Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

RealityCheck01 · Nov 26, 2012

Michael said:
Hot gas bridges galaxy cluster pair

By the way...

By the way ...

If you want more evidence of hot gas existing between galaxy clusters then here it is:
Hot gas bridges galaxy cluster pair

A galaxy cluster is not a "structure" of spacetime. Like all things in the universe it exists within spacetime.
Your ignorance of the i ntracluster medium is showing in that 'current heating' remark:

The ICM is heated to high temperatures by the gravitational energy released by the formation of the cluster from smaller structures. Kinetic energy gained from the gravitational field is converted to thermal energy by shocks. The high temperature ensures that the elements present in the ICM are ionised. Light elements in the ICM have all the electrons removed from their nuclei.

I love the way that you go on about a minor bit of jargon (that astronomers tend to use gas for plasma and vice versa) !

I love the way that you go on about a fantasy that using the term gas means that astronomers ignore the electromagnetic properties of plasma ! The thermal Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect is all about photons interacting with electrons - very EM.

I love the way that you ignore the actual scientific paper where plasma (and gas!) is mentioned !
Planck intermediate results. VIII. Filaments between interacting clusters

RealityCheck01 · Nov 26, 2012

The science behind why tired light theories do not work is cited in Tired light. A pity that you are denying this science

If you still do not know how telescopes work , Micdael, then : Michael: Scattering blurs distant galaxies compared to near galaxies!

The free path of photons in the IGM is ~10 billion light-years thus:
Michael: Tired light theories predict no detectable redshift through scattering!

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 !

If we indulge in a fantasy that the discovery of a halo of hot difuse gas around the Milik Way will somehow doubles the density of the IGM (and this halves the mean free path) then

Fantasize about the free path of photons in the IGM being ~5 billion light-years thus:
Michael: Tired light theories predict no detectable redshift through scattering!

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 5 billion light-years away !

Compton scattering specifically does not work:
Compton scattering = cosmological redshift will blue-shift visible lght!

Outstanding questions for you, Michael
Michael, can you provide evidence peer-reviewed scientific literature that the following can cause cosmological redshift?
First asked 14th November 2012

What effect does the "double brightness" paper have on the % of normal matter?
First asked 18 November 2012.

Michael · Nov 27, 2012

RealityCheck01 said:
Your ignorance of the i ntracluster medium is showing in that 'current heating' remark:

You have a bad habit of projecting your *own* ignorance upon others. I realize you've never read a single book on plasma physics, let alone five of them, some of them related to the E orientation of plasma physics. You don't even properly understand either the E or the B orientation of plasma physics, so I realize that nothing in space could possibly make any sense to you. No wonder most of the universe is "dark" to you. You don't understand that electrical discharges occur in plasmas. You're ignorant of the fact that photons have and transfer kinetic energy. You're pretty much ignorant by choice too, since you've had *years* to actually read a textbook on this topic if you wanted to do so.

Let me buy you a clue since I've personally invested many hundreds of dollars in my education on this topic. A moving charged particle is a form of *current*. I realize that statement makes no sense to you, and you're ignorance of the truth of that statement. On the other hand, it's really a pity you refuse to pickup a textbook on this topic. You've invested *years* in "hating" and verbally abusing a topic that you simply do not, and cannot understand because you're too lazy to read a real textbook on this topic. Please stop projecting your ignorance of plasma physics upon others, particularly me.

I've actually read about a 1/2 dozen plasma physics textbooks total if you include Langmuir's works. I understand both the B and E orientation to plasma physics, and I've published relevant papers on these astronomy topics. You've done none of that. All you've done for several years now is play internet hater, and internet stalker over a topic you know absolutely nothing about, and on a topic you refuse to study.

Michael · Nov 27, 2012

Elendur said:
Correction:
I assume that all, or a significant part of (>99%), scattering events that result in a loss of photon momentum must result in a change of trajectory of the photon.

I think in the final analysis, this is the place where you're 'probably' underestimating. You're also probably underestimating the "lucky photon" issue, since it's probably a field to field energy transfer process the drains the photons of momentum over time, and these are likely to be 'smaller' deflection angle processes that tends to be influenced by the momentum of the photons in their bulk wave movements more than anything else.

