-
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.
Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
- Status
No! You gave a *no good* answer according to your own reference! Only you would ignore what he actually said!In other words you were wrong then, and you're still wrong now. I was right, and you were dead wrong on photon kinetic energy. Your claims were "no good" on day one, and they are no good now. You are not capable of listening or receiving an external criticism because you simply twist their statements to suit yourself.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That is why you do not use classical kinetic energy to describe the energy of a photon. What is so hard to understand? Classical physics gives the wrong answer. Photons do have energy even though they do not have mass. It just so happens that the energy that photons have is not classical kinetic energy.
Upvote
0
We aren't discussing plasma redshift in the lab. We are discussing redshift of light from distant galaxies. You need to show that the plasma used by Chen is present in space. From all accounts, it doesn't. I have also yet to see any discussion on your part as to the scattering observed in Chen's experiment.
In the lab, plasma redshift also produces scattering. Scattering will produce blurry images as astronomers have been saying since the 1930's.
Upvote
0
Yet both of you used it originally. I recall you making some comment about photons having no mass at all, 'resting or otherwise' as I recall.
What's so hard to understand is why either of you used it to begin with if gives the wrong answer?
m=hf/C^2. Remember that formula? They have no *rest* mass!
Everyone of them contains "kinetic energy". None of them contain zero kinetic energy. Redshift *is* related to a loss of kinetic energy.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I am. It occurs in the lab as well as in space.
Who's account is that? Mainstream accounts? Chen showed a direct correlation between free electrons and the amount of redshift. They also just found more mass inside million degree plasma around our galaxy than exists in the galaxy in stars.
What about it?
Those handwaves from 1929 have no meaning in 2012. The technology has changed, and distant galaxies are sometimes blurred.
Upvote
0
You have not shown that plasma redshift occurs in space.
Yes, with his very specific experimental setup which doesn't exist in space.
Plasma physics has not changed. Plasma still scatters light.
Upvote
0
Yes, in classical physics photons have no mass, resting or otherwise.
Why do you continue to use it?
m=hf/C^2. Remember that formula? They have no *rest* mass!
It is related to a loss of momentum, as most people describe it. Also, there is no way for a photon to lose momentum in a plasma without also being scattered. Scattered light produces massive blurring at the distances we are talking about. That blurring is not seen. Therefore, plasma cosmology is falsified. And that is just one way in which PC is falsified.
Upvote
0
Mathematical speaking I've shown you Holushko's work. How have you shown that dark energy does anything to a photon?
Free electrons exist in space. Photons exist in space.
It also redshifts light.
Your entire argument seems to come from Zwicky's 1929 mathless handwave while promoting his *own* redshift theory.
Upvote
0
"Classical" physics doesn't provide a "good" answer, and there was no point is spewing *bad* answers.
I don't.
You can "falsify" an entire *range* of redshift processes by citing *one* of them, and handwaving in an unsupported (with math) assertion from 1929.
You didn't even touch most of the known causes of redshift, just one! It's not even necessarily a *one or the other* issue in the first place.
Upvote
0
According to you, Holushko's work incorporates Compton scattering which would cause massive blurring of distant galaxies which is not seen. Therefore, his model is falsified. It can not explain what it sets out to explain.
When free electrons and photons interact the result is scattered light, which is not observed. Therefore, the redshift we observe is not due to plasma redshift. It really is that simple.
It also redshifts light.
It is based on common sense and optics.
Upvote
0
It includes effects from *all* known causes of photon redshift, including *but not limited to* Compton scattering. We do see scattering in space.
No, that's a gross *oversimplification*. It's not even an 'either/or proposition' in terms of scattering effects on photons. It's not a choice between Compton scattering or Brillioun scattering, it's potentially a combination of *both* scattering processes that cause the *total* redshift.
It's based on a handwave and prayer.
Upvote
0
We do not see the amount of scattering that PC predicts, therefore it is falsified.
Scattering is scattering. It results in non-parallel light paths which produces blurring.
It's based on a handwave and prayer.
Your denial of basic optics is the epitome of a handwave and a prayer.
Upvote
0
We see *exactly* as much scattering as PC predicts.
Handwave much? Not every interaction between a photon and another particle produces a change in photon trajectory. That concept is false from the start. Not every deflection would result in blurring either. That is also a false assertion. Most *large* or *distant* deflections will simply result in a loss of light which is why the universe is twice as bright as the mainstream predicted.
Pfft. Basic optics *insists* that plasma redshift and scattering *must* occur in the plasmas of space just as they occur in plasmas on Earth. You don't have a prayers chance in pagan hades of getting light to traverse light years of plasma and *not* experience plasma redshift. It would take nothing short of a *miracle* for that to happen. Every single photon would have to weave and dodge it's way around every plasma particle in space ad all refocus itself by itself.
Upvote
0
No, we don't. Nearby galaxies are as sharp as distant galaxies. This falsifies PC. Handwave much?
If it causes a redshift it will necessarily cause a change in photon trajectory. Here is the math:
Now, what redshift value do you get for an angle of zero? Oh, that's right . . . a redshift of zero.
That's the handwave of the century.
So the light that is redshifted never reaches Earth? Is that your claim now?
Also false. The density and the temperature of plasmas has very important impacts on how light interacts with plasmas. You keep citing Chen, but the plasma used by Chen is NOTHING like the plasma found in space. Nothing.
It can if the plasma is so diffuse that few if any photons interact with the plasma.
Upvote
0
We are back to discussing the Compton scattering . So my question becomes relevant again:
Michael: Can you see a another problem with Compton scattering = tired light?
Which started at on 8th November 2012
Michael, sorry but I am going to give you the answer which is that you cannot see it! This refects badly on your knowledge of the Compton scattering. Even your ability to analyse a Wikipedia article is on doubt!
So let us take this in baby steps:
Can you click on a link: Compton scattering. I assume that you can.
Can you scroll to the last section of that article. I hope hat you can.
!
However the first bit of physics you need to understand is:
The shift in wavelength caused by Compton scattering depends on whether it is a high energy photon meeting a low energy electron (Compton scattering) or a low energy photon meeting a high energy electron (Compton scattering).
Compton scattering does not always produce redshift! As above CMB photons are blue-shifted when they pass through galaxy clusters. This is a small effect mainly because it happens over the cosmologically small distances in clusters. Also note that this is a blue-shift relative to the CMB that did not pass through the cluster.
The next bit of physics:
Galaxies also emit "CMB photons", i.e. light in the microwave range. There are galaxies behind galaxy clusters.
Thus we should see sections of galaxy spectra that are blue-shifted from these galaxies. But maybe astronomers have not looked there!
The final bit of physics and another nail in the Compton scattering = cosmological redshift coffin:
Michael: Can you see a another problem with Compton scattering = tired light?
Which started at on 8th November 2012
Michael, sorry but I am going to give you the answer which is that you cannot see it! This refects badly on your knowledge of the Compton scattering. Even your ability to analyse a Wikipedia article is on doubt
!So let us take this in baby steps:
Can you click on a link: Compton scattering. I assume that you can.
Can you scroll to the last section of that article. I hope hat you can
.Note that there are no applications of Compton scattering in astronomy mentioned
!However the first bit of physics you need to understand is:
The shift in wavelength caused by Compton scattering depends on whether it is a high energy photon meeting a low energy electron (Compton scattering) or a low energy photon meeting a high energy electron (Compton scattering).
Compton scattering does not always produce redshift! As above CMB photons are blue-shifted when they pass through galaxy clusters. This is a small effect mainly because it happens over the cosmologically small distances in clusters. Also note that this is a blue-shift relative to the CMB that did not pass through the cluster.
The next bit of physics:
Galaxies also emit "CMB photons", i.e. light in the microwave range. There are galaxies behind galaxy clusters.
Thus we should see sections of galaxy spectra that are blue-shifted from these galaxies. But maybe astronomers have not looked there!
The final bit of physics and another nail in the Compton scattering = cosmological redshift coffin:
The intergalactic medium has a temperature from ~10^5 K to ~10^7 K.
This is the same temperature as light just past the visible spectrum and getting into ultraviolet region.
This means that Compton scattering = cosmological redshift will blue-shift visible lght!This is the same temperature as light just past the visible spectrum and getting into ultraviolet region.
Upvote
0
Michael, your previous conversation with me and current conversation with Loudmouth about Compton scattering suggests that you still think that there will be no blurring of distant galaxies relative to near galaxies.
But you keep on going on about intensity!
This Compton scattering = cosmological redshift fantasy will cause (IMO!) the intensity of light received by a telescope to decrease. The light is still received. It still forms an image. The loss of intensity does not stop an image from being formed. I hope you understand this point and forget about intensity
.
But you keep on going on about intensity!
This Compton scattering = cosmological redshift fantasy will cause (IMO!) the intensity of light received by a telescope to decrease. The light is still received. It still forms an image. The loss of intensity does not stop an image from being formed. I hope you understand this point and forget about intensity
.
Upvote
0
While I am here, there is
Michael's seven noncosmological redshifts that show up in the lab
where Michael has a list of 6 things that effect light from Wikipedia and Chen's redshift in a non-astrophysical plasma.
Michael, we only have your unsupported assertions that the Wikipedia cited effects can cause cosmological redshift. But we have seen that you do not know much about Compton scatterng. So how can we trust your unsupported assertions about the rest?
Michael, can you provide evidence from the peer-reviewed scientific literature that the following can cause cosmological redshift?
Michael's seven noncosmological redshifts that show up in the lab
where Michael has a list of 6 things that effect light from Wikipedia and Chen's redshift in a non-astrophysical plasma.
Michael, we only have your unsupported assertions that the Wikipedia cited effects can cause cosmological redshift. But we have seen that you do not know much about Compton scatterng. So how can we trust your unsupported assertions about the rest?
Michael, can you provide evidence from the peer-reviewed scientific literature that the following can cause cosmological redshift?
Upvote
0
That is math for only *one* type of scattering. How about all the rest of the various scattering methods?
Scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Er, no, that would be "dark energy did it".
No, my claim is that the universe is much brighter than astronomers calculated because they left out the scattering effects!
2008 | University of St Andrews
Guess why they underestimated the influence of the plasma on the photons?
That's not true. It's got lots of free electrons just like Chen's plasma. Since it's much hotter in space than in his lab, it probably has more free electrons than Chen's plasma contains pound for pound. The distances of course cannot be duplicated in a lab, but that can be compensated for by plasma density.
All it takes is a few photon interactions per kilometer to cause a huge change in redshift over light years of distance.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
