Maybe we can engineer some solar sailing automated craft now and take advantage of this property.

Maybe we can engineer some solar sailing automated craft now and take advantage of this property.

Why would you want a *transparent* solar sail?

From the last paragraph of above article:

"This effectively supports the hypothesis of expanding universe. In the mass polariton theory of light this hypothesis is not needed since redshift becomes automatically proportional to the distance from the star to the observer," explains Professor Jukka Tulkki.

How on earth can this be construed as "supports the hypothesis of EXPANDING UNIVERSE" by that professor? It actually supports the TIRED LIGHT hypothesis! I have long pointed out how the many glancing photon-matter collisions and the dispersive re-radiation of SOME the 'sapped energy' at a variety of many off-line-of-motion angles, will greatly attenuate/sap energy from the traveling photon, and do so the more as distance traveled from source to our detectors becomes greater. Hence the REDSHIFT OVER DISTANCE correlation observed! Hence there is NO NEED for the EXPANDING UNIVERSE hypothesis at all.
So, @antialias, @RNP, @IMP-9, etc; will you now agree with me? :)

@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I'm good, it's a little wet today but non great problem, thanks for asking.

So, @antialias, @RNP, @IMP-9, etc; will you now agree with me?

Hooyeei, that would be something, eh Cher? Ol Ira-Skippy is giving good odds that will never happen. Any takers?

Duplicated. Deleted by me. Thanks.

You are welcome Cher, it was just as weird as the first one, so you probably did not do any harm.

@Uncle Ira.

@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I'm good, it's a little wet today but non great problem, thanks for asking.

So, @antialias, @RNP, @IMP-9, etc; will you now agree with me?

Hooyeei, that would be something, eh Cher? Ol Ira-Skippy is giving good odds that will never happen. Any takers?

So, you, a bot-voting ignoramus, recommends/predicts that ME being correct on that TOO, is sufficient grounds for NOT agreeing with me? So much for your 'scientific method' hey, Ira? Pitiable, as well as "wet". :)

ps: The forum can see that you are again trying to 'bury' the thread in your troll crap so you/gang can then claim to have 'not seen the evidence' of my correctness all along. What an internet loser you are, Ira. Pitiable.

Hmmmm. I'm pretty skeptical. I'll have a look at the paper on arXiv: https://arxiv.org...7224.pdf

From the last paragraph of above article:

"This effectively supports the hypothesis of expanding universe. In the mass polariton theory of light this hypothesis is not needed since redshift becomes automatically proportional to the distance from the star to the observer," explains Professor Jukka Tulkki.

How on earth can this be construed as "supports the hypothesis of EXPANDING UNIVERSE" by that professor? It actually supports the TIRED LIGHT hypothesis! I have long pointed out how the many glancing photon-matter collisions and the dispersive re-radiation of SOME the 'sapped energy' at a variety of many off-line-of-motion angles, will greatly attenuate/sap energy from the traveling photon, and do so the more as distance traveled from source to our detectors becomes greater. Hence the REDSHIFT OVER DISTANCE correlation observed! Hence there is NO NEED for the EXPANDING UNIVERSE hypothesis at all.

So, @antialias, @RNP, @IMP-9, @DS, etc; will you now agree with me? :)

What an internet loser you are, Ira. Pitiable.

We are just fooling around here Cher. You don't have to have such a thin skin.

Oh yeah, I almost forget,,,,,,

So, @antialias, @RNP, @IMP-9, @DS, etc; will you now agree with me?

And you call me a the internet loser and pitiful. At least I don't have to go around begging peoples to agree with me, two times in a row in the same article, three times if you count the one you took down because it was twice as goofy as the first one.

@Da Schneib.

Hmmmm. I'm pretty skeptical. I'll have a look at the paper on arXiv: https://arxiv.org...7224.pdf

Good morning (here), mate! You will note that Uncle Ira is still trying to 'bury' my initial post under his troll crap so that he can later deny I posted correct science on this issue as well. I re-posted it so you/gang will not miss it. Can you please read my post and give the forum your thoughts re what I pointed out?

The point I made is: that this large-distance-travel-redshifting attenuation of photonic energy supports/explains the 'tired light' hypothesis involving increasing redshifting with increasing large distances travelled by photons from far sources through the intergalactic medium (which medium we now know is present in greater quantity than previously assumed when 'expanding universe' was first hypothesized).

