Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[RealityCheck01]

I have not seen any answer to this quesiton, Michael:

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?

• Brillouin scattering
• Raman scattering
• Compton scattering
• Stark effect
• Zeeman effect
• Wolf effect

For example, Brillouin scattering would require correlated, periodic fluctuations in the intergalactic medium so it is unlikely there is any literature on causing cosmological redshift because plasmas are not periodic nor correlated over cosmological scales.

 

[Michael]

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)

Well, already we're taking subjectively different roads my friend. Your arguments are a little handwavy for my tastes. The most redshifted objects are both pixelated and blurry, and scattered outright in some wavelengths. There are *many* variables, typically related to cloud/plasma density issues between here and there.

The further out we get, the more "basic glow" we observe in the most redshifted galaxies. I'd be willing to grant you that the "closest" galaxies are usually pretty "clear" for the most part, but the most redshifted galaxies are a whole different issue. Even relatively 'close' galaxies on the opposite side of the galaxy are difficult for us to spot, and scattered in white light images.

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.

In terms of blazar events and long range supernova events perhaps. In terms of starlight from various stars, and distant galaxies, not so much. The light on all the wavelengths is continuous, so eventually it all evens out.

There however some testable predictions of tired light theory that do vary from Lambda-CDM. The higher energy wavelengths may experience longer delays. We'll need more information on that topic to actually "test" the concept. The problem is that Lambda-CDM proponents can simply "tweak" their theory at the source to accommodate just about anything.

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").

It only takes a small percentage to be influenced at any one change in density of magnetic fields or temperature variations to add up over time and distance. If it's a 'field to field' kinetic energy transfer, the photon may not get "deflected" much at all in any given event, and it may weave back and forth a bit, up and down a bit, and still end up pretty close to the trajectory it started from. I really can't be sure of all the variations that may come into play.

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.

You might start with a field to field transfer theory like Brynjolfsson's theory and show me how it results in 'blurring'.

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.

It seems to me that there is a tad bit of burden shifting going on here. You're pretty much "handwaving" in both the "blurring" claim based on *one* kind of scattering. You're also playing upon an oversimplification fallacy as it relates to claiming that distant galaxies are never blurred. Neither of those claims passes the smell test, and you keep expecting *me* to demonstrate *your* claims.

Neither do I, but it's a start.

Cheers.

Here's what I can't "grok" in your position. I cannot for the life of me understand how you can be comfortable trying to defend the claim that "no scattering/redshift ever occurs in space plasma and dust". It's impossible for that to actually be the case you know.

 

[Michael]

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).

Apparently everything you know comes from *one* living astronomer who listed only *one* type of scattering on his website, ignore every other kind of redshift known to man, and handwaved at the whole thing based upon a *mathless handwave* from Zwicky in 1929 when trying to sell *his own* redshift theory.

Sorry RC, you'll have to show me something that addresses modern presentations of tired light theory that address the supernova data. Since you've steadfastly refused to do that, I can only assume you're living in the past.

So you either agree with actual astronomers and so tired light theories are wrong!

You personally don't speak for "astronomers" at all. Ned is only *one* astronomer. Apparently nobody else personally seems to care to claim anything of the sort, so they quote Ned at best case, and avoid the topic altogether whenever possible.

Or you disagree with them and "you still think that there will be no blurring of distant galaxies relative to near galaxies".

Huh? I don't even think you know *what I actually believe*. You certainly do your very best to *misrepresent* it in post after post after countless post. Do you even actually understand my beliefs on this topic, yes or no?

If yes, stop *blatantly misrepresenting them*. If no, ask some questions before *proclaiming* what you *thing* I believe. It's annoying.

 

[RealityCheck01]

In order to observe something, with a sharp image, we need parallel, or near so, photons from the same source.
Is that correct?

Actually not !
Modern telescopes are usually reflecting telescopes that use a parabolic mirror to focus light on a flat mirror and out to a side piece where the image is taken. Some have flat mirrors that reflect the light through the parabolic mirror.

A point source emits light in all directions. A reflecting telescope will bounce all of the photons that hit the mirror (collected photons) to a single point (it's focal point), off the flat mirror and into the detector as a single point. A point source always produces a point image. A galaxy will always produce a sharp image of a galaxy.
N.B. This is an ideal telescope, e.g. ignoring atmosphereic effects, imperfections in the mirroes and detector, etc.

Now add some scattering. Some of the collected light will now follow paths that to the parabolic mirror look as if they came from a lot of different point sources randomly arranged around the original point source. You end up with an image that is a point source surrounded by a random set of dimmer point sources.

Scattering is a statistical process. If you have a volume in which photons are scattered before they are collected by a telescope then a certain percentage will be not scattered, a certain % scattered once, a certain % scattered twice, etc. This is represented by a mean free path for a photon.
Outer space

The sparse density of matter in outer space means that electromagnetic radiation can travel great distances without being scattered: the mean free path of a photon in intergalactic space is about 1023 km, or 10 billion light years.[28] In spite of this, extinction, which is the absorption and scattering of photons by dust and gas, is an important factor in galactic and intergalactic astronomy.[29]

Now point the telescope at a nearby galaxy. A number of photons will be scattered. The image will be the sharp image to be used as a reference for other images.

Point the telescope at a distant galaxy, e.g. 10 billion lightyears away. More photons will be scattered than in the first image (e.g. roughly 1/e or 37% more). The image will be blurred compared to the reference image.

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.

There is a rule in programming - GIGO = Garbage In, Garbage out.
It usually refers to garbage data input to a program = garbage data output from the program. But it can also apply to the specification for a program.
Here is a program that is trying to do something with some tired light theory which is why Michael is linking to it all of the time. Tired light theories actually match some data, e.g. cosmological redshift. It would take a true crank to propose a tired light theory that matched nothing !
But the physics is that all tired light theories are wrong. This program thus is based on garbage and can only produce garbage.

 

[Michael]

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.

In other words, it demonstrates that starlight scattering/absorption is the true source of the CBM.

There is no change in the amount of light detected from a galaxy - just to what astronomters assign the source of the light.

The universe is *at least* twice as bright as we once imagined, and those only based upon the *this* study. Who knows how much *distant* galaxies are affected? No doubt the IT guy, and only the IT claims to have a crystal ball and know what James Webb images will show us.

 

[RealityCheck01]

..usual ranting and insults snipped...
If yes, stop *blatantly misrepresenting them*.

Please start *blatantly representing them*.
Will scattering produce blurred images of distant galaxies?

 

[Michael]

No, *you* are right back to *oversimplying* the argument by denying the physics: tired light.

No, you and Ned are in pure denial of all tired light theory that address supernova data, and Lerner's work. Your entire argument is a mathless handwave from some guy in 1929 that barely even understood how many galaxies there were, or how distant those galaxies really were!

The relatively simple physics is listed in that article and the astrommer Ned Wrigghts web page, Errors in Tired Light Cosmology.

Ned's unpublished website is hopelessly dated, pretty much like your understanding of physics. Apparently the mindset is based upon pure denial of any advancements in tired light theory, EVER!

One argument against all tired light theories is that all tired light theories change the energy of the photons.

That's what it's counting on. All tired light theories cause the photon to lose energy, and they do in fact lose energy in the lab as well.

Another problem with all tired light theories is:

"The tired light model can not produce a blackbody spectrum for the Cosmic Microwave Background without some incredible coincidences."

What a hysterical claim considering it's 10 to the 100th power of an "incredible coincidence" that inflation did it, considering it's 10 to the 100th power *more* likely that inflation has nothing to do with a flat universe! Talk about incredible coincidences and pots/kettles arguments! Epic fail!

Another problem with all tired light theories is:

Another demonstration that you are still in denial of Lerner's paper that I gave you a month ago. In fact all you've demonstrated very clearly is that you are incapable of accepting any *new* information that goes beyond 1929 in terms of tired light theory. You're stuck living in denial because the moment you stop the denial game, your show is over. The jig up up. The game is finished. You therefore cannot deal with Holushko's work, Ashmore's work, Brynjolfsson's work, or any modern tired light theory known to man.

Essentially all you can do is sit there and pretend modern tired light theories never existed. How sad for you and Ned.

