Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[Michael]

Still no buyers for that perpetual motion machine of yours?

I'm still trying to figure out how you rationalize your use of dark energy as a never ending non-zero constant, yet you somehow exempt yourself from any criticism whatsoever. That must be quite a juicy rationalization you have going.

 

[Michael]

That post demonstrates ignorance

The only one that has demonstrated complete ignorance of the topic is the IT guy that claimed photons have no kinetic energy and who's never read a single textbook on this topic.

You provide no evidence that galaxy masses are estimated from their luminosity.

You didn't ask, and of course I *assumed* you actually knew something about that topic. My bad.

http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george/ay20/Ay20-Lec17x.pdf

 

[RealityCheck01]

I'm still trying to figure out how you rationalize your use of dark energy as a never ending non-zero constant,...

Are you admitting that you are still ignorant that a non-zero cosmological constant in GR acts like dark energy (exerts a negative pressure that accelerates the expansion of the universe) ?

 

[Elendur]

...

Not sure if you missed my post, Michael, or just postponing to answer it (or even if I've missed your answer). Anyways, it's the post I've quoted.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...usual rant snipped...

You miss the point entirely:
This is absorption by interstellar dust.
This is not scattering by the intergalactic medium.

You didn't ask, and of course I *assumed* you actually knew something about that topic. My bad.

Just like I assumed that you knew something about classical KE ! My bad.
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!
I added a bit to the post:

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

• the Tully–Fisher relation for spiral galaxies.
• the Faber–Jackson 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.

http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george/ay20/Ay20-Lec17x.pdf

Pretty much what I already know.
ETA: The lecture is in fact a useless citation for luminosity and galaxy mass calculations since that that is mentioned once: "Needed in order to estimate stellar (baryonic?) mass content of galaxies (and other stellar systems) from the observed luminosities."

But wait a minute - this is based on the Big Bang theory (not a tired light theory!). Why are you citing a discredited theory that can never give valid results ?

 

[Davian]

Still no buyers for that perpetual motion machine of yours?

I'm still ...

So that would be no, then.

...trying to figure out how you rationalize your use of dark energy as a never ending non-zero constant, yet you somehow exempt yourself from any criticism whatsoever. That must be quite a juicy rationalization you have going.

Where did I say that? Putting words in my mouth again?

 

[Michael]

So that would be no, then.

External EM fields aren't a 'perpetual motion machine'. I may not ever to even be able to fully explain where they originate, but there is no evidence that EM fields are a 'perpetual motion' machine, anymore than any solar system stable over billions of years is a "perpetual" motion machine, or a galaxy is a 'perpetual' motion machine. They can all follow given laws of physics, including any *external* fields that may influence our visible sliver of spacetime. I'm not introducing perpetual motion into anything.

The mainstream on the other hand is stuffing a never ending supply of something they call "dark energy" into their math formulas, and you haven't complained about that. Double standards would be bad enough, but when there's also a fundamental difference between *standard* EM fields and *make-believe-gap-filler*, one has to question your silence on Lambda-CDM on that issue.

Where did I say that? Putting words in my mouth again?

Do you publicly reject and denounce "dark energy" as a "perpetual motion" device?

 

[Michael]

Not sure if you missed my post, Michael, or just postponing to answer it (or even if I've missed your answer). Anyways, it's the post I've quoted.

Ooops. I did miss it. I've got honey-do projects going today, but I'll respond today. Sorry about that.

 

[Elendur]

Ooops. I did miss it. I've got honey-do projects going today, but I'll respond today. Sorry about that.

No problem, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] happens.

 

[Davian]

External EM fields aren't a 'perpetual motion machine'. I may not ever to even be able to fully explain where they originate, but there is no evidence that EM fields are a 'perpetual motion' machine, anymore than any solar system stable over billions of years is a "perpetual" motion machine, or a galaxy is a 'perpetual' motion machine. They can all follow given laws of physics, including any *external* fields that may influence our visible sliver of spacetime. I'm not introducing perpetual motion into anything.
<snip rant>

Is your universe static or not? Will it will run down, as entropy increases? Or are you exempting your "deity" from the second law of thermodynamics?

