-
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
I don't think you've accurately portrayed *anyone's* actual beliefs correctly in this thread, so why should you treat me any differently than you treated Peratt and Dungey and the Japanese?
When did I *ever* make that claim RC, or did you just make that up?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
No, *you* are right back to *oversimplying* the argument to one and only one form of scattering when in fact there are *many* various forms that may *all* play some role in the total photon redshift from space.
Scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Your whole "game" begins with an oversimplification fallacy. It starts with an either/or oversimplification fallacy when a combination of factors is far *more likely* than *one or the other*. Its even possible that *real Doppler shift* plays a role. Since you can't really say much about any other form of scattering, you keep coming back to *one* and only *one* form of scattering and acting like it's the only game in town!
The fact that Lambda-CDM doesn't even *allow* for *any* significant amount plasma redshift *should be* your first clue that it's flawed. The fact it needs placeholder terms to fill those gaps should be your second clue that it's bogus nonsense. The fact your dark energy deity is a dud in the lab should be your third clue that it's a ridiculous claim. LHC simply crushed the CDM deity entirely, and the gaps just keep getting smaller every day.
Upvote
0
Elendur
Gamer and mathematician
Ok. I'm going to ask you something about some math.
Closest star, except our sun:
Alpha Centauri
Distance
4.2421(16) light years
4.0118*10^13 to 4.0149*10^13 km
Radius of our earth (mean value):
6,371.0 km
The maximum angle accepted before photons won't reach earth at all (the photons starting point on the star won't matter as an assumption):
Scattered at the object: invtan(6,371/(4.0118*10^13))
That results in about 1.5881*10^-10 degrees of scattering allowed.
Scattered at half the distance: invtan(6,371/(2.059*10^13))
That results in about 3.094*10^-10 degrees of scattering allowed.
Note: This is working on the assumption of one event of scattering over the entire distance, occurring at one of those two points.
Those angles would result in a nice, cosy, blanket of light from that star (since it would be scattered all over earth we wouldn't be able to discern its shape). Given that it's our closest one, it's easy to tell that all other stars would produce the same blanket effect.
Could you tell me what the maximum redshift of those scatterings would be?
Could you tell me what the maximum scattering would be (at those two points) in order for us to observe Abell 1835?
Could you tell me what the maximum redshift of those scatterings would be?
(I know there are several flaws with this, but it's a start)
Edit: I used the larger distance to calculate the maximum scattering allowed where I should have used the smaller (fixed now).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Does Compton scattering occur in the lab?
They all scatter light and suffer from the same problems.
Tu quoque.
You are handwaving away the effects that scattering has on both intensity and image quality. You have done it again here.
They are saying that dust in galaxies is obscuring the light that is reaching us. This is not intergalactic dust. This is dust in the galaxy. If it is plasma, as you want to cliam, then we should see a correlation between the size of the galaxy and redshift since larger galaxies would have more plasma. That is not what we see. We see a correlation between distance and redshift regardless of the size of the galaxy or star cluster.
Chen's experiment also includes partially shielded hydrogen nuclei, doesn't it?
Also, the temperature and density of Chen's plasma is very different from plasma found in space, is it not?
How so?
It will also cause the light to be directed away from Earth, according to you. Therefore, we should not see any light that has been plasma redshifted.
Upvote
0
If your intent was to impress me about how little deflection it takes to lose photons between the source and the Earth, I was already duly impressed. Keep in mind that this is a "net total" deflection. Some photons could be deflected back and forth a few times, and deflect further than your maximum in some instances, and still hit Earth.
Your question however depends on more factors that I can actually account for, other than to simply plug in the redshift numbers into Holushko's work, which frankly you're probably more adept at anyway.
It took me a minute to even figure out why you used the radius of Earth rather than the diameter, not that it would have made much of a difference either way. There are essentially two types of redshift effects seen in the lab. One is more of an interaction with particles in the vacuum, but there are also "magnetic field" influences that also come into play.
Brillouin scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Due the severe limits of particle deflection that can occur between the source and the Earth, I would tend to personally favor EM field influences and things like Brillouin scattering over something like Compton scattering. I wouldn't however rule out any form of inelastic scattering as having *some* influence on the total redshift however.
In terms of which photons reach Earth, it's just the "lucky few" that get here. The rest I would expect to scatter in the medium and be absorbed and re-emitted by various particles.
I think if you look at the universe in a gamma-ray wavelength, you'll see that the closer galaxies *do* have a 'bright halo' compared to the background radiation coming from all directions. There are some wavelengths that work pretty much as you describe, but I suspect it depends on the wavelength and the plasma medium between here and there.
The short answer is that Holushko's C# code could "best" answer your question.
