Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[Elendur]

Woah. I'm not calling you any names and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm rather enjoying a non hostile conversation between us, and I'd prefer to keep it that way.

Good. Then please keep that in mind, because I'm rather annoyed that I've had to repeat it so many times.

The fact of the matter however is that every single photon will interact with various EM field changes, various temperature gradients, and interact with the medium as it traverses spacetime. It's not like photons can weave and dodge their way around the plasmas of spacetime.

Every photon? So you're saying that no photon can traverse any medium without interaction? (I'm not saying anything about EM fields)

Last week was a ridiculously busy week at work, but hopefully things will settle down a bit and I'll have time to put into studying the scattering angle issues in earnest.

M'kay.

That video I cited does demonstrate the "effect" I'm trying to describe. Your small maximum possible deflection angle isn't the least bit indicative of to total amount of scattering angles that a photon might experience over time. It might *average out* to a small deflection angle, yet experience much *more* deflection than it's *averaged* defection.

You're correct, it doesn't indicate anything towards the total amount of scattering angles. It does, however, indicate something that is more important. The chance of the photons lining up.

Remember:
That specific angle is the maximum amount of degrees of deviation in order for the photon to reach the earth at half the distance to our nearest star.
That is what the 3.094*10^-10 degrees represents.

Now replace things, so that they have to reach something as small as a retina while still looking sharp, or near so, and whatever galaxy or star you want.
The allowed degree will be so much smaller that it's ridiculous to even try to calculate it.

Well, that is exactly what would be required for "dark energy" to be responsible for *any* redshift at all. Any amount of inelastic scattering is going to first eliminate the need for dark energy. If there is *enough* scattering involved we can also do away with inflation. Either way, dark energy theory *assumes* that no other process is responsible for that redshift.

Any amount? I doubt that.
Anyways, haven't I told you that I don't care?

The point of that video and link I provided is to demonstrate that deviation is acceptable. It's not as though it cannot deviate and still reach us on Earth.

The video makes my point for me. Notice the angles? Where would you conclude the photons came from as the observer (the sensor)?

Scattering Primer

Here's the video:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1996/ph162/images/1b3.mpg

Here's an explanation in English:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1996/ph162/images/v3.au

No, it's simply physics. With enough photons, some "luck few" follow a path that leads to Earth, even if many paths do not! It's an issue of *quantify*, not a miracle.

It's an issue of quantify, correct.
Do you know the amount?
Do you have an estimate of the amount?
Why should I expect a significant amount of the photons to make it back into that very, extremely, narrow allowed angle?

 

[RealityCheck01]

If you had read and understood Alfven's explanation for aurora, you'd understand that is a false statement. The magnetic fields of Earth separate that current into a usable form called the aurora.
...usual ranting and insults snipped...

If you had read and understood Alfven's explanation for aurora, you'd understand that is a true statement. The magnetic fields of Earth separate the neutral solar wind (which is not a current) into a usable form called protons and electrons. The electrons interact to form what is called the aurora.
Quote where Alfven states that only electrons from the solar wind enter the atmosphere.

Otherise you still need to answer: Cite your scientific source for "dumps a net movement of charge into our atmosphere"

 

[RealityCheck01]

PICTURES UNIVERSE ELECTRIFIED SPACE - Prof. Birkeland of Norway Holds That Suns and Stars Are Charged Negatively. - Article - NYTimes.com

Wow - your ignorance is showing - you still think that a news article is a scientific model !
You cannot even read the newspaper title !

Models are published in papers or sometimes in books.
Models produce numerical predictions that match observations.

That news article is about Birkeland's opinions that he stated in a lecture and they were mostly wrong.
Errors in Micheal's site IX (No Birkeland electrical model of the sun)!
Errors in Michael's site X (Birkeland was mostly wrong)!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Well, that is exactly what would be required for "dark energy" to be responsible for *any* redshift at all.....

