TemperateSeaIsland
Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi
How much redshift does plasma cause? Is it enough to account for the redshift seen with distant bodies?
Upvote
0
Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
- Status
Is this actually anything more than an appeal to authority fallacy, or are you genuinely curious?
I've been fascinated by astronomy and cosmology theory since I was nine years old, and Neil Armstrong first set foot on the moon. I remember watching the moon landing images in my classroom in school, and at home with my parents. I was absolutely hooked on astronomy ever since the Apollo missions. I'm now 52.
As a kid I just couldn't read enough different theories about the universe. I soaked it all up, and I didn't have a lot of preconceived ideas about what "must be absolutely true" in terms of cosmology. I realized then that most theories were just one possible 'theory' among many options, and most people back then presented material from that perspective. The BB was of course "popular" even then, but it wasn't mucked up with metaphysics back then, and there were still static universe theories to be found and read.
In terms of formal education, though I attended a few physics classes college, as well as some electronic hardware classes in college, my real love turned out to be computer programming. That has never stopped me however from continuing to further my education in astronomy over the years and following it's supposed 'progress' over the years. The internet was really a Godsend in terms of access to information.
For the past 15-20 years (Since the launch of the Yohkoh) spacecraft, I've been primarily fascinated with solar physics, particularly the higher energy atmospheric activity in the solar atmosphere. Solar satellite imagery has been my real passion of sorts as it relates to astronomy.
That fascination with studying solar satellite imagery carried over from the Yohkoh program into the SOHO, GOES, TRACE, Hinode, and now SDO satellite programs. That fascination with high energy satellite imagery eventually lead me to study EU/PC theory about 7 years ago.
Over the past 7 years I've gotten a lot more into 'Electric Universe' theory or Plasma Cosmology theory due to it's empirical strengths, and due to it's application in solar physics. It wasn't until I found Birkeland's work about 7 years ago, that all the satellite imagery pieces began to fit together correctly.
During the past 7 years I've also actively debated many cosmology ideas, on many mainstream astronomy websites, with astronomers from all over the world. I'm practically infamous in astronomy circles at this point in time.
Some things I've learned about astronomy over the years:
It *used* to be an open minded, less egotistical community that realized it's technological and theoretical limitations and there wasn't as much of an attempt to 'herd' everyone towards a single way of thinking. Although BB theories (plural) have been quite popular since Hubble, only in recent times has their been a concerted attempt to "snuff out" competing ideas.
Hubble himself was much more open minded than most astronomers today. He realized that there might be a "tired light"/plasma redshift model that eventually works just as well as expansion ideas to explain the same redshift events. Were he alive today, and able to see that there are now at *least* three plasma redshift alternatives to choose from, I'm sure he'd have been more open minded to the possibility that we live in a static universe that experiences 'plasma redshift' over distance.
From my study of history I can tell you that Einstein himself was perplexed by a "static" universe in GR. When Einstein wrote GR, static universe theories prevailed at the time. GR isn't particularly 'stable' in a static configuration over the course of billions of years. It's fine in a contracting scenario, or an expanding scenario, but based *strictly* on GR, it's more likely that GR will result in an expanding or contracting environment, not a static one. Einstein struggled with that 'problem' as he perceived it for a very long time. His "solution" to solve a "static" universe problem was to add a non zero constant to an otherwise zero constant in GR. When he heard about Hubble's findings of redshift however, and popular opinion began gravitating away from a static universe theory toward an expanding universe, Einstein set that constant back to zero, left it that way for the rest of his life, and called the introduction of a non zero constant into GR his 'greatest blunder'. Note however that during the brief time that Einstein played with a non zero constant in GR, he never tried to characterize it. It's purpose was very simple (stability), and it could have been something quite "simple" like an ordinary EM field.
Lambda-CDM theory isn't the GR theory that Einstein taught to *his* students, it's a variation of "blunder theory" that is stuffed full of all kinds of invisible dark energy friends. Lambda-magic theory is not a form of pure empirical physics as is the case with GR with a zero constant.
I also know from studying history that Hannes Alfven wrote MHD theory and was given the Nobel Prize for his work. Throughout his lifetime he rejected magnetic reconnection theory as "pseudoscience". He wrote a paper on double layers that does away with the need for "reconnection" in any current carrying environment, and oh, by the way, Alfven believed that the whole universe was a current carrying environment. Most astronomers won't tell you this stuff in school by the way.
Alfven also wrote a bang theory, but unlike mainstream theory, it doesn't require a "creation event" in terms of the creation of matter, and nothing contracts to a single "point/clump" in his bang theory.
I also know that over the past ten years, there has been a quantum leap in our technologies. We've put up a whole new fleet of satellites in space and we've built better ground based equipment to study a lot more the universe in a lot more wavelengths, with a lot better precision. We've also started up LHC and we finally had the opportunity to put some SUSY theories to the test recently.
Lambda-CMD "dark matter" *failed* to show up at LHC. No "dark matter" SUSY particles were found, and the Higgs Boson was found at an energy state that precludes the need for SUSY theory in the first place! Standard particle physics theory is now "complete" without SUSY theory or any form of "dark matter".
I also know that over the past few decades, several more forms of plasma redshift have been observed in the lab, further undermining mainstream expansion claims, most recently the Wolf Effect and Stark Redshift, and whatever the mechanism might be in Chen's research.
Many of the new satellites in space have demonstrated in the past five years that the universe is twice as bright and more dusty than we imagined. It's got far more "small" stars that we cannot observe compared to the larger ones we can see than we once believed and 'estimated'. It's got all sorts of plasma around every galaxy. Much of the 'missing mass' has actually been found, but the mainstream hasn't budged a single percent from their "exotic mass" claims in spite of all that information, and in spite of all the failures at LHC.
I also know that mainstream solar theory just bit the dust a few months ago in SDO helioseismology data. It turns out that convection is far too slow to explain "magnetic reconnection" (aka pseudoscience) in the solar atmosphere, and too slow to prevent mass separation from occurring. Birkeland's cathode sun model however passes all those observational tests with flying colors.
Pretty much the entire body of astronomy is falling apart at this point based on recent data. The only thing that's "working" (in the lab) these days is plasma physics. Virtually everything we see, particularly at the higher energy wavelengths is directly related to the flow of current through spacetime.
Over the past 7 years I've gotten a lot more into 'Electric Universe' theory or Plasma Cosmology theory due to it's empirical strengths. I've also have a great deal of opportunity to debate various theories and ideas with astronomers from all over the planet.
Over the past 5 years, I've learned a lot about plasma physics and I've read about a 1/2 dozen textbooks on the topic of plasma physics. I've also read many dozens of papers on the topic of "magnetic reconnection" theory, including Dungey's work where he connects it to an electrical discharge in plasma.
I've completely lost count how many "mainstream" papers I've read on various aspects of Lambda-CDM theory over the years, but it easily numbers in the hundreds.
I've published at least 5 papers now on various topic related to astronomy, and I've been published in the Journal of Fusion energy and Yad Fiz, and Russian publication related to Particle Physics.
arXiv.org Search
What do you know about astronomy?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
According to most theories 'all of it'. Keep in mind however that I'm personally open to the notion of "expanding objects", and I'm open to a combination of factors. I reject all claims of "expanding space" however.
Typically yes.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf
Menu
As I said, I'm personally open to the possibility of an expanding universe, but not a "faster than light speed" expansion process. Matter cannot travel faster than light, and space never does magic expansion tricks in the lab.
Upvote
0
Is this actually anything more than an appeal to authority fallacy, or are you genuinely curious?
I've been fascinated by astronomy and cosmology theory since I was nine years old, and Neil Armstrong first set foot on the moon. I remember watching the moon landing images in my classroom in school, and at home with my parents. I was absolutely hooked on astronomy ever since the Apollo missions. I'm now 52.
As a kid I just couldn't read enough different theories about the universe. I soaked it all up, and I didn't have a lot of preconceived ideas about what "must be absolutely true" in terms of cosmology. I realized then that most theories were just one possible 'theory' among many options, and most people back then presented material from that perspective. The BB was of course "popular" even then, but it wasn't mucked up with metaphysics back then, and there were still static universe theories to be found and read.
In terms of formal education, though I attended a few physics classes college, as well as some electronic hardware classes in college, my real love turned out to be computer programming. That has never stopped me however from continuing to further my education in astronomy over the years and following it's supposed 'progress' over the years. The internet was really a Godsend in terms of access to information.
For the past 15-20 years (Since the launch of the Yohkoh) spacecraft, I've been primarily fascinated with solar physics, particularly the higher energy atmospheric activity in the solar atmosphere. Solar satellite imagery has been my real passion of sorts as it relates to astronomy.
That fascination with studying solar satellite imagery carried over from the Yohkoh program into the SOHO, GOES, TRACE, Hinode, and now SDO satellite programs. That fascination with high energy satellite imagery eventually lead me to study EU/PC theory about 7 years ago.
Over the past 7 years I've gotten a lot more into 'Electric Universe' theory or Plasma Cosmology theory due to it's empirical strengths, and due to it's application in solar physics. It wasn't until I found Birkeland's work about 7 years ago, that all the satellite imagery pieces began to fit together correctly.
During the past 7 years I've also actively debated many cosmology ideas, on many mainstream astronomy websites, with astronomers from all over the world. I'm practically infamous in astronomy circles at this point in time.
Some things I've learned about astronomy over the years:
It *used* to be an open minded, less egotistical community that realized it's technological and theoretical limitations and there wasn't as much of an attempt to 'herd' everyone towards a single way of thinking. Although BB theories (plural) have been quite popular since Hubble, only in recent times has their been a concerted attempt to "snuff out" competing ideas.
Hubble himself was much more open minded than most astronomers today. He realized that there might be a "tired light"/plasma redshift model that eventually works just as well as expansion ideas to explain the same redshift events. Were he alive today, and able to see that there are now at *least* three plasma redshift alternatives to choose from, I'm sure he'd have been more open minded to the possibility that we live in a static universe that experiences 'plasma redshift' over distance.
From my study of history I can tell you that Einstein himself was perplexed by a "static" universe in GR. When Einstein wrote GR, static universe theories prevailed at the time. GR isn't particularly 'stable' in a static configuration over the course of billions of years. It's fine in a contracting scenario, or an expanding scenario, but based *strictly* on GR, it's more likely that GR will result in an expanding or contracting environment, not a static one. Einstein struggled with that 'problem' as he perceived it for a very long time. His "solution" to solve a "static" universe problem was to add a non zero constant to an otherwise zero constant in GR. When he heard about Hubble's findings of redshift however, and popular opinion began gravitating away from a static universe theory toward an expanding universe, Einstein set that constant back to zero, left it that way for the rest of his life, and called the introduction of a non zero constant into GR his 'greatest blunder'. Note however that during the brief time that Einstein played with a non zero constant in GR, he never tried to characterize it. It's purpose was very simple (stability), and it could have been something quite "simple" like an ordinary EM field.
Lambda-CDM theory isn't the GR theory that Einstein taught to *his* students, it's a variation of "blunder theory" that is stuffed full of all kinds of invisible dark energy friends. Lambda-magic theory is not a form of pure empirical physics as is the case with GR with a zero constant.
I also know from studying history that Hannes Alfven wrote MHD theory and was given the Nobel Prize for his work. Throughout his lifetime he rejected magnetic reconnection theory as "pseudoscience". He wrote a paper on double layers that does away with the need for "reconnection" in any current carrying environment, and oh, by the way, Alfven believed that the whole universe was a current carrying environment. Most astronomers won't tell you this stuff in school by the way.
Alfven also wrote a bang theory, but unlike mainstream theory, it doesn't require a "creation event" in terms of the creation of matter, and nothing contracts to a single "point/clump" in his bang theory.
I also know that over the past ten years, there has been a quantum leap in our technologies. We've put up a whole new fleet of satellites in space and we've built better ground based equipment to study a lot more the universe in a lot more wavelengths, with a lot better precision. We've also started up LHC and we finally had the opportunity to put some SUSY theories to the test recently.
Lambda-CMD "dark matter" *failed* to show up at LHC. No "dark matter" SUSY particles were found, and the Higgs Boson was found at an energy state that precludes the need for SUSY theory in the first place! Standard particle physics theory is now "complete" without SUSY theory or any form of "dark matter".
I also know that over the past few decades, several more forms of plasma redshift have been observed in the lab, further undermining mainstream expansion claims, most recently the Wolf Effect and Stark Redshift, and whatever the mechanism might be in Chen's research.
Many of the new satellites in space have demonstrated in the past five years that the universe is twice as bright and more dusty than we imagined. It's got far more "small" stars that we cannot observe compared to the larger ones we can see than we once believed and 'estimated'. It's got all sorts of plasma around every galaxy. Much of the 'missing mass' has actually been found, but the mainstream hasn't budged a single percent from their "exotic mass" claims in spite of all that information, and in spite of all the failures at LHC.
