Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Er...what? This is mathematics. Simple mathematics.
So wait...you're now embracing the notion of blurring, and trying to say that distant redshift galaxies are in fact "blurred" (a fairly meaningless word, btw, used by either side) because of their redshift, as opposed to because they are billions of light years more distant relative to us than their closer cousins?
Why should it be 'wavelength dependent' in the first place if not due to *scattering*!
I'm afraid I'm not following your logic. The process, whatever it might be, *is* actually wavelength dependent, as I would expect. Some light on some wavelengths get's through, other wavelengths cannot penetrate that far through the plasma. It's an observation that is entirely consistent with a scattering process IMO.
You're the one making the claim that "no blurring" takes place, not me.
As that page I cited points out, some wavelengths are *blocked entirely*, whereas other wavelengths are not.
It depends on *many* factors, but the claim that "no blurring" is observed in highly redshifted objects is simply not supported by the evidence.
The only reason "blurring" is an "issue" is due to the fact it was used by Ned Wright as a "reason" that all types of inelastic scattering methods can be eliminated.
He "specified" Compton scattering actually,
Others in this thread (and Ned to an extent) attempt to apply it to *all* forms of scattering, and claimed that no blurring took place.
As we can observe however, blurring can be observed in 2012, even if it wasn't as obvious in 1929. Therefore any argument that tries to eliminate scattering based on "blurring' isn't really much of an argument. In fact it's a *bad* (shoots itself in the foot) argument because blurring *is* actually observed.
It's "over simplistic mathematics" IMO
that relates *only* to Compton scattering!
It is also somewhat hilarious that instead of attacking the math (which of course, he can't, because it is correct) - Shelton, in his rebuttal, quotes a completely unverifiable letter from Robert Millikan. Millikan was a very brilliant man, but one prone to somewhat idiotic statements, such as:
"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom. The glib supposition of utilizing atomic energy when our coal has run out is a completely unscientific Utopian dream, a childish bug-a-boo. Nature has introduced a few fool-proof devices into the great majority of elements that constitute the bulk of the world, and they have no energy to give up in the process of disintegration."
Reminds me of this one:
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." Lord Kelvin, 1895
What he showed was that it does not work for *for any scattering* including Brillouin scattering and Raman scattering:No, he does not
Atkinson states that he is going to look at the initial and final states of the particle and photon without considering what the interaction is.Mr. Shelton states that in discussing (p. 159) his theory in terms of the Compton effect, and collisions by photons, I was making assumptions about the nature of radiation; but I merely used the language which he himself has used in his own presentation (p. 84). He now categorically repudiates the Compton effect, and collisions with photons, in this connection. This opens up several new difficulties, but does not affect my original objection, namely that his basic assumption (which I quoted exactly) violates the principle of the conservation of momentum. ...
It was Zwicky who "specified" Compton scattering actually in 1929 (this he excluded this from his own theory): Tired lightThe only reason "blurring" is an "issue" is due to the fact it was used by Ned Wright as a "reason" that all types of inelastic scattering methods can be eliminated. He "specified" Compton scattering actually, and cited Zwicky who was building his *own* theory about redshift from a paper written in 1929. Others in this thread (and Ned to an extent) attempt to apply it to *all* forms of scattering, and claimed that no blurring took place.
(my emphasis added)For example, Zwicky considered whether an integrated Compton Effect could account for the scale normalization of the above model:
... light coming from distant nebulae would undergo a shift to the red by Compton effect on those free electrons [in interstellar spaces] [...] But then the light scattered in all directions would make the interstellar space intolerably opaque which disposes of the above explanation. [...] it is evident that any explanation based on a scattering process like the Compton effect or the Raman effect, etc., will be in a hopeless position regarding the good definition of the images.[6]
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.
You are wrong if only bacuase an astronomer who has looked at thousands of these images says that "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."As we can observe however, blurring can be observed in 2012, even if it wasn't as obvious in 1929.
None of them because they are pixelatted.
What you need, Michael, are images that are not at the extreme limits of what can be detected and so extend over more than a few pixels.
Find some close by galaxies, e.g. ~100 million light years.
Fine some distant galaxies, e.g. ~1000 million light years.
Compare them.
