Then we can show that someone can die from cyanide, heart attack, stabbing, long fall, or a stroke in the lab. Therefore, everyone who is found dead must have died by one of those 5 causes. That is your argument.
No, my argument is that when it come to causes of death, these are the likely causes, not "dark ghosts". In fact we have no evidence at all that dark ghosts cause *any* human deaths. Your argument is that *no* human deaths occur from anything *other than dark ghosts*. That's your argument.
All of which do not explain all deaths.
Huh? Dark stuff doesn't explain deaths or redshift. It's a non sequitur claim in the first place!
The massive hole is that just because light is redshifted by plasma in the lab it must, therefore, be responsible for all redshift seen in distant objects. That is the massive logical hole in your argument.
Chen demonstrated a link between the number of free electrons in the plasma and the amount of redshift. Astronomers just found a blob of million degree plasma around the galaxy chalk full of free electrons. It would be *physically impossible* for light to pass through million degree plasma and not be redshifted by that process according to Chen's findings in the lab. That is a fact!
Both of which