Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

Michael said:

Thanks for the link. I can't say I'm personally familiar with Santilli's work, and I probably won't get the chance for a couple of days yet, but I appreciate the link. From your Googledocs page, it looks worth checking into.

I'm curious if David has read his work yet?

Click to expand...

Santilli? Seriously? Please...as far as I see it the guy takes standard Einstein tensors and renames them "Einstein-Santilli tensors" as if he was postulating a special case: except that his special case is a redundant and obvious derivation of the standard tensor itself. He thinks he has united electromagnetism and gravity (he thinks gravity is an electromagnetic force). He has less credibility than tired light proponents in my opinion, and that's saying something.

Michael said:

Ned made *two* "assumptions" in his *unpublished* website criticism of tired light/plasma redshift theory that I questioned. He *assumed* that there is no form of scattering that allows the photon to pass on it's momentum in a *forward* direction, and I used the billiard ball analogy to explain my doubt of his claims as it relates to *all* types of photon/particle interactions possible in *all* kinds of inelastic scattering processes.

Click to expand...

Name one way a billiard ball analogy has any relevance - any relevance at all in any meaningful way whatsoever beyond junior high school - to an interaction of any kind between a photon and an electron in quantum mechanics. Please do.

The assumption made isn't lightly made - you've been shown the mathematics numerous times. It doesn't matter what kind of interaction is involved, enough terms are defined with zero scattering angle to show conservation violations.

davidbilby said:

Santilli? Seriously? Please...as far as I see it the guy takes standard Einstein tensors and renames them "Einstein-Santilli tensors" as if he was postulating a special case: except that his special case is a redundant and obvious derivation of the standard tensor itself. He thinks he has united electromagnetism and gravity (he thinks gravity is an electromagnetic force). He has less credibility than tired light proponents in my opinion, and that's saying something.

Click to expand...

Character assassination without any technical counter-arguments.

I am shocked. SHOCKED I TELL YA!

jgold said:

Character assassination without any technical counter-arguments.

I am shocked. SHOCKED I TELL YA!

Click to expand...

Well, generally anybody who names something after themselves is demonstrating an ego of Brobdingnagian proportions. No? I can't think of a single other person who afforded themselves the honor in science, unless I'm misreading who did made up "Einstein-Santilli" tensors...

And I think I just pointed out two big technical flaws, that is, to anybody who understands physics. Furthermore if you read the expansion of the universe and are impressed by the fact that he thinks inflationary theories - in fact - tired light theories too - predict a geocentric universe, then you simply don't understand why we can observe a constant redshift and conclude that space is expanding equally in all directions and then not have any problems at all as regards geocentrism. One could equally likely ask, doesn't the notion of light tiring evenly as respects to us equally predict that Earth is at the center of the universe? If you answer that you'll start on the way to realizing why it's absurd.

And anybody whose first post is merely to post a link of a non-peer reviewed...thing...what exactly is that, part of a book?...as if it were irrefutable gospel, and then to complain of a lack of technical argument? Please. Santilli publishes his own papers because nobody else will. Read about "magnecules" and since you are so into empirical physics, Michael, see if your bs-o-meter goes off...

Michael said:

That in itself is enough to get me to read his work (eventually).
That isn't much of a stinging rebuke from my perspective.

Click to expand...

;-)

Perhaps I should say - in comparison to tired light theorists, physicists who believe in Santilliscience are a scarce breed indeed.

Michael said:

Fair enough. I'm more interested in getting into the inelastic scattering methods this week, so Santilli will have to wait.

Click to expand...

Probably wise, since what Santilli says says that we're all wrong, tired light included.

Michael said:

Trust me, when I can do that with published papers, you'll be the first to know.

Click to expand...

100 bucks says that's never. Because billiard balls are barely useful in quantum mechanics analogies even in the silliest simplistic ways of describing the quantum world. Unless you'd like to play billiards with the uncertainty principles involved, which might make striking the cue ball...difficult. So quit using billiard ball analogies - they make you look silly to all but the most uninformed reader.

Michael said:

You've only shown me mathematics related to *one* kind of inelastic scattering, specifically Compton scattering, not all of them. I'm not even certain that your simplified math formula even accurately applies to all types of polarized or coherent light yet.

