More observations that defy Big Bang theory predictions

[Smithi]

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.

Lerner does not even have a PhD. He is hopeless when it comes to astrophysics. He is a nobody. Who is Ratcliffe, and who peer-reviewed his book?

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.

Tell me again, Michael - what are your qualifications in astronomy/ astrophysics/ physics/ plasma physics? Would 'none' be a fair assessment?

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

Marmet's ....................stuff. ...was pure..........unscientific.....stuff.
He was ignored for a reason. Possibly insanity.

 

[Michael]

Do not look like peer reviewed papers to me.

It sure looks like a legitimate scientific publication to me:

SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD
Francesco Celani, Ph.D.
Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D.
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
Wolfgang Lillge, M.D.
Ramtanu Maitra
Thomas E. Phipps, Jr., Ph.D.

Just admit that you can't find any actual specific problem in the paper. We all know you cannot, or you would have pointed it out by now *specifically*, including the specific formula and paragraph.

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

He did correctly predict the average temperature of space, and that temperature would result in a microwave background.

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

Oh boloney. He got the right average temperature on his first try, whereas original BB estimates of the background temperature of space were off by more than a whole order of magnitude. BBr's took three or four tries to get any closer to the actual temperature than Eddington.

Given that I am likely better qualified in the relevant science,

How would I possibly know that? So far I haven't even seen you personally make a single legitimate scientific argument, or cite any specific formula or paragraph from any actual tired light model. All I've seen you do so far is repeat a *basic* mistake that some random guy named Ben from some random website made and which Lerner already addressed and explained!

and can recognise ..............uhum........when I see it...

Yet apparently you can't explain it, including the specific formula and paragraph in the paper where the mistake was supposedly made.

- and that people far better qualified than me also see it as............uhum............then I'll go with the consensus opinion.

Ben's argument was completely ridiculous. No redshift model predicts that high and low energy photons lose the same amount of energy per distance traveled and Lerner's model predicts no such thing as Lerner had to explain to Ben! Who the hell is Ben anyway other than some random guy that talked to Lerner one day?

 

[Smithi]

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!

Is you being economical with the truth. Ben's latter posts, to which Lerner never replied, were based on Lerner's answer to Ben! Read it! He needs two photons coming from d = 1, one starting there, the other coming from d = 2, ending up with different energies at d = 0! All due to the 2nd photon retaining a memory of how far it has already come! Seriously? Can't you see that? Why do you think 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!

Nope. See above, and quote Lerner dealing with those examples, rather than running away. You can't.

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.



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!

Trouble reading again, Michael? We are talking about phjotons travelling the same distance! Do the maths. Why do you think Lerner ran away?

Eric Lerner - Wikipedia

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

There are shed loads of lab techs the world over. What is his PhD in? Where can I read it?

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!

Show us the mistake, Michael. Where is it? Want a picture to illustrate it? Why do you think Lerner ran away? Want to post it on an independent physics forum? Maybe get sjastro to look at it?

 

[Michael]

Lerner does not even have a PhD.

I guess since you're incapable of finding a *legitimate error* in his paper, you're reduced to attacking the individual (again). Appeals to authority are not a valid scientific argument and the guys is a professional plasma physicist who works in the field, whereas I have no idea what you might specialize in other than personal attacks.

He is hopeless when it comes to astrophysics.

If that were true then you should have no problem picking out a legitimate scientific flaw in his work rather than make the same basic mistakes as some random unknown guy name Ben made. So far you've been completely incapable of supporting that assertion with a valid scientific criticism of his work.

He is a nobody.

Whereas you're oh so important to science, with a few dozen Nobels under your belt? How is that statement a valid scientific argument rather than just an appeal to your own ego? Who cares what you think of individuals anyway?

Who is Ratcliffe, and who peer-reviewed his book?

Who is Ben and when were his comments "peer reviewed" other than by Lerner who had to explain *basic* errors in his argument?

Tell me again, Michael - what are your qualifications in astronomy/ astrophysics/ physics/ plasma physics? Would 'none' be a fair assessment?

Other than personal attacks, and fallacious argument tactics, what are your actual "qualifications" in plasma physics? I suspect that "none" is a fair assessment.

Marmet's ....................stuff. ...was pure..........unscientific.....stuff.
He was ignored for a reason. Possibly insanity.

Yawn. More personal attacks against anyone and everyone that you disagree with. It's not just me, it's Lerner, it's Marmet, it's Ratcliffe, it's Scott, it's everyone and anyone that you disagree with. Sheesh.

 

[Smithi]

It sure looks like a legitimate scientific publication to me:

Lyndon LaRouche? You have got to be kidding me! What 'journal' was that, by the way?

 

[Smithi]

I guess since you're incapable of finding a *legitimate error* in his paper, you're reduced to attacking the individual (again). Appeals to authority are not a valid scientific argument and the guys is a professional plasma physicist who works in the field, whereas I have no idea what you might specialize in other than personal attacks.

I have found a legitimate error in his 'paper'. At least Ben did. And you cannot explain it. That is why he ran away.

 

[Michael]

Is you being economical with the truth. Ben's latter posts, to which Lerner never replied, were based on Lerner's answer to Ben! Read it! He needs two photons coming from d = 1, one starting there, the other coming from d = 2, ending up with different energies at d = 0! All due to the 2nd photon retaining a memory of how far it has already come! Seriously? Can't you see that? Why do you think he ran away?

Oy Vey! I think Lerner probably quit responding because he got tired of repeating himself to people who clearly don't understand the model, the math or even the most basic concepts:

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.

What part of those three sentences and what part of the sentence I bolded for you don't you understand? You don't even need to have decent math skills to comprehend the concept that the energy state of the specific *wavelength* determines how much energy it loses over some distance d. How can that possibly be confusing to you? For crying out loud! It doesn't matter what distance it travels, or what direction it travels. The photon doesn't have a "memory", it just has a *specific wavelength and energy state at a specific point* which determines how much proportional energy it's losing per distance traveled. Holy cow. This is basic conceptual stuff.

Lerner did not "run away". He probably just got tired of repeating himself over and over and over again and trying to explain the most *basic concepts* of his model to people who simply refused to even listen to his answers!

Lerner showed you Ben's mistake, and he clearly explained the problem that Ben made and that you're still making! I have nothing left to do other than to point out Lerner's very clear and simple explanation to you and *hope* that you eventually start to understand the *most basic aspects* of his model before I finally "give up" too.

Wow. This is why science isn't determined by website debates. You simply refuse to grasp even the *simplest parts* of his model. As Lerner explained, a photon traveling twice the distance *does not* (I repeat does not) lose twice the energy because as the energy state of the photon decreases, it's proportional rate of energy loss also decreases/slows down! How can you *not* understand that most basic feature of tired light concepts?

 

[sjastro]

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



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



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.



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.

Individuals who suffer convenient memory loss do so because they have been caught out and refuse to admit their failures.
For the umpteen time, when the energy of the photon is much less than the mass energy of the electron/ion, Thomson scattering occurs WHICH IS ELASTIC.
There is no change in wavelength of the scattered photons, hence plasma redshift does not occur for low energy photons.
This is illustrated by the Thomson scattering of radar by plasma in the ionosphere.
Plasma redshift therefore cannot explain cosmological redshift which applies to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

 

[Michael]

Individuals who suffer convenient memory loss do so because they have been caught out and refuse to admit their failures.
For the umpteen time, when the energy of the photon is much less than the mass energy of the electron/ion, Thomson scattering occurs WHICH IS ELASTIC.
There is no change in wavelength of the scattered photons, hence plasma redshift does not occur for low energy photons.
This is illustrated by the Thomson scattering of radar by plasma in the ionosphere.
Plasma redshift therefore cannot explain cosmological redshift which applies to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

The logical explanation then would be that the plasma redshift process is probably *not* directly related to ordinary Thomson scattering. How is a "deal breaker" for all possible tired light models in your mind?

I'd have to check to be sure, but I don't think Marmet's model (Bremsstrahlung) or Ahsmore's model (unique to him?) is based on Thomson scattering, and I'm pretty sure that Brynjolfsson's model is based on a very special type of Compton scattering, but not ordinary Compton scattering. I still fail to understand why you think that's a problem.

 

[sjastro]

The logical explanation then would be that the plasma redshift process is probably *not* directly related to ordinary Thomson scattering. How is a "deal breaker" for all possible tired light models in your mind?

I'd have to check to be sure, but I don't think Marmet's model (Bremsstrahlung) or Ahsmore's model (unique to him?) is based on Thomson scattering, and I'm pretty sure that Brynjolfsson's model is based on a very special type of Compton scattering, but not ordinary Compton scattering. I still fail to understand why you think that's a problem.

You just don't get it do you?
The observation of elastic scattering of photons by plasma is a fact.
Calling the scattering mechanism by a different name isn't going to make your problem go away.

 

[Michael]

You just don't get it do you?
The observation of elastic scattering of photons by plasma is a fact.
Calling the scattering mechanism by a different name isn't going to make your problem go away.

I'm well aware of the fact that *many* types of scattering are "possible", but tired light models aren't typically based on Thompson scattering so I fail to see how that even matters. Name one tired light model that is based on ordinary Thompson scattering. I can't even think of one off the top of my head.

 

[sjastro]

I'm well aware of the fact that *many* types of scattering are "possible", but tired light models aren't typically based on Thompson scattering so I fail to see how that even matters. Name one tired light model that is based on ordinary Thompson scattering. I can't even think of one off the top of my head.

Of course a tired model is not based on Thomson scattering otherwise it wouldn't be tired light!!!
Talk about the elephant in the room; this is about your pet theory and the inelastic scattering of photons by plasma; jumping ship by referring to other models which contradict your own such as Marmet's which is bremsstrahlung involving atomic hydrogen not plasma is yet another example of copping out.

 

[Michael]

Of course a tired model is not based on Thomson scattering otherwise it wouldn't be tired light!!!

So then why bring it up at all? Do you now understand my confusion?

Talk about the elephant in the room; this is about your pet theory

It's not really "my pet theory" since Fritz Zwicky was the first person to propose a tired light model, not me, and I'm not attached to any one specific tired light model. I "prefer" three different ones, and I can't really chose between them in fact.

and the inelastic scattering of photons by plasma;

That's *one* possible tired light explanation.

jumping ship by referring to other models which contradict your own such as Marmet's which is bremsstrahlung involving atomic hydrogen not plasma is yet another example of copping out.

Um, no. Again, *none* of these models are "my models" anymore than any dark matter model is "your" model. Astronomers "hedge their bets" (or cop out if you prefer) on "dark matter" by entertaining various concepts to explain it, like WIMPS, axions, sterile neutrinos, MACHOS, etc, so why on Earth would you criticize me for entertaining *multiple possible explanations* for tired light? That just seems silly from my perspective, not to mention a tad hypocritical.

 

[sjastro]

So then why bring it up at all? Do you now understand my confusion?



It's not really "my pet theory" since Fritz Zwicky was the first person to propose a tired light model, not me, and I'm not attached to any one specific tired light model. I "prefer" three different ones, and I can't really chose between them in fact.



That's *one* possible tired light explanation.



Um, no. Again, *none* of these models are "my models" anymore than any dark matter model is "your" model. Astronomers "hedge their bets" (or cop out if you prefer) on "dark matter" by entertaining various concepts to explain it, like WIMPS, axions, sterile neutrinos, MACHOS, etc, so why on Earth would you criticize me for entertaining *multiple possible explanations* for tired light? That just seems silly from my perspective, not to mention a tad hypocritical.

This is an exercise in obfuscation all because you have been caught out by the evidence of elastic scattering of photons by plasma.
For someone who has made it perfectly clear over the years that the cause of cosmological redshift can be demonstrated in the lab as inelastic scattering your backflips and somersaults do more justice in a circus.

 

[Michael]

This is an exercise in obfuscation all because you have been caught out by the evidence of elastic scattering of photons by plasma.

You're a horrible mind reader. I've always been well aware that there are *numerous* types of interactions between photons and plasma (and dust). Evidence of both elastic and inelastic scattering are found quite abundantly in the literature and nothing you've said thus far is even "news to me". I have no idea how or why you even think that this issue is relevant since no tired light model that I'm aware of is based upon Thomson scattering, and the fact that Thomson scattering happens certainly doesn't preclude other types of particle interactions from occurring. You're essentially making a mountain of a molehill.

For someone who has made it perfectly clear over the years that the cause of cosmological redshift can be demonstrated in the lab as inelastic scattering your backflips and somersaults do more justice in a circus.

LOL. Compared to the mainstream's continuous stream of back flips and somersaults related to DM theory, anything I might ever do would pale by comparison.

The fact of the matter is that plasma redshift has been demonstrated in the lab, and it's been shown to be related to the number of free charge particles in the plasma, whereas "space expansion" will forever remain an "act of pure faith" on the part of the believer as a supposed "cause" of photon redshift.

I still fail to understand why you think I'm personally obligated to limit myself to one specific tired light model when the mainstream has at *least* three major models of DM, and a bunch of minor ones that they pull out of their hat on a regular basis. If they can "cop out" by not obligating themselves to one specific DM model or one specific inflation model, what right do you have to criticize me or anyone else for entertaining multiple tired light models? That's utterly absurd IMO.

That particular rationalization should be really entertaining.

 

[Smithi]

The fact of the matter is that plasma redshift has been demonstrated in the lab, and it's been shown to be related to the number of free charge particles in the plasma, whereas "space expansion" will forever remain an "act of pure faith" on the part of the believer as a supposed "cause" of photon redshift.

No it hasn't. Certainly not as it applies to astrophysical plasmas. Show me the paper where it has been demonstrated in the lab, with the authors claiming it can explain cosmological redshift. Do not show me some nobody claiming that it does. If in doubt, email the original author.

 

[Smithi]

That just seems silly from my perspective, not to mention a tad hypocritical.

You mean from the perspective of an unqualified layman?

 

[Smithi]

I'd have to check to be sure, but I don't think Marmet's model (Bremsstrahlung) or Ahsmore's model (unique to him?) is based on Thomson scattering, and I'm pretty sure that Brynjolfsson's model is based on a very special type of Compton scattering, but not ordinary Compton scattering. I still fail to understand why you think that's a problem.

Marmet's model is wrong. Ashmore's model is wrong. Brynjolfsson's model is wrong. Next.

 

[Smithi]

Oy Vey! I think Lerner probably quit responding because he got tired of repeating himself to people who clearly don't understand the model, the math or even the most basic concepts:



What part of those three sentences and what part of the sentence I bolded for you don't you understand? You don't even need to have decent math skills to comprehend the concept that the energy state of the specific *wavelength* determines how much energy it loses over some distance d. How can that possibly be confusing to you? For crying out loud! It doesn't matter what distance it travels, or what direction it travels. The photon doesn't have a "memory", it just has a *specific wavelength and energy state at a specific point* which determines how much proportional energy it's losing per distance traveled. Holy cow. This is basic conceptual stuff.

I understand all of it. As did Ben. Which is why he posted examples, based on what Lerner had offered in his reply, to show where Lerner was trivially wrong. From which Lerner ran away.

Lerner did not "run away".

Yes he did. As is obvious to anyone reading that thread.

Lerner showed you Ben's mistake, and he clearly explained the problem that Ben made and that you're still making!

No, he did not. He did not reply to the examples Ben posted showing his nonsense up for what it is. He ran away.

Wow. This is why science isn't determined by website debates. You simply refuse to grasp even the *simplest parts* of his model. As Lerner explained, a photon traveling twice the distance *does not* (I repeat does not) lose twice the energy because as the energy state of the photon decreases, it's proportional rate of energy loss also decreases/slows down! How can you *not* understand that most basic feature of tired light concepts?

And Ben showed that his explanation is nonsense. And he ran away. Come on Michael, show us how the tired light fantasy explains and disproves Ben's and my examples. Do the maths. Let's see it. You believe this stuff, therefore you must understand it. Get on with it. Lerner couldn't, and ran away. Maybe you can.

 

[Smithi]

Yawn. More personal attacks against anyone and everyone that you disagree with. It's not just me, it's Lerner, it's Marmet, it's Ratcliffe, it's Scott, it's everyone and anyone that you disagree with. Sheesh.

Really? I'm the only person that disagrees with those.......................people? That is a list of total nonentities.