Why inelastic scattering is an invalid explanation for cosmological redshift

[RealityCheck01]

For other people interested in actual science, there are plenty of resources on cosmological redshift.
How any redshift in astronomy is worked out is quite easy to understand. There are spectral lines in the spectrum from galaxies. There are spectral lines from plasma in labs here on Earth. There are sets of distinctive lines. For example there is a triplet of lines from oxygen. We match up the distinctive lab lines with the distinctive astronomy lines. We see that the only way to get the lines to match is to shift all of the lines toward the red. That is red shift.

 

[Michael]

Prove your persistence.....

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.

[/quote]

Why do you *refuse* to back up that (false) claim with any Z>10 alledgedly "non-blurry" images?

21 November 2016 Michael: Violation of the conservation of energy by an expanding universe is at least ignorant and maybe a lie.

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-violations-energy-early-universe-dark.html

True, but if it's a lie, it's your side that's doing the lying.

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

The evidence is obvious. The *second* we add *plasma* to your empty 4.2 sigma dark energy universe, we would expect photon momentum loss which *decreases* (not increases) any need for 'dark energy', moving *further away* from the magic 5+ sigma required of a 'discovery".

The rest of your links were answered long ago, but alas you didn't even listen to the answer. You're welcome to wallow around in ignorance of those answers all you want, but it's not my fault. I've addressed them all with you already.

 

[Michael]

How any redshift in astronomy is worked out is quite easy to understand. There are spectral lines in the spectrum from galaxies. There are spectral lines from plasma in labs here on Earth. There are sets of distinctive lines. For example there is a triplet of lines from oxygen. We match up the distinctive lab lines with the distinctive astronomy lines. We see that the only way to get the lines to match is to shift all of the lines toward the red. That is red shift.

That observation of photon redshift over distace is caused by photons losing some of their momentum to the plasma medium as they traverse billions of light years of plasma. They nudge against EM field gradients and temperature gradients and lose a little momentum over time and distance. We see this momentum loss in the lab in numerous experiments.

LCDM proponents forgot to include a *known* influence on photons in plasma, so now they require 95 percent placeholders for human ignorance to make up the difference.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Why do you *refuse* to back up that (false) claim with any Z>10 alledgedly "non-blurry" images?

Because:
15 February 2017 Michael: A delusion that blurry galaxy images magically appear at z > 10 and not below does not need to be answered.
15 February 2017 Michael: A delusion that astronomers do not exist ! - it is astronomers who have stated no blurring is seen, e.g. Zwicky, Wright.
Tried light

The lack of blurring can be verified by anyone with eyes, fingers, a computer and basic research skills. There may be millions of galaxy images on the Internet and in databases, e.g. Hubble Deep Field

About 3,000 distinct galaxies could be identified in the images,[13] with both irregular and spiral galaxies clearly visible, although some galaxies in the field are only a few pixels across.

My emphasis added.

15 February 2017 Michael: Ignorant citation of an idea that dark energy may be explained by volition of energy conservation
Violations of energy conservation in the early universe may explain dark energy
The question is on the expansion of the universe, not the acceleration of that expansion:
21 November 2016 Michael: Violation of the conservation of energy by an expanding universe is at least ignorant and maybe a lie.

Gibberish does not address a lie:
10 February 2017 Michael: A lie that astronomers leave out the textbook physics that light loses and gains momentum when travelling through plasma.

 

[RealityCheck01]

That observation....

The observations in the real world are

• Redshift shifts spectral lines equally
• Scattering from plasma shifts spectral lines differently (blue shift on one side of the spectrum varying to red shift on the other side of the spectrum) !

still makes that post an ignorant fantasy, Michael
15 February 2017 Michael: Repeats the ignorant fantasy that scattering from plasma produces cosmological redshift.

Scientists (and physic students!) know this basic science. It is why no rational person proposes violations of laboratory physics to explain cosmological redshift by inelastic scattering.

But prove everyone in the world who has learned about inelastic scattering wrong: Cite the detection of cosmological redshift (spectral lines shifting equally across the spectrum) in the laboratory results of light undergoing inelastic scattering.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The Internal Constitution of the Stars (Cambridge Science Classics): Arthur S. Eddington: 9780521337083: Amazon.com: Books

In the first chapter Eddington calculates the temperature of the dust as a function of scattering of starlight, and he calculated it to be 3.18 degrees, within 1/2 of one degree of the correct temperature.

I missed this.
You cite The Internal Constitution of the Stars (Cambridge Science Classics) by Arthur S. Eddington and mention the first chapter. So you obviously have a copy or access to a copy so that you have read the first chapter.
15 February 2017 Michael: Quote the "temperature of the dust" calculation in the first chapter of that book by Eddington or the correct citation (with quote).

N.B. I also have a copy of the book and guess what - it is about the internal constitution of stars ! Chapter 1 is "Survey of the Problem". But you may have a different edition or just cited the wrong book.

 

[RealityCheck01]

15 February 2017 Michael: A delusion that astronomers do not exist ! - it is astronomers who have stated no blurring is seen, e.g. Zwicky, Wright.
This is also the denial that an astrophysicist with a blog that Michael has posted to exists !
Testing the Electric Universe by Brian Koberlein

So here’s a collection of barred spirals at different distances (or redshifts). Notice how the most distant ones are the least developed? No? Actually they all look pretty similar, which is exactly what the standard model predicts, and what the EU model says absolutely shouldn’t happen.

Not only 4 "pretty similar" images but also quite not blurred (some artifacts over the entirety of the last 2 images).

 

[Michael]

Because:
15 February 2017 Michael: A delusion that blurry galaxy images magically appear at z > 10 and not below does not need to be answered.

Every *single* time that you back yourself into a corner, and I ask you for published or in this case photographic evidence to support your claim, your run. No published papers that claimed that 'electrical discharges are impossible in plasma". No published examples of "reconnection" which were absent of all charged particles. No images of distance galaxies that aren't "blurry' either. Your entire argument is a *sham* and that's the reason you cannot produce the requested image.

15 February 2017 Michael: A delusion that astronomers do not exist ! - it is astronomers who have stated no blurring is seen, e.g. Zwicky, Wright.

Zwicky never mentioned, or considered *most* types of inelastic scattering and Wright hasn't *published* anything on that topic, it's just a *website* handwave, and it all points right back to Zwicky who was selling his *own tired light theory* when he wrote about *Compton* scattering *only*.

What a sham.

The lack of blurring can be verified by anyone with eyes, fingers, a computer and basic research skills. There may be millions of galaxy images on the Internet and in databases, e.g. Hubble Deep Field

The most distant galaxies in that image sure look blurry to me compared to closeup images of closer galaxies.

My emphasis added.

15 February 2017 Michael: Ignorant citation of an idea that dark energy may be explained by volition of energy conservation

Wow. You're going to claim that your dark energy gnome is powered by a violation of the laws of physics? You call that a "good' scientific argument? Is there any "delusion" you won't entertain?

Gibberish does not address a lie:

You lied when you said that your side wasn't trying to violate the laws of physics and you accused me of lying about it. It turns out however that your side *is* trying to violate the laws of physics, so I told the truth, and you told the lie.

You do ignorantly leave out the scattering processes that are *documented* to occur in plasma, hence all the supernatural, superstitious nonsense you need to fix your mistakes. You need 95 percent gap filler to fix one *empirical* scattering mistake.

 

[Michael]

Testing the Electric Universe by Brian Koberlein

Is it lie that Thornhill predicts "no" neutrinos RC?

 

[Michael]

The observations in the real world are

The real observations are found in *published* papers, not in RC wild imagination. Unfortunately he cannot show that the *entire* EM spectrum is affected exactly the same, so he just repeats himself and cites himself *endlessly*.

• Redshift shifts spectral lines equally

Prove it with real published papers.

Scattering from plasma shifts spectral lines differently (blue shift on one side of the spectrum varying to red shift on the other side of the spectrum) !

Prove it. Show every lab result you've got that demonstrates that *every type* of inelastic scattering does what you claim it does.

still makes that post an ignorant fantasy, Michael

Do you have any published support or is that just your own ignorant fantasy like the 'discharge' thing?

15 February 2017 Michael:

Repeats the ignorant fantasy that scattering from plasma produces cosmological redshift.

Who made you "science-god" anyway? Everything idea you disagree with you refer to as "ignorant", fantasy, lie, yada, yada, egotistical yada.

Scientists (and physic students!) know this basic science. It is why no rational person proposes violations of laboratory physics to explain cosmological redshift by inelastic scattering.

That must explain why so many people have written about it, and tested it and found out that it passes the same complicated tests as LCMD theory eh? More unsupported rants.

I'm not letting you shift the burden of proof. Let's see your *published* support of your claim.

 

[Michael]

The lamest part of this entire debate is that the only published paper that has evidently been published by any astronomer in the *history* of astronomy to address the scattering as a possible cause of cosmological scattering seems to have been Fritz Zwicky in a single paper where he was trying to sell his *own* tired light theory no less. How ironic that the only author in the history of astronomy that publicly claimed to 'test' scattering possibilities also believed in "tired light" models. That just blows the irony meter into oblivion.

Zwicky only mathematical tested *one* type of inelastic scattering, not *all* types of scattering, and we're learned a lot about quantum physics in the last 80 years.

Wow. You have to go all the way back 80 years, to *one* guy, who was peddling his own tired light theory to even take a swipe at tired light theory.

That is so funny and so sad.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Is it lie that Thornhill predicts "no" neutrinos RC?

Testing the Electric Universe by Brian Koberlein is not about Thornhill's model - it based on Findlay's lie about the EU fantasies on stars. No fusion = no neutrinos = a lie abut EU.

But:
16 February 2017 Michael: Cite Thornhill's theory for the production of the solar electron, muon and tau neutrino fluxes that are observed.

 

[Michael]

Cite him first because I recall that he was deluded about the source of his neutrinos which would make the answer Yes (an fantasy is not a prediction).

You constantly make me do the same thing, over and over and over again. Why should I bother giving you references when you simply ignore them, and you could look them up for yourself with Google?

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC haters.

You'll find the appropriate links from Scott's book and from Thornhill's book (last post) as well as other quotes from Thornhill's website in that link, all of which discuss their beliefs about neutrinos.

Now answer the question!

Is it a *lie* that Thornhill predicts *no* neutrinos from the sun?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yesterdays bunch of fantasies:
15 February 2017 Michael: Quote the "temperature of the dust" calculation in the first chapter of that book by Eddington or the correct citation (with quote).
15 February 2017 Michael: Repeats the ignorant fantasy that scattering from plasma produces cosmological redshift.
15 February 2017 Michael: A delusion that blurry galaxy images magically appear at z > 10 and not below does not need to be answered.
15 February 2017 Michael: A delusion that astronomers do not exist ! - it is astronomers who have stated no blurring is seen, e.g. Zwicky, Wright.
15 February 2017 Michael: Ignorant citation of an idea that dark energy may be explained by volition of energy conservation

14 February 2017 Michael: The repeated ignorant demand that expansion be measured in the lab when it cannot !
14 February 2017 Michael: What looks like abysmal ignorance about cosmology with "space expansion genie".

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.

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

 

[Michael]

It would seem that all the "fantasies" are fantasies of your own creation.

Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia

Is it a lie that Thornhill's solar model predicts "no" neutrinos? It's a *simple* yes or no answer RC. If you can't answer it, then you're suffering from invisible ignorance, and I simply cannot help you to understand something that you do not wish to understand and that you *refuse* to understand. Yes or no?

 

[Michael]

Where's your images of a non-blurry galaxy from Z>10? I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that claim.

 

[Michael]

Why on Earth do you keep linking to *yourself*? Oh ya, you don't do the "external reference' thing, you're just the science-demigod that decides what's right and what's a "lie" based on your own instincts. I forgot.....

 

[RealityCheck01]

Every *single* time that you back yourself into a corner, and I ask you for published or in this case photographic evidence to support your claim, your run.

Read next post which has a bit of "photographic evidence":
This is also the denial that an astrophysicist with a blog that Michael has posted to exists (with images of galaxies that are not blurred) !

The Hubble Deep Field Wikipedia page does not contain comparisons of galaxies at different distances. It is a resource to go onto the actual images of galaxies.

There are artifacts that affect astronomy images. Learning about astronomy and using your eyes make them fairly easy to distinguish e.g. specks spread across an entire image are not blurring of a galaxy as pointed out in the above post.

16 February 2017 Michael: Another repeat of an ignorant demand for papers that do not exist and the already cited MR in vacuum publications !
By definition, any claim that electric discharges such as lightning do not happen in plasma is correct. This is textbook physics. !
It is a lie that I have not supplied published examples of magnetic reconnection in vacuum. In 2012, I cited Somov's in a textbook example of MR in vacuum ad several published papers using MR in vacuum !

 

[Michael]

Read next post which is "photographic evidence"

Those aren't even Z>10 galaxies and the more distant galaxies already look more blurry and grainy to me!

The *website* (not a published reference like I asked for) begins with this assertion that:

" The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos."

Is that statement a lie RC?

Does Somov's example *include* charged particles and charged particle acceleration, yes or no?

Are electrical discharges *possible* in plasma, yes or no?

These are *all* extremely *simple* questions. Can you answer any of them honestly, yes or no?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Where's your images of a non-blurry galaxy from Z>10?

15 February 2017 Michael: A delusion that blurry galaxy images magically appear at z > 10 and not below does not need to be answered.