Redshift, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc., etc.

[Justatruthseeker]

More dogma's in astronomy slowly falling away.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150411091607.htm

So things may not be as far as we believed, which means redhsift certainly isn't a velocity and distance indicator as currently believed. Which may mean there isn't as much dark energy - which of course does away with more dark matter. And shouldn't the sizes of black holes and numbers also go down - since not as much mass is now needed to counteract the absent dark energy. And the now absent dark matter as well?

But rest assured - even if they have been wrong for the last 80 years, this time they for sure got it right.

Or on to the next paradigm.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/

 

[Architeuthus]

More dogma's in astronomy slowly falling away.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150411091607.htm

So things may not be as far as we believed, which means redhsift certainly isn't a velocity and distance indicator as currently believed.

Reading the abstract, redshift is still a velocity and distance indicator; the expansion rate of the universe just needs to be tweaked a little as a result of the new finding.

 

[Oafman]

Reading the abstract, redshift is still a velocity and distance indicator; the expansion rate of the universe just needs to be tweaked a little as a result of the new finding.

Precisely. This just means there might be slightly less dark energy than previously thought. Justa either didn't read it or grossly misunderstood it. Or wilfully chose to misrepresent it.

 

[lesliedellow]

Precisely. This just means there might be slightly less dark energy than previously thought. Justa either didn't read it or grossly misunderstood it. Or wilfully chose to misrepresent it.

On past form, I would go with the second.

 

[Michael]

Reading the abstract, redshift is still a velocity and distance indicator; the expansion rate of the universe just needs to be tweaked a little as a result of the new finding.

Technically they still *assume* that redshift is a distance indicator (without empirical support mind you), but their claims about supernovas being "standard candles" and their energy releases being 100 percent consistent, which is the *entire basis* for their dark energy claims, turns out to be another gross oversimplification of reality (as usual). Typical.

That BICEP2 paper from last year demonstrates that the mainstream is more interested in doing science via *press releases* than it cares about the actual data sets. They simply *assume* whatever they like, and they tend to abuse any data set that looks even slightly promising.

Basically their entire theory is based upon the oversimplified concept that gravity alone can explain *every* phenomenon in the universe.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Reading the abstract, redshift is still a velocity and distance indicator; the expansion rate of the universe just needs to be tweaked a little as a result of the new finding.

Tweaked a little?

""Since nobody realized that before, all these supernovae were thrown in the same barrel. But if you were to look at 10 of them nearby, those 10 are going to be redder on average than a sample of 10 faraway supernovae.""

So redshift is no indicator of distance at all.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Precisely. This just means there might be slightly less dark energy than previously thought. Justa either didn't read it or grossly misunderstood it. Or wilfully chose to misrepresent it.

Show me any found in any experiments let alone just less of it? How about Dark Matter?

That's what I thought. I'd say it shows how ad-hoc is your entire cosmology.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Technically they still *assume* that redshift is a distance indicator (without empirical support mind you), but their claims about supernovas being "standard candles" and their energy releases being 100 percent consistent, which is the *entire basis* for their dark energy claims, turns out to be another gross oversimplification of reality (as usual). Typical.

That BICEP2 paper from last year demonstrates that the mainstream is more interested in doing science via *press releases* than it cares about the actual data sets. They simply *assume* whatever they like, and they tend to abuse any data set that looks even slightly promising.

Basically their entire theory is based upon the oversimplified concept that gravity alone can explain *every* phenomenon in the universe.

You mean they still incorrectly assume it is an idnicator of distance.

"Since nobody realized that before, all these supernovae were thrown in the same barrel. But if you were to look at 10 of them nearby, those 10 are going to be redder on average than a sample of 10 faraway supernovae.""

So the closer they are the redder they appear in opposition to theory of distance.

Because they refuse to accept it is simply light interacting with plasma and charge density.

 

[Michael]

You mean they still incorrectly assume it is an idnicator of distance.

"Since nobody realized that before, all these supernovae were thrown in the same barrel. But if you were to look at 10 of them nearby, those 10 are going to be redder on average than a sample of 10 faraway supernovae.""

So the closer they are the redder they appear in opposition to theory of distance.

Because they refuse to accept it is simply light interacting with plasma and charge density.

The basic problem is that they are living in an oversimplified universe that is apparently devoid of plasma physics, or the effects of light that travels through various densities and EM fields, at various temperatures. They somehow think that a photon weaves and dodges it's way around every EM field and temperature gradient over billions of light years to arrive on Earth without experiencing a single inelastic scattering event. Talk about faith in *miracles*. Holy cow!

 

[Architeuthus]

Tweaked a little?

""Since nobody realized that before, all these supernovae were thrown in the same barrel. But if you were to look at 10 of them nearby, those 10 are going to be redder on average than a sample of 10 faraway supernovae.""

So redshift is no indicator of distance at all.

No, within each of the two supernovae groups, redshift still works. And you can tell the two groups apart.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, within each of the two supernovae groups, redshift still works. And you can tell the two groups apart.

Says the guy that insisted the further an object was the more it was redshifted. Says the guy who's experts he relies on have been wrong for 80 years. Yet want us to continue with the same theory already shown to be wrong. Because of course we are still right as will be shown as we fudge some more numbers to make the new data fit the same falsified theory...

Says we now know for sure how far they are even if they said the same thing before we found out they are nothing like we thought nova were. One has become two - two will become 4, etc, etc as technology continues to advance.

Seems those standard candles aren't so standard after all.

Whether it's too young:

Or too bright:

Or now a couple types.

And all the while you will let cosmologist's continue to ignore all that plasma.

 

[Architeuthus]

Says the guy that insisted the further an object was the more it was redshifted. Says the guy who's experts he relies on have been wrong for 80 years. Yet want us to continue with the same theory already shown to be wrong. Because of course we are still right as will be shown as we fudge some more numbers to make the new data fit the same falsified theory...

Huh?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The basic problem is that they are living in an oversimplified universe that is apparently devoid of plasma physics, or the effects of light that travels through various densities and EM fields, at various temperatures. They somehow think that a photon weaves and dodges it's way around every EM field and temperature gradient over billions of light years to arrive on Earth without experiencing a single inelastic scattering event. Talk about faith in *miracles*. Holy cow!

Because they don't want to consider the truth.

Whether its in space:

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/

Or on the sun:

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/chromosphere/index.html

Because if they consider all that mass - then gravitational lensing becomes what occurs with light in every laboratory as it passes through that halo of plasma.

But don't worry - they are proving gravitational lensing by light passing through a medium and being refracted. Boy oh boy, what will they ask us to believe next?

https://hologramuniverse.wordpress....-proven-wrong-by-metamaterials-bending-light/

Isn't that sort of like using electricity and magnetic fields in plasma to make a galactic jet and then tell us all about spinning black holes in space?

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ecreates-astrophysical-jets.html#.VV0gCkYjYig

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And we better add magnetic fields to the list. Since they exist everywhere in space.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node77.html

"In conclusion, all magnetic fields encountered in nature are generated by circulating currents. There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits. In the former, case the currents which generate the fields circulate on the atomic scale, whereas, in the latter case, the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale (i.e., the scale of the circuit). "

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magfie.html

"Magnetic fields are produced by electric currents, which can be macroscopic currents in wires, or microscopic currents associated with electrons in atomic orbits."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

"A magnetic field is the magnetic effect of electric currents and magnetic materials."

Although we have two models - only one has never failed a test. I'll let you decide which model cosmologists use.

The one based on imaginary things or the one that matches reality.

"Magnetic pole model and the H-field
Since it is based on the fictitious idea of a magnetic charge density, the Gilbert model has limitations....

Amperian loop model and the B-field
After Oersted discovered that electric currents produce a magnetic field and Ampere discovered that electric currents attracted and repelled each other similar to magnets, it was natural to hypothesize that all magnetic fields are due to electric current loops...

...to date no exception to this rule has been found."

So take a guess who is using fictitious arguments that have severe limitations and who is using what to date, science has found no exception to.

 

[AV1611VET]

And the now absent dark matter as well?

Justa, what is your take on this passage:

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

I always wondered about that, until I heard about "dark matter."

 

[Loudmouth]

Tweaked a little?

""Since nobody realized that before, all these supernovae were thrown in the same barrel. But if you were to look at 10 of them nearby, those 10 are going to be redder on average than a sample of 10 faraway supernovae.""

So redshift is no indicator of distance at all.

Distance is indicated by luminosity for type Ia SN. The fact that there is a correlation between redshift and luminosity is what evidences expansion.

 

[[serious]]

You mean they still incorrectly assume it is an idnicator of distance.

"Since nobody realized that before, all these supernovae were thrown in the same barrel. But if you were to look at 10 of them nearby, those 10 are going to be redder on average than a sample of 10 faraway supernovae.""

So the closer they are the redder they appear in opposition to theory of distance.

Because they refuse to accept it is simply light interacting with plasma and charge density.

How does your model better mathematically model observation?

 

[Michael]

How does your model better mathematically model observation?

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

Well, if we start with galactic surface brightness "tests" at larger Z values, we find that a static universe explains it all quite well.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Justa, what is your take on this passage:

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

I always wondered about that, until I heard about "dark matter."

I'd say it refers to the destruction of the dinosaurs. "And the earth "became" desolate and waste, and darkness became...." And that state of darkness has nothing to do with any imaginary dark matter at all. Unless you want to call dust and volcanic clouds dark matter.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Distance is indicated by luminosity for type Ia SN. The fact that there is a correlation between redshift and luminosity is what evidences expansion.

Except we know your previous claims about type 1a SN are all wrong. But here you go relying on already falsified evidence to back up your ad-hoc claims.

So what do those too young to be supernova tell you?

Or too bright?

How your theory needs more "tweaking?" Or that it's just plain wrong?

Even your mathematical models don't work.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/07jan_nustar/

It won't explode because you won't add a force capable of accelerating charged particles.