If you/others can respond politely and on-point, leaving out past/personal issues, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. :)

First error I found, or anyway it looks like one:

The reader can easily verify that a photon with energy E=ℏω and momentum p=ℏω/(nc) does not fulfill the covariance condition E² - (pc)² = (m[ph]c²)² if the rest mass m[ph] of a photon is set to zero.

I'm sorry, why not? I'll need to look further; this might not be wrong, but the author doesn't justify it at this point.

@Phil DePayne.

So is this article saying the universe is not expanding?

Yes. The article writer misquoted the professor in the last paragraph. The part:

"This effectively supports the hypothesis of expanding universe."

should obviously have read:

"This effectively REFUTES the hypothesis of expanding universe."

You can confirm this is what was meant because of the overall context, and also because the subsequent sentence specifically has him as saying:

"...this hypothesis is NOT NEEDED since redshift becomes automatically proportional to the distance from the star to the observer,"

Which explains why the distance-redshift correlation is what is observed without the need for 'expanding universe' or other Big Bang interpretational overlays on the actual redshift data.

ps: By the way, is your username a 'play' on the term "Feel the Pain"? :)

@Phil DePayne.

So is this article saying the universe is not expanding?

Yes. The article writer misquoted the professor in the last paragraph. The part:

"This effectively supports the hypothesis of expanding universe."

should obviously have read:

"This effectively REFUTES the hypothesis of expanding universe.

You know what they call a Skippy who changes the words that somebody else wrote to pretend it is the same thing they have been incorrect about all along? A Really-Skippy lying.

Knock it off. Just because you show up with your own silly looking pointy cap does not mean you are allowed to lie about the writers of the articles.

"Using a simple kinematic consideration..."
At that point, my nape hair rose. Either this team is 'not even wrong' about their extrapolation, or Cosmology as we know it has been upended again. Adios 'Dark Energy' ??

@Phil DePayne.

So is this article saying the universe is not expanding?

Yes. The article writer misquoted the professor in the last paragraph. The part:

"This effectively supports the hypothesis of expanding universe."

should obviously have read:

"This effectively REFUTES the hypothesis of expanding universe.

You know what they call a Skippy who changes the words that somebody else wrote to pretend it is the same thing they have been incorrect about all along? A Really-Skippy lying.

Knock it off. Just because you show up with your own silly looking pointy cap does not mean you are allowed to lie about the writers of the articles.

What's the matter, Ira? Hate it that I am increasingly being confirmed correct, yet again? Is that why you characterize my pointing out (in context and with specific quotes thereafter) an obvious typo by article writer, as somehow not proper? It's standard procedure in discussions. You're desperate.

@Forum.

You will note yet again how the Uncle Ira bot-voting ignoramus troll is trying to 'bury' the science discussion under the clutter of his troll-shite posts, just because he can't stand me being confirmed by ongoing recent mainstream astro/cosmo discovery/review as correct all along on many fronts. Don't you just feel for that bot-voting ignoramus deluding himself he is 'only kidding' as he does all he can, with stupid malicious intent, to skew the metrics and the discourse on a science site; especially targeting me, who has been correct all along, and he, just another pathetic 'entry' in the internet history of moronic trolls; 'enabled' and 'applauded' by a 'gang' of like minded ego-tripping types who NOW just HATE being proven wrong all along. QED.

....construed as "supports the hypothesis of EXPANDING UNIVERSE" by that professor? It actually supports the TIRED LIGHT hypothesis!

by Doppler shift being larger from distant stars. This effectively supports the hypothesis of expanding universe. In the mass polariton theory of light this hypothesis is not needed since redshift becomes automatically proportional to the distance from the star to the observer," explains Prof Jukka Tulkki.

Now hold on to your horses for just a second RC. I copied the entire paragraph noting the good Prof put it into the context of DOPPLER SHIFT, not zany Zwicky's TIRED LIGHT theory.

I will agree with you that it is a murky theory that redshift occurs solely due to Doppler Effect, which is what the good Prof pushes here. It seems nothing in his redshift conclusions takes into account Compton Inelastic scattering. He appears to assume there is a Doppler Shift in his experiment, but his paper doesn't show how he measures it.

@Benni.

Now hold on to your horses for just a second RC. I copied the entire paragraph noting the good Prof put it into the context of DOPPLER SHIFT, not zany Zwicky's TIRED LIGHT theory.

I will agree with you that it is a murky theory that redshift occurs solely due to Doppler Effect, which is what the good Prof pushes here. It seems nothing in his redshift conclusions takes into account Compton Inelastic scattering. He appears to assume there is a Doppler Shift in his experiment, but his paper doesn't show how he measures it.

I see what you are trying to say, Benni. But the actual meaning of the whole study results explicitly points out that the thermal RE-RADIATION (by the atomic constituents/lattice) effectively is "inelastic scattering" in which the photon energy is sapped over distance traveled through the intergalactic medium. So whether you invoke inelastic Compton scattering or other inelastic scattering processes, it's another energy-transfer/loss process. :)

the actual meaning of the whole study results explicitly points out that the thermal RE-RADIATION (by the atomic constituents/lattice) effectively is "inelastic scattering"

Yep,you're right on the money.

When you're talking about energy transfer via "re-radiation" you're talking about Compton Inelastic Photon Scatter Effect, which is why I brought it up. It was absolutely baffling to me that the good prof would spend an entire paper discussing the obvious Compton Effect & turn around & obliterate the heart of his paper by crediting energy transfer via Doppler Effect Redshift.

We know Doppler Effect Redshift occurs when galaxies are changing position with respect to where we are located in the Universe.

There is a point at some distance from Earth where redshift due to Compton Effect overcomes Doppler Effect, but we just don't know at what point of redshift that occurs, be it z=1, 2, 3? It would be near the point that blue disappears from spectroscopy.

Right, so here's the first big problem with applying this to cosmology:

If the rate of change in frequency over distance *changes over time* then this implies that there was *more matter in intergalactic space in early times*. This in turn implies expansion! Oops.

Alternatively, there is more matter in intergalactic space far from the Earth than close to it. In this case, space is not homogenous; there is an unexplained mass gradient. This then becomes hand-waving at some special configuration of the universe which places Earth in a special location. This is an extremely distasteful conjecture, since uniformity and the universality of physical law militate against it.

We'll see how many more things I find that cause problems with these sorts of conjectures.

FTA;

"Since our work is theoretical and computational it must be still verified experimentally, ...

So, RC...
Be very careful which star you hitch your wagon to...

@Benni.

Yes, it struck me similarly! His 'take' seemed to be narrowed by his apparent fixation on Doppler effect; and the current 'convention' of interpreting/treating universal expansion 'values' via a Doppler Term in the equations rather than what should be via INTRINSIC and KINEMATIC terms (which are REAL, not just 'assumed equivalents' of something as is assumed via the Doppler treatment).

BTW, Benni, I note there is a subtle, but important, effective difference between this and other types of 'scattering'. In this process, in a 'transparent' medium, only SOME of the photon's energy is 'sapped', going into thermal energy of the medium/lattice etc. The photon itself is nevertheless still 'intact' (albeit lower in energy) and still traveling in original direction. So RE-RADIATION may be in TWO (or more) forms/directions. As 'in line' exiting original (now redshifted) photon AND as randomly emitted thermal energy as the excited medium 'relaxes' after photon passes. Cheers.

Frankly in order to account for redshift increasing with distance with this hypothesis, one would need to show that the effect is sufficient in the extremely low densities in the intergalactic medium. I don't see anything here that looks even remotely like that, either in this article or in the paper. The PI on this paper seems to be making claims that aren't backed up by the paper. I think I'll look into his previous work.

And, if you bothered to read the Physical Review, their calculations were for much denser and "non-dispersive" transparent medium, NOT the thinly distributed, weightless (dispersible) mass found in the intergalactic medium.where light momentum would have far less effect...

@Da Schneib.

If the rate of change in frequency over distance *changes over time*

Where does *changes over time* phrase appear in the paper? Are you basing your "if" on a conjecture of your own? If so, then not germaine to this study/results?

then this implies that there was *more matter in intergalactic space in early times*. This in turn implies expansion! Oops.

The aggregation of matter/medium into galaxies, clusters and filaments would effectively make the medium more 'rarefied in space', not imply 'expanding space' as you have just done without any basis for it.

Alternatively, there is more matter in intergalactic space far from the Earth than close to it. In this case, space is not homogenous; there is an unexplained mass gradient.

More conjecture?

This study is aimed at photons traveling COSMIC distances CUMULATIVELY being sapped of energy as implied/explained; IRRESPECTIVE of intergalactic medium density 'variations' along the TOTAL PATH length.

@Whyde.

FTA:

"Since our work is theoretical and computational it must be still verified experimentally,

Be very careful which star you hitch your wagon to..

This study involves more tenable physical approach/processes than the pure maths 'inventions' of BB, Inflation, Dark Energy etc; so why should anyone still 'prefer' those and 'ignore' this more reality-based study/results, Whyde? :)

And, if you bothered to read the Physical Review, their calculations were for much denser and "non-dispersive" transparent medium, NOT the thinly distributed, weightless (dispersible) mass found in the intergalactic medium.where light momentum would have far less effect...

I read the actual paper Whyde (DS linked it earlier). The intergalactic medium has many 'ices' and other transparent particulates that cumulatively constitute a serial interaction situation for this effect to be important over vast cosmic distances. And cold BOSE-EINSTEIN 'condensates' also in space. Ok? :)

@RC, I know for a fact you cannot possibly have done the calculations to show the IGM is capable of producing enough redshift to account for what we see; you have made it clear you don't "believe in" math. Knowing that, I have no motivation to read anything you post and neither should anyone else.

And that's aside from your habit of lying, which makes it even less likely for reading something you wrote to yield anything useful.

Why do you bother posting here? Why do you bother to lie when you know you'll just get caught, and eventually everyone who catches you will stop listening?

@Da Schneib.

Frankly in order to account for redshift increasing with distance with this hypothesis, one would need to show that the effect is sufficient in the extremely low densities in the intergalactic medium. I don't see anything here that looks even remotely like that, either in this article or in the paper. The PI on this paper seems to be making claims that aren't backed up by the paper. I think I'll look into his previous work.

Re your doubts re density etc, please see relevant parts of my last post to @Whyde immediately above. Add to that the various clouds of dense inorganic/organic molecular medium effectively frming a translucent cross-section 'path' for any photon making its way through the such cloud from one side to the other and traveling on from that side to the next encounter with whatever medium impart this energy-sapping effect on the photon as it gradually loses energy/ is redshifted accordingly in cumulative process over vast travel distances.

RC,

This study is aimed at photons traveling COSMIC distances CUMULATIVELY being sapped of energy as implied/explained; IRRESPECTIVE of intergalactic medium density 'variations' along the TOTAL PATH length.

The "study" mathematically constructed the effect of photon momentum on a no-dispersable (meaning - dense), transparent (meaning - optically conductive) medium.
To say it is about photons travelling cosmic distances is disengenuous, to say the least...
read this - DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.95.063850

@Da Schneib.

@RC, I know for a fact you cannot possibly have done the calculations to show the IGM is capable of producing enough redshift to account for what we see; you have made it clear you don't "believe in" math. Knowing that, I have no motivation to read anything you post and neither should anyone else.

What is the matter with you, DS? Why the maths demands? The whole point is that we NOW KNOW the intergalactic medium is more dense than ever thought before; and in more diverse 'states' than ever thought before. In THAT MAINSTREAM REALITY CONTEXT, and in the context of what I just posted to Whyde and YOU above, the whole thing is OBVIOUS to any objective observer. Get real, mate.

ps: And why keep making insults and bad blood and ignoring what is being posted for your benefit, mate? It's making you look desperate, and ego-driven to 'win at all costs', rather than polite and objective. You don't need to keep dingo it, mate. Just discuss without ego/rancor. :)

Hmmm, looks like it wasn't the PI but some professor at the same university who made this claim. Considering he appears to be a professor of physics who has never published in astrophysics or cosmology, I think we can safely dismiss it as speculative at best.

And another quick ? (MY domain) for you, RC...
What do you think happens when a photon strikes an electron-less (NOT transparent) proton?

@Whyde?

RC,

This study is aimed at photons traveling COSMIC distances CUMULATIVELY being sapped of energy as implied/explained; IRRESPECTIVE of intergalactic medium density 'variations' along the TOTAL PATH length.

The "study" mathematically constructed the effect of photon momentum on a no-dispersable (meaning - dense), transparent (meaning - optically conductive) medium.
To say it is about photons travelling cosmic distances is disengenuous, to say the least...
read this - DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.95.063850

What? Why split hairs, mate? The point is that those space distances CONTAIN all the necessary medium states/densities; and the photons traveling from far distant cosmic sources traverse that media which cumulatively represents a HUGE 'gauntlet' which said photon has to 'run' and which may sap its energy and variously redshift it between emission and reception, as per this process, no matter where it 'happens' along the way. Ok? :)

... The point is that those space distances CONTAIN all the necessary medium states/densities; and the photons traveling from far distant cosmic sources traverse that media which cumulatively represents a HUGE 'gauntlet' which said photon has to 'run' and which may sap its energy and variously redshift it between emission and reception, as per this process, no matter where it 'happens' along the way. Ok? :)

You do realize that for reception and re-emission, a direct hit (at the correct E-voltage) is required, don't you?
At that scale of distance, it would be like shooting at carny ducks - when the ducks are on some unseeable body out in the Oort cloud...

