More observations that defy Big Bang theory predictions

[Smithi]

FYI, it's worth watching Lerner's video presentation of a side by side comparison of a static universe model vs. an expansion model. Not only does the expansion model have to make a whole host of assumptions about the evolution of galaxies, those predictions don't even match the observations:

Even worse however, more recent higher redshift observations (see link on the OP) show that galaxies in the very distance universe are *much much larger* than the expansion model predicts, demonstrating conclusively that those evolutionary assumptions are wrong in the first place!

So not only does the expansion model require numerous ad hoc assumptions, it *still* doesn't fit the data sets.

I would take nothing Lerner says seriously! See my post on his hideous 2014 paper, where he stuffs up the maths. He is trivially wrong.

 

[Michael]

But here is the problem with Lerner's wonky maths; that photon from d = 2 had to pass d = 1 on its way to d = 0. So, 2d - 1d = 1d. Ergo, it should have lost half of its energy by d= 1.

Lerner specifically clarified Ben's mathematical (and conceptual) error here:

Hi all, got a little time today. I will answer one basic point on the linear Hubble relation and then move on to the second point relating to Lithium and Helium abundances.

Ben m, you really need to brush up a bit on math. Of course it is possible to rewrite a linear Hubble relation in a single-parameter differential form. Here it is:

(dE/dt)/E = frequency ((initial wavelength) /Hubble length)

where E is the energy of the photon at any time, “frequency” is its frequency at any time , “initial wavelength” is the photon’s wavelength when it was emitted and “Hubble length”, the sole parameter, is c/H where c is the speed of light and H is the Hubble parameter.

To put this into words, in the time it takes to travel one wavelength, a photon loses a fraction of its energy equal to the ratio of its initial wavelength divided by the Hubble length.

If we change the hypothesis to say “current wavelength” rather than “initial wavelength” we then get a logarithmic relation between z and d rather than a linear one.

This is NOT a physical mechanism, this is just rewriting the relationship mathematically.

Of course the linear relation is NOT a logarithmic relation, so the photon traveling twice the distance does not lose twice the energy. As its own frequency decreases, the proportional rate of energy loss slows down. But it is still all described by a simple on-parameter equation—the one written here.

Essentially Ben is completely ignoring the whole concept of tired light models which predict a wavelength independent redshift. It doesn't work the way Ben "thinks it should".

 

[Michael]

I would take nothing Lerner says seriously! See my post on his hideous 2014 paper, where he stuffs up the maths. He is trivially wrong.

No, *Ben* was trivially wrong and Lerner addressed that issue directly.

What's even more "fascinating" from my perspective is that contrary to your (false) assertion, a random website debate is *absolutely not* a direct scientific refutation of a *published paper*. A real refutation of Lerner's paper would require someone to actually publish a real rebuttal and pass a peer review process that looked for basic mistakes (like Ben's mistake) as Lerner had to go through.

 

[Michael]

Yes they are. time-dilation,

Brynjoffsson has addressed the SN1A data including the perceived "time-dilation" issues:

Magnitude-Redshift Relation for SNe Ia, Time Dilation, and Plasma Redshift

CMB,

Eddington got the right background temperature to within 1/2 of one degree on his first attempt using a static universe model, whereas the original BB "predictions" were off by more than a whole order of magnitude and it took them 3 or 4 tries to get any closer than Eddington!

variable speed of light (Marmet)

It's only variable in a *medium* like plasma and that has been confirmed by *numerous* experiments.

junk maths (Lerner) wavelength independence.

The "junk math" was done by Ben and Lerner had to correct him.

Pretty much every observation, in fact.

False. Even the latest observations of massive and mature galaxies at high redshift is a successful prediction of a static universe model, whereas the LCDM proponents are trying to invent new ad hoc explanations for it even as we speak.

Wrong. As pointed out by Ben M, whom M L-C is agreeing with. The only person who disagrees is Ashmore.

