More observations that defy Big Bang theory predictions

[Smithi]

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

There were no errors in Ben's examples. And Lerner ran away, rather than deal with them.
As for 'Who is Ben';

Why is a mainstream physicist (like me).........

(My home institution, an extremely large research university, doesn't subscribe to the obscure journal where the supposed PC BBN theory is published)

International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

I am a nuclear/particle astrophysicist.

International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

So, I would say he is a nuclear/ particle astrophysicist in a large research university.

 

[Michael]

No it hasn't.

Yes it has:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030402608000089

Chen even found a link between the number free electrons in the plasma and the amount of redshift he observed. Plasma redshift is a *lab demonstrated cause* of photon redshift, whereas "space expansion" is a pure act of faith on the part of the believer which violates conservation of energy laws.

Certainly not as it applies to astrophysical plasmas.

You can't run from reality. You can't even show that "space expansion" happens, let alone demonstrate that it's a real cause of redshift. It's not something which will *ever* enjoy laboratory support, whereas plasma redshift is a documented cause of photon redshift.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...tory-a_Discussion_in_Terms_of_New_Tired_Light

Ashmore has even applied the concept to cosmological redshift.

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.

I frankly don't care who you think is a "nobody" because you're also a nobody, and I'm a "nobody". You have no unique status as it relates to science because nobody has such a status. Einstein was a patent clerk when he wrote the paper that earned him a Nobel prize.

 

[Michael]

You mean from the perspective of an unqualified layman?

It's from the perspective of a person who's watched so called "experts" waste several tens of billions of dollars on dozens of dark matter snipe hunts, and who found exactly nothing. Sorry, but your "experts" don't seem to have any clue how to support their claims, they haven't committed to any particular model to start with, so it's hypocritical to suggest that I have to commit to a single tired light model.

 

[Smithi]

Yes it has:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030402608000089

Chen even found a link between the number free electrons in the plasma and the amount of redshift he observed. Plasma redshift is a *lab demonstrated cause* of photon redshift, whereas "space expansion" is a pure act of faith on the part of the believer which violates conservation of energy laws.

Wrong. This was nothing to do with astrophysical plasmas, and is not applicable to them. You are doing to Chen what you did to Somov.

You can't run from reality. You can't even show that "space expansion" happens, let alone demonstrate that it's a real cause of redshift. It's not something which will *ever* enjoy laboratory support, whereas plasma redshift is a documented cause of photon redshift.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...tory-a_Discussion_in_Terms_of_New_Tired_Light

Ashmore has even applied the concept to cosmological redshift.

Lol. Ashmore has done nothing of the sort. That is why he is completely ignored, rather than having a Nobel Prize on his mantelpiece. And managed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the process!

I frankly don't care who you think is a "nobody" because you're also a nobody, and I'm a "nobody". You have no unique status as it relates to science because nobody has such a status. Einstein was a patent clerk when he wrote the paper that earned him a Nobel prize.

Lol. Do not compare these nonentities to Einstein!

 

[Smithi]

It's from the perspective of a person who's watched so called "experts" waste several tens of billions of dollars on dozens of dark matter snipe hunts, and who found exactly nothing. Sorry, but your "experts" don't seem to have any clue how to support their claims, they haven't committed to any particular model to start with, so it's hypocritical to suggest that I have to commit to a single tired light model.

Which does nothing to invalidate my comment. You are not an expert. You are not even qualified. Your knowledge of the subject matter is minimal, at best. As has been shown by real experts time and time again.

 

[Michael]

I understand all of it.

No, you obviously don't understand Lerner's very clear and easy to understand explanation of how it *actually* works, or you wouldn't have made the same error.

As did Ben.

No, your random website guy got put in his place in the link I showed you.

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.

No, Ben simply repeated his same mistakes, and you keep repeating them too. Photons in Lerner's model lose energy proportionally to the wavelength. As Lerner explained, they don't half their energy a 1d, and the other half at 2d. That's pure nonsense. It's a conceptual problem you both seem to have because *no* tired light model I'm aware of works that way.

I'm sure Lerner got bored of repeating himself at some point because I'm certainly bored of repeating myself to you at this point. I may just "give up" trying to explain it to you since you have no interest in learning anything, but that doesn't mean I "ran away", it means there is no point in talking to a brick wall.

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

No, he did not. That is just another example of your trash talk and your constant attack of *people* since you can't even seem to comprehend the basic *ideas* being presented. Photons in Lerners model do *not* lose energy in the way you and you random website guy seem to believe. It simply doesn't work that way.

I'm really bored of discussing anything with you at this point because you have yet to offer a valid scientific criticism of any *paper* I have offered you. All you'd offered me are links to unknown random individuals making the *most basic* errors I can think of, and then repeating them over and over and over again without listening to anything. It's boring. It's not a scientific rebuttal anymore than a creationist handing me a link to their unnamed buddy at some random website yacking about how evolutionary theory is wrong because humans didn't come from monkeys. You don't even understand the *most basic concepts* behind tired light models. Photons do *not* lose 1/2 their energy at 1d and he other half at 2d. Lerner *clearly* explained that:

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.

Which part of Lerner's explanation do you not comprehend?

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON
Thread closed permanently due to persistent problems with flaming other viewpoints and other members.
MOD HAT OFF​