1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (3)

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Michael, Jun 22, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    17,486
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Christian
    The key point I was trying to make in that post is that Lambda-CDM is unfalsifiable. As david demonstrated with that structure in space, he was unwilling to ever reconsider his hypothesis. He knew that eventually someone would come up with a paper to refute it. I did too. They didn't actually *disprove* the first paper mind you, they simply demonstrated the technique *might* produce erroneous results. It's a draw at best case.

    The hemispheric blowout they're having in the Planck data set is another perfect example. David did *not* question his metaphysical dogma, he *added more metaphysics* to save the dogma. The BB dogma cannot be logically falsified in any way. As long as it's acceptable to whip up ad hoc constructs on an as needed basis, there's no way to falsify the core belief, namely that redshift is all related to expansion and acceleration and none of it is related to inelastic scattering or signal broadening in plasma.

    Pretty much the whole foundation of BB theory began by *ignoring* Hubble and *pretending* he didn't talk about two solutions to redshift. That specific dogma cannot be falsified because any test that fails is covered up and "explained away' by yet a new ad hoc construct. :( :confused: :doh:
     
  2. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Newbie

    Messages:
    3,859
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    Yes, we were supposed to have done away with epicycles centuries ago, but I see that, umm, "science," has made a comeback over the last 100 years.

    Still insisting that the Plank data is nothing more than our solar heliopause, with other cosmic rays from other double layers also impacting upon it. The particles from both directions are slowed and then reaccelerated as they hit the double layer surrounding our sun. What mainstream is calling a "magnetic highway" where the particles mill around until they "zoom" in or out as mainstream calls it. Why they just can't use the word "accelerate" instead of "zoom" is another story.

    The same story as to why they use the term "hot gas" instead of "plasma". Each conveys a different process and force acting upon it. The same reason they talk about DM and DE as actual things, then say they are simply placeholders when cornered. Placeholders for plasma and electric currents. I just wonder why they can't replace the placeholders with the actual observed and measured phenomenon?
     
  3. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    17,486
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Christian
    Discovery at LHC leaves less room for new particles | symmetry magazine

    FYI, SUSY theory took yet another significant empirical blow this week at CERN. Evidently the SUSY faithful are praying for a miracle in 2015. :)

    Now of course the findings of actual empirical physics in the LHC data cannot and will not stop astronomers from pointing at high energy photons and positrons in the sky and claiming that SUSY particles did it. :(
     
  4. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Newbie

    Messages:
    3,859
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    Now they backstabbing illegally to get our comet video taken off.

    National Optical Astronomy Observatory Files Copyright Claim Over Images | Libertarian News


    Sad state of affairs when a publicly funded organization claims copyright against the very Federal laws governing copyright and federally funded organizations. Can't fight with evidence you go against the rules. Just a delaying tactic, expect the video to be back up in a couple weeks. Attack the news bearer when one has no defense at all against the evidence.
     
  5. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    17,486
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Christian
    Space slinky: Jet of superheated gas -- 5,000 light-years long -- ejected from supermassive black hole

    I thought I'd post this article as another perfect demonstration of the false advertizing that goes on in astronomy today. Apparently astronomers are still clueless about the difference between a gas and a plasma, and they've never heard of a "Birkeland current" in plasma. :(

    What a crock. There is no such thing as a magnetic slinky. That is a *perfect* example of astronomers *refusing* to embrace empirical plasma physics. The whole reason that magnetic flow pattern occurs is due to the flow of current inside the Birkeland current. Astronomers must now make up their own terms in an effort to *avoid* talking about plasma physics. :(
     
  6. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    17,486
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Christian
  7. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    17,486
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Christian
  8. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    17,486
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Christian
  9. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    17,486
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Christian
    Universe's baby pictures suggest a bubbly birth - life - 19 September 2013 - New Scientist

    In other words inflation theory failed its final "prediction" in absolutely spectacular fashion. Penrose also demonstrated that Guth actually made the 'flatness' problem 10 to the 100th power *worse* with inflation theory, and Planck demonstrates that Guth's claim about homogeneity on the largest scales were also false. Nothing that Guth originally claimed about inflation and actually 'predicted' with inflation turned out to be true, not one single thing. Zero, none, nada, zip.

    Translation: Andrew Liddle could not and would not accept this last revelation of failure as a falsification of inflation theory because he's emotionally and professionally invested in it.

    Irony overload! Guth just "made up" inflation too, and there was no reason why that should have been either! He's now "complaining' about someone 'making up' another supernatural construct on the fly? Oh the irony.

    Yet another *made up entity* called a 'metaverse'? Wow! Double irony. I guess it's ok though because it's another one of *his* made up entities (or one that he's worked on) rather than someone else's made up entity. :confused::doh:

    Verbal word salad.

    Translation: By "making up" a "new" supernatural construct called a metaverse and slapping it onto *another* made up supernatural construct, he can *move the goalposts* again, and avoid falsifying the original "made up' claim. :doh:

    Major facepalm!
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2013
  10. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Sorry, Michael, the Lambda-CDM model is easily falsifiable.
    It can be falsified by one simple observation - a blue-shifted galaxy at a large distance from us (outside the local group where gravity dominates).

    There are some problems with the Lambda-CDM model but the overall consistency of its match with the universe is why it is considered the best model for the universe.
     
  11. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Apparently astronomers are smart enough to know that a gas does not have to be a plasma and label a gas a gas until it is shown to be a plasma!
    P.S. Personally I disagree with this but semantics is not "false advertising".

    They know what a Birkeland current in plasma is
    They are not so clueless to label anything that looks like a jet as a Birkeland current in plasma.
    They are smart enough to know about the empirical physics that established electromagnetism and apply that to real world phenomena like galactic jets.
     
  12. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    17,486
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Christian
    Sorry, but a static universe where inelastic scattering happens also produces consistently redshifted galaxies at a distance, so that's not even a unique prediction of Lambda-CDM, whereas a universe that is homogenous on the largest scales *is* a falsifiable claim that *has been falsified* by Planck data sets. There's a difference between the hemispheres in terms of energy which specifically *falsifies* Guth's claim about homogeneity on the largest scales. Epic fail for Lambda-CDM in the Planck data.

    Define the term "best" for me. Lambda-CDM has consistently failed each key prediction as our technology has improved. Nothing Guth claimed about our universe was true. It's *not* homogeneous on the largest scales. He didn't "solve" the flatness problem he actually made it 10 to the 100th power *worse* according to Penrose. Those were his two big claims to fame along with his claim about solving missing unicorn/monopole problems.

    Lambda-nonsense is "best" at failing it's key predictions. Last time that resulted in an ad hoc entity called "dark energy". They just can't come up with a consensus on how to *fix* the last fiasco yet, so who knows yet what the *new and improved* metaphysical frankstein of a theory is likely to contain. There isn't even a single *fix* yet, they're actually vying for who can "make up" the "best" metaphysical gap filler. :(

    PC/EU theory surely has it shortcomings, but at least it's great in terms of predicting things inside of our own solar system and it's a pure form of empirical physics. I'll take that over a falsified supernatural creation mythology any day and every day of the week.
     
  13. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    17,486
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Christian
    What elements on the periodic table are not ionized at all at a million degrees?

    Sorry, but I've been around the block and I know longer believe it's an "honest" mistake. They're far too consistent for it to be a mistake and they left out all EM field effects of a plasma universe in Lambda-CDM.

    No they don't. They keep calling it a "magnetic slinky.".

    Space 'Slinky' Confirms Theory with a Twist | Space.com

    They're clueless alright, so clueless they think Birkeland current's aren't "scalable".

    No they don't. If they did apply those established aspects of EM field theory they'd treat threat all those threads as current flows and circuits like Alfven did. They don't.
     
  14. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Michael, that article by John Duffield is ridiculous.
    If you post in a forum then you are bound by the rules of that forum. Those rules are enforced by moderators. They are not acing as secret police. They are acting as known, ordinary police enforcing the rules of the forum.

    arXiv is in a similar position. They have rules (e.g. a sponsor is required) for the submission of pre-prints to their archive. They have moderators.
    To submit an article
    The arXiv moderation system

    John Duffield complains about blog authors doing what they are allowed to do - delete comments! Blogs are not open for any comments at all. Authors reserve the right to delete any comments that they like. Many authors have a published commenting policy.

    John Duffield states "The coordinate speed of light ... so much so that at a black hole event horizon, it’s zero" which is just wrong. The coordinate speed of light is the speed of light in a given set of coordinates.
    In Schwarzschild coordinates the coordinate speed of light is zero at the event horizon.
    In Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates, the metric is perfectly well defined and non-singular at the event horizon. The coordinate speed of light is non-zero (I seem to remember that it is constant).
     
  15. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Sorry but that is really ignorant, Michael. The Lambda-CDM validly ignores EM effects because it is a cosmological model and plasmas are neutral on very much smaller scales.

    It looks like a slinky so a graduate student described it as a slinky!
    Space 'Slinky' Confirms Theory with a Twist | Space.com
    He does not they do.

    Hannes Alfvén did not so they do not.
    Hannes Alfven died on 2 April 1995. He was dead for 10 years before that discovery.
    Hannes Alfven was not so stupid that he would call any "slinky" structure a Birkeland current in plasma. Hannes Alfven was smart enough not to rely on a cartoon in a news article :D!
     
  16. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    17,486
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Christian
    Not in my experience. In my experience it's pretty much right on the money.

    Advice for ATM Idea Advocates - Read before posting in ATM

    Sorry, but when there's two different rule systems in place, and one is the "30 day witch hunt rule", it's pretty much a cult.

    I'd grant you that I personally haven't had any trouble getting Arxiv to pickup my papers.

    I won't get into every specific with you but his experience and mine were virtually identical. Nothing but closed minds and good 'ol boy politics as usual as far as I could tell. Mostly it's attack the messenger nonsense.
     
  17. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    17,486
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Christian
    None of that is actually true.

    They do it too when they talk about magnetism and flux ropes. They completely ignore the current running through the flux rope that creates the magnetic field in the first place. They're clueless.

    False.

    Cosmic Plasma - H. Alfvèn - Google Books

    Who cares. At least Alfven knew a Birkeland current when he saw one, even a decade earlier.

    You use more loaded language, and more abusive language than anyone I've met RC. What's wrong, you got bored at JREF and came back here to stalk me some more, or did the moderators here cool your jets for awhile?

    How about at *least* keeping the conversation intellectually honest and knock off the loaded language nonsense. You aren't going to verbally abuse me into submission so get over it already.
     
  18. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Newbie

    Messages:
    3,859
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    Seriously??? Can you then explain why the very minute a spacecraft enters space it becomes charged relative to its surroundings if this space is so neutral on smaller scales?

    Do you even know what constitutes an electric current? Moving charged particles, it's the smallest scale you can get. This is why the atomic scale is governed by the electrical force. Why E even tried to tell you all it was all about the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Which you then completely ignored.

    You constantly talk of bow shocks and waves in space, but what are those bow shocks and waves if not moving charged particles? Plasma is not a solid, liquid or a gas, so quit treating it as such in your math, that's why they must add Fairie Dust.

    It is free electrons and ions, which behave differently than do bound electrons and atoms with balanced numbers of protons and electrons. Until you understand what a plasma really is, you will always need Fairie Dust to prop up the math, because the math will always be wrong.

    The math only describes matter in close proximity, the solar system (1% of the universe,) but fails utterly everywhere else. It is then "saved" by the addition of Fairie Dust entities because one has ignored what 99% of the universe really is and how it really behaves.

    Par for course for mainstream cosmology. All because they misunderstand what causes magnetic fields, and some fairyland interpretation of neutral.
     
  19. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Seriously, Justatruthseeker???
    You seem not know how plasma is effectively neural over a large enough scale:
    Debye length
    That statement is quite wrong, Justatruthseeker.
    Einstein's paper on Special Relativity has a title about the electrodynamics of moving bodies. It is not about everything on atomic scales being the electric force as you assert. It is about making the electrodynamics of moving bodies invariant between different inertial fames of reference.

    Who is this "you"?
    Astronomers do note the obvious. Clouds of gas (even when ionized and actually plasma) can collide, e.g. when galaxy clusters collide. So you get "bow shocks and waves in space".

    It is Hannes Alfven'a (and others) math so complain to Michael not me :D!
    Magnetohydrodynamics

    Oh dear, Justatruthseeker!
    The truth that you seek and have not found is that scientists understand what causes magnetic fields and use the actual scientific definition of neutral for plasma.
     
  20. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Sorry - but you missed the point Michael.
    Forum owners are free to make up whatever rules they like.
    In this case they have noticed that threads that cranks start on ATM ideas tend to get very long (cranks frequently cannot acknowledge that they have made mistakes) and often turbulent.
    After all, Michael, think about the frustration of people who have spent years learning physics and along comes someone whose idea of physics is pointing at images and saying "I see bunnies in there"!



    Thus they decided to make the ATM area get closer to usual scientific debate
    • it is your idea thus you need to defend it.
    • it is your idea so you should be able to answer questions about it (even if the answer is 'I do not know' or 'I need more time').
    • present published research whenever possible.
    • etc.
    with a 30 day limit on presenting the idea.
    A Very Brief History of the ATM Forum
    shows that the limit was the result of policy abuse by ATMers.

    ETA: A thread over there that is relevant to this thread: EU: Jets and Birkeland currents.
    Oddly enough no scientific literature on Birkeland currents in jets (not even Hannes Alfven!) seems to be cited.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.