So what? One test is worth a thousand random opinions, and unlike the "space expansion" claim, such a test *can* be done with tired light models. Lerner even explained one involving LISA.

Marmet's model is trivially falsified. As explained.

It's not falsified in any way. Your own cited references explained that it's *wavelength independent* and it doesn't result in blurring.

Wrong, It is easily ruled out. There is very little H2 detected or expected to be in the IGM. For good reasons.

Oh baloney. We've found more ordinary baryonic mass in space since 2012 than all the known baryonic mass prior to 2012, and LCDM *still* can't account for most of the mass of the universe so it created an ad-hoc element called "dark matter" to deal with that problem. There's no doubt that the IGM is more dense than mainstream models "assume".

And his nonsense is still wavelength dependent. Marmet wrote utter nonsense. It is hardly worth the effort of going through.

False. The model Marmet proposes, and Ashmore proposes, and Brynjoffsson proposes are all wavelength *independent*.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

This redshift appears indistinguishable from the Doppler shift except when resonant states are present in the scattering gas. It is also shown that the lost energy should be detectable mostly as low frequency radio waves. The proposed mechanism leads to results consistent with many redshifts reported in astrophysical data.

Wrong. There is most definitely a temperature and wavelength dependence, as pointed out by Ben and also M L-C.

It's going to be averaged out over time and distance. Space isn't the same temperature everywhere, so it's going to involve *lots* of temperatures and it's averaged out over distance.

And the effect Chen is looking at is not applicable to sparse interstellar and intergalactic plasmas. Ashmore is just plain wrong.

It's not as sparse as you imagine.

What conservation laws? Who has written this up? And where? Sounds like nonsense to me.

ETA: Ahhh, I see Michael's confusion! See this being explained by a real scientist;

Energy Is Not Conserved

Sean Carroll explained it to you quite clearly in that article:

When the space through which particles move is changing, the total energy of those particles is not conserved.

Did you miss it?

 

[Smithi]

Lerner specifically clarified Ben's mathematical (and conceptual) error here:



Essentially Ben is completely ignoring the whole concept of tired light models which predict a wavelength independent redshift. It doesn't work the way Ben "thinks it should".

Nope. That explains nothing, as Ben goes on to show, and Lerner goes on to ignore! Read it Michael. I know maths isn't your strong point, but read it! It predicts an absurdity. Do the maths yourself. Explain it. How can one photon lose less energy in the journey from d = 1 to d= 0, just because it started further away? It is idiocy, and renders the whole paper as meaningless tosh.

 

[Smithi]

No, *Ben* was trivially wrong and Lerner addressed that issue directly.

What's even more "fascinating" from my perspective is that contrary to your (false) assertion, a random website debate is *absolutely not* a direct scientific refutation of a *published paper*. A real refutation of Lerner's paper would require someone to actually publish a real rebuttal and pass a peer review process that looked for basic mistakes (like Ben's mistake) as Lerner had to go through.

Wrong. Ben was correct. Want to take it to a physics forum? Email an expert?

 

[Smithi]

Brynjoffsson has addressed the SN1A data including the perceived "time-dilation" issues:

Magnitude-Redshift Relation for SNe Ia, Time Dilation, and Plasma Redshift

And Brynjolfsson's nonsense is trivially wrong. As shown.

Eddington got the right background temperature to within 1/2 of one degree on his first attempt using a static universe model, whereas the original BB "predictions" were off by more than a whole order of magnitude and it took them 3 or 4 tries to get any closer than Eddington!

Wrong. He was not talking about a black body spectrum.



[QUOTE[It's only variable in a *medium* like plasma and that has been confirmed by *numerous* experiments.[/QUOTE]

Wrong. The guy fails to understand relativity, the GPS corrections, and was not alive for the neutron star merger which shows him to be wrong. As he always was. He is ignored for good reasons.

The "junk math" was done by Ben and Lerner had to correct him.

Wrong. Ben was correct. Do the maths Michael. Show us how it works. Lerner chickened out and disappeared.

False. Even the latest observations of massive and mature galaxies at high redshift is a successful prediction of a static universe model, whereas the LCDM proponents are trying to invent new ad hoc explanations for it even as we speak.

Wrong. The H2 isn't there. Marmet was talking nonsense. His models were a joke. Still are.

So what? One test is worth a thousand random opinions, and unlike the "space expansion" claim, such a test *can* be done with tired light models. Lerner even explained one involving LISA.

And you don't have a test. So that is another fail.

It's not falsified in any way. Your own cited references explained that it's *wavelength independent* and it doesn't result in blurring.

Wrong. It fails trivially. Which has been shown.

Oh baloney. We've found more ordinary baryonic mass in space since 2012 than all the known baryonic mass prior to 2012, and LCDM *still* can't account for most of the mass of the universe so it created an ad-hoc element called "dark matter" to deal with that problem. There's no doubt that the IGM is more dense than mainstream models "assume".

Rubbish. There is nowhere near enough H2. How many times do you need telling? Marmet hasn't got a clue.

False. The model Marmet proposes, and Ashmore proposes, and Brynjoffsson proposes are all wavelength *independent*.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

Lol. No they are not. Try reading them.

It's going to be averaged out over time and distance. Space isn't the same temperature everywhere, so it's going to involve *lots* of temperatures and it's averaged out over distance.

Word salad. Zero science.

It's not as sparse as you imagine.

More word salad.

Sean Carroll explained it to you quite clearly in that article:



Did you miss it?

Hahaha. No, Michael, I understood it. You don't. But that's OK, given that you are unqualified in the relevant science!

Energy isn’t conserved; it changes because spacetime does. See, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

So what you perceive as a problem is not a problem to those who actually understand the science. Unless you want to throw out relativity?

 

[Michael]

And Brynjolfsson's nonsense is trivially wrong. As shown.

You haven't "shown" any such thing! Your citation of some random website isn't a scientific rebuttal of any of his work.

Wrong. He was not talking about a black body spectrum.

He correctly estimated the temperature space with a static model. The term "black body" is irrelevant.

Wrong. The guy fails to understand relativity, the GPS corrections, and was not alive for the neutron star merger which shows him to be wrong. As he always was. He is ignored for good reasons.

That's a non sequitur. The speed of propagation is related to the *medium* and there was a time delay between the light at various wavelengths and the arrival of that signal. There are lots of potential explanations for that delay, along with a delay cause by the medium.

Wrong. Ben was correct. Do the maths Michael. Show us how it works. Lerner chickened out and disappeared.

Lerner already explained Ben's error to him and I quoted it for you. He didn't "chicken out". This is simply another example of you *constant stream* of personal attacks which you resort to on a regular basis. It's just sad.

Wrong. The H2 isn't there. Marmet was talking nonsense. His models were a joke. Still are.

Oh, but it is there:

Dark Matter Need Not Apply

It's just really hard to see and to estimate.

And you don't have a test. So that is another fail.

Actually Chen's work is a valid "test" of the basic plasma redshift concept and it can be modified to test a larger range of wavelengths.

Wrong. It fails trivially. Which has been shown.

You haven't "shown" any such thing. You've simply cited a random website with *known and corrected* math errors no less!

Rubbish. There is nowhere near enough H2. How many times do you need telling? Marmet hasn't got a clue.

You don't know that. The LCDM model *assumes* a lot things which then require the invention of "invisible" types of matter to make up all the difference between the "assumptions" and the lensing estimates.

Lol. No they are not. Try reading them.

I have and I've quoted Marmet for you. He specifically stated it's indistinguishable from Doppler shift. You're misrepresenting his model.

Word salad. Zero science.

You haven't presented a scientific argument yet! All you've presented are the personal opinions from yourself and a handful of folks at some random website with unknown credentials.

Hahaha. No, Michael, I understood it. You don't. But that's OK, given that you are unqualified in the relevant science!

I know what the term "indistinguishable from Doppler shift" means. That's more than you understand apparently.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

This redshift appears indistinguishable from the Doppler shift....

So what you perceive as a problem is not a problem to those who actually understand the science. Unless you want to throw out relativity?

GR doesn't *require* space expansion, although it does allow for it mathematically. The movements of our solar system and galaxy can be described by GR without space expansion.

 

[Smithi]

You haven't "shown" any such thing! Your citation of some random website isn't a scientific rebuttal of any of his work.

Yes it is. Read the paper. It is wavelength dependent, and violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is rubbish.

He correctly estimated the temperature space with a static model. The term "black body" is irrelevant.

No, it is not irrelevant.

That's a non sequitur. The speed of propagation is related to the *medium* and there was a time delay between the light at various wavelengths and the arrival of that signal. There are lots of potential explanations for that delay, along with a delay cause by the medium.

Wrong. You obviously haven't read any of Marmet's nonsense. He simple does not understand relativity.

Lerner already explained Ben's error to him and I quoted it for you. He didn't "chicken out". This is simply another example of you *constant stream* of personal attacks which you resort to on a regular basis. It's just sad.

Liar. I have shown, as has Ben, why it is scientific nonsense. Stop accusing me of personal attacks when I am the only one addressing the science. Lerner did not respond to Ben's points on why his nonsense fails. Theywere written after his explanation of why he stupidly chose a linear relationship. His equaation doesn't work. If you think it does, show where Ben and I have gone wrong. You can't, and neither could Lerner. It is idiocy of the first order.

Oh, but it is there:

Dark Matter Need Not Apply

It's just really hard to see and to estimate.

Wow! possibly twice as much! How many orders of magnitude was Marmet out? Lol.

Actually Chen's work is a valid "test" of the basic plasma redshift concept and it can be modified to test a larger range of wavelengths.

No, it is not, and he claimed no such thing.

You haven't "shown" any such thing. You've simply cited a random website with *known and corrected* math errors no less!

Yes I have. If you believe differently, then correct the examples given by Ben and myself. Or show where Lerner did it. He explained how he got his dumb equation. He did not correct Ben's trivial falsification of that dumb equation.

You don't know that. The LCDM model *assumes* a lot things which then require the invention of "invisible" types of matter to make up all the difference between the "assumptions" and the lensing estimates.

Yes we do. And nobody is claiming otherwise.

I have and I've quoted Marmet for you. He specifically stated it's indistinguishable from Doppler shift. You're misrepresenting his model.

His 'model' is garbage. As is easily shown. And redshift is not Doppler above a certain z. Marmet did not have a clue.

You haven't presented a scientific argument yet! All you've presented are the personal opinions from yourself and a handful of folks at some random website with unknown credentials.

Is another lie. You need to stop lying Michael. I'm getting sick of it.

I know what the term "indistinguishable from Doppler shift" means. That's more than you understand apparently.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

Is a rubbish, erroneous paper. Unpublished. Why should I care what you believe, and nobody else does? And it is not Doppler. If it is indistinguishable from Doppler, then it is wrong! Is that your claim? Make your mind up.

GR doesn't *require* space expansion, although it does allow for it mathematically. The movements of our solar system and galaxy can be described by GR without space expansion.

And what has that got to do with anything? Carroll points out that your claim is not a problem in GR. And GR is proven beyond any doubt. So no problem. Eh?

 

[sjastro]

Michael I'm still waiting on your explanation why any given theory for plasma redshift can be correct given it is contradicted be elastic Thomson scattering for low energy photons by plasma in the Earth's ionosphere.
Theory and practice of ionosphere study by Thomson scatter radar - IEEE Journals & Magazine

 

[Smithi]

Well, let's take a different tack, and look at evidence in favour of an expanding universe. Here is a paper from 2013;

Measurement of the TCMB evolution from the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect
Hurier, G. et al.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.4694.pdf