Do you publicly reject and denounce "dark energy" as a "perpetual motion" device?

I asked, where did I say that?

 

[Michael]

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.

Well, it's considerably more "tricky" than you might imagine actually.

I actually had to email Holushko to see what kind of redshift distance relationship he supported, since his paper did not directly address that particular topic, and it's more involved than you might imagine.

He suggested this site by Karim Khaidarov, and he following formulas describing the redshift/distance relationship in a static universe framework. Mind you this is one but of actually *several* options to choose from and I'm still getting my feet wet on this topic.

Karim Khaidarov - Eternal Universe


Traveling time t = ln(Z+1) / H
Therefore distance will be: d = c* ln(Z+1) / H

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.

Can we also agree that *any* amount of "blurring" is likely to be related to inelastic scattering events and therefore *some* amount of photon redshift should accompany such 'blurring"?

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.

The first and most important issue is *which* inelastic scattering processes are the *most* influential, and which are the least? It will make a significant difference is we assume a Brillouin scattering or Raman scattering, Rayleigh scattering, Compton scattering, etc. A lot depends on *how* the momentum is lost *exactly*, and how/if photons are actually being deflected. Your assumptions still seem to preclude any possibility of the loss of momentum without a change in direction. I still believe that's a *highly* dubious assumption on your part.

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

I'm frankly a lot more interested in the net effect of the "field to field" energy transfers in the IGM such as Brillouin scattering. In the ISM I'd expect to observe more Compton scattering and particle collision events.

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

You're intentionally (or unintentionally) precluding the possibility of the photons transferring the particle kinetic energy into the direction of it's travel path. Why?

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?

I'm not sure I communicated properly if that's the belief you came away with. Let me try again. *Some* amount of *all* types of inelastic scattering processes most likely take place in the IGM. Which of these various types of inelastic scattering methods plays the largest role in the loss of kinetic energy isn't as clear.

Again, I'd like to see what we *can* agree on. 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?

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.

Your question did involve math that wasn't actually related to Lambda-CDM, but related to *tired light* theory, and I actually couldn't answer it from the contents of Holushko's paper. It address the *time delay* aspect of tired light theory, but not so much the distance/redshift relationship that you were asking about. It made me curious enough to do a bit of research, and even *that* turns out to be a "multiple choice" option in tired light theory, mostly depending on *which* form of inelastic scattering is the most responsible for redshift.

I'm going to skip all the Lambda-CDM aspects so I can keep this short and to the point. I need to know a bit about how far out on a limb you're willing to go in terms of accepting that *some* amount of photon redshift is likely to be related to inelastic scattering.

 

[Michael]

Is your universe static or not?

Probably, yes. Then again, I'm not emotionally attached to it being static all the time and in every single location at all times. There are certainly stars that explode and galaxies appear to merge, etc. It's not entirely *static* in terms of it's overall layout of matter and energy. It does a good bit of recycling over time.

Will it will run down, as entropy increases?

In a closed system, where will the energy go? According to the *laws* of physics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change forms.

Or are you exempting your "deity" from the second law of thermodynamics?

Not me. Energy cannot be created or destroyed AFAIK, and new stars and planets form all the time.

It's not really "fair' to hold me to *higher* standards than any other cosmology theory. Both Lambda-CDM and Panteism interject a "non zero constant" into GR. The only difference is that I'm using an incredibly ordinary EM field as that constant, whereas the mainstream literally "made up" dark energy to save their otherwise falsified interpretation of photon redshift.

 

[Davian]

Probably, yes. Then again, I'm not emotionally attached to it being static all the time and in every single location at all times. There are certainly stars that explode and galaxies appear to merge, etc. It's not entirely *static* in terms of it's overall layout of matter and energy. It does a good bit of recycling over time.



In a closed system, where will the energy go? According to the *laws* of physics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change forms.



Not me. Energy cannot be created or destroyed AFAIK, and new stars and planets form all the time.

It's not really "fair' to hold me to *higher* standards than any other cosmology theory. Both Lambda-CDM and Panteism interject a "non zero constant" into GR. The only difference is that I'm using an incredibly ordinary EM field as that constant, whereas the mainstream literally "made up" dark energy to save their otherwise falsified interpretation of photon redshift.

Do you know what entropy is, Michael?

 

[Michael]

Do you know what entropy is, Michael?

Sure, but I'm not absolutely certain how (or if) it would it apply to an infinite and eternal universe. I'm not even sure how it applies to *any* universe that recycles material into stars. I'm not sure how it would apply to even a static but finite universe that has access to *external* energy from a much *larger* source. I have no idea how it all works, I only know how it works in the areas *I can actually observe*, which isn't the whole universe.

How does inflation get a free pass on this entropy thing? Dark energy gets a free pass too? All this energy just goes *poof* of out *nothing* according to Guth, and you think *that* idea is "more acceptable"?

 

[Michael]

Hot gas bridges galaxy cluster pair

By the way...

If you want more evidence of currents flowing through and between the "structures" of spacetime, there you go. Something (specifically current) keeps that plasma heated to such incredibly high temperatures. I love how the mainstream is so afraid of Plasma Cosmology theory that they cannot even use the proper scientific name for 80 million degree hot *plasma*. Instead they call it a 'hot gas' as if to ignore it's electromagnetic properties.

 

[Elendur]

Well, it's considerably more "tricky" than you might imagine actually.

I actually had to email Holushko to see what kind of redshift distance relationship he supported, since his paper did not directly address that particular topic, and it's more involved than you might imagine.

He suggested this site by Karim Khaidarov, and he following formulas describing the redshift/distance relationship in a static universe framework. Mind you this is one but of actually *several* options to choose from and I'm still getting my feet wet on this topic.

Karim Khaidarov - Eternal Universe


Traveling time t = ln(Z+1) / H
Therefore distance will be: d = c* ln(Z+1) / H

I would like to know how that addressed it.
(It being post #71, not #65, which I've stated in #122 and #114)

Can we also agree that *any* amount of "blurring" is likely to be related to inelastic scattering events and therefore *some* amount of photon redshift should accompany such 'blurring"?

"Any" would include the amounts of "none" and "all" and I don't agree on that.
But I agree that if inelastic scattering would result in redshift (or blueshift).

The first and most important issue is *which* inelastic scattering processes are the *most* influential, and which are the least? It will make a significant difference is we assume a Brillouin scattering or Raman scattering, Rayleigh scattering, Compton scattering, etc. A lot depends on *how* the momentum is lost *exactly*, and how/if photons are actually being deflected. Your assumptions still seem to preclude any possibility of the loss of momentum without a change in direction. I still believe that's a *highly* dubious assumption on your part.

I disagree. It isn't viable to start with trying to determine which order they affect the most. It's more important to check whether any significant part of the observed phenomena (in this case redshift) could be explained by any of the available mechanisms (in this case, the subgroup of scatterings).
I made the assumption to exclude the loss of momentum without deflection because that's not a scattering. Per definition. (See the post you responded to)

I'm frankly a lot more interested in the net effect of the "field to field" energy transfers in the IGM such as Brillouin scattering. In the ISM I'd expect to observe more Compton scattering and particle collision events.

You're avoiding the question (though it's of minor interest).

You're intentionally (or unintentionally) precluding the possibility of the photons transferring the particle kinetic energy into the direction of it's travel path. Why?

Because of two things:
1. It isn't a scattering then, per definition (even if if fell within the definition, the formulas I've seen don't give any effect for the angle of 0, like compton scattering).
2. It seems that the chance of something like that to happen is small.

More explicit explanation of point two:
You cannot expect a random, rare, event to produce something that's always observed, consistent over time and distance.

I'm not sure I communicated properly if that's the belief you came away with. Let me try again. *Some* amount of *all* types of inelastic scattering processes most likely take place in the IGM. Which of these various types of inelastic scattering methods plays the largest role in the loss of kinetic energy isn't as clear.

IGM? Do you mean ISM, InterStellar Matter, or InterGalactical Matter?
But sure, I'll agree to that (though perhaps not the "most likely", depending on what you meant with IGM).

Again, I'd like to see what we *can* agree on. 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?

