Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[Michael]

He changed his views in the light of new evidence.

Oh, you're abandoning a non zero constant like Einstein did?

FYI, I've changed my mind in light of new evidence since 1929 as well.

That's a quick change from "I don't know" to "prove me wrong".

Pot's and kettles. You can't even tell me how to falsify your metaphysical monstrosity, particularly since the CDM claim already bit the dust in all the experiments run to date at the LHC.

We agree, your stuff is pure speculation.

Now if I could only get you to agree to the same thing about your beliefs, it might develop into an interesting conversation.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not sure I'm prepared to create a completely new category for Chen's work since it's essentially an AC Stark effect as best as I can tell. Even still, there are at *least* 6 empirical ways for photons to lose momentum in plasma:

Brillouin scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Raman scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Compton scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Stark effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Zeeman effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wolf effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So which one of them will work with lights from ordinary stars, and which will not scatter light?

The only author that is cited by Ned Wright's tired light page on the topic of "blurring" is Zwicky. In the paper cited by Wright, Zwicky did *not* provide any mathematical description of "blurring" nor did he provide any mathematical calculations to demonstrate blurring (or lack thereof) in any distant object.

Why would you need mathematical formulas for the obvious? A mechanism that scatters photons will either create an opaque barrier to light or blur the image. Take your pick.

 

[Michael]

So which one of them will work with lights from ordinary stars, and which will not scatter light?

I believe that all the but the Wolf effect would work with ordinary stars. All of them will scatter light which is why the universe is much brighter than mainstream theory predicted.
Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | STFC

Why would you need mathematical formulas for the obvious?

I need the math because this is "physics" not politics.

A mechanism that scatters photons will either create an opaque barrier to light or blur the image. Take your pick.

It won't necessarily do either. You're still insisting on starting with an oversimplification fallacy. Only light that is deflected a *tiny* amount, very *close* to the Earth would result in blurring. Holushko's work demonstrates the plasma does scatter photons, but the universe is not 'opaque'. Both claims, "the images are not blurred" claim, and the scattering causes blurriness claim, comes from a *pure handwave* and an eyeballed claim, that are utterly devoid of any mathematical support. The all come from a guy in 1929, based on what he could observe in 1929 technology! It's not like Zwicky was looking at Hubble images for crying out loud.

Apparently everything that the mainstream thinks that they 'know'' about tired light theory comes from one guys handwavy and mostly "eyeballed' claims from 1929 images. Holy cow!

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this is 2012, not 1929. Tired light theory has *not* been stuck in 1929, even if Ned Wright and the rest of the mainstream are woefully ignorant of the scientific progress in plasma physics that's taken place over the past 80+ years.

Did you find any errors in Holushko's C# code or his paper?

 

[Loudmouth]

"This means that the larger the redshift produced by the compton effect resulting from many interactions, the larger would be the average devaiation from teh straight line connecting the source to the Earth. Any redshift produced by the Compton effect would produce a blurring in the image of the galaxy. However, this is not usually observed."
"The Compton Effect as an Explanation for the Cosmological Redshift", Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 36, NO. 3/SEP, P. 279, 1995.
Neves, M. C. D.; Assis, A. K. T.
It's not as if Ned Wright is the only one saying this.

 

[Michael]

"This means that the larger the redshift produced by the compton effect resulting from many interactions,.....

Even Zwicky noted that collisions with *high velocity/high temperature* electrons 'could' require far fewer interactions to achieve the same redshift. It just so happens that we just found a ton of high temperature plasma surrounding our galaxy (and every galaxy), all radiating at over a million to 2.5 million degrees!

http://www.space.com/17734-milky-way-galaxy-giant-gas-halo.html

the larger would be the average devaiation from teh straight line connecting the source to the Earth. Any redshift produced by the Compton effect would produce a blurring in the image of the galaxy. However, this is not usually observed."
"The Compton Effect as an Explanation for the Cosmological Redshift", Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 36, NO. 3/SEP, P. 279, 1995.
Neves, M. C. D.; Assis, A. K. T.
It's not as if Ned Wright is the only one saying this.

They all seem to be parroting the original claim from Zwicky or from Ned Wright's unpublished page that is based upon Zwicky's claims. None of them I've seen include any math to backup that statement. Does that paper include any math, and what did he cite as a reverence when claiming it would 'blur' the image?

 

[Loudmouth]

I believe that all the but the Wolf effect would work with ordinary stars. All of them will scatter light which is why the universe is much brighter than mainstream theory predicted.

But a lack of blurred images.

I need the math because this is "physics" not politics.

The math is found here:

Compton scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It won't necessarily do either. You're still insisting on starting with an oversimplification fallacy. Only light that is deflected a *tiny* amount, very *close* to the Earth would result in blurring.

And where is your math?

Holushko's work demonstrates the plasma does scatter photons,

Where?

Both claims, "the images are not blurred" claim, and the scattering causes blurriness claim, comes from a *pure handwave* and an eyeballed claim, that are utterly devoid of any mathematical support.

The peer reviewed literature states otherwise.

Did you find any errors in Holushko's C# code or his paper?

Other than the fact that he uses a luminferous aether?

 

[Loudmouth]

Even Zwicky noted that collisions with *high velocity/high temperature* electrons 'could' require far fewer interactions to achieve the same redshift. It just so happens that we just found a ton of high temperature plasma surrounding our galaxy (and every galaxy), all radiating at over a million to 2.5 million degrees!

It also scatters the light resulting in a blurred image.

That all seem to be parroting the original claim from Zwicky or from Ned Wright's unpublished page that is based upon Zwicky's claims. None of them I've seen include any math to backup that statement. Does that paper include any math, and what did he cite as a reverence when claiming it would 'blur' the image?

So no matter how many plasma physicists tell you that a plasma redshift will blur an image IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS you will just assume they are parroting someone else and ignore them. Go figure.

 

[Michael]

It also scatters the light resulting in a blurred image.

Even assuming that's true, the images are not without some amount of blurring. We can't even pick out individual stars in most high redshift galaxies so how would you even know if some of the photons are out of place?

So no matter how many plasma physicists tell you that a plasma redshift will blur an image IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS you will just assume they are parroting someone else and ignore them. Go figure.

No. Actually, since you posted the reference, I already used Google, found and read that paper. I'll bet you haven't.

The basic problem here is obvious. The photon redshift phenomenon isn't an 'either/or' proposition to begin with. It's a cumulative effect form *all* the various forms of plasma redshift, not just one. The claim that there is "no blurring" is false, particularly on the most redshifted objects. It's a two-fer fallacy all in one.

The other problem with your logic is even if *some* of the redshift is not related to Compton redshift, *some* of it must be related to Compton redshift, otherwise the laws of physics in space would necessarily need to be different than they are in the lab. In real labs the presence of real plasma will result in real Compton redshift.

 

[Michael]

But a lack of blurred images.

What lack of blurred images?

And where is your math?

http://www.marmet.org/cosmology/redshift/mechanisms.pdf

Here's 54 of them for you, *plus* Lambda-CDM.

The peer reviewed literature states otherwise.

Based on what?

Other than the fact that he uses a luminferous aether?

No he doesn't. Holushko specifically uses a *generic* tired light model that is *inclusive* of Compton redshift, which he mentions by name, as well as other types of redshift, even theoretic forms of redshift, one of which Holuhsko describes in his paper. It just happened to be an aether theory. The EM field can in fact be envisioned as a bit like a aether, with variations in density. That's more or less the whole basis behind Brillouin scattering in fact:

Brillouin scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Loudmouth]

Even assuming that's true, the images are not without some amount of blurring.

Nowhere close the blurring that PC needs.

No. Actually, since you posted the reference, I already used Google, found and read that paper. I'll bet you haven't.

I bet I have, because I did. The paper outlines two ways in which the evidence falsifies plasma cosmology. Blurred images is just one.

By the way, did you calculate the redshift for a photon that does not change it's path? From my simple calculations, there is no redshift if this occurs. You have to have scattering in order to get a redshift, and the more redshift you need the greater it is scattered.

The basic problem here is obvious. The photon redshift phenomenon isn't an 'either/or' proposition to begin with. It's a cumulative effect form *all* the various forms of plasma redshift, not just one.

Stark scattering is out because it only broadens bands, not redshift them.

Wolf effect is out because only a few star types would even produce the effect (e.g. quasars).