Upvote
0
Well, Thompson scattering shows up in the lab:
ScienceDirect.com - Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment - Generation of femtosecond X-rays by 90° Thomson scattering
That's more than a little "handwavy" for my tastes. Even Zwicky's motives for his mathless handwave in 1929 are questionable since he was 'selling' his own redshift theory in that particular paper.
You're handwaving in those claims as well, based upon an oversimplification fallacy, so what exactly did you expect?
Er, no. Photon redshift is not related to the number of photons emitted at the source, it's related to the number of *interactions* between here and there. There is no such correlation between the size of a galaxy and the amount of redshift in tired light theory.
That's all any tired light theory would expect to see as well. You're misrepresenting the redshift process in tired light theory.
You tell me. Do you read the paper or just the abstract?
Sure, but then so is the distance involved. Somehow he has to be able to create conditions that are favorable to *measuring* the redshift in a small space. All theories must be scaled to size.
Chen wasn't working with multi-million degree plasma. The hotter plasma will result in more free electrons.
That's not what I said. I said it depends on the exact inelastic scattering mechanism, and some "luck" actually.
Upvote
0
Does Compton Scattering occur in the lab?
That's more than a little "handwavy" for my tastes. Even Zwicky's motives for his mathless handwave in 1929 are questionable since he was 'selling' his own redshift theory in that particular paper.
What math do you need? Non-parallel paths for photons produces blurring. Period. This has been known for quite some time now. Plasma redshifts will produce non-parallel paths for photons. It will produce blurriness.
I am not the one handwaving. That would be you. You are trying to handwave the most obvious refutation of PC.
Here is what you said:
"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."--Michael
Therefore, the more galactic dust a star has to shine through the more scattering one will see. The larger the galaxy, the more dust there is for the stars on the far side of the galaxy to shine through. Therefore, there should be a correlation between insensity/redshift and the size of the galaxy. That is not what we see. We see a correlation between distance and redshift.
Then why are you citing an article on scattering within galaxies.
I don't have the full paper which is why I am asking.
Distance doesn't increase density nor does it change temperature, so it is not comparable.
The less dense the plasma the more inelastic interactions you have such as those seen in Compton scattering. Also, as RC has pointed out you can have blue shift in hot plasmas.
You distinctly stated that if it is deflected that the photons will never reach us. That is what you have said many, many times. Therefore, we should never see this redshifted light according to you.
Upvote
0
Compton vs. Raman vs. Thomson Scattering
I actually already answered your question. Technically yes, unless you intend to throw out GR theory.
Without mathematical support of your invisible friends, what *evidence* do you even have? Math and physics kinda go hand in hand.
So what? The very *best* images that we have of the most redshifted/distant objects in space are "pixelated" and blurred and nothing more than smudges in our highest resolution images.
NASA - Most Distant Galaxy Candidate Ever Seen in Universe
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ates-most-distant-galaxy-ever-discovered.html
How do you know there is no blurring in distant objects? In reality, many galaxies are blurred on various wavelengths in various directions. I'm not afraid of the blurring features, in fact it seems like a good 'test' of basic differences. Of course Lambda-ever-shrinking-invisible-matter-of-the-gaps theory could be modified with 'magic dark dust' that blurs objects but magically never redshifts any photons in the process.
And we observe some blurring in distant objects.
Apparently you don't understand the difference between tired light theory and PC theory, but technically there is one. I tend to promote Pantheism which is but one *subset* of PC theory that happens to include tired light theory. Even if you somehow could refute tired light theory, it would not be a falsification of PC theory, anymore than a falsification of Pantheism would be a falsification of all possible PC theories.
Here is what you said:
You are effectively assuming that all the plasma is concentrated in the galaxies rather than between them?
Because scattering happens *within* them, as well as outside of them.
Distance does increase the number of collisions per photon over time, just like density increases. Give it up.
It depends on the *exact* interactions between particle/field and photon.
Brillouin scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Brillouin scattering is form of inelastic scattering that you keep ignoring. Any particular reason you keep ignoring the fact that Compton scattering isn't the only game in town?
No. I said if the *scattering angle is too large* we'll never see it. I also noted that some interactions allow for *no* deflection, yet loss of energy. You keep ignoring that and citing only *one* kind of scattering.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Elendur
Gamer and mathematician
"Net total"? Then I'll assume you're referring to several scatterings occurring.
DISCLAIMER: I have not studied physics, only math for 2 years. This is entirely constructed from logical steps done by me and not read/told from anyone or any external source. I may have done mistakes by missing things and/or arrived at false conclusions.
In order to observe something, with a sharp image, we need parallel, or near so, photons from the same source.
Is that correct?
An additional demand could be that we need those photons to be from roughly the same time.
Is that correct?
