Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[Michael]

I'll go along with it, not entirely content though (since it'll probably result in some additional backtracking in order to find where we might differ).


The phenomena called "scattering" has its definition. That definition requires a change in trajectory in order to call it scattering.
I've chosen to address the inelastic scatterings since they seem to be the ones that could have the potential to explain the observed redshift.


Great, if you're able to answer that question we'll be able to work from that. If you cannot, we'll have to backtrack some, but I believe that it'll be worth it.

I do hear you on your points my friend, but it's very clear that I am in over my head at the moment as it relates to the various types of inelastic scattering and their implications in terms of their potential effect on photons in space. I can see this will take time to sort out properly and time is a precious commodity to me at the moment. Hang in there.

 

[Michael]

Then show us this scattering process that doesn't scatter light,

That isn't a requirement for two reasons. Light is blurred from the most distant objects. Light can scatter back and forth and still reach it's original destination anyway. There is no need to demonstrate what you're asking for.

 

[Elendur]

I do hear you on your points my friend, but it's very clear that I am in over my head at the moment as it relates to the various types of inelastic scattering and their implications in terms of their potential effect on photons in space. I can see this will take time to sort out properly and time is a precious commodity to me at the moment. Hang in there.

 

[Loudmouth]

That isn't a requirement for two reasons. Light is blurred from the most distant objects.

Light should be blurred from every galaxy, and we should see massive blurring in the most distant galaxies. Neither is observed.

Light can scatter back and forth and still reach it's original destination anyway. There is no need to demonstrate what you're asking for.

It will reach its destination on non-parallel paths resulting in blurring. Also, the more scattering you have the fewer photons you have at the telescope. So few, in fact, that distant galaxies would be all but impossible to see.

It appears that we are back to square one with this discussion. We have all shown that changing the trajectory of photons results in massive bluring and opacity. Your response is to claim that redshift can occur without changing the trajectory of the photons. When asked for evidence to back this claim, you go back to the original claim that changes in trajectory are not a problem. Around the evidence denial carousel we go.

 

[Ubogion]

how to start lawsuite?

 

[Michael]

Light should be blurred from every galaxy,

We can't even pick out individual small stars in distant galaxies, so how would you know if they were or were not 'blurred' (at least a little)?

and we should see massive blurring in the most distant galaxies.

No, we should simply see "more" blurring in more distant galaxies, and indeed we do observe that.

It will reach its destination on non-parallel paths resulting in blurring.

Also, the more scattering you have the fewer photons you have at the telescope. So few, in fact, that distant galaxies would be all but impossible to see.

Er, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we have to point at distant galaxies for hours and days to receive even just a few photons in some cases. There are 'very few' photons that reach Earth from distant galaxies.

It appears that we are back to square one with this discussion. We have all shown that changing the trajectory of photons results in massive bluring and opacity.

You haven't shown that. You've "hadwaved" that claim around and provided "some" evidence that Compton redshift isn't the *only* cause of redshift.

Your response is to claim that redshift can occur without changing the trajectory of the photons.

I'm not "claiming" it happens so much as "questioning" your claim that redshift *cannot* occur without changing the trajectory of the photon. I do not *know* that for a fact. The billiard ball analogy simply demonstrates *why* I doubt your claims apply in *all* cases, particularly polarized and cohesive light.

When asked for evidence to back this claim, you go back to the original claim that changes in trajectory are not a problem. Around the evidence denial carousel we go.

Er, no, that's not what I did. I specifically noted that I have a lot of work to do in terms of researching the various options. I'm owning my responsibility whereas your side does not. You have *not* provided any cause/effect demonstration that photons are in any way influenced by "dark energy", or that dark energy even exists! All you've done is *allege* that *no* inelastic scattering happen in space, and "dark energy did it".

You've not even acknowledged *any* of the qualification problems in your claims, let alone provided any way to 'research' anything on your "dark energy" sky deity.

 

[Loudmouth]

We can't even pick out individual small stars in distant galaxies, so how would you know if they were or were not 'blurred' (at least a little)?

We should not be able to get crisp images like these from any galaxies if the light is being scattered by plasma as you claim:

http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/images/screen/heic0506a.jpg

Instead, they should be blobs of light as if you are looking through sandblasted glass.

No, we should simply see "more" blurring in more distant galaxies, and indeed we do observe that.

Not to the extent that PC predicts.

Er, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we have to point at distant galaxies for hours and days to receive even just a few photons in some cases. There are 'very few' photons that reach Earth from distant galaxies.

They are exactly the photons we would expect to receive without scattering. If you add scattering, then we would not be able to even receive the few photons that we already do.

You haven't shown that. You've "hadwaved" that claim around and provided "some" evidence that Compton redshift isn't the *only* cause of redshift.

It is basic optics. If the paths of photons are not parallel it produces a blurred image.

I'm not "claiming" it happens so much as "questioning" your claim that redshift *cannot* occur without changing the trajectory of the photon. I do not *know* that for a fact. The billiard ball analogy simply demonstrates *why* I doubt your claims apply in *all* cases, particularly polarized and cohesive light.

Billiard balls are allowed to travel at different speeds. Photons are not. That would be the first problem.

Second, I supplied you with the equations. The equations demonstrate that for a theta of zero there is no loss in momentum. There is no redshift.

Er, no, that's not what I did. I specifically noted that I have a lot of work to do in terms of researching the various options. I'm owning my responsibility whereas your side does not. You have *not* provided any cause/effect demonstration that photons are in any way influenced by "dark energy", or that dark energy even exists! All you've done is *allege* that *no* inelastic scattering happen in space, and "dark energy did it".

The redshift IS the evidence. The redshift is not due to scattering since the universe is not opaque and blurry. The redshift is due space expanding, and that expansion is accelerating. The cause for his acceleration is named "dark energy".

You've not even acknowledged *any* of the qualification problems in your claims, let alone provided any way to 'research' anything on your "dark energy" sky deity.

And once again with the tu quoque fallacy.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Not really, at least not yet. Brillouin scattering looks promising to me for a variety of reasons, but I seem to have a lot of research to do to really get much of a handle on the various scattering options.

You have 3 scatterings in your list.
Brillouin scattering is ineleastic scattering from quasi-particles such as phonons.
Raman scattering is ineleastic scattering from excitations of bound electrons.
We have dealt with Compton scattering: Compton scattering = cosmological redshift will blue-shift visible lght!

It does not matter what scattering option you look at, Michael.
Michael: Any scattering "option" blurs distant galaxies compared to near galaxies!
Any scattering "option" produces non-red-shifted spectral lines in galaxies up 10 billion light years away

Thus we can stop talking about processes that scatter photons from plasma and change their wavelength and look for processes that do not scatter photons but still change their wavelength.

I will start the list. You can add to it Michael:

1. An expanding universe.
2. Michael?

Michael: No scattering "option" works so how about some non-scattering tired light ''options"?

P.S. 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.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The idea that there could be a tired light mechanism in which a scattering angle of zero produces a redshift turns out not to be new:
The red shift in the spectra of distant nebulae Shelton, H. S. 1953

That this violates the conservation of momenutm was shown in:
The red shift in the spectra of distant galaxies Atkinson, Robert d'Escourt 1954

 

[Loudmouth]

The idea that there could be a tired light mechanism in which a scattering angle of zero produces a redshift turns out not to be new:
The red shift in the spectra of distant nebulae Shelton, H. S. 1953

That this violates the conservation of momenutm was shown in:
The red shift in the spectra of distant galaxies Atkinson, Robert d'Escourt 1954

IOW, Michael was shown to be wrong in 1954.

 

[Michael]

We should not be able to get crisp images like these from any galaxies if the light is being scattered by plasma as you claim:

http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/images/screen/heic0506a.jpg

Instead, they should be blobs of light as if you are looking through sandblasted glass.

Er, no. What I said was that *distant* galaxies will be more "blurred" than a very *close* galaxy like the one that you selected. How about picking a *high redshift* galaxy now. Put them side by side and lets see if it's as "crisp" as that *close* galaxy, shall we?

 

[Michael]

IOW, Michael was shown to be wrong in 1954.

Right, because everything we know about scattering was already known in 1953 by one guy that apparently talked *exclusively* about Compton scattering. I haven't even been completely through the rebuttal paper, but already it's clearly bogus. Any loss of momentum of the photon would be transferred to the particle in question. That doesn't violate any conservation laws and it could *not* violate any conservation laws. It's an *inelastic* scattering processes, it's not a violation of conservation laws!

 

[Loudmouth]

Right, because everything we know about scattering was already known in 1953 by one guy that apparently talked *exclusively* about Compton scattering. I haven't even been completely through the rebuttal paper, but already it's clearly bogus. Any loss of momentum of the photon would be transferred to the particle in question. That doesn't violate any conservation laws and it could *not* violate any conservation laws. It's an *inelastic* scattering processes, it's not a violation of conservation laws!

You are forgetting about the momentum gained by the particle when it absorbed the photon. If the emission occurs along the same path as absorbance then the net change in momentum is zero because it will add 100% of the energy gained during absorption.

 

[Michael]

You are forgetting about the momentum gained by the particle when it absorbed the photon. If the emission occurs along the same path as absorbance then the net change in momentum is zero because it will add 100% of the energy gained during absorption.

Um, no. You're still ignoring the possibility of it giving *some* of it's forward momentum to the particle in question, without giving *all* of it to the particle. In other the words, we need an *inelastic* scattering process to occur, not a simple absorption/emission of the photon, otherwise the net result is a zero transfer of kinetic energy. The "lost" momentum of the photon *must be passed* to the particle. The energy is "not lost", it's simply 'transferred' to the particle. There is no "violation" of any conservation laws in *any* inelastic scattering process, there is simply a *transfer* of energy taking place.

 

[Michael]

FYI, as this week winds down and comes to an end, I will have time to focus on the various inelastic scattering options. In the meantime, perhaps LM or someone else would be so kind as to provide your 'best' (least blurred) image of the *most* distant galaxies we can observe?

 

[davidbilby]

You are forgetting about the momentum gained by the particle when it absorbed the photon. If the emission occurs along the same path as absorbance then the net change in momentum is zero because it will add 100% of the energy gained during absorption.

Spot on - this is NOT billiard ball physics, as I previously pointed out to Michael - you can't take classical mechanics and apply it to quantum particles and expect to get even a vaguely meaningful result; this is drummed into any first year physics student.

If the scattering angle is zero, the photon retains 100% of the energy as it emerges, despite the interaction, unlike in a billiard ball situation where the white ball hitting another ball directly on always passes some of its momentum across even in the direct strike scenario with scatter angle of zero. The concept of momentum conservation therefore still applies, which is why the 1954 rebuttal is entirely correct.

Also of interest in that 1953 paper, just as a point, is the original author proposing that Compton scattering could play a part in the redshift acknowledges that even a slight change in photon vector is catastrophic, to the point that he doesn't even consider such a state. "any considerable change" - i.e. any change at all for distances of billions of light years - is not allowed, even to him. Unfortunately and necessarily by doing so, he defines enough terms that his idea is mathematically impossible.

 

[Loudmouth]

Um, no. You're still ignoring the possibility of it giving *some* of it's forward momentum to the particle in question, without giving *all* of it to the particle. In other the words, we need an *inelastic* scattering process to occur, not a simple absorption/emission of the photon, otherwise the net result is a zero transfer of kinetic energy. The "lost" momentum of the photon *must be passed* to the particle. The energy is "not lost", it's simply 'transferred' to the particle. There is no "violation" of any conservation laws in *any* inelastic scattering process, there is simply a *transfer* of energy taking place.

That's exactly the problem that Atkinson tackled, and he showed that it doesn't work:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/..._paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

Again, you were shown to be wrong in 1954. Actually read it.

 

[Michael]

Spot on - this is NOT billiard ball physics, as I previously pointed out to Michael - you can't take classical mechanics and apply it to quantum particles and expect to get even a vaguely meaningful result; this is drummed into any first year physics student.

It seems to me that this statement and claim is "brainwashed" into every single first year *astronomy* student perhaps, but I'm not finding such literature related to *all* forms of scattering. Even if that *is* true of Compton scattering, that's just *one* type of scattering!

I'm looking forward to some real time off so I can put some time into this issue. I'm sure it's where the 'dirt' is being swept under the carpet.

How about one of you now providing us with a 'non blurred' image of the most *distant* galaxies?

 

[Loudmouth]

FYI, as this week winds down and comes to an end, I will have time to focus on the various inelastic scattering options. In the meantime, perhaps LM or someone else would be so kind as to provide your 'best' (least blurred) image of the *most* distant galaxies we can observe?

Edit: Bad example. Looking for a different galaxy.

 

[Michael]

That's exactly the problem that Atkinson tackled, and he showed that it doesn't work:

All he showed is that it does not work *for Compton scattering*.

Again, you were shown to be wrong in 1954. Actually read it.

Kindly show me where it applies to Brillouin scattering or Raman scattering now.