Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

[Michael]

That is where you are going wrong. I'm not debating the definition of either a true or non-true vacuum and I think we'd agree on the definitions most likely. The vacuum he is referring to in that particular sentence is most certainly that of SR, because otherwise why bother to have the "a fundamental" constant? The only mainstream theory relevant that directly addresses the -fundamental- constant of the speed of light in a vacuum is SR.

If he just wanted to say the speed of light can change in a plasma in outer space why bother talking about "fundamental constants"?? There's nothing fundamental about it if he's simply referring to the intergalactic "vacuum".

The way I see things, *if* we had a "perfect" vacuum, we would have a constant speed of light in a vacuum. That's not really in dispute as I see it.

The question and issue in dispute is what happens when we introduce a non uniform EM field (and associated plasma) into that 'vacuum'? Will that produce two different results? Will the variable EM fields (and plasma) have any effect on photons?

Plasma redshift is dependent upon plasma. Those variable EM fields are also highly dependent upon plasma. The variable EM fields and associated carrier particles would not even exist were it not for the presence of plasma in the vacuum.

We've now "changed the conditions" of the vacuum, and we're debating on what happens to light traveling through an "imperfect vacuum". That's the question being asked. Nobody is doubting that in a "pure vacuum" that the propagation speed would be consistent, or that SR theory is correct.

What we (as plasma redshift proponents) are proposing is a "real world" scenario, full of lots of "particles of energy" that exist inside of all the real "vacuums" of spacetime. Such vacuums are "imperfect" vacuums. They are not the "same as" the vacuums described in SR.

It's really a separate question than the first question involving a "pure vacuum". The vacuum described by Holushko isn't the same vacuum being described in SR.

 

[Loudmouth]

The way I see things, *if* we had a "perfect" vacuum, we would have a constant speed of light in a vacuum. That's not really in dispute as I see it.

The question and issue in dispute is what happens when we introduce a non uniform EM field (and associated plasma) into that 'vacuum'? Will that produce two different results? Will the variable EM fields (and plasma) have any effect on photons?

Here is the problem I see (admittedly, not an uber physics expert). The actual speed of the photon in the plasma is the same as the speed of that photon in a vacuum. What differs is that the photons are absorbed. The photon that is emitted is not the same photon that was absorbed, and there is a delay between absorption and emission. That time delay between absorption and emission is what causes the "slower speed". The difference in wavelength is due to the difference in the energies of the absorbed and emitted photons. Isn't this correct?

We've now "changed the conditions" of the vacuum, and we're debating on what happens to light traveling through an "imperfect vacuum". That's the question being asked. Nobody is doubting that in a "pure vacuum" that the propagation speed would be consistent, or that SR theory is correct.

If photons were being absorbed and emitted then we would expect a blurring effect since the photons are no longer following parallel paths.

It's really a separate question than the first question involving a "pure vacuum". The vacuum described by Holushko isn't the same vacuum being described in SR.

I didn't see where Holushko even discussed plasmas. He seemed quite adamant about an aether, though. Holushko suggests that one of positive points for his theory is that light now has a medium to propogate in. That is an aether. That is not a plasma where light propogates in a vacuum and is absorbed and emitted by particles.

 

[Michael]

Here is the problem I see (admittedly, not an uber physics expert). The actual speed of the photon in the plasma is the same as the speed of that photon in a vacuum.

Well, that would be your first questionable assumption. Light doesn't move through various materials at exactly the same speed.

Speed of light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Refractive index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plasma wouldn't behave exactly like a vacuum.

What differs is that the photons are absorbed. The photon that is emitted is not the same photon that was absorbed, and there is a delay between absorption and emission.

You're actually 'assuming' that it's a particle to particle kinetic energy transfer like Ashmore describes rather than a field to field transfer which Holushko and Ari describe. Both models are proposed in plasma redshift/tired light theories.

That time delay between absorption and emission is what causes the "slower speed".

You might read up on the refractive indexes of various materials. There are also two distinct types of tired light theories to choose from. It's actually a little more complicated than you imagine.

The difference in wavelength is due to the difference in the energies of the absorbed and emitted photons. Isn't this correct?

In Ashmore's model, yes that's how it works. In Holushko's model, not really. He's proposing more of a field to field interaction that doesn't necessarily involved photon absorption. It's more of a "drag" effect on the photon due to the presence of the various carrier particle densities of space that it must pass through on the way to Earth.

