Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

[paul becke]

Anyone who has any experance at all with computers knows about memory and the problem of decay and corruption. The only solution seems to be to back up your data. Sean Carrol asks how can memory exists apart from basic physics of atoms and electrons?

"Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there’s no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die. If you claim that some form of soul persists beyond death, what particles is that soul made of? What forces are holding it together? How does it interact with ordinary matter?" Sean Carrol (Phd Physics Harvard)

Just what is the tree of life or even the bread of life that will allow us to live forever. The disciples thought that perhaps after the resurrection Jesus was Spirit or pure energy. But that does not seem to be the case. He ate fish and honey, after the resurrection.

24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted *, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled ? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see;
for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
24:40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
24:41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb *.
24:43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

"the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there’s no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die. If you claim that some form of soul persists beyond death, what particles is that soul made of? What forces are holding it together? How does it interact with ordinary matter?" Sean Carrol (Phd Physics Harvard)

Read the following articles and comments, Norman, and you should soon realise that science knows nothing about the ultimate nature of matter or, indeed, its origin.

Incidentally, it's interesting that none of the secular self-styled hot-shot physicists has even approached the stature of the great 20th century paradigm-changers, Einstein, Planck, Bohr and Godel. - all, bar Einstein, Lutheran Christians; and Einstein was a panentheist, and therefore, convinced of Intelligent Design, hence, his encomiums on the "illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

Does the atom have a designer? When science and spirituality meet

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter - Max Planck, father of quantum physics

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." - Max Planck

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve. - Max Planck

Niels Bohr, almost a peer of Planck in quantum physics theory, has this to say:

"There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature..."

"The great extension of our experience in recent years has brought light to the insufficiency of our simple mechanical conceptions and, as a consequence, has shaken the foundation on which the customary interpretation of observation was based."

"Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems."

"Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question."

The paragraph in the article below, beginning "Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilnger" makes a particularly cogent point very concisely. The whole article is fascinating, even to this layman.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US

 

[Michael]

True, you didn't close it, but he had good reason. He stated that reason.

His reason amounts to "fear", specifically fear of his BS being revealed for exactly what it is.

As for your links, he actually addressed key points in them.

No, he didn't. In fact the went into a pure denial routine over the fact that it was even related to PC! Oy Vey. that's not "addressing" the link, it's called being in pure denial of the data!

Why would you? You know very well I have no knowledge in the matter. I'm in no position to tell if you're lying, you're wrong or if you're correct (or whatever mix that might be).

You don't need to have any unusual or special knowledge of ANY cosmology theory to understand that ONE cosmology theory predicts something (like tired light) and another theory does does not. Notice how he acted when I pointed out that standard theory makes no predictions about plasma redshift whereas PC theory does. He basically went "So what" to that confirmation in the lab? Essentially and quite flippantly he's blowing off the most important prediction of PC theory, and the most important prediction that sets it apart (makes different predictions) from standard theory.

So that error is a typo? Is that something that the author has announced? If no, how can you state that it's a typo, it seems to have a major impact.

No, I don't even know for sure what Rob's actual objection to Ari's work might be. The typo that I'm thinking about was found earlier by someone else in a completely different paper. Rob never even cited a page number so it's a little hard to be sure what he's ranting on about.

There's few people who wants to waste time writing a paper refuting what they think is obvious, which seems to be the case.

That's a weak argument IMO. You're essentially saying to hell with math, to hell with published, peer reviewed material, to hell with actual PHYSICS. Sorry, but pure handwaves with no math from an unpublished website isn't a serious "refutation" to begin with. When it's completely devoid of any kind of mathematical or physical support, what is there to actually argue about? A valid response to such a wild, unssuported claim would probably be "he's simply wrong". What math is there to argue about? What published physics is there to argue about?

That's simply an assertion from your side to me (as well as their side of course), I can't tell whether you're correct or not.

The claim he made was simply an 'assertion' too, so what exactly do you expect? Keep in mind that light ALWAYS travels at the speed of light. It can lose "momentum" but not by changing it's actually speed. It can lose momentum to redshift, but that isn't going to cause any blurring of any sort. The only thing that would "blur" the image is something that deflects the photons and makes them change direction in some manner. A loss of momentum of a photon doesn't equate to "blurriness', it equates to "redshift". A redirection of photons equates to blurriness, not to redshift. They are completely different issues.

Space expansion from the BB theory? That seems off the point atm. He either hasn't gotten to it or it's beside the point he's making.

He's ignoring the fact that there's no PROVEN mechanism to explain the 'Expansion of space" and objects of mass cannot and do not travel faster than the speed of light. The universe is thought to be less than 14 billion years old in mainstream theory, but the universe is thought to be much larger than 28 billion light years wide. There's therefore no "known" mechanism that would explain "space expansion" either, but the author never mentions it. If that claim ever was actually a valid "weakness", it's a 'weakness' that has since disappeared in PC theory in the last two years, but it STILL applies to mainstream dogma.

And this is as well assertions from your side to me. Except for the photon redshift in plasma, but he summed that up in the apple and orange statement.

His apple to oranges claim was a BS statement from start to finish! Plasma redshift is a KEY prediction of PC theory. The fact it's been validated in the lab is a 'big deal' to PC theory because it's a PREDICTION of various PC theories, and it's not predicted in mainstream theory. His attempt to sweep that issue under the carpet by claiming they aren't related was simply childish, irrational, and frankly it was an outright lie.

The two errors are assertions from you in my case and the omission is only an omission if it is vital for what he's discussing, and to me it seems beside the point.

He can't have his cake and eat it too. If he's going to complain about UNKNOWN mechanisms, he should acknowledge it's a problem in ALL theories, and that it's been eliminated as a problem in PC theory based on those observations of redshift in the lab! That's a important prediction of PC theory. That lack of a prediction of such an event *and* the fact mainstream theory doesn't accommodate for that observation is actually a "weakness' in mainstream theory that no longer even applies to PC theory.

And this is another assertion to me.

I'm not sure what exactly you think I asserted other than the the fact I realize I never quite even understood his objection, and that's because he never bothered to cite a page number, and he closed the discussion before we ever got started. How is that MY fault exactly?

This is something you've mentioned before, and I still don't know whether you're correct, wrong and/or lying. So, in short, that's another assertion.

You need not take my word for it. Unlike his unpublished nonsense, I can support my assertions with published work.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF

BB theory was off by a whole order of magnitude whereas the temperature calculation effect of starlight on "space" was off by less than one degree!

And a bunch of assertions to me.

What exactly did you expect anyway? His argument was itself a handwavy assertion that is easily refuted simply by looking at the historical data. The temperature of 'space' has nothing to do with expansion as they claim, nor is expansion the *only* way to explain the average temperature of space today. It's a non issue in the first place and it was a ridiculous handwave and ironic as hell considering all the tweaks and adjustments the mainstream had to make to BB theory to actually arrive at the right figure. Like I said, a 'temperature" based on the effect of light was much closer the the real figure than early BB models. More importantly they've had to kludge and "hand tune' their theory to make it fit!

Why would I pick any arguments from it? I wouldn't know the implications of half of them.

Why would you bother to cite it then?

See his comment,July 7, 2012 at 1:23 am

What about it? First of all, I'm not obligated to disprove the entire BB theory to disprove his claim that non cosmological redshifts are a "crank theory". Not only are they not a "Crank theory', they've actually been observed in the lab. The single paper from Chen blows *Rob's* one claim out the water and that was the only claim that really irked me because it was obviously a lie.

The observation of plasma redshift are very obviously tied to PC theory in fact he's discussing Ari's work where plasma redshift is predicted! Oy Vey. His denial routine is just pathetic IMO.

Are you certain that the redshift observed in the labs is identical to the one occurring in space?

Certain? No. Is it likely? Absolutely. Is it more likely than "space expansion"? Absolutely. Space expansion is a mythology that applies *only* to BB theory and it had never been observed in the lab, nor will it ever be observed in the lab, so I'm sure that space expansion didn't do it.

If you are, don't argue for it to me, I most likely won't understand it. If you've got a good argument I guarantee the scientific community will be interested in it.

I guarantee you that the haters aren't interested in any scientific facts of any sort. I've personally watched them deny the fact that electrical discharges occur in plasma even *after* handing them tons of published materials to support the idea and even after showing them a video of what an electrical discharge in plasma looks like in the lab! They don't care.

I'm sure that there are "real scientists' that do care, but Rob isn't one of them.

Nope, but a social. Who would you listen to, the guy who sits down and talks calmly or the one who shouts in your face?
Good that you've limited your use of caps in this post though.

Probably the calm one, but frankly EU haters aren't rational in the first place and I don't have any illusions about changing their opinions.

Sure it's no discussion, but if that prediction is based upon an erroneous calculation there's little need for it.

The question is "if". As best as I can tell from what Rob said, Ari simply made DIFFERENT (not necessarily erroneous) assumption than Rob did. Rob didn't clearly explain his objection, or even bother to site a page number, so I can't really comment much on it. I will admit that his objection was in fact 'unique' (I haven't heard that one before), but that could simply be because Rob was wrong to start with for all I know. Since he opted for virtual execution rather than discussion, it will always remain a mystery to me.

But still he provided additional points which you largely ignored yourself. He addressed your main argument, you didn't address his (properly).

What argument didn't I address properly in your opinion? What specific arguments *could* I even address without more specifics?

Sure, but his nuclear argument made sense to me, you weren't exactly the model of a debater, I can understand why he lost his patience with you.

What nuclear argument? You mean where he tried to handwave away the connection between plasma redshift prediction in PC theory and plasma redshift observation in the lab with a ridiculous anecdote?

I didn't have much patience for his "crank" commentary before I even started. If he can't take criticisms, he should be hurling "crackpot" claims at proven empirical laboratory physics. It's that simple. If he makes false claims and goes out of his was to antagonize an entire PC community, why should I should him any "respect"? Did he show PC theory any respect?

It was the application that he was questioning.

Why? His precious theory didn't "predict" such a thing to be observed in the lab, but several PC theories do! In fact mainstream theory doesn't even allow for it.

Asserted errors and asserted fixes to me.

You're right, the were all asserted errors, but I provided you with PUBLISHED refutations, whereas Rob did not. All Rob provided were outdated website links and links to other PC hater websites that are equally unpublished and just as biased as he is.

It's not his responsibility to guide you down that path, holding your hand. He provided his reasons and you weren't willing to address them properly.

If he had actually cited a page number and a specific formula for me, I'd have been happy to address his concerns about Ari's theories. He failed to do anything like that. Rob provided no other 'reasons' that were actually anything other than "assertions" from an unpublished website, or "reasons" that were based upon his own personal denial process of the fact that plasma redshift was a key "prediction" of PC theory was in fact verified in the lab. I addressed as much as he allowed me to address in 6 posts before shutting down all dissent.

What you were doing wasn't criticism, it was flaming.

First of all, Rob started "flaming" PC theory before I even started talking to him and he's been "flaming" an empirical physics theory that he knows almost about. Worse yet, his last flame was from June, a full two years after his original claims about redshift had been falsified. He didn't even bother to keep up with advancements in science. More importantly and more aggravating, he went to *pure unadulterated denial* when presented with empirical physical evidence that non cosmological redshift *had been observed*. Had he said "Michael, you're right, that particular comment I made about non cosmological redshift being a "crank" theory was "shortsighted" in retrospect. He did *nothing* of the sort. He went into pure denial of that fact, and tried to ignore that it was a "successful" prediction of PC theory, and not of mainstream theory. In fact he went out of his way to do damage control rather than embrace reality, and that did in fact tick me off. Whatever "flaming" he got, he absolutely deserved IMO.

 

[Michael]

"the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there’s no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die. If you claim that some form of soul persists beyond death, what particles is that soul made of? What forces are holding it together? How does it interact with ordinary matter?" Sean Carrol (Phd Physics Harvard)

Read the following articles and comments, Norman, and you should soon realise that science knows nothing about the ultimate nature of matter or, indeed, its origin.

Incidentally, it's interesting that none of the secular self-styled hot-shot physicists has even approached the stature of the great 20th century paradigm-changers, Einstein, Planck, Bohr and Godel. - all, bar Einstein, Lutheran Christians; and Einstein was a panentheist, and therefore, convinced of Intelligent Design, hence, his encomiums on the "illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

Does the atom have a designer? When science and spirituality meet

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter - Max Planck, father of quantum physics

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." - Max Planck

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve. - Max Planck

Niels Bohr, almost a peer of Planck in quantum physics theory, has this to say:

"There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature..."

"The great extension of our experience in recent years has brought light to the insufficiency of our simple mechanical conceptions and, as a consequence, has shaken the foundation on which the customary interpretation of observation was based."

"Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems."

"Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question."

The paragraph in the article below, beginning "Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilnger" makes a particularly cogent point very concisely. The whole article is fascinating, even to this layman.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US

Wow. Thanks for all the cool links and great quotes. I can see I'll be busy doing some reading.

 

[Elendur]

His reason amounts to "fear", specifically fear of his BS being revealed for exactly what it is.

If you say so. That's not how I perceive it though.

No, he didn't. In fact the went into a pure denial routine over the fact that it was even related to PC! Oy Vey. that's not "addressing" the link, it's called being in pure denial of the data!

Two points taken very quickly:

"That vixra.org paper you pointed to tried to make the connection, but it's very tenuous."
"But, that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the actual scientific literature -- you know, all the cosmologists working on it who have shown data that fit in detail to the predictions of the Big Bang model, be it expanding Universe seen in local cepehid variables or supernovae out to redshifts of 1.7, be it in the cosmic microwave background, be it in simulations of structure formation from dark matter matching locally observed galaxy distributions, be it in rations of light elements compared to precise numerical predictions of Big Bang cosmology."