Inelastic scattering processes are not something I've spent a lot of time studying until recently. I need to really get a better handle on things like Brillioun scattering and more field/field theories related to momentum transfers.

I will spend some time later this week reading more papers on this topic so I can provide you with better materials. It won't be early this week however.

In the final analysis, what's happening are *waves* of photons pass through plasmas and dusts of various temperatures, densities, EM field variations, and traverse large distances of such variations. Over time that process results in some of the energy of photons being transferred into particle movement in the medium. That's the nature of photon redshift in the lab. Its also necessarily the nature of photon redshift in space. It's also 'possible' that objects expand, but that's probably not even necessary to explain the actual redshift and signal broadening that we observe.

Loudmouth · Nov 27, 2012

Michael said:
I think in the final analysis, this is the place where you're 'probably' underestimating. You're also probably underestimating the "lucky photon" issue, since it's probably a field to field energy transfer process the drains the photons of momentum over time, and these are likely to be 'smaller' deflection angle processes that tends to be influenced by the momentum of the photons in their bulk wave movements more than anything else.

Where is your support for these "field to field" transfers of momentum for photons in plasmas?

In the final analysis, what's happening are *waves* of photons pass through plasmas and dusts of various temperatures, densities, EM field variations, and traverse large distances of such variations. Over time that process results in some of the energy of photons being transferred into particle movement in the medium.

This also results in a change of trajectory for the photon.

Elendur · Nov 27, 2012

Michael said:
I think in the final analysis, this is the place where you're 'probably' underestimating. You're also probably underestimating the "lucky photon" issue, since it's probably a field to field energy transfer process the drains the photons of momentum over time, and these are likely to be 'smaller' deflection angle processes that tends to be influenced by the momentum of the photons in their bulk wave movements more than anything else.

Underestimating the "lucky photon" issue? Yes. I did that since the effect is most likely much smaller than I could express in numbers. The angle I presented was for the closest star, making the allowed angle for more distant stars ridiculously smaller than that.
If you could demonstrate something that would produce redshift without scattering, go ahead. I haven't addressed those.

Michael said:
Inelastic scattering processes are not something I've spent a lot of time studying until recently. I need to really get a better handle on things like Brillioun scattering and more field/field theories related to momentum transfers.

M'kay.

Michael said:
I will spend some time later this week reading more papers on this topic so I can provide you with better materials. It won't be early this week however.

M'kay.

Michael said:
In the final analysis, what's happening are *waves* of photons pass through plasmas and dusts of various temperatures, densities, EM field variations, and traverse large distances of such variations. Over time that process results in some of the energy of photons being transferred into particle movement in the medium. That's the nature of photon redshift in the lab. Its also necessarily the nature of photon redshift in space. It's also 'possible' that objects expand, but that's probably not even necessary to explain the actual redshift and signal broadening that we observe.

You'd have to demonstrate that no scattering would occur then.

RealityCheck01 · Nov 27, 2012

Michael said:
You have a bad habit of projecting your *own* ignorance upon others
...usual rant and insults snipped....

There is no projection - you are ignorantly asserting that the ICM is heated by currents when this is not that fact: i ntracluster medium

The ICM is heated to high temperatures by the gravitational energy released by the formation of the cluster from smaller structures. Kinetic energy gained from the gravitational field is converted to thermal energy by shocks. The high temperature ensures that the elements present in the ICM are ionised. Light elements in the ICM have all the electrons removed from their nuclei.

I am not ignorant of the cause of the heating of the ICM - I am the one citing it to you !

The rational response would have been - "I was mistaken -there are no currents that are heating the ICM in that news article".

The rational response would have been: "I have read Planck intermediate results. VIII. Filaments between interacting clusters and there are no currents that are heating the ICM in that paper."

RealityCheck01 · Nov 27, 2012

Michael said:
...I've published relevant papers on these astronomy topics.

Michael, you have never published any papers on the astronomy topics in this thread, e.g. dark energy, tired light theories, the effect of scattering on light by the IGM, etc.
You have never published any papers on the "B and E orientation to plasma physics".

You have been co-author on two published papers about the Sun that have been ignored

The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass by O. Manuel, S. A. Kamat, M. Mozina (Phys.Atom.Nucl.69:1847-1856,2006)
No citations!
Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle by Michael Mozina, Hilton Ratcliffe, O. Manuel (Journal of Fusion Energy, volume 25 (2006) pages 107-114)
1 citation in another pre-print.

You have been co-author on three ArXiv pre-prints about stars (unpublished - look like conference presentations).

The first paper is probably not cited because it is obviously wrong (a neutron star in the center of the Sun !). The problems with it are more fully explained in Errors in Micheal's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong)!

Your contribution to the papers seems to be the totally wrong interpretation of a single TRACE running difference image of a flare and CME above the photosphere as a solid surface below the photosphere.
Errors in Micheal's site XIV (no mountain ranges in TRACE RD movie)!
And what is the citation in the papers - your web site !

The second paper was also addressed in the JREF forum:
9th April 2010, Solar Surface Fusion? Not Likely

The second link is for the paper by Mozina, Ratcliffe & Manuel, and is entitled "Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle". The title is a sham, as the paper in fact does no such thing, and in fact presents no evidence at all related to the CNO cycle. Rather, the authors use the observation of electron-positron annihilation (511 kev line emission) and neutron capture (2.2 Mev line emission) to infer, without justification, that unseen CNO fusion created the positrons and neutrons. it is an insipid paper, which is why nobody ever paid it any mind besides the authors. How it ever got published in any journal is a mystery to me.

Michael · Nov 28, 2012

RealityCheck01 said:
There is no projection - you are ignorantly asserting that the ICM is heated by currents when this is not that fact:

It is a fact, and it all comes back to this statement in my last post:

Let me buy you a clue since I've personally invested many hundreds of dollars in my education on this topic. A moving charged particle is a form of *current*.

Charged particle movement is a form of *current* in PC theory. I realize that statement makes no sense to you since you refuse to properly educate yourself in plasma physics. It is however a fundamental fact.

As those moving charged particles from the solar wind hit the Earth's magnetic field, they separate themselves into moving currents that flow into and through the Earth and generate aurora. Alfven explained all this in his papers and books. Birkeland even built working models of the current flow.

If/since you can't understand that fundamental fact of physics, it's all Greek to you, just like photon kinetic energy is/was Greek to you and just like electrical discharges in plasma are Greek to you. At the conceptual level of physics, you simply refuse to embrace reality, including electrical discharges in plasma, current, and photon kinetic energy. Everything is all about the 'hate' process with you, not 'physics'. You don't even understand the physics, because you absolutely refuse to invest yourself in a proper education on this topic. It's a pity you spend your days arguing pure hate from a position of blind ignorance. I just makes you look ridiculous.

I really don't have the time this week to respond to your nonsense point by point. When can I expect you to read an actual textbook on plasma physics, or did you intend to spend the rest of your natural life arguing this topic from a place of pure, blind, self imposed ignorance?

RealityCheck01 · Nov 28, 2012

Michael said:
Charged particle movement is a form of *current* in PC theory.
...lost nmore obvious stuff snipped...

A net movement of charge is the definition of electrical current in physics !.
I realize that statement makes no sense to you, Michael, but that is what happens when you deny science !

Just "charged particle movement" is not enough to say that that there is a current.
For example a rock floating through space has charged particles (e.g. electrons) in it and they are moving. But only a idiot would say that a rock moving through space is an electrical current ! Likewise the solar wind is not a current because it is electrically neutral on scales over 10 meters (its Debye screening length).

You are still in denial of the actual cause of heating of the ICM: i ntracluster medium

The ICM is heated to high temperatures by the gravitational energy released by the formation of the cluster from smaller structures. Kinetic energy gained from the gravitational field is converted to thermal energy by shocks. The high temperature ensures that the elements present in the ICM are ionised. Light elements in the ICM have all the electrons removed from their nuclei.

You are still in denial of the fact that there are no currents that are heating the ICM in that news article.

You are still in denial of the fact that Planck intermediate results. VIII. Filaments between interacting clusters has no currents that are heating the ICM.

Your assertion that it is currents heating the ICM is your personal fantasy so far:

Michael: Cite the scientific literature stating that the ICM is heated by currents.

First asked 29 November 2012

davidbilby · Nov 29, 2012

Michael said:
I would agree that *some* amount of redshift is related to Compton scattering, and it's likely to be a *small* amount of the total amount of redshift IMO. Would you agree with that?

Been away a while, had a mountain of work to get through. I just wanted to back up a lot of realitycheck's posts. This point is worth addressing.

In Compton scattering, if there is any change in wavelength, there is a non-zero scatter angle. That is to say, if the angle of scatter is zero, then because the cosine of zero is 1, the electron rest mass is irrelevant to the equation - we can already say λ′ − λ is equal to 0, that is, there is no change in wavelength. None.

The change in z in Compton scattering is also proportional to 1/λ, which is in contradiction to all observed redshift measurements where the change in z is not proportional to λ - not at all - which of itself rules Compton scattering out of the argument. (We first observed Compton scattering in x-rays precisely because of the 1/λ proportionality).

Compton scattering plays no significant part in the observed cosmological redshift - period. It produces a 'kind' of redshifting that is wavelength dependent, such as you see in the Chen paper you keep citing for inexplicably strange reasons.

Michael · Nov 29, 2012

davidbilby said:
Compton scattering plays no significant part in the observed cosmological redshift - period.

I tend to agree that Compton scattering *alone* cannot be the full cause of redshift. Its simply a matter of 'how much'. When you say *no*, you qualify it with "significant". The question is 'how significant' is it? It's greater than zero, yet it is *completely* ignored in Lambda-CDM.

It's not like we're limited to one kind of inelastic scattering however, and it's not like any of them will have *no* influence on the total amount of redshift. The problem is that they are not zero, and Lambda-CDM ignores *every single* one, not *only* Compton scattering.

Michael · Nov 29, 2012

RealityCheck01 said:
A net movement of charge is the definition of electrical current in physics !.

Yes, and the sun dumps a net movement of charge into our atmosphere every single day. In cosmic plasma one has to be *extremely careful* how one defines a "net movement" of charge. An electron and proton can both come from the Sun, and turn into "current" in the Earth's magnetosphere as the Earth's stable and persistent magnetic fields cause the million mile per hour solar wind particles to separate. You're incapable of seeing that as net movement of charge, but the aurora are a net movement of charge!

You are also incapable of acknowledging a moving particle as a form of current, so what's the point?

davidbilby · Nov 29, 2012

Michael said:
I tend to agree that Compton scattering *alone* cannot be the full cause of redshift. Its simply a matter of 'how much'. When you say *no*, you qualify it with "significant". The question is 'how significant' is it? It's greater than zero, yet it is *completely* ignored in Lambda-CDM.

It's not like we're limited to one kind of inelastic scattering however, and it's not like any of them will have *no* influence on the total amount of redshift. The problem is that they are not zero, and Lambda-CDM ignores *every single* one, not *only* Compton scattering.

Ok, let me clarify, that was overly cautious. The change in z that is part of Compton scattering is proportional to 1/λ and because of that, it plays NO part in the cosmological redshift which is observed to be entirely wavelength independent. None, nada, zip. That's not to say that it doesn't take place, now, but it is a complete irrelevance in terms of what we're looking at here, the cosmological redshift.

It's funny that you're embracing scattering now like you somehow require it, btw. Scattering is the very thing that dooms tired light theories. Literally, dooms them to complete irrelevance. What other scatterings do you think play a part in the cosmological redshift? Let's examine them next and see if the math holds up.

Michael · Nov 29, 2012

davidbilby said:
What other scatterings do you think play a part in the cosmological redshift? Let's examine them next and see if the math holds up.

That seems to the be the real question, and the area the requires further research. It's been a busy week at work, but next week my schedule should afford me some additional time to check into the various types of inelastic scattering methods. They range from something like Brillouin scattering to Raman scattering to small angle scattering and many others as well.

I'm just getting my feet wet on this topic to be honest. I did find one cool video related to "lucky photons" on this page:

Scattering Primer

Here's the video:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1996/ph162/images/1b3.mpg

Here's an explanation in English:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1996/ph162/images/v3.au

davidbilby · Nov 30, 2012

Michael said:
That seems to the be the real question, and the area the requires further research. It's been a busy week at work, but next week my schedule should afford me some additional time to check into the various types of inelastic scattering methods.

I'm just getting my feet wet on this topic to be honest. I did find one cool video related to "lucky photons" on this page:

Etc. etc. thanks for the dumbed down links, not sure why they were necessary. Assuming theta is zero, since any scattering angle requisite to wavelength change rules out an observable redshifted image billions of light years away...do any of those allow for an alteration in wavelength whilst holding mathematically logical with theta = 0?

Are any of these scattering processes entirely wavelength independent? Because, if they aren't, they're irrelevant right out of the gate. Cosmological redshift is observed to be wavelength independent, so that's a target you have to meet, whether you like it or not...

Loudmouth · Nov 30, 2012

Michael said:
An electron and proton can both come from the Sun, and turn into "current" in the Earth's magnetosphere as the Earth's stable and persistent magnetic fields cause the million mile per hour solar wind particles to separate. You're incapable of seeing that as net movement of charge, but the aurora are a net movement of charge!

So the movement of the actual winds between the Sun and the Earth is not a current, correct?

Michael · Nov 30, 2012

Loudmouth said:
So the movement of the actual winds between the Sun and the Earth is not a current, correct?

No, that's actually "incorrect". Those high speed (million mile per hour particles) begin to separate themselves as they slam into the stationary magnetic fields of the Earth, and turn into "current" we observe in Aurora.

Even the million mile per hour solar wind is driven by the charge separation between the heliosphere, and the surface of the sun in electric universe theory. It's a form of *current* from the very start. The sun acts as a cathode with respect to space according to Birkeland. The flow of *both* types of particles from the sun is actually a successful prediction of his cathode sun model.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A11FB385F13738DDDAA0A94DA405B838DF1D3

Michael · Nov 30, 2012

davidbilby said:
Etc. etc. thanks for the dumbed down links, not sure why they were necessary.

Well, for starters, Elendur seems to be suggesting that the *maximum total deflection* has to be a relatively small number, when it fact the photon can 'bounce around' quite a bit, experience all sorts of various angular deflections, and still end up reaching us on Earth. He doesn't seem to allow for that option (at least as I'm hearing him).

Assuming theta is zero, since any scattering angle requisite to wavelength change rules out an observable redshifted image billions of light years away...do any of those allow for an alteration in wavelength whilst holding mathematically logical with theta = 0?

You seem to be doing the same thing as Elendur and not allowing for multiple deflection events over time that all eventually reach Earth anyway! In other words you're ignoring the implications of that video entirely. The redshift caused by the various deflection angles are *cumulative* but the net deflection angle can ultimately work out to nearly zero by the time they actually reach Earth even after *multiple* different scattering events that all exceed his maximum 'possible' deflection angle.

Are any of these scattering processes entirely wavelength independent?

I don't know (yet).

Because, if they aren't, they're irrelevant right out of the gate. Cosmological redshift is observed to be wavelength independent, so that's a target you have to meet, whether you like it or not...

First you'll need to demonstrate to me that it's "perfectly" the same at every single wavelength, from the most energetic gamma rays, all they way to the lowest energy spectrums. I doubt we've even had technology test the upper end of the spectrum until just recently (last 5 years).

Loudmouth · Nov 30, 2012

Michael said:
No, that's actually "incorrect". Those high speed (million mile per hour particles) begin to separate themselves as they slam into the stationary magnetic fields of the Earth, and turn into "current" we observe in Aurora.

But until they separate in the magnetic field they are not a current, correct? You need to separate the charges before you have a current. Moving a neutral plasma through space is not a current. What next? Throwing a battery through the air is a current?

The sun acts as a cathode with respect to space according to Birkeland.

Then why is the solar wind neutral, with both sets of charges?

Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Gamer and mathematician

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency