Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

RealityCheck01 · Nov 19, 2012

Michael said:
...usual rant snipped...

If you continue denying the simple physics in Michael: Scattering blurs distant galaxies compared to near galaxies!
then I will continue posting that link in the vague hope that you will actually understand that scattering causes blurring and rules out tired light theories that scatter light, e.g. Michael's seven non-cosmological "redshift"s that show up in the lab.

I do know that you actually looking at the physics in Michael: Scattering blurs distant galaxies compared to near galaxies! is impossible because you constatly deny the sphysics in just about every post That I write !

As an example you have retained the fantasy that you can see light from under the Sun's photosphere since 2006 when that is physically impossible. Read Errors in Micheal's site IV (below? the photosphere) .

To do that you have to deny basic physics

The photosphere is defined as the region where light escapes the Sun. Thus if you see something it is in the photosphere !
Astronomers have looked hard at how far they can see into the photosphere and can get to ~100 km.
You claim to see 4800 km into the Sun. You also claim to see the same object 3480 km down!
Errors in Micheal's site XIII (3480 km is not 4800 km)!
The transition region is above the photosphere. Basically astronomers looked at the corona (also above the photosphere ) and split it up into various regions as they learned more.

You claim that images in the transitionzone are of objects that are 3480/4800 into the Sun

Elendur · Nov 20, 2012

Michael said:
You mean besides the math you keep trying to get from me, and the C# code to play with if you're interested?

There's little to no math in my current post of interest. Also, I've already pointed out to you how useless that code is to me. See post #71.

Michael said:
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?

In my experience, no. That doesn't make a difference though since even those observed, rather blurred, photons are still very near parallel in their paths. Read my arguments and you'll notice that I can (and probably should have) exchange the requirement of "sharp" to "relatively sharp" and still have valid arguments.

Michael said:
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?

I've never said (nor written) that scattering doesn't happen. I'm arguing about what the results would be if we were to try to explain the redshift with mainly scattering.

Michael said:
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.

Then it wouldn't be Compton scattering, would it?

Michael said:
Even still, it is but *one type* of scattering, and there are many to choose from. As I said, I tend to prefer a predominantly field to field transfer process in the final analysis, with some particle scattering.

I haven't dealt with one scattering, I've dealt with them all! Notice the bolding:
Scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scattering is a general physical process where some forms of radiation, such as light, sound, or moving particles, are forced to deviate from a straight trajectory by one or more localized non-uniformities in the medium through which they pass.

Michael said:
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.

I don't know where you've gotten the idea that I've said no scattering occurs. I've repeatedly stated against that notion.
As for your question, you insisted on Compton scattering occurring in some way that wasn't explain by Compton scattering. Doesn't that take you away from your precious "empirical" ideas?

Michael said:
You're asking me to do something that you could do yourself.

Argue with myself? Currently I haven't asked you for any math, that was an older post and it, although it lead to this, have little relevance.

Michael said:
I've tried to do exactly that.

And when I've changed my premises to fit your objection, my conclusions didn't change (since they are very general in their nature).

Michael said:
Include them in what exactly?

The subgroup of stars that are the group discussed.

Michael said:
If so, why are you asking me to calculate something that you can both measure and calculate yourself?

This is about the general arguments of post #71, link above, it contains no calculations (it does contain an angle, but that's just used as a hard cap as limit to the angles).

Michael said:
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.

And guess what?
I'm not promoting that "Lambda-CDM" theory, I'm not even sure of what it says.
I'm not claiming that no photon scattering occurs.

I'm trying to discuss the unlikelihood of explaining a major bit of the redshift observed with scattering in a coherent way.
Read my arguments and you'll notice.

Elendur · Nov 20, 2012

RealityCheck01 said:
Not really - a parabolic mirror reflects light from a point source to a point regardless of how near-parallel the rays of light are.
You can put a point source a meter away from a parabolic mirror and get a point in the image.

I forgot about that I was so caught up in arguing about astronomical entities (large distances) that I forgot to limit my initial statement thanks for pointing that out. (Though the context limits it)

RealityCheck01 said:
Scattering also reduces the intensity of the light collected by a telescope mirror.

I'm well aware of that (Utilized in post #71, point 1b and the argument derived from it)

RealityCheck01 said:
You are correct.