Abstract

In the standard hot cosmological model, the black-body temperature of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), TCMB, increases linearly with redshift. Across the line of sight CMB photons interact with the hot (∼10^7−^8K ) and diffuse gas of electrons from galaxy clusters. This interaction leads to the well-known thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect (tSZ), which produces a distortion of the black-body emission law, depending on TCMB. Using tSZ data from the Planck satellite, it is possible to constrain TCMB below z=1.Focusing on the redshift dependence of TCMB, we obtain TCMB (z) = (2.726 ± 0.001) × (1+z)^1−β K with β=0.009 ± 0.017, which improves on previous constraints. Combined with measurements of molecular species absorptions, we derive β=0.006 ± 0.013. These constraints are consistent with the standard (i.e. adiabatic, β=0) Big-Bang model.

To give some context to that, steady state predicts β = 1. As Ned Wright notes, that is 58 standard deviations away from the observation;

Previous What's New in Cosmology's (scroll down to Dec 2013)

So, whatever problems BBT is claimed to have, they are as nothing compared to steady state theories!

 

[Michael]

Yes it is. Read the paper. It is wavelength dependent, and violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is rubbish.

Show me *from the paper* where the author claims it's wavelength dependent. Page and paragraph please. Ditto for your erroneous 2nd laws claim.

No, it is not irrelevant.

It's not made of entirely carbon so it's not a "black body". It has an average temperature and follows a bell curve. No big deal. Any average temperate model would likely do the very same thing.

Wrong. You obviously haven't read any of Marmet's nonsense. He simple does not understand relativity.

I've yet to see you cite anything directly from the papers I have suggested to support any of your claims. When can I expect to see you do that? I have no confidence that you even understand their models.

Liar.

Your constant stream of personal attacks isn't helping your case. It just shows that you don't have a real scientific rebuttal so you resort to childish insults.

I have shown,

In which specific post did you *personally* 'show' anything of the sort? Citation please.

as has Ben,

Who the heck is Ben and what are his credentials? AFAIK, he's just some random guy from some random website you cited. Lerner had to explain Ben's errors (multiple errors) to Ben, so I have no idea why you think "Ben" is a useful reference in the first place.

You do realize that it's customary to site *published rebuttals* to papers, right? They usually include the individuals name, and give you some clue where they work, what they do, and what their qualifications might be. Thus far, all I've seen you provide are random links to random websites to random (unidentified) individuals who have made basic logic and basic math errors which Eric Lerner had to explain to him.

why it is scientific nonsense.

Your citations thus far have been nonsense. All I have thus far from you is your statements and the (shown inaccurate) statements of some random guy named Ben from some random website.

Imagine someone trying to claim to have "debunked" your paper on evolutionary theory by citing some guy named "Ben M" from some creationist website. Would you believe that to be a valuable scientific refutation?

Stop accusing me of personal attacks when I am the only one addressing the science.

Then stop using ad hominems in every post, and stop calling me a "liar" simply because I disagree with you.

Lerner did not respond to Ben's points on why his nonsense fails.

That is absolutely false. I have cited the specific post from your own thread, and quoted Lerner correcting Ben. Ben did not repeat the same mistake after that post.

Theywere written after his explanation of why he stupidly chose a linear relationship. His equaation doesn't work. If you think it does, show where Ben and I have gone wrong. You can't, and neither could Lerner.

I have already done that at least three times now:

More observations that defy Big Bang theory predictions

Ben's next response is post 157 where he thanks Lerner for the clarification and never again seems to repeat the same argument which you erroneously repeated.

It is idiocy of the first order.

Your constant misuse of ad homs in every single post isn't helping your case, it only demonstrates that you resort to petty personal attacks rather than rely upon science while debating scientific ideas.

Wow! possibly twice as much! How many orders of magnitude was Marmet out? Lol.

Apparently he's right on the money since "dark matter" makes up something like 80 percent of the matter of the LCDM model. It's obvious that the mainstream hasn't a clue how to find most of the mass of the universe. They've found more ordinary matter in the last 7 years than all the mass they'd identified prior to 2012. AFAIK, Marmet is absolutely correct about the amount of hydrogen in space.