Oh...my. OK. You're arguing with yourself now. On one hand, you're claiming that a scattering angle of zero is possible with a change in frequency (with some "unknown" scattering process that is cosmologically possible), such that scattering angles (and therefore blurring) isn't a problem because the images will be sharp and redshift could still occur - and on the other hand you're arguing that in fact the images "are" blurred, so the scattering angles must be non-zero. Which is it?
I did? Where?You're also arguing against the notion that the redshift z is constant for all frequencies,
I do? I admit that I tend to question a *lot* of the "dogma" of present cosmology theory, particularly after the advent of "dark energy" as a metaphysical gap filler of truly *epic* proportions, but I don't recall making that claim.and that you think in fact the cosmological redshift is wavelength dependent.
That's not true. I provided you with math from Brynjolfsson, Ashmore, Holushko and others. You apparently don't like the implications of those mathematical expressions of redshift. That doesn't mean I didn't provide you with the math!You're arguing these three points without any evidence or math to back it up, and deriding the Compton equation as "brainwashing".
Unless you can quote me where I said otherwise, I think you simply misunderstood me. It's entirely possible I said something I didn't mean to say of course. It wouldn't be the first time.Oh dear. Even Lyndon Ashmore writes in his "paper" on "new tired light" - "For a particular galaxy, the redshift, z is a constant for all wavelengths." Something that he at least got right......
This should make a few people question the talking points they are regurgitating.
docs.google.com/open?id=0B_6N6Q10PWKhVkdLTlZUYjd3VjQ
And there is no blurring:
HubbleSite - Wallpaper: Spiral Galaxy NGC 3370
That galaxy is 100 million light years away, and is sharp as galaxies just 10 million light years away.
That's a big problem for PC then, since redshift is not wavelength dependent.
The loss of light is due to large densities of neutral hydrogen in the early universe.
Once the universe expanded and matter gathered in galaxies this was not a problem, as shown by the very crisp images of galaxies, one of which is linked above.
If PC is true, then we should see these types of wavelength dependent losses of light, but we don't.
There is no blurring in galaxies where we have the ability to measure blurriness.
We don't see any differences between galaxies 10 million light years away or 100 million light years away,
We also don't see double bands,
so if PC is true then all of the light is being scattered before it gets to Earth, and this is true for even the closest galaxies.
Pffft! How about something *distant*, something measured in *billions* (plural) of light years of distance?
Absorption certainly *is* wavelength dependent! I didn't claim *redshift* was wavelength dependent. That must be where David got that idea.
Or it's just due to large densities of neutral hydrogen *throughout* the universe. The greater the distance, the greater the loss of light. Some wavelengths pay a greater price than others in terms of their loss due to the plasma.
Your link above is to a galaxy measured in *millions*, not *billions* of light years. Pick one at the *highest* redshifts we can observe and show me a "crisp" image!
Except you just admitted that we *do* see greater loss of some wavelengths. You also attributed it to the *medium* itself!
Nor would I expect you to see great differences at such distances. Try again at *billions* of light years.
No, we see double "blotches" at the largest redshifts. Where did that argument come from again? Published? Not published?
False. You apparently haven't read or responded to Brynjolfsson's work, or Ashmore's work, or anyone else. All you've done thus far is make "claims" about a theory you don't apparently even understand.
Find one for us that is not pixelated to death, and we will discuss. According to you, it should be massively blurred, right?
You can lead a horse to water . . .
Plasma redshift is due to absorption and emission.
That is not what we see with redshift. Therefore, PC is refuted.
I can show you no change in crisp images over two orders of magnitude.
Therefore, there is no plasma causing blurriness because the light is not being redshifted by plasma.
Yes, in the most distant objects. This is not the case for less distant objects that are nevertheless redshifted. Therefore, plasma can not be the cause of these redshifts.
Galaxies 100 million light years away are redshifted, therefore they should be blurred if PC is true.
However, galaxies orders of magnitude closer than 100 million light years are as crisp as galaxies 100 million light years away. PC is refuted.
I didn't say double blotches. I said double bands in spectra which would occur if only half of the photons interacted with plasma.
Then cite their claims and show how it gets past these problems. Name dropping and hand waving is not a very convincing argument.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?