Home | Be a Christian | Devotionals | Join Us! | Forums | Rules | F.A.Q.


Go Back   Christian Forums > Discussion and Debate > Physical & Life Sciences
Register BlogsPrayersJobsArcade Calendar Mark Forums Read

Physical & Life Sciences A forum for physics, biology, chemistry and other physical sciences.

Closed Thread
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Unread 27th September 2012, 12:53 AM
Michael's Avatar
Contributor

Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 5th February 2002
Location: Mt. Shasta, California
Posts: 16,976
Blessings: 239,556
My Mood Angelic
Reps: 162,051,562,633,794,016 (power: 162,051,562,633,823)
Michael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond repute
Michael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Tiberius View Post
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?
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.

What degrees have you attained?
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 that amounts to is, "This is what I think, here's some links from someone who says the same thing, therefore I am right."
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.

Well, my understanding is that there is quite a bit of evidence for dark matter and all that.
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

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.
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.

You say it's not paranoia, then you say, "But they're all banned!" That's a paranoid statement if ever I heard one.
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!

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?
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.

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?
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.

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.
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.

Like I said, it's not an appeal to authority fallacy if the authority actually knows what they are talking about!
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.

If you are sick, do you go to the doctor or do you consider that an appeal to authority fallacy?
Yes. I often get sick and get well without ever visiting a doctor.

And there we have the paranoia you claimed didn't exist.
It's not paranoia to state the obvious.

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?
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

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?
Because plasma redshift is related to distance!

This would only occur if the plasma was spread evenly throughout the universe.
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.

And also, why doesn't this plasma block light?
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?

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?
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.
__________________
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom."
"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self."
"Only a life lived for others is a life worth while."
"When the solution is simple, God is answering."
Albert Einstein

Last edited by Michael; 27th September 2012 at 01:12 AM.
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!

  #52  
Unread 27th September 2012, 03:45 AM
Contributor

35 Gender: Male Faith: Atheist Country: Australia Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 28th June 2005
Posts: 5,940
Blessings: 5,213,884
Reps: 167,133,622,888,520,224 (power: 0)
Tiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond repute
Tiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
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.
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.

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".
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.

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.
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. 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.
Most do not? So then you are saying that plasma cosmology is generally accepted as being accurate by the scientific community?

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.
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.

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.
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."
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.
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!

Yes. I often get sick and get well without ever visiting a doctor.
So you are saying that you DO consider visiting the doctor to be an appeal to authority?

It's not paranoia to state the obvious.
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!

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
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.

Because plasma redshift is related to distance!
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?

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.
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?

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
Ah, but that article claims that dust is the cause, not plasma.

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?
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.

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.
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?
  #53  
Unread 27th September 2012, 01:02 PM
Michael's Avatar
Contributor

Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 5th February 2002
Location: Mt. Shasta, California
Posts: 16,976
Blessings: 239,556
My Mood Angelic
Reps: 162,051,562,633,794,016 (power: 162,051,562,633,823)
Michael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond repute
Michael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Tiberius View Post
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.
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.

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.
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.

"My" experts are virtually ALL the members of the scientific community who study this!
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.

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.
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.

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. 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.

No you didn't. In the passage that I was responding to, you just gave a list of so-called "denial of scientific facts".
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.

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.
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!

Most do not? So then you are saying that plasma cosmology is generally accepted as being accurate by the scientific community?
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.

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.
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.

Wrong. From THIS site:
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.
__________________
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom."
"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self."
"Only a life lived for others is a life worth while."
"When the solution is simple, God is answering."
Albert Einstein

Last edited by Michael; 27th September 2012 at 01:09 PM.
  #54  
Unread 27th September 2012, 02:14 PM
Michael's Avatar
Contributor

Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 5th February 2002
Location: Mt. Shasta, California
Posts: 16,976
Blessings: 239,556
My Mood Angelic
Reps: 162,051,562,633,794,016 (power: 162,051,562,633,823)
Michael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond repute
Michael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Tiberius View Post
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!
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!

So you are saying that you DO consider visiting the doctor to be an appeal to authority?
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.

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!
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?

Well, for a start, line broadening is not seen it distant red-shifted objects, as Ashmore claims. (Source)
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.

I also have to wonder just how much of that article actually makes sense to you.
At least I read it! You clearly didn't or you would keep asking me about the CMB.

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?
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.

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?
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.

Ah, but that article claims that dust is the cause, not plasma.
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'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.
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!

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?
Eventually, yes. That could be 100 billion light years for all I know.

Oh, and another question comes to me...

If the universe is not expanding, how long has it been here?
AFAIK, it's been here forever and ever.
__________________
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom."
"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self."
"Only a life lived for others is a life worth while."
"When the solution is simple, God is answering."
Albert Einstein

Last edited by Michael; 27th September 2012 at 04:45 PM.
  #55  
Unread 28th September 2012, 09:05 AM
Contributor

35 Gender: Male Faith: Atheist Country: Australia Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 28th June 2005
Posts: 5,940
Blessings: 5,213,884
Reps: 167,133,622,888,520,224 (power: 0)
Tiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond repute
Tiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
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!
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!

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.
Who said cold? What if you had a fractured skull? Cancer? WOuld yous till think going to the doctor is a waste of time?

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?
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.

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.
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...

At least I read it! You clearly didn't or you would keep asking me about the CMB.
So what? Just because you read it doesn't mean you understood it or comprehended it!

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.
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.

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.
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?

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?
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. 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!
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.

Eventually, yes. That could be 100 billion light years for all I know.
So we could possibly see for a hundred billion light years?

AFAIK, it's been here forever and ever.
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?
  #56  
Unread 28th September 2012, 01:24 PM
Michael's Avatar
Contributor

Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 5th February 2002
Location: Mt. Shasta, California
Posts: 16,976
Blessings: 239,556
My Mood Angelic
Reps: 162,051,562,633,794,016 (power: 162,051,562,633,823)
Michael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond repute
Michael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Tiberius View Post
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!
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.

Who said cold? What if you had a fractured skull? Cancer? WOuld yous till think going to the doctor is a waste of time?
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.

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 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!

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...
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.

So what? Just because you read it doesn't mean you understood it or comprehended it!
I comprehend how Ashmore explains the CMB, which is exactly the same way it's explained in *every* static universe theory.

Please show me a source which shows that there is intergalactic plasma of the type you described - namely, mostly homogenous throughout the universe.
Can you show me *any* modern cosmology theory that *does not* make that assumption?

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/3...teraction-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.

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.
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.

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?
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.

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?
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.

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.
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.

So we could possibly see for a hundred billion light years?
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.

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?
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?

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?
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.
__________________
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom."
"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self."
"Only a life lived for others is a life worth while."
"When the solution is simple, God is answering."
Albert Einstein

Last edited by Michael; 28th September 2012 at 02:00 PM.
  #57  
Unread 28th September 2012, 01:44 PM
Michael's Avatar
Contributor

Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 5th February 2002
Location: Mt. Shasta, California
Posts: 16,976
Blessings: 239,556
My Mood Angelic
Reps: 162,051,562,633,794,016 (power: 162,051,562,633,823)
Michael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond repute
Michael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond repute
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.
__________________
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom."
"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self."
"Only a life lived for others is a life worth while."
"When the solution is simple, God is answering."
Albert Einstein

Last edited by Michael; 28th September 2012 at 04:05 PM.
  #58  
Unread 28th September 2012, 01:51 PM
Michael's Avatar
Contributor

Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 5th February 2002
Location: Mt. Shasta, California
Posts: 16,976
Blessings: 239,556
My Mood Angelic
Reps: 162,051,562,633,794,016 (power: 162,051,562,633,823)
Michael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond repute
Michael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond repute
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.
__________________
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom."
"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self."
"Only a life lived for others is a life worth while."
"When the solution is simple, God is answering."
Albert Einstein
  #59  
Unread 28th September 2012, 02:36 PM
Michael's Avatar
Contributor

Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 5th February 2002
Location: Mt. Shasta, California
Posts: 16,976
Blessings: 239,556
My Mood Angelic
Reps: 162,051,562,633,794,016 (power: 162,051,562,633,823)
Michael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond repute
Michael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Tiberius View Post
However, here's another source that shows that any line broadening is adequately explained by doppler-like phenomena...
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.
__________________
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom."
"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self."
"Only a life lived for others is a life worth while."
"When the solution is simple, God is answering."
Albert Einstein

Last edited by Michael; 28th September 2012 at 03:14 PM.
  #60  
Unread 29th September 2012, 01:53 AM
Contributor

35 Gender: Male Faith: Atheist Country: Australia Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 28th June 2005
Posts: 5,940
Blessings: 5,213,884
Reps: 167,133,622,888,520,224 (power: 0)
Tiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond repute
Tiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond reputeTiberius has a reputation beyond repute
So tell me, Michael...

Since everything we see is explainable by mainstream cosmological theories, what is PC meant to explain?
Closed Thread

Tags
all liars fail


Return to Physical & Life Sciences

Thread Tools
Display Modes


 
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:02 PM.