I ignored the whole "completely different mechanism" thing (why is plasma lensing going to give you the same time delay formula as gravitational lensing?) and all the other problems with your cosmology, and just took the tired light distance-redshift relation:

Since your theory has the universe as static rather than expanding or even steady state, and because it seems to be flat, the angular diameter distance is D. Hubble's constant from gravitational lensing is proportional to

d_l * d_s / d_ls

where d_l is the angular size distance to the lens, d_s is that to the source, d_ls is the same between the lens and source, and d = H*D. I calculated this ratio for a lens using both a conventional cosmology (27% matter, 73% dark energy etc) and your model. For the lens (B0218+357) your model gives a ratio 150% of the conventional one, or a value for Hubble's constant of over 100 (the conventional value for H0 in this lens is from 60 to 70km/s/Mpc; here). So it seems that to support your cosmological model (with a value for H0 closer to 64 km/s/Mpc), lensing cannot assume your cosmological model!

(Editted for clarity)

Have you ever switched your television on and found that it worked?
AC currents are sinusoidal, that is the electrons perform SHM. Now the 'drift velocity' of these electrons as they perform this SHM is around 0.1 to 1 mm per second and each cycle takes 0.02 secs. Whilst these electrons in your t/v wires perform shm at 0.1mm per sec they also have a random thermal motion. The average 'thermal' speed of these electrons with which they move randomly, colliding into this , that and the other is around 10^5 m/s. This means that whilst they are following this perfect SHM motion, they travel a distance of 2km and this with all the collisions. Does your T/V still work? yes it does. The random thermal motion can be ignored and it is only the SHM component that matters.
It is the same with photons and the electrons in IG space. The random thermal motion does not count because it ias in a straight line so this does not cause our electron to radiate energy. Unlike our electrons in your T/V wire it doesn't even collide with anything whilst it absorbs and re-emits the photon.
In all scatter theories, the elctron/atoms are considered 'at rest'.
There is no problem or anything different here.
Cheers,
Lyndon

Sounds interesting Gerbil94, do you have a reference where we can all 'bone up' on what you are doing?
Cheers,
Lyndon

Papageno,
Stop filibustering! There is no way that anyone can answer all those posts and have a life.
Pick out one or two points that are more important to you and I will answer them.
Cheers,
Lyndon

Irrelevant to your "theory".
These AC currents are forced oscillations.


Drift velocity is the result of the balance between accelerating electric field and the viscuous effect of scattering in the conductor.
Again, this is irrelevant to your "theory".

The speed of "thermal motion" is an average.
What is the scattering rate of the electrons?
What is the average scattering time compared to the period of the AC voltage?
How many scattering event happen within a period os the AC voltage?

No, it is not.
The density is much lower in the IG plasma.


So, now there are no "restoring forces".


And both Sylas and Celestial Mechanic have shown how it works.

__________________
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)

Ah, the "I have a life" excuse.
I am not addressing the points for you.
My interest lies with the "fence-sitters": I don't want them to get the wrong impression, if your mistakes are not pointed out.

You can pick a point and address it.
However, it does not change the fact that the basic mechanism for your "theory" does not happen in the real world.

EDIT to add: you have put a lot of effort into citing sources that contradict your claims, or are not relevant to your "theory".
At the same time you avoided addressing many issues raised about the implications of your "theory" and the lack of consistency in your many claims.
All this effort would have been better spent into correcting your many errors.

__________________
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)

Sylas wrote

[/quote]
You need some reading material
Try some Mursula first page 12 .
I have other references but I have to locate them - I am in the process of sending the wife to Siberia so I am tied up at the moment (she is going to see her mum by the way) but I will find them.
Cheers,
Lyndon

So are mine, the electrons are forced into oscillation by the incoming photon.
Cheers,
Lyndon

[quote]Ah! playing to the audience.
say no more....
Cheers,
Lyndon

Wrong.
A single photon cannot force electrons in an oscillation.
You need a macroscopic EM wave (a lot of photons) for that.

