Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[Michael]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing."

 

[RealityCheck01]

Originally Posted by Michael
There isn't any known mechanism in blazar theory that allows for those higher energy wavelengths to be delayed at the source.

That is a complete denial of the physics, Michael!
There is a mechanism to delay the gamma rays.
Read what the actual paper says:
Variable VHE gamma-ray emission from Markarian 501.

We conclude that the time delay of the flare peak emission in different ranges of energy can result from the gradual acceleration of the emitting electrons in the blob.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Originally Posted by Michael
That is *not* what I'm saying, RC is simply sticking words in my mouth ...usual insults snipped...

This is what you wrote, Michael:

Originally Posted by Michael
The one really "key" prediction of tired light/plasma redshift theory that tends to be unique and different from Lambda-CDM is the prediction that light of various wavelengths travel at different speeds though spacetime

What is missing is an actual citation to the prediction so we only have your word for this. So Michael,

Please provide citation(s) to the literature that states that the one really "key" prediction of tired light/plasma redshift theory is the prediction that light of various wavelengths travel at different speeds though spacetime.
​

The science is that the Lambda-CDM model can match the results of
Variable VHE gamma-ray emission from Markarian 501 because it includes GR (and thus any quantum gravity replacement) and so has a space-time foam.

The problem is that tired light/plasma redshift theory is just about redshift. None of the effects that you have suggested include GR. No GR = no space-time foam = no match to the observation!

The best that we can do is assume that tired light/plasma redshift theory is set in a background of GR (even though all the effects are classical or QM). Then we are left with

• the Lambda-CDM model matches the observation.
• tired light/plasma redshift theory matches the observtion (ignoting the pphsyics that states that they are all invalid).

Therefore the observation is not able to distinguish between the tested Lambda-CDM model and the obviously invalid tired light/plasma redshift theory.

Tired light/plasma redshift theory is what you think predicts cosmological redshift (easily shown to be wrong). Thus there is an implication that you are talking about cosmological redshift and so predicting different redshifts for different spectral lines.

Thank you for so very politely (not !) correcting my mistake, Michael.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Originally Posted by Michael
..uual insults snipped...
Quick hijacking this thread!

Can you tell me how I can post a link to the proper place to continue this discussion in this thread without "hijacking this thread, Michael ?
In case you missed it:
Into the other thread then, Michael!
Michael is proud of co-authoring paper on an easily debunked theory

 

[RealityCheck01]

P.S. Michael:
Michael: Can you see a another problem with Compton scattering = tired light?

Where are your citations of astronomers observing blurring of distant objects?

 

[Michael]

That is a complete denial of the physics, Michael!
There is a mechanism to delay the gamma rays.
Read what the actual paper says:
Variable VHE gamma-ray emission from Markarian 501.

There's a "mechanism" for you to work around about any "test" that has no control mechanism. That's the problem with simple "tests". Apparently you missed the whole point. There is actually a fundamental difference between the predictions of tired light theory vs. Lambda-CDM *besides* all the lab results. Tired light theory *predicts* that various wavelengths travel at different speeds. It therefore doesn't require *tweaking* in this instance as your theory needs to be 'tweaked' by some unknown cause.

My point was that Tired light theory makes a number of very testable claims that are unique and different from Lambda-CDM.

 

[Michael]

This is what you wrote, Michael:

What is missing is an actual citation to the prediction so we only have your word for this. So Michael,

http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf
Um, I gave that to you in Ashmore's work. Did you not read it?

The science is that the Lambda-CDM model can match the results of
Variable VHE gamma-ray emission from Markarian 501 because it includes GR (and thus any quantum gravity replacement) and so has a space-time foam.

Really? I'm sure you have some *external* reference to that effect, right?

The problem is that tired light/plasma redshift theory is just about redshift. None of the effects that you have suggested include GR.

They don't exclude GR either. The simply have GR in a static configuration.

No GR = no space-time foam = no match to the observation!

What? You tend to make up your own sense of reality as you go apparently. When did Holushko's model exclude GR?

The best that we can do is assume that tired light/plasma redshift theory is set in a background of GR (even though all the effects are classical or QM). Then we are left with

• the Lambda-CDM model matches the observation.

Somewhere back I cited a paper to something like 55 different theories that match prediction. They all fail to show up in the lab, except one. The tired light theories make real predictions that really show up in real labs. The rest of them do not. Your model isn't even special other than the fact the CDM claim has been put on life support and effectively killed at LHC.


You are not competent to comment on photon physics and we all know why.

It would literally take an act of God himself for plasma redshift to not show up in space like it shows up in the lab. The ever shrinking gaps at LHC are killing one of your invisible friends on a regular basis, and plasma physics kills the other two.

 

[Michael]

P.S. Michael:
Michael: Can you see a another problem with Compton scattering = tired light?

Where are your citations of astronomers observing blurring of distant objects?

I see a giant problem trying to debate the topic of photon redshift with a guy that thinks that photons have no kinetic energy, and who refuse to cite any external source to support such an absurd claim.

 

[RealityCheck01]

My point was that Tired light theory makes a number of very testable claims that are unique and different from Lambda-CDM.

My point is that tired light theory makes a number of very testable claims that have been tested and found false: Tired light
So we can rule out any tired light that involves scattering unless you can answer Where are your citations of astronomers observing blurring of distant objects?

We can rule out any tired light that

• cannot predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves.
• cannot match the blackbody spectrum for the Cosmic Microwave Background
• fails the Tolman surface brightness test.

Any tired light theroy that needs a static universe has to explain the evidence that he universe is expanding:

• Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
• Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
• Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
• Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.

 

[RealityCheck01]

http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf
Um, I gave that to you in Ashmore's work. Did you not read it?
..usual stuff snipped...

I know that pre-print well - it is the pre-print that is so bad that it cannot even get onto ArXiv !
There is no evidence that Chen's plasma redshift is cosmological redshift

So quote where this pre-print states the key prediction that "light of various wavelengths travel at different speeds though spacetime"?

I will make it explicit for you, Michael:

Please provide citation(s) to the scientific literature that states that the one really "key" prediction of tired light/plasma redshift theory is the prediction that light of various wavelengths travel at different speeds though spacetime.
Thta does not include any pre-prints on a web site dedicated to pre-prints that are so bad that they cannot get onto ArXiv or be published as papers.
​

You wrote nothing that changes the conclusion:
Therefore the observation is not able to distinguish between the tested Lambda-CDM model and the obviously invalid tired light/plasma redshift theory.

P.S.
Where is the scientific literature linking Chen's redshift with cosmological redshift
Michael's seven noncosmological redshifts that show up in the lab

 

[RealityCheck01]

I see a giant problem trying to debate the topic of photon redshift with a guy that thinks that photons have no kinetic energy, and who refuse to cite any external source to support such an absurd claim.

I see a giant problem trying to debate the topic of photon redshift with a guy that cannot even read what I write !
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy
External reference:
How can photons have energy and momentum, but no mass?

Physicist: Classically (according to Newton) kinetic energy is given by

and the momentum is given by

, where m is the mass and v is the velocity. But if you plug in the mass and velocity for light you get

. But that’s no good. If light didn’t carry energy, it wouldn’t be able to heat stuff up.

So:

1. I gave the right answer for the classical kinetic energy of a photon (zero).
2. That answer is no good because light heats stuff up. Which is why Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy goes onto relativistic kinetic energy.

 

[Michael]

I know that pre-print well - it is the pre-print that is so bad that it cannot even get onto ArXiv !
There is no evidence that Chen's plasma redshift is cosmological redshift

There is evidence that it plays a role in cosmological redshift since it occurs in the presence of free electrons, and the galaxies are surrounded by million degree plasma with *lots* of free electrons.

So quote where this pre-print states the key prediction that "light of various wavelengths travel at different speeds though spacetime"?

Go over to Ashmore's website. That's where I found the UCDavis link in fact. All tired light theories include a *medium* specifically the medium of plasma. All plasma will have a physical effect on all photons.

I'm not citing a darn thing for you until I see you cite a paper that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma and photons have zero kinetic energy. You love to pull the bait and switch and ignore your own requirements for support whenever you feel like it. Why should I keep providing you with references when you handwave them away by the dozen and you never provide any external support of your claims?

You wrote nothing that changes the conclusion:
Therefore the observation is not able to distinguish between the tested Lambda-CDM model and the obviously invalid tired light/plasma redshift theory.

The obviously invalid theory is the one that require three invisible friends! Plasma redshift theory works in the lab. Your invisible friends don't do anything in labs on Earth. LHC killed CDM dead last year and this year.

P.S.
Where is the scientific literature linking Chen's redshift with cosmological redshift
Michael's seven noncosmological redshifts that show up in the lab

Ashmore already did that for you, but then you're incapable of dealing with any external references other than to handwave at them like any good hater.

It's still 8 to 0. When were you going to support your erroneous claims with *external* references RC?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Michael: Can you see a another problem with Compton scattering = tired light?
I see a giant problem trying to debate the topic of photon redshift
...usual insults snipped...

So once again: Michael: Can you see a another problem with Compton scattering = tired light?
This is not a debate - it is an exercise to allow you to display your knowledge of the physics of the Compton effect.
You will need also have know a couple of other facts about the universe but those are basic astronomy that you should know (CMB, what redshifted spectra look like).

