• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Why inelastic scattering is an invalid explanation for cosmological redshift

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by RealityCheck01, Nov 9, 2016.

  1. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    The claim that inelastic scattering is an explanation for cosmological redshift has popped up again after a break of a couple of years.

    What we measure is that the spectral lines in light from galaxies are
    1. "Always" red shifted.
      The exception is a handful of local galaxies who are approaching us because they are boing in the same group.
    2. The same amount of shift for all the spectral lines we look at.
    3. All spectral lines are shifted (the original ones are not detected).
    4. The redshift varies linearly with distance (Hubble's law).
    This is inelastic scattering. In general inelastic scattering:
    1. Causes both red and blue shifts.
    2. The amount of shift can vary according to frequency.
    3. The scattering does not affect every photon.
      Supporters of the claim have to show why we do not see the not scattered, not red shifted light.
    4. The variation of redshift from scattering with distance need not be linear.
      Again something the supporters of the claim have to show for their proposed mechanism(s).
    Some examples of inelastic scattering:
    There is an obvious consequence of any scattering of light from galaxies - their images will blur. Think about looking at a streetlight in mist. The scattering of light by mist blurs the images. However images of galaxies that are billions of light-years away are as sharp as those million of light-years away.

    Anyone can see that it takes magic for a vague "inelastic scattering" claim to produce cosmological redshift.

    Any supporters of this claim can show that it works in two easy steps.
    First cite the inelastic scattering mechanism in the scientific literature so that we can see that it produces equal amounts of redshift in the part of the spectrum we have measurements for.
    Secondly show that the red shifts we measure are matched by that mechanism, e.g. your calculation or citation to the scientific literature.

    Judging on what I have seen before, I suspect we will see fact less posts, irrelevant posts, links to Internet cranks, etc. I hope that I am wrong.
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2016
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    This is a completely bogus argument and you've know it is a bogus argument for years. The photons of spacetime are traversing a *static* and very cold medium that is approximately 3-4 degrees Kelvin, barely greater than zero kelvin. It would be physically impossible for every photon reaching Earth to avoid every possible EM field and temperature gradient over billions of light years. Some interaction will necessarily take place over distance, it will *almost always* cause *redshift, not blueshift". The fact that *HOT*, fast moving plasma might cause blueshift is irrelevant in a 3 degree Kelvin dusty universe.

    And indeed that is exactly why the mainstream is forced to use *numerous templates* at various redshifts because the plasma medium does indeed selectively filter out various wavelengths over distance.

    In your magical world, every photon that reaches Earth would have to be the "luckiest photon in the universe" that magically missed every possible EM field and/or temperature gradient, and every possible particle in the universe to reach Earth in a "pristine" state. Talk about faith in miracles. *All* of the photons reaching Earth are magical in your theory.

    We do see scattering at *twice* the rate you expected at *low* redshifts!


    It *is* being scattered, far more than you "predicted" too!

    The scattering and absorption patterns aren't linear. Some wavelengths are more selectively absorbed than others depending on the composition of the plasma between the source and Earth. We see examples of this in the very redshift templates used by the mainstream.

    The fact you don't study it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. That's the whole problem in a nutshell. You guys figure if you simply ignore the problem, it magically goes away.

    False. That's simply what you *think*. It's not true, and it could not be true. The laws of physics in space would have to be *radically* different than they work here on Earth in the lab, because here in the lab, cold plasma causes photon redshift, and Compton scattering is one type of such a documented form of redshift in the lab, but it's not the *only* type of inelastic scattering.

    The only place you folks seem to *need* inverse compton scattering is in your background explanations where you see "bright points" in the background, while simply ignoring the fact that the stars themselves kick out those very same photons at several OOM greater than the background of space, as any microwave image of our own sun will demonstrate conclusively.

    In short, the mainstream embraces inverse Compton scattering only to save their creation mythology from an otherwise certain death.

    Why ignore it in space?

    The blueshift argument is irrelevant because of the *conditions* of spactime itself, i.e. it's static and cold. The bulk of all interactions will therefore cause photon *redshift*, not blueshift, and not both of them equally as you keep erroneously suggesting!

    I defy you then to show us a Z>10 "non blurred" image RC.

    Since you cannot demonstrate that all redshift is equal, you're asking for something that doesn't even *apply* to events in space. You're literally making up that claim *without* verifying you claim is even true at say Z>10.

    Here's one paper that used Holushko's basic redshift/distance relationship and demonstrated that it "explains" the same set of data that an expansion model explains:


    You continue to cheat by attacking *people* (like the term crank), not ideas. The reason that you must behave so badly in debate is because your menagerie of invisible friends are utterly impotent in the lab, whereas the inelastic scattering of light, and the resulting momentum loss in plasma is a *documented fact* in the lab. You've got no *physics* to support your own arguement, so you attack all the *people* who disagree with your irrational claims.
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2016
  3. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    As expected a totally fact less, totally ignorant and ranting post by Michael.
    • There is no imaginary "very cold medium that is approximately 3-4 degrees Kelvin". The media that photons travel through have temperatures up to millions of degrees, e.g. the intracluster medium (ISM)- "This gas is heated to temperatures of the order of 10 to 100 megakelvins".
    • It is basic scattering theory that it is possible for some photons to traverse the very thin plasma that is the ISM for millions of light years without scattering.
    • A fantasy or lie of "*numerous templates* at various redshifts".
    • A lie of "every photon that reaches Earth would have to be the "luckiest photon in the universe...".
      It is his imaginary universe that
      needs every photon to be scattered. In the real universe we do not observe any non-red shifted photons from galaxies.
    • A lie of "We do see scattering at *twice* the rate you expected at *low* redshifts!".
      He cites a press release about a paper on the scattering of light (not cosmological redshift :eek:) by dust being twice that expected.
    • A lie about Compton scattering which is used in gamma spectroscopy and not for visible light in astronomy (see the OP).
    • A delusion about "creation mythology" and the use of inverse Compton scattering in astronomy.
    • Space is not a solid so Brillouin scattering would not be observed :eek:!
      But more generally this is scattering from changes in the distribution of periodic structures. Plasma is not a periodic structure.
    • A fantasy that Raman scattering that gives blue and red shift is to do with imaginary "*conditions* of spactime itself".
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2016
  4. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    Alcock-Paczynki cosmological test does happen to be a paper citing a couple of cranks, including one citation to Holushko's invalid tired light idea from the vixra PDF upload web site *. The author needs to have a palm to face moment for citing an obvious crank :doh:.
    It is a lie that this paper uses Holushko's relationship. The author uses existing models: "concordance ΛCDM, Einstein-de Sitter, open-Friedman cosmology without dark energy, flat quasi-steady state cosmology, a static universe with a linear Hubble law, and a static universe with tired-light redshift".
    A static universe with tired light was first proposed by Zwicky in the 1930s.

    You may want to read what you cite: "At present, it [the intergalactic medium] is typically inferred to be 20,000 K".; This is not 3-4 Kelvin :eek:!

    * For other people:
    Why does publishing on vixra a strong indication that a person is a crank? It is because they have not been able to convince a single person who has published a scientific paper to sponsor them to the arXiv pre-print distribution database.
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2016
  5. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    You have nothing in the way of empirical lab evidence to support any of your cause/effect claims about photons and redshift, therefore you simply *cheat* at debate, over and over and over again by attacking and belittling *individuals* rather than sticking to the topic. The only ignorance going on here is yours and yours alone. In fact your commentary about a 3-4 K imaginary background temp is simply laughable because your own LCDM theory *depends upon it's existence at that specific temperature*. Wow!

    Why (psychologically speaking), do you feel the need to post my name in every single post? Is that another of the ways that you simply *cheat* perhaps, by making it all "personal" instead of sticking to the topic, in this case the real *cause* of photon redshift?

    Um, hate as I might to have to educate you about the finer points of your own beloved LCDM theory, but that is the "average background temperature" of spacetime at the moment, and your own theory *depends upon* it's existence at that temperature. In fact, the temperature itself as well as the age of the universe is actually rather*critical* to your own beliefs. You can't deny it's existence if your own theory *depends upon it's existence*! Eddington even calculated the average temperature of dust by starlight to within 1/2 of a degree of the correct temperature.

    As photons pass through the relatively cold materials of spacetime (on average mind you), they lose some of their momentum to the plasma medium. They "bump" into EM field gradients, temperature gradients, and even particles directly on their path to Earth. There is no "imaginary" pristine expanding vacuum, it's full of *dusty plasma*.

    That's only really true *inside of galaxies/clusters* perhaps, but that's not the bulk of the "space" that photons must pass through. The bulk of the "space" they traverse is the same temperature as the background temperature of "spacetime", the same temperature that your theory depends upon. It's relatively cold.

    The mainstream has been grossly *underestimating* the amount of dust and plasma since 2006. I've got plenty of documented papers to show how badly they've botched those estimates, hence their constant need for magical invisible forms of matter.

    The only fantasy is your notion that absorption or scattering is exactly the same in every direction, in every wavelength. That's physical fantasy that would require a "perfect medium" that simply doesn't exist. In the real universe, dust isn't evenly distributed, it's not the same composition of elements in every direction either. It's messy and dusty, and not as neatly "predictable" as you keep suggesting, or you could show us a *non blurry* image of a galaxy at say Z>10. It's never going to happen.

    Your use of the term "lie" and "fantasy" is another example of your unethical methods of debate.

    Why are your an "atheist" exactly, and why do you doubt the "cause/effect" relationship between humans and the thing they claim they have experiences with?

    In this issue we're debating the exact empirical *cause/effect* relationships. The parallels here should set you free as long as you're willing to be open and honest about your rejection of the cause/effect relationships described in say the Bible between humans and "God".

    If I called it "God energy", at least I would have defined the "source" of this energy thingy you believe in, as well as why it might be violating every law of conservation of energy we know of. What makes your beloved "dark energy" any more viable that "God energy" in your mind?

    In LCDM they would have to be the single luckiest photon in the whole universe to miss every type of inelastic scattering process in plasma. That's your entire theory in a nutshell. It's dependent upon *pristine* photons that are *only* affected by "space expansion" and "space acceleration" for all redshift.

    Even a *fraction* of the redshift that might come from "scattering" would immediately call the whole dark energy claim into question. It's only sigma three now. How in the universe would it survive if *any* redshift is not expansion/acceleration related?

    First of all, it doesn't need *every* photon to be scattered, just the "majority" of them. Secondly a *known and demonstrated* process in plasma cannot be considered *imaginary*. Only in your *imagination* would it *not* ever happen.

    We wouldn't and couldn't see non-redshifted photons from any "tired light(Hubble)/inelastic scattering(modern terminology)" theory. You keep ignoring that both theories (expansion/tired light) predict exactly the same amount of photon redshift, and Hulushko's tired light ideas were "tested" in that paper that I handed you and his model *passed* those very same "tests".

    You're just in denial that there are *empirical* alternatives to your *mythological* claims. There is no empirical cause/effect laboratory evidence to support your *blind faith* in "space expansion" having any tangible effect on any photon in any lab. Only in your *imaginary universe* does that cause/effect relationship exist. It's a form of *blind faith* that you hold in the "unseen" in the lab.

    Inelastic scattering however is a *demonstrated empirical cause* of photon redshift! No faith needed, it's lab *demonstrated*.

    You apparently are in denial of the paper that I previously handed you. It specifically demonstrated that the galaxies were emitting twice as much light as we "predicted" in 2006 when your precious "dark matter" paper was published.


    You are only lying to yourself RC. The article above explains how you've been routinely underestimating the effects of dust on photons and the amount of "scattering" that is going on in spacetime. Deal with it.

    It directly demonstrates the very nature of your error and the evidence that demonstrates that you are in error. The mainstream has continuously treated spacetime as a gigantic vacuum, when in fact it has very "dusty" and dirty regions associated with it too, and it's much more messy and less mathematically 'predictable" than you ever imagined it to be. Hubble didn't "prove" that space does magic expansion tricks. He even personally preferred a *tired light* explanation to the photon redshift distance relationship. The mainstream *lied to itself* when it *assumed* the observation had only one possible explanation, and Hubble never said anything of the sort.

    Eh? You're just making up the "lies" as you go, and sticking words in my mouth apparently. In other words, it's par for the course with all your posts.

    You are peddling a creation (of all matter) mythology, and you're forced to misuse the concept of inverse Compton scattering because you don't like to acknowledge the fact that every star in every galaxy is emitting microwave photons at a rate that is *much higher* than the background rate. There is no need whatsoever to introduce inverse Compton scattering in the first place to explain microwave "bright regions" near and around galaxies and galaxy clusters. That's just another example of the irrational nature of LCDM theory in general.


    Psst. It also occurs in *plasma*, and it's been written about for *decades* in astronomy. Doh!

    You're misrepresenting the whole phenomenon as it relates to plasma, but what's new?

    You are reduced to describing *documented and demonstrated* forms of scattering as "fantasies", only to support a *trio* of invisible constructs, including "expansion space", "inflation", and "dark energy". We can replace the need for all three with *empirical realities* in plasma.

    Then again, you can continue to bash and belittle every single individuals that points out to you that your invisible friends are more impotent on Earth that an average *supernatural* definition of the term "God". You have simply *assumed* the cause/effect relationships to be true on *pure faith* RC, *pure faith*. Photons never told you that "space acceleration did it", whereas humans since the dawn of recorded civilization have reported the *cause* of their experiences. Why do you deny their testimony again?
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2016
  6. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    Unbelievable! The paper that I handed you, which tested the tired light model, is *published*, something that you have *never* cited when asked, like your false assertion about electrical discharges being "impossible" in plasma. The only way you can handle this problem since you cannot find fault with it scientifically, nor dismiss the math, is to try to *personally smear* (crank) the *individual(s)* in question. Amazing. Do you have anything other than personal attacks to work with? Oh, that's right, you don't have any empirical cause/effect laboratory justification for *any* your claims, which is why you must attack *people* when you can find no problem in the *math*! What a hypocritical supernatural show you put on.

    He specifically cites Holushko in his paper, so you're only lying to yourself again. Notice how you went all personal with the liar lair pants on fire routine again instead of discussing the topic? You debate from the gutter in the most unethical of manners. You have no ethics.

    Ya, but the author cited and used *Holushko's* and his mathematical model, not Zwicky. Who's lying now?

    Oh for goodness sake, Eddington nailed the background temp of the dust of spacetime to within one half of one degree based on (drum roll) the scattering of starlight on the dust of space.

    Why is RC citing VIXRA when the paper I cited is published in the normal manner? Oh ya, the author(s) of the *published* paper in question happened to think that Holushko's paper and his mathematical model was *worth consideration*, whereas *unpublished* RC is playing the role of "demi-god" of physics and math again, and attacking *people*, not ideas. Pitiful behavior RC, pitiful.

    Except in this case Holushko did find a published author to take up his cause and test his model, and it *passed* with flying colors too. The only crank is you RC. Holushko's model was tested in a *published* paper. Deal with it.
  7. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

  8. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    Repeating a fact less post is not a rational debate, Michael.
    Let us se if you can support a single assertion.
    16 November 2016 Michael: Cite the the scientific literature that states Brillouin scattering can reproduce cosmological redshift.
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2016
  9. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    This is a blatant "bait and switch" tactic and claim. Doppler shift is directly related to, and "caused by" *moving objects*, not "space expansion". That's just another example of your unethical sales tactics.
  10. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter


    For other people:

    The paper listed above is not published on Vixra, but on Arxiv. There is a difference, but...

    The paper that I actually cited was from Arxiv, not Vixra because it is published, much to RC's horror. Although two published author respected Holushko's tired light mathematical model well enough to "test" it, and *publish* those results, RC can't handle those *published and peer reviewed* results. They blow his "space expansion" is the only possible explanation claims completely away. The paper I cited is *published*, it's not just listed on Vixra as RC is falsely claiming. Tired light mathematical models passed the same *published tests* as "space expansion" models.
  11. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    Why do you doubt the existence of "God" RC, when countless humans since the dawn of time have reported having a relationship with God? When did any photon tell you "space expansion did it " with respect to the "cause" of photon redshift?
  12. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    A rant does not hide the fact that it was an existing model dating from Zwicky's tired light model from the 1930's was used in the paper or that it is a lie that the paper uses Holushko's relationship.
    This is the one and only citation of Holushko in a list of other papers:
  13. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

  14. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    It is a deliberate attempt not to expose your ignorance about cosmology. But since you insist:
    16 November 2016 Michael: Show that any redshift caused by an expanding universe can be detected in labs here on Earth.
    The answer should be that it cannot be done showing that you know some basic cosmology: Why doesn't the Solar System expand if the whole Universe is expanding?
  15. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    This is a *published* paper that demonstrates that tired light models pass the same tests as "expansion" models.


    It's not dependent upon any *specific* inelastic scattering method.
  16. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    For other people: Michael did not understand what citation means!
    Alcock-Paczynski cosmological test was loaded onto Arxiv.
    Alcock-Paczynski cosmological test was published on 2014 January 14 in The American Astronomical Society.

    Herman Holushko has 1 PDF on cosmology uploaded to the vixra PDF upload web site which means that he could not convince a single person who has published a scientific paper to sponsor them to the arXiv pre-print distribution database. That makes him into a crank.
  17. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    You're turning the concept of evidence on it's head. I don't have to demonstrate anything of the sort, you have to demonstrate that your cause/effect claim is *valid*. Period. The fact that your space acceleration god is impotent on Earth isn't my fault, nor is his impotence a valid scientific defense!