__________________
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)

Will do,
It may take a day or so to find the reference.
The weekend starts now, going out.
Se yah.
Lyndon

Cohn provides a lot of links to useful pages, especially review articles. There's also an excellent "living review" by J. Wambsganss here, which discusses the basics of lensing and the time delay equation.

The standard textbook in the field is Schneider, Ehlers and Falco, which is expensive, quite old, and very mathematical. The number of lenses known in 1992 (when the book was published) was of the order of ten or less, whereas now there are more than 80 known. So the book is slightly observationally bare, although the theory is all valid. You are probably much better off with the reviews linked to from Cohn and the review by Wambsganss.

What I did previously relies on the fact that you can write the lens time delay equation as

If you regard the plasma lens as somehow behaving exactly like a gravitational lens then the "observed_quantities" factor should be the same for both situations, and

where d2_* come from the tired light cosmology (d = c ln(1+z) ) and d1_* come from the expanding cosmology. All you have to do is use the tired light distance-redshift relation to get d2_l, d2_s and d2_ls for some lens with a measured source and lens redshift and a previously estimated value for H0 (H in tired light). Then do the same for the standard cosmology, although this requires a numerical integration.

The various cosmological distance calculators available on the web can deal with d1_s and d1_l, although make sure that you get the angular diameter distance because it's different from what they will probably give you, and be sure to multiply their distances in Mpc by the value of H0 you gave as input to the calculator - then you have the H0-independent d_*, and not the D_*. I have yet to see a web calculator that does d1_ls (note that in an expanding universe you can't use d_ls = d_s - d_l). There are some papers and libraries lying around that might be of help there.

This is irrelevant to the point about rest mass. It deals rather with oscillations of electrons. In both cases, Lyndon's physics is trivially and egregiously wrong. His present technique is to flood the board with a multitude of distractions. Point out the errors in one area, and Lyndon slips off into another, where he is just as wrong but can pretend that others are missing the point. Show the errors in the other area, and the original defect pops up again!

Here are three recurring very basic errors in Lyndon's "physics".

1. Variable rest mass of an electron.

Lyndon's invocation of variable electron rest mass can be found in this post.

Atoms and nuclei have an internal structure and excited states. The excited state of an atom gives it an increased rest mass. Atoms also have the usual kinetic energy from velocity and potential energy from location in fields.

Electrons don't have internal structure, and so they have a rock solid constant rest mass. They can have kinetic energy from velocity, and potential energy from location, but neither of these is an increase in rest mass.

In the interaction Lyndon proposes, a photon interacts with an electron that is about half a meter from any other particles.

There is no substantial displacement over the duration of the collision. The electron is around half a meter or more from any other particle, and so small displacements over the duration of an interaction make no difference. Therefore there is no change in any potential energy term. There is no atomic nucleus or other particle, and so there is no excitation energy. There is only the kinetic energy of the electron, and the energy of photons.

2. Macroscopic oscillations and individual particles.

The stuff about drift velocity in wires is wonderfully incompetent. Electrons in a wire carrying an AC current most definitely do not engage in simple harmonic motion. The thermal motions of electrons in a wire are many orders of magnitude greater than the drift velocity, and if you look at motions of one individual electron, you will be unable to detect any difference when a wire is carrying a small current of an amp or so. The drift velocities from the current are swamped by the thermal motions of the electron. But a wire contains many billions of electrons, and when you average over all of them, the thermal component of velocities averages out to nothing, and all that is left is drift velocity. Current and drift velocity and oscillations are useful concepts applied to amalgamations of billions of electrons. They have a negligible significance for the motions of one electron in a wire.

It is the same with oscillations in rarefied plasma. Oscillations and phonons in rarefied plasma are only significant over very large scales, when you can combine the effects of many particles and abstract various kinds of macroscopic effects.

In analysing the energy and momentum of an individual photon/electron interaction, proper application of physics can identify the energy and momentum terms before and after. If there is a cumulative macroscopic phenomenon, it arises from very small differences in many interactions; and such things as the small changes in density as particles are move around after the interactions.

There is no energy term in the analysis of one individual interaction corresponding to this macroscopic average over many interactions. The individual collisions are correctly analysed using only energy and momentum terms for the particles directly involved. The macroscopic effects emerge from many of these averaged together.

3. The energy contribution of individual particle oscillations.

Even if we do have oscillations of individual particles, Lyndon still manages to get the analysis of this incorrect, by treating this as an extra consideration distinct from the energy and momentum analysis already presented by myself and others.

In an oscillation, there is a cyclic change of energy from potential and kinetic. A pendulum alternates between moving slowly at the high points of its trajectory and rapidly at the low points. A vibration alternates between moving slowly at the extremities of the motion, where the potential energy from restoring forces is greatest, and moving rapidly at the centre of motion, where the potential energy is at a minimum. If "oscillations" were really a consideration, they would be handled in the energy budget already with the boost in kinetic energy given to an electron in a collision. That's the only energy term required for the oscillation.

If there is a strong restoring force to bring the electron back to its original position, then a harmonic motion of some kind will result, as those forces act on the subsequent trajectory of the electron after it has received the kinetic energy boost.

Summary

Lyndon's alleged photon electron interaction is impossible, because it violates very straightforward laws of conservation of momentum and energy. A proper analysis of the interaction calculates energy/momentum before, and after. This has been done, and the Lyndon effect shown to be impossible.

Cheers -- Sylas

PS. Added in edit. Credit where credit is due, however. Althrough the reference to Mursula's lecture notes was irrelevant to the context of variable electron rest mass in which it was given, this reference has been an excellent response to my request in this post for a straightforward introduction to some plasma physics. Thanks, Lyndon. You've been the most help of anyone here for finding some good material on plasma physics. I stand by the comments in this post about the errors in how it is applied to photon electron interaction, but I do appreciate your pointing me to some good information.

And when his errors are pointed out, he avoids addressing them because there are too many:

__________________
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)

Nice to know that Lyndon has as much interest in his research as professionals do in theirs. :roll:

If he's not vested enough in this to prove this to anyone (including himself, since his "life" takes precedence over his little revolution here), than why should anyone else bother with it? (I've been tired of these threads since around page 20 of the first one, sure, but this really takes a new light now, IMO.)

Sounds like a page from the Sam5 playbook!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

delivered
Cheers,
Lyndon

It is OK Tobin Dax,
Papageno went on to to explain that he wasn't talking to me, he was just talking to ?
Cheers,
Lyndon

As usual, you cite references that are irrelevant to your "theory":
Let me point out "dense plasma" and photon wavelength "in the range 10-15 nm" (X-rays).
I am not surprised that the electrons that are still bound to the ions might have an effect (he explicitly separates the bound electrons from the free electrons in the plasma).
This model should explain some anomalies in the interaction of dense with X-ray lasers, by taking into account the presence of electrons bound to the ions.

However, this paper has nothing to with Ashmore's "theory", which is supposed to deal with low-density plasma and visible light (wavelength ~500 nm).

__________________
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)

Hi Sylas,
I am happy that you downloaded the Mursala stuff. I will be happier still when you get around to reading it!
Do we agree now that individual electrons in a plasma can oscillate? Page 12 of mursala?


Now, Now Sylas, this is untrue. I have yet to see anyone point out any errors in my theory. You must also remember that this is papageno's thread and I, like everyone else, is just a a visitor on Papageno's thread. Papageno felt that this theory was worthy of further consideration and so we must all thank Papageno for his altruistic action.