If the first is incorrect, could you explain what was incorrect?
1. If the first is correct, that would mean:
1a. That the photons scattered from the sources would have to re-align themselves with their original path in order for us to be able to observe them sharply.
and/or
1b. That the photons scattered from the sources won't re-align, leaving us observing only the remaining, non-redshifted, light.
If I have left out some possibility, please tell me.
If the second is incorrect, could you explain what was incorrect?
2. If the second is correct, that would mean:
2a. The photons we observe cannot have taken long detours (relative distance as well as relative time).
and as a logical result of point 2:
3. The photons scattered would have to have scattered several times with:
either
3a. Scatterings of low angle changes (allowing for higher time between the scattering occasions)
or
3b. Scatterings of high angle changes (adding the necessity of short time between the scattering occasions, to make it not veer of the parallel path for to long).
If I have left out some possibility, please tell me.
Note: I'll rely on our nearest star and my previous post!
Problems with point 1a:
If the photons are going to re-align with the path the photons originally had it has to be within an angle that is much smaller than the previously calculated angle of 3.094*10^-10 degrees. (Due to sharp images)
That is:
Degrees of deviation from original path after scatterings << 3.094*10^-10
(This is at half the distance, it's lower near its source and higher the closer you get)
The odds of this occurring is monumentally small, for those interested, it is calculated by calculating the surface area of a ball with the radius of 1 (x^2+y^2+z^2=1) and compare to the area that lies within the allowed angles.
Added: There would have to be a minimum of three scatterings to bring the photon 'back on track'. Given the small angles and requirement of parallelism the third (or last) of the scatterings would have to occur on, or extremely near, the original path, directed towards the original direction. These are odds that I can approximate to zero in almost every case.
Problems with point 1b:
If the photons doesn't re-align, we have no explanation using scattering for the redshift observed and the light observed would be significantly decreased compared with our sun and the farther away the star, the weaker it would be until they finally fade into white.
Problems with point 1a combined with 1b:
We would see a jumble of photons, both redshifted and not, from different times.
Problems with 3:
That several scatterings of one photon would occur and ultimately end up in a parallel path is highly unlikely.
That several photons would regularly (all the time / near all the time) do that is even more unlikely.
Your question however depends on more factors that I can actually account for, other than to simply plug in the redshift numbers into Holushko's work, which frankly you're probably more adept at anyway.
I've addressed scattering above, I hope you'll take a look at it.
I'm not sure we can say that no scattering occurs but I'm equally certain, now that I've taken the time to think about it, that scattering cannot be responsible for the redshift (if it's responsible for any redshift it would be a lot smaller than the total).
If so, as written above, the original light-emitting sources would be several magnitudes stronger than imagined (talking about hundreds of thousands times if not more).
TBH, I don't see why/how I should/can discriminate between wavelengths. I can see why the medium would matter (as it's not a true vacuum) but eventually you can use a mean-value to replace it.
I'm not proficient enough in programming to be able to understand the code. I've looked at it but it's too complicated (I can't even find the actual calculations), to put it short.
Edit: Clarified some things.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yes. The basic concept is that there are more interactions over distance, hence more redshift over distance. It's not *one* interaction that is responsible for the whole redshift effect, but rather it requires many such interactions. Only the 'lucky few" photons end up with a small enough "net" scattering to reach Earth.
More or less, but it depends on the distance. We don't actually "observe" small suns in distant galaxies as clear point sources. We observe only the largest stars, and they are typically diffuse light sources rather than clear point sources even then. What we really 'see' are a few of the emitted photons in an overall pattern that is "basically" (not necessarily perfectly) consistent with the overall layout of stars in a galaxy. Our very best technologies cannot pick out every small star in the highest redshifted galaxies as clear point sources. We don't see any distant galaxy with that kind of clarity, and our technologies are simply not that good in the first place.
The signal will broaden over time. In terms of a stable light source like a star, the overall photons spread and get intermixed with photons that left before and after that photon, but the total number of arriving photons is still quite stable.
In time limited events on the other hand, such as supernova white light and gamma ray emissions from a supernova explosions, we should expect to see some time delays between various wavelengths, particularly the highest energy wavelengths. That would be a valid "test" of the theory in fact.
In terms of responding to the rest of your points, I think I need to stop here and see how you respond to the points I raised.
I still think Brollioun scattering (or a field to field kinetic energy transfer as described by Brynjolfsson) is more likely to be the "primary" cause of redshift rather than solid particle scattering effects. That "net scattering" angles are likely to be much smaller, and the forward momentum of the photons becomes more important in such events.
There can be some "blurring" going on, particularly near the point sources themselves that we would really never know anything about. All we really see are diffuse light sources anyway, particularly all small star point sources.
