Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[mzungu]

Take a pause gentlemen and watch this interview!:

What is the Higgs Boson? | Watch Free Documentary Online

 

[Michael]

Then don't. It's that simple.

Ok. Like I said, the topic has been covered by folks that are far more knowledgeable on the plasma redshift topic, with much better credentials as well, yet the mainstream hasn't batted an eye.

There's no luggage. They can revise it all they want without it affecting me in the slightest.

I don't follow that argument. How did my personal little redefinition of "God" add any "luggage" to you personally?

And arxiv contains all papers released on the matter, including research that hasn't been completed? How long would it take, in your eyes, to publish a papers that would radically change something? (In my eyes that would take a while, since they would have to amass a lot of evidence that their position is correct)

I've amassed four types of plasma redshift research. I've put that evidence on the table. I've shown you the quantified C# code produced by Holushko to explain the same basic features. I've provided Lerner's paper on the Tolman brightness test which mainstream theory *fails*. You folks haven't budged an inch, so what makes you think they care about empirical plasma physics anymore than you do?

If plasma redshift occurs in space there's no expansion? You know that's a false conclusion. That conclusion would be correct if expansion was excluded as a redshift source, not the way you put it.

The expansions of *objects* cannot be excluded, but that alone cannot and does not explain *all* of the redshift. I certainly can exclude space expansion claims, just as I can exclude magic expansion claims as a "cause". I can exclude any irrational and unsupported claim since nothing like that has been shown to occur in controlled experimentation. As I said, I'm open to *object expansion*, but space expansion is one of those metaphysical baggage claim items that I have no interest in.

Or perhaps you did what you do here on the forum, you dismiss arguments laid before you.

Have the arguments I've presented to date "swayed" you or changed your opinions on this topic in any way? How did you not dismiss the arguments I laid before you? I don't "dismiss" anything that shows up in the lab. I do dismiss all things that *cannot* show up in a lab and have no empirical effect on anything.

There are several people here on this forum who, repeatedly, has tried to explain to you where you're wrong. You don't want to change your mind though, so you dismiss their arguments and presented facts.

How has your side responded differently to the facts that I have presented? Whereas all my claims do show up in the lab, yours do not.

You're working under the assumption that the redshift can be explained, in whole, by plasma.

Yes, and I showed you C# code written by better "experts" on this topic that demonstrate that it can be mathematically and physically explained by plasma redshift. What more can I do?

The difference is the luggage.

What luggage? Technically speaking I'm not even asking you to accept the "awareness" aspects of my personal beliefs about the universe. I'm simply asking you to accept *pure empirical physics* as an alternative to three metaphysical entities. What luggage?

Then write a paper instead of whining on a forum.

I've already written five papers. They didn't lead to an instant change of opinions among astronomers. Now what? More papers they won't respond to? Birkeland wrote them a whole book related to plasma physics. They've ignored the bulk of his work for 100 years.

I'm now putting *public* pressure on them to do something. I find that more rewarding than doing nothing.

Eventually I'll probably write some more papers on solar physics based on SDO data, but solar physics is where astronomers must learn to "walk" before they can run in terms of EU theory. Until they correctly understand the power source of the universe, they'll never be able to run and understand how a universe functions.

If it is that simple, write a paper. You'll get critics on what you've done wrong, revise the paper, present it again and continue until you've gotten the recognition you think you deserve.
You have nothing to get on the internet other than some personal satisfaction.

Your wrong about the last part. I am introducing PC/EU theory and the options to mainstream theory to an audience that is more receptive to change than "astronomers". Eventually over time, with enough public pressure, the mainstream will have to answer for their "sins" in terms of leaving out all forms of plasma redshift from their redshift calculations.

People however need to know the real facts, and astronomers often present their opinions as facts. They often say to unsuspecting students that expansion has been "observed", when in fact only "redshift" has actually been "observed". They stuff their *unsubstantiated* dogma into the way they present the facts!

My attempt at public criticism is to inform an otherwise unsuspecting public that cosmological "science" today is in pitiful shape. It's not like other branches of science that are based upon pure empirical lab tested physics. It's an "anything goes" branch of "science" where dogma is more akin to religion, and empirical physics isn't even important or relevant to them.

The failures of SUSY theory to date at LHC "should" prevent them from claiming "WIMPS did it", but it doesn't. Four forms of plasma redshift should now be included in their redshift calculations, but they are not, not even one.

Sooner or later one starts to question the integrity of a industry that seems to make it's living by ignoring the lab tested physics, and by misinforming the public about the nature of the "mysteries" of space. The mystery is related to "redshift", not "dark energy".

 

[Michael]

Read the article carefully! In a universe that has existed forever there should be more black holes since more are created than have evaporated.

Pure handwave. In an infinite universe the *vast* majority of black holes would have evaporated by now. Do you even have a published paper to offer me, or are you just pulling your "facts" out of your back pocket?

It takes billions of years for a black hole to evaporate!

