Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[Michael]

The astronomer Ned Wright has a good summary: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

Or maybe you are in the mood for a slide show from another astronomer (Tommaso Treu) which compares various theories to the Big Bang: Lecture 16 (PDF) on alternaives to the Big Bang

Apparently every citation in astronomy related to plasma redshift/tired light comes right back to Ned Wright's *unpublished website* that is stuck in 2000&late. Tommaso Treu simply parrots Ned from Ned's unpublished website. Apparently everything astronomers know about tired light theory comes from one individual's unpublished website who's first claim is a pure mathless handwave from a 1929 paper that comes from a guy with an obvious ulterior motive based upon the fact he's selling an alternative redshift model.

 

[Michael]

Logically speaking, what would we expect to see if the universe is expanding that we wouldn't see if it was static?

I misread that question before. I'm sorry. It's late and I'm tired and I was distracted by RC.

The one really "key" prediction of tired light/plasma redshift theory that tends to be unique and different from Lambda-CDM is the prediction that light of various wavelengths travel at different speeds though spacetime.

Pretty much every tired light/plasma redshift theory predicts unique travel times for various wavelengths, whereas Lambda-CDM predicts that all wavelengths of light must travel at exactly the same speed through spacetime. The UC Davis "MAGIC" findings addressed that very prediction. They noticed a four minute time delay between the highest and lowest energy gamma rays from a BLAZAR event. That four minute delay is a valid "prediction" of tired light theory, whereas it's a major falsification of Lambda-CDM. All gamma rays should travel at the same speed through spacetime in Lambda-CDM theory.

Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics' :: UC Davis News & Information

 

[Tiberius]

I misread that question before. I'm sorry. It's late and I'm tired and I was distracted by RC.

The one really "key" prediction of tired light/plasma redshift theory that tends to be unique and different from Lambda-CDM is the prediction that light of various wavelengths travel at different speeds though spacetime.

Pretty much every tired light/plasma redshift theory predicts unique travel times for various wavelengths, whereas Lambda-CDM predicts that all wavelengths of light must travel at exactly the same speed through spacetime. The UC Davis "MAGIC" findings addressed that very prediction. They noticed a four minute time delay between the highest and lowest energy gamma rays from a BLAZAR event. That four minute delay is a valid "prediction" of tired light theory, whereas it's a major falsification of Lambda-CDM. All gamma rays should travel at the same speed through spacetime in Lambda-CDM theory.

Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics' :: UC Davis News & Information

And this is talking about quantum foam. Are you proposing that the fabric of spacetime is what is responsible for redshifting? Because you;ve been saying plasma for a long time now.

And anyway, if we are talking about a 4 minute difference for something half a billion lightyears away, is it really powerful enough to explain why we have redshifted galaxies?

 

[Michael]

And this is talking about quantum foam. Are you proposing that the fabric of spacetime is what is responsible for redshifting? Because you;ve been saying plasma for a long time now.

There's a bit more to it than simply "plasmas". The currents of spacetime are variable, and this makes the magnetic fields variable as well. The best type of scattering effect for this would be:

Brillouin scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keep in mind that RC was kind enough to provide a more extensive list of *all* the various types of particle and EM field interactions we know about thus far.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-97/#post61757312

With all those options to choose from, invisible entities really are the last thing on the list of "likely" causes.

And anyway, if we are talking about a 4 minute difference for something half a billion lightyears away, is it really powerful enough to explain why we have redshifted galaxies?

Sure. If any amount of inelastic scattering/redshift is taking place, then it's pretty much instantly going to kill off dark energy. It would take "more" redshift to get rid of inflation, but as Holushko's paper demonstrates, even inflation is something that eventually gives way to plasma redshift/tired light theory.

Keep in mind that a four minute delay (assuming it confirmed a few times) would in fact falsify Lambda-CDM. It does/would demonstrate that light doesn't all travel at the same speed through spacetime as 'predicted' in Lambda-CDM. If a theory's predictions do not match observation, it's falsified by those very same observations.

That is in fact the "best" falsification mechanism I can think of for both theories. Each one is dependent upon a different outcome at the high end of the gamma ray spectrum in particular.

 

[Michael]

SUSY theory dealt another blow at LHC.

BBC News - Popular physics theory running out of hiding places

Researchers at the LHCb detector have dealt a serious blow to this idea. They have measured the decay between a particle known as a Bs Meson into two particles known as muons. It is the first time that this decay has been observed and the team has calculated that for every billion times that the Bs Meson decays it only decays in this way three times.
If superparticles were to exist the decay would happen far more often. This test is one of the "golden" tests for supersymmetry and it is one that on the face of it this hugely popular theory among physicists has failed.
Prof Val Gibson, leader of the Cambridge LHCb team, said that the new result was "putting our supersymmetry theory colleagues in a spin".
The results are in fact completely in line with what one would expect from the Standard Model. There is already concern that the LHCb's sister detectors might have expected to have detected superparticles by now, yet none have been found so far.

