Evidence against concordance cosmology

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Evidence against concordance cosmology

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Tue Feb 16, 2016 3:51 pm

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... p?t=303609

FYI, Eric L has a pretty entertaining thread going over at ISF on the topic of BB theory. It's been amusing reading thus far.

It occurs to me that the EU/PC community should create a "Reality Check drinking game" based on the canned personal attack responses that we're likely to see from RC in that thread. Every time that RC bold's Eric's name, we get a sip. Every time RC slips in the words "crank, crackpot, delusional, fantasy or ignorance" into his post we also get to take a drink. Bonus sip for every laughing dog or other irrelevant emoji. Every blatant ad hom or personal attack and we get to chug the rest of the beer. We'll be ripped in no time. :)

On a more serious note, the dialog between Ben M, IDMisBestM and Eric L should be rather enlightening and entertaining.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Some points to consider during this debate:

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Tue Feb 16, 2016 5:15 pm

FYI, while you're reading this debate, keep in mind that Edwin Hubble ultimately came to reject the concept of photon redshift being related to "space expansion". Instead Hubble personally preferred a static universe where photon momentum was passed onto (lost to) the intergalactic medium of spacetime. In short, Edwin Hubble ultimately (later in his career) supported Eric L's static universe interpretation on the photon redshift phenomenon.

http://www.science20.com/eternal_blogs/ ... ress-85962

I felt compelled to comment on a couple of points raised by ben m:
Originally Posted by Eric L View Post
The hypothesis that the universe is expanding, taken by itself –-that is taking this hypothesis alone--makes very few testable predictions.
"that hypothesis alone" is sort of odd. You can imagine hypothesizing a sort of clockwork universe. "The creator has glued all of the galaxies to mysterious mounting-pegs, and then arranged some unseen clockworks to move the pegs apart according to some formula." Sure, in that case there are very few predictions. But nobody (I hope not you) seems to hypothesize that.
Er, no. It assumes that gravity and electromagnetic fields act to govern the movements and motions of an electrically active mostly plasma universe that's relatively "static" in nature. It does assume movements of plasma, but those movements are simply governed by gravity and EM fields.
The more sensible hypothesis is "things are moving apart governed by some regular laws of motion". And here your statement is wrong. If you hypothesize that the law of motion is "the usual one", i.e. GR, which seems parsimonious, you get a very tightly constrained world in which to make predictions---indeed, under this assumption, any initial-condition hypothesis you which to make can be easily turned into a suite of predictions.
That wasn't the "more sensible hypothesis" to the scientists (Hubble and Arp) that first discovered and studied the redshift/distance relationship, so already ben m is setting himself up and the mainstream up as "sensible" when there's really nothing sensible about any of their interpretation of evidence. Hubble didn't think that expansion was a "sensible" explanation for photon redshift.
Quote:Eric L:
One very well-known one is that the surface brightness of objects drops as (1+z)^3. Equivalently, it makes quantitative predictions about the apparent size of objects of a given luminosity.
That is not a generic expansion hypothesis. That is a very specific expansion hypothesis---it corresponds to the hypothesis that things are flying apart (to use Newtonian language) without being decelerated by (e.g.) their mutual gravitational attractions. That sounds like the sort of thing we should be testing rather than assuming.
Um, those "tests" as you call them aren't actually useful "tests" at all because your so called (assumed) standard candles turned out to be less than standard. Blaming Eric L for that bad science later on does nothing to help your argument either by the way. The mainstream first "assumed" a decelerating universe, only to "assume" an accelerating one, when they "assumed"' that all SN1A events were "standard candles", which we now know come in *at least* two unique flavors.
Eric L
My colleagues and I assumed z, redshift, is linearly proportional to distance at all distances (as we know it is at small z).
What an odd assumption. What actual physics does this correspond to? Do you suppose that gravity is just "turned off" and unable to affect large-scale structure?
Hubble called it "tired light". Today we'd probably more correctly call it inelastic scattering in plasma. Zwicky was peddling his own gravitational sort of "tired light" theory, so no we don't technically have to assume that gravity is "turned off" anywhere. Zwicky may have been right all along about the real cause of "tired light" in fact. It wouldn't matter one iota what the cause of tired light might be in terms of Eric's basic premise.
Quote: Eric L
This relationship fits the data set of apparent magnitudes vs redshift of the supernova 1a data just as well as the LCDM model does, and it is almost mathematically indistinguishable from those predictions for that data set.
"almost" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Your expansion history is the "empty universe" one, and yes it's been tested. It's known to be close to the data but it is NOT a match. It corresponds precisely to the "omegaM = omegaL = 0" hypothesis in mainstream cosmology, which is ruled out at high confidence on the supernova data alone. (Note: these contours include systematic errors. If you think it's "almost" a match based on statistical errors alone, you're even more wrong.)