So almost every one has had an opportunity to evaporate over eternity, and only a few are left that we see today.

Your insistence on a steady state universe is laughable at best.

Whereas from my perspective, your insistence on a "dark" inflatable universe is laughable in the extreme because it begins by violating the laws of physics as we know them from the lab.

Where is your peer reviewed work? I don't even know why I am even replying to your claims!

Scientist says neutron stars, not black holes, at center of galaxies

 

[Michael]

Take a pause gentlemen and watch this interview!:

What is the Higgs Boson? | Watch Free Documentary Online

Alright, I'll bite. I've been through about half the video. How does the fact that LHC falsified several "simple" SUSY theories actually help your utterly unsupported claims about "cold dark matter"?

 

[Elendur]

Ok. Like I said, the topic has been covered by folks that are far more knowledgeable on the plasma redshift topic, with much better credentials as well, yet the mainstream hasn't batted an eye.

Perhaps their works aren't as significant as you want them to be.

I don't follow that argument. How did my personal little redefinition of "God" add any "luggage" to you personally?

It's not your personal definition, it's when religion tells you live a certain way. That's the luggage I'm referring to.

I've amassed four types of plasma redshift research. I've put that evidence on the table. I've shown you the quantified C# code produced by Holushko to explain the same basic features. I've provided Lerner's paper on the Tolman brightness test which mainstream theory *fails*. You folks haven't budged an inch, so what makes you think they care about empirical plasma physics anymore than you do?

"You folks"? Are you grouping me with additional people now? If so, could you tell me who those are?

The expansions of *objects* cannot be excluded, but that alone cannot and does not explain *all* of the redshift. I certainly can exclude space expansion claims, just as I can exclude magic expansion claims as a "cause". I can exclude any irrational and unsupported claim since nothing like that has been shown to occur in controlled experimentation. As I said, I'm open to *object expansion*, but space expansion is one of those metaphysical baggage claim items that I have no interest in.

Expansion of objects? I thought the redshift came from the speed between the observer and the object.

Have the arguments I've presented to date "swayed" you or changed your opinions on this topic in any way? How did you not dismiss the arguments I laid before you? I don't "dismiss" anything that shows up in the lab. I do dismiss all things that *cannot* show up in a lab and have no empirical effect on anything.

If anything your arguments have swayed me to support the mainstream. However, when asked, I would still answer: "I don't care" or "I don't know".

How has your side responded differently to the facts that I have presented? Whereas all my claims do show up in the lab, yours do not.

My side? You're obviously confused about my stance here. I don't have a claim to show.

Yes, and I showed you C# code written by better "experts" on this topic that demonstrate that it can be mathematically and physically explained by plasma redshift. What more can I do?

And you do realize that computer code does what it's designed to do? Just because code shows that it can be entirely explained by plasma redshift doesn't mean that it is.

What luggage? Technically speaking I'm not even asking you to accept the "awareness" aspects of my personal beliefs about the universe. I'm simply asking you to accept *pure empirical physics* as an alternative to three metaphysical entities. What luggage?

I wasn't referring to your specific belief. As stated above.

I've already written five papers. They didn't lead to an instant change of opinions among astronomers. Now what? More papers they won't respond to? Birkeland wrote them a whole book related to plasma physics. They've ignored the bulk of his work for 100 years.

If you want instant change you're in for a disappointment, it doesn't work that way.
Were those five papers actually written to support your PC theory (or whatever you want to call it) or were they of something more specific?

I'm now putting *public* pressure on them to do something. I find that more rewarding than doing nothing.

Public pressure... So you want to go with "the one shouting the loudest is the one who is correct"?

Eventually I'll probably write some more papers on solar physics based on SDO data, but solar physics is where astronomers must learn to "walk" before they can run in terms of EU theory. Until they correctly understand the power source of the universe, they'll never be able to run and understand how a universe functions.

Great, I guess that applies to you too.

Your wrong about the last part. I am introducing PC/EU theory and the options to mainstream theory to an audience that is more receptive to change than "astronomers". Eventually over time, with enough public pressure, the mainstream will have to answer for their "sins" in terms of leaving out all forms of plasma redshift from their redshift calculations.

So basically what I wrote above. Splendid.

People however need to know the real facts, and astronomers often present their opinions as facts. They often say to unsuspecting students that expansion has been "observed", when in fact only "redshift" has actually been "observed". They stuff their *unsubstantiated* dogma into the way they present the facts!

I would say that the difference between the fact and the interpretation is important, as you seem to agree on, but how thorough would you have everyone be when talking? If the leading theory says the redshift is from expansion it would be silly to have to add "says the leading theory about the observed redshift" every time one takes a breath.
FYI blind acceptance isn't standard, at least not from where I come from.

My attempt at public criticism is to inform an otherwise unsuspecting public that cosmological "science" today is in pitiful shape. It's not like other branches of science that are based upon pure empirical lab tested physics. It's an "anything goes" branch of "science" where dogma is more akin to religion, and empirical physics isn't even important or relevant to them.