Here are three basic recurring faults in Sylas' Physics.
The electron is part of an average atom in the plasma and so it is not by itself. It oscillates and energy is stored by the average atom consisting of a group of electrons and the positive charges. This 'cell' can have different rest energies. You see Sylas, if you read a 'good bedtime book' such as QED by lif****z and landau then you will see that they only refer to a 'system' of electrons' absorbing and re-emitting photons - they do not restrict themselves to the term 'atom' and they also state that they ignore recoil. I don't. I include it and get the Hubble constant.




This is total nonsense Sylas. I am going to insult you now and say:
"Sylas, you think like a mathematician"
Of course individual electrons perform SHM. How else can an ac current flow.
When you say:
They are not swamped and neither are they 'insignificant' because your T/V works! It is the same with my theory, the oscillation of the electrons in the plasma are small and the thermal motion large , but they are still there. You are missing out the intervening detail and missing the beauty of the physics. Just like you said that in the photoelectric effect, the photon "interacted with the whole zinc plate at once". It is nonsense, the end result is true but the photon firstly interacts with an individual electron and then ....

No, Sylas keeps repeating this. He has done his sums on the wrong theory and prefers to keep repeating this rather than apologise for his mistake. He has treated the electrons as 'free' when they most certainly are not. The photon comes in, the electron set into oscillation and absorbed. The restoring forces are there and are provided by the electrical forces from the other charges - just as in page 12 of mursala. The elctron recoils some energy is lost producing a redshift in the photon. The same thing happens on re-emission. Sylas omits the oscillations and gives a treatment on hte Compton effect.
Sylas is trying to prove that light does not travel through a transparent medium. I refuse to believe him because we see it everyday.
When light travels through a transparent medium it is absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in the material. That is what my theory is based upon and Sylas says it cannot happen!! It does, the electrons in plasma are not isolated, there are positive charges there as well and as I showed above electrons in plasma can be considered to be part of an average atom - so where is the problem?
Cheers,
Lyndon

Just two comments :
Wow- blind much?

And two, funny- if it is papageno's thread, why was I disinvited as if it was yours? By the way, I have about six items left unanswered. Wait, that's three.

That's because you cover your eyes when it is in front of you.

If you actually read the opening post, I was addressing specific statements made by akirabakabaka.
I started a new thread to avoid hijacking the thread where those statements were posted.
But I am not surprised that you misrepresent my position: you do it with virtually every source you quote or cite.

Ah yes, Ashmore's new source!
See my post above.


I already showed in the other thread that you misunderstand Landua&Lif****z's book.
That system of electrons is interacting with a positive charge.

I already explained to you that there is an external AC voltage driving that current.
In order for a free electron to oscillate, it needs to change nearly continuously its kinetic energy.
This happens if the electron is "hit" by a near-continuous stream of photons. A single photon is not enough.


Your are projecting on Sylas your behavior.

So, you are not talking about a plasma anymore.


Wrong.
A single photon does not make a free electron oscillate.

Inside a plasma, the Coulomb interaction with the other charges is small because of the distance, and the average of the force is even smaller, because the plasma is isotropic and uniform.

I see that the "restoring forces" are back again.

Because it is Compton effect, despite your claims.

Wrong.
You refuse to believe him, because he does not agree with you.
You misrepresent his position, but you do not provide physical arguments.

That does not happen in a plasma.
You are still doing the mistake of equating plasma to a dielectric medium.


The problem is that you do not understand your sources.
The free electrons in a plasma are not bound to the nucleus, hence they do not respond to electromagnetic waves as the atoms in a dielectric medium.
Johnson adds the effect the non-free electrons (the ones still bound to the nucleus), when the electromagnetic wave with wavelength comparable to the size of the ions.
Johnson's model is irrelevant to your theory.

__________________
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)

Sorry to interrupt here, but, I've been following these threads for some time now and though I'm no physisist I know as an engineer that if a formula doesn't work with different units then there is a problem with the formula no matter how much evidence seems to point to it being correct. AFAIK Ashmores theory fails on that front. Till it can pass that test it can't be considered anything more than coincidence. If it passed that test it would be worthy of serious concideration. I doubt that anyone would dismiss it so lightly if it did. Till we can agree on at least that part then it will be an never ending circle of speculation IMHO.

Just my 2 cents worth, back to lurking mode now......

__________________
MrObvious

Are these the points I missed Pat?
My mechanism is tested everyday when light passes through glass. I just apply this to plasma thats all. Predictions? Well I was predicting the exponential nature of redshifts from 1995 - long before they became politically corrrect. A static universe has been predicting large scale developed structure for years and these are only being discovered now.And as for 'dark matter' why would anyone cite that when we have 'INFLATION'. This is the biggest trumped up non scientific, non testable, non known 'fix' ever.



See above

Never heard of intrinsic redshifts, K Trumpler effect etc where young gasseous stars have too high a redshift?, Young, gassy, lots of plasma???
Cheers,
Lyndon

My formula:
H = 2nhr/m
is perfect in units.
Both sides have base untits of s^-1.
If you are referring to the Hubble constant being equal in magnitude to hr/m then you will see the 'equal in magnitude' phrase each time.
You see in my theory one expects a relation between the sizes of H and hr/m. In the BB one does not so it comes as a big surprise.
Even more so is that if one believes in the BB then my paradox says that the age of the Universe is equal in magnitude to m/hr for the electron.
Now That is just daft. What has the age of the universe to do with the electron - but followers of the BB insist this is so.
Perhaps that is why the Catholic faith celebrate mass - the mass of the electron!
Cheers,
Lyndon

Oh, not this again- Light does not redshift as it passes through glass. We've beaten this horse into a leather wallet.
Then plasma should be crystal clear as well... with no redshift.
Large scale structure was being detected a long while before this. And remember, this is a discussion of the merits of your theory, not your opinion of others.

See what? The lack of redshift in window glass? Which, by the way, is a lot denser than intergalactic media and distribution of electrons.
Sorry, no. Intrinsic redshifts due to plasma have failed simple observational tests and extrapolation to testable situations. I have asked for a prediction. One implied by extrapolating your theory. I gave several examples of what one could surmise: if the media is as clear as you say, shouldn't bodies continue to be found out beyond the 13.7 billion light year redshift, which I know for the sake of argument you don't accept as a proper scale, but I'll put it another way : "further out" beyond the current predicted limit?

OK Pat,
I predict that bodies further out than 13.7 billion light years will be found. How much do you want to bet on it?
As for redshifts in glass?
This is accepted physics. We know that the atoms/electrons do not recoil Ergo no redshift. Why would anyone expect redshifts in glass? goes against physics. However, redshifts in plasma are expected because the electrons here can recoil.
Lets get real here Pat.
If you continue to argue against my theory then you are saying that the age of the universe is m/hr for the electron. Why should the age of the universe be related to the electron?
I say the theory is wrong. redshifts are dependent upon electrons hence the relation between electrons and H.
I ask you Pat, who is the crank here?
You, who says that the age of the universe is m/hr for the electron .
Or me, who says redshifts are due to electrons and hence the relationship?
You choose,
Cheers,
Lyndon

So... Either use your theory or use your formula (from your theory). Kind of circular isn't it? :-?

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage

Lets say that the Hubble telescope finds a new star cluster 14 billion light years away.

Now using your formula of
H = 2nhr/m
what is the value of n? How would you find this value?

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

The units of m/hr is kg/(kg*m^2/s)/m = s/m^3, not s. Jessica H. Simpson on a mahogany crutch! When are you going to get your own bloody theory right? None of us thinks the age of the universe should depend on the mass of the electron, although maybe (just maybe!) the mass of the electron could depend on the age of the universe. (How do you like them apples?)
Again none of us believes in your nonsensical theory which is based on a fallacy and a coincidence valid in only one set of units, and only rescued from the oblivion it deserves by multiplying by the electron density and a constant chosen from thin air, which you keep forgetting about from time to time as your post proves.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.