Unlike GR theory, the LCDM model grossly violates the conservation of energy laws of physics.

[sjastro]

Oh boloney. If energy conservation was impossible in GR, then you'd have some experimental evidence to show us where that energy loss happens in collider experiments or some other type of experiment here in our solar system. You've got nothing. All you might be able to claim is that in *some* variations it *might* happen, but you can't claim that it *must* happen in all variations of GR theory, or you could demonstrate that claim now from real experiments in the lab. You can't. All you can do it *claim* it could apply somewhere in a "mythical" universe that doesn't necessarily even exist. GR theory conforms so well to the conservation of energy laws in our solar system that we can tell when Voyager is being affected by temperature variations and photon emission differences on different sides of the spacecraft! That's how precisely energy is conserved in GR theory inside our solar system.

Despite the fact as I have already mentioned you agreed that energy is not conserved in curved spacetime.
Stop contradicting yourself.

Which of those two papers is based on Compton scattering? Admittedly Compton scattering could have *some* effect and might cause some blurring to occur, but most tired light models are *not* based on ordinary Compton scattering. You were the ones claiming that distant galaxies were *not* blurred, therefore only "space expansion" could be the cause of photon redshift, but you're incapable of providing us with a high redshift, non-blurry image to support your bogus claims!

You are the one who's moving the goal posts since tired light models are not typically based on Compton scattering to start with. There are *many* types of inelastic scattering, not just one, and none of the papers I've linked to are based on ordinary Compton scattering to start with!

And you claim you are not confused...........
You are comprehensively out of your depth given that the second link you provided looks at Compton scattering as an initiating process for energy loss.

In this paper, we consider this problem at very low energy (visible light and lower energy) where classical considerations are still mostly valid. We further consider the case of photon scattering on atoms at an extremely low atom density, which is a condition prevailing in outer space. In the usual treatment of the Compton effect, bremsstrahlung is neglected. In these circumstances, it is known that the change Dl in wavelength is given by:

(2)
where h = Planck’s constant, me = mass of the electron, c = velocity of light in vacuum and q = scattering angle.
From Eq. (2), we must notice that at any angle of scattering, bremsstrahlung is completely neglected. However, the electron is accelerated during the scattering. In order to illustrate the basic principle leading to an energy loss due to bremsstrahlung, let us examine the case of 90o Compton scattering on a free electron which is initially at rest. The photon momentum transferred to the electron is such that the collision imparts motion to it. Since the electron, initially at rest, becomes in motion after the impact, somehow it must have been accelerated.

According to electromagnetic theory, any accelerated charge must emit bremsstrahlung.....

It says it all that you either didn't read the link or it was it was beyond your capacity for comprehension and yet you concluded it wasn't based on Compton scattering which is a bald face lie.

In fact what the link does is to reinforce the question whether Compton scattering as an initiating or direct cause for energy loss, if the angles are deterministic or not which you are totally incapable of answering.

 

[Michael]

Despite the fact as I have already mentioned you agreed that energy is not conserved in curved spacetime.
Stop contradicting yourself.

Since you've never demonstrated that spacetime is globally curved, there is no contradiction, and no *requirement* that GR *must* lead to violations of the laws of physics as we know them *from the lab*. You also have *zero* evidence that GR creates any violation of the conservation under any controlled experimental circumstances, but you go right ahead and engage in special pleading as you handwave away at distant events.

You're also running from the real problem cited in this thread, specifically your *gross* violation of conservation laws with your introduction of *completely magical* forms of energy that somehow magically retain constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume, unlike any other known field in nature.

Your major offenses related to conservation of energy laws are related to your space expansion genie and you dark energy faeries, neither of which is a *requirement* of GR! They're only a requirement of your mystical magical *blunder* theory!

And you claim you are not confused...........
You are comprehensively out of your depth given that the second link you provided looks at Compton scattering as an initiating process for energy loss.

It says it all that you either didn't read the link or it was it was beyond your capacity for comprehension and yet you concluded it wasn't based on Compton scattering which is a bald face lie.

Man, are you unethical when it comes to debate. You constantly engage yourself in pitiful personal attacks, regardless of how *wrong* you actually are. I specifically included the following disclaimer:

Michael: and none of the papers I've linked to are based on ordinary Compton scattering to start with!

I specifically and intentionally included the term "ordinary" and Marmet makes that very same distinction. He clearly and completely explains exactly why he's not talking about *ordinary* definitions of Compton Scattering as you cited earlier in this thread:

In the usual treatment of the Compton effect, bremsstrahlung is neglected.

Where does your previous formula include bremsstrahlung effects?

Furthermore he goes on to state the specific issue he's describing:

According to electromagnetic theory, any accelerated charge must emit bremsstrahlung. Since the Compton electron has been accelerated, it must emit bremsstrahlung. Although the energy emitted due to such acceleration is extremely small, it is not zero and should not be neglected as done at low energy. It will be seen that this energy loss adds a slight correction to Eq. (2). The case of interaction at q = 0 requires special considerations. It can be considered either as an extreme case of Compton scattering (q = 0) or better as the simple transmission of radiation through the particles of a gas. In the latter case, the scattering angle is essentially zero degrees, but the physical reality of interaction with atoms is evident because the observed average speed of light is reduced in gases.
This reduced speed of light in gases is frequently calculated with the help of the index of refraction. In this paper, that parameter will be calculated as the group velocity and will be considered in more detail below. The interaction during transmission (or the scattering angle q = 0) is the only one that will be treated in this paper, since it leads to measurable predictions of light traveling through space.

Please show me how your "ordinary" formula for Compton scattering leads to the *exact* same results that Marmet is desribing, and how it deals with bremsstrahlung at q=0. If you can't, you can't claim he's describing *ordinary* Compton scattering. In fact he's describing energy loss through bremsstahlung which your previous (ordinary) formula ignored *entirely*. It's obvious that it's *your* who are "out of their depth" because your formula for Compton scattering doesn't produce the same results as Marmet, particularly and most importantly at q=0.

In fact what the link does is to reinforce the question whether Compton scattering as an initiating or direct cause for energy loss, if the angles are deterministic or not which you are totally incapable of answering.

Before I answer that, explain how your ordinary definition of Compton scattering produces the same results as Marmet! You're blatantly and willfully ignoring the fact that he's *including* the effects of bremsstahlung and *that* is the cause of the loss of momentum he's talking about at q=0, not a loss of momentum due to a non-zero scattering angle that might cause "blurring"!

 

[SelfSim]

Before I answer that, explain how your ordinary definition of Compton scattering produces the same results as Marmet! You're blatantly and willfully ignoring the fact that he's *including* the effects of bremsstahlung and *that* is the cause of the loss of momentum he's talking about at q=0, not a loss of momentum due to a non-zero scattering angle that might cause "blurring"!

Is this yet another example of Michael being shifty? I seem to recall from a recent thread he was arguing that distant galaxies appeared blurred due to inelastic scattering(?):

They *appear* blurred because they are blurred due to inelastic scattering, regardless of the filter we might apply to them, particularly the high z redshift images.

Now Michael seems to be arguing Marmet's mechanisms which then contradicts his above quoted assertions?

Make up yer mind already, will ya?

 

[sjastro]

Since you've never demonstrated that spacetime is globally curved, there is no contradiction, and no *requirement* that GR *must* lead to violations of the laws of physics as we know them *from the lab*. You also have *zero* evidence that GR creates any violation of the conservation under any controlled experimental circumstances, but you go right ahead and engage in special pleading as you handwave away at distant events.

You're also running from the real problem cited in this thread, specifically your *gross* violation of conservation laws with your introduction of *completely magical* forms of energy that somehow magically retain constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume, unlike any other known field in nature.

Your major offenses related to conservation of energy laws are related to your space expansion genie and you dark energy faeries, neither of which is a *requirement* of GR! They're only a requirement of your mystical magical *blunder* theory!

How many times will it take to get through your thick skull that a “lab test” is performed in a local frame of reference which is both flat and static and therefore energy is conserved.
This is what GR tells you and despite my efforts of trying to make the maths as simple as possible for you it clearly went way over your head.

If you want evidence that energy conservation is violated look at Hubble’s law v=Hr which is based on empirical evidence.
Since v increases with increasing r then energy is not conserved.
Note that Hubbles law predates the concept of dark energy by decades hence the Universe wasn’t made “energy violated” by dark energy.

I specifically and intentionally included the term "ordinary" and Marmet makes that very same distinction. He clearly and completely explains exactly why he's not talking about *ordinary* definitions of Compton Scattering as you cited earlier in this thread:



Where does your previous formula include bremsstrahlung effects?

Furthermore he goes on to state the specific issue he's describing:



Please show me how your "ordinary" formula for Compton scattering leads to the *exact* same results that Marmet is desribing, and how it deals with bremsstrahlung at q=0. If you can't, you can't claim he's describing *ordinary* Compton scattering. In fact he's describing energy loss through bremsstahlung which your previous (ordinary) formula ignored *entirely*. It's obvious that it's *your* who are "out of their depth" because your formula for Compton scattering doesn't produce the same results as Marmet, particularly and most importantly at q=0.



Before I answer that, explain how your ordinary definition of Compton scattering produces the same results as Marmet! You're blatantly and willfully ignoring the fact that he's *including* the effects of bremsstahlung and *that* is the cause of the loss of momentum he's talking about at q=0, not a loss of momentum due to a non-zero scattering angle that might cause "blurring"!

What nonsense are you going on about now?
Do you think there is something mystical about a scattering angle θ=0?
It is still called Compton scattering as scattering is purely in the forward direction and the photon experiences no energy loss.

As for Marmet’s formulae being different from the Compton formula what on Earth do you expect?
His formulae for Bremsstahlung describes after the charge is set in motion.

If want maths to describe Mermat’s overall scenario here it is:
No Compton Scattering = No charge recoil = No Bremsstahlung
Simple isn’t it.

All you have succeeded in achieving is digging a big hole for yourself as you are now telling us Compton scattering plays no role yet previously it had a contribution.

Now that this is out of the way stop stalling and answer my question.

 

[sjastro]

Is this yet another example of Michael being shifty? I seem to recall from a recent thread he was arguing that distant galaxies appeared blurred due to inelastic scattering(?):Now Michael seems to be arguing Marmet's mechanisms which then contradicts his above quoted assertions?

Make up yer mind already, will ya?

I have never come across a poster like Michael who contradicts himself on such a regular occasion.

 

[Michael]

Is this yet another example of Michael being shifty?

Do you two even know how to have an honest scientific debate without all your pitiful attempts at character assassination? This is exactly why I have no respect for your industry. You have no ethics whatsoever.

I seem to recall from a recent thread he was arguing that distant galaxies appeared blurred due to inelastic scattering(?):Now Michael seems to be arguing Marmet's mechanisms which then contradicts his above quoted assertions?

Make up yer mind already, will ya?

Oy Vey! Instead of dealing with your magic dark energy pixie problem, you've both engaged in personal attacks. Yawn. The mechanism Marmet describes doesn't *have* to cause blurring, but it actually *could* cause blurring (and probably does to some degree) depending on the angle of q. It does not *have* to lead to blurring anymore than GR *has* to result in the violation of the laws of physics. You two won't ever stick to the *topic*, in this case you magical dark energy. You don't have an explanation for that magic trick, or your special pleading, so you intentionally hijack the thread and take it *off* topic, and put it *onto the individual* and you hope nobody catches on to your ruse. It's just pitiful behavior.

 

[Michael]

How many times will it take to get through your thick skull that a “lab test” is performed in a local frame of reference which is both flat and static and therefore energy is conserved.

How many times will it take to get it through your thick skull that you have no evidence that we live inside anything *other than* a flat static universe that stretches to infinity?

This is what GR tells you and despite my efforts of trying to make the maths as simple as possible for you it clearly went way over your head.

The only thing that seems to be going over your head is the fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that the universe isn't flat or static.

How many times will it go over your head that your major energy violation trick is related to your dark matter faeries, not GR?

If you want evidence that energy conservation is violated look at Hubble’s law v=Hr which is based on empirical evidence.

Nope. Hubble's law is equally explain by Marmet's "tired light" proposal and it has nothing to do with expansion.

Since v increases with increasing r then energy is not conserved.

That's simply not true in a tired light proposal and you know it.

Note that Hubbles law predates the concept of dark energy by decades hence the Universe wasn’t made “energy violated” by dark energy.

Ya, I already pointed out that your 'space expansion genie" was also a violation of the laws of physics. How many times do I have to point that out to you?

What nonsense are you going on about now?
Do you think there is something mystical about a scattering angle θ=0?
It is still called Compton scattering as scattering is purely in the forward direction and the photon experiences no energy loss.

That's not true in Marmet's model! Bremsstrahlung applies the moment the photon hits the electron and sets it into motion, even if it's a direct head on collision!

As for Marmet’s formulae being different from the Compton formula what on Earth do you expect?

I expect you to admit that he's not basing his theory on *ordinary* Compton scattering., so all your personal attacks are simply pitiful examples of your inability to deal with the *topic* and your constant hijacking of my threads!

His formulae for Bremsstahlung describes after the charge is set in motion.

Right and zero angle *hit* sets the particle in motion and leads to a loss of photon momentum, *without* any non-zero angle involved.

If want maths to describe Mermat’s overall scenario here it is:
No Compton Scattering = No charge recoil = No Bremsstahlung
Simple isn’t it.

It's simple alright, but it's also wrong because it doesn't take into account the bremssahlung effects that Marmet is describing!

All you have succeeded in achieving is digging a big hole for yourself as you are now telling us Compton scattering plays no role yet previously it had a contribution.

The only one digging themselves a hole is you. You oversimplified description of Compton Scattering *fails* to address the energy loss caused by bremsstrahlung, and therefore you invented magic dark space expansion genies and dark energy faearies!

Now that this is out of the way stop stalling and answer my question.

Your question is irrelevant at q=0 in Marmet's model. It's going to lead to energy loss and it's not going to result in blurring. It *will* however result in *some* blurring, anytime and every time that q!=0, and that scenario will certainly happen too sometimes. It may result in a deflection angle that precludes it from ever reaching Earth too.

You two are unbelievable. You hijack every thread and try to make it about *individuals* rather than about a *topic*. Knock it off!

If you wont' address your space expansion genie problem, or your dark energy faerie problems, don't respond at all! If all you intend to do is hijack my threads, don't bother. I'm going to keep pointing out the unethical nature of that behavior every time you engage in it.

 

[Michael]

I have never come across a poster like Michael who contradicts himself on such a regular occasion.

Between you two and RC, I never met anyone else who consistently hijacks every single thread they engage themselves in than you three. There are no contradictions other than in your own head.

Are either of you going to acknowledge that you have no *experimental* evidence that A) the laws of conservation of energy do not apply to any GR experiment ever performed, B) that "space expansion" never occurs in controlled experimentation, or C) dark energy never shows up in experimentation? All three of those problems are a direct result of the fact that you're using *oversimplified* math formulas to describe collision processes in plasma! Bremsstralung applies but you forgot to *include* it, so you made up nonsense about law breaking dark energy and law breaking space expansion.

All three of your physics problems can be directly tied back to the fact that your formulas are *grossly oversimplified* and therefore they don't reflect real particle collision processes in the first place!

Instead of fixing the real problem and adding bremsstralung like you should have done and which Marmet did, you compounded the problems by violating the laws of physics, adding "space expansion" genies and adding dark energy faeries to an otherwise *perfectly* good GR formula! Your blunder theory is a direct result of your basic physics error related to your failure to include bremsstralung in the particle collision process!

 

[SelfSim]

Between you two and RC, I never met anyone else who consistently hijacks every single thread they engage themselves in than you three. There are no contradictions other than in your own head.

(I feel honoured to be included in such a grouping. )

However, the contradictions do arise, (they are not 'hijacks'), because you have not properly stated your case upfront. I mean the essence of what you are claiming draws upon a trail of dubious bread-crumbs, strewn over about three separate threads now. I quoted from one of them, and you abandoned another (ie: 'Quasars' .. when the question became unanswerable by you because you'd obviously backed yourself into yet another of your tight corners).

Only yourself to blame, I'm afraid .. I guess that what happens when one's only defense is a bunch of cherry-picked, discordant papers which lack an overall contextual consistency.

 

[Michael]

(I feel honoured to be included in such a grouping. )

From the perspective of science, being the same group of sjastro might be fine, but RC spent months if not years claiming that electrical discharges are "impossible" in plasma, magnetic reconnection occurs in the absence of charged particles and charge particle acceleration, and EU/PC solar models predict "no neutrinos". I wouldn't call that a good "grouping".

However, the contradictions do arise, (they are not 'hijacks'), because you have not properly stated your case upfront.