So you offer them loud opinions combined with evidence they wouldn't understand whether it supports your position or not.
Way to go!

The failures of SUSY theory to date at LHC "should" prevent them from claiming "WIMPS did it", but it doesn't. Four forms of plasma redshift should now be included in their redshift calculations, but they are not, not even one.

And you're convinced that everybody ignores it. Conspiracy!

Sooner or later one starts to question the integrity of a industry that seems to make it's living by ignoring the lab tested physics, and by misinforming the public about the nature of the "mysteries" of space. The mystery is related to "redshift", not "dark energy".

And thus the spoon feeding begins!

 

[Naraoia]

Pure handwave. In an infinite universe the *vast* majority of black holes would have evaporated by now.

An infinite universe would have reached thermal equilibrium an infinite length of time ago, unless it had an infinite external energy source, no?

idea: Is this where you'll insert a deity?)

 

[Michael]

Perhaps their works aren't as significant as you want them to be.

Have you even looked much at Ari's papers? Have you looked at his credentials in the specific area of plasma redshift? I've put his work before every astronomer I've met, and I've yet to see any of them pick out a valid mathematical flaw in his work, just one typo (S sub 0, not s=0) that had no effect on any of the rest of that particular paper. Rob complained because he used a Malquist II bias in one paper, but many authors support that approach and that conclusion. In seven years, that's the best "complaint" they could collectively come up with.

Menu

If that kind of material, and Holushko's C# code doesn't get their attention, what hope might I have of making a dent in mainstream 'religion'. If they don't care about math *or* empirical physics from the lab, what might I say that might sway their opinions?

The mainstream continues to peddle a theory that Alfven himself called "pseudoscience' till the day he died, because he personally made reconnection theory obsolete with his double layer paper.

The mainstream ignored Birkeland's lab work for 60 years until satellites in space showed the presence of Birkeland currents in the aurora as he predicted. To this very day they *ignore* his work on atmospheric solar physics and they write about "pseudoscience" instead.

The mainstream has a very long history of utterly ignoring the value of empirical lab tested physics. It would be naive to believe that I personally am going to change their opinions overnight.

It's not your personal definition, it's when religion tells you live a certain way. That's the luggage I'm referring to.

Ultimately that has nothing to do with the debate between plasma redshift and space expansion does it? Why in the world should the 'religious' explanation (pantheism) offer *empirical solutions* to that particular issue, whereas "science" cannot provide *any* empirical support for a trilogy of metaphysical gap fillers who's sole use is to save one otherwise falsified cosmology theory?

Wow! I thought it took "faith" to believe in "religion" sometimes, but compared to the absolute faith you seem to have in 'dark energy', you make my faith in God look almost 'frail'. Even I personally have explored atheism. I didn't work for me any better than fundamentalist Christianity, but it did leave a sense "skepticism" within me toward *all* metaphysical claims, including scientific ones.

"You folks"? Are you grouping me with additional people now? If so, could you tell me who those are?

No, I was grouping you into 'dark energy believers'. I'm clearly not one of them.

Expansion of objects? I thought the redshift came from the speed between the observer and the object.

Doppler redshift is *strictly* related to the movement of objects in the lab. It has *nothing* to do with the 'expansion of space' that astronomers keep talking about. The movement of objects cannot explain the full extent of all redshift since objects would have to expand at faster than the speed of light. It could explain a small percentage of the *total* amount of redshift, but not the full amount.

If anything your arguments have swayed me to support the mainstream. However, when asked, I would still answer: "I don't care" or "I don't know".

Consider things from my perspective for a moment as a 'skeptic' of all metaphysical claims.

I "lack belief" in two basic claims in mainstream theory. I lack belief that space expands, and therefore I lack belief that redshift is related to space expansion or the acceleration of space expansion.

I have provided you with *at least* four lab tested ways of producing plasma redshift, including Compton redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect, and what Chen et all called "plasma redshift". I'm also willing to consider a fifth empirical option, the movement of objects.

You don't even seem to care that the mainstream provides *zero* tolerance for *any* amount of plasma redshift in their theory, or that it would take an act of God for there *not* to be some amount of plasma redshift in space. About all you seem to care about is the majority position, regardless of the physics!

From my perspective it's not even rational to ignore empirical physics, but I've seen YEC's do it for years, and I've seen atheists do it too. Oh well.

My side? You're obviously confused about my stance here. I don't have a claim to show.

You're supporting/defending the mainstream's claim about having manufactured a "dark energy camera" aren't you?

And you do realize that computer code does what it's designed to do? Just because code shows that it can be entirely explained by plasma redshift doesn't mean that it is.

That's an ironic statement from my perspective. Essentially inflation, dark energy, and dark matter amount to nothing more than "computer code" to make a postdicted fit to redshifted photons and galaxy rotation patterns. They are simply variables in a software program without physical substance.

Plasma redshift does something that mainstream theory does not do. It translates from computer code, into the lab, and makes actual "predictions" about what we might observe in the lab, and that have in fact been verified in the lab.

If you want instant change you're in for a disappointment, it doesn't work that way.

I've been at it for at least 7 years now. I'm used to disappointment.

Were those five papers actually written to support your PC theory (or whatever you want to call it) or were they of something more specific?

They are specific to solar theory and black hole theory.

Public pressure... So you want to go with "the one shouting the loudest is the one who is correct"?

No, I want the public to know that the real 'mystery' is redshift, not "dark energy". I want them to know that PC/EU theory exists as an empirical alternative to mainstream theory. I want them to be able to make 'informed choices" based on a "balanced" approach that includes *more than one perspective*. I want young astronomy students to know that astronomers do *not* observe "expansion of space", they observe redshifted photons and *only* redshifted photons, and perhaps signal broadening as well. Expansion is a subjective *interpretation* of the redshift phenomenon that stands in pure denial of empirical physics as demonstrated in the lab.

Great, I guess that applies to you too.

Of course. I learn new things every year, and I hope to learn new things every year for the rest of my life. Learning however requires progress and an acknowledgment of the lab results.

I would say that the difference between the fact and the interpretation is important, as you seem to agree on, but how thorough would you have everyone be when talking?

I would have them talking about the phenomenon of redshift and the *steps they took in the lab* to ensure their subjective interpretation of the redshift phenomenon was accurate. It's not a dark energy camera. It's a redshift exploration device as best case, "red sensitive camera" if we remove all the hype entirely.

If the leading theory says the redshift is from expansion it would be silly to have to add "says the leading theory about the observed redshift" every time one takes a breath.

No, but when you're naming a device to study the universe, it's ridiculous to start interjecting your preconceived ideas into the name of the device.

FYI blind acceptance isn't standard, at least not from where I come from.

From my perspective, it sure looks like blind acceptance. They seem to ignore 5 empirical options in favor of *one metaphysical possibility* that requires *two invisible friends*! They keep finding new "missing mass" in the form of ordinary plasma, but still point at high energy emissions and claim WIMPS did it, *in spite* of the LHC falsification of simple SUSY theories.

So you offer them loud opinions combined with evidence they wouldn't understand whether it supports your position or not.
Way to go!

It doesn't take a genius or any great understanding of astronomy to notice the difference (and appreciate it) between a claim that shows up in the lab (like plasma redshift), and one that does not (dark energy did it).

My three biggest complaints about Lambda-CDM are directly related to the fact that none of these claims show up in the lab, none of are necessary in the first place, and all of them violate the laws of physics as we understand them *today*!

And you're convinced that everybody ignores it. Conspiracy!

When I see them ignore four types of empirical options, ignore the SUSY falsifications from LHC, and their attack dogs continue to bash away at empirical physics in cyberspace and control all dissent, it's hard not to see them as a cult. They're like the Scientologists of the scientific world with invisible Xenu's galore. Please! Just go look at what passes for a "scientific discussion" over at CosmoQuest these days. It's pathetic. Two rule systems. One for them, another witch hunt rule system for all heretics that results in the closing of the heretical thread and the burning of the witch!

And thus the spoon feeding begins!

Right. Somehow I'm being paranoid when the mainstream is the one that is in pure denial of four types of known versions of plasma redshift. Nevermind the fact that they haven't lifted a finger in over three decades to incorporate even one of the known plasma redshift mechanisms into their redshift calculations. Nevermind the fact that they put PC theoriests on *trial* on their public forums, complete with virtual lynchings. Forget the fact they have rule systems on their website that forbid the further discussion on dissenting ideas entirely. Sorry if I sound paranoid, but I've been through the witch burning, and virtual execution process several times now. I've seen how they operate and I've seen their "rule system" at work in cyberspace for over seven years now. Forgive me if I'm a little jaded. I'm still trying to get the stench of burned virtual hair and flesh out of my virtual clothing.

 

[Michael]

An infinite universe would have reached thermal equilibrium an infinite length of time ago, unless it had an infinite external energy source, no?

idea: Is this where you'll insert a deity?)

No, this is where I insert gravity and physics and energy recycling actually.

http://phys.org/news8658.html

 

[mzungu]

No, this is where I insert gravity and physics and energy recycling actually.

Scientist says neutron stars, not black holes, at center of galaxies

Hogwash! We have seen the evidence of a supermassive black hole in our galaxy. A neutron star does not have the mass to maintain the galaxy. Supermassive Black Hole in the Milky Way Galaxy - YouTube

 

[Naraoia]

Hogwash! We have seen the evidence of a supermassive black hole in our galaxy. A neutron star does not have the mass to maintain the galaxy.

Also, I wasn't aware that stars were "explosively moving away" from the galactic core. Where does that information come from? Speaking of movement, I thought that until you reach the event horizon, a black hole is just another massive object - you can orbit it, you can fall towards it or you can get slingshotted by it just like you could around a "normal" object of the same mass?

Admittedly, my training in physics and astronomy is based largely on Brian Cox and Wikipedia

 

[Michael]

Hogwash! We have seen the evidence of a supermassive black hole in our galaxy. A neutron star does not have the mass to maintain the galaxy. Supermassive Black Hole in the Milky Way Galaxy - YouTube

I agree with you that a massive object exists at that location. I simply disagree with your assumption/interpretation that it's an infinitely dense object that comes to a "point".

Scientist says neutron stars, not black holes, at center of galaxies
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2007/09/19/science-neutron-neutral.html

Neutrons have a negatively charged outer shell that acts to repulse other neutrons and attract protons. Neutrons are not happy or stable if they are outside of a nucleus and they will decay into a proton, an electron and a neutrino in about 10 minutes.

That outer shell acts to keep the mass from imploding into a 'point'.

Other than that, I agree with you that it's a massive object.

 

[mzungu]

NASA - NASA's Swift Satellite Discovers a New Black Hole in our Galaxy

 

[Michael]

Also, I wasn't aware that stars were "explosively moving away" from the galactic core. Where does that information come from?

OIR Research: Hypervelocity Stars

Speaking of movement, I thought that until you reach the event horizon, a black hole is just another massive object - you can orbit it, you can fall towards it or you can get slingshotted by it just like you could around a "normal" object of the same mass?

Admittedly, my training in physics and astronomy is based largely on Brian Cox and Wikipedia

That part is essentially true, but.....

There are some limitations since "jets" typically form around the poles, and plasma is rapidly swirling around the "event horizon" and charged particles are accelerated by moving magnetic fields. Things get wild and crazy near the horizon.

 

[Naraoia]

OIR Research: Hypervelocity Stars

Thanks! Aw, I always feel so sorry for lonely astronomical objects like this, until I remember that they're just soulless balls of stuff

That part is essentially true, but.....

There are some limitations since "jets" typically form around the poles, and plasma is rapidly swirling around the "event horizon" and charged particles are accelerated by moving magnetic fields. Things get wild and crazy near the horizon.

Yeah, but the point is that this:

“You should find a hole there, not a huge outpouring of energy and light,” Manuel insists. “If black holes exist at the center of galaxies, stars should be falling in -- instead of explosively moving away from the center.”

... is basically nonsense. Not to mention that I read into your link about hypervelocity stars plus, and they seem to be a very rare breed. It's not like we have huge populations of stars flying away from the galactic centre that demand a special explanation.

 

[Michael]

Thanks! Aw, I always feel so sorry for lonely astronomical objects like this, until I remember that they're just soulless balls of stuff

Yeah, but the point is that this:
... is basically nonsense.

I would actually have to agree with you that are other ways of explaining it.

Not to mention that I read into your link about hypervelocity stars plus, and they seem to be a very rare breed. It's not like we have huge populations of stars flying away from the galactic centre that demand a special explanation.

Hyper-velocity stars could be caused by a lot of things, I'll grant you that much. I'm more impressed with the nuclear physics aspects actually, not that particular sentence.

 

[Naraoia]

Hyper-velocity stars could be caused by a lot of things, I'll grant you that much. I'm more impressed with the nuclear physics aspects actually, not that particular sentence.

I can't bloody well pick on the stuff I don't understand, can I?

 

[Booko]

Neutrons have a negatively charged outer shell that acts to repulse other neutrons and attract protons. Neutrons are not happy or stable if they are outside of a nucleus and they will decay into a proton, an electron and a neutrino in about 10 minutes.

Ummm, no.

Neutrons are neutral (hence "neutron"). Neutrons attract protons due to the residual strong force. They also attract, not repel, other neutrons due to this same force. In fact, even protons attract other protons thanks to the residual strong force, but alone, it's not enough to overcome the electromagnetic repulsion.

Now, if there are lots of neutrons in the nucleus, the nucleus might become too big for the residual strong attraction to hold all the parts together (the strong force is short-range, unlike electromagnetism or gravity, which can act at very large distances). Also, the higher the ratio of neutrons to protons, the more chances for the weak force to cause a radioactive decay. This is why nuclei are only stable when they are fairly small and have a reasonable ratio of protons to neutrons.

That outer shell acts to keep the mass from imploding into a 'point'.

Actually, no again.

As a matter of fact, the only "force" that keeps neutron stars from collapsing down to a point is something called degeneracy pressure. This is pretty complicated, so hang with me a minute.

Remember the uncertainty principle? If you know an object's position very well, then you do not know its velocity hardly at all, and vice-versa. In a neutron star, the neutrons are packed in so tightly that the position of any given particle is very well known. This means the velocity (even as far as the universe itself is concerned) could be anything from zero to OVER 9000!.

Since there's such a wide range of velocities, the average temperature (which is related to average velocity) is through the roof. Now, remember from chemistry that PV=nRT? As temperature increases, so too must pressure: and this is degeneracy pressure. It's called degenerate because there's no real force causing the pressure, just weird quantum uncertainty.

Anyway, this pressure causes an average outwards force on all the particles involved, and this counterbalances the gravitational attractive force, keeping everything from mushing together into a point.
Interestingly, degeneracy pressure is also the only thing supporting white dwarfs, but it's electron spin degeneracy instead of position-velocity degeneracy, IIRC.

The fact about black holes is this: as mass continues to fall onto a neutron star, at some point, there are no known forces (not even degeneracy forces) capable of preventing the collapse of the object into a singularity. Furthermore, there is no reason why, in such a dense area of the universe as the center of a galaxy, that matter would keep falling onto a neutron star until it collapsed into a black hole.

Probably the timescales involved would turn any neutron star at the center of the galaxy into a black hole in just a few million years, if not less. Our star has been around for almost 5 billion years, so if a neutron star was at the center of the galaxy back when our star formed, then it would already have turned into a black hole a long, long time ago.

 

[Michael]

Ummm, no.

Neutrons are neutral (hence "neutron").

While it's true that neutrons are neutral *overall*, they actually have a layered structure that is much more complicated:

Neutrons not so neutral after all, study says - Technology & Science - CBC News

Among atomic particles, the neutron seems the most aptly named: Unlike the positively charged proton or the negatively charged electron, neutrons have a charge of zero. But new experiments conducted in three particle accelerators suggest the neutron is more like an onion when it comes to electromagnetism: with a negatively charged exterior and interior and a positively charged middle sandwiched between them.
While the sum of these charges cancel each other out to produce a net charge of zero, the findings change our understanding of how neutrons interact with the other particles in the atom, said University of Washington physics professor Gerald Miller, writing last week in the online edition of the scientific journal Physical Review Letters.

Emphasis mine. The outer shell does in fact have a charge that acts to repulse other neutrons as density increases. Have you read any of Manuel's papers by the way?

Actually, no again.

As a matter of fact, the only "force" that keeps neutron stars from collapsing down to a point is something called degeneracy pressure. This is pretty complicated, so hang with me a minute.

Remember the uncertainty principle? If you know an object's position very well, then you do not know its velocity hardly at all, and vice-versa. In a neutron star, the neutrons are packed in so tightly that the position of any given particle is very well known. This means the velocity (even as far as the universe itself is concerned) could be anything from zero to OVER 9000!.

Since there's such a wide range of velocities, the average temperature (which is related to average velocity) is through the roof. Now, remember from chemistry that PV=nRT? As temperature increases, so too must pressure: and this is degeneracy pressure. It's called degenerate because there's no real force causing the pressure, just weird quantum uncertainty.

Anyway, this pressure causes an average outwards force on all the particles involved, and this counterbalances the gravitational attractive force, keeping everything from mushing together into a point.
Interestingly, degeneracy pressure is also the only thing supporting white dwarfs, but it's electron spin degeneracy instead of position-velocity degeneracy, IIRC.

The fact about black holes is this: as mass continues to fall onto a neutron star, at some point, there are no known forces (not even degeneracy forces) capable of preventing the collapse of the object into a singularity.

That's where the actual 'structure' of neutrons come in.

Furthermore, there is no reason why, in such a dense area of the universe as the center of a galaxy, that matter would keep falling onto a neutron star until it collapsed into a black hole.

Probably the timescales involved would turn any neutron star at the center of the galaxy into a black hole in just a few million years, if not less. Our star has been around for almost 5 billion years, so if a neutron star was at the center of the galaxy back when our star formed, then it would already have turned into a black hole a long, long time ago.

I understand and agree with your assessment, but only to a point. The actual structure of the neutron also comes into play at the highest densities. They may not play a dominant role until the density begins to pack them to a point that the outer layers begin to repulse one another.

 

[mzungu]

Ummm, no.

Neutrons are neutral (hence "neutron"). Neutrons attract protons due to the residual strong force. They also attract, not repel, other neutrons due to this same force. In fact, even protons attract other protons thanks to the residual strong force, but alone, it's not enough to overcome the electromagnetic repulsion.

Now, if there are lots of neutrons in the nucleus, the nucleus might become too big for the residual strong attraction to hold all the parts together (the strong force is short-range, unlike electromagnetism or gravity, which can act at very large distances). Also, the higher the ratio of neutrons to protons, the more chances for the weak force to cause a radioactive decay. This is why nuclei are only stable when they are fairly small and have a reasonable ratio of protons to neutrons.

Actually, no again.

As a matter of fact, the only "force" that keeps neutron stars from collapsing down to a point is something called degeneracy pressure. This is pretty complicated, so hang with me a minute.

Remember the uncertainty principle? If you know an object's position very well, then you do not know its velocity hardly at all, and vice-versa. In a neutron star, the neutrons are packed in so tightly that the position of any given particle is very well known. This means the velocity (even as far as the universe itself is concerned) could be anything from zero to OVER 9000!.

Since there's such a wide range of velocities, the average temperature (which is related to average velocity) is through the roof. Now, remember from chemistry that PV=nRT? As temperature increases, so too must pressure: and this is degeneracy pressure. It's called degenerate because there's no real force causing the pressure, just weird quantum uncertainty.

Anyway, this pressure causes an average outwards force on all the particles involved, and this counterbalances the gravitational attractive force, keeping everything from mushing together into a point.
Interestingly, degeneracy pressure is also the only thing supporting white dwarfs, but it's electron spin degeneracy instead of position-velocity degeneracy, IIRC.

The fact about black holes is this: as mass continues to fall onto a neutron star, at some point, there are no known forces (not even degeneracy forces) capable of preventing the collapse of the object into a singularity. Furthermore, there is no reason why, in such a dense area of the universe as the center of a galaxy, that matter would keep falling onto a neutron star until it collapsed into a black hole.

Probably the timescales involved would turn any neutron star at the center of the galaxy into a black hole in just a few million years, if not less. Our star has been around for almost 5 billion years, so if a neutron star was at the center of the galaxy back when our star formed, then it would already have turned into a black hole a long, long time ago.

Ah you are a lady and a scholar; Well put

 

[Elendur]

Have you even looked much at Ari's papers? Have you looked at his credentials in the specific area of plasma redshift? I've put his work before every astronomer I've met, and I've yet to see any of them pick out a valid mathematical flaw in his work, just one typo (S sub 0, not s=0) that had no effect on any of the rest of that particular paper. Rob complained because he used a Malquist II bias in one paper, but many authors support that approach and that conclusion. In seven years, that's the best "complaint" they could collectively come up with.

Menu

If that kind of material, and Holushko's C# code doesn't get their attention, what hope might I have of making a dent in mainstream 'religion'. If they don't care about math *or* empirical physics from the lab, what might I say that might sway their opinions?

The mainstream continues to peddle a theory that Alfven himself called "pseudoscience' till the day he died, because he personally made reconnection theory obsolete with his double layer paper.

The mainstream ignored Birkeland's lab work for 60 years until satellites in space showed the presence of Birkeland currents in the aurora as he predicted. To this very day they *ignore* his work on atmospheric solar physics and they write about "pseudoscience" instead.

The mainstream has a very long history of utterly ignoring the value of empirical lab tested physics. It would be naive to believe that I personally am going to change their opinions overnight.

I've looked at Aris paper, I'm not convinced it's a typo.
And yes. It would be naive to think that you're going to change things overnight.

Ultimately that has nothing to do with the debate between plasma redshift and space expansion does it? Why in the world should the 'religious' explanation (pantheism) offer *empirical solutions* to that particular issue, whereas "science" cannot provide *any* empirical support for a trilogy of metaphysical gap fillers who's sole use is to save one otherwise falsified cosmology theory?

Wow! I thought it took "faith" to believe in "religion" sometimes, but compared to the absolute faith you seem to have in 'dark energy', you make my faith in God look almost 'frail'. Even I personally have explored atheism. I didn't work for me any better than fundamentalist Christianity, but it did leave a sense "skepticism" within me toward *all* metaphysical claims, including scientific ones.

This part of the discussion went where it went, that it veered a bit from the rest of it isn't a surprise. As for the "faith" you think I have, I don't.

No, I was grouping you into 'dark energy believers'. I'm clearly not one of them.

Me neither, however I'm inclined to think their position is better than yours.

Doppler redshift is *strictly* related to the movement of objects in the lab. It has *nothing* to do with the 'expansion of space' that astronomers keep talking about. The movement of objects cannot explain the full extent of all redshift since objects would have to expand at faster than the speed of light. It could explain a small percentage of the *total* amount of redshift, but not the full amount.

Well ain't that nice? Too bad most people wouldn't be able to determine whether that assertion is correct or not.

Consider things from my perspective for a moment as a 'skeptic' of all metaphysical claims.

I "lack belief" in two basic claims in mainstream theory. I lack belief that space expands, and therefore I lack belief that redshift is related to space expansion or the acceleration of space expansion.

I have provided you with *at least* four lab tested ways of producing plasma redshift, including Compton redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect, and what Chen et all called "plasma redshift". I'm also willing to consider a fifth empirical option, the movement of objects.

You don't even seem to care that the mainstream provides *zero* tolerance for *any* amount of plasma redshift in their theory, or that it would take an act of God for there *not* to be some amount of plasma redshift in space. About all you seem to care about is the majority position, regardless of the physics!

From my perspective it's not even rational to ignore empirical physics, but I've seen YEC's do it for years, and I've seen atheists do it too. Oh well.

You're right, I don't seem to care because I don't care. If I am to take a position in the matter, an honest one, I would have to understand the details of both sides. I don't have the time for that, nor the interest. Therefore I refer to the majority opinion of the people who does this for a living.
I don't trust you when you shout out aloud about global conspiracies, especially since there has been people, on this forum and outside of it, who has honestly tried to debate with you.

You're supporting/defending the mainstream's claim about having manufactured a "dark energy camera" aren't you?

Don't know nuttin' about no camera. It's your incessant rambling that's so annoying.

That's an ironic statement from my perspective. Essentially inflation, dark energy, and dark matter amount to nothing more than "computer code" to make a postdicted fit to redshifted photons and galaxy rotation patterns. They are simply variables in a software program without physical substance.

Plasma redshift does something that mainstream theory does not do. It translates from computer code, into the lab, and makes actual "predictions" about what we might observe in the lab, and that have in fact been verified in the lab.

You don't understand programming much, do you? Whatever the code is, will control it to the fullest. The results it yields will be correct, always, under the condition that the input is correct and the algorithm is correct.

I've been at it for at least 7 years now. I'm used to disappointment.

Given your naive hope for instant change, I can understand.

They are specific to solar theory and black hole theory.

Then perhaps you should write some papers more specific to your pet subject?

No, I want the public to know that the real 'mystery' is redshift, not "dark energy". I want them to know that PC/EU theory exists as an empirical alternative to mainstream theory. I want them to be able to make 'informed choices" based on a "balanced" approach that includes *more than one perspective*. I want young astronomy students to know that astronomers do *not* observe "expansion of space", they observe redshifted photons and *only* redshifted photons, and perhaps signal broadening as well. Expansion is a subjective *interpretation* of the redshift phenomenon that stands in pure denial of empirical physics as demonstrated in the lab.

FYI the public is poor at making informed choices. As for the young astronomers, they should know it's the interpretation (unless they're airheads).

Of course. I learn new things every year, and I hope to learn new things every year for the rest of my life. Learning however requires progress and an acknowledgment of the lab results.

Not really, no. I learn a lot without any labs.

I would have them talking about the phenomenon of redshift and the *steps they took in the lab* to ensure their subjective interpretation of the redshift phenomenon was accurate. It's not a dark energy camera. It's a redshift exploration device as best case, "red sensitive camera" if we remove all the hype entirely.

That would be a huge waste of time to mention in each breath, they provide with the papers where the conclusions has been made. That's enough.
As for the camera, meh.

No, but when you're naming a device to study the universe, it's ridiculous to start interjecting your preconceived ideas into the name of the device.

Why would it? The name is of no importance, you could have called it "Skruttomobil" for all I care.

From my perspective, it sure looks like blind acceptance. They seem to ignore 5 empirical options in favor of *one metaphysical possibility* that requires *two invisible friends*! They keep finding new "missing mass" in the form of ordinary plasma, but still point at high energy emissions and claim WIMPS did it, *in spite* of the LHC falsification of simple SUSY theories.

And you, who is the prophet of clarity, know more than they. You'd think it would be rather obvious for those who work with it...
... Oh, wait, you think it's all a conspiracy. If forgot.

It doesn't take a genius or any great understanding of astronomy to notice the difference (and appreciate it) between a claim that shows up in the lab (like plasma redshift), and one that does not (dark energy did it).

And to evaluate those assertions, how much understanding would that take?
More.

My three biggest complaints about Lambda-CDM are directly related to the fact that none of these claims show up in the lab, none of are necessary in the first place, and all of them violate the laws of physics as we understand them *today*!

And to evaluate those assertions would take more understanding.

When I see them ignore four types of empirical options, ignore the SUSY falsifications from LHC, and their attack dogs continue to bash away at empirical physics in cyberspace and control all dissent, it's hard not to see them as a cult. They're like the Scientologists of the scientific world with invisible Xenu's galore. Please! Just go look at what passes for a "scientific discussion" over at CosmoQuest these days. It's pathetic. Two rule systems. One for them, another witch hunt rule system for all heretics that results in the closing of the heretical thread and the burning of the witch!

And those assertions are great to rile up people who won't take the time to sit down and understand things. You make assertions that are well designed to make people feel with you, whether you're correct or not.

Right. Somehow I'm being paranoid when the mainstream is the one that is in pure denial of four types of known versions of plasma redshift. Nevermind the fact that they haven't lifted a finger in over three decades to incorporate even one of the known plasma redshift mechanisms into their redshift calculations. Nevermind the fact that they put PC theoriests on *trial* on their public forums, complete with virtual lynchings. Forget the fact they have rule systems on their website that forbid the further discussion on dissenting ideas entirely. Sorry if I sound paranoid, but I've been through the witch burning, and virtual execution process several times now. I've seen how they operate and I've seen their "rule system" at work in cyberspace for over seven years now. Forgive me if I'm a little jaded. I'm still trying to get the stench of burned virtual hair and flesh out of my virtual clothing.

Conspiracy! You're offering a lot of upsetting assertions that would take a lot of time to check, people won't do that.

Take the time to protest properly, write papers that are highly relevant to the subject and you'll see whether 'your side' will gain more acceptance in time. Get real.