Why inelastic scattering is an invalid explanation for cosmological redshift

Michael · Mar 9, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
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.....

True, but then again 95 percent of their goofy model is based on placeholder terms for human ignorance so the mystified aspect is pretty much intrinsic to the model itself.

RealityCheck01 · Mar 14, 2018

Michael said:
Not from you,....

Nothing rational about the science I have been stating in the last year of so:
9 November 2016: Why inelastic scattering cannot produce cosmological redshift.

Lately:
9 March 2018 Michael: A lie that Eddington calculated the temperature of the CMB.
9 March 2018 Michael: A "placeholder terms for human ignorance" lie.
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: An ignorant delusion that dark energy has to be detected in the lab (stars are not!).

RealityCheck01 · Mar 14, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
Lets see, ...

A "fairy dust" rant rather than educating themselves or acknowledging mistakes and so turning ignorance or mistakes into lies.
8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance leads to "every single article since the space age" lie ?
8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance leads to a series of "the ad-hoc epicycles" lies ?
8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: An "ad-hoc epicycles ... magical expansion of nothing" lie.

A last chance to answer before they have to become lies:
9 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Do you agree that the CMB temperature is a scientific calculation, not a fantasy of "ad hoc"?
9 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: A "CMBR shows a blueshift as well" lie unless you can cite the literature?

9 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Deep ignorance about cosmology exposed by asking the space expansion be observed in a lab.
9 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: A lie that I have ignored the A New Non-Doppler Redshift paper which I discussed in several posts.

RealityCheck01 · Mar 14, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
We don't need GR for that either.

15 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: A link to an obvojuls invalid web page, not any scientific literature.
The reason that the advance of the perihelion of Mercury was anomalous was that it could not be explained by Newton's physics as that web page asserts !
A "Therefore, space is mathematically flat and the relativity principles are useless." statement is stupid when the author must know that GR matches the advance of the perihelion of Mercury.

15 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: A lie that I have not supplied papers for dark energy (read the dark energy Wikipedia article).

15 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance about science where "mystified", "surprised", etc. is good because it leads to study of the mystery or surprise .
Scientists were mystified by the orbits of planets so they studied until they were not mysterious.
Scientists were mystified, surprised, etc. by the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury. That is why they wanted to solve it ! Ditto for many other mysteries, surprises, etc.
The discovery of dark matter was a surprise back in the 1930's - everyone thought that galaxy clusters would be made of stars , etc. that emitted light just like stars, etc. in our galaxy.
etc. etc.

15 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: The idiocy of "astronomers mystified/surprised" Google searches.
Firstly the "astronomers mystified/surprised" results include mysteries/surprises that have been solved .
Secondly the searches are irrelevant to your lie about every science article.
Thirdly the results will include personal "I did not know that/expect that/wow" moments.
Fourthly the results will contain hyped news report titles. The editor or reporter might put "mystified" in the title but the astronomers may give explanations that remove the mystery.

SelfSim · Mar 15, 2018

Unbelievable track record these two have compiled there, RC!

Thanks for the reference on Eddington's temperature calculation also .. Michael frequently propagates his nonsense and lies about that here at CFs. That link will come in handy.

Michael · Mar 15, 2018

RealityCheck01 said:
Nothing rational about the science I have been stating in the last year of so:
9 November 2016: Why inelastic scattering cannot produce cosmological redshift.

Don't think that I've forgotten that you've yet to produce those "non blurry" images of large Z galaxies you promised us and never delivered. Then again you *never* produced your non-zero rate of reconnection formula, or any references to support your absurd "electric discharges are impossible in plasma" nonsense either. You never support any of your claims, you just cite yourself spewing the same falsified nonsense over and over and over again.

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

He nailed the number to within a half of a degree of the correct number whereas the first BB estimates were off by more than a whole order of magnitude.

http://www.redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF

You can't change history RC.

