Again, you are using religion as a derisive term.
It's only a derisive term to an individual that has a derisive belief associated with the term "religion". I don't find it derisive at all, it's simply a statement of hard, cold honest empirical fact. All acts of faith in unseen entities are a form of 'religion', a "faith in the unseen", whereas my computer is an 'empirical fact'. There is a distinct difference between the two.
Have you ever seen a scientist who attacks creationism by calling it "just another science"? I haven't. You know why? Science stands above religion.
Ah, that's where your belief systems related to 'derisive" come from then. You see it as a hierarchy of some sort, whereas I simply see religion as a subset of science. Religion doesn't "stand above", nor below "science". Religion is simply a form *of* science IMO. There's where your emotional reaction comes from and clearly its your problem, not mine.
You don't need to tear down religion in order to lower it to the level of science.
I'm not tearing anything down, I'm simply noting which ideas enjoy tangible empirical support and which beliefs are 'acts of faith' on the part of the believer. One is empirical physics, the other is not. If the term 'religion' bothers you, too bad.
Every time you call scientific theories "religions" you are admitting that science is above religion.
No, that's simply your strawman. I don't even put empirical physics 'above' religion, I just tend to personally prefer empirical physics when possible. In terms of cosmology theory, there simply isn't one that requires less "acts of faith" in unseen entities than PC/EU theory.
So go ahead. Keep it up. You are only supporting the argument that atheists have been making for centuries.
Of course it only seems to bother atheists and they are the only ones that ever seem to complain about the comparison.
Laughable at best. Do you really think that space is undefined? Your argument is ridiculous in the extreme.
Yes, I think "spacetime" is defined and it can "expand" as the physical massive objects that make up spacetime expand and move. Spacetime includes all distance dimensions as well as time. Space isn't physically defined in GR. What the heck *is* space (physically)? How could it possibly 'expand"? How does it "expand'?
Please show that Holushko's code explains the blurred images that would be produced. You can handwave away the problem all you want, but it isn't going anywhere.
It's not my problem in the first place, it's yours. You've made a handwave allegation as usual and you're now trying to shift the burden of proof, as usual. Your tactics are simply absurd. You've never shown that blurring is actually a "problem" that in the first place!
Look up at the sky on a cloudy day. Notice the diffuse light coming from the clouds. Notice how you do not see a sharp image of the sun. That is what I am talking about. That is do to absorption and emission.
Look at the night sky.
Give me a break. You're just handwaving away and burden shifting away.
Take a look at adaptive optics as well. Astronomers now have the ability to reduce the distortions caused by our own atmosphere. Small changes in density cause distant images to distort. Plasma would do the same.
The density variations are likely to affect all light from one small point source pretty much exactly the same way. We'd still see the light. The light wouldn't even move anyway unless the densities were absurdly high, far higher than anything proposed in tired light theories today.
Again, take expansion out of the picture. You certainly don't accept it, so why do you keep including it?
I don't try to stuff words in astronomers mouths like you do. When astronomers tell me that the redshift they are talking about is not Doppler redshift but a different kind of redshift, I tend to take them at their word, and at least I try to correctly understand their theory. You seem to be intentionally trying to confuse the two kinds of redshift, and ignore the difference between what astronomers actually say, and what you personally believe. Sorry, physics doesn't work like that. I can't argue that Doppler shift will suffice since the mainstream claims that it will not.
Why can't the redshift be explained by a Doppler shift?
You're technically asking the wrong guy. Why don't astronomers use ordinary Doppler shift then instead of *cosmic redshift*?
I am making up the Doppler shift? Really?
Yep. You are absolutely making up the notion that astronomers attribute redshift to Doppler shift. They don't. Your claim is moot. Your point is moot. Your understanding of this subject is inadequate to have a meaningful conversation with you because you do not even properly represent mainstream theory, so why would I trust you to even attempt to properly understand plasma redshift theories?
Prove it. You've never done that. You tossed out *one* paper related to *one* kind of redshift, ignored Wolf's work entirely, ignored Stark redshift entirely and pretty much wave away whatever claim floats your boat, including claims that astronomers don't even make. You're just making up stuff as you go apparently.
"There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed.
This line is completely false to start with. They momentum change does not result in blurriness, it results in redshift. Only a change in the trajectory of a photon would cause 'blurriness" but 99.9999999 percent of deflected photons would never actually reach Earth, let alone blur any images. Only the photons that happened to be in a finite set of photons that showed almost but not quite no deflection could cause blurriness.
That author doesn't even know the difference between changes in momentum (redshift/blueshift) and changes in trajectory! Give it a rest.
I keep repeating it because you keep handwaving it away.
You keep repeating the same falsified claims. Momentum loss does not lead to blurriness, it only causes 'redshift'. Oy Vey.
The best explanation is not a plasma.
Sure it is. There isn't one single impotent on Earth sky entity required and every claim in the theory, including redshift, has been demonstrated in the lab.
Where is Holushko's paper published? Where is Ari's paper published?
Who cares? When did you personally cite a single mathematical flaw in any of their work?
That doesn't address the spatial distribution of the energies. According to you, galaxies are heating up the plasma that surrounds them. If this were true then we would see a spatial gradient where CMB radiation closest to the galaxies would be hotter than the CMB radiation far away from the galaxy. This is not what we see.
False. We observe scattering, and we do observe bright things in those raw images which they simply "subtract out" to make it look nice and smooth. It's not actually smooth you know until they 'process out" the bright signals related to our galaxy and other objects.
So does continual heating.
That's the whole point. It has an average temperature because it has an average energy source and an average energy state that is distributed by photons.
Now you are handwaving away the CMB data as well.
No, I've handed you lots of published papers that show that the CMB temperature was better predicted by static universe theories, all of which you've probably never bothered to read. You keep handwaving away as though I've provided no rebuttal at all. It's like the material just goes in one ear and out the other, you refuse to respond to my points, and you keep repeating the same false claims over and over again, including Ned's claim about momentum changes causing blurriness rather than simply "redshift". Duh!
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF
