Why inelastic scattering is an invalid explanation for cosmological redshift

[SelfSim]

Case in point:
...
The last time I asked RC to support his claim that distant galaxies are not "blurry", he cited that image. As you can see however, the greater the distance/redshift, the greater the blurriness, and more granulated the image becomes. ... It's never been a valid argument because more distant galaxies *are* more blurry.

And again Michael and Justa's lack of attention to detail leads them to erroneous conclusions!
Since these are enlarged images of very faint objects, the noise has been reduced in most cases by applying a blurring or Gaussian filter. No wonder the images appear blurred!

In fact, if you look at post #157, the two bottom galaxies show a lot of background noise, as a filter hasn’t been applied, unlike the top two images where the background is smoother but the images are blurrier as a result.

Wrong again! .. are Michael and Justa!

 

[Michael]

And again Michael and Justa's lack of attention to detail leads them to erroneous conclusions!
Since these are enlarged images of very faint objects, the noise has been reduced in most cases by applying a blurring or Gaussian filter. No wonder the images appear blurred!

They *appear* blurred because they are blurred due to inelastic scattering, regardless of the filter we might apply to them, particularly the high z redshift images.

In fact, if you look at post #157, the two bottom galaxies show a lot of background noise, as a filter hasn’t been applied, unlike the top two images where the background is smoother but the images are blurrier as a result.

Wrong again! .. are Michael and Justa!

Science by proclamation. If you think the filter is the real problem, prove it. Show us a few images of galaxies at a z>8 redshift that aren't blurred using whatever filtering technique you want. I'll probably see those images about the same time I see an actual scientific rebuttal to Hawkin's paper in the quasar thread, namely when hell freezes over.

 

[sjastro]

And again Michael and Justa's lack of attention to detail leads them to erroneous conclusions!
Since these are enlarged images of very faint objects, the noise has been reduced in most cases by applying a blurring or Gaussian filter. No wonder the images appear blurred!

In fact, if you look at post #157, the two bottom galaxies show a lot of background noise, as a filter hasn’t been applied, unlike the top two images where the background is smoother but the images are blurrier as a result.

Wrong again! .. are Michael and Justa!

Spot on SelfSim.
As someone who has been imaging and processing astronomical objects for around 15 years it's easy to spot whether a noise reduction routine has been applied by simply looking at the background.
The dead giveaway are the blue splotches in middle enlarged image in post #149.
The bottom B&W image in the same post has been so enlarged that it has been blurred to minimize the appearance of pixelation.

The bottom 2 images in post #157 show statistical noise (remember 1=0.5) and are clearly sharper than the top two, even though the top 2 are closer to the observer.

 

[Michael]

Spot on SelfSim.
As someone who has been imaging and processing astronomical objects for around 15 years it's easy to spot whether a noise reduction routine has been applied by simply looking at the background.
The dead giveaway are the blue splotches in middle enlarged image in post #149.
The bottom B&W image in the same post has been so enlarged that it has been blurred to minimize the appearance of pixelation.

The bottom 2 images in post #157 show statistical noise (remember 1=0.5) and are clearly sharper than the top two, even though the top 2 are closer to the observer.

Well, I see that your blatantly unethical deceptions continue unabated, but just as I surmised, neither of you has any non blurry large z value images to offer us. Yawn.

You're both welcome to use whatever filtering method you'd like to use, and any image from any piece of equipment too.

Your goofy handwaves about distant galaxies not being blurry are simply false which is exactly why you're reduced to pathetic attempts at character assassination and you constantly run from the real science.

Yep, you'll produce those non blurry images of distant galaxies when hell freezes over alright.

 

[SelfSim]

The height of stupidity, and there is no other word to describe it, is to take an enlarged inset of an image that is cropped to only include the object in question without any foreground objects for comparison. To then boldly declare that distant objects are blurred, without that baseline, is totally ridiculous!

However, in spite of this, there is one enlarged image in post #149 that has been cropped, that also includes foreground objects, and hasn’t been subject to a noise reduction process, as the background noise is clearly visible:

 

[sjastro]

The height of stupidity, and there is no other word to describe it, is to take an enlarged inset of an image that is cropped to only include the object in question without any foreground objects for comparison. To then boldly declare that distant objects are blurred, without that baseline, is totally ridiculous!

However, in spite this, there is one enlarged image in post #149 that has been cropped, that also includes foreground objects, and hasn’t been subject to a noise reduction process, as the background noise is clearly visible:




View attachment 211749

SelfSim
Do you think the galaxy is any more blurred than the foreground stars of the our galaxy?

 

[SelfSim]

SelfSim
Do you think the galaxy is any more blurred than the foreground stars of the our galaxy?

I don't know how anyone with 'normal' vision and an absence of a mainstream conspiracy delusion affecting it, could possibly say that it was!?

 

[Michael]

Hey Justa, did you see them produce any non blurry, high z redshift images? No? Evidently hell hasn't frozen over yet.

 

[sjastro]

I don't know how anyone with 'normal' vision and an absence of a mainstream conspiracy delusion affecting it, could possibly say that it was!?

Where there's a will there's a way.
I can look at the image then take my glasses off while concentrating on the galaxy.
The galaxy is more blurry than the foreground objects there by contradicting the mainstream view.

Or I can suffer from a massive dose of pareidolia....

 

[Michael]

Or I can suffer from a massive dose of pareidolia....

So says the guy who thinks he sees the faces of "space expansion" and dark stuff in that blurry and grainy image!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Still no science cited to address the topic of this thread:

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).

 

[RealityCheck01]

Because supporters of Fairie Dust expansion of nothing refuse to face reality.

Insulting thousands of competent scientists and maybe millions of knowledgeable science students over the last century or so does not address the textbook physics that inelastic scattering cannot produce cosmological redshift (a redshift across all wavelengths that varies linearly with distance).

The overwhelming evidence for an expanding universe is easy for most people to understand: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

A New Non-Doppler Redshift is dubious, e.g. "Astrophysical observations show that the electromagnetic radiation originating from cosmological objects is often nearly always redshifted". There are only a dozen blue-shifted, local galaxies. Millions of other galaxies are red shifted.
The paper is from 1988. It has 1 author. It has been cited 7 times by other authors in 30 years!

 

[RealityCheck01]

By the way, quasars *destroy* your whole "space expansion" claim because they show no signs of time dilation as LCDM predicts. LCDM theory is falsified by Quasar observations.

Quasars are the Waterloo of LCDM theory.....

BTW: That cherry picking of a 2010 paper thread is addressed in that thread.

 

[Michael]

Still no science cited to address the topic of this thread:

Pure nonsense. I've debunked every one of your gish-galloping false claims and you just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over and over.

 

[Michael]

Insulting thousands of competent scientists

Competence? None of them can even name a source of "dark energy", and none of them can demonstrate in a lab that "space expansion" is an empirical cause of photon redshift in the first place.

and maybe millions of knowledgeable science students over the last century or so

Yet a century later you *still* cannot demonstrate an empirical cause/effect link between "space expansion" and photon redshift.

does not address the textbook physics that inelastic scattering cannot produce cosmological redshift

What textbook physics? You can't even cite a single published paper that systematically studied and ruled out every type of inelastic scattering in the first place!

(a redshift across all wavelengths that varies linearly with distance).

You can't even demonstrate that all wavelengths are varied linearly from gamma rays all the way down to radio waves.

The overwhelming evidence for an expanding universe is easy for most people to understand: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

Pure dogma. Even Hubble entertained tired light ideas, and so did Fritz Zwicky.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift is dubious,

Not nearly as "dubious" as your three supernatural constructs to explain simple plasma redshift.

e.g. "Astrophysical observations show that the electromagnetic radiation originating from cosmological objects is often nearly always redshifted".

It's the very same in his model too!

There are only a dozen blue-shifted, local galaxies. Millions of other galaxies are red shifted.

Which is exactly what his model predicts.

The paper is from 1988. It has 1 author. It has been cited 7 times by other authors in 30 years!

So what? Science isn't about "popularity" in the first place.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Insulting thousands of competent scientists and maybe millions of knowledgeable science students over the last century or so does not address the textbook physics that inelastic scattering cannot produce cosmological redshift (a redshift across all wavelengths that varies linearly with distance).

The overwhelming evidence for an expanding universe is easy for most people to understand: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

A New Non-Doppler Redshift is dubious, e.g. "Astrophysical observations show that the electromagnetic radiation originating from cosmological objects is often nearly always redshifted". There are only a dozen blue-shifted, local galaxies. Millions of other galaxies are red shifted.
The paper is from 1988. It has 1 author. It has been cited 7 times by other authors in 30 years!

So your only argument against the paper is that supporters of Fairie Dust refuse to look at it?

Apparently it can produce what we observe, since you have no answer to the paper except that mainstream ignores it because it would destroy their house of cards.

In other words the paper doesnt agree with what you believe, so you find any excuse to ignore it, even if mathematically it produces the exact same redshift you claim is caused by the magical expansion of nothing. From a scientifically proven cause, versus something that’s never been observed once, and only happens far, far away where no one can falsify it.

And you have never answered the question. If all sources of radiation are redshifted due to the expansion of space, then why isn’t the CMBR redshifted to a degree even more than the furthest quasar, since the radiation is from before quasars even existed?

Ahh that’s right, magic doesn’t need logical reasons.

 

[RealityCheck01]

So your only argument against the paper is that supporters of Fairie Dust refuse to look at it?

That is not what I wrote.
Your only argument about the topic of this thread was insults.

Insulting thousands of competent scientists and maybe millions of knowledgeable science students over the last century or so does not address the textbook physics that inelastic scattering cannot produce cosmological redshift (a redshift across all wavelengths that varies linearly with distance).

My arguments against the paper are that

• The author seemed ignorant about the fact that many galaxies even in 1988 had measured red shifts and only a few local galaxies were blue shifted.
• There is only 1 author.
  Groundbreaking papers are rarely written by a single author.
• There are only 7 papers cited it that have cited it in the last 30 years.
  That is a signature of a paper that has been ignored because it is wrong. Valid papers have many citations a year.
• A paper that overturns mainstream cosmology should be published in a high impact, appropriate journal.
  This paper was in the first issue of Physics Essays, a general physics journal that even today is low impact.
• The author does not have a track record of publishing papers on cosmology suggesting that is not his area of expertise.
  Mass spectroscopy, etc. papers until 1988 and this paper.

Paul Marmet started by stating that inelastic scattering such as Thompson or Compton scattering cannot give cosmological redshift ! He then proposes a new mechanism for cosmological redshift: bremsstrahlung. This is trivially true - any scattered electron has changed direction, has accelerated and so emits radiation.

 

[RealityCheck01]

If all sources of radiation are redshifted due to the expansion of space, then why isn’t the CMBR redshifted to a degree even more than the furthest quasar, since the radiation is from before quasars even existed

The furthest quasar is about z = 11. The CMBR has a red shift of z = 1100 at the emission from plasma when the universe was about 378,000 years old. That red shift is why the CMBR is microwaves, not the light when it was emitted from a plasma at ~3000 K.

I know you will ignore this but for others: The CMB temperature increases as we look at the earlier universe matching an expanding universe, which is listed in What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

 

[Michael]

That is not what I wrote.

It is what you meant however.

Your only argument about the topic of this thread was insults.

Oh please! Every one of your posts includes personal insults like ignorance, delusions, fantasy, lies, etc, etc, etc. What a huge hypocrite.

My arguments against the paper are that

• The author seemed ignorant

Case in point. You seem to assert that everyone is 'ignorant' except yourself. Did you ever stop to consider the possibility that it's not all of them, it's just you that is ignorant of their models and their papers?

• about the fact that many galaxies even in 1988 had measured red shifts and only a few local galaxies were blue shifted.

Explain to us how his model *could* produce blueshifted galaxies RC.

There is only 1 author.

There was only one author on Einstein's early papers too. So what? There's only one you.

Groundbreaking papers are rarely written by a single author.

But it does happen.

• There are only 7 papers cited it that have cited it in the last 30 years. That is a signature of a paper that has been ignored because it is wrong. Valid papers have many citations a year.

That's essentially an appeal to popularity fallacy. Justa was exactly right.

• A paper that overturns mainstream cosmology should be published in a high impact, appropriate journal.

So sayeth the keeper of all truth who's never shown us a paper of his own that was published in a high impact journal. Just like Justa said, you're appealing to popularity.

Paul Marmet started by stating that inelastic scattering such as Thompson or Compton scattering cannot give cosmological redshift ! He then proposes a new mechanism for cosmological redshift: bremsstrahlung.

Unlike your space expansion genie claim, bremsstrahlung is known to have an effect on real particles and cause redshift.

This is trivially true - any scattered electron has changed direction, has accelerated and so emits radiation.

Indeed, which is more than you can demonstrate in terms of any cause/effect claims between "space expansion" and photon redshift. You also never produced a high Z redshift galaxy that *isn't* blurry.

 

[Michael]

I know you will ignore this but for others: The CMB temperature increases as we look at the earlier universe matching an expanding universe, which is listed in What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

I know you will ignore this but for others: Eddington predicted the average temperature of spacetime to within 1/2 of one degree using nothing but the scattering of starlight on the dust of spacetime.

http://www.redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF

It took "big bangers" three or four tries to get any closer than Eddington and their first 'prediction' was off by more than a whole order of magnitude, much like their convection predictions.