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

LOL! Every one of your 'dark matter' experiments has been a failure. You can't even decide what form it takes, and it's failed more observational "tests" than it ever passed. You can't even name a single source of "dark energy" and the last SN1A study put the whole concept of acceleration 2 sigma short of a valid scientific 'discovery' in the first place! You're only lying to yourself. You can't even answer any logical questions about any of it, starting with how "dark energy" supposedly retains a constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume.

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).

I've done that for you *lots* of times, and denial is your own way to deal with it.

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias
Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Keeping a list of the failed predictions of the LCDM model

9 March 2018 Michael: An ignorant delusion that dark energy has to be detected in the lab (stars are not!).

Fusion has been demonstrated on Earth, and Birkeland recreated a working model of a star in his lab in terms of how it works from the surface to space.

Meanwhile your dark energy genie is entirely impotent on Earth and the basis for that claim has fallen to around 3 sigma, 2 sigma short of a "discovery' in physics.

Your dark energy claim is an ignorant delusion.

Michael · Mar 15, 2018

RealityCheck01 said:
A "fairy dust" rant rather than educating themselves or acknowledging mistakes and so turning ignorance or mistakes into lies.
8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance leads to "every single article since the space age" lie ?

Ever since we put satellites in space, your models have been failing one test after another, starting with the discovery of Birkeland current in aurora which the mainstream *insisted* didn't exist.

8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance leads to a series of "the ad-hoc epicycles" lies ?

That observation is 100 percent accurate. You're ignorant of scattering in space, so you invented the epicycle equivalents of 'space expansion' and "dark energy' as mathematical gap fillers in your claims. You're ignorant of the amount of *ordinary* matter in various galaxies, so you created another epicycle equivalent of "dark matter" to fill in the mathematical gaps in your understanding.

8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: An "ad-hoc epicycles ... magical expansion of nothing" lie.

The *fact* is that you have *never* demonstrated an empirical cause/effect link between photon redshift and "space expansion". That
claim is the *ultimate* magical claim.

9 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: A "CMBR shows a blueshift as well" lie unless you can cite the literature?

It's a lie that any experiment in a 2.7 degree environment leads to blueshift. You're lying again.

9 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Deep ignorance about cosmology exposed by asking the space expansion be observed in a lab.

Your metaphysics *never* works in the lab. You're ignorant of the real causes of photon redshift so you just "make believe" that it has something to do with 'space expansion' even though you could never demonstrate such a cause/effect link in a real lab experiment.

9 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: A lie that I have ignored the A New Non-Doppler Redshift paper which I discussed in several posts.

It's a lie that you've ever shown it to be wrong.

Michael · Mar 15, 2018

RealityCheck01 said:
15 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: A link to an obvojuls invalid web page, not any scientific literature.

You've never produced anything *but* invalid web pages to demonstrate that inelastic scattering cannot be the real cause of photon redshift.

15 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: A lie that I have not supplied papers for dark energy (read the dark energy Wikipedia article).

You've simply ignored the fact that the more recent SN1A paper shows that you never "discovered"' anything to start with because there's only a 3 sigma likelihood of acceleration at *best* case, 2 full sigma short of a real discovery.

Michael · Mar 15, 2018

SelfSim said:
Unbelievable track record these two have compiled there, RC!

Yep, we have a great track record of busting your metaphysical claims one by one.

Thanks for the reference on Eddington's temperature calculation also .. Michael frequently propagates his nonsense and lies about that here at CFs. That link will come in handy.

http://www.redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF

LOL. Eddington nailed the correct temperature of space based on ordinary scattering to within .5 degrees on his first try, whereas your first precious BB "predictions" for that figure were off by more than a whole order of magnitude. You can't rewrite history. We won't let you.

SelfSim · Mar 15, 2018

Michael said:
Yep, we have a great track record of busting your metaphysical claims one by one.

Pfft! More lies .. Yawn.

Michael said:
LOL. Eddington nailed the correct temperature of space based on ordinary scattering to within .5 degrees on his first try, whereas your first precious BB "predictions" for that figure were off by more than a whole order of magnitude. You can't rewrite history. We won't let you.

Another lie about Eddington's temperature.

Michael · Mar 15, 2018

SelfSim said:
Another lie about Eddington's temperature.

Eddington predicted the temperature of the dust in space to be 3.18 degrees, within 1/2 of one degree of the correct temperature whereas the first BB prediction was 50 degrees. Deny it all you like, but I included the relevant reference material.

http://www.redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF
The Creation of the Universe

RealityCheck01 · Mar 19, 2018

Michael said:
Eddington predicted the temperature of the dust in space ...

Not addressing your lie about Eddington calculating the temperature of the CMB but there is no dust in his calculation either !
20 March 2018: Ignorance about Eddington's calculation of the effective temperature of radiation from stars.
The History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson PDF has 1 occurrence of "dust" in a different article.
The PDF and Eddington's Temperature of Space quote Eddington's "The Temperature of Space" section.

The total light received by us from the stars is estimated to be equivalent to about 1000 stars of the first magnitude...

9 November 2016: Why inelastic scattering cannot produce cosmological redshift.
9 March 2018 Michael: A lie that Eddington calculated the temperature of the CMB.
9 March 2018 Michael: A "placeholder terms for human ignorance" lie.
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: An ignorant delusion that dark energy has to be detected in the lab (stars are not!)

RealityCheck01 · Mar 19, 2018

Michael said:
Don't think....

Unfortunately no thinking about his mistakes in this post. Which leaves

9 November 2016: Why inelastic scattering cannot produce cosmological redshift.
9 March 2018 Michael: A lie that Eddington calculated the temperature of the CMB.
9 March 2018 Michael: A "placeholder terms for human ignorance" lie.
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: An ignorant delusion that dark energy has to be detected in the lab (stars are not!)

20 March 2018: Ignorance about Eddington's calculation of the effective temperature of radiation from stars.

20 March 2018: A lie that he has given me a list of the passed and failed tests of the Lambda-CDM model.
His assertion remains that the Lambda-CDM model fails more test than it passes. That means he has a list of the passed and failed tests and so can show that the number of failed test is > the number of passed test. Alternately this is a lie.

These are 2 threads on the Thunderbolts forum. These are a group of people ignorant enough to believe in the ignorance, delusions and lies of the Thunderbolts leaders.
If you are interested then read: 10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
For example:
Wal Thornhill has been lying about confirmed predictions for the 2005 Deep Impact mission for 13 years (his prediction of an advance flash when there was no flash before impact, etc.).
Donald Scott is abysmally ignorant about the Sun but wrote a book about an electric Sun. He has the Sun powered by fusion in the photosphere but we are not fried by gamma rays from that fusion or even detect enough + without a central heat source the Sun collapse to a white dwarf as it will when fusion runs out at the end of the Sun's lifetime.
David Talbott is a mythologist imagining that ancient myths have to be physically correct so he wrote a book where Saturn appeared "fixed at the north celestial pole".
Talbott and Thornhill (maybe Scott) are neo-Velikovskians who have add their own fantasies to his fantasies about planets bouncing around the Solar System to account for myths. The obvous delusions are about comets ("Comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges").

A thread about confirmation bias starting with a lie: "..., virtually all of which have been *falsified* by satellite measurements from space over the past decade" ("falsified" is the lie) and continuing with more lies, e.g. galaxy masses from counting stars, dark matter is missing normal matter, etc.

The other is "Keeping a list of the failed predictions of the LCDM model". The first post contains at least one lie. GR predicts that the universe has to be contacting, static or expanding. There is overwhelming evidence that the universe is expanding so the Lambda-CDM model includes an expanding universe. The Lambda-CDM model does not predict how fast the universe is expanding - that rate is measured !

Fusion + Birkeland pops up so from another thread:
9 March 2018 Michael: A "fusion" lie about Birkeland's solar model as described in Birkeland's book
Birkeland died before fusion was discovered or proposed as a solar power source. He stated a prevailing speculation that the Sun was powered by radioactivity, e.g. decaying radium.

RealityCheck01 · Mar 19, 2018

Michael said:
Ever since we put satellites in space, your models have been failing one test after another, starting with the discovery of Birkeland current in aurora which the mainstream *insisted* didn't exist. ...

The ignorance that 8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance leads to "every single article since the space age" lie ? is answered by a single example of an discovery that was not unexpected!

20 March 2018: Birkeland currents discovery ignorance.
Birkeland current
Birkeland's idea was initially ignored because there was another theory that was thought to be better. By 1939, it was being promoted and later used. U.S. Navy satellite 1963-38C was launched and took measurements of the magnetic field (not aurora). Analysis of the data shows field aligned currents that Alfven identified as Birkeland currents.

8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance leads to a series of "the ad-hoc epicycles" lies ? is replied to by shortening his lies to a "epicycle" delusion and lie.
20 March 2018: A "epicycle" delusion and lie about the empirical evdeience for an expanding universe, dark matter, dark energy and inflation.
The delusion is that science cannot progress by building upon already known and tested laws of physics. Newton's law of gravitation has been tested for about 400 years and we know its limits. Apply Newton's law of gravitation to stars in a galaxy and there has to be matter we that is not the visible matter we detect.
The lie is "mathematical gap fillers in your claims" - the expansion of the universe is an overwhelming body of empirical evidence.

The response to 8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: An "ad-hoc epicycles ... magical expansion of nothing" lie. is
20 March 2018: A lie that there is no "empirical" link between redshift and an expanding universe.
An expanding universe is defined as the distances between points increasing. That includes the distance between the crests, troughs or other points on a electromagnetic wave. Light must redshift in an expanding universe.

But that "empirical" suggests
20 March 2018: An insanely ignorant demand to measure cosmological redshift in the lab.
The expansion of the universe causes the Earth's orbit to shift 1 part in a septillion over 4.6 billion years !
Or both!

Which is it, Michael?

Michael agrees that Justatruthseeker lied with:
9 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: A "CMBR shows a blueshift as well" lie unless you can cite the literature? But then he accuses me of writing it!
20 March 2018: It was Justatruthseeker who wrote the "CMBR shows a blueshift as well" lie.

The response to 9 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Deep ignorance about cosmology exposed by asking the space expansion be observed in a lab. gets closer to:
20 March 2018: An insanely ignorant demand to measure cosmological redshift in the lab.

A lie as a response to 9 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: A lie that I have ignored the A New Non-Doppler Redshift paper which I discussed in several posts. because I have never claimed I showed that it was wrong. The lie was that I ignored the paper - I assessed it as too dubious to waste time on. An assessment of any published paper before looking at is content shows that paper is dubious.
The single fact that just about every scientist in the world has ignored the paper is evidence that they think the paper is so obviously incorrect that they have not cited it or even bothered to debunk it !

Michael · Mar 20, 2018

Gah. Pure gish-gallop and all of it has been addressed *numerous* times already. It's too late for to respond to your gish-gallop nonsense in this thread tonight.

RealityCheck01 · Mar 22, 2018

Michael said:
Pure gish-gallop and all of it has been addressed *numerous* times already.

23 March 2018: A "all of it has been addressed *numerous* times already" lie.
The lie is emphasized.

Repeating ignorance and fantasies does not address the textbook physics that inelastic scattering gives both red and blue shifts, etc.
9 November 2016: Why inelastic scattering cannot produce cosmological redshift.

You have not addressed the documented fact (his book) that Eddington did not calculate the temperature of the CMB (he calculates the effective temperature of light from stars).
9 March 2018 Michael: A lie that Eddington calculated the temperature of the CMB.

You have not addressed the empirical evidence that makes us not ignorant about dark matter, etc.
9 March 2018 Michael: A "placeholder terms for human ignorance" lie.

You have not addressed a lack of passed and failed tests:
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).

You have not addressed an obvious delusion
9 March 2018 Michael: An ignorant delusion that dark energy has to be detected in the lab (stars are not!)

Lately:
20 March 2018: A lie that he has given me a list of the passed and failed tests of the Lambda-CDM model.
20 March 2018: Birkeland currents discovery ignorance.
20 March 2018: A lie that there is no "empirical" link between redshift and an expanding universe. or 20 March 2018: An insanely ignorant demand to measure cosmological redshift in the lab.

A small lack of reading comprehension not acknowledged yet as an honest mistake.
20 March 2018: It was Justatruthseeker who wrote the "CMBR shows a blueshift as well" lie.

Michael · Mar 23, 2018

RealityCheck01 said:
20 March 2018: A lie that he has given me a list of the passed and failed tests of the Lambda-CDM model.

Same gish-gallop denial routine, and your false statements are multiplying by the day:

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias
Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Keeping a list of the failed predictions of the LCDM model

Michael · Mar 23, 2018

RealityCheck01 said:
Repeating ignorance and fantasies does not address the textbook physics that inelastic scattering gives both red and blue shifts, etc.

FYI, I think that's your lamest argument of all time, right up there with your 'no neutrino' nonsense. Moving objects cause redshift and blueshift too but "space expansion" is a metaphysical myth that doesn't do *anything* to any photon in any lab. Chen even demonstrated that the number of free electrons in the plasma has a direct effect on the amount of redshift that he observed *in the lab*.

Michael · Mar 23, 2018

RealityCheck01 said:
You have not addressed the documented fact (his book) that Eddington did not calculate the temperature of the CMB (he calculates the effective temperature of light from stars).

LOL. Eddington got the right effective temperature of space to within 1/2 of one degree and you simply *misinterpret* the effective temperature of light from stars as a "CMB". The universe has a x-ray background and a gamma ray background too, and a background of virtually every wavelength under the sun because suns emit all the light in the first place!

Justatruthseeker · Apr 3, 2018

To address RC's biggest lie about the CMBR having no blueshift. Either he is lying to you all, or ignorant of his own theory.... You decide.

Cosmic Microwave Background Dipole | COSMOS

"The cosmic microwave background dipole. The slightly (-0.0035 Kelvin) cooler regions are shown in blue, while (+0.0035 Kelvin) hotter regions are shown in red. The pattern is consistent with the Local group of galaxies (which includes the Milky Way) having a speed of 600 km/sec towards the centre of the red patch which lies in constellation Centaurus – the home of the Great Attractor.
N.B. Rather confusingly, red (hot) areas correspond to blue-shifted radiation, while blue (cool) areas correspond to red-shifted radiation."

Now RC will be unable to produce any other redshifted object due to claimed magical space expansion that is affected by our galaxies motion. This proves beyond a doubt that the CMBR is a local event as only local objects produce blueshift. No other claimed source of the shifting of light due to the mythical and magical space expansion has any affect due to our motion through space. All other objects (besides local) contain no blue shift, therefore any object that shows blueshift must be local in origin. RC will just attempt to double-talk around the problem because if the CMBR was from the mythical surface of last scattering, before any object had formed, then all these other objects at great distances would also show a blueshift due to our motion through space. No, RC's magical space expansion fails miserably, and is clearly not the correct answer. Nor is the CMBR from any extreme distance, but is a local event, shown by the very fact that it has a blueshift due to our motion, and only local events have a blueshift due to our motion through space.

Why inelastic scattering is an invalid explanation for cosmological redshift

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

A non "-ist"

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

A non "-ist"

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency