Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[Loudmouth]

The worst part from a "skeptics" perspective, is that by bashing plasma physics, they are essentially claiming that empirical physics is a "crackpot" field of science. That's like YEC claiming that every proponent of evolutionary theory is an "evil crackpot spawn of satan" and nobody may even discuss evolutionary theory on this website ever "again"! Wow! Talk about irrational behaviors from folks that fancy themselves as "scientists".

But it goes from bad to worse when we actually peek into the dark recesses of their belief systems. Not only are their behaviors like that of a cult, their belief systems literally defy the laws of plasma physics. In the lab, plasma causes plasma redshift. Photons give up their momentum to the plasma, and the light is redshifted as a results. There are four known types of plasma redshift too. It is not like there is only one, or two of them to consider. There are now at least *four* types of plasma redshift, including Compton redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect and what Chen called 'plasma redshift' that *absolutely must* have some effect on photons traveling through the plasmas of spacetime. For the plasma to have *no effect at all on any of the photons passing through it, would in fact defy the laws of physics.

The problem is that in addition to being redshifted the light is also scattered. That is the major hurdle that PC needs to get over, and it has yet to do so. The empirical science demonstrates that light is scattered by these interactions. The best way to differentiate between an expanding universe and plasma cosmologies is to demonstrate that this light is scattered by the plasma. However, we do not see the scattering we would expect to see from plasma. Instead, we get good images of very distant galaxies and stars contrary to what would be expected from plasma interactions.

The other problem you seem to have is that demonstrating plasma redshift in the lab does not mean that plasma redshift is happening between us and distant stars to any appreciable degree. I can demonstrate that humans can be killed by cyanide in the lab. This does not mean that every dead human found was killed by cyanide.

The "smoking gun" is actually found in the mathematical formulas found in Lambda-CDM theory. It provides for *no* allowance for plasma redshift, not even a tiny little bit.

Lambda-CDM theory is not your enemy. The evidence is. There is a lack of light scattering expected from plasma cosmologies.

In other words, they never updated their expansion models to address *any* of the four known causes of photon redshift in plasma.

Yes, just as the theories on how JFK died doesn't address hundreds of other ways that humans can die other than gun shot wounds. There is a reason that no one entertains the idea that JFK died because of a heart attack or cyanide poisoning.

 

[Michael]

True but the best way to put forth your ideas that inadvertently conflict with the mainstream is to question the validity of certain points then move on to offer tangible alternatives. I agree that non mainstream hypotheses do have a hard time convincing but patience, perseverance, and valid points will get you much farther. Do not attack the mainstream but introduce your ideas as non threatening. The point is to get people to consider your ideas even if they outright dismiss them.
After all Science is the quest for knowledge. Sometimes what is valid here is not valid there. A good case in point is Quantum Mechanics vs General Relativity. They are totally incompatible until someone can unify them. Perhaps you have valid points that may seem to contradict BB but this does not mean they cannot at some point be considered.
Good luck!

I suspect I'll need a bit of good luck actually.

IMO you're "assuming" a lot about the field of astronomy and the impact that plasma physics is about to make on people's livelihoods and their reputations. If you've been earning your living, and hanging your professional reputation on studying/writing about 'dark energy' or inflation, it's not easy to accept the possibility that plasma physics is a "better" empirical alternative. It's a tough empirical pill to swallow for many astronomers, particularly the older ones. They have a hard time even conceiving of the possibility that the universe is static. A static universe is literally 'inconceivable' from their perspective.

FYI, PC/EU theory isn't just a threat to the mainstream cosmology beliefs either, it's a threat to everything that the mainstream holds dear in terms of solar physics too. It took them 60 years to figure out that Birkeland was right about the presence of Birkeland currents in aurora. It's going to take them another decade at the rate they are going to figure out that he was also correct about the fact that our sun acts as a cathode with respect to space/the heliosphere.

PC/EU theory is a 'game changer' on every level. It's a threat to everything that the mainstream holds dear I'm afraid. There's a reason that there is such a hostile reaction to PC/EU enthusiasts on mainstream websites. They are in fact a real threat to mainstream funding channels, and the whole mainstream way of publishing life. What will they actually have to discuss if they can't talk about the 'beginning" of the universe? The idea is simply too frightening for them to seriously consider that possibility IMO.