Click to expand...

Show me the term in any of Compton's mathematics that has literally anything to do with polarization or coherency. Do you even know the basics here? What "unsimplified" version of the Compton scattering equations are you referring to?

Michael said:

The only type of scattering that your math applies to thus far is *Compton* scattering and *only* Compton scattering. If you have papers related to any other type of inelastic scattering, I'm all ears.

Click to expand...

Did you read it? It doesn't matter what form of scattering it is, known or unknown. If you define the initial and final states of the photon and the electron, as one must to show the redshifted photon supposedly emanating from the interaction, you've done enough to make the calculation irrespective of what happens inbetween, which is exactly Atkinson's point.

Incidentally - just a simple illustration, as regards scattering, just to illustrate the silliness of thinking a photon deflected off course from a distant galaxy to us is ever going to somehow get back on target. The math is simplified and isn't meant to be in any way a precise calculation, more an illustration of the orders of magnitude involved.

One light year is approximately (for the sake of argument) 10 trillion km. That's 10,000,000,000,000km.

Assume a photon undergoes scattering of any kind at a distance from Earth of 1 light year.

It is deflected from its original course in just one plane, by just 1 trillionth of a degree. That is, 0.000000000001 degrees.

Simple trigonometry shows it will miss its original target by around 0.174533km if it travels one light year after scattering and undergoes no further interactions. That's a couple of football fields out, after one light year and a ridiculously tiny angle of scatter.

At a distance of 1000 light years, it will miss in the deflected plane by about 1745.33km, assuming no further interactions.

Let's pick a reasonably close galaxy - the Cartwheel Galaxy, which is approximately 500 million light years away. A photon deflected right after emission from the Cartwheel galaxy, say, and deflected just that once, by just a trillionth of a degree from its original course, will miss its original target by roughly 87,000,000 kilometers in that plane. Even if it was deflected half way on its travel instead of right away, we're talking missing the Earth entirely, by 40 million km, and that's just at a trillionth of a degree of scatter.

The probability of other scattering interactions, which have no knowledge of the prior interactions and aren't correlated to them, correcting the photon's course back perfectly - or even close - is so stupidly impossible as to be less than irrelevant. You are further assuming many multiple interactions to add up to the cumulative change in lambda, which would necessarily mean than obtaining an image of the Cartwheel Galaxy with any definable features whatsoever would essentially be impossible.

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-1995-02-b-full_jpg.jpg

Scattering angles of anything other than zero are therefore demonstrably ridiculous as a component of the cosmological redshift.

As Zwicky himself put it:

"...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.".

Essentially his point is that since photons would be going off in every direction and scattering off thereafter, space would essentially be opaque.

Scattering angles of exactly zero are impossible as a component of the cosmological redshift, because conservation of momentum in the process is impossible, irrespective of the scattering process used.

Are we done yet?

PS...did you actually ever carefully read Herman Holushko's page and see what the 'C# code' you so love to cite as 'generic' math actually says?

(it's not a paper, by the way, it's not peer reviewed, it's not published anywhere sensible other than his own website and vixra, which isn't something we would use as a credible source of information...ever...but for amusement, let's just deal with it...)

To build the code, he first assumes an aether, and from that (and only from that, notice) assumes he may apply a random Gaussian distribution curve to the photon travel time, with arrival time of the redshifted photon being t' = t + Gauss (T,&#963. Note...photon travel time. In essence, he gives it a Gaussian distribution based on a non-constant C. He is saying that with a supernova, some photons are going to travel slower than others because they are propagating through an aether (according to him), as you see from the conclusion:

"It [tired light] returns physical meaning to light as waves in media." (emphasis mine)

and

"Eliminates absurdity of superluminal velocity (relative to Earth) for the stars with redshift Z > 1"

...where there is actually no absurdity in GR, if you know...well...anything about GR.

He assumes for the purposes of his code that tired light means propagation in a luminiferous aether. It's not generic to any of the other ideas (brynjolffson, ashmore etc. etc.) in the slightest. Sorry.

I don't even need to download and look at some C# code to know that there's nothing there (and since when is code held up as evidence? You can make code say anything).

They think the CMB is the blackbody emission of the aether.

Quote from his page...

