Why inelastic scattering is an invalid explanation for cosmological redshift

RealityCheck01 · Dec 12, 2016

Michael said:
Ya RC. In fact I handed you two *published* papers on the topic, ...lots of ranting and insults...

!
21 November 2016 Michael: Eddington never predicted the temperature of the CMB (specifically in his 1926 book The Internal Constitution of the Stars).

21 November 2016 Michael: Cite the textbooks on and scientific reviews of the cosmological "EU/PC theory" explaining what the Lambda-CDM model explains.
21 November 2016 Michael: Do you agree that the physical evidence makes a decades long "comets are rocks blasted off planets..." story a delusion?

21 November 2016 Michael: Violation of the conservation of energy by an expanding universe is at least ignorant and maybe a lie.
21 November 2016 Michael: More evidence against tired light theories - they also redshift the CMB but that can destroy a blackbody spectrum.

RealityCheck01 · Dec 12, 2016

I ask: 7 November 2012 Michael: Read Compton scattering (Compton scattering produces blue and red shift!)
and you go in about Chen's laser induced red shift experiment

!

I ask: 7 November 2012 Michael: Where is the scientific literature linking Chen's redshift with cosmological redshift?
and you think a paper not mentioning Chen is an answer

!

I ask: 13 November 2012 Michael: Where are your citations of astronomers observing blurring of distant objects?
and you pull a z > 10 number out of thin air! Which demands:
13 December 2016 Michael: Cite where tired light theories do not produce blurring until z is > 10.

I ask: 17 November 2016 Michael: Why have astronomers [seen] not any blurring of millions of images of galaxies up to high z relative to nearby galaxies.
And your response is nonsense about "never any kind of blurring anywhere in spacetime". Astronomers look at images of galaxies. If they saw measurable blurring of those images then they would have reported the blurring and it would be common knowledge.

Michael · Dec 13, 2016

RealityCheck01 said:
No papers that have tested tired light theories for cosmological redshift in the lab here on Earth (your criteria's - not mine) are in this thread.

Plenty of labs on Earth record *numerous* types of inelastic scattering have a *tangible empirical* effect on a photon RC. Your denial process is absurd. There is no basis for your "space expansion" claim. It's a pure affirming the consequent fallacy on a stick, devoid of laboratory support.

Holushko's tired light model even passed the very same *difficult published tests*, but his model is supported by numerous laboratory examples of momentum loss of photons in plasma.

Hubble died in 1953 before the CMB was discovered and lots more evidence for an expanding universe and so his opinion based on incomplete evidence is irrelevant.

You folks *abuse* Hubble's memory when it suits you, and ignore his criticism when it suits you too. You did the same thing to Einstein and to Alfven as well. You abuse their work mathematically, and abuse their scientific legacy to suit yourself.

Please cite for us the published paper where Hubble claimed that "space expansion" was the "cause" of photon redshift.

RealityCheck01 · Jan 18, 2017

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?

17 November 2016 Michael: Why have astronomers not seen 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.

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".
18 November 2018 Michael: List the scientific literature stating the detection of any tired light effect working in the lab.
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?
18 November 2016 Michael: Cite the publication of Herman Holushko's cosmology work in a scientific journal.

21 November 2016 Michael: Citing Hubble who died in 1953 before the enormous evidence for an expanding universe was discovered, e.g. the CMB in 1964

!
21 November 2016 Michael: Eddington never predicted the temperature of the CMB (specifically in his 1926 book The Internal Constitution of the Stars).

21 November 2016 Michael: Cite the textbooks on and scientific reviews of the cosmological "EU/PC theory" explaining what the Lambda-CDM model explains.
21 November 2016 Michael: Do you agree that the physical evidence makes a decades long "comets are rocks blasted off planets..." story a delusion?

21 November 2016 Michael: Violation of the conservation of energy by an expanding universe is at least ignorant and maybe a lie.
21 November 2016 Michael: More evidence against tired light theories - they also redshift the CMB but that can destroy a blackbody spectrum.

RealityCheck01 · Jan 18, 2017

Michael said:
Plenty of labs on Earth....

You need to read what you reply to, Michael.

RealityCheck01 said:
No papers that have tested tired light theories for cosmological redshift in the lab here on Earth (your criteria's - not mine) are in this thread.

I added the highlight. Observed inelastic scattering is not tired light.

Michael · Jan 21, 2017

RealityCheck01 said:
RC's never ending links and lists to his own posts....

Since you *never* have an actual published link to support any of your nonsense, including your emotional need to put words in Dungey's mouth, and insert your own need for a breakdown of a dielectric, it's impossible to have a real conversation with you. It's impossible for you to admit your mistakes or to to provide us with any published document that supports your claim. You therefore insert a never-ending series of links to your *own previous posts* which are of course completely devoid of any of my requested supporting documents.

