The empirical physics error that resulted in a creation myth

[Michael Mozina]

After a recent conversation on another forum, it's quite clear that a single very *simple* physics error on the part of present day astronomers has resulted in the dogmatic institutionalization of a whole supernatural creation mythology. Even worse, their creation mythos requires the addition of at least four supernatural constructs to fix that one very simple empirical physics error.

In the *real* world, of *real* plasma and *real* photons, in *real* labs, inelastic scattering happens. Chen even went so far as to demonstrate an empirical connection between the number of free electrons that are present in the plasma, and the amount of redshift that he observed in his experiments. There are actually several different types of inelastic scattering that have been demonstrated to have an empirical effect on photon momentum as they traverse a dusty plasma medium over millions and billions of light years.

The mainstream *should have* included some distance/redshift "adjustment" for overall scattering effects of light through plasma since that is what we observe in the lab. They didn't do that. Not only didn't they include *real* empirical physics process that must be accounted for, they want us to instead believe that photons reaching Earth are *magic*! Somehow these mystical magical photons managed to weave and dodge their way around every single temperature gradient, every single EM field gradient, every EM field around every charged particle, and every actual particle too, for *billions* of light years, without *ever* experiencing any amount of inelastic scattering through that plasma medium.

Think about that "assumption" for a moment. There's a complete detachment from empirical lab tested plasma physics and a complete detachment from physical realitythat is required to believe that every photon from every galaxy is magically "pristine" and devoid of any amount of momentum loss to the plasma medium through which it has traveled. Even in the *lab* on Earth we know that this is not the way that light propagates through a plasma medium. Photons in the lab lose momentum to the plasma medium. We can only "simulate" cosmological distances by cranking up the density of the plasma, and Chen has already showed that there is a relationship between charged particle density and redshift. There's really nothing more that anyone might do to demonstrate the *actual* likely empirical cause of photon redshift over distance than has already been done for inelastic scattering processes in plasma.

The real "evidence" that this is the mainstream's actual "error" is the fact that when *asked for a published paper* that actually demonstrates that inelastic scattering can be entirely ruled out as having any influence on cosmological redshift, they have but a single reference. It's a *single* paper that was written by Zwicky in 1929, in which Zwicky "kinda" ruled out Compton scattering, from being the *entire* cause of the redshift phenomenon. There isn't any other published paper written by the mainstream that addresses *any other* type of inelastic scattering and cosmological redshift, nor any combo options, or anything of the sort that has been written about since 1929! Think about that for a moment. How man dark energy papers have been written about that could be replaced with just *some* amount of inelastic scattering?'

The irony of ironies is that this one paper they can cite is the very same paper where Zwicky was proposing his *own* type of "tired light" solution based on GR theory, where the "pull of the galaxy that is being left behind" ultimately slows down the photon over distance.

In other words, they are forced to cite one "tired light" paper to try to eliminate the potential for any other type of "tired light'" solution to the problem. How funny is that?

Whereas Edwin Hubble as late as 1947 left open the possibility for a tired light solution to the redshift phenomenon, the mainstream has dogmatically *refused* to even consider the possibility of ordinary processes in plasma as being responsible for that phenomenon.

Instead of *fixing* their cosmological equations based on ordinary and basic scattering and ordinary physics, the supposedly 'fix" the problem by adding in three (and ultimately four) different *supernatural* constructs.

Instead of fixing their oversight of the effects of inelastic scattering in plasma, they compounded the problem by adding in four unique "leaps of faith" in processes that have *never* been seen in labs on Earth:

A) "Expanding space" because ordinary object movement wouldn't work to fix their error!
B) "Inflation" (which supposedly starts the "expanding space" process in motion)
C) "Dark energy" (Not even a *tiny* bit of inelastic scattering can be accepted as an alternative)

Now of course since they have obligated themselves to switching from a potentially static universe to an 'expanding space' universe, and they are emotionally attached to their nucleosynthesis "predictions", they must also add yet another exotic supernatural form of matter to the mix, or the house of supernatural mathematical cards will fall.

So there you have it. The mainstream made a simple and bonehead error by completely neglecting the amount of scattering taking place in spacetime. Instead of *fixing* that obvious empirical error which lab experiments conclusively demonstrate, they instead choose to *compound* their first error by adding in three *more* pure "acts of faith" to the mix, and added yet another supernatural dark matter cherry on top to make the math work out in their supposed favor. Give me a break.

When you take a look at the photon redshift phenomenon honestly, it's pretty obvious that the most likely 'cause' of that phenomenon is ordinary inelastic scattering processes in plasma as we observe in labs here on Earth.

When confronted with that fact, I hear three basic handwaves:

1) Distant galaxies aren't blurry - But they can never produce a picture of Z>10 redshift galaxy that isn't "blurry".
2) Inelastic scattering has been ruled out: Apparently this was all accomplished by one superhero named Zwicky in 1929, even though Zwicky never even considered *most* types of inelastic scattering, or combo options, and he was *selling* his own "tired light" theory to boot!
3) Ned Wright is the unpublished demi-god on all topics related to "tired light", who like every other astronomer on the planet can apparently only cite reference number 2 (Zwicky) as his sole published reference to support his claims.

That's their entire argument against inelastic scattering in a nutshell. In almost 90 years they haven't done *squat* in terms of factoring in *any* logical amount of inelastic scattering to their equations. Instead they invented a whole host of supernatural elements and turned the whole thing into a supernatural creation mythos! Oy Vey.

One simple error, and four supernatural forms of gap filler are all the result of that one simple error.

[D_Archer]

Hi Michael,

Hear hear, well said.

Do you have a link to a (the) paper of Chen about this for me?

Regards,
Daniel

ps. I did find this paper interesting, it lists 60 "mechanisms" for redshift > http://www.marmet.org/cosmology/redshift/mechanisms.pdf

[Michael Mozina]

Hi Michael,

Hear hear, well said.

Do you have a link to a (the) paper of Chen about this for me?

Regards,
Daniel

ps. I did find this paper interesting, it lists 60 "mechanisms" for redshift > http://www.marmet.org/cosmology/redshift/mechanisms.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 2608000089

I also found this paper recently which is based upon photon/photon interactions in a cosmological setting:

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInfor ... erID=53652

[Zyxzevn]

Michael, you make good points here.

Even if I would fully believe in an expanding universe, I would want to know
how the redshift-data is corrupted by possible other means of redshift.
And some of it can be proven in a laboratory.
This is far more interesting than dark-energy or other nonsense.
Space is clearly not empty at all, and this has influence on all observations.

This means that mainstream astronomy is using corrupt data.

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, you make good points here.

Even if I would fully believe in an expanding universe, I would want to know
how the redshift-data is corrupted by possible other means of redshift.
And some of it can be proven in a laboratory.
This is far more interesting than dark-energy or other nonsense.
Space is clearly not empty at all, and this has influence on all observations.

This means that mainstream astronomy is using corrupt data.

IMO the whole problem stems from their gross underestimation of the density of spacetime itself, and the way they simply ignore all photon/EM field interactions. Astronomers have long treated space as a more or less an empty "vacuum". It's actually filled with thin plasma. Birkeland was one of the first individuals to "predict" that most of the mass of a galaxy would be found in the particles *between* stars, and he provided a way to "explain" what that's the case.

One of the "revelations" of the past decade was this little bombshell:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/gall ... as-bright/

Astronomers have long known that interstellar dust—microscopic grains made of carbon and silica—obscures starlight by soaking it up and reradiating it as infrared. They estimated that dust might block about 10 percent of the total light in the universe. It looks like they were way, way off. In a new study, a team of European astronomers exploited the observation that dust builds up in the plane of a galaxy, not its center, meaning it blocks more light when galaxies are viewed edge on. So they tallied the number of galaxies visible either edge on or face on in the 10,000-galaxy-strong Millennium Galaxy Catalogue. Edge-on galaxies were less common than face-on galaxies by a whopping 70 percent, they report in May 10's The Astrophysical Journal Letters. Combined with models of dust distribution, the result suggests that dust blocks nearly half the light in the universe.

The mainstream has consistently and systematically miscalculated the effects of scattering of starlight. In fact this specific revelation took place *after* their dubious "proof of dark matter" claim from 2006. The mainstream simply doesn't want to embrace empirical lab tested physics, hence their emotional and mathematical need for three different supernatural claims, all of which defy empirical laboratory support.

The entire space expansion/acceleration claim is a completely *untestable* claim here on Earth to start with because space never does any magical expansion tricks around mass. That's also why their *gross underestimation* of the density of spacetime is so damning. The moment you add real plasma between galaxies, the "magic" of space expansion becomes impossible. They need "space" to somehow reach a "critical mass/energy density" in order for the magic to happen, but if space isn't actually 'empty', it can't do it's magic expansion trick.

[Michael Mozina]

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?3,1079526

[Author: brett z ()
Date: November 25, 2016 02:02PM
There are some good points in this post! But I don't agree with several aspects.

The real "evidence" that this is the mainstream's actual "error" is the fact that when *asked for a published paper* that actually demonstrates that inelastic scattering can be entirely ruled out as having any influence on cosmological redshift, they have but a single reference.

Firstly, to prove that “something can be entirely ruled out as having any influence” is not a reasonable request IMO. (See more below).

In this particular case, I do think it's a very reasonable request, particularly since inelastic scattering is a *known cause* of photon redshift in the lab, whereas both "space expansion" and "dark energy" claims are pure "acts of faith" in processes which do *not* occur in labs on Earth. In other words, *before* proposing *extraordinary* claims, the ordinary ones should have been systematically ruled out *first*. Otherwise the "evidence" for "space expansion" and "dark energy" become nothing more than an affirming the consequent fallacies based upon a *supernatural* process which never happens on Earth. They haven't even provided *ordinary* evidence to demonstrate that they need an *extraordinary* form of energy to fill in the gaps. Even a tiny bit of inelastic scattering would do away with any need of "dark energy", and with enough influence, *all* photon redshift may simply be a form of inelastic scattering, and we may in fact live in a static universe.

We can't even "test" the dark energy claim via controlled experimentation because space doesn't do magic expansion tricks in the lab, let alone acceleration tricks. LCDM proponents cannot even name an actual physical source of "dark energy" to begin with, so controlled experimentation is currently impossible.

Secondly, no physical model is perfect, since no model can possibly model reality with same resolution as reality itself.

Let's start with a logical definition of "reality". Here on Earth the "reality' is that inelastic scattering does have a tangible physical effect on a photon. Here on Earth however "space" doesn't do any magical expansion tricks nor does it have any tangible effect on a photon. The concept of "space expansion" isn't therefore a "reality", it's a *hypothetical* concept entirely. Keep in mind that since *ordinary* processes can explain the photon redshift phenomenon, it's not even necessary to propose "extraordinary" solutions to that problem in the first place.

In practice models that are the least complicated are sometimes the most useful to solve difficult problems, making them tractable to utilize for computations. It is very common to have an idealized model that purposefully leaves out as many details as possible, to focus on some specific area(s) of interest. Over time, with enough observations, tests, and experience, it becomes more clear how to productively use and the model to correctly solve properly scoped problems.

It's not clear that big bang models have ever properly "scoped" the problem in the first place. Since BB theory is predicated upon the predicted that redshift is related to expansion, they originally predicted that the universe would slow down over time as a result of that "expansion/redshift" relationship. Instead of observing any kind of "slowing down" processes in SN1A data sets, their model required yet *another* supernatural "fix" to that *failed prediction*. That is how we ended up with 70% "dark energy" in fact. They *should have* reexamined their proposed "cause" mechanism for photon redshift, specifically the claim of "space expansion". They didn't do that. Instead they doubled down on the first claim and used an ad hoc "fix" to work around the original falsified prediction. How was that "productive" exactly?

In this vein, I am very confident that the cosmological models still need plenty more observations, tests, experience, and iteration before they approach something like effectiveness to handle the MOST vast scope we could possibly aim for. These models have been around only the thinnest slice of time.

BB theory has been the dominant theory of cosmology for my entire lifetime and I'm no spring chicken. To date, nobody on Earth can name a single physics source of "dark energy" and every "test" of exotic matter theory has been a complete failure.

Thirdly, despite their imperfections, the current cosmological models are amazing accomplishments.

It would help me if you could explain exactly what "accomplishments" that you believe to be related to cosmology theory as it relates to your (or my) daily life. I'll grant you that our accomplishments inside of our own solar system are pretty impressive, but that is all based upon standard physics. Thus far at least "dark energy" and "dark matter" and 95 percent of cosmology claim have been of no useful value here on Earth.

I'm confused about what exactly you believe to be an "accomplishment" of cosmology theory.

We can discuss specific aspects in specifics ways that suggest specific future explorations. Every imperfection in the model is not a blow against “mainstream” science. People who expect perfect models ask for the impossible. Further, if the model is eventually replaced with better ones, that means the model was amazing, stupendously successful in the pursuit of knowledge.

I'm not really asking for "perfection", just something useful. When you use the term "knowledge", I actually cringe. I really see no "knowledge" associated with 95 percent of LCDM theory, I see *hypothetical concepts* that have no tangible effect on real photons in "reality" here on Earth. I'd feel completely different if "dark matter" had actually shown up in the experiments they built and I helped pay for, but nothing of the sort happened. Their "predictions" turned out to be completely useless in the lab.

Back to the opening matter, the goal of researchers hypothesizing inelastic scattering as being included in the model need to produce a positive result. To demonstrate the updated model via peer reviewed paper, as applied to observed telescope data, and with supporting evidence. If the assertions are correct, it is possible to produce a peer reviewed paper, and also to fight through any opposition, even if that is difficult (that is the burden of a new paradigm).

I need to point out that "tired light" alternatives to "space expansion" to explain photon redshift have been around since the time of Edwin Hubble. In fact Hubble himself never actually ruled out "tired light" explanations of photon redshift. It's not really a "new paradigm" as you seem to suggest. Even Zwicky proposed a tired light alternative to that phenomenon.

FYI, there are in fact some peer reviewed "tests" of the "tired light" concept, and the tired light concept passes the same kinds of mathematical tests as space expansion claims:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.0003
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... /2/96/meta

These are actually very complicated tests and a static universe/tired light cosmological model passes those very same tests *without* the need for supernatural constructs galore.

In fact, the mainstream has a problem with the Tolman surface brightness test at larger redshifts, whereas a static universe concept passes those tests with flying colors:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1405/1405.0275.pdf

The inelastic scattering idea might be a ticket to much better models than we have now, but it needs to be shown as such and specifically how!

brett

I agree with you wholeheartedly that additional work is necessary to confirm the static universe hypothesis, but there is already *more* empirical cause/effect support for inelastic scattering as a probable "cause" of photon redshift than exists for "space expansion". Doesn't that count for something?

[Michael Mozina]

The more I think about this topic, the more I realize that the mainstream has completely deviated from empirical physics, and they are completely detached from reality in general.

In *real* labs (reality), we observe a loss of momentum to the *medium*. In the case of scattering, you're losing momentum to the plasma. In the case of the last paper I cited, the photons transfer momentum to other photons and presumably (virtual) photons associated with EM fields in the medium. Any momentum lost by the photon is simply transferred to the medium, and the conservation of energy laws are satisfied, respected, and accounted for.

In the case of "space expansion" and "dark energy", the mainstream is violating the conservation of energy laws. Somehow 'dark energy' magically remains constant over multiple exponential increases in volume. Their model makes *zero* attempt to satisfy conservation of energy laws over time.

More damning however are the lab results themselves. In the lab we *observe* a lost of momentum of the photon over time and distance as it passes through more and more of the medium over time and transfers some of it's momentum to the medium as it interacts with the medium.

The mainstream *should have* included this known influence of plasma on photons. They never did. They essentially buried their empirical head in the sand and "pretended" like those empirical processes can simply be ignored in space. That's not even a rational premise to begin with.

The fact they included *zero* influence of the medium on the photon shows a complete detachment from reality. That's not even *feasible* or logical to begin with. We would *expect* that the same processes that apply to light traveling through plasma on Earth would also apply to light traveling through plasma in spacetime. They botched the physics so badly that they are completely detached from reality. Their universe isn't 'real', it's "imaginary'. It's an imaginary place where photons weave and dodge their way around every EM field and temperature gradient in spacetime to arrive at Earth in a perfectly "pristine" state. It's an imaginary universe where are "laws" of physics don't apply, and don't matter. It's an imaginary universe where invisible stuff makes up 95 percent of their fictitious universe, 70 percent of which could be replaced with even a *tiny* amount of momentum loss to the medium.

The LCDM models isn't really even a "scientific" model because it's unfalsifiable to begin with. Space doesn't do any magical expansion tricks in labs on Earth, so "faith" is required from day one. Photons in real labs on Earth interact with the plasma medium, and they lose momentum to the medium. Only in an imaginary universe could the mainstream simply ignore that fact.

[Metryq]

@Michael, I'm just an armchair science fan, so forgive me if my ignorance is showing. You've used the term "spacetime" several times. I thought that was a concept exclusive to Einsteinian Relativity.

I think I understand your arguments—concerning space not being a "hard" vacuum—but is it appropriate to use the term "spacetime"?

[Michael Mozina]

@Michael, I'm just an armchair science fan, so forgive me if my ignorance is showing. You've used the term "spacetime" several times. I thought that was a concept exclusive to Einsteinian Relativity.

The term "spacetime" does originate in GR, and it implies time is a variable that can change depending on one's proximity to matter. I tend to prefer to model gravity via GR. I think that it's a mistake for the EU/PC community to distance themselves from GR. GR theory doesn't *require* space expansion, dark energy, exotic forms of matter, inflation, infinitely dense objects, or any of that superfluous nonsense. Without such irrelevant junk, GR theory is pretty good way to mathematically model gravity IMO.

I think I understand your arguments—concerning space not being a "hard" vacuum—but is it appropriate to use the term "spacetime"?

Sure. As I said, GR doesn't require an empty vacuum, and it can be applied to a static universe concept as well as it can be applied to an expanding or contracting cosmology model. While LCDM theory *requires* GR theory to be correct, the reverse is absolutely not true. GR theory works fine without all the mainstream supernatural nonsense.

The EU/PC community is actively in search of a QM oriented model of gravity that ties EM fields and gravity together. I'm certainly open to that concept as well, but thus far I tend to prefer GR over other mathematical models for gravity.

[Metryq]

Without such irrelevant junk, GR theory is pretty good way to mathematically model gravity IMO.

"Irrelevant junk," that's funny.

Thanks, Michael. It's over my pay grade, so I can't have any opinion on the math. But I could never accept the "space itself warps" idea. How can a conceptual axis of measurement "warp"? Sounds like olde fashioned aether to me. In which case, the bending of starlight is just refraction, as suggested by PC/EU and Tom Van Flandern's LCM. So isn't Einsteinian Relativity already introducing its own measure of supernatural before the rest of the establishment starts piling on? And isn't "spacetime" tied to a speed of light universal limit? Causality, simultaneity and all that? Tom Van Flandern's "speed of sound" universe analogy made a lot of sense to me.

[Justatruthseeker]

That's because cosmological redshift is due to inelastic scattering and has nothing to do with the magical expansion of a nothing called spacetime.

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

[celeste]

After a recent conversation on another forum, it's quite clear that a single very *simple* physics error on the part of present day astronomers has resulted in the dogmatic institutionalization of a whole supernatural creation mythology.
....
The real "evidence" that this is the mainstream's actual "error" is the fact that when *asked for a published paper* that actually demonstrates that inelastic scattering can be entirely ruled out as having any influence on cosmological redshift, they have but a single reference. It's a *single* paper that was written by Zwicky in 1929ultimately slows down the photon over distance.

It was not just an error, but part of a deliberate lie. http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/3021/1/zwicky.pdf
In 1946 he wrote: "The world of today is in a state of disorder
which is in conspicuous contrast to the avowed purposes
of man . . . the teachings of science, of education, and of
religion seem to have become lost in an elaborate system
of hypocrisy in which there is little relation between words
and actions."

This sounds noble enough. He just wants to make sure we are all on the same side with one consistent world view. A world view where our religious ideas match or scientific ideas,etc. What's more he helps to get books to everyone (same article),not just the allies, but our "former enemies".

1946 was just after WW2. Just remember, it was in Germany going into WW2, where we had a revival of "pagan" ideas such as an eternal cycling universe,rather than a universe created in the beginning by God. Zwicky (like others scientists sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation), was just going to help make sure everyone was on the same religious and scientific page. We know which side won, and which world view it would be.

Interestingly a guy named Eduard Mahler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Mahler who died in 1945 in Austria-Hungary (axis forces there too), managed to get the idea right, that we were orbiting the Pleiades. (The Pleiades is near the center of the local chimney, or filament our solar system is in). This was my introduction to this whole sordid affair. I merely asked what happened to the knowledge that these scientists had during WW2.

This is where Thunderbolts is afraid to tread. We are willling to accept that dogmatic mainstream scientists made stupid mistakes and then pigheadedly stuck to them. We are not willing to accept that after WW2 one single religious world view came to the forefront, and only the science consistent with that, would see the light of day. But this IS what happened.

[webolife]

I agree with Celeste 100%.
To keep on the rich discussions we have here, it is a concession to the modern paradigm to maintain a materialistic viewpoint, and views stirred up from a different faith base generally find their way toward the "lower" boards, such as NIAMI. Nevertheless, there are many possibilities overlooked in this concession.
Open forum discussions remain the strength of TB, imo.

[webolife]

In regard to the OP, "tired light" is a very natural conception of the data at hand, and is incorporated into my unified theory as well. Whether it is caused by interstitial plasma, neutrinos, "aetheric" particulates, or simply the angle-reducing distances of space is a good subject for ongoing discussion for the foreseeable future.

[sketch1946]

Greetings from the land of Oz
Surely our understanding of the universe, and consequently our interpretation of cosmological data, comes from two most important things, the correct understanding of the physics of our sun, and the nature of the electromagnetic wave?

If our nuclear fission model of the sun is an invalid hypothesis, and our understanding of the physics of the universe ignores plasma and the interaction of electromagnetic waves through plasma fields, then we should be back to the drawing board?

If the sun and space itself is dominated by electric fields and plasma, and not by emptiness and gravity, then almost every interpretation of cosmological science in the last century will tend to be invalid?

There are so many things that smell fishy... for example galaxies defying 'gravity' ie impossible inertial systems, blue-shifted galaxies as well as red-shifted, heliopauses, invisible energies, invisible mass, plasma ejections from the sun that go 100,000 miles into space than pull back and disappear back where they came from, cold hearts to sunspots etc etc

So to my simple understanding, the electric universe is a compelling model,
congratulations to all the open minds...

My feeling is that a re-examination of Tesla's ideas, along with re-examining the debates of Einstein and Bohr, the cosmological ideas of Velikovsky, and of course a good hard think about the PC of academia is overdue...