Why inelastic scattering is an invalid explanation for cosmological redshift

[Michael]

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

You're right, it doesn't *need* to be answered but then we can all assume that your claim is simply false, which is why you can't provide such an image.

 

[Michael]

I'm still waiting for your answer:

Is it a lie that EU theory predicts no solar neutrinos? Yes or no?

 

[RealityCheck01]

The *website* (not a published reference like I asked for) ...

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.

The set of 4 images are clearly labeled as Hubble Space Telescope images, specifically the Advanced Camera for Surveys, or ACS. They come from a database of Hubble Space Telescope images, not any published papers. The "STScI" reference suggests the Hubble Legacy Archive.

Ignorant questions are not an answer to:
16 February 2017 Michael: Another repeat of an ignorant demand for papers that do not exist and the already cited MR in vacuum publications from 2012 !

 

[Michael]

Testing the Electric Universe by Brian Koberlein

Why on Earth would I believe anything written by a guy that makes this specific claim on the same page?

The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos. The EU model clearly fails this test, because neutrinos are produced by the Sun.

Show us the value of that degree of yours, and your superior understanding of EU theory, and your superior integrity, and tell us if that is a true statement or a "lie"?

The set of 4 images are clearly labeled as Hubble Space Telescope images, specifically the Advanced Camera for Surveys, or ACS. They come from a database of Hubble Space Telescope images, not any published papers. The "STScI" reference suggests the Hubble Legacy Archive.

Ya, and the more distant the galaxy, the blurrier and grainer it is! You shot your own argument in the foot!

 

[RealityCheck01]

The real observations are found in *published* papers, ...

It is textbook physics based on 100 years of published papers that makes your assertion into an ignorant fantasy, Michael.
15 February 2017 Michael: Repeats the ignorant fantasy that scattering from plasma produces cosmological redshift.

But maybe this is an irrational demand that I cite every paper on galaxy redshift measurements starting with Vesto Slipher in 1917 !
Or inelastic scattering of light over about the same period - Compton scattering from 1923 !

 

[Michael]

It is textbook physics based on 100 years of published papers that makes your assertion into an ignorant fantasy, Michael.

So far however you haven't been able to produce what I asked you for, specifically an image of a Z>10 galaxy that isn't blurry as you claimed. You keep insisting that scattering can't be the cause of redshift because images aren''t blurry, but where then are your non-blurry images of distant galaxies?

Your only cited reference so far is a blog page in cyberspace, not a published paper. The four images contained on that page shoot your claim in the foot because the more distant the galaxy the more blurry it looks. I *insist* on something published from you, not some random website which contain obvious *lies* about EU theory.

Some superior ethics you have. You can't even answer a simple question about neutrinos! Wow! Are you afraid your tongue will burn in the fires of ego death hell if you answer the question, or what?

 

[Michael]

The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos. The EU model clearly fails this test, because neutrinos are produced by the Sun.

Show us the value of that degree of yours, and your superior understanding of EU theory, and your superior integrity, and tell us if that is a true statement or a "lie"?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Irrelevant question but maybe you can learn some rather simple physics.
First year astronomy students learn the simple physics that the balance between pressure and gravity means that star are stable only if they have temperature and so pressure increasing with depth, i.e. a heat source at their core. That makes all of the "EU solar models" wrong - Findlay's assertion that in EU there is no fusion at the core of stars and no mention of neutrinos at all, Thornhill's fantasy about neutrinos at the surface (from electrical discharges?), Scott's speculation about fusion magically happening on the surface because of invisible electric currents flowing from outer space.
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?

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".

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]

Irrelevant question but maybe you can learn some rather simple physics.

Not from you if you can't answer the simplest of questions about the neutrino predictions of *all* EU/PC solar models. You haven't a clue about physics as far as I can tell and you've yet to produce that equation I asked for to describe a non-zero rate of "reconnection" in Clinger's vacuum contraption. I've yet to see you produce a published reference that ever agreed with your false claim that electrical discharges are "impossible" in plasma either. What could you possibly teach me about physics and particularly plasma physics when you haven't even read a textbook on the topic yet?

First year astronomy students learn the simple physics that the balance between pressure and gravity means that star are stable only if they have temperature and so pressure increasing with depth, i.e. a heat source at their core. That makes all of the "EU solar models" wrong -

No. That only goes to show that you know *nothing* about any EU/PC solar model. I don't know of any of them that don't have a pressurized plasma center. Alfven's EU/PC solar model was pretty much the *same* as the standard model, so how could you even say that about *his* EU/PC solar model? You clearly don't understand *any* of the EU/PC solar models or you would know that you're wrong.

Findlay's assertion that in EU there is no fusion at the core of stars

Quote please. You've misrepresented statements from Dungey, Peratt, Bruce and everyone in the EU/PC community so I have no faith that you are being honest about Findlay's real statements.

and no mention of neutrinos at all,

So what? Who the heck is Findlay anyway, and why is he personally obligated to discuss neutrinos in every PDF he writes?

Thornhill's fantasy about neutrinos at the surface (from electrical discharges?),

Thornhill predicts neutrinos? Why does the mainstream misrepresent his statements then on their blogs?

Scott's speculation about fusion magically happening on the surface because of invisible electric currents flowing from outer space.

There's nothing "magical" about electrical current and z-pinches in current carrying plasma RC. I have a published paper on this topic in fact and I've yet to see you address it with a *published* rebuttal either. All you even do is cite blogs and random websites.

[astro-ph/0512633] Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle

7 November 2012 Michael: Read Compton scattering (Compton scattering produces blue and red shift!)

So what? Doppler shift produces redshift and blueshift too. How many times can you simply ignore my answers?

7 November 2012 Michael: Where is the scientific literature linking Chen's redshift with cosmological redshift?

I'm not obligated to pick one specific type of inelastic scattering. Holushko's model was tried and it passed those tests that you simply ignored.

13 November 2012 Michael: Where are your citations of astronomers observing blurring of distant objects?

Where's you "non-blurry" Z>10 image of a galaxy RC? You're the one making the claim that they aren't blurry, therefore you can rule out scattering as the cause of redshift, not me.

I'll see if anything else on your list was even worth responding to after I get a cup of coffee. I see you're back to your old tricks however of playing the liar liar pants on fire routine every time someone disagrees with you. It's childish and unethical behavior RC.

 

[Michael]

10 February 2017 Michael

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

If you didn't ignore the loss of momentum of light through a plasma, you would have no need for 'dark energy' at all, and little if any need for "expansion" in the first place. You can't call me liar when you're the one that's not telling the truth.

 

[Michael]

18 November 2018 Michael: List the scientific literature stating the detection of any tired light effect working in the lab.

You mean *besides* every lab test of "inelastic scattering?

 

[bhsmte]

Haven't we seen this movie before?

 

[Michael]

Haven't we seen this movie before?

Don't blame me. Apparently RC seems to feel the need to revisit old threads every so often.

I'm still waiting to see a "non-blurry" galaxy at Z>10.

 

[Michael]

FYI, there is an obvious pattern to these 'hit and run' routines, and the specific threads that RC chooses to dig up over and over again.

In this thread, RC made the claim that inelastic scattering processes can be ruled out as the real cause of redshift because he claimed that distant galaxies are not "blurry". I've asked him repeatedly to demonstrate the claim that a z>10 galaxy is no 'blurrier" than a galaxy in our local cluster. I've yet to see any *published* reference at all to support that claim. The closest he ever got was a link to a "blog" page that had four images that showed a distinct pattern of blurriness that was directly associated with the amount of redshift. RC seems to have run into a brick wall on that "distant galaxies are not blurry" claim, particularly as it relates to the citation of any *published* materials.

In the magnetic reconnection thread, RC is *still* missing his non-existent math formula to express a non-zero rate of 'magnetic reconnection" in Clinger's vacuum contraption which is devoid of all charged particles. I'll never see that missing math formula because there is no magnetic field energy transfer process that is even *possible* without charged particles. RC (and Clinger) have been pounding his (their) head(s) on that brick wall for five years and counting, and still no math formula from either math guru. The missing math formula is another of his favorite brick walls I guess.

In the solar thread, he continuously misrepresents the concept of "rigid" as "solid'. Admittedly I personally entertain both options, and in fact I personally lean toward it being a solid surface, but the published paper that I've cited to him for years now specifically used the term "rigid' to describe the cathode surface, not the term 'solid'. That was a *very* intentional choice of the authors, including myself, since the model described in our paper would work to explain the observations either way. It may indeed be that the cathode surface is a more dense plasma than the surface of the photosphere, and both options apply to our paper. His whole thermodynamic argument is another of those 'brick walls' he likes to bang his head into for no good reason.

I've never seen a published rebuttal to any of the points that RC tries to make as it relates to solar physics. In fact RC consistently goes out of his way to willfully misrepresent my statements in that thread. He doesn't even *try* to properly understand the solar model I've described *before* he attempts to 'debunk' the idea based on *standard solar theory claims* which don't even directly apply to Birkeland's model, such as the "opacity" of the neon double layer in Birkeland's model. I think the real "brick wall" in that instance is the fact that Birkeland's model works in the lab. There's even a two minute youtube tutorial that demonstrates and explains how Birkeland's solar model works. In spite of all that help, RC can't seem to grasp even the most *basic* aspects of *any* EU/PC solar models, let alone the Birkeland cathode model.

RC seems to enjoy beating his head against empirical brick walls from time to time. I wonder how many times I'll have to ask him for a non blurry Z>10 image of a distant galaxy in this thread, or ask him for his missing math formula in the magnetic reconnection thread, or answer the same question in the solar thread before he stops beating his head against an empirical brick wall?

I think that's the big problem when someone decides to publicly crusade against of form of pure empirical physics like EU/PC theory, or evolutionary theory, or particle physics theory. Sooner or later they run into an empirical brick wall, and there's really no place to go. RC is drawn to the empirical brick walls of physics like a moth to a flame.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The claim that inelastic scattering is an explanation for cosmological redshift has popped up again after a break of a couple of years.

What we measure is that the spectral lines in light from galaxies are

1. "Always" red shifted.
   The exception is a handful of local galaxies who are approaching us because they are boing in the same group.
2. The same amount of shift for all the spectral lines we look at.
3. All spectral lines are shifted (the original ones are not detected).
4. The redshift varies linearly with distance (Hubble's law).

This is inelastic scattering. In general inelastic scattering:

1. Causes both red and blue shifts.
2. The amount of shift can vary according to frequency.
3. The scattering does not affect every photon.
   Supporters of the claim have to show why we do not see the not scattered, not red shifted light.
4. The variation of redshift from scattering with distance need not be linear.
   Again something the supporters of the claim have to show for their proposed mechanism(s).

Some examples of inelastic scattering:

• Compton scattering - happens for gamma rays and high energy X-rays. Generally not studied in astrophysics except for gamma spectroscopy. No relevance to the shifts we measure in visible and near-visible light.
• Inverse Compton scattering - a blue shift.
• Brillouin scattering - scattering usually in solid state physics.
• Raman scattering - blue and red shift.
• Rayleigh scattering was mentioned but this is elastic scattering.

There is an obvious consequence of any scattering of light from galaxies - their images will blur. Think about looking at a streetlight in mist. The scattering of light by mist blurs the images. However images of galaxies that are billions of light-years away are as sharp as those million of light-years away.

Anyone can see that it takes magic for a vague "inelastic scattering" claim to produce cosmological redshift.

Any supporters of this claim can show that it works in two easy steps.
First cite the inelastic scattering mechanism in the scientific literature so that we can see that it produces equal amounts of redshift in the part of the spectrum we have measurements for.
Secondly show that the red shifts we measure are matched by that mechanism, e.g. your calculation or citation to the scientific literature.

Judging on what I have seen before, I suspect we will see fact less posts, irrelevant posts, links to Internet cranks, etc. I hope that I am wrong.

Because you continue to refuse to check reality.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

And now please show me expansion or contraction of space. Oh, I am sorry, that only happens way out that-a-way were it can never be falsified, my bad.....

But there are your equations you asked for.

 

[lesliedellow]

Haven't we seen this movie before?

Way too often.

 

[Michael]

Way too often.

I suspect you're going to continue to see it until/unless you can demonstrate that "space expansion" has any tangible effect on a photon in a real experiment. In other words, get used to it.

FYI, Edwin Hubble never ruled out tired light models as a potential explanation for redshift, and you shouldn't either.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I suspect you're going to continue to see it until/unless you can demonstrate that "space expansion" has any tangible effect on a photon in a real experiment. In other words, get used to it.

FYI, Edwin Hubble never ruled out tired light models as a potential explanation for redshift, and you shouldn't either.

Edwin Hubble never accepted the theory they attribute to him, but always insisted another as yet undiscovered cause was the reason. Of course blaming Hubble 1) gives it more weight and 2) when they are proven to be wrong will give them a scape goat to blame it on.

But it wont matter, I gave the calculations they requested, but of course they will now just ignore them as per standard practice.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Haven't we seen this movie before?

Way too often.

No more than I have had to sit through 15 different movies that tested for Dark matter and ended up showing nothing, yet have to listen to all the Hype about the upcoming 16th film due to be out soon, which will also have a blank screen......

Cant all you people come up with at least one theory thats based on actual known physics instead of make believe? Well, I guess thats easier to defend when you dont have to use actual science to defend it with.

 

[Michael]

Edwin Hubble never accepted the theory they attribute to him, but always insisted another as yet undiscovered cause was the reason. Of course blaming Hubble 1) gives it more weight and 2) when they are proven to be wrong will give them a scape goat to blame it on.

But it wont matter, I gave the calculations they requested, but of course they will now just ignore them as per standard practice.

IMO it's a little sleazy the way the mainstream is always claiming in their videos and their websites that Hubble "proved" that the universe is expanding, not to mention the way they try to use Alfven's work to justify "magnetic reconnection" theory when Alfven called it "pseudoscience". Einstein didn't even personally accept the "infinitely dense zero radius point" concept of black hole theory either. To hear the mainstream tell it, they get all their scientific legitimacy from three individuals that didn't even agree with them on any of their key points to start with! It's a completely whitewashed and distorted view of history that they try to promote to an unsuspecting public.

I can't for the life of me even imagine how the mainstream continues to try to justify their "magic photon" theory where no photons reaching Earth from distant galaxies ever loses any momentum to the plasma medium through which they travel. It's just an utterly absurd premise from the start to begin by ignoring the laboratory observations of inelastic scattering in plasma, but that's exactly what they do, hence their need for exotic and illogical nonsense.