Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[Michael]

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.

I'm certainly convinced that it is a typo since I can tell you how to 'fix' it, and according to the EU/PC haters, I don't understand enough math to balance a checkbook.

FYI, that typo was actually found in a smaller, much later paper, not the original 95 page *whopper* of his original presentation. Furthermore there is no such error in the original presentation of the same basic material.

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.

Well, if you put yourself in my shoes for a second, and we reversed roles for a moment you might understand how "I" would be ignoring four known empirical processes from consideration. You'd see how I left no room at all in my mathematical calculations for *any* of these known empirical causes of redshift in plasma. You'd see how silly it sounds for me to to be pointing at the sky at the moment and claiming SUSY particles did it, since several simple SUSY models were tested and falsified at LHC, and the standard particle physics model is now complete without the need for SUSY theory.

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

This is the part that for the life of me, I cannot understand. You seem like a very rational, intelligent, level headed and "reasonable" sort of individual. I can't for the life of me understand what you could possibly mean by the term "better". Whereas every one of the plasma redshift mechanisms I have proposed, including the Wolf effect, Stark redshift, Compton redshift and what Chen et all called "plasma redshift" show up in the lab, not a single claim made by the mainstream has been demonstrated. Furthermore since they provide no wiggle room at all for *any* amount of plasma redshift in their calculations, they must now forever remain in pure denial of known laws of plasma physics.

How in the world could that possibly be a "better" theory than one that works in the lab?

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

Actually, I'm not likely to reach "most people", just the ones that have a real interest in astronomy. If they "doubt" my word, they'll check it out for themselves, and they'll start to see the difference between the movement of objects, and mainstream metaphysical claims about "space expansion" which *has never* been shown to effect a photon in any lab. Furthermore it's a 'bait and switch' claim in most cases because they try to justify "space" expansion based on "Doppler shift", when in fact "Doppler shift" is an example of *object movement*, *not* space expansion.

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.

That is of course your prerogative, just as a theist might choose to trust their 'pastor' rather than you. It's not much of a 'scientific' argument in the final analysis, it's a "statement of faith" in what you believe to be "experts", who in this particular case are in fact in pure denial of known laws of plasma physics.

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.

Define "honestly" for me. When the rules are not "equal" and there is no pretense about it, how exactly is that an "honest" debate in your mind? When there are a pack of "haters" tossing terms like "crackpot", "crank", "insane", yada, yada, yada, into virtually every post, how exactly is that an "honest" scientific conversation about plasma physics?

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

You're free to ignore this thread and find another thread to participate in if this particular one annoys you. I do know something about the topic and I find it annoying that they misrepresented the facts, hence the topic of this thread.

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.

Actually I've been a self employed programmer for the past 20 years. FYI, that is exactly why mainstream metaphysical claims work in the first place. They modify the "properties" of their metaphysical variables until it fits correctly. It can't not work, or they simply "tweak" one of the "Dark" variables until it does work. The problem is, it doesn't work in the lab, and it stands in pure denial of the laws of plasma physics. In the real world of plasma physics, plasma redshift happens. Since they left no room at all in their calculations for natural processes in plasma they fool themselves into believing that their invisible friends (plural) did it.

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

I'm not expecting "instant" change, but after five years of one epic failure after another, you'd think they'd at least *start* the process of moving themselves toward plasma physics. Since they have steadfastly refused to do that for the past five years, in spite of revelation after revelation of the failures of their model, one starts to wonder if they are even remotely interested in truth or change.

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

That's my intention.

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).

I just want them to know that there is more than one "interpretation", and the 'other one' is congruent with plasma physics, whereas the 'main' one stands in pure denial of laws of plasma physics. I just want them to know that they have choices, and I want them to be able to "choose" wisely.

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

Me too, but hands on empirical physics is my favorite brand of science. It produces tangible goods that I use and love in my life, so I'm a huge fan of empirical physics. Theoretical esoteric stuff, not so much.

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.

It's enough for what? It's enough for you to ignore the laws of plasma physics? Really? Ok.....

As for the camera, meh.

It's false advertizing, pure and simple. Since they can't name a source of dark energy, let alone a way to control it, they have no possible empirical way to have "tested" their claim about this camera being related to "dark energy", let alone demonstrate it to a jury. It's a blatant example of false advertizing which they could *never hope* to demonstrate to a real jury in a real courtroom.

Meanwhile with enough money I "might" be able to demonstrate four different forms of plasma redshift for the courtroom, and demonstrate to the court that the universe is mostly in the plasma state based on the testimony and finding of the *mainstream themselves*!

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

It doesn't matter what you call it. Whatever it is, it's a placeholder term for human ignorance, and I can even tell you *what* the mainstream is ignorant of! They are ignorant of the laws of plasma physics! In the real world of plasma physics, plasma redshift happens. It's not magic. It's not 'dark'. It's observed in the lab all the time!

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.

Sorry if you don't like it, but I've walked the walk as well as talked the talk. I didn't just put up a website, I've debated my beliefs and ideas related to astronomy with astronomers around the world for over seven years now. I've learned a lot in time, and I've seen how they treat dissent in cyberspace and in the publishing world.

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

I don't know? An afternoon? A day? Two? As long as you focus on two issues, it should be pretty easy to verify my statements. All you need to know is if in fact Compton redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect and what Chen calls "plasma redshift" have been documented in the lab. You then need to know whether or not Lambda-CDM theory allows for *any* of those known plasma physical processes in their calculations. That's really all you need to know.

And to evaluate those assertions would take more understanding.

Yep. They'd probably have to be someone interested in the topic of astronomy and be somewhat curious. No doubt about that.

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.

If I expect any change, the controversy is a "good" thing, provided that my statements are all "true" and verifiable on the internet for the average person to verify for themselves if they choose to do so. They will necessarily need to be motivated to educate themselves on this topic, and that might not be everyone's 'cup of tea'. I simply happen to have a love of astronomy, and therefore it's my passion.

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

That can be verified in five minutes just be going over to CosmoQuest and reading the "rules" related to "against the mainstream" ideas.

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.

I hear you and with others help, I've been able to get some of my ideas published already. I also made a series of public "predictions" on CosmoQuest and other websites prior to the launch of SDO that have since been verified by SDO, and I would like to finish that presentation before I work on publishing anything else. The fact that SDO helioseismology data just falsified mainstream convection predictions was really a major bonus. Whereas predictions related to Birkeland's solar model work well to explain SDO images, the mainstream just lost their "power supply" to explain "reconnection" theory, something Alfven himself called pseudoscience and replaced with his double layer paper.

That's another example by the way of where the mainstream remains in steadfast denial of the laws of plasma physics. Rather than "accept" Alfven's explanation of events inside a double layer, they cling to a theory that Alfven called "pseudoscience" till the day that he died. They gave the guy the Nobel prize in plasma physics, and promptly ignored his work for the rest of his life.

 

[Elendur]

I'm certainly convinced that it is a typo since I can tell you how to 'fix' it, and according to the EU/PC haters, I don't understand enough math to balance a checkbook.

FYI, that typo was actually found in a smaller, much later paper, not the original 95 page *whopper* of his original presentation. Furthermore there is no such error in the original presentation of the same basic material.

Fine, I'm dropping this point (not that I trust you, mind you, just that this point is of a very minor meaning to me).

Well, if you put yourself in my shoes for a second, and we reversed roles for a moment you might understand how "I" would be ignoring four known empirical processes from consideration. You'd see how I left no room at all in my mathematical calculations for *any* of these known empirical causes of redshift in plasma. You'd see how silly it sounds for me to to be pointing at the sky at the moment and claiming SUSY particles did it, since several simple SUSY models were tested and falsified at LHC, and the standard particle physics model is now complete without the need for SUSY theory.

Assertion: Four redshift processes are ignored.
Work required to confirm or dismiss assertion: Monumental (and no, there's really no help available from the one making the assertion since the suspicion of bias).

Also, stop it with the "pointing to the sky", "empirical" and "lab". It's just a waste of space, repeating unnecessary things only serves to enforce the negative impression of you.

This is the part that for the life of me, I cannot understand. You seem like a very rational, intelligent, level headed and "reasonable" sort of individual. I can't for the life of me understand what you could possibly mean by the term "better". Whereas every one of the plasma redshift mechanisms I have proposed, including the Wolf effect, Stark redshift, Compton redshift and what Chen et all called "plasma redshift" show up in the lab, not a single claim made by the mainstream has been demonstrated. Furthermore since they provide no wiggle room at all for *any* amount of plasma redshift in their calculations, they must now forever remain in pure denial of known laws of plasma physics.

How in the world could that possibly be a "better" theory than one that works in the lab?

Better because your work to promote your alternative theory gives the impression of you not being calm and objective.
I don't see how you think that the public would make informed decisions when the details are complex enough to require time and competence to understand.
I'm trying to be as calm as I can but I'm at the end of my rope here.

Actually, I'm not likely to reach "most people", just the ones that have a real interest in astronomy. If they "doubt" my word, they'll check it out for themselves, and they'll start to see the difference between the movement of objects, and mainstream metaphysical claims about "space expansion" which *has never* been shown to effect a photon in any lab. Furthermore it's a 'bait and switch' claim in most cases because they try to justify "space" expansion based on "Doppler shift", when in fact "Doppler shift" is an example of *object movement*, *not* space expansion.

Wait... You don't see how the dopppler shift applies to space expansion?

That is of course your prerogative, just as a theist might choose to trust their 'pastor' rather than you. It's not much of a 'scientific' argument in the final analysis, it's a "statement of faith" in what you believe to be "experts", who in this particular case are in fact in pure denial of known laws of plasma physics.

One important difference, the scientists work (in concept at least) by evidence, combined with an effective system against fraud. Religious people who want to impose their views as something more than spiritual guides don't.
And the problem is that I don't trust your assertion that they are "in pure denial".

Define "honestly" for me. When the rules are not "equal" and there is no pretense about it, how exactly is that an "honest" debate in your mind? When there are a pack of "haters" tossing terms like "crackpot", "crank", "insane", yada, yada, yada, into virtually every post, how exactly is that an "honest" scientific conversation about plasma physics?

Honestly: In an honest way.
Honest: Not fraudulent.
As for the insult, it's very, very hard to keep them back when treated like an idiot.
(When I write "treated like an idiot" I refer to you repeating things that are either of relevance, to varying degrees, like the different kinds of redshift, or of no relevance, like "lab")

You're free to ignore this thread and find another thread to participate in if this particular one annoys you. I do know something about the topic and I find it annoying that they misrepresented the facts, hence the topic of this thread.

You bring it along into every thread you participate in. At least in this sub forum.

Actually I've been a self employed programmer for the past 20 years. FYI, that is exactly why mainstream metaphysical claims work in the first place. They modify the "properties" of their metaphysical variables until it fits correctly. It can't not work, or they simply "tweak" one of the "Dark" variables until it does work. The problem is, it doesn't work in the lab, and it stands in pure denial of the laws of plasma physics. In the real world of plasma physics, plasma redshift happens. Since they left no room at all in their calculations for natural processes in plasma they fool themselves into believing that their invisible friends (plural) did it.

Of course they modify to fit the variables! That's how you do it!
You adapt your model to fit with the available data, how else would you have it?

I'm not expecting "instant" change, but after five years of one epic failure after another, you'd think they'd at least *start* the process of moving themselves toward plasma physics. Since they have steadfastly refused to do that for the past five years, in spite of revelation after revelation of the failures of their model, one starts to wonder if they are even remotely interested in truth or change.

So the work has stagnated? How on earth does that avoid detection then?

That's my intention.

Great (and I honestly mean it).

I just want them to know that there is more than one "interpretation", and the 'other one' is congruent with plasma physics, whereas the 'main' one stands in pure denial of laws of plasma physics. I just want them to know that they have choices, and I want them to be able to "choose" wisely.

Of course they know they've got choices, working by the assumptions they're not airheads. The practical thing with science is that everybody knows there are alternative theories. That's the fine thing with working by the assumption that one's not correct before the evidence is observed.

Me too, but hands on empirical physics is my favorite brand of science. It produces tangible goods that I use and love in my life, so I'm a huge fan of empirical physics. Theoretical esoteric stuff, not so much.

Then why would you insist that the acknowledgement of the results of the lab is required for learning?

It's enough for what? It's enough for you to ignore the laws of plasma physics? Really? Ok.....

It's enough for one to know what conclusions has been drawn and from what evidence. They can't spend all their time repeating the reference.

