Plasma redshift observed in the lab.

[viscount aero]

http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf

I'm sitting here trying to figure out exactly what the mainstream is going to do with this relatively new (last few years) successful prediction of PC theory over the long haul. I'm sure they will continue to ignore it for awhile yet, but the empirical handwriting is now on the wall. There is now a FULLY EMPIRICAL explanation for the redshift phenomenon.

I sent that above paper to a physicist on another forum and this was his reply to me:

"Lyndon Ashmore (the author of the non-published, non-refereed paper you cite) is a well-known "tired light" crank. (There's a reason Ashmore, a Brit, finds himself in Dubai and has no publication record.) Now, there's nothing wrong with tired light (a "leaking" of photon energy over distance) as a theory. It tries to explain the observed extragalactic red shift, and it makes testable predictions. The problem with the theory, though, and the reason nobody thinks it holds any water, is two-fold.

First, there is no known or even proposed mechanism whereby photons can change energy (hence wavelength) over time (hence distance) without interacting with other particles. Photon interactions with particles all have well-known, observable signatures that agree completely with observations of distant galaxies. That doesn't on its face mean photons can't somehow still leak energy, but a) it's never been observed; b) it breaks both quantum mechanics and energy conservation, hence pretty much all of physics; and c) there's no proposed mechanism even from tired light proponents as to how "leaking" can occur, even regardless of the other theory-killing consequences.

The second problem with the tired light theory is that observations conflict with it. Now, in science, when observed reality conflicts with a theory, either the theory must be abandoned or it gets modified appropriately and retested. We don't deny the observations, no matter how dear to our hearts a theory may be. (I'm not trying to be funny here -- this can sometimes be pretty painful, for various reasons.) There's no way to modify the tired light theory to bring it into agreement with the observational evidence. But don't take my word for it. Here, to cite just a few examples:

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2 ... 28-01.html

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang ... -could-my/

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/questi ... number=444

Now a word or two on Ashmore's "paper", specifically. First, Ashmore is just recounting someone else's lab results and then -- surprise! -- totally misinterpreting valid research in an effort to twist it into appearing to support his tired light theory. Let's just consider for a moment that paper ("Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas", C.S. Chen et al., http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 2608000089). A fatal problem (there are many such, but this one is especially-low-hanging fruit) with Ashmore's "paper" immediately leaps out upon reading the Chen et al. abstract: the lab work involved large electron densities -- 10^18 e/cm^3. Chen's explanation for the line shift he observed is that the density is high enough and the plasma temperature low enough that some shielding of the atomic nuclei occurs, affecting bound-free energy levels of the atoms. Not a big deal in the lab, but a huge problem for intergalactic space, where the particle density is about one atom per cubic meter (10^-6 per cm^3) and the temperature is 10^5 to 10^7 K. *Twenty-four*(!!) orders of magnitude difference in particle density and three or four orders of magnitude difference in temperature. There is no possible way Chen's laser-produced laboratory plasma has any relevance to the intergalactic plasma. And, needless to say, there is no electrostatic shielding of the hydrogen nuclei (i.e., protons) in intergalactic space -- it is not physically possible. Bzzzt.

Not even a nice try, Mr. Show Me Refereed Papers."

As you can see his reply was condescending in tone but he did pose some rather tall orders of challenge. I thought I would post this here as it provides insight into the mainstream paradigm.

The thread it was lifted from is here:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/quantum. ... ment_reply

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, I'll take a look at the other links that you provided and I will comment once I've read them. All of Ned Wright's claims are quite easily debunked. The WIKI link I know for a fact is more of the same basic nonsense.

FYI, I've started a thread on this topic that you might enjoy where I debunked all of Ned Wright's claims.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433/

Here the are two responses that are relevant to Ned Wright's bogus claims:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433 ... st61545326
http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433 ... st61545379

It's pathetically sad that one of the "best" references that they seem to be able to provide comes from some guy's website (not published in any way) and it has no less that *four demonstrated errors in it*, and WIKI page they wrote themselves. Holy Cow that's pathetic.

[Michael Mozina]

http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf

I'm sitting here trying to figure out exactly what the mainstream is going to do with this relatively new (last few years) successful prediction of PC theory over the long haul. I'm sure they will continue to ignore it for awhile yet, but the empirical handwriting is now on the wall. There is now a FULLY EMPIRICAL explanation for the redshift phenomenon.

I sent that above paper to a physicist on another forum and this was his reply to me:

"Lyndon Ashmore (the author of the non-published, non-refereed paper you cite) is a well-known "tired light" crank. (There's a reason Ashmore, a Brit, finds himself in Dubai and has no publication record.)

Well, in typical "hater" fashion, his first goal was to smear the individual and to avoid the content of their work entirely. Typical BS. The mainstream of course protects all those "publications" like their personal baby, so of course the "reason" why all static universe theories are not published is quite obvious. They live in pure fear and they utterly refuse to consider any logical (empirical) alternatives to their dark dogma. Of course it wasn't published in mainstream publications. Big Whoop. How about the content?

First, there is no known or even proposed mechanism whereby photons can change energy (hence wavelength) over time (hence distance) without interacting with other particles.

Redshift can and does in fact occur through the interaction with other particles, and there are in fact theoretical 'field to field' proposals on the table including the whole volume of Ari's work and work the work that was cited by Holushko in his paper. Your friend is wrong on both counts! Not a great start.

Photon interactions with particles all have well-known, observable signatures that agree completely with observations of distant galaxies. That doesn't on its face mean photons can't somehow still leak energy, but a) it's never been observed;

Ooops, three strikes so far in just the first three claims alone!
http://www.space.com/5348-view-universe ... right.html

Apparently four years ago they figured out that a lot of light was being scattered and blocked and *leaking* into the intergalactic plasma. Wow. Big surprise! Guess where the leak was found?

b) it breaks both quantum mechanics and energy conservation, hence pretty much all of physics;

Pure handwave. It does neither. In fact QM and energy conservation *require* that redshift happens in the plasmas of space like it happens in the plasma in the lab. It would take an act of God for redshift to *not* occur in spacetime.

and c) there's no proposed mechanism even from tired light proponents as to how "leaking" can occur, even regardless of the other theory-killing consequences.

I don't quite grasp the "leaking" claim. What "leak" wasn't already "discovered" when they figured out that the universe was twice as bright?

There are four known mechanisms of redshift that have been documented in the lab and are known to cause photon redshift: Compton redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect and what Chen calls plasma redshift. There are in fact four very real and very tangible forms of plasma redshift that have been documented in the lab. I'm not sure if Chen's work favors Ashmore's approach, Ari's approach, or neither. There are four known causes of plasma redshift already, and potentially several more that might factor into the process. Not a single redshift in any photon was accounted for based on plasma redshift in Lambda-CDM theory, hence their dark energy placeholder term for human ignorance, specifically the ignorance of plasma redshift.

The second problem with the tired light theory is that observations conflict with it. Now, in science, when observed reality conflicts with a theory, either the theory must be abandoned or it gets modified appropriately and retested. We don't deny the observations, no matter how dear to our hearts a theory may be. (I'm not trying to be funny here -- this can sometimes be pretty painful, for various reasons.)

Of course when their theory didn't jive with observation, did they turn to plasma physics for answers? No, they created an ad hoc metaphysical gap filler instead and 'retested".

There's no way to modify the tired light theory to bring it into agreement with the observational evidence. But don't take my word for it. Here, to cite just a few examples:

FYI, not a single word of that paragraph is true by the way. Holushko's model works *perfectly* to explain all of the supernova data, and he even includes C# code on his website that includes a module for spectral age testing that your friend can play with if he wants.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2 ... 28-01.html

That material is now 11 years old, and rather old news. Holushko's work and Ashmore's work addressed all those points and more. The both make some testable predictions between tired light/plasma redshift and standard theory.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

All four points are false The two bottom links of my last post will rebutt all four key points on Ned's website. Apparently Ned can't even tell the difference between a loss of momentum (redshift) and change in photon trajectory, and no they aren't one and the same, and no deflection is NOT the outcome of every redshift event. He never mentioned Learners paper on point four, and never mentioned signal broadening as an alternative to time dilation as proposed by Ashmore, Holushko, Ari and many many other authors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

Gee, pure propaganda written by the mainstream for the mainstream, and stuck 80 years in the past. I love how the first reference on the Wiki page points us to an unpublished website by Ned Wright that contains four errors, and the second cited references is another unpublished PDF file that cites Ned's work! Wow. Not exactly a "professional" presentation if you ask me.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang ... -could-my/

Standard BB theory with another citation to a falsified claim from Ned Wright's website. Apparently Ned Wright is the mainstream "guru" on all tired light theories. It's a pity that their guru never bothered to mention or deal with Stark redshift, the Wolf effect or Chen's work in any meaningful way. Too bad Ned's website makes no mention of advances in redshift theory over the past decade. No mention of Holushko. No mention of Ari. Just a website that is stuck a decade (or more) in the past.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/questi ... number=444

Oh look! Another page that links us back to Ned Wright's falsified and *ancient nonsense! Who would have guessed? This is like picking on *ancient* BB theories and insisting of taking no notice of the fact that they added 'dark energy" 14 years ago. Ned's page makes no mention of anything done in PC theory for the past decade or more! Ditto on the WIKI site.

Now a word or two on Ashmore's "paper", specifically. First, Ashmore is just recounting someone else's lab results and then -- surprise! -- totally misinterpreting valid research in an effort to twist it into appearing to support his tired light theory.

Surprise, he did what any "scientist' might do, namely to provide a mechanism to test to see if his theories are related to Chen's work! Um, I hate to break it to your friend, but that is traditional in physics. He did not "twist' anything. Again, your friend is interjecting his own preconceived ideas into Ashmore's motives and work!

Let's just consider for a moment that paper ("Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas", C.S. Chen et al., http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 2608000089). A fatal problem (there are many such, but this one is especially-low-hanging fruit) with Ashmore's "paper" immediately leaps out upon reading the Chen et al. abstract: the lab work involved large electron densities -- 10^18 e/cm^3. Chen's explanation for the line shift he observed is that the density is high enough and the plasma temperature low enough that some shielding of the atomic nuclei occurs, affecting bound-free energy levels of the atoms. Not a big deal in the lab, but a huge problem for intergalactic space, where the particle density is about one atom per cubic meter (10^-6 per cm^3) and the temperature is 10^5 to 10^7 K. *Twenty-four*(!!) orders of magnitude difference in particle density and three or four orders of magnitude difference in temperature.
There is no possible way Chen's laser-produced laboratory plasma has any relevance to the intergalactic plasma.

Apparently your friend forgot about the 'Distance" issue entirely. What it lacks in the first two to more than makes up for over distance. He also seems oblivious to the possibility that quasars and "black holes" provide perfect such environments.

And, needless to say, there is no electrostatic shielding of the hydrogen nuclei (i.e., protons) in intergalactic space -- it is not physically possible. Bzzzt.

Ok, I'll bite. Why not? I hope he realizes that conditions around quasars and "black holes" will be my first question to him. What current density does he *assume* might apply there?

Keep in mind that there are already four known causes of plasma redshift that work in the lab. It would take an act of God for them (collectively) to not work in the plasmas of spacetime the same way they work in the lab. Lambda-CDM theory makes no allowance at all (none) for *any* redshift from any of the known mechanisms of plasma redshift. It's therefore not surprising that they need placeholder terms for what amounts to human ignorance. They are quite ignorant of the laws of plasma physics! That's also why they are collectively incapable of even citing a known source of 'dark energy', let alone a control mechanism for it.

FYI, one common misconception is that an interaction with a particle automatically leads to a change in trajectory. Ned makes no distinction between them in fact. It's *entirely* possible for photons to pass on their kinetic energy to electrons/protons in the direction of the photon's travel path, particularly polarized light and coherent light. As long as the photons pass on their collective energy to the particle in question, in it's direction of travel, no defection of the photons occur, and the loss of momentum/kinetic energy is towards it's original travel path. There's not even any guarantee that every redshift event will result in a deflection of the photon(s). Ned Wright's original claim is false. Not only can particles in space pick up momentum from photons, they can do so without deflecting the photon. Every claim Ned made was either false, or stuck a decade or more in the past.

Your friend seemed to suggest that adapting to observational results and making appropriate changes to various models is a good thing, but when Holushko did that for him with supernova data, and Ashmore did that for him over the past year, how did he respond? He essentially handed you a rebuttal from 11 years ago and rejected Ashmore's work. FYI, there's a link below to Holushko's work. Perhaps you could get your friend to respond to a more *modern* tired light/plasma redshift theory, one that *includes* supernova data, rather than ancient one?

http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0062v1.pdf

[sjw40364]

I have been pondering if perhaps the halo around each galaxy is responsible for quantization of the redshift, while the electron density of the source is responsible for the redshift itself? Since all redshift maps point directly at our galaxy, the most likely cause is this halo, with the halo of each galaxy adding or not depending on density.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienc ... tonarp.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 123046.htm

Redshift = velocity = distance means everything is accelerating away from our galaxy in a 360 degree sphere, while relativity demands if we were situated in another galaxy everything must be accelerating away from that galaxy in a 360 degree sphere??? On the other hand if it is due to the natural phenomenon of plasma electron density (and 99.99% of the universe IS plasma) Then the plasma halo explains why all objects are red-shifted and quantized in a 360 degree sphere around us.

As MM stated there is no known way to affect the wavelength of or energy of a photon without intervening particles. Contrary to popular belief all experiments with velocity have been done in a medium denser than that of space itself. There has been nil experiments performed with light and redshift due to velocity outside of any medium.

[viscount aero]

http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf

I'm sitting here trying to figure out exactly what the mainstream is going to do with this relatively new (last few years) successful prediction of PC theory over the long haul. I'm sure they will continue to ignore it for awhile yet, but the empirical handwriting is now on the wall. There is now a FULLY EMPIRICAL explanation for the redshift phenomenon.

I sent that above paper to a physicist on another forum and this was his reply to me:

"Lyndon Ashmore (the author of the non-published, non-refereed paper you cite) is a well-known "tired light" crank. (There's a reason Ashmore, a Brit, finds himself in Dubai and has no publication record.)

Well, in typical "hater" fashion, his first goal was to smear the individual and to avoid the content of their work entirely. Typical BS. The mainstream of course protects all those "publications" like their personal baby, so of course the "reason" why all static universe theories are not published is quite obvious. They live in pure fear and they utterly refuse to consider any logical (empirical) alternatives to their dark dogma. Of course it wasn't published in mainstream publications. Big Whoop. How about the content?

First, there is no known or even proposed mechanism whereby photons can change energy (hence wavelength) over time (hence distance) without interacting with other particles.

Redshift can and does in fact occur through the interaction with other particles, and there are in fact theoretical 'field to field' proposals on the table including the whole volume of Ari's work and work the work that was cited by Holushko in his paper. Your friend is wrong on both counts! Not a great start.

Photon interactions with particles all have well-known, observable signatures that agree completely with observations of distant galaxies. That doesn't on its face mean photons can't somehow still leak energy, but a) it's never been observed;

Ooops, three strikes so far in just the first three claims alone!
http://www.space.com/5348-view-universe ... right.html

Apparently four years ago they figured out that a lot of light was being scattered and blocked and *leaking* into the intergalactic plasma. Wow. Big surprise! Guess where the leak was found?

b) it breaks both quantum mechanics and energy conservation, hence pretty much all of physics;

Pure handwave. It does neither. In fact QM and energy conservation *require* that redshift happens in the plasmas of space like it happens in the plasma in the lab. It would take an act of God for redshift to *not* occur in spacetime.

and c) there's no proposed mechanism even from tired light proponents as to how "leaking" can occur, even regardless of the other theory-killing consequences.

I don't quite grasp the "leaking" claim. What "leak" wasn't already "discovered" when they figured out that the universe was twice as bright?

There are four known mechanisms of redshift that have been documented in the lab and are known to cause photon redshift: Compton redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect and what Chen calls plasma redshift. There are in fact four very real and very tangible forms of plasma redshift that have been documented in the lab. I'm not sure if Chen's work favors Ashmore's approach, Ari's approach, or neither. There are four known causes of plasma redshift already, and potentially several more that might factor into the process. Not a single redshift in any photon was accounted for based on plasma redshift in Lambda-CDM theory, hence their dark energy placeholder term for human ignorance, specifically the ignorance of plasma redshift.

The second problem with the tired light theory is that observations conflict with it. Now, in science, when observed reality conflicts with a theory, either the theory must be abandoned or it gets modified appropriately and retested. We don't deny the observations, no matter how dear to our hearts a theory may be. (I'm not trying to be funny here -- this can sometimes be pretty painful, for various reasons.)

Of course when their theory didn't jive with observation, did they turn to plasma physics for answers? No, they created an ad hoc metaphysical gap filler instead and 'retested".

There's no way to modify the tired light theory to bring it into agreement with the observational evidence. But don't take my word for it. Here, to cite just a few examples:

FYI, not a single word of that paragraph is true by the way. Holushko's model works *perfectly* to explain all of the supernova data, and he even includes C# code on his website that includes a module for spectral age testing that your friend can play with if he wants.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2 ... 28-01.html

That material is now 11 years old, and rather old news. Holushko's work and Ashmore's work addressed all those points and more. The both make some testable predictions between tired light/plasma redshift and standard theory.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

All four points are false The two bottom links of my last post will rebutt all four key points on Ned's website. Apparently Ned can't even tell the difference between a loss of momentum (redshift) and change in photon trajectory, and no they aren't one and the same, and no deflection is NOT the outcome of every redshift event. He never mentioned Learners paper on point four, and never mentioned signal broadening as an alternative to time dilation as proposed by Ashmore, Holushko, Ari and many many other authors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

Gee, pure propaganda written by the mainstream for the mainstream, and stuck 80 years in the past. I love how the first reference on the Wiki page points us to an unpublished website by Ned Wright that contains four errors, and the second cited references is another unpublished PDF file that cites Ned's work! Wow. Not exactly a "professional" presentation if you ask me.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang ... -could-my/

Standard BB theory with another citation to a falsified claim from Ned Wright's website. Apparently Ned Wright is the mainstream "guru" on all tired light theories. It's a pity that their guru never bothered to mention or deal with Stark redshift, the Wolf effect or Chen's work in any meaningful way. Too bad Ned's website makes no mention of advances in redshift theory over the past decade. No mention of Holushko. No mention of Ari. Just a website that is stuck a decade (or more) in the past.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/questi ... number=444

Oh look! Another page that links us back to Ned Wright's falsified and *ancient nonsense! Who would have guessed? This is like picking on *ancient* BB theories and insisting of taking no notice of the fact that they added 'dark energy" 14 years ago. Ned's page makes no mention of anything done in PC theory for the past decade or more! Ditto on the WIKI site.

Now a word or two on Ashmore's "paper", specifically. First, Ashmore is just recounting someone else's lab results and then -- surprise! -- totally misinterpreting valid research in an effort to twist it into appearing to support his tired light theory.

Surprise, he did what any "scientist' might do, namely to provide a mechanism to test to see if his theories are related to Chen's work! Um, I hate to break it to your friend, but that is traditional in physics. He did not "twist' anything. Again, your friend is interjecting his own preconceived ideas into Ashmore's motives and work!

Let's just consider for a moment that paper ("Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas", C.S. Chen et al., http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 2608000089). A fatal problem (there are many such, but this one is especially-low-hanging fruit) with Ashmore's "paper" immediately leaps out upon reading the Chen et al. abstract: the lab work involved large electron densities -- 10^18 e/cm^3. Chen's explanation for the line shift he observed is that the density is high enough and the plasma temperature low enough that some shielding of the atomic nuclei occurs, affecting bound-free energy levels of the atoms. Not a big deal in the lab, but a huge problem for intergalactic space, where the particle density is about one atom per cubic meter (10^-6 per cm^3) and the temperature is 10^5 to 10^7 K. *Twenty-four*(!!) orders of magnitude difference in particle density and three or four orders of magnitude difference in temperature.
There is no possible way Chen's laser-produced laboratory plasma has any relevance to the intergalactic plasma.

Apparently your friend forgot about the 'Distance" issue entirely. What it lacks in the first two to more than makes up for over distance. He also seems oblivious to the possibility that quasars and "black holes" provide perfect such environments.

And, needless to say, there is no electrostatic shielding of the hydrogen nuclei (i.e., protons) in intergalactic space -- it is not physically possible. Bzzzt.

Ok, I'll bite. Why not? I hope he realizes that conditions around quasars and "black holes" will be my first question to him. What current density does he *assume* might apply there?

Keep in mind that there are already four known causes of plasma redshift that work in the lab. It would take an act of God for them (collectively) to not work in the plasmas of spacetime the same way they work in the lab. Lambda-CDM theory makes no allowance at all (none) for *any* redshift from any of the known mechanisms of plasma redshift. It's therefore not surprising that they need placeholder terms for what amounts to human ignorance. They are quite ignorant of the laws of plasma physics! That's also why they are collectively incapable of even citing a known source of 'dark energy', let alone a control mechanism for it.

FYI, one common misconception is that an interaction with a particle automatically leads to a change in trajectory. Ned makes no distinction between them in fact. It's *entirely* possible for photons to pass on their kinetic energy to electrons/protons in the direction of the photon's travel path, particularly polarized light and coherent light. As long as the photons pass on their collective energy to the particle in question, in it's direction of travel, no defection of the photons occur, and the loss of momentum/kinetic energy is towards it's original travel path. There's not even any guarantee that every redshift event will result in a deflection of the photon(s). Ned Wright's original claim is false. Not only can particles in space pick up momentum from photons, they can do so without deflecting the photon. Every claim Ned made was either false, or stuck a decade or more in the past.

Your friend seemed to suggest that adapting to observational results and making appropriate changes to various models is a good thing, but when Holushko did that for him with supernova data, and Ashmore did that for him over the past year, how did he respond? He essentially handed you a rebuttal from 11 years ago and rejected Ashmore's work. FYI, there's a link below to Holushko's work. Perhaps you could get your friend to respond to a more *modern* tired light/plasma redshift theory, one that *includes* supernova data, rather than ancient one?

http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0062v1.pdf

Wow. I thank you for this earnest and thorough reply. I will re-read it to grasp it better, with retention. I wish I was able to have come back at him this way as he delighted in being a douche-bag to me throughout the thread. Great work, your reply.

[viscount aero]

I have been pondering if perhaps the halo around each galaxy is responsible for quantization of the redshift, while the electron density of the source is responsible for the redshift itself? Since all redshift maps point directly at our galaxy, the most likely cause is this halo, with the halo of each galaxy adding or not depending on density.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienc ... tonarp.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 123046.htm

Redshift = velocity = distance means everything is accelerating away from our galaxy in a 360 degree sphere, while relativity demands if we were situated in another galaxy everything must be accelerating away from that galaxy in a 360 degree sphere??? On the other hand if it is due to the natural phenomenon of plasma electron density (and 99.99% of the universe IS plasma) Then the plasma halo explains why all objects are red-shifted and quantized in a 360 degree sphere around us.

As MM stated there is no known way to affect the wavelength of or energy of a photon without intervening particles. Contrary to popular belief all experiments with velocity have been done in a medium denser than that of space itself. There has been nil experiments performed with light and redshift due to velocity outside of any medium.

You furthermore build the case, particularly with the statement I highlighted in bold. Very smart call, true.

[Michael Mozina]

I sent that above paper to a physicist on another forum and this was his reply to me:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

Ya know, after going through every single link that your friend handed you, and looking at what information the objections to plasma redshift are actually based upon, they all point us right back to this single unpublished website by Ned Wright, originally written 1996 and apparently last updated in 1998! Not only is Ned's page hopelessly outdated, apparently the website has *never* been updated, at least not since 2000. Even if we gave Ned the benefit of the doubt that he believed all of his statements were true way back in 1996-2000, none of it is true in 2012. I think since all the mainstream objections come back to this single website from 1996-1999(?), we should look at some of the advancements in plasma redshift that have occurred since then, and delve a bit deeper into Ned's claims in 2012.

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. The Compton shift in particular does not work.

First of all, a loss of momentum is called "redshift". It's not *necessarily* the cause of "blurriness". Only a photon *deflection* can actually cause blurriness. Apparently Ned has an incredibly hard time distinguishing between photon redshift (loss of photon momentum), and photon deflection, and he makes no allowances for one without the other. Furthermore, only a very *tiny* deflection, very close to the Earth would result in blurriness. Most of the photons that experience large scattering angles would simply be lost and never reach Earth, particularly such events that occur at great distances from Earth. I'll grant him that Compton redshift by itself probably won't work to explain *all* the redshift we observe, but so what? There are at least three more options to work with *and* Compton redshift. How about Stark redshift Ned? Chen's plasma redshift Ned? How about the Wolf effect Ned? How about various combinations of factors Ned?

It's also *entirely* possible for photons to pass on their kinetic energy to electrons/protons in the direction of the photon's travel path, particularly polarized light and coherent light. As long as the photons pass on their collective energy to the particle in question, in it's direction of travel, no defection of the photons occur, and the loss of momentum/kinetic energy is towards it's original travel path. There's not even any guarantee that every redshift event will result in a deflection of the photon(s)!

Ned's entire argument is actually bogus.

Keep in mind that PC theory predict that a lot of light is lost to the medium. We also have recent evidence that the mainstream *grossly* underestimates the effect of plasmas/dust on light from distant objects:

http://www.stfc.ac.uk/News+and+Events/5219.aspx

The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves. This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1.

No, and there is no observed time dilation. PC/EU theory does correctly predict the observed *signal broadening* and *plasma redshift* features that are observed in supernova data. The feature they explain as time dilation in mainstream theory is a result of signal broadening in plasma redshift theory:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0062v1.pdf
http://plasmaredshift.org/Menu.html
http://lyndonashmore.com/tired_light_ex ... novae_.htm

Ned's website simply ignores all the work that has gone into plasma redshift/tired light theory since the supernova data was released. Apparently Ned intends to leave the reader with the impression that the supernova data was never addressed by tired light/plasma redshift proponents, when in fact it has been addressed by several authors. While his criticism may have held merit in back in 2000, it's clearly false today. Ned *really* needs to update (or take down) his website since his claims are all based upon *ancient* plasma redshift theories, not present, modern day plasma redshift theory. Considering the fact that Ned seems to be the sole mainstream guru on plasma redshift, it's unconscionable that he never updated his website!

The tired light model can not produce a blackbody spectrum for the Cosmic Microwave Background without some incredible coincidences.

This statement is so ridiculous, it's hard to even know where to begin. Let's first discuss the "incredible coincidences" that we must accept to accept mainstream theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_ ... Criticisms

A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data we could get. Paul J. Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics. He calls ‘bad inflation’ a period of accelerated expansion whose outcome conflicts with observations, and ‘good inflation’ one compatible with them: “Not only is bad inflation more likely than good inflation, but no inflation is more likely than either. … Roger Penrose considered all the possible configurations of the inflaton and gravitational fields. Some of these configurations lead to inflation … Other configurations lead to a uniform, flat universe directly –without inflation. Obtaining a flat universe is unlikely overall. Penrose’s shocking conclusion, though, was that obtaining a flat universe without inflation is much more likely than with inflation –by a factor of 10 to the googol (10 to the 100) power!”[100]

Talk about incredible coincidences, and we haven't even talked about the fine tuning that goes on with "dark energy' and "dark matter'! 10 to the 100th power? Holy cow! For Ned to even talk about "coincidences' as a reason to dismiss another theory, is utterly and completely *laughable*! Wow! Talk about pot/kettle claims.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pr ... 2N3ASS.PDF

Secondly, as far back as the first predictions by Guillaume in the mid 1800's and later Eddington around the end of the 1800's, the calculated temperature of 'space' based upon the kinetic effect of starlight on molecules in space was within a single degree of the correct number, 3.18 degrees vs. 2.725 K. Eddington was actually within 1/2 of a degree of the correct number in fact. Early BB models were more than a whole order of magnitude off (over 50 degrees Kelvin), whereas early predictions based on scattering and absorption of starlight were nearly right on the money from the very beginning! No fine tuning was required to get Eddington into the correct ballpark, whereas they need three forms of metaphysics to get to the correct figure in the model. Talk about coincidences and fine tuning! That was probably Ned's most absurd claim on the page!

The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AIPC..822...60L

Absolutely and completely false. Apparently Ned's page was never updated since the day it was written.

So, there you have it. Ned's page is stuck more than a decade in the past, it's wrong on all four points today, and that is in fact the *primary* reference that astronomers use today to attempt to 'debunk' PC/EU static universe theories. I'd say that is most pitiful excuse for a modern website I've ever seen. I'd be embarrassed as hell to be Ned Wright and have never updated my material in 12 years. Holy cow! If that's the very best "guru' that they have on tired light/plasma redshift theory, the mainstream is in really sad, sad, sad shape. They would not last 5 minutes in an honest and open debate about these claims in 2012.

Keep in mind that four unique forms of plasma redshift have *already* been documented to exist, including Compton redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect, and what Chen et all call 'plasma redshift'. There are potentially several more forms that might exist as well for all I know. Mainstream theory doesn't incorporate *any* amount of plasma redshift into their calculations. The "smoking gun" that kills their theory dead is found in the math formulas they use. They are devoid of any amount of redshift cased by any form of plasma redshift. Is it any wonder then why they need placeholder terms like 'dark energy' for what amounts to human ignorance? They are clearly ignorant of plasma physics, specifically plasma redshift and signal broadening effects in plasma!

The "dirty little secret" in mainstream theory is directly related to it's inability to deal with modern plasma redshift theories in 2012. It can only compete with plasma redshift theory from 1998 apparently, so they remain stuck in the past, they all cite Ned's ancient data, and they all ignore the laws of empirical plasma physics. In the real world of plasma and plasma physics, plasma redshift has been well documented in the lab. Unless the laws of plasma physics in space work differently than they work in the lab, plasma redshift must happen in space. The fact that Lambda-CDM includes *zero* tolerance for plasma redshift explains why must resort to ignoring all the advancements in plasma physics and plasma redshift theory that have occurred since 1998. So long as they simply ignore the advancements in plasma redshift theory for the past decade, it must not exist!

[viscount aero]

Michael, again, I am happy to read your continuing scientific rebuttals and counterpoints. It is most fascinating how within a debate a losing side can be adept at throwing up colored smoke plumes. You seem to see right through it all.

I posted this in the "Mad Ideas" forum but this exactly relates:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =10&t=7210

description of the lecture:

"Watch video of the Seyfert Lecture featuring Dr. Paul J. Steinhardt, the Albert Einstein Professor in Science and director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University.

Steinhardt, who is also on the faculty of both the Department of Physics and the Department of Astrophysical Sciences, spoke at Vanderbilt March 17, 2011. He is the author of over 200 refereed articles, six patents, and three technical books. In 2007, co-authored Endless Universe: The Big Bang and Beyond, a popular book on contemporary theories of cosmology.

This talk introduces an alternative to the standard big bang model that challenges conventional ideas about space, time and the evolution of the universe."

If you can make it all the way through the lecture, it becomes inadvertently hilarious. The farther it goes into the Big Bang theory, the more unicorn-like it becomes. Despite what the description says, it does not really "challenge" any mainstream theories inasmuch as it builds upon them. Enjoy

[viscount aero]

Although from Wiki, this point about inflation is very salient (from the link you provided):

"In order to work, and as pointed out by Roger Penrose from 1986 on, inflation requires extremely specific initial conditions of its own, so that the problem (or pseudoproblem) of initial conditions is not solved: “There is something fundamentally misconceived about trying to explain the uniformity of the early universe as resulting from a thermalization process. […] For, if the thermalization is actually doing anything […] then it represents a definite increasing of the entropy. Thus, the universe would have been even more special before the thermalization than after.”[99] The problem of specific or “fine-tuned” initial conditions would not have been solved; it would have gotten worse.

A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data we could get."

Two points here, one about the necessity for an initial "thermalization" [super hot "undifferentiated" early universe]; and the inflation "energy" as a "field" of unknown origin and of unknown existence.

If the early universe, its so-called beginning, was outside of time and space, without each, then where has the heat come from? BB theorists always talk about the initial early universe as being this undifferentiated state of "energy" and super-hot "radiation" that then cooled and became "matter." But so-called inflation requires a process of increasing heat, thus, entropy.

The second point goes without saying, but dovetails with the first: from where has this inflationary energy derived? Apparently it had to far exceed light speed in the first few moments of existence in order to expand at the rate that it did. Where is the mechanism and causal agent for this?

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, again, I am happy to read your continuing scientific rebuttals and counterpoints. It is most fascinating how within a debate a losing side can be adept at throwing up colored smoke plumes. You seem to see right through it all.

FYI, I appreciated the links you gave me. It gave me a chance to do a bit of research into the way the mainstream formed and defends their beliefs related to plasma redshift/tired light theories. It was highly educational IMO. I was stunned to find out how many of those links that you provided me either specifically cited Ned Wright's work, or the material came right from Ned Wrights website statements. Whatever the validity of Ned's statements in 2001, all of Ned's statements are easily shown to be false in 2012. I can't believe it, but apparently Ned is *the* 'go to guy' when the mainstream has any questions about plasma redshift research, or is confronted with that idea. Apparently everything they that they "know" about plasma redshift comes directly from Ned's outdated website that is already a decade old and counting.

Imagine for a moment that a PC/EU proponent wrote a "debunk" of a pre-dark energy "big bang' theory, based upon the original supernova data sets, and then he ranted on and on about how all big bang theories are now and forever falsified by the supernova data. Even worse, lets suppose that even years and years after the dark energy brand of BB theory was offered to him for consideration, he never updated his website and still claimed that all big bang theories were falsified by the supernova data set. That's about the useful value of Ned Wright's criticisms related to tired light/plasma redshift in 2012. He left his webpage stuck a decade in the past, with the express intent of misrepresenting the facts today. That's not the least bit honest of Ned. That's not in scientific integrity Ned. That's not even ethical behavior Ned! That's not even a smart "plan" Ned because your nonsense is now *so easy* to refute.

It's very easy to demonstrate that Ned is apparently living a decade or more in the past as it relates to PC theory and plasma redshift theory. Evidently that is also true of the entire field of astronomy since they all seem to believe exactly what Ned tells them to believe, and apparently Ned has no intention of 'cluing them in' to more 'modern' tired light proposals.

FYI, thanks for the video. I got through about half the video before it got busy at work. You're right, it was already sounding ridiculously silly just listening to him try to explain basic BB theory and all the 'stuff' that had to be added to it. I find it *so* hard to listen to that kind of nonsense anymore. It just sounds so absurdly silly to me now to hear them talk about inflation and dark energy and the expansion of "space" (physically undefined no less). It just sounds ridiculous to me, particularly after doing a bit of research into plasma redshift. The more I'm learning about plasma physics and plasma redshift, the more ridiculous BB theory sounds to me.

[viscount aero]

I'd recommend you watch the rest, at least to the part where he gets into "branes" and how that is now incorporated into the "cyclical universe" (which is an old theory revisited). He is a physicist who holds patents and has authored several books. I just find it interesting that he believes in what he does about the Universe. It was like watching a lecture on Creationism after a point. With quantum physics anything can be possible I imagine. But where does science merge with pure fantasy?

Yes, it's hilarious that all of the plasma/EU debunking in question relates back to highly outdated material from one guy. Thank you for opening my eyes to that. That is valuable ammunition.

[Michael Mozina]

I'd recommend you watch the rest, at least to the part where he gets into "branes" and how that is now incorporated into the "cyclical universe" (which is an old theory revisited). He is a physicist who holds patents and has authored several books. I just find it interesting that he believes in what he does about the Universe. It was like watching a lecture on Creationism after a point. With quantum physics anything can be possible I imagine. But where does science merge with pure fantasy?

You're right, it got weirder and less believable as it went. I especially loved where he claimed they have "overwhelming evidence" for expansion, which apparently is all predicated upon the correctness of Ned's ancient website. I also loved around 1:17:30 when he talks about the branes "coming together" and changing the laws of physics. You'll also note that the claimed that gravity would attract the branes together, but then his branes only come together again *after* his brand of "dark energy" spreads out all the mass evenly. If PC/EU theory were currently the "mainstream position", nobody in their right mind would listen to that nonsense. If you think about it for a second, they need 7 extra dimensions of time and space to "simplify" their inflation theory, and the odds of inflation theory being correct according to Penrose were already 10 to the 100th power! Now they need 7 more dimensions to "simplify" their theory? Wow.

Of course you can replace dark energy, inflation theory and M-theory with simply plasma physics. I guess empirical physics just isn't that "fun" for them.

I did appreciate the fact that he discussed the emotional attachment they form to their pet theories as they develop them over time. That's why they have such a tough time with empirical physics. It's just no "fun", they can't be as "creative" when they feel like ignoring laws of physics, and works with only a mere 3 dimensions, plus time. That's just too mathematically boring to them I suppose.

Oh ya, and apparently we're just supposed to ignore the fact that SUSY theories bit the dust at LHC last year, but that's another story, and it probably occurred *after* he made that video.

[viscount aero]

You're right, it got weirder and less believable as it went. I especially loved where he claimed they have "overwhelming evidence" for expansion, which apparently is all predicated upon the correctness of Ned's ancient website.

Yes. Initially it seemed to be a standard theory lecture, and the title of the video belied what was to come. As it went on, it introduced some interesting ideas, some I had heard versions of before. But then.... it went into overdrive. I watched the rest of it out of pure entertainment to see what current "avante garde" ideas have been let out into the culture.

I also loved around 1:17:30 when he talks about the branes "coming together" and changing the laws of physics. You'll also note that the claimed that gravity would attract the branes together, but then his branes only come together again *after* his brand of "dark energy" spreads out all the mass evenly.

Right. And the seriousness of his tone, a matter-of-fact delivery, borders on laughable. Once he began talking about the "bubbles of reality" and then the "Branes" that must "change the laws of physics" I began realizing it was a fruitcake lecture, like going to see the "Bearded Woman" attraction at the county fair. Yet this kind of thinking is considered progressive-minded and ok even though it is based upon layers, miles, of assumptions and permanently unverifiable principles.

If PC/EU theory were currently the "mainstream position", nobody in their right mind would listen to that nonsense. If you think about it for a second, they need 7 extra dimensions of time and space to "simplify" their inflation theory, and the odds of inflation theory being correct according to Penrose were already 10 to the 100th power! Now they need 7 more dimensions to "simplify" their theory? Wow.

LOL! Yes the bit about the extra dimensions, something that has been re-stated/re-tried/re-packaged over the years is empirically taken seriously still today. I am quite open to "parallel realities" in a paranormal sense, based on personal experience. However, how are 7 extra (so-called) "dimensions" verifiable to the extent that a physics can be seriously based upon that reasoning? (I have read as much as "11 dimensions" are alleged to "exist")

Of course you can replace dark energy, inflation theory and M-theory with simply plasma physics. I guess empirical physics just isn't that "fun" for them.

Good way to put it, agree.

I did appreciate the fact that he discussed the emotional attachment they form to their pet theories as they develop them over time. That's why they have such a tough time with empirical physics. It's just no "fun", they can't be as "creative" when they feel like ignoring laws of physics, and works with only a mere 3 dimensions, plus time. That's just too mathematically boring to them I suppose.

Right.

Oh ya, and apparently we're just supposed to ignore the fact that SUSY theories bit the dust at LHC last year, but that's another story, and it probably occurred *after* he made that video.

Thanks for mentioning that by the way.

see:
http://www.science20.com/quantum_diarie ... arch-89761

[saul]

Thanks OP for this thread and other posters for the discussion

Has anybody looked at what this means for Quasars or other intrinsically high redshift objects, that is if we assume these things exist a la Arp et al.?

[Michael Mozina]

Thanks OP for this thread and other posters for the discussion

Has anybody looked at what this means for Quasars or other intrinsically high redshift objects, that is if we assume these things exist a la Arp et al.?

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v56/i13/p1370_1
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

As far back as 1986, Emil Wolf was applying the Wolf effect to quasars. There still seems to be quite a bit of interest in that topic even all these years later. IMO that's probably your best bet.

Keep in mind that Holushko's work is a "generic" application of *all* tired light/plasma redshift mechanisms. It could be further refined over time to include specific redshift effects for specific objects/circumstances. Holushko's paper scares the hell out of the mainstream by they way. I've yet to have anyone pick out any flaws in his work, and I've yet to see anyone take any serious swipes at it yet. I think Holushko's generic approach is a "strong" approach because it benefits from every form of plasma redshift we discover. The mainsteam can't even tell us a source of dark energy, and Holushko's work demonstrates why. They left off important features of plasma physics from Lambda-CDM theory, specifically they forgot about signal broadening and plasma redshift. Since they didn't include these known features of plasma physics, they need placeholder terms for human ignorance, specifically their ignorance of plasma redshift.