Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Bad Astronomer
Time for me to step in again.
I'll note that despite numerous posts asking for a full-up quantitative calculation on the part of lyndonashmore, none has been given.
Is this calculation available on the web page you said was no longer online, lyndonashmore? If so, put it online and describe it, or post it here.
This is an extremely reasonable request, given that it appears to me that you have been obfuscating and avoiding answering questions for weeks now. When people argue for theories that are against the mainstream, I give them plenty of leeway (or rope, if you prefer that metaphor). But my patience is now up.
It's time to sit still, lyndonashmore, and answer the questions.
|
I must apologise BA for your having to intervene in this thread on two occasions now, but I assure you that it is not because of anything of my doing (or ‘not doing’ as the case may be).
I believe that This will answer your query in full and brings me up to date in answering all points regarding Tired Light on this thread. |
Wrong.
That link deals with a charged particle interacting with "
a linearly polarized plane wave".
Your "theory" is based on an fictional mechanism for the scattering of a free electron and a single photon.
Let me remind you again that a single photon is not a macroscopic electromagnetic wave.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
The problem has been that this particular point regarding a conservation of energy and momentum budget is not directly related to my theory.
|
Hogwash.
The basic mechanism on your "theory" is a scattering event: conservation of both momentum and energy are the most relevant things you have to deal with.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
We know that electromagnetic waves cause electrons to oscillate in a direction perpendicular to that in which the wave travels and then the electron re-radiates this energy. I assume this result and use it. To question this result is to question not my theory but the theory of transmission of light itself.
|
Hogwash.
We question your application of this result to your "theory".
From the start your "theory" begins with a single scattering event between a single photon and a single free electron.
If you think you can apply results obtained for a macroscopic EM wave, you are only proving your ignorance in the matter.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
However, with the above reference...
|
Which is irrelevant to your "theory"...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
... I believe that everything is now in order.
|
And you believe wrong.
How about providing some evidence?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
In my theory I say that in IG space, these electrons recoil as well as oscillate and this results in the redshift.
|
You say, but you do not prove.
So, how about providing
your full calculations for the scattering between a photon and a free electron, like the
BA asked?
The link you provided is not that calculation.
EDIT to fix a tag and spelling.