It's false advertizing, pure and simple. Since they can't name a source of dark energy, let alone a way to control it, they have no possible empirical way to have "tested" their claim about this camera being related to "dark energy", let alone demonstrate it to a jury. It's a blatant example of false advertizing which they could *never hope* to demonstrate to a real jury in a real courtroom.

If looking for predicted evidence, why not name it after the publics favorite name?

Meanwhile with enough money I "might" be able to demonstrate four different forms of plasma redshift for the courtroom, and demonstrate to the court that the universe is mostly in the plasma state based on the testimony and finding of the *mainstream themselves*!

Great, then write that paper and make a name for yourself.

It doesn't matter what you call it. Whatever it is, it's a placeholder term for human ignorance, and I can even tell you *what* the mainstream is ignorant of! They are ignorant of the laws of plasma physics! In the real world of plasma physics, plasma redshift happens. It's not magic. It's not 'dark'. It's observed in the lab all the time!

I know! I read it the first hundred times, plus a couple of hundred times after that!
Again you say plasma physics is ignored. I don't believe you.

Sorry if you don't like it, but I've walked the walk as well as talked the talk. I didn't just put up a website, I've debated my beliefs and ideas related to astronomy with astronomers around the world for over seven years now. I've learned a lot in time, and I've seen how they treat dissent in cyberspace and in the publishing world.

See, that's the pro with publishing papers, criticism is much more professional.

I don't know? An afternoon? A day? Two? As long as you focus on two issues, it should be pretty easy to verify my statements. All you need to know is if in fact Compton redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect and what Chen calls "plasma redshift" have been documented in the lab. You then need to know whether or not Lambda-CDM theory allows for *any* of those known plasma physical processes in their calculations. That's really all you need to know.

To know that you would have to check a lot of publishings, that combined with the understanding would take more than two days.
There are very few people willing to spend that time on something that doesn't concern them in the slightest.

Yep. They'd probably have to be someone interested in the topic of astronomy and be somewhat curious. No doubt about that.

Indeed.

If I expect any change, the controversy is a "good" thing, provided that my statements are all "true" and verifiable on the internet for the average person to verify for themselves if they choose to do so. They will necessarily need to be motivated to educate themselves on this topic, and that might not be everyone's 'cup of tea'. I simply happen to have a love of astronomy, and therefore it's my passion.

Just don't expect the public to make informed decisions in complex matters.

That can be verified in five minutes just be going over to CosmoQuest and reading the "rules" related to "against the mainstream" ideas.

You mean rule nr 13?
** Rules For Posting To This Board **
You seem to conflict with rule 13B and with:
---

You must defend your arguments and directly answer pertinent questions in a timely manner. Honestly answering "I don't know" is acceptable. Evasiveness will not be tolerated.

If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will receive infractions, which can lead to suspension or banishment.

---

I hear you and with others help, I've been able to get some of my ideas published already. I also made a series of public "predictions" on CosmoQuest and other websites prior to the launch of SDO that have since been verified by SDO, and I would like to finish that presentation before I work on publishing anything else. The fact that SDO helioseismology data just falsified mainstream convection predictions was really a major bonus. Whereas predictions related to Birkeland's solar model work well to explain SDO images, the mainstream just lost their "power supply" to explain "reconnection" theory, something Alfven himself called pseudoscience and replaced with his double layer paper.

Great, I guess a lot of people will be waiting.

That's another example by the way of where the mainstream remains in steadfast denial of the laws of plasma physics. Rather than "accept" Alfven's explanation of events inside a double layer, they cling to a theory that Alfven called "pseudoscience" till the day that he died. They gave the guy the Nobel prize in plasma physics, and promptly ignored his work for the rest of his life.

Whether his work made that little change would be hard to determine.


*Note*
This post might be iffy, it was late in the evening.

 

[Michael]

Assertion: Four redshift processes are ignored.
Work required to confirm or dismiss assertion: Monumental (and no, there's really no help available from the one making the assertion since the suspicion of bias).

Frankly I think you're a little melodramatic about how long it might take to verify my statements. The mainstream to this very day sees the issue as an 'either/or' proposition, as though it *must be one or the other* (plasma redshift aka tired light/expansion). Their whole mentality is based upon an oversimplification fallacy. They do not account for any types of plasma redshift, therefore they created a placeholder term for their human ignorance. It's quite easy to explain when you think about it. They refuse to acknowledge *any* amount of plasma redshift and they were in fact recently 'surprised' to 'discover'....drum roll....a dense million degree plasma bubble around our galaxy. They found missing mass in plasma with lots of free electrons. Cue Chen's work linking free electrons to redshift....

Really, plasma redshift/tired light theory is something the the mainstream still sees as an either/or proposition, when it fact it's likely related to a combination of all four types of plasma redshift in various degrees.

If you're ever interested, that's the 'smoking gun'. Since they refuse to account for plasma redshift, they have created placeholder terms for human ignorance, specifically the terms inflation and dark energy.

Also, stop it with the "pointing to the sky", "empirical" and "lab". It's just a waste of space, repeating unnecessary things only serves to enforce the negative impression of you.

Hmmm, ok. Just remember that old habits die hard, and frankly I'm tired of listening to them try to find any high energy 'gaps' in which to stuff their claim about WIMPS. There is no tangible evidence for any of their various gap fillers.

Better because your work to promote your alternative theory gives the impression of you not being calm and objective.

I think I'm very objective. If we were talking about a 'religion' that made three claims that lacked tangible support, you'd be all over it. You wouldn't be likely to accept something that lacks tangible support in any religion. As long as they put the term 'science' in front of it however, it seems to be ok by you?

I don't see how you think that the public would make informed decisions when the details are complex enough to require time and competence to understand.

I don't really see the issue as being all that complicated quite frankly. The mainstream is stuck 50 years in the past based on an oversimplification fallacy. They act as though plasma redshift must come in one form, and only one form, and if they can 'debunk' a single redshift idea, that alone justifies them rejecting *all* forms of plasma redshift in their minds in favor or 'expansion/acceleration'. It's really a simple thing to explain.

Wait... You don't see how the dopppler shift applies to space expansion?

Nope. In fact I would bluntly call it a "bait and switch" device they use to confuse the buyer. Doppler redshift is an example of object movement, not 'space expansion'. They 'bait' the buyer with an idea they can relate to, then they "switch" in a metaphysical claim that has *nothing* to do with object movement. It's an equivalency fallacy and they rarely note the fact it's never been demonstrated and could never be demonstrated.

One important difference, the scientists work (in concept at least) by evidence, combined with an effective system against fraud. Religious people who want to impose their views as something more than spiritual guides don't.
And the problem is that I don't trust your assertion that they are "in pure denial".

There's like one or two guys, Ned SomethingOrOther, and a guy who's name escapes me that put up websites that are used by the all mainstreamers to supposedly 'debunk' plasma redshift theory, as though 'debunking' a single one of the four methods being used independently somehow means they can ignore all plasma redshift entirely. It relates to Compton redshift and only Compton redshift, and it's not even a *published* rebuttal! I've seen it done a million (ok, slight exaggeration) times over the years. It's absurd behaviors. "Here! Here's some guy's website that explains why we can ignore plasma physics entirely!" Oy Vey.

Honestly: In an honest way.
Honest: Not fraudulent.
As for the insult, it's very, very hard to keep them back when treated like an idiot.
(When I write "treated like an idiot" I refer to you repeating things that are either of relevance, to varying degrees, like the different kinds of redshift, or of no relevance, like "lab")

The messenger 'should be' irrelevant to the mainstream, just the facts. They fixate on the messenger and ignore the facts I'm afraid. You realize that you could disprove my statements by rounding up a single Lambda-CDM paper that incorporate say two or three types of plasma redshift into their calculations. Good luck with that however.

You bring it along into every thread you participate in. At least in this sub forum.

Just the cosmology related ones. I've participated and started other threads on unrelated topics without discussing cosmology theory. Astronomy simply happens to be my second favorite topic (God/Jesus ranks #1), so I end up discussing it quite often, particularly on a 'science' related forum.

Of course they modify to fit the variables! That's how you do it!
You adapt your model to fit with the available data, how else would you have it?

The difference is that I would be modifying variables related to one of four known types of plasma redshift, not three make-believe entities that have no value or use outside of a single cosmology theory.

So the work has stagnated? How on earth does that avoid detection then?

Because not everyone notices it and complains about it publicly like I do?

Of course they know they've got choices, working by the assumptions they're not airheads.

You're 'assuming' they also offer the various plasma redshift options in class aren't you? Where did you get that idea?

The practical thing with science is that everybody knows there are alternative theories. That's the fine thing with working by the assumption that one's not correct before the evidence is observed.

That really doesn't justify them calling a red sensitive camera a "dark energy camera. Give me a break. Since they indoctrinate them into one theory and ridicule the logical options, it's a wee hard to believe that they're presenting the evidence fairly. Instead of saying that they observe redshift, they are constantly claiming to have 'observed expansion' in every public statement they make. It's ridiculous nonsense. They even claim to have "empirical evidence of expansion". Pure nonsense. They have empirical evidence of plasma redshift staring them in the face, and pure denial of physics written all over their faces (and math formulas).

Then why would you insist that the acknowledgement of the results of the lab is required for learning?

Supposedly the value of any theory is based on how well it can "predict" future scientific findings. Astronomers have been "predicting" SUSY particles did it for decades. Now that LHC put the idea to the empirical test, it *failed*, in fact several simple models failed. Worse yet, the Higgs was found at an energy state that makes SUSY theory irrelevant.

It's enough for one to know what conclusions has been drawn and from what evidence. They can't spend all their time repeating the reference.

They spend all their time repeating the same mantras. "Dark energy cameras. Dark energy did this, dark energy does that, the mystery is dark energy". They won't even *consider* the possibility that the real mystery of photon redshift is related to "plasma redshift"!

If looking for predicted evidence, why not name it after the publics favorite name?

Because in the consumer market you can't claim to cure cancer if you can't really cure cancer. It may 'sound nice', but without evidence of your claim, you get sued, and rightfully so.

Great, then write that paper and make a name for yourself.

I'm frankly irrelevant. Making a 'name for myself' isn't really a huge goal of mine to be honest. Raising a family and running my business are far more relevant and important goals in my life at the moment. FYI, IMO Birkeland beat me to most of my ideas and beliefs by 100 years, and many PC enthusiasts promoted PC theory before I ever found out about it.

I'm really just interested in making sure the mainstream isn't overselling their claims, and offering a rational alternative to their nonsense.

I know! I read it the first hundred times, plus a couple of hundred times after that!
Again you say plasma physics is ignored. I don't believe you.

PC/EU theory is like the "devil" of mainstream websites. They *hate* all PC/EU promotion on their websites. CosmoQuest goes out of their way to close *all* (not just my) electric universe threads and discussions. It's irrational behavior, but you can check it out for yourself. They literally spend their time bashing away at empirical physics, and putting promoters of empirical physics on trial in their 'against the mainstream' forum. You'll see a lot of 'locked' threads there.

FYI, I'm going skip some parts where we seem to agree.

Just don't expect the public to make informed decisions in complex matters.

They can't make informed decisions if they never hear about Stark redshift, Compton Redshift, the Wolf effect, and what Chen calls 'plasma redshift'. From my perspective the decision isn't all that complicated. In term of what shows up in real experiments, on one side of the scales sits four demonstrated methods to achieve plasma/photon redshift. On the other side of the scale sits nothing at all but handwaves.

You mean rule nr 13?
** Rules For Posting To This Board **
You seem to conflict with rule 13B and with:
---

---

Funny how I answered their questions for *months on end*, and admitted many times that I simply could not answer their question, but somehow I was 'evasive' so 'burn the witch'! Give me a break. What a pitiful excuse for a science forum.

Great, I guess a lot of people will be waiting.

I was actually hoping a few professionals might beat me too it. We'll see.

Whether his work made that little change would be hard to determine.

They continue to write about 'reconnection' theory when in fact he called the idea 'pseudoscience' more than a half dozen times in a room full of plasma physicists right before he presented his paper on double layers that makes the whole concept irrelevant and obsolete.

Not that the mainstream took any notice mind you.....

*Note*
This post might be iffy, it was late in the evening.

I'd say you did well.

 

[Tiberius]

This thread is devoted to pointing out the silly statements made by mainstream astronomers.

Yes, statements so silly that the majority of cosmologists have discarded them.

Except that hasn't happened, has it?

So either it's a big conspiracy, or you just don't know what you're talking about.

 

[mzungu]

Er, no. This thread is *not* about me "defending" EU/PC theory. Take another gander at the opening post of this thread. Lots of folks have written *plenty* of papers on the topic of a static universe. I suggest you read a few of them. This thread is devoted to pointing out the silly statements made by mainstream astronomers.

Apparently it's fine to "technobable" about dark inflatable things that cannot and do not show up in the lab, but God forbid I should suggest ordinary EM fields play a role in activities in space. Wow!

FYI, I'm really not personally attached to any particular layout of matter. It need not be an infinite or an eternal universe. I'm just fine with that possibility. I'm fine with an expanding universe based on object movement as well, just not a universe that expands faster than light.

My point still stands. It's impossible to have created a camera that is actually a "dark energy camera". Since there are four known causes of plasma redshift, there's no evidence whatsoever that A) dark energy exist, or B) it is related to photon redshift or acceleration or C) that is serves any useful purpose other than to save one otherwise falsified cosmology theory from certain empirical death. Apparently it's primary function is to serve as metaphysical gap filler of truly *epic* proportions in one and only one otherwise useless theory.

Ah the arrogance of the creationists!

 

[Michael]

Ah the arrogance of the creationists!

Indeed. Fortunately I'm not one of them.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-16/#post61504145

FYI, from my perspective you seem to have a listening deficiency combined with an inability to distinguish between various theists, and see them as individuals, that hold a variety of different "beliefs".

Pssssst....

Theists are individuals. Not all theists share exactly the same beliefs. They hold different beliefs on a wide range of topics, including cosmology theory, solar physics, politics, religion, etc. If you run around *assuming* that they all think alike, you're bound to step in quicksand occasionally, as your last comment demonstrates. That's a great example.

 

[Michael]

Yes, statements so silly that the majority of cosmologists have discarded them.

Ya, and there was also a time when the majority of cosmologists preferred the concept of Earth centric theory and epicycles too. So what? PC/EU theory is in fact gaining in popularity, year after year. In terms of the PC/EU community, I'm actually relatively new to it. Birkeland beat me to it by 100 years, Alfven, Carqvist, Bruce and many others by at least 70 years, and many living members preceded me by 35+ years. I'm one of the "growing minority".

Except that hasn't happened, has it?

Not yet, but it's inevitable from my perspective. Plasma physics will eventually trump dark placeholder terms for what amounts to human ignorance. It's even quite obvious what they are ignorant of too at the level of plasma physics. Since they include no calculations whatsoever related to Compton Redshift, the Wolf effect, Stark redshift or what Chen called "plasma redshift", they are clearly ignorant of plasma physics! In the real world of plasma physics, plasma redshift is well known and well documented. Alfven personally wrote a double layer paper that made magnetic reconnection theory obsolete and he called their beliefs about plasma physics "pseudoscience" till the day that he died. It's really quite obvious from a skeptics perspective that the term dark energy is a placeholder term that is related to their ignorance of plasma physics, and specifically plasma redshift. If they had included plasma redshift in their calculation, Holushko has demonstrated they would have no mathematical or emotional need for dark energy or inflation. Since they have no understanding or acceptance of plasma redshift, they remain stuck in the dark ages of physics.

The EU/PC community has a *much* better understanding of plasma physics. Even Kristain Birkeland understood plasma physics better than they do which is why his cathode solar model correctly predicts what SDO now observes on a daily basis, whereas mainstream solar theory was just falsified by that same SDO heliosiesmology data.

So either it's a big conspiracy, or you just don't know what you're talking about.

It's not at all uncommon in the field of astronomy for there to be majority and minority viewpoints that change over time. For instance, when Einstein proposed GR, steady state cosmology theory was the "mainstream" viewpoint.

What caused the viewpoint to change was Hubble's discovery of redshifted photons. Keep in mind nobody knew how large the universe might be back then nor could they be sure of the exact amount of redshift. It was theoretically possible for the expansion to be related to object expansion, or a non flat universe sort of expansion, so the concept of expansion *eventually* (not overnight) started to become the "mainstream" position.

Since that time however, four known tangible causes of plasma redshift have documented, and not a single one of them has been accounted for in mainstream theory. That alone says *volumes*!

There's no doubt what those placeholder terms for human ignorance represent from the perspective of plasma cosmology theory. They represent a fundamental ignorance of plasma redshift on the part of the mainstream. Period.

 

[Elendur]

Frankly I think you're a little melodramatic about how long it might take to verify my statements. The mainstream to this very day sees the issue as an 'either/or' proposition, as though it *must be one or the other* (plasma redshift aka tired light/expansion). Their whole mentality is based upon an oversimplification fallacy. They do not account for any types of plasma redshift, therefore they created a placeholder term for their human ignorance. It's quite easy to explain when you think about it. They refuse to acknowledge *any* amount of plasma redshift and they were in fact recently 'surprised' to 'discover'....drum roll....a dense million degree plasma bubble around our galaxy. They found missing mass in plasma with lots of free electrons. Cue Chen's work linking free electrons to redshift....

It's all in the confirmation, every claim you make will take time to confirm and when you say something has been missed it will take even longer. No explanation will shorten that time.

Really, plasma redshift/tired light theory is something the the mainstream still sees as an either/or proposition, when it fact it's likely related to a combination of all four types of plasma redshift in various degrees.

You see, that's the kind of thing I find really hard to believe. I think your sources are outdated.

If you're ever interested, that's the 'smoking gun'. Since they refuse to account for plasma redshift, they have created placeholder terms for human ignorance, specifically the terms inflation and dark energy.

I don't think they "refuse to account" for it.

Hmmm, ok. Just remember that old habits die hard, and frankly I'm tired of listening to them try to find any high energy 'gaps' in which to stuff their claim about WIMPS. There is no tangible evidence for any of their various gap fillers.

If it has been disproved they would revise. You're certain you're up to date (or even if it has been disproved)?

I think I'm very objective. If we were talking about a 'religion' that made three claims that lacked tangible support, you'd be all over it. You wouldn't be likely to accept something that lacks tangible support in any religion. As long as they put the term 'science' in front of it however, it seems to be ok by you?

You can put the term 'science' in front of anything, it won't make it ok. However when under the strict control system currently used it makes things a whole lot better.

I don't really see the issue as being all that complicated quite frankly. The mainstream is stuck 50 years in the past based on an oversimplification fallacy. They act as though plasma redshift must come in one form, and only one form, and if they can 'debunk' a single redshift idea, that alone justifies them rejecting *all* forms of plasma redshift in their minds in favor or 'expansion/acceleration'. It's really a simple thing to explain.

It's simple to explain perhaps, though I doubt the accuracy of the explanation, but it sure as **** isn't easy to understand.

Nope. In fact I would bluntly call it a "bait and switch" device they use to confuse the buyer. Doppler redshift is an example of object movement, not 'space expansion'. They 'bait' the buyer with an idea they can relate to, then they "switch" in a metaphysical claim that has *nothing* to do with object movement. It's an equivalency fallacy and they rarely note the fact it's never been demonstrated and could never be demonstrated.

The space expansion is an explanatory mechanism to the increased movement speed.
Why would you say that the space expansion never could be demonstrated? It makes some geometrical predictions, that much is obvious even to me.

There's like one or two guys, Ned SomethingOrOther, and a guy who's name escapes me that put up websites that are used by the all mainstreamers to supposedly 'debunk' plasma redshift theory, as though 'debunking' a single one of the four methods being used independently somehow means they can ignore all plasma redshift entirely. It relates to Compton redshift and only Compton redshift, and it's not even a *published* rebuttal! I've seen it done a million (ok, slight exaggeration) times over the years. It's absurd behaviors. "Here! Here's some guy's website that explains why we can ignore plasma physics entirely!" Oy Vey.

There aren't any published rebuttals at all?

The messenger 'should be' irrelevant to the mainstream, just the facts. They fixate on the messenger and ignore the facts I'm afraid. You realize that you could disprove my statements by rounding up a single Lambda-CDM paper that incorporate say two or three types of plasma redshift into their calculations. Good luck with that however.

Good luck indeed, since I've got no expertise in the area whatsoever. Present that challenge to someone who knows physics.

Just the cosmology related ones. I've participated and started other threads on unrelated topics without discussing cosmology theory. Astronomy simply happens to be my second favorite topic (God/Jesus ranks #1), so I end up discussing it quite often, particularly on a 'science' related forum.

No, not just (it's creepy stalker-time!);
http://www.christianforums.com/t7681399-33/#post61457457
http://www.christianforums.com/t7681035-19/#post61390263
http://www.christianforums.com/t7683386-12/#post61331531

The difference is that I would be modifying variables related to one of four known types of plasma redshift, not three make-believe entities that have no value or use outside of a single cosmology theory.

You see, the good thing with data fitting is that you'll end up with a great model no matter what you do (give enough time and work you'll either see that your assumed model is incorrect or that things that you wouldn't expect work its way into constants).

Because not everyone notices it and complains about it publicly like I do?

I doubt it

You're 'assuming' they also offer the various plasma redshift options in class aren't you? Where did you get that idea?

Except from the fact that people know of it? What about the reason where they have a multitude of courses in most universities (or similar) that covers almost everything?

That really doesn't justify them calling a red sensitive camera a "dark energy camera. Give me a break. Since they indoctrinate them into one theory and ridicule the logical options, it's a wee hard to believe that they're presenting the evidence fairly. Instead of saying that they observe redshift, they are constantly claiming to have 'observed expansion' in every public statement they make. It's ridiculous nonsense. They even claim to have "empirical evidence of expansion". Pure nonsense. They have empirical evidence of plasma redshift staring them in the face, and pure denial of physics written all over their faces (and math formulas).

Ah, you would prefer them presenting the direct evidences instead of the interpretations?

Supposedly the value of any theory is based on how well it can "predict" future scientific findings. {Snip for space}

I don't agree by this premise.

They spend all their time repeating the same mantras. "Dark energy cameras. Dark energy did this, dark energy does that, the mystery is dark energy". They won't even *consider* the possibility that the real mystery of photon redshift is related to "plasma redshift"!

Would you consider the possibility it isn't as much as you've premised?

Because in the consumer market you can't claim to cure cancer if you can't really cure cancer. It may 'sound nice', but without evidence of your claim, you get sued, and rightfully so.

So going out writing "Looking for the cure for cancer" would get you sued?

I'm frankly irrelevant. Making a 'name for myself' isn't really a huge goal of mine to be honest. Raising a family and running my business are far more relevant and important goals in my life at the moment. FYI, IMO Birkeland beat me to most of my ideas and beliefs by 100 years, and many PC enthusiasts promoted PC theory before I ever found out about it.

I'm really just interested in making sure the mainstream isn't overselling their claims, and offering a rational alternative to their nonsense.

Wouldn't it be easier to pick out one equation and prove it wrong? That would save you a whole lot of time.

PC/EU theory is like the "devil" of mainstream websites. They *hate* all PC/EU promotion on their websites. CosmoQuest goes out of their way to close *all* (not just my) electric universe threads and discussions. It's irrational behavior, but you can check it out for yourself. They literally spend their time bashing away at empirical physics, and putting promoters of empirical physics on trial in their 'against the mainstream' forum. You'll see a lot of 'locked' threads there.

One would expect there to be a lot of locked threads, they specifically state they lock them after 30 days.
Just read one, I think they seemed reasonable (but harsh).
Static Universe vs. Big Bang Theory

Oh... I just read the last page, actually got me a laugh, I thought it was similar to your arguments.
I was Michael Mozina'd.

FYI, I'm going skip some parts where we seem to agree.

Right'o.

They can't make informed decisions if they never hear about Stark redshift, Compton Redshift, the Wolf effect, and what Chen calls 'plasma redshift'. From my perspective the decision isn't all that complicated. In term of what shows up in real experiments, on one side of the scales sits four demonstrated methods to achieve plasma/photon redshift. On the other side of the scale sits nothing at all but handwaves.

And to confirm that: Monumental work.

Funny how I answered their questions for *months on end*, and admitted many times that I simply could not answer their question, but somehow I was 'evasive' so 'burn the witch'! Give me a break. What a pitiful excuse for a science forum.

Well, you have a record of displaying a weird form of paranoia combined with a stubborn way.

I was actually hoping a few professionals might beat me too it. We'll see.

Indeed.

They continue to write about 'reconnection' theory when in fact he called the idea 'pseudoscience' more than a half dozen times in a room full of plasma physicists right before he presented his paper on double layers that makes the whole concept irrelevant and obsolete.

Not that the mainstream took any notice mind you.....

Don't see how the equation fits...
Monumental results -> No reaction
I'm guessing there's one of those that's wrong.

 

[Michael]

It's all in the confirmation, every claim you make will take time to confirm and when you say something has been missed it will take even longer. No explanation will shorten that time.

The basic idea is pretty straight forward. Since they do not account for the loss of energy to the plasma in plasma redshift, they make up placeholder terms for their ignorance, in this case 'dark energy'. Since none of their formulas include calculations for Compton Redshift, the Stark effect, the Wolf effect and what Chen calls 'plasma redshift', they think that "dark energy did it". How is that a difficult point to demonstrate. Either you will find Lamba-CDM theories that account for all known types of plasma redshift or you won't.

You see, that's the kind of thing I find really hard to believe. I think your sources are outdated.

I don't think they "refuse to account" for it.

A single paper incorporating the known forms of plasma redshift would disprove my claims in a single paper. Got one?

If it has been disproved they would revise. You're certain you're up to date (or even if it has been disproved)?

Define "disproved"! I can't actually disprove a negative, particular something that lack tangible support in the first place. Simple SUSY theories however do "predict" various particles exist in various energy ranges, and the lab results have falsified several simple models. It's theoretically possible to dream up an almost infinite number of 'possibilities', but the fine tuning is reaching a point that they now create more problems than they resolve. Furthermore the energy state of the Higgs was found in a range that makes standard theory complete *without* the need for SUSY theory in the first place. How much "disproving" of an idea would you expect exactly before it become inappropriate to claim WIMP did it, particularly when something as simple a ordinary (but powerful) currents can explain the same observation?

You can put the term 'science' in front of anything, it won't make it ok. However when under the strict control system currently used it makes things a whole lot better.

Again with the term "better"? How? Holushko's model seem much "better" from my vantage point because it's a generic application of *known* processes in plasma and it requires nothing new to exist in nature.

It's simple to explain perhaps, though I doubt the accuracy of the explanation, but it sure as **** isn't easy to understand.

It's not that complicated actually. As light travels from it's point of origin to Earth, it is slowly losing some of it's momentum the plasma medium. Slowly over distance the photons become "redshifted" by a combination of Stark redshift, what Chen calls "plasma redshift", Compton redshift and the Wolf effect. How is that hard to understand?

The space expansion is an explanatory mechanism to the increased movement speed.

Increase the movement speed of what?!?!? Space? Certainly not objects. The whole notion that "space" might be able to expand somewhere out there where humans can never reach is predicted upon the idea that "space" becomes devoid of mass somewhere "out there in space", and mass density is low enough for some magical undefined "space" to begin to "expand". Since the entire universe is filled with plasma, their mythical "sweet spot" for expansion doesn't exist anywhere in the universe.

Furthermore it would requires that *no* plasma redshift take place in a *known* plasma environment where experiments insist plasma redshift *must* occur. Chen was even able to demonstrate that free electron density was related to the amount of redshift, and the mainstream just found a ball of million degree plasma all around our galaxy! The laws of plasma physics would necessarily need to be suspended in space and work differently in space than they work in the lab for "dark energy" to actually exist!

Why would you say that the space expansion never could be demonstrated? It makes some geometrical predictions, that much is obvious even to me.

How would go about creating an experiment that shows this effect *without* pointing at the stars?

There aren't any published rebuttals at all?

I've seen published rebuttals to the very earliest attempts of plasma redshift proponents to explain the effect via the use of *only* Compton redshift, but nothing related to more modern redshift presentations of plasma redshift/tired light presentations.

Unfortunately the mentality of those papers went something to the effect of: "Since Compton redshift alone won't work by itself to explain these results, we can ignore the laws of physics now and pretend that *no* Compton redshift occurs in spacetime. The whole rebuttals tend to be based on oversimplification fallacies.

Good luck indeed, since I've got no expertise in the area whatsoever. Present that challenge to someone who knows physics.

Anyone that would like to jump in and disprove my statements is welcome to do so. My statements could theoretically be disproven with one well written paper. I've asked your "pros". I've yet to see such a paper.

No, not just (it's creepy stalker-time!);
http://www.christianforums.com/t7681399-33/#post61457457
http://www.christianforums.com/t7681035-19/#post61390263
http://www.christianforums.com/t7683386-12/#post61331531

Well, I've already admitted that cosmology theory is a passion of sorts. I'm sure if you were looking for "creepy starker-time" evidence from this website that I discuss God a lot in various threads, you'd find such evidence as well. That's probably true about animals as well by the way, since I have a fondness for them.

You see, the good thing with data fitting is that you'll end up with a great model no matter what you do (give enough time and work you'll either see that your assumed model is incorrect or that things that you wouldn't expect work its way into constants).

That's fine as long as there is some logical limit on the way you may use the constants. Since the mainstream is literally "making up the constants" and assigning them with properties they don't have demonstrate in real experiments on Earth, they take all the liberties they like. They can do anything, modify any variable and get away with scientific murder if they like. That cannot be done with plasma physics. It has to actually "work in the real work/lab", not just on paper. You can't just make up properties of plasma since those properties can be tested in the lab.

Except from the fact that people know of it? What about the reason where they have a multitude of courses in most universities (or similar) that covers almost everything?

The fact that Chen "knows" about plasma redshift in the lab doesn't necessarily mean that astronomers instantly "know" about too! While plasma physicists might understand the various types of plasma redshift, what makes you think "astronomers" are taught about these things. If in fact they were taught about these types of plasma redshift, why is there no allowance for plasma redshift in their redshift calculations?

Ah, you would prefer them presenting the direct evidences instead of the interpretations?

Sure. Wouldn't you?

I don't agree by this premise.

FYI, that puts you in disagreement with the mainstream since they make a "big deal" about how big bang theory "predicts" this, and "predicts" that. They never mention that most of it is a "postdicted" fit to known observation, including surprises they got when observing supernova events. They keep modifying it as they go, so it doesn't really "predict" anything correctly. It had to be liberally stuffed with another new placeholder term for human ignorance less than 20 years ago.

Would you consider the possibility it isn't as much as you've premised?

Sure, but then I'm not the one that cannot budge from my position. That award goes to the mainstream. They *cannot* move from their position because the moment they open up the door to *any* plasma redshift, there goes dark energy. If they open up the door to a "lot" of redshift, there goes inflation. If they open up Pandoras box, when will the falsification of their beloved expansion dogma end?

So going out writing "Looking for the cure for cancer" would get you sued?

No, but selling a "cancer camera" that had never actually been tested with any real cancers, or shown to actually be able to image cancer by using a known cancer, and real control mechanism, etc, would in fact get you sued in the business world. It's not a "dark energy camera" no matter how much you try to rationalize that away. It's simply a camera that is sensitive to a specific spectrum of light, in this case the red end of the spectrum. Period. The rests is hype and sales pitch.

Wouldn't it be easier to pick out one equation and prove it wrong? That would save you a whole lot of time.

Holushko already did that for you, and I found his material and put it before you, so apparently not.

One would expect there to be a lot of locked threads, they specifically state they lock them after 30 days.
Just read one, I think they seemed reasonable (but harsh).
Static Universe vs. Big Bang Theory

Reasonable? They close all discussion of the topic of Plasma redshift, and that's a "reasonable" attitude in your mind? How so? When empirical laboratory tested physics is 'off limits' for discussion, how is that a "science" forum exactly? I've seen less draconian rule systems on *most* religious websites.

Oh... I just read the last page, actually got me a laugh, I thought it was similar to your arguments.
I was Michael Mozina'd.

There's a very logical reason that I sounded the same then as I do now.

Well, you have a record of displaying a weird form of paranoia combined with a stubborn way.

FYI, paranoia tends to occur when you've been virtually burned at the stake a few times. Poor plasma redshift.

Indeed.

Don't see how the equation fits...
Monumental results -> No reaction
I'm guessing there's one of those that's wrong.

Alfven actually wrote a double layer paper that made the whole concept of MR theory obsolete. He called the theory of magnetic reconnection a form of pseudoscience more than a 1/2 dozen times in a room full of plasma physicists. He was *way* more harsh on the mainstream than I have been. FYI, SDO has since crushed the mainstream claims about the speed of convection.

 

[Tiberius]

It's not that complicated actually. As light travels from it's point of origin to Earth, it is slowly losing some of it's momentum the plasma medium.

Ah, okay! This is something testable!

If light from a distant galaxy has lost some momentum due to it traveling through the intergalactic plasma, then it should have a lower momentum than light generated here on Earth.

Has this been tested? Does light from distant galaxies really travel slower than light generated here on earth?

I bet it doesn't.

 

[Michael]

Ah, okay! This is something testable!

If light from a distant galaxy has lost some momentum due to it traveling through the intergalactic plasma, then it should have a lower momentum than light generated here on Earth.

Has this been tested?

Yes. It's called 'redshift'.

Does light from distant galaxies really travel slower than light generated here on earth?

I bet it doesn't.

The light itself, once free of the medium, must always travel at the speed of light. The photons can however lose momentum to the plasma and thereby end up redshifted. In *high energy* gamma rays, we should end up seeing some difference in travel times due to the more frequent collisions/interactions with the medium in plasma redshift theory, and indeed that is what we observe:

UC Davis News & Information :: Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics'

 

[dlamberth]

World's most powerful digital camera opens eye, records first images in hunt for dark energy


Not a single astronomer knows where dark energy comes from, let alone has any clue how to control it, but that never stops them from making absolutely absurd and ridiculous claims about the capabilities of their new toys.

What "dark energy camera"? They aren't "seeing" or taking images of "dark energy" to begin with, nor is any camera capable of imaging 'dark energy'. What a bunch of false advertizing.

Scientist don't know what electricity or gravity is either. Yet both are very useful to us. And just as with electriicity and gravity, there are otherways besides direct observations that we can use to learn about Dark Energy.
That's what the camera will be doing.
.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes. It's called 'redshift'.

WRONG!

Redshift refers to a change in the FREQUENCY of light.

What you proposed is a change in the SPEED of light.

The light itself, once free of the medium, must always travel at the speed of light. The photons can however lose momentum to the plasma and thereby end up redshifted. In *high energy* gamma rays, we should end up seeing some difference in travel times due to the more frequent collisions/interactions with the medium in plasma redshift theory, and indeed that is what we observe:

UC Davis News & Information :: Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics'

Once free of the medium? I thought you said this medium was pretty much constant throughout the universe! It should be constantly slowing down!

 

[Michael]

WRONG!

Redshift refers to a change in the FREQUENCY of light.

What you proposed is a change in the SPEED of light.

Nope. The speed of light is constant in a vacuum. A gain or loss of photon kinetic energy therefore results in a change of the wavelength, not a change in the speed.

Once free of the medium? I thought you said this medium was pretty much constant throughout the universe! It should be constantly slowing down!

Inside various gases light can do strange things:
Physicists Slow Speed of Light

 

[Michael]

Scientist don't know what electricity or gravity is either. Yet both are very useful to us. And just as with electriicity and gravity, there are otherways besides direct observations that we can use to learn about Dark Energy.
That's what the camera will be doing.
.

Unlike 'dark energy', gravity and electricity actually show up in the the lab and have a tangible effect on real things. Dark energy apparently only has one use. It's a placeholder term for human ignorance (of plasma redshift) in one and only one otherwise falsified cosmology theory.

The camera is sensitive to red light. It won't teach us anything about 'dark energy' because it's incapable of imaging "dark energy". It might teach us something about photon redshift, but that's it.

 

[dlamberth]

Unlike 'dark energy', gravity and electricity actually show up in the the lab and have a tangible effect on real things.

Dark Energy seems to be effecting the Galaxies and the Universe itself. That's real stuff of which you and I are a part. Just how and how much Dark Energy there is, is one of the things that scientist are just now beginning to grasp some small understanding of. There is still a long ways to go. And like Gravity and Electricity when we first started to work with it, we knew nothing. So tools needed to be developed so that we can understand it better. That's what's going on now only this time with Dark Energy.

.

 

[Tiberius]

Nope. The speed of light is constant in a vacuum. A gain or loss of photon kinetic energy therefore results in a change of the wavelength, not a change in the speed.

So why did you say it slows down?

Inside various gases light can do strange things:
Physicists Slow Speed of Light

And if this was happening to light from other galaxies, there would be evidence of it. Is there?

 

[mzungu]

So much for the power of deities, LOL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9vrTwcPe-A&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayLPl4yX5ew

 

[Elendur]

I'll end this conversation here (though I read your answer). I'm short of time and your answers take time I don't have atm. I'll just answer this one bit:

Sure. Wouldn't you?

No, that would make a lot of dull reading. The list of numbers and graphs would go on and on.

 

[Elendur]

So much for the power of deities, LOL:

Hulk Vs Loki - The Avengers - HighQ - Puny God - YouTube

One of my favorite scenes in that movie