Why inelastic scattering is an invalid explanation for cosmological redshift

[Michael]

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.

The answer to your question is not they can't.

I can't recall the name of show that I watched recently, but the episode I watched was trying to explain how supermassive black hole quasars had grown so large in such a short period of time in the supposedly 'early' universe. They couldn't really explain such massive objects using ordinary physics of course, so they invented stuff like 'dark stars' and all sorts of exotic nonsense to try to 'justify' their claims. It was about as "out there" and "far fetched' of a concept as it gets, yet they all acted like it was a perfectly acceptable explanation.

I don't think anything about their cosmology theories actually works properly without introducing some form of 'cheating the physical system' by introducing some supernatural property of some supernatural form of matter or energy. Dark matter in particular has become their mathematical drug of choice to cure whatever it is that ails them in terms of what doesn't really work right in their theory. They just add another supernatural property to it, and viola, it's "fixed".

LCDM is a joke of cosmology hypothesis IMO. It's almost completely held together with invisible supernatural band-aids mixed with personal attack bailing wire directed at anyone and everyone who doubts their invisible nonsense.

It's only a matter of time before empirical physics starts to replace their supernatural dogma. I'm already seeing EU/PC theory creeping into some recent articles where they're actually starting to discuss the electrical currents and electrical connectivity between the sun and various planet.

Now if they would only start using proper scientific terms like "plasma" and "Birkeland current" instead of terms like "hot gas" and 'Steve' and "magnetic slinky", I'd be a bit more optimistic about the future of cosmology and astronomy. As it stands, I end up rolling my eyes at their ignorance all the time.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The answer to your question is not they can't.

I can't recall the name of show that I watched recently, but the episode I watched was trying to explain how supermassive black hole quasars had grown so large in such a short period of time in the supposedly 'early' universe. They couldn't really explain such massive objects using ordinary physics of course, so they invented stuff like 'dark stars' and all sorts of exotic nonsense to try to 'justify' their claims. It was about as "out there" and "far fetched' of a concept as it gets, yet they all acted like it was a perfectly acceptable explanation.

I don't think anything about their cosmology theories actually works properly without introducing some form of 'cheating the physical system' by introducing some supernatural property of some supernatural form of matter or energy. Dark matter in particular has become their mathematical drug of choice to cure whatever it is that ails them in terms of what doesn't really work right in their theory. They just add another supernatural property to it, and viola, it's "fixed".

LCDM is a joke of cosmology hypothesis IMO. It's almost completely held together with invisible supernatural band-aids mixed with personal attack bailing wire directed at anyone and everyone who doubts their invisible nonsense.

It's only a matter of time before empirical physics starts to replace their supernatural dogma. I'm already seeing EU/PC theory creeping into some recent articles where they're actually starting to discuss the electrical currents and electrical connectivity between the sun and various planet.

Now if they would only start using proper scientific terms like "plasma" and "Birkeland current" instead of terms like "hot gas" and 'Steve' and "magnetic slinky", I'd be a bit more optimistic about the future of cosmology and astronomy. As it stands, I end up rolling my eyes at their ignorance all the time.

Yah that hot gas and dust really gets me. But if they used the proper term plasma, people would think of charged particles, and that might lead them away from those magical dark things into the light.

And I love the energetic neutral atoms around the heliosphere. Radiating so brightly its twice as bright as anything in the sky and they call it neutral. Just goes to show how deep down the rabbit hole they have gone.

 

[RealityCheck01]

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

An ignorant question - tried light is not inelastic scattering. Scattering of any type is one of the many things that debunks tired light (would blur images).

 

[RealityCheck01]

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

From 7 November 2012 Michael: Read Compton scattering (Compton scattering produces blue and red shift!), etc.
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.
15 February 2017 Michael: A delusion that blurry galaxy images magically appear at z > 10 and not below does not need to be answered.

 

[RealityCheck01]

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 have to address this ignorant statement.
It is tired light theories that are ruled out by several observations. One of these is that astronomers have not recorded any blurring in images of distinct galaxies.

A delusion from the magnetic reconnection thread that the rate of reconnection defined for reconnection in plasma exists for the physical case of reconnection in vacuum.

A crank "solar model" pops up here. This includes many delusions. That there is a rigid iron layer under the photosphere where temperatures are greater then the boiling point of iron. That images of solar flares above the photosphere at temperatures of > 160,000K are images of iron mountain ranges on the surface.

 

[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.

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

Cited is the calculations you requested, but I expect you to ignore them......

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

But of course youll ignore that hot binary stars show a larger redshift than cool binary stars, because your Fairie Dust expansion of nothing has no answer. If expansion was correct, both hot and cool stars would show the same redshift value as they oscillated around their common binary center.

"Since it is difficult to distinguish a Doppler redshift from the new redshift described above, one must look for special circumstances where the Doppler component of the phenomenon can be clearly identified. An ideal case is seen in binary stars. Celestial mechanics shows that spectral lines from components of binary stars must oscillate around the central position since the average radial velocity of the stars must be the same. Observations (9),(13) show that it is not so. Hot stars (O-stars) show a larger redshift than the cooler (A and B) stars (9),(13). When one applies the theory stated above, one sees that the extra redshift observed in the high-temperature star agrees exactly with the value deduced from such a star, taking into account the temperature and the amount of gas on its surface. This is another confirmation of the above theory."

And of course your Fairie Dust expansion of nothing can not explain why 18 different redshifts are observed in the same spectra. But a true redshift evaluation can.

"It is also stated by Oke (17) that in some cases, different redshifted absorption lines are observed superimposed on the spectrum of one and the same star. Quasi-stellar object 0424-131 shows (6) as many as 18 different redshifts in the same spectra. We cannot ignore that 18 stars at different temperatures and surrounded by the same amount of gas would produce such a similar effect. The same phenomenon can also explain the well-observed forest of spectral Ha lines."

The difference is you ignore the data that falsifies your model, while a real theory incorporates it and explains it as well.

 

[Michael]

I have to address this ignorant statement.

The only one making ignorant statements is you. I see you're already up to your old "loaded language" tricks. I can't say I missed you, or your less than ethical debate style. What rock did you just climb out from under?

It is tired light theories that are ruled out by several observations. One of these is that astronomers have not recorded any blurring in images of distinct galaxies.

False, which is why you can't show us a sequence of redshifted images that show no signs of blurring over distance. It's also why you have no published papers to support any of your claims. It's also why you will keep failing to produce any images to support your false assertions.

A delusion from the magnetic reconnection thread that the rate of reconnection defined for reconnection in plasma exists for the physical case of reconnection in vacuum.

Your delusion about magnetic reconnection can be easily demonstrated by pointing out that you and Clinger never once produced a rate of reconnection formula that doesn't involve particle acceleration. You also claimed that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, so you have no scientific credibility whatsoever.

A crank

Do you even know what an honest scientific debate looks like? Your name calling routines are just absurd. It's like arguing with a two year old.

"solar model" pops up here.

Speaking of crank solar models, when were you folks going to fix your two order of magnitude convection problem? It's already been five years and counting and your model is still broken.

I won't even get into solar theory in this thread since you clearly know nothing about it.

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.....

 

[Michael]

An ignorant question - tried light is not inelastic scattering. Scattering of any type is one of the many things that debunks tired light (would blur images).

They are blurry which is why you refuse to show us any distant galaxies that are not blurry.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I have to address this ignorant statement.
It is tired light theories that are ruled out by several observations. One of these is that astronomers have not recorded any blurring in images of distinct galaxies.

Because you fail to understand the difference between charged matter and neutral matter. So explain to everyone why we don't see blurred images when the "dust" coming into the solar system was found to be 30 times denser than anyone previously believed? Why they aren't blurred with halos of plasma surrounding each galaxy with up to twice the mass of the galaxy themselves? Your answer is to simply ignore the observations and pretend the discovered matter don't exist.

But lets talk about blurry.

please show me a very distant galaxy that isnt blurry????

But conforms to real theory precisely.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/index.html4

" Such a random spread would make a point appear slightly fuzzy with a large telescope, of the order of magnitude observed in some quasi-stellar objects."

A delusion from the magnetic reconnection thread that the rate of reconnection defined for reconnection in plasma exists for the physical case of reconnection in vacuum.

Are you saying Guass's Laws are incorrect? Magnetic fields have no beginning or end but form closed loops. Why you cant even stop a magnetic field with any known way. Except by breaking the electric current that creates a magnetic field in the first place.

A crank "solar model" pops up here. This includes many delusions. That there is a rigid iron layer under the photosphere where temperatures are greater then the boiling point of iron. That images of solar flares above the photosphere at temperatures of > 160,000K are images of iron mountain ranges on the surface.

or that the interior is 15 million K and the surface only 5,000 K. That the interior is hotter, yet sunspots where we see deeper are cooler. Yes, crank solar models do pop up, starting with the standard model.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.....

And the claimed CMBR shows no sign of redshift from expansion of space, even if it should be redhsifted the most, being from the very beginning of the claimed Big Bang.

 

[Michael]

And the claimed CMBR shows no sign of redshift from expansion of space, even if it should be redhsifted the most, being from the very beginning of the claimed Big Bang.

According to the LCDM model, the CMB is just the average temperature of the universe after it's cooled for 13.8 billion years.

Eddington however nailed that average temperature to within 1/2 of one degree based on nothing but the scattering of starlight on the dust of spacetime. In contrast to Eddington's very accurate assessment, the first estimates based on Big Bang theory were off by more than a whole order of magnitude. It took big bang proponents three or four tries to get any closer than Eddington achieved on his first attempt. That just demonstrates the utter uselessness of LCDM theory.

 

[Michael]

please show me a very distant galaxy that isnt blurry????

Don't hold your breath. I've been waiting for more than four years for RC to produce such an image. That last time he tried it was an epic fail. He cited four images, each of which got consecutively more blurry as the z value increased. He's incapable of producing such an image and we all know it.

 

[Michael]

or that the interior is 15 million K and the surface only 5,000 K. That the interior is hotter, yet sunspots where we see deeper are cooler. Yes, crank solar models do pop up, starting with the standard model.....

in 2012, SDO demonstrated that the convection speed predictions of the standard solar model are off by two whole orders of magnitude and they've never fixed it. The mainstream solar model is the single "crankiest", most falsified solar model in the whole universe.

Weak solar convection – approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected

 

[Justatruthseeker]

According to the LCDM model, the CMB is just the average temperature of the universe after it's cooled for 13.8 billion years.

The average “local” temperature. If it was radiation from far away it would be redshifted if expansion was correct.

Eddington however nailed that average temperature to within 1/2 of one degree based on nothing but the scattering of starlight on the dust of spacetime. In contrast to Eddington's very accurate assessment, the first estimates based on Big Bang theory were off by more than a whole order of magnitude. It took big bang proponents three or four tries to get any closer than Eddington achieved on his first attempt. That just demonstrates the utter uselessness of LCDM theory.

Because Eddington calculated the scattering of “local” starlight on Dust.

But notice when they talk of blurred images they ignore the fact that 30 times the amount of dust than previously believed was found to be entering our solar system. Also plasma halos surrounding every galaxy with more than twice the galaxies mass.

Of course Paul Marmet answered that quandary, but being they treat that plasma as ordinary dust and gas, they have no choice but to ignore it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

in 2012, SDO demonstrated that the convection speed predictions of the standard solar model are off by two whole orders of magnitude and they've never fixed it. The mainstream solar model is the single "crankiest", most falsified solar model in the whole universe.

Weak solar convection – approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected

You can’t fix something that has no relationship to reality.

Oh they tried, it’s those solar tornadoes that is the cause of the heat getting from the exterior to the exterior now, not thermodynamics and convection.

https://www.wired.com/2012/06/magnetic-solar-tornadoes/

One band aide after another.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Don't hold your breath. I've been waiting for more than four years for RC to produce such an image. That last time he tried it was an epic fail. He cited four images, each of which got consecutively more blurry as the z value increased. He's incapable of producing such an image and we all know it.

Oh I’m not, I do my research before making a claim. Every single high redshifted galaxy or quasar is blurred. Not one or two, but every single one of them. But Paul Marmet has the answer to that too, and why hot binary companions are more redshifted than their cooler companions. Which should not be the case under expansion, since the radial velocity of binary stars around a common center are the same.

 

[Michael]

Oh I’m not, I do my research before making a claim. Every single high redshifted galaxy or quasar is blurred. Not one or two, but every single one of them. But Paul Marmet has the answer to that too, and why hot binary companions are more redshifted than their cooler companions. Which should not be the case under expansion, since the radial velocity of binary stars around a common center are the same.

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. He basically parroted Zwicky's original handwavy claim from the paper where Zwicky was trying to sell his *own* tired light theory no less. It's never been a valid argument because more distant galaxies *are* more blurry.

 

[Michael]

You can’t fix something that has no relationship to reality.

Oh they tried, it’s those solar tornadoes that is the cause of the heat getting from the exterior to the exterior now, not thermodynamics and convection.

https://www.wired.com/2012/06/magnetic-solar-tornadoes/

One band aide after another.

The irony of course is that if you look at those "tornadoes" in a high energy wavelengths (the only wavelengths they show up in), they are significantly darker and therefore *cooler* than the coronal loops which are considerably brighter and much hotter than those tornado features. It's not even a logical argument to start with because there wouldn't be an even distribution of energy in the corona if that were the heat source, whereas we observe those high temperatures *throughout* the whole solar atmosphere, just as Birkeland's "current flow" model predicts. Birkeland's explanation also happens to work in the lab.

Birkeland not only explained the heat source of the Earth's aurora, he explained the kinetic energy heat source of the solar atmosphere as well with the very same process, namely current flow from the sun, into space. The mainstream is almost entirely ignorant of his lab work I might add. There are a few exceptions of course (like that woman in the video), but by and and large the mainstream is almost completely clueless about his experiments and specifically his work with solar physics.

You literally cannot ask for a "better" explanation of a full sphere "hot" corona than one that actually works in the lab. All the mainstream "theories" are based upon *local* events, like tornadoes or "magnetic reconnection" which magically have to reproduce themselves over a full sphere, all the time, everywhere around the solar atmopshere at the same time. It's like claiming that 11,000 gremlins did it.

Not only are they reduced to using placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe the vast majority of the universe, they're reduced to using pseudoscience and magic to explain solar satellite imagery. I'd be embarrassed to call myself a "professional astronomer" in 2017. They literally know almost *nothing* about our universe and they have a bad case of electophobia when it comes to describing events in spacetime.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The irony of course is that if you look at those "tornadoes" in a high energy wavelengths (the only wavelengths they show up in), they are significantly darker and therefore *cooler* than the coronal loops which are considerably brighter and much hotter than those tornado features. It's not even a logical argument to start with because there wouldn't be an even distribution of energy in the corona if that were the heat source, whereas we observe those high temperatures *throughout* the whole solar atmosphere, just as Birkeland's "current flow" model predicts. Birkeland's explanation also happens to work in the lab.

Birkeland not only explained the heat source of the Earth's aurora, he explained the kinetic energy heat source of the solar atmosphere as well with the very same process, namely current flow from the sun, into space. The mainstream is almost entirely ignorant of his lab work I might add. There are a few exceptions of course (like that woman in the video), but by and and large the mainstream is almost completely clueless about his experiments and specifically his work with solar physics.

You literally cannot ask for a "better" explanation of a full sphere "hot" corona than one that actually works in the lab. All the mainstream "theories" are based upon *local* events, like tornadoes or "magnetic reconnection" which magically have to reproduce themselves over a full sphere, all the time, everywhere around the solar atmopshere at the same time. It's like claiming that 11,000 gremlins did it.

Not only are they reduced to using placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe the vast majority of the universe, they're reduced to using pseudoscience and magic to explain solar satellite imagery. I'd be embarrassed to call myself a "professional astronomer" in 2017. They literally know almost *nothing* about our universe and they have a bad case of electophobia when it comes to describing events in spacetime.

People resist change. It’s happening as we speak, but it will be another 25 years before the reality of electrical interactions in space becomes common language in astronomy. Then they’ll claim, as we have always known.....

 

[Michael]

People resist change. It’s happening as we speak, but it will be another 25 years before the reality of electrical interactions in space becomes common language in astronomy. Then they’ll claim, as we have always known.....

Call me an optimist, but I suspect that the James Webb telescope is going to break the back of the LCDM model when it starts returning images of "mature" galaxies for as far back in time as it can see. I predict that panic will start to set in around 2022-23 when the new LUX dark matter experiments come up empty (again) and the Webb telescope starts returning images that simply can't be explained by the LCDM model.

The mainstream has to be feeling some discomfort by now about blowing billions of dollars on their invisible dark matter snipe hunt with nothing to show for it, particularly since the standard particle physics model accurately predicted the outcome of the various LHC experiments with unbelievable accuracy. I'm sure that didn't go unnoticed. I certainly noticed.

If you peruse that quasar thread, I also cited about a half dozen large redshift observations that do not conform with their creation mythology already, and it's only going to get a lot worse when the Webb telescope comes online. I'd love to see their faces when they start seeing H-alpha lines, mature galaxies, and massive quasars from extremely ancient galaxies. IMO they'll be in full blown panic mode within a decade. The last decade wasn't kind to them at all, and I seriously doubt it's going to get any better over the next decade.

By the time the next LUX experiments and the current Xenon-1T experiments are complete, they'll have pushed the maximum interaction DM cross section down into the realm of neutrino interactions. That's going to put them in a world of hurt, particularly after the LHC fiasco.