I also know that mainstream solar theory just bit the dust a few months ago in SDO helioseismology data. It turns out that convection is far too slow to explain "magnetic reconnection" (aka pseudoscience) in the solar atmosphere, and too slow to prevent mass separation from occurring. Birkeland's cathode sun model however passes all those observational tests with flying colors.
Pretty much the entire body of astronomy is falling apart at this point based on recent data. The only thing that's "working" (in the lab) these days is plasma physics. Virtually everything we see, particularly at the higher energy wavelengths is directly related to the flow of current through spacetime.
Over the past 7 years I've gotten a lot more into 'Electric Universe' theory or Plasma Cosmology theory due to it's empirical strengths. I've also have a great deal of opportunity to debate various theories and ideas with astronomers from all over the planet.
Over the past 5 years, I've learned a lot about plasma physics and I've read about a 1/2 dozen textbooks on the topic of plasma physics. I've also read many dozens of papers on the topic of "magnetic reconnection" theory, including Dungey's work where he connects it to an electrical discharge in plasma.
I've completely lost count how many "mainstream" papers I've read on various aspects of Lambda-CDM theory over the years, but it easily numbers in the hundreds.
I've published at least 5 papers now on various topic related to astronomy, and I've been published in the Journal of Fusion energy and Yad Fiz, and Russian publication related to Particle Physics.
arXiv.org Search
What do you know about astronomy?
In other words, that's a big fat NO. You haven't studied cosmology or astronomy. And because of this, you aren't qualified to judge the merits or lack thereof of a particular theory relating to it.
Throw in a big dose of paranoia (The Big Bang and expanding universe ideas are all a scam to keep the truth secret!) and you get what you just posted.
Now, I'm not particularly qualified either. Certainly no more than you. That is why I expect the people who actually are qualified to know which is more likely. And if astronomers and cosmologists agree that this plasma redshift stuff is nonsense, I'm inclined to agree with them.
Seriously, why do you think they're trying to hush it up? Do they get paid royalties every time someone says the words "Big Bang" or "Expanding universe"?
Upvote
0
In other words, your entire argument is an appeal to authority fallacy. They're right because they say so. Fortunately that doesn't hold up in a court of law, you actually have to demonstrate your claim in court. Pity that they can't even name a source for 'dark energy', let alone demonstrate a way to "control" it, so forget about a "dark energy camera" ever actually becoming a consumer product I might buy in Walmart someday. They simply couldn't make these claims in the consumer market.
This is an absolutely false statement. I've spent the better part of 40 years studying these topics. How long have you personally even been alive on this planet?
If that were in fact a true statement, then I would not be able to provide you with the links to published works that I have provided you, that empirically link plasma redshift to cosmological redshift, and that demonstrate plasma redshift does occur in the lab. I wouldn't be able to offer you mathematical alternatives based upon empirical physics that actually works in the lab.
Your entire argument is based upon pure denial of all known scientific facts:
1) There is no known source of 'dark energy'.
2) The term 'dark' denotes something that does *not* emit photons.
3) The 'camera' in question captures and records photons.
4) The camera in question does *not* image any 'dark energy' at the level of actual physics, it images photons from a specific wavelength, in this case a very small segment of the 'redder' (less energetic) end of the spectrum.
5) There is no empirically demonstrated link between photons and "dark energy".
6) There is no known control mechanism for dark energy, so they sure didn't change any photon patterns to 'test' their camera to show that it actually records "dark energy".
7) There is no way to take a picture of 'dark energy' based on any known empirical laws of physics because it's *dark*.
8) The *interpretation* of this particular wavelength is a completely different issue than how the camera records photons.
9) There are at *least* three, possibly several more *empirically known* causes of redshift that actually work in the lab, including but not limited to Compton redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect, and whatever the actual "cause" might be from Chen's work.
10) Any or all of these other known causes must have *some* effect in space, but the mainstream has never tried to take these factors into account.
There is nothing paranoid about it. These are very simple facts of physics that I listed for you. In any court of law, claims about 'dark energy cameras' would be torn to shreds within 20 minutes.
My first few questions in court:
What does the term 'dark' mean in 'dark energy'?
Can you name a known source of 'dark energy' for us?
Can you name a control mechanism for dark energy?
If you can't do that, can you tell the court how you actually empirically demonstrated that this is a "dark energy' camera?
Isn't it true that at least three other causes of redshift are known to exist?
FYI, virtually every major PC/EU proponent is currently "banned" from all mainstream astronomy "hangouts". That's certainly not my imagination and it's not limited to me personally.
Actually far less than me. You probably had no idea that several kinds of plasma redshift have been documented in the lab until I personally pointed it out to you. You probably never knew a BB theory that predates inflation theory. You probably never read a single paper on static universe theory in your entire life, and you've probably never published any papers on the topic of astronomy as I have done in my lifetime. You probably had no idea that Hannes Alfven dissed "magnetic reconnection' theory for his entire life, let alone read any of his books or any other books on MHD theory.
This amounts to an appeal to authority fallacy, particularly since plasma redshift has been documented in the lab, and its a "verified prediction" of all static universe theories. What you're essentially doing is holding up your blessed scientific high priests to the level of infallibility, like any good religious sheep on the planet. Worse yet you won't lift a finger to educate yourself on this topic so when someone comes along that knows more about it, you have no real way to defend your position. You're like a Catholic 'believer" claiming that the Church/Pope must be right on every topic under the sun because they say so. Furthermore I can't know as much as they do because I haven't been through seminary school like the Pope, and I haven't been Cardinal approved like the Pope. Yawn. That's not a "scientific" argument, that is a pure "statement of faith".
Yep. They get paid so long as you continue to believe them to be infallible and above reproach. So long as you remain in ignorant bliss of empirical facts, like the link between redshift and plasma, then they continue to get paid. The moment you start to question them however, their entire funding channels are threatened. Better they ban every electric universe proponent from their hangouts and hope people like you refuse to listen to any valid empirical cause/effect criticisms of their dogma.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Cromulent
Well-Known Member
You do know that all of the effects you have described only occur under very, very specific circumstances, and affect different frequencies of light in different ways, ways that should be very obvious were they happening? For example, different stars would redshift differently, even if they were very close to each other (which can be independently proven by parallax). This is not what we see.
In my experience, Electric Universe proponents are commonly in denial of reality so they can feel as though they are cleverer than everyone else.
