Redshift caused by plasma and more

[Higgsy]

Of course they are accounted for. Don't you read the literature? The most applicable scattering mechanism in highly ionised plasmas is Compton scattering. But mechanisms that rely on scattering off atoms and molecules such as Rayleigh and Raman scattering are also considered.

So what percentage of "cosmological redshift" is attributed to these various influences? 1 percent? 5 percent? 10 percent?

They don't account for cosmological redshift to any significant extent, since they occur in specific denser regions. Inelastic scattering sufficient to explain cosmological redshift would result in a universe without direct light to image objects beyond the local group.

Thomson scattering is irrelevant to redshift because it is elastic. Brillouin scattering is off phonons with a wavelength a few times the photons - not encountered very often in cosmological contexts. Both early and late Sachs-Wolfe are a sensitive probe of gravitation redshift.

I'll bite Why is the Sachs-Wolf effect a "sensitive probe of gravitational redshift" if it's a form of redshift to begin with?

My badly worded explanation and brain fart. Sachs-Wolfe causes tiny amounts of redshift which is a sensitive probe of mass concentration in the early universe.

Sunyaev-Z'eldovich is inverse Compton scattering (ie adding energy to the photons in scattering events off electrons) in very high temperature plasmas.

It's more than a tad amusing from my perspective that you think that CMB photons "pick up' energy from high temperature plasma around stars and galaxies, but they don't "lose" energy in the IGM.

Do you have any idea how tiny the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect is? It distorts the black body curve in the CMB in a characteristic way by a minute amount.

Astronomers seem to have a one sided concept of how scattering actually works. It only works the way they *want* it to work, and only in ways that help the LCDM model.

Nonsense.

All of these are used as probes for the density and constituents along the light path from the source to us. For example the Lyman-alpha forest shows where the light has passed through clouds with some hydrogen atomic content and and at what red shift. The Gunn-Peterson trough shows the redshift where atomic hydrogen is present more widely than in isolated clouds as is a probe for period of reionisation after the first stars lit up.

Yet somehow you think the Wolf Effect isn't applicable anywhere except maybe around quasars?

Non sequitur. Are you trying to suggest that Sachs-Wolfe can explain cosmological redshift? Really? (It's Sachs-Wolfe not Wolf)

There are two considerations here. The first is the resolution of optical systems. Galaxies at z=10 are a looooong way away so subtend tiny angles at or beyond the resolution limit of the telescopes. If the current space telescopes weren't instrumentally limited in resolution and light gathering, then there would be no point in launching JWST. z=10 is at the extreme resolution limit of Hubble for galaxies.
Second, beyond about z=6 the IGM is measured to be less and less ionised and more opaque to light than for z<6.

So you believe that the IGM is absorbing light, but it's not generating any significant inelastic scattering of photons?

Not absorbing - scattering. Beyond z=10, the universe becomes more opaque to direct light as there is more atomic hydrogen to scatter photons. It becomes opaque much more readily than the scattering results in significant redshift (scattering easily destroys resolution). Closer than z= 6 to 10 there is very little scattering away from filaments and galaxies. However, there is still relatively clear sight at z>10 otherwise JSWT woulkd be a waste of time.

The fundamental difference is the spectral distribution of the light. Thermal emissions follow a broad band Planck distribution and have a very short coherence time.

So why would they have a short coherence time? What's "shortening" the coherence?

Learn some optics. Or read the paper we're talking about. There's a whole appendix on the subject.

Emission times are narrow with a longer coherence time.

Besides there being *more* of some wavelengths, what exactly are you claiming limits the coherence of one type of atomic emission vs. another?

Read the paper.

If you had read and understood the paper, you would know that coherence time is a variable in Marmet's model, so emission lines give a different redshift from blackbody radiation. Marmet himself recognises this:
Emission lines, which necessarily have a much longer time of coherence than that of blackbody radiation, are also observed in the spectra of some galaxies or quasars. Their time of coherence Dt is generally much longer than that of blackbody radiation. Consequently, the emission lines due to the phenomenon described above will show a different redshift that that of the blackbody radiation.

Assuming we assign various coherence times to different types of emissions (enhanced lines vs. thermal), why would that be a problem?

They would give different redshifts to blackbody and line emissions arising from the same distance.

Please elaborate. We surely do see emission absorption patterns that are specific to the elements doing the absorbing.

Indeed we do, when the light passes through regions with relatively high atomic content, we see the Lyman alpha forest. That's already accounted for and is an absorption rather than a frequency shift mechanism. What we don't see, which his model prediccts, if frequency dependent red-shift.

But his model doesn't predict frequency dependent redshift of various emission lines,

Yes it does. Try to read and understand the paper.

Dusty? What has that to do with it?

This type of question is one of the reasons I have so little "faith" in mainstream beliefs. They're based on a wide range of dubious assumptions.

Huh? I ask you for the relevance of something you introduce, and you turn around and accuse me of dubious assumptions. So I ask you again - what has "dusty" to do with it?

But the absorption spectra across vast swathes of intergalactic space show little presence of atomic or molecular species. The intergalactic hydrogen is is almost all ionised.

That's seems to be your assumption alright, but how did you determine that?

Sigh... Do you try to understand anything you are told, or does it all just go straight over your head. Lyman alpha.

Marmet's model needs 10^4 atoms per cubic meter.

Where specifically does he state that?

