I want to address
akirabakabaka's statements in
this post.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by akirabakabaka
I am only on page 16 of the novel that is the Ashmore's Paradox thread, so forgive me if I am bringing up long-dead arguments here. But so far all I see is a circular debate based on the (flawed) claim that electrons don't oscillate in IG plasma, which they do. The main objection so far is that he is misapplying theorems. It is refuted that Mossbauer et al. cannot be applied, but considering the entirety of Ashmore's paper it appears that observation suggests it can be applied. It is wrong to say specifically the Mossbaur effect because the circumstances are slightly different (there is recoil resulting in energy loss). It has been suggested in the thread that a new term be coined for this effect, the 'double Mossbaur' seems to be the most popular. The resonant/non-resonant argument is the only compelling dissent so far, and has not yet been handled as of page 16, so I'll get back to you on that one!
|
Ashmore's "double Mossbauer effect" is non-sense physically, as should be clear from his abuse of the term.
Mossbauer effect occurs in gamma-photon emission by nuclei of atoms embedded in a crystal. The emission is recoil-less, because the recoil momentum is too small to excite vibrations (a.k.a. phonons) in the lattice.*
The scattering of a photon in the visible light range and a electron in a low density plasma is nowhere near the actual Mossbauer effect.
It is Compton effect, and if you look it up, you will see that if the photon does not change direction in the scattering event, the wavelength does not change, no matter what the initial momentum of the electron is.**
The plasma oscillations occur on length-scales that are much large than the wavelength of a visible-light photon, and would not have any effect on photon-electron scattering.
These plasma oscillations are oscillations in the charge density of the plasma, and are not the result of particles oscillating about some point.***
* The result is a very sharp and narrow emission line, which makes the Mossbauer effect useful for measurements of hyperfine fields and gravitational red-shifts on Earth, for example.
** This mean that Ashmore's idea of a "critical wavelength", dependent on the plasma temperature, does not work.
*** I repeatedly made the analogy between sound waves and motion of molecules in air.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by akirabakabaka
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
So, what happens if you convert the first "paradox" in the units Americans use (miles, inches, whatever)?
|
In standard units the final expression is in 'per sec' to use lyndonashmore's terminology. I think Americans still use seconds. Regardless, you ignored me. How is 1m/s different from 100cm/s? Equivalence is equivalence. Ashmore was never *required* to use SI units, that's just the units scientists use! |
You miss the point, again.
As I said:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
His first "paradox" is expressed as an equality:
H = hr/m.
In order for this to be a proper equality, left hand-side and right hand-side must have the same physical units.
This is not the case for the first "paradox".
|
and previously:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
If it really expressed some physical relation, the units would balanced on both sides and equality would hold independently of the system of units.
|
It should be an equality no matter what system of units is used.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by akirabakabaka
Ashmore equated the redshift to light losing energy as it travels through space, an idea supported by Hubble in opposition to expansion. The mechanism proposed is collisions with electrons. Why is this any more ad-hoc than say BB's inflation, which apparently has had no effect on the credibility of BB? A big difference is that the mechanism proposed in the tired-light model (electrons) does not require faith in the mechanics of Creation.
|
It has been explained extensively why collisions of photons with electrons does not work.
If you go with well established physics, these collisions would be Compton scattering, which cannot account for the red-shift as observed (no distance dependent broadening, no effect of the atmosphere).
And Ashmore's attempt to propose a new "mechanism" for energy loss only betrays his deep and serious misunderstandings of physics.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by akirabakabaka
As far as I can tell this has always been a condition of his theory. The problem is that his website initially claimed H=hr/m, which is not entirely accurate, but a generalized form. It seems reasonable that he was trying to protect his work while he waited for his paper to be accepted for publication (which he already explained to be the case). Unfortunately a misconception was created because of this.
|
It is
not reasonable for him to cling to his misconceptions when they have been shown wrong.
It is
not reasonable for him to selectively quote sources that do not agree with him, or are not relevant (see all those references to effects of high-power laser in high-density plasma).
He has never been able to provide proper physical arguments that the photon-electron scattering in a plasma is anything different from Compton scattering (he tried to weasel his way out with his "critical wavelength", but it was shown to be wrong).
He has no mechanism for energy loss of photons that yields a red-shift as it is observed.