Say bye bye to exotic matter theory and say hello to plasma cosmology theory.


NASA - NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

 

[RealityCheck01]

Apparently every citation ...
...snipped

Apparently you are still ignorant about tired light!
You are definitely ignorant about Tommaso Treu's lecture which only uses a couple of graphics from Ned Wrights web site.
Apparently you have the fantasy that Zwicky knew about Ned Wright's web site in 1929 !
Apparently you have the conspiracy theorist-type paranoia that every
astronomer who believes the evidence for the Big Bang is "selling" it and making up thing about the rtheories like tired light .

 

[Tiberius]

There's a bit more to it than simply "plasmas". The currents of spacetime are variable, and this makes the magnetic fields variable as well. The best type of scattering effect for this would be:

Brillouin scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keep in mind that RC was kind enough to provide a more extensive list of *all* the various types of particle and EM field interactions we know about thus far.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-97/#post61757312

With all those options to choose from, invisible entities really are the last thing on the list of "likely" causes.

Sure. If any amount of inelastic scattering/redshift is taking place, then it's pretty much instantly going to kill off dark energy. It would take "more" redshift to get rid of inflation, but as Holushko's paper demonstrates, even inflation is something that eventually gives way to plasma redshift/tired light theory.

Keep in mind that a four minute delay (assuming it confirmed a few times) would in fact falsify Lambda-CDM. It does/would demonstrate that light doesn't all travel at the same speed through spacetime as 'predicted' in Lambda-CDM. If a theory's predictions do not match observation, it's falsified by those very same observations.

That is in fact the "best" falsification mechanism I can think of for both theories. Each one is dependent upon a different outcome at the high end of the gamma ray spectrum in particular.

So that's your debating technique. Throw technobabble at it until people give up? Oh, and if four minutes in half a billion years is all it can do, I don't see how it can be responsible for redshifts the magnitude we see.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Burden shift much?

I do not have any burden to shift because I have: The invalidity of tired light theories with astronomers that have observed that there no blurring of distant galaxies relative to near galaxies.

The burden is fully on you, Michael
Where are your citations of astronomers observing blurring of distant objects?

However I realize that you will not be able to found the citations or even personal observations because no one has got a Nobel prize for showing the tired light theories are correct!

 

[RealityCheck01]

No, you didn't say a word about "classical" in your original posts:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-41/#post61575350

I admit it - I made a mistake. I thought that you knew enough or were smart enough to deuce the context from my post !

I admit it - I made another mistake. I thought that if I put "kinetic energy" in quotes that you would not think about a photons (relativistic) kinetic energy !
I fixed the mistakes:
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy

You own reference said you gave the *WRONG* answer!

My own reference said

1. I gave the right answer for the classical kinetic energy of a photon (zero).
2. That answer is no good because light heats stuff up. Which is why Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy goes onto relativistic kinetic energy.

You clearly have a comprehension problem with that external reference so read it again:
How can photons have energy and momentum, but no mass?

Physicist: Classically (according to Newton) kinetic energy is given by

and the momentum is given by

, where m is the mass and v is the velocity. But if you plug in the mass and velocity for light you get

. But that’s no good. If light didn’t carry energy, it wouldn’t be able to heat stuff up.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Sure it is.

Into the other thread then, Michael!
Michael is proud of co-authoring paper on an easily debunked theory

 

[RealityCheck01]

The one really "key" prediction of tired light/plasma redshift theory that tends to be unique and different from Lambda-CDM is the prediction that light of various wavelengths travel at different speeds though spacetime.

Tiberius, this statement by Michael is a real problem for whatever he thinks tired light is because the measured cosmological redshift is the same redshift for every spectral line regardless of the wavelength of the light detected. Michael is basically saying that spectral lines in one section of the spectrum (one set of wavelengths) will have a different redshift from another section of the spectrum (another set of wavelengths). This is not what is observed.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics' :: UC Davis News & Information

What do the authors actually say in the actual paper rather than a press release: Variable VHE gamma-ray emission from Markarian 501

We conclude that the time delay of the flare peak emission in different ranges of energy can result from the gradual acceleration of the emitting electrons in the blob.​

...

A somewhat more speculative issue that blazar emission permits to explore concerns non-conventional physics. Energy-dependent arrival times are predicted by several models of Quantum Gravity, which quantify the first-order effects of the violation of Lorentz symmetry. One could, therefore, speculate that the observed time difference is explained by such
models, although source-inherent effects could certainly not be excluded. A more detailed investigation of such interpretations of our data is still going on.​

So we have a cause of the effect from accepted physics and a possible cause from speculative physics.

Guess which one is in the press release!

 

[RealityCheck01]

The currents of spacetime are variable, and this makes the magnetic fields variable as well.

Spacetime has no currents.
A spacetime foam is a random variation of space-time on the Planck scale (1.616199(97)×10−35 metres) and should have no effect on magnetic fields on the scales needed for Brillouin scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Basically spacetime is smooth when you get to "macroscopic" scales, e.g 1×1020 metres.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Say bye bye to exotic matter theory and say hello to plasma cosmology theory.