 

[Loudmouth]

I suspect I'll need a bit of good luck actually.

IMO you're "assuming" a lot about the field of astronomy and the impact that plasma physics is about to make on people's livelihoods and their reputations. If you've been earning your living, and hanging your professional reputation on studying/writing about 'dark energy' or inflation, it's not easy to accept the possibility that plasma physics is a "better" empirical alternative. It's a tough empirical pill to swallow for many astronomers, particularly the older ones. They have a hard time even conceiving of the possibility that the universe is static. A static universe is literally 'inconceivable' from their perspective.

So why isn't anyone doing active research into PC/EU theory? It would seem to me that those who overturn the consensus are celebrated, not reviled.

PC/EU theory is a 'game changer' on every level. It's a threat to everything that the mainstream holds dear I'm afraid. There's a reason that there is such a hostile reaction to PC/EU enthusiasts on mainstream websites.

Or PC/EU theory is just wrong.

 

[Naraoia]

I'm afraid it's not just my personal presentation that they resent. They are deathly afraid of the ramification of empirical physics and they don't want anyone discussing theses points publicly on *their* websites. It's frightening to them to let others "know about" alternative ideas because the moment others start to find out about these things publicly, the gig is up. They'll be sitting there trying to explain to an angry and skeptical public why in the world they're in pure denial of the laws of plasma physics. In the lab, plasma redshift happens. It's physically impossible for it not to occur in spacetime. They therefore do not just shut down *my* topics at CosmoQuest and other mainstream websites, they shut down *all* topics they wish to control, regardless of the author. That is particularly true of all PC/EU threads.

I'm afraid I find that hard to believe. I suspect mainstream cosmology is "afraid" of plasma cosmology in exactly the same way as mainstream evolutionary biology is "afraid" of Don Williamson's unorthodox theory about larvae. Or this guy's stalwart opposition to the now generally accepted idea of vertebrate whole-genome duplications.

In other words, not at all. They have been measured and found wanting, and haven't put anything new on the table that would have convinced anyone. And even if they had, so what? The "mainstream" as a whole isn't as attached to its convictions as you might think. Other unorthodox ideas, such as the "new animal phylogeny" of the late 1990s, gained mainstream acceptance in a few years, and animal phylogeny is a really important issue in my field - it's the context in which all other hypotheses are considered.

I'm not truly qualified to say that you are wrong about your plasma universe. But I can say that I've been part of the "mainstream" on other issues closer to home, and I find your assertion that the mainstream shuts you down out of fear, frankly, quite funny.

 

[Michael]

The problem is that in addition to being redshifted the light is also scattered. That is the major hurdle that PC needs to get over, and it has yet to do so.

False. They just "discovered" that the universe is twice as bright as they "predict", because they didn't predict ......."scattering".

The empirical science demonstrates that light is scattered by these interactions.

It's also "scattered" in Holushko's mathematical model too. So what?

The best way to differentiate between an expanding universe and plasma cosmologies is to demonstrate that this light is scattered by the plasma.

I've demonstrated that it's scattered and redshifted in four different ways in plasma! What do you want, egg in your beer?

However, we do not see the scattering we would expect to see from plasma. Instead, we get good images of very distant galaxies and stars contrary to what would be expected from plasma interactions.

You completely misunderstand the concept of "scattering". Scattering will *almost always* simply result in a the loss of that photon. It's not going to ever reach Earth. Scattering isn't necessarily directly related to blurriness in all cases. You're oversimplifying again.

The other problem you seem to have is that demonstrating plasma redshift in the lab does not mean that plasma redshift is happening between us and distant stars to any appreciable degree. I can demonstrate that humans can be killed by cyanide in the lab. This does not mean that every dead human found was killed by cyanide.

Your analogy is a bit off, and you're approaching the issue in a backwards manner. Plasma redshift is a "natural cause" of redshift and it demonstrates that *every* photon is going to experience *some* amount of redshift on it's way to Earth. Photons will necessarily be redshifted by plasma unless somehow the laws of physics work differently in space than they work in the lab. There is an empirical correlation between the presence of free electrons in the plasma and the amount of plasma redshift as reported by Chen. We also just found a million degree bubble of plasma around our galaxy this year. Unless that million degree plasma has no free electrons whatsoever, it's physically impossible that Chen's work will not apply.

The mainstream keeps claiming that their invisible ghost friend is a killer, so every body they find must be have been killed by ghosts, and damn any 'crackpot' claim about natural causes of death!

Lambda-CDM theory is not your enemy. The evidence is. There is a lack of light scattering expected from plasma cosmologies.

Nope. That scattering is exactly why the universe is twice as bright as you imagine. It's the cause of that loss of light.

Yes, just as the theories on how JFK died doesn't address hundreds of other ways that humans can die other than gun shot wounds. There is a reason that no one entertains the idea that JFK died because of a heart attack or cyanide poisoning.

The problem with your logic is that invisible ghosts have never shown to be a cause of death. Rather than accept the *simple* solution of one man with a real gun and real bullets, your insisting that "ghosts killed JFK". Dark energy has never been linked to photon redshift, unlike Stark redshift, the Wolf effect, Compton redshift and Chen's 'plasma redshift". Dark energy is a ridiculous and useless myth. It's a myth propagated by individuals that must now and forever remain in steadfast denial of the laws of plasma physics.

 

[Michael]

I'm afraid I find that hard to believe. I suspect mainstream cosmology is "afraid" of plasma cosmology in exactly the same way as mainstream evolutionary biology is "afraid" of Don Williamson's unorthodox theory about larvae. Or this guy's stalwart opposition to the now generally accepted idea of vertebrate whole-genome duplications.

Clearly that's not the case of they would have no need to 'close' any PC/EU threads' the way they do, they'd just pick them apart and have fun doing it. Instead they close *every* thread related to PC/EU theory down instantly. That's clearly a fear driven process and that fear is actually quite palpable. It's not like they ban just me from their boards. Anyone and everyone that can articulate PC theory is banned eventually.

In other words, not at all. They have been measured and found wanting, and haven't put anything new on the table that would have convinced anyone.

If four forms of empirical types of plasma redshift, not to mention mathematical models and C# code from Holushko and others isn't enough, what is? They can't even show *any* empirical correlation between photon redshift and *any* of their metaphysical claims! You're essentially asking me to *ignore* five empirical options to their theory (including the movement of objects), in favor of a "dark sky" mythos! Why would I *ever* do such a thing? I can already "explain' photon redshift based on simple laws and processes related to plasma physics.

And even if they had, so what? The "mainstream" as a whole isn't as attached to its convictions as you might think.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. If they weren't attached, they'd already be talking about plasma cosmology theory and noting the fact that there are other known types of plasma redshift that might eventually replace dark energy and/or inflation. They don't even *mention* the empirical physical alternatives! They still keep claiming 'WIMPS did it" in spite of the falsification of simple SUSY theories at LHC. How is that not "attachment"?

I'm not truly qualified to say that you are wrong about your plasma universe. But I can say that I've been part of the "mainstream" on other issues closer to home, and I find your assertion that the mainstream shuts you down out of fear, frankly, quite funny.

I find it rather funny that they can't even handle any dissent as well, but it's a fact. It's also not like I'm the only PC/EU proponent that they've ever personally ridiculed and banned from their websites. I've even seen them go so far as to change the verbiage on WIKI pages during our debates because it bothered them so much that I was able to confront them with empirical facts! I've seen weird and cultlike behaviors before, but even Scientology has nothing on astronomers when it comes to metaphysical beliefs and odd behaviors.

 

[Michael]

So why isn't anyone doing active research into PC/EU theory?

The SAFIRE Project -- Testing the Electric Sun - YouTube

I take it that you don't get out much?

It would seem to me that those who overturn the consensus are celebrated, not reviled.

Right. That's why nobody ridiculed QM when it was first introduced, and that's why nobody ever ridiculed "big bang" theory when it was first proposed.

Or PC/EU theory is just wrong.

PC theory works in the lab, right down to the demonstration of photon redshift in plasma. That's more than will ever be said of Lamdba-CDM theory. In fact LHC just *falsified* several simple SUSY theories just last year and astronomers keep finding new 'plasma' all the time!

 

[Michael]

FYI, it's really amusing watching a bunch of atheists try to rationalize away four empirically documented types of plasma redshift in favor a "dark sky" religion that enjoys absolutely *zero* empirical cause/effect justification or support. Even more amusing from my perspective is that it would literally take an act of God to prevent plasma redshift from happening in the plasmas of space like it happens in the lab. Wow! Talk about silly stuff.

 

[Loudmouth]

I take it that you don't get out much?

What does that have to do with cosmological redshifts?

PC theory works in the lab, right down to the demonstration of photon redshift in plasma.

Cyanide also kills mammals in the lab, but that doesn't mean that every mammal found dead has died from cyanide. Do you understand this concept or not?

That's more than will ever be said of Lamdba-CDM theory. In fact LHC just *falsified* several simple SUSY theories just last year and astronomers keep finding new 'plasma' all the time!

Have they found a plasma interaction that does not produce scattering?

 

[Loudmouth]

FYI, it's really amusing watching a bunch of atheists try to rationalize away four empirically documented types of plasma redshift in favor a "dark sky" religion that enjoys absolutely *zero* empirical cause/effect justification or support. Even more amusing from my perspective is that it would literally take an act of God to prevent plasma redshift from happening in the plasmas of space like it happens in the lab. Wow! Talk about silly stuff.

Just because plasma can redshift light in the lab does not mean that it is redshifting light between us and distant objects. Why you fail to understand this is beyond me.

Again, light scattering remains a serious problem for PC theories. We get crisp images of distant objects. This shouldn't be the case if PC is true.

 

[Michael]

What does that have to do with cosmological redshifts?

Chen and Ashmore and Holushko and Ari have all addressed your cosmological redshift, and plasma redshift shows up in the lab. Even more damning to Lambda-CDM theory is that it contains *no* (zero) provisions from plasma redshift.

Cyanide also kills mammals in the lab, but that doesn't mean that every mammal found dead has died from cyanide. Do you understand this concept or not?

Your analogy is flawed. You're running around claiming/ranting that dark invisible ghosts are the *only* cause of mammal death, forget every other known empirical cause of death. You never even demonstrated that your dark energy ghost exists, let alone that it has any effect at all on a photon. Even still you keep pointing at every dead thing you see and claiming "dark energy ghosts did it"!

Have they found a plasma interaction that does not produce scattering?

They don't need to. In real plasma scattering happens and it happens in space too. That's why astronomers were 'surprised' that the universe was twice as bright as their mathematical models predicted.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's also "scattered" in Holushko's mathematical model too. So what?

No, it isn't. It is only slowed in Holushko's mathematical model.

I've demonstrated that it's scattered and redshifted in four different ways in plasma! What do you want, egg in your beer?

Light from distant objects is not scattered, therfore not PC.

You completely misunderstand the concept of "scattering". Scattering will *almost always* simply result in a the loss of that photon. It's not going to ever reach Earth. Scattering isn't necessarily directly related to blurriness in all cases. You're oversimplifying again.

It is realted to bluriness. Period. That is why PC is not accepted by the mainstream.

Your analogy is a bit off, and you're approaching the issue in a backwards manner. Plasma redshift is a "natural cause" of redshift and it demonstrates that *every* photon is going to experience *some* amount of redshift on it's way to Earth. Photons will necessarily be redshifted by plasma unless somehow the laws of physics work differently in space than they work in the lab. There is an empirical correlation between the presence of free electrons in the plasma and the amount of plasma redshift as reported by Chen. We also just found a million degree bubble of plasma around our galaxy this year. Unless that million degree plasma has no free electrons whatsoever, it's physically impossible that Chen's work will not apply.

Yes, just as people will necessarily die if given a specific amount of cyanide, therefore every dead person found was given a specific amount of cyanide. That is your logic, and it seriously fails.

The mainstream keeps claiming that their invisible ghost friend is a killer, so every body they find must be have been killed by ghosts, and damn any 'crackpot' claim about natural causes of death!

Lamda-CDM theory must be a serious threat to your worldview given such statements.

Nope. That scattering is exactly why the universe is twice as bright as you imagine. It's the cause of that loss of light.

Scattering would produce blurry images, and those are not seen.

 

[Loudmouth]

Chen and Ashmore and Holushko and Ari have all addressed your cosmological redshift, and plasma redshift shows up in the lab.

Death by cyanide also shows up in the lab, but that doesn't mean that every dead body is due to cyanide poisoning.

Even more damning to Lambda-CDM theory is that it contains *no* (zero) provisions from plasma redshift.

The evidence doesn't show plasma redshifts. That is the problem.

Your analogy is flawed. You're running around claiming/ranting that dark invisible ghosts are the *only* cause of mammal death, forget every other known empirical cause of death.

I am claiming that the evidence is incosistent with PC because of the lack of blurriness in distant objects.

They don't need to. In real plasma scattering happens and it happens in space too.

If that were true, then distant objects would be blurred. They aren't.

 

[Michael]

Just because plasma can redshift light in the lab does not mean that it is redshifting light between us and distant objects. Why you fail to understand this is beyond me.

Boloney. Chen demonstrated that the number of free electrons present in the plasma had a direct effect on the amount of redshift. They just "discovered" a huge ball of million degree plasma around our galaxy which contains *lots* of free electrons! Your claims would literally require nothing short of a DAD claim. The laws of physics would have to be "different" in that plasma around our galaxy than they work in the lab!

Again, light scattering remains a serious problem for PC theories. We get crisp images of distant objects. This shouldn't be the case if PC is true.

False. Most scattering results in the simple loss of the photon and no blurriness. The whole 'blurriness' claim is a ruse in the first place because the largest redshifted objects *do* show the largest amount of blurriness.

Holushko's model and C# code address this issue. Deal with it.

 

[Michael]

Death by cyanide also shows up in the lab, but that doesn't mean that every dead body is due to cyanide poisoning.

Death by dark energy ghosts does not show up in the lab, so there is nothing logical about pointing at dead bodies and claiming dark energy ghosts did it.

The evidence doesn't show plasma redshifts. That is the problem.

False. You're in denial of scientific fact. That is the problem.

I am claiming that the evidence is incosistent with PC because of the lack of blurriness in distant objects.

Your claim is a handwave that is easily disproved by Holushko's code, Ari's whole body of work, Wolf's writings and pretty much all the laws of physics. You've not even cited a *published* paper that addressed any form of redshift *other than* Compton redshift, and Lambda-CDM makes no allowances of *any* amount of Compton redshift.

If that were true, then distant objects would be blurred. They aren't.

Baloney. They are blurred and most scattering events that change the photon trajectory simply result in the loss of the photon. It just never reaches the Earth at all.

It would literally take an act of God to make the laws of physics work differently in space than they work in the lab.

 

[Naraoia]

You're essentially asking me to *ignore* five empirical options to their theory (including the movement of objects), in favor of a "dark sky" mythos!

I'm not. I'm relating my experience to you, and why it makes me doubt that the situation in cosmology is as dramatic as you describe.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. If they weren't attached, they'd already be talking about plasma cosmology theory and noting the fact that there are other known types of plasma redshift that might eventually replace dark energy and/or inflation.

There is another possibility, which is that you are wrong and there's nothing worth talking about.

 

[Michael]

I'm not. I'm relating my experience to you, and why it makes me doubt that the situation in cosmology is as dramatic as you describe.

It's actually that bad. Think about it for a minute and put yourself in my shoes for just a few moments. There are 5 "natural" and demonstrated causes of photon redshift that we already know about if we include the movement of objects (not space expansion). There could even be several more natural causes of photon redshift inside of plasma that we simply don't know about yet. Is Chen's recent observation of what he calls "plasma redshift" an example of Ashmore's tired light, or Ari's "plasma redshift" idea, or neither one? Are there other possible causes of photon redshift in plasma? Maybe! I already have five known natural causes to work with to explain the observation of photon redshift, and I can use them in various combinations to explain all sorts of things. Holushko took the logical step of putting a generic mathematical model of plasma redshift/tired light together, and showing how it corresponds to the supernova data. He did an absolutely *fabulous* job IMO. Ari has also written volumes of material on this topic, but alas I think it's oversimplified because it does *not* include other types of known forms of plasma redshift. I therefore actually prefer Holushko's "generic/combined" sort of mathematical model that is simply applied in general to the observation of cosmological redshift. It doesn't even limit the discussion to a single kind of redshift the way Holushko approached it. Great job! Ashmore also did a fabulous job of applying Chen's work to astronomy and making real "predictions" about how to test his ideas, just like Holushko. FYI, Emil Wolf personally applied his redshift ideas to cosmology theory as well.

