Redshift, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc., etc.

AV1611VET · May 21, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
I'd say it refers to the destruction of the dinosaurs. "And the earth "became" desolate and waste, and darkness became...." And that state of darkness has nothing to do with any imaginary dark matter at all. Unless you want to call dust and volcanic clouds dark matter.

Okay ... thanks.

Justatruthseeker · May 21, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Okay ... thanks.

NP

They only need dark matter because they treat 99% of what they see like neutral matter instead of plasma. So can't explain that attraction or repulsion they observe without invoking non-ordinary matter - when they got non-ordinary matter - plasma - everywhere they look.

http://video.mit.edu/watch/mit-physics-demo-forces-on-a-current-carrying-wire-3133/

Loudmouth · May 21, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
Except we know your previous claims about type 1a SN are all wrong. But here you go relying on already falsified evidence to back up your ad-hoc claims.

Distance, as measured by luminosity, correlates with redshift:

https://www.eso.org/~bleibund/papers/EPN/epn_fig2.jpg
This is exactly what we should see if the universe is expanding which is why it is evidence for a universe that is expanding.

[serious] · May 22, 2015

Michael said:
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

Well, if we start with galactic surface brightness "tests" at larger Z values, we find that a static universe explains it all quite well.

That doesn't answer the question. Lots of theories can explain all the data. Magical pixies can explain data. I'm asking about modeling, not just explaining.

How does your model better mathematically model observation?

Michael · May 22, 2015

[serious] said:
That doesn't answer the question. Lots of theories can explain all the data. Magical pixies can explain data. I'm asking about modeling, not just explaining.

How does your model better mathematically model observation?

Well, for starters, it does so *without* resorting to four unique "magical pixie" fudge factors like Lambda-CDM requires. That alone is a *huge* plus.

It's also utterly irrational IMO to believe that photons traverse billions of light years of thin plasma without ever experiencing any amount of inelastic scattering due to EM field and/or temperature gradients, not to mention all the physical *stuff* it might interact with directly.

IMO "dark energy" was the ultimate ad hoc gap filler. They should have allowed their redshift interpretation to be falsified rather than invent a whole new form of magic pixie.

Michael · May 22, 2015

http://www.yave-yavo.org/scien/cosm/Files/(290) 1203.0062v3.pdf

FYI, I still think Holushko's work on SN1A light curves is some of the best work I've seen on this topic.

Michael · May 22, 2015

https://scienceworks.hq.nasa.gov/do...iverse+probe+with+Type+Ia+SN+observations.pdf

I also tend to agree with his recommendations about tracking a full 120 days of data.

Justatruthseeker · May 22, 2015

[serious] said:
How does your model better mathematically model observation?

My model fits actual observations with all the mathematical derivations you care to look at. And doesn't need to add 95% ad-hoc constructs to make it work.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/

[serious] · May 23, 2015

Michael said:
Well, for starters, it does so *without* resorting to four unique "magical pixie" fudge factors like Lambda-CDM requires. That alone is a *huge* plus.

It's also utterly irrational IMO to believe that photons traverse billions of light years of thin plasma without ever experiencing any amount of inelastic scattering due to EM field and/or temperature gradients, not to mention all the physical *stuff* it might interact with directly.

IMO "dark energy" was the ultimate ad hoc gap filler. They should have allowed their redshift interpretation to be falsified rather than invent a whole new form of magic pixie.

That still doesn't answer my question. You've specified a difference between the theories, but haven't presented any evidence that your model better reflects observation.

I'll ask again, how does your model better model observations?

Justatruthseeker · May 23, 2015

[serious] said:
That still doesn't answer my question. You've specified a difference between the theories, but haven't presented any evidence that your model better reflects observation.

I'll ask again, how does your model better model observations?

Your model requires one first believe in something never once observed. My model asks nothing of that sort, simply that you accept the laws of physics as we understand them to be.

Your model ignores plasma clouds around every single galaxy with some up to 4 times the mass of the galaxy itself. Mine takes any of these new observations into account.

