Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (3)

[Justatruthseeker]

Actually no. According to the mainstream the color tends to be related to the temperature of the photosphere in the standard model. They use a "black body" calculation that supposedly tells us it's outer temperature.

One of the most devastating revelations of SDO was the lack of a high speed convection process. Their entire solar model is predicated upon the assumption that all elements stay 'mixed together' in the solar atmosphere, hydrogen with iron, nickel with helium, all due to a high speed "mixing" process called convection.

The problem is that convection isn't a high speed process, nor is it the primary source of excess energy for the heating of the corona as their model claims.

The electrical discharge process from the sun to what Birkeland called "space", or what we would today call the heliosphere, is the actual source of energy for the corona. Convection is only an insignifiant bit player in the total energy release for the corona in any electric sun theory.

Not only did the mainstream falsify their own claims about their claimed heat source of the corona, they also pulled the rug right out from under their own claim about the elements of a sun staying ''mixed together" in the solar atmosphere.

In short, they destroyed the whole foundation of their own solar model, and they provided us with a host of new evidence to support Birleland's cathode sun concepts, and the likelihood of a mass separated solar atmosphere.

The most interesting aspect of SDO images is the fact that various wavelengths can be put together in real time to see the effect of the electromagnetic ropes as their rise up and through the solar atmosphere, and fall back into and through the photosphere. The current carrying loops leave distinct magnetic "footprints" on the surface of the photosphere, and the N/S magnetic alignments are a directly related to the flow of current through the electromagnetic rope as it crosses that surface.

Furthermore the rising and falling loops leave distinct "hot spots" on 1600A and 1700A images, where the hot loops leave their footprint on those images.

When you put them altogether into a movie format, including 171A or another iron ion image, the loops are seen to move with the rotation of the sun, along with all the footprints in the magnetogram, 1600A, and 1700A images.

That's not even the 'best' part however. I've put together a number of movies in that other thread you dug up (Day Of Reckoning) that show that some flares rise up and through the surface of the photosphere, blowing huge amounts of mass up into space. These images are *entirely* consistent with the belief that electromagnetic ropes start underneath the surface of the photosphere and pump heat into the upper atmosphere as "predicted" in an electric sun theory.

Alfven even wrote all about coronal loops in terms of their electrical properties, but alas the mainstream has elected to simply ignore his work, and continues to peddle something that Alfven called "pseudoscience" for his entire professional career.

Not only does the mainstream cosmology theory leave out all the EM field influences taking place 'somewhere out there' in space, they also leave out all the electrical aspects of solar physics. They put the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse, and they dumb the whole electromagnetic process down to "magnetism".

"Magnetic lines" do not "reconnect' inside a double layer. Alfven already *explained* double layer processes in his double layer paper *without* reconnection theory. He simply described it in terms of intersecting current streams that are redirected inside the double layer. Since the mainstream doesn't account for that 600,000 million volts, and all that current, they attempt to 'dumb it down' to pure magnetism.

That convection observation was *absolutely devastating* to mainstream astronomy, and absolutely *fabulous* in terms of supporting EU theory.

Yes, but high temperature stars are blue, and the only way we know to get blue heat is with the addition of oxygen, as long as you ignore the electrical force. No known source of heat is blue without the addition of oxygen except for electrical activity. Explode a nuclear source and you don't get blue flame, quite the opposite, even in Earth's atmosphere, a source of oxygen.
http://tomgpalmer.com/wp-content/uploads/legacy-images/Atomic Explosion.jpg
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/thisdayintech/2010/02/easy_buster_cropped.jpg
http://subharanjangupta.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/nuclear_explosion.jpg

I know how *they* calculate it, but fire is only blue when large amounts of oxygen are added in the initial source.

Yes, their idea of magnetic field lines is beyond comprehension. That would be like saying altitude lines on a map merge and reconnect. Of course they wanted to use magnetic reconnection to explain the electric currents they observed as if the magnetism was causing the electric current. Of course their cause for the magnetic field lines went kaput along with their convection to getting the heat to the surface. This convection was the cause of the magnetic field lines, so basically both the nuclear core theory and magnetic reconnection theory has been dashed to pieces. Yet still seeing stories of magnetic reconnection as if nothing at all has occurred to upset theory. Two birds with one stone so to speak.

 

[Michael]

Yes, but high temperature stars are blue, and the only way we know to get blue heat is with the addition of oxygen, as long as you ignore the electrical force.

Why Are Stars Different Colors

There are basically three main factors in star color that they consider, composition (so you might be right), temperature (they claim is the most important) and cosmic redshift. I suppose they probably would be willing to entertain some oxygen into the mixture, as well as various temperature variations to achieve what they are after. It's important to them however that all the various elements stay 'mixed together' until "old age" sets in.

Yes, their idea of magnetic field lines is beyond comprehension. That would be like saying altitude lines on a map merge and reconnect. Of course they wanted to use magnetic reconnection to explain the electric currents they observed as if the magnetism was causing the electric current.

They erroneously put the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse each and every time! Worse yet, their understanding of EM fields and even plasma physics are woefully inadequate. What Alfven called "pseudoscience", they call "plasma physics". In spite of the fact that Alfven's double layer paper explains double layer behaviors in current carrying plasma *without* 'reconnection' theory, they still cling to their beloved pseudoscience to this very day.

I'm sick of hearing about 'open' magnetic lines in space, "reconnecting' magnetic lines, and *magnetic* yada yada yada. They've dumbed down plasma physics to the B orientation of Maxwell's equations, and they don't even understand the E orientation or circuit orientation. It's more than a little sad actually, it's down right depressing.

Of course their cause for the magnetic field lines went kaput along with their convection to getting the heat to the surface. This convection was the cause of the magnetic field lines, so basically both the nuclear core theory and magnetic reconnection theory has been dashed to pieces.

That's about the size of it alright. They no longer can cite a legitimate cause for the magnetic lines that they claim can "reconnect". They can't justify their claim that elements stay mixed together either. Their whole model is on life support, and nobody really wants to discuss it.

Yet still seeing stories of magnetic reconnection as if nothing at all has occurred to upset theory. Two birds with one stone so to speak.

That's the really amazing part to me personally. The new papers keep on *assuming* the same old convection assumptions and they keep on writing about a falsified solar theory as though nothing has happened. I guess they figure if they don't talk about the problems with their model, nobody will find out that they have a giant problem.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm sick of hearing about 'open' magnetic lines in space, "reconnecting' magnetic lines, and *magnetic* yada yada yada. They've dumbed down plasma physics to the B orientation of Maxwell's equations, and they don't even understand the E orientation or circuit orientation. It's more than a little sad actually, it's down right depressing.

And against every known empirical evidence we have.


Gauss' Law for Magnetic Fields

The magnetic flux though any closed surface is zero.​

This is just another way of saying that magnetic monopoles do not exist, and that all magnetic fields are actually generated by circulating currents.[SIZE=-1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]

[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE] An immediate corollary of the above law is that the number of magnetic field-lines which enter a closed surface is always equal to the number of field-lines which leave the surface. In other words:

Magnetic field-lines form closed loops which never begin or end.​

Backed up by everything we know about magnetic field lines.
K&J Magnetics Blog
Is there any material that can block a magnetic force? Specifically does lead block magnetic fields?