No, it is not, and he claimed no such thing.

Yes, he absolutely did describe plasma reshift and the known universe is 99+ percent plasma.

Yes I have. If you believe differently, then correct the examples given by Ben and myself.

Lerner already did that I've cited the specific post where he did that at least three times now. When did you intend to point out Lerner's error in that post?

Or show where Lerner did it.

Oh for crying out loud! Do you even bother to read my responses, or follow the links I provide you with? I did that in this very thread!

More observations that defy Big Bang theory predictions

He explained how he got his dumb equation. He did not correct Ben's trivial falsification of that dumb equation.

Yes he did and "Ben" (whoever he might be) thanked Lerner in post 157 and never repeated the same mistake again, just *new* mistakes. You simply repeated his original mistake. Who the heck is ben anyway and what makes you think his random website posts are a "scientific rebuttal" of a *published and peer reviewed* scientific paper? Do you understand that a random website quote from an unidentified individual isn't a real scientific rebuttal to a published paper?

Yes we do. And nobody is claiming otherwise.

Lerner, Ratcliffe and many others are claiming otherwise. LCDM proponents have wasted *tens of billions* of dollars on their exotic matter/energy experiments and have exactly nothing to show for any of it.

His 'model' is garbage. As is easily shown.

Your rebuttal to his published paper is garbage. You haven't even cited anything other than some random website to refute his model!

And redshift is not Doppler above a certain z. Marmet did not have a clue.

Yes he does. He even makes a point to explain that there are some exceptions to his model in certain plasma conditions. You make all these erroneous statements citing only yourself and some random website as a reference! That not even a valid scientific argument in the first place!

Is another lie. You need to stop lying Michael. I'm getting sick of it.

I'm sick of you resorting to personal attacks every time I disagree with you. It's childish. Knock it off!

Its a rubbish, erroneous paper.

You've never demonstrated it, or cited any part of that paper that is erroneous. Cite the specific formula and paragraph you believe to be in error. You've never even done that once.

And what has that got to do with anything? Carroll points out that your claim is not a problem in GR. And GR is proven beyond any doubt. So no problem. Eh?

It's a problem in the *real* world of physics. GR doesn't *require* space expansion even if it "allows" for it mathematically. GR can be used to describe events in our solar system and galaxy without any mention of "space expansion", so it's not a *requirement* of GR, just the LCDM model and any other model that evokes "space expansion". Since plasma redshift is *known to occur in the lab* and violates no known laws of physics, it's likely to occur in the plasma of spacetime too. No laws of physics need to be tossed out the window to explain it.

 

[Michael]

Michael I'm still waiting on your explanation why any given theory for plasma redshift can be correct given it is contradicted be elastic Thomson scattering for low energy photons by plasma in the Earth's ionosphere.
Theory and practice of ionosphere study by Thomson scatter radar - IEEE Journals & Magazine

You'll have to explain your argument to me clearly and explain what your objection is, because redshift is typically measured from space, not from the ground (through the ionosphere), so I'm not really clear what you think contradicts any particular plasma redshift model.

 

[Smithi]

Show me *from the paper* where the author claims it's wavelength dependent. Page and paragraph please. Ditto for your erroneous 2nd laws claim.

Show me a peer-reviewed published paper, and I'll read it.

It's not made of entirely carbon so it's not a "black body". It has an average temperature and follows a bell curve. No big deal. Any average temperate model would likely do the very same thing.

Huh? Not sure what carbon has got to do with anything. And Eddington didn't predict the CMB;

Eddington's Temperature of Space

I've yet to see you cite anything directly from the papers I have suggested to support any of your claims. When can I expect to see you do that? I have no confidence that you even understand their models.

I do understand them. That is why I don't accept them. And nor does pretty much any real scientist. You, on the other hand..............................

Your constant stream of personal attacks isn't helping your case. It just shows that you don't have a real scientific rebuttal so you resort to childish insults.

Yawn. You haven't presented any science, Michael.

In which specific post did you *personally* 'show' anything of the sort? Citation please.

Don't know what you're talking about. Context, please.

Who the heck is Ben and what are his credentials? AFAIK, he's just some random guy from some random website you cited. Lerner had to explain Ben's errors (multiple errors) to Ben, so I have no idea why you think "Ben" is a useful reference in the first place.

Lerner did not explain the errors. He ran away. As is obvious to anybody reading that thread. Ben gave an example (which was also previously noted by another poster) to show Lerner was talking out of his nether regions, and he ran away. Would have been easy to correct the examples Ben gave. He couldn't. And who the hell is Lerner? What is his Phd in? What papers has he written on astrophysics? What are his qualifications in astrophysics? Anybody that thinks M87 is a giant plasmoid is a ................ waste of time.

 

[sjastro]

You'll have to explain your argument to me clearly and explain what your objection is, because redshift is typically measured from space, not from the ground (through the ionosphere), so I'm not really clear what you think contradicts any particular plasma redshift model.

Insulting my intelligence is a personal attack, insulting the intelligence of the readers takes it to a new low.
For someone who flatly refused to address the issue of Thomson scattering previously because it was off topic, to now claim total ignorance is so transparent for being a cop out.
Your non answer like on the previous occasions is admitting the evidence of Thomson scattering of low energy photons by plasma contradicts plasma redshift.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You'll have to explain your argument to me clearly and explain what your objection is, because redshift is typically measured from space, not from the ground (through the ionosphere), so I'm not really clear what you think contradicts any particular plasma redshift model.

But it's not. Redshift is measured by comparing observed to laboratory wavelengths. Most astronomy is done from the ground, not space. (With the exception of X-ray and gamma-ray, and most of the UV.)

Your statement seems to imply that redshifts are different on the ground than in space (due to some plasma redshift in the ionosphere). Do you have a reference for this?

 

[Michael]

Show me a peer-reviewed published paper, and I'll read it.

Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death
21st Century Home Page

Huh? Not sure what carbon has got to do with anything.

It's about the only material that acts like a real "black body". All elements tend to emit specific lines however, including carbon.

And Eddington didn't predict the CMB;

Eddington's Temperature of Space

He used a static universe model and the scattering and absorption of starlight to predict the average temperature of space to within 1/2 of one degree of the correct temperature. It took big bang proponents three of four tries to get any closer and the first few attempts based on an expansion model weren't even in the right ballpark.

I do understand them. That is why I don't accept them.

I haven't seen you properly describe one yet, nor have I seen you personally cite a specific formula or paragraph from any paper on the topic. I see no evidence that you understand any of them, let alone all of them.

And nor does pretty much any real scientist.

That's just not true. I've cited several such scientists for you including Lerner and Ratcliffe. Ratcliffe's new book lists several of the models we've discussed.

You, on the other hand..............................

It's really sad that you're reduced to trying to attack individuals. It only demonstrates your inability to deal with the material scientifically, along with your random website links.

Yawn. You haven't presented any science, Michael.

All the papers I've listed include math and Marmet's model was published.

Don't know what you're talking about. Context, please.

You claimed that you personally had shown Lerner's model to be wrong. All I've seen you personally do is repeat a basic mistake that Ben made and which Lerner himself addressed and dealt with and which Ben thanked him for. You personally haven't shown anything to be wrong AFAIK. All I've seen from you are links to random websites involving unknown and unidentified individuals making math and physics mistakes which you then repeated!

Lerner did not explain the errors. He ran away.

That is absolutely not true. He specifically addressed that bogus claim about his model and I cited the link to that response now three or four times!

As is obvious to anybody reading that thread. Ben gave an example (which was also previously noted by another poster) to show Lerner was talking out of his nether regions, and he ran away.

That is utter nonsense. The post is still there, and Ben's response to that post is still there for anyone and everyone to read for themselves. You're just making this up as you go.

Would have been easy to correct the examples Ben gave. He couldn't.

International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Evidence against concordance cosmology

He could and he did. He showed Ben *exactly* how to rewrite a linear Hubble relation in a single-parameter differential form, and he explained the nature of Ben's (blatantly obvious) error as well. You can't just "assume" that lower energy photons lose the same amount of energy as higher energy photons over the same distance! It simply doesn't work like that! You just repeated Ben's blatant error!

And who the hell is Lerner?

Eric Lerner - Wikipedia

Lerner is a professional (paid) plasma physicist who works with plasma day in and day out. Who the hell is Ben?

What is his Phd in? What papers has he written on astrophysics? What are his qualifications in astrophysics? Anybody that thinks M87 is a giant plasmoid is a ................ waste of time.

More personally attack nonsense because you can't handle the science. You simply repeated a basic and *obvious* mistake made by some random guy named ben from some random website. Do you even know who Ben is? I sure as heck don't. All I can tell from your link is he his utterly botched the whole concept of a tired light model by *assuming* that high and lower energy photons lose the same amount of energy over the same distance which is utterly impossible in Lerner's model! All I know about you is that you repeated the same *obvious* mistake!

 

[Michael]

But it's not. Redshift is measured by comparing observed to laboratory wavelengths.

Sure, but you have measure the redshift, and it's often measured by satellites in space, particularly higher energy wavelengths that are usually absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere.

Most astronomy is done from the ground, not space. (With the exception of X-ray and gamma-ray, and most of the UV.)

Sure but if you're going to suggest (claim that) redshift is measured to be the same over the entire spectrum, you'll need to include x-rays and higher energy wavelengths.

Your statement seems to imply that redshifts are different on the ground than in space (due to some plasma redshift in the ionosphere). Do you have a reference for this?

That wasn't my intent, although I can see how one could interpret my comments that way. I was specifically thinking in terms of higher energy wavelengths which would be absorbed/scattered by the Earth's atmosphere. I was also thinking about Rayleigh scattering at the violet end of the spectrum at acute angles through the atmosphere rather than wavelengths and angles that might be more easily measurable on Earth.

 

[Michael]

Insulting my intelligence is a personal attack,

It might be had I done that. Simply asking you to clarify your objection however isn't insulting your intelligence.

insulting the intelligence of the readers takes it to a new low.

Again however, I did nothing of the sort. I simply asked you to clarify your objection because I don't understand it.

For someone who flatly refused to address the issue of Thomson scattering previously because it was off topic, to now claim total ignorance is so transparent for being a cop out.

This thread wasn't originally intended to be related to any topic *other than* the LCDM model. Unfortunately however it's been hijacked. I didn't want it to be hijacked, but it's worked out that way anyway, so I'm willing to discuss your objection if and when I understand the point you're trying to make.

Your non answer like on the previous occasions is admitting the evidence of Thomson scattering of low energy photons by plasma contradicts plasma redshift.

How so? Explain *exactly* what you mean. Thompson scattering is just the low end of Compton scattering AFAIK. Why are you specifically interested in Thompson scattering and the Earth's ionosphere? I'm simply not following your argument and I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

 

[Smithi]

Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death
21st Century Home Page

Do not look like peer reviewed papers to me.

It's about the only material that acts like a real "black body". All elements tend to emit specific lines however, including carbon.

If you say so. However, the fact remains that Eddington did not predict it.

He used a static universe model and the scattering and absorption of starlight to predict the average temperature of space to within 1/2 of one degree of the correct temperature. It took big bang proponents three of four tries to get any closer and the first few attempts based on an expansion model weren't even in the right ballpark.

And did not predict the CMB or its blackbody spectrum. Irrelevant.

I haven't seen you properly describe one yet, nor have I seen you personally cite a specific formula or paragraph from any paper on the topic. I see no evidence that you understand any of them, let alone all of them.

Given that I am likely better qualified in the relevant science, and can recognise ..............uhum........when I see it - and that people far better qualified than me also see it as............uhum............then I'll go with the consensus opinion.