Why inelastic scattering is an invalid explanation for cosmological redshift

[RealityCheck01]

I know you will ignore this but for others: Eddington predicted the average temperature of spacetime to within 1/2 of one degree...

For everyone: This is irrelevant because Eddington did not calculate the temperature of the CMB.
Fully explained at Eddington's Temperature of Space

Arthur Stanley Eddington, in the last chapter of his 1926 book The Internal Constitution of the Stars, talks about Diffuse Matter in Space. In the first page of this chapter, Eddington computes an effective temperature of 3.18 K, but this has nothing to do with the 2.725 K blackbody spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB).

 

[RealityCheck01]

It is what you meant however.

I wrote what I meant:
Justatruthseeker insulted thousands of competent scientists and maybe millions of knowledgeable science students over the last century with "supporters of Fairie Dust expansion of nothing refuse to face reality.".
People who learn and understand cosmology are facing real evidence about a real universe: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

An assessment of any published paper before looking at is content shows that paper is dubious
Papers in the scientific literature range from totally invalid papers, dubious papers standard papers to ground breaking papers. It would be insane to try to read them all so scientists do sanity checks.
The major one is that the paper is of interest - this paper passes that hurdle. Then there is:

1. Was it published in a journal where appropriate peer review is likely, e.g. an astronomy paper in astronomy journal: Fail.
2. Was a supposedly important paper published in a high impact journal: Major Fail.
3. Do the author(s) have a track record in the subject: Fail.
4. Has the paper been often peer reviewed after publishing, i.e. cited: Major Fail..
5. Are there multiple authors: minor fail.

 

[Michael]

For everyone: This is irrelevant because Eddington did not calculate the temperature of the CMB.

Yes he did:

The total light received by us from the stars is estimated to be equivalent to about 1000 stars of the first magnitude. [...] We shall first calculate the energy density of this radiation. [...] Accordingly the total radiation of the stars has an energy density of [...] E = 7.67 10-13 erg/cm3. By the formula E = a T4 the effective temperature corresponding to this density is 3.18o absolute.

His figure was within 1/2 of one degree of the correct temperature of space whereas the first BB estimates were off by more than a whole order of magnitude, much like your solar convection predictions today.

Worse still, your CMB models don't even account for this energy!

Every time this topic comes up you're reduced to citing an unpublished website.

 

[Michael]

I wrote what I meant:
Justatruthseeker insulted thousands of competent scientists

How exactly are you defining "competence" when 95 percent of the LCDM model is based on placeholder terms for human ignorance, that model fails more tests than it passes, and it's proponents have spent billions of dollar on their dark matter "experiments" and failed to find anything? What is your definition of "competent"? If you're any indication, you can't even correctly explain a single alternative solar model properly, starting with it's neutrino predictions.

.....with "supporters of Fairie Dust expansion of nothing refuse to face reality.".

How is inflation or dark energy any empirically tangibly any different from Faerie dust? Can you even name a single source of that nonsensical stuff?

People who learn and understand cosmology are facing real evidence about a real universe: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

They're only faced with evidence of redshift and missing mass, none of which demonstrates that their claims as to 'cause' have any more merit than a faerie dust claim.

An assessment of any published paper before looking at is content shows that paper is dubious

So sayeth the guy that can't even properly explain the neutrino predictions of Thornhill's solar model, nor a Birkeland cathode model.

Papers in the scientific literature range from totally invalid papers,

Yep, like every paper ever written on "dark matter" related to SUSY theories, and axion theories and sterile neutrinos, all solar paper that ever predicted the convection speeds. They've all been "debunked" more times than I can count.

dubious papers standard papers to ground breaking papers. It would be insane to try to read them all so scientists do sanity checks.

Your so called 'sanity checks' are nothing more than appeal to popularity fallacy, or an appeal to authority fallacy, or both.

The paper that Einstein wrote that won him a Nobel Prize only had one name on it, and it was written by a patent clerk at the time.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is not what I wrote.
Your only argument about the topic of this thread was insults.


My arguments against the paper are that

• The author seemed ignorant about the fact that many galaxies even in 1988 had measured red shifts and only a few local galaxies were blue shifted.

That’s your flawed biased interpretation.

“Astrophysical observations show that the electromagnetic radiation originating from cosmological objects is often redshifted. Except for some hypothesis such as assuming that it is a gravitational redshift, this has always been interpreted as a Doppler shift. To date, the interaction of light with interstellar gas has not been seriously considered as a possible mechanism responsible for the observed redshift”

Doesn’t sound like he was unaware that only a few were blueshifted and that most were redshifted.

• There is only 1 author.
  Groundbreaking papers are rarely written by a single author.

I am glad we can dismiss Einstein’s general relativity paper then by your own reasoning, since it’s only applicable to .1% of the universe.

• There are only 7 papers cited it that have cited it in the last 30 years.
  That is a signature of a paper that has been ignored because it is wrong. Valid papers have many citations a year.

Or the signature of bias for the current epicycles.

“To date, the interaction of light with interstellar gas has not been seriously considered as a possible mechanism responsible for the observed redshift”

And just as then, you are not seriously considering it, even if the math shows it is indistinguishable from cosmological redshift.

• A paper that overturns mainstream cosmology should be published in a high impact, appropriate journal.
  This paper was in the first issue of Physics Essays, a general physics journal that even today is low impact.

Whatever excuse you need to justify your refusal to look at it, even though you can’t find one single objection about the contents of the paper, just spurious refusals of why you wish to ignore it.

• The author does not have a track record of publishing papers on cosmology suggesting that is not his area of expertise.
  Mass spectroscopy, etc. papers until 1988 and this paper.

Paul Marmet started by stating that inelastic scattering such as Thompson or Compton scattering cannot give cosmological redshift ! He then proposes a new mechanism for cosmological redshift: bremsstrahlung. This is trivially true - any scattered electron has changed direction, has accelerated and so emits radiation.

And yet the effects of bremsstrahlung, on scattering, has never been taken into account, which as the paper shows, when it is, leads to the same result as cosmological redshift. So you admit all interactions produce bremsstrahlung, then turn right around and refuse to consider the effects in the first paper ever to calculate those effects. So the first paper to ever calculate the effect you admit is always present, and you choose to ignore it because of your bias.

“From 1983 to 1990, Marmet was a senior researcher at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics of the National Research Council of Canada in Ottawa.”

“Paul Marmet published more than 100 original research papers, as well as a number of books, websites and animated demonstrations for the teaching of Physics.”

And who would know better about the subject at hand, but a man that invented one of the best mass spectrometers to study a subject of mass spectrometry? I am sure he understood bremsstrahlung and scattering better than any astronomer....

Typical religious fanatic, ignore what you don’t want to see....

1. "Perfectionnement d'un sélecteur d'électrons et étude de quelques ions moléculaires" P. Marmet. Ph.D. Thesis, Université Laval (1960)
2. "An Improved Electrostatic Electron Selector" P. Marmet and Larkin Kerwin. Can. J. Phys. 38, 787 (1960)
3. "Experimentally Measured Vibrational Levels in H2+" P. Marmet and L. Kerwin. Can. J. Phys. 38, 972 (1960)
4. "Recent Appearance Potential Using an Electrostatic Electron Selector" Larkin Kerwin and P. Marmet. Can. J. Phys. 31, 12 (1960)
5. "The Identification of Vibrational Levels in H2" L. Kerwin, P. Marmet and E.M. Clarke. Can J. Phys. 39, 1240 (1961)
6. "A Mass Spectrometer for Ionization Efficiency Studies using an Electron Velocity Selector" P. Marmet and J.D. Morrison. J. Chem. Phys. 35, 746 (1961)
7. "Secondary Reactions in the Ion Chamber of a Mass Spectrometer" P. Marmet and J.D. Morrison. J. Chem. Phys. 36, 1238 (1962)
8. "Neutralization of Fringing Fields in the Ion Source of a Mass Spectrometer" P. Marmet, J.D. Morrison and D.L. Swingler. Rev. Sci. Instr. 33, 239 (1962)
9. "Recent Work with the Electrostatic Electron Selector" L. Kerwin, P. Marmet and E.M. Clarke. Advances in Mass Spectrometry, Volume 2 Pergamon Press, Oxford (1962)
10. "Opération d'un filtre de masse quadrupolaire en condition optimum" P. Marmet et P. Marchand. Can. J. Phys. 42, 1914 (1964)
11. "Effet des charges d'espace électronique sur les courbes de probabilité d'ionisation des gaz" P. Marmet. Can. J. Phys. 42, 2102 (1964)
12. "Near 100% Efficiency Ion Detector for use with Quadrupole Mass Filter" P. Marchand, C. Paquet and P. Marmet. Rev. Sci. Inst. 37, 1702 (1966)
13. "Simple System for Photoelectron Spectrum Determination" P. Marmet, P. Natalis and A. Dumont. Rev. Sci. Inst. 39, 683 (1968)
14. "New Type of Monovelocity Electron Source" Paul Marmet. Rev. Sci. Inst. 39, 1932 (1968)
15. "Threshold Behavior of the Cross Section for Ionization of He and Ar by Monoenergetic Electrons" P. Marchand, C. Paquet and P. Marmet. Phys. Rev. 180 123 (1969)
16. "High Resolution Electron Beams and their Applications" L. Kerwin, P. Marmet and J.D. Carette. Case studies in Atomic Collisions Physics, Edited by E. W. McDaniel and M. R. C. Mc Dowell, North Holland Pub. Company (1969)
17. "Quadrupole Mass Analyzers" P. Marmet. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. 8, 262 (1971)
18. "Formation de O- de NO par impact électronique" C. Paquet, P. Marchand and P. Marmet. Can. J. Phys. 49, 2013(1971)
19. "Natural Line Shapes Resolved in the Ionization Yield of He below the n=2 Threshold" J.J. Quémener, C. Paquet and P. Marmet. Phys. Rev. A4, 494 (1971)
20. "Electron-Impact Excitation of 3s3p nl States of Ar" E. Bolduc, J.J. Quémener and P. Marmet. Can. J. Phys. 49, 3095 (1971)
21. "Energy Analyzer for Charged Particles" P. Marmet. Canadian Patent Office No: 905567 July 18, 1972
22. "Autoionizing and Negative Ion States of Xe and Kr below the P Limits" P. Marmet, E. Bolduc and J.J. Quémener. J. Chem. Phys. 56, 3463 (1972)
23. "Autoionizing 2s 2p 3s3l States of Ne and Related Ne Resonances" E. Bolduc, J.J. Quémener and P. Marmet. J. Chem. Phys. 57, 1957 (1072)
24. "Autoionizing levels of N2 converging to the AΠu and BΣu limits" R. Carbonneau and P. Marmet. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. Ion Phys. 10, 143 (1972)
25. "New Large Aperture Energy Analyzer" P. Marmet. Rev. Sci. Instr, 44, 67 (1973)
26. "Properties of a New Non-Differentiating Treatment of Experimental Data" R. Carbonneau, E. Bolduc and P. Marmet. Can. J. Phys. 51, 505 (1973)
27. "Negative and Neutral Autoionizing States Detected in the Electroionization Curves in CO" R. Carbonneau and P. Marmet. Can. J. Phys. 51, 2202 (1973)
28. "Theoretical and Experimental Line Profiles of Autoionizing States as Reflected in their Electroionization Curve" E. Bolduc and P. Marmet. Can. J. Phys. 51, 2108 (1973)
29. "Electroionization Spectrum of O2" R. Carbonneau and P. Marmet. Phys. Rev. A9, 1898 (1974)
30. "Optimizing Ion Injection Phase in Quadrupole Mass Filters" D. Lefaivre and P. Marmet. Rev. Sci. Inst. 45, 1134 (1974)
31. "The Electroionization Spectrum of Nitric Oxide" R. Carbonneau and P. Marmet. Can. J. Phys. 52, 1885(1974)
32. "Ionization dissociative de N2" H. Wankenne, E. Bolduc and P. Marmet. Can. J. Phys. 53, 770 (1975)
33. "Relative Cross Section in Electroionization" P. Marmet. J. Chem. Phys. 63, 249 (1975)
34. "Electron Excitation of Ar Between 26 and 34 eV" D. Lefaivre and P. Marmet. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. and Ion Phys. 18, 153 (1975)
35. "Resonance in the Total Electron Impact Excitation Cross Section of Metastable States of Helium Near 60 eV" E. Bolduc and P. Marmet. J. Phys. B8, 1241 (1975)
36. "Excitation de l'argon par impact électronique entre 43 et 60 eV" P. Marmet, E. Bolduc and J.J. Quémener. Can. J. Phys. 53, 2438 (1975)
37. "Atomic Structure in Kr between 22 and 32 eV" M. Valin and P. Marmet. J. Phys. B8, 2953 (1975)
38. "Comparison of Techniques for Extracting Signals from Strong Background" H. Arsenault and P. Marmet. Rev. Sci. Inst. 48, 512 (1977)
39. "On the Subject of Displaced Thresholds" P. Marchand, P. Veillette and P. Marmet. J. Chem. Phys. 67, 2908 (1977)
40. "Ionization and Dissociative Ionization of CO by Electron Impact" N. Bussières and P. Marmet, Can. J. Phys. 55, 1899 (1977)
41. "Formation du néon métastable entre 42 et 46 eV" D. Huard, P. Marmet and E. Bolduc. Can. J. Phys. 56, 82 (1978)
42. "On the Heat of formation of CS" M.-J. Hubin-Franskin, D. Huard and P. Marmet. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. and Ion Phys. 27, 263 (1978)
43. "New Digital Filter for the Analysis of Experimental Data" P. Marmet. Rev. Sci. Instr. 50, 79 (1979)
44. "Electroionization of D2O and H2O and Study of Fragments Hand OH" D. Lefaivre and P. Marmet. Can. J. Phys. 56, 1549 (1978)
45. "Excited States of CH4 and CD4 between 18 and 22 eV" P. Marmet and L. Binette. J. Phys. B: Atom. Molec. Phys. 11, 3707 (1978)
46. "Excitation and Ionization of OCS and CS by Electron Impact" M.-J. Hubin-Franskin, P. Marmet and D. Huard. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. Ion Phys. 33, 311 (1980)
47. "Ionization Energies of Xe2+and Xe3+" R. Dutil and P. Marmet. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. and Ion Phys. 35, 371(1980)
48. "Political Action and the ACP" <<Actions politiques et l'ACP>> P. Marmet, President, Canadian Association of Physicists, Physics in Canada, Vol. 37 No: 5, P. 99-102, Septembre 1981. In the same issue, page 103, Profile of the President: Paul Marmet
49. "A New Non-Doppler Redshift" P. Marmet. Book: Physics Dept. Laval University, Québec June 1981 (64pages)
50. "Simple and Efficient Mono-Energetic Electron Source" M. Proulx, P. Marmet and R. Dutil. Rev. Sci. Inst. 53, 778 (1982)
51. "A Frequency Swept Quadrupole Mass Filter" P. Marmet and M. Proulx. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. and Ion Phys.42, 3(1982)
52. "Electroionization of NH and ND near Threshold" M. Proulx and P. Marmet. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. and Ion Phys.50, 129 (1983)
53. "Ionization and Appearance Potentials of CH by electron impact" P. Plessis, P. Marmet and R. Dutil, J. Phys. B 16, 1283 (1983)
54. "Impact électronique sur les halogénures d'hydrogène: Double ionisation, fragmentation et molécules de van der Waals" H.K. Nasrallah, P. Marmet and R. Dutil. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. and Ion Phys. (1983)
55. "Excited States of HCl and DCl and their Negative Ions between 12.5 and 28 eV" H.K. Nasrallah and P.Marmet. J. Phys. B18, 2075-2086 (1985)
56. "Spectroscopie d'électroionisation de HBr et DBr entre 11 et 25 eV" P. Marmet et H.K. Nasrallah. Can. J. Phys. 63, 1015-1021 (1985)
57. "Electroionization Study of Acetylene and Fragment Ions" P. Plessis and P.Marmet. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. and Ion Processes 70, 23-44 (1986)
58. "Electroionization Study of Ethylene: Ionization and Appearance Energies, ion-pair Formations and Negative Ions" P. Plessis, P. Marmet Can. J. Phys. 65, 165-172 (1987)
59. "A New Technique to Measure the total Electron Scattering Cross Section: Application to Helium" P. Marmet, P. Plessis and R. Dutil. Int. J. Mass Spectrometry and Ion Processes 75, 265-273 (1987)
60. "Electroionization Study of Ethane: Ionization and Appearance Energies, Ion-Pair Formations and Negative Ions" P. Plessis, P. Marmet Can. J. Chem. 65, 1424-1432 (1987)
61. "Electroionization Study of Ethane: Structures in the Ionization and Appearance Curves" P. Plessis, P. Marmet. Can. J. Chem. 65, 2004-2008 (1987)
62. "Excited States of K and K+with the 3p configuration" P. Marmet, M. Proulx, Physics of Electronic Collisions ed. J. Geddes, H. B. Gilbody, A. E. Kingston, C. L. Latimer, P184 (1987)
63. "An Improved Electrostatic Electron Selector" P. Marmet and L. Kerwin Citation Classics, a) Engineering, Technology and Applied Sciences 18, 20 (1987), b) Physical, Chemical and Earth Sciences 18, 20 (1987)
64. "Electroionization Study of Ethylene: Structures in the Ionization and Appearance Curves" P. Plessis, P. Marmet Can. J. Phys. 65, 803-807 (1987)
65. "Electroionization des alcalins: Mise au point d'un nouvel appareil de mesure" M. Proulx, P. Marmet Can. J. Phys. 66, 103 (1988)
66. "A New Non-Doppler Redshift" P. Marmet Phys. Essays 1, 24-32 (1988)
67. "Excited States of HI and DI and their Negative Ions between 10 and 20 eV" P. Marmet, H. K. Nasrallah. Can. J. Phys. 66, 564-569 (1988)
68. "Resonance in the Electron Impact Ionization Spectrum of Na" P. Marmet and M. Proulx, Book: "Resonance Ionization Spectroscopy 1988" P. 89-93 (1988). Edited by T B Lucatorto and J E Parks" Institute of Physics, Bristol and Philadelphia
69. "Almanach Graphique 1989" Publié par le Centre de Québec de la Société Royale d'astronomie du Canada, 4 pages (Dessiné à l'institut Herzberg tout comme en 1986, 1987 et 1988)
70. "The 3 K Microwave Background and the Olbers' Paradox" P. Marmet, Science, 240, 705 (1988)
71. "Redshift of Spectral Lines in the Sun's Chromosphere" P. Marmet. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science: Space and Cosmic Plasma, 17 238-243 (1989)
72. "Cosmic Matter and the Non-Expanding Universe" P. Marmet and Grote Reber, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 17, 264-269 (1989)
73. "Non-Doppler Redshift of Some Galactic Objects" P. Marmet. IEEE Transaction on Plasma Science, Feb. 1990, Vol. 18 No 1, Pages 56-60, Special issue on Plasma Cosmology "IEEE Workshop on Plasma Cosmology" La Jolla Calif. (Feb. 1989)
74. "New Structure in the Electron Ionization Efficiency Curve of Helium above the 2s2pD negative Ion Resonance" R. Gosselin and P. Marmet Proceedings of the Sixteen International Conference on the Physics of Electronic and Atomic Collisions, page 206 1989. Edited by A. Dalgarno, R. S. Freud, M. S. Lubell, and T. B. Lucatorto. New York (July 26-Aug. 1, 1989)
75. "Excited Sates of Xe and Xe+ Above the PIonization Limit" P. Marmet. Proceedings of the Sixteen International Conference on the Physics of Electronic and Atomic Collisions, page 244, 1989. Edited by A. Dalgarno, R. S. Freud, M. S. Lubell, and T. B. Lucatorto. New York (July 26 - Aug. 1, 1989)
76. "The Deceptive Illusion of The Big Bang Cosmology" P. Marmet. La Physique au Canada, Vol. 46. No. 5 (Sept. 1990)
77. "Big Bang Cosmology Meet an Astronomical Death" P. Marmet. 21st Century Science and Technology, 3, No: 252-59, (1990)
78. "Electron-atom interaction mechanism: Xenon states between the P(1/2) and P(3/2) limits" P. Marmet, M. Proulx. Journal of Physics B:At. Mol. Opt. Phys 23, 549-560 (1990)
79. "Observation of 2p states in the Electron Ionization Efficiency Curve of Helium between 58 and 59 eV" R. N. Gosselin and P. Marmet. Phys. Rev. A. Vol. 41 p 1335-9, (1990)
80. "Relativity and the Formation of Black Holes" P. Marmet. Apeiron, No:7 Page 8-10, Summer (1990)
81. "L'illusion séduisante de la cosmologie du Big Bang" P. Marmet. Publié dans "Fusion", édité à Paris, Volume No: 34, Page 33-41 (Octobre-Novembre 1990)
82. "A New Mechanism to Explain Observations Incompatible with the Big Bang" P. Marmet. Apeiron, Ed. R. Keys, 4405 St-Dominique Montréal, pages 45-54, Winter-Spring 1991 No: 9-10, (1991)
83. "Post Collision Interaction and The Threshold of Electronically Excited Auto-ionizing States" P. Marmet, Volume: "The Electron 1990 Workshop" Editor: A.Weingartshofer and D. Hestenes. Kluwer Academic Publishers Spuiboulevard 50 P.O.Box 173300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands (1990)
84. "La physique de la lumière fatiguée et le décalage non-cosmologique" Paul Marmet. Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences, No: 1, Vol. 39, p. 185-192. Présenté par le professeur Stefan Wegrzyn, Membre de l'académie des sciences de Pologne, Gliwice, ul. Konarskiego 11 m 3 Pologne (1991)
85. "Lettre à l'éditeur" P. Marmet. “Physics in Canada”,"Physics in Canada" Vol. 47 No. 4 juillet, p. 112 (1991)
86. "Lettre à l'éditeur" P. Marmet, Journal 21st Century, Science and Technology. Answer to Dr. Kenneth J. Epstein, Summer (1991)
87. "The Cosmological Constant and the Redshift of Quasars" P. Marmet. Special Issue of "IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science Vol: 20, No: 6, pages 1-7 (Dec 1992)
88. "Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution" P. Marmet. ISBN 0-921272-15-4. 144 pages, Hard coverEdited: c/o R. Yergeau," Les Éditions du Nordir", Simard Hall 165 Waller St. Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5
89. "Quantum Mechanics and Its Paradox: A Realistic Solution to Mermin's EPR Apparatus". P. Marmet, Physics Essays Vol. 6 No: 3 (1993)
90. "On the Interpretation of the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relationship" P. Marmet. Physics Essays, Volume 7 No: 3 Page 340-345 (1994)
91. "Stellar Aberration and Einstein's Relativity" P. Marmet. Physics Essays, p. 96. Vol 9, No 1 (1996)
92. "An Alternative Interpretation of the 3K Radiation" P. Marmet, AAAS Meeting Pacific Division San Francisco, Calif. (19-23 June 1994)
93. "The Origin of the 3 K Radiation" P. Marmet. Apeiron, Vol. 2 No: 1 P. 1-4 (January 1995)
94. "Incompatibility between Einstein's Relativity and Lorentz Equation" P. Marmet. The Present Status of the Quantum Theory of Light, Kluwer Academic Publishers P.O.Box 173300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 383-395 (1996)
95. "A Realistic Description of Length Contraction" P. Marmet. Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science AAAS, Flagstaff, AZ (June 2-6 1996)
96. "The Physical Reality of Length Contraction" P. Marmet. Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory, British Society for the Philosophy of Science, London, p. 231 (September 1996)
97. "Length Contraction without Relativity" P. Marmet. Proceedings of the IV International Conference on Space, Time and Gravitation, Re: Dr. M. Varin 65-9-1 Pulkovskoye Rd. 196140 St-Petersburg, Russia
98. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus classical Mechanics" P. Marmet. Book, Ed. Newton Physics Books, 200 pages (1997)
99. "Transformation of Internal Energy of Matter Between Frames" P. Marmet. Proceedings of "Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory, by the "British Society for the Philosophy of Science" London, Page 218-223 (September 1998)
100. "The Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury using Classical Mechanics" P. Marmet. Proceedings of "Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory", by the "British Society for the Philosophy of Science" London, Page 2203-217 (September 1998)
101. "Relativistic Deflection of Light Using Radio Signals and Visible Light" P. Marmet et C. Couture. Physics Essays, Physics Essays, Volume 12 No: 1 (March 1999)
102. “Classical Description of the Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury” P. Marmet, Physics Essays, Vol 12, No 3, p. 468-487 (1999)
103. “Einstein’s Mercury Problem Solved in Galileo’s Coordinates” P.Marmet. Galileo Back in Italy, Per il ritorno della razionality nella Scienza moderna. Istituto di Chimica “G.Ciamician” Via Selmi 2- Bologna, Italy, Societa Editrice Andromeda, Book of papers, p. 335-351 (Maggio 1999)
104. “Discovery of H2 in Space Explains Dark Matter and Redshift” P. Marmet, 21st Century, Science and Technology, Vol. 13 No: 1 p. 5-7 (2000)
105. “The GPS and the Constant Velocity of Light” P. Marmet. Acta Scientiarum, Universidade Estadual de Maringà, Brazil, ISSN 1415-6814, Vol 22, No: 5, p. 1969-1279 (December 2000)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The furthest quasar is about z = 11. The CMBR has a red shift of z = 1100 at the emission from plasma when the universe was about 378,000 years old. That red shift is why the CMBR is microwaves, not the light when it was emitted from a plasma at ~3000 K.

I know you will ignore this but for others: The CMB temperature increases as we look at the earlier universe matching an expanding universe, which is listed in What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

Except cosmological redshift is always calculated by emission or absorption lines, the CMBR has none. So now you want me to take an uncorrelated ad-hoc temperature versus expansion rate and use that to calculate redshift?

You still haven’t demonstrated in the lab that space expansion exists. The only claim of age the very CMBR that’s in question. On the other hand, scattering and bremsstrehlung has been empirically tested. You just choose to ignore the first paper to ever take that effect into account in scattering, even after you admitted it’s always present.

So your going to admit it’s always present, then choose to ignore it’s effects when calculated, because it does away with the epicycles of the magical expansion of nothing.

And the CMBR shows a blueshift as well, yet not a single solitary object further than a few million parsecs shows any blueshift at all. Only local galaxies show blueshift, showing the CMBR is a local event, since it too displays blueshift.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I wrote what I meant:
Justatruthseeker insulted thousands of competent scientists and maybe millions of knowledgeable science students over the last century with "supporters of Fairie Dust expansion of nothing refuse to face reality.".
People who learn and understand cosmology are facing real evidence about a real universe: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

What competence?

In case you haven’t noticed every single article since the space age has been “mystified, surprised, unexpected” and on and on and on.

For experts they sure are surprised, mystified and lack predictive power on a regular basis. They couldn’t even get their models correct of the suns heliosphere, right next door cosmologically speaking.... further away, laughable....

Incompetence is more like it.

And then the ad-hoc epicycles begin to explain their mystification and surprise, be it dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron Stars, strange matter, or the magical expansion of nothing..... epicycles after epicycles.

 

[RealityCheck01]

In case you haven’t noticed every single article since the space age has been “mystified, surprised, unexpected” and on and on and on.

8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance leads to "every single article since the space age" lie?
If this is just ignorance about how science works then acknowledge that you were wrong in your next post otherwise this will have to become an actual lie.

For your education:
One way science advances through mystery, surprises and unexpected things since even before the space age. For example it was unexpected and a surprise that the perihelion precession of Mercury would be an anomaly because Newton's law of gravity had worked for a couple of centuries. This mystery was solved with GR.

There are dozens if not hundreds of papers about the Big Bang that have not been mystified, surprised or unexpected. What is the evidence for the Big Bang? lists 9 lines of evidence for an expanding universe, each with multiple papers confirming each of them.

8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance leads to a series of "the ad-hoc epicycles" lies?
If this is just ignorance of astronomy then acknowledge that you were wrong in your next post otherwise this will have to become an actual lie.

For your education:
Dark matter has strong observational evidence thus is not ad hoc.
Dark energy has good observational evidence thus is not ad hoc.
Black holes have strong observational evidence and so are not ad hoc.
We have detected many neutron stars thus they are not ad hoc.
Strange matter is a hypothetical (not ad hoc) form of matter usually associated with hypothetical quark stars.

8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: An "ad-hoc epicycles ... magical expansion of nothing" lie.
What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

 

[Michael]

In case you haven’t noticed every single article since the space age has been “mystified, surprised, unexpected” and on and on and on.

8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance leads to "every single article since the space age" lie?
If this is just ignorance about how science works then acknowledge that you were wrong in your next post otherwise this will have to become an actual lie.

You unethically changed the wording and the meaning of his whole sentence, so it's very clear who's telling lies RC.

For your education:
One way science advances through mystery, surprises and unexpected things since even before the space age.

Except you never seem to learn from your mistakes.

For example it was unexpected and a surprise that the perihelion precession of Mercury would be an anomaly because Newton's law of gravity had worked for a couple of centuries. This mystery was solved with GR.

In case you missed it, that happened *before* the "space age". One the first satellites in space showed that Birkeland was right about aurora and the mainstream model was *wrong*.

There are dozens if not hundreds of papers about the Big Bang that have not been mystified, surprised or unexpected. What is the evidence for the Big Bang? lists 9 lines of evidence for an expanding universe, each with multiple papers confirming each of them.

Your first so called "evidence" is based on Olber's absurd and nonsensical so called "paradox" that is easily explained by the limits of human eyesight and the inverse square law of light. That's you *leading* line of evidence? Give me a break!

The second one is redshift, but unlike inelastic scattering, "space expansion" has *never* been demonstrated to be a real empirical cause of photon redshift in a real experiment with real control mechanisms.

Your first two pieces of evidence are a joke. I won't even bother debunking the rest if you're going to lead with something as ridiculous as Olber's paradox.

8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance leads to a series of "the ad-hoc epicycles" lies?
If this is just ignorance of astronomy then acknowledge that you were wrong in your next post otherwise this will have to become an actual lie.

Your ad hoc metaphysical invisible friends are the "lies" RC.

For your education:
Dark matter has strong observational evidence thus is not ad hoc.

False. It's failed *billions* of dollars of experimental tests, dozens of observational tests, and your baryonic mass estimates have been repeatedly falsified in study after study.

Dark energy has good observational evidence thus is not ad hoc.

Yes it is. You can't even name a single source of dark energy, and the last SN1A study put the whole concept down into the three sigma category at best case.

At *least* 95 percent of LCDM is based on ac hoc metaphysical constructs.

 

[Michael]

RC, you keep talking about astronomers being so competent, but if that were actually true, they wouldn't need placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe 95 percent of the universe!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yes he did:

9 March 2018 Michael: A lie that Eddington calculated the temperature of the CMB.

For everyone: This is irrelevant because Eddington did not calculate the temperature of the CMB.
Fully explained at Eddington's Temperature of Space

The truth is extremely simple to understand for anyone who can read English and s about astronomy.
Eddington's Temperature of Space
The CMB has a measured temperature of 2.725 K., Eddington calculated an effective temperature of 3.18 K.
The CMB is not light emitted by stars which is what Eddington used.
The CMB has a measured spectrum, Eddington explicitly uses a model with a non-CMB spectrum.
Eddington may have known that the calculation is irrelevant to cosmology because it is missing from his 1933 cosmology book, Expanding Universe.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Except cosmological redshift is always calculated by emission or absorption lines, the CMBR has none....

The "always" is wrong. The CMBR has a red shift from it being emitted at a wavelength when the universe was about 378,000 years old. It has a longer wavelength now. That is the definition of red shift !

There is the "ad hoc" ignorance.
This is the cosmic microwave background. The original wavelength is calculated by taking the overwhelming evidence of an expanding universe that you know about, running the current state of the universe backward, getting a hot dense state and letting time go forward. That hot, dens state cools down and gets less dense and we get the physically obvious point where light is no longer absorbed by plasma and the CMB.

9 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Do you agree that the CMB is a scientific calculation, not a fantasy of "ad hoc".
Please address this point in your next post otherwise I will have to conclude that this is an "ad hoc" lie given that you now know the truth.

9 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Deep ignorance about cosmology exposed by asking the space expansion be observed in a lab.
You must already know that the expansion of the universe cannot be detected by measuring anything in a lab, e.g. a light source being redshirted by expansion in the lab, because nothing on scales less than a galaxy expands!

You must have read What is the evidence for the Big Bang?. On the same page is an explanation that bound systems sucgh as atoms, plantes, solar systems and galaxies do not have any measurable expansion because they are bound. The science is that the Earth's orbit will change by 1 part in a septillion over 4.5 billions years.

You must know about Hubble's law and that galaxies do not fall exactly on a straight line. The Virgo cluster is an obvious deviation form the line. The peculiar velocities of galaxies close to us can be on the same scales as the velocity from expansion. Then we look at galaxies even closer to us and some are blue-shifted!

9 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: A "CMBR shows a blueshift as well" lie unless you can cite the literature.
Please cite your scientific sources showing that the CMBR has a local blue shift.

9 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: A lie that I have ignored the A New Non-Doppler Redshift paper which I discussed in several posts.
I have not looked at the contents because the paper as a whole as in my post An assessment of any published paper before looking at is content shows that paper is dubious.

 

[RealityCheck01]

How exactly are you defining "competence" when 95 percent of the LCDM model is based on placeholder terms for human ignorance, that model fails more tests than it passes, and it's proponents have spent billions of dollar on their dark matter "experiments" and failed to find anything?

9 March 2018 Michael: A "placeholder terms for human ignorance" lie.

For others:
The Lambda-CDB model includes an expanding universe, dark matter, dark energy and inflation. Dark matter, dark energy and inflation are placeholders for observational evidence, not "human ignorance". There is strong observational evidence that dark matter and dark energy exist and good observational evidence that inflation happened. There are candidates for dark matter particles, some of which we would be capable of detecting.

9 March 2018 Michael: A "that model fails more tests than it passes" lie (unless he supplies his list of passed and failed tests with scientific sources).

For others:
The Lambda-CDB model is the consensus model, i.e. supported by the majority oaf scientists because of the enormous evidence for it and relatively little evidence against it.

9 March 2018 Michael: A "billions of dollar" lie and a cost delusion.
The experiments to detect some of the candidates for dark matter particles are relatively cheap. The LUX experiment cost about $10 million dollars to build. There are not enough experiments to total up to billions of dollars.
The delusion is that the cost of science is an excuse to not do the science (or maybe that expense somehow means dark matter particles do not exist!). If we follow that logic then we would have never gone to the Moon, never built the LHC, never built the LIGO gravitational wave detectors, etc. Then there is the question of how much cost: Should we not do any pure science anywhere at any cost?

 

[RealityCheck01]

That’s your flawed biased interpretation.

Wrong. I used a set of criteria that researchers use to focus on relevant, good papers so that they do not have to waste their time. This is one of the first tools that are taught to post-graduate students.

For example: Papers that are valid get cited often and there are only 7 papers that have cited it in the last 30 years!

You cannot understand English:

1. That it is rare for a groundbreaking paper to have 1 paper does not mean that they do not exist.
2. "A paper that overturns mainstream cosmology should be published in a high impact, appropriate journal" is what happens not an excuse.
   A normal paper on astronomy or cosmology should be published in a astronomy or cosmology journal.
   A groundbreaking paper on astronomy or cosmology should be published in a high impact astronomy or cosmology journal or Nature, etc.
3. "The author does not have a track record of publishing papers on cosmology suggesting that is not his area of expertise" and we get an stupid list of all of his papers !
   1. "An Improved Electrostatic Electron Selector" is not cosmology.
   2. "Experimentally Measured Vibrational Levels in H2+" is not cosmology.
   ... dozens of more mistakes until we get to the paper we are discussing.

Thanks for another reason making the paper as a whole dubious. Another signature of a paper being dubious is an author switching from an unrelated field to another for that paper.

1. "Perfectionnement d'un sélecteur d'électrons et étude de quelques ions moléculaires" P. Marmet. Ph.D. Thesis, Université Laval (1960)
...
66. "A New Non-Doppler Redshift" P. Marmet Phys. Essays 1, 24-32 (1988)

That is 28 years of electron transport, detectors, etc. (not even astronomy!) and then a cosmology paper. He did work at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics so his association with astronomy looks like only the design of detectors.

 

[Michael]

9 March 2018 Michael: A "placeholder terms for human ignorance" lie.

Your childish "liar, liar pants on fire" routine is getting old RC. Find a different hobby.

Since you can't name a single source of "dark energy", and all your "dark matter" experiments have been a bust, those are definitely placeholder terms for human ignorance.

For others:
The Lambda-CDB model includes an expanding universe, dark matter, dark energy and inflation. Dark matter, dark energy and inflation are placeholders for observational evidence, not "human ignorance".

Nope. The only "observational evidence" is "redshift" and "missing mass". There's *ample* evidence that redshift has *other* known empirical causes, and the mainstream's baryonic mass estimates have proven to be highly unreliable. Every 'dark matter' experiment has come up empty, and "space expansion" is an "act of faith", as is 'dark energy'. Neither one has been shown to cause photon redshift in a real experiment, whereas inelastic scattering has been shown to be a real empirical cause of photon redshift.

There is strong observational evidence that dark matter and dark energy exist

False. The last SN1A study put the concept of acceleration at around 3 sigma, about 2 sigma short of a real 'discovery'. There's *zero* evidence that "dark energy" accelerates even a single atom in a lab.

and good observational evidence that inflation happened.

Nope again. Not only is there no evidence that inflation even exists, there are hemispheric variations in the CMB which *defy* Guth's claims of a homogeneous layout of matter.

There are candidates for dark matter particles, some of which we would be capable of detecting.

They've all be dismal failures in the lab to the tune of billions of dollar already. The standard particle physics model has been shown to be the "best" explanation we have, and 'dark matter' isn't part of the standard model.

9 March 2018 Michael: A "that model fails more tests than it passes" lie (unless he supplies his list of passed and failed tests with scientific sources).

Well, you can start with every "test" of your dark matter experiments. They've all been duds, including LHC, LUX, PandaX, Xenon1T, AMDX, etc. Then of course your models failed all these tests:

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

The appropriate links are listed in the thread.

You also failed several more tests just last month:

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Keeping a list of the failed predictions of the LCDM model

For others:
The Lambda-CDB model is the consensus model, i.e. supported by the majority oaf scientists because of the enormous evidence for it and relatively little evidence against it.

For others:

The *standard* model of particle physics is also the "consensus" in particle physics, and "dark matter" isn't included in that model. There's *tons* of evidence against LCDM:

These galaxies should be chaotic—but they're not

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-hubble-yardstick-fresh-evidence-physics.html

9 March 2018 Michael: A "billions of dollar" lie and a cost delusion.
The experiments to detect some of the candidates for dark matter particles are relatively cheap.

LHC wasn't cheap and it falsified virtually all of your beloved SUSY claims. That experiment cost *billions* with a big fat "B" RC, not millions with an "M". Billions spent, nothing found. Millions more spent too on lots of other experiments and still you found absolutely nothing.

The LUX experiment cost about $10 million dollars to build.

How about Xenon1T, PandaX, and particularly LHC?

There are not enough experiments to total up to billions of dollars.

False. The LHC experiments *alone* cost billions.

The delusion is that the cost of science is an excuse to not do the science

That must be your own delusion (or lie) because that's not what I said. I didn't mind you spending the money, I resent you ignoring the results.

(or maybe that expense somehow means dark matter particles do not exist!).

Actually all your baryonic mass estimate error means that exotic matter particles do not exist. You underestimated the number of whole stars in distant galaxies by a whopping factor of at *least* 3-20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy.

Scientists Find 200 Sextillion More Stars in the Sky
NASA - Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount

You also left out two different plasma and gas halos:

Finding the Milky Way’s hydrogen halo

And that halo is *on top of* all the other mass you didn't include, including a second halo of million degree plasma found in 2012

NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

Your baryonic mass estimates have *never* been accurate.

If we follow that logic then we would have never gone to the Moon, never built the LHC, never built the LIGO gravitational wave detectors, etc. Then there is the question of how much cost: Should we not do any pure science anywhere at any cost?

Pure strawman. I never complained about building LHC or "testing" your dark matter models either, but they all *failed* and your baryonic mass estimates have been proven to be riddled with serious flaws.

It's like going to the moon, finding no life there, but *insisting* that living being inhabit the moon anyway!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Your childish...!

Any rational replies?
9 March 2018 Michael: A "placeholder terms for human ignorance" lie.
I cite textbook cosmology and the reply is just repeats of his nonsense and
9 March 2018 Michael: An ignorant delusion that dark energy has to be detected in the lab.
Let us see - no stars in the lab so according to that logic stars not exist !
This is dark energy, its observational evidence and its nature.

This lie remains so far (no list of passed and failed tests in his post, links to the crank Thunderbolts site and its forum with no promise of those list).
9 March 2018 Michael: A "that model fails more tests than it passes" lie (unless he supplies his list of passed and failed tests with scientific sources).

9 March 2018 Michael: A "billions of dollar" lie and a cost delusion.
The direct detection of dark matter are the dark matter experiments and as I pointed out does not sum up to billions of dollars.

We cannot lump in the LHC. The LHC has an total operating budget of about a billion dollars a year for all of its experiments. It would be difficult to try assigning any cost to just the search for supersymmetry particles. It would be stupid to assign all of the cost to just the search for supersymmetry particles.

 

[Michael]

Any rational replies?

Not from you, that's for darn sure.

9 March 2018 Michael: A "placeholder terms for human ignorance" lie.
I cite textbook cosmology and the reply is just repeats of his nonsense

The nonsense is the fact that your textbook doesn't name a single source of dark energy nor does it explain how dark energy retains constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. That's the "nonsense".

and
9 March 2018 Michael: An ignorant delusion that dark energy has to be detected in the lab.

It's a delusions that dark energy even exists since the best and most completely SN1A study put the idea in the three sigma range not the five sigma range. It's a delusion therefore to *assume* it exists at all. It's a delusion that 'dark energy' has the ability to accelerate even a single atom because you've never shown it exists in the first place, let alone that it accelerates anything.

Let us see - no stars in the lab so according to that logic stars not exist !

Oh yes they do:

Birkeland built a working model a hundred years ago, and fusion has been demonstrated hear on Earth as well.

This is dark energy, its observational evidence and its nature.

No, that's just an outdated WIKI page that ignores the fact that later studies are consistent with *no* dark energy.

Mysterious 'Dark Energy' May Not Exist, Study Claims

This lie remains so far (no list of passed and failed tests in his post, links to the crank Thunderbolts site and its forum with no promise of those list).

I've posted dozens of links both here and at Thunderbolts. The fact that you can't deal with any of them isn't my fault, it's yours.

9 March 2018 Michael: A "that model fails more tests than it passes" lie (unless he supplies his list of passed and failed tests with scientific sources).

All the links take you to real articles and cite the published papers and/or their authors:

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

You'll find a decades worth of LCDM failed tests in that thread.

9 March 2018 Michael: A "billions of dollar" lie and a cost delusion.
The direct detection of dark matter are the dark matter experiments and as I pointed out does not sum up to billions of dollars.

LHC *alone* cost billions of dollars:

Taking a closer look at LHC - LHC cost

We cannot lump in the LHC.

Oh yes we can because it was used to falsify *lots* of your SUSY related dark matter models.

The LHC has an total operating budget of about a billion dollars a year for all of its experiments. It would be difficult to try assigning any cost to just the search for supersymmetry particles. It would be stupid to assign all of the cost to just the search for supersymmetry particles.

It's stupid to try to ignore the billions spent on your invisible matter snipe hunt just because you don't like the fact it's been a *huge* waste of money. I don't like it either, but that doesn't give you an excuse to ignore those costs associated with your invisible snipe hunt.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Lets see, we have been searching for magical Fairie Dust, I mean Dark Matter for what, 23 or 24 years now and zilch every time.

Understandable since astronomers have not a clue as to what causes magnetic fields, and so are missing half the equations. Even RC doesnt have a clue as to what causes magnetic fields, evidenced by his refusal to consider the cause.

And now they want more tax dollars for Fairie Dust research.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/06/underground-physics-lab-cost-us-energy-department-least-12-billion

And what have we got in return?

Initial unblinded data taken April to August 2013 were announced on October 30, 2013. In an 85 live-day run with 118 kg fiducial volume, LUX obtained 160 events passing the data analysis selection criteria, all consistent with electron recoil backgrounds. A profile likelihood statistical approach shows this result is consistent with the background-only hypothesis (no WIMP interactions) with a p-value of 0.35. This is the most sensitive dark matter direct detection result in the world, and rules out low-mass WIMP signal hints such as from CoGeNT and CDMS-II.[7][8] These results have struck out some of the theories about WIMPs, which allows researchers to focus on fewer leads.[9]

In the final run from October 2014 to May 2016, at four times its original design sensitivity with 368 kg of liquid xenon, LUX has seen no signs of dark matter candidate—WIMPs.[6]

Why Zilch.

The detector project team, called the XENON Collaboration, is composed of 135 investigators across 22 institutions from Europe, the Middle East, and the United States.[14]

Upper limit for spin-independent WIMP-nucleon cross section according to recent data (published Nov. 2017)
The first results from XENON1T were released by the XENON collaboration on May 18, 2017, based on 34 days of data-taking between November 2016 and January 2017. While no WIMPs or dark matter candidate signals were officially detected, the team did announce a record low reduction in the background radioactivity levels being picked up by XENON1T. The exclusion limits exceeded the previous best limits set by the LUX experiment, with an exclusion of cross sections larger than 7.7×10−47 cm2 for WIMP masses of 35 GeV/c2.[15][16] Because some signals that the detector receives might be due to neutrons, this new radioactivity reduction lessens the chance that future detections will be caused less by well-known particles (e.g. neutrons) and more by the sought-after WIMPs.[17]

Why Zilch.

Their SUSY models already proven dead.

On 8 November 2012, the LHCb team reported on an experiment seen as a "golden" test of supersymmetry theories in physics,[114] by measuring the very rare decay of the Bs meson into two muons (Bs0 → μ+μ−). The results, which match those predicted by the non-supersymmetrical Standard Model rather than the predictions of many branches of supersymmetry,

But they wont give up their beloved epicycles for reality. Wont accept that every experiment ever done has backed up the Standard Model and falsified every other model of particle physics. Because accepting this fact means abandoning their epicycles that they can change Wiley Niley without needing any proof. Fairie Dust requires no proof to support it, that's the nature of Fairie Dust.

Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theory

No other theory in the history of science has had 24 years of falsification and survived. This simply proves that they refuse to abandon their epicycles and search for the truth.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance leads to "every single article since the space age" lie?
If this is just ignorance about how science works then acknowledge that you were wrong in your next post otherwise this will have to become an actual lie.

For your education:
One way science advances through mystery, surprises and unexpected things since even before the space age. For example it was unexpected and a surprise that the perihelion precession of Mercury would be an anomaly because Newton's law of gravity had worked for a couple of centuries. This mystery was solved with GR.

We don't need GR for that either. But you'll ignore it just like you ignored the first paper to take bremsstrhelung into account. To which you still have given no valid reason to reject when you already admitted the subject of the paper is always present in every interaction and has never before been calculated.

Your reason thus far has been a popularity contest in science....

A Detailed Classical Description of the Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury

There are dozens if not hundreds of papers about the Big Bang that have not been mystified, surprised or unexpected. What is the evidence for the Big Bang? lists 9 lines of evidence for an expanding universe, each with multiple papers confirming each of them.

8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance leads to a series of "the ad-hoc epicycles" lies?
If this is just ignorance of astronomy then acknowledge that you were wrong in your next post otherwise this will have to become an actual lie.

For your education:
Dark matter has strong observational evidence thus is not ad hoc.
Dark energy has good observational evidence thus is not ad hoc.
Black holes have strong observational evidence and so are not ad hoc.
We have detected many neutron stars thus they are not ad hoc.
Strange matter is a hypothetical (not ad hoc) form of matter usually associated with hypothetical quark stars.

8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: An "ad-hoc epicycles ... magical expansion of nothing" lie.
What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

Then you wont mind presenting the actual papers for showing the expansion of magical spacetime by Dark Energy?

You cant show any expansion, because there is no magical mysterious, unknown Dark Energy. It is simply a mathematical fudge to correct all your other incorrect theories.

All one has to do is read the astronomy news. Every single week it surprised, mystified...

Mystified....

Surprised....

Page after page after page after page.

Every week just search, its the same, over and over and over..... Because your expansion and dark matter theories are flawed, and you use the wrong physics for what 99.9% of the universe is composed of.

 

[Michael]

Lets see, we have been searching for magical Fairie Dust, I mean Dark Matter for what, 23 or 24 years now and zilch every time.

Probably 20+ years in the lab and 80 years total. We didn't find any exotic forms of matter, but we certainly found a lot of errors in their mass estimation techniques. Just a few months ago the changed the mass estimates of Andromeda (our closest neighbor) by a factor of three! So much for the validity of their mass estimation techniques.

Understandable since astronomers have not a clue as to what causes magnetic fields, and so are missing half the equations. Even RC doesnt have a clue as to what causes magnetic fields, evidenced by his refusal to consider the cause.

It's even worse than you may realize because RC actually believes that magnetic field lines "reconnect", in a complete 'vacuum' no less, which blatantly violates Maxwell's equations. There is no such thing as a monopole in Maxwell's equations and magnetic fields have no source or sink, and no ability to disconnect or reconnect. For that matter, the concept of magnetic 'lines' is a gross *oversimplification* of a 3D topology of a whole field. It's like claiming that the topology lines on a topology map are "real" and the disconnect and reconnect and that is the real cause of earthquakes. I kid you not, he really is that clueless about electromagnetic theory.

And now they want more tax dollars for Fairie Dust research.

50 million more for LUX-LZ alone.

And what have we got in return?

A lot more debt, and nothing to show for it.