As opposed to you, who makes up "some form of scattering" that is allowed to violate the conservation of momentum?
Huh? Any loss of momentum from the photon is gained by the atom or dust particle it interacts with. There is no violation of the conservation of energy they way you violate that conservation of energy concept with "dark energy". It's the never ending power supply and you can't even tell me where it comes from!
That's the best you have so far put forward, with a big "I don't know" and many excuses.
What excuses? I told you that I clearly have reading to do before it's really clear to me *which* forms of inelastic scattering are involved. Apparently it takes time and effort to study this stuff, time the mainstream is simply unwilling or unable to do. Meanwhile it has all the time in universe to simply *ignore* every falsification mechanism that is possible in their theory.
When we falsify even that, you've headed off into unrelated findings regarding photonic crystal research, specifically as regards gallium arsenide membranes, a subject I'm guessing you know even less about. I'll deal with that one separately.
Great. I look forward to it. Exactly what is your field of specialty again?
Anyhow...
In GR, the gravitational effect occurs because the symmetric stress-energy-momentum tensor curves space-time.
You have no evidence that the stress tensor points anywhere *other than* toward the center of mass! If you stuff *invisible magic* into a "blunder theory", I'm sure you can get all sorts of nifty-neato tensor curves to do anything you want. In the real world of gravity, "dark" stuff has no role whatsoever in any demonstrated tensor curves.
Similarly, a perfectly logical extension of the GR equations theorizes that the observed redshift is caused by the accelerated expansion of space-time itself. There is no logical C limitation on the velocity of this expansion.
Of course not. You've stuffed dark magic into a blunder theory, so nothing is impossible. In the real world of lab tested physics however, objects do not eject themselves off the planet without energy, and "dark energy" has never lifted a single atom from Earth.
Nobody has "directly" observed the curvature of space-time, but we can infer the effect that it has by the observation of what laymen affectionately call "gravity", and the fact that the equations of GR precisely match the observations of gravitational effects, such as the orbit of Mercury for just one of many examples.
GR theory as *Einstein* himself taught it works just fine, and it works fine to explain the orbit of Mercury *without* dark stuff. Of course all that dark energy that presumably causes a whole universe to accelerate has absolutely no measurable effect inside our entire solar system or galaxy. It only supposedly shows up where humans can inconveniently never reach and therefore never actually measure.
This leads to the consensus that this theory is correct to the level we are able to measure it at present (which is an extremely precise level).
You don't "measure" something like a whole universe by conveniently ignoring every inelastic scattering method in the entire universe! All you can really measure is *redshift*. You don't measure dark energy. You can't even tell me where to get some dark energy, let alone tell me how to "measure" it directly in a lab.
Similarly, nobody has "directly" observed what we affectionately call "dark energy", but we are inferring its presence by the observed effect that we observe on the large scale structure of the universe in all places where gravity does not exert a more significant force.
But even a *tiny* bit of inelastic scattering, and your need for "dark" magic completely disappears! You aren't measuring the effect of dark energy in the first place. You're actually measuring the effect of inelastic scattering on photons and claiming "my dark sky entity did it".
Alright, I have to ask now. Why *exactly* are you an 'atheist' if not due to some perceived 'lack of physical evidence' of something you equate with "God"?
The measurement of the linear ISW effect to high degrees of significance (so far above 4σ
in the CMB is a direct observation of the effect of dark energy.
The average temperature of space was "calculated" by Eddington, and his first calculation, based on the effect of starlight on dust in space was a *whole order of magnitude* better than 'early' "guestimations" of that temperature based on BB theories. There is nothing mystical about space having an average 'temperature' based on photon scattering. As a matter of fact they just 'discovered' that the whole universe is twice as bright as they first "guestimated". Wanna guess why?
The alternative explanation that light is somehow being 'tired' causing redshift, on the other hand, has been comprehensively falsified, because it simply fails to fit the most simple observational data (forgetting the more complex stuff like the above).
You can't "falsify" something that you don't understand in the first place. Whereas I know that I have a lot to learn about the various inelastic scattering methods, the mainstream's arguments are utterly bogus from start to finish. They only really "studied" a couple types of inelastic scattering and pretty much ignored every other type of scattering entirely.
We can rule out your "I don't know which" scattering process, because claiming an inelastic scattering effect of any sort as a cause of the cosmological redshift already defines enough terms to show that conservation of momentum in such a situation is impossible.
Again, that simply a "spin" in the first place since nothing other than Compton redshift is really talked about in any published paper, and nothing I've seen addresses things like Chen's observed effects of scattering.
If that were true, then those huge structures that they just found in space absolutely and positively falsify inflation theory outright. Mainstreamers simply *ignore* the data that they don't like and they trivially handwave at all other logical and even lab demonstrated possibilities.
Even if we allow the extraordinarily improbable notion of non-zero scattering angles, even a trillionth of a degree would lead to a photons missing their "target" by many millions of miles for a relatively close galaxy such as ESO 350-40, as I already showed you. The probability of these photons predominantly getting 'back on track' as a routine is just...well, silly.
You never even commented on that recent work I handed you showing a form of quantum entanglement *does* put photons 'back on track'. Why did you ignore that work?
(If at this juncture you bring up your favorite quote mine, that of Penrose's "probability" of inflation...Penrose assumes, as he must to calculate probabilities, some extremely specific preconditions for the pre-Big Bang and Planck time.....
Except every large structure that falsifies that theory is quite literally ignored or simply swept under the carpet altogether. "Oh look, it must be "two" structures we see that go in different directions, not a single large structure. We know this because we have undying faith in our inflation deity". Sheesh. If there is no logical way to falsify your faith, how you can condemn me for having faith in "God" exactly?
The point of it was that it's not that inflation is in fact improbable (or inevitable), it's that assuming preconditions for the Planck time and pre-Big Bang is problematic, since you can pull entirely different conclusions with just tiny changes).
Sure. As long as you never have to show any of this in controlled experimentation, it's a "religion" with an almost infinite number of variations on the same metaphysical theme.
Whilst I'm heading your favorite responses off at the pass, before you construct the strawman of "you're saying that scattering doesn't take place anywhere in the universe"...no, I'm not. Scattering most definitely does take place in the universe, but it is not part of the cosmological redshift and redshifted photons arriving on Earth that form part of a coherent image of a distant galaxy most certainly did not get scattered.
This really amounts to nothing more than a "statement of (near absolute) faith" on your part, faith in something that apparently defies falsification, and defies final description. It's a never ending metaphysical gap filler fest with math.
We can, pretty much since 1887, also rule out explanations involving an aether, the idea of light waves propagating through a "medium", and no amount of pleading on your behalf that the Holushko "paper" doesn't require an aether will work, since the "paper" assumes an aether for the purposes of the "mathematics".
No, not really. In fact he pretty much took out all references to the term "Aether" in his revised paper, probably due to all the unnecessary distraction that term created. In some ways however, the EM field is full of photons of various densities that permeate space in various densities. In a very real way that is a type of "aether" that permeates space, and "oh surprise", has a measurable effect on photons.
The absence of aether has been
repeatedly confirmed in the last century and a quarter, even quite recently down to even tinier degrees:
http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de...Light Propagation at the 10-17 Level 2009.pdf
That is again an irrelevant detail since his last revision to that paper makes no mention of "aether" at all. I'll see if I can't find you a link to an updated version.
This all leaves only the conclusion that the universe is expanding and that expansion is accelerating, and that is why the vast majority of intelligent people who study this subject think that this is a fact.
Right. That need for 'dark fudge factors' is also why "intelligent" people have begun to reject your dogma. Those large structures that falsify your undying faith in inflation also cause 'intelligent" people to question your dogma. Intelligence has nothing to do with being a majority or minority viewpoint. GR was once a "minority" viewpoint and "intelligent" people clung to Newtons formulas anyway.
Once you logically rule out other options, what you are left with must logically be considered true.
"Magic dark stuff did it" isn't "logically true" simply because you "have faith" that dark energy has some tangible effect on photon. The glaring weakness in your beliefs that unlike the various inelastic scattering methods that *do* have a tangible effect on photons, your dark energy entity enjoys zip in the way of laboratory confirmation. SUSY theory evaporated at LHC, so the whole "dark" concepts enjoy *falsification" in the lab, not lab support!
It is occurring in all places where stronger forces (e.g. gravitation) don't eradicate its effect.
Sort of astronomers code for 'our dark deity did it where no one exist and see it in action. More importantly you cannot even demonstrate dark energy accelerates a single atom, let alone a whole plasma universe!
It occurs equally in all directions, and therefore observed from any point in the universe it will seem that that point should be the ''center" of the universe.
Bah! Inelastic scattering is observed from every direction. There is no "center" of the universe.
(Santilli's objection to this is still nonsensical, like saying that in base 10 that 2+2=5 and then asking why people don't agree with him).
I've really not had much time to focus on astronomy topics in general the last couple of weeks. When I get time to read his work, I'll draw my own conclusions. I'm frankly skeptical that any other types of scattering are necessary or required to explain photon redshift over distance.
Dark energy by its very definition describes an effect that takes place on too large a scale to be able to observe it anywhere other than on intergalactic scales.
That's akin to me claiming "God did it" but we can't verify it because he only on intergalactic scales. You've effectively created a "intergalactic god" that only shows up in the most inconvenient places.
We can't observe it here in a bricks and mortar laboratory because we cannot escape the much stronger gravitational effect. The entire universe is the laboratory; a laboratory is simply a place where scientific work is undertaken.
That's a sorry excuse IMO. Gravity seems to have a greater effect than EM fields in most cases too, but the LHC proves that it can have a very strong physical effect in *controlled* conditions. You can't even tell me where to get a quantity, or create a quantified "dark energy" source, let alone explain a way to "control" it. I just have to take your dogma on pure blind faith.
And by the way, we do have a control - the "control" is quite obviously a hypothetical universe model without expansion, and we can easily simulate elements of what would happen in that situation with mathematics, and see if matches observations from our universe.
But it's not that simple. You have to *assume* that little or no inelastic scattering takes place on photons we observe. That's not something you're 'controlling', it's something your religions *needs to be true* in order for your "faith" to be useful. That's not a "controlled' test. Creating a "dark energy" field like we create an EM field would be allow us to create "controlled" test of concept.
So far, it doesn't. We don't need the "actual physical manifestation" of this hypothetical universe to be able to draw meaningful conclusions from our own.
Again, your "hypothetical" universe is unlike the real universe. In the real universe, inelastic scattering happens in plasma, and you've never accounted for any of it!
That's a "make-believe" universe, not just a "hypothetical" universe. It would literally take an act of God for photons to miraculacely weave their way around every temperature gradient in space, every EM field gradient in space, every atom in space, every dust particle in space, to have a *zero* net redshift by the time it reaches Earth. Talk about religions based on *miracles*.
Image courtesy Dark Energy Survey Collaboration
Michael