Or an even simpler exercise (and Hint 5!): a test of your ability to click on a link to a Wikipedia article and scroll down to the bottom !

Hint 4 is basically about the article's first topic and last sections.
Hints 3a and 3b are the undergraduate version (Hint 4 is high school level).
Hints 1 and 2 are to encourage to read the article.
Hint 0 is maybe too general
​

The description in the last section should give you the answer to the question.

 

[Michael]

I see a giant problem trying to debate the topic of photon redshift with a guy that cannot even read what I write !

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-41/#post61575350

Photon "kinetic energy" cannot change (is always zero) and so has nothing to do with frequencey shifts.

And there is that "kinetic" again. A photon always has a kineteic energy of zero .

That's what you *really* said. You don't know the first thing about photons, photon redshift or plasma physics. You're 0 for 3.

The *only* way for a photon to redshift is for it to lose some of it's kinetic energy. Likewise the only way it can blueshift is to gain kinetic energy.

That's what you *actually* said RC. You've been backpeddling ever since.

 

[Michael]

So once again: Michael: Can you see a another problem with Compton scattering = tired light?

I can see a huge problem debating photon redshift with a guy that thinks that photons have zero kinetic energy and photon redshift has nothing to do with kinetic energy. I might as well be talking to my cat.

When were you intending to address *any other* form of plasma redshift by the way?

 

[Michael]

You realize that even with the above observation we still have less than 4% of the matter that is needed to match the observation that the universe is flat.

Apparently you fail to realize that a flat universe is 10 to the 100th power *more* likely to be related to something *other than* inflation according to Penrose.

It's also irrelevant to PC theory. The only "evidence" you have of any missing mass comes from lensing data and rotation patterns of galaxies. Any other 'magic matter' you might need in *your mythos* is irrelevant.

 

[Michael]

External reference:
How can photons have energy and momentum, but no mass?

He specifically refuted your claim:

But that’s no good. If light didn’t carry energy, it wouldn’t be able to heat stuff up.

Wake up and smell the coffee. He specifically claimed your explanation was "no good"!

So:

1. I gave the right answer for the classical kinetic energy of a photon (zero)

No. You A) never mentioned *classical* anything in your first post and B) your reference claimed that your explanation was 'no good' even in a *classical* setting! He explained that Newton's method was *incomplete*! You're again twisting reality like a pretzel. First you say one thing, then you say another, then you pull references out of thin air that refute your own claims! Make up your mind! Yes or no do photons have kinetic energy in *modern* physics?

 

[RealityCheck01]

There is evidence that ...

No evidence given:There is no evidence that Chen's plasma redshift is cosmological redshift

All plasma will have a physical effect on all photons.
...usual rant about valid science snipped...

That is true but it is not a citation to the key prediction that "light of various wavelengths travel at different speeds though spacetime"".
For example, in Michael's seven noncosmological redshifts that show up in the lab
all of the light travels though spacetime at the same speed regardless of wavelength.
Variable VHE gamma-ray emission from Markarian 501

It's still 8 to 0

8 to 0 what?

 

[Michael]

No evidence given:There is no evidence that Chen's plasma redshift is cosmological redshift

The fact you personally refuse to deal with Ashmore's presentation is really your problem, not mine.

That is true but it is not a citation to the key prediction that "light of various wavelengths travel at different speeds though spacetime"".

Still waiting for that claim that photons have zero kinetic energy that claims it's a "correct" answer. Your last reference said it was "no good".

Since you have yet to find any flaw in Holushko's work, I can only assume you're simply going to attempt to ignore it completely. Why is that haters are always reduced to ignoring the data that they don't like?

8 to 0 what?

8 references claiming electrical discharges occur in plasma
0 references claiming electrical discharge are impossible in plasma

 

[RealityCheck01]

Apparently you fail to realize that a flat universe is 10 to the 100th power *more* likely to be related to something *other than* inflation according to Penrose.

Apparently you are obsessed with this one quote from Penrose- can you spell fallacy of argument by authority?
Apparently you need to read what you write. You have acknowledged that the universe is flat!

To get a flat universe, GR needs a certain amount of mass and energy.
Apparently you think that astronomy is so backward that it can only detect < 4% of the needed matter - matter that is busily emitting light!

The only "evidence" you have of any missing mass comes from lensing data and rotation patterns of galaxies.

Ehh - there is no evidence of missing matter from lensing data and rotation patterns of galaxies!
This looks like a double dose of ignorance

• Missing matter is the visible matter that is missing from the ~4% (or ~96%) of normal matter that is needed to make a flat universe
• Observational evidence for dark matter.