"The fundamental mistake done by mainstream cosmologists is that they conceive light as abstract waves of nothing in nothing. In their view light is exceptional wave which does not require medium and therefore it propagates with mathematically constant speed."

Care to comment on your view on that?

I've used what you've written in post #332 a long time ago se post #71.
I've been trying to work that out for the last 26 pages (note that I'm no physicist).

And I've kind of reviewed the Holushko code as something that was as useful to me as something that answered "You are correct" to the question "Am I correct". Not so far off from what you've written
http://www.christianforums.com/t7701787-8/#post61781360

Michael said:

Burden shift much? You and Ned claimed they are not blurred. It's up to you to demonstrate it. No, it shouldn't be "massively" blurred, it should just be "blurred" and less clear than your first two images. You tend to interject a lot of your own personal propaganda into the conversation, in this case "massively" so.

Click to expand...

I already showed you a galaxy 100 million light years away, and it has the same clarity as objects 1 million light years away. That is 3 orders of magnitude and no bluriness. PC is falsified.

What absorption/emission process takes place in Brilluioun scattering?

Click to expand...

Brillouin scattering is due to refraction, something that will not occur in intergalactic plasma due to the lack of density. Also, Brillouin scattering involves phonons, not electrons, and it causes scattering back to the light source. If you are looking to Brillouin scattering to save the day you are on a fool's errand.

You don't seem to understand what we "should" see in PC theory very well. In fact you're either going out of your way to *misrepresent* it, or you certainly come across that way.

Click to expand...

I understand it better than you do.

You haven't done that yet! You did 1 OOM comparison and even then you couldn't pick out individual small stars in *either* galaxy!

Click to expand...

You shouldn't be able to pick out individual stars due to the limitations of the telescope's resolution.

There is blurring at high redshift and there is blurring that is caused by all forms of inelastic scattering in space.

Click to expand...

There is only blurring in high redshift galaxies because of a higher density of neutral hydrogen in the early universe. No such blurring is seen for other galaxies, even though there should be if PC is correct.

False. Loss of light occurs over distance. After a long enough distance, some wavelengths are lost. That is observed, therefore plasma *is* the cause of these redshifts.

Click to expand...

No, they aren't lost for galaxies with observed redshift. Galaxies 100 million light years away do not have missing wavelengths, nor do we see a dimming of specific wavelengths that would be consistent with plasma redshift. Even more, we don't see doublet bands either as we should with plasma redshift.

No, that isn't nearly far enough to "blur" the object sufficiently to "see" the difference with your eyeball since you can't pickout single *small* stars in *either* galaxy.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is far enough. Even objects 10 million light years away demonstrate no doublet bands and a redshift, meaning that if PC is correct all of the photons have been scattered. This will result in blurring, but it isn't seen.

False. You've not even provided any logical or mathematical way to define "crisp" or "blurred" in either of the two images you cited! Worse yet, you can't cite a *high redshift* galaxy that isn't 'blurred' to the point of absurdity.

Click to expand...

Since all of the photons are redshifted then we should see massive blurring. We don't. It is that simple.

All of the photons interact with plasma, and various temperature and magnetic field variations as well! None of them get through "unscathed".

Click to expand...

Therefore, we should see massively blurrred objects for even the closest objects.

I've cited their papers for you and you've yet to pick out any errors in any of them.

Click to expand...

You have yet to show how they apply.

davidbilby said:

Well, generally anybody who names something after themselves is demonstrating an ego of Brobdingnagian proportions. No? I can't think of a single other person who afforded themselves the honor in science, unless I'm misreading who did made up "Einstein-Santilli" tensors...

And I think I just pointed out two big technical flaws, that is, to anybody who understands physics. Furthermore if you read the expansion of the universe and are impressed by the fact that he thinks inflationary theories - in fact - tired light theories too - predict a geocentric universe, then you simply don't understand why we can observe a constant redshift and conclude that space is expanding equally in all directions and then not have any problems at all as regards geocentrism. One could equally likely ask, doesn't the notion of light tiring evenly as respects to us equally predict that Earth is at the center of the universe? If you answer that you'll start on the way to realizing why it's absurd.

