Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (3)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
For your info, the energy source of the sun comes from outside, not from inside.....
For your information, Justatruthseeker, that is just wrong.
The known laws of physics state that the conditions at the center of stars will cause fusion and predict things such as the number of neutrinos emitted.
We detect the neutrinos from fusion in the Sun. The numbers match.

There are the frankly idiotic (because they ignore actual physics) EU models about externally powered stars. Dr. Tom Bridgman's blog post The Sad State of the Electric Sun(s) - Not So Bright covers this quite well.
Ignore "Mozina's "Birkeland" model" though - I suspect that it has nothing to do with powering the Sun. In any case Bridgman is doing what Michael Mozina did not do - looking up the actual scientific literature on the Birkeland solar model. Michael Mozina has relied for the past 6 or so years on a newspaper report and Birkeland's book (IOW Birkeland's opinion, not peer-reviewed papers).
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Oy Vey! When science detects the existence of an unknown type of matter out in space, it tries to detect it locally :doh:!

Oy Vey! there is no empirically demonstrated link between microwave photons and axions *in the lab*. That is what the experiment is trying to establish :doh:!

Oy Vey! I can guarantee you that axions have not been detected in the lab and so there can be no "testing" or fine tuning of the equipment to detect axions :doh:!

Holy cow! They can even understand what the "dark" part of "dark matter" means. It means that it interacts weakly with matter and so does not emit enough light for us to detect from dark matter in space.
Dark matter interacting with matter in a lab where we can use ultra sensitive equipment is another matter.
There are even hints in the Fermi data that we might detect the interaction of dark matter in the center of the Galaxy.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
...snipped usual rant...
Lots of outstanding stuff for Michael :eek:.

Michael: Can you understand the insanity of a demand to read an irrelevant textbook?
(as per Michael's demand - replaced 'inane' with 'insane' in that post :)!)
First asked 29th October 2013 - 13 days and counting.

Do not make up fantasies about what I understand: I understand that Somov displaced his currents.

Michael: Can you understand the ignorance in citing a Wikipedia article about MR in plasma as evidence that MR in vacuum does not exist?
I will make this even simpler for you:
Where in Magnetic reconnection does it state that MR in a vacuum is impossible?
First asked 11 November 2013 - 0 days and counting.

Clinger's Magnetic Reconnection by W.D. Clinger explanation is nothing more than the application of Maxwell's equations to a experiment that has no plasma and produced magnetic reconnection.

You are in pure acknowledgement of your displayed inability to read and understand English:
Michael: What does "In a vacuum, magnetic reconnection is a trivial process..." mean?
Asked on 18th March 2012 - 606 days and counting!

MM: Why did Somov split "Reconnection in vacuum" from "Reconnection in plasma" if MR in vacuum does not exist?
Asked on 18th March 2012 - 606 days and counting!

Nope, you did that when you denied the fact that Somov *includes* plasma and plasma particle movement.
That is a lie, Michael. You are the one with the delusion that Somov *ncludes* plasma in his section on MR in vacuum. That comes in the next section - "Reconnection in plasma".
I can read and understand English.
I can read and understand what Somov wrote.
I can read and understand that there are no charge particles in his description of reconnection in vacuum until the last paragraph in the section.
I can read and understand that this is a bridge to his next section on reconnection in plasma.
I can read and understand that there is absolutely no mention of plasma in his section about reconnection in vacuum.
I can read and understand that charge particles need not be plasma. Plasma is a mixture of neutral and charged particles with specific properties.

Nope that is gibberish, Michael.
Somov states that the currents are displaced. There is no imaginary "process" that causes the displacement.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
More like 1 serious problem in not knowing the difference between the scientific literature and a web site, Michael :p.
The web site does mention some actual problems with Big Bang cosmology.
The actual science: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

14 (some serious) problems with 10 Serious Problems with Big Bang Cosmology | The Universe
  1. Single paper references I.
    This is known as cherry-picking. You can usually find a paper that shows what you are looking for. The competent thing to do is to look at and cite a number of papers.
  2. Single paper references II.
    A single paper may be refuted by a more current paper.
  3. References to vixra.org.
    This is basically a web site for crank science. The papers there are so bad that they cannot even get onto arXiv.
  4. References to APOD.
    Pretty pictures are nice but science.
  5. Lots of the logical fallacy of false dichotomy - problems with Big Bang cosmology does not mean that another cosmology is correct :doh:.
    Another cosmology that explains everything that Big Bang cosmology does and fixes its problems would be more correct. This is not Steady-state cosmology.
  6. No information on the author(s). But when you look at their web site FAQ you see some ignorance, e.g. the assertion that universe has a center.
  7. "1. Observations are Fully Consistent with a Steady-State Universe" is just wrong - observations rule out a steady stated universe.
  8. "2. Observations Depict Galaxies and Clusters Cooling with Increased Redshift."
    A citation to High molecular gas fractions in normal massive star-forming galaxies in the young Universe which is about normal massive star-forming galaxies (not cooler than expected galaxies).
  9. "3. Metallicity is Increasing with Redshift in Quasars and Distant Galaxies."
    Cites Early star formation traced by the highest redshift quasars which is about the Fe/Mg abundance in 22 quasars.
  10. "7. Conflicting Observations of Dark Matter in Cluster Collisions."
    No actual conflicting observations are cited!
    Bullet Cluster: A Challenge to LCDM Cosmology is a conflict between one observation and a computer simulation.
  11. "8. Local Stars and Globular Cluster are Older than the Age of the Universe relative to Big Bang Cosmology."
    But the first citation says that the local star is not Older than the Age of the Universe. No citation says that Globular Cluster are Older than the Age of the Universe.
  12. "9. Lack of Local Galaxy Mergers and Merger Remnants."
    A vague statement about the rate of mergers being "minimal".
    The Major and Minor Galaxy Merger Rates at z < 1.5 has no problem with them.
  13. "This is problematic for big bang cosmologies because it is claimed that local galaxies formed from hundreds of smaller galaxies merging to form bigger ones."
    No citation for this claim. The claim as far as I know is that galaxies build up from merging with handfuls of other galaxies. The citation in the claim gives minor galaxy merger rates of ~0.0003/Gigayear.
  14. "10. Incorrect Duration of Proper Time versus Redshift. "
    Basically a repeat of 9 concentrating on the difference between computer simulations and the paper's results.
Some of what they get right
  1. "4. Multiple Anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation."
    There are such anomalies.
  2. "5. Detection of Bulk Flows with Local Clusters and SNIa."
  3. "6. The Lack of Lithium.
References to Wikipedia are not thus much of a problem.
A nitpick: It is bad practice to link to PDFs when links to text are available, i.e. link to ArXiv articles rather then PDFs.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Pure denial:

The denial is entirely your own RC. You've never published any papers on astronomy or solar physics, and you have *blatantly* misrepresented the model we've published. In fact your claims about hollow suns simply demonstrate how little you understand the model we've presented.

The worst part is your desire to turn every thread into a *personal* attack and your desire to hijack all of my threads. Stop hijacking this thread RC. This thread is not about *my* claims, it's about the *mainstream* cosmology and solar physics claims, and how little they jive with actual reality.

Perhaps you can cite the many papers measuring no convection currents at all within the Sun :eek:?

Weak solar convection &#8211; approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected | Watts Up With That?

Nothing like missing the right number by *two whole orders of magnitude*!
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Quote the mainstream science, not a couple of crank and easily debunked papers

In other words, you're *still* trying to hijack this thread and you can't find anything to support your *unpublished nonsense* about any of the claims you make, so you link to your own false and unpublished claims over and over and over again.

You go right back to asserting *false statements* about the model we presented, including the fact it does *not* have a hollow center anymore than the mainstream model has a hollow center. You are incapable of telling the truth, and incapable of *not* hijacking inappropriate threads.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Oy Vey! When science detects the existence of an unknown type of matter out in space, it tries to detect it locally :doh:!

BBC News - Popular physics theory running out of hiding places
New LUX experiment: No dark matter in this corner | Ars Technica

Yep, and it's consistently been failing rather miserably every single time. How many billions of dollars shall we spend searching for something that only exists to prop up one *otherwise falsified* cosmology theory?

Oy Vey! there is no empirically demonstrated link between microwave photons and axions *in the lab*. That is what the experiment is trying to establish :doh:!
That wouldn't actually establish such a thing in a *controlled* experiment. I'd get into some of the details I've learned about that particular experiment, but what would be the point? You don't read or respond to anything relevant anyway. The relationship between axions and microwaves are *assumed*, just like the relationship between gamma rays and dark matter is *assumed*. Without an affirming the consequent fallacy to start with, you've got absolutely *zero* controlled empirical evidence for any of your supernatural constructs.

Holy cow! They can even understand what the "dark" part of "dark matter" means.
It's a supernatural matter of the gaps claim at this point.

It means that it interacts weakly with matter and so does not emit enough light for us to detect from dark matter in space.
Gamma rays from galactic center could be evidence of dark matter

Oh boloney. They're dark when the mainstream say's they're dark, and they emit light when they claim they emit light too. They can't even make up their mind.

Dark matter interacting with matter in a lab where we can use ultra sensitive equipment is another matter.
Ya. In the real world it's been a complete and utter failure. It apparently only "works' when you point at space and claim "dark matter did it".

There are even hints in the Fermi data that we might detect the interaction of dark matter in the center of the Galaxy.
So it's only dark when you say it's dark, but it emits light when you claim it emits light too. Notice the irony of claiming it's "dark matter" yet it's responsible for gamma rays? I think they stupid names they make up are *designed* to be confusing and *designed* to be abused in metaphysical ways.

It's become painfully clear that the only use for supernatural dark energy, supernatural dark matter and supernatural inflation is to save one otherwise falsified cosmology theory from instant destruction. The mainstream doesn't mind wasting billions of dollars of public money on experiments and then *immediately ignoring* the results. They only see what they want to see, and they're blind to the facts.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
More like 1 serious problem in not knowing the difference between the scientific literature and a web site, Michael :p.

Pfft. Apparently you didn't even read the page because he does cite the links to the published papers.

As usual, you've provided no links to any *published* rebuttals. Instead you elevated your own personal unpublished opinions to the status of godhood, and you've provided no published rebuttal to any of his key points!

Apparently without ever reading Alfven's book on Cosmic Plasma or any book on MHD theory, you're a greater expert on PC theory and "magnetic reconnection" theory than any published authors in history. Apparently, again without publishing a single paper on any topic related to astronomy, you also fancy yourself as the universe's foremost leading expert on every topic in astronomy. :confused::doh:

Honestly RC, I really have no idea why you post here or think anyone should take you seriously, particularly after that Somov fiasco. You accused me of not understanding English, but it turned out that you couldn't understand English *even with a diagram*! Frankly RC, your personal opinions simply don't cut it, and your desire to intentionally *characterize* various authors (myself included) is getting old.

Stop citing yourself as a reference when you clearly are *not* an astronomer, you have published *no* papers on these topics, and you have *no* knowledge of plasma physics.

Care to respond to any of his points with a *published* rebuttal? He was nice enough to cite all those published references for you rather than expecting you to take him at his word. What's your problem?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Why Dark Matter is Unlikely to Exist | The Universe

FYI, this was a really good recent article on the *serious* problems with dark matter theory, as well of the angular diameter distance problems in Lambda-CDM, and it explains how they are related.


The problem with DM is it simply does not exist, and is nothing but a blank check for astronomers that don't have a clue to fusge the math until it fits their Fairie Dust theories.


Give it up already people.

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/qu...mmetry-fails-tests-physicists-seek-new-ideas/


The standard model fails to predict DM for the very simple fact that it DOES NOT EXIST.

Of course, I guess if I continued to ignore 99% of the universe I'd need Fairie Dust to explain it too. Getting tired of the meandering toward truth, when the truth has already been pointed out to them for the last 40 years.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Image: Hot gas sloshing in a galactic cauldron

This is another great example of the fact that astronomers apparently cannot and will not use proper scientific terms:

(Phys.org) &#8212;Galaxies are social beasts that are mostly found in groups or clusters &#8211; large assemblies of galaxies that are permeated by even larger amounts of diffuse gas. With temperatures of 10 million degrees or more, the gas in galaxy groups and clusters is hot enough to shine brightly in X-rays and be detected by ESA's XMM-Newton X-ray observatory.

As galaxies speed through these gigantic cauldrons, they occasionally jumble the gas and forge it into lop-sided shapes. An example is revealed in this composite image of the galaxy group NGC 5044, the brightest group in X-rays in the entire sky.
Emphasis mine.

That isn't a "hot gas". That's is a *hot plasma*! Why is it that astronomers *cannot* and *will not* use proper scientific terminology? A plasma is not just a gas! They quite intentionally do not use the term "plasma" in relationship to events in space. Instead they constantly feel the emotional need to "dumb it down" to a "hot gas". :(
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Ya know,

It's painfully clear that almost every published astronomy article misuses the term "hot gas" to describe the events taking place inside of a mostly *plasma* universe. Not only is the whole universe mostly in a plasma state, much of it is found at temperatures that exceed millions of degrees as is the case in that previous article. Even still they *intentionally* misuse scientific terms to *hide* the fact that plasma physics and plasma cosmology theory is a logical way to describe a universe that exists mostly in the plasma state. The improper use of scientific terms can be found in almost every published article, usually from the lips of the astronomers themselves. It's pathetically sad that so called "professional astronomers" resort to blatant misrepresentation of facts simply to hide the fact that we live inside of a plasma universe. The misuse of terms is not only intentional, it's intentionally deceptive! They can't be so scientifically inept as to actually confuse the various states of matter, so the constant misuse of terms cannot be unintentional, nor can it be a simple oversight.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Scientists witness massive gamma-ray burst, don't understand it - CSMonitor.com

“Some of our theories are just going down the drain,” said Charles Dermer, an astrophysicist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and a member of one of the teams reporting on their observations of the burst, known as GRB 130427A.

Now of course since "dark energy" is fully dependent upon the concept of a "standard candle", you'd think they might want to reconsider their claims. Nah! They'll just pretend it never happened, pretty much like they always do. :(
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Scientists witness massive gamma-ray burst, don't understand it - CSMonitor.com



Now of course since "dark energy" is fully dependent upon the concept of a "standard candle", you'd think they might want to reconsider their claims. Nah! They'll just pretend it never happened, pretty much like they always do. :(


That's because it has nothing to do with the life or death of a star, merely the strength of the electrical circuit it is connected to. This is why they can't understand it, because they continue to treat plasma as just a "hot gas".
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Ya know,

It's painfully clear that almost every published astronomy article misuses the term "hot gas" to describe the events taking place inside of a mostly *plasma* universe. Not only is the whole universe mostly in a plasma state, much of it is found at temperatures that exceed millions of degrees as is the case in that previous article. Even still they *intentionally* misuse scientific terms to *hide* the fact that plasma physics and plasma cosmology theory is a logical way to describe a universe that exists mostly in the plasma state. The improper use of scientific terms can be found in almost every published article, usually from the lips of the astronomers themselves. It's pathetically sad that so called "professional astronomers" resort to blatant misrepresentation of facts simply to hide the fact that we live inside of a plasma universe. The misuse of terms is not only intentional, it's intentionally deceptive! They can't be so scientifically inept as to actually confuse the various states of matter, so the constant misuse of terms cannot be unintentional, nor can it be a simple oversight.


Yes, every scientific book on plasma will tell you it is a distinct state of matter that does not behave like solids, liquids or gasses. So what do astronomers do, why call it a "hot Gas" and treat it just like one in their theories. Sure they know, but do you really expect them to change when they have been telling the public a lie for the last 50 years?

NOVA | At the Edge of Space

An interesting program, still full of misconceptions and misdirections, but at least they are now admitting the Earth is in an electrical circuit, even if they still confine it just to the earth and leave out the rest of the solar system and galaxy. Of course they still think lightning is generated on earth and not from the magnetospheric connection between earth and sun, but I guess one step forward is better than two steps back.

And the question is if they think earth is so electric, then it is just mind boggling that they still think of plasma as electrically neutral. Well actually I don't think they think that, it is just what they tell the public. After all, if they admit they were wrong then the public looses confidence in them and they are no longer the experts they claim to be. But then all one has to do is actually read any astronomy news. The words surprised, dumbfounded, mystified, unexpected exist in almost every single one. So much for the predictive power of current theory. For people that claim to be correct, they sure always seem to be surprised by the data when it is sent back, over and over and over.

But you are correct, either they know and are lying to the public, or else they are complete idiots. And I find it hard to believe that with all their vaunted education they could actually be so scientific illiterate as to what plasma is and how it behaves, so like you I am left with no option but to think it is an intentional deception. Must get the next round of funding for nothing (dark matter) for that is what we have found, nothing, and that is what we seek, nothing.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Electron Appears Spherical, Squashing Hopes for New Physics Theories: Scientific American

Now the most sensitive test yet of the shape of an electron&#8212;a property that could expose underlying &#8220;new physics&#8221;&#8212;has failed to find hints of anything novel. The finding rules out a number of favored ideas for extending physics, including some versions of a popular idea called supersymmetry.
This is now the third major failure for SUSY theory in the past two years. LHC put the concept on life support. LUX eliminated huge swaths of light energy ranges, and all the key predictions of supersymmetry about electrons having dipole moments have gone up in smoke.

I'm really sick and tired of hearing astronomers misrepresent plasma as a gas, and I'm sick of all those magic matter papers. Until and unless they return themselves to empirical physics, they're doomed to become the laughing stock of science.

For a *fraction* of the money's spent searching for SUSY particles, astronomers could have easily replicated (improved upon) Birkeland's empirical experiments with current carrying plasma. Instead, they've been wallowing around in the dark ages of astronomy for over a 100 years now, and there is no end in sight.

What is the point of making 'predictions' with a hypothetical concept if you won't abide by the results as it relates to failures in those predictions?
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Electron Appears Spherical, Squashing Hopes for New Physics Theories: Scientific American

This is now the third major failure for SUSY theory in the past two years. LHC put the concept on life support. LUX eliminated huge swaths of light energy ranges, and all the key predictions of supersymmetry about electrons having dipole moments have gone up in smoke.

I'm really sick and tired of hearing astronomers misrepresent plasma as a gas, and I'm sick of all those magic matter papers. Until and unless they return themselves to empirical physics, they're doomed to become the laughing stock of science.

For a *fraction* of the money's spent searching for SUSY particles, astronomers could have easily replicated (improved upon) Birkeland's empirical experiments with current carrying plasma. Instead, they've been wallowing around in the dark ages of astronomy for over a 100 years now, and there is no end in sight.

What is the point of making 'predictions' with a hypothetical concept if you won't abide by the results as it relates to failures in those predictions?

The saddest part is every prediction they have made since the beginning of the space age has failed. Every discovery has come as a complete surprise to them, and yet they refuse to look at any other models, even when they have predicted things correctly, and have experimental data that back up their theory.

But they have been blinded by Fairie Dust and cannot see beyond it.

Not only is the electron too round, but so is the sun.

Space News | The Sun -- It&#39;s too Round! - YouTube
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
X-rays From Other Galaxies Could Emanate From Particles of Dark Matter | Science/AAAS | News

FYI, here is another absolutely perfect example of false advertizing by astronomers based on a pure affirming the consequent fallacy. They are looking for any spectral gap in which to insert their otherwise invisible sky thingies in order to lend it some air of scientific credibility, where there is none. First they were pointing at gamma rays and claiming that "WIMP did it". Since SUSY theory has been all but falsified outright, they've started pointing at the x-ray spectrum and claiming "exotic matter emits x-rays instead of gamma rays" :doh:

There is absolutely, positively no evidence for exotic matter. In fact recently the path to the creation of top quarks was found, completing the standard model and removing even more gaps for exotic matter to try to sneak through:

Top Quark Particle Created At Fermilab, Lending Support For 'Standard Model'

Though the new results don't rule out other physics theories to explain the existence of dark matter and energy, they do suggest scientists have to look elsewhere for any hint of as-yet unknown physics.
The gaps keep getting smaller by the month.

If you noticed from that claim about x-rays, the x-ray spectrum in question is the 3.56 kev peak in the 3.55-3.57 Kev range.

Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:EDS - Rimicaris exoculata.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

800px-EDS_-_Rimicaris_exoculata.png


That particular wavelength is associated with Calcium K-Alpha emissions, not "dark matter"! Pure affirming the consequent fallacy, without even *attempting* to explain that peak with ordinary particle physics. What a bunch of junk science!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.