual historical "predictions" of redshifted objects in space based on known (and recently suggested) forms of plasma redshift.

 

[Loudmouth]

quantumredshift

Not that you're actually interested, but this provides some historical background in terms of the actual historical "predictions" of redshifted objects in space based on known (and recently suggested) forms of plasma redshift.

Barry Setterfield? Really? Talk about discredited scientists.

Even worse, Setterfield is not even talking about plasmas. His model requires changes in the physical constants of the universe, such as the radius of atoms. I think you really need to read up on what Setterfield is pushing before you offer it up as evidence for plasma redshifts.