@Whyde.

What do you think happens when a photon strikes an electron-less (NOT transparent) proton?

As I pointed out to Benni earlier, this process is subtly different from the usual cases. In that the photon energy-momentum is 'split' between its own photonic 'traveling feature' and the 'traveling atomic mass density feature' described by that study. In other words, its an affect which involves an ensemble of atoms in medium, not just 'isolated impacts' with isolated 'particles', be they neutral particles or ions (as in atomic nucleus/nucleons per your question).

But re your question, I refer you to wiki pages dealing with plasma/ions excited by photonic radiation of all sorts, in all plasma/ion states of motion and the many various collisional angles. It's too much to explain to you in this limited text forum.

But as you now appreciate, space travel 'history' is not as 'boring' or 'harmless' for photons as previously assumed when dismissing TIRED LIGHT hypothesis. :)

@Whyde.

... The point is that those space distances CONTAIN all the necessary medium states/densities; and the photons traveling from far distant cosmic sources traverse that media which cumulatively represents a HUGE 'gauntlet' which said photon has to 'run' and which may sap its energy and variously redshift it between emission and reception, as per this process, no matter where it 'happens' along the way. Ok? :)

You do realize that for reception and re-emission, a direct hit (at the correct E-voltage) is required, don't you?
At that scale of distance, it would be like shooting at carny ducks -

Do you also say a photon will not strike or interact with a specific particle constituent of light/translucent mist/fog? Or that a photon does not interact with a raindrop as it proceeds through a cross-section of that rain?

Anyway, I again point out that this study involves interaction with ENSEMBLES of atoms which effectively create a traveling atomic density 'wave'.

First error I found, or anyway it looks like one:

The reader can easily verify that a photon with energy E=ℏω and momentum p=ℏω/(nc) does not fulfill the covariance condition E² - (pc)² = (m[ph]c²)² if the rest mass m[ph] of a photon is set to zero.

I'm sorry, why not? I'll need to look further; this might not be wrong, but the author doesn't justify it at this point.

I've only just started reading the paper (thanks for the link, btw), but it looks to me as though it's because in the medium n>1 so p²c² is less than E²

...
Do you also say a photon will not strike or interact with a specific particle constituent of light/translucent mist/fog? Or that a photon does not interact with a raindrop as it proceeds through a cross-section of that rain?

Nope, I don't say that. Those atoms (particles)have electrons which do the actual absorption/re-emission.
Lone Protons don't (unless the photon wavelength is energetic enough). I would hazard that a large proportion of space matter is exactly that - electron-less.

Anyway, I again point out that this study involves interaction with ENSEMBLES of atoms which effectively create a traveling atomic density 'wave.

Ensembles that are electronically bound to each OTHER, first...
And it's a point that I've been relaying to YOU, not the other way around...Quit trying to take credit....

@Whyde.

Ensembles that are electronically bound to each OTHER, first...
And it's a point that I've been relaying to YOU, not the other way around...Quit trying to take credit

Haven't you read the many articles/news re discoveries of uncountable quantities/states of material in intergalactic/interstellar medium? There is a huge range, in size/topology/aggregational-boundings etc, of crystalline/amorphous 'dust', some transparent, some translucent, some opaque (and much variously ionized but not 'entirely electron-less'). Also, vast reaches/clouds of hydrogen/helium so cold it forms various kinds of bose-einstein-like 'condensates'. And I haven't even mentioned the innumerable planetary/stellar atmospheres, ionospheres/magnetosheaths etc 'media' in the 'path' of photons from vast distances. So 'ensembles' can range from 'inside' tiny crystals to 'across' vast clouds, and can affect photons going through them, extracting energy as described. Not 'clean' and 'simple'. :)

Substituting,

E=ℏω so E²=(ℏω)²
p=ℏω/(nc) so pc=ℏω/n and (pc)²=(ℏω/n)²
So,
(ℏω)²-(ℏω/n)²=(m[ph]c²)²
OK, I'll buy that; (ℏω/n)²<(ℏω)² if n>1, which it is in any refractive medium. Thus (m[ph]c²)²>0 and that means m[ph]>0 in a refractive medium.

Thanks, @del2.

What's missing here is any evidence that the IGM is a refracting medium. What's required if this paper is correct is sufficient interaction between atoms in the IGM and photons from galaxies moving through it to cause not merely refraction but enough to account for observed redshift; and considering the IGM is about 1 proton per cubic meter, I would say this is a huge stretch. Note that we know the protons are there, we can see the extinction ratio between different values of z, and we know there isn't anything else significant because we'd see the spectral extinction lines if there were.

I'm not buying this effect being strong enough to account for observed redshift. If someone has the math bring it. If I get bored and have the time given my other priorities I may attempt to both find some observation of the extinction ratio over z values, and calculate how much it should be from the known density of the IGM.

@Da Schneib.

I'm not buying this effect being strong enough to account for observed redshift. If someone has the math bring it. If I get bored and have the time given my other priorities I may attempt to both find some observation of the extinction ratio over z values, and calculate how much it should be from the known density of the IGM.

Bear in mind, this is only ONE way photonic energy may be affected when traveling vast distances.

There are Other 'scattering' processes which can up/down shift a photon's energy.

THIS particular study implies distantly-sourced photons ACTUALLY travel through intergalactic, interstellar medium 'material' in all sorts of states/scales; not to mention that any photon coming from far distances cannot avoid having travelled through a LOT of stellar/planetary atmospheres/energetic environments etc, which may also attenuate photonic energy depending on distances/paths taken.

So redshift may NOT involve just ONE contributory process. :)

So redshift may NOT involve just ONE contributory process.

Yeah, it's two processes......Inelastic Photon Scatter & Doppler Shift.

Schneibo imagines redshift is 99.999999% Doppler Effect. He thinks this because he hangs his hat on this statement:

considering the IGM is about 1 proton per cubic meter

, while totally ignoring the proven fact that about a dozen micron sized particles exist within every cubic kilometer of space, it's been measured & we know the incidence of micron sized particles striking satellites on interplanetary trajectories.

@RC, I know for a fact you cannot possibly have done the calculations to show the IGM is capable of producing enough redshift to account for what we see; you have made it clear you don't "believe in" math

Obviously you haven't done them either or you would realize the statistical improbability that anything traveling through 14Gyrs of IGM won't hit many IGM micron sized particles as I pointed out above.

since uniformity and the universality of physical law militate against it.

..........there is no such "physical law", you make up stupid stuff because you have already arrived at a conclusion before actually taking into account the provable Laws of Physics. This is just more of your Inferred pseudo-Science of INFERRED GRAVITY features you concoct from Black Hole Math & DM.

If you really want to do some useful math, then start working on the statistical improbability that a photon traveling from 14 billion light years away will never hit a micron sized IGM that has been measured to exist at about a dozen per cubic kilometer of Space.

You have any idea what a micron sized IGM will do to a photon? Yeah, we're not talking about protons here, we're talking about atomic mass size material with an electron shell structure which readily absorbs a photon through Inelastic Scattering & re-emits energy at a lower level of the EM Spectrum.

thank You Miles Mathis for long ago explaining the 'charge field' and real photons and their real spin.

Quote Da Schneib: "What's missing here is any evidence that the IGM is a refracting medium."

Could it possibly be light itself from the opposite direction?

Quote Da Schneib:"What's missing here is any evidence that the IGM is a refracting medium."

Could it possibly be light itself from the opposite direction?

What schneibo doesn't understand is that IGM can create an Elastic Photon Scattering effect as well as Inelastic. It is well known from satellite measurements that each cubic kilometer of space contains about a dozen micron sized particles, this is in addition to a few protons of hydrogen atoms.

Take a line of sight view of some galaxy at 14 light years distance, calculate the total number of atomic mass & micron sized particles that exists within that LOS, let's say it's 20. There is no REALISTIC statistical probability that a single photon emanating from that galaxy will enter your eyeball never having hit an IGM several times before you saw it.

When a photon hits an IGM & does not transfer energy it is called Elastic Scattering because the collision may result in small change of direction.

Quote Da Schneib: "What's missing here is any evidence that the IGM is a refracting medium."

Could it possibly be light itself from the opposite direction?

This should be easily testable with lasers...

...
When a photon hits an IGM & does not transfer energy it is called Elastic Scattering because the collision may result in small change of direction.

- or just plain absorbed, depending on the angle....

Hard gamma rays- minimum about 1 MeV- can interact by fluctuating into particles, which then interact with another photon, but the cross section for this is very small. Six orders of magnitude higher energy gamma rays- very rare- interact sufficiently with the CMB that they are extinguished by it over intergalactic distances.

However, otherwise, photons do not interact with other photons. They have no charge to interact with. So, no, it can't be light from the opposite direction.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Quote DS: "However, otherwise, photons do not interact with other photons. They have no charge to interact with. So, no, it can't be light from the opposite direction."

I agree with that statement but individual light wave might be able to refract each other. WG proposed a test that might be able to shed light on that question.

A long trough in the space.
To the other end telescope. It is watching a distant galaxy. A galaxy whose place is known. If the galaxy appears to be in the wrong place, we know that space does not arise. And not expand.

Love
1039
☺

Photons are foaming foams of expanding light. Expanding photons are a small part of expanding light. The speed of the expanding light accelerates to the same ratio as the substance and the light expanding.

The nuclei of the atoms expand and recycle what they consist of. This expanding pushing force in the quarks will change over time. The same expanding quark, with expandable pushing force has changed many times. :)

The expanding nuclei of the atoms recycle the expanding pushing force. Expanding pushing force exiting from the core of the expanding atom has the nature of expanding electrons and photons. But it has to face the pushing power of the dense density to create a new expanding electron or a new expanding photon.

Expanding condensations vs. expanding space

Those who believe in the Big Bang theory, believe in the existence of a an expanding
space! But no one is capable of explaining of what is making the expanding space
expand, or how it does it! No one can tell what happens to the expanding space when
it expands!

I have asked and I have received these kinds of answers!

Question: What happens to the expanding space when it expands?

Answer: The metric coordinate system of the space is growing.

Question: Where is based on?

Answer: It is based on the expanding of the space.

As you can see, there doesn´t exist a well founded answer to this, not yet anyway!
No one can tell what kind of system the expanding space in itself is!
Etimespace

Those who believe in the Big Bang theory, believe in the existence of a an expanding
space! But no one is capable of explaining of what is making the expanding space
expand

A name has been put to that 'dark energy'. It's still very hypothetical. And you are right: we don't yet know why space is expanding. That' why science is fun: figuring out stuff we don't know.
On the other hand: No, people don't 'believe' in expanding space. We *know* space is expanding because we have very solid observation of the fact since the time of Hubble.

Answer: The metric coordinate system of the space is growing.

Question: Where is based on?

Answer: It is based on the expanding of the space.

Here's how the metric works:
https://en.wikipe...a_metric

At its heart is the assumption that every observer will measure the speed of light as constant (which so far agrees with every experiment made)

How did God create the universe?

So that the universe was born.

Is that science? Is not?

How does space expand?

So that is later more.

Is that science?

Is not!!!

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

How did God create the universe?

Who cares? Wrong forum . This comment site expressly forbids religious postings. Please don't.

Is that science? Is not?

No it's not, as it's not testable.

How does space expand?

So that is later more.

Is that science?

We don't know. But since it's testable (observable) it's science.

Easy distinction: If you can make a *testable* theory (i.e. one that makes a definite prediction) it's science. If you cannot then it's not.

As for your other post: Please don't post while on drugs. Thanks.

You cant test expanding space.

You cant manipulate expanding space.

You can test light.

You can manipulate light.

And if light expanding, we can proof that science way.

You cant never proof that something really happening for space!!!

And thats the way it it!!!

You cant try to get expanding space expanding faster.

You can put material expanding quickly. Atom bomb, you know.

You cant manipulate curving space!!!

You can manipulate light and try to change light movingdirection "in" space!!!

And thats the way it IS!!!

You cant test expanding space.

You can check a galaxy and see how far it is away (e.g. by testing for the brightnes of a 'standard candle' like a Cepheid variable) and then check if expansion produces the expected result (i.e. test the observed red shift against prediction). Voila: Prediction and test.

You cant never proof that something really happening for space!!!

Ya know, you can add as many exclamation marks as you want, but that doesn't change that you're wrong. To quote one of my favorite authors

'Multiple exclamation marks,' he went on, shaking his head, 'are a sure sign of a diseased mind.'
-- Terry Pratchett (Eric)

You cant try to get expanding space expanding faster.

Well, actually you can. If you create a space with negative energy (which is possible with Casimir effect) then space in there will expand. When you have positive energy (or mass) in a space it contracts. Though the effect for expansion is too small to measure (yet)

Lets tell me what happening for expanding space when that expanding space metric goordinate growing.

As the expanding drift expands in space. It extends out into an already existing space. The separate structures of the expanding tensile movement move in space relative to each other.

Does the affiliate link in any way to the expansion of space?

If so how?

If not, tell what's going to expanding the expanding space.

If you can not tell anything about how space expands, why do you believe that space will expand?

You say, light redshifting because space expanding.

I say, old expanding light redshifting, because new expanding light pushing old expanding light etc.

I can manipulate light. I can chack out what happening for light when is moving "space" near the chute long distance.

What you say if light bending when is moving near the chute long distance?

Do you then believe, that space dont curving?

Erm..I can't really answer you any of that, since what you write is complete gibberish.

Once again: Please don't do drugs while posting (or at all, for that matter).

I think you cant answer because you dont have a answer.

I never use any drags. When i was young, i fell into a punchball

@antialias.

Why do you keep using obviously disrespectful, evasive and disingenuous tactics against MrNewTime, anti?

Obviously, he is either not a native English speaker; or someone with difficulty due to brain injury to speech center etc.

You can see that, yet you choose to ridicule him for his disability...in this supposedly enlightened day and age! Have more compassion, tolerance, respect, anti. :)

And re your claims of observed 'expansion': you're just parroting all those increasingly questionable INTERPRETATIONS of observations, not 'evidence'. And how many times do you need to be alerted to the fact that 'standard candle' and other 'cosmic distance ladder' assumptions/techniques and 'data/interpretations' are NOT so 'standard' or 'reliable' as once naively/simplistically thought to be. Haven't you been reading my longstanding cautions and recent mainstream discoveries/reviews that is bringing ALL your 'parrotings' into serious question, anti?

Catch up, anti! :)

Worth noting that there are two different phenomena that are often confused:
Reddening
and
Red Shift
They are not the same. Reddening means that blue light is more likely to be scattered than red light. As a result of reddening sunrises and sunsets on Earth are red; the blue light is scattered more than the red light making the Sun appear redder than it would be if we could see it directly through vacuum.

Red shift on the other hand actually changes the frequency of photons; this is always diagnostic of motion on the part of the observer with respect to the object of observation. Dust and gas extinction cannot mimic this effect.

And we still haven't seen any evidence that the IGM can cause refraction either.

Change is always based on circulation.

What moves there is no space.

Therefore expansion of space can not be based on circulation.

If you disagree, tell me how the movement is about expanding space?

It would be nice to know how space expands.

It's easy to say that space is later more.

In expansive space, believers say: the galaxygroups retreats /deplore / receding each other, but not moving away from each other ansvtgard that is because of the expanding space.

And that expanding space does not expand out.

It will be expanded from the inside to inside somehow somehow.

HOW???

Circulation is most.

Most is where there is no space.

Therefore most cannot be based on circulation.

How can there be space where there is no most?

If you disagree, tell me how there can be most without space?

It would be nice to know how most expands.

OK, I give up, decoding this stuff is like wading through huge vats of snot.

Expanding dwindles / systems / quarks and phtons are expanding in space. They expand out into existing space. Within them, they move what they have. Separate structures of the expansive destabilization move in space relative to each other. Expanding moods consist of an expansive pushing force. They have an expanding pushing force that changes over time. It is based on recycling.

How about expanding space expanding? If you try to explain, do you using movement at all?

If, how?

If not, what you are going to use?

OK, I give up, decoding this stuff is like wading through huge vats of snot.

So, why do you keep reading your own Comments? Imean, anybody who believes infinite density & gravitation can exist inside a finite stellar mass has exactly the same problem. Right Schneibo?

Circulation is most.

I disagree. Most is most. Without most how can there be more?
I vote universe is most and expanding into less most.
If you disagree - why not?

Change is always based on movent. The movement of separate structures in relation to each other. The density and volume of the system changes because of the motion in space.

How does space change? Does the expanded space consist of separate structures that move in relation to each other?

If so, is it then the matter? It is,not space then?

If the space does not consist of separate structures then space just is nothing at all. Then that kind of space can not change.