http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_scattering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_inelastic_scattering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brillouin_scattering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_scattering
I don't often visit JREF since my virtual lynching, and I typically don't feel compelled to respond to any of that nonsense, but I did happen to just read this particular post today. Some of the comments about inelastic scattering are worth discussing on this forum IMO, particularly as it relates to to the *various types* of inelastic scattering and how they may *all* relate to cosmology theory in various ways.
http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news ... so?id=8364Icebear, I have read the actual experimental article that your ViXrA link attempts to analyze. The experiments are reasonable, but the ViXrA interpretation is completely moronic. If you plug in the numbers, the effect that Chen observes disproves the use of Stark shifts to match the Arp model---by showing
(a) that the line shift is NOT simply proportional to wavelength (as with observed redshifts) but has some different value for every atom and every atomic line,
The mainstream *assumes* that every wavelength of light traverses spacetime at exactly the same speed, and that all redshift of every photon is exactly the same, regardless of wavelength. There's already evidence that this is not the case when looking at the time delays of the highest energy gamma rays in comparison to the travel times of the lower energy gamma rays. The only "rebuttal' papers I've seen to the MAGIC findings was one paper about one "somewhat higher* energy gamma ray photon that was observed by Fermi. The Fermi paper was one of those dozen name+ papers where they tried *really hard* to poke holes in the Magic findings.
There were two key problems in that Fermi paper however. The first problem and the most glaring problem was the fact that the one photon that was seen by Fermi was *significantly less energetic* than the ones seen by MAGIC. In fact, if you extrapolate the MAGIC data over the gamma ray spectrum they looked at, the MAGIC data doesn't even necessarily *predict* that Fermi *would* observe a time lag, certainly not as large of a time lag as seen by the MAGIC study. The second huge problem with the FERMI study was the fact that there were something like 7 total gamma ray spikes that were seen by Fermi during the timeline in question, and that one higher energy photon could have come from *any* of them, not necessarily the last one as they *assumed*. The third glaring problem in the Fermi study was the fact that *even if* we ignore the first two problems, there was *still* something like a .9 second delay between the gamma ray spike and the high energy photon. They "swept' that last problem under the carpet by trying to claim that it was a "delay at the source".
I do not believe that we should simply assume that all wavelengths of light must travel through the plasmas of spacetime at exactly the same speed, nor should we assume that every wavelength will be redshifted equally, particularly as we loo at higher energy wavelengths. This is a *claim* that is made by the mainstream, but it applies to only limited part of the electromagnetic spectrum that we've analyzed to date.
http://www.holushko.net/tiredlight.html
One of the interesting and unique predictions that comes from Holushko's work with 'signal broadening in plasma' is that it *is* possible that various wavelengths traverse the plasma medium at different rates, and the MAGIC data does tend to support that idea at the moment.
Arp's work is better supported with the Wolf Effect IMO. Ben was right about the need for a local effect of a redshift around a dense object.(b) that the effect is tiny, whereas Arp's speculations need a huge effect, and
(c) that the effect is pressure and temperature dependent, while Arp's cosmology would have needed some "regional" effect that applies equally to (dense) stars, (near-vacuum) interstellar gas clouds, and (medium-density) quasars.
I'd tend to say that Brynjolfsson's work, Ashmore's work and that paper by Holushko are better suited to explaining cosmological redshift, and signal broadening in plasma over a large distance, rather than explaining redshift that is associated with quasars. As I said, I think the Wolf effect might be a better option.
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Wolf_effect
It's not altogether clear *which* (they probably all contribute) forms of inelastic scattering are *most* responsible for various redshifts that we see in spacetime. They may all play a role in cosmological redshift, and some may play more of a role around heavy objects and heavily electrified objects.(d) that the plasma effect causes both line shifts and line broadening, proving that it can't be responsible for cosmological redshifts, where we see redshifts in narrow lines, whose absence of broadening shows that the electron density is low.
What should be noted here is that the mainstream has *never* done any sort of exhaustive study on various inelastic scattering methods. Furthermore they do not include *any* effects from *any* type of inelastic scattering in plasma. For Brilliouin scattering to have no effect whatseover on any photon that reaches Earth, every photon that reaches Earth would have *necessarily* dodged and weaved their way around every single temperature gradient as well as every single EM field gradient in spacetime to arrive on Earth completely unscathed. Talk about believing in miracles!
The two key weaknesses of Lambda-CDM is that it includes *no* room for ordinary inelastic scattering in a mostly plasma universe, and it includes *no* EM field effects of a mostly plasma universe.