In his paper, which I recommend to you.

We could have had an adult conversation about whether space expansion violates energy conservation and, if so, what are the implications, given that serious, thoughtful scientists take it seriously. I haven't even stated my position on that. But you insist on slogans such as "tossing out the laws of physics on a whim", so there is no point engaging with you on that.

Translation: You can't defend your redshift model, so you refuse to discuss it.

No, I offered to discuss it and you just spouted slogans at me. I'm not interested.

[Higgsy]

Most of these non-linear optics effects are very hard for mainstream.

All optics effects, linear or non-linear, were discovered, explored, modelled and understood by the "mainstream". The fringe guys contributed exactly zero to the science of optics.

But to give an answer:
It seems that most non-linear optical effects, like the Wolf effect, have side effects.

There you go, you see. The Wolf effect was discovered/proposed by Emil Wolf, of whom there is no-one more mainstream. He wrote the bible of optics (with Max Born).

Michael and I were talking about something completely different - the Sachs-Wolfe effect. The Wolf effect has no relevance to cosmology.

But the main problem, is that these redshifts are all non-linear.
And because physics and astronomy usually works with linear systems,
and learn to ignore the non-linear "side effects", this makes it
hard for them to understand these things.

You think physicists ignore non-linear optics? Ye Gods!

[Higgsy]

How about answering this simple question.

If the Wolf effect applies to coherent photons, why wouldn't that be a major factor in the loss of photon momentum over time/distance? Assuming that spectral lines are more coherent than black body radiation, why wouldn't they be influenced by the Wolf effect?

Hang on, are we talking the Wolf effect or the Sachs-Wolfe effect? The latter is relevant to cosmology, the former not. The former is a form of non-linear two wave mixing of coherent beams (like lasers), very limited in vacuo.

[Michael Mozina]

Of course they are accounted for. Don't you read the literature? The most applicable scattering mechanism in highly ionised plasmas is Compton scattering. But mechanisms that rely on scattering off atoms and molecules such as Rayleigh and Raman scattering are also considered.

So what percentage of "cosmological redshift" is attributed to these various influences? 1 percent? 5 percent? 10 percent?

They don't account for cosmological redshift to any significant extent, since they occur in specific denser regions. Inelastic scattering sufficient to explain cosmological redshift would result in a universe without direct light to image objects beyond the local group.

So 0 percent? You really expect me/us to believe that photons traverse billions of light years of plasma and yet magically and mysteriously *never* experience any amount of inelastic scattering? Really? How is that even remotely logical or physically possible?

My badly worded explanation and brain fart. Sachs-Wolfe causes tiny amounts of redshift which is a sensitive probe of mass concentration in the early universe.

Actually I think that was *my* confusion rather than yours. Let's try again:

https://www.plasma-universe.com/wolf-ef ... 87nature-6

Nonsense.

No, it's quite amusing actually. Somehow you think that photons can only *gain* momentum from interactions with hot plasma, and they can never *lose* momentum from interaction with cooler plasma. How does that even work? How is that not a *highly* subjective choice as to which types of inelastic scattering you choose to ignore, and which ones you choose to accept?

Non sequitur. Are you trying to suggest that Sachs-Wolfe can explain cosmological redshift? Really? (It's Sachs-Wolfe not Wolf)

You are correct about my intent to reference Wolf redshfit rather than Sachs-Wolfe redshift. There have in fact been papers published on Wolf redshift which suggest that it could explain redshift from coherent "lines". See my previous link for numerous references.

Not absorbing - scattering.

I would assume it does both actually.

Beyond z=10, the universe becomes more opaque to direct light as there is more atomic hydrogen to scatter photons. It becomes opaque much more readily than the scattering results in significant redshift (scattering easily destroys resolution). Closer than z= 6 to 10 there is very little scattering away from filaments and galaxies. However, there is still relatively clear sight at z>10 otherwise JSWT woulkd be a waste of time.

So what happens if the JWST finds 'mature' and "massive" galaxies for as far as it can see too, just like Hubble? Then what? It seems like your model is falling apart of the seams with respect to observations at high redshifts. We're constantly finding massive and mature objects that defy your model's "predictions". If that trend continues with JWST, will you ultimately let your model die a natural scientific death, or will you just dream up new and exotic ways for galaxies to form even earlier and grow more massive more quickly? Is there any actual way to *falsify* your belief that redshift is caused by expansion via a JWST image?

The fundamental difference is the spectral distribution of the light. Thermal emissions follow a broad band Planck distribution and have a very short coherence time.

So it's possible then that the Wolf effect might apply to coherent photon "lines"?

They would give different redshifts to blackbody and line emissions arising from the same distance.

Wouldn't any variation with respect to the black body emissions vs. line emission/absorption patterns just look like the object has a slightly different temperature than it actually has, or be interpreted as being at a greater distance than it actually is?

Indeed we do, when the light passes through regions with relatively high atomic content, we see the Lyman alpha forest. That's already accounted for and is an absorption rather than a frequency shift mechanism. What we don't see, which his model predicts, if frequency dependent red-shift.

Ah, but we actually do see those kinds of features and discrepancies:

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

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

.........

3.8 Different Redshift in Absorption and in Emission
It has been seen [equation 12] that radiation emitted according to Planck’s law is redshifted when it is transmitted in the forward direction through an interacting gas. Emission lines, which necessarily have a much longer time of coherence than that of blackbody radiation, are also observed in the spectra of some galaxies or quasars. Their time of coherence Dt is generally much longer than that of blackbody radiation. Consequently, the emission lines due to the phenomenon described above will show a different redshift that that of the blackbody radiation.
This agrees very well with the fact that the observed absorption redshift are different from those observed in emission for all 109 quasi-stellar objects for which absorption and emission lines (of the same object) have been measured (6). It is observed that the redshift in absorption is always larger than the one in emission.

3.9 Pairs of Quasars and Multiple Absorption Redshift
Walsh, Carswell, and Weymann (16) have recently reported the discovery of a close pair of quasars having the same absorption redshift. They argue that this is extremely improbable. However, according to the present model, a double source located inside of behind the same very thick and dense nebula must show a similar redshift.
Oke (17) has reported recently that "surprisingly" the number of quasars increases as the redshift increases. Assuming the redshift mechanism described above, it is clear that an object surrounded by an extremely large amount of gas will display an important redshift and will automatically be interpreted as being at a large distance. This might explain the apparent lack of quasars at short distances.
It is also stated by Oke (17) that in some cases, different redshifted absorption lines are observed superimposed on the spectrum of one and the same star. Quasi-stellar object 0424-131 shows (6) as many as 18 different redshifts in the same spectra. We cannot ignore that 18 stars at different temperatures and surrounded by the same amount of gas would produce such a similar effect. The same phenomenon can also explain the well-observed forest of spectral Ha lines.

How do you explain these observed dependencies with your model?

Huh? I ask you for the relevance of something you introduce, and you turn around and accuse me of dubious assumptions. So I ask you again - what has "dusty" to do with it?

Plasma is never *fully* ionized, and space is necessarily "dusty". it's therefore possible that various types of inelastic scattering take place, not just a single type of scattering.

Sigh... Do you try to understand anything you are told, or does it all just go straight over your head. Lyman alpha.

That's not necessarily going to tell us the specific percentage of ionized hydrogen vs non-ionized hydrogen. Even mainstream astronomers have been "surprised" to see h-alpha lines at distances that are further than they expected to be able to see them.

https://www.space.com/30170-most-distan ... vered.html

No, I offered to discuss it and you just spouted slogans at me. I'm not interested.

No, I simply pointed out that your model has *numerous* scientific problems, and then you simply ran and hid from every single one of those problems. It's not like the LCDM model just has *one* problem, or *two* problems but rather it has *several* of them. You've got no logical or rational explanation as to how "dark energy" remains constant throughout expansion, and you can't even name a single source of the stuff. You can't explain why it defies conservation of energy laws. You cannot empirically demonstrate (in the lab) that "space expansion" is even an actual empirical "cause" of photon redshift to start with! Your model is self conflicted with respect to the Hubble constant, and it's constantly wrong with respect to it's predictions about the sizes and maturity of objects at higher redshifts. The whole LCDM model is one gigantic falsified contradiction. You're not interested in trying to defend it because you *cannot* defend it. Period. It's a piece of metaphysical junk and we both know it.

You'll whine and complain about *minor* problems with any and all tired light models, but you won't touch the *massive* problems in your own model with a 10 foot pole because you have no rational explanation for any of them. Who do you think you're fooling? Certainly not me. I see right through your denial routine. If you had rational explanations for the points I've raised you would have provided them. Since you don't have any such explanations to offer, you're avoiding the topic altogether! The bottom line is that you haven't offered a valid scientific alternative to tired light models in the first place, and you can't offer such an alternative without grossly violating the conservation of energy laws. That's why you won't discuss it.

[Higgsy]

They don't account for cosmological redshift to any significant extent, since they occur in specific denser regions. Inelastic scattering sufficient to explain cosmological redshift would result in a universe without direct light to image objects beyond the local group.

So 0 percent? You really expect me/us to believe that photons traverse billions of light years of plasma and yet magically and mysteriously *never* experience any amount of inelastic scattering? Really? How is that even remotely logical or physically possible?

Read what I wrote. I'll just repeat it: "They don't account for cosmological redshift to any significant extent". I didn't say zero. As I have pointed out several times, inelastic scattering sufficient to explain redshift would result in a universe without direct light. We wouldn't be able to see beyond the local group. That is a fatal observation for the hypotheisis that inelastic scattering explains redshift. It's a dead idea.

You are correct about my intent to reference Wolf redshfit rather than Sachs-Wolfe redshift. There have in fact been papers published on Wolf redshift which suggest that it could explain redshift from coherent "lines". See my previous link for numerous references.

Ah - OK, the Wolf effect. It is a rather clever hypothesis, but hasn't been demonstrated cosmologically. In any case it is irrelevant to cosmological redshift as it only occurs in non-Lambertian coherent emitters (i.e. narrow beams of light being emitted from spatially coherent sources)

Beyond z=10, the universe becomes more opaque to direct light as there is more atomic hydrogen to scatter photons. It becomes opaque much more readily than the scattering results in significant redshift (scattering easily destroys resolution). Closer than z= 6 to 10 there is very little scattering away from filaments and galaxies. However, there is still relatively clear sight at z>10 otherwise JSWT would be a waste of time.

So what happens if the JWST finds 'mature' and "massive" galaxies for as far as it can see too, just like Hubble? Then what?

Then the findings are assessed and if they require a modification to the model, then that happens. You know, the way physics works.

It seems like your model is falling apart of the seams with respect to observations at high redshifts.

Only in your mind. And in the sensationalist popular press. The formation of galaxies is earlier than was thought, but that is not a defining feature of LCDM, so the galaxy forming model needs to be adjusted to accomodate the observations. Galaxies at what redshift do you think would invalidate LCDM?

The fundamental difference is the spectral distribution of the light. Thermal emissions follow a broad band Planck distribution and have a very short coherence time.

So it's possible then that the Wolf effect might apply to coherent photon "lines"?

No because stars are Lambertian emitters. It could apply to quasars.

They would give different redshifts to blackbody and line emissions arising from the same distance.

Wouldn't any variation with respect to the black body emissions vs. line emission/absorption patterns just look like the object has a slightly different temperature than it actually has, or be interpreted as being at a greater distance than it actually is?

No. It would give discordant redshifts.

Indeed we do, when the light passes through regions with relatively high atomic content, we see the Lyman alpha forest. That's already accounted for and is an absorption rather than a frequency shift mechanism. What we don't see, which his model predicts, if frequency dependent red-shift.

Ah, but we actually do see those kinds of features and discrepancies:

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

3.5 Binary Stars
Since it is difficult to distinguish a Doppler redshift from the new redshift described above, one must look for special circumstances where the Doppler component of the phenomenon can be clearly identified. An ideal case is seen in binary stars...

The references in 3.5 are to ancient papers which I cannot find - I don't believe that there are up-to-date observations of binaries with the sort of anomalies that he claims.

3.8 Different Redshift in Absorption and in Emission
It has been seen [equation 12] that radiation emitted according to Planck’s law is redshifted when it is transmitted in the forward direction through an interacting gas...

Of course there is a different redshift for the absorption lines than the emission lines. Duh. The redshift for emission is the quasar itself, the redshift for absorption is the redshift of an absorbing medium between the quasar and observation, which, necessarily, will have a lower redshift than the emission lines. In the 1987 (updated) version of the reference, there are very few absorption redshifts, but those that exist often have multiple redshifts for a single object: eg UM253 has emission of z=2.222 and absorption of z=2.0251, 2.0082, 1.9984, 1.7334, and 1.2267 corresponding to absorption at those redshifts (the same mechanism that gives rise to the Lyman alpha forest).

3.9 Pairs of Quasars and Multiple Absorption Redshift

See above.

Huh? I ask you for the relevance of something you introduce, and you turn around and accuse me of dubious assumptions. So I ask you again - what has "dusty" to do with it?

Plasma is never *fully* ionized, and space is necessarily "dusty". it's therefore possible that various types of inelastic scattering take place, not just a single type of scattering.

So dusty = various sorts of inelastic scattering? Like what?

Sigh... Do you try to understand anything you are told, or does it all just go straight over your head. Lyman alpha.

That's not necessarily going to tell us the specific percentage of ionized hydrogen vs non-ionized hydrogen. Even mainstream astronomers have been "surprised" to see h-alpha lines at distances that are further than they expected to be able to see them.

So what? The point is that small quantities of atomic hydrogen are detectable by Lyman alpha absorption, so we can see where that is occurring and abandon hypotheses that rely on non-existent atomic hydrogen. Like Marmet's.

https://www.space.com/30170-most-distan ... vered.html

Huh? That is about Lyman alpha emission not absorption and is totally irrelevant to the point. Why do you bring up these completely irrelevant links?

[Michael Mozina]

Read what I wrote. I'll just repeat it: "They don't account for cosmological redshift to any significant extent". I didn't say zero.

How much then? 1 percent? 10 percent? 20? Can you cite any papers that even attempt to quantify it's overall effect percentage wise, or is it just ignored for all practical purposes in the LCDM model?

As I have pointed out several times, inelastic scattering sufficient to explain redshift would result in a universe without direct light.

But that's not true in *all* tired light models, or even true of the Wolf effect. Furthermore, no violations of conservation of energy are required, nor any metaphysical entities. That also brings up a key problem with your modal:

https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/php ... ?f=3&t=239

In light of your five sigma "problem" with the Hubble constant, and the fact it can't be "fixed" with more metaphysical nonsense, but *can* be resolved with ordinary density differences in space, why not "fix" your dark energy problem with density variation at the same time?

We wouldn't be able to see beyond the local group. That is a fatal observation for the hypotheisis that inelastic scattering explains redshift. It's a dead idea.

That's utter nonsense. Not all inelastic scattering *mathematical models* require light to be blocked.

]Ah - OK, the Wolf effect. It is a rather clever hypothesis, but hasn't been demonstrated cosmologically.

Define "demonstrated". There are papers on the topic.

In any case it is irrelevant to cosmological redshift as it only occurs in non-Lambertian coherent emitters (i.e. narrow beams of light being emitted from spatially coherent sources)

How do you know that is the case when the distances involved are that great? You just got through claiming that lines were in fact "coherent" forms of light didn't you?

Then the findings are assessed and if they require a modification to the model, then that happens. You know, the way physics works.

Unfortunately I know all too well how it "works" in astronomy. There's no falsification potential associated with the core claim of "space expansion". Just look at the whole dark energy fiasco. First you folks claimed that space was homogeneously distributed, and universe should be slowing down over time, but SN1A data showed otherwise, therefore you folks claimed to have "discovered" a new form of energy that violates conservation of energy laws for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Now because the Hubble constant doesn't jive between Planck and SN1A data, you're publishing papers claiming that the density of space is *not* homogeneous* and that's why your two Hubble constant numbers don't add up. Furthermore, other papers demonstrate that dark energy isn't even required at *all* if we happen live in a less dense region of space. So what now? Why do you still need "dark energy"? Isn't it just falsified dogma now? Talks about special pleading. The stories change from one decade to the next!

Only in your mind. And in the sensationalist popular press.

Oh boloney. Even mainstream astrophysicists are always claiming to be "surprised" by galaxy maturity and quasar sizes in the early universe. You're scrambling again to explain these things because they simply don't jive with your model's actual "predictions". The "postdition" process in already in full swing, including trying to explain why the Planck and SN1A data don't produce the same Hubble constant and there is now five + sigma tension between them. The "space expansion" model has a *horrible* track record with it comes to making accurate "predictions". In fact it's always "posdicted" after the fact, just like that dark energy fiasco.

The formation of galaxies is earlier than was thought, but that is not a defining feature of LCDM,

Oh yes it is! Your subjective interpretation of resdhift as a feature of "space expansion" necessitates a 'bang" process where all matter as we know it doesn't exist at some point in time, and things have to "cool off" for atoms, galaxies and such to "form over time". A tired light interpretation of redshift requires no such thing, It therefore makes perfect sense that the distant galaxies look very much like the ones that are closest to us. Your model requires galaxy evolution over time and there is *no* current evidence to support that assertion or that prediction. You're scrambling again to explain that tension in your expansion model too. Passing the buck to "galaxy formation" theory is just a pitiful way to try to avoid the obvious problems with your redshift model.

so the galaxy forming model needs to be adjusted to accomodate the observations. Galaxies at what redshift do you think would invalidate LCDM?

You tell me. Is there a specific redshift at which you would *not* expect to see any galaxies, or any 'mature" galaxies? How do you even explain the maturity and size of the galaxies we already observe? Is there *any* observation that JWST could return that would cause you to reconsider your core assumption that redshift is related to "space expansion"/acceleration?

]So it's possible then that the Wolf effect might apply to coherent photon "lines"?

No because stars are Lambertian emitters. It could apply to quasars.

So essentially you're trying to "protect" your model by placing some coherent light into a different category that other coherent light, is that it? You don't find that to be a dubious assumption on your part? How do you know that quasars aren't "Lambertian emitters" as well? Center to Limb redshift is observed in our own sun.

No. It would give discordant redshifts.

It sure seems like your whole argument comes down to selectively trying to reclassify *some* types of coherent light into different categories from other types of coherent light. You're doing a lot of special pleading from my perspective.

The references in 3.5 are to ancient papers which I cannot find - I don't believe that there are up-to-date observations of binaries with the sort of anomalies that he claims.

Got any newer papers that refute it? I'll concede that there might be many possible explanations for Lyman alpha forest lines, including those you mentioned.

So dusty = various sorts of inelastic scattering? Like what?

Like Marmet's model for starters, and any other type of inelastic scattering that doesn't require ionized particles.

So what? The point is that small quantities of atomic hydrogen are detectable by Lyman alpha absorption, so we can see where that is occurring and abandon hypotheses that rely on non-existent atomic hydrogen. Like Marmet's.

No, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. We can't just "assume" that Marmet's model can be ignored because we *do* observe all sorts of H-alpha lines. Your argument seems to require an enormous amount of special pleading.

Huh? That is about Lyman alpha emission not absorption and is totally irrelevant to the point. Why do you bring up these completely irrelevant links?

Because it's *not* irrelevant! We shouldn't even be able to observe H-alpha lines from such large distances in your model.

Seeing a Lyman-alpha line at such a great distance came as a surprise to the researchers.

"We frequently see the Lyman-alpha emission line of hydrogen in nearby objects, as it is one of the most reliable tracers of star formation," study lead author Adi Zitrin, of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, said in a statement. "However, as we penetrate deeper into the universe, and hence back to earlier times, the space between galaxies contains an increasing number of dark clouds of hydrogen, which absorb this signal."

The unexpected result could shed new light on how the universe evolved in its youth, researchers said.

According to the BB model, nothing should be visible in H-alpha prior to reionization, so here we go again with the special pleading about this being a unique case because reionization wasn't uniform, or it's not "well understood" by your model. Sheesh. Every time an actual "prediction' of the expansion model bites the dust, a new "postdiction" emerges to "save the day" and the space expansion model is never allowed to be falsified. Space expansion is metaphysical "sacred" dogma on a stick.

For example, astronomers think the universe was completely opaque to Lyman-alpha emission for about 400 million years after the Big Bang, thanks to that pervasive hydrogen. But things then began changing, as the first galaxies formed; radiation from their stars started splitting the hydrogen into its constituent protons and electrons.

This process, known as "cosmic reionization," probably proceeded gradually, with hydrogen being burned off in numerous localized but ever-expanding bubbles, researchers said. These bubbles eventually met and overlapped, making the universe transparent to Lyman-alpha light.

The detection of EGSY8p7's Lyman-alpha emission suggests that the reionization process was far from uniform, with some patches of space cleared of hydrogen much faster than others (perhaps because the newborn stars in such regions were exceptionally powerful), researchers said.

"In some respects, the period of cosmic reionization is the final missing piece in our overall understanding of the evolution of the universe," Zitrin said. "In addition to pushing back the frontier to a time when the universe was only 600 million years old, what is exciting about the present discovery is that the study of sources such as EGSY8p7 will offer new insight into how this process occurred."

[Higgsy]

Read what I wrote. I'll just repeat it: "They don't account for cosmological redshift to any significant extent". I didn't say zero.

How much then? 1 percent? 10 percent? 20? Can you cite any papers that even attempt to quantify it's overall effect percentage wise, or is it just ignored for all practical purposes in the LCDM model?

It depends on the object. If there is evidence of other sources of redshift, such as Sachs-Wolfe and other gravitational effects, secular velocity, inelastic scattering and so on they are taken into account. In most cases, the redshift of distant galaxies is purely cosmological in that they are not obscured by absorption or inelastic scattering.

As I have pointed out several times, inelastic scattering sufficient to explain redshift would result in a universe without direct light.

But that's not true in *all* tired light models, or even true of the Wolf effect.

Even if it can be shown to contribute some redshift in the case of quasars, the Wolf effect is completely irrelevant to the redshift of galaxies. It is certainly true for all valid scattering mechanisms.

We wouldn't be able to see beyond the local group. That is a fatal observation for the hypotheisis that inelastic scattering explains redshift. It's a dead idea.

That's utter nonsense. Not all inelastic scattering *mathematical models* require light to be blocked.

No one said anything about "blocked". Scattering results in the random deviation of light so that objects beyond the scattering medium cannot be resolved. You can't seee through clouds or frosted glass. If redshift was caused by inelastic scattering, looking beyond the Local Group would be like looking through frosted glass.

]Ah - OK, the Wolf effect. It is a rather clever hypothesis, but hasn't been demonstrated cosmologically.

Define "demonstrated". There are papers on the topic.

Unequivocally observed.It's a hypothesis that is irrelevant to the redshift of galaxies.

In any case it is irrelevant to cosmological redshift as it only occurs in non-Lambertian coherent emitters (i.e. narrow beams of light being emitted from spatially coherent sources)

How do you know that is the case when the distances involved are that great? You just got through claiming that lines were in fact "coherent" forms of light didn't you?

Huh? Do you know what a non-Lambertian emitter is? Or the difference between spatial and temporal coherence? Clearly not.

The stories change from one decade to the next!

yes that's how science goes. Only religion claims to be the fount of absolute truth.

Only in your mind. And in the sensationalist popular press.

Oh boloney. Even mainstream astrophysicists are always claiming to be "surprised" by galaxy maturity and quasar sizes in the early universe.

In the popular press. It sells sensationalist magazines and acts as click bait. For you.

The formation of galaxies is earlier than was thought, but that is not a defining feature of LCDM,

Oh yes it is!

No it's not. Point the specific feature of LCDM which demands that galaxies do not exist before Z=6 or Z=10 or Z= whatever reasonable number you choose.

so the galaxy forming model needs to be adjusted to accomodate the observations. Galaxies at what redshift do you think would invalidate LCDM?

You tell me. Is there a specific redshift at which you would *not* expect to see any galaxies, or any 'mature" galaxies?

Z=1079.

]So it's possible then that the Wolf effect might apply to coherent photon "lines"?

No because stars are Lambertian emitters. It could apply to quasars.

So essentially you're trying to "protect" your model by placing some coherent light into a different category that other coherent light, is that it?

No, I'm telling you how the Wolf effect works. Emil Wolf himself does not claim that it could apply to galaxies. Your ignorance of optical coherence (which is an entire speciality with textbooks of its own) and the meaning of "Lambertian emitter" isn't my problem.

No. It would give discordant redshifts.

It sure seems like your whole argument comes down to selectively trying to reclassify *some* types of coherent light into different categories from other types of coherent light.

It sure seems that you have no idea what you are talking about. You are trying to fit a square peg (The Wolf effect) into a round hole (redshift of galaxies).

The references in 3.5 are to ancient papers which I cannot find - I don't believe that there are up-to-date observations of binaries with the sort of anomalies that he claims.

Got any newer papers that refute it? I'll concede that there might be many possible explanations for Lyman alpha forest lines, including those you mentioned.

Really??! How kind of you! What on earth do you think causes the Lyman alpha forest and why on earth do you think it is relevant to discordant redshifts in binaries?

So dusty = various sorts of inelastic scattering? Like what?

Like Marmet's model for starters, and any other type of inelastic scattering that doesn't require ionized particles.

Marmet's model claims to quantify a new type of scattering at hydrogen atoms. What has that got to do with "dusty"? So other than Marmet's model which is irrelevant to "dust", what exactly does "dusty" have to do with it and which sorts of inelastic scattering specifically do you mean?

So what? The point is that small quantities of atomic hydrogen are detectable by Lyman alpha absorption, so we can see where that is occurring and abandon hypotheses that rely on non-existent atomic hydrogen. Like Marmet's.

No, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. We can't just "assume" that Marmet's model can be ignored because we *do* observe all sorts of H-alpha lines. Your argument seems to require an enormous amount of special pleading.

Oh, for heaven's sake, we see the Lyman alpha forest in specific directions. Where we don't see it, which is in the vast majority of cases, we can conclude the absence of atomic hydrogen and the complete failure of Marmet's model (even if all the the other reasons to discount it didn't exist). Marmet's idea has been a busted flush for decades. Give it up. By taking it seriously, you are making yourself look silly.

[Cargo]

Is to hard to ask to stop quote spamming. If you going to comment one after the other or even close to each other, it only shows badly to expand the echo chamber between you for thousands and thousands of pixels. Seriously, do you need repeat every word right after it's been posted.

[Higgsy]

Is to hard to ask to stop quote spamming. If you going to comment one after the other or even close to each other, it only shows badly to expand the echo chamber between you for thousands and thousands of pixels. Seriously, do you need repeat every word right after it's been posted.

It's regarded as having a reasoned argument. But if following discussions with actual content makes you confused and queasy, you could just skip over them, and just read the content-free two-liners that are your speciality.

[Cargo]

What you are doing is the exact opposite of reasonable and only shows a lack of cognitive and summation skills. Plus it's rude to waste space needlessly repeating words for no value. But that's your special skill. You even did it for my reply. What a joke.

[Higgsy]

What you are doing is the exact opposite of reasonable and only shows a lack of cognitive and summation skills.

Heaven forbid that I should ever descend to these sorts of cognitive skills:

The language will shift and contract and expand to worldlines, frames, strings, even perceptions, and finally the Prime and UnPrime. Never with a skeptic in sight to their own fallacies of infinite masses, zero-point singularities, godlike gravity, and dark somethings.

The Electric Force, is free from and omnipresent over, the Gravity Force. Relativity is the greatest scam ever created.

Jesus, you people are amazing. There is no vacuum. C is not a constant. Time is not a Dimension or Physical Matter. And the the boondoggle math labyrinth of circle references can only be escaped if you discard your relative nothing frames.

Uh. It's called, The Universe. And it's fully Electric

I know you are but what am I. Please stop with the childish ear plugs Higgsy. Nah Nah Nah, I can't hear you. Are you Q? Or just an invested party somewhere?

I suppose you are really proud of those contributions - well argued, amply supported by evidence, and, above all, quantified.

[Cargo]

Yes, now try to put it into context and you may approach actual thinking instead of ignoring your obvious dissonance.

[Michael Mozina]

In most cases, the redshift of distant galaxies is purely cosmological in that they are not obscured by absorption or inelastic scattering.

So for all intents and purposes it's basically ignored. From the standpoint of logic, doesn't that bother you even slightly? How is it possible that every photon reaching Earth has weaved and dodged it's way around every particle and every EM field and temperature gradient in the universe over billions of light years to reach Earth entirely unscathed? For a guy complaining about 'magic" you sure have a few magic rabbits up your sleeve.

Even if it can be shown to contribute some redshift in the case of quasars, the Wolf effect is completely irrelevant to the redshift of galaxies. It is certainly true for all valid scattering mechanisms.

Where was such a study conducted and published?

No one said anything about "blocked". Scattering results in the random deviation of light so that objects beyond the scattering medium cannot be resolved. You can't seee through clouds or frosted glass. If redshift was caused by inelastic scattering, looking beyond the Local Group would be like looking through frosted glass.

Well, when I see images of very distant galaxies they seem pretty blurry to me.

Unequivocally observed.It's a hypothesis that is irrelevant to the redshift of galaxies.

That's simply not the case. There are plenty of tired light models to choose from:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/new-tired-light

You can also find all of Ashmore's papers on Vixra, and that's simply *one* tired light model of dozens to choose from, starting with Fritz Zwicky's model.

Huh? Do you know what a non-Lambertian emitter is? Or the difference between spatial and temporal coherence? Clearly not.

Clearly I simply don't agree with your conclusions, that's all. You apparently have your own personal justifications for ignoring *all* tired light models, but since they don't all work the same way, your argument is pretty much moot from my perspective.

yes that's how science goes. Only religion claims to be the fount of absolute truth.

Except astronomers treat big bang theory as a form of "absolute truth". I can't tell you how many times I heard an astronomer proclaim to "know" that dark energy exists, or dark matter exists, or "know" that the universe started with a bang. There's never any hedging about any of it.

You personally don't seem to have any doubt whatsoever that redshift is caused by "space expansion" but that cause/effect claim amounts to an "act of faith" on your part, not a scientific "truth".

In the popular press. It sells sensationalist magazines and acts as click bait. For you.

Funny how such 'surprises" are just "click bait" when you say so, and such information is also a real possible problem when you say so (dark energy might not exist afterall). The bottom line is that I've been involved in astronomy long enough now to see how the story of the big bang, and galaxy formation has been retrofitted to every new observation that didn't fit the original "predictions" (like dark energy). Originally galaxy formation was thought to occur over billions of years, and yet now we're told that massive and mature galaxies existed less than a billion years after the BB. The st whole think is completely unfalsifiable because the story changes to fit all the new "surprises".

No it's not. Point the specific feature of LCDM which demands that galaxies do not exist before Z=6 or Z=10 or Z= whatever reasonable number you choose.

Your so called 'reasonable" number wasn't even remotely reasonable. What actual "predictions" does your model even make anyway? One decade it "predicts" a slowing expansion process. The next decade it "postdicts' and acceleration process due to a mythical new form of energy. A couple of decades later even that postdiction looks to be wrong, and we're back to a a universe that probably has no dark energy, but lots of exotic matter. You guys can't even keep your stories straight, so it's pointless it trying to guess what you're willing to "predict/postdict" from one decade to the next.

Z=1079.

Case in point. Your galaxy evolution model is predictively useless.

No because stars are Lambertian emitters. It could apply to quasars.

I think that astronomers just make up these various terms and arbitrarily assign them to different objects in space as you see fit just so you can attempt to justify your beliefs. It's another postdiction thing.

No, I'm telling you how the Wolf effect works. Emil Wolf himself does not claim that it could apply to galaxies. Your ignorance of optical coherence (which is an entire speciality with textbooks of its own) and the meaning of "Lambertian emitter" isn't my problem.

Your "knowledgier than thou' attitude wouldn't sound so utterly preposterous if your model wasn't based almost entirely on what amounts to placeholder terms from human ignorance, and the remaining five percent is mostly based on "pseudoscience' according to the author of MHD theory. Your industry has a bad habit of misusing various physical and mathematical models. Even Edwin Hubble himself eventually (later in life) rejected expansion to explain redshift in favor of tired light models, but you'd never know that if you listened to astronomers tell the story of his work. I have about as much faith as your take on the Wolf effect as I have on your take of magnetic reconnection models.

Really??! How kind of you! What on earth do you think causes the Lyman alpha forest and why on earth do you think it is relevant to discordant redshifts in binaries?

It's all related to Marmet's model and his take on the overall effect.

Marmet's model claims to quantify a new type of scattering at hydrogen atoms. What has that got to do with "dusty"? So other than Marmet's model which is irrelevant to "dust", what exactly does "dusty" have to do with it and which sorts of inelastic scattering specifically do you mean?

Essentially *every* type of inelastic scattering is possible and likely to occur over billions of light years. My point is that space is complicated and far messier than your oversimplified models allow for.

So what? The point is that small quantities of atomic hydrogen are detectable by Lyman alpha absorption, so we can see where that is occurring and abandon hypotheses that rely on non-existent atomic hydrogen. Like Marmet's.

Eh? The fact you see it actually precludes you from ignoring it.

Oh, for heaven's sake, we see the Lyman alpha forest in specific directions. Where we don't see it, which is in the vast majority of cases, we can conclude the absence of atomic hydrogen

No, you can't. All that tells us is that some areas are more dense than others and produce distinct bands. It doesn't tell that that no atomic hydrogen exist anywhere except where you happen to see bands. That's essentially your problem in a nutshell.

and the complete failure of Marmet's model (even if all the the other reasons to discount it didn't exist). Marmet's idea has been a busted flush for decades. Give it up. By taking it seriously, you are making yourself look silly.

That's pure projection from my perspective. You're *so* unwilling to consider alternatives to your 'space expansion dogma" that you're forced to grasp at straws to avoid even considering any alternatives. There has *never* been a lab demonstrated cause/effect link between "space expansion" and redshift, nor will there *ever* be such a demonstration. It's forever required to be a pure "act of faith" on the part of the believer. Your entire belief system related to expansion is based on metaphysical faith based dogma, not empirical cause/effect evidence. That's no better than a religion.

[JHL]

Heaven forbid that I should ever descend to these sorts of cognitive skills

Indeed. But if you do one shall gently bring them to your attention:

Only religion claims to be the fount of absolute truth.

(Truthfully, the core and sum of any credible religion is the inherent unknowableness of its Unknownable.

The core and sum of faith in Scientism, on the other hand, is its pedantic invocation to whatever putative knowledge it assumes serves its ends...)

[Michael Mozina]

yes that's how science goes. Only religion claims to be the fount of absolute truth.

There's a certainly irony in that statement considering the fact that you're espousing "space expansion" as the absolute truth as to the cause of redshift without so much a single shred of controlled empirical laboratory evidence that it's even *physically possible* in the first place! A couple of decades ago, the space expansion mythos failed to correctly "predict" SN1A data patterns, but the space expansion dogma itself was never once seriously questioned by the "faithful".

Instead they chose to blatantly and irrationally violate the laws of conservation of energy a *second* time by introducing a mythical/magical form of "dark" energy to save the sacred space expansion dogma. Now that your beloved space expansion dogma is in serious conflict again with observation, it's not as though you're willing to question the sacred dogma of space expansion, which itself also violates conservation of energy laws. Instead you're only willing to *consider* the possibility of tossing out the dark energy claim now, and go back to peddling your mystical/magical/metaphysical space expansion claim without it's metaphysical dark energy side kick.

Your 'absolute truth" statement is space expansion, and that metaphysical claim is not open to scrutiny, and it's never been open to scrutiny by the astrology, er "astronomy" faithful anymore than Ptolemy was seriously questioned for 1800 years until it finally bit the empirical dust.

Astronomers do see themselves as the keepers of the "absolute truth" with respect to space expansion, and creation (of matter) mythos. There's no possible way to falsify that core piece of dogma because it not open for debate. Any and all other possibilities as to the cause of redshift are simply ignored or flippantly handwaved at while you blatantly ignore the fact that your space expansion claim violates known laws of physics! That irrational claim is certainly treated as "absolute truth" and it's beyond any possibility of falsification as the last two decades of observational failure so clearly demonstrate.

Even the mere mention of alternative models warrants an instant virtual lynching at mainstream websites because the space expansion dogma is too sacred to be questioned by mere "mortals".

Sheesh. You blew up the irony meter entirely with that one.