Whoops, Michael!
Dark energy is the observation that the expansion of the universe is accelerating so it is responsible for some cosmological redshift .

 

[RealityCheck01]

It's not like photons can weave and dodge their way around the plasmas of spacetime.

No one says this.

The physics is that there is a lot of space between the electrons and ions in a plasma. So it is possible for a photon to pass through a given volume of plasma without getting close enough to an electron or ion to scatter.
This is basic physics, e.g. mean free path

In physics, the mean free path is the average distance travelled by a moving particle (such as an atom, a molecule, a photon) between successive impacts (collisions) [1] which modify its direction or energy or other particle properties.

The area of scattering theory is more complex.

You really need to read what you cite: The first video in So What is Scattering Anyway? has one photon traveling through a medium without interacting and another scattering through a large angle.

 

[Michael]

Good. Then please keep that in mind, because I'm rather annoyed that I've had to repeat it so many times.

Ok.

Every photon? So you're saying that no photon can traverse any medium without interaction?

Ya, every single cotton picking photon will definitely experience changes in EM field densities, changes in temperatures, changes in plasma density, and will run into various particles along the way. No photons will be immune from interaction within the plasma environment. How could they?

(I'm not saying anything about EM fields)

Lots of variables will change between the source and Earth. The EM fields encountered by photons will vary. The temperatures and densities and compositions of the plasma will change.

You're correct, it doesn't indicate anything towards the total amount of scattering angles. It does, however, indicate something that is more important. The chance of the photons lining up.

That seems to be the only real point of contention as far as I can tell. *As best as I can tell*, you seem to be "assuming" something about scattering that isn't accurate. Photons will scatter back and forth at various angles and still end up reaching Earth. Scattering events closer to the source are unlikely to even be obviously "blurred".

Remember:
That specific angle is the maximum amount of degrees of deviation in order for the photon to reach the earth at half the distance to our nearest star.
That is what the 3.094*10^-10 degrees represents.

Now replace things, so that they have to reach something as small as a retina while still looking sharp, or near so, and whatever galaxy or star you want.
The allowed degree will be so much smaller that it's ridiculous to even try to calculate it.

The *net deflection* must be ridiculously small, but the total deflection need not be small at all.

Any amount? I doubt that.
Anyways, haven't I told you that I don't care?

I do care about accuracy. It wouldn't take much photon interaction with plasma to destroy 70 percent of mainstream claims about the composition of spacetime. In fact it would take a *miracle* for no plasma redshift to take place in space. While it would take quite a bit of inelastic scattering to do away with the need for expansion, it only takes a small amount of inelastic scattering to explain away any concept of 'acceleration'. This leaves the mainstream theory in a very precarious position, whether you care or you don't. I do.

It's not even an 'either/or' proposition. We could be 'expanding' but without any need for "dark" metaphysical nonsense. It's not *either* PC theory *or* expansion, it could be *both*! The point I'm attempting to make is that even a small amount of inelastic scattering removes the need for "dark energy" entirely. What then is left of mainstream theory? Plasma and 'dark matter'. All the "missing mass" found to date has all been in the plasma form, and therefore all missing mass found in the future is also likely to be in the plasma form. The bottom line is that PC theory is fully capable of explaining everything we observe from space, even *with* expansion.

The video makes my point for me. Notice the angles? Where would you conclude the photons came from as the observer (the sensor)?

In that case, with such very large deflection angles and such a short distance, you're right, it would be 'blurry".

It's an issue of quantify, correct.

Yes. Admittedly there is still work to be done. There is however a real possibility of "testing" many of these ideas in real labs. That's more than will *ever* happen for dark metaphysics.

 

[Michael]

I'm not the one claiming that moving mass is a current. That would be you.

That would be Birkeland and then Alfven actually. Birkeland predicted that both types of particles came from his sphere. Alfven showed how they form into organized currents in the magnetosphere.

 

[Michael]

Holushko's math has nothing to do with inelastic scattering. He uses an aether model that does not change the path of light.

