-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
- Status
Why sue? When something is in space it cost a bunch of money to send a repair guy to fix it when it is broken.
Upvote
0
While on it, we should sue the Sudbury neutrino observatory as well. Because all it observes is relativistic electrons producing the Cherenkov effect. Sure, they say that this effect is caused by neutrinos, but neutrinos is not what they measure. In fact, the only thing they measure is blue light, so they should call it the Sudbury blue light observatory instead. Physicists, they're all a bunch of con men!
Upvote
0
That's a rather weak argument. Hubble does view images that come from space, or at least the plasmas of spacetime, not just objects in space. There was no "magic dogma" associated with the name of the telescope. It was simply named after Edwin Hubble. Ironically Hubble himself acknowledged the fact and wrote about the fact that plasma redshift (tired light) was a logical alternative to expansion, whereas modern astronomers do not.
1935ApJ....82..302H Page 302
There is no such thing as "dark energy", let alone a "camera" that can take any images of "dark energy". There is no known source of dark energy, and no known control mechanism for dark energy, so there sure as heck is no camera that is capable of imaging dark energy. That's like calling it an invisible unicorn camera. What the heck???? If you claim it's "dark" you can't turn around and claim to take images of it! It's a self-inconsistent dogma!
*If* they had called it a "redshift" camera, or a "red spectrum camera", or called it the Galileo exploration camera, I'd have nothing to complain about. As it stands however, the very name they gave the camera is meant to hide some highly important, and terribly inconvenient facts from the public.
Since Hubble himself first wrote about the possibility of tired light(plasma redshift) mechanisms, there have been *at least* three (and maybe four) different types of plasma redshift that have been observed and documented in the lab, including Compton redshift, Stark redshift and the Wolf effect. The plasma redshift seen by Chen et all might be something different yet. Either way, there are still at *least* three types of *known* causes of redshift in the lab, and not one empirical link between redshift and dark energy. It's a redshift camera, and in fact it's a "small spectrum" camera designed to see the red end of the spectrum.
It would have been in scientific integrity to call it a 'redshift camera' or a red spectrum camera, or a Galileo camera, but it's not a "dark energy' camera, that's for darn sure. I'm sorry, but that was just misleading dogma from the start. Instead of admitting that the actual "mystery" is related to the "redshift phenomenon" they're ignoring the plasma redshift/tired light debate entirely, and *assuming* a "cause" that has never been demonstrated, let alone ever imaged by a camera.
That was false advertizing, plane and simple. It was designed to sweep the whole debate about plasma redshift right under the rug.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
sandwiches
Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Why do you think scientists are perpetrating this world-wide conspiracy?
Upvote
0
In most cases, it's just an innocent bias, a preference and typically a limited mindset that favors *one* way of resolving the issue. In this case however, it's not all that clear what the motive might be. Funding protection?
Since when could "dark" stuff be imaged by a camera in real life in a lab? It's not even rational to call it a "dark camera". That's like a theist calling God "invisible" and then claiming to have a "God camera"! I can only imagine the chorus of squealing we'd hear from atheists over "God camera" claims were they taught in the classroom to unsuspecting students under the guise of "science".
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The difference is that neutrinos have a known source, and a known effect, and a measured and empirically documented influence on reality in real labs with real control mechanisms.
In contrast, dark energy has no known source, no known control mechanisms, and no known effect on any controlled experiments on Earth. Not a great comparison IMO. You're comparing invisible magic to empirical experimental physics.
Upvote
0
Your opinion doesn't matter, since you're just silly. Your other topics I can sometimes be half convinced to take somewhat seriously or at least read. Here, you are just acting like a very, very silly spoiled little brat.
Let's face it, the only thing these scientists did was name the detector for the goal it was intended. Just as with neutrinos, it is not named for what it detects directly, but for what the stuff it detects will tell us. Happens all the time in science. That you get riled up over this, only serves to show the rest of the world that you do not need to be taken seriously.
Upvote
0
sandwiches
Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Funding would be made available to study plasma red shift and all that. So, they're lying for the fun of it? To misinform the masses?
This many people wouldn't be suppressing the truth for no reason. What would be lost if astronomers and cosmologists started using plasma and all that for their explanations instead of inflation, dark matter, etc?
Upvote
0
Is that even a logical argument? Talk about silly....
No, I'm simply appalled at the lack of intellectual integrity that is shown by the mainstream. Hubble discovered the redshift phenomenon, but he didn't try to claim the "mystery" was related to only *one* possibility. That only appears in current mainstream dogma.
Had there not been *at least* three types of plasma redshift found since Hubble first wrote about the possibility, your argument might have some merit. Since you are apparently quite ignorant of such facts, and the importance of such empirical facts, it only demonstrates the insidious nature of the mainstream trying to sweep *epic/historical* debates under the carpet. You seem to be blissfully unaware of the fact that some folks have every right to remains 'skeptical" of these outrageous claims, and that we have a right to expect *honesty* in science. Dark energy is not a *known* cause of anything.
They "mystery" isn't related to 'dark energy' it's related to explaining the causes of redshift which may or may not involve anything called 'dark energy'.
There's apparently no way to even kill off this metaphysical dogma because even though there are three (or more) documented alternatives to choose from, you are personally quite convinced that none of them have anything to do with events in space, and the whole idea is "silly".
It would in fact take an "act of God" for these various forms of plasma redshift to *not* occur in space, but you don't even care. The whole debate is "silly' to you because you're blissfully unaware that there even is a debate! Their strategy worked perfectly! (well almost).
Upvote
0
It hasn't been made available so far! Where are the modern experiments to study cathode sun research? How about plasma redshift (in astronomy) research?
What do you mean "no reason"? Their professional reputations are at stake for starters. Do you expect them to simply admit that inflation didn't really happen, the bang didn't really occur and plasma redshift is related to plasma physics, not "space expansion"? You're essentially just asking them to give up their *entire* religion in one fell empirical swoop! I can just hear the guy from NASA explaining the mistake now: "Er, we made a gigantic empirical mistake when we told everyone that redshift was related to expansion...."
Besides every bit of funding and research money related to inflation theory, dark energy theory, string theory, dark matter theories, etc? It would literally turn the funding channels upside down in an instant. We'd have to go from 96 percent metaphysical dogma, to pure empirical physics. That's quite a shift wouldn't you say? Surely some astronomers would be financially and professionally adversely affected, no?
Upvote
0
Sorry, but no. On this, you're just acting like a spoiled little kid. Boohoo, the big bad meanies haven't given the detector they build a name I like.Is that even a logical argument? Talk about silly....
No, I'm simply appalled at the lack of intellectual integrity that is shown by the mainstream. Hubble discovered the redshift phenomenon, but he didn't try to claim the "mystery" was related to only *one* possibility. That only appears in current mainstream dogma.
blablabla.
Sorry, why do you keep being silly? The goal of building the detector was to show the existence of dark matter. Even if there could be other explanations for a specific observation, that wouldn't change the goal with which the detector was build. Silly, silly, silly.
Upvote
0
No, I'm a taxpaying citizen that funds these research projects and I have every right to expect truth in advertizing from everyone, including astronomers. They didn't just give the camera name I didn't like, they gave it a name that is as self inconsistent as a theists claiming to have a camera that takes pictures of an invisible God! It's not even logical dogma anymore for goodness sake.
Ya, don't bore with you with any empirical facts that might conflict with your present beliefs eh? Silly me. What was I thinking?
I'm not being silly, I'm being honest and realistic. You can't claim that unicorns are invisible and that you also have pictures of them from your invisible unicorn camera. That's not even a self-consistent belief system!
That camera doesn't even have the capacity to demonstrate that because it's not a controlled experiment. It's simply a long distance camera that sees photons from a small segment of the EM spectrum! They might just as well have picked a gamma ray wavelength and called that a 'dark energy camera' too.
The problem is that there have already been three, perhaps four alternatives that have been observed in the lab. Silly you thinks it's even silly to mention that fact.
Upvote
0
Cromulent
Well-Known Member
Where are the modern experiments to study phrenology and augury?
You're woefully ill-informed about dark energy and dark matter. They are simply placeholder terms to explain phemomena observed in the universe. Would you be happier if they were renamed "Dark matter-like-effect-causing phenomena"? I mean, that would be cumbersome and annoying, but it would make life slightly easier for people who don't really understand what is going on.
Upvote
0
The problem with your logic is that plasma redshift shows up in the lab.
It tends to depend on whom you ask, but yes, it's a placeholder term for human ignorance alright.
The problem is that "missing mass" isn't the same as "exotic mass". Astronomers don't like to admit the mistakes of their mass estimation techniques, so suddenly all that missing mass *must* be in some exotic form of matter according to their religion.
Likewise redshifted photons are not empirically related to inflation or dark energy in the lab, but redshift is related to Compton redshift, Stark redshift and the Wolf effect in the lab.
It's utterly disingenuous to be claiming that it's a placeholder term for ignorance, but simultaneously claiming to know for a fact that that redshift is related to acceleration, let alone "dark energy". Both claims are "knowledge" claims, and neither of them has been demonstrated!
Hubble himself was an actual "scientist" IMO. He fully realized and appreciated and accepted the fact that there were many possibilities that might explain the redshift phenomenon. Modern astronomers however tend to try to sweep all debate under the rug, and they completely ignore the empirical flaws in their theory. God forbid they should be honest enough to call it a "cosmological redshift" camera. Oh no, it has to be given a name that promotes their metaphysical dogma and ignores all empirical physical alternatives, including at least three documented types of plasma redshift.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Michael, I can't help but notice that you are - for some unfathomable reason - avoiding my question.
Have you studied cosmology, astronomy or similar field?
Have you studied cosmology, astronomy or similar field?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
