Sylas wrote
[/quote]

Are you feeling OK Sylas?

I will try to make it simple for you and other board members reading your posts, so lets think of a frog jumping across a pond from one lily leaf to the next.
Frog leaps forward, it has both energy and momentum, and lands on a stationary lily leaf. The frog plus leaf move forward as the momentum and some energy is transferred to the leaf/frog combination. Its a type of recoil.
Now the frog jumps off in the forward direction. To do this the frog pushes back on the leaf - recoil once again, and the leaf gains momentum in the opposite direction to before. Since the leaf was already moving forwards the effect of the work done on the leaf by the
Frog is to bring the leaf back to rest. The frog has lost energy because it has done two lots of work on the leaf, one lot to get it moving and a second lot to bring it back to rest.
Now think of a person stood on the bank watching the whole thing from start to finish. The person says "OOH! look, a contradiction. The frog has lost energy but the leaf is still at rest. Overall, the leaf has gained no momentum. "
Now Sylas, could you give me some advice as to how I would explain the Physics of the situation to this person?
I would be grateful of your advice.
Cheers,
Lyndon
PS if the leaf is fixed firmly to the pond then it will not recoil and so no energy will be transferred to it. The Frog loses no energy and so is not redshifted. ie Kermit the frog's mossbauer effect.
Edited at the request of Papageno though it was perfectly polite to Sylas in any case!

As long as papageno continues to treat particles in a plasma as neutral atoms in a gas, then I will not listen.
Cheers,
Lyndon.

Wrong.
You keep equating the interaction of light with the charged particles in a plasma with the interaction of light with the neutral atoms in glass.
Obviously you cannot keep your story straight, and end up contradicting yourself.
So, where the quantitative estimates?
(I guess you have none, since you have to resort to diversionary tactics to avoid the issue.)


By the way, I urge you -- again -- to edit your last post addressed to Sylas.

__________________
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)

Yes. That was definately in bad tatse Lyndon.

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

Take a look at the website already.

As for why we don't see redshift in glass...

Now to jog your memory again, let's take a look at the first page of the first Ashmore's Paradox thread:

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

If you read any of the discussions or any of the material on Ashmore's website, you will see this analogy has been explained several times over. It is not our fault that you are unfamiliar with the material, please do not pass the blame onto others..

Again, it is not Ashmore's fault that you can not follow the math. This issue is also touched on in the first page of the first Ashmore's Paradox thread. If you read his paper or his website, you can see how all of the units are derived and converted. If you think he has done something wrong, then please explain. Don't rely on others to provide your opinion for you.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Do you think that I have not?
Since you seem convinced that Ashmore is right, you should not have a problem explaining his "theory" without resorting to quotes.

That's the formula of collision cross-section for "off-resonance" absorption of photons, ifI remember correctly.
I already explained this absorption process works for atoms, so it cannot be applied to electrons in a plasma, because these are not bound to positive nuclei as in a n atom.


Still the same problem: Ashmore still wrongly assumes that he can apply that formula to plasma.

Did you actually read the following posts, or even just this thread?
Do you actually understand my criticism to Ashmore's ideas?
How many times do we need to explain that the "mechanism" describes does not happen?
Why don't you address this post?

__________________
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)

Basically, in the same way as the frog in my post to Sylas above. Electrons in plasma can oscillate. Th incoming photon sets an electron into oscillation. It is absorbed. The oscillating electron then re-emits a new photon. This is what happens in all transparent medium and the way light travels through them. But in plasma the electrons recoil on absorption and re-emission so some energy is transferred from the photon to the electron. The frequency of the photon reduces, the wavelength increases - it is redshifted. This does not happen in glass because the elctrons are 'fixed' and so cannot recoil.
The energy transferred to the recoiling electron is emitted by a process known as bremstrahhlung (German for 'braking radiation'). The recoiling electron nears other charges, decelerates and radiates the energy. I calculate the energy of this radiation and show it to be in the microwave region.



Plasma likes to be neutral, when a recoiling electron moves backwards it moves towards other electrons behind of it and away from electrons in front of it. This leads to electrostatic restoring forces that try to bring it back. Its like a mass between two springs - displace it and it oscillates. Electrons in dense plasma are known to perform SHM when displaced. I assume it still happens in the Sparse plasma of IG space. I work out an expression for the Hubble constant, insert known data and get the correct value. As a result I believe that the assumption is correct.

You said he explained it several posts ago. I said he didn't. You don't admit you were wrong but just make another claim. I haven't read everything on his website (thank goodness!), but I haven't come across this analogy in what I have read (including his main pages, his paper (can you tell me where it is published, by the way? The website only states that it is accepted, but doesn't say for what magazine or when it is published), and the press release).
I did not pass the blame onto others, you gave a wrong statement while trying to defend Lyndon after his wrong statement. Two wrongs don't make a right, you know...

I'll certainly not rely on you to provide an opinion, rest assured. In what way have I relied on others? It's not because I say that papageno explains it better that I don't have an opinion.
Apart from that: if you cannot understand what I have said here, tough luck.
I'll repeat: What isn't clear about this? What is the unit for the 2.1exp(18 )? Why isn't it included?

I know the answer; because he has to match it with his other quantity, which has completely different units. In the second case, he doesn't only remove units, he even adds some (where do the seconds come from?)! In what way are a mass and a distance related?
I have read his explanations, and they don't explain what he does there and why that would be allowed in physics. It's just gibberish, numerology. It has nothing to do with being able to follow the math. I have not said that his number of 2.1exp(18 ) is right or wrong, and that's the math part. It seems to me that you on the other hand cannot follow the logic needed to make or understand a coherent theory that's based in reality. (you see, it's not so hard to dismiss people's arguments by claiming that they aren't smart enough, even I can do it: but it's not very productive, so please refrain from it in the future).

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

It is not a macroscopic electromagnetic wave.
What happens to energy and momentum if the electron absorbs the photon?
Sylas has shown the math: both cannot be conserved in that case.
But you did not address the math. You preferred another way to avoid the issue.

Why would the electron oscillate?
It is not bound to anything.

Wrong.
Light traveling through a dielectric medium polarizes temporarily neutral atoms.
Yo don't have to trust:l read the second volume of Feynman's
Lectures on Physics (since you quoted him, I think you would trust Feynman).

In your latest posts you insisted that the electron is affected by "restraining forces": why would it recoil?
Or are you saying it can recoil only in one direction?
Since the plasma is homogeneous and isotropic, why would that happen? Why would that be the direction coinciding with the propagation of the photon?

So, now the electrons are free in a plasma!
But the scattering of a photon with a free electron is correctly described by Compton effect, with frequency shift.

Bremsstrahlung occurs in materials, where an electron interacts with many other particles.
Why would that happen in a plasma?

You have to provide the spectrum: where is it?
(Modern cosmology can give the whole spectrum.)


If you read the posts in this thread, you would know that this works for the charge denisty (many electrons at one time), not for single electrons.

__________________
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)

One of the great successes of this Tired Light theory is that it starts from first principles with a known interaction and derives an expression for the Hubble constant that is consistent with observation when published parameters are substituted.
Can the BB do that? I think not.
Papageno et al, say that this is a coincidence because they cannot bring themselves to admit that they are wrong.
Let’s look at one or two more ‘coincidences’ shall we.
Let’s start with the wavelength at which the intensity of the CMB curve peaks. This is at a wavelength of 2.1x10^-3metre.
Using my theory we can calculate the wavelength of the incoming photon that, in being redshifted, causes such a CMB photon to be emitted, it is 2.46x10^-15m and a frequency of 6.05x10^15Hz (in the UV). This has an energy (E = hf) of 3.87x10^-18J.
I wonder what the temperature of a plasma cloud would be if, on average, each electron had this much energy?
We can work it out by 3.87x10^-18J = 3kT/2 and the temperature comes out to be 1.2x10^5K.
Shock, horror, this is the temperature of the plasma of Intergalactic space. What a ‘coincidence’! That is the watershed where the CMB has its maximum intensity corresponds to the situation where the incoming photon has the same energy as the average KE of the electrons in the plasma of IG space.
But wait a minute. There is another coincidence here. People on this site go on about a ‘Compton Effect’.
When the energy of the incoming photon is greater than the average KE of the electrons in the plasma of IG space, the photons are scattered and lose energy to the electrons.
When the energy of the incoming photon is less than the average KE of the electrons in IG space then here the photons gain energy (inverse Compton scatter).
So what happens when the energy of the incoming photons is equal to the average KE of the electrons in the plasma of IG space? Nothing. There is no transfer of energy between the photons and electrons by Compton scatter! There is no Compton scatter for photons of this energy.
So the watershed where the CMB has its maximum intensity corresponds not only to the situation where the incoming photon has the same energy as the average KE of the electrons in the plasma of IG space but also to the point where there is no Compton scatter. Then there is being able to predict H of course.
And yet Papageno et al say there is nothing in all of this.
Dream on folks.
Cheers,
Lyndon
PS remember, you saw it first on the BABB