(If you need to find it, ctrl-F)

You don't need to have any unusual or special knowledge of ANY cosmology theory to understand that ONE cosmology theory predicts something (like tired light) and does does not. Notice how he acted when I pointed out that standard theory makes no predictions about plasma redshift whereas PC theory does. He basically went "So what"? Essentially he's blowing off the most important prediction of PC theory, and on that sets it apart (makes different predictions) from standard theory.

Wrong. To accept that a cosmology makes a prediction takes no unusual or special knowledge, to understand it does.

No, I don't even know for sure what Rob's actual objection to Ari's work might be. The typo that I'm thinking about was found earlier by someone else in a completely different paper. Rob never even cited a page number so it's a little hard to be sure what he's ranting on about.

I know the 'typo' was found earlier, it was on this forum and I read the post.

Cited numbers:
"1.7"
"(1+z)"

That's a weak argument IMO. You're essentially saying to hell with math, to hell with published, peer reviewed material, to hell with actual PHYSICS. Sorry, but pure handwaves with no math from an unpublished website isn't a serious "refutation" to begin with. When it's completely devoid of any kind of mathematical or physical support, what is there to actually argue about? A valid response to such a wild, unssuported claim would probably be "he's simply wrong". What math is there to argue about? What published physics is there to argue about?

Sure it's a weak argument, he explained it in further detail but you didn't want the long version.

The claim he made was simply an 'assertion' too, so what exactly do you expect? Keep in mind that light ALWAYS travels at the speed of light. It can lose "momentum" but not by changing it's actually speed. It can lose momentum to redshift, but that isn't going to cause any blurring of any sort. The only thing that would "blur" the image is something that deflects the photons and makes them change direction in some manner. A loss of momentum of a photon doesn't equate to "blurriness', it equates to "redshift". A redirection of photons equates to blurriness, not to redshift. They are completely different issues.

As I see it I dunno, I have a hard time thinking an angle, no matter how small it is, could result in anything other than a complete blur of everything. (A good example why some more knowledge would be needed to actually debate)

Also, I don't think you addressed:

"In particular, look at Figure 13, which is also reproduced here. Notice that there is a range of s values at both low and high redshift, represented by open and filled circles. Notice in particular there are open circles with high s values, things that Brynjolfsson says aren't supposed to be there."

He's ignoring the fact that there's no PROVEN mechanism to explain the 'Expansion of space" and objects of mass cannot and do not travel faster than the speed of light. The universe is thought to be less than 14 billion years old in mainstream theory, but the universe is thought to be much larger than 28 billion light years wide. There's therefore no "known" mechanism that would explain "space expansion" either, but the author never mentions it. If that claim ever was actually a valid "weakness", it's a 'weakness' that has since disappeared in PC theory in the last two years, but it STILL applies to mainstream dogma.

There's no proven mechanism of anything. You know that, right?
Also, I can't defend what I don't understand, I think someone has explained this (this as in the age etc) to you previously though.

His apple to oranges claim was a BS statement from start to finish! Plasma redshift is a KEY prediction of PC theory. The fact it's been validated in the lab is a 'big deal' to PC theory because it's a PREDICTION of various PC theories, and it's not predicted in mainstream theory. His attempt to sweep that issue under the carpet by claiming they aren't related was simply childish, irrational, and frankly it was an outright lie.

I don't see the connection to it, or perhaps it is more complex?

He can't have his cake and eat it too. If he's going to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] about KNOWN mechanisms, he should acknowledge it's a problem in ALL theories, and that it's been eliminated as a problem in PC theory based on those observations of redshift in the lab! That's a important prediction of PC theory. That lack of a prediction of such an event *and* the fact mainstream theory doesn't accommodate for that observation is actually a "weakness' in mainstream theory that no longer even applies to PC theory.

And how would I know anything about that? That's just another assertion.

I'm not sure what exactly you think I asserted other than the the fact I realize I never quite even understood his objection, and that's because he never bothered to cite a page number, and he closed the discussion before we ever got started. How is that MY fault exactly?

The assertion lies in the fact that you continue to pile claim upon claim referring to work I don't understand.
I've made that very clear, you still continue, that's why they're assertions, since you can pretty much write anything without me being able to object.

You need not take my word for it. Unlike his unpublished nonsense, I can support my assertions with published work.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF

BB theory was off by a whole order of magnitude whereas the temperature calculation effect of starlight on "space" was off by less than one degree!

I don't know what to look for, I don't know how to critically examine the material.
They could have written almost anything in there that's faulty without me noticing. That's why it continues to be assertions.

What exactly did you expect anyway? His argument was itself a handwavy assertion that is easily refuted simply by looking at the historical data. The temperature of 'space' has nothing to do with expansion as they claim, nor is expansion the *only* way to explain the average temperature of space today. It's a non issue in the first place and it was a ridiculous handwave and ironic as hell considering all the tweaks and adjustments the mainstream had to make to BB theory to actually arrive at the right figure. Like I said, a 'temperature" based on the effect of light was much closer the the real figure than early BB models. More importantly they've had to kludge and "hand tune' their theory to make it fit!

Like you said, yes. And I'm unable to tell whether you're correct or wrong.
I prefer to trust the assertions of the mainstream in matters I have no knowledge of, if I have to take a stance..

Why would you bother to cite it then?

I didn't. I think. I provided with a link, that's not citing is it?
That link was for anyone other interested here on this forum.

What about it? First of all, I'm not obligated to disprove the entire BB theory to disprove his claim that non cosmological redshifts are a "crank theory". Not only are they not a "Crank theory', they've actually been observed in the lab. The single paper from Chen blows *Rob's* one claim out the water and that was the only claim that really [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed me off because it was obviously a lie.

Dunno if it's a lie. But I agree to that you're "not obligated to disprove the entire BB theory to disprove his claim that non cosmological redshifts are a "crank theory". ".

The observation of plasma redshift are VERY obviously tied to PC theory in fact he's discussing Ari's work where plasma redshift is PREDICTED! Oy Vey. His denial routine is just pathetic IMO.

He didn't think it was obvious, he stated the connection made by Ari was tenuous.

Certain? No. Is it likely? Absolutely. Is it more likely than "space expansion"? Absolutely. Space expansion is a mythology that applies *only* to BB theory and it had never been observed in the lab, nor will it ever be observed in the lab, so I'm sure that space expansion didn't do it.

As long as you're not certain all is good.

I guarantee you that the haters aren't interested in any scientific facts of any sort. I've personally watched them deny the fact that electrical discharges occur in plasma even *after* handing them tons of published materials to support the idea and even after showing them a video of what an electrical discharge in plasma looks like in the lab! They don't care.

I'm sure that there are "real scientists' that do care, but Rob isn't one of them.

Was there an alternative explanation for the observed evidence in those papers? Could those papers have been published because they presented an alternative explanation to an already existing one?

Probably the calm one, but frankly EU haters aren't rational in the first place and I don't have any illusions about changing their opinions.

I don't think EU haters are rational as well, I have the personal hypothesis that no hater is rational (with special exceptions).

The question is "if". As best as I can tell from what Rob said, Ari simply made DIFFERENT (not necessarily erroneous) assumption than Rob did. Rob didn't clearly explain his objection, or even bother to site a page number, so I can't really comment much on it. I will admit that his objection was in fact 'unique' (I haven't heard that one before), but that could simply be because Rob was wrong to start with for all I know. Since he opted for virtual execution rather than discussion, it will always remain a mystery to me.

Hopefully not.

What argument didn't I address properly in your opinion? What specific arguments *could* I even address without more specifics?

Here's one at least (mentioned earlier in this post):
"In particular, look at Figure 13, which is also reproduced here. Notice that there is a range of s values at both low and high redshift, represented by open and filled circles. Notice in particular there are open circles with high s values, things that Brynjolfsson says aren't supposed to be there."

What nuclear argument? You mean where he tried to handwave away the connection between plasma redshift prediction in PC theory and plasma redshift observation in the lab with a ridiculous anecdote?

Yup. To me there's something to it.

I didn't have much patience for his "crank" commentary before I even started. If he can't take criticisms, he should be hurling "crackpot" claims at proven empirical laboratory physics. It's that simple. If he makes false claims and goes out of his was to antagonize an entire PC community, why should I should him any "respect"? Did he show PC theory any respect?

A little, but there's enough disrespect on the internet to go around the world a few times, why add to it and look like a fool?

Why? His precious theory didn't "predict" such a thing to be observed in the lab, but several PC theories do! In fact mainstream theory doesn't even allow for it.

And like he wrote, it doesn't predict the price of tea as well.

You're right, the were all asserted errors, but I provided you with PUBLISHED refutations, whereas Rob did not. All Rob provided were outdated website links and links to other PC hater websites that are equally unpublished and just as biased as he is.

I wouldn't know, it's kind of hard to tell.


{Too long post, adding another}

 

[Elendur]

{Continuation}

If he had actually cited a page number and a specific formula for me, I'd have been happy to address his concerns about Ari's theories. He failed to do anything like that. Rob provided no other 'reasons' that were actually anything other than "assertions" from an unpublished website, or "reasons" that were based upon his own personal denial process of the fact that plasma redshift was a key "prediction" of PC theory was in fact verified in the lab. I addressed as much as he allowed me to address in 6 posts before shutting down all dissent.

If that was what it took you should've been prepared and ready to ask for it. As it is I think he still made some points without referencing specific formulas.

First of all, Rob started "flaming" PC theory before I even started talking to him and he's been "flaming" an empirical physics theory that he knows almost about. Worse yet, his last flame was from June, a full two years after his original claims about redshift had been falsified. He didn't even bother to keep up with advancements in science. More importantly and more aggravating, he went to *pure unadulterated denial* when presented with empirical physical evidence that non cosmological redshift *had been observed*. Had he said "Michael, you're right, that particular comment I made about non cosmological redshift being a "crank" theory was "shortsighted" in retrospect. He did *nothing* of the sort. He went into pure denial of that fact, and tried to ignore that it was a "successful" prediction of PC theory, and not of mainstream theory. In fact he went out of his way to do damage control rather than embrace reality, and that did in fact tick me off. Whatever "flaming" he got, he absolutely deserved IMO.

As I stated before, there's enough disrespect going on.

 

[Michael]

FYI, Elendur, this was the comment I took exception to, and it's the claim of his that I cited as being erroneous:

"Non-cosmological redshifts are a crank theory in astronomy that a scary fringe element keeps whinging on about."

ScienceDirect.com - Optik - International Journal for Light and Electron Optics - Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas


This one paper and this one experiment blows his claims away. He could have simply copped to the mistake, but NOOOOOO.....


Here's the response by Rob that you cited:

What are the serious flaws in **the whole rest of everybody who publishes about cosmology**?

Who cares? I wasn't picking on mainstream theory, I was picking on his false claim over the redshift issue. Period!

You're not providing that,

Why would I? I didn't make any public claims on my personal blog about mainstream cosmology theory, so I have nothing to prove or disprove as it relates to standard theory. The only relevant issue was the redshift issue, but he's already dodging that issue.

and yet you're demanding that I go through and find the details the a well known plasma cosmologist proponent, or else somehow everything I'm saying is wrong.

Actually I only expected him to go through the paper by Chen et all, and explain why it's a "crank' empirical observation. When he claimed it wouldn't some other observations in space, I handed him Ari's work to show him that these issues have already been addressed in PC theories and if he *claims* otherwise, he needs to cite a real flaw in Ari's work.

The observations in the Chen paper are not very obviously connected with what Plasma Cosmologists are talking about.

What a load of BS! It's not only 'obvious' that it's applicable, I showed him paper where it had already been applied to the topic! How much more in denial can he get anyway?

That vixra.org paper you pointed to tried to make the connection, but it's very tenuous.

Pure BS. There was nothing "tenuous" about it. He shows *exactly* how it applies to the Hubble constant issue and PC in general.

One might just as well point to the failure so far to create a sustainable and continued nuclear fusion reaction on the Earth as evidence that the Sun can't be powered by nuclear fusion. The connection just isn't there

That has to be the most ridiculous response I've heard in a long time. I focused on a very specific comment he made on the blog page that you originally cited. In that post he claimed that non-cosmological redshifts were a "crank" idea. Not only did it turn out to not be a "crank' idea, it was in fact demonstrated in the lab over two years ago. Rob never addressed *that* issue at all. In fact he danced around it, and then changed his whole story at the end of our discussion:

What I called crank was Plasma Cosmology.

No, that isn't *all* that he called a "crank" idea. I cited my actual objection and refutation in the first post I made to him. He not only didn't acknowledge my original point, he dishonestly tries to change the subject and change what he actually said.

It still is. There's no experimental verification of that.

Both statements are false. There was in fact experimental verification of PC's most important and most "unique" prediction. Not only *is* there experimental evidence to support that prediction now, that fact it was a verified prediction does in fact provide experimentation verification of some aspects of PC theory. He still in pure denial and spewing rhetoric rather than dealing with the actual issue that I cited!

I'm closing off comments on this thread. I do not have an interest in providing a forum for plasma cosmologists to rant.

In other words, he can rant on any topic and be wrong about any topic, but God forbid that anyone calls him on it, or he's close all discussion. What a dishonest coward. Never did he deal with my real objection and never did he even acknowledge it.

 

[Elendur]

FYI, Elendur, this was the comment I took exception to, and it's the claim of his that I cited as being erroneous:

ScienceDirect.com - Optik - International Journal for Light and Electron Optics - Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas

This one paper and this one experiment blows his claims away. He could have simply copped to the mistake, but NOOOOOO.....


Here's the response by Rob that you cited:

Who cares? I wasn't picking on mainstream theory, I was picking on his false claim over the redshift issue. Period!

Why would I? I didn't make any public claims on my personal blog about mainstream cosmology theory, so I have nothing to prove or disprove as it relates to standard theory. The only relevant issue was the redshift issue, but he's already dodging that issue.

Actually I only expected him to go through the paper by Chen et all, and explain why it's a "crank' empirical observation. When he claimed it wouldn't some other observations in space, I handed him Ari's work to show him that these issues have already been addressed in PC theories and if he *claims* otherwise, he needs to cite a real flaw in Ari's work.

What a load of BS! It's not only 'obvious' that it's applicable, I showed him paper where it had already been applied to the topic! How much more in denial can he get anyway?

Pure BS. There was nothing "tenuous" about it. He shows *exactly* how it applies to the Hubble constant issue and PC in general.

That has to be the most ridiculous response I've heard in a long time. I focused on a very specific comment he made on the blog page that you originally cited. In that post he claimed that non-cosmological redshifts were a "crank" idea. Not only did it turn out to not be a "crank' idea, it was in fact demonstrated in the lab over two years ago. Rob never addressed *that* issue at all. In fact he danced around it, and then changed his whole story at the end of our discussion:


No, that isn't *all* that he called a "crank" idea. I cited my actual objection and refutation in the first post I made to him. He not only didn't acknowledge my original point, he dishonestly tries to change the subject and change what he actually said.

Both statements are false. There was in fact experimental verification of PC's most important and most "unique" prediction. Not only *is* there experimental evidence to support that prediction now, that fact it was a verified prediction does in fact provide experimentation verification of some aspects of PC theory. He still in pure denial and spewing rhetoric rather than dealing with the actual issue that I cited!

In other words, he can rant on any topic and be wrong about any topic, but God forbid that anyone calls him on it, or he's close all discussion. What a dishonest coward. Never did he deal with my real objection and never did he even acknowledge it.

I could've sworn that you were talking about more than the redshift.

Anyhow, this is responding to a man who's not here to respond himself, I won't defend what he's written more than I already have. I would probably make a sloppier job than him.

Progress will be made, just you wait.

 

[Michael]

If you say so. That's not how I perceive it though.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, including you.

Two points taken very quickly:

"That vixra.org paper you pointed to tried to make the connection, but it's very tenuous."

That's a very sad and pathetic denial song and dance routine by the way. There was nothing "tenuous" about the connection in Ashmore's presentation or my mind, just Rob's mind. The only thing "tenuous" about it was Rob not wanting to embrace facts. Ashmore made all the necessary connections for Rob. Rob just didn't want to accept it, so suddenly it's a "very tenuous" connection. What unadulterated BS.

"But, that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the actual scientific literature -- you know, all the cosmologists working on it who have shown data that fit in detail to the predictions of the Big Bang model, be it expanding Universe seen in local cepehid variables or supernovae out to redshifts of 1.7, be it in the cosmic microwave background, be it in simulations of structure formation from dark matter matching locally observed galaxy distributions, be it in rations of light elements compared to precise numerical predictions of Big Bang cosmology."

(If you need to find it, ctrl-F)

But I didn't start my discussion with Rob by slamming BB theory, nor did I make any claims about BB theory. Whether or not BB theory has any merit or not has no effect whatsoever on my objection to his claim about redshift and the causes of redshift. This has *nothing* to do with me tearing down BB theory, or any claims I made about it. I don't have to take apart BB theory, nor is it necessary for me to do so to prove that Rob LIED (intentionally or otherwise) when he made the claim that I took exception to. It wasn't about BB theory in the first place, and I had no intention of taking apart BB theory on his website for that matter. I was focused exclusively on *one* comment he made (which I cited) and the truth (in this case lack thereof) of that one statement. BB theory as a whole isn't even relevant. Other theories might well "explain/predict" all kinds of things that may or may not be accurate. None of that has anything to do with my actual objection. I objected to his claim about non-cosmological redshift being a "crank" idea.

Wrong. To accept that a cosmology makes a prediction takes no unusual or special knowledge, to understand it does.

All you have to know is that PC theory *does* predict what Chen observed in the lab, and standard theory doesn't. Period. That is really all you need to know about the two cosmology theories at it relates to the claims he made about redshift.

I know the 'typo' was found earlier, it was on this forum and I read the post.

FYI, that particular typo had no effect on anything else in the paper as I recall, and it wasn't the original paper, it was a follow up paper that was simply recapping the information, albeit with a typo.

Cited numbers:
"1.7"
"(1+z)"

Like I said earlier, I really do not profess to understand Rob's actual objection to Ari's work. There is one thing that Rob said that simply isn't true as far as I know however. Ari isn't suggesting that long s events must only be related to distant supernova events. That seems to be Rob's own strawman, not a claim that Ari actually made in any paper that I can recall reading.

Sure it's a weak argument, he explained it in further detail but you didn't want the long version.

First of all the 'long' version included a strawman argument AFAIK, and it still didn't address my actual issue! He still claimed that non-cosmological redshift was a 'crank' idea and that was disproven by Chen, not Ari.

As I see it I dunno, I have a hard time thinking an angle, no matter how small it is, could result in anything other than a complete blur of everything. (A good example why some more knowledge would be needed to actually debate)

Two relevant points: Light *always* travels at one speed in a vacuum, specifically the speed of light. Nothing about losing momentum changes that fact. Any momentum change therefore results in redshift or blueshift depending on the change in momentum.

A change in momentum however can't cause 'blurriness'. That requires some type of photon "deflection". A deflection and a loss of momentum are two *completely* different issues. The person who slapped together that website was either sloppy or far too cryptic, one or the other.

Also, I don't think you addressed:

"In particular, look at Figure 13, which is also reproduced here. Notice that there is a range of s values at both low and high redshift, represented by open and filled circles. Notice in particular there are open circles with high s values, things that Brynjolfsson says aren't supposed to be there."

I A) didn't get a chance to understand let alone respond properly before Rob closed the thread and B) don't recall Ari ever insisting that high s values were necessarily limited to local or distant events. That seems to be Rob's own strawman, not something that Ari actually claimed. That's a problem alright, but it's Rob's problem AFAIK. Had he actually explained himself a bit better, maybe I might have been able to respond. As it was, his statement sounded more like a strawman argument to me than a valid scientific objection. Ari did in fact make a series of very 'unique' (to say the least) assumptions that aren't necessarily in line with mainstream assumptions, but so what? For the record I will admit that maybe Rob had some valid argument in there somewhere, but he was too cryptic and too fast on the trigger for me to figure out what he was actually trying to say.

There's no proven mechanism of anything. You know that, right?

Humm. Well there are known and demonstrated cause/effect links that can be demonstrated in a lab.

I have to stop here for a bit. BRB. I'll look through the rest of your post in a minute.

 

[paul becke]

Wow. Thanks for all the cool links and great quotes. I can see I'll be busy doing some reading.