In my experience, Electric Universe proponents are commonly in denial of reality so they can feel as though they are cleverer than everyone else.
Upvote
0
It is:
UC Davis News & Information :: Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics'
Ok, I'll bite. Why?
In my experience it works exactly the opposite. Most mainstreamers I've met seem blissfully unaware that there are *at least* three, maybe four known causes of plasma redshift that occur in the lab. Most seem completely unaware of anything other than Compton redshift in fact. It has nothing to do with being "clever", it's simply a preference for empirical physics over metaphysical 'explanations' whenever possible. In this particular case I know of three potentially "better" explanations for redshifted photons than some dogma that begins with "In the beginning inflation and dark energy did it".
Plasma redshift is known and documented in several forms. Can you even site an example where the mainstream attempted to account for *any* of these *known* effects?
Upvote
0
Cromulent
Well-Known Member
The speed of gamma ray bursts has nothing to do with their redshift. Try again.
Because different spectral frequencies are effected in different ways by different optical and plasma phenomena. If these were to blame for the redshift, a blue giant and red dwarf in close proximity to each other would have completely different redshift characteristics. The fact that they don't is suggestive that the redshift is caused by relative motion between them and the observer (us)
Funnily enough, when I googled Compton redshift, most of the first page of articles were from people very well-versed in plasma physics debunking the Electric Universe theory. But don't let that make you feel any less clever.
Upvote
0
Yes, it does:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf
Ashmore cites the link I handed you, and explains how it's related to tired light/plasma redshift theory. Please read the paper and respond logically to it.
In what *exact* (empirically documented) way? Do you have any *published* papers that I could read to get a handle on what you're talking about?
Why? You seem to be handwaving in these arguments as far as I can tell. The certainly don't seem to be claims related to any lab tests, and they seem awfully short on real specifics.
Again, this sounds like a pure handwave of an argument so far, at least from my perspective. I've seen no papers from you, no documented arguments from anyone besides you personally in fact. I'll need something published to read to get an actual handle on what you're talking about, because you're being *way* too obtuse in your so called "explanation".
If that were in fact the only type of redshift that was documented in the lab, I might actually be worried. FYI, I've already debunked several of the the self professed EU/PC "debunkers" and most them respond simply by closing their threads, or not posting my response.
Keep in mind that there are also *non demonstrated* theoretical models of plasma redshift that also resolve all observed phenomenon. It's not as though there are not *other* empirical or other theoretical alternatives to choose from besides just Compton scattering. It's just that the mainstream only knows how to "debunk" one kind of plasma redshift theory by oversimplifying the problem and insisting that all redshift must be caused by one kind of plasma redshift phenomenon. They won't even touch the other two *known* methods, let alone deal with Chen's work. They won't deal with Ari's plasma redshift theories either. All they can do is simply sit in pure denial of scientific fact and burn a few strawmen to make it look official. They're also stuck about 3 decades in the past since none of them even acknowledge the Wolf effect or Stark redshift at all, let alone respond to Chen's work or Ashmore's points.
Upvote
0
Bull. It's not a fallacy if they are actually experts in the field they are speaking in. Or are you really suggesting that it's a FALLACY to think that an astronomer knows what he is talking about when it comes to astronomy?
What degrees have you attained?
Rubbish.
All that amounts to is, "This is what I think, here's some links from someone who says the same thing, therefore I am right."
Well, my understanding is that there is quite a bit of evidence for dark matter and all that. But even if you are right, all you are saying is that if there's no evidence that we can find right now, it must be wrong.
A very ignorant attitude.
You say it's not paranoia, then you say, "But they're all banned!" That's a paranoid statement if ever I heard one.
So tell me this...
If you have so much evidence to support your position, why do mainstream cosmologists go to such lengths to deny it?
And another question...
If Plasma redshift explains what we see so much better, why has it never been used to make any discoveries about how the universe operates?
But then I don't need to know these things. However, I am sure that mainstream astronomers and cosmologists are aware of these, and understand them a lot better than you do.
Like I said, it's not an appeal to authority fallacy if the authority actually knows what they are talking about!
If you are sick, do you go to the doctor or do you consider that an appeal to authority fallacy?
And there we have the paranoia you claimed didn't exist.
Let me ask you...
How does plasma redshift explain the fact that absorption and emission lines are moved laterally along the spectrum? How does Plasma redshift explain the CMBR?
And BTW, if the plasma redshift is true, why is it that there is a direct correlation between the amount of redshift and the distance from Earth? This would only occur if the plasma was spread evenly throughout the universe. And also, why doesn't this plasma block light? Plasma is, after all, ionized gas, so we have beams of light shining billions of light years through matter. Why would they be visible at all?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
It's a fallacy to *assume* that they are right simply because *some* (who even knows how many) astronomers decided to call a red light imaging camera a 'dark energy camera', particularly when it violates the laws of physics as we know them.
Again with the appeal to authority fallacy? Hoy Vey. In court it doesn't matter how many degrees they have, only that they can actually demonstrate that it's a "dark energy camera". Since "dark energy" is well, "dark", and the camera in question only receives and measures "photons" that claim is irresponsible and irrational. Collectively they can't even provide you with a known "source" of dark energy, nor any control mechanism, therefore there is no way for them to demonstrate in court that it's actually a "dark energy camera", or sensitive to "dark energy".
Rubbish. All your position amounts to is "it doesn't matter what other scientists think or publish or write about, just my 'experts'. You can't even demonstrate that *all astronomers* would agree that this is actually a "dark energy camera", or capable of imaging "dark energy" by the way, you're simply "assuming" that's true. For all I know it's just a handful of them that actually called that contraption a "dark energy camera". I'd at least be inclined to be specific about who I sued.
Your understanding is quite flawed. There is only evidence of "missing mass", or mass the mainstream can't find. FYI, they just found a bunch more of it recently in the form of ordinary plasma. Who would have guessed?
NASA's Chandra shows Milky Way is surrounded by halo of hot gas
Wow. Every atheist that simply "lacks belief" must be quite "arrogant" by your definition. All I asked for was empirical evidence to support your claims. You can't provide them, so you berate the messenger and appeal to authorities that cannot even identify a known source of "dark energy", let alone tell you how to control it.
It would only be paranoid if and only if it were not true. Cosmo Quest (formerly Bad Astronomy) actually holds the equivalent of "witch hunts" to burn all heretics at the public stake. "Mainstream" ideas may be discussed freely, but anyone discussing a "non mainstream" belief is "put on trial" in the "against the mainstream forum". Threads there can only stay open for 30 days and then never discussed again. That's outrageously paranoid behavior and more draconian than most religious websites. Imagine if this website had those rules!
Most do not. Only a few folks on the internet fall into the category of "haters". Unfortunately they tend to "rule the roost" in mainstream forums and publications. Most simply don't even know all the fact related to plasma redshift. Even I didn't find out about them until relatively recently.
It does and it has. In fact "static universe" theories "predicted" plasma redshift would be found in the lab and they have been found in the lab. Hubble himself even wrote about that very possibility.
You'd be wrong. They are taught what they are taught in school just like everyone else. If you don't keep up with technology and *other* theories however, you tend to develop a myopic view of the universe. Most of them simply aren't aware that there are so many different types of plasma redshift that have shown up in the lab, and most of them don't understand the first thing about PC/EU theory. Only two astronomers I've ever met have actually read "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven, the guy the wrote the book on plasma physics and first applied it to events in space.
You can't even demonstrate that much however because not one of your so called "experts" can even tell you where dark energy comes from. Some "expert". I don't even claim to be much of an expert on electrical theory, bu I can tell you where to pickup a battery.
Yes. I often get sick and get well without ever visiting a doctor.
It's not paranoia to state the obvious.
Apparently you haven't read any of the redshift papers (or C# code) that I've provided you. Ashmore addressed the CMBR (as have many others) in section 5.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf
Because plasma redshift is related to distance!
Not exactly. It does assume that intergalactic space is *relatively* (not completely) homogeneous over a distance. It need not be perfectly the same everywhere however.
It does. Note the article on the "Found" missing mass, and notice how the found it. Likewise astronomers have been "surprised" in recent years about the amount of blockage of light that actually does occur:
Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | STFC
I've pointed this all out to you in the past, and you keep asking me the same question and then you keep ignoring the answer. If you wanted this kind of information, what do you intend to do with it now that I've provided it to you?
It depends on the amount of plasma and the wavelength in question. Some light on some wavelengths is pretty much blocked by plasma, like much of the light from the core of our own galaxy. After a certain distance almost all of the light is blocked, or scattered.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Even if you are right about the camera not working, then it still doesn't follow that they must therefore be wrong about everything else.
So you have no qualifications. You'll forgive me then if I don't accept you as the authority on dark matter and plasma phenomena.
Rubbish. All your position amounts to is "it doesn't matter what other scientists think or publish or write about, just my 'experts'. You can't even demonstrate that *all astronomers* would agree that this is actually a "dark energy camera", or capable of imaging "dark energy" by the way, you're simply "assuming" that's true. For all I know it's just a handful of them that actually called that contraption a "dark energy camera". I'd at least be inclined to be specific about who I sued.
"My" experts are virtually ALL the members of the scientific community who study this!
Your understanding is quite flawed. There is only evidence of "missing mass", or mass the mainstream can't find. FYI, they just found a bunch more of it recently in the form of ordinary plasma. Who would have guessed?
NASA's Chandra shows Milky Way is surrounded by halo of hot gas
Given that "dark matter" is the name given to whatever matter was making up the missing mass, it would seem that this difficult-to-detect plasma could be it. Very interesting article, thanks for posting it.
However, if this is true, it just means dark matter has been detected and is in the form of a high temperature plasma.
Nonetheless, this still doesn't support your plasma redshift idea. If the red shift was caused by the light from different objects coming through this halo around the galaxy, then we should see the same amount of redshift for close as well as distant objects, since they are both shining through the same amount of plasma.
No you didn't. In the passage that I was responding to, you just gave a list of so-called "denial of scientific facts".
It would only be paranoid if and only if it were not true. Cosmo Quest (formerly Bad Astronomy) actually holds the equivalent of "witch hunts" to burn all heretics at the public stake. "Mainstream" ideas may be discussed freely, but anyone discussing a "non mainstream" belief is "put on trial" in the "against the mainstream forum". Threads there can only stay open for 30 days and then never discussed again. That's outrageously paranoid behavior and more draconian than most religious websites. Imagine if this website had those rules!
Yeah. I can just imagine how thrilled a scientific discussion board would be to have countless threads about something for which there is little to no evidence.
Most do not? So then you are saying that plasma cosmology is generally accepted as being accurate by the scientific community?
What testable predictions has it made? Please explain those predictions, explain how they were tested and show that the results of those tests match what PC predicted.
Wrong. From THIS site:
"The basic idea of plasma cosmology is that electromagnetic forces in the bulk motions of astronomical objects are far more important than mainstream astronomy admits. Now, to be sure, mainstream astronomy places tremendous importance on electromagnetic forces. There's all kind of crazy stuff going on on the Earth's magnetosphere, as a result of the plasma from the Sun interacting with the magnetic fields of the Earth. Magnetic fields are responsible for initially collimating jets in active galactic nuclei that are observed shooting out over hundreds of thousands of light-years. So, the assertion you sometimes see that astronomers don't train their grad students about electromagnetic forces and that astronomers don't take into account those forces is an assertion that's wildly wrong."
Irrelevant. Who says that someone must know EVERYTHING about a topic to be an expert? But, no, since they can't tell you everything you want to know, you dismiss the things that they DO know!
So you are saying that you DO consider visiting the doctor to be an appeal to authority?
Excuse me? You are saying that scientists continue to peddle something they know to be false as a truth just so they can get paid!
Well, for a start, line broadening is not seen it distant red-shifted objects, as Ashmore claims. (Source)
I also have to wonder just how much of that article actually makes sense to you.
Why?
You yourself have posted a source that claims this plasma is in a halo that surrounds our galaxy. So the light from a quasar a million light years away is passing through the complete halo and the light from a quasar TEN million light years away is passing through exactly the same amount of plasma. How can the light coming from two different sources be redshifted by different amounts if it is passing through the same amount of plasma?
Well then why are you posting sources that claim this plasma responsible for the redshift is in a halo around the galaxy? According to your position, shouldn't the plasma be "relatively" evenly spread throughout the universe?
Ah, but that article claims that dust is the cause, not plasma.
I'm going to examine your data and see what scientists more knowledgeable than me have to say about it. And if the majority of them say it's bogus, I don't see any reason to doubt them.
If, After a certain distance almost all of the light is blocked, or scattered, wouldn't this mean that beyond that distance we wouldn't be able to see anything?
Oh, and another question comes to me...
If the universe is not expanding, how long has it been here?
Upvote
0
If I can't trust them to even accurately represent the tools they use, or the physics, why should I trust them about anything else? Not a single one of them can even name one source of any of the three of their 'fudge factors', and I don't need them to explain redshift and signal broadening.
No, that's not accurate. I've studied this topic seriously since before you were even born. By the time you were still in diapers, I had already studied *many* cosmology theories, none of which you have a clue about. I don't need to have a degree in "divinity" to doubt a YEC. I don't need to have a degree in any topic at all, to learn about that topic, and to debate it if I so choose. You're hiding behind the most pathetic (at least IMO) excuse in the book, and appeal to authority fallacy. How sad for you.
Your "experts" can't name a single source for any of their three mythical entities, not a single one. What kind of 'expert' is the that???????
They don't have the first *clue* about how many types of plasma redshift have been observed in the lab. Most of them might know something about Compton redshift, not that a single one of them has tried to incorporate *any* effect from Compton redshift in their calculations. Most of them have never heard of Stark redshift and few have probably heard of the Wolf effect. None of them incorporate *any* of these *known* mechanisms, and Chen has now suggest that there may be a *forth* known type of redshift which he simple calls 'plasma redshift'. Holy cow! They aren't event *trying* to minimize the need for movement and acceleration in their model! They are in fact outright *ignoring* the known mechanisms for redshift in favor of their mythical trio of sky entities. They are experts at ignoring physics IMO.
Hoy Vey. It's not exotic matter (nor was this part expected to be), it's simply plasma, plasma that does emit light. It's only been 'dark' because our technologies are still quite limited in terms of the size of the universe. The same is true of all the rest of the 'missing mass'. We're just working with limited technologies.
There is now no "missing" amount of 'normal' matter, and the mainstream has yet to deal with, or change their numbers related to the amount of *normal* matter they just found in terms of the galaxies being twice and bright and composed of 4 times more stars than they "calculated" in the obviously useless and falsified mass estimation techniques.
Instead of 'coming clean' about the fact that most if not all of that "missing mass' is simply 'dark' because our technologies are still very limited, they keep asserting that some form of exotic matter did it, and their clearly falsified galaxy mass estimation techniques are 'flawless' and above criticism. Baloney! They just lost all hope of finding SUSY particles at LHC, and they're still in hard core denial of the falsified models. Instead of admitting they made a mistake, they keep insisting the everything they can't find yet must be 'exotic' matter. What a crock! They haven't even incorporate the last five years worth of findings into their mass estimation techniques, and they could have been off in terms of the number of stars in a given galaxy by a whopping factor of 8 depending on how you 'interpret' those numbers! Experts? Really?
Most of the "missing mass" is likely to be found in plasma located in interstellar space and intergalactic space which is much more 'dense' than we realize at the moment. It's not likely to be found in exotic matter because LHC completed the standard model, and eliminated both the simple SUSY models, and the need for SUSY theory at all! Standard particle physics is now complete and simple SUSY models were falsified. It's time to wake up and smell the coffee. If they could be missing this much 'normal' matter up until this year, then it's highly likely they could be missing much more of it.
No. There is also a great deal more plasma in intergalactic spacetime. It's full of plasma too. The amount of intergalactic plasma is far greater than the amount of plasma around our galaxy. It has a far greater effect over enough distance to far outweigh the effects of the plasma around our galaxy. The more *intergalactic* plasma that the light must traverse, the greater the redshift and loss of energy to the plasma.
Let's get real. If it's "dark", it can't be imaged in a camera. It's really that simple. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that it's an oxymoron to claim to see photons from something that cannot by definition emit them! It's like claiming to have build an invisible unicorn camera in some red wavelength.
So what? Even if that's true, and there is little or no evidence, there's no need to put folks on trial, no need to close threads, no need to "control" every idea put forth on their board. Their mentality however is that of a 'cult'. They can't handle a real debate, and they do not wish to allow for opposing ideas, so they put heretics on trial, burn them at the public stake and forbid all future readers from ever discussing the topic again on their forum! I've *never* seen a more repressive religious website!
I'm saying that most astronomer are actual "scientists". They may have a preference for mainstream belief, but they harbor no 'ill will' towards EU/PC theory. For the most part they just don't understand it very well.
There's only maybe a dozen of what I would call "EU haters" that operate a lot like any haters. They mostly slam individuals rather than ideas. They misrepresent the ideas. They typically (some have) haven't read any books on MHD theory. Most aren't even interested in an honest discussion of the topic. They typically engage in *any* cosmology topic that involves electric *anything* in space, from electric suns, to electric comets, to anything with a current carrying connotation. They then proceed to belittle the individual, misrepresent the facts, and ignore the information you provide them. Unfortunately however, a lot of those dozen or so individuals are in position of importance within the astronomy community. That "bad apples" are all at the top IMO.
I don't suppose you actually read that paper by Holushko? He even includes C# code on his website (which I've downloaded by the way) to test not only the amount of redshift, but to test the spectral aging effects as well. They work. He even makes some additional predictions in terms of the propagation speed of various wavelengths of light, as does Ashmore. There are even some "testable" predictions that can be used to differentiate between plasma redshift and space expansion. In plasma redshift scenarios, higher gamma rays will travel at a different speed than white light and lower energy gamma rays. That brings us to the MAGIC study that found a full four minute delay between high energy gamma rays and lower energy gamma rays. This is something that plasma redshift *predicts* that standard theory does not. According to standard theory, the expansion process effects all the wavelengths exactly the same way. There should be no difference in travel times in their theory.
Oh Please! Rob closed the thread the moment I started to poke holes in his nonsense. Rob wasn't even AWARE of the Wolf effect, Stark redshift or the fact that Ari's use of a Malquist II bias was confirmed by several other authors. Rob is one of those 'haters' by the way that goes out of his way to try to 'debunk' a form of pure empirical physics. That's like trying to "debunk" evolutionary theory by the way. Good luck with that. He can't handle a real debate with an EU proponent however, so he immediately closed the discussion, but he continues to misrepresent PC/EU theory. Rob embodies everything that is wrong with astronomy today, and he's one of it's worst offenders. I wouldn't use him as any sort of 'hero' based upon the fact he's blissfully unaware of at at *least* three known forms of plasma redshift including Chen's "plasma redshift", the Wolf effect and Stark redshift.
Note that he personally now has a vested professional and public interest in forever "bashing" empirical physics.
I have to stop here for a second but I'll pickup where I left off when I get time.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
If they don't know where any of this stuff comes from, or how to control it, what *do* they actually "know"? They know almost *nothing* about it other than how to stuff it into a math formula! In terms of actual physics however, they literally know *nothing* about it, not even where it comes from! Worse yet, the early SUSY theories bit the dust at LHC, so the one part of their claim that I can actually *test* in the lab was a total flop, in fact it was *falsified* at LHC!
No, I'm saying I don't need a doctor to cure my cold, and I don't need an astronomer to tell me how space actually works. Half the stuff they claim is pure nonsense, the other half is 'pseudoscience' according to the author of MHD theory. Their solar theories just bit the dust in SDO data, and they refuse to embrace the findings from LHC.
It's irrational IMO to be pointing at the sky at this point in time and claiming that "exotic matter" did it. There is literally zero evidence that there is even any need for exotic matter in terms of particle physics theory, and simple SUSY theories were falsified at LHC. Why keep pointing at the sky and claiming WIMPS did it? They keep repeating the same falsified nonsense! Why?
Where did you get that idea from that source? Could you quote the part that you feel is relevant because I don't see it at first glance. As far as I can tell, it's a paper about the *amount* of C IV found at various redshifts and has nothing to do with signal broadening.
At least I read it! You clearly didn't or you would keep asking me about the CMB.
Um, you're missing something, in fact a lot of plasma. The "ball' around our galaxy is almost (not quite) inconsequential in terms of redshift. Most of the redshift occurs in *intergalactic* spacetime, not in that little region. Most of the redshift process occurs over *distance* in intergalactic space. It's already redshifted based on distance by the time it reaches that little ball of plasma. Only a tiny fraction of the redshift occurs in that tiny region of space. Most of the redshift occurs *before* the light reaches our galaxy.
No. Matter is not completely evenly spread, nor is the plasma. It's simply an *averaged* redshift process. Over enough *distance* (intergalactic distance), the plasmas are relatively (not completely) homogeneously distributed. Many areas of space contain "dust clouds' however that interfere with various wavelengths.
The "cause" is actually irrelevant, it's the effect that's critical. The effect is that they grossly underestimated the number of stars in a given galaxy. If they can't count stars properly yet, why do you think any 'missing mass' if found in an exotic form of matter?
I await your findings with baited breath.
You might as well forget Rob. He's still claiming plasma redshift hasn't been demonstrated in the lab, when in fact it's been demonstrated in four different forms!Eventually, yes. That could be 100 billion light years for all I know.
AFAIK, it's been here forever and ever.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Considering that these people study it for a living and are paid to do so, and their livelihood depends on them produce scientific data, I'd say that they know a great deal more than you!
Who said cold? What if you had a fractured skull? Cancer? WOuld yous till think going to the doctor is a waste of time?
You're moving the goalposts.
You were claiming that scientists are deliberately spreading a lie so they can profit from it. Provide proof or drop it.
I was quoting the source in wikipedia, actually...
However, here's another source that shows that any line broadening is adequately explained by doppler-like phenomena...
So what? Just because you read it doesn't mean you understood it or comprehended it!
Please show me a source which shows that there is intergalactic plasma of the type you described - namely, mostly homogenous throughout the universe.
And a source not from this Lyndon Ashmore fellow. Surely if he is correct then there will be plenty of other sources that can support his position.
So then how do we explain the fact that stars of certain ages (say young generation 1 stars) are all about the same distance away?
So now you are back flipping on what causes the effect?
Earlier you were stating that you needed plasma filling the distance between whole galaxies to create this effect, and now you are saying that small clouds of interstellar dust can achieve the same thing?
I await your findings with baited breath.
And, apparently, the currents needed by plasma cosmology to form galaxies could not have existed at the time the galaxies formed!
Colafrancesco, S. and Giordano, F. The impact of magnetic field on the cluster M - T relation Astronomy and Astrophysics, Volume 454, Issue 3, August II 2006, pp. L131-L134. [2] recount: "Numerical simulations have shown that the wide-scale magnetic fields in massive clusters produce variations of the cluster mass at the level of ~ 5 − 10% of their unmagnetized value ... Such variations are not expected to produce strong variations in the relative [mass-temperature] relation for massive clusters.
SOURCE and SOURCE.
So we could possibly see for a hundred billion light years?
Well, first off, if it's been here forever, then that invalidates the whole "God created the universe" thing, doesn't it. Remind me... you are a Christian, yes?
Secondly, if the universe has been here forever and we can possibly see for a hundred billion light years, why can't we see stars a hundred billion light years away?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
What "great deal more" do they know? About all they "know" is how to stuff a non zero variable into a GR formula where there used to be a zero! So what? They can't tell me where it comes from. They can't tell me how to control it in any experiment. They can't even stick to the attributes they assign to it. First they call it "dark" and then the claim to have a camera in a red wavelength that can image "dark energy"! There whole set of claims is utterly irrational! A camera that receives photons cannot possibly be imaging a photon from a thing that is incapable of emitting such photons. That's simply a fact. They really don't "know" anything about it, other than how to stuff it into a zero in a GR formula. Wow. Big deal.
I've cut myself many times and never visited the doctor. I've gotten the flue and not visited a doctor. Not every type of medical issue requires me to visit a 'specialist'. You seem to think that an average human being is incapable of having basic knowledge about a topic. If in fact I ever do go to a specialist, I'll expect them to be able to physically describe the issue in question and physically treat it in a physically real way. If they guy told me he couldn't tell me how to repair a fractured skull, had never seen a human in his entire life, and couldn't even tell me what a skull was made of, I wouldn't consider him to be any sort of expert on skull fractures.
Your "specialists" seem to be specializing in a unique form of magic astrology, with about as much usefulness as astrology in terms of actual lab results. Worse yet, the astrology seems to be based on ignoring the physics of plasma redshift.
I just technically "proved" it in this thread! Dark energy is incapable of emitting photons *by definition*. It is therefore impossible for there to be such a thing as a "dark energy camera". Furthermore, the fact they can't name a source or a control mechanism for "dark energy" demonstrates conclusively that they never "tested" any of their erroneous claims in any real life experiments on Earth. They whole claim about having a 'dark energy camera' is a huge lie. It's nothing but a standard camera that is sensitive to light in a specific wavelength range, in this case a red (low energy) range. It's a 'lie' to call it a "dark" anything camera! You can't receive any photons from 'dark energy' by their very own definition of 'dark energy'. It's dark because it does not emit photons!
FYI, technically it's 'signal broadening' in plasma redshift theories, and "time dilation" in expansion theories. It's the *length* of the signal that changes over distance. The lengthening is related to time dilation according to the mainstream, whereas it's related to signal broadening in PC theory.
I didn't say that the mainstream's model could not explain the effect, I simply noted that PC theory also does so, *without* the need for exotic sky entities.
I comprehend how Ashmore explains the CMB, which is exactly the same way it's explained in *every* static universe theory.
Can you show me *any* modern cosmology theory that *does not* make that assumption?
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/3434/galaxy-cluster-interaction-with
X-ray astronomy | Astronomy Essentials | EarthSky
Pretty much any study around galaxy clusters reveals the presence of such plasma. Again, there is an *averaged* density number over a large distance, and there are dense 'threads' present in spacetime. It's not entirely homogeneous in other words, it just "averages out' over enough distance.
Would you prefer a different author that addresses the same CMB and surface brightness issues?
Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF
It's not like Ashmore is the only static universe proponent in the universe.
Stars in any given galaxy can be almost any age because they can form separately. I'm not sure what you're trying to claim exactly.
Of course. Plasmas are *almost always* 'dusty'. They aren't completely ionized. Did you think they were? Matter in any state can absorb, emit, block and scatter light.
As best as I can tell from reading the abstract, you're apparently trying to judge the merits of PC theory based on *standard* astronomy "simulations" and assumptions. That's not going to work well in a static universe scenario that doesn't make any predictions about the age of the universe.
It would depend on many factors, including the specific density of plasma along that specific path, the wavelength in question, and the brightness of the original source object. I suspect that the James-Webb telescope is going to blow the doors off mainstream concepts. It's going to show "mature" galaxies and entire galaxy clusters for as far as the eye can see IMO.
No not really. God is still the creator of all that I can see, and he continues to "create". That belief is apparently your "spin" on things, but then you simply "lack beliefs", right?
We simply don't have that kind of technology yet, that's all. We'll have to wait for the James Webb telescope to see more distant galaxies. Again however, I simply pulled a number out of thin air. I'm not emotionally attached to that specific number.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You know Tiberius.....
Your claim about astronomers 'knowing' more about dark energy, dark matter and inflation is inaccurate, and in fact it's actually irrelevant.
Keep in mind that simple SUSY theories bit the dust at LHC, so what they "thought' they "knew" about 'dark matter' went up in flames last year.
First of all, I don't even have any logical *need* to 'know' anything about their dark invisible friends to explain redshift patterns from space. Such things can and have been explained in plasma redshift theories, and so far at *least* three, and apparently a forth type of plasma redshift has shown up in the lab as 'predicted' by all static universe theories. These include Compton Redshift, Stark redshift the Wolf Effect and something Chen et all called 'plasma redshift'. Ashmore, Holushko and many others have applied these ideas to plasma redshift from space, and they explain what we observe quite nicely.
Secondly, mainstream astronomers don't actually "know" anything about their magical trio of sky entities or they would *KNOW* that it's physically impossible for a photon to come from "dark energy". By definition there is no possible way to build a "dark energy camera"! They can't name a source, or a control mechanism for 'dark energy', so they have no way to have ever actually "tested" their claim about this particular wavelength being related to "dark energy". That testing process is a *requirement* in the consumer market by the way. You can't claim to cure Cancer without demonstrating it physically. Likewise you can't claim to take pictures of invisible elves without demonstrating it. Their claims are a bogus sales pitch related to an irrational belief system that begins with the premise: "Empirical forms of plasma redshift be damned, ignore them all in favor of expanding sky mythologies." You can't even demonstrate that they actually "know" anything about dark energy, particularly when they're running around claiming to have a 'dark energy camera' when dark energy is by definition incapable of emitting photons! Gah! Their claims are utterly bogus and they depend upon your 'trust', and your lack of knowledge related to plasma redshift. They prey on your ignorance and your trust IMO.
Your claim about astronomers 'knowing' more about dark energy, dark matter and inflation is inaccurate, and in fact it's actually irrelevant.
Keep in mind that simple SUSY theories bit the dust at LHC, so what they "thought' they "knew" about 'dark matter' went up in flames last year.
First of all, I don't even have any logical *need* to 'know' anything about their dark invisible friends to explain redshift patterns from space. Such things can and have been explained in plasma redshift theories, and so far at *least* three, and apparently a forth type of plasma redshift has shown up in the lab as 'predicted' by all static universe theories. These include Compton Redshift, Stark redshift the Wolf Effect and something Chen et all called 'plasma redshift'. Ashmore, Holushko and many others have applied these ideas to plasma redshift from space, and they explain what we observe quite nicely.
Secondly, mainstream astronomers don't actually "know" anything about their magical trio of sky entities or they would *KNOW* that it's physically impossible for a photon to come from "dark energy". By definition there is no possible way to build a "dark energy camera"! They can't name a source, or a control mechanism for 'dark energy', so they have no way to have ever actually "tested" their claim about this particular wavelength being related to "dark energy". That testing process is a *requirement* in the consumer market by the way. You can't claim to cure Cancer without demonstrating it physically. Likewise you can't claim to take pictures of invisible elves without demonstrating it. Their claims are a bogus sales pitch related to an irrational belief system that begins with the premise: "Empirical forms of plasma redshift be damned, ignore them all in favor of expanding sky mythologies." You can't even demonstrate that they actually "know" anything about dark energy, particularly when they're running around claiming to have a 'dark energy camera' when dark energy is by definition incapable of emitting photons! Gah! Their claims are utterly bogus and they depend upon your 'trust', and your lack of knowledge related to plasma redshift. They prey on your ignorance and your trust IMO.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Scientists May Be Jailed For Not Predicting Deadly Italian Earthquake Of 2009
It's good thing that astronomers aren't held to these kinds of standards, or someone claiming to receive photons from a substance that is supposedly incapable of emitting photons could actually be facing jail time.
It's good thing that astronomers aren't held to these kinds of standards, or someone claiming to receive photons from a substance that is supposedly incapable of emitting photons could actually be facing jail time.
Upvote
0
FYI, you might actually want to read through that link again. Apparently the mainstream is also "counting on" interactions between light and plasma/dust to create some of the spectral broadening features (distance between peaks) that we see in the spectrum. They just don't want you to know that those same interaction processes that they *need* to explain spectral broadening are also the very same types of interactions that tend to generate "plasma redshift" without any need for expansion.
It's rather amusing IMO that they expect you to "believe" that spectral broadening is caused by particle interactions, but they also want you to believe these are "magic" interactions that apparently produce no redshift in spite of the fact that they *must* do so based on those same laws of physics that produce spectral broadening.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Status
Similar threads
