Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
So tell me, Michael...

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

I know you don't realize it, but "dark energy" isn't an "explanation", it's just a placeholder term for what amounts to human ignorance. An actual "explanation" would involve naming a source of dark energy, and a control mechanism for it as well. Mainstream theory doesn't actually "explain" anything, it is 96 percent metaphysical fudge factor, and only 4 percent actual physics.

PC theory is actually meant to "explain" all of these observations with *real* forces of nature, *real* things that show up in a lab, and *real* empirical physics.

Standard cosmology theory doesn't actually "explain" anything. Dark matter is simply matter we cannot observe yet with our limited technologies. It's not found in any exotic matter because LHC eliminated even the need for exotic matter when it found the Higgs, and LHC eliminated simply SUSY theories entirely! Astronomers simply refuse to incorporate these empirical findings into their theory. That's not an "explanation", that's denial at it's finest.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Many actual astrophysicists disagree with you, Michael.

Why should I take your word over theirs?

FYI, it's not clear that any actual astronomers believe as you do that "dark energy" is an actual "explanation" (as opposed to it being a placeholder term), and it's definitely not clear how many astronomers would in fact call a red sensitive camera a "dark energy camera". I suspect that particular term even makes most astronomers wince.
 
Upvote 0

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2005
6,032
116
45
✟6,911.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
FYI, it's not clear that any actual astronomers believe as you do that "dark energy" is an actual "explanation" (as opposed to it being a placeholder term), and it's definitely not clear how many astronomers would in fact call a red sensitive camera a "dark energy camera". I suspect that particular term even makes most astronomers wince.

Doesn't matter. They still disagree with you, and I still see no reason why I should take your word over theirs.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Doesn't matter. They still disagree with you, and I still see no reason why I should take your word over theirs.

I gave you five very specific empirical reasons why you should logically take my word for it, including Compton redshift, the Wolf effect, Stark redshift, what Chen et all call "plasma redshift", and the movement of objects. All of these effects are known and laboratory demonstrated empirical alternatives to the mythos about "expansion of space" and "dark energy", neither of which shows up in a lab. Astronomers collectively can't even tell you a known source of "dark energy", let alone explain a control mechanism for dark energy. Most importantly, the primary "property" of dark energy (assigned by the dogma itself) is that it's *dark*, and incapable of emitting photons. It's therefore irrational to claim any 'camera' that records photons is a "dark energy camera". It's an ordinary camera that is sensitive to small segment of the EM spectrum, apparently in this particular case the 'red' end of the white light spectrum. That's it. It's not an invisible unicorn camera. It's not a ghost camera. Its' not an invisible energy camera, and it's not a "dark energy" camera either! It can't be a "dark energy camera" by the very definition of "dark" in "dark energy!

All it *might* show is a pattern of red photons, or at most a pattern of "redshifted" photons. I've given you five empirical alternatives to choose from that would account for that phenomenon, all of which show up in a lab. In order for space expansion claims to be accurate, *not a single one of the five known empirical causes of redshift* can have any significant effect on photons in space. In short the laws of physics would need to work differently in space than they work here on Earth for that to actually be the case! It's far *more empirically likely* that one or more of the five empirical options to chose from is responsible for redshifted photons.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Make your case and take them to court if your so confident.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433/#post61409549

I think we actually covered that back on page one. :) Suffice to say it's cheaper and *much* more personally satisfying and gratifying to expose their horse-pucky metaphysical philosophy on public forums such as this one. Why spend money when I can simply publicly demonstrate the hypocrisy of claiming it's "dark" and therefore incapable of emitting photons, and then claiming to have a "dark energy camera". I can just imagine the fun the atheists would have at the expense of any theist claiming to have an "invisible God camera", yet you folks utterly ignore the irrational claim to have a "dark energy camera", simply because it's taught under the label of "science".

Never mind the fact that there are at least five known empirical redshift options to choose from, "dark energy did it", despite the fact that dark energy is incapable of ever showing up in the lab, and despite the fact the laws of physics in space would need to work "differently' than they work in labs on Earth. In labs on Earth, plasma redshift happens. Only in sky mythologies is "dark energy" responsible for an acceleration process that presumably increases the speed of the "expansion of space". In the lab, objects move, but "space" never does any magic expansion tricks. Plasma redshift however happens all the time in the lab, and in space in EU/PC theory.
 
Upvote 0

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2005
6,032
116
45
✟6,911.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I gave you five very specific empirical reasons why you should logically take my word for it, including Compton redshift, the Wolf effect, Stark redshift, what Chen et all call "plasma redshift", and the movement of objects. All of these effects are known and laboratory demonstrated empirical alternatives to the mythos about "expansion of space" and "dark energy", neither of which shows up in a lab. Astronomers collectively can't even tell you a known source of "dark energy", let alone explain a control mechanism for dark energy. Most importantly, the primary "property" of dark energy (assigned by the dogma itself) is that it's *dark*, and incapable of emitting photons. It's therefore irrational to claim any 'camera' that records photons is a "dark energy camera". It's an ordinary camera that is sensitive to small segment of the EM spectrum, apparently in this particular case the 'red' end of the white light spectrum. That's it. It's not an invisible unicorn camera. It's not a ghost camera. Its' not an invisible energy camera, and it's not a "dark energy" camera either! It can't be a "dark energy camera" by the very definition of "dark" in "dark energy!

All it *might* show is a pattern of red photons, or at most a pattern of "redshifted" photons. I've given you five empirical alternatives to choose from that would account for that phenomenon, all of which show up in a lab. In order for space expansion claims to be accurate, *not a single one of the five known empirical causes of redshift* can have any significant effect on photons in space. In short the laws of physics would need to work differently in space than they work here on Earth for that to actually be the case! It's far *more empirically likely* that one or more of the five empirical options to chose from is responsible for redshifted photons.

Why don't you write a paper on it and get it published in a scientific journal then if you have all the answers and can so easily show that standard cosmology is wrong.

Oh, that's right. They're all trying to cover it up and spread the lies, aren't they?
 
Upvote 0

Gracchus

Senior Veteran
Dec 21, 2002
7,198
821
California
Visit site
✟23,182.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
"Science News", Aug 11, 2012, pg.9

"Dark matter filament illuminated
Astronomers image one strand in a shadowy cosmic web"

What is Michael going to do now? I bet he will either deny or ignore. He could never admit that the astronomers, physcists, and cosmologists are right, and he is wrong.

:confused:
 
Upvote 0

Cromulent

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2011
1,248
51
The Midlands
✟1,763.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433/#post61409549

I think we actually covered that back on page one. :) Suffice to say it's cheaper and *much* more personally satisfying and gratifying to expose their horse-pucky metaphysical philosophy on public forums such as this one. Why spend money when I can simply publicly demonstrate the hypocrisy of claiming it's "dark" and therefore incapable of emitting photons, and then claiming to have a "dark energy camera". I can just imagine the fun the atheists would have at the expense of any theist claiming to have an "invisible God camera", yet you folks utterly ignore the irrational claim to have a "dark energy camera", simply because it's taught under the label of "science".
Where has anybody apart from you claimed that dark energy is incapable of emitting photons? You're having great fun with that strawman, just remember it's not an argument anyone has actually made. You know, a bit like nobody has ever said the camera will be able to see dark matter, just some of the effects it might cause.

Never mind the fact that there are at least five known empirical redshift options to choose from, "dark energy did it", despite the fact that dark energy is incapable of ever showing up in the lab, and despite the fact the laws of physics in space would need to work "differently' than they work in labs on Earth. In labs on Earth, plasma redshift happens. Only in sky mythologies is "dark energy" responsible for an acceleration process that presumably increases the speed of the "expansion of space". In the lab, objects move, but "space" never does any magic expansion tricks. Plasma redshift however happens all the time in the lab, and in space in EU/PC theory.

Or else people just don't know what they're looking for yet. Optical redshift effects such as Compton redshift occur commonly in the lab, but all of them can be ruled out (and have been, quite successfully, by experts in both astrophysics and plasma, all across the internet, thanks for prompting the google search that revealed that, by the way). Therefore we're still looking for what causes the observed redshift, and the placeholder terms we're using at the moment are termed "dark matter" and "dark energy". Nobody is making any extravagant claims about those things except you when you're setting up strawmen. Have fun with that.
 
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

Gracchus

Senior Veteran
Dec 21, 2002
7,198
821
California
Visit site
✟23,182.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
World's most powerful digital camera opens eye, records first images in hunt for dark energy


Not a single astronomer knows where dark energy comes from, let alone has any clue how to control it, but that never stops them from making absolutely absurd and ridiculous claims about the capabilities of their new toys. :(

What "dark energy camera"? They aren't "seeing" or taking images of "dark energy" to begin with, nor is any camera capable of imaging 'dark energy'. What a bunch of false advertizing.

Ladies and gentlemen! It is Denial, in a runaway!

:wave:
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟24,975.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
World's most powerful digital camera opens eye, records first images in hunt for dark energy


Not a single astronomer knows where dark energy comes from, let alone has any clue how to control it, but that never stops them from making absolutely absurd and ridiculous claims about the capabilities of their new toys. :(

What "dark energy camera"? They aren't "seeing" or taking images of "dark energy" to begin with, nor is any camera capable of imaging 'dark energy'. What a bunch of false advertizing.
I don't recall any scientist going to church and making absurd religious claims! Stick to your religion and leave science to the scientists. :doh:
 
Upvote 0

TheQuietRiot

indomitable
Aug 17, 2011
1,583
330
West Yorkshire
✟12,002.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433/#post61409549

I think we actually covered that back on page one. :) Suffice to say it's cheaper and *much* more personally satisfying and gratifying to expose their horse-pucky metaphysical philosophy on public forums such as this one. Why spend money when I can simply publicly demonstrate the hypocrisy of claiming it's "dark" and therefore incapable of emitting photons, and then claiming to have a "dark energy camera". I can just imagine the fun the atheists would have at the expense of any theist claiming to have an "invisible God camera", yet you folks utterly ignore the irrational claim to have a "dark energy camera", simply because it's taught under the label of "science".

Never mind the fact that there are at least five known empirical redshift options to choose from, "dark energy did it", despite the fact that dark energy is incapable of ever showing up in the lab, and despite the fact the laws of physics in space would need to work "differently' than they work in labs on Earth. In labs on Earth, plasma redshift happens. Only in sky mythologies is "dark energy" responsible for an acceleration process that presumably increases the speed of the "expansion of space". In the lab, objects move, but "space" never does any magic expansion tricks. Plasma redshift however happens all the time in the lab, and in space in EU/PC theory.

That's a very long winded way of saying "no, I am not going to take them to court"
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
"Science News", Aug 11, 2012, pg.9

"Dark matter filament illuminated
Astronomers image one strand in a shadowy cosmic web"

What is Michael going to do now? I bet he will either deny or ignore. He could never admit that the astronomers, physcists, and cosmologists are right, and he is wrong.

:confused:

Nobody doubts the existence of 'missing mass', aka, mass the mainstream can't find in their flawed estimation techniques. Articles are coming out every year about all the mass that the mainstream claimed was 'dark' or 'missing' that turns out to be located in quite ordinary plasma:

NASA - Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount
New View: Universe Suddenly Twice as Bright | Space.com
NASA - NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

Keep in mind that in the past 4 years, the mainstream has "discovered" that galaxies are twice as bright as one believed, four times more abundant in small stars we cannot observe directly compared to the larger stars we can, and it's surrounded by a thick plasma.

In that same time frame LHC has completed standard particle physics theory by finding the Higgs at an energy state that makes SUSY theory obsolete, and it falsified several simple SUSY theories too!

BBC News - LHC results put supersymmetry theory 'on the spot'

Astronomers would just *love* you to "forget the facts", and to *assume* like they do that their mass calculation models are 'flawless' and the reason it's 'dark' isn't due to a technical limitation at our end, but due to 'magic matter'. They haven't even *budged a single percent* from their fudge factor numbers yet!

Yawn. You're just pointing out the ridiculous nature of *all* of their magic matter/energy claims.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Ladies and gentlemen! It is Denial, in a runaway!

:wave:

The mainstream is on a runaway starship called "SS Denial" of empirical laboratory physics, and in denial of recent (last 5 years) satellite data. Apparently you're on board too. :)

Wave hello to all that "dark matter" they just found in quite ordinary stars and ordinary plasma for me as you zoom by, would you? :)
 
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
I don't recall any scientist going to church and making absurd religious claims! Stick to your religion and leave science to the scientists. :doh:

You mean 'besides' their "dark energy cameras" and invisible friends galore, all of whom fail to show up in the lab when they are actually put to the test?

BBC News - LHC results put supersymmetry theory 'on the spot'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/17/dark-matter-detected-gamma-ray-signal_n_1795645.html

Why bother the supposed 'scientists' with any facts? :(
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Cromulent

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2011
1,248
51
The Midlands
✟1,763.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I wonder does Michael realise that finding formerly "missing" matter in ordinary stars and plasma in no way invalidates the current models of the universe. It just moves some of the matter whose effects we seem to be seeing from the "dark matter" placeholder category into a different classification.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Where has anybody apart from you claimed that dark energy is incapable of emitting photons?

Er, why call it 'dark' energy if it emits photons? Wow. Astronomers have a lingo that is quite unique to say the least. ;)

You're having great fun with that strawman, just remember it's not an argument anyone has actually made. You know, a bit like nobody has ever said the camera will be able to see dark matter, just some of the effects it might cause.
Oh please. Astronomers are constantly pointing at high energy emissions in space and claiming that 'WIMP annihilation did it", in *spite* of all those SUSY falsifications done at LHC to date. In fact, they continue to rant about WIMP annihilation every single time they see any new high energy event in space. It's just pathetic at this point.

Dark Matter Detected? Gamma Ray Signal Excites Astrophysicists

Denial at it's finest since LHC pretty much ruled out SUSY theories. And of course never mind the fact that electrical discharges in plasma emit similar photons.

Or else people just don't know what they're looking for yet. Optical redshift effects such as Compton redshift occur commonly in the lab, but all of them can be ruled out (and have been, quite successfully, by experts in both astrophysics and plasma, all across the internet, thanks for prompting the google search that revealed that, by the way).
Boloney. Got a published link? Most of the "ruling out" is typically done on some guy's website with pure handwaves, not based on published argument made in published materials.

They don't even incorporate *any* amount of *known* plasma redshift processes in *any* of their models! It's like 'Denial 101: Forget *all* the known processes that cause redshift in the lab, inflation and dark energy did it!"

The fact they haven't even *tried* to incorporate *any* of the several known types of plasma redshift is your first clue that their models are pitifully broken, and the claims are based upon a house of cards.

Therefore we're still looking for what causes the observed redshift, and the placeholder terms we're using at the moment are termed "dark matter" and "dark energy". Nobody is making any extravagant claims about those things except you when you're setting up strawmen. Have fun with that.
The 'fun' from my perspective is watching the mainstream remain in pure denial of empirical facts. Empirically speaking, plasma redshift happens in the lab, and in plasma in spacetime. Simple SUSY theories bit the dust at LHC, and the Higgs was found at an energy state that makes SUSY theory obsolete in the first place!

Worse yet, their own new 'toys' in space have shown them that their galaxy mass estimation techniques are not worth they paper they are printed on, and our galaxy is surrounded by (drum roll please) dense high temperature plasma! Who would have guessed? Oh ya, every PC/EU proponent on planet Earth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
I wonder does Michael realise that finding formerly "missing" matter in ordinary stars and plasma in no way invalidates the current models of the universe. It just moves some of the matter whose effects we seem to be seeing from the "dark matter" placeholder category into a different classification.

Ya, the "empirical physics, AKA "plasma physics" category. :thumbsup:

All their exotic matter theories have gone up in smoke in the past five years, even in the lab! It's like watching a slow motion train wreck. I keep wondering when the mainstream is going to start coming out of the closet, but that last "dark matter" paper published and picked up by the press makes it quite clear that they aren't ready to do it yet. :)

Dark Matter Detected? Gamma Ray Signal Excites Astrophysicists

Any new observation in space is apparently an excuse to stuff the gaps of our ignorance with exotic matter theories, even though several simple SUSY theories were falsified at LHC and particle physics theory is complete without WIMPS.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.