In short, I don't think it's quite a "simple" as you imply.
Upvote
0
Elendur
Gamer and mathematician
Alright, then I assumed correctly (and used it as a part of my reasoning).
Ok, that will not change my reasoning. Though it does change the target group, from all stars to a subset of those that has somewhat sharp images. The resulting group is still large enough for my arguments to remain valid. (IMO)
Broadening of the signal will not make the photons fall outside of the time period (significantly at least). When I wrote "roughly" I meant that the photons shouldn't disperse so that the astronomical events we observe gets jumbled, time wise.
I don't know if (/think that) this would affect my reasoning as most of it is restricted to scattering and not signal broadening.
Alright, no rush.
It seems that Brillouin (according to the wiki) doesn't apply to all photons ("fraction of the traveling light wave").
I still see a problem if I were to ignore that and apply it to individual photons only. The first being that I don't see a formula for how the angle affects the frequency change (which would allow me to check if it's unique in some way compared to the other scatterings). The second is that I've addressed all scatterings (that is, where photons deviate from their original path) in my reasoning.
I'm not sure how (/if) that would affect my reasoning. I'll therefore (no matter how just/unjust) not address this point now, I'll rethink it if you can present an argument depending on this.
Neither do I, but it's a start.
Cheers.
Upvote
0
Well let see: tired light theories are wrong for one reason because astronomers like Ned Wright and Zwicky state that they cause blurring distant galaxies (relative to near galaxies).
So you either agree with actual astronomers and so tired light theories are wrong!
Or you disagree with them and "you still think that there will be no blurring of distant galaxies relative to near galaxies".
Upvote
0
Guess what - the answer is that this paper has notthing to do influence of the plasma on the photons
!Guess what - this is not even a paper! It is a press release.
The paper is:
The Energy Output of the Universe from 0.1 to 1000 μm
by Driver, Simon P.; Popescu, Cristina C.; Tuffs, Richard J.; Graham, Alister W.; Liske, Jochen; Baldry, Ivan
The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 678, Issue 2, pp. L101-L104.
5/2008
This paper shows that the existing measured output of light from galaxies consists of 11% to 87% of light emitted from interstellar dust particles (heated up by stars) and the rest directly from stars.The dominant source of electromagnetic energy in the universe today (over ultraviolet, optical, and near-infrared wavelengths) is starlight. However, quantifying the amount of starlight produced has proved difficult due to interstellar dust grains that attenuate some unknown fraction of the light. Combining a recently calibrated galactic dust model with observations of 10,000 nearby galaxies, we find that (integrated over all galaxy types and orientations) only 11% +/- 2% of the 0.1 μm photons escape their host galaxies; this value rises linearly (with logλ
There is no change in the amount of light detected from a galaxy - just to what astronomters assign the source of the light.
Upvote
0
No, *you* are right back to *oversimplying* the argument by denying the physics: tired light.
The relatively simple physics is listed in that article and the astrommer Ned Wrigghts web page, Errors in Tired Light Cosmology.
One argument against all tired light theories is that all tired light theories change the energy of the photons.
Another problem with all tired light theories is:
Another problem with all tired light theories is:
Another problem with all tired light theories is:
Your whole "game" begins and ends with denial of the physics.
Upvote
0
Almost right, Loudmouth
- the key is the second sentence in the abstract - "However, quantifying the amount of starlight produced ...". Whoops: I had a look at the actual paper and the galaxies are twice as bright than we measure them
.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This has something to do with this thread how?
We still can point the Hubble telescope at a dark bit of sky, take a long exposure and see galaxies 13 billion years away!
So if anything the fact that we can see galaxies so far away is an argument against scattering!
P.S. The newest candidate for the most distant object seen is MACS0647-JD
And yes it is an minor argument against tired light theories because it is not >13.7 billion light years away (tired light theories predict that galaxies can be seen at any distance).
Upvote
0
Is This the Most Distant Object Ever Seen?
The very *worst* images that we have of the most redshifted/distant objects in space are "pixelated" and nothing more than smudges in our highest resolution images.
That is obvious - you are looking at very distant objects and only getting a few photons from them. Only a few pixels on a CCD will collect that light. The images will be pixelated.
Upvote
0
I for one ignore it because I know what Brillouin scattering is!
(my emphasis added)
I happen to know what the phonons, magnons , etc. are because I learned about them at university. They are quasiparticles used as an approximation for QM treatments of excitations of a periodic quantum system.
Brillouin scattering can either redshift or blue-shift light.
Plasmas like the intergalactic medium do not have contain correlated, periodic fluctuations.
At least you seem to have learned that Compton scattering = cosmological redshift will blue-shift visible lght
P.S. I suspect the same will apply - Brillouin scattering may blue-shift visible light.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
