Please provide a derivation, using a standard framework/approach (such as the one in the Wolfram Research reference), and show that "the plasma would be transparent to these [RWBR] photons".

Please extend this demonstration to cover a representative range of space plasmas (electron densities will do), from the inner solar system ISM to the medium between clusters of galaxies.

What are the ELF (and lower frequency) radio astronomy observations relevant to your (ATM) claim concerning the transparency of space plasmas to this 'RWBR'? In particular, please provide references showing that the Earth's ionosphere is transparent to EM of these frequencies.

ETA: for avoidance of doubt, it seems that your "it follows that the plasma would be transparent to these photons" involves nothing less than a re-write of classical electromagnetism, in a domain where it should be highly pertinent. Is this what you intend? If so, please present your ATM revision of classical electromagnetism (so that BAUT members may question and challenge it).

First off, Nereid: it's Elvis, as in, Martin Elvis of Elvis et al. 1994, the seminal paper on quasar SEDs.

Next off, Nereid: why didn't I think of this before? Guess I'm not very sharp right now.

ExpErdMann: this is the certainly the most important point brought up in the discussion: if quasars are not at cosmological redshifts, they do not have the luminosities given in the 2002 paper you linked, and thus your numbers don't fit. Until you can quantify the actual distances to these quasars are, and thus what their real luminosities are, you've got nowhere to stand!

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

Oops!

And I mis-typed not once, but twice! Yet I read 'Elvis', and thought I'd written 'Elvis', so what went wrong? I think I know: I have been preparing another post for this thread, in which a paper by Ellis et al. figures prominently.

Anyway, enough OT stuff ...Well, to be fair to yourself, you should note that EEM did not make it 100% clear that, in his ATM idea, z is not tightly correlated with distance (for quasars) until quite recently ...

I'll reply to you both here. I think enough doubt has been cast on my use of the Elvis et al. paper to make this a good place to end or at least suspend this particular thread.

There are several factors that I would need to address to make a better overall case for my model:

(1) Rather than relying on the Elvis study and precursors, what I would prefer to have are total luminosities of nearby quasars, as well as data on their mass and radius. With those numbers I could get a better test of my model equation, L = -UH, than by trying to use the universal values.

(2) Trying to use the universal values in the static model scenario is a tough challenge. The papers are not written from that perspective and it is necessary to carefully examine the precursor papers as well. The distances of quasars are an issue (given intrinsic and composite redshifts), but a further complicating factor is the correction factor for brightness. I assume that the distant quasars have their luminosities corrected by a factor of (1 + z)^-4, as called for in the BBT. In a static universe model, the factor would be either (1 + z)^-1 or, if time dilation is included, (1 + z)^-2. Changing the correction factor would have the effect of giving much greater luminosities for distant quasars in a static model. At z = 2, for instance, they would be almost 10 times brighter, which would actually bring the universal quasar luminosities very close to the total stellar luminosities.

(3) When I started the thread, I wasn't thinking about the requirement in a static universe for H regeneration. For full regeneration, SMBHs should actually consume energy at the universal rate ordinary stars are emitting it. For a typical galaxy, on average that would be about 10^44 erg/sec. This could potentially make SMBHs much darker than they otherwise would be.

As you can see, the issues are too complex to take on in a single, focused thread. I've gotten food for thought and so am happy to end off here, unless others have points they would like to discuss. Thanks for your interesting discussion.

Nereid, we'll have to set the RWBR bit aside for another time. I don't think we were about to convince each other of anything there any time soon and it was not the thing I was wanting to discuss in this thread anyway. Thanks for having a look at my gravity model.

ExpErdMann, I salute you.

By your response here you are in a very, very select group* of those who present ATM ideas here in BAUT: those who freely acknowledge significant weaknesses in their ATM ideas, as presented (to date).

I wish you well in your endeavours to develop your ideas further, and look forward to your next ATM thread.

================= However, ... =================
From what little I know of alternative ideas on quasar distances (to the mainstream 'at cosmological distances implied by their observed redshifts'), I expect the recalibration to a static model (your point 2) above) will be child's play compared with the recalibration you will need to do to put quasars (and galaxies!) at whatever distances you deem 'correct'. Even if you - somehow - succeed in estimating distances to quasars (and galaxies) consistently (in some alternative model), I doubt that you could present any case based on these without also addressing challenges to whatever 'not at distances implied by redshifts' approach(es) you used.

*Earlier this year I noted only two other members; since then I think there may be another two or so ... out of >1,000 ATM threads!

Thanks, Nereid. In long campaigns strategic retreat is a time-honoured tactic! I look forward to the next threads too.

(source)

So, EEM, what's it to be?

"set the RWBR bit aside for another time"? or "but not for the plasma frequency argument that you raised"?

Please state your intention as explicitly as possible.

Note that if you do intend to continue with 'the plasma frequency argument' and 'a counterargument', I have quite a few direct, pertinent questions on the ATM idea you presented, as you presented it.

Note too that this thread but a few days to live ...

I've posted a question in Q & A which could help (with this thread and also with paul schroeder's)

One of the more worthy ATMs I've seen here. Hate to see it vanish.

First, it won't (ever?) 'vanish' - Fraser made it very clear that no ATM thread that has reached its 30 day 'use by' date will be deleted.

Second, what makes it 'worthy', in your view? The attempt to link an estimate of radiated energy (per an ATM idea) with observed EM energy from quasars?

Or an ATM mechanism for gravity?

Or something else?