Chen's paper is out because the plasma he uses is not found in space.

The claim that there is "no blurring" is false, particularly on the most redshifted objects. It's a two-fer fallacy all in one.

The blurring is way less than it should be if PC is correct. That is what the peer reviewed journals state.

Holushko tries to get around this problem by inventing a luminferous ether that lacks the properties of plasmas. He just ignores the scattering. His invented ether differs in density and therefore changes the speed of light from place to place without absorbing and re-emitting light. Sorry, but this ether doesn't exist.

The other problem with your logic is even if *some* of the redshift is not related to Compton redshift, *some* of it must be related to Compton redshift, otherwise the laws of physics in space would necessarily need to be different than they are in the lab. In real labs the presence of real plasma will result in real Compton redshift.

In real labs the light is scattered.

 

[Loudmouth]

What lack of blurred images?

Already explained.

http://www.marmet.org/cosmology/redshift/mechanisms.pdf

Where in that article is the math you are speaking of?

Based on what?

Peer reviewed articles. You have heard of them, haven't you? I know you prefer non-peer reviewed articles, but the scientific community does have a preference for peer review.

No he doesn't. Holushko specifically uses a *generic* tired light model that is *inclusive* of Compton redshift, which he mentions by name, as well as other types of redshift, even theoretic forms of redshift, one of which Holuhsko describes in his paper. It just happened to be an aether theory. The EM field can in fact be envisioned as a bit like a aether, with variations in density. That's more or less the whole basis behind Brillouin scattering in fact:

EM field? Plasma is not an EM field. Plasma is charged particles. Do you even know what plasma is?

"Karim Khaidarov suggested redshift mechanism based on the classical idea of interstellar space filled with universally present media – aether that is the carrier of electromagnetic waves (Read more…)."

That is the model Holushko is using. That is NOT A PLASMA. He uses aether because it does not have the problems that plasma has, such as scattering. He isn't modelling plasma. He is using aether BY HIS OWN ADMISSION.

Brillouin scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/quote]

 

[Michael]

Nowhere close the blurring that PC needs.

PC doesn't need anymore blurring than there is.

I bet I have, because I did. The paper outlines two ways in which the evidence falsifies plasma cosmology. Blurred images is just one.

Um, get a grip. I handed you *6* forms of redshift. I've seen you present papers on exactly *one* method that oversimplified the issue to start with! You're dreaming if you think you can falsify PC theory with one paper on Compton scattering. What a ridiculous statement.

By the way, did you calculate the redshift for a photon that does not change it's path? From my simple calculations, there is no redshift if this occurs. You have to have scattering in order to get a redshift, and the more redshift you need the greater it is scattered.

Which calculation did you personally perform or present that addressed Brillouin scattering again?

Brillouin scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stark scattering is out because it only broadens bands, not redshift them.

Handwave much?

Wolf effect is out because only a few star types would even produce the effect (e.g. quasars).

I'd probably let you get away with that one.

Chen's paper is out because the plasma he uses is not found in space.

Sure thing Captain handwave.

The blurring is way less than it should be if PC is correct. That is what the peer reviewed journals state.

No, they don't. You're completely misrepresented the papers you've presented which *only* deal with a single form of plasma redshift, and fail to make *any* allowance for even that! You've shown me *no* published literature on the rest of the 5 things on my list, not one. Where do get off claiming anything about PC theory as a whole based *only* on a couple of papers on Compton scattering? Get real!

Holushko tries to get around this problem by inventing a luminferous ether that lacks the properties of plasmas.

Brillouin scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even variable density magnetic field act in the way Holushko's paper describes.

He just ignores the scattering.

It results in a loss of light.

His invented ether differs in density and therefore changes the speed of light from place to place without absorbing and re-emitting light. Sorry, but this ether doesn't exist.

Brillouin scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brillouin scattering does exist and it's directly related to the variable magnetic fields! You can't ignore the data only because he *described one theory* related to aether. It's irrelevant since his paper is a *generic* tired light model that is *not* dependent upon the existence of aether.

In real labs the light is scattered.

It also experience signal broadening and photon redshift. Too bad you forgot that part.

 

[Michael]

Already explained.

No, you already handwaved at *one* (and only one) paper on the topic of one of six different *known* forms of plasma redshift, all of which have *some* effect on photons in space, and NONE of which were accounted for in your toy brand of physics. That's why you need all those absurd placeholder terms for human ignorance.

Where in that article is the math you are speaking of?

Which exact math did you want? Did you even notice that there are something like 54 various alternatives to your invisible friends?

Peer reviewed articles. You have heard of them, haven't you?

When can I expect any peer reviewed articles on any of the other five known causes of plasma redshift?

I know you prefer non-peer reviewed articles, but the scientific community does have a preference for peer review.

Not when it comes to dealing with tired light concepts. So far you've shown me *one* paper on *one* type of redshift. That's certainly not enough evidence to ignore the whole concept and the effects of Compton scattering! Even the idea is an "either/or" proposition is nonsense, and that's basically the premise of the paper you handed me.

EM field? Plasma is not an EM field. Plasma is charged particles. Do you even know what plasma is?

PC theory includes *currents* running through space. Have you even studied PC theory at all?

"Karim Khaidarov suggested redshift mechanism based on the classical idea of interstellar space filled with universally present media – aether that is the carrier of electromagnetic waves (Read more…)."

That is the model Holushko is using. That is NOT A PLASMA.

No, that's *not* the model he's using. You're blatantly misrepresenting his work! He's using a *generic* model that is *inclusive* of known *and* theoretical forms of redshift. He specifically *includes* known types of scattering as well.

He uses aether because it does not have the problems that plasma has, such as scattering. He isn't modelling plasma. He is using
aether BY HIS OWN ADMISSION.

Brillouin scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The variable EM fields *act like an aether* in terms of their affect on photons!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Have you learned about Compton scattering yet, Micheal?
Or do you want the high school science hint about why Compton scattering cannot cause cosmological redshift.

So use that better knowledge of physics to answer the question and show that you know more than me !
This is not "reading my mind" .
This is reading about the physics of Compton scattering (which you should already know) and stating what it means for cosmological redshift.

The physics showing the problem is all in Compton scattering.
Micheal: Read Compton scattering.
Can you see another possible problem with using it as a cosmological redshift?

Hint 0: Just think about what we have learned in astronomy about interstellar, intergalactic and intra-cluster mediums since 1929 and you will easily see the issue.
Hint 1: The energy of the electrons versus the energy of the photons means what for Compton scattering?
Hint 2: The issue means that one assumption by Zwicky was incompete (free electrons exist in space and ...) and it also eliminates Compton scattering as cosmological redshift.
Hint 3a: Compton scattering does what to CMB photons?
Hint 3b: The cosmological redshift from Compton scattering does what to the identical photons from galaxies?

P.S. There is a high school science version of Hints 3a and 3b. I hope that I do not have to embarass you by adding it as hint 4.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Hint 1: No external references for "photons always have zero kinetic energy"

You really want a reference for classical kinetic energy?
I hate to make you look that ignorant but if you demand it: classical kinetic energy
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy

Hint 2: No external references for "Electrical discharges are impossible in plasma"

You have never heard of Anthony Peratt? Or are you sticking with lying about (quote mining) his definition?
It is idiotic to expect references for "Electrical discharges are impossible in plasma" because this is textbook physics - you need a dielectric medium to breakdown for electrical discharges to happen and plasma conducts. That is why Peratt is not ignorant enough to have any examples of electrical discharges in cosmic plasma.
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR is not a discharge and is obsolete!

Hint 3: Only one of us has ever read a plasma physics textbook.

The only bit of "plasma phsyics" that we have been talking about is your quote mining of Anthony Peratt.
We both have the full text of that section.
One of us is still incapable of understanding the difference between a title and a definition after almost 2 years!
One of us has showed that they are incapable of understanding the physics about electrical discharges that is stated in Anthony Peratt's plasma physics textbook (see above) !
One of us is still being deafening in their silence about
11th January 2011: Do you know the difference between a title and a definition?
Sill unable to know the difference!
5th February 2011: Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning?
7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges?
26th September 2011: Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any textbook?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Not *once* did Zwicky make any calculations related to "blurring". His sole reasoning for claiming that photon redshift could not be related to Compton scattering comes from this single paragraph in his paper:

No calculation was needed. It was an observation by an experienced astronomer who had looked at thousands of images of galaxies.

1. Take a picture of a nearbyy galaxy.
2. Take a picture of a distant galaxy.
3. Note that the pictures are equally sharp (no blurring of distant objects)

He and every other astronomer in the world "eyeballed" that in 1939.
Every astronomer who has ever lived since 1939 has also "eyeballed" that.
As far as I know they are still "eyeballing" the fact that no one can see any difference in sharpness in images between near galaxies and distant (z up to 10!) galaxies.
That is tens of thousands of experienced astronomers versus a few Internet cranks and maybe a copule of actual astronomers (cannot remember any offhand but they may be out there!)

This may be another bit of ignorance that you have about the scientific method, Michael:

It is up to the author(s) of a scientific theory like tired light to back up their theory.
If someone points out a potential (even eyeballed) problem then the author(s) to resolve the problem. Zwicky, Ned Wright and other astronomers pointed out the problem. No tired light author has even tried to show that they are wrong about the blurring.
​

And maybe another bit of ignorance that you have about the scientific method, Michael:

If there are multiple problems with a theory and they are not solved by the theory then that theory is wrong.
Scattering obviously invalidated tried light theories but that is the first of many problems that it has as you know .
​

 

[RealityCheck01]

Oh, and I forgot about this one:

Brillouin scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You also forgot about

• Bragg diffraction
• Brillouin scattering
• Compton scattering
• Dynamic Light Scattering
• Espresso crema effect
• Kikuchi line
• Light scattering by particles
• Mie theory
• Mott scattering
• Neutron scattering
• Photon diffusion
• Powder diffraction
• Raman scattering
• Rayleigh scattering
• Rutherford scattering
• Small-angle scattering
• Tyndall effect
• Thomson scattering
• Wolf effect
• X-ray crystallography

Brillouin scattering is very remotely related to my area of expertise in that Brillouin was a pioneer in solid state physics. The first thing you learn in Physics 101 is the Brillouin zone.

So lets look up Brillouin scattering tired light and see what we get ....
SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS): No results
arXiv: One slightly dubious conference. "Astrophysics in 2005" which just mentions hs name.
Google Scholar: 65 results - nothing that seems about cosmology.

That seems reasonable since the criteria for Brillouin scattering looks unlikely on cosmnological scales. You would have to somehow have a constant temperature change radiating out from the Earth or something similar!

Basically Brillouin scattering needs "periodic" variation in the plasma which need not be exact as in a classical diffraction grating. So when you go lookiing for Brillouin scattering in plasma you get papers like Brillouin scattering and the CMB

 

[RealityCheck01]

Brillouin scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Raman scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Compton scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Stark effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Zeeman effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wolf effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You need to learn what these things are rather than just listing thinsgs that scatter in labatory plasma.
Michael's four noncosmological redshifts that show up in the lab
This rules out:

• Compton scattering.
• Wolf effect
• Stark effect
• One experiment by Chen et. al. that demonstrates a redshift in plasmas that do not exist in space.

The is no scientific literature to be found on Brillouin scattering and cosmological redshift. I cannot find any Internet physics cranks supporting this!
I am sure though that Michael can find a few !

Raman scattering is just a version of Compton scattering and ruled out for the same reason as any tired light theory.

Zeeman effect
Wow, Michael. You really do not try to read about science !
This is the magnetic version of the Stark effect. Neither effect causes redshift alone. Both effects split spectral lines into red and blue shifted lines, i.e. they broaden spectral lines.

Something else you and I missed:

Also similarly to the Stark effect, transitions between different components have, in general, different intensities, with some being entirely forbidden (in the dipole approximation), as governed by the selection rules.

AFAIK: Cosmological redshift affects every spectral line equally. It does not miss redshifting any spectral lines.

 

[Michael]

You really want a reference for classical kinetic energy?
I hate to make you look that ignorant but if you demand it: classical kinetic energy
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy

As usual (and just as before) the first link you cited does not even list the term 'photon', nor the kinetic energy of photon. Your second link is to yourself yet *again*, it is not a link to an external reference. You're going in circles (within yourself) and refusing to provide an external resource that supports your claims that photons always have zero kinetic energy. I've cited 1/2 dozen authors that claimed you were wrong on that point, and you have refused to retract the claim, or cite an appropriate reference.

You have never heard of Anthony Peratt? Or are you sticking with lying about (quote mining) his definition?'

Peratt was *my* reference, one that *defines* an electrical discharge *in plasma*! It's not your reference. You have not read his book. You do not understand the term 'electrical discharge *IN* plasma*, as a "fast release of stored EM energy", something a 10 year old could understand. I've even pointed out experiments of the Russians *welding* in space, and you keep ranting on about something you know *nothing* about. When might I hope to see you read a book on the topic of plasma physics RC? How many years have you been a PC hater anyway?

It is idiotic to expect references for "Electrical discharges are impossible in plasma" because this is textbook physics - you need a dielectric medium to breakdown for electrical discharges to happen and plasma conducts.

You are again going in circles inside your own self, refusing to provide *your own* references that claim that "electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. Dungey made no such requirement when claiming that electrical discharges occurred in "reconnection" events. The Russians made exactly the opposite claims. The Japanese claimed exactly the opposite of what the IT guy claimed. Peratt and Bruce claim exactly the opposite of the IT guy. The IT guy never cites a reference outside of himself to support his claims.

That is why Peratt is not ignorant enough to have any examples of electrical discharges in cosmic plasma.

Speaking of 'ignorance', when *exactly* can I expect you to actually *read* Peratt's book?

The only one "quote mining" is you. I've read the book. I understand the term 'electrical discharges *in* plasma'. Apparently you do not.

When can I expect you to cite a reference *outside* of yourself to support your claims?

One of us is still incapable of understanding the difference between a title and a definition after almost 2 years!

The only one who doesn't understand his meaning is the IT guy that's never read his book RC. Creationist typically do not read, nor do they understand a book on the topic of evolutionary theory. In this case, you're like the creationist claiming the the title in a textbook on Evolutionary theory claims that evolutionary theory is "impossible". You refuse to read the book in question. You refuse to cite a reference outside of yourself to support your claims. Most creationists are better at defending themselves than you are. You're impossible to deal with because you're A) relentless beyond reason, B) driven by anger, and hatred, C) have no knowledge of the topic, and D) have no desire to educate on the topic in *years*!

What's the point of trying to have a discussion with any hater on any topic that behaves as you do as it relates to plasma physics, basic QM and photon physics, and PC theory?

One of us has showed that they are incapable of understanding the physics about electrical discharges that is stated in Anthony Peratt's plasma physics textbook (see above) !

Yes, RC, you're demonstrated that for *years*. When can I expect you to actually *read* the book?

There's really no point in repeating the same nonsense here RC. You aren't "making points" by dodging the issues, and repeating the same hater behaviors. All you're demonstrating is that you're not interested in an honest scientific discussion, you're just talking to hear yourself talk.

 

[Michael]

You also forgot about

Absolutely amazing! You cite all these scattering effects, yet you ignore that fact that for your dark energy entity to exist, not *one* of them or any combination of them can have *any* significant effect on photon redshift.

Brillouin scattering is very remotely related to my area of expertise in that Brillouin was a pioneer in solid state physics. The first thing you learn in Physics 101 is the Brillouin zone.

So lets look up Brillouin scattering tired light and see what we get ....
SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS): No results
arXiv: One slightly dubious conference. "Astrophysics in 2005" which just mentions hs name.
Google Scholar: 65 results - nothing that seems about cosmology.

That seems reasonable since the criteria for Brillouin scattering looks unlikely on cosmnological scales. You would have to somehow have a constant temperature change radiating out from the Earth or something similar!

Er, no. You need temperature *variations* in space, like those transitions from the thousand degree temperatures in the plasma near the surface of the photosphere to those *million* degree plasmas around the galaxy. All you need is temperature 'changes' throughout spacetime.

Basically Brillouin scattering needs "periodic" variation in the plasma which need not be exact as in a classical diffraction grating. So when you go lookiing for Brillouin scattering in plasma you get papers like Brillouin scattering and the CMB

Somehow it "scatters" photons, yet by some *miracle of God almighty* the photons never *redshift*? How *exactly* does that work?