A doubly ignorant demand.
Do you *ever* make a post without the term "ignorant", "fantasy", "deluded", and loaded with personal attacks? Honestly RC, you take all the "fun" out of having a real and "honest" conversation about a topic by constantly deflecting it at the individual. It's irrational behavior you must repeat because all of your photon redshift beliefs remain pure *statements of faith* on your part, and they are *all* completely devoid of any empirical laboratory support of any kind. You therefore really have nothing "empirical" to offer anyone, so you constantly take the low road in debate. It's completely unethical "hater" behavior which you direct at anyone and everyone that lacks faith in your supernatural creation mythology "dogma".
It physics textbook that describe inelastic scattering and that is what makes inelastic scattering an invalid source of cosmological redshift as in the OP.
Said *no one ever in any published study*, just by the same guy that told us that electrical discharges are "impossible" in plasma, and never produced a *published* document on that claim either!
What *published scientific paper* ruled out *every potential* source of inelastic scattering as having some influence on cosmological observations RC? Be specific, or go home.
This thread is about the resurrection of the fantasy
There's another great example of the way you unethically cheat at debate by using as many loaded terms, in this case "fantasy" as you can possible add into the conversation with the express intent on making it *personal*. That is pathetic and unethical behavior on your part RC.
that cosmological redshift can be caused by inelastic scattering by you.
There are *lots* of papers that describe the effect of various types of inelastic scattering in plasmas, including that one I handed you related to the Earth's magnetosphere. You've got *zero* published papers that rule out all types of inelastic scattering as "causes" of cosmological redshift. You guys are so *desperate* on this point that you're forced to go all the way back to Zwicky for *any* reference, and he only tried to rule out *a single* type of inelastic scattering from consideration, while *promoting his own* tired like theory no less! Some "reference"! You therefore constantly point me at *unpublished website rants* by Ned Wright, who does the same slight of hand with respect to Zwicky! Holy cow. What a mess. You cannot possible rule out all types of inelastic scattering, and in fact you folks *forgot to include them*, which is *exactly* why you you then require *three* supernatural claims to make up the difference, including 'space expansion', 'inflation', and 'dark energy'. Wow! Even the *physics flaw* in your own theory explain the need for the supernatural nonsense! Talk about *fantasies*. You have three of them going, and that's not including the fourth *billion dollar* failure you've had at finding exotic forms of stable matter.
You have to supply evidence, not fact less fantasies, bad arguments and citing ignorant and even deluded people.
The only *published* reference I've seen from you to address the elimination of *any* possible cause of inelastic scattering I've seen from you came from a 75 year old paper that only eliminated *one* possible type of inelastic scattering while promoting a completely different 'tired light' model!
Then I get the ever popular unpublished website rants from Ned Wright, and circular arguments galore! It's the "electrical discharges are impossible in plasma* claim all over again! No published support, just personal attack nonsense in every post. Hoy Vey. You're so predicable.
We've covered your erroneous claim about expecting overall blueshift through a relatively cool medium, but there you go again just ignoring every answer, and repeating your same old tired lies. It's getting old.
You never showed us any Z>10 images of galaxies that were not "blurry", so I can only assume that's another of your *fantasies* you must hold in order to prop up your blind faith in your other four supernatural invisible friends.
The LA Times newspaper article about Hubble's personal preference for a static universe and tired light theory was from December 31, 1941. If you've got a *published* paper after 1941 where he personally changed his mind and ruled out that possibility, we're waiting for that one too. Let's watch and see how you run from that request too. You have a proven track record of not producing any published support for your many erroneous claims.
Since you've failed to explain how your "dark energy" remains constant over exponential increases in volume, your gross violation of the conservation of energy continues to infinity and beyond.
Give me a break.
Even if we started with three mass objects equally separated by some distance, their "potential" energy will simply convert itself to *kinetic energy* at their point of impact. If we set them into motion away from a common point, they would still tend to "slow down" over time. There is absolutely no conservation of energy happening in your constant density 'dark energy' "blunder" theory. The total amount of dark energy continues to grow exponentially over time and gravity has been relegated to an almost insignificant influence.
Since you cannot even tell us where dark energy comes from *physically*, we can only assume it's another of your invisible 'fantasies' you hold to avoid embracing empirical (lab tested) alternatives to your creation mythology.
!