[SIZE=-1]Which implies that there are no magnetic monopoles. That is, where as you can separate electric monopoles (positive and negative charges) such that an E-field never has to terminate on the opposite charge, you cannot do this with magnetic poles. There do not exist any magnetic monopoles. There is no such thing as "magnetic charge." All magnetic field lines MUST TERMINATE on the opposite pole. Because of this, there is no way to stop them -- nature must find a way to return the magnetic field lines back to an opposite pole. [/SIZE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeAcGell_cg&feature=player_embedded

That's the really amazing part to me personally. The new papers keep on *assuming* the same old convection assumptions and they keep on writing about a falsified solar theory as though nothing has happened. I guess they figure if they don't talk about the problems with their model, nobody will find out that they have a giant problem.

Yes, much easier to pretend nothing has occurred in the hopes it will go away. And yes, I expect the results to be refined - maybe it'll end up being 2% of that required or .25%. But you and I as well as they all know that the results are not off by 99 orders of magnitude. This is why there have been no claims the data is incorrect, merely avoidance of the issue. They know future experiments will only confirm this and refine the calculations. So yes, it may end of being 2% or .25% of that required. More likely 0% what with Trace satellite data.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/T171_000828.avi

Just love that shall we call it *abnormally low convection* of the suns surface below the intervening plasma atmospheric layers. So yes, with electric sputtering of the surface it will slowly change over time as the surface is eroded away.

Also interesting to note is that the atmosphere of Venus has increased in speed over the last decade from around 186 mph to over 249 mph.

Super-Fast Venus Winds Speed Up, Acceleration Baffle Astronomers [PHOTOS]
Venus' howling winds inexplicably get stronger - NBC News.com

Of course they have no driving force for this cause, so remain baffled because they do not account for the energy caused by the Birkeland Currents connecting Sun to Earth, and likewise Sun to Venus.

NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights - NASA Science

Scientists discover surprise in Earth's upper atmosphere / UCLA Newsroom

When one ignores 99.99% of the universe it is no wonder thay are always surprised.

 

[Michael]

And against every known empirical evidence we have.

Ya know....

My knowledge of electromagnetism "used to be" limited ed to a basic understanding of how EM fields expressed themselves in solid state physics.

When I started reading papers on "magnetic reconnection", I had *absolutely no clue* what they were talking about. Magnetic lines have no beginning, no ending, no ability to disconnected from their source, nor to reconnect to any other source. I will be honest, I was stumped, and dumbfounded.

I finally purchased a whole bunch of books on plasma physics and I started reading, starting with Alfven, Peratt, Somov and one other who's name escapes me. I also read Langmuir's early experiments with plasma. That was actually very enlightening and fascinating.

I started doing some research in MR theory again, (papers were actually presented to me), and the first one by Priest actually violated Guass's law of magnetism rather blatantly. He essentually used using "monopoles" to do the dirty work in terms of kinetic energy transfers. I cried foul.

By then, I had already read Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma, his paper on double layers, and his keynote speech about the "pseudoscience" called "magnetic reconnection" theory. It was easy to see why he rejected the concept and chose a "circuit"/E orientation to physics in current carrying plasma. According to Alfven, *the whole universe* is composed of current carrying plasma.

It wasn't until someone presented me with a paper written by "Birn" that I finally understood that what they were lamely *trying* to describe was not simply a "magnetic line", but rather a "current carrying plasma thread", like I might find in an ordinary plasma ball. They didn't *say* that of course, but he described the "current flowing" along the "magnetic line". In short, he described a Birkeland current in plasma and didn't bother giving Birkeland any credit.

Apparently they'd like to ignore the role of "charged particles" in terms of the kinetic energy transfer process, the plasma particles that transfer that kinetic energy, and the kinetic energy itself! They fixate *exclusively* on the magnetic fields that are *created by* the current, and completely ignore the current that creates and sustains that magnetic field.

JREF taught me one thing, not only don't the "astronomers" have a clue how plasma physics *actually* works, their opinions are basically swayed by *amateurs* that actually have little or no qualification in basic EM theory, and who've never read a single textbook on plasma physics!

Honestly, it's just that bad in terms of how poorly astronomers understand plasma physics. Alfven would be *appalled*. Even Birkeland would be blown away at their blatant ignorance of basic plasma behaviors in current carrying environments.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ya know....

My knowledge of electromagnetism "used to be" limited ed to a basic understanding of how EM fields expressed themselves in solid state physics.

When I started reading papers on "magnetic reconnection", I had *absolutely no clue* what they were talking about. Magnetic lines have no beginning, no ending, no ability to disconnected from their source, nor to reconnect to any other source. I will be honest, I was stumped, and dumbfounded.

I finally purchased a whole bunch of books on plasma physics and I started reading, starting with Alfven, Peratt, Somov and one other who's name escapes me. I also read Langmuir's early experiments with plasma. That was actually very enlightening and fascinating.

I started doing some research in MR theory again, (papers were actually presented to me), and the first one by Priest actually violated Guass's law of magnetism rather blatantly. He essentually used using "monopoles" to do the dirty work in terms of kinetic energy transfers. I cried foul.

By then, I had already read Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma, his paper on double layers, and his keynote speech about the "pseudoscience" called "magnetic reconnection" theory. It was easy to see why he rejected the concept and chose a "circuit"/E orientation to physics in current carrying plasma. According to Alfven, *the whole universe* is composed of current carrying plasma.

It wasn't until someone presented me with a paper written by "Birn" that I finally understood that what they were lamely *trying* to describe was not simply a "magnetic line", but rather a "current carrying plasma thread", like I might find in an ordinary plasma ball. They didn't *say* that of course, but he described the "current flowing" along the "magnetic line". In short, he described a Birkeland current in plasma and didn't bother giving Birkeland any credit.

Apparently they'd like to ignore the role of "charged particles" in terms of the kinetic energy transfer process, the plasma particles that transfer that kinetic energy, and the kinetic energy itself! They fixate *exclusively* on the magnetic fields that are *created by* the current, and completely ignore the current that creates and sustains that magnetic field.

JREF taught me one thing, not only don't the "astronomers" have a clue how plasma physics *actually* works, their opinions are basically swayed by *amateurs* that actually have little or no qualification in basic EM theory, and who've never read a single textbook on plasma physics!

Honestly, it's just that bad in terms of how poorly astronomers understand plasma physics. Alfven would be *appalled*. Even Birkeland would be blown away at their blatant ignorance of basic plasma behaviors in current carrying environments.

Agreed. Magnetic fields do not travel in lines, they encircle the moving charged particles and compress those into filamentary pathways. Magnetic fields do not disconnect and the reconnect. The Double Layer collapses and the charged particls no longer complete a circuit and the magnetic field collapses. When the current reconnects the magnetic field again refoms.

Until one reads those books you mention it is a hard subject to grasp. As soon as two or more charged particles move in relation to one another the magnetic field springs up instantly, completely sorrounding those charged particles, further compicating the equations as those particles interact with the very magnetic field they formed, increasing both the strength of the current and the magnetic field itself. Why Alfven warned them about their simplistic calculations and how the plasam did not want to obey the math.

Quantumelectrodynamics, the one hope of uniting the micro and macro, from which chromodynamics evolved. Yet they can't make that leap between theories in how gravity must be an electrodynamic force if quantum theory is ever to fit. The problem is that modern theorists again want to take out the electro part of the dynamic interactions even in the quantum theory. Then for the life of them can't figure out why they can't get quantum mechanics to fit reality. It fits, in the same areas GR fits, the solar system and center of galaxies - no where else. Both theories explain balanced forces quite well, it is only unbound moving charges - plasma, 99.99% of the universe - where it does not work, except as a crude rudimentary approximation.

Not saying EU/PC theories have all th answer, yet, but they are still formulating theory and are still in the evidence gathering stage. I give it 4 years before we no longer rely on a thumonuclear sun and 8 years before the last of the die-hards voices fade from the scene. We are so close to a breakthrough in science it is beyond comprehesion how they can ignore it any longer. But then again smart people make really good View Masters, so some will take awhile to finally put it down.

Something you might like if never having seen it, you prbabaly have.
http://pesn.com/2011/05/09/9501830_Eric_Dollards_Talk_on_Longitudinal_Wave_Energy/

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html

http://www.ias.ac.in/pramana/sept2000/P5236.PDF

https://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles 2007/Weber_1846.pdf

You do know almost all of Tesla's experiments on Longitudinal waves was seized by the government and is still classified?

I've studied the electrical force for close to 6 years now, and I still don't know how a transformer works. Got theories in agreement with E, but got to use the electro part of the dynamics.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Something interesting. Told you NASA was slowly coming over.

http://lunarscience.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Mendis_Horanyi_ROG_2013.pdf

http://lunarscience.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Mendis_Horanyi_ROG_2013.pdf

Model-based constraints on the lunar exosphere derived from ARTEMIS pickup ion observations in the terrestrial magnetotail - Poppe - 2013 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets - Wiley Online Library

Leaping Lunar Dust | NASA Lunar Science Institute

NLSI Team Publishes Paper on Electrostatic Dust Transport | NASA Lunar Science Institute

Dust, Atmosphere and Plasma Environment of the Moon and Small Bodies (DAP-2012) | NASA Lunar Science Institute

How Solar Wind Interacts with the Lunar Surface | NASA Lunar Science Institute

 

[Michael]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7754178/

I'm still waiting for you to pick out a paper that you think demonstrates *your* claim.

 

[Michael]

NASA - NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

While I'm thinking about it:

Another perfect example of the false advertizing that is practiced by the mainstream is their constant misrepresentation of plasmas in spacetime as a "hot gas". That's complete and utter nonsense at million degree temperatures! They certainly know the difference between the various states of matter, and million degree plasmas are not a "gas" and they don't behave like a gas.

This type of willful misrepresentation of the facts is another example of how the mainstream misrepresents the facts to the public.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

NASA - NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

While I'm thinking about it:

Another perfect example of the false advertizing that is practiced by the mainstream is their constant misrepresentation of plasmas in spacetime as a "hot gas". That's complete and utter nonsense at million degree temperatures! They certainly know the difference between the various states of matter, and million degree plasmas are not a "gas" and they don't behave like a gas.

This type of willful misrepresentation of the facts is another example of how the mainstream misrepresents the facts to the public.

Because you then might have to consider subsuming gravity under the electromagnetic science as was being proposed before it was shunted aside with Relativity and the Big Bang.

 

[Elendur]

That would be plenty in terms of understanding the basics of EU theory. It probably wouldn't get you all that far in terms of dark energy, inflation or exotic matter theory, but you can certainly follow along in terms of the basic arguments as I noted below.

Basic arguments, yes, however to delve deeper is near impossible and it proves to be a problem with sorting out assertions.

I think I'll stop here in terms of your list to respond to the last question first. Laboratory data is data that we can gather here on Earth (or somewhere reachable by human equipment) that offers us some measure of control over the conditions of real experiments so that we can verify actual cause/effect relationships. One example would be inelastic scattering events in plasma, and/or powerful EM fields in controlled experimentation. There types of experiments, that also offer control mechanisms, gives us the ability to determine the actual cause/effect relationships, and compare them to mathematical models in the real world.

That isn't special characteristics limited to that kind of data. You can perform the same kind of cross examination of data outside of the lab, though it'll require larger sets of observations to find what one needs to distill down to usable data sets.

Since there is no known source of dark energy, let alone a way to control it, experimenting with in on Earth is not physically possible. It's sole use seems to be to salvage one (and only one) otherwise falsified cosmology theory. I'd just assume let that one cosmology theory die a natural scientific death rather than simply invent new imaginary invisible entities. Surely you can appreciate that 'cautiousness' toward diving into a metaphysical solution rather than just embracing an honest 'I don't know'?

Sure, but as for science you need to go where no one have gone before, even at the risk of being wrong. Else, we'd go nowhere.

AFAIK, "inflation" was a once in a universe event, even by mainstream standards. It may not even exist in nature anymore (some versions suggest it might). With that sort of "wiggle room", it's impossible to verify inflation theory in the lab, and may remain so forever, even in mainstream theory.

Verification isn't what we're talking about. It's falsification. Verification isn't nearly as useful as falsification, as you'd be able to just look at some small set of data and say "Here, it fits, therefore it's right!".

And what you're talking about is obviously either several theories or hypotheses (easily discernible from your terminology). Which actually includes the possibility of falsification for each theory or hypothesis that differs from one and another on each predicted set.

"Dark energy' is apparently shy around the lab. Although it presumably accelerates a mostly plasma universe, it's incapable of accelerating a single charged particle in a lab. Nobody can name a source of dark energy. Nobody can explain how to 'control' it in actual experiments on Earth. It has no falsification potential at all in the lab. Unlike those inelastic scattering experiments, I simply have to *have faith* that "dark energy" has some magical effect on photons.

And thus you use the data sets gathered from observations outside of our small sphere. Which is a perfectly valid method.

Lack of known source is of no consequence. As is lack of " 'control' ".
Or, if you disagree, please provide with some explicit general reasoning around this. I'd love to hear (read) why it is you return to this and, possibly, change either your or my opinion of this. It might even be the subject for an entire new thread (or two).

You've stated earlier that it is possible to falsify, at the very least least, versions of it. (Which leads to an obvious contradiction of your positioin)

But even those VP experiments suggest that light is "held" by an EM field. How exactly does an EM field "hold" a photon for even a split second without picking up some momentum from it, if only momentarily?

What you responded to is a claim I extracted from your earlier post, which confuses me a bit.

As an honest reply to your though: I haven't studied enough to understand EM fields (which kind of neatly demonstrates my earlier point).

It seems to me that your only real "argument" is pretty much the same as Ned Wright's argument. It's a criticism that is ultimately based upon a handwavy argument about a few types of scattering from a 1929 paper written by a guy that was peddling his own 'tired light' theory! Give me a break!

And yet you haven't provided with one line of math that I can look at that wouldn't demonstrate the problems I've, with my limited knowledge, observed.

It's not like the mainstream has spent a lot of time and money building real experiments here on Earth to test every single type of imaginable inelastic scattering process to see how it might explain some if not all events in space. In fact it looks like they've done *zero* work in the lab. More disconcerting, I'd have to believe that *zero* inelastic scattering occurs in *any* of the photons that reach Earth. How likely is that considering the fact that we just found a bunch more million degree plasma around our galaxy?

That we'd expect a zero amount of inelastic scattering is something I've never claimed, and repeatedly stated so, along with several others who've engaged at the same point.

What I've argued, and some (if not all) others, is that there's no way that there's a significant amount.

If you don't have a mechanism that has the possibility to produce the effect you're looking after you either have to find it or find another solution (effectively abandoning the idea). There's no reason to hold a position that is solely hypothetical and untested.

I hear you. Even still, you have to hear my point don't you? Whereas you can cite a few actual lab experiments on photon redshift in plasma where deflection occurred, I don't even have *that* luxury! You can then (IMO at least) abuse that experimentation till the cows come home, and I can do very little about it other than to pour my *own resources* into trying to test ever single inelastic scattering mechanism known to man. Meanwhile the mainstream simply ignores that whole possibility and pours unlimited *public* resources into hunting for and misrepresenting their ad hoc entities! "Dark energy camera" my eye! That kind of statement would *never* hold up in court.

They have the observational data sets, that continues to grow, of space. Eventually the data sets derived from those will falsify the notorious versions you've mentioned and actually be equivalent to lab experiments.

This is another point that is fit for another thread. (I'll summarize after I've answered all your posts)

The problem is that they don't "stick to" the outcome of their "predictions". When their interpretation of photon redshift was challenged by supernova data sets, they simply *added ad hoc entities* to ''fix" their otherwise falsified interpretation of photon redshift! It's not like they let BB theory die a natural empirical death, they simply *fudged the number* with new ad hoc constructs, and continued to fail to *test* inelastic scattering processes in the lab.

But they effectively falsified their old model (assuming you're telling me the truth). What you're naming as the same model isn't.

It's a new theory/hypothesis that has borrowed large parts from an earlier falsified theory/hypothesis (or a set of those).

This seems to be another thing that's possible to delve deeper into.

Likewise the outright falsification of every 'popular' SUSY theory made no dent in mainstream claims about the existence of exotic forms of matter, nor did the fact they found more mass inside of ordinary plasma in 2012 than had been found in the whole of human history until 2012.

And isn't that great that they found that mass? I bet that they'd be equally exited to replace the dark matter with regular, so far not observed, matter.

Even worse however, observational failures like that 4 billion light year long structure in space are swept under the carpet, along with every 'anomaly' in PLANCK/WMAP data sets.

I've seen some of the discussion you've had about this structure and it's way over my head, as you're surely aware of.

No. They didn't falsify their assumption about the cause of redshift with that supernova data. They added supernatural entities to their theory and endowed these supernatural entities with supernatural 'space accelerating" powers.

Earlier in your reply you acknowledged to lessen your use of derogatory terminology. Supernatural is inflammatory and, by extension, derogatory.

I'll reserve this reply for the extended reply about falsifications of versions of theories/hypotheses.

They didn't question their *assumptions* about photon redshift, not for a single instant! They didn't sit down and carefully test each and every type of inelastic scattering, they *assumed* they all have to do *exactly* the same thing!

They assumed? I, for one, didn't assume. I looked at the examples you provided and deduced that they're insufficient.

I'm sorry , but I don't see how adding a *new* ad hoc invisible entity to a "hypothesis' is really 'changing the model' in a way that is consistent with empirical physics. It's more consistent with 'make believe' that is inspired by a strong emotional desire to never admit that they might have been wrong about the basic cause of photon redshift.

Then lets expand on the subject, preferable as general as possible without returning to this specific instance to which you obviously have a lot of emotional attachment.

 

[Elendur]

My argument still stands actually. There has never been empirical laboratory evidence to support SUSY theory. It's never been anything other than a 'non-standard', and less popular particle physics theory in the first place. It's more popular with astronomers perhaps, but in terms of particle physics, SUSY theory was *always* a non-standard physics theory. It's never enjoyed any empirical support either.

I was more focused on your argument about falsification. This, as I've stated in earlier post, is something I'll try to lift out of our discussion.

In this case they keep "changing the parameters" because all the "popular" SUSY theories were falsified. The whole argument has now become an "exotic matter of the gaps" argument, and the gaps keep getting smaller. They keep moving the numbers to fit in those ever shrinking gaps, only because their *primary* claims have already been falsified by the data!

And there you have it. Falsified. That isn't so bad, is it?

The astronomers and SUSY proponents didn't actually take that falsification to heart, and let their theories die a "natural" scientific death. Instead they elected to "surf the gaps" for as long as they can get away with it!

And how on earth is that a problem? If they're valid (as in mathematically sound) "gaps" then how can you protest against it? That the "gaps" shrink, which I assume is what you meant, is something extremely positive. Eventually it'll either result in something very exact or the scrapping of the theories/hypotheses.

If history is any indication, they just make up a new ad hoc entity to make the math work right again.

Like Neptune once was?

By that logic, Bigfoot must exist because I've seen images of what is supposed to be Bigfoot and recordings that allegedly come from Bigfoot. Not all "evidence" is equal.

You're certainly correct on that all evidence isn't equal, but what matters is the bodies of evidence and how rigorous they are.
That's why I stated that the term was superfluous, it's the bodies of evidence that's supposed to be used to form conclusions and not individual pieces of evidence (no matter how strong).
Individual pieces of evidence might induce further study of the subject in question if they're controversial and strong enough to affect the certainty of the conclusion drawn by the earlier body of evidence.

Note that included in the body of evidence is also the negative results, even though they often don't get published (which I raged at when I found out) which can severely skewer the initial impression.

In *reality* however, positrons and gamma rays are empirically and physically related to electrical discharges. Only in *creation mythos* does exotic matter supposedly "do" anything, or emit positrons. Exotic matter concepts are complete dud in the lab to date, and not a single positron has ever been empirically linked to any form of exotic matter.

The evidence for positron emissions from electrical discharges is nothing at all like the so called "evidence" of positron emissions from exotic matter theory. One type of "evidence' is entirely empirical in nature, and the other is entirely *mathematical speculation*! Not all evidence is equal in terms of empirical physics, and I put emphasis on empirical physics.

Pssh, reality is overrated
Jokes aside, positrons and such is way over my education.

Swaying an audience is a time honored tradition in debate. I'd say that I grandstand a lot less about mainstream claims in terms of the statements that I make vs the claims that the mainstream makes about EU/PC theory.

It may be so but to throw mud 'because they started it' is no way to debate.

To use the terms 'crackpot' or otherwise derogatory/inflammatory terminology is worse than worthless. That goes for everybody.

It can sometimes, in verbal debates, be used to bring the opponent off balance, to great effect, but I hold the position that if you think you're correct you won't need those underhanded methods.

At the worst cases it would be enough to provide with one serious reply and refer to that reply if there's a repeat return by the person he/she'd call 'crackpot' or similar.

It's extremely hard to "straighten up" the usage of terms when the mainstream is constantly referring to Lambda-CDM as a 'theory' and a 'model' yet their so called "theory" requires 95 percent "hypothetical entities' to make it work! Don't blame me for the confusion, it's not my fault.

I agree here. As you probably saw with my short exchange with David, I'd hold everybody to that standard and I find it deplorable that the experts, especially, would be so lax with their use.

Or perhaps they are so *emotionally* and *professionally* invested in their beliefs, that it makes more sense to "make up" ad hoc gap filler than to simply let their theory die a natural empirical death. Either way, their creation of ad hoc gap filler wasn't real impressive to start with. The fact they can't site a single source of the stuff some 15 years later is also less than impressive.

That they've managed to replace some of the placeholder is impressive though. That shows that there is something to it.

As for the emotional investment, I don't see why they wouldn't jump at the opportunity to write themselves as the founder of some knockout new view of the universe.

Well, you could interpret it that way I suppose. Then again, there is a *subjective* element involved that doesn't relate to the actual data, and not everyone reacts to data sets the same way. It *might* be possible to falsify inflation theory *if* there were only one of them, *and* inflation actually existed and actually had some effect on "things". Since none of that is true however, the falsification process becomes *personally subjective*, and requires the "believer" to make "choices' that are not related to empirical physical data. It might be possible to falsify the theory for some people. David however is a perfect example of someone that cannot be swayed by the data, regardless of the data. Even when I first asked him about that 4 billion light year long structure in space, he didn't ever once question his beliefs, nor did he leave open any room at all for that particular observation to be useful as a falsification mechanism. He immediately *assumed* he could "break it into smaller pieces" to achieve his goals. I haven't had time to read his rebuttal paper yet, but even before he could present me with one, he had already made up his mind!

Actually, how I perceived it he seemed to have heard something about someone who'd studied the phenomenon you're talking (writing) about and gave his initial impression. Which later seemed to be consistent with the paper.

If my memory serves me right.

They don't either. That's the whole point. Gravitational curvature can accelerate objects of mass as well.

Umm... Isn't that energy as well? Potential energy.

They however need something to accelerate "space", not mass. They can't even demonstrate that "space" (physically undefined) an even "expand", let alone "accelerate". Both concepts (expansion and acceleration of space) are pure "acts of faith" of the part of the believer.

Inflammatory terminology.

I'll lift out the question about whether space and/or spacetime is defined or not as well (since we keep returning to that as well).

So it's fine by you if I just call it "God energy" then too, right?

No. The term god has luggage that is unnecessary. And I'm talking some major luggage.

So you'll sit by and watch the mainstream drawing strawmen about EU/PC theories, strawmen related to invisible ad hoc entities and not bat an eye, but should you see something from my lips that looks like a strawman, that's worth commenting on?

So I have a better grasp of "the mainstream" than the "EU/PC theories", can you blame me? One that I have had a rudimentary education of and some sporadic exposing of due to news articles. One that I heard about for the first time a few years ago.

I can't go further than my current understanding of something.

I know how I can differentiate between the "wrong' and "right" impressions in science. I simply use a completely empirical standard. I have no idea how you determine "right" or 'wrong' impressions however as it relates to physics. Care to explain? Surely it's not related to how you "feel" about my personal presentation style?

Wrong in this case would mean that I'd later change my mind based upon the information I have gathered. I didn't mean and form of 'objective wrong'.

Oddly enough we actually share that fondness for science in common. I too am biased toward "empirical science". That is why EU/PC theory is so attractive to me personally.

The difference is that I also tend to reject *metaphysical entities* regardless of the source. The label "science" doesn't impress me when it's associated with invisible hypothetical entities anymore than the label 'religion' impresses me when it's describing invisible hypothetical entities. I apply the *same* standard, whereas you apparently do not.

It isn't the label that impresses me. It's whether I need to spend time to get what they're talking about.
If I need to, then I'll weigh for and against whether I'll actually engage.

Science, unfortunately (?), demands much more than non-scientific endeavors.
When it comes to religions and philosophical arguments I'm much better suited and actually able to instantly, or near so, start working with what's given.
Often, I admit, I'll take a sample and judge according to that but I'll make damn certain that I'm aware of that and that I don't give the impression of otherwise.

I don't want to have to spend weeks sorting through and examining observational data sets and similar to form an opinion that won't ever affect me.

You do a pretty good job actually. The only dead 'give away' is that you don't ask david any questions.

That's mainly because the initial reasons I approached you wasn't scientific inquiry (as easily seen if backtracking). It was pretty much to improve the discussion.

(In this particular backtrack I landed on post 407 in "Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)" )

I'd like to think I've been consistent in my 'starts'

What is "dark energy" if not a claim that has no evidence? Even *if* we assume the universe is accelerating over time, what actual evidence can you present that 'dark energy did it' or that "God energy" didn't do it?

It doesn't really matter what I can present does it? Because if it does, science is in big trouble.

I'd suggest looking for the evidence that led to the theory/hypothesis.

Well, until I see evidence to the contrary, I think is save to assume a law is likely to be true. That's hardly an illogical premise.

I agree.

I hope you can see the difference between claiming that an EM field is responsible for accelerating something vs claiming that "God accelerates the universe'. I can name a *source* of EM fields. I can *control* them in real experiments. I can show in a lab that they can and do have a direct effect on charged particles. This is actual "knowledge'.

This is something I think we might deal with with the 'separate thread' suggestions.

Some vague claim about 'dark energy did it" means absolutely nothing in terms of 'knowledge". That isn't actually 'knowledge" at all, it's a "statement of faith". Knowledge isn't the same as *blind speculation*.

Dark energy did it explains nothing, sure, but from what I've seen they actually have a lot more explaining than that.

Bear with me. I've got a lot of conversations going now, and limited time during the day. If I miss anything, just keep doing what you've been doing and cite the link for me. I'll eventually get to it.

 

[Elendur]

I'm not even technically asking anyone to make a final decision so much as form an opinion. The opinion I'm hoping to leave the reader with is the that it's time to start trying new options as it relates to explaining events in spacetime. I don't even technically mind the fact that the mainstream wants to try out their own ideas, it's the fact they don't try out the empirical solutions that I object to.

It's a helluva lot more empirical than what I deal with on a daily basis.
I object to you claiming it's not empirical.

Why haven't Bikeland's cathode sun experiments been duplicated in over 100 years for instance? All the mainstream explanations about corona activity are linked to convection speeds, and they turned out to be two orders of magnitude smaller than predicted/needed in mainstream theory in the SDO data sets.

I wouldn't know.

Likewise we keep finding all kinds of mass in the form of plasma and dust, SUSY theories keep being falsified, but the mainstream refused to significantly modify it's claims about exotic matter.

Was it necessary to significantly modify to fit the data?

I tend to take the time to get to know something about the bonds and people that I vote for, and something about the topics I engage myself in. It's just my nature I guess. I'm sure my understanding of the people or the issue has been wrong at times, but that's the risk you take in a democracy. Likewise I'm willing to risk being publicly wrong about a scientific topic (say evolutionary theory) so long as I know enough about it to explain the basics. I'm not a evolutionary biologist of course, but I can explain a few things about evolutionary theory to anyone that is curious. That's true of many topics, including topics related to cosmology theory.

IMO you're not hearing (or addressing) the real complaint, you're attempting to deflect the problem by blaming the messenger. The messenger's math skills have nothing to do with the weaknesses of mainstream theory. Those math skills have nothing to with the fact that dark energy fails too show up in the lab, or have an effect on a single photon in the lab. It has nothing to do with the fact that inflation fails to show up in the lab, or that that the most popular SUSY theories have been been falsified in the lab. As long as you blame the messenger's math skills rather than blame the creator of the mythology in question, it becomes a bit like a mud slinging contest. The messenger's math skills are irrelevant to the issues and problems in question because the messenger isn't suggesting that the *math* is incorrect!

They'd help with the definitions of time, space, spacetime and expansion, which is why I suggested them.
(Which I explained more explicitly in the same section I suggested them)

If the term "objective" is associated exclusively with 'empirical', it's easy enough to tell the difference between an 'objective' force of nature like EM fields or gravity and a "subjective" hypothetical entity like dark energy or inflation.

If we start making the term "objective" a popularity contest related to majority/minority viewpoints, it's just a popularity contest.

Objective evidence has nothing to do with any explanation.

They're the results of the basic assumptions one makes in order to interact with the universe and the observations derived from that.
To ascribe something to them other than that would be to apply subjectivity and thus rendering them unobjective.

Example:
Objective evidence:
This rock fell.

Subjective evidence:
This rock fell due to gravity.

 

[Elendur]

Over the past 7 or so years, I have perused the "internet circuit" in terms of visiting various astronomy hangouts in cyberspace. In my experience, most of the vocal EU haters are not professional astronomers, but there are a few mudslinging astronomers in cyberspace as well.

As one would expect, it's not as if you get a gentlemen diploma with your degree.

In terms of "expertize", it seems as though astronomers specialize in a very particular field of study. They aren't necessarily as knowledgeable about plasma physics as I would have expected. I've been disappointed on that score actually.

There are also cross-area experts, I'd rely on those to tie things together. As the scientific areas get so very deep now we have to be realistic.

If that were actually the case, Birkeland would have been recognized for his genius as it relates to solar system physics many decades ago. IMO lab work is probably the most convincing evidence there is. We seem to have very different ideas about the nature of 'convincing evidence'.

Then update the data, it can't be that hard since it's soon 100 years ago since he died. It should be easy to show that the data would be inconsistent with the current model if it's so important.

Of course, no need to start big. Start small and provoke additional inquiry. As I wrote earlier, it's the body of evidence that is the important.

Not everyone in cyberspace I've discussed these ideas with is "uneducated in the area" and it's not like I haven't already published papers that the professionals can read through and comment on at their leisure. I am somewhat motivated to write a new paper on coronal loops and their effect on the surface of the photosphere, based on SDO data, but alas I doubt it would be the straw the broke the camels back as it relates to the acceptance of Birkeland's cathode sun theories.

Perhaps you'd need a stronger connection?

It would be damaging to discuss the ideas publicly? Hmmm. If acceptance isn't related to actual "physics" but to "personality" or method, is that really 'science'?

Unfortunately there are people in science.
As for what could cause damage, I'd say that it's a possibility that if people have read what you write, and if they've disliked it, they might be influenced to the negative side.

And, hoping I won't be to harsh, you've written plenty of things that have gotten me to view you in negative light due to your use of inflammatory terminology. Which is partly why I'm pushing to try to get you to lessen it.

The mainstream astronomy community probably didn't tell you. Particle physicists may have told you, or I may have told you, but in all likelihood, you didn't hear it from an astronomer.

Possible. But then I can't evaluate how relevant it is to the field.

Was he a particle physicist or an astronomer?

I think the former. It has been quite some time now so I can't remember properly, but I think so.

The electrical discharges that release gamma rays occur in the atmosphere of every planet with an atmosphere in our own solar system, as well as the solar atmosphere. Name one other naturally occurring source of gamma rays that we observe inside our own atmosphere, or the atmosphere of any body in the solar system.

The fact that I can't name any other source is no demonstration.

In this particular case, I see no evidence its not a "related area".

Ok.

Whether any particles show up or not it's a "win" either way. They didn't abandon their theory when all the 'popular' SUSY theories went up smoke. They won't likely abandon exotic matter theory just because they can't find any exotic matter. They haven't found any so far, and that hasn't put a single dent in their beliefs.

If they've done an exhaustive search and found nothing I guarantee you they'll do something about it. As far as I know, we've only scratched the surface.

Even if some particle or particles do happen to show up in future experiments, there is no guarantee whatsoever that such particles will have the various 'properties' (like longevity) to save their theory. At this point, the 'belief' in exotic matter is an "act of faith" on the part of the one who chooses to believe. Pure acts of faith cannot ultimately be falsified in the lab.

Which is why it isn't a "pure act of faith".
Also. Again with the inflammatory terminology.

Likewise, that 4 billion light year long "structure" in space that should not exist in Lambda-CDM has no influence upon their dogma. It's just another 'anomaly' they sweep under the carpet like all those anomalies found in the Planck and WMAP data sets. Whatever data doesn't fit is simply ignored.

Ignored? Didn't David provide with a paper about it?

But that's the whole point. You didn't demonstrate that D) applies to all forms of inelastic scattering, you *assume* it.

No. I've deduced that about every inelastic scattering you've shown me.

But you are suggesting/assuming that every photon reaching us from distance galaxies has never even once experienced an inelastic scattering event over than entire distance, even/most particularly those photons that travel the furthest.

No.
If you read carefully what you've written you've not excluded the off chance that a photon may stray and return from another angle (giving the impression that it comes from a different light source altogether). You've also excluded the minimal possibility that they actually can return on track.

I am suggesting, supported by my deduction, that it doesn't happen at a significant amount by the processes you've explained/presented to me.

I think I'll refrain from trying to characterize your beliefs. It wasn't a good idea to start with. My apologies.

Good. I got severely [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed off since I've been carefully and explicitly stating several of those things repeatedly.

 

[Elendur]

A derived result of what? Their dogma? The result certainly cannot be derived from painstaking analysis of dark energy and it's effect on anything in the lab. It's completely "made up" to fill the gaps of their otherwise falsified interpretation of the redshift phenomenon.

I mean that the dark energy is a derived result as well.

I think you missed my point. The "crappy assumptions" are the ones the mainstream makes with respect to "cause/effect" claims. There is no empirical justification for claiming that A) dark energy exist in nature, or B) that it has any "acceleration" potential with respect to anything! The entire claim is a *pure act of blind faith* on the part of the believer. There no logical way to even empirical verify part A) or B) in any lab. Ditto for inflation. Even the most popular SUSY theories being decimated at LHC did absolutely nothing to dent their faith in their invisible sky beliefs. The entire dogma is 'faith based' and devoid of any empirical verification/falsification possibility. If it was actually possible to demonstrate the core claims of mainstream theory, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

Correction:
If you thought it was actually possible to demonstrate the core claims of mainstream theory, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

As for the lab, see the points I've 'extracted'.

The observer is *the* most important tool of science.

I agree, but that doesn't make it the necessary assumption to arrive at that point.

The point I'm making however is that electrical discharges are the single most "natural'" way for us to explain excess gamma rays, excess positrons, and excess high energy charged particles in general. Nature creates these things inside of our own solar system every single day. It's not a mystery where high energy positrons and electrons come from. We don't need exotic matter to explain these things, and we have no evidence that A) exotic matter exists, or B) that it emits positrons of *any* energy state!

And then we arrive at the "would it produce any side effects that we don't observe"?

In any Ockham's razor argument, electrical discharges win that debate *hands down*.

That only applies to two, or more, explanations of equal, or close to, explanatory power.

If the mainstream intends to blame positron emissions in space on exotic matter, I expect them to provide evidence that A) exotic matter actually exists, and B) it emits positrons. You personally may not have to provide such evidence because they aren't your personal claims, but they are mainstream claims and the mainstream has provided zero supporting evidence to support such assertions.

Actually the evidence used to derive the conclusions is evidence for the conclusion. However, I can understand if you'd want additional evidence.

Well, it does matter to me that we have a perfectly good, perfectly logical way to explain high energy positrons *without* inventing invisible, positron belching, forms of new and exotic matter. There's not even a single shred of evidence that exotic forms of matter exist, let alone that they are long lived enough to be of any consequence, let alone that they emit positrons of *any* energy state.

As stated before. The evidence leading to the conclusion is evidence for the conclusion.

Those "calculations" aren't all that meaningful without actual *experimental tests* to check them out. Specifically we need to test *every* type of inelastic scattering process to see if there is much deflection. Short of such an exhaustive experimental process, there is no way to "rule out' all tired light options IMO.

And now who's using the unfalsifiable?

If the basic argument that you're proposing requires that photons from distant galaxies never experience inelastic scattering events along the way you do. If the photons haven't been inelastically scattered along the way, then why is *any* image of *any* galaxy 'blurry' at all?

I'll address the last sentence.
Imagine that photons cannot occupy the same space.
Imagine that during one moment you sent out a group of photons with almost no angular difference, we're talking almost occupying the same space.
Imagine that the group of photons passing through several gravitational fields, of varying strength.
They will be affected differently, since they're not occupying the same space, but not severely differently.

Over vast distances, and several gravitational (or similar) fields, this difference would result in blurring (both by increased angle and time).

Note though that this is only my own musings as I've read nothing of the subject.

Hmmm. What's the point of educating myself to the effects of electrical discharges on Earth and in the solar atmosphere if I'm not going to put that knowledge to work when we observe positrons in space? Education works both ways. If I believed that astronomers we educated on EU theory, or educated on even plasma physics in general, I'd be happy. As it's stands I seem to have read several more textbooks on the topic of plasma physics than most of the astronomers I've met (not all of course, but most).

I agree with you that education is the right tool, but it depends on what you are claiming to be "knowledge". How "educated" can the entire community of astronomers be on the topic of 'dark energy" if not a single individual within that community can even tell me where it comes from or explain a way to control it? Do they have actual empirical knowledge of the existence of 'dark energy', or do they just have some half baked metaphysical kludge of a hypothesis that doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny? What is the value of 'educating' yourself to dark energy if nobody can even tell me for certain that it actually exist, and nobody can tell me where it comes from? Is that 'education' or dogma?

I'll refer this section to the origin question I've 'extracted'.

Interesting. I certainly agree NASA's share of the budget is miniscule all things considered. Considering NASA's paltry share of resources, they don't have a much money to waste IMO. Even a little bit hurts. Why waste funds when they have so little to waste?

I'd say that I trust them to know when they're wasting or not.

So when is it "ok" to make an "informed enough" decision? I can't really fault your logic of course, but the implication of your statement seems to be that only the "experts" are informed enough to make an informed decision. They aren't "informed" however. In fact they don't even know where DE comes from. How is that 'informed" exactly?

I'm not claiming that only experts are informed enough to make informed decisions, but educated persons.

I'll refer part of this section to the origin question I've 'extracted'.

 

[Elendur]

I wouldn't characterize any honest scientific doubt as a bad thing.

 

[Elendur]

I think you're missing the key point related to falsification. I can't 'falsify' a hypothetical entity like inflation in controlled experimentation since there is no defined source, no defined control mechanism, and no experiment in the history of mankind that involves inflation. Ditto for curvatons, dark energy, and exotic stable matter. I can't play with these hypothetical entities in any lab to determine their properties, and none of them have ever shown up in a lab. There is no laboratory falsification mechanism for any of them.

All of these hypothetical entities were created specifically to explain *uncontrolled observation*, not human experimentation.

Therefore, the *only possible falsification mechanism* that I can apply to a hypothetical entity, is to compare how closely observation actually jives with it's predictions. The last time a "core prediction" of BB theory failed to match observational data, BB theory wasn't 'falsified' by that data. Instead we got an *additional* hypothetical entity out of the supernova data set called "dark energy". Now it turns out that Lambda-CDM fails to match it's core prediction set in the Plank data sets, and again, david is not simply "falsifying" his beliefs based upon that data, rather he's handwaving in yet *another* hypothetical entity!

What we have here is a complete and total failure to provide any real type of falsification mechanism. Each time their theory has failed to match it's actually predictions, an additional hypothetical entity is simply added into the mix and away they go........

Lambda-CDM *cannot* be consider a form of 'science' without a valid falsification mechanism. It's a "pure act of faith" on the part of the believer, faith in the unseen (in the lab). Less than five percent of the theory is actually based upon *known* physics. The rest is simply 'made up' in a highly subjective way. We're now outside of the realm of falsifiable physics, and well into the realm of pure 'religion' (aka faith in the unseen).

If there is no way to falsify the belief system, it's not actually a form of "science". Can you tell me how I might falsify inflation theory *outright* if they can simply add new hypothetical entities as they see fit, and they can modify the various properties of each of these hypothetical as they see fit?

As a skeptic, individually you *might* get me to simply "lack belief" (weak atheism) in any single one of them. Collectively however, the (now apparently) four of them sound absolutely ridiculous to me. I can't *help* but be a *strong atheists* toward them as group. None of them are even necessary as far as I know because no really exhaustive studies have really been done on inelastic scattering in plasma and dust to see what the *actual* effects (not mathematical speculation) might be.

Why should anyone want to waste anymore money creating new hypothetical entities *before* spending our money on testing various inelastic scattering processes individually and collectively in a *wide* variety of conditions in plasma?

Sorry Elendur, but my "weak" lack of belief toward inflation pretty much went up in smoke with the introduction of "dark energy" as an ad hoc gap filler in BB theory. I can't even "lack belief" in any sort of "neutral" way toward curvatons. The whole thing sounds completely contrived in an ad hoc manner in some feeble effort to save inflation claims from outright falsification.

PC/EU theory doesn't require *any* of that nonsense. It's based upon pure empirical physics, and it allows for active experimentation, starting with those inelastic scattering experiments that *should have* been done a long time ago. Swicky in 1929 certainly wasn't the "final authority" on inelastic scattering. Unfortunately however that is who everyone ultimately seems to point to when discussing the relevance of inelastic scattering in terms of astronomy. Holy cow! It's time to get to work in the lab again and forget the hypothetical entities.

It's a long post but essentially I'll refer this to 'lab vs non-lab'.
If you feel that there's something that I should address specifically in this post, please let me know as I wouldn't want to miss it.

 

[Elendur]

Lucky I saved copies;

Your submission could not be processed because a security token was missing or mismatched.

It's sure exhausting replying to you I've spent 5+ hours answering now.
I don't know why I haven't done this before, but these points are things we keep returning to and I feel that they're important enough to single out and really work out from the bottom.

Whether lab experiments or data sets derived from observation sets is equal.
Whether the source of something is known or not is important.
Whether the control of something is important or not.
Whether new versions of a theory/hypothesis is the same theory/hypothesis as earlier.
Whether space, spacetime,time or expansion is defined.

 

[davidbilby]

Ignored? Didn't David provide with a paper about it?

Yeah, that's why I left the discussion, as I think he may have surmised. When you get the same point, repeated over and over again, rebutted clearly and concisely and then after a few weeks, it comes back like a colon polyp, it kind of makes the idea of discussion pointless.

Just popped in to see if Michael had done what I thought he might. And sure enough, he has. "That 4 billion light year structure that falsifies inflation". Ugh.

The HLQG methodology has been rebutted pretty convincingly; the algorithm can equally be used to show structures where there clearly are none (in quite obviously homogenous catalogues of other quasars, for example)

[1306.1700] Seeing patterns in noise: Gigaparsec-scale `structures' that do not violate homogeneity
[1306.3970] Testing statistical significance of large quasar groups with sheets model of large scale structure

This is also despite the assumption that the HLQG, had it been a structure (which it almost certainly isn't) could have been shown to be a single structure and not more likely multiple structures in proximity, as was the case with the Sloan Great Wall - the algorithmic approach for which was also shown to be somewhat suspect.

You see, the definition of "structure" is not as simple as it seems. If you stand on top of a building...are you part of the 'structure'? It depends on the sense of the word. Structure in this sense in physics is more akin to pointing out a statistical pattern, than the idea of a lump of something in space, since in reality, these galaxies are very far apart from each other on our scales...

The only way we can ascertain "structure" in any meaningful fashion is with statistical analysis, in this case of quasars, and using algorithms to determine how correlated their motions are, which is a fairly esoteric field. Links for the interested:

[1211.6256] A structure in the early universe at z ~ 1.3 that exceeds the homogeneity scale of the R-W concordance cosmology
[1306.1700] Seeing patterns in noise: Gigaparsec-scale `structures' that do not violate homogeneity
[1306.3970] Testing statistical significance of large quasar groups with sheets model of large scale structure

I showed the rebuttals to Michael and he was like "oh well that might be valid, I'll read it" - as if he had any idea of how to tell whether it was a valid rebuttal or not, knowing, as he does, none of the fractal mathematics required to understand such statistical analysis.

If he does know about it, he's keeping awfully quiet about it.

To any rational observer it's safe to say he doesn't understand Clowes' et al. methodology, nor the rebuttals, except on the level of the press release summary and the overall conclusions drawn on a very basic level. Let's be very clear - there's nothing wrong with that at all - only he will take my pointing out of that as somehow being an insult, when it's simply a statement of fact - but claiming that he'd "look into" the rebuttals (as if he has the ability to do such a thing with any meaningful insight)....then waiting a few weeks and posting about "that 4 billion light year structure that falsifies inflation" like it never got addressed or like it's established fact is clearly the best he's got. Never mind that even the original paper pointed out that it didn't falsify anything, merely would pose an interesting challenge if true to the cosmological principle, requiring of either an explanation, or of a rethink of that idea. Nope, to Michael - boom! Inflation - dead! (and whilst we're at it, let's kill a bunch of other things).....

He did the same with dark flow - despite it being so obviously a concept that's not exactly supportive of his worldview, all that matters to him is "does it contradict inflationary theory?" and if the answer is yes it's good to go, irrespective of crankiness, he'll present it as "fact".

It's like debating a parrot that's been taught to say a few key lines like "God energy" or "mythical forms of matter" or "oy vey" every few moments. There are science-y words strung together and then there is science.

And that bores me, as it has clearly bored many people on the myriad forums he's banned from, where you know, you actually have to back stuff up and not use inflammatory religious metaphor to rile those with actual knowledge of physics - but that's all part of the conspiracy, I guess. Whatever.

(Of course pointing any of that out is an "ad hominem" and he'll start foaming at the mouth about how you don't have to be an expert to...well, be an expert. Ownership of a few textbooks makes you an authority on any subject with the ability to belittle people with doctorates...in fact, 99.9999% of the scientific community who apparently "don't understand plasma" and "don't understand electricity".

Of course it does. How silly of the scientific community not to recognize someone's ability to purchase a book as a qualification. What slack-jawed numbskulls we are.

Lost interest. Have fun. I'm out.

 

[Michael]

Yeah, that's why I left the discussion, as I think he may have surmised. When you get the same point, repeated over and over again, rebutted clearly and concisely and then after a few weeks, it comes back like a colon polyp, it kind of makes the idea of discussion pointless.

Just popped in to see if Michael had done what I thought he might. And sure enough, he has. "That 4 billion light year structure that falsifies inflation". Ugh.

Actually, no david. That particular quote that you read must have been posted quite some time ago. Elendur simply took awhile to respond apparently. IMO that hemispheric blowout that you had in the Planck data falsified inflation, once and for all. Of course you'd personally rather stuff in *yet another* ad hoc construct rather than embrace empirical physics.

I'm also more than a little dismayed at your entrenched attitude related to what you left out in terms of EM fields. You and I seemed to agree that GR alone simply expresses a geometric curvature of spacetime, and it leaves out the EM field aspects of moving charged particles entirely. The universe is mostly composed of moving charged particles, AKA plasma. You still don't seem to care one iota about the *real* physics that you left out of your description of the plasma universe, while you constantly stuff GR full of metaphysical nonsense. No wonder you're groping around in the dark ages of astronomy.

The HLQG methodology has been rebutted pretty convincingly;

I could care less. IMO that last conversation we had about what had been left *out* of your description of a mostly plasma universe was very telling. Not for a second did you even take a pause, or reconsider what you *should* be adding to GR in order to describe a plasma universe. You simply ignored the problem of what you left out with GR alone, and you really could care less about the EM aspects. I'm blown away at your unscientific attitude quite frankly.

I respect your intelligence, and your grasp of GR, but I have no respect at all for your attitude. There's no way for you to ignore what you left out of the equations forever. Every galaxy is surrounded by *multimillion degree* plasma, not "hot gas". Those moving charged particles are generating EM fields in their wake. Those excess positrons and high energy gamma rays are caused by *ordinary electrical discharges in plasma*, not exotic "dark matter".

I showed the rebuttals to Michael and he was like "oh well that might be valid, I'll read it" - as if he had any idea of how to tell whether it was a valid rebuttal or not, knowing, as he does, none of the fractal mathematics required to understand such statistical analysis.

You've become a bitter one trick personal attack pony david. You refuse to embrace empirical physics. You refuse to "add back in" the parts you left out in terms of EM fields in a mostly plasma universe. You seem intent on ignoring those electrical discharges in your own backyard while you pray to a dark matter deity in the sky.

I frankly don't care what you think of my math skills. Even your attack on other peoples math skills is a red herring. It's a ruse designed to deflect the fact nobody is even complaining about your maths in the first place! It's you lack of *qualification* that's been the problem david, and it remains the problem, not your *quantification*.

Whatever respect I had for you is dwindling by the day as you continue to ignore those EM field effects in moving charged objects inside of a mostly plasma universe. Rather than embrace empirical physics, you'd rather attack the messenger while you pray to what, *four* invisible ad hoc, impotent on Earth sky deities including your beloved curvatons? Give me a break. Your "religion" (four acts of pure faith in invisible entities) is more bizarre than most, and certainly more unfalsifiable than most. It's really morphed into an angry, bitter cult that is hell bent on attacking anyone that even dares to prefer empirical physics over dark sky nonsense.

Go ahead and keep attacking the messenger all you like david, but I already showed you what you *actually* left out of your GR equations when trying to explain a plasma universe. It's not *dark nonsense*, it's *electricity in spacetime*!

 

[Elendur]

[Snipped for size]...
Lost interest. Have fun. I'm out.

Then I wasn't far off

I think you've contributed plenty to the discussion, thanks for all the information.

I hope you'll have a great time.