Again that's simply false. First of all, the "expansion" claim related to SN1A data requires one to first "assume" that unlike the behavior of photons in plasma in the lab, no amount of significant signal broadening process ever occurs in the plasma of spacetime. Somehow space photons are magical and weave and dodge their way around every temperature and EM field gradient in the universe for billions of light years to arrive at Earth without a single run in with anything.

If you assume a signal broadening process is occurring in plasma in space just like it happens in plasma in the lab in experiments on Earth, there is a "natural" explanation for the increase of the length of the signal over distance without any amount of omega nothing.

It should also be pointed out again that SN1A events have been shown to be *less than standard* as first claimed by the mainstream so their entire basis for their ad hoc insertion of "dark energy" into Lambda-CDM is founded upon quicksand. Worse yet for the mainstream, dark energy makes up 70 percent of their entire theory!

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 041015.php

Ooopsy ben? Just going to bury your head in the sand or sweep that little problem under the rug are you?

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

The CMB

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Wed Feb 17, 2016 9:52 am

I think it's worth noting a few important things about the CMB that the mainstream will not tell you in a debate or in the classroom.

http://solar.physics.montana.edu/ypop/S ... owave.html

Image

Let's start by noting that every single sun in the universe emits these wavelengths, and the images of our own sun demonstrate that our sun is considerably "brighter" than any type of background radiation from the rest of the unvierse. In fact if you look closely, you can see bright and darker regions on the surface of the sun that are directly related to the concentration (or lack thereof) of coronal loops in the solar atmosphere.

The CMB is ultimately nothing more than the collective signals of uncounted trillions of sun, emitting these wavelengths. The same is true for virtually every wavelength that we can imagine, all the way up to x-rays and gamma rays. The spectrum of energy is almost irrelevant, we always see sunlight from various distant stars bouncing around and being scattered by the dust and plasma between them. If we look at the *raw* microwave background images we clearly see that our own galaxy is the bright thing in the image (just like any other wavelength), and the dust around our own galaxy adds all sorts of shapes and bright areas to the image related to suns and the dust and plasma surrounding our galaxy.

The mainstream goes to great lengths to *remove* as much of that foreground light from the suns of our own galaxy, and the light from the dust around our own galaxy when creating their "smoothed for TV" CMB images. They then tell you that 'viola', all that remaining light we see in "filtered" images comes from some mythical magical big "bang" that occurred on date X. What a complete bunch of nonsense!

What we're *actually* left with after they strip out all the foreground effects of the suns that are closest to us are all the photons from all the suns in the universe that have been burning for billions and billions of years and that light being has been scattered around in the IGM and ISM of the universe. There's nothing there related to any "bang" to be seen in microwave images of the universe.

They also won't tell you that Sir Arthur Eddington correctly predicted the average background temperature of the universe to within 1/2 of a degree based upon those very same principles of starlight scattering on the dust of spacetime. There is a direct correlation between the background temperature of the the universe and the scattering of starlight on the dust and plasma of the universe. No mythical "bang" is necessary to explain that feature which Eddington himself predicted. In fact the first "predictions" of early BB theory were off by *more than a whole order of magnitude*, whereas Eddington nailed the correct temperature to within 1/2 of a degree on his very first attempt. In fact it took the big bangers *several* attempts before they got any any closer than Eddington. So much for the value of the actual first 'predictions" of BB theory vs. any scattering oriented predictions.

What they also won't tell you is that they have a *gigantic* couple of problems with their claim about those specific wavelengths being special and related to a "bang". They keep finding all these "bright" areas that are directly related to *galaxies* that are filled with suns and emitting *stronger foreground* radiation in those areas, and they find areas with few galaxies which are "cooler" and of course "darker". This feature of closer or concentrated galaxies being brighter has *absolutely nothing* to do with the so called "Sunyaev–Zel'dovich" effect. That whole concept is a huge crock in fact. The reason that regions with closer and more concentrated galaxies appear to be brighter in any wavelength is directly related to the fact that those galaxies, like all galaxies are filled with suns that are always emitting those (and every other) wavelength under the sun. Just like every other wavelength under the sun, those wavelength are being scattered by the dust and plasma around the galaxy, just as it shows up in raw images of our own galaxy. Every sun in every galaxy emits those wavelengths, so areas with a higher or closer galaxy concentrations naturally appear brighter. This is true for *lots* of wavelengths, including gamma ray wavelengths, not just low energy wavelengths.

In short, there is absolutely nothing special about the Microwave background temperature of the universe, Eddington explained it himself.

The mainstream is also not likely to tell you that their own "predictions" about a homogeneous layout of matter was *not* confirmed by Planck, in fact Planck shows clear hemispheric variations at the largest scales that *defy* Guth's original claim about homogeneous layouts of matter. That's just another "failed prediction" of Guthianity that they simply try to sweep under the carpet.

