Yet again, Lyndon does not complete the calculation to show conservation of energy. He's given a small fraction of the photon energy to the electron... WHERE DID THE REST OF THE ENERGY GO?

Lyndon has momentum initially of h/λ. He's transferred ALL that momentum to the recoiling electron. This balances the momentum; but now where is all the extra energy that was NOT converted to kinetic energy? We've accounted for a tiny fraction in the kinetic energy of the electron, and the rest is missing. Lyndon's reaction violates conservation of energy, as it is expressed it above.

He can't balance the books without violating some very simple physics.

French does the analysis correctly, and with no classical approximations. The result is exact. It uses energy levels in an excited atom to balance the books. Electrons don't have excitation levels unless they are bound to an atom.

Lyndon is flat out wrong to cite French for the formula Q^2/(2.m_e.c^2). The formula in French is Q0^2/(2.M0.c^2), where Q0 is an energy level of an atom, and M0 the rest mass of an excited atom. French does the analysis correctly, without approximations, and with a correctly balanced energy budget. Lyndon does it incorrectly, and violates elementary physics along the way.

Cheers -- Sylas

Ah! I see where Sylas is going wrong! All these 16 or 18 pages of sums and he has done them all wrong.
Sylas thinks light is a longitudinal wave!!!
You see Sylas, Light is transverse, the electric field oscillates up and down whilst it travels from left to right and this is the direction of the momentum.
Photon comes in from left to right, electric field oscillates up and down. when the photon is absorbed the electron and the other electrons around it are set into oscillation - up and down. Remember, electrons in a plasma can oscillate????
But they oscillate up and down in the direction of the electric field!
Meanwhile, the electron recoils in the direction of the original photon, left to right. This will set up other oscillation in the left right direction and another photon, the Cmb photon, is emitted but perpendicular to the original photon.
Eventually our system of electrons still oscillating up and down re-radiate the original photon- less two lots of recoil energy as the electons recoil again when the photon is re-emitted.
Glad we have sorted that little problem of Sylas' out.
Cheers,
Lyndon

Irrelevant and bizarre.

Lyndon has cited French incorrectly. Lyndon does not use French's formula, and he does not use French's analysis.

Lyndon has yet to give a simple balanced energy equation. We get vague red herrings about whether waves are longitudinal or transverse, and hand waving about plasma oscillations, and whatever else springs to mind; but no quantified analysis.

A high school physics student should be able to do it. French does it. But we are still waiting for a balanced energy momentum analysis from Lyndon.

Come on, mate. Give it a shot. Seriously. Refer to French, or anything else you like, but try setting out some formula that cover both energy and momentum, and show before and after to be equal in both cases.

Cheers -- Sylas

The angular size, I am guessing. What do we use that for?

That's measured, not assumed. Lensing would be pretty useless if we had to assume the very number we are most interested in measuring.

You can work this out from Faraday rotation of the lensed source light. Note that we have multiple images of a single source; lensing provides an overconstrained situation. No assumption necessary.

That's calculated from cosmology (and in galactic microlensing it's just based on parallax). You find it unreasonable that different cosmological models predict different cosmological distances?

What do we use this for? And use "source" and "lens", it keeps things clear.

Actually lensing provides extra information on this, again because we have multiple images of a single source. There is lots of work on this, I think the last paper I saw on it was by Mu\~{n}oz.

What is that meant to mean?

Aren't you the bloke that claimed we didn't know where Titan was? You might not think we know the radius of the Sun. I expect the Magellen and SOHO teams have a pretty good idea.

Well, when intrinsic redshifts proponents eventually see their way clear to possibly perhaps coming up with some predictions, we might be able to plug them into the angular size distances and do some lensing with them (they will rescale time delays and lens masses). Didn't you manage to publish a paper claiming to reproduce quasar spectra without managing to include a single spectrum (observed or modelled) in it?

So far Lyndon seems to be the only one who has done this, although he doesn't explicitly work out ASDs. And it seems that we'd get a Hubble constant in conflict with the local measurement. Maybe that isn't a problem for you, if you're abandoning GR; it certainly is for his assumed value of H0.

Oh I see, now you believe we can measure motion on milli-arcsecond scales
I thought you were having trouble believing just separation measurements of arcsecond and arcminute scales in your previous post? And what effect do you think proper motions have on lensing?

Irrelevant to lensing.

I don't know what you're on about here.

Dealt with in mass models. No assumption necessary.

Have very clear (and very localised) effects on lensing. No assumption necessary.

Cause microlensing (when they happen to cross a light of sight to the source). Detectable. No assumption necessary.

Lensing estimates of H0 do not use the distance ladder method. The galaxies involved are at very significant cosmological distances compared to the ones used to get the "local" value.

Which comes into this how?

No, you can use lens galaxies to constrain evolution.

Lensing is independent of the supernova distance scale.

The whole theory is based on both conservation of momentum and energy. It was only your erroneous sums that threw up a conflict. The bit about you treating light as longitudinal is spot on. This is why conservation laws did not work for you. You assumed that both the energy and the momentum was transferred to the electron by means of the same impact. You give this away somewhere on page 9 or 10 where you said something along the lines that the electron recoils and then the oscillations start. I tried to tell you this but you would not have it.
Momentum is conserved and it is this that causes the electron to recoil. The energy of the photon is transferred to the electron not because of the recoil but because the oscillating electric fields drive it. But in IG space the electrons can recoil and some of the energy of the photon is transferred to the recoiling electron. This energy is no longer available to the oscillations of the electrons in the plasma and so it can not be re-radiated along with the rest in the new photon.
The main energy of the photon is stored in the oscillations of the system of electrons and will be re-radiated later.
Some energy is lost to the recoiling electron and this is radiated as a secondary photon in the microwave and forms the CMB.
This theory and Mossbauers assume energy is conserved. WE use conservation of momentum to find the recoil velocity of the electron and its recoil energy. Using conservation of energy we then subtract this amount from the original photon energy to determine its new frequency and wavelength. The redshift can then be found.
French uses an energy level (I think) no book with me, because he is looking at excitation of atoms by a photon emitted by a different atom.
Once you have the electrons oscillating up and down and recoiling to the side (ie transverse light) then there is no problem.
Cheers,
Lyndon

Yet you do not write down the full calculations to shows us that your "effect" actually conserve energy and momentum.


Sylas showed that your "effect" does not conserve energy and momentum, but you do not show us the "correct" calculations.


Well, being there only one "impact"....
Unless, of course, you can show us the "correct" calculations.


Why would an electron that is not bound to a positive charge oscillate?


Are you sure you are not confusing a single photon with high-power laser light?


How would you change the kinetic energy of a free electron, without transferring momentum to it?


Since that energy came form photon, it never available to the plasma oscillations.
Or are you still confusing the motion of an electron with oscillations of charge density.

How much later?
Did you forget that you were supposed to provide a number for this time interval?


Mossbauer effect has nothing to do with your "effect".


Yet you do not provide the full calculations you are supposed to have done.


This is what happens in the Compton effect.
However, the Compton effect does not give you the result you wish.

This speaks volumes about the quality of your "research" and about your lack of understanding of the sources you like to quote.
You just admitted that what you quote from French is not relevant to your "theory", since he dealing with atoms.


You still have not provided any evidence, let alone theoretical justification, to support your idea that electrons oscillate in a plasma like a pendulum.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

My effect has to conserve momentum amd energy as I use these principles to determine my effect. I use conservation of momentum to find the degree of recoil. I then say that "this is how much energy has transferred to the recoiling electron" Since energy must be conserved I must deduct this from the total available to the oscillating system of electrons and is hence not available for re-emission.


Sylas did not show this at all. he treated light as a longitudinal wave and as a consequence got the wrong result. He assumed that all the energy went to the recoiling electron in the conservation of momentum process when he should have had the electrons oscillating (due to being driven by the electric fields of the photons) in a direction perpendicular to that in which the electron recoils.
Sylas equated the energy of the CMB photon with the energy of the incoming photon and was surprised when they were different.
Cheers,
Lyndon

Where are your full calculations?
So far you have been hand-waving.
If yo want to convince any physicist, you have to back up your claims: show us your calculations, and justify each passage.


The photon already comes from outside.
Why would energy be taken from " oscillating system of electrons" (and where is the evidence that electrons are oscillating)?


Wrong.
He treated your "effect" as a collision between an electron and a photon, exactly what you have been claiming before you came up with the "longitudinal wave" distraction.

Which happens if the electron absorbed the photon, which is what you claim happens in your "effect".

Still confusing a single photon with high-power laser light?

He applied correctly conservation of momentum and energy, and showed with the calculations that things do not happen as you claim.

By the way, address the other points.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

That is flatly dishonest. Is this kind of behaviour permissible at this forum? Stick to what I actually say for myself. Nothing in my analysis used longitudinal waves.

The issue is simply to obtain a balanced energy and momentum budget. Oscillations, transverse waves, plasma waves, variable electron mass; none of these are able to do it. Lyndon has never given a balanced energy momentum budget for his alleged effect, and any attempt to do so will fail, with one hilarious exception to be noted below.

Like Lyndon and like French, I start with the electron (or the atom, for French) taking up the photon's momentum during absorption. The consequent kinetic energy of the electron can be calculated. I'll use yellow light, with wavelength 500nm.
λ = 5e-7m
Q = hc/λ = 4e-19 J
KE ~ Q^2/2mc^2 = 1e-24 J

All the rest of the energy has to end up somewhere. Lyndon speaks of "oscillations", but never gives numbers or formulae that can quantify how all this energy is transferred. There are no other particles anywhere near the interaction; this is a plasma with less than one particle every cubic meter, so the photon is much too far from other particles to have any effect on them on its own behalf. The forces on the electron are also far too small to allow anything like that order of energy to be transferred through pushing on the electron.

To get an idea of just how impossible it is to balance the energy equation, consider the magnitude of forces on the electron from the rest of the plasma. This is quantified here; the maximum net force on the electron from the plasma must be substantially less than 9e-23 N.

The energy to be made up is about 4e-19 J. To convey that much energy requires pushing against the force for a distance of Energy/Force. This would require the electron be pushed over 4 kilometers against forces from the plasma. It is actually far more than this; as the force estimate is a massive over-estimate.

This is, of course, absurd. It's simply a quantification of just how massively impossible it is to balance the energy equation for simple absorption.

But could the energy balance be salvaged if we consider the redshifted photon to be emitted again immediately, and include that in the analysis?

In a word, no. Lyndon proposes the emitted photon loses energy Q^2/mc^2 in total. This is a double application of the absorption loss. There is another error here, because French's analysis for emission and absorption take place in different inertial frames. You can add the energy loss if a stationary atom absorbs a photon, then gives up its kinetic energy to the rest of the medium, and then emits a photon when at rest once more. But if the emission has to take place immediately, then you have to match up the inertial frames for absorption and emission, and when you do that, and assume no scatter, the total energy loss of the photon works out to zero.

But suppose that somehow the photon is emitted again immediately with an energy loss of dQ = Q^2/mc^2. For a 500 nm yellow photon, this is about 2e-24 J of energy. This energy has to be taken up somehow. Since Lyndon has the emitted photon leaving with no scatter angle, the energy budget still to be accounted for corresponds exactly to absorption of a photon carrying this lost energy.

The electron can take up the momentum, and in doing so it gets an energy of dQ^2/2mc^2, and that is about 2.3e-35 J. So we still have 2e-24 J of energy to balance. The electron could give up that much energy by moving about 23 mm against the upper bound on forces. But its velocity boost is only dQ/mc = 7 mm/s!

One could balance the energy budget by emitting another photon all as part of the same interaction, and Lyndon does propose this to occur eventually. Let's bring it in right now and see if the books balance. This actually works, but it means that the electron is practically irrelevant in the whole interaction. It merely stands as something that shatters a photon into a redshifted photon and a microwave photon, all in the one collision, with the rest of the plasma essentially unaffected by the whole process.

This is the only way in which energy and momentum can be balanced (though apparently it has a problem with spin parity?). Lyndon has never given any other quantified solution, and the numbers above stand as a quantified demonstration that any attempt to do so is bound to fail.

The Lyndon effect is nothing but a long series of trivial errors in physics.

Cheers -- Sylas

Ashmore has a long history of misrepresenting what other posters and his own sources say.

This has been discussed, somewhere, and the problem is the spin.
You would need to emit two "CMB photons" (not just one).
But the probability of this is much smaller than for only one photon.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

If you feel this way (and I can perfectly understand why you would), you can always PM the BA and ask him to have a look at the thread.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Hang on a minute let me have another look at this!
Lyndon
post removed!

lyndonashmore,
it is obvious that you cannot distinguish a macroscopic electromagnetic wave from a single photon.
Yet one more item to add to list of things you do not understand.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

As I said before, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Lets have a look at some of Sylas’ posts, starting with what Sylas has said.


On Page 7 we have:
So we have the energy of the wave being taken up as KE of the electron and presumably (we will firm this up later) going to oscillatory energy as the electron oscillates.

Yes Sylas firms this up himself, again on page 7
And then confirms this on Page 10
With further evidence also on Page 10
So you see that Sylas has the energy and momentum input going to the KE of the electron. The only way that this can happen in longitudinal waves, since in transverse waves the momentum input is perpendicular to the energy input.
What else?
It is clear from this post that Sylas believes that all the energy of the photon should have been taken up by the recoiling electron.
Since he says on Page 10
Then he is expecting the electron to oscillate along the original path of the photon – longitudinal.
It went into transverse oscillations of the electron.
Perhaps Sylas would now like to explain why he expected the electron to take up the energy of the incoming photon only as recoil and then, presumably, oscillate along the same direction of travel.
Cheers,
Lyndon.
Apologies for removing the last post – I had mis read two of his other posts and thought them too to be wrong in this manner. But there is enough here.

Lyndon, if the incoming photon induces both a recoil in the same direction as it's travelling, as well as a transverse oscillation of the electron, that would just mean that it has momentum in both the x and z directions, as well as a total kinetic energy based on its overall velocity. You should still be able to analyze it fully for conservation of momentum and energy.

Why don't you give it a try, and I think you'll find that you still can't conserve both momentum and energy at the same time.

You are looking at it from the wrong point of view Grey,
To work out the redshift or indeed the change in energy of a photon emitted by any recoiling atom/nucleus , one assumes conservation of momentum and energy.
Conservation of momentum gives the recoil and hence the energy transferred to the emitter.
One then says "Oooh energy must be conserved so if this amount has gone the recoiling emitter, then we have to deduct this from the energy available to the new photon.
Momentum and energy must be conserved because the way I and others calculate it and 'build it in to the calculations".
Sylas' Before and after calculations on pages 2 and 7 don't work because he has ignored the fact that the electron recoils one way on absorption and the other way on re-emission. In lumping the two together, he ignores the vector nature of momentum and then, when the effects cancel, says "momentum/energy is not conserved"
He also omits the two CMB photons.
There is no problem, all the 'extra' energy is stored in the oscillating system of electrons within the plasma during the interaction.
Cheers,
Lyndon

I think you're mistaken, but you can try to show that I'm wrong. Just give me the full calculations of energy and momentum, taking into account the momentum in the direction of oscillation as well as the recoil momentum, and show that they balance.

Well, I finally read through Ashmore's Tired Light Theory, and it seems pretty straighforward, where the result for Hubble's consant is H = 2nhr/m, as he shows. The fact that the result comes in within range of the observed H does not prove the theory right, merely that it is another mathematical expression showing similar results. Tired Light may be as wrong as Expanding Universe, but not the main issue here, since still other unknowms may cause cosmic light redshift.

What I want to address is in pg. 4, where he says that photon wavelength (lambda) is equal to h/mc.

I recognize this from the Planck-deBroglie-Einstein relationship: hf = hc/ lambda = mc^2.

Multiplying it out gives: h /c(lambda) = m, which is also: lambda = h/ mc.

We know Einstein's famous works out to be mc^2 = 90 petajouls, or E = 9.0 E^16 Joules, which computes as:

E= hc/ lambda = mc^2, which is: (6.626E^-34 m^2 kg s^-1)(3E^+8 m s^-1)/ lambda = 9 E^+16 m^2 kg s^-2, which gives

lambda = ~2.2 E^-42 meters, which I believe is also the Compton scattering lambda, for m = 1 kg (same result as lambda = h/ mc).

However, if m = 9.11 E^-31 kg, which is the mass of electron, the resulting lambda = 2.4E^-12 meters, which is the same as Ashmore's paper Photon Redshift Spread says.


So what is happening here? Well, the many pages dedicated to this dialogue cover a lot, must admit I have not read all of them ops: , but I wanted to bring it back to basics, because I think the 'Compton scattering' lambda is really what controls this idea. But this brings in the other ideas fielded here, that this scattering may not apply to IG plasma gases, or that 'scattering' would not follow a straight line for photons in space, which I think is what killed the original 'tired light' theory. Any more thoughts on this are appreciated, pardon my physics unsophistication, or obtuseness. I may be wrong, but I think this issue of Compton wavelength here is key.

BTW, I think of light as a 'shock' wave, though in Cartesian geometry it appears as a longitude wave. Consequently, rather than longitudinal waves, I think of photons as 'impulses' of energy separated in distance by wavelength.

[edited, had said light is 'bow' wave, meant to say 'shock' wave, sorry, and to add link]

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

Nice try Grey.
What one has to remember is that the electron interacts with its neighbours and so as it oscillates one way restoring forces are set up that send it back. If you look at the single electron only then momentum will not be conserved because 'external'forces act on it. If one looks at the system of electrons as a whole, momentum is conserved.
Cheers,
Lyndon

... and as the system - not the electron - accrues this momentum, the temperature goes up... wait, that doesn't fit with your model, does it? It's more of the argument against a tired light and a question of where the energy goes. So you are saying it goes into the system of electrons- so the temperature must go up... and so, well, the universe must be rather young or else it would be piping-hot.

Thanks for visiting the site Lunatik. I believe h/mc is the increase in wavelength at each interaction and not the photon wavelength.
Cheers,
Lyndon

No way Pat, because the energy is re-radiated as a new photon of redshifted light and a couple of CMB photons.
Thats it for one night.
Bye
Lyndon

(emphasis mine)

Conserving spin now, are we?

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

So in the above you have a single electron emiting a pair of CMB photons to get rid of the excess energy it has taken on. But then a couple of posts before that, you said...
How does that work? You're either contradicting yourself, or saying that energy is 'diffused' throughout the system and then somehow 'undiffused' when the electron decides to get rid of the excess energy.

I still don't understand how this would work. At the distances between the electrons that have been given (~1 per cubic meter?) I can't imagine the respulsive 'restoring' forces being anywhere near strong enough to cause oscillation. Surely the kinetic energy of the electron would be orders of magnitude greater than the forces imparted by neighbouring electrons? As a loose analogy, snooker balls are gravitationally attracted to each other, but they don't suddenly start orbiting each other!

Wait- wouldn't that mean in a really really old universe we would have a CMB of such intensity that it would bake us all? I mean, even low frequency photons of high enough intensity would start to cook matter into an ion soup, wouldnt' they? And I still don't get how the step-down works, as I'm not certain how gamma radiation and electrons interact...

[edited to add]

Oh wait- I found some good information:
Ergo, a property of the electron-based tired light model should be one of a modified redshift, with most of the redshift occurring towards the low end of the spectrum, and less on the high end, leading to a stretched rather than purely redshifted spectrum. If it worked. And we didn't all fry.

That depends upon whether you are using Ho to measure the mass of the lens, or estimating the mass of the lens to measure Ho, (which is what I assumed Lyndon was doing.)

You can work this out from Faraday rotation of the lensed source light. Note that we have multiple images of a single source; lensing provides an overconstrained situation. No assumption necessary.

No...

Sanity check on Ho/or mass of lens.

...Which is probably reasonable...what is not reasonable it to assume dust reddening is not a factor in using supernova Ia to constuct an Ho table.

In conventional cosmology, there is an extended ionic halo about quasars - this is necessary to explain the delay in the onset of the Lyman Forest. Extended ionic halos require extended magnetic fields...It would be interesting to try to reconciliate the predicted Faraday effects from the predicted halo with the Faraday rotation measured by gravitation lensing...is everyone on the same page?
I'm not up to speed on astrometrics, but I do know the radius of the sun is right up there on the list with the moment-of-inertia of the Mars, on diameters that are proving difficult to nail down - remember, The Gravitational lensing of the sun is only known with about 0.1% certainty to comply with Einsteins formula.


Learning that the Adromeda galaxy is three times larger than previously thought demonstrates we a long ways from precision distance measurements.

Now I am really confused...are you using mass to determine distance, or distance to determine mass?

Size matters

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

We've already established that the restoring forces from the other electrons aren't large enough to account for this. You had tried to get around this by claiming that it was the varying electric field of the incoming photon that causes the oscillations. Either way, you haven't actually followed through to show both conservation of energy and momentum at the same time.

You'll have to show this, not just claim it.

Responding to this post by Lyndon Ashmore:
There is no such thing as an additional oscillatory energy term. Oscillations occur under the influence of a restoring force, and they involve a cyclical exchange of potential and kinetic energy. Explained at this post (p10), and this post (p11), and this post (p12), and maybe elsewhere as well.

At the midpoint of oscillation, all the energy is kinetic. At the extremity, all the energy is potential.

If the electron is set into any kind of oscillatory motion as a result of this collision, the energy of the oscillation is simply that kinetic energy of the initial impulse. The amplitude and frequency of any subsequent motions depend on the magnitude of restoring forces (which Lyndon has never quantified); but the energy is simply the energy of the original impulse, already accounted for above as mv^2/2.

I am not proposing oscillations. LYNDON is proposing oscillations. I am simply pointing out that IF the electron oscillates as a result of this collision, the energy of the oscillations is already accounted for in the initial impulse, and there is no other energy term available. Lyndon quotes a couple of the posts where I point this out, including some linked above, and then says:
EVERYBODY has energy and momentum going into the electron. If a particle absorbs a photon, that particle takes up all the momentum and energy of the photon. Lyndon himself calculates momentum going into a particle from photo-absorption. And of course, if it gets momentum, it gets a bit of energy. We can calculate how much using E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2.

There is no extra oscillation energy term. And since electrons have a constant rest mass, you can solve for the energy, and the result is much too small. This is why an electron cannot absorb a photon unless it is bound to an atom. Only then you can have excitation energy levels and increased rest mass to balance energy conservation.

In real physics, transverse motions are vital. The interaction of a photon and electron results in a photon leaving the collision with a scatter angle "a", and the electron also moves away at an angle.

The outgoing photon has wavelength reduced by (h/mc)(1 - cos(a)), and this is called the Compton effect. It is easily derived using conservation of energy and momentum. To get redshift in real life, a balance of energy and momentum requires a transverse component of the motions, and the transverse impulse to the electron results in a photon taking up an equal and opposite transverse impulse in the opposite direction. This is called scatter.

But Lyndon is proposing an interaction in which the photon does not scatter, and there is no transverse component in the outgoing photon. This is bound to conflict with energy momentum considerations.

Sure. For photo-absorption, this is a simple consequence of conservation of momentum. The impulse transferred to a particle is along the line of the absorbed photon. If there is also an emitted photon, then there is an additional recoil impluse along the line of the emitted photon, and these are added as vectors for total impulse.

It is simple elementary high school physics that the energy of an oscillation is same as the kinetic energy of the oscillating particle at the mid point of oscillation. So yes, this is basic. The impulse entails a boost to kinetic energy, and that corresponds to energy for any oscillations that we might speculate about.

Oscillation is not an additional energy term. Conservation laws mean that you can't get any transfer of energy to the particle unless there are excitation energy levels to absorb most of the energy, or transverse motions and a scattered photon.

Cheers -- Sylas

Sounds good to me.

The problem with Compton scattering is that it does not work along a straight line. Conservation of energy and momentum requires a transverse component to the motions and a scattering angle.

Lyndon proposes a unique effect all of his own, which we've discussed above. If there was a photon-electron interaction with cross section equal to 2rλ and in which a photon lost energy of Q^2/mc^2 without scattering, then the rest follows correctly. Most discussion therefore focuses on details of the alleged interaction, which is where I and others allege that the problems arise.

There are other tired light notions. Our other major tired light advocate is John Kierein. I think John accepts that there are flaws in Lyndon's physics. Despite this, I tend to rate Lyndon more highly. Lyndon's view may be wrong, but he does give sufficient detail to allow a meaningful evaluation and discussion. John's model does not seem to rise to that level as far as I have seen. It's a case of "not even wrong".

The original tired light idea of Zwicky in the 1920s did not propose interaction with electrons, but speculated on a form of gravitational drag. It's inconsistent with conventional theory for gravity; so the engagement with Zwicky's model comes down to testing the theory of general relativity. In the years since Zwicky, relativity has been confirmed to considerable precision, and his gravitational drag notion is no longer a credible contender.

Knocking down models one by one is not all that useful. People can always try to speculate about some new or even unknown form of interaction which involves loss of energy as photon travel through space. The real defeat of tired light is based on observational consequences of this notion, which would apply for any tired light process. Such tests look for time dilation effects at high redshift, or tests of how angular size and luminosity vary with redshift. These observations pretty much rule out any tired light process. See also this post for discussion of angular size and luminosity relations.

Cheers -- Sylas