If photons were being absorbed and emitted then we would expect a blurring effect since the photons are no longer following parallel paths.

First of all, we do see a bit of a blurring effect, not to mention pixelation effects in very distant images. You're right however, that absorption is probably "more likely" to cause such an effect compared to a field to field transfer as described by Ari, or by Holushko.

Earliest spiral galaxy ever seen: a shocking discovery
http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2012/earliestspir.jpg

I didn't see where Holushko even discussed plasmas. He seemed quite adamant about an aether, though. Holushko suggests that one of positive points for his theory is that light now has a medium to propogate in. That is an aether. That is not a plasma where light propogates in a vacuum and is absorbed and emitted by particles.

Holushko's field interaction (aether interaction) ideas are more akin to the field to field interaction that Ari is describing rather than a particle collision process like Ashmore presents. These are separate ways of creating a "tired light" effect, and separate models of tired light theories.

Holushko is more interested in the field to field effects and does describe an aether composed of the carrier particles of the EM fields that are present in the vacuum. Those fields however are directly related to the plasma particles, the movement of those particles, and the density of those particles. In other words, while the tired light mechanism Holushko proposes is a field to field transfer of kinetic energy, the presence of the EM fields is predicated and dictated by the layout of plasma in the vacuum. Keep in mind that magnetic fields are "created by" the movement of charged particles. The carrier particle field that Holushko calls an aether would not exist in the absence of plasma. The carrier particle field is created by the movement of charged particles. In Holushko's example however there is no particular need for absorption or the emission of another photon. It's therefore "less" prone to blurring effects, and we do observe such effects.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, that would be your first questionable assumption. Light doesn't move through various materials at exactly the same speed.

From my understanding, it does. The delay is due to the photon being absorbed and then emitted. The photon is still moving at c between particles. Everywhere I look I get explanations like this:

"In between molecules light still travels at light speed. It’s just that, with all those molecules around, it’s always darting ahead, getting absorbed, pausing for a moment, then being re-emitted. On the scale we’re used too, this happens so much and so fast that you don’t notice the starting-and-stopping. Instead you notice an average slowing of the light."
Q: If light slows down in different materials, then how can it be a universal speed? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist

You're actually 'assuming' that it's a particle to particle kinetic energy transfer like Ashmore describes rather than a field to field transfer which Holushko and Ari describe. Both models are proposed in plasma redshift/tired light theories.

So where has anyone shown that a field devoid of light absorbing particles is able to slow light? Or is light only slowed when particles are present?

You might read up on the refractive indexes of various materials. There are also two distinct types of tired light theories to choose from. It's actually a little more complicated than you imagine.

I will gladly admit that physics is not by forte, but this one problem (particle absorption/emission) keeps cropping up when I read about plasma cosmologies. I was hoping to get that cleared up.

In Ashmore's model, yes that's how it works. In Holushko's model, not really. He's proposing more of a field to field interaction that doesn't necessarily involved photon absorption. It's more of a "drag" effect on the photon due to the presence of the various carrier particle densities of space that it must pass through on the way to Earth.

Ari's paper is dense, to the least. Are there simpler references showing how field to field transfers work and how it slows light?

Also, how does plasma cosmology handle blue shifted galaxies such as Andromeda?

 

[Michael]

From my understanding, it does.

The delay is due to the photon being absorbed and then emitted. The photon is still moving at c between particles. Everywhere I look I get explanations like this:

"In between molecules light still travels at light speed. It’s just that, with all those molecules around, it’s always darting ahead, getting absorbed, pausing for a moment, then being re-emitted. On the scale we’re used too, this happens so much and so fast that you don’t notice the starting-and-stopping. Instead you notice an average slowing of the light."
Q: If light slows down in different materials, then how can it be a universal speed? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist

So if we can observe photons that bounce their way through dense materials like glass, and water and other various transparent materials, why would you necessarily *assume* that the image has to become blurred? It would depend on the optical properties of the plasma in question would it not?

So where has anyone shown that a field devoid of light absorbing particles is able to slow light? Or is light only slowed when particles are present?

First of all, the vacuums of spacetime are certainly *not* devoid of light absorbing particles.

Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference

It's actually blocking more than half of the light we see.

I would say it still remains to be seen whether Ashmore's model is correct or some other model is correct, but either way, Chen has demonstrated that plasma redshift is a real physical process in plasma. There's still a debate about *why* it occurs. Ashmore's model is simply dependent upon a relatively 'transparent' material.

I will gladly admit that physics is not by forte, but this one problem (particle absorption/emission) keeps cropping up when I read about plasma cosmologies. I was hoping to get that cleared up.

If you simply think of the medium as being relatively 'transparent' like glass, rather than opaque like a brick, things will clear up pretty quickly. It's only because you're *insisting/assuming/handwaving* that the image *must* become blurry that you're having an "issue". Note you've never provided any math to support that claim, and Holushko has already produced code to test the spectral aging characteristics and they match perfectly.

Ari's paper is dense, to the least. Are there simpler references showing how field to field transfers work and how it slows light?

I'd say Holushko's math and his description of the carrier particle as an "aether" is about the best I've personally seen. You might read through the reference paper by the author he cites. Perhaps that will help?

Also, how does plasma cosmology handle blue shifted galaxies such as Andromeda?

The easiest way of course (It's moving toward us).

It is however possible that some of these effects relate to the amount of excitation of electrons, and the fact that particularly galaxy is rather close and therefore it's light experiences very little "redshift" on it's way to Earth. In other words all galaxies might emit light that is slighly "blueshifted" originally due to excitation states in electrons from the current flowing through the galaxy. The photons may simply lose energy on their way through the intergalactic plasmas, particularly the ones at the greatest distances. Since that particular galaxy is closer to us, we see little or no redshift, and only the blueshift related to it's intrinsic energy state. In other words it 'could be' relative static compared to the Milky Way, and just 'appear' blueshifted because of the intrinsic blueshift effect of all galaxies. That's far "less likely" IMO.

http://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/PubDat_181837.pdf
Phys. Rev. A 48, R1749 (1993): Blue shift of the Mie plasma frequency in Ag clusters and particles
Phys. Rev. B 33, 2828 (1986): Blue shift of the dipolar plasma resonance in small silver particles on an alumina surface

 

[Loudmouth]

So if we can observe photons that bounce their way through dense materials like glass, and water and other various transparent materials, why would you necessarily *assume* that the image has to become blurred?

Because photons are not always emitted along the same path that they are absorbed in. You never get 100% trasmission through a medium. You always lose photons.

It would depend on the optical properties of the plasma in question would it not?

What properties allow emission to always occur along the same path as absorption?

First of all, the vacuums of spacetime are certainly *not* devoid of light absorbing particles.

Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference

It's actually blocking more than half of the light we see.

If I am understanding PC correctly, you are saying that the light is not blocked. You are saying that it is slowed but it still reaches us.

I would say it still remains to be seen whether Ashmore's model is correct or some other model is correct, but either way, Chen has demonstrated that plasma redshift is a real physical process in plasma. There's still a debate about *why* it occurs. Ashmore's model is simply dependent upon a relatively 'transparent' material.

So it is too early to claim that there are field to field transfers of energy that would slow light?

If you simply think of the medium as being relatively 'transparent' like glass, rather than opaque like a brick, things will clear up pretty quickly.

It is that analogy that is creating the problem. The speed of photons in glass is c. There is nowhere in glass that light is not travelling at c. Also, the slightest change in density within the glass will produce a distorted and blurry image. Our blue sky is created by the scattering of light by the supposed "transparent" gasses in the atmosphere. The reason we get diffuse sunlight from cloud cover is due to the scattering of light from absorption and emission. The reason the sky is blue is because of light scattering as it is absorbed and emitted by molecules in our atmosphere. New telescopes have adaptive optics which correct blurring caused by the "transparent" gasses in our atmosphere.

It's only because you're *insisting/assuming/handwaving* that the image *must* become blurry that you're having an "issue".

From what I have read, it is the evidence that insists that light would be blurry. Even glass scatters light, and any image will be necessarily blurrier if it passes through glass than if it had passed through a vacuum.

Note you've never provided any math to support that claim, and Holushko has already produced code to test the spectral aging characteristics and they match perfectly.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't know where to start with the math. What I do know is that blurring is a long standing criticism of plasma cosmology. PC supporters have tried to work around this blurring effect, but apparently without any luck. I may be misreading what you are posting, but this "field to field interaction" seems to be a workaround of the blurring problem. This interaction is being stressed because it does not involve particle absorption and emission. This seems to be a tacit admission that particle interactions alone are problematic.

The easiest way of course (It's moving toward us).

That's why I would think that the easiest explanation for redshifts is that the galaxies are moving away from us.

It is however possible that some of these effects relate to the amount of excitation of electrons, and the fact that particularly galaxy is rather close and therefore it's light experiences very little "redshift" on it's way to Earth. In other words all galaxies might emit light that is slighly "blueshifted" originally due to excitation states in electrons from the current flowing through the galaxy.

Might? Why would hydrogen lines from distant stars be any different than the hydrogen lines from our own star?

http://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/PubDat_181837.pdf
Phys. Rev. A 48, R1749 (1993): Blue shift of the Mie plasma frequency in Ag clusters and particles
Phys. Rev. B 33, 2828 (1986): Blue shift of the dipolar plasma resonance in small silver particles on an alumina surface

So plasmas now cause blueshifts?

 

[Michael]

Because photons are not always emitted along the same path that they are absorbed in. You never get 100% trasmission through a medium. You always lose photons.

I'm counting on losing some of the photons, and we observe photon loss, twice as much as they assumed in fact.

What properties allow emission to always occur along the same path as absorption?

The answer is that it doesn't. We lose some of them along the way due to the fact that some of them are not directed our way.

If I am understanding PC correctly, you are saying that the light is not blocked. You are saying that it is slowed but it still reaches us.

Correct. Think of it like "glass". It's "transparent", but some photon losses are inevitable.

So it is too early to claim that there are field to field transfers of energy that would slow light?

I would assume it's "unproven" at this point in time.

It is that analogy that is creating the problem. The speed of photons in glass is c. There is nowhere in glass that light is not travelling at c.

Glass has a refractive index of 1.5, not 1.0, therefore your statement is false. Photons do not travel at c through glass.

Also, the slightest change in density within the glass will produce a distorted and blurry image.

And we do see somewhat "blurry images", particularly at the highest redshifts.

Our blue sky is created by the scattering of light by the supposed "transparent" gasses in the atmosphere. The reason we get diffuse sunlight from cloud cover is due to the scattering of light from absorption and emission. The reason the sky is blue is because of light scattering as it is absorbed and emitted by molecules in our atmosphere. New telescopes have adaptive optics which correct blurring caused by the "transparent" gasses in our atmosphere.

But there isn't that kind of 'atmosphere' in space. It's a much "thinner' environment.

From what I have read, it is the evidence that insists that light would be blurry. Even glass scatters light, and any image will be necessarily blurrier if it passes through glass than if it had passed through a vacuum.

True, but so what? Its a question of "how much" blurring we observe, not *if* it occurs. You're still just 'handwaving' in an argument without so much a single published study to support any of your claims.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't know where to start with the math. What I do know is that blurring is a long standing criticism of plasma cosmology.

It's long standing *bogus* criticism that is typically devoid of any mathematical support and none of it is published.

PC supporters have tried to work around this blurring effect, but apparently without any luck.

That seems to be a problem in *one* model only, one I haven't even read yet to be honest. I'm not attached to any *one* model by the way. FYI, Ari's work seems to be considerably more difficult to criticize in terms of blurring issues.

I may be misreading what you are posting, but this "field to field interaction" seems to be a workaround of the blurring problem. This interaction is being stressed because it does not involve particle absorption and emission. This seems to be a tacit admission that particle interactions alone are problematic.

It's more of a tacit admission that more than one process may be responsible for the *total* amount of redshift, and more than one mechanism has been proposed. You're correct that a field to field transfer is more appealing in terms of blurring, but again, it's not clear that only *one* mechanism is at work, some blurring does occur and there are several possible explanations to choose from.

That's why I would think that the easiest explanation for redshifts is that the galaxies are moving away from us.

That would be fine if they didn't have to move away from us at faster than the speed of light. It's impossible to explain that in terms of objects actually moving. That's why the mainstream evokes magical expanding space tricks. So much for "easy" explanations. Space doesn't do any magic expanding tricks on Earth, just in creation mythologies.

Might? Why would hydrogen lines from distant stars be any different than the hydrogen lines from our own star?

They wouldn't be different when emitted, they would simply be affected by free electrons in the medium as Chen observed in the lab.

So plasmas now cause blueshifts?

In some few conditions, yet. In Chen's type of experiment, no. It depend on the actual conditions of the plasma.

 

[Michael]

Our blue sky is created by the scattering of light by the supposed "transparent" gasses in the atmosphere.

FYI, the reason that the universe has an average temperature (WMAP wavelengths) is due to the same basic effect. Light from suns is constantly absorbed and emitted by molecules and elements and plasmas in spacetime.

 

[Michael]

PC supporters have tried to work around this blurring effect, but apparently without any luck.

FYI, thank you for turning me on to that author by the way.

Author Query Results

It's really unclear to me at this point if Wright's criticisms are even valid. He doesn't seem to correctly represent Kierein's work as I understand it, and since it was written in 1998 (yet never published), Wright certainly wasn't aware that plasma redshift has now been documented in a lab. More interesting is the fact that Kierein "predicted" that the the process was related to the number of free electrons along a line of sight, and that is also what Chen observed in the lab.

I'll have to do a lot of research on this author's work before I can comment much more, but the fact Wright's criticisms aren't even published seems pretty 'hokey' considering the fact that Kierein went out of his way to publish his work, and had coathors working with him. I don't like unpublished website references very much. It's hard to tell if they even correctly represented the author they are attempting to refute since none of their statements were ever peer reviewed.

 

[Loudmouth]

FYI, thank you for turning me on to that author by the way.

Author Query Results

It's really unclear to me at this point if Wright's criticisms are even valid. He doesn't seem to correctly represent Kierein's work as I understand it, and since it was written in 1998 (yet never published), Wright certainly wasn't aware that plasma redshift has now been documented in a lab. More interesting is the fact that Kierein "predicted" that the the process was related to the number of free electrons along a line of sight, and that is also what Chen observed in the lab.

It would certainly be interesting to see if Wright is correct with respect to this claim:

"Kierein needs to drastically change the properties of the Compton effect to make his model for the redshift. He increases the cross-section by a factor of up to one trillion and decreases the scattering angle by a factor of one million. The mean wavelength shift per scattering must be at least 25,000 times smaller than the Compton wavelength. The result is nothing like the known Compton effect, so Kierein is really invoking a unknown physical effect and not the Compton effect. The other objections to tired light models also apply. This model is not acceptable. "
Kierein's Erroneous Compton Model for the Redshift

If true, that seems to be a pretty big blow for PC. Kierein apparently needed to change the very constants of nature in order to get sharp images with PC. If the actual values are used then the light is scattered more than what is observed.

The question is not about the ability of plasma emitting photons with a longer wavelength than the photons they absorbed (i.e. plasma redshift). The question is why we don't see the light scattering that this model predicts.

I'll have to do a lot of research on this author's work before I can comment much more, but the fact Wright's criticisms aren't even published seems pretty 'hokey' considering the fact that Kierein went out of his way to publish his work, and had coathors working with him. I don't like unpublished website references very much. It's hard to tell if they even correctly represented the author they are attempting to refute since none of their statements were ever peer reviewed.

Was Ari's work on plasma redshift published in a journal? I was under the impression that he hadn't found anyone to publish it yet. That is not to say that it is wrong simply because it is unpublished, but I think the criticisms above should also apply to Ari.

 

[Loudmouth]

FYI, the reason that the universe has an average temperature (WMAP wavelengths) is due to the same basic effect. Light from suns is constantly absorbed and emitted by molecules and elements and plasmas in spacetime.

Then we should expect very blurry images of distant galaxies.

 

[Loudmouth]

I would assume it's "unproven" at this point in time.

Ok, thanks for that. I kept trying to use google searches to find something about this, but I wasn't able to. The closest I could find was the Faraday effect which changes the polarity of light, but it doesn't change the velocity.

If we go by your standard of only using known mechanisms from lab experiments then we have to leave out these field to field interactions for the time being, don't we? If so, that leaves us just with the particle interactions which would seem to be catastrophic for PC due to scattering.

Glass has a refractive index of 1.5, not 1.0, therefore your statement is false. Photons do not travel at c through glass.

There is no point during their movement through glass that they are not moving at c. That is what all the physicists are saying from what I have read. Those photons are either potential energy in the molecules of glass, or they are emitted photons moving at c. There is no other speed other than c for light.

We can use a train system as an analogy. This trains happen to be massless, and moves at just one speed which we will call T. The trains also make stops at different stations, and because the trains are massless they can come to a sudden stop when they reache the station and instantly accelerate to T when they leave the station. So lets say that there are 10 stops along the route. At each stop the passengers will get off of one train and get onto the train waiting at the station. That train then takes off for the next station where the process is repeated. If a train did not have to make any stops it could go from the beginning of the route to the end in 100 minutes moving at speed T. However, due to the 10 stops it takes 200 minutes for a train to pop out at the end of the route.

So, what is the speed of the train? The AVERAGE speed of the train is time over distance, so it would be 0.5T. So was the train ever travelling at 0.5T? No. Every train was moving at T when it was moving. Also, the train that came out at the end of the route was not the same train that started the route.

From my understanding, that is how it works with light moving through a medium. The photon that entered the glass medium is not the same photon that exits the glass. When photons are moving within glass they are moving at c. When they are absorbed the impart potential energy which is then later emitted as a new photon.

And we do see somewhat "blurry images", particularly at the highest redshifts.

But not as blurry as they should be if PC is correct, or at least that is what I see physicists claiming.

But there isn't that kind of 'atmosphere' in space. It's a much "thinner' environment.

We are also talking about much. much, much greater distances, so the overall number of interactions will greatly increase.

True, but so what? Its a question of "how much" blurring we observe, not *if* it occurs. You're still just 'handwaving' in an argument without so much a single published study to support any of your claims.

If Wright is correct, the published studies had to change known constants so that would seem to be a problem.

That seems to be a problem in *one* model only, one I haven't even read yet to be honest. I'm not attached to any *one* model by the way. FYI, Ari's work seems to be considerably more difficult to criticize in terms of blurring issues.

Given the size of some of his unpublished papers, they are difficult . . . period.

It's more of a tacit admission that more than one process may be responsible for the *total* amount of redshift, and more than one mechanism has been proposed. You're correct that a field to field transfer is more appealing in terms of blurring, but again, it's not clear that only *one* mechanism is at work, some blurring does occur and there are several possible explanations to choose from.

I would think that Ari should first show that this interaction even exists before incorporating it into any model.

That would be fine if they didn't have to move away from us at faster than the speed of light.

The galaxies that we observe redshift in are not moving away from us at greater than light speed, so why is this a problem?

It's impossible to explain that in terms of objects actually moving. That's why the mainstream evokes magical expanding space tricks. So much for "easy" explanations. Space doesn't do any magic expanding tricks on Earth, just in creation mythologies.

It would appear that field to field interactions are even more magical.

In some few conditions, yet. In Chen's type of experiment, no. It depend on the actual conditions of the plasma.

So what are the properties and densities of plasma between galaxies?

 

[Michael]

It would certainly be interesting to see if Wright is correct with respect to this claim:

"Kierein needs to drastically change the properties of the Compton effect to make his model for the redshift. He increases the cross-section by a factor of up to one trillion and decreases the scattering angle by a factor of one million. The mean wavelength shift per scattering must be at least 25,000 times smaller than the Compton wavelength. The result is nothing like the known Compton effect, so Kierein is really invoking a unknown physical effect and not the Compton effect.

I suspect he's right about that point which is why Ari acknowledges that it's not a simple Compton effect. Kierein also seems to acknowledge that he has a problem at higher redshifts as well.

If true, that seems to be a pretty big blow for PC. Kierein apparently needed to change the very constants of nature in order to get sharp images with PC. If the actual values are used then the light is scattered more than what is observed.

Its not actually a blow to PC at all by the way. Chen demonstrated that plasma redshift is a real process in plasma. It's a matter of finding out 'which' tired light/plasma redshift option matches up best with theory. Almost everyone's theory is sensitive to the number of free electrons.

The question is not about the ability of plasma emitting photons with a longer wavelength than the photons they absorbed (i.e. plasma redshift). The question is why we don't see the light scattering that this model predicts.

My suspicion is that Kierein's model isn't the correct one and Ari's model probably is the correct one.

Was Ari's work on plasma redshift published in a journal? I was under the impression that he hadn't found anyone to publish it yet. That is not to say that it is wrong simply because it is unpublished, but I think the criticisms above should also apply to Ari.

It does apply to his work to some degree. I'm not discounting Wright's criticisms out of hand however, and unless you can find a problem in Ari's work, you can't discount his work.

 

[Michael]

Ok, thanks for that. I kept trying to use google searches to find something about this, but I wasn't able to. The closest I could find was the Faraday effect which changes the polarity of light, but it doesn't change the velocity.

If we go by your standard of only using known mechanisms from lab experiments then we have to leave out these field to field interactions for the time being, don't we?

How can we? Does Chen know for sure what the 'cause' is?

If so, that leaves us just with the particle interactions which would seem to be catastrophic for PC due to scattering.

No, it is not. That whole scattering concept is a ruse IMO. You could be right about it being a problem in *some* tired light concepts, but not all of them. You're also pretty much ignoring some of your own references in terms of "clean" (trajectory neutral) transactions in various mediums. Not all transactions result in large amounts of scattering.

There is no point during their movement through glass that they are not moving at c. That is what all the physicists are saying from what I have read.

They also talk about a refractive index which you seem to be completely ignoring. Whatever their speed might be in terms of an "average', it is affected by the medium. Every medium has a different refractive index.

Those photons are either potential energy in the molecules of glass, or they are emitted photons moving at c. There is no other speed other than c for light.

If they ever spend any time "inside" of any molecule for any period of time, then they aren't moving at C. Even though they pass through molecules, they are predominantly 'clean' transactions since most of them get through the glass and are not blurred at all. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're complaining about blurring when clearly not every particle to particle transaction causes blurring. Even polarity is preserved!

We can use a train system as an analogy. This trains happen to be massless, and moves at just one speed which we will call T. The trains also make stops at different stations, and because the trains are massless they can come to a sudden stop when they reache the station and instantly accelerate to T when they leave the station. So lets say that there are 10 stops along the route. At each stop the passengers will get off of one train and get onto the train waiting at the station. That train then takes off for the next station where the process is repeated. If a train did not have to make any stops it could go from the beginning of the route to the end in 100 minutes moving at speed T. However, due to the 10 stops it takes 200 minutes for a train to pop out at the end of the route.

That is essentially Ashmore's brand of redshift in a nutshell. What you're failing to notice is the fact that even polarity is preserved in such transactions and the image isn't blurry even though all the photons spent some time inside of various glass molecules and they all interacted with a lot of molecules inside the glass.

But not as blurry as they should be if PC is correct, or at least that is what I see physicists claiming.

It depends *entirely* upon the model you're considering. Holushko's model does accounts for it, checks for it, double checks for it, and eliminates it as a serious problem. There's even a separate C# download for spectral aging.

We are also talking about much. much, much greater distances, so the overall number of interactions will greatly increase.

Keep in mind that the distance involved aren't nearly as "great" in plasma redshift models, and the amount of redshift really relates to the total number of interactions. A glass that is 10 times thicker than an ordinary pane of glass doesn't necessarily lead to an image that is 10 times more 'blurry'.

If Wright is correct, the published studies had to change known constants so that would seem to be a problem.

Again, it depends on the model. Even Keirein seems to acknowledge that he has a problem at higher Z's.

Given the size of some of his unpublished papers, they are difficult . . . period.

Ya, but consider his background. He's not just "some guy', he has a lot of knowledge and experience in this specific area of expertize. The fact they are 'large' is related to the fact that he's *not* simplifying many of the equations that are often simplified in other work. That makes for lengthy papers and verbose explanations of what you're doing and why you're doing it. So what if it's 'difficult'? That's been a problem for the mainstream since the dawn of time. They keep choosing the "simplest" mathematical models (like Chapman) over the sloppier, uglier ones provided by Birkeland. It took them 60 years to figure out that Chapman was wrong and Birkeland was right only because they didn't like how "difficult" it was to work with Birkeland's maths.

I would think that Ari should first show that this interaction even exists before incorporating it into any model.

Why? Did the mainstream show that dark energy exists before stuffing it into what used to be a zero in a GR formula? Did Guth demonstrate that inflation wasn't a figment of his overactive imagination before slapping some math on paper? Double standard much?

The galaxies that we observe redshift in are not moving away from us at greater than light speed, so why is this a problem?

The problem is they claim that every Higgs was once sitting inside a primordial atom only 13.7 billion years ago, and the universe is much larger than 27.4 billion light years wide, and space doesn't do any magic expanding tricks in the lab, whereas plasma redshift does show up in a lab.

It would appear that field to field interactions are even more magical.

Not at all. Even that idea should be testable under the proper conditions, right here on Earth. You'd need a vacuum chamber with lots of powerful EM fields moving through it, but it's testable. How would I even go about 'testing" for inflation in a lab today?

So what are the properties and densities of plasma between galaxies?

They vary.

 

[Loudmouth]

I suspect he's right about that point which is why Ari acknowledges that it's not a simple Compton effect.

I think that is the fairest way to put it. So what known and evidenced mecahanism can produce the observed redshift without the scattering associated with a simple Compton effect? You keep pointing to the field to field interactions, but those are still hypothetical at this point.

Its not actually a blow to PC at all by the way. Chen demonstrated that plasma redshift is a real process in plasma.

However, the only known mechanism for this redshift is the Compton effect, correct?

My suspicion is that Kierein's model isn't the correct one and Ari's model probably is the correct one.

So you are counting on the field to field interactions being accurate. Am I getting this right?

It does apply to his work to some degree. I'm not discounting Wright's criticisms out of hand however, and unless you can find a problem in Ari's work, you can't discount his work.

I have also been careful to not be dismissive just because it has not been published. At the same time, it would be interesting to see if his work has been peer reviewed and the comments that the reviewers have made.

What I would like to see is other scientists verifying these field to field interactions. We shouldn't accept hypotheses as verified until there is compelling evidence to support them. To borrow from Christopher Hitchens, assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Michael]

If we go by your standard of only using known mechanisms from lab experiments then we have to leave out these field to field interactions for the time being, don't we?

Actually, even by my standards, we can't leave out the effect of the EM fields:

Refractive index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Michael]

I think that is the fairest way to put it. So what known and evidenced mecahanism can produce the observed redshift without the scattering associated with a simple Compton effect? You keep pointing to the field to field interactions, but those are still hypothetical at this point.

Well, Chen cites the stark effect as it relates to the broadening of the signal, but it's unclear if that's what he's claiming is the cause of the actual redshift although he seems to imply that it increases the electron density and/or energy state in the atoms.

However, the only known mechanism for this redshift is the Compton effect, correct?

I can't be sure. I'm not sure what is causing the redshift effect that Chen et all are observing in the lab, but it doesn't seem as though they are attributing it to Compton scattering.

So you are counting on the field to field interactions being accurate. Am I getting this right?

I'm not really 'counting on' any particular tired light model being right. I'm just assuming that one or more physical processes are in fact responsible for the plasma redshift observed in the lab, and that same process (whatever it might be) is applicable to events in space. I can't be certain which mechanism or mechanisms are responsible for those lab results, but something must explain them.

I have also been careful to not be dismissive just because it has not been published. At the same time, it would be interesting to see if his work has been peer reviewed and the comments that the reviewers have made.

If so, I haven't seen them. I've talked about his work in cyberspace before, and I've seen several folks take pot shots at his work, but most of those criticisms were either shown to be false, or examples of simple typos that had no adverse effect on the rest of the paper.

What I would like to see is other scientists verifying these field to field interactions. We shouldn't accept hypotheses as verified until there is compelling evidence to support them. To borrow from Christopher Hitchens, assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

So why don't you apply that same skepticism towards 'dark energy' or any of the other mythological, metaphysical gap fillers of mainstream theory?

Of course I'd like to see Chen's work duplicated by other groups and I'd like better explanations in terms of the actual 'cause' of the redshift too. On the other hand, the fact redshift has been observed in the lab is far more than I can say for "dark energy" or "dark matter" or "inflation" combined! In terms of living with ambiguity and uncertainty, it's not even close. I may not know the correct mechanism(s) of plasma redshift yet, but I know that plasma redshift shows up in the lab. I know it happens. Dark energy never shows up in the lab. In fact, it only "shows up", and is only used in one and only one creation (of matter) cosmology mythos. Ditto for inflation and dark matter.

 

[Michael]

Lena Hau's laser experiments - YouTube

FYI, LM, you may want to take a look at this video in terms of the speed of light through extremely cold materials.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually, even by my standards, we can't leave out the effect of the EM fields:

Refractive index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I need to do more research into this. From what I have read, the wave propogation does change but photon speed does not. Also, you get the same wavelength once the light moves out of the medium. This would mean that spectrophotometers that use a vacuum would not see a redshift if PC is true, if I am understanding your claims correctly.

 

[Loudmouth]

Lena Hau's laser experiments - YouTube

FYI, LM, you may want to take a look at this video in terms of the speed of light through extremely cold materials.

What happens when the light leaves the cold medium? Does it move at c once again? It does, doesn't it? Does this mean that there is some strange energy sitting at the boundary of every cold medium waiting to add moment to light?