Instead of the mainstream sitting up and taking any notice of the fact that plasma redshift has been observed in several different forms, they fight the whole idea of plasma redshift 'tooth and nail'. They try to "debunk" all the known and natural causes of plasma redshift based upon unpublished website rants, oversimplified handwaves, and insist on pure black/white thinking. They can't even seem to conceive of any 'combination" of redshift factors that might work in harmony to explain the total amount of redshift. Instead they will *only* accept a *one or nothing* attitude when even debating the ideas.

Even LM seems to want to handwave away four demonstrated kinds of empirical physics based on nothing but a bogus claim about blurriness which Holushko and many other authors already addressed!

The real "proof' however is found in the mathematical formulas themselves. they contain absolutely *no* (as in zero) provision for any amount of plasma redshift to occur inside the plasmas of spacetime. That's physically impossible, and physically impossible to justify! It's like *refusing* to accept the fact that radiometric decay methods work. It's like refusing to embrace physics! It's not actually 'like' refusing to embrace plasma physics, it *is* an example of someone or some community refusing to embrace known features of plasma physics.

There is another possibility, which is that you are wrong and there's nothing worth talking about.

Well, if the plasma physics and plasma redshift itself doesn't convince you, take a gander at the rule system over at CosmoQuest. That rule system pretty much typifies mainstream thinking and it demonstrates everything that is wrong with astronomy today in microcosm. That is in fact the 'mentality' at play in the world of astronomy today. They absolutely must "control" dissent with an iron fist. They put dissenter on trial. They virtually crucify and burn their heretics at the stake. They lock down all threads that are 'against' their beliefs. They don't operate like a scientific organization, they operate like a violent repressive cult. You see exactly the same closed minded mentality play out in the publishing world of astronomy by the way. PC/EU theory is their satan figure, never to see the light of publishing day if they have their way.

It really is that dire I'm afraid. They are petrified of empirical physics and the havoc it might wreak on their entire belief system. Plasma physics is a real threat to BB theory, a very serious threat.

 

[Loudmouth]

Death by dark energy ghosts does not show up in the lab, so there is nothing logical about pointing at dead bodies and claiming dark energy ghosts did it.

Deflect all you want, the problem remains for PC theory.

False. You're in denial of scientific fact. That is the problem.

I am not the one denying the lack of blurring in distant objects.

Your claim is a handwave that is easily disproved by Holushko's code, Ari's whole body of work, Wolf's writings and pretty much all the laws of physics. You've not even cited a *published* paper that addressed any form of redshift *other than* Compton redshift, and Lambda-CDM makes no allowances of *any* amount of Compton redshift.

Where is it disproven? Also, Ari's paper and Holushko's code are not peer reviewed either. Nice double standard you have there.

Baloney. They are blurred and most scattering events that change the photon trajectory simply result in the loss of the photon. It just never reaches the Earth at all.

It will reach the Earth, and they should be blurred well beyond anything seen. That is the problem for PC. Ignoring it does not make the problem go away.

It would literally take an act of God to make the laws of physics work differently in space than they work in the lab.

And yet that is the very thing your model requires, a change in the laws of physics to explain the lack of blurred distant images.

 

[Loudmouth]

Even LM seems to want to handwave away four demonstrated kinds of empirical physics based on nothing but a bogus claim about blurriness which Holushko and many other authors already addressed!

Where does Holushko address it? You keep making this claim, but never back it up.

How does Ari explain it away?

The real "proof' however is found in the mathematical formulas themselves.

And those forumulas demonstrate that distant images should be blurred if PC is true.

 

[Michael]

Where does Holushko address it? You keep making this claim, but never back it up.

He addressed it in the math formulas and the code he wrote. Apparently you didn't read it or anyone else's opinions on this topic, just one guys website you read one day.

And those forumulas demonstrate that distant images should be blurred if PC is true.

Boloney! They only address Compton redshift as a *full* cause, and there is even just *one* type of redshift to choose from LM. Holusko's math's and code are just as "valid" as any maths used in Lambda-CDM theory. You just don't like it because it sinks your ship.