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.

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Michael, Sep 18, 2012.

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

    mzungu INVICTUS

    Messages:
    7,120
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Atheist
    :thumbsup: DITTO:
     
  2. TheQuietRiot

    TheQuietRiot Newbie

    Messages:
    1,010
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Atheist
    So why not take it to the press or some scientific establishment*, rather than an internet forum or blogs?

    Your idea (if true) would shake our knowledge of the universe as we know it yet you seem remarkably blase about it all, instead merely debating with people on the internet.

    *Potential conspiracy theory incoming
     
  3. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    17,491
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Christian
    FYI, I actually included the hyperlink from the WIKI page to a useful reference on this topic, if you don't understand the implications:

    3.7 Baryonic matter for An Introduction to the Science of Cosmology

    I think under the circumstances, it's better you explain to me in your own words so we know that *you* understand the implications of all dark matter being "normal" matter. It's not as simple as you make it sound for the mainstream to simply give up on the idea of SUSY theory. They are emotionally and scientifically heavily invested in exotic types of matter.
     
  4. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    17,491
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Christian
    Most members of the press don't understand the implications of plasma redshift and it's implications to mainstream theory. I think of myself more as an "educator" in various alternative ideas at the moment. If the press is interested, they'll pick it up.

    The problem is that lots of folks have written about tired light theories and have written about observed forms of plasma redshift, including Emil Wolf himself. The mainstream has never once batted an eye at any empirically observed form of plasma redshift. I've personally written about several topics in astronomy and so far, no response from the mainstream. What might I personally do that is so Earth shattering anyway? I can pick on them publicly, but that's about it.

    I can and do attempt to "do my part" in educating the public, but frankly the mainstream doesn't allow for that on their websites. *In fact, they hold actual witch hunts, burn their heretics at the public stake, and close all "against the mainstream" threads after thirty days and nobody can ever discuss that topic again there.

    *You seem to want a conspiracy claim, and frankly that's exactly how Cosmo Quest handles their "skeptics".
     
  5. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    17,491
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Christian
    Unfortunately that's not all they've been saying:

    You seem to be ignoring that whole argument related to big bang nucleosynthesis, and all their claims about WIMPS! For the past 10 years, all I've seen are paper after paper about exotic forms of matter. Now that LHC has put some of these ideas to the "test" (and they failed), now what? More of the same "Wimps did it"? Why? Just to save *one* otherwise falsified cosmology theory that fails the empirical smell test as it relates to plasma redshift anyway? Forgetaboutit! Let it die a natural empirical death already. Simple SUSY theories were already tried and they failed to show up at LHC. Standard theory is now "complete" without it. Why do I even need to "cling" to magic matter "hopes" and have "faith" in something that wasn't seen and was tested?


    It's not as though they can simply "switch" to all "normal" matter and make all their math still work properly, particularly when we talk about BB nucleosynthesis.
     
  6. TheQuietRiot

    TheQuietRiot Newbie

    Messages:
    1,010
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Atheist
    So your excuse is that the press is too thick to understand what your saying? Or that they simply do not care?

    We both know your ideas go beyond just plasma redshift (which actually doesn't show many results on a simple google search).

    Well you certainly didn't disappoint me did you.

    My point was your actions do not seem to be of a man who confidently believes he has knowledge that is beyond what modern science has/can explain.
     
  7. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    17,491
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Christian
    Neither. :) I don't even know where you got either idea from. The press is simply being kept in the dark by the mainstream about plasma redshift options and plasma cosmology theory. In fact there is a lot of misinformation spread by the mainstream on the topic of EU/PC theory.

    The press simply doesn't hear many astronomers talking about it because the mainstream doesn't like to talk about empirical alternatives to their theory. It's therefore hardly surprising that the press doesn't know much about plasma redshift or PC theory, or know much about it. Many astronomy websites go out of their way to *squelch* real debate in fact. Likewise the press hasn't heard astronomers wringing their hands or fretting over the fact that several simple SUSY theories bit the dust at LHC. Instead, astronomers continue pointing at every new unexplained observation in space and they keep claiming "dark matter annihilation did it" in spite of the failures of SUSY theory at LHC. I've been a reporter and High School editor. The press often has to take someone's word for it, particularly as it relates to scientific data.

    I'm the first to admit that I reject pretty much all of mainstream theory in favor of electric universe theory. So what? That's actually very typical for all PC/EU proponents. Once you lose your faith in mainstream metaphysical dogma, it's pretty much an all or nothing proposition and it's virtually impossible to buy into any type of metaphysical dogma anymore.

    If you go to Google Scholar and type in Wolf effect or Plasma redshift you'll find the papers you're looking for.

    First of all, what passes for modern "science" in this case doesn't actually "explain" anything. "Dark" things are ultimately nothing more than a placeholder term for what amounts to human ignorance, and 96 percent of their theory is based upon placeholder terms for human ignorance. They can't even say where "dark energy" might come from, and several simple SUSY theories bit the dust at LHC. Mainstream theory isn't an 'explanation' in the first place.

    Secondly, change doesn't necessarily come quickly in astronomy. Birkeland was dead for over for 30 years before the mainstream finally figured out that he was right about aurora. The mainstream *still* doesn't "get" high energy solar atmospheric physics, even though Birkeland predicted and explained those electrical discharges to them over 100 years ago. Change can sometimes occur at a snails pace in this industry until there is some kind of final straw, and then change finally occurs.

    In this case there is a plethora of new information flowing into the data stream from many new satellites in space. All of that data confirms that the mass estimation techniques that are used by the mainstream to calculate the amount of mass in a given galaxy isn't worth the paper that they are printed on.

    Lastly, I'm quite "confident" that the mainstream cannot handle an actual scientific debate, which is why they constantly feel the need to virtually execute me every time that I frequent one of their mainstream websites. ;)

    Confidence has nothing to do with it. I'm quite confident in the value of PC theory, and plasma redshift predictions now that they have been confirmed in the lab. I've debated these ideas almost *everywhere* that I can think of, including mainstream astronomy websites and including here. I do not have any lack of confidence on this topic, I assure you.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
  8. KimberlyAA

    KimberlyAA New Member

    Messages:
    1,431
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Seventh-Day-Adventist
    If you give a name to an admission of gross ignorance—‘dark matter’, ‘dark energy’—then you may eventually believe you have explained something.

    Dark matter, dark energy, inflation, etc are such items, ones on which history will probably pass unfavourable judgement.

    The many well-qualified critics of the big bang have rightly lambasted dark matter and dark energy as ‘hypothetical entities’ or ‘fudge factors’.

    The need for the dark energy has been invoked by a need to explain the acceleration of distant galaxies. Besides the supernova data, there is no hard evidence for this additional long-range force.
     
  9. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    17,491
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Christian
    http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0062v1.pdf
    http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf

    You may already know, but Herman Holushko has plugged the supernova data into a generic tired light/plasma redshift theory, and it also explains those same supernova "broadening" (not time dilation) features. Holushko even included C# code to test the spectral aging characteristics.

    Ashmore has taken Chen's recent findings in the lab, and applied them to Hubble's Law. Ashmore also has suggestions on how to 'test' his ideas, as does Holushko.

    Welcome to the discussion by the way. ;)
     
  10. Tiberius

    Tiberius New Member

    Messages:
    5,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Avoidance. I thought so.

    Didn't answer the question and shifted the burden onto me. How typical this is.
     
  11. Gracchus

    Gracchus Senior Veteran

    Messages:
    6,631
    Likes Received:
    205
    Faith:
    Pantheist
    The persons cited by Michael by Michael appear to by these:

    Herman Holushko has an engineering degree, and runs a software company in Canada.
    Mr.Holushko has plugged some data into some software he apparently wrote himself.
    "Lyndon Ashmore
    LocationDubayy
    Profession:physicist
    Discipline:Astronomy and Planetary Science
    Specialization:No information provided
    Education: University of York
    BA (hons): Theoretical Physics University of york
    University of central Lancashire
    M.Phil Solar Cell technology
    Publications: No information provided
    Affiliations: No information provided
    Awards: No information provided
    Objectives: No information provided
    Jobs: No information provided
    Research and Projects: No information provided
    Skill Sets: No information provided"

    I do not know if this is the same Lyndon Ashmore who teaches photography in Dubai.

    Dubai International Art Centre

    There are such things as gifted amateurs. On the other hand, there are kooks and crackpots and deluded wannabe's.

    Just sayin'!

    Until better information arrives, I'll go with the actual physcists and cosmologists.

    :wave:
     
  12. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    17,491
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Christian
    Would you prefer these authors?

    Non-cosmological redshifts of spectral lines
    Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF
    Menu

    If that doesn't suffice, maybe I'll round up some papers on PC theory by Peratt and Alfven for you to trashtalk next?

    Apparently in your mind it's bad to use computer technology in cosmology or something? What's with this cult anyway? Whatever you can't accomplish in the lab, you try to make up for by attacking individuals?

    Slap the label "science" to something and atheists will believe just about anything, including a dark energy camera sold to them by some guys that can't even name a single source of "dark energy", let alone name a way to control it. "Psst, Hey buddy! Wanna buy an invisible, er "dark energy" camera?" Oy Vey!

    Sure, go back to bashing people and pretend that those empirically demonstrated forms of plasma redshift never showed up in the lab as "predicted" by every static universe theory in the universe. :) Without denial and ad hom attacks, astronomers have nothing, certainly nothing that actually works in the lab.

    Just sayin' :wave:
     
  13. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    17,491
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Christian
    How typical (and cheesy) that you refused to even address any of the empirical points that I raised on the topic of plasma redshift, yet you expect me to do your bidding on command? Wow. I see no evidence that you even understand the complexities well enough to *begin* to explain them to you. but...

    An Introduction to the Science of Cosmology

    He goes on to talk about various SUSY theories including Axions, WIMPS, nutralinos and other SUSY related theories. In other words, they can't divorce themselves from magical forms of matter and make other parts of their theory work correctly even if they wanted to, and of course they don't want to. :( It doesn't matter how many SUSY theories LHC falsified and put to rest in the lab, astronomers keep pointing at the sky and claiming WIMPS did it.
     
  14. Tiberius

    Tiberius New Member

    Messages:
    5,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Faith:
    Atheist
    The Wolf Effect can't explain shifting of spectral lines if the lines have shifted more than the line width.

    I'm curious. If the universe is not expanding, what is prenting it from collapsing due to gravity?

    He argues that photons are pushed out of a gravitational well. Wouldn't this mean that gravitational lensing wouldn't work?

    actually, I;d be very interested in seeing you detail exactly what the flaws in standard cosmology are.

    I'd also be interested to see how we have directly detected this plasma which is allegedly permeating the universe.

    Would you trust a plumber when it came to open-heart surgery? Would you trust a driver when it came to flying a plane? Would you trust the postman when it came to fixing your television? of course not.

    So why are you trusting a computer engineer when it comes to cosmology?

    Want to continue with the strawmen, or is this one enough for you?

    well, we've asked questions about it and not got any answers. I've asked you why PC is not accepted in the general scientific community if it has so much evidence, and you've replied with vague claims about how it's a big conspiracy about how scientists don't want to change their views.
     
  15. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    17,491
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Christian
    Ooops, you missed a point:

    FYI, I love how you just handwave away at stuff rather than provide a published rebuttal, and I noticed that you didn't actually touch any of the rest of the empirical options on the table.

    EM influences and momentum no doubt.

    No, he carefully lays out the math and shows that it does work in fact.

    They all relate to empirical physics and their inability to demonstrate any of their absurd claims such as:

    Space expansion (objects move in the lab, but space never expands)
    Inflation (Made up in one guys head without a scientific precedent)
    Dark energy causes acceleration (They can't even name a source, let alone show it accelerate anything)
    Space expands faster than light speed! (again, not even a possibility in the lab)

    I would also give it terrible marks in terms of pure denial since it makes no attempt *whatsoever* to incorporate *any* effect from Compton redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect or Chen's "plasma redshift". In fact it would take an *act of God* for these influences to have *no effect whatsoever* on photons traversing the plasmas of spacetime. The whole thing is based on pure denial of empirically documented alternatives and the exclusion of *any* such effects from their theory.

    We didn't detect it directly, but plasma interacts with light and it has *known and demonstrated* effects on various wavelengths of photons in the lab.

    Fortunately my life doesn't depend on the existence of dark energy, only one otherwise falsified cosmology is at risk. :)

    Of course this isn't a valid scientific argument either, it's apparently an appeal to authority fallacy run amuck.

    Because he wrote the C# code to test these theories and they work. Why would his programming background be a problem for you? Let me guess? You can't read C# code, or you don't understand how to apply it to the redshift issue?

    You're essentially asking an irrelevant question. Physics isn't a popularity contest for starters, and the PC community is in fact growing all the time. The fact it's still a minority viewpoint is irrelevant. Many "scientists" have supported PC theory over the years, including the author of MHD theory.

    Who cares why it's not "popular" at the moment?

    The actual explanation is unfortunately rather mundane and quite obvious. Most astronomers have never read Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven which is more less equivalent to the "bible" of the PC/EU community. Fewer still have read Birkeland's work on cathode sun theories (sort of the OT of PC theory). It's not exactly a "well know" theory, let alone a "well understood" theory yet. It's gaining momentum however, particularly after all the recent failures of mainstream theory over the past five years. It's a growing community that will *eventually* (I have no idea when) take over cosmology theory, particularly as more and more folks find out about plasma redshift in the lab.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2012
  16. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    17,491
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Christian
    Curriculum Vitae for Ari Brynjolfsson
    Education and Degrees:

    Dr. Ari Brynjolfsson was born and raised in Iceland where he graduated in the math and sciences line from Mentaskólinn a Akureyri in 1948. He studied nuclear physics at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, 1948-1954, where he received Cand. Mag. and Mag Scient. (Ph.D) in 1954. Dr. Brynjolfsson was a special research fellow of University of Iceland from 1954 to 1955, and an Alexander von Humboldt fellow of the University of Göttingen, Germany, from 1955 to 1957. In 1973, he received a Doctor Philosophiae (DSc) from the Niels Bohrs Institute, University of Copenhagen.

    Dr. Brynjolfsson’s Mag. Scient. (PhD) thesis focused on cosmic radiation and the design and construction of a sensitive and accurate magnetometer for measuring the magnetization of rocks. He subsequently used the magnetometer in Iceland to trace prehistoric variations in the Earth’s magnetic field, including the reversal of Earth’s magnetic field; and the more recent secular variations that indicated that Aristoteles saw the Northern Lights, as illustrated in his writings. See Phil. Mag. 6(23), (1957) 247.

    Dr. Brynjolfsson’s Doctor Philosophiae (DSc) thesis, “Some Aspects of the Interactions of Fast Charged Particles with Matter”, improved three major aspects of the stopping power theory developed mainly by Niels Bohr, Hans Bethe, and Enrico Fermi. His thesis improved a) the frequency limits, b) the estimates of the Cherenkov radiation, and c) the estimates of the energy levels in the solid materials conventionally used for stopping power measurements. These changes improved the theoretical estimates from about 1% to about 0.1%. The best experimental accuracy is about 0.1%.

    Dr., Brynjolfsson’s theory for the stopping of charged particles was useful for discovering the plasma redshift of photons in 1978. The plasma redshift has been overlooked due to the approximations used and because this cross section is insignificant in laboratory experiments. It is important only in very hot sparse plasmas, like those in the corona of the Sun and in intergalactic space.

    Special Studies:

    Fellowship University of Reykjavik, Iceland, 1954–1955
    Alexander von Humboldt Fellow University of Göttingen, Germany, 1955–1957
    AMP, Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts, 1971

    Primary Positions:

    Head of Danish AEC Radiation Facilities at Risø 1957-1965, with focus on research and industrial applications of radiation
    Head of US Army Radiation Facilities, Natick, Massachusetts, 1965-1980, with focus on research and industrial applications of radiation
    Special Assistant for Physics, Natick, 1980-1988
    Director of IFFIT of the Joint FAO/IAEA, United Nations, 1988-1992, with focus on international training and applications of radiation
    Director, Applied Radiation Industries, Wayland, Massachusetts, 1992 - present

    Awards:

    Møller Foundation Award for exceptional service to Danish Industry, 1965
    “Radiation Science and Technology Award of the American Nuclear Society”, 1988
     
  17. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    17,491
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Christian
    I suppose Ari is just another "plumber" in your book?
     
  18. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    17,491
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Christian
    Then of course there's the ultimate supporter of PC theory:

    Hannes Alfvén - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Just another plumber I should ignore? Note that every modern astronomer is dependent upon his work in MHD theory, and virtually none of them have ever read his book where he applies the principles of plasma physics to objects in space.
     
  19. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    17,491
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Christian
  20. Tiberius

    Tiberius New Member

    Messages:
    5,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Because the stuff you link to is so technical I can't understand it, and I doubt you can either.,

    However, the vast majority of cosmologists DO understand it, and they say it's wrong!

    Now, I'll ask you again, why should I take your word over theirs? Answer this and then we'll talk further.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.