You seem to ignore the fact he mentioned Compton scattering by name and claimed it was a *generic* tired light model, inclusive of *all* types of inelastic scattering.

Nowhere in his model does he calculate the number of photons that will be put back on the same trajectory that they left on.

All it is a Gaussian distribution applied to the speed of light. What he is doing is giving different photons a different speed for propogation, and then showing how this broadens the light peak.

True. Basically he's demonstrating that what the mainstream attributes to "time dilation" is nothing more than an example of pulse/signal broadening in a medium.

Nowhere does he deal with image quality or opacity caused by inelastic scattering. His model just pretends as if the photons are never put on any other trajectory, they are just randomly slowed without changing trajectory. We already know that this can not happen in plasma redshifts.

You are correct that Holushko makes no effort to calculate any type of "blurriness". So what? Not every theory or paper addresses every aspect of every topic.

It would seem that RC did calculate the odds,....

RC also told us photons have no kinetic energy and electrical discharges are impossible in plasma too. His calculations and statements are utterly worthless since he knows nothing about the topic.

 

[Michael]

Whoops, Michael!
Dark energy is the observation that the expansion of the universe is accelerating so it is responsible for some cosmological redshift .

No. Inelastic scattering happens in the lab and it happens in spacetime. Dark energy is a metaphysical mythology that was created in the 20th century as pure metaphysical 'gap filler" to save one otherwise falsified creation mythology from certain destruction.

 

[Loudmouth]

You seem to ignore the fact he mentioned Compton scattering by name and claimed it was a *generic* tired light model, inclusive of *all* types of inelastic scattering.

Where is Compton scattering included in the equations he uses? Where does his model calculate the angle of the paths for the photons as they reach the telescope?

He mentions Compton scattering, but he doesn't include it in his model. Instead, he uses a Guassian distribution of photons spread amongst different speeds for light in an attempt to show that this will broaden the observation time for a type Ia supernova.

True. Basically he's demonstrating that what the mainstream attributes to "time dilation" is nothing more than an example of pulse/signal broadening in a medium.

Yes, in a medium that doesn't exist.

You are correct that Holushko makes no effort to calculate any type of "blurriness". So what? Not every theory or paper addresses every aspect of every topic.

If his model is a viable one, then he needs to account for the bluriness that plasma would produce.

RC also told us photons have no kinetic energy and electrical discharges are impossible in plasma too. His calculations and statements are utterly worthless since he knows nothing about the topic.

He seems to know more about mean free path than you do. That much is quite obvious. You never showed that his calculations were false.

 

[Michael]

If you had read and understood Alfven's explanation for aurora,http://www.christianforums.com/t7701787-20/#post61886486

I do. You do not. That's probably because I've read both of his book and you have not.

The existence of both types of high speed particles is an important prediction of electric/cathode sun theory. The solar wind is a direct result of the consistent currents that are flowing between the sun and the heliosphere. The separation of those high speed charged particles takes place in the magnetic field of Earth. It forms nicely congregated *currents* that show up as aurora on Earth.

 

[Elendur]

Ya, every single cotton picking photon will definitely experience changes in EM field densities, changes in temperatures, changes in plasma density, and will run into various particles along the way. No photons will be immune from interaction within the plasma environment. How could they?

I don't know how EM fields affects photons, but they doen' matter since I've addressed inelastic scatterings.
But anyhow, you dodged the question. I phrased it carefully:

So you're saying that no photon can traverse any medium without interaction?

Anyways, I don't care whether they interact in any way other than inelastic scattering, that's not what I've been discussing.

Lots of variables will change between the source and Earth. The EM fields encountered by photons will vary. The temperatures and densities and compositions of the plasma will change.

I'm going to have to refer you to the hand if you're going to talk about something other than the inelastic scattering (you'll notice that I've focused on that the entire time).

That seems to be the only real point of contention as far as I can tell. *As best as I can tell*, you seem to be "assuming" something about scattering that isn't accurate. Photons will scatter back and forth at various angles and still end up reaching Earth. Scattering events closer to the source are unlikely to even be obviously "blurred".

Could you explain to me then, what is the controlling mechanism that returns the photons on course?
If you have no such mechanism you'll notice that the tiny, close to zero, fraction of the light that will reach us will be ridiculously small. That would make all distant stars behemoths in comparison to our sun when it comes to emitting light and provide with the cozy blanket of light, mentioned earlier.

The *net deflection* must be ridiculously small, but the total deflection need not be small at all.

I am well aware of that, I've utilized that in my argument, nr 3.
#71

I do care about accuracy. It wouldn't take much photon interaction with plasma to destroy 70 percent of mainstream claims about the composition of spacetime. In fact it would take a *miracle* for no plasma redshift to take place in space. While it would take quite a bit of inelastic scattering to do away with the need for expansion, it only takes a small amount of inelastic scattering to explain away any concept of 'acceleration'. This leaves the mainstream theory in a very precarious position, whether you care or you don't. I do.

I'll tell you again. I don't care about any other theory, I'm talking about your theory. Shouldn't you be happy about the spotlight?

It's not even an 'either/or' proposition. We could be 'expanding' but without any need for "dark" metaphysical nonsense. It's not *either* PC theory *or* expansion, it could be *both*! The point I'm attempting to make is that even a small amount of inelastic scattering removes the need for "dark energy" entirely. What then is left of mainstream theory? Plasma and 'dark matter'. All the "missing mass" found to date has all been in the plasma form, and therefore all missing mass found in the future is also likely to be in the plasma form. The bottom line is that PC theory is fully capable of explaining everything we observe from space, even *with* expansion.

I. Don't. Care. About. The. Mainstream. Theory.
First you'll have to explain those inelastic scattered photons who magically realigns themselves (or those mega-emitting stars).

In that case, with such very large deflection angles and such a short distance, you're right, it would be 'blurry".

Actually it wouldn't even be discernible.

Yes. Admittedly there is still work to be done. There is however a real possibility of "testing" many of these ideas in real labs. That's more than will *ever* happen for dark metaphysics.

I. Don't. Care. About. That.
You're more than welcome to meet my criticism of the inelastic scattering issue though.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The existence of both types of high speed particles is an important prediction of electric/cathode sun theory.

Citations to the scientific literature on this prediction from electric/cathode sun theory please, Michael?

BTW: If this was Birkeland then:
Errors in Michael's site IX (No Birkeland electrical model of the sun)!
Errors in Michael's site X (Birkeland was mostly wrong)!
And he even got the "both types of high speed particles" wrong because his "high speed" for electrons was 45 metre (km/hr?) less than the speed of light!
Page 596

We thus find that the velocity of the corpuscular rays should be u p . c c < i. e. only 45 metres less than the velocity of light.
The transversal mass of the corpuscular rays, m, equals 1.82 X io:l/, and is thus of an order one thousand times as great as the mass of an electron with small velocity (-).

This is a gamma factor of 1000 or ~149 m/s less than the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s).
An estimate of the maximum speed of the solar wind, 1938&#8211;1989 puts an upper limit of ~2000 km/hr (556 m/s).

The solar wind is a direct result of the consistent currents that are flowing between the sun and the heliosphere.

Citations to the scientific literature that shows that there is a current(other than the solar wind which Oise not a current) flowing between the sun and the heliosphere please, Michael?

The separation of those high speed charged particles takes place in the magnetic field of Earth. It forms nicely congregated *currents* that show up as aurora on Earth.

Well Duh !
That is high school physics: magnetic fields act differently on differently charged particles.

 

[RealityCheck01]

No.
..ignorance snipped....

Dark energy
Dark energy is the observation that the expansion of the universe is accelerating so it is responsible for some cosmological redshift !

 

[RealityCheck01]

Inelastic scattering happens in the lab and it happens in spacetime.

Duhs are really needed for that statement of the obvious:

• Inelastic scattering happens in the lab .
• Everything happens in spacetime so inelastic scaterring happens in spacetime .

Inelastic scattering also happen outside of the lab .

You are still ignorant about/denying the physical effects of scattering, e.g. that it causes distant galaxies to be blurred.
Tired lght theories do not work + outstanding questions for Michael!
Compton scattering = cosmological redshift will blue-shift visible lght!

Outstanding questions for you, Michael
Michael, can you provide evidence peer-reviewed scientific literature that the following can cause cosmological redshift?
First asked 14th November 2012

What effect does the "double brightness" paper have on the % of normal matter?
First asked 18 November 2012.

 

[RealityCheck01]

RC also told us photons have no kinetic energy and electrical discharges are impossible in plasma too. His calculations and statements are utterly worthless since he knows nothing about the topic.

Missed these little lies and your usual insults.
The photon KE lie yet again !
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!

Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma:
Claim 1: Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! Claim 2: The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is Dungey's large current density (not really a discharge ) and is obsolete!

My calculations are really simple. But since you did not understand them, here in one is in baby steps:
Michael: Tired light theories predict no detectable redshift through scattering!
The defintion of mean free path gives that the transmission is

The fraction of particles that are not stopped (attenuated) by the slab is called transmission

where x is equal to the thickness of the slab x = dx.

where l is the mean free path !

1. Mean free path of a photon in the ICM is ~10 billion years.
2. A 'slab' of the ICM between us and a galaxy x light years away will have the above transmission.
3. A galaxy 10 billion light years away has a transmission of its intensity times 1/e so 37% of the photons do not scatter.
4. We can detect light from galaxies that are further than 10 billion light years away.
5. Thus we will see non-red-shifted spectral lines in galaxies up 10 billion light years away at least.

Any problem with following the math or physics, Michael?

 

[Michael]

Missed these little lies and your usual insults.
The photon KE lie yet again !

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

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

A photon always has a kineteic energy of zero .

That's what you really said and it was wrong wrong, and more wrong. Now you can't even remember what you *really* said?

 

[Michael]

Dark energy is the observation that the expansion of the universe is accelerating

You don't observe that. You observe photon redshift. You *imagine* has has something to do with 'dark energy'. You've never demonstrated a cause/effect relationship between between photon redshift and dark anything!

You've made two unsupported allegations, neither of which you can actually demonstrate. You cannot demonstrate that "dark energy" even exists, or that it has any effect on a photon.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You observe photon redshift. You *imagine* has has something to do with 'dark energy'. You've never demonstrated a cause/effect relationship between between photon redshift and dark anything!

That is really ignorant: Dark energy
Scientists observe photon redshift. They measure that it deviates from Hubble's Law. They deduce the properties of what could be causing that deviation using the known laws of physics. That cause looks like an energy. It is not seen to emit light. So they label the cause of this deviation dark energy.

This is the same way that scientists deduce the properties of neutron stars despite never having the matter that they are made of ('neutronium') in a lab here on Earth. But I asked you about this before: Michael: No neutron degenerate matter in labs = neutron stars do not exist?

It is easy to demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between between photon redshift and dark energy candidates - at least for a a non-zero cosmological constant (quintessence is another matter). I will leave it to you to find any of the hundreds? of demonstrations on the web or in textbooks that a non-zero cosmological constant exerts a negative pressure that accelerates expansion. Not that you will !

But you may be taking about an insane demand that this be done in a lab here on Earth. I hope not because that would reveal an abysmal level of ignorance about cosmology.

 

[RealityCheck01]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-41/#post61575350
That's what you really said and it was wrong wrong, and more wrong. Now you can't even remember what you *really* said?

I know exactly what I and you said and that by the end of that day (16 October 2012) I stated the basic physics which I have been stating to you every time that you have gone on the photon KE rant:
Continuing with the photon KE rant yet again !
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy II