Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[Michael]

So much for the power of deities, LOL:

That is *exactly* how I feel about the puny sky deities of mainstream theory. Even combined, they add up to a puny, useless, impotent joke in the lab.

 

[Michael]

Dark Energy seems to be effecting the Galaxies and the Universe itself.

As far as I can tell, dark energy only seems to affect *one* otherwise falsified cosmology theory. It started out as a placeholder term for human ignorance of plasma redshift, and now it's taken on a metaphysical life of it's own.

That's real stuff of which you and I are a part.

The universe itself is real and we're a part of it, but dark energy isn't real. It's simply a placeholder term for what ultimately amounts to human ignorance, specifically ignorance of plasma redshift.

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.

.

I'd be thrilled if they could even cite a source and a control mechanism for dark energy.

As I pointed out, gravity has a direct effect on me, and I use electricity every day of my life. Dark energy hasn't ever done anything to me, or for me, not ever. On the other hand, plasma redshift does show up in a tangible way, and has tangible effects on real photons in real experiments.

 

[Michael]

So why did you say it slows down?

I said that photons pass on some of their kinetic energy and momentum to the plasma. The plasma is an actual 'medium' that will influence the speed of light through that medium, space is not just a "vacuum". Every material has a different refractive index, including thin plasma.

Refractive index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Did you read the UC Davis paper/article I cited for you? They observed a full four minute delay between the low energy photons and the highest energy photons. That's a valid *prediction* of plasma redshift theory, and it's a falsification mechanism for mainstream claims that insist all light travels at exactly the same speed.

 

[Michael]

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

You're right, it would be dull reading, but not for the reasons you think. Since there isn't any actual "direct evidence" of dark energy, there would be no reading material at all! If they couldn't just point at the stars and claim dark energy did it, and they were required to demonstrate their claim that dark energy has a real and tangible effect on photons *directly* in real experiments, they'd have nothing to write about at all! They can't even tell us where the dark energy god comes from, nor how to control it, so there isn't much to write about in terms of direct evidence.

The puny dark energy god can be replaced with simple plasma physics.

 

[mzungu]

That is *exactly* how I feel about the puny sky deities of mainstream theory. Even combined, they add up to a puny, useless, impotent joke in the lab.

Now, I wonder why we have fewer black holes than to be expected from a SS universe?

Black holes "die" evaporate at a slower rate than black holes are created. In an always existing universe we should have more black holes, so where are they

 

[Michael]

Now, I wonder why we have fewer black holes than to be expected from a SS universe?

Um, maybe because the universe is a dusty place, they are extremely difficult to detect based on current technology, and we're still "discovering" them right and left, near and far?

Black hole surprise in ancient star cluster
NASA's Swift satellite discovers a new black hole in Milky Way galaxy
New surveys peer through dust to reveal giant supermassive black holes

Dr Miller-Jones said the newly discovered black holes are the first to be found in a globular cluster in our galaxy. M22 is about 10,000 light years from Earth but can be seen clearly with a backyard telescope. "M22 may contain as many as 100 black holes but we can't detect them unless they're actively feeding on nearby stars," he said.

Notice how they found one at 11 BLY that is 10,000 times more massive and "mature" than the one in the core of our own galaxy?

Black holes "die" evaporate at a slower rate than black holes are created. In an always existing universe we should have more black holes, so where are they

See above. You act as though we have "perfect" technology and already have a full and comprehensive understanding of the plasma physical processes that might influence our measurements. Nothing could be further from the truth. We're essentially living in the 'dark ages' of astronomy where plasma physics is relegated to a "bit player' by metaphysical placeholder terms for human ignorance. That "human ignorance" is directly related to plasma physics, scattering, dust and specifically......drum roll.....*plasma redshift* from at least four identified empirical causes, most recently Chen's 'plasma redshift' that shows a link between the number of free electrons and the amount of redshift. Not coincidentally they just discovered that our (and every) galaxy is surrounded by a million degree plasma that holds more mass than the entire galaxy!

It's really a simple problem to explain. Since the mainstream does not provide any mathematical expression of plasma redshift in their calculations, they grope around in the dark ages of astronomy, insisting at the top of their lungs that plasma redshift has no effect whatsoever in space.

 

[Michael]

I'll end this conversation here (though I read your answer).

FYI, thank you for a very enjoyable conversation by the way. I've appreciated your input, even if we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[mzungu]

Um, maybe because the universe is a dusty place, they are extremely difficult to detect based on current technology, and we're still "discovering" them right and left, near and far?

Black hole surprise in ancient star cluster
NASA's Swift satellite discovers a new black hole in Milky Way galaxy
New surveys peer through dust to reveal giant supermassive black holes

Notice how they found one at 11 BLY that is 10,000 times more massive and "mature" than the one in the core of our own galaxy?

See above. You act as though we have "perfect" technology and already have a full and comprehensive understanding of the plasma physical processes that might influence our measurements. Nothing could be further from the truth. We're essentially living in the 'dark ages' of astronomy where plasma physics is relegated to a "bit player' by metaphysical placeholder terms for human ignorance. That "human ignorance" is directly related to plasma physics, scattering, dust and specifically......drum roll.....*plasma redshift* from at least four identified empirical causes, most recently Chen's 'plasma redshift' that shows a link between the number of free electrons and the amount of redshift. Not coincidentally they just discovered that our (and every) galaxy is surrounded by a million degree plasma that holds more mass than the entire galaxy!

It's really a simple problem to explain. Since the mainstream does not provide any mathematical expression of plasma redshift in their calculations, they grope around in the dark ages of astronomy, insisting at the top of their lungs that plasma redshift has no effect whatsoever in space.

You still do not get it; A universe that has existed infinitely time wise should basically be a universe occupied ONLY with black holes! Your assumptions do not hold water. What we observe today coincides with the BB theory and not with your SS theory. Your ideas are totally outdated

 

[Michael]

You still do not get it; A universe that has existed infinitely time wise should basically be a universe occupied ONLY with black holes!

So sayeth you and your unpublished handwaves. I don't suppose you ever read that *PUBLISHED* paper by Manuel and myself, or you've ever considered the possibility that we live inside of an 'electric' universe where plasmas and currents are "shared" between galaxies, and shared between "suppermassive black holes"?

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/H-12-056.html

FYI, contrary to public opinion, most (up to 95 percent) of the material that gets anywhere close to a black hole gets ejected out into space again. It's not like they are particularly efficient at "eating".

Your assumptions do not hold water.

To your unpublished handwaves and closed mind? Apparently not. To other PC enthusiasts, absolutely. I don't suppose you ever read Alfven's "bang" theory for yourself? I'll warn you, you'll be disappointed if you think it's a "creation event". It begins with preexisting matter and antimatter.

What we observe today coincides with the BB theory and not with your SS theory. Your ideas are totally outdated

You have a very long history now of misrepresenting "my ideas" based on pure laziness, since you've yet to ask me a question on any topic before claiming to know what "my ideas" might be. (talking snakes, creationist viewpoints, etc) To this point in time, every single "outdated" idea that you've accused me of, has been a blatant distortion of my actual beliefs. Why should this topic be any different?

 

[Tiberius]

So sayeth you and your unpublished handwaves. I don't suppose you ever read that *PUBLISHED* paper by Manuel and myself, or you've ever considered the possibility that we live inside of an 'electric' universe where plasmas and currents are "shared" between galaxies, and shared between "suppermassive black holes"?

Given the vast distances between galaxies and also given the age of the universe, it would seem that such a system is remarkably inefficient.

 

[Michael]

Given the vast distances between galaxies and also given the age of the universe, it would seem that such a system is remarkably inefficient.

Given the possibility that the universe has an infinite amount of "space" to work with, the "efficient use of space" (or energy) isn't likely to be much of a consideration.

 

[mzungu]

So sayeth you and your unpublished handwaves. I don't suppose you ever read that *PUBLISHED* paper by Manuel and myself, or you've ever considered the possibility that we live inside of an 'electric' universe where plasmas and currents are "shared" between galaxies, and shared between "suppermassive black holes"?

DAD is that you

Next you will be telling us that the moon landings were a hoax

 

[Michael]

DAD is that you

Eh?

Next you will be telling us that the moon landings were a hoax

Apparently this your attempt at a backhanded personal attack, but alas, like always, you have blatantly misrepresented the facts. It was in fact the Gemini and Apollo programs and the moon landings in particular that inspired my lifelong love of astronomy and space.

 

[mzungu]

Eh?

Apparently this your attempt at a backhanded personal attack, but alas, like always, you have blatantly misrepresented the facts. It was in fact the Gemini and Apollo programs and the moon landings in particular that inspired my lifelong love of astronomy and space.

I asked you a question that you have disregarded. Let me ask you again:

In a universe which has always existed 10^n (where n = infinity), it should by now contain only black holes! why is this not so and why is it consistent with BB?

 

[Michael]

I asked you a question that you have disregarded. Let me ask you again:

In a universe which has always existed 10^n (where n = infinity), it should by now contain only black holes! why is this not so and why is it consistent with BB?

I disregarded your claim because you handwaved in your unsupported assertion without so much as a published paper for me to read to explain why you think that way. It sounds suspiciously like a personal claim that you simply pulled out of your back pocket.

I did however provide you with a *published* paper by *several authors* (yes I was one) that suggest quite the opposite of what you just claimed. The process is cyclical according to the authors of that paper. Did you even read it?

http://phys.org/news8658.html

 

[mzungu]

I disregarded your claim because you handwaved in your unsupported assertion without so much as a published paper for me to read to explain why you think that way. It sounds suspiciously like a personal claim that you simply pulled out of your back pocket.

I did however provide you with a *published* paper by *several authors* (yes I was one) that suggest quite the opposite of what you just claimed. The process is cyclical according to the authors of that paper. Did you even read it?

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

Yes I read it and I can tell you that neutron stars do not have the mass and are thus incapable of holding a galaxy together. It takes a black hole to do that and a supermassive one at that. Evidence that black holes reside at the centre of galaxies has been given to you.

Now why are you avoiding replying to my question? I do not need to publish papers in order to ask a single pertinent question. Should I remind you of the question again? I asked a question that you miserably failed to answer.

 

[Michael]

Yes I read it and I can tell you...

You mean you can ignore all the evidence presented in that paper in favor of a "handwave" and your personal assertions again.

that neutron stars do not have the mass and are thus incapable of holding a galaxy together.

FYI, the paper explains why that statement is not true, and I've also listed a link to another article/paper in this thread that explains the layered structure of the neutron that makes it all possible.

Discovery Changes Understanding of Neutrons | LiveScience

It takes a black hole to do that and a supermassive one at that. Evidence that black holes reside at the centre of galaxies has been given to you.

Ya, and evidence that black holes are simply large neutron stars has also been given to you.

Now why are you avoiding replying to my question?

I didn't. I directly addressed it with a published paper which you simply handwaved away.

I do not need to publish papers in order to ask a single pertinent question.

You need to support all your claims just like everyone else. Where's you're support for your claim that *only* black holes would remain?

Should I remind you of the question again? I asked a question that you miserably failed to answer.

Boloney. You failed miserably to deal with the answer, and you failed to support your handwave of a claim with anything outside of your personal statements. You are the one avoiding my request that you support your claim with outside (of yourself) material that states only black holes would remain. Got some? Quit dodging my direct questions.

 

[mzungu]

You mean you can ignore all the evidence presented in that paper in favor of a "handwave" and your personal assertions again.

FYI, the paper explains why that statement is not true, and I've also listed a link to another article/paper in this thread that explains the layered structure of the neutron that makes it all possible.

Discovery Changes Understanding of Neutrons | LiveScience

Ya, and evidence that black holes are simply large neutron stars has also been given to you.

I didn't. I directly addressed it with a published paper which you simply handwaved away.

You need to support all your claims just like everyone else. Where's you're support for your claim that *only* black holes would remain?

Boloney. You failed miserably to deal with the answer, and you failed to support your handwave of a claim with anything outside of your personal statements. You are the one avoiding my request that you support your claim with outside (of yourself) material. Got some? Quit dodging my direct questions.

Hogwash; Neutron stars are just a step away from becoming black holes. They are close relatives but not the same.

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/news/2004/CircinusX-1/

 

[Michael]

FYI, new data is demonstrating that neutrons stars weigh in at larger masses than "predicted" in standard models that do not take the neutron structure into account.

Record-Breaking Neutron Star Is Clue to Exotic Physics | Wired Science | Wired.com

 

[Michael]

Hogwash; Neutron stars are just a step away from becoming black holes. They are close relatives but not the same.

Neutron Star Imitates Black Hole | Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics

Um, how exactly did that article help your case?

Neutron Star Imitates Black Hole

14th January 2004

An international team of Dutch, UK and Australian scientists using the Australia Telescope - a radio-telescope array in New South Wales, Australia - have seen a neutron star spitting out a jet of matter at more than 99.8% of the speed of light. This is the first time such an ultra-relativistic jet has been seen from anything other than a super massive black hole at the heart of a distant galaxy.

Emphasis mine. It turns out that neutron stars do something that only supermassive black holes can do, namely produce current that travels at nearly the speed of light. You just demonstrated with that link that nothing other than a neutron star is necessary to explain the key and important behaviors of supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies. How did that help your case in your mind? Note that the paper we wrote came out *after* your article, but *before* the discovery of the layered structure of the neutron.