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.
It looks like you determined to go off on thses rants denying the sceince in Tired light...the usual ran about Ned Wright..t
...a fantasy about some theory "addressing supernova data"...
That requires a couple ofIf spacetime wasn't scattering the light,
Yes scattering of light reduces intensity and makes longer exposure times needed to get images with the same brightnessIf you wouldn't need such long exposures
The real universe does not work like that: Scattering blurs distant galaxies compared to near galaxies.and the images would be sharp, down to the singular star in every wavelength, in every direction, every time!
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]
Not quite right:Notice that it's the *closest* galaxies that are twice as bright. How much *more bright* must the more distant galaxies be?
It is twice as bright in a narrow band.Nearby galaxies therefore produce far more photons in
the 400450 nm range (B band) than previously supposed. In fact, after first removing the contribution to the GLF due toellipticals ( L, 0.14h Mpc3; Driver et al. 2005), only 58% 70 5% of B-band photons escape from the nearby spiral galaxy population into the IGM (or 60% 5% if one includes the ellipticals).
It looks like you determined to go off on thses rants denying the sceince in Tired light.
And a total lie: "Another demonstration that you are still in denial of Lerner's paper that I gave you a month ago."
You did not give any paper by Lerner to me.
I do know about Lerner's conference presentation which is so bad that he has wisely not tried to publish it.
Not quite right:
The Energy Output of the Universe from 0.1 to 1000 μm
It is twice as bright in a narrow band.
The paper says nothing about how much *more bright* the more distant galaxies may be. That is really obvious because they only analysis nearby galaxies!
A P.S. for Michael: Scattering blurs distant galaxies compared to near galaxies!
Just in case you go off on a rant about me not knowing how reflecting telescopes work, this is one area I do know about!
Me and a buddy spent some months in my late teens building an 8-inch reflecting telescope. My task was to hand-grind the mirror.
Handwavy? You didn't address even one of my points and you're saying (writing) that I'm the one doing hand waving?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.
Mkay.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.
You're inconsistent, you're waving back and forth between "tweaking is good because my theory can do it" and "tweaking is bad because their theory can do it".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.
If the scattering is random then it's addressed in my original arguments. (Although I might've missed to explicitly write that I've assumed randomness)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'm not addressing more stuff until I've seen my points addressed properly. You also know my background, I'm no physicist and everything that I address will need a lot of time from me.You might start with a field to field transfer theory like Brynjolfsson's theory and show me how it results in 'blurring'.
I've limited my subset of stars in my previous post, the very one you're responding to. That removes the "oversimplification fallacy".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.
I'm not defending anything. I'm, if anything, asking questions of your position. If you don't want to answer the conclusions I've arrived at, by your premises, don't. By not answering, however, you've not explained why I should accept your "theory" (/-ies).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.
Ok, but the images from that implies (at least to me) that the paths need to be near-parallel.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.
Then I wasn't to far off in my musings.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.
I know that scattering is a statistical process, the only thing I know of (within my limited knowledge) that affects photon trajectory with a probability of 1, that is not through a statisitical process, is gravity.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
I take it that it will be significantly weaker as well.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.
As an analogy, this program is as useful to me as a program that prints "You are correct" if I write the question "Am I correct?".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.
Ok, but the images from that implies (at least to me) that the paths need to be near-parallel.
Ok. Statistically speaking, each photon is likely to incur a specific number of interactions with other fields and other particles and other gradients of temperature, etc. Over time and distance that relates to an "average redshift". As we increase the distance, we increase the probability of more interactions, and more loss of photon momentum to the medium.I know that scattering is a statistical process, the only thing I know of (within my limited knowledge) that affects photon trajectory with a probability of 1, that is not through a statisitical process, is gravity.
It's interesting from my perspective that the two of you ignore the implications of that same logic as it applies to your own beliefs. If dark energy and inflation are 'garbage in', all you end up in nice looking 'garbage out' mathematics that has no empirical value whatsoever. Since your beliefs cannot be replicated in the lab, nor can they be falsified in the lab based on LHC findings, their empirical value is zippity-do-dah in terms of actually "predicting"' anything empirically useful.As an analogy, this program is as useful to me as a program that prints "You are correct" if I write the question "Am I correct?".
Handwavy? You didn't address even one of my points and you're saying (writing) that I'm the one doing hand waving?
If you want to convince me that your position is of any worth, meet my questions and, if you can, explain explicitly why your original "rebuttal" of them wasn't taken care of by my answer combined with my questions.
You're inconsistent, you're waving back and forth between "tweaking is good because my theory can do it" and "tweaking is bad because their theory can do it".
I can find the exact post for it, if you'd like.
If the scattering is random then it's addressed in my original arguments. (Although I might've missed to explicitly write that I've assumed randomness)
As for the small percentage, isn't the whole spectrum redshifted?
I'm not addressing more stuff until I've seen my points addressed properly. You also know my background, I'm no physicist and everything that I address will need a lot of time from me.
I've limited my subset of stars in my previous post, the very one you're responding to. That removes the "oversimplification fallacy".
I'm not defending anything. I'm, if anything, asking questions of your position. If you don't want to answer the conclusions I've arrived at, by your premises, don't. By not answering, however, you've not explained why I should accept your "theory" (/-ies).
Sorry, the near parallel path isn't enough for us to observe those photons, whether that's as an ordinary picture or blurring. We need to add the requirement of closeness to the observed path.Ok. Keep in mind however that even a ten foot deflection near the source, before the photons returned to a parallel path, would never show up at Earth as 'blurring'. We don't even see the vast majority of stars distant galaxy, just a background "glow" and few of the largest stars.
I have no idea.How about the effects of quantum entanglement? Might they have some influence in the way groups of photons traverse spacetime?
The problem with the statistical approach is the variance (or perhaps, if you would prefer the related term standard deviation).Ok. Statistically speaking, each photon is likely to incur a specific number of interactions with other fields and other particles and other gradients of temperature, etc. Over time and distance that relates to an "average redshift". As we increase the distance, we increase the probability of more interactions, and more loss of photon momentum to the medium.
I'm just relaying how useful it's to me.It's interesting from my perspective that the two of you ignore the implications of that same logic as it applies to your own beliefs. If dark energy and inflation are 'garbage in', all you end up in nice looking 'garbage out' mathematics that has no empirical value whatsoever. Since your beliefs cannot be replicated in the lab, nor can they be falsified in the lab based on LHC findings, their empirical value is zippity-do-dah in terms of actually "predicting"' anything empirically useful.
Doen' care.Static universe PC theories on the other hand, hit the proverbial jackpot in terms of the various types of inelastic scattering processes that it predicts which have now been found in the lab.
Which theory predicted real empirically measured lab results, and which theory turned out to be pure "garbage" in terms of the LHC results to date?
Looked at it, it doesn't give me much.What specifically did I not address that you expect me to address that might actually change your mind? Have you at least looked through Holushko's paper on tired light?
It seems to me that we can observe even the closest galaxies to ours, the Canis Major Dwarf galaxy and Barnards galaxy as examples, relatively sharply.I get the distinct feeling that you're asking me for answers I simply cannot give you without making a whole host of *assumptions*. You have the mathematical background to apply Holushko's generic model to a few wavelengths is that makes you happy. If you're asking me for the redshift of stars in our galaxy, it's not a question I could actually answer.
Mmm, yes. The know physical process of "extreme regular luck". Doen' care about anything else than your theory right now, I'm not presenting anything of my own. Don't try to change to something else, please.I'm tweaking the model with variations of *known physical processes*, whereas Lambda-CDM theory 'tweaks the model' with 96 percent metaphysical gap filler! Those are are completely different 'tweaks'!
It's the difference between me installing headers on a car to increase horsepower vs. installing a "magic energy" box and expecting real horsepower increases.
The compton scattering, that you're so fond of, is dependent on angle change. As seen from the Wiki:You're still assuming that all scattering events *must* results in deflection of the photon. Whereas that *may* be true of some types of scattering, it's not true for all types of scattering. The photon can also pass it's momentum to the particle/solid in question in the *forward direction*. I'm personally not even convinced that Compton scattering *cannot* ever take place that way based on a *simplified* mathematical description of that process.
Oh well, that's no problem since I've explicitly limited my argument time wise.The whole spectrum is redshifted, but the timing of the photon arrival is wavelength dependent.
Then please answer my questions, it's not much "busy work". Address the conclusions or the premises.Time is valuable to us all, myself included. I learned a long time ago, that I can spend a 1/2 a day or more playing around with mathematical models only to have the person who asked me to produce that math frivolously handwave it away in a few seconds in a single sentence. I stopped doing unnecessary "busy work" for that very reason.
