• 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. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,676
    Christian
    Not only was Holushko's model *sponsored* by other authors, it was *tested* by other *published* authors and it passed those same tests, and those tests were *published*. RC is the only "crank" in this thread. :)
     
  2. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    +787
    Atheist
  3. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    +787
    Atheist
  4. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    +787
    Atheist
    That looks like a fantasy since Holushko's PDF was uploaded to an unsponsored PDF upload site so:
    16 November 2016 Michael: List the sponsors of "Holushko's model" and where it was published via those sponsors.

    It certainly was not arXiv.org which has no papers submitted by Holushko and only that one paper citing him.
     
  5. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    +787
    Atheist
    16 November 2016 Michael: List the authors (plural) who have papers stating that they are testing "Holushko's model".
    N.B. That is not Holushko only being cited in a list of citations as in the single author paper Alcock-Paczynski cosmological test.
     
  6. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    +787
    Atheist
    Not published according to you since you cited the preprint - not every preprint is published :doh:. I gave you the actual publication: Alcock-Paczynski cosmological test was published on January 14, 2014 in The American Astronomical Society.

    You know the conclusion does not rule out Lambda-CDM or the static universe with tired light the author uses. It is the other failures of tired light theories that rules tired light out. It is the enormous body of evidence for an expanding universe (e.g. the CMB) that makes a static universe doubtful. A knowledgeable person also knows that the paper is dubious because the author cites the vixra PDF upload web. Even citing arXiv is not standard.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2016
  7. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,676
    Christian
    You are deliberately trying to divert attention away from the fact that your "space expansion/acceleration" claims remain *without* empirical lab support as a possible *cause*. You evidently have "unwavering faith" in a process that is completely *unseen* in any lab on Earth in terms of a demonstration of cause of photon redshift. You have *zero* evidence to support your *faith* based belief as to "cause". I'm not personally obligated to demonstrate that empirical processes can and do "explain" the same observations. The static universe "test" paper that I cited earlier did all that for me anyway. Who cares what you personally want or need or expect from me personally anyway?

    In terms of demonstrated "causes" of photon redshift, that's been done for *every* known type of inelastic scattering, not just one! The "tired light" model is designed to test them "all", and it passed that test just as well as any expansion model.

    It's *your* responsibility to demonstrate that the *only* possible way to explain photon redshift is *your* way, and you simply cannot do that. Therefore, around and around you go, shirking your responsibilities to demonstrate your claims, and blaming me personally for all your failures in the lab.

    I'm certainly not required to demonstrate that only *one* type of scattering will necessarily explain *all* forms of photon redshift. That's another one of your own completely bogus arguments. There are *many* types of inelastic scattering options that probably all play some role in that process.

    That "test" paper demonstrates that any "tired light" model of photon redshift works *mathematically* to explain exactly the same observations, and unlike your undemonstrated claims, all of those types of inelastic scattering show up in the lab and have a real effect on real photons in real experiments. They are all *viable* alternatives that must be considered individually as well as collectively.

    Your claim on the other hand is remains a *pure act of faith* on the part of the "believer". No *cause/effect* relationship was ever demonstrated between photons losing momentum and "space expansion", let alone "space acceleration".

    You have faith in *multiple* impotent on Earth, supernatural entities galore, so what exactly is your beef with the concept of God again?
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2016
  8. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,676
    Christian
    So there you have "evidence" that "tired light" models pass the same math tests, and they have the added advantage of *working in the lab*.

    That's the point RC, the observations in space *do not* rule out a static universe, or a tired light/inelastic scattering "explanation" of photon redshift. The tired light model cannot be excluded based on redshift observations, much as that might not sit well with you personally.

    That's just an example of you *subjectively* playing the role of "God" in terms of knowledge. More importantly, you've got *zero* published papers that rule out all forms of inelastic scattering, so watch you run away from that request of mine *yet again*!

    There is no such "evidence" that cannot also be "interpreted" as "tired light". Everywhere that you're stuffing in your impotent on Earth invislbe space expanding/accelerating friends, there's an *empirical* alternative to the very same observation! I don't need your supernatural constructs to explain ordinary photon momentum loss inside of a plasma medium. It happens in the lab all the time, and it's been *well documented* as a *real* empirical cause of momentum loss.

    A knowledgeable person would notice that paper I handed them was *published* and appears on Arxiv, not vixra. Wherever Holushko's paper was *originally* published, it's *irrelevant* to the *published* results of that *published* paper.

    Where's your *published* paper that ruled out all forms of inelastic scattering?
     
  9. mzungu

    mzungu INVICTUS

    +183
    Atheist
    Married
    Creationists really hate science yet they have no qualms about enjoying the fruits of science.
    Michael if you hate science so much then why are you using the internet?
     
  10. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,676
    Christian
    You're still confusing *empirical physics* with "science" as a whole, and you're the one peddling a creation mythology that is 95 percent *devoid* of empirical physics, not me.

    I appreciate the fruits of *empirical physics* like everyone else but "dark" stuff is a figment of your overactive imagination which is why it never shows up in the lab.

    I embrace evolutionary theory, and an ancient Earth, but I have no sympathy or respect for *one* specific hypothesis in "science" that requires *four* supernatural constructs to get it to work!

    There's more evidence that "God" has a tangible effect on human beings on Earth than there is "evidence" to support any of your supernatural invisible entities. Why do you two reject the cause/effect connection between humans and God again? No photon ever claimed "dark energy did it", but plenty of humans have claimed that God has/had some influence on their lives.
     
  11. mzungu

    mzungu INVICTUS

    +183
    Atheist
    Married
    And your lab evidence of God is?
     
  12. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,676
    Christian
    Humans living on Earth have been discussing the *effects* of God on their lives since they first began writing. No photon ever talked about the "cause" of momentum loss, nor the type of matter that bends spacetime and light. Unlike your invisible friends (plural), God isn't impotent on Earth *by design*.

    It's therefore perfectly possible to *test* for the cause/effect connection here on Earth, and I've outlined some ideas in the empirical theory of God thread as to how that might be done. In the absence of a direct empirical cause/effect demonstration, I am however perfectly fine with accepting that part of my beliefs are based upon "faith", *without* an empirical cause/effect demonstration of claim. Are you willing to admit the same as it relates to your four invisible friends? When did you ever demonstrate any cause/effect link between photon momentum loss and "space expansion", or "space acceleration"? When did you demonstrate that exotic forms of matter exist,or that they have any tangible effect on a photon in a controlled experiment with actual control mechanisms? Speaking of control mechanisms, how about defining a *source* of "dark energy", and describe a control mechanism that we might use in a real lab experiment.

    The difference between your *faith* and mine, and that my beliefs *can* at least be tested in a real lab, whereas your "space expansion" claim cannot, and therefore it will *forever* be an "act of pure faith" in the unseen, in the lab.
     
  13. mzungu

    mzungu INVICTUS

    +183
    Atheist
    Married
    And your lab evidence for God is?
     
  14. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,676
    Christian
    The *effect* that God has on human lives as described by humans for thousands of years can be studied in the lab as I outlined in the other thread. As I said, I'm fine with accepting that the *cause* remains a bit of an "act of faith" on may part.

    Can you admit that is also true *four different times* as it relates to your own cause/effect claims, IOW, they remain "acts of faith" on your part in 2016?
     
  15. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,676
    Christian
    As it relates back to the OP of this thread, the claim as to "cause" of the loss of momentum of photons in LCDM will forever remain an "act of blind faith", and the argument itself will forever remain an affirming the consequent fallacy.

    Space expansion isn't a demonstrated "cause" of photon redshift. It's a *claim* that is devoid of empirical support.

    In stark contrast, *various* forms of inelastic scattering *are* empirical alternatives that are worth consideration in terms of photon momentum loss, as is the case for "moving objects". All of these processes are *empirically viable* possibilities that warrant real consideration based upon their *real* effect on *real* photons in *real* lab experiments.

    "Space expansion" however is an "anecdotal claim" which remains devoid of empirical cause/effect justification, and which by *design* will *necessarily* remain a pure "act of faith" on the part of the believer. It's a cause/effect claim that puts LCDM theory squarely into the realm of pure religion, not pure (lab demonstrated) empirical physics. Even if the math looks right on paper, the physical cause/effect claim still remains an "act of faith" in the unseen (in the lab).

    That's also true of "dark matter" theories in general, although *specific* cause/effect mathematical claims (energy states) can be eliminated in the lab. The exotic matter concept as a whole however isn't possible to falsify. There will always be "gaps" in which any exotic concept can be inserted.
     
  16. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    +787
    Atheist
    My suspicions are unfortunately confirmed with the first reply being As expected a totally fact less, ignorant and ranting post parroting similar posts from 4 years ago :eek:!
    7 November 2012 Michael: Read Compton scattering (Compton scattering produces blue and red shift!)
    7 November 2012 Michael: Where is the scientific literature linking Chen's redshift with cosmological redshift?
    13 November 2012 Michael: Where are your citations of astronomers observing blurring of distant objects?
    A few more fantasies, e.g. that photons are scattered from an imaginary 3-4 Kevin medium and this scattering can only cause blurring of galaxy images at redshifts greater than z = 10.
    Astronomers have not noticed any blurring of millions of images of galaxies up to high z relative to nearby galaxies.

    16 November 2016 Michael: Cite the scientific literature that states Brillouin scattering can reproduce cosmological redshift.
    16 November 2016 Michael: Show that any redshift caused by an expanding universe can be detected in labs here on Earth.

    Michael seems not to be able to understand that he has cited a paper citing the crank Herman Holushko with just 1 PDF on a PDF upload web site. So he makes things up:
    16 November 2016 Michael: List the sponsors of "Holushko's model" and where it was published via those sponsors.
    16 November 2016 Michael: List the authors (plural) who have papers stating that they are testing "Holushko's model".
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2016
  17. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    +787
    Atheist
    The paper tests a specific tired light model (not plural). You have not given any evidence that tired light (even the model used in that paper) has been detected *working in the lab* :eek:!
    18 November 2018 Michael: List the scientific literature stating the detection of any tired light effect working in the lab.

    This is not the ignorant act of a Google search not for tired light. This is a list of the effects of tired light being detected here on Earth in labs.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2016
  18. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    +787
    Atheist
    That is a ignorant statement followed by denial since there are many observations in space that do rule out a static universe as anyone who bothers to learn (and not blindly deny) cosmology knows, e.g. read What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
    18 November 2016 Michael: How does a static universe explain a black body CMB with a temperature that increases with distance and its angular power spectrum?
    There are some dubious papers attributing the CMB to plasma effects, etc.
     
  19. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    +787
    Atheist
    ...be able to read what they cite, find out where it was published and that some of its citations was not published :doh:.
    Can you understand that arXiv is a pre-print distribution service, not a scientific journal? Preprints are loaded onto arXiv, not published. A published scientific paper is published in a scientific journal.

    vixra is not definitely not a scientific journal! But just in case you have secret knowledge:
    18 November 2016 Michael: Cite the publication of Herman Holushko's cosmology work in a scientific journal.
     
Loading...