Papaggeno, not you too.
Sylas' maths is totally incorrect. I showed it in my frog post. He has messed up the vector nature of momentum by including two interactions in opposing directions in one overall calculation.
Cheers,
Lyndon

I see that you are in denial.
Your "first principles" are wrong, as it has been exhaustively explained on this board.

[Dr. Evil] Riiiiiiight![/Dr. Evil]
There is not much we can do if you simply ignore criticism.

Modern cosmology can explain the whole spectrum. Can you?

Ah yes, your "watershed" idea.
Unfortunately for you, it has been shown to be non-sense.


Again, the momentum (and kinetic energy) of the electron does not affect the Compton scattering: if the direction of the photon does not change, the wavelength does not change, whatever the initial momentum of the electron was before scattering.
There is no "watershed".

Wrong. It is only Compton scattering, there is no other "mechanism".

You are the only one here living in a dream.
It is a pity that refuse reality.

__________________
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)

Wrong Papageno, there are at least two of them. Oh no, it's contagious

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

No, you called him a half-wit, you did not provide evidence that he is wrong.
I strongly suspect that you actually do not understand his argument, hence you had to resort to some other way to avoid the issue.

Where is the math to support your point? Show us.

__________________
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)

Unless akirabakabaka is just an alter-ego of Ashmore, I still have some hope that he will try to learn.

__________________
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)

Have you ever looked at Hubble's Constant and thought "what the heck is km/s/Mpc?" These strange units are only used in the context of Hubble's Constant and are derived from the assumption that space is expanding. They have no meaning without this assumption.

Let's look at the FAQ:
Ashmore's model does not use these units, because it reinterprets Hubble's redshifts. Now we have a different assumption, instead of expanding space we say that light loses energy as it hits electrons. His model relies on electron densities in IG space, so now we are looking at number of electrons per cubic meter (instead of the rate at which space expands).

I have tackled this once before in another thread. The values 72km/s/Mpc and 0.6Ne/m^3 are derived from mutually exclusive theories (actually they are both measured observationally). If we convert both values to SI units, we discover they have matching dimensions, so we can make a comparison between them. To convert from one to the other is actually meaningless, except to show that both theories give the same answer. But if you do the math both sides have the same units, in the same way that 1m/s = 100cm/s.

I didn't mean to offend you, but you are asking trivial questions that are answered in the first section of Ashmore's paper, and claiming he is wrong because you don't understand it. I humbly suggest reading the material more thoroughly. Please ask questions if you need to, that's what this thread is for, but let's not all assume we have the answers before we've seen the material.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

These trivial questions raise the issue of whether Ashmore has a basic understanding of physics.
He has been found to be severly lacking.

Claims supported by evidence.

Do us the same courtesy.
You could start with Feynman's Lectures on Physics.
These should make you realize how wrong Ashmore is.

We did, but Ashmore prefers avoiding the issues and mindlessly repeating his claims.

You assume that we did not read Ashmore's writings.
Unfortunately for him we did, and we can see what is wrong with them.

__________________
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)

You asked a question that was specifically addressed by Ashmore on his website, so no, I figured you may not have seen it.

I am sorry that you feel you are being attacked or that I have sided with lyndonashmore because I made you aware of material that you asked about.

He's not even talking about the mechanism here! He is saying that if we assume that the mechanism is correct, then this is what would happen. We know you have decided he is fundamentally wrong. That is completely besides the point. We can still discuss the theory, can't we? This explanation by Ashmore is internally consistent with his theory, that is all that matters.


We all understand wonderfully that you have decided the theory is wrong. If you think that continually stating your position is going to brainwash anyone into believing you.. well.. I think it's worked actually, but not on me.

If anyone can show a fault in Ashmore's math, then please do so. So far the only objection is that he is misapplying theorems. This may be technically true, but by doing so he is able to predict quite a few things to impressive degrees of accuracy. So maybe this means he is not misapplying them afterall.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Compton scattering only applies to bound electrons, and implies a change of direction. Our IG plasma photon-electron collision has neither of these conditions, so it can't be Compton. Have you thought of Raman scattering? I wonder how much of Ashmore's theory overlaps Jerry's CREIL.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Yes I did, and I explained in length where it is wrong.

You are projecting Ashmore's behavior on me.

What math? His unbalanced units in his first "paradox"?

And equating atoms to free electrons.

He still has not provided the spectrum of the CMB.

I guess you won't bother to read anything besides Ashmore's writings, or maybe do some research on your own.

__________________
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)

I called him no such thing.
I aked him to 'imagine one stood at the side of the pond' - there was no actual reason to edit the post.
I showed where his maths is incorrect in the analogy to the frog.
Cheers,
lyndon

Wrong.
If you look it up, Compton scattering is observed in materials with X-rays. I already explained in this very thread why.
The theory explaining the Compton effect (simply conservation of momentum and energy) deals with a free electron, and the case where the photon does not change direction is considered (no loss of energy, hence no change in frequency)

So, now the electrons in a plasma are no longer affected by "restraining forces".

So, even you cannot distinguish between free electrons and atoms.

__________________
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)

You were not very subtle, don't think you can fool us.

You did not.
He wrote down the equations for conservation of energy and momentum, and showed that an "absorption" of the photon by the electron leads to an unphysical situation.
You replied with an analogy (no, no equations), which does not work for a plasma.


EDIT to fix quote attribution.

__________________
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)

First problem with this is that there is a huge fudge factor—n, the density of the electrons in IG space. The value of n is not well known—and the methods we use to calculate it now derive from the big bang model and expansion. Even assuming that the mechanism exists, he’s right about n, and he’s right about the rate of collisions based on his cross section equation, Ashmore has not proven that the “bremsstrahlung” radiation produces the spectrum of the CMB, merely that it is in the correct neighborhood for some frequencies of light. Without the spectrum, it is numerology. I ran a few simulations myself, and didn’t get anything resembling the CMB, but I’m not convinced I’ve taken everything into account.

Whether or not Ashmore’s equations accurately model observed redshift depend entirely on the selection of n, regardless of the correctness of his mechanism—and an error in his collision cross section equation would completely change the result. It is again numerology.

Er, math can be intrinsically correct and still have nothing to do with the physical world. The theories that Ashmore misapply are the only link between the math and reality—misapplying them makes the correctness of the math irrelevant.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

He showed no such thing. I will not waste my time going through bad math, but for one thing, he appears to have difffering solutions for newtonian and relativistic calculations when they should both agree.
Thye maths is wrong because he has neglected to take into account that there are two recoils here in opposite directions. Sylas is looking at the whole thing and is surprised when they cancelled.
No Sylas is wrong in basic maths.
Chers,
Lyndon

He showed that you cannot have conservation of both momentum and energy, didn't he?
So, where exactly is he wrong?

Show us that they should agree.

You just showed that you do not understand conservation of momentum.

Provide the evidence.

__________________
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)

Why not. If it's so bad it should be easy to show, in the equations, where it's wrong. Or is it you can't show where Sylas' math is wrong, and that's why you have to keep resorting to analogies hoping nobody notices you haven't or can't show where Sylas' equations are wrong?

Just appears? You can't show it?

So..... where is your QM equations explaining the two recoils.

How about your full CMB spectrum that you were asked to provide more than six months ago?

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

That explains a lot.

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

Thanks for jumping in with some fresh thoughts, Demigrog

Are you sure about that last point? I havn't come across anything that suggests this, but I'm not sure. However I have seen plenty of estimates of n and they are all between 0.1 and 10 per cubic meter, and this is just one measurement that is needed, compared to the multitude of isotope ratios required for BBN (systematic errors), so this isn't a strong objection to the model.

I'm not sure why this is a killer either. Even if it turns out the microwave radiation from Ashmore's model doesn't explain the CMB 100%, this has little effect on the rest of the theory. The claim that the CMB is entirely leftover from the BB itself seems kind of short sighted.

This is a great point, but all of the same objections apply to expanding space as well.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere