Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[RealityCheck01]

..the usual ran about Ned Wright..t
...a fantasy about some theory "addressing supernova data"...

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.

 

[RealityCheck01]

If spacetime wasn't scattering the light,

That requires a couple of !
Space-time does not scatter light except in a speculative idea for an explanation of the delay of light from blazers.
What we are talking about is: Michael's seven noncosmological redshifts that show up in the lab
where you assert stuff about scattering in the lab without supporting it:
Michael, can you provide evidence peer-reviewed scientific literature that the following can cause cosmological redshift?
First asked14th November 2012

If you wouldn't need such long exposures

Yes scattering of light reduces intensity and makes longer exposure times needed to get images with the same brightness .

and the images would be sharp, down to the singular star in every wavelength, in every direction, every time!

The real universe does not work like that: Scattering blurs distant galaxies compared to near galaxies.

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.

The newest candidate for the most distant object seen is MACS0647-JD
Give me a break, Michael - you cannot understand that this is a few pixels that have been hit by photons and so the image is pixelated ?

 

[RealityCheck01]

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.

 

[RealityCheck01]

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

Not quite right:
The Energy Output of the Universe from 0.1 to 1000 μm

Nearby galaxies therefore produce far more photons in
the 400–450 nm range (B band) than previously supposed. In fact, after first removing the contribution to the GLF due toellipticals ( L, 0.14h Mpc
3; 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 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 !

 

[Michael]

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.

The only lies being told are being told by you and only you. You're welcome to remain in denial of Lerner's work, Holushko's work, Ashmore's work, Brynjolfsson's work, and all the work you want RC. It's your little denial-go-round process, so you go ahead and believe anything you want. That's what you're going to do anyway.

Not once have you dealt with Holushko's paper in any significant way. It's all handwaves and pure denial on your end.

 

[Michael]

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 !

You missed the whole point (of course). If the *closest* galaxies are twice as bright, how much brighter are the most distant galaxies RC? You have no idea. You're just "guessing" like the mainsteam is 'guessing' and they've been demonstrated to be wrong already, and they still haven't fixed a darn thing!

 

[Michael]

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.

You pretend to be quite the expert on plasma cosmology theory too RC, *without* ever reading a book on plasma physics. You claimed photons have no kinetic energy, and electrical discharges are impossible in plasmas. You'll forgive me if I simply don't believe a word you have to say at this point.

 

[Elendur]

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.

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.

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.

Mkay.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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've limited my subset of stars in my previous post, the very one you're responding to. That removes the "oversimplification fallacy".
As for me "handwaving". I'm not, if I am confused of how your argument applies (if at all) it's not a shift of burden of proof. I've only asked you to actually address my points and to connect your rebuttals to that specific argument if it's valid.

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.

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).

 

[Elendur]

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.

Ok, but the images from that implies (at least to me) that the paths need to be near-parallel.

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.

Then I wasn't to far off in my musings.

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 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.

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 take it that it will be significantly weaker as well.

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.

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]

Ok, but the images from that implies (at least to me) that the paths need to be near-parallel.

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.

How about the effects of quantum entanglement? Might they have some influence in the way groups of photons traverse spacetime?

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.

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.

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?".

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.

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?

 

[Michael]

Handwavy? You didn't address even one of my points and you're saying (writing) that I'm the one doing hand waving?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

The whole spectrum is redshifted, but the timing of the photon arrival is wavelength dependent.

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.

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.

I've limited my subset of stars in my previous post, the very one you're responding to. That removes the "oversimplification fallacy".

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?

Holushko's work is intended to apply to *distant galaxies*, not the stars in our own galaxy.

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).

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?

 

[Michael]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7701787-7/#post61771419

This seems to be the post you wish me to address, but you're asking me to apply an *intergalactic process* to an ISM medium. How can I do that in scientific integrity? Even if they have 'similar' effects, how do I know that the ISM and IGM have the same exact effect on photons?

 

[Elendur]

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.

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.

How about the effects of quantum entanglement? Might they have some influence in the way groups of photons traverse spacetime?

I have no idea.

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.

The problem with the statistical approach is the variance (or perhaps, if you would prefer the related term standard deviation).

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.

I'm just relaying how useful it's to me.

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?

Doen' care.

 

[Elendur]

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?

Looked at it, it doesn't give me much.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

The whole spectrum is redshifted, but the timing of the photon arrival is wavelength dependent.

Oh well, that's no problem since I've explicitly limited my argument time wise.

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.

Then please answer my questions, it's not much "busy work". Address the conclusions or the premises.

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?

If there are stars that are observed outside of our galaxy, feel free to include them as well.

Holushko's work is intended to apply to *distant galaxies*, not the stars in our own galaxy.

We can observe redshift inside our own galaxy as well.

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?

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.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You missed the whole point (of course).
...usual stuff snipped...

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 !

You missed the whole point (of course). If the *closest* galaxies are twice as bright, how much brighter are the most distant galaxies Michael? You have no idea. You're just "guessing".

It is worse - you cannot even guess at: What effect does the "double brightness" paper have on the % of normal matter?

I know a few basic facts about the universe that you do not know. This allows me to estimate the effects of the paper.
For example, the mass of galaxies is a small part (~10%) of the normal matter of the universe. So increasing the mass of galaxies has a small effect on the amount of normal matter in the universe.
You have to multiply their mass by 10 to even double that number !
You have to multiply their mass by much more to make the universe consist of all normal matter + dark energy !
You have to multiply their mass by even more to make the universe consist of all normal matter !

 

[RealityCheck01]

...usual rant that has nothing to do whith what I wrote snipped...

Michael: Scattering blurs distant galaxies compared to near galaxies!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Ok, but the images from that implies (at least to me) that the paths need to be near-parallel.

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.

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

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?".

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.

 

[Michael]

Michael: Scattering blurs distant galaxies compared to near galaxies!

I've never met anyone in my life that cites themselves in every post like you do, and who refuses to produce *external* references when cornered, yet still engages in the conversation anyway!

 

[Michael]

Looked at it, it doesn't give me much.

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

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.

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?

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 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?

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oh well, that's no problem since I've explicitly limited my argument time wise.

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

Then please answer my questions, it's not much "busy work". Address the conclusions or the premises.

I've tried to do exactly that.

If there are stars that are observed outside of our galaxy, feel free to include them as well.

Include them in what exactly?

We can observe redshift inside our own galaxy as well.

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

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.

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.

 

[RealityCheck01]

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...

We do not ignore GIGO.
There is strong observational evidence for dark matter, dark energy and inflation so therei s no garbage in.

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

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.

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.

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.
If I am wrong then you can always explein your definition of empirical and show that it allows neutron stars to exist.

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.

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

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