Somov *included* charge particles in his "vacuum", and he *included* the *transfer of energy* from the magnetic field to the the charged particle *current*, which *moves* as a result of the transfer of energy. You and silly Clinger *forgot* to include any charged particles, and you forgot to include any transfer of energy between the magnetic field and charged particles. You therefore have created *zero* amount of "magnetic reconnection"!

You really haven't a clue about plasma physics because you've never bothered to sit down and actually read a real textbook on plasma physics. One of the first things you'll learn in chapter 1 of any textbook on MHD theory is that that entire book, and all the maths contained therein describe *plasma* and the movements of *plasma*!

Hoy Vey.

Michael · Jan 21, 2017

RealityCheck01 said:
You need to read what you reply to, Michael.

I added the highlight. Observed inelastic scattering is not tired light.

I'm not going to play semantics with you RC. You reinvent scientific terms to suit yourself.

*Many* different types of inelastic scattering have been shown to have a tangible and real effect on photon momentum as it passes through plasma. Ninety nine + percent of the known universe is in a plasma state. It is therefor only *logical* that all photons will likely experience some amount of momentum loss to the dusty plasma medium of space over time and distance.

It's *illogical* to simply *assume* that all photons somehow pass though that dusty plasma medium *without* losing any momentum at all to the medium.

You've ignored an important *observation from the lab* in your maths. You've forgotten to include any tangible effect between real photons and real dusty plasma. Because you made this error, you now have no logical or empirical way to explain the redshift. You therefore invented four invisible friends, and three of them just to fix the one redshift error.

There are *many* different possible explanations for photon redshift which have been *demonstrated* in the lab, including object movement.

Your "space expansion" claim is therefore the basis of your "atheistic religion" apparently. Somehow you figure that you have salvation from the existence of "God", simply by putting your 'faith' in four invisible friends.

RealityCheck01 · Feb 7, 2017

!
21 November 2016 Michael: Eddington never predicted the temperature of the CMB (specifically in his 1926 book The Internal Constitution of the Stars).

21 November 2016 Michael: Cite the textbooks on and scientific reviews of the cosmological "EU/PC theory" explaining what the Lambda-CDM model explains.
21 November 2016 Michael: Do you agree that the physical evidence makes a decades long "comets are rocks blasted off planets..." story a delusion?

21 November 2016 Michael: Violation of the conservation of energy by an expanding universe is at least ignorant and maybe a lie.
21 November 2016 Michael: More evidence against tired light theories - they also redshift the CMB but that can destroy a blackbody spectrum.

Michael · Feb 7, 2017

RealityCheck01 said:
Nothing but irrelevant or ignorant non-science from.....

You're clearly projecting again I see.

You constantly cite yourself over and over again because you can never provide a published claim to support your erroneous nonsense. You never came up with any reference that claimed that discharges are "impossible" in a plasma, and you *still* think plasma is *optional* in the plasma physics process known as "magnetic reconnection" so why should I bother responding to your same debunked arguments over an over again? You're like a denial machine on steroids and you never listen or respond to my rebuttals, so what's the point? Pure harassment on your part?

The bottom line is that light loses momentum to a plasma medium over time and distance in the lab and you left out that important aspect of light in a plasma medium. You therefore need *three different supernatural deities* to fix your single physics error. Why should I care what you think about photons when you cannot even show any empirical cause/effect justification for your claim "space expansion did it"?

RealityCheck01 · Feb 9, 2017

Same irrelevant non-science, non-answers from Michael. But there is a lie so:
10 February 2017 Michael: A lie that astronomers leave out that light loses momentum when travelling through plasma.
That is textbook physics. Compton scattering for example is light losing momentum when travelling through a plasma in he lab :doh:

!
The frequency dependency of light losing momentum when travelling through plasma in the lab is what it is impossible for it to be cosmological red shift.
Astronomers are not so deluded that they think that everything that happens in the lab has to happen in space. For example, when lasers produce redshift in dense plasma, they do not delude themselves that galaxies are lasers

!
21 November 2016 Michael: Eddington never predicted the temperature of the CMB (specifically in his 1926 book The Internal Constitution of the Stars).

21 November 2016 Michael: Cite the textbooks on and scientific reviews of the cosmological "EU/PC theory" explaining what the Lambda-CDM model explains.
21 November 2016 Michael: Do you agree that the physical evidence makes a decades long "comets are rocks blasted off planets..." story a delusion?

21 November 2016 Michael: Violation of the conservation of energy by an expanding universe is at least ignorant and maybe a lie.
21 November 2016 Michael: More evidence against tired light theories - they also redshift the CMB but that can destroy a blackbody spectrum.

Michael · Feb 9, 2017

RealityCheck01 said:
Same irrelevant non-science, non-answers from Michael. But there is a lie so:

You put the term "lie" in every post because you rely upon personal attacks rather than scientific arguments. You cannot tell the truth when it comes to EU/PC concepts. You bear false witness against me and my beliefs, and you bear false witness against everyone in the EU/PC community. It's your "thing" apparently.

A lie that astronomers leave out that light loses momentum when travelling through plasma.

You misrepresent fact when you claim they *included* it. Had they done so, even a little bit, your dark energy deity would be dead.

That is textbook physics. Compton scattering for example is light losing momentum when travelling through a plasma in he lab !

Yet you ignored *every* type of inelastic scattering in your redshift/distance calculations. Why?

The frequency dependency of light losing momentum when travelling through plasma in the lab is what it is impossible for it to be cosmological red shift.

False again. Holushko's mathematical model works perfect.

Astronomers are not so deluded that they think that everything that happens in the lab has to happen in space.

Ya, because somehow "space" is "magic" apparently. Sheesh.

I'm not going to let you shift the burden of proof RC. Where's your supposedly "non blurry" Z>10 image of a galaxy? Let me guess? The dog ate it, just like your missing math homework assignment for a non-zero rate of reconnection in a vacuum, and your non-existent paper that claims that electrical discharges are 'impossible' in plasma?

Wow.

Michael · Feb 9, 2017

Do you ever do anything besides link to your own posts?

I'm still waiting for that quote from any published scientists that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. I'm still waiting on that missing math formulas for over five years too. I'm even still waiting for you to actually sit down and read an actually textbook on MHD theory after 7 years.

Michael · Feb 9, 2017

By the way, your "space expansion" genie is also more impotent on Earth than any average *supernatural* definition of God. Your "faith" is strong however. Why are you an atheist again?

Michael · Feb 9, 2017

RealityCheck01 said:
You need to read what you reply to, Michael.

I added the highlight. Observed inelastic scattering is not tired light.

Show me some cause/effect demonstrations of "space expansion". You can't. On the other hand there are *many* laboratory demonstrations of photons losing momentum as they travel through plasma. There are even *multiple* kinds of inelastic scattering to choose from so I have no need for your impotent invisible sky deities.

RealityCheck01 · Feb 13, 2017

Obviously Michael cannot understand the title or topic of this thread: Why inelastic scattering is an invalid explanation for cosmological redshift
The reason is simple - cosmological redshift is measured to be the same across all detected wavelengths (all spectral lines). Inelastic scattering produces different shifts for different wavelengths, specifically both red and blue shifting.

Ignorant fantasies are not scientific evidence that red shifts measured in the lab are cosmological redshifts.
Irrational demands that I write my posts again rather than linking to them are not scientific evidence that red shifts measured in the lab are cosmological redshifts.
Repeated displays of ignorance are not scientific evidence that red shifts measured in the lab are cosmological redshifts.
Incoherent seemingly ignorant "genie" posts are not scientific evidence that red shifts measured in the lab are cosmological redshifts.

14 February 2017 Michael: The repeated ignorant demand that expansion be measured in the lab when it cannot

!
Another attempt to educate the uneducable by citing the science yet again. In Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology there is Why doesn't the Solar System expand if the whole Universe is expanding?

Cooperstock et al. computes that the influence of the cosmological expansion on the Earth's orbit around the Sun amounts to a growth by only one part in a septillion over the age of the Solar System.

!
21 November 2016 Michael: Eddington never predicted the temperature of the CMB (specifically in his 1926 book The Internal Constitution of the Stars).

21 November 2016 Michael: Cite the textbooks on and scientific reviews of the cosmological "EU/PC theory" explaining what the Lambda-CDM model explains.
21 November 2016 Michael: Do you agree that the physical evidence makes a decades long "comets are rocks blasted off planets..." story a delusion?

21 November 2016 Michael: Violation of the conservation of energy by an expanding universe is at least ignorant and maybe a lie.
21 November 2016 Michael: More evidence against tired light theories - they also redshift the CMB but that can destroy a blackbody spectrum.

10 February 2017 Michael: A lie that astronomers leave out the textbook physics that light loses and gains momentum when travelling through plasma.
That is why there is both Compton scattering and inverse Compton scattering. One is light losing momentum to charges, the other is light gaining momentum from charges.

Waterwerx · Feb 13, 2017

This is a stupid argument. No one person or group of people will ever be able to prove/disprove the existence of God through science.

RealityCheck01 · Feb 13, 2017

The thread topic is: Why inelastic scattering is an invalid explanation for cosmological redshift
There have been a few attempts to derail the thread into irrelevant topics.

Michael · Feb 13, 2017

Waterwerx said:
This is a stupid argument. No one person or group of people will ever be able to prove/disprove the existence of God through science.

I think it might actually be possible to eventually prove the existence of God through science. It really depends on one's own personal subjective standard of 'evidence' actually. There's already at least as much evidence for God *as* the universe (Panentheism) than there is for any other cosmology theory, including (especially) big bang theory.

Michael · Feb 13, 2017

RealityCheck01 said:
Obviously Michael cannot understand the title or topic of this thread: Why inelastic scattering is an invalid explanation for cosmological redshift.
The reason is simple - cosmological redshift is measured to be the same across all detected wavelengths (all spectral lines).

Prove it. Show me the *full* EM spectrum of a galaxy at Z>10 and another one at Z = 0 and show me that the emission and absorption spectrum match exactly from gamma rays, to microwaves and radiowaves.

Your *entire* argument is based upon a *huge* oversimplification fallacy and everyone in astronomy knows it too.

Inelastic scattering produces different shifts for different wavelengths, specifically both red and blue shifting.

It depends on the type of inelastic scattering, and not all of them have been even discussed in astronomy. Only Zwicky ever published any scattering papers related to redshift, while he was selling his own *tired light theory no less*! How ironic that is your only published paper that ever "tested" any type of inelastic scattering, and it was only Compton scattering. No other type of scattering has even been "tested' by you hotshots.

FYI, "Doppler shift" (your own bait and switch device) causes both redshift and blueshift too, so it's impossible to eliminate scattering only because it can under *unusual* (with respect to thin plasma between galaxy clusters) conditions cause blueshift as well as redshift. The tendency will be for the photons to *lose* momentum to the plasma. Only *rarely* would it be possible for them to gain momentum that way.

Ignorant fantasies

What gives your the right to play the role of science god and pretend that you personally are the "keeper of the truth" and you're also somehow entitled to be verbally abusive to anyone and everyone that disagrees with you?

Have you ever had a pleasant conversation anywhere on any topic?

You simply cheat at debate because you can't handle the real "science". You still can't produce that non-zero rate of reconnection formula, or any published paper that ever claimed that electrical discharges are "impossible" in plasma either. You're still in denial of Somov's inclusion of charged particles in his "vacuum" and his transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy. You have misrepresented every EU/PC solar model I can think of, and you have an inordinate stalker behavior associated with all topics related to EU/PC theory by any and all authors, including Peratt, and Alfven. Apparently you view yourself as God incarnate, and a really *mean* one too. You engage in repeated verbal abuse in every single post and you refuse to stick to the topic.

are not scientific evidence that red shifts measured in the lab are cosmological redshifts.

The experiments only demonstrate that various types of inelastic scattering are *possible* explanations from cosmological redshift, just as *moving objects* could be a possible explanation for the redshift. Your 'space expansion' genie however is entirely and completely *impotent* on Earth, and space isn't *empty* as you *imagine* it to be, so your mythical magical space expansion genie is not even a *possible* explanation for photon redshift.

It's *billions* of times more likely that photons ocassionally lose momentum to the medium as they pass on through billions of light years of plasma.

I don't believe any of your claims now RC because you haven't ever cited appropriate links to real published papers, just links to your own personal unpublished rants on some random website of your choice.

Let's get real RC. Your space expansion claim is more impotent on Earth than virtually *every* definition of the term 'God', all the way from the purely empirical spectrum of the definition (Panentheism), all the way to the purely *supernatural* realm where your space expansion genie seems to hide.

I want to see you demonstrate your claim that the most distant galaxies in the universe have the exact same emission and absorption pattern through the entire EM spectrum. Please cite only *published and peer reviewed papers*, not more links to yourself.

RealityCheck01 · Feb 13, 2017

Michael said:
Prove it. Show me the *full* EM spectrum...

Prove your persistence with ignorance? OK:
14 February 2017 Michael: The repeated ignorant demand that expansion be measured in the lab when it cannot

!
21 November 2016 Michael: Eddington never predicted the temperature of the CMB (specifically in his 1926 book The Internal Constitution of the Stars).

21 November 2016 Michael: Cite the textbooks on and scientific reviews of the cosmological "EU/PC theory" explaining what the Lambda-CDM model explains.
21 November 2016 Michael: Do you agree that the physical evidence makes a decades long "comets are rocks blasted off planets..." story a delusion?

21 November 2016 Michael: Violation of the conservation of energy by an expanding universe is at least ignorant and maybe a lie.
21 November 2016 Michael: More evidence against tired light theories - they also redshift the CMB but that can destroy a blackbody spectrum.

10 February 2017 Michael: A lie that astronomers leave out the textbook physics that light loses and gains momentum when travelling through plasma.

Why inelastic scattering is an invalid explanation for cosmological redshift

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Similar threads