They certainly make fascnating reading, Michael. Keep abreast of the Uncommon Descent blog, too. Some good articles appear on there usually every day. It also provides a link to the blog of a Cornelius Hunter, who's top-class.

I was trying to find links provided in posts by another wizard, Bornagain77, to articles on the centrality of the observer, but haven't yet been able to find them. Mind-blowing stuff.

 

[Michael]

I could've sworn that you were talking about more than the redshift.

I was quite clear in my very first post about the specific comment from Rob that I took issue with. The conversation went all over the place, but Rob never did actually deal with the quote and claim in question.

Progress will be made, just you wait.

It's quite clear to me however is that the West won't be the one making that "progress". It's always western astronomers that are the hard core EU/PC "haters". I never hear Russian or Chinese astronomers slam empirical physics. Only astronomers from the west are that arrogant and that irrational. It doesn't even make any logical sense to call a pure form of physics a "crank" version of physics. Only a complete fool would do such a thing IMO.

 

[Michael]

They certainly make fascnating reading, Michael. Keep abreast of the Uncommon Descent blog, too. Some good articles appear on there usually every day. It also provides a link to the blog of a Cornelius Hunter, who's top-class.

I was trying to find links provided in posts by another wizard, Bornagain77, to articles on the centrality of the observer, but haven't yet been able to find them. Mind-blowing stuff.

Well, I really appreciate your efforts at keeping the thread on topic, and I very much appreciate the links you provided. Cool stuff.

 

[Michael]

{Continuation}

If that was what it took you should've been prepared and ready to ask for it. As it is I think he still made some points without referencing specific formulas.

We'll have to agree to disagree that someone can make any points on the redshift topic in that way. Without specific objections and specific formulas, it's really hard to even understand the argument properly, let alone respond to that argument intelligently. I never did fully understand what argument Rob was trying to make. If there was a valid objection in there, it wasn't anywhere near specific enough for me to follow it. A specific page number and a specific formula would have clarified things immensely.

Keep in mind that Chen and crew were the ones that actually destroyed Rob's original claim about non-cosmological redshift being a "crank" idea, not Ari. Ari simply provides a mathematical explanation for all the relevant redshift observations.

As I stated before, there's enough disrespect going on.

It works both ways. FYI, that disrespect typically begins with mainstream astronomers that constantly make false assertions about PC theory, use loaded language in every debate, and go to great lengths to make sure nobody challenges them publicly (usually virtual execution). Only astronomers seem to feel the need to bash empirical physics and ban anyone peddling a non mainstream idea.

You don't see many particle physicists calling SUSY theories a "crank" or "crackpot" theory over and over again on a public website just because it's a non-standard particle physics theory. Only in astronomy do you see that kind of irrational hostility toward non-mainstream ideas. Astronomers are quite unlike other "scientists" in that way.

Once you've been virtually executed and violently silenced several times on astronomy websites, even when *trying* to be nice, you start to lose respect for the PC/EU haters of astronomy. Their constant reliance on derogatory terms like 'crank' and 'crackpot' tends to cause most of the hard feelings in my experience.

 

[Michael]

I don't see the connection to it, or perhaps it is more complex?

It's a little complex, but the basic differences are quite simple to follow. Everyone agrees that we see redshifted photons, even PC proponents. Nobody denies the observation of redshifted photons, but not everyone "interprets" that observation the same way.

Maintream astronomers typically "interpret' that redshift phenomenon to be related to actual movement of things in space, more specifically the 'expansion of space', not the movement of objects in space. Unfortunately that "space expansion" trick never happens in the lab. While objects might move in the lab, 'space' never does any magical expanding tricks in the lab.

PC proponents on the other hand will typically suggest that the observed redshift process is related to plasma physics and specifically related to interactions between photons and plasma particles (typically electrons).

Like you said, yes. And I'm unable to tell whether you're correct or wrong.
I prefer to trust the assertions of the mainstream in matters I have no knowledge of, if I have to take a stance..

But unlike Rob, I didn't rely exclusively upon simple assertions from online websites and personal handwaves. I provided published papers with real lab results that empirically refuted Rob's claim about non-cosmological redshift ideas being 'crank' ideas. You seem to be overlooking that very important difference.

But I agree to that you're "not obligated to disprove the entire BB theory to disprove his claim that non cosmological redshifts are a "crank theory". ".

And therein lies the rub for Rob. I was very specific about which quote and which specific claim that I took exception to and I handed him a published paper that was not written by me to support my position.

Rob handed me mostly unpublished websites and personal assertions as a "refutation". He never actually refuted Chen's findings however.

He didn't think it was obvious, he stated the connection made by Ari was tenuous.

There was nothing tenuous about the way Ashmore applied the lab observations to cosmology. That whole handwave about it being "tenuous" was just Rob's own take on "what it all meant" to his beliefs and PC theory in general.

Dark energy and inflation claims are 'tenuous' claims at best because there are no laboratory confirmations of such things in the lab, whereas plasma redshift has been seen in the lab.

 

[Michael]

One last complaint about Rob's response:

By the way, the plasma "redshifts" shown in the Chen paper you cite, and cited by that paper from the "alt" website, have *nothing* to do with the "Tired Light" plasma redshift mechanism proposed by plasma cosmologists.

This is just a ridiculous, denial based claim by Rob since Ashmore even put up a website that is devoted to this very topic, complete with his own tired light explanations for time dilation issue that Rob is going on about. There's more than one tired light idea proposed in PC theory. Ashmore bluntly calls his own concept a "New Tired Light" theory and he carefully explains how Chen's results jive with his theory in the paper I handed to Rob. What the hell? What kind of denial based nonsense is Rob peddling anyway?

Tired Light Explains Supernovae Light Curve Broadening

I should also point out that Ashmore's explanation for supernova redshift interpretations of "time dilation" isn't even related to any s based stretch factors of any sort. Rob's whole complaint about Ari's idea are moot in terms of how Ashmore's tired light theories explain these same events. Even if Ari's supernova concepts are unacceptable to Rob for *whatever* reason he chooses, it has no effect whatsoever on Ashmore's tired light ideas. Rob's whole show is busted. Plasma redshift is not only real, it's been documented in the lab. Now the only question is *which* plasma redshift theory is correct, or how many of them are correct, not *if* plasma redshift is real.

 

[Doveaman]

I'm unable to tell whether you're correct or wrong.

So you don't have a clue if he is correct.

I prefer to trust the assertions of the mainstream in matters I have no knowledge of, if I have to take a stance..

So you don't have a clue if they are wrong.

Makes me wonder why you are even debating since you obviously don't have a clue about anything.

 

[Michael]

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter - Max Planck, father of quantum physics

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." - Max Planck

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve. - Max Planckhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US

I'm still reading through your Google page, but I must say that these quotes from Max Planck really do clearly explain my position about the universe we live in quite well. I've really enjoyed your suggested reading material Paul. Very nice. Thanks again.

 

[Elendur]

That's a very sad and pathetic denial song and dance routine by the way. There was nothing "tenuous" about the connection in Ashmore's presentation or my mind, just Rob's mind. The only thing "tenuous" about it was Rob not wanting to embrace facts. Ashmore made all the necessary connections for Rob. Rob just didn't want to accept it, so suddenly it's a "very tenuous" connection. What unadulterated BS.

If you say so, I will trust his assertion before yours though.

But I didn't start my discussion with Rob by slamming BB theory, nor did I make any claims about BB theory. Whether or not BB theory has any merit or not has no effect whatsoever on my objection to his claim about redshift and the causes of redshift. This has *nothing* to do with me tearing down BB theory, or any claims I made about it. I don't have to take apart BB theory, nor is it necessary for me to do so to prove that Rob LIED (intentionally or otherwise) when he made the claim that I took exception to. It wasn't about BB theory in the first place, and I had no intention of taking apart BB theory on his website for that matter. I was focused exclusively on *one* comment he made (which I cited) and the truth (in this case lack thereof) of that one statement. BB theory as a whole isn't even relevant. Other theories might well "explain/predict" all kinds of things that may or may not be accurate. None of that has anything to do with my actual objection. I objected to his claim about non-cosmological redshift being a "crank" idea.

His original post isn't talking specifically about redshift, he mentions it but he's writing about PC in general.
You should've made it clearer if you wanted to tackle that specific point.

All you have to know is that PC theory *does* predict what Chen observed in the lab, and standard theory doesn't. Period. That is really all you need to know about the two cosmology theories at it relates to the claims he made about redshift.

And how do you propose that I know it? Should I take your word for it or read into it myself? (That is, accept or understand, as I stated before)

FYI, that particular typo had no effect on anything else in the paper as I recall, and it wasn't the original paper, it was a follow up paper that was simply recapping the information, albeit with a typo.

If you say so, the guy who saw it didn't think so though. So I've got two sides of it.

Like I said earlier, I really do not profess to understand Rob's actual objection to Ari's work. There is one thing that Rob said that simply isn't true as far as I know however. Ari isn't suggesting that long s events must only be related to distant supernova events. That seems to be Rob's own strawman, not a claim that Ari actually made in any paper that I can recall reading.

If you say so.

First of all the 'long' version included a strawman argument AFAIK, and it still didn't address my actual issue! He still claimed that non-cosmological redshift was a 'crank' idea and that was disproven by Chen, not Ari.

Then you've talked each other past, something you've done before.

Two relevant points: Light *always* travels at one speed in a vacuum, specifically the speed of light. Nothing about losing momentum changes that fact. Any momentum change therefore results in redshift or blueshift depending on the change in momentum.

In a vacuum, we don't have perfect vacuums though.
Also, I'm confused how something massless has momentum.

A change in momentum however can't cause 'blurriness'. That requires some type of photon "deflection". A deflection and a loss of momentum are two *completely* different issues. The person who slapped together that website was either sloppy or far too cryptic, one or the other.

That change in momentum can't cause blurriness is an assertion from your part. As for the deflection, I still think the blur caused is underestimated on your part.

I A) didn't get a chance to understand let alone respond properly before Rob closed the thread and B) don't recall Ari ever insisting that high s values were necessarily limited to local or distant events. That seems to be Rob's own strawman, not something that Ari actually claimed. That's a problem alright, but it's Rob's problem AFAIK. Had he actually explained himself a bit better, maybe I might have been able to respond. As it was, his statement sounded more like a strawman argument to me than a valid scientific objection. Ari did in fact make a series of very 'unique' (to say the least) assumptions that aren't necessarily in line with mainstream assumptions, but so what? For the record I will admit that maybe Rob had some valid argument in there somewhere, but he was too cryptic and too fast on the trigger for me to figure out what he was actually trying to say.

Brynjolfsson not Ari. Also, it's his right to be fast on the trigger, it's his time.

Humm. Well there are known and demonstrated cause/effect links that can be demonstrated in a lab.

Sure, but not proven.

I have to stop here for a bit. BRB. I'll look through the rest of your post in a minute.

Sure

 

[Elendur]

I was quite clear in my very first post about the specific comment from Rob that I took issue with. The conversation went all over the place, but Rob never did actually deal with the quote and claim in question.

Actually it looked like you defending the entire theory using that one point, not defending that point.

It's quite clear to me however is that the West won't be the one making that "progress". It's always western astronomers that are the hard core EU/PC "haters". I never hear Russian or Chinese astronomers slam empirical physics. Only astronomers from the west are that arrogant and that irrational. It doesn't even make any logical sense to call a pure form of physics a "crank" version of physics. Only a complete fool would do such a thing IMO.

And since when is the west the only place that matters?
And I doubt it's appropriate that you're using such stereotypes.

 

[Elendur]

We'll have to agree to disagree that someone can make any points on the redshift topic in that way. Without specific objections and specific formulas, it's really hard to even understand the argument properly, let alone respond to that argument intelligently. I never did fully understand what argument Rob was trying to make. If there was a valid objection in there, it wasn't anywhere near specific enough for me to follow it. A specific page number and a specific formula would have clarified things immensely.

I thought the (1+z) was rather specific. Anyhow, neither of you were patient, to the point and concise.

Keep in mind that Chen and crew were the ones that actually destroyed Rob's original claim about non-cosmological redshift being a "crank" idea, not Ari. Ari simply provides a mathematical explanation for all the relevant redshift observations.

If you say so.

It works both ways. FYI, that disrespect typically begins with mainstream astronomers that constantly make false assertions about PC theory, use loaded language in every debate, and go to great lengths to make sure nobody challenges them publicly (usually virtual execution). Only astronomers seem to feel the need to bash empirical physics and ban anyone peddling a non mainstream idea.

If you say so, that's essentially what you're doing as well though.

You don't see many particle physicists calling SUSY theories a "crank" or "crackpot" theory over and over again on a public website just because it's a non-standard particle physics theory. Only in astronomy do you see that kind of irrational hostility toward non-mainstream ideas. Astronomers are quite unlike other "scientists" in that way.

I haven't seen that in astronomers, I've seen that in one astronomer.
And I've seen plenty from you, you use other words but the same scorn.

Once you've been virtually executed and violently silenced several times on astronomy websites, even when *trying* to be nice, you start to lose respect for the PC/EU haters of astronomy. Their constant reliance on derogatory terms like 'crank' and 'crackpot' tends to cause most of the hard feelings in my experience.

If you stay calm others tend to do the same, if they don't you can ignore them.

Since you're very passionate about this subject and like to argue about it as often as you can, why not organize things?

• Stay calm.
  • If you are flamed, don't respond in kind.
• Maintain a reasonable discussion.
• Stay of the caps (which you've done for a while now, great )
• Keep an open mind, to admit you're wrong is a strength.
• Don't wander from the current topic (or sub-topic). Can't stress that enough.
• Discuss one thing at a time, if the discussion branches reserve the rest of the points to discuss at a later time.
• If the argument goes in circles, try to objectively determine why. This is important to break it (doesn't matter if it's you or the other part).
• Try to document all points you've discussed, no matter if you've had to yield them or not (this way a third part can participate on near equal grounds).
  • Google docs is a great way to design and share documents, also allowing for easy editing/printing.

I think there's many more points to improve but I had limited time to come up with them. I'm sure you have the ability to provide with a few more points yourself.

 

[Michael]

If you say so, I will trust his assertion before yours though.

Why? All you have to do is read Ashmore's one paper. He's applying his "new tired light" theory to plasma physics, specifically the physics seen in the lab by Chen. He literally wrote the whole paper based on Chen's findings and applied them to cosmology theory. For Rob to deny it's related to tired light theory and plasma physics is therefore simply pure denial of Ashmore's work.

I guess that's the inherent problem with not really fully understanding both sides of the argument and not fully appreciating the strengths and weaknesses of various theories. It's hard to make an "informed" decision, therefore the "expert" will typically sound more credible to someone without a lot of knowledge of the topic.

His original post isn't talking specifically about redshift, he mentions it but he's writing about PC in general.

I posted the quote I took exception to in the very first post. His "problems" with PC theory seem to focus on that ONE aspect of PC theory. In other words, he can't actually have any real beef with pure plasma physics, so his "beliefs" are based on what he "thinks" about the redshift issue, and how it applies to cosmology theory. He can't actually be questioning the legitimacy of pure plasma physics. It must be that he feels the redshift aspects *cannot* be explained by plasma physics alone. The redshift issue is really where the cosmology aspects like "dark energy" and expansion theories come into play.

You should've made it clearer if you wanted to tackle that specific point.

Well, from my perspective at least, it was pretty clear that I was focused on the redshift aspect.

And how do you propose that I know it? Should I take your word for it or read into it myself? (That is, accept or understand, as I stated before)

Well, unless you do some external reading and attempt to "understand" the various arguments being presented, it's tough to make an "informed" decision. Ashmore's paper is actually "short and sweet" and directly to the point. He's applying Chen's lab results to cosmology and he explains how his version of tired light theory ties into Chen's results. That is about as simple as it gets in terms of applying an observed lab result to a specific topic, in this case cosmology theory. Unless you're willing to learn a bit, it's not like we're likely to ever "agree" on anything.

If you say so, the guy who saw it didn't think so though. So I've got two sides of it.

Well, keep in mind that I included PUBLISHED material from Chen and Ashmore to make my points. You got nothing but handwaves and unpublished websites to work with from the other side, and his link on the problems with tired light theory were flawed from the very first point.

Light CANNOT travel at different speeds in a vacuum. Any change in "momentum" therefore results in redshift or blueshift, not "blurring". "Blurring" would require photon deflection, not a change in momentum. The fact there's such a stupid error in the first argument really undermines the rest of the page IMO.

If you say so.

If one is going to accuse another of making some claim, as Rob claimed about Ari, it's typical to provide a specific page number and specific formula or a specific quote to support such a claim. Rob didn't do that. He took a general swipe at Ari's application of Guy's adjustment method to the redshift issue, and then accused Ari of something Ari didn't actually say.

FYI, there are significant differences in the way Ari and Ashmore deal with the supernova issues. Ari *assumes* (argues) that most of the long range events are "larger" and inherently longer events because we cannot see the smaller supernova events very clearly at great distances. In other words, according to Ari, the reason for the greater longevity of the more distant events is related to the fact that most of the ones we can see are larger events at high redshift. That is in fact an "assumption" that he makes that isn't necessarily accurate. I *assume* that this is the issue Rob is concerned with, but his insistence that Ari made any claims about closer events. He didn't.

Ashmore's tired light theory is related to a different interaction between light and electrons. He makes no claims at all about the length of any specific event, he simply chalks it up to the medium itself, and explains the redshift as a broadening effect as we might see in a common interaction inside a fiber optic cable were we to put multiple wavelengths into the cable. It's a KNOWN effect, and it has nothing to do with assuming anything about the original length of the supernova event, it's only dependent upon distance.

Even *if* he takes exception to Ari's "method" (assumptions) in explaining supernova events, it wouldn't matter one iota in terms of dealing with Ashmore's "solution" to that issue. "Assuming" that Rob was irked about Ari applying Guy's adjustments to long distance supernova events, it "may" be a valid criticism, but Ari wasn't the one to come up with that idea. He explained where that adjustment came from, and the paper where he got it.

Then you've talked each other past, something you've done before.

Sure, but in a "normal" board scenario, one typically has the time and opportunity to get to the key point eventually. That never happened because he shut down the thread and made all kinds of stupid comments about Ashmore's work. Whatever his beef with Ari's supernova ideas might be, a falsification of Ari's work has no effect whatsoever on Ashmore's presentation. Everything that Rob said about Ashmore's paper was based on a 'denial' routine. Ashmore specifically cites and uses and builds upon Chen's work. He makes *no* assumptions about the duration of the original event, and explains the delay as a typical broadening feature related to light traversing a material, in this case plasma. He also compares the process to the process we observe in fiber optic cables. There are two completely different ways of "explaining" the same event.

In a vacuum, we don't have perfect vacuums though.

That is really Ashmore's whole point. There is no vacuum, there's a 'plasma body' that the light must traverse. The broadening effect is a direct result of the fact that light is traversing a "medium" and that medium acts to separate out he wavelengths.

Also, I'm confused how something massless has momentum.

Well, the fact of the matter is that photons are considered to have no "rest mass", but they do carry kinetic energy. Photons are considered to have kinetic energy and momentum.

That change in momentum can't cause blurriness is an assertion from your part.

But so was the original claim from an unpublished website! There was no math associated with it, it was just an "assertion" from ignorance as far as I can tell. As I said, momentum changes only affect redshift and blueshift, and how no effect whatsoever on "blurring". *If* the trajectory of the photon is changed however, *then* we'd have blurriness.

As for the deflection, I still think the blur caused is underestimated on your part.

FYI, Ashmore's theory *requires* a broadening effect. It predicts a certain amount of the light to be deflected over time. Most of that deflected light however is not likely to reach Earth.

Brynjolfsson not Ari. Also, it's his right to be fast on the trigger, it's his time.

If you say so. The fact he trashes a specific theory and allows for no discussion of his ideas is just childish IMO. If he intends to be insulting and use words like "crank" and "crackpot", why would anyone show him any respect in the first place? If he didn't like my attitude, maybe he should have reconsidered the fact that his claims were rather offensive to start with?

Sure, but not proven.

Define "proven". Of course nothing is actually "proven" in science. One can only provide "evidence" that is happens. If it can be demonstrated in the lab, and in fiber optic cables here on Earth, how can you claim it hasn't been "proven"? Did Rob ever "prove" that space expands? If so (in your mind), how?