And anybody whose first post is merely to post a link of a non-peer reviewed...thing...what exactly is that, part of a book?...as if it were irrefutable gospel, and then to complain of a lack of technical argument? Please. Santilli publishes his own papers because nobody else will. Read about "magnecules" and since you are so into empirical physics, Michael, see if your bs-o-meter goes off...

Click to expand...

davidbilby said:

;-)

Perhaps I should say - in comparison to tired light theorists, physicists who believe in Santilliscience are a scarce breed indeed.

Click to expand...

davidbilby said:

Probably wise, since what Santilli says says that we're all wrong, tired light included.

Click to expand...

Zwicky proposed the hypothesis that light loses energy to intergalactic gases based on the mechanism of scattering.

Such a scattering origin was correctly dismissed because it would have prevented a clear view of the galaxies because scattering does not cause a redshift and other correct reasons which led to the expansion of the universe as the only plausible alternative at that time.

The reason I initiated this post is because I would appreciate technical comments, not on tired light which I know well, but on the new mechanism for light losing energy to a gaseous medium recently identified by various experimentalists.

Please examine the summary of a decade or so of studies by R.M. Santilli (See his CV: world-lecture-series.org/santilli-cv ) establishing that the redness of the sun at the horizon is due to an apparent new mechanism for direct sunlight losing energy to a cold medium (or gaining energy in the case of a hot medium.) I feel that Prof. Santilli is correct with his mechanisms and am looking for additional comments to point out any holes.

More specifically, to my attentive understanding, part of sunlight is lost due to scattering resulting in the colors of Earth's atmosphere that are beautifully represented by Rayleigh scattering and others.

Santilli's new mechanism called IsoRedShift (IRS) deals with the remaining part of direct sunlight that has not scattered but reaches us along a straight line. The numerous measurements which have been conducted on two continents established the apparent existence of an IRS for the entire spectrum of direct sunlight from the zenith to the horizon of about 100nm.

In particular, the blue light at the zenith completely disappears at the horizon and the red light is shifted into the infrared frequency not existing at the zenith. In view of these numerous measurements now available for both sunset and sunrise, it appears that all of the above is an experimental reality.

I am soliciting comments by qualified colleagues following the studies of scientific literature, on Santilli's consequential reduction of no expansion of the universe because the IRS of the entire spectrum of sunlight at the horizon is virtually identical to the cosmological redshift of far away galaxies and the former occurs without any relative motion.

Additionally and most seriously, Santilli has apparently proved the dismissal by Hubble, Zwicky, and De Broglie, of the expansion of the universe because its "acceleration" implies a return to the middle ages with Earth mandated at the center of the universe. Hubble's law established the proportionality of the cosmological redshift with the distance for all possible radial directions from Earth.

Please inspect Santilli's diagram establishing the inconsistency of the conjecture of the expansion of the universe because the relative acceleration between galaxies solely occurs for Earth and does not occur for other observers throughout the universe.

See diagram: i.imgur.com/jFXH1.png

In fact, under the Doppler's interpretation z = v/c of the Hubble law z = H d, the galaxies G_2 and G_1 have the cosmological redshifts z_2 = v_2/c and z_1 = v_1/c with v_2 = 2 v_1 since d_2 = 2 d_1, thus implying that the galaxy G_2 accelerates away from G_1 when seen from Earth E. However, when z_2 and z_1 are measured from the galaxy G, we have z_2 = z_1 since the two galaxies are located at the same distance d_2 from G, thus establishing that the galaxy G_2 has no acceleration away from G_1 when seen from G.

Note that the inconsistency persists under the far fetched conjecture of the expansion of space itself or of any far fetched preferred geometry since the latter must verify Hubble's law, thus having Santilli's diagram in the local tangent plane. In view of this clear inconsistency, Santilli's diagram ends one century of controversies by disproving the expansion of the universe and related conjectures, but confirms the original conception by Hubble and, therefore, its interpretation via Santilli IRS, see the comprehensive experimental verifications in the paper.

santilli-foundation.org/docs/IRS-confirmations-212.pdf

It works to copy-paste the addresses, but for those who wants to click/see:



http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/IRS-confirmations-212.pdf

Any explanation must also explain time dilation in heavily redshifted type Ia supernovae.

"Comparison with the observed elapsed time yields an apparent aging rate consistent with the 1/(1+z) factor (where z is the redshift) expected in a homogeneous, isotropic, expanding universe. These measurements thus confirm the expansion hypothesis, while unambiguously excluding models that predict no time dilation, such as Zwicky's "tired light" hypothesis."
[0804.3595] Time Dilation in Type Ia Supernova Spectra at High Redshift

We see this time dilation because these galaxies really are moving away from us at high speed due to expansion. Non-cosmological redshift mechanisms can not produce this type of effect.

Elendur said:

It works to copy-paste the addresses, but for those who wants to click/see:

http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/IRS-confirmations-212.pdf

Click to expand...

With respect to that diagram

"However, when z2 and z1 are measured from the galaxy G, we have z2 = z1 since the two galaxies are located at the same distance d2 from G, thus establishing that the galaxy G2 has no acceleration away from G1 when seen from G."

Oh...my. Just wow.

Try and think about it for second...it is space-time itself that we are saying is expanding. All of these objects are expanding away from all of the others as space expands.

The observer at E obviously sees G and G2 receding away from them, with the same redshift, and the closer galaxy, G1, with a proportionally lesser redshift - but all still receding away from them, with the acceleration proportional to distance.

But the observer at G would also logically conclude that they were at the "centre" of their universe, because they would see E with the same redshift as G1 and G2, all receding away from them with their acceleration proportional to their distance (i.e. - the same redshift for all three).

The observer at G1 would also logically conclude that they were at the "centre" of their universe, because they would see G2 and E receding away from them with their acceleration proportional to distance, and see G receding away from them with a proportionally larger acceleration given twice the distance between them.

The observer at G2 would see G and E receding away from them with a proportionally larger redshift, and G1 with a proportionally smaller redshift - but again, all three still receding directly away from G2, with acceleration proportional to distance. Again, they'd observe themselves as being at the center of the universe.

All observers in this diagram therefore quite logically see themselves at the "center" of their universe. Hubble's law works for them too, and there is no logical inconsistency. It's not hard to see why that is true.

So the diagram, far from "disproving the expansion of the universe" due to geocentric issues, actually demonstrates it.

Michael said:

He *assumed* that there is no form of scattering that allows the photon to pass on it's momentum in a *forward* direction, and I used the billiard ball analogy to explain my doubt of his claims as it relates to *all* types of photon/particle interactions possible in *all* kinds of inelastic scattering processes.

Click to expand...

You are wrong - the physical fact is that it is impossble for any photon to pass on it's momentum to a particle without scattering.
It is a simple exercise to show that the photon passing on it's momentum in a *forward* direction violates the conservation of momentum.
You should be able to unsestand The red shift in the spectra of distant galaxies Atkinson, Robert d'Escourt 1954 . There only basic algrbra in it.
Robert d'Escourt Atkinson explicitly states that he is no longer considering just Compton scattering. He is responding to Shelton's "not prepared to guess in detail" about the interaction by showing that any interaction that just changes the forward velocity of the particle violates the conservation of momentum.
He describes the initial state of the system.
He describes the final state of the system.
He totally ignores the interaction that changed the state.

As I explained before:

RealityCheck01 said:

The red shift in the spectra of distant galaxies Atkinson, Robert d'Escourt 1954
That paper apples the laws of physics to any scattering at all.

The physics is farily simple and clearly valid.
It starts with the photon losing energy and transfering it to the particle in question.
Equation 1 is the 'energy-relation', i.e. conservation of energy. There is a change in energy of the particle caused by a change in the forward component of the velocity (v1). There is no change in the transverse component of the velocity. This gives

mdv1=dE/v1 to first order
​

Equation 2 is the longitudinal conservation of momentum in the system. The left hand side is the momentum before the 'scattering'. The right hand side is the momentum after the 'scattering'.

mdv1=dE/c
​

So longitudinal momentum is conserved if mdv1=dE/c but mdv1=dE/v1 !
IOW longitudinal momentum is conserved only if the massive particle is travelling at the speed of light.

Click to expand...

Michael said:

The second *assumption/claim* that Ned made is that "no blurring" occurs in more redshifted objects.

Click to expand...

Again not an assumption. It is what astronomers have observed, specifically Zwicky and Wright.