Say hello to an inability to read what you cite :
Popular physics theory running out of hiding places

The new observation, reported at the Hadron Collider Physics conference in Kyoto and outlined in an as-yet unpublished paper, is not consistent with many of the most likely models of Susy.
...and one set of candidates for this missing dark matter is supersymmetric particles.

My emphasis added.
The first point is this result does not rule out every SUSY model - just many of the most likely ones. Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model seems to be the most ill theory and (yes, Michael!) it has candidates for dark matter particles.

The second point is that there is strong evidence that dark matter exists:
Observational evidence for dark matter
Thus not detecting some candidates just means that it is made of other candidates.
A small component (<8% the last time I checked) could be MACHOs. But there is good evidence that dark matter is nonbaryonic.



The third point is that there are non-SUSY, WIMP candidates

• Majorana fermion
• Sterile neutrino
• axions

NASA - NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

Wow - say hello to ignorance about what dark matter is! It is .... dark !
That result is evidence for some of the ~2% of visible matter that we are missing.

 

[Michael]

Say hello to an inability to read what you cite :

Considering your stance on photon kinetic energy, and Peratt's definition, that's *laughable*.

Popular physics theory running out of hiding places

My emphasis added.
The first point is this result does not rule out every SUSY model - just many of the most likely ones.

Right. The ever shrinking gaps are leaving no room for your invisible friends RC. The most 'popular' versions have all been falsified now, and the only thing left is what's left in the bottom of the barrel. Your entire argument is a argument from ignorance and an affirming the consequent fallacy. "We can't locate all the mass, therefore exotic mass did it".

Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model seems to be the most ill theory and (yes, Michael!) it has candidates for dark matter particles.

SUSY theory is on life support RC. It's dark matter candidates failed to show up at the LHC, and the ever shrinking exotic matter of the gaps argument is looking tattered and torn.

The second point is that there is strong evidence that dark matter exists:

As I keep explaining to you, and you keep ignoring, all you have any evidence for is 'missing mass'. You have no evidence whatsoever that any of that missing mass is found in your ever shrinking exotic matter of the gaps argument.

The third point is that there are non-SUSY, WIMP candidates

• Majorana fermion
• Sterile neutrino
• axions

They haven't shown up in the lab either.

Wow - say hello to ignorance about what dark matter is! It is .... dark !

It's just "dark" because our technologies are still very limited. It's not "dark" because it's "exotic".

That result is evidence for some of the ~2% of visible matter that we are missing.

You aren't missing any more baryonic mass. That's all been found this year. You still haven't updated your models either to incorporate any of the findings from the past decade! No mention or changes due to the fact the universe is twice as bright, or more populated with stars than we imagined. The whole mainstream argument is based on the premise: "We can't find it, therefore exotic stuff did it".

 

[Michael]

Spacetime has no currents.

Thus speaks Mr. "I know everything about space plasmas without picking up a book on the topic." I suppose you'll have to cite yourself from here forward because I *know* I'll never see an external reference to support that false claim.

A spacetime foam is a random variation of space-time on the Planck scale (1.616199(97)×10&#8722;35 metres) and should have no effect on magnetic fields on the scales needed for Brillouin scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Basically spacetime is smooth when you get to "macroscopic" scales, e.g 1×1020 metres.

You wouldn't know anything about it since you still seem to think that photons have no kinetic energy, and you're just making up claims and statements to suit yourself.

 

[Michael]

What do the authors actually say in the actual paper rather than a press release: Variable VHE gamma-ray emission from Markarian 501

So we have a cause of the effect from accepted physics and a possible cause from speculative physics.

Guess which one is in the press release!

There isn't any known mechanism in blazar theory that allows for those higher energy wavelengths to be delayed at the source. In terms of what predictions set these two theories apart, the delay time of high energy photons is the "biggie". It's the one area of blatant disagreement between the two theories.

 

[Michael]

Tiberius, this statement by Michael is a real problem for whatever he thinks tired light is because the measured cosmological redshift is the same redshift for every spectral line regardless of the wavelength of the light detected. Michael is basically saying that spectral lines in one section of the spectrum (one set of wavelengths) will have a different redshift from another section of the spectrum (another set of wavelengths). This is not what is observed.

That is *not* what I'm saying, RC is simply sticking words in my mouth like he sticks words in Dungey's mouth, and in Peratt's mouth. Yawn.

 

[Michael]

Into the other thread then, Michael!
Michael is proud of co-authoring paper on an easily debunked theory

You personally are incapable of 'debunking' anything since you have no knowledge of plasma physics (by choice). Quick hijacking this thread!

 

[Michael]

So we have a cause of the effect from accepted physics and a possible cause from speculative physics.

The 'accepted physics' from the lab is that signal broadening and plasma redshift occur in nature. Only in speculative creation mythologies do do you find speculative physics without sources or control mechanisms.

Guess which one is in the press release!

Guess which one shows up in the lab in a myriad of ways?