If there are stars that are observed outside of our galaxy, feel free to include them as well.I'll have to go back and check, but as I recall you picked stars *close to Earth*, inside our own galaxy. You're essentially asking me to apply a predominantly IGM process to the ISM! How can I logically or rationally do that without making assumptions about the ISM that are not implied by tired light theories in general?
We can observe redshift inside our own galaxy as well.Holushko's work is intended to apply to *distant galaxies*, not the stars in our own galaxy.
I do now? I may have expressed my doubt that it explains the whole redshift but I sure as **** haven't written anything like that. As for the "both ways"; I have no theory I'm pushing.Keep in mind that it works both ways. You seem to expect me to believe that *no* inelastic scattering events take place in space, or have any significant influence on photons. Why should I believe that? What are the odds that even *could be* true considering all the various types of inelastic scattering methods exist in nature?
You missed the whole point (of course).
...usual stuff snipped...
Michael: Scattering blurs distant galaxies compared to near galaxies!...usual rant that has nothing to do whith what I wrote snipped...
Not really - a parabolic mirror reflects light from a point source to a point regardless of how near-parallel the rays of light are.Ok, but the images from that implies (at least to me) that the paths need to be near-parallel.
You are correct.As an analogy, this program is as useful to me as a program that prints "You are correct" if I write the question "Am I correct?".
Michael: Scattering blurs distant galaxies compared to near galaxies!
Looked at it, it doesn't give me much.
Ok, suppose we accept that the close galaxies are "pretty" sharp. How about the most highly redshifted galaxies? Are they just *as* sharp in your opinion?It seems to me that we can observe even the closest galaxies to ours, the Canis Major Dwarf galaxy and Barnards galaxy as examples, relatively sharply.
I'm trying to get you to "fess up" to the fact that "scattering happens", both in the lab, and in spacetime. What are the odds that every photon dodges every particle in spacetime to arrive on Earth unscathed and unredshifted due to *any* scattering effects?Mmm, yes. The know physical process of "extreme regular luck". Doen' care about anything else than your theory right now, I'm not presenting anything of my own. Don't try to change to something else, please.
I'm not even personally convinced that simplified math formula applies to 'straight on' hits to the electron. It seems to preclude a "straight shot", as though two billiard balls cannot hit one another head on.The compton scattering, that you're so fond of, is dependent on angle change. As seen from the Wiki:
I hope for you to, at least, limit yourself to those who don't rely on the angle deviations, but I've yet to see a scattering that doesn't produce that (regularly).
How so? I listed a bunch of known inelastic scattering methods that will produce basic photon redshift. Unless the laws of physics in space are different than they are in the lab, scattering will occur. It's a question of 'how much', not if.Of course, if you're taking things and embroidering them past what I can observe easily for myself, that'll leave me with no choice but to tell you that you've stepped out of your precious empirical box.
You're asking me to do something that you could do yourself.Oh well, that's no problem since I've explicitly limited my argument time wise.
I've tried to do exactly that.Then please answer my questions, it's not much "busy work". Address the conclusions or the premises.
Include them in what exactly?If there are stars that are observed outside of our galaxy, feel free to include them as well.
If so, why are you asking me to calculate something that you can both measure and calculate yourself?We can observe redshift inside our own galaxy as well.
The point that I seem to have a tough time getting across is the fact that scattering and photon redshift occur in the lab. It is not empirically possible for photons to traverse millions and billions of light years of plasma and experience no scattering/redshift of any sort. It's just not even logical to begin with such an assumption. The problem with Lambda-CDM theory is that it *begins with that assumption*! It's a non starter of a claim in terms of what happens in the lab. It would take an act of God for every photon to dodge every encounter with every particle and heat/density/magnetic field change in the entire universe on it's way to Earth.I do now? I may have expressed my doubt that it explains the whole redshift but I sure as **** haven't written anything like that. As for the "both ways"; I have no theory I'm pushing.
We do not ignore GIGO.It's interesting from my perspective that the two of you ignore the implications of that same logic as it applies to your own beliefs.
...usual ignorance snipped...
For example:The word empirical denotes information acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] Empirical data are data produced by an observation or experiment.
A central concept in modern science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective empirical or the adverb empirically. The term refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to, and derived from, our experiences or observations.
That is really ignorant, Michael: No PC theory has ever predicted any of the various types of inelastic scattering processes that have been detected in the lab:Static universe PC theories on the other hand, hit the proverbial jackpot in terms of the various types of inelastic scattering processes that it predicts which have now been found in the lab.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?