Another thought about the mean free path in the intergalactic meduim being ~10 billion light-years:
Redshift is the shifting of the entire spectrum. We do not see the original, unshifted emission lines in the spectra. This requires that any tired light theory affect every photon emitted by any galaxy so that there are no original emission lines in it. But scattering does not do that! Scattering only affects a % of the photons from the galaxy and that % starts at about zero for close galaxies and only gets big for galaxies at very large distances.
However that seems an obvious thing to me and I have not seen any astronomer state it. So I could be wrong.

That's how I perceive it as well. Pretty much, though not exactly, what I've utilized in the argument against point 3.

Michael · Nov 20, 2012

RealityCheck01 said:
We do not ignore GIGO.
There is strong observational evidence for dark matter,

Nope, just missing mass. It's the difference between claiming you have evidence for a "UFO", vs. running around claiming your have evidence that all reported UFO originate on another planet.

dark energy and inflation so therei s no garbage in.

There is zero evidence that inflation or dark energy is a "cause" of photon redshift.

Tired light theories are garbage because several observations show that the are wrong.

False. Compton scattering isn't the only type of scattering. Distant images *are* blurred to some degree, and the supernova data has been addressed by *multiple* plasma redshift/tired light authors.

The ignorance of the meaning of empirical that you dispyed in teh JREF forum still exists: Empirical includes observations and does not require detection in the lab.

You seem to do a hypocritical about face on the topic of God. What's up with that nonsense?

For example:

Your misinterpretation of "empirical" as only things detected in the lab means that neutron stars do not exist because "neutronium" has never been detected in the lab.

I can't scale gravity RC! Neutrons do show up in the lab. SUSY theory doesn't just have scaling issue problems, it has *qualification* problems. When were you going to admit that I can't scale everything?

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:

Hubble himself did as much.

Michael's seven non-cosmological "redshift"s that show up in the lab

Click to expand...

All of these seven non-cosmological "redshifts" (a couple are not even redshifts!) were found by scientists who did not work in plasma cosmology.
This is not a surprise because plasma cosmology does not exist !

Pretty much you whole "magic" involves citing yourself over and over and over again, while living in pure denial, and refusing to educate yourself to the topic in question. Nice denial process you have going.

Static universe theories on the other hand are ruled out by the evidence: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

There you go right back to citing Ned Wright, the guy that is hopelessly stuck in 1929 and who's leading the Compton scattering is the only type of scattering in the whole universe parade.

Michael · Nov 20, 2012

RealityCheck01 said:
If you continue denying the simple physics

You are the one that claimed that photons always have zero kinetic energy and therefore the loss of photon kinetic energy cannot be related to photon redshift. You're the one that refuses to accept that electrical discharges occur in solar flares. You're the one that continue to live in denial of the fact that scattering does and must take place in space. You the one in denial of the fact that tired light/plasma redshift theory has *addressed* the supernova data set. In fact your entire belief systems can be traced right back to the the fact that you *refuse* to read a book on plasma physics, so obviously you can't and don't understand plasma physics.

....in Michael: Scattering blurs distant galaxies compared to near galaxies!

Apparently you are so important to yourself that you think you have some special importance to others. When asked to provide references to support your claims that photons have no kinetic energy or that electric discharges cannot happen in plasma, you simply cite yourself over and over and over again, as though you personally are some type of expert on a topic which you *cannot* (since you never read a single book on the topic) be an expert on.

I've honestly never met anyone that links to their own posts as frequently as you do, and acts like their statements are 'gospel', even when shown to be wrong! Wow. You really do live in your own universe.

RealityCheck01 · Nov 20, 2012

Michael said:
The point that I seem to have a tough time getting across is the fact that scattering and photon redshift occur in the lab.

That point is trivially obvious. No one here denies the existence of scattering in the lab !

Michael said:
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.

And that is also trivially obvious.
The point you are missing is that physics of scattering means that there are empirical effects from this scattering and redshift of light from galaxies "millions and billions of light years" away.
And we can estimate them !

The first is: Michael: Scattering blurs distant galaxies compared to near galaxies!

The next bit of physics is that the mean free path of photons in the intergalactic medium is about 10 billion light-years. 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]

Thus it is empirically possible for some photons to traverse millions and billions of light years of plasma and experience no scattering/redshift of any sort.
For a galaxy 10 billion years away 37% of the photons will be scattered once and red-shifted due to the scattering. The remaining photons (63% !) will not be scattered and will not experience red-shifting.
Whoops (5 Dec 2012) Got that reversed: it is transmission that gives 1/e thus 1/2.71828 or 37% do not scatter.