Yes. I'm not saying how much other than that it's not 0 nor 100 %.

Your question did involve math that wasn't actually related to Lambda-CDM, but related to *tired light* theory, and I actually couldn't answer it from the contents of Holushko's paper. It address the *time delay* aspect of tired light theory, but not so much the distance/redshift relationship that you were asking about. It made me curious enough to do a bit of research, and even *that* turns out to be a "multiple choice" option in tired light theory, mostly depending on *which* form of inelastic scattering is the most responsible for redshift.

TBH, I'm having a hard time taking Houlushko seriously since he demonstrates a lack of understanding of the speed of light (I can expand on this if you want).
As for the time delay, could you explain how that applies to what I've written in post #71?

I'm going to skip all the Lambda-CDM aspects so I can keep this short and to the point. I need to know a bit about how far out on a limb you're willing to go in terms of accepting that *some* amount of photon redshift is likely to be related to inelastic scattering.

Sure thing. I would like you to skip the Lambda-CDM in the future as well, since I don't have anything to do with that.

 

[Michael]

I would like to know how that addressed it.
(It being post #71, not #65, which I've stated in #122 and #114)

Help me out a bit. What part of post 71 did I not answer in post 72 to your satisfaction?

"Any" would include the amounts of "none" and "all" and I don't agree on that.
But I agree that if inelastic scattering would result in redshift (or blueshift).

In most cases it going to result in redshift almost exclusively. Chen observed no blueshift during his experiments, just redshift. As long as we agree that we should expect to observe *some* amount of "normal" photon redshift due to inelastic scatting, that's progress IMO.

I disagree. It isn't viable to start with trying to determine which order they affect the most. It's more important to check whether any significant part of the observed phenomena (in this case redshift) could be explained by any of the available mechanisms (in this case, the subgroup of scatterings).

Hmm. How can you know if the phenomenon could be explained by scattering if you don't consider *all* the possible types of inelastic scattering? In terms of what shows up in the lab, *all* of them occur in the lab. Why wouldn't they also occur in space to various degrees? From my perspective, you're still precluding the possibility that photons simply lose energy in the forward moving direction from *any* type of scattering process, not just Compton scattering. Why? One line on WIKI?

I made the assumption to exclude the loss of momentum without deflection because that's not a scattering. Per definition. (See the post you responded to)

That's a per WIKI definition that really doesn't tell the whole story, nor does it address the possibility of multiple scattering events average out to a near net zero total deflection over time.

You're avoiding the question (though it's of minor interest).

I'm not sure which question you feel I've avoided specifically. Could you be a bit more specific?

Because of two things:
1. It isn't a scattering then, per definition (even if if fell within the definition, the formulas I've seen don't give any effect for the angle of 0, like compton scattering).

Even if I granted you that a simplified mathematical description of Compton scattering accurately accounts for all possible types of Compton scattering, how about all the rest of the scattering processes?

2. It seems that the chance of something like that to happen is small.

Sure it's small, but it's a numbers game. If an object emits enough photons, and we point a satellite at that area for days, weeks and months, some few photons will arrive from that object. It's simple statics at that point.

More explicit explanation of point two:
You cannot expect a random, rare, event to produce something that's always observed, consistent over time and distance.

I don't see why not. It's not like every photon would reach Earth in a perfect vacuum, but some light would reach Earth, even if only a tiny percentage of the total light emitted by that object. You're in effect insisting that statics and odds play no role in the process.

IGM? Do you mean ISM, InterStellar Matter, or InterGalactical Matter?

The interstellar medium (matter in and around our galaxy) would seem to be more "dusty" and more dense than the intergalactic medium. Therefore light may traverse each of them differently.

Yes. I'm not saying how much other than that it's not 0 nor 100 %.

I hope that you realize that any significant deviation from absolute "zero" redshift from scattering makes you a fellow heretic pretty quickly. FYI, it wouldn't take much photon redshift due to inelastic scattering to kill off "dark energy" and there goes more than 70 percent of mainstream theory.

TBH, I'm having a hard time taking Houlushko seriously since he demonstrates a lack of understanding of the speed of light (I can expand on this if you want).

Please do. Keep in mind that Holushko's light traverses a plasma medium and magnetic field medium of variable densities, not a pure vacuum. The speed of propagation of light through a vacuum is different than the speed of propagation of light through various mediums like plasmas of various densities and temperatures.

As for the time delay, could you explain how that applies to what I've written in post #71?

You need to explain to me what I didn't cover in #72.

Sure thing. I would like you to skip the Lambda-CDM in the future as well, since I don't have anything to do with that.

I'll try.

 

[Elendur]

Help me out a bit. What part of post 71 did I not answer in post 72 to your satisfaction?

This:

1. If the first is correct, that would mean:
1a. That the photons scattered from the sources would have to re-align themselves with their original path in order for us to be able to observe them sharply.
and/or
1b. That the photons scattered from the sources won't re-align, leaving us observing only the remaining, non-redshifted, light.

If I have left out some possibility, please tell me.

If the second is incorrect, could you explain what was incorrect?

2. If the second is correct, that would mean:
2a. The photons we observe cannot have taken long detours (relative distance as well as relative time).
and as a logical result of point 2:
3. The photons scattered would have to have scattered several times with:
either
3a. Scatterings of low angle changes (allowing for higher time between the scattering occasions)
or
3b. Scatterings of high angle changes (adding the necessity of short time between the scattering occasions, to make it not veer of the parallel path for to long).

If I have left out some possibility, please tell me.





Note: I'll rely on our nearest star and my previous post!

Problems with point 1a:
If the photons are going to re-align with the path the photons originally had it has to be within an angle that is much smaller than the previously calculated angle of 3.094*10^-10 degrees. (Due to sharp images)
That is:
Degrees of deviation from original path after scatterings << 3.094*10^-10
(This is at half the distance, it's lower near its source and higher the closer you get)


The odds of this occurring is monumentally small, for those interested, it is calculated by calculating the surface area of a ball with the radius of 1 (x^2+y^2+z^2=1) and compare to the area that lies within the allowed angles.

Added: There would have to be a minimum of three scatterings to bring the photon 'back on track'. Given the small angles and requirement of parallelism the third (or last) of the scatterings would have to occur on, or extremely near, the original path, directed towards the original direction. These are odds that I can approximate to zero in almost every case.


Problems with point 1b:
If the photons doesn't re-align, we have no explanation using scattering for the redshift observed and the light observed would be significantly decreased compared with our sun and the farther away the star, the weaker it would be until they finally fade into white.

Problems with point 1a combined with 1b:
We would see a jumble of photons, both redshifted and not, from different times.

Problems with 3:
That several scatterings of one photon would occur and ultimately end up in a parallel path is highly unlikely.
That several photons would regularly (all the time / near all the time) do that is even more unlikely.

In most cases it going to result in redshift almost exclusively. Chen observed no blueshift during his experiments, just redshift. As long as we agree that we should expect to observe *some* amount of "normal" photon redshift due to inelastic scatting, that's progress IMO.

Whether we observe blueshift as well depends on the energy of the particle, correct? Since Chen only heightened the density, if I remember correctly, that might explain why.
How have we made progress by establishing that agreement btw? I've been clear from an early stage about that.

Hmm. How can you know if the phenomenon could be explained by scattering if you don't consider *all* the possible types of inelastic scattering? In terms of what shows up in the lab, *all* of them occur in the lab. Why wouldn't they also occur in space to various degrees? From my perspective, you're still precluding the possibility that photons simply lose energy in the forward moving direction from *any* type of scattering process, not just Compton scattering. Why? One line on WIKI?

The subgroup, consisting of inelastic scatterings, of the mechanisms that would explain the observed redshift includes all, excluding those we know of because of obvious reasons. Therefore I don't understand your first question.
Neither do I understand your second question. I haven't even said once that it doesn't occur in space so I don't know why you insistently ask questions or make statements that make it seem I have done so.
I have excluded the probability of photons losing energy without diverting paths since I haven't seen anything (work or formula) that indicates that something like that can happen. Even if it were to happen, it still doesn't appear to occur often enough to be a significant part since it's not mentioned in any texts I've read about any of those scatterings.
If you want to provide with a better definition of scattering, go ahead, don't expect me to let you provide a lame redefinition whose only difference would be to include "no angle deviation" (without support).

That's a per WIKI definition that really doesn't tell the whole story, nor does it address the possibility of multiple scattering events average out to a near net zero total deflection over time.

It doesn't address the possibility of multiple scattering events that would give a "net zero total deflection" but that definition doesn't exclude it.

I'm not sure which question you feel I've avoided specifically. Could you be a bit more specific?

Yes. In this case it was:

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

To which you answered:

I'm frankly a lot more interested in the net effect of the "field to field" energy transfers in the IGM such as Brillouin scattering. In the ISM I'd expect to observe more Compton scattering and particle collision events.

Which is a deflection, not an answer.

Even if I granted you that a simplified mathematical description of Compton scattering accurately accounts for all possible types of Compton scattering, how about all the rest of the scattering processes?

They are still addressed. Once again, I have addressed the issue of trying to explain the observed redshift with the process of scattering, not one specific scattering.

Sure it's small, but it's a numbers game. If an object emits enough photons, and we point a satellite at that area for days, weeks and months, some few photons will arrive from that object. It's simple statics at that point.

The problem with the numbers game is that simple statistics works against you in this matter. As explained by me numerous times now.

I don't see why not. It's not like every photon would reach Earth in a perfect vacuum, but some light would reach Earth, even if only a tiny percentage of the total light emitted by that object. You're in effect insisting that statics and odds play no role in the process.

Do you know why odds play no role in this? If you don't, read some additional statistics/probability theory, you'll see that what I wrote in that section was correct.

The interstellar medium (matter in and around our galaxy) would seem to be more "dusty" and more dense than the intergalactic medium. Therefore light may traverse each of them differently.

M'kay.

I hope that you realize that any significant deviation from absolute "zero" redshift from scattering makes you a fellow heretic pretty quickly. FYI, it wouldn't take much photon redshift due to inelastic scattering to kill off "dark energy" and there goes more than 70 percent of mainstream theory.

I doen' care.

Please do. Keep in mind that Holushko's light traverses a plasma medium and magnetic field medium of variable densities, not a pure vacuum. The speed of propagation of light through a vacuum is different than the speed of propagation of light through various mediums like plasmas of various densities and temperatures.

And that's what he doesn't understand (at least by his page).

Open Wikipedia and enter "speed of light". You will read: "The speed of light in vacuum, usually denoted by c, is a physical constant. Its value is 299,792,458 meters per second." No waves of other nature have constant speed. Why is that? Because they are physical,their speed is defined by the properties of medium. What's wrong with light? Why light doesn't need medium and its speed is constant? It is not polite to ask this question, constant speed of light is postulated by Relativity Theory.

Read the bolded text and you'll see. It says light in vacuum. He doesn't get that the vacuum is the medium.
Or perhaps he's changing what he's meaning with the term medium between sentences, but that doesn't make me more supportive of him.

You need to explain to me what I didn't cover in #72.

You didn't cover any of the conclusions, even after I've changed my premises to fit your arguments against them (which I've explained, didn't change the conclusions).

 

[Michael]

This:

You're going to need to be a bit patient with me this week. I have some programming deadlines this week, and I have a busy schedule ahead of me.

It seems to me that your basic argument comes down to two or three basic *assumptions* on your part.

You *assume* that all events that result in a loss of photon momentum must *necessarily* result in a change of trajectory of the photon. I believe that to be the most dubious assumption that you're making, but admittedly this isn't my field of specialty. I therefore have some real research to do to be able to thoroughly 'debunk' that assumption on your part. I think that assumption is highly unlikely to be true in polarized and cohesive light in particular. I'm sure I'll run into that argument often, so it's worth my time to check out, but it may not happen for a few days.

Your second assumption is based upon the exclusion of any possibility of 'some few' photons deflecting around a basic axis that ultimately heads in roughly the right direction. In other words it precludes any possibility of some few photons getting 'lucky' and simply deflecting in roughly the right direction over time. It's another of those *assumptions* you're making that is likely to be less than 100 percent correct. That is particularly true in 'field to field' energy transfers, such as Brillioun scattering and the type of effect described by Ari Brynjolfsson. You "seem" to be assuming (you may not be) that all interactions have to be particle to particle interactions. I doubt that is correct. Some field to field transfers may occur and these may not always result in *large* deflections. They may be more *common* than particle collisions as well, particularly more common with the photons that reach Earth.

Keep in mind that we point these instruments at the same spot for *days* to pickup a few photons in distant galaxies. It wouldn't take many of them "getting through" to end up in a Hubble deep space image.

The last couple of points I would make here is that we *do* observe some blurring, particularly in the most distant objects. Any and all scattering events will result in *some* small amount of redshift. It doesn't take a whole lot of such events to blow away dark energy, and thereby blow away 70+ percent of mainstream theory in terms of mass/energy.

It would literally take a miracle for all those photons to traverse all that dust and plasma, temperature variations, EM field variations, plasma density variations, and *not* lose some amount of kinetic energy along the journey. Tired light/plasma redshift isn't just a 'theory', it's a demonstrated fact in the lab. Until or unless it's accounted for in Lambda-CDM theory, it's hard to take that theory seriously.

 

[Elendur]

You're going to need to be a bit patient with me this week. I have some programming deadlines this week, and I have a busy schedule ahead of me.

Sure thing, take your time.

It seems to me that your basic argument comes down to two or three basic *assumptions* on your part.

Ok.

You *assume* that all events that result in a loss of photon momentum must *necessarily* result in a change of trajectory of the photon.

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 believe that to be the most dubious assumption that you're making, but admittedly this isn't my field of specialty. I therefore have some real research to do to be able to thoroughly 'debunk' that assumption on your part. I think that assumption is highly unlikely to be true in polarized and cohesive light in particular. I'm sure I'll run into that argument often, so it's worth my time to check out, but it may not happen for a few days.

Ok, just keep what I've written in mind.

Your second assumption is based upon the exclusion of any possibility of 'some few' photons deflecting around a basic axis that ultimately heads in roughly the right direction. In other words it precludes any possibility of some few photons getting 'lucky' and simply deflecting in roughly the right direction over time. It's another of those *assumptions* you're making that is likely to be less than 100 percent correct. That is particularly true in 'field to field' energy transfers, such as Brillioun scattering and the type of effect described by Ari Brynjolfsson. You "seem" to be assuming (you may not be) that all interactions have to be particle to particle interactions. I doubt that is correct. Some field to field transfers may occur and these may not always result in *large* deflections. They may be more *common* than particle collisions as well, particularly more common with the photons that reach Earth.

I've rather assumed that the angle of deviation is random, a uniform distribution.
I haven't omitted the possibility of lucky photons, I've used the extreme luck as part of my argument.
I have assumed that scattering events occurrence are random with a certain probability as well, which you could refute if you would demonstrate a mechanism that would affect either all photons or a majority of them (>90%) (Note, this shouldn't be distance related, since the variety would, in my eyes, make it complicated to justify).

Keep in mind that we point these instruments at the same spot for *days* to pickup a few photons in distant galaxies. It wouldn't take many of them "getting through" to end up in a Hubble deep space image.

Oh well, if that would be relevant I would have to look into it and/or, if you present a well made argument based on it, accept your rebuttal.

The last couple of points I would make here is that we *do* observe some blurring, particularly in the most distant objects. Any and all scattering events will result in *some* small amount of redshift. It doesn't take a whole lot of such events to blow away dark energy, and thereby blow away 70+ percent of mainstream theory in terms of mass/energy.

The question is still whether it's possible for the scattering to explain the observed the observed redshift.

It would literally take a miracle for all those photons to traverse all that dust and plasma, temperature variations, EM field variations, plasma density variations, and *not* lose some amount of kinetic energy along the journey. Tired light/plasma redshift isn't just a 'theory', it's a demonstrated fact in the lab. Until or unless it's accounted for in Lambda-CDM theory, it's hard to take that theory seriously.

Good thing I'm not talking about that one then