Your model pretends light doesn't interact with particles in space. Mine accepts the reality thereof.

Your model fails to fit all 109 quasar studies where both emission and absorption profiles have been made. Mine fits them all.

Your model can not even explain the redshift of the suns limbs. Mine has no problems.

Yours fails in matching line broadening studies. Mine of course matches them all.

Your model gives different redshifts for binary stars - even if they should be exactly the same traveling at the same expansion rate. Mine fits the data fine, taking into account solar mass and hence their different atmospheric densities.

Yours has no explanation for the K-effect. Mine fits the data just fine.

Mine fits everything yours fits - and everything yours fails at. So which one is indeed the better model? One that fits "some" of the observations - or one that fits them all?

I think you need to show how your model is better than mine?

Loudmouth · May 26, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
Your model requires one first believe in something never once observed. My model asks nothing of that sort, simply that you accept the laws of physics as we understand them to be.

Your model asks us to accept a wavelength independent plasma redshift which has never been observed, and plasma can not produce.

Your model asks us to accept plasma scattering without any light scattering. Somehow, the image just happens to reform at the Hubble Space telescope after being scattered across all of space.

Your model ignores plasma clouds around every single galaxy with some up to 4 times the mass of the galaxy itself. Mine takes any of these new observations into account.

These two major problems are why plasma redshift are rejected. It isn't capable of producing the observations we see.

Justatruthseeker · May 26, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Distance, as measured by luminosity, correlates with redshift:

https://www.eso.org/~bleibund/papers/EPN/epn_fig2.jpg
This is exactly what we should see if the universe is expanding which is why it is evidence for a universe that is expanding.

And here you go proving my point to the T.

"Except we know your previous claims about type 1a SN are all wrong. But here you go relying on already falsified evidence to back up your ad-hoc claims."

So what do you do, give me something that implies correlation from 2001 before they realized those supernovae weren't all the same. Relying on that falsified evidence to back your claims of Fairie Dust. I'm not sure those in cosmology know what revising a theory means, since they think data already shown to be wrong is still somehow correct.

It is also exactly what we would see if we just took into account all that plasma you ignore.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/

Loudmouth · May 26, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
And here you go proving my point to the T.

"Except we know your previous claims about type 1a SN are all wrong. But here you go relying on already falsified evidence to back up your ad-hoc claims."

They aren't all wrong. That is something you are inventing. They data supports expansion.

Also, if redshift were produced by plasma we would see a wavelength dependent redshift, a lack of sharp objects, and opacity at a certain distance. None of these are observed.

Justatruthseeker · May 26, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Your model asks us to accept a wavelength independent plasma redshift which has never been observed, and plasma can not produce.

Prove it - here is my model which you have never even bothered to read.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/

Your model asks us to accept plasma scattering without any light scattering. Somehow, the image just happens to reform at the Hubble Space telescope after being scattered across all of space.

Because once again you do not understand the science. Plasma is a charged medium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung

"An analysis of the doubly differential cross section above shows that electrons whose kinetic energy is larger than the rest energy (511 keV) emit photons in forward direction while electrons with a small energy emit photons isotropically."

So again, you want us to ignore how light behaves with charged electrons and pretend it's all like the air around us with electrons with small energy. Like I've had to say over and over - stop treating plasma like neutral dust and gas.

Your model ignores plasma clouds around every single galaxy with some up to 4 times the mass of the galaxy itself. Mine takes any of these new observations into account.

No, because in my model that plasma atmosphere is what causes the redshift to begin with (I thought it was gas according to you?). Yours is the one that ignores it by the light not magically being isotropically scattered in that "neutral" gas and dust you treat it like. Make up your mind - is it gas and dust which scatter isotropically or is it ions and charged electrons which scatter in the forward direction? Treat it like gas and your model defeats itself. How did you put it? "Somehow, the image just happens to reform at the Hubble Space telescope after being scattered across all of space." Treat it like plasma and it substantiates mine.

Either way your model is either falsified or irrelevant to the process.

These two major problems are why plasma redshift are rejected. It isn't capable of producing the observations we see.

And yet those two problems are only problems for those who treat plasma like neutral matter.

Loudmouth · May 26, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
Prove it - here is my model which you have never even bothered to read.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/

It has already been shown to you on multiple occasions, yet you refuse to face up to the facts.

once again you do not understand the science. Plasma is a charged medium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung

It's as if facts run off your back like water off a duck's.

Shorter wavelengths are more heavily redshifted by plasma than longer wavelenghts. That is not what we see in cosmological redshift where all wavelengths are redshifted by the same amount.

Justatruthseeker · May 26, 2015

Loudmouth said:
It has already been shown to you on multiple occasions, yet you refuse to face up to the facts.

Then you shouldn't have any problem pointing out that post or simply showing it again. I already know how you operate Loud. You have only claims with no data in the least.

It's as if facts run off your back like water off a duck's.

Good anaology for you, Ill remember to use it from now on. Show how his beliefs in isotropic scattering do not match science - and it's like water off an oiled surface, oh, ducks back, sorry.

Shorter wavelengths are more heavily redshifted by plasma than longer wavelenghts. That is not what we see in cosmological redshift where all wavelengths are redshifted by the same amount.

Because you didn't bother to read the paper. Which through quantum electrodynamics needs not postulate Fairie Dust.

" It is interesting to note that in Equation (12), the relative energy loss is independent of the frequency n of the incoming radiation in the case stated (blackbody radiation). Therefore, the whole spectrum will undergo a constant relative displacement in energy toward lower frequencies. This displacement of the spectrum is exactly similar to the redshift produced when a source of radiation recedes from the observer (Doppler effect)."

Theres the math, equation 12 starting at heading 2.2 to 2.3 - show me where it is frequency dependent? Show me any paper concerning Bremsstrahlung where the emission is frequency dependent?

You got some reading to do. Start HERE at least read the very bottom of page 305 and the top of 306. Here, Ill quote it for you.

"and it's most important limiting case (the high frequency asymptote for the bremsstrahlung spectrum at quasi-classical energies) serves as a natural standard (a frequency independent scaling factor) for descriptions of bremsstrahlung in all the more complicated cases."

Which is what we are discussing, a more complicated case because the charge of the particles must be considered and the way plasma acts as a collective whole. Also plasma density must be considered. All of which your theory treats as if it isn't even there.

When you have read up some on the subject maybe we'll talk then.

That Fairie Dust is dark because you won't let yourself see the plasma that is there.

lesliedellow · May 26, 2015

Loudmouth said:
It has already been shown to you on multiple occasions, yet you refuse to face up to the facts.

Since when have creationists been amenable to argument?

Loudmouth · May 27, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
Then you shouldn't have any problem pointing out that post or simply showing it again. I already know how you operate Loud. You have only claims with no data in the least.

You don't remember all of the posts in the other thread where Bremsstrahlung was shown to be incapable of producing the wavelength independent cosmological redshift? Really?

The only "fairy dust" is this supposed plasma that scatters light without blurring images and has a wavelength independent redshift. All experiments with plasma demonstrate just the opposite.

Michael · May 27, 2015

[serious] said:
That still doesn't answer my question. You've specified a difference between the theories, but haven't presented any evidence that your model better reflects observation.

I'll ask again, how does your model better model observations?

Define "better". The fact it does the *same* thing (mathematically) without all the supernatural ad hoc constructs makes it "better" IMO.

For starters, if you're looking for something close to home, EU/PC theory *better* explains the excess heat source of the chromosphere and corona far better than any non-electric view of the universe.

Michael · May 27, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Shorter wavelengths are more heavily redshifted by plasma than longer wavelenghts. That is not what we see in cosmological redshift where all wavelengths are redshifted by the same amount.

When, if ever, were you intending to show us that gamma rays are redshifted the same as the visible spectrum? The MAGIC results don't jive with your claims. They even show *time delays* between various higher energy wavelengths!

Redshift, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc., etc.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Contributor

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Member

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency