Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[Michael]

Er...what? This is mathematics. Simple mathematics.

It's "over simplistic mathematics" IMO that relates *only* to Compton scattering! I'm not debating that the argument is valid as it relates to Compton scattering. What I need to know is whether it applies to *all* kinds of scattering. That I do not know.

 

[Michael]

So wait...you're now embracing the notion of blurring, and trying to say that distant redshift galaxies are in fact "blurred" (a fairly meaningless word, btw, used by either side) because of their redshift, as opposed to because they are billions of light years more distant relative to us than their closer cousins?

The only reason "blurring" is an "issue" is due to the fact it was used by Ned Wright as a "reason" that all types of inelastic scattering methods can be eliminated. He "specified" Compton scattering actually, and cited Zwicky who was building his *own* theory about redshift from a paper written in 1929. Others in this thread (and Ned to an extent) attempt to apply it to *all* forms of scattering, and claimed that no blurring took place.

As we can observe however, blurring can be observed in 2012, even if it wasn't as obvious in 1929. Therefore any argument that tries to eliminate scattering based on "blurring' isn't really much of an argument. In fact it's a *bad* (shoots itself in the foot) argument because blurring *is* actually observed.

 

[davidbilby]

Why should it be 'wavelength dependent' in the first place if not due to *scattering*!
I'm afraid I'm not following your logic. The process, whatever it might be, *is* actually wavelength dependent, as I would expect. Some light on some wavelengths get's through, other wavelengths cannot penetrate that far through the plasma. It's an observation that is entirely consistent with a scattering process IMO.

Oh...my. OK. You're arguing with yourself now. On one hand, you're claiming that a scattering angle of zero is possible with a change in frequency (with some "unknown" scattering process that is cosmologically possible), such that scattering angles (and therefore blurring) isn't a problem because the images will be sharp and redshift could still occur - and on the other hand you're arguing that in fact the images "are" blurred, so the scattering angles must be non-zero. Which is it?

You're also arguing against the notion that the redshift z is constant for all frequencies, and that you think in fact the cosmological redshift is wavelength dependent. You're arguing these three points without any evidence or math to back it up, and deriding the Compton equation as "brainwashing".

Oh dear. Even Lyndon Ashmore writes in his "paper" on "new tired light" - "For a particular galaxy, the redshift, z is a constant for all wavelengths." Something that he at least got right......

 

[jgold]

This should make a few people question the talking points they are regurgitating.

docs.google.com/open?id=0B_6N6Q10PWKhVkdLTlZUYjd3VjQ

 

[Loudmouth]

You're the one making the claim that "no blurring" takes place, not me.

And there is no blurring:

HubbleSite - Wallpaper: Spiral Galaxy NGC 3370

That galaxy is 100 million light years away, and is sharp as galaxies just 10 million light years away.

As that page I cited points out, some wavelengths are *blocked entirely*, whereas other wavelengths are not.

That's a big problem for PC then, since redshift is not wavelength dependent. The loss of light is due to large densities of neutral hydrogen in the early universe. Once the universe expanded and matter gathered in galaxies this was not a problem, as shown by the very crisp images of galaxies, one of which is linked above.

If PC is true, then we should see these types of wavelength dependent losses of light, but we don't.

It depends on *many* factors, but the claim that "no blurring" is observed in highly redshifted objects is simply not supported by the evidence.

There is no blurring in galaxies where we have the ability to measure blurriness. We don't see any differences between galaxies 10 million light years away or 100 million light years away, a full order of magnitude. We also don't see double bands, so if PC is true then all of the light is being scattered before it gets to Earth, and this is true for even the closest galaxies.

 

[Loudmouth]

The only reason "blurring" is an "issue" is due to the fact it was used by Ned Wright as a "reason" that all types of inelastic scattering methods can be eliminated.

Ned Wright is right. That is why PC is rejected by modern astronomers, because it predicts massively blurred images due to scattering, and those images are not seen.

He "specified" Compton scattering actually,

No, he used Compton scattering as an example. He stated quite clearly that all mechanisms that reduce the momentum of light also scatter the light.

"There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed."

Others in this thread (and Ned to an extent) attempt to apply it to *all* forms of scattering, and claimed that no blurring took place.

We have backed up our claims that all forms of scattering will scatter light:

The red shift in the spectra of distant galaxies

You can handwave the math all you want, but there it is.

As we can observe however, blurring can be observed in 2012, even if it wasn't as obvious in 1929. Therefore any argument that tries to eliminate scattering based on "blurring' isn't really much of an argument. In fact it's a *bad* (shoots itself in the foot) argument because blurring *is* actually observed.

Where is it observed?

 

[Loudmouth]

It's "over simplistic mathematics" IMO

Handwave of the century.

that relates *only* to Compton scattering!

It applies to all interactions between light and particles.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, he does not!

Yes, he did.

 

[davidbilby]

It is also somewhat hilarious that instead of attacking the math (which of course, he can't, because it is correct) - Shelton, in his rebuttal, quotes a completely unverifiable letter from Robert Millikan. Millikan was a very brilliant man, but one prone to somewhat idiotic statements, such as:

"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom. The glib supposition of utilizing atomic energy when our coal has run out is a completely unscientific Utopian dream, a childish bug-a-boo. Nature has introduced a few fool-proof devices into the great majority of elements that constitute the bulk of the world, and they have no energy to give up in the process of disintegration."

 

[Loudmouth]

It is also somewhat hilarious that instead of attacking the math (which of course, he can't, because it is correct) - Shelton, in his rebuttal, quotes a completely unverifiable letter from Robert Millikan. Millikan was a very brilliant man, but one prone to somewhat idiotic statements, such as:

"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom. The glib supposition of utilizing atomic energy when our coal has run out is a completely unscientific Utopian dream, a childish bug-a-boo. Nature has introduced a few fool-proof devices into the great majority of elements that constitute the bulk of the world, and they have no energy to give up in the process of disintegration."

Reminds me of this one:

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." Lord Kelvin, 1895

 

[davidbilby]

Reminds me of this one:

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." Lord Kelvin, 1895

Ha...yeah. Rather shows the problem of appealing to authority, even good sounding ones. That statement lasted what, eight years? He also predicted we'd run out of oxygen some time around the year 2400...

 

[RealityCheck01]

No, he does not

What he showed was that it does not work for *for any scattering* including Brillouin scattering and Raman scattering:
Read: The red shift in the spectra of distant galaxies Atkinson, Robert d'Escourt 1954
Robert d'Escourt Atkinson explicitly states that he is no longer considering just Compton scattering. He is responding to Shelton's "not prepared to guess in detail" about the interaction by showing that any interaction with just changes in the forward velocity of the particle violates the conservation of momentum.

Since you seem incapable of reading or comprehending this letter:
The red shift in the spectra of distant galaxies Atkinson, Robert d'Escourt 1954

Mr. Shelton states that in discussing (p. 159) his theory in terms of the Compton effect, and collisions by photons, I was making assumptions about the nature of radiation; but I merely used the language which he himself has used in his own presentation (p. 84). He now categorically repudiates the Compton effect, and collisions with photons, in this connection. This opens up several new difficulties, but does not affect my original objection, namely that his basic assumption (which I quoted exactly) violates the principle of the conservation of momentum. ...

Atkinson states that he is going to look at the initial and final states of the particle and photon without considering what the interaction is.
Atkinson then looks at the initial and final states of the particle and photon with any interaction at all introducing change in energy due to a longitudinal velocity change. He applies the conservation of energy. He applies the conservation of momentum. The result is that the conservation of momentum is violated.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The only reason "blurring" is an "issue" is due to the fact it was used by Ned Wright as a "reason" that all types of inelastic scattering methods can be eliminated. He "specified" Compton scattering actually, and cited Zwicky who was building his *own* theory about redshift from a paper written in 1929. Others in this thread (and Ned to an extent) attempt to apply it to *all* forms of scattering, and claimed that no blurring took place.

It was Zwicky who "specified" Compton scattering actually in 1929 (this he excluded this from his own theory): Tired light

For example, Zwicky considered whether an integrated Compton Effect could account for the scale normalization of the above model:

... light coming from distant nebulae would undergo a shift to the red by Compton effect on those free electrons [in interstellar spaces] [...] But then the light scattered in all directions would make the interstellar space intolerably opaque which disposes of the above explanation. [...] it is evident that any explanation based on a scattering process like the Compton effect or the Raman effect, etc., will be in a hopeless position regarding the good definition of the images.[6]
​

(my emphasis added)

Ned Wright give the example of Compton scattering:
Ask an astronomer who has looked at thousands of these images, e.g. Ned Wright: Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work.

As we can observe however, blurring can be observed in 2012, even if it wasn't as obvious in 1929.

You are wrong if only bacuase an astronomer who has looked at thousands of these images says that "There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed."

Insisting that you are right with the 'evidence' that you have supplied so far, i.e. images of extremely high z galaxies that are pixelated would make you look very ignorant.
Please say that this is not right, Michael !

None of them because they are pixelatted.
What you need, Michael, are images that are not at the extreme limits of what can be detected and so extend over more than a few pixels.
Find some close by galaxies, e.g. ~100 million light years.
Fine some distant galaxies, e.g. ~1000 million light years.
Compare them.

 

[Michael]

Oh...my. OK. You're arguing with yourself now. On one hand, you're claiming that a scattering angle of zero is possible with a change in frequency (with some "unknown" scattering process that is cosmologically possible), such that scattering angles (and therefore blurring) isn't a problem because the images will be sharp and redshift could still occur - and on the other hand you're arguing that in fact the images "are" blurred, so the scattering angles must be non-zero. Which is it?

Ned made *two* "assumptions" in his *unpublished* website criticism of tired light/plasma redshift theory that I questioned. He *assumed* that there is no form of scattering that allows the photon to pass on it's momentum in a *forward* direction, and I used the billiard ball analogy to explain my doubt of his claims as it relates to *all* types of photon/particle interactions possible in *all* kinds of inelastic scattering processes.

The second *assumption/claim* that Ned made is that "no blurring" occurs in more redshifted objects. Again, I *doubt* that is actually true due to the fact that *all* forms of inelastic scattering processes must take place in space as they occur in the lab.

I took exception to *both* assumptions, though I would grudgingly agree that it applies to the mathematical expressions related to *one* type of scattering, specifically *Compton* scattering. Whether that formula is even 100 percent accurate in *all* polarized and coherent light scenarios isn't even clear to me at this point, but in terms of the math, Compton redshift *seems* to be ruled out as a major contributor to the total redshift.

You're also arguing against the notion that the redshift z is constant for all frequencies,

I did? Where?

and that you think in fact the cosmological redshift is wavelength dependent.

I do? I admit that I tend to question a *lot* of the "dogma" of present cosmology theory, particularly after the advent of "dark energy" as a metaphysical gap filler of truly *epic* proportions, but I don't recall making that claim.

Since space isn't actually a "vacuum" and it's "dusty" and has different densities in various places, it's not nearly as 'perfect' in the way it scatters and redshifts light as the mainstream seems to think or claim in their *simplified* statements. Some wavelengths are eventually absorbed/scattered entirely after a certain distance. That is consistent with plasma redshift theory.

I did recall suggesting that various wavelengths might propagate at various speeds, but I don't recall claiming that the *amount* of redshift is wavelength dependent. In fact that is one of the variables related to inelastic scattering that I'm struggling with.

You're arguing these three points without any evidence or math to back it up, and deriding the Compton equation as "brainwashing".

That's not true. I provided you with math from Brynjolfsson, Ashmore, Holushko and others. You apparently don't like the implications of those mathematical expressions of redshift. That doesn't mean I didn't provide you with the math!

The only thing I'm calling "brainwashing" is the fact you're applying criticisms that apply to *one* type of scattering, specifically Compton scattering to *all* forms of inelastic scattering. How can you be so *certain*, that it's even applicable to *every* other form of inelastic scattering? How much time have you put into researching various inelastic scattering methods?

Oh dear. Even Lyndon Ashmore writes in his "paper" on "new tired light" - "For a particular galaxy, the redshift, z is a constant for all wavelengths." Something that he at least got right......

Unless you can quote me where I said otherwise, I think you simply misunderstood me. It's entirely possible I said something I didn't mean to say of course. It wouldn't be the first time.

 

[Michael]

FYI, I "should be" caught up with my work by late this afternoon, or early tomorrow and then I will spend more time on researching the various lab results of different types of inelastic scattering methods. I am trying to wrap up everything before Christmas, but then I should have some real free time.

 

[Michael]

This should make a few people question the talking points they are regurgitating.

docs.google.com/open?id=0B_6N6Q10PWKhVkdLTlZUYjd3VjQ

Thanks for the link. I can't say I'm personally familiar with Santilli's work, and I probably won't get the chance for a couple of days yet, but I appreciate the link. From your Googledocs page, it looks worth checking into.

I'm curious if David has read his work yet?

 

[Michael]

And there is no blurring:

HubbleSite - Wallpaper: Spiral Galaxy NGC 3370

That galaxy is 100 million light years away, and is sharp as galaxies just 10 million light years away.

Pffft! How about something *distant*, something measured in *billions* (plural) of light years of distance?

That's a big problem for PC then, since redshift is not wavelength dependent.

Absorption certainly *is* wavelength dependent! I didn't claim *redshift* was wavelength dependent. That must be where David got that idea.

The loss of light is due to large densities of neutral hydrogen in the early universe.

Or it's just due to large densities of neutral hydrogen *throughout* the universe. The greater the distance, the greater the loss of light. Some wavelengths pay a greater price than others in terms of their loss due to the plasma.

Once the universe expanded and matter gathered in galaxies this was not a problem, as shown by the very crisp images of galaxies, one of which is linked above.

Your link above is to a galaxy measured in *millions*, not *billions* of light years. Pick one at the *highest* redshifts we can observe and show me a "crisp" image!

If PC is true, then we should see these types of wavelength dependent losses of light, but we don't.

Except you just admitted that we *do* see greater loss of some wavelengths. You also attributed it to the *medium* itself!

There is no blurring in galaxies where we have the ability to measure blurriness.

So you say, but you've yet to demonstrate that in a real high redshift image.

We don't see any differences between galaxies 10 million light years away or 100 million light years away,

Nor would I expect you to see great differences at such distances. Try again at *billions* of light years.

We also don't see double bands,

No, we see double "blotches" at the largest redshifts. Where did that argument come from again? Published? Not published?

so if PC is true then all of the light is being scattered before it gets to Earth, and this is true for even the closest galaxies.

False. You apparently haven't read or responded to Brynjolfsson's work, or Ashmore's work, or anyone else. All you've done thus far is make "claims" about a theory you don't apparently even understand.

 

[Loudmouth]

Pffft! How about something *distant*, something measured in *billions* (plural) of light years of distance?

Find one for us that is not pixelated to death, and we will discuss. According to you, it should be massively blurred, right?

Absorption certainly *is* wavelength dependent! I didn't claim *redshift* was wavelength dependent. That must be where David got that idea.

You can lead a horse to water . . .

Plasma redshift is due to absorption and emission. If not all wavlengths are equally absorbed then the redshift will be wavelength dependent. What we observe is a cosmic redshift that is wavelength independent.

Or it's just due to large densities of neutral hydrogen *throughout* the universe. The greater the distance, the greater the loss of light. Some wavelengths pay a greater price than others in terms of their loss due to the plasma.

That is not what we see with redshift. Therefore, PC is refuted.

Your link above is to a galaxy measured in *millions*, not *billions* of light years. Pick one at the *highest* redshifts we can observe and show me a "crisp" image!

I can show you no change in crisp images over two orders of magnitude. Therefore, there is no plasma causing blurriness because the light is not being redshifted by plasma.

Except you just admitted that we *do* see greater loss of some wavelengths. You also attributed it to the *medium* itself!

Yes, in the most distant objects. This is not the case for less distant objects that are nevertheless redshifted. Therefore, plasma can not be the cause of these redshifts.

Nor would I expect you to see great differences at such distances. Try again at *billions* of light years.

Galaxies 100 million light years away are redshifted, therefore they should be blurred if PC is true. However, galaxies orders of magnitude closer than 100 million light years are as crisp as galaxies 100 million light years away. PC is refuted.

No, we see double "blotches" at the largest redshifts. Where did that argument come from again? Published? Not published?

I didn't say double blotches. I said double bands in spectra which would occur if only half of the photons interacted with plasma. This has to occur at some distance, so why don't we see it? Or is the plasma so dense that even the closest objects with redshift have 100% interaction with the plasma? If so, we are talking about a plasma so think that the universe should be opaque at less than 10 billion light years.

False. You apparently haven't read or responded to Brynjolfsson's work, or Ashmore's work, or anyone else. All you've done thus far is make "claims" about a theory you don't apparently even understand.

Then cite their claims and show how it gets past these problems. Name dropping and hand waving is not a very convincing argument.

 

[Elendur]

This will be a purely mathematical model where everything but the time, the star, the lenses and the photons will be ignored.
I reserve the right to correct myself if I forget to explicitly state assumptions.

Does the sun emit a finite amount of photons at one specific moment?
I'm going to continue as if the answer is yes.

Given time, those photons will gain distance from each other, correct?
I'm going to continue as if the answer is yes.

Explanation why:
The photons are emitted the same moment, thus unable to be in front or behind each other.
The photons are unable to change path due to the models limitations.
I assume the photons won't be able to occupy the same position as each other.
Thus the photon trajectories are nonparallel.

After a certain time the photons will have traveled across a certain distance from the star.
The distance between the observed photons will not exceed the diameter of an observing lens (to define the lens diameter).
This observing lenses will be spread out over several distances, thus also different times in order to observe the photons.

Will we observe a blurring, i.e. an increased distance between the photons, as we increase the distance between the lenses and the star?
Will we observe less intense images as we increase the distance between the lenses and the star?

 

[Michael]

Find one for us that is not pixelated to death, and we will discuss. According to you, it should be massively blurred, right?

Burden shift much? You and Ned claimed they are not blurred. It's up to you to demonstrate it. No, it shouldn't be "massively" blurred, it should just be "blurred" and less clear than your first two images. You tend to interject a lot of your own personal propaganda into the conversation, in this case "massively" so.

You can lead a horse to water . . .

You can lead them to a cliff too.

Plasma redshift is due to absorption and emission.

What absorption/emission process takes place in Brilluioun scattering?

That is not what we see with redshift. Therefore, PC is refuted.

You don't seem to understand what we "should" see in PC theory very well. In fact you're either going out of your way to *misrepresent* it, or you certainly come across that way.

I can show you no change in crisp images over two orders of magnitude.

You haven't done that yet! You did 1 OOM comparison and even then you couldn't pick out individual small stars in *either* galaxy!

Therefore, there is no plasma causing blurriness because the light is not being redshifted by plasma.

There is blurring at high redshift and there is blurring that is caused by all forms of inelastic scattering in space.

Yes, in the most distant objects. This is not the case for less distant objects that are nevertheless redshifted. Therefore, plasma can not be the cause of these redshifts.

False. Loss of light occurs over distance. After a long enough distance, some wavelengths are lost. That is observed, therefore plasma *is* the cause of these redshifts.

Galaxies 100 million light years away are redshifted, therefore they should be blurred if PC is true.

No, that isn't nearly far enough to "blur" the object sufficiently to "see" the difference with your eyeball since you can't pickout single *small* stars in *either* galaxy.

However, galaxies orders of magnitude closer than 100 million light years are as crisp as galaxies 100 million light years away. PC is refuted.

False. You've not even provided any logical or mathematical way to define "crisp" or "blurred" in either of the two images you cited! Worse yet, you can't cite a *high redshift* galaxy that isn't 'blurred' to the point of absurdity.

I didn't say double blotches. I said double bands in spectra which would occur if only half of the photons interacted with plasma.

All of the photons interact with plasma, and various temperature and magnetic field variations as well! None of them get through "unscathed".

Then cite their claims and show how it gets past these problems. Name dropping and hand waving is not a very convincing argument.

I've cited their papers for you and you've yet to pick out any errors in any of them.