In this thread I'd say that's not really true. I was quite specific about your space expansion claims and your dark energy nonsense being a *gross* violation of the laws of physics. You're welcome to ignore that problem, but you hold more supernatural beliefs than I do, and I don't believe in anything that violates the laws of physics.

I mean the essence of what you are claiming draws upon a trail of dubious bread-crumbs, strewn over about three separate threads now. I quoted from one of them, and you abandoned another (ie: 'Quasars' .. when the question became unanswerable by you because you'd obviously backed yourself into yet another of your tight corners).

Unanswerable? Nah. It just wasn't worth a lot more of my time. Holushko's model is pretty much a "bumpy road" sort of signal broadening idea, and it's actually quite consistent with Marmet's notion of forward scattering events (q=0). There's nothing worth worrying about on that front, regardless of what you think.

I'll admit however that I was impressed that you two managed to come up with an actually rebuttal paper to the quasar problem, even if it was based on only 13 items. Still, it's more than I expected from you two.

In this thread however, things have gone pretty much as I assumed they would. You've both avoided the basic problem with your belief system like the plague. You've got no empirical lab evidence to support the violation of the laws of physics, just a bad case of special pleading. You've got no laboratory evidence to support the claim that "space expansion' is an actual cause of photon redshift, and no viable explanation of where dark energy comes from, let alone how it manages to perform it's magic trick of staying at a constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume.

Only yourself to blame, I'm afraid .. I guess that what happens when one's only defense is a bunch of cherry-picked, discordant papers which lack an overall contextual consistency.

Considering your industry's absolutely *epic* failures over the past decade with respect to "dark matter", and your blatant violations of the laws of physics, you're one to talk.

What I found most amusing in this thread was sjastro trying to ignore the actual differences between the way you folks oversimplify the process of Compton scattering, and the effects of bremsstrahlung in space. That specific oversight is exactly where your folks "blew" it too with respect to the cause of photon redshift in all probability. To overcome that empirical physics error you folks invented several metaphysical "fixes" to your broken model, all of which violate the known laws of physics.

I hope you at least realize that empirical physics has a long and proven track record of replacing metaphysical mumbo-jumbo over time, and you're on the wrong side of that ongoing process. EU/PC theory is a *much* better way of explaining the universe that we live in, and no laws of physics needs to be violated to explain anything that we see in space.

 

[sjastro]

Now that this is out of the way stop stalling and answer my question

Your question is irrelevant at q=0 in Marmet's model. It's going to lead to energy loss and it's not going to result in blurring. It *will* however result in *some* blurring, anytime and every time that q!=0, and that scenario will certainly happen too sometimes. It may result in a deflection angle that precludes it from ever reaching Earth too.

Your ineptness seems to have no bounds.
Let me remind of the nature behind the question.
My question was about whether scattering angles are deterministic or probabilistic based on this lab experiment where 500 KeV photons are scattered by electrons in atoms.

Your answer is so utterly ridiculous because it has absolutely nothing to do with Marmet’s theory, blurring, or whether scattering occurs at θ=0.
It carries as much relevance as claiming your rubber ducky fell into your breakfast cereal affecting the scattering angles.

Let me save you further embarrassment and give the answer.
The scattering angles are probabilistic and depend on the polarization state or the rotational angle of the planar wave of the colliding photon.
This angle determines the scattering angle.
Photon polarization however is a quantum mechanical property and varies from photon to photon which means the scattering angle is probabilistic.
Since the scattering angles are probabilistic so are the scattered photon energies as illustrated.

Needless to say it messes up any tired light theory based on scattering as no two photons of the same energy emitted from a distant object are likely to reach the Earth with the same scattered energy.

This test is an excellent example of empirical physics at work which illustrates why Marmet’s theory is so comprehensively wrong.
As can be seen at θ=0, the photon energy doesn’t change and the electron energy remains at 0 KeV as no momentum has been transferred to the electron which remains bonded to the atom!!!!!
This is the case of a photon acting as a wave rather than a colliding particle.
The results are the complete opposite to what Marmet’s theory predicts.

Since there is no momentum transfer to the electron there is no bremsstralung either.
So yes Michael bremmstralung isn’t taken into consideration because it doesn’t occur with Compton scattering.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Between you two and RC, I never met anyone else who consistently hijacks every single thread they engage themselves in than you three.

