Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

[Michael]

Tired light theories have to continually changed so that they coincidentally produce observations that just happen to mimic what we would expect from expansion. These observations are not predictions of the tired light theory. What happens instead is that people concoct complex situations where tired light could produce these observations in very constrained situations. Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. The reason that the data looks like an expanding universe is because it is expanding.

That wouldn't sound so utterly hypocritical if "dark energy" wasn't a metaphysical gap filler to fix/save an otherwise *falsified* expansion theory. You really shouldn't be complaining about postdicted fits to data. Surely you've heard that line about people that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?

Even worse, your author relies on an Aether. Eeks.

Er, no it relies upon *plasma* and photon interaction with *plasma". Where do you folks even get this stuff? Did you read or even gander at the Chen paper? Where does it mention "aether"?

Which is exactly what occurs when light interacts with plasma and other luminous matter.

Sometimes, sure. Most such deflection events would result in the photon never reaching the planet to be picked up or recorded.

Yes it does.

"Now new observations suggest quantum gravity cannot be responsible for the time delay observed by MAGIC. The light from a powerful, 7-billion year old gamma-ray burst detected by NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope shows no evidence of a lag between photons of a range of energies.
"We have fewer stomach aches now," says Amelino-Camelia. "The Fermi data has pushed the limit where it's now proven the MAGIC data cannot be interpreted in that way."
Universe's quantum 'speed bumps' no obstacle for light - space - 28 October 2009 - New Scientist

The MAGIC data you are citing is old news. Newer and more accurate measurements did not verify MAGIC's findings.

You're right about that point. I was evidently confusing a different paper I read awhile back with the first paper by MAGIC. My bad. You're right, these are conflicting findings at the same general group of gamma ray wavelengths. I have no idea if they cover exactly the same spectrum at this point.

It is tired light that is off, and has been all along as the source I cited earlier demonstrated. Ignoring these problems doesn't make it go away.

Which "problems" might those be actually?

There is no variation in the speed of light.

Actually there was in fact a .9 second delay.

 

[Michael]

Neither does the Harry Potter website. Is that all physically accurate too?

Generally people don't mention when they get stuff wrong because they haven't realized it. It would take a liar or an idiot to act otherwise.

You've accused Ashmore of relying upon Lorentz violation features several times but you've *never* cited a single statement by Ashmore that makes that claim. I have yet to see *any* redshift paper claim that any broadening or delay or redshift effect is in any way a Lorentz violation. Where did you even get that claim?

 

[mkatzwork]

That wouldn't sound so utterly hypocritical if "dark energy" wasn't a metaphysical gap filler to fix/save an otherwise *falsified* expansion theory.

Ah, changing the topic. We all know what that signifies...

Actually there was in fact a .9 second delay.

See car analogy above. We don't know for sure that they were emitted at the same time - nobody can say that - so overturning the entirety of cosmology or GR based on that kind of observation would be rather silly.

I know how you are keen on not doing things without observational basis, so in absence of the observation of simultaneous emission, why are you so eager to act? Could it be...shock horror...because you don't care whether the result is right or not, just whether it supports your otherwise falsified theory or not?

All the .9 second delay does is constrain the energy levels that quantum foam theorists may call upon, or string theorists to constrain their extra dimensions within. If you invoke the .9 second delay as accurate WITHOUT a collision model such as yours, then Lorentz violation is a big problem. The collision model fails to describe how the photon would have been delayed by this amount without being deflected away, since we're talking about what....millions of interactions, if each one takes a tiny fraction of time?

 

[mkatzwork]

You've accused Ashmore of relying upon Lorentz violation features several times but you've *never* cited a single statement by Ashmore that makes that claim. I have yet to see *any* redshift paper claim that any broadening or delay or redshift effect is in any way a Lorentz violation. Where did you even get that claim?

I don't exactly...the MAGIC paper relied on Lorentz violations for its conclusion, and Ashmore simply took that conclusion and based his conclusion off of it without properly examining the implications. The "multiple collision" model fails to account for the probability of the photon arriving in the first place, especially since in Compton scattering for starters, the angle of deflection in gamma rays is considerably higher than in visible light...the likelihood of it shooting off back the exact way it came is almost equal at the upper ends of the EM spectrum. So where's the blurring?

 

[Michael]

You're missing why Lorentz violations get brought up;

You mean because it's another example of one of those confusing red herring arguments like most handwavy arguments? It's a scientific non issue since we're not talking about light actually propagating through a vacuum, but rather it's propagating through a plasma, albeit a very thin plasma. Not one single redshift paper I've cited requires or describes a Lorentz violation.

the reason this is is the "its had many collisions en route" model is not feasible.

It's not only "feasible" it's been *recorded in the lab*! How can you even make such silly statements after Chen et all demonstrated that it occurs in the lab in plasma?

Do you see why it's a dumb idea?

Yes, it's your strawman which is why it's a dumb idea.

Even if we ignore Lorentz for a moment - the red-shifting should be uneven across the frequency spectrum, since the interactions are species dependent respective of the mechanisms you've given so far, and the species involved are indeed varying, as you yourself acknowledge.

Ya, but unlike you I realize that many types of interactions are likely to occur in many elements, in many encounters. Its not just *one* event that leads to the total redshift, it's an 'averaged total effect", over a long distance.

("The plasmas of spacetime have different temperatures and densities, etc.")

We should therefore expect to see different amounts of redshift at high and low wavelengths, just as we see different amounts of broadening at high and low wavelengths due to the AC Stark effect, another species dependent interaction. The 'errors' in travel introduced don't 'average themselves back out', "net", otherwise for the Stark effect which operates in broadly the same way as your proposals, we should see no broadening of the spectral lines. In fact, the deviations accumulate.

You can't just hand wave that problem away...

I can certainly had wave that problem away the same way you hand waved it in there to start with. You're simply not willing to acknowledge the *cumulative* effects of multiple interactions and a net average effect.

 

[Michael]

Ah, changing the topic. We all know what that signifies...

No, I was simply pointing out the ridiculous and hypocritical nature of that one particular argument. I mean how silly can you get?

See car analogy above. We don't know for sure that they were emitted at the same time - nobody can say that - so overturning the entirety of cosmology or GR based on that kind of observation would be rather silly.

Nobody said anything about overturning GR theory except you. I'm trying to overturn a "blunder" theory that takes a basic GR formula with it's constant set to zero and tosses in a ton of metaphysical "dark" add-ons, not GR theory. First you falsely claimed someone is trying to overturn Lorentz law with *plasma* redshift and now you're trying to claim someone wants to overturn GR? Wow. You better never lecture me again about trying to deceive the gullible masses or whatever that was you accused me of awhile back. Let's at least acknowledge that GR theory isn't the least bit dependent upon dark energy nor threatened by it's nonexistence, and plasma redshift has nothing to do with any sort of Lorentz violation in a vacuum.

I know how you are keen on not doing things without observational basis, so in absence of the observation of simultaneous emission, why are you so eager to act? Could it be...shock horror...because you don't care whether the result is right or not, just whether it supports your otherwise falsified theory or not?

Er, no. I'm simply looking for prediction differences between the two (or more) models and trying to figure out a way to falsify one or the other or both models based on the data.

All the .9 second delay does is constrain the energy levels that quantum foam theorists may call upon, or string theorists to constrain their extra dimensions within. If you invoke the .9 second delay as accurate WITHOUT a collision model such as yours, then Lorentz violation is a big problem. The collision model fails to describe how the photon would have been delayed by this amount without being deflected away, since we're talking about what....millions of interactions, if each one takes a tiny fraction of time?

You seem forget that Ari's redshift theory isn't dependent upon particle collisions, nor dies it require particle collisions, it's about field to field interactions. I can't say for sure *which* tired light theory 'best' explains any or all of these observations just yet, nor can I be sure that your 2009 study won't be overturned next week. About all I can say for sure is that there *is* a difference in arrival times, albeit a smaller one than first thought and there are many possible tired light explanations that do predict variations in arrival times. If anything I'd say that the .9 second delay favors Ari's plasma redshift concepts over Ashmore's concepts, but I suspect Ashmore would tend to disagree. Ashmore's ideas on the other hand seem to have support from Chen's work but I'm sure Ari would disagree. What you can't sweep under the carpet however is the fact that there was in fact a delay in *both* studies.

 

[Michael]

I don't exactly...the MAGIC paper relied on Lorentz violations for its conclusion,

Technically that's not the fault of any tired light author.

and Ashmore simply took that conclusion and based his conclusion off of it without properly examining the implications.

He did?

The "multiple collision" model fails to account for the probability of the photon arriving in the first place, especially since in Compton scattering for starters, the angle of deflection in gamma rays is considerably higher than in visible light...the likelihood of it shooting off back the exact way it came is almost equal at the upper ends of the EM spectrum. So where's the blurring?

I'm still confused as to why you insist that there must be a lot of blurring in the first place since even a small deflection from 500 million light years away isn't likely to reach Earth in the first place. A lack of blurring simply tends to favor a plasma redshift caused by a "field to field" transfer of energy rather than a particle collision process.

 

[createdtoworship]

BBC News - LHC results put supersymmetry theory 'on the spot'

While there is still *lots* of debate about the topic, the "simplest" models of SUSY theory have all but been eliminated in the early experiments at LHC. Keep in mind however that there are more "complex" versions of SUSY theory that might still work out, and the finding of the Higgs (assuming it holds up) will give particle physicists a better handle on how SUSY theory might help resolve any remaining problems in standard theory, assuming there are any.

I think the best way I could explain it is that simply SUSY theories have been called into doubt, but it's too early to say much IMO. The finding of the Higgs is a "big deal" and it will help to clarify a lot about both the standard model and any potential extensions to that model.

so there are no working theories of susy particles currently? oh well.

 

[Loudmouth]

That wouldn't sound so utterly hypocritical if "dark energy" wasn't a metaphysical gap filler to fix/save an otherwise *falsified* expansion theory. You really shouldn't be complaining about postdicted fits to data. Surely you've heard that line about people that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?

I see that you don't deny the charges.

Er, no it relies upon *plasma* and photon interaction with *plasma". Where do you folks even get this stuff?

Perhaps you should read section 2 on the "Redetermined “tired light” paradigm" in the Holushko paper you linked for me. He uses an aether (and an uneven one at that) to model his tired light hypothesis. He states:

"The properties of aether define the speed of electromagnetic waves. These physical properties are not constant, they may fluctuate; therefore, the speed of light in a vacuum is not a fundamental constant. It would be hard to imagine that physical waves that are travelling on the same path for billion years will have exactly the same travelling time, with millisecond accuracy. The travelling time of photons emitted from the same source and observed at the same destination varies. Based on the Central Limit Theorem one may suggest that the travelling time has Gauss distribution."

Even one of his conclusions states:

"It returns physical meaning to light as waves in media."

I find no reference to plasma anywhere in the paper.

Did you read or even gander at the Chen paper? Where does it mention "aether"?

I was responding to the Holushko paper that you referenced.

Which "problems" might those be actually?

That absorbed light will not be emitted on the same flight path. You claim that this will make the light miss the Earth instead of making it blurry. This causes an even larger problem. According to your new hypothesis we shouldn't even be able to see these distant objects.

Actually there was in fact a .9 second delay.

No, there was a 0.9 second difference between the detection of the photons. Over a 7 billion light year flight path that is pretty miniscule for your tired light model. It certain is not enough to explain the type Ia supernova time dilation data. I agree with the authors of the paper when they say that this difference is indistinguishable from a 0.9 sec delay in the origin of those photons at the source.

 

[Michael]

I see that you don't deny the charges.

Why would I deny the fact that *postdicting a fit* is 3/4th's of physics? At least the idea of plasma redshift A) enjoys real empirical laboratory support and B) doesn't require any invisible, impotent on Earth sky entities, and C) isn't being sold to the public as a "successful prediction" like the mainstream does. Dark energy was a postdicted fit and it's now a full 70 percent of Lambda-CDM theory! Dark matter is also a postdicted gap filler fit to galaxy rotation patterns, and it makes up another 24-25 percent of the rest of that ridiculous theory. At least 95 percent of mainstream theory is a postdicted ad hoc fit to explain some observation. What right then does *anyone* have to complain about postdiction of fits in any other physics theory? In other words, "So what"?

Perhaps you should read section 2 on the "Redetermined “tired light” paradigm" in the Holushko paper you linked for me. He uses an aether (and an uneven one at that) to model his tired light hypothesis. He states:

"The properties of aether define the speed of electromagnetic waves. These physical properties are not constant, they may fluctuate; therefore, the speed of light in a vacuum is not a fundamental constant. It would be hard to imagine that physical waves that are travelling on the same path for billion years will have exactly the same travelling time, with millisecond accuracy. The travelling time of photons emitted from the same source and observed at the same destination varies. Based on the Central Limit Theorem one may suggest that the travelling time has Gauss distribution."

FYI, he's describing *one* of several theories that his mathematical models are designed to model. That particular aether that he's describing would be a "field of photons" (carrier particles of the EM field ) in that particular sentence. You'll note that the Stark effect mentioned/theorized by Chen as the potential cause of his observation of plasma redshift in the lab is based upon the same need for EM fields. Holushko also describes Compton scattering and discusses several other options that his software is built to describe. His mathematical models are not aether specific or even plasma redshift theory specific for that matter.

Even one of his conclusions states:

"It returns physical meaning to light as waves in media."

That's because all tired light models treat space as a medium, typically a "plasma" medium with corresponding EM fields, and the reactions are typically associated with interactions between photons and the plasmas (or their corresponding particle fields) of space. Even the idea you cite was based upon the idea of pervasive and persistent EM fields related to the presence of plasma in the medium not unlike the Stark effect.

I find no reference to plasma anywhere in the paper.

You'll find references to plasma in Chen's paper and in Ashmore's paper and you'll find mention of it Ari's paper on plasma redshift and you'll find references to Compton scattering in the paper you cited as well. How interesting you chose to ignore all those other references to plasma and the fact the "aether" that Holushko described were simply carrier particles of the EM fields of space. Any particular reason you did that? Holushko was quite specific about the fact that his work was generic and intended to be generic and not specific to any particular brand of tired light theory.

I was responding to the Holushko paper that you referenced.

Well, sooner or later I suggest you look at the *empirical demonstration* of the process in action in Chen's work. The plasma redshift process is a lot more convincing in the lab than it is in theory in a little C# code IMO. It's certainly a lot more interesting in terms of the data. Holushko does however do everyone a great service by showing how the basic plasma redshift idea *can* and *does* explain all the relevant supernova data.

That absorbed light will not be emitted on the same flight path.

That first of all it depends on exactly what kind of interaction is responsible for the redshift, field to field interactions as described by Ari and the author you cited from Holushko's paper, or it's related to particle absorption. Not every mechanism proposed requires a lot of direct particle interaction, and there's no guarantee that only *one* idea actually applies.

You claim that this will make the light miss the Earth instead of making it blurry. This causes an even larger problem. According to your new hypothesis we shouldn't even be able to see these distant objects.

You're right that it predicts that we cannot see them beyond a specific distance and we already have evidence that mainstream models of light emissions and light absorption from distant objects aren't worth the paper that they are printed on.

New View: Universe Suddenly Twice as Bright | Space.com

Tired light hypotheses tends to predict that the mainstream grossly underestimates the amount of light released by galaxies and such, and in fact that is what we observe.

No, there was a 0.9 second difference between the detection of the photons. Over a 7 billion light year flight path that is pretty miniscule for your tired light model. It certain is not enough to explain the type Ia supernova time dilation data. I agree with the authors of the paper when they say that this difference is indistinguishable from a 0.9 sec delay in the origin of those photons at the source.

Well of course you'd love to sweep that observed delay right under the carpet because it's not pleasant to deal with. The fact remains that it's there and you have no idea why it's there. I'll have to wait till I've finished the paper before I comment much more on it.

 

[Michael]

so there are no working theories of susy particles currently? oh well.

IMO it is not quite fair to say that there are no working SUSY "theories" (on paper). It is just that none of those theories and maths happen to enjoy any empirical verification in the lab at the moment. My guess is that SUSY theory will end up being a big dud at LHC. Keep in mind that even were the researchers at LHC to find some evidence of any SUSY particle, it wouldn't necessarily have the necessary qualities (like longevity) to plug the missing mass gaps of mainstream cosmology theory, anymore than it would necessarily explain "soul" theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why would I deny the fact that *postdicting a fit* is 3/4th's of physics?

The problem I have always had with tired light cosmologies is that they have to move and twist all about to produce what an expanding universe does easily and naturally. Reading tired light cosmologists is like listening to hack defense attorneys trying to explain fingerprints at a crime scene as being created by random droppings of oil from some distant planet instead of coming from the fingers of their client.

At least the idea of plasma redshift A) enjoys real empirical laboratory support

Except for the blurring problem which invalidates the whole thing.

and B) doesn't require any invisible, impotent on Earth sky entities, and C) isn't being sold to the public as a "successful prediction" like the mainstream does. Dark energy was a postdicted fit and it's now a full 70 percent of Lambda-CDM theory! Dark matter is also a postdicted gap filler fit to galaxy rotation patterns, and it makes up another 24-25 percent of the rest of that ridiculous theory. At least 95 percent of mainstream theory is a postdicted ad hoc fit to explain some observation. What right then does *anyone* have to complain about postdiction of fits in any other physics theory? In other words, "So what"?

Hypocrisy much?

FYI, he's describing *one* of several theories that his mathematical models are designed to model. That particular aether that he's describing would be a "field of photons" (carrier particles of the EM field ) in that particular sentence.

He describes the aether as a medium through which the photons move through. It is a classical aether from where I sit, and a non-homogenous one too boot.

Holushko also describes Compton scattering and discusses several other options that his software is built to describe. His mathematical models are not aether specific or even plasma redshift theory specific for that matter.

Then why does he insist that his model has the advantage of having a medium that light propogates through? That is a classical aether.

You'll find references to plasma in Chen's paper and in Ashmore's paper and you'll find mention of it Ari's paper on plasma redshift and you'll find references to Compton scattering in the paper you cited as well. How interesting you chose to ignore all those other references to plasma and the fact the "aether" that Holushko described were simply carrier particles of the EM fields of space.

How interesting that you chose to ignore Holushko's reference to Khaidarov's aether model that he then used to construct his mathematical model.

Well, sooner or later I suggest you look at the *empirical demonstration* of the process in action in Chen's work. The plasma redshift process is a lot more convincing in the lab than it is in theory in a little C# code IMO. It's certainly a lot more interesting in terms of the data. Holushko does however do everyone a great service by showing how the basic plasma redshift idea *can* and *does* explain all the relevant supernova data.

This model scatters light. We do not observe this when looking at distant cosmological bodies.

That first of all it depends on exactly what kind of interaction is responsible for the redshift, field to field interactions as described by Ari and the author you cited from Holushko's paper, or it's related to particle absorption. Not every mechanism proposed requires a lot of direct particle interaction, and there's no guarantee that only *one* idea actually applies.

From what I understand the wavelength of a photon never changes. Ever. Am I wrong on this? How do "field to field" interactions change the wavelength of a photon?

You're right that it predicts that we cannot see them beyond a specific distance . . .

Hold on. You are stating that if the light interacts with matter that it is defelcted at an angle so that we never get that photon reaching Earth. At the same time, you argue that the light reaching Earth is slowed by these same interactions. How can it do both?

Tired light hypotheses tends to predict that the mainstream grossly underestimates the amount of light released by galaxies and such, and in fact that is what we observe.

It tends to? Sounds like another post diction ready to be changed 180 degrees to me. Time after time we hear how the tired light cosmologies will exactly mimic an expanding universe. Why is that? Why not predict that the tired light cosmologies will predict the exact opposite of an expanding universe and then test for it?

Well of course you'd love to sweep that observed delay right under the carpet . . .

You haven't shown that there is a delay.

 

[mkatzwork]

You mean because it's another example of one of those confusing red herring arguments like most handwavy arguments? It's a scientific non issue since we're not talking about light actually propagating through a vacuum, but rather it's propagating through a plasma, albeit a very thin plasma. Not one single redshift paper I've cited requires or describes a Lorentz violation.

Er - Holushko's does, as he clearly states: "the speed of light in a vacuum is not a fundamental constant."

Lorentz violation much? Or not so much, more an entire rejection of SR. Wonder why nobody cares too much about his work or his code.

Ashmore relies heavily on the Magic paper (let's also back this up with this webpage - Tired Light Explains Supernovae Light Curve Broadening - and the 'new physics' you touted on your UC Davis link refers to an implicit Lorentz violation. You may have not thought that is what the 'new physics' were but that's what the implication the authors were drawing. They were referring to the idea of the quantum foam structure, specifically.

You may get around that with saying that there are interactions instead, either field or particle interactions, but then I would point (as I have) that particle collisions lead to unacceptable scattering especially in the higher energy ranges in even the best of scenarios. So then you're left with 'Ari's paper is about field to field interactions'. We'll come on to this.

It's not only "feasible" it's been *recorded in the lab*! How can you even make such silly statements after Chen et all demonstrated that it occurs in the lab in plasma?

(I love your persistent use of the passive voice when you want to wave something away by appealing to an imaginary consensus. "It's been recorded in the lab". "It is thought that", "Inflation is thought to be dead" etc. etc.)

He demonstrated the Stark effect in excess electrons surrounding carbon molecules in a nanotube formation. You're extrapolating from that extremely small scale result to 'plasma redshift is responsible for all redshift'. Untenable as previously demonstrated.

Yes, it's your strawman which is why it's a dumb idea.

Usually when someone yells strawman they explain why they think the analogy is not a fair representation, but from having read your posts pursuant to this I think you're about to flip and agree with me that point particle versions of this theory at least are not tenable, so it seems like you understood the analogy after all...it's not perfect, granted (photons don't have steering wheels!) but can you point to where you have a major objection, unless you're solely claiming field interactions now?

Ya, but unlike you I realize that many types of interactions are likely to occur in many elements, in many encounters. Its not just *one* event that leads to the total redshift, it's an 'averaged total effect", over a long distance.

Just one encounter leading to an alteration of the vector in terms of the direction of travel will be enough to end all discussion, hence the problem you have. Perhaps when I say 'blurring' I should say 'wouldn't even look like an object any more at high z, might not even 'look like' anything at all'.

I can certainly had wave that problem away the same way you hand waved it in there to start with. You're simply not willing to acknowledge the *cumulative* effects of multiple interactions and a net average effect.

No, because one interaction leading to any kind of scattering angle invalidates the whole picture. It's like an arrow heading towards a target. If it gets hit by a crosswind, the chance of it hitting its original target is pretty small. You're asking that all crosswinds will eventually even themselves out and a substantial number of photons will find themselves at precisely the location they meant to originally, at all energy levels, even at high values of z. Untenable on a point particle interpretation.

 

[mkatzwork]

Sometimes, sure. Most such deflection events would result in the photon never reaching the planet to be picked up or recorded.

 

[mkatzwork]

when in fact it is an interactions between light and *plasma particles*, not an interaction between the light and a vacuum! Get it right already!

So when you said this, Michael, with such vehemence - do you admit you might...just *possibly* be wrong - since a point particle interpretation of collisions (as you so helpfully starred for emphasis) leads to untenable "blurring"?

That first of all it depends on exactly what kind of interaction is responsible for the redshift, field to field interactions as described by Ari and the author you cited from Holushko's paper, or it's related to particle absorption. Not every mechanism proposed requires a lot of direct particle interaction, and there's no guarantee that only *one* idea actually applies.

So you jump from predominantly touting Ashmore's theory, to Holushko's C code, to Ari's original paper. (p.s. please observe p.28, he also points out the equation errors previously mentioned in said paper).

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

You're backing away from particle interactions because you see the inherent problem, I think - that's progress.

 

[mkatzwork]

Nobody said anything about overturning GR theory except you.

Holushko - "the speed of light in a vacuum is not a fundamental constant."

SR and GR both go out the window with this. Still want to tout his code?

First you falsely claimed someone is trying to overturn Lorentz law with *plasma* redshift and now you're trying to claim someone wants to overturn GR?

Holushko - "the speed of light in a vacuum is not a fundamental constant."

SR and GR implicitly fall.

Wow. You better never lecture me again about trying to deceive the gullible masses or whatever that was you accused me of awhile back. Let's at least acknowledge that GR theory isn't the least bit dependent upon dark energy

It's not.

nor threatened by it's nonexistence, and plasma redshift has nothing to do with any sort of Lorentz violation in a vacuum.

Agreed. What's the problem?

Er, no. I'm simply looking for prediction differences between the two (or more) models and trying to figure out a way to falsify one or the other or both models based on the data.

And the tired light one still stands falsified.

You seem forget that Ari's redshift theory isn't dependent upon particle collisions, nor dies it require particle collisions, it's about field to field interactions.

Will come back to this, but given wave-particle duality of the various particles/fields at play here, any explanation that fails so spectacularly in one department has all its work left to do in the other department.

I can't say for sure *which* tired light theory 'best' explains any or all of these observations just yet, nor can I be sure that your 2009 study won't be overturned next week.

200 odd follow-up papers...nothing yet. Why would you want it overturned, anyhow - do you see anything unscientific in there that you would object to on methodological grounds? If the readings are right what you want is more data, but that's not quite the same as overturning the other study.

About all I can say for sure is that there *is* a difference in arrival times

Yes.

albeit a smaller one than first thought

Rather.

and there are many possible tired light explanations that do predict variations in arrival times.

...but yet fail as regards a lot of other observational data.

If anything I'd say that the .9 second delay favors Ari's plasma redshift concepts over Ashmore's concepts, but I suspect Ashmore would tend to disagree.

Why? Are his field interactions somehow faster than point particle interactions?

Ashmore's ideas on the other hand seem to have support from Chen's work but I'm sure Ari would disagree.

He'd be right to, pointing out I'm sure that you can't extrapolate from one to the other, and that a single paper on the Stark effect in carbon nanotubes doesn't amount to a whole hill of beans.

What you can't sweep under the carpet however is the fact that there was in fact a delay in *both* studies.

To assume a delay you have to assume the particles left simultaneously, an assumption with no evidential basis. You cannot, therefore it is unreasonable to either a) propose entirely new physics b) propose Lorentz violations (as some others have done) or c) go all frothy about things being observed 'in the lab'.

 

[Michael]

The problem I have always had with tired light cosmologies is that they have to move and twist all about to produce what an expanding universe does easily and naturally.

That wouldn't be so laughable were it not for the fact that 96 percent of Lambda-CDM theory doesn't "naturally" exist on Earth. LOL! Irony overload. The dark energy gap filler isn't "natural" at all. In fact it only exist in one and only scientific theory in the universe.

Keep in mind that even Hubble himself didn't discount the possibility of a tired light mechanism of some kind. He didn't specify which process might be responsible, but he did not discount the idea. Only the mainstream is so arrogant as to 'know' they're right.

Reading tired light cosmologists is like listening to hack defense attorneys trying to explain fingerprints at a crime scene as being created by random droppings of oil from some distant planet instead of coming from the fingers of their client.

Man, you're smoking the irony meter today. You're the one claiming all this exotic "dark" stuff out there in space did it, rather than good old plasma redshift which has *already been demonstrated in the lab*. Wow. The fingerprints of plasma physics and plasma redshift are all over those events, and you don't give a hoot. You'd rather think that some mythical, impotent on Earth sky entity did it rather than to embrace plasma physics. That's like insisting the Earth is flat based on a religious principle.

Except for the blurring problem which invalidates the whole thing.

False. Holushko addresses all those issues in a separate C# download.

Hypocrisy much?

Excuse me? I'm taking a *known and demonstrated* observation from the lab by Chen et all, AKA "plasma redshift" and "scaling it to size" to match known observations. That's about the *only* way that anyone could begin to apply plasma physics to events in space, and observations of space, including redshifted photons.

You on the other hand keep ranting about how your invisible, and impotent on Earth friends did it, and you can't even tell me where 'dark energy' comes form, let alone explain how we might "control" it in a lab!

There's nothing even *remotely* similar about how you and I are 'matching the observation'. I'm doing it with known and demonstrated plasma physical processes that all show up in the lab. You're doing it with invisible, impotent on Earth sky deities and claiming they are "natural', even though you can't name a source and cite an empirical experiment that validates your claim. What a crock!

He describes the aether as a medium through which the photons move through. It is a classical aether from where I sit, and a non-homogenous one too boot.

It's a classical aether of photons that makeup the EM field that is generated by all the charged particles moving around in space. I'll have to give you both some latitude however because Holushko is "willing to go there" in terms of considering that aspect of the fields in space. I'm more akin to Ari's type of theory by the way, and particle collisions wouldn't necessarily be required. Again however, the whole reason the EM fields are there in the first place is because the plasma particles in space produce them as they move around. Were it not for the plasma, there would be no EM fields to influence photons.

Then why does he insist that his model has the advantage of having a medium that light propogates through? That is a classical aether.

Why oh why did you ignore the *OTHER* things on his list like Compton scattering? He is making a 'generic' model that can be influenced by direct particle collisions, and also by EM field influences like Ari's theory and other EM field theories. All of them however are *predicated* upon the existence of plasma in the medium. Compton scattering could not occur without plasma. EM fields would not exist in space without plasma. However you attempt to slice it or dice it, the existence of plasma as the "medium" is responsible for the "effect' of tired light/plasma redshift.

According to Chen et all, the most likely "cause" is the "Stark effect" which is very much akin to an "aether" theory in the final analysis. It is the presence of the electromagnetic field that causes the Stark effect. If you want to call that an "aether" effect, fine.

How interesting that you chose to ignore Holushko's reference to Khaidarov's aether model that he then used to construct his mathematical model.

Why would I ignore it? Many types of tired light theories, including all of Ari's theories are based upon an electromagnetic field to field interaction. That is a "common theme" among various plasma redshift models, including the Stark theory in the final analysis. I can't discount either a particle collision, nor a field to field transfer event at this point in time. For all I know *both* processes could be involved, as well as some other complicating factors at the level of QM. I really have no idea at this point in time.

What I do know is that plasma redshift has been documented in the lab. It's only "logical" and rational to then attempt to apply that observation in the lab to events in space. Folks are already doing that.

This model scatters light. We do not observe this when looking at distant cosmological bodies.

This is a handwave argument and Holushko has a software download to address it. Check it out. The curve fit is perfect and he explains *why* is perfect (If A, then A).

From what I understand the wavelength of a photon never changes. Ever. Am I wrong on this?

You don't understand it properly then. The photon loses kinetic energy, either to the particle collision process, or due to the interaction with EM fields in the plasma. It does redshift and therefore change wavelength.

How do "field to field" interactions change the wavelength of a photon?

You'll have to read Ari's ideas to understand it, or perhaps the author cited by Holushko. It's akin to field to field transfer of energy, or perhaps it's best described as a 'drag effect' on the photon caused by the fact it's passing through various EM fields along the way, all with various strengths.

Hold on. You are stating that if the light interacts with matter that it is defelcted at an angle so that we never get that photon reaching Earth.

Sure. That must happen don't you think? Let's start with something simple like Thompson scattering. Some photons must not reach Earth don't you think?

At the same time, you argue that the light reaching Earth is slowed by these same interactions. How can it do both?

Because "scattering happens" and because "drag on the photon" occurs.

It tends to? Sounds like another post diction ready to be changed 180 degrees to me. Time after time we hear how the tired light cosmologies will exactly mimic an expanding universe. Why is that? Why not predict that the tired light cosmologies will predict the exact opposite of an expanding universe and then test for it?

I think you missed the whole point of Holushko's paper. He points out early on that all of these observations can are are explained *without* any movement and he lists a whole string of possible testing methods, and includes C# code to let other review and change it if they like. What more would you expect him to do? He provided two types of downloads, one for each of the issues he addressed, including the "blurriness" issue you folks keep handwaving about, but his C# code blows out of the water.

You haven't shown that there is a delay.

Yes, I have actually. Even the paper you cited as a rebuttal shows a .9 second delay.

I must say that I'm usually very hesitant to "pick on" a paper signed by so many scientists, but that last rebuttal paper is "really bad" IMO.

It seems to be *entirely* based upon the observation of a *single* high energy photon. Worse IMO, they really do not explain why they *assumed* that it was created in the very *last* of seven events, as opposed to any other single one of the earlier event? What is up with that? For all I know (and for all they know) that one single high energy photon was created *several minutes* earlier, and it just so happened to arrive .9 seconds after the last event seen at lower energy levels. They provided no "pattern" of high energy particles to show a correlation between high and low energy peaks. Instead they randomly seem to "assume" that the one high energy photons they observed must have come from the very last of 7 different events. That alone is the most dubious assumption they make IMO. I'm definitely not impressed with your rebuttal paper.

 

[Michael]

Er - Holushko's does, as he clearly states: "the speed of light in a vacuum is not a fundamental constant."

Wait a second. Holoshko is simply quoting Khaiderov and he explains *why* its not constant, specifically because the plasmas and corresponding EM fields are not constant. Keep in mind that even the Stark effect is based on the presence of the EM fields.

Lorentz violation much? Or not so much, more an entire rejection of SR. Wonder why nobody cares too much about his work or his code.

You just jumped to a *wild* conclusion even *after* Holushko clearly states that his code and methods apply to a *whole list* of tired light theories including Compton scattering models and unknown models as Hubble suggested. He wasn't 'locking it into' a single method, he was covering all the bases, from EM field influence (like the Stark effect observed in the lab), as well as particle collision type events. You can't simply wave your hand like that and discount a whole range of options in one fell swoop without further evidence.

I must say if your *one high energy photon* paper is the best rebuttal that you've got, you're in a world of hurt. I don't even have a clue why they simply *assumed* that one high energy photon actually came from the last of the 7 events rather than a prior event.

Ashmore relies heavily on the Magic paper (let's also back this up with this webpage - Tired Light Explains Supernovae Light Curve Broadening - and the 'new physics' you touted on your UC Davis link refers to an implicit Lorentz violation. You may have not thought that is what the 'new physics' were but that's what the implication the authors were drawing.

Which authors? Ashmore's theory is a particle collision theory in the final analysis. It's not plasma optional. The link he provided is simply a verification of his 'prediction' about delay times. Whether it's valid or not remains to be seen IMO. That *one photon* paper really didn't help your case all that much IMO. The whole paper seems to be based on the "assumption" that the single high energy photon in question must have originated in the last of the 7 events. That one assumption seems like the most dubious assumption of the paper.

They were referring to the idea of the quantum foam structure, specifically.

True. I will give you some latitude on this issue because they are talking about a quantum type of aether that is composed of EM fields between and around the particles, not just the particles themselves. The strength and variation of the fields is related to the location and currents flowing through the plasma however. It's not just the fields that are present in space, the particles movements create those fields. There is a field to field series of 'tired light' models that describe a drag effect on photons from EM fields in space. If you want to call that EM field a "quantum foam", I'd have to say that's a legitimate way to describe it. That structure of that field however is directly related to the structure of the plasma. The EM fields wouldn't exist without the plasma. Inside that plasma there are carrier particles for the EM fields that move between the particles. It is a type of quantum aether of sorts, but it's density is related to plasma density, and more specifically current density, just like the Stark effect proposed by Chen et all.

You may get around that with saying that there are interactions instead, either field or particle interactions, but then I would point (as I have) that particle collisions lead to unacceptable scattering especially in the higher energy ranges in even the best of scenarios. So then you're left with 'Ari's paper is about field to field interactions'. We'll come on to this.

From the reading I've done, there appear to be two types of plasma redshift proposals. Ashmore describes a particle collision process. Ari describes a field to field interaction process much like the one described by Khaiderov. Keep in mind that this isn't necessarily an either/or proposition. There's no reason that both process cannot occur in plasma.

(I love your persistent use of the passive voice when you want to wave something away by appealing to an imaginary consensus. "It's been recorded in the lab".

Huh? I'm not appealing to any consensus, I'm noting the lab results, period. You're welcome to refute Chen's work if that floats your boat and you think you'll make any headway on that front. I'm not appealing to any consensus on the topic.

"It is thought that", "Inflation is thought to be dead" etc. etc.)

When describing mythical entities in the sky, when there are several metaphysical brands to choose from, one is forced to talk to about the "consensus of option' because no lab results support it.

He demonstrated the Stark effect in excess electrons surrounding carbon molecules in a nanotube formation. You're extrapolating from that extremely small scale result to 'plasma redshift is responsible for all redshift'. Untenable as previously demonstrated.

It's not untenable and Holushko demonstrates it and provides two different C# programs to prove it. You can't handwave it way based on *one high energy photon*. I won't let you.

Usually when someone yells strawman they explain why they think the analogy is not a fair representation, but from having read your posts pursuant to this I think you're about to flip and agree with me that point particle versions of this theory at least are not tenable, so it seems like you understood the analogy after all...it's not perfect, granted (photons don't have steering wheels!) but can you point to where you have a major objection, unless you're solely claiming field interactions now?

From my perspective you're already trying to "dumb it down" and make me choose one or the other when both processes could in fact play a role in the 'average redshift' we observe. I'm not convinced that any redshift model is 100 percent correct yet. I intend to keep my options open for awhile and see what happens with future studies.

Just one encounter leading to an alteration of the vector in terms of the direction of travel will be enough to end all discussion, hence the problem you have.

What problem? That is actually *your* problem, not mine. You folks just found out that the universe shines twice as brightly as you first believed and it absorbs/scatters more light than you first believed. How is that *my* problem?

Perhaps when I say 'blurring' I should say 'wouldn't even look like an object any more at high z, might not even 'look like' anything at all'.

Did you notice that Holushko addressed the blurring problems and provides a second download for that very purpose?

No, because one interaction leading to any kind of scattering angle invalidates the whole picture. It's like an arrow heading towards a target. If it gets hit by a crosswind, the chance of it hitting its original target is pretty small. You're asking that all crosswinds will eventually even themselves out and a substantial number of photons will find themselves at precisely the location they meant to originally, at all energy levels, even at high values of z. Untenable on a point particle interpretation.

Not necessarily, or at least not completely. There may in fact be a few "lucky photons' that simply aren't displaced all that much based on a few particle collisions and *lots* of EM field interactions. I don't see things as having to be *one or the other* like you do. I'm aware that it's a long way between here and there and the odds are against them, but some few do "make it". Some of them never make it which is why we just discovered that the universe is twice as bright as we once believed. You have scattering problem to explain too, not just a problem with the mass calculations related to galaxy light output.

I am going to comment now on that last paper you cited. I need you to explain to me why on Earth they *assumed* that the *one (and only one) high energy photon came from the very last of the seven recorded events? For all I know, and from what I can tell, there is no particular reason for that 'assumption' other than the fact it fits better with their existing beliefs? Care to explain why that one photon must have come from that last event? I don't see any reason to assume that must be true, particularly since the UC Davis group notice a *several minute* delay. For all I know the one photon they build a federal case over isn't even actually related to the seventh event as they *assume*, but rather the first, second, or third event in the sequence of events. I can't justify their claim about a *single* photon being related to any particular event.

I'd feel quite differently if the showed a pattern of spikes in higher and lower energy photons that show a consistent delay pattern, or no delay pattern between spikes but I see no reason to associate a single photons with any particular one of the 7 events mentioned. How do they even know it wasn't simply a coincidence that the high energy photon arrived .9 seconds after the very last event observed in lower energy wavelengths?

 

[Michael]

The shining: astronomers find our universe is twice as bright> Swinburne Magazine

But of course the mainstream hasn't changed their dark sky models one bit, and it's a recent "revelation' to them that 'scattering happens" in space. Sheesh.

 

[Michael]

Holushko - "the speed of light in a vacuum is not a fundamental constant."

SR and GR both go out the window with this. Still want to tout his code?

Yep. As he explained, his code is generic and it relates to several models, not just one. The code covers lots of bases, but all the models require the presence of plasma in space and they require the EM fields the plasma particles create as they move and carry current. It's still a "plasma redshift' process, particularly the process that Chen describes.

Agreed. What's the problem?

The "problem" is that plasma redshift has been observed in the lab, and your theories do not account for it. More importantly EU theory does account for it.

And the tired light one still stands falsified.

No. You never even really gave it a fair shake in the first place.

200 odd follow-up papers...nothing yet. Why would you want it overturned, anyhow - do you see anything unscientific in there that you would object to on methodological grounds? If the readings are right what you want is more data, but that's not quite the same as overturning the other study.

We have two studies, both with different results. Why? I can't even figure out why the last study *assumes* that the one and only one photon came from the very last of the seven events they recorded. As best as I can tell, that is strictly because it better fits with their beliefs.

Rather.

Ya, but why are they different results? How can I even be sure that the photon in question in your paper of choice is even actually related to the very last of the seven total events?

...but yet fail as regards a lot of other observational data.

What "observational data" might that be? *One* high energy photon?

Why? Are his field interactions somehow faster than point particle interactions?

The are less apt to cause a scattering effect, hence more light and less blurriness.

He'd be right to, pointing out I'm sure that you can't extrapolate from one to the other, and that a single paper on the Stark effect in carbon nanotubes doesn't amount to a whole hill of beans.

Ashmore explained how Chen's results are consistent with his theories and he explains how his theories are consistent with solar observations. I'd say that's a lot more than a "hill of beans", particularly compared to dark sky entities galore.

To assume a delay you have to assume the particles left simultaneously, an assumption with no evidential basis. You cannot, therefore it is unreasonable to either a) propose entirely new physics b) propose Lorentz violations (as some others have done) or c) go all frothy about things being observed 'in the lab'.

I don't even know that the one photon in question actually originated in the very last of the seven observed events. How do you know that?