The whole CMB argument is pure creation mythology. Those wavelengths aren't any different than any other wavelength. They are emitted by every sun in every galaxy, and when you get enough galaxies spread out reasonably equally, and you *intentionally remove* any "bright" areas in the images, you end up with a relatively smooth signal. You could do exactly the same thing with gamma ray images of the universe if you were so inclined (to strip out foreground effects).

The CMB is nothing special. It's only "special" to big bangers because so much of their theory *depends* on it. Otherwise it's nothing important to any other cosmology theory we might conceive of.

All the huffing and puffing that mainstream does about that signal is pure nonsense. It's there because every sun emits those wavelengths. It is also there because as Eddington assumed, the universe has an "average temperature" due to the scattering of various wavelengths on the dust and plasmas of spacetime. It's there in bright areas because there are closer suns in those areas. It's brighter around various galaxies because every galaxy has billions of suns that emit those wavelengths. All the mainstream claims about the CMB are pure nonsense. Those wavelengths a a critical part of *their* mythology, so the they put a lot of significance on those particular wavelengths, but even Eddington predicted their existence in a very simple manner that has nothing to do with any "bang".

All the hype and hoop-la about the CMB is pure nonsense. It's only a "special" wavelength because their theory *requires* it to be a "special" wavelength. We could easily take gamma ray images of the universe, strip out all the bright areas related to our own galaxy, and we'd end up with a relatively "smooth" image in that wavelength too. The smoothness of the image has nothing to do with any "bang" in the first place. It's simply the result of the scattering of that wavelength in the dust of spacetime.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Evidence against concordance cosmology

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:50 am

Even though the following criticisms are more specific criticisms of Lambda-CDM rather than concordance cosmology in general, they're related to this topic:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =3&t=15850

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

RC drinking game score so far today: Big time buzz

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Wed Feb 17, 2016 7:41 pm

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=113

Two sips for irrationally bolding Eric's handle twice in the same post, and another drink for including the term "ignorant" from the guy who simply *refuses* to read a textbook on MHD theory and who thinks that "magnetic reconnection" is a charged particle optional process! What a riot. :)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=114

Two more sips for bolding Eric's handle twice again, and a couple more bonus shots for RC's use of the terms "ignorant" and "crank" in the same sentence. Wow I've got a buzz going already. :)

The personal sleaze factor of supposed EU/PC "debunkers" is simply off the charts today.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Evidence against concordance cosmology

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Fri Feb 19, 2016 12:21 pm

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
One thing I am struggling to understand, with Lerner's "tired light" cosmology:

We know that light from distant, redshifted supernovae is spread out over time. A supernova at z=0 with a monthlong outburst? If you see a spectrally-identical event at z=1, it has a two-month-long outburst.

(In fact, they're observed to spread out over time by exactly the same time stretch that appears in individual photon frequencies. In LCDM that is an obvious predicted effect.)
Ya, except that your "obvious" prediction didn't actually jive with the first SNIA studies, so you had to fudge the numbers with "dark energy" to prop up that so called "obvious" claim, and now your fudge factors make up a full 95 percent of your claims. How many extra factors do you need to compete with a purely empirical theory that has *zero* fudge factors? Why do you think that Hubble himself preferred a tired light solution Ben? Be honest now.
If I want to write down a tired-light model, I understand the tired-light energy loss on an individual photon level: "The source emitted a 6 eV photon but it only had 3 eV left when it arrives, so the detected energy is E0/(1+z)". (ETA: what I mean, is I understand the fact that this is what I'm supposed to be modeling. I do not understand that as the plausible outcome of some new microphysics.) But if I'm looking at a whole supernova---well, let's compare.

In LCDM, identical supernovae have identical emitted-photon counts.
Except we have since found out that they come in *at least* two photon counts, and who knows how many more.
If there's an event emitting N photons, each at energy E0 at a distance D and redshift z, I detect N/D^2 of those photons but they're each at E0/(1+z).

In tired-light, I'm not sure. It is an observational fact that high-z supernova photons are detected for a longer period of time.
Sure. The effect you're overlooking in plasma or any medium (again) goes by the scientific terms attenuation/dispersion/pulse spreading in the realm of fiber optics:

http://www.newport.com/Fiber-Optic-Basi ... ntent.aspx
Image
a) Do you think that's a real effect
Apparently the fiber optic folks believe that it's a real effect. :)

Image

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Evidence against concordance cosmology

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Fri Feb 19, 2016 1:23 pm

jonesdave116:So, tired light..........anybody think that this hasn't been debunked years ago? I am really struggling to see the point of this. Nobody takes it seriously. Why should we start again now?
Is there some new evidence that I am not aware of? Or are we just going around in the same unevidenced PC circles again?
I linked to Brian Koberlein's rather dismissive articles on this nonsense, way back in the thread. Any chance that those objections have actually been overcome by the tired light brigade? Any chance they could post some evidence?
Frankly, it's just nonsense. Hence why nobody takes it seriously. Very silly.
These kinds of ignorant comments are simply bizarre IMO. Not only are *many* types of inelastic scattering known about and shown in the lab to have a tangible empirical redshift effect on photons, pulse broadening has also been empirically demonstrated in many labs on Earth. How can anyone be so ignorant as to believe that they can "debunk" pure empirical physics, and real physical processes that have been shown to have a direct effect on photons?