 

[SelfSim]

In this thread I'd say that's not really true. I was quite specific about your space expansion claims and your dark energy nonsense being a *gross* violation of the laws of physics. You're welcome to ignore that problem, but you hold more supernatural beliefs than I do, and I don't believe in anything that violates the laws of physics.

You continue to assert that I have beliefs about all this. I don't!

I don't need to believe in anything but clearly you do have a need to believe in anything which confirms your ideological contention that 99% of scientific thinkers live in 'fear' of the nonsense you, and your fellow in-mates from Thunderdolts, sprout all over the place!

DM and DE simply arise from a focus on both empirical and theoretical constraints .. something you, and Tdolters, are totally oblivious about. The laws of Physics have never been held as being inviolate in science. (They are however, often taken as being such ... by ideologically driven nut-cases!)

Unanswerable? Nah. It just wasn't worth a lot more of my time.

Cop out! Answer: 'Explain the redshift of gravitational waves using your beloved scattering theory' .. ie: now that sjastro just blew away your latest favourite pet Marmet theory!

Holushko's model is pretty much a "bumpy road" sort of signal broadening idea, and it's actually quite consistent with Marmet's notion of forward scattering events (q=0). There's nothing worth worrying about on that front, regardless of what you think.

Ha Ha Ha!! (Famous last words following your blunders in understanding about scattering angles!)

I'll admit however that I was impressed that you two managed to come up with an actually rebuttal paper to the quasar problem, even if it was based on only 13 items. Still, it's more than I expected from you two.

Well now ... there's no need to be insulting about it! Hmmppfh!

You've got no laboratory evidence to support the claim that "space expansion' is an actual cause of photon redshift,

This only matters to you because you also don't have a clue about what constitutes astronomical empirical evidence!

What I found most amusing in this thread was sjastro trying to ignore the actual differences between the way you folks oversimplify the process of Compton scattering, and the effects of bremsstrahlung in space. That specific oversight is exactly where your folks "blew" it too with respect to the cause of photon redshift in all probability. To overcome that empirical physics error you folks invented several metaphysical "fixes" to your broken model, all of which violate the known laws of physics.

Talk about one huge foot-in-mouth blunderous statement, that one is! Hilarious!

I hope you at least realize that empirical physics has a long and proven track record of replacing metaphysical mumbo-jumbo over time, and you're on the wrong side of that ongoing process.

.. and that's coming from someone who's argument (on the LIGO thread, about sigma) led to the tumultous logical conclusion that 1=0.5!!!

EU/PC theory is a *much* better way of explaining the universe that we live in, and no laws of physics needs to be violated to explain anything that we see in space.

No-one knows what 'EU/PC theory' is .. so this must be some kind of <cough, cough> belief you hold or something ..?..

 

[Michael]

In retrospect I probably deserved that. I should have added a qualifier about the nature of their hijack process.

Whatever my "sins", my intent was never to "bash" on any individual, but that's exactly the nature of their hijack attempts. They're constantly diverting the thread off the topic and onto the *individual*.

That's pretty much par for the course in astronomy today by the way, and it's exactly why we're still wallowing around in the dark ages of astronomy. Anyone and everyone who dares to question their "dark" (aka invisible), law of physics breaking dogma is subject to being burned at the public stake as an individual. Their hope is to beat everyone into submission and force them all to wallow around in ignorance just because they are stuck in dark ignorance.

Sorry, but that's just not my personal lot in life. They're welcome to believe in metaphysical inflation genies that don't begin to explain why the whole thing didn't implode instantly, dark energy faeries that defy the laws of physics and "space expansion" gnomes which have never had any effect on a photon in a real lab experiment, but I for one am not interested in such nonsense and you shouldn't be either.

If you have any respect for empirical physics (which I know you do), you should at least notice the absurdity of their belief systems for what they are: utterly absurd and metaphysically bankrupt.

Science and astronomy are too important to be left in the dark ages and it's time to move us back into the light of empirical physics. That's my only motive for any hijack I may be guilty of.

 

[Michael]

You continue to assert that I have beliefs about all this. I don't!

Of course you do, or you wouldn't defend the party line dogma, and you'd realize I am not your enemy.

I don't need to believe in anything but clearly you do have a need to believe in anything which confirms your ideological contention that 99% of scientific thinkers live in 'fear' of the nonsense you, and your fellow in-mates from Thunderdolts, sprout all over the place!

That's pretty funny considering I've spent *years* promoting GR and Birkeland's solar model on Thunderbolts which has in fact made me a bit of an "outsider" even among EU/PC proponents. Then again, you don't really take the time to learn anything about EU/PC theory, let alone acknowledge the fact that Thunderbolts is like any community, with many diverse belief systems. Its' easier for you to ignorantly believe that all EU/PC proponents think in lockstep like the mainstream, but we don't.

The only one living in "fear" is you which is why you continuously attack the *individual* rather than dealing with the *topic* of any thread you involve yourself in. It's a pity.

[DM and DE simply arise from a focus on both empirical and theoretical constraints

Pure horse manure. DM arose out of your egotistical *assumption* that you actually knew how to calculate the ordinary baryonic mass bases on light, but *numerous* studies over the past decade have shown that you have *no idea* how to correctly calculate the mass of a galaxy based on light. Hell, you didn't even know about most of the mass of our own galaxy until the last five years or so.

Dark energy was nothing more than ad-hoc gap filler when your "predictions" about a big bang didn't pan out, and the pattern of redshift didn't conform to your belief systems. Instead of going back to the drawing board as you should have done, and adding the effects of inelastic scattering, you "cheated" and simply added a concept that utterly and completely defies the laws of physics to protect your metaphysical "dogma" like any good "creationist".

Neither oft those concepts has any "empirical" evidence to support it, just subjective mumbo-jumbo.

.. something you, and Tdolters, are totally oblivious about.

That's a riot considering that all EU/PC theories actually work in the lab, including photon redshift in plasma as Chen and many others have already demonstrated.

The laws of Physics have never been held as being inviolate in science.

Yet you cling to them as it relates to the topic of God, now don't you? You reject any and all concept of "God" that don't show up in the lab, but you invent your own metaphysical dogma every few decades. You've literally put your "faith" in four more metaphysical concepts than I do.

(They are however, often taken as being such ... by ideologically driven nut-cases!)

Yawn. Considering the fact that 95 percent of your belief systems are based on metaphysics and the rest of pure pseudoscience, you're the last person on the planet that should be referring to anyone as a "nut case". Wake me up when one of your exotic matter snipe hunts shows any hint of exotic matter.

Cop out! Answer: 'Explain the redshift of gravitational waves using your beloved scattering theory' .. ie: now that sjastro just blew away your latest favourite pet Marmet theory!

Only in your dreams. He did nothing of the sort. You folks *ignored* a very important aspect of *plasma*, specifically the effects of charged particle acceleration. It causes bremmstralung, and you forgot to include that effect, hence your need for metaphysical gap filler.

Ha Ha Ha!! (Famous last words following your blunders in understanding about scattering angles!)

The "blunder"was all yours, particularly and most specifically at q=0 as Marmet explained.

Well now ... there's no need to be insulting about it! Hmmppfh!
This only matters to you because you also don't have a clue about what constitutes astronomical empirical evidence!

Pure projection. You don't have a clue, hence your reliance on concepts that defy the laws of physics, and all those epic billion dollar lab failures to find "dark matter".

Talk about one huge foot-in-mouth blunderous statement, that one is! Hilarious!
.. and that's coming from someone who's argument (on the LIGO thread, about sigma) led to the tumultous logical conclusion that 1=0.5!!!

This just demonstrates the purely unethical nature of these discussions. Nobody made such a claim but you two, certainly not me. The fact you continue to spew that nonsense only demonstrates the lack of ethics you two engage in on a regular basis.

No-one knows what 'EU/PC theory' is .. so this must be some kind of <cough, cough> belief you hold or something ..?..

Pffft. Kristian Birkeland knew more about solar physics a century ago than you do to this day. To this very day you cannot explain the heat source of the corona, let alone *simulate* one in a lab.

Alfven and Peratt know more about astronomy than you two will every know, and most of your industry will ever know. There may be hope for some of the younger astronomers, but you two are pretty much destined to wallow around in the dark ages of physics till the day you two die.

Just because you two are happy to use placeholder terms for human ignorance and pseudoscience to describe our universe doesn't mean the rest of us are required to wallow around in that kind ignorance with you, regardless of how much irrational personal attacks you engage in.

 

[SelfSim]

Cop out! Answer: 'Explain the redshift of gravitational waves using your beloved scattering theory' .. ie: now that sjastro just blew away your latest favourite pet Marmet theory!

Only in your dreams. He did nothing of the sort. You folks *ignored* a very important aspect of *plasma*, specifically the effects of charged particle acceleration. It causes bremmstralung, and you forgot to include that effect, hence your need for metaphysical gap filler.
...
The "blunder"was all yours, particularly and most specifically at q=0 as Marmet explained.

Huh?? Did you even read sjastro's post #31?????
(That's just a totally bizarre response, if you did!!??)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... If you have any respect for empirical physics (which I know you do), you should at least notice the absurdity of their belief systems for what they are: utterly absurd and metaphysically bankrupt.

The only thing close to a belief system I've noticed is that theory should accord with observation.

Science and astronomy are too important to be left in the dark ages and it's time to move us back into the light of empirical physics. That's my only motive for any hijack I may be guilty of.

Noble sounding sentiments - but if you really think that hijacking threads on a Christian subforum is going to help 'move us back into the light of empirical physics', you need a reality check; bizarre doesn't do it justice.

 

[Michael]

Your ineptness seems to have no bounds.

Your personal attack nonsense, and avoidance of the *topic of the threads* seems to know no bounds. You're one to talk about "ineptness" considering the fact that your theory violates known laws of physics.

Let me remind of the nature behind the question.
My question was about whether scattering angles are deterministic or probabilistic based on this lab experiment where 500 KeV photons are scattered by electrons in atoms.

Who cares about your question when you won't deal with mine? What does any of this have to do with your law break dark energy genie, or your space expansion gnomes?

The worst part of your response is the fact that you neglected to notice that in *plasma* not all electrons are "in atoms" to start with. Sheesh. No wonder we're still wallowing around in the dark ages of physics. The rest of your post isn't even applicable to free electrons in plasma to start with, or free proton either for that matter since they're related to *solids*, not plasma! Oy Vey.

 

[Michael]

My question was about whether scattering angles are deterministic or probabilistic based on this lab experiment where 500 KeV photons are scattered by electrons in atoms.

If you wish to discuss momentum loss of photons traveling through *solids*, this would be a better link, and it reports to have some application to events in space as well:

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-atomic-mass-photon-momentum-paradox.html

In the mass polariton theory of light this hypothesis is not needed since redshift becomes automatically proportional to the distance from the star to the observer," explains Professor Jukka Tulkki.

Unfortunately the published paper doesn't make references to how this might apply to events in transparent plasma, but apparently the author believes that it does apply, and recreates a "Doppler shift" like effect in space.

 

[Michael]

The only thing close to a belief system I've noticed is that theory should accord with observation.

It should also abide by known laws of physics or dad's "different state past" is as valid of a concept as LCDM. In fact, you might as well put them both together because both claims require us to stand logic and the laws of physics on it's head.

Noble sounding sentiments - but if you really think that hijacking threads on a Christian subforum is going to help 'move us back into the light of empirical physics', you need a reality check; bizarre doesn't do it justice.

That wasn't what I said in the first place. A good half of 'hijacks' as you put it were probably related to me pointing out the bizarre nature of atheists insisting that "God" has to show up in a lab experiment to be a valid scientific hypothesis, or valid scientific evidence. That's never been a requirement in "science" to start with, and that's probably been my motive in at least half if not more of the instances where I've interjected cosmological claims into the the thread.

FYI, I have in fact gotten several papers published in an effort to 'do my part', but I can't force the mainstream to read them anymore than I can force them to read Birkeland's work, or Alfven's work, or Peratt's work, or anything they don't wish to deal with.

I certainly have no illusions that my actions here at CF are going to sway the mainstream. I think the only hope they have of unshackling themselves from the dark ages of astronomy and their metaphysical dogma is to reach a complete dead end with WIMP theory and then *maybe* they're start to consider some useful empirical alternatives to their supernatural nonsense. That should happen within about 5 years as LUX-LZ and Xenon-NT test out the only remaining 'gaps' between a hypothetical WIMP cross section interaction with atoms and the neutrino cross section interactions. There isn't much of a gap left even now, but there's a tiny little range between all their previous "tests" and neutrino interactions which they intend to test, so apparently hope still springs eternal.