 

[Michael]

Please start *blatantly representing them*.
Will scattering produce blurred images of distant galaxies?

It depends on the type of scattering, the distance of the galaxy in question, the amount of dust and plasma between here and there, etc. To oversimplify the issues is to play into your ridiculous game, and I have no intention of doing that.

 

[RealityCheck01]

In other words, it demonstrates that starlight scattering/absorption is the true source of the CBM.

In other words, you have a deslution that this paper demonstrates that starlight scattering/absorption is the true source of the CBM.

The universe is *at least* twice as bright as we once imagined, and those only based upon the *this* study.

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

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 log&#955 to 87% +/- 3% at 2.1 μm. We deduce that the energy output from stars in the nearby universe is (1.6+/-0.2)×1035 W Mpc-3, of which (0.9+/-0.1)×1035 W Mpc-3 escapes directly into the intergalactic medium. Some further ramifications of dust attenuation are discussed, and equations that correct individual galaxy flux measurements for its effect are provided.

I had a look at the actual paper and you are right - galaxies are twice a bright than we measure them .

Now Michael, use your great knowledge of astronomy to tell us what the impact of this is on the percentage of normal matter in the universe?
Does it

• Multiple it by 2?
• Multiple it by 3?
• Multiple it by 1.02?
• Multiple it by 1.04?
• Or your own figure?

 

[Michael]

I have not seen any answer to this quesiton, Michael:

For example, Brillouin scattering would require correlated, periodic fluctuations in the intergalactic medium so it is unlikely there is any literature on causing cosmological redshift because plasmas are not periodic nor correlated over cosmological scales.

You really just do make up claims as you go, don't you? When did you get out there and figure out that there are no density changes or temperature changes or magnetic field changes in the whole of spacetime? Do you have crystal ball in your pocket or what?

Essentially this is another perfect example of you *pretending* to know something that you cannot *possibly* know. In fact it's *impossible* for space to *not* have density changes and temperature changes and magnetic field variations. You'd need a "perfect" sort of fantasy universe where everything is perfectly homogenous in term of temperature, density, magnetic field arrangements, etc. Talk about incredible coincidences.

The really unappealing part of your beliefs system is the fact it's predicted upon pure denial of scientific advancement, and theoretical advancement in tired light theory. It's kind of like watching a YEC pretending that a few poorly done Carbon dating tests in the 70's somehow invalidates the entire Carbon dating process in 2012.

 

[Michael]

In other words, you have a deslution that this paper demonstrates that starlight scattering/absorption is the true source of the CBM.

Ya, me Eddington, and pretty much every PC proponent on the planet.

I had a look at the actual paper and you are right - galaxies are twice a bright than we measure them .

Notice that it's the *closest* galaxies that are twice as bright. How much *more bright* must the more distant galaxies be?

Now Michael, use your great knowledge of astronomy to tell us what the impact of this is on the percentage of normal matter in the universe?
Does it

• Multiple it by 2?
• Multiple it by 3?
• Multiple it by 1.02?
• Multiple it by 1.04?
• Or your own figure?

It's a purely subjective call by the person deciding on how to deal with the data. One thing is certain. It starts to close the ever shrinking gaps in your exotic matter claims. That's a start.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You really just do make up claims as you go, don't you?
...usual rant and insults snipped...

I did not state that there are no density changes and temperature changes and magnetic field variations in the universe !

You really need to read what I write (emphasis added)

Originally Posted by RealityCheck01
For example, Brillouin scattering would require correlated, periodic fluctuations in the intergalactic medium so it is unlikely there is any literature on causing cosmological redshift because plasmas are not periodic nor correlated over cosmological scales.

And you totally ignored the actual question!
Michael, can you provide evidence peer-reviewed scientific literature that the following can cause cosmological redshift?
First asked14th November 2012

 

[Michael]

We still can point the Hubble telescope at a dark bit of sky, take a long exposure and see galaxies 13 billion years away!

If spacetime wasn't scattering the light, you wouldn't need such long exposures and the images would be sharp, down to the singular star in every wavelength, in every direction, every time! It doesn't work like that in the real universe.

So if anything the fact that we can see galaxies so far away is an argument against scattering!

Only in your own made up universe.

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).

Your numbers are "fudged" to begin with in terms of that 13.7 billion figure. It *presumes* faster than light speed travel of photons (like a dad theory) and it' *presumes* all the Lambda-CDM concepts of "time". Give me a break. It's not a perfectly crystal clear image RC, now is it?

 

[Michael]

You really need to read what I write (emphasis added)

You simply make up "facts" as you go. Demonstrate your claim!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Ya, me Eddington, and pretty much every PC proponent on the planet.

That is your ignorance of what Eddington did temperature (Eddington's Temperature of Space) and as you state theignoranc eof pretty much every PC proponent on the planet.

Notice that it's the *closest* galaxies that are twice as bright. How much *more bright* must the more distant galaxies be?

It's a purely subjective call by the person deciding on how to deal with the data.

Wrong: It's a purely objectiive call by the person deciding on how to deal with the data. It is a really easy back of the envolope calculation for anyone who knows astronomy to see how much that paper affects the % of the universe that is normal matter.

FYI: My own calculation is 1.04% more normal matter based on a couple of simple facts about astronomy
Actually one assumption which is probably wrong:

• There exists a relationship between the luminosity of galaxies and their mass and it is linear.
  But there is no evidence that luminosity is used to measure the mass of galaxies.

and one fact

• The mass of galaxies is a small part of the mass of the universe. In a typical cluster 80-95% resides in the ICM.

Show that I am wrong by doing your own calculation.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You simply make up "facts" as you go. Demonstrate your claim!

Wow - you do not even know what a plasma is!
what I write (emphasis added)

Originally Posted by RealityCheck01
For example, Brillouin scattering would require correlated, periodic fluctuations in the intergalactic medium so it is unlikely there is any literature on causing cosmological redshift because plasmas are not periodic nor correlated over cosmological scales.

Plasma is a ionized gas. A ionized gas does not have a periodic structure. A ionized gas does not have correlations.
At scales above the Debye length (100,000 km for the intergalactic medium) plasma acts as a gas. A gas does not have a periodic structure. A gas does not have correlations.

But you can have fantasies about magical magnetic fields that no one has ever detected which extend through the universe and have a periodic correlated variations that imposes that variation onto the intergalactic medium .

 

[RealityCheck01]

You simply make up "facts" as you go. Demonstrate your claim!

And then there is you making up claims as you go !
Demonstrate your claim!
Michael, can you provide evidence peer-reviewed scientific literature that the following can cause cosmological redshift?
First asked14th November 2012

 

[Michael]

That is your ignorance of what Eddington did temperature (Eddington's Temperature of Space) and as you state theignoranc eof pretty much every PC proponent on the planet.

As is typical of Ned's comments, he leaves out all context out of the discussion. The original prediction by Eddington of the temperature of dust in space was within .6 degrees of the measured temperature, and he was working with an *extremely limited* understanding of the universe.

The very first BB estimates of the background temperature were around 50 degrees Kelvin, and revised down to about 5 degrees Kelvin a bit later, and they were *still* off by way more than Eddington even *after* the first revisions! BB theory is the most band-aided theory in the universe.

Ashmore did a similar calculation in his paper too.

Wrong: It's a purely objectiive call by the person deciding on how to deal with the data. It is a really easy back of the envolope calculation for anyone who knows astronomy to see how much that paper affects the % of the universe that is normal matter.

No, it's not an "objective" call at all. It depends *entirely* upon the theory you start with.

FYI: My own calculation is 1.04% more normal matter based on a couple of simple facts about of astronomy.
Show that I am wrong by doing your own calculation.

Right, and I'm sure that's a completely *objective* opinion.

 

[Michael]

A ionized gas does not have a periodic structure. A ionized gas does not have correlations.

Let's see your *external* reference for your two claims.

 

[RealityCheck01]

It depends on the type of scattering, the distance of the galaxy in question, the amount of dust and plasma between here and there, etc. To oversimplify the issues is to play into your ridiculous game, and I have no intention of doing that.

Then do not ovetrsimplify it !
Show how it depends on the type of scattering, the distance of the galaxy in question, the amount of dust and plasma between here and there, etc.