Hubble certainly didn't dismiss the concept of tired light, nor did Arp, nor did any of the early pioneers of photon redshift research.

I'll humor you and address Brian's link for you if you like. It's amusing to me that you're not relying not upon any published exhaustive studies that ruled out various types of inelastic scattering from consideration, but rather you're reduced to quoting some random unpublished article on the internet that really had no useful argument, it was utterly false, and totally ironic to boot!
Not only does tired light violate conservation of energy, it makes very different predictions about how the universe would look. When you compare it to observation, the tired light model fails.
Oh the irony. Not only do tired light models *not* violate conservation of energy laws, Lambda-CDM theory is the single *biggest offender* in that category!

Any and all energy that is ever lost by any photons in a tired light model is necessarily passed along as kinetic energy into the dust particles and plasma particles of spacetime. No energy loss of a photon is not also offset by a kinetic energy "nudge" to another particle in tired light theory. Do you understand that concept? There's simply an energy 'exchange' occurring in tired light theories. No violation of energy conservation is possible in a tired light theory.

On the other hand, the "space expansion" claim, combined with the "dark energy" mythology of Lambda-CDM is the single largest violation of the conservation of energy law on the books. Somehow even though the universe expands by multiple exponential increases in volumes, the amount of dark energy per cubit unit of space supposedly remains constant in Lambda-CDM.

I've even heard Guth proclaim that inflation theory is the ultimate "free lunch" theory. Wow. Brian was dead wrong about both theories as it relates to the conservation of energy laws, in fact he couldn't be more wrong. Without realizing it, he shot Lambda-CDM right between the eyes with that conservation of energy argument.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Evidence against concordance cosmology

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:49 am

ben m:

So, Eric, a summary of your talk looks like:

a) You took a tired-light theory that you haven't actually written down in any way. One of its predictions is vaguely consistent with your implementation of the Tolman surface brightness test. The error bars are large.
Apparently ben is hypocritically attempting to blame Eric for doing exactly what the mainstream does in terms of postdicting a fit to known observations. Tsk Tsk ben. Pity you folks did exactly the same thing with "expanding space speeds", "dark energy", "dark matter", and inflation. Holy Cow. Talk about pure hypocrisy on a stick!
b) You don't know enough about the 20th-century hypothesis-testing machinery to quantify that "consistency" claim. You don't know enough about mainstream structure-formation theory to make a convincing claim of consistency/inconsistency with LCDM, so the best you have is an (invalid) parameter-counting/Occam's Razor argument. You don't know enough about your own tired light hypothesis to perform cross-checks with non-Tolman observables.
Here's the part when ben cheats. Instead of focusing on the material in question he engages himself in a pitiful personal attack tactic, while simply ignoring the blatant facts. I'd love to see you address all your dark matter lab failures and stellar mass miscounts ben. Care to deal with the past decade's worth of revelations related to your dark matter "postidictions"? How about that revelation that SN1A event's aren't even all the same? Sometimes they're pretty much the same apparent, so sometimes a real analysis can be done, but other times they apparently don't even blow up in the same way, so all bets are apparently off as to whether or not "dark energy" even exists!
c) Your Occam's Razor argument is itself sort of hermetically sealed---you can only state it with a straight face if you pretend that the Hubble curve is the only evidence for LCDM's otherwise-unconstrained new physics, and if you pretend that tired light is not otherwise-unconstrained new physics.
It's not really "new" physics however Ben, it's empirical physics in terms of pulse broadening, and empirical physics in terms of all the various types of inelastic scattering in plasma. You can't even cite a single exhaustive study that even attempted to rule out *all* various scattering possibilities. I think only Zwicky took a shot at *one* type of scattering while attempting to sell *his own form* of "tired light" theory! Hubble accepted this idea. Arp accepted this idea too.

At *worst* case, you could only accuse Lerner of having *one* fudge factor requirement, whereas you need a grand total of *four* of them, including space expansion, inflation, dark energy and dark matter. Four to 1 ben, four to 1. I don't care how you try to rationalize away the Occams' razor argument when you're 4 to 1 in the hole Ben in the best case scenario, even if we ignore the fact that both pulse broadening and photon redshift in plasma has already been empirically documented.
Your talk apparently gestures towards the existence of a parameter-counting argument against LCDM, but there is no such argument because LCDM is very highly overconstrained.
What a crock. It's also based upon *four* new forms of mythical physics, and inflation and space expansion aren't even "testable" in controlled laboratory experimentation. At least various inelastic scattering processes can be looked at in real lab tests.
d) You also did some ArXiV mining for plots that you thought discredited LCDM, and in several cases you deluded yourself severely about BBN and large-scale-structure issues. This perhaps costs you credibility, don't you think? When someone has cried wolf over and over, saying "X is disproven! X is disproven!", it suggests that they have some sort of kneejerk dislike of the hypothesis, rather than that they're a good objective judge of its merits. Such a person has no credibility to make claims like "X isn't as parsimonious a hypothesis as we'd prefer!"
Then again, you folks lost some credibility over the Bicep2 fiasco by crying wolf and never batted an eye, now did you? You've still got hemispheric variation in that CMBR signal and huge problems with Guth's inflation theory at the largest scales as it relates to homogeneous claims. Since none of they are limited to showing up in the lab, every one of your four fudge factors can be tweaked and modified to fit, and every lab test of your claim has been a completely disaster.
e) The above is apparently the best anti-LCDM argument available after 30 years of trying to construct plasma-cosmology alternative.
No Ben, I've compiled a long list reasons to abandon LCDM theory, and I've composed a list of recent failures of your claims. You can add the Cresst II results to that long list of big time, big money lab failures and revelations of stellar miscounts in that horrifically flawed 2006 lensing study.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =3&t=15850

Eric's argument only addresses the failures of Lamba concepts in general, but LCDM specifically is in a world of hurt.
f) Also, some mainstream cosmologists are worried about 7Li abundances and about the possibility that we're seeing an unlikely realization of an LCDM CMB. You're right! We are already on the case on those, Eric. Maybe it's new physics. Maybe it's radical new physics. We'll learn more by constructing hypotheses and testing them against the best and largest datasets---just like we've always done.
Maybe instead of inventing new forms of physics every decade just to save the supernatural monstrosity you've created, perhaps you should consider *testing* real possibilities out in real labs as it relates to inelastic scattering options and pulse broadening implications?

I'm really disappointed in you ben for the whole personal attack nonsense. It's not a very scientific attitude.
Last edited by Michael Mozina on Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Evidence against concordance cosmology

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:14 am

jonesdave116:I assume you may be referring to this (possibly amongst others):
TIME DILATION IN TYPE Ia SUPERNOVA SPECTRA AT HIGH REDSHIFT
Blondin et al, (2008): http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.3595v1.pdf
Abstract (bolding mine):
"We present multiepoch spectra of 13 high-redshift Type Ia supernovae (SNeIa) drawn from the literature, the ESSENCE and SNLS projects, and our own separate dedicated program on the ESO Very Large Telescope. We use the Supernova Identification (SNID) code of Blondin & Tonry to determine the spectral ages in the supernova rest frame. Comparison with the observed elapsed time yields an apparent aging rate consistent with the 1/(1 +z) factor (where z is the redshift) expected in a homogeneous, isotropic, expanding universe. These measurements thus confirm the expansion hypothesis, while unambiguously excluding models that predict no time dilation, such as Zwicky’s “tired light” hypothesis. We also test for power-law dependencies of the aging rate on redshift. The best-fit exponent for these models is consistent with the expected 1/(1 +z) factor."
There's a cute mainstream skeleton that is buried in the Zwicky "tired light" hypothesis. Astronomers have apparently never really done any sort of comprehensive study to rule out *all* the various kinds of inelastic scattering as the cause of photon redshift.

About the only *published paper* on this topic that the mainstream can ever refer to in debate is Zwicky's paper from decades ago, but Zwicky only really considered Compton scattering, not all the various inelastic scattering possibilities, and in that very same paper, Zwicky was selling his *own* brand of tired light theory based on a GR oriented concept rather than a photon collision process. It may be that Zwicky's specific tired light concept is ruled out by SN1A measurement, but pretty much any inelastic scattering model of tired light would necessarily predict pulse broadening as a result of the collision process. If anything the SN1A data favors an inelastic scattering brand of tired light theory, and probably does damage to a GR oriented solution of tired light theory.

User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Evidence against concordance cosmology

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Mon Feb 22, 2016 2:01 pm

Mainstream science thinks that light can not change frequency, because light moves at the speed of light.
At the speed of light, time does not change, so nothing changes.
If it changes, it has mass and is no longer considered going with the speed of light.
They claimed this to be happening with neutrinos. Since they changed, they had mass.

But if you consider that there is an interstellar medium, photons do not go with the speed of light,
and they can change frequency.

Funny enough, the quantum-field theory states that photons do have mass.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Evidence against concordance cosmology

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:20 pm

jonesdave116 wrote: No, I didn't in particular, but that one was quoted in Ned Wright's debunking of tired light:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
Here's how we all know that the mainstream "lazy" skeleton has been revealed. Instead of relying upon *published and peer reviewed* materials to debate the photon redshift "tired light" issue, the mainstream constantly cites Ned Writes *unpublished, non-peer reviewed* website! Wow!

Apparently everything that the mainstream knows or has ever written about about tired light theory comes directly from Ned's one unpublished website in cyberspace. The mainstream is reduced to treating one specific unpublished cyberspace website as their "bible" related to inelastic scattering and tired light theories (plural).

What a sad, sorry, unscientific state of affairs in astronomy today. Instead of doing any real research into various inelastic scattering phenomenon and doing real lab experiments and publishing a full series of lab tests to eliminate various models, they simply *ignored* that possibility entirely and instead they rely exclusively upon the rantings of Ned Write's one unpublished website.

Let's take a close look at the mainstream's holy unpublished tired light "bible" shall we?
There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed.
Apparently Ned has never heard of the terms forward scattering, and pulse broadening, and his claim about distant objects not being blurred is pure nonsense. I defy Ned or anyone else to produce a "clear" R~10 image of a galaxy. His comment about distant galaxies not being blurred is pure unpublished silliness on a stick. Furthermore, various wavelengths *are* selectively absorbed by the medium over larger distances, just as we would expect if the process is due to inelastic scattering and pulse broadening processes. That's why they have a host of different "filters" when trying to figure out various redshift wavelength patterns.
The Compton shift in particular does not work.
Well, as I mentioned in the previous post, Zwicky did kinda rule out Compton redshift as being the *entire* source of the problem when trying to sell his own tired light theory, but there are a *plethora* of other inelastic scattering options to consider, that Ned simply sweeps right under the rug.
The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves.
It doesn't predict time dilation, but it *does* predict pulse broadening as a consequence of the collision processes that are responsible for both the loss of photon momentum and the increase in the length of a distant pulse. Only Zwicky's tired light theory (based on GR) doesn't predict a pattern of pulse broadening over distance. Any other inelastic scattering method *would* include pulse broadening features, because we see pulse broadening today in lab experiments in various mediums due to scattering.

His nonsense about black body temperatures of various models is pure silliness particularly since Eddington predicted that very same background temperature of the universe to within 1/2 a degree on his very first try, and Eddington didn't even know that there were other *whole galaxies* to consider. There is nothing "magical" about the average temperature of spacetime. Eddington used ordinary scattering processes of sunlight in plasma to *nail* that spacetime temperature on his very first try. Ned and his cohorts took *many* attempts to even get their blackbody curve into the right ballpark!

It's really telling and very sad that the mainstream does *not* rely upon published and peer reviewed materials with respect to inelastic scattering and tired light theories in general. They've apparently got a bad aversion to making any claims in the publishing community with respect to real photon physics. I think the reason for this oversight it pretty clear too. The moment they start trying to actually eliminate various inelastic scattering possibilities other than simple Compton scattering, they'd open themselves up to a host of criticism from other areas of physics. Better instead that they live in pure fear and try to ride the coattails of Zwicky's *one* tired light theory paper with respect to eliminating Compton Scattering, and simply pretend that no other types of inelastic scattering processes occur in nature.

How sad that they must rely upon unpublished references with respect to this entire area of physics. It's another reason why the mainstream hasn't a clue as to the real cause of photon redshift and why every new observation in space is therefore a "huge mystery" that requires multiple placeholder terms for human ignorance.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Evidence against concordance cosmology

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Thu Feb 25, 2016 9:57 am

I'll let Eric respond to his choice of a specific mathematical tired light definition in his own paper, but there were some recent erroneous comments about tired light theory that warrant a response:
ben m:
And calls it a static-universe tired-light theory.
Yep, and so did Edwin Hubble. I'd still love you to explain why you think Hubble *rejected* your personal interpretation of photon redshift ben. It's not like he didn't study the phenomenon, or that he lacked expertise on the topic.
On top of the (unjustified) idea of tired light to begin with,
This has to be the single most irrational statement that has been made by ben in this thread to date. Unlike ben's unjustified "space expansion" claims, the "justification" for the claim that photon redshift is the result of tired light theory comes directly from the lab ben. In various experiments with plasma, particularly current carrying plasma, we find *lots* of evidence that photons pass on some of their momentum the the plasma medium via the process of inelastic scattering. In fact *several types* of inelastic scattering have been reproduced in the lab, and they've been empirically shown to have a direct cause/effect relationship on the energy state of various photons in the lab. Chen even found a mathematical correlation between the number of free electrons in the plasma and the amount of photon redshift. There hasn't been a better "justified" explanation of photon redshift put forth than the concept of inelastic scattering and signal broadening in plasma. Both processes are *well documented* in the lab ben.

Compare and contrast that now with ben's 'space expansion" claim that enjoy *no* empirical justification. In fact the primary "sales tool" that is frequently used to sell the concept is a blatant *bait and switch* device that is related to moving objects, not "space expansion" (Doppler Shift). There is absolutely, positively no empirical justification at all for "space expansion" being the cause of photon redshift, hence the *need* to resort to blatant bait and switch advertising tactics when attempting to "sell" the idea to a newbie or to the unsuspecting public. The mainstream then "blames" the newbie for not understanding how or where the bait and switch process occurred, and not comprehending the difference between "space expansion" and 'object movement'. Sheesh. The absolute gall......
Tired Light theory attributes this to some property of space that saps energy from light passing through.
That "property of space" to be concerned about is the fact that "space" is not empty. It contains dust and plasma, and EM fields and temperature gradients galore, all of which have been shown *in the lab* to be empirical "causes" of photon redshift. There's nothing mysterious about it ben, it's pure lab tested physics in fact.

I'm also amused by the insinuation that they believe that they can "debunk" a form of pure empirical physics with a handwave of an argument, while turning a blind eye to those 10 or so falsification of dark matter claims that took place over the past decade, and while ignoring the fact that their so called "standard candles" turned out to be less standard than advertised. How silly can you be to even make such a claim while ignoring all the data that you simply don't wish to deal with?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =3&t=15850

Notice how many times Lambda-CDM, particularly the CDM claims have been "debunked" since 2006?

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Evidence against concordance cosmology

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:32 pm

Can you tell me, though, would you prefer that I model a time-varying or a space-varying tired-light-function? In principle, since they're both utterly-unknown phenomena that we're trying to use cosmological data to discover, the standard approach would be to do BOTH and see which parts of either parameter-space are ruled out. But that's an approach you *don't* seem to like, so I thought I would check before wasting time.
Well, I can't speak for Eric, but I for one would love to see ben plug in these definitions of tired light and see how they each do in Eric's paper:

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/
http://db.naturalphilosophy.org/abstrac ... ubpage=pdf

I think it's noteworthy that a generic tired light model passed this test in 2014:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... /2/96/meta

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Evidence against concordance cosmology

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Fri Feb 26, 2016 3:40 pm

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... /2/96/meta

By the way, this particular published paper is another excellent excellent example that "debunks" the claim that EU/PC theory in general, static universe theory specifically, or tired light theory specifically enjoys no mathematical support. That erroneous mainstream mythology really needs to go, along with the rest of it's invisible friends.

Math isn't your problem, or the problem with EU/PC theory. Physics is your problem. None of your stuff ever works in the lab, whereas Birkeland created a working model of an electric sun over a century ago and made predictions using that model which took *decades* to confirm with satellites in space.

Never in the past century was there ever a time when EU/PC theory did not enjoy mathematical or empirical support. Get over yourselves already.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Evidence against concordance cosmology

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Mon Feb 29, 2016 11:03 am

Ben m: Are we *ever* allowed to try to write a physical model for this idea? And to propose methods for testing it other than sort-of-fitting straight lines through Hubble diagrams?
Sure ben, but it's technically beyond the scope of Eric's paper, just like it's beyond the scope of this test of the tired light model, much as that irks you personally. In fact however, the real beauty of tired light theories is that they *can* be empirically tested in laboratory plasma, and there seem to be any number of different tired light models to choose from.

Compare and contrast that potential to "lab test" tired light theories with the inability to empirically demonstrate the "expanding space" claim in controlled lab tests with real photons in real controlled experiments. We can't even "test" the Lamba claim in any ordinary controlled laboratory experiment, and it's the entire basis of the LCDM claim! You therefore have *zero* right to complain about the fact that A) tired light models are beyond the scope of Eric's (or any) particular paper, or B) about the ability of the various tired light models to be "tested" in real laboratory plasma.
Because right now I can think of lots of problems with your suggested model.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =3&t=15850

I have compiled a whole list of problems with your suggested model over the past decade ben, and I haven't seen anyone in your thread address any of those complaints. So what if you personally can think of some problems? I can think of *lots* of problems with Lambda-CDM starting with CDM claims.
(I mean, seriously, it's a godawful theory from the point of view of E&M, particle physics, and relativity)
That's is pure nonsense, and it easily demonstrated to be false in the lab too. Inelastic scattering is an entirely *predictable* theory anytime we introduce *light* into a *plasma medium*. Based upon what we have already seen in the lab, we would necessarily need to "predict" some amount of pulse spreading, and some amount of inelastic scattering if we pass light through a plasma. It's not only compatible with particle physics and everything else on your list, your claim is easily demonstrated to be false by any number of lab experiments that verify that inelastic scattering occurs in plasma.
and is trivially disproven by the existence of emitting and absorbing systems at different redshifts.)
Bah. No. In fact it's trivially proven by those very same observations as both Eric's paper demonstrates and they other "tired light" test demonstrates. Tired light theories *pass* many types of tests Ben. You're just going to have to accept it.
If I try to post such criticism, I suspect you'd say "no, no, you're not supposed to criticize the model itself yet, let's start by showing that it's a good fit and counting the parameters". To which I say, preemptively:

Your ability to invent the model is the only thing that allows us to count the parameters at all. (Nobody cares how many parameters there are in the best-vague-polynomial-drawn-through-something.)
The existence of multiple models---"one tired light model gives d=z, another gives d = log(1+z), another gives ..."---is, by definition, a free parameter in modeling; you chose to emphasize the d=z version over the d=log(1+z) version or the d=z+z^2/2 version because you think it agrees with the data, not for any other reason.
LOL! That's the whole point Ben. He's simply using the observations themselves to determine a "best fit" to the existing data, just like "expanding space", inflation, dark energy and dark matter. You however need a grand total of four unique fudge factor parameters to do what a tired light theory does with *one* at worst case!

You *should* care how many parameters you have to introduce into your claim to get a fit to the data set Ben. You should also care about how many of them *defy* any laboratory support too.

Since we already know that inelastic scattering happens in plasma, and pulse spreading happens in plasma, Eric is technically not even even adding an *extra* parameter, just a *necessary* parameter in terms of actual empirical physics. In *real* plasma, inelastic scattering and pulse spreading happen. Eric's method simply provides us with an *averaged mathematical model*/distance.
But you forget (or pretend) that you made this choice when it comes time to talk about the number of parameters in your theory. (Recall that if the data had come in looking like d = log(1+z), you'd be talking about the one-parameter nature of your fit to THAT, and poking fun at any cosmologist who ran hypothesis-tests on a dark-matter-inspired d=z model.)
You're basically saying "we should describe the data simply and accurately first, and worry about the physical nature of the best-fit model later" here, which is exactly the behavior that invites your scorn.
In his case however, Eric is not introducing anything that cannot be demonstrated and tested in a lab. You however are introducing four unique parameters into your claim, including space expansion, inflation, dark energy and dark matter, all of which were *postdicted* exactly the same way Eric postdicted a fit. The *worst* you could do is accuse him of doing it *once* with a *known* empirical cause of photon redshift, whereas you're doing it four different times with *unknown* causes of photon redshift that you simply "made up" to save your otherwise falsified theory from empirical falsification.
We have a great, predictive cosmological model, Eric,
That's simply not true. You have an entirely *postdictied* cosmological model. Guth postdicted a fit for inflation, and he *never* predicted those hemispheric variations we now see in Planck data sets. Your "dark matter" models were postdicted from galaxy rotation patterns and lensing data sets, and they have been falsified left an right at LHC, LUX, PandaX, AMDX, CresstII, and those electron roundness "tests" as well. I'd say your model really stinks to high heaven in terms of what it actually "predicted" vs what we see in Planck hemispheric variations, and in terms of cold dark matter results from the lab. In fact I'd say it's been a complete disaster in terms of cold dark matter "predictions" over the past decade. Dark energy theory didn't "predict" that SN1A events come in *at least* two varieties either, so you notion "prediction success" sounds pretty dubious at best.
which describes the data simply and accurately.
Accurately: "maybe", simply: absolutely positively not. You require *four* unique "fudge factors" in your theory to get a "fit" to the very same data set. Eric needs but one at worst case, and inelastic scattering and pulse spreading show up in real lab experiments. Unless you expect plasma in space to not work the way it works in the lab, we *must* including a parameter for inelastic scattering over distance. In fact, the fact that Lambda-CDM *does not* predict a *known process in plasma* is the very heart of it's obvious error.
It's called "LCDM". It includes three ingredients (something that looks like dark matter, something that looks like dark energy, and an inflaton mechanism that kicks in at high energy)
You left out the "space expansion" requirement which brings you up to *four* supernatural ingredients to get your theory to fit the very same data set. At *worst* case, you still lose the Occam's razor argument by 4 to 1.
whose detailed physical nature we don't know ... and don't need to know for further model computations, although it'd be nice to find out.
Er, if that 'excuse' works for LCDM theory, why doesn't it work for Eric and tired light? Talk about pure hypocrisy. Your entire complaint about his paper is that he doesn't limit himself to or define a "specific" model, yet your own four supernatural constructs all have "variations on the same theme". How many "inflation" models are there to choose from now ben? Dark matter models? Are SN1A events really all the same or not?

It would be nice to find out *which* tired light model(s) are the best fit to the data set *and* the lab results, but it's not required for the purposes of Eric's 'test' of the tired light model. Ditto for the other paper I cited in this thread. They both simply use a "generic" approach to which tired light theory might be best.
The resulting fits are superb, and theorists tell us that the new-physics-inferred is not implausible or otherwise ruled out.
The fits aren't really "superb" in terms of those hemispheric variations that we observe in Planck data sets. They aren't "superb" with respect to your track record on "cold dark matter" experiments over the past decade. They aren't "superb" in terms of the revelation that so called "standard candles" aren't really as standard as first advertised. Your model requires *four* unique "statements of faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab) in order to even compete with a purely *empirical* theory, an empirical theory that is simply based upon *empirically demonstrated* methods of photon redshift.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests