Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
A doubly ignorant demand.Ya, I've come to expect the from all your posts, along with a completely *dodge* of my request for *published* literature to support your claim that all types of inelastic scattering can be "ruled out". You don't even debate fairly to start with.
Basically a lie by citing a blogger talking about tired light, not Hubble
An ignorant statement about Eddington - what a surpriseThe CMB temp was predicted by Eddington based on the scattering of light on the dust of spacetime, long before BB theory ever got "popular".
Eddington never predicted the temperature of the CMB. Eddingtion did not look at scattering from an imaginary "dust of spacetime" or even actual dust.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). Here is a quote of what Eddington actually said:...
My own citation is that in 1935 there is one statement that Hubble and Tolman included tired light as an option in one paper. What was his position in 1936? What about 1937? What about 1953?Um, your own quote shows that he *did* include the option of "tired light",
The data are fully consistent with universal expansion if we assume simple models of passive evolution for elliptical galaxies but are inconsistent with a nonexpanding geometry (the tired-light cosmology) at the 5 sigma confidence level at z = 0.41.
I will now address this earlier claim with a simple question:The photons of spacetime are traversing a *static* and very cold medium that is approximately 3-4 degrees Kelvin, barely greater than zero kelvin.
The most direct evidence that the redshift is a result of expansion is the thermal spectrum of the CBR [26]. In a tired light model in a static universe the photons suffer a redshift that is proportional to the distance travelled, but in the absence of absorption or emission the photon number density remains constant. In this case a significant redshift makes an initially thermal spectrum distinctly not thermal and inconsistent with the measured CBR spectrum. One could avoid this by assuming the mean free path for absorption and emission of CBR photons is much shorter than the Hubble length, so relaxation to thermal equilibrium is much faster than the rate of distortion of the spectrum by the redshift. But this opaque universe is quite inconsistent with the observation of radio galaxies at redshifts z ∼ 3 at CBR wavelengths. That is, the universe cannot have an optical depth large enough to preserve a thermal CBR spectrum in a tired light model. In the standard world model the expansion has two effects: it redshifts the photons, as λ ∝ a(t), and it dilutes the photon number density, as n ∝ a(t)−3. The result is to cool the CBR while keeping its spectrum thermal. Thus the expanding universe allows a self-consistent picture: the CBR was thermalized in the past, at a time when when the universe was denser, hotter, and optically thick.
A doubly ignorant demand.
It physics textbook that describe inelastic scattering and that is what makes inelastic scattering an invalid source of cosmological redshift as in the OP.
This thread is about the resurrection of the fantasy
that cosmological redshift can be caused by inelastic scattering by you.
You have to supply evidence, not fact less fantasies, bad arguments and citing ignorant and even deluded people.
More evidence against tired light theories - they also redshift the CMB but that can destroy a blackbody spectrum.
The Standard Cosmological Model
The standard cosmology assumes conventional physics, including general relativity theory.
Basically a lie by citing a blogger talking about tired light, not Hubble!
Hubble Eventually Did Not Believe in Big Bang: Associated Press does not actually cite any of Hubble's papers or actual quotes from Hubble.
In the nebular [galaxy] spectra the stations (or lines) are shifted toward the red, and these redshifts vary directly with distance–an approximately linear relation. This interpretation lends itself directly to theories of an expanding universe. The interpretation is not universally accepted, but even the most cautious of us admit that redshifts are evidence either of an expanding universe or of some hitherto unknown principle of nature.”
An ignorant statement about Eddington...
Eddington never predicted the temperature of the CMB. Eddingtion did not look at scattering from an imaginary "dust of spacetime" or even actual dust.
Basically a lie by citing a blogger talking about tired light, not Hubble!
Hubble Eventually Did Not Believe in Big Bang: Associated Press does not actually cite any of Hubble's papers or actual quotes from Hubble.
Do you ever write a post thatDo you *ever* make a post ....
Basically a lie
FYI. You may wonder why Michael did not quote the title of the Chen paper - it is a form of lying by omission because the title is:
Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas
Galaxies are not lasers as in Chen's experiment!
A citation of Light Red Shift in Cosmic Background Photon Gas which is photons not scattering in plasma. It is photon-photon scattering and rather bad.
Do you ever write a post that
- does not contain irrelevant rants or
does not obsess with some dead scientists who were sometimes wrong, e.g. Hubble, or
cites relevant science or
seems to add to your statements of ignorance?
The paper is about the standard cosmological model. One point it raises is that the spectrum the CMB as actually measured is evidence against tired light.
A lie by quote mining my post which was:You constantly ....
The lie is that what you cited was Hubble stating his personal and irrelevant opinion.Basically a lie by citing a blogger talking about tired light, not Hubble!
Hubble Eventually Did Not Believe in Big Bang: Associated Press does not actually cite any of Hubble's papers or actual quotes from Hubble.
In the real world galaxies are not lasers.What a ridiculous response,...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?