But we use telescopes to collect the light from galaxies! The telescope mirror is tiny in comparison to the distances to the galaxies (meters in comparison to millions of light years). It inly takes a tiny scattering angle for the light to miss the mirror. Thus the 63% of photons above is reduced to a tiny % (you can work out the numbers, Michael, if you want).

So according to Michael's seven non-cosmological "redshift"s that show up in the lab we will not see any redshifting of galaxy spectra until the galaxy is much more than 10 billion light-years away !
What is worse is that there will be a range of galaxy distances in which we will see unshifted spectral lines + shifted spectral lines. We do not see any such doubling of spectral lines. The reason for this is that the majority of scattered photons are not detected.

Michael: Tired light theories predict no detectable redshift through scattering until galaxies are tens of billions of light-years!

And it gets worse if you look at the actual effects listed in Michael's seven non-cosmological "redshift"s that show up in the lab. The Stark and Zeeman effects do not cause redshift - they broaden spectral lines. The Wolf effect does not apply to normal galaxies. The Chen redshift is in a plasma that does not exist in space. Raman scattering changes the spectra of scattered light: Raman spectrum.
Then there is Compton scattering:

The quantity h⁄mec is known as the Compton wavelength of the electron; it is equal to 2.43×10−12 m. The wavelength shift λ′ − λ is at least zero (for θ = 0°) and at most twice the Compton wavelength of the electron (for θ = 180°).

Telescopes detect the photons with no or very small scattering angles. So the redshift is from zero (the majority of photons in the observable universe) to a tiny part of the Compton wavelength.
Let us be super generous though and ignore the physics of telescopes! The maximum change in wavelength is then 5 pm (picometers) or a millionth that of visible light. That is a redshift of z = 0.000001.

P.S.
Michael, can you provide evidence peer-reviewed scientific literature that the following can cause cosmological redshift?
First asked14th November 2012
What effect does the "double brightness" paper have on the % of normal matter?
First asked 18 November 2012.

Michael · Nov 20, 2012

RealityCheck01 said:
You are correct.

Another thought about the mean free path in the intergalactic meduim being ~10 billion light-years:
Redshift is the shifting of the entire spectrum. We do not see the original, unshifted emission lines in the spectra. This requires that any tired light theory affect every photon emitted by any galaxy so that there are no original emission lines in it. But scattering does not do that! Scattering only affects a % of the photons from the galaxy and that % starts at about zero for close galaxies and only gets big for galaxies at very large distances.
However that seems an obvious thing to me and I have not seen any astronomer state it. So I could be wrong.

You're wrong (as usual). Each density change the photons might encounter might only influence a percentage of the total number of photons in each singular event, but over time and distance, all the photons eventually experience it, many times over.

RealityCheck01 · Nov 20, 2012

Michael said:
...uistal rants and insults snipped....

The truth is:

I know and acknowledge that scattering does and must take place in space.

The science is that we can calculate what this scattering does and it is not cosmological redshift: Michael: Tired light theories predict no detectable redshift through scattering!

You are still ignorant of or denying the physics in Michael: Scattering blurs distant galaxies compared to near galaxies!

Come on, Michael - with your great knowledge of physics you should be able to show that scattering does not cause blurring.
Queue irrelevant rant and/or insults from Michael ...

RealityCheck01 · Nov 20, 2012

Michael said:
Each density change ....

For a start density change has little to do with it. So long as there is a plasma with any density photons will be scattered.
And you are writing from a stance of ignorance (as usual).
If you really wanted to show that I was wrong then you would look up the mean free path of photons in the intergalactic medium and find that it is so small that there will be scattering from even the low z galaxies.

Instead you just assumed that I was wrong and I did your work for you: ~10 billion light years! Thus redshift: Michael: Tired light theories predict no detectable redshift through scattering!

Michael · Nov 21, 2012

RealityCheck01 said:
For a start density change has little to do with it.

Absolutely false, as usual. Density is a primary factor in determining the potential number of interactions, and the mainstream has been grossly underestimating that number for a very long time now (years).

So long as there is a plasma with any density photons will be scattered.

True, but more particles equals more interactions.

And you are writing from a stance of ignorance (as usual).

Project much? When were you actually planning to read a textbook on the topic of plasma physics, or were you intending to argue from a stance of ignorance for the rest of your natural life?

If you really wanted to show that I was wrong then you would look up the mean free path of photons in the intergalactic medium and find that it is so small that there will be scattering from even the low z galaxies.

If you'd been paying attention to the news over the past 4 years or so you'd know that they grossly underestimated the amount of normal matter encasing our galaxy and every galaxy. They grossly underestimated the effect of scattering on photons coming from galaxies which apparently block twice as much light around the *closest* galaxies than they originally predicted. You don't care about recent data however. Your entire belief system is predicated upon *denial* of scientific progress on all fronts related to plasma physics as it applies to cosmology.

Instead you just assumed that I was wrong and I did your work for you: ~10 billion light years! Thus redshift: Michael: Tired light theories predict no detectable redshift through scattering!

Too bad all those claims and predictions went up in flames over the past few years:

Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | STFC
Milky Way's hot gas halo could solve "missing baryon" mystery

Mainstream mathematical models are not worth the paper or Wiki pages that they are printed on. Nobody ever bothers to update any of your falsified models even when they are shown to be flawed!

Loudmouth · Nov 21, 2012

Michael said:
Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | STFC

I really don't see how this supports your claim that plasma is redshifting light we see as coming directly from stars. Care to explain?

Michael · Nov 21, 2012

Loudmouth said:
I really don't see how this supports your claim that plasma is redshifting light we see as coming directly from stars. Care to explain?

It demonstrates several points but one key point. The mainstream *grossly* underestimated the effect of scattering (and therefore redshift) on photons in space.

It also demonstrates that mainstream galaxy mass estimates are not worth the paper they are printed on.

Loudmouth · Nov 21, 2012

Michael said:
It demonstrates several points but one key point. The mainstream *grossly* underestimated the effect of scattering (and therefore redshift) on photons in space.

They say that dust is OBSCURING light. This is very different from your claims. There are two measurements:

1. The starlight that reaches the observer without being scattered by the dust.

2. The light being given off by the dust that does absorb the starlight.

According to this article, if this is plasma redshifting then you should get TWO SPECTRAL LINES, one for the starlight that is not obscured and another for the plasma redshift. We dont' see that. We see a single spectral line from the direct starlight.

It also demonstrates that mainstream galaxy mass estimates are not worth the paper they are printed on.

All I saw in that paper was discussions on the energy output:

For over 70 years an accurate description of how galaxies, the locations where matter is churned into energy, form and evolve has eluded us. Balancing the cosmic energy budget is an important step forward, said Dr Driver.

Michael · Nov 21, 2012

Loudmouth said:
They say that dust is OBSCURING light. This is very different from your claims. There are two measurements:

1. The starlight that reaches the observer without being scattered by the dust.

2. The light being given off by the dust that does absorb the starlight.

According to this article, if this is plasma redshifting then you should get TWO SPECTRAL LINES, one for the starlight that is not obscured and another for the plasma redshift. We dont' see that. We see a single spectral line from the direct starlight.

You'd have to demonstrate that point #1 is true for your conclusion to be true. All light is scattered and redshifted by temperature and magnetic field gradients in space, and by collisions with particles in the IGM.

All I saw in that paper was discussions on the energy output:
For over 70 years an accurate description of how galaxies, the locations where matter is churned into energy, form and evolve has eluded us. Balancing the cosmic energy budget is an important step forward, said Dr Driver.

It's an energy budget that is actually twice as large they *predicted*. The mainstream predictions are always failing various tests, and you really don't care.

Loudmouth · Nov 21, 2012

Michael said:
You'd have to demonstrate that point #1 is true for your conclusion to be true.

The article you are citing says that we are getting starlight that is not being obscured by dust, just not all of it. If the article is wrong, then I am at a loss as to why you are citing it.

All light is scattered and redshifted by temperature and magnetic field gradients in space, and by collisions with particles in the IGM.

And your evidence for this is . . .?

It's an energy budget that is actually twice as large they *predicted*. The mainstream predictions are always failing various tests, and you really don't care.

Right, an energy budget, not a mass budget. They also compared galaxies with differing amounts of dust, and therefore differing amounts of light being obscured by the dust. How much do you want to bet that there is not a correlation between distance and the amount of light that is obscured by dust?

Michael · Nov 21, 2012

Loudmouth said:
The article you are citing says that we are getting starlight that is not being obscured by dust, just not all of it. If the article is wrong, then I am at a loss as to why you are citing it.

You'll have to quote the paper specifically, preferably along with a page number if you expect me to know what you're talking about.

And your evidence for this is . . .?

Chen, Ashmore, Holushko, Brynjolfsson, and others.

Right, an energy budget, not a mass budget.

Mass *is* energy!

They also compared galaxies with differing amounts of dust, and therefore differing amounts of light being obscured by the dust. How much do you want to bet that there is not a correlation between distance and the amount of light that is obscured by dust?

I'd probably take that bet with a few provisions actually. This study relates to only the *closest* galaxies. I suppose it depends on how much scattering occurs in the plasma that is located directly around our galaxy compared to the amount of scattering that occurs in the IGM, all of which is density related. It may not be equal, but greater distance through the IGM will result in more scattering and more redshift.

Loudmouth · Nov 21, 2012

Michael said:
You'll have to quote the paper specifically, preferably along with a page number if you expect me to know what you're talking about.

Lead author Dr Simon Driver from the University of St Andrews said, For nearly two decades weve argued about whether the light that we see from distant galaxies tells the whole story or not. It doesnt; in fact only half the energy produced by stars actually reaches our telescopes directly, the rest is blocked by dust grains. . . .

Using the new model, the astronomers could calculate precisely the fraction of starlight blocked by the dust. The key test that the new model passed was whether the energy of the absorbed starlight equated to that detected from the glowing dust. [emphasis mine]
Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | STFC

Only a fraction is being blocked by the dust. The rest is coming straight to us without being absorbed. So again, I don't see how this helps your argument since you are relying on the light being absorbed.

Chen, Ashmore, Holushko, Brynjolfsson, and others.

Names are not evidence. What is the evidence?

Mass *is* energy!

Light output is what they are measuring, is it not?

I'd probably take that bet with a few provisions actually. This study relates to only the *closest* galaxies. I suppose it depends on how much scattering occurs in the plasma that is located directly around our galaxy compared to the amount of scattering that occurs in the IGM, all of which is density related. It may not be equal, but greater distance through the IGM will result in more scattering and more redshift.

The paper you are citing is pointing to dust within the galaxies, and it is citing that some galaxies are dirtier than others independent of their distance. This means that the scattering is independent of distance. Again, I just don't see how this article supports your claims.

RealityCheck01 · Nov 21, 2012

Michael said:
Absolutely false, as usual. Density is a primary factor in determining the potential number of interactions, and the mainstream has been grossly underestimating that number for a very long time now (years).

Absolutely unable to understand English as usual !
That is what I said - chnages in energy density are irrelevant. Density is a primary factor in determining the potential number of interactions.
Followed by yest another unsupported assertion .

Michael said:
Project much?

Your state of ignorance was obvious because you did noy look up the mean free path of photons in the IGM (~10 billion light-years).

Michael said:
If you'd been paying attention to the news over the past 4 years or so you'd know that they grossly underestimated the amount of normal matter encasing our galaxy and every galaxy.
...usual unsupported assertions snipped...

I do know about these news articles that you are so found of fantasizing about:

I know that you have not provided any evidence that this means that the density of the IGM is affected.
I know that you have not provided any evidence that this means the free path of photons in the IGM is affected.

So I will stick with the measured facts about the universe: The free path of photons in the IGM is ~10 billion light-years.

Michael: Tired light theories predict no detectable redshift through scattering!

ETA: It looks like you cannot understand what you cite yet again !
Milky Way's hot gas halo could solve "missing baryon" mystery

Rather, a mass of up to sixty billion suns well in excess of the matter contained in the entire galactic disk is spread out over a halo of hot gas stretching all around us for hundreds of thousands of light-years, reaching temperatures in the millions of degrees, and with a density so low that, even if it were present in other galaxies, we would probably have no way of detecting it.

This is a halo of very low density, hot gas.

Davian · Nov 21, 2012

Michael said:
It almost feels like old times doesn't it?

Still no buyers for that perpetual motion machine of yours?

RealityCheck01 · Nov 21, 2012

Michael said:
It demonstrates several points but one key point. The mainstream *grossly* underestimated the effect of scattering (and therefore redshift) on photons in space.

It also demonstrates that mainstream galaxy mass estimates are not worth the paper they are printed on.

That post demonstrates ignorance

The absorption (not scattering) in the paper is from dust in the insterstellar medium.

And an unsupported assertion

You provide no evidence that galaxy masses are estimated from their observed luminosity.
I would be intereted in your citations to the literature and your calculations that this paper will change those galaxy mass estimates.

FYI: There are empirical relationships between galaxy intrinsic luminosity and their stellar velocity dispersion, e.g.

the TullyFisher relation for spiral galaxies.
the FaberJackson relation for eliptical galaxies.

However these are generally used to calculate distances to galaxies.
I have seen at least one paper that uses the absolute magnitude of galaxies to estimate their mass and finds that different methods match for 2 galaxies.

Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

Newbie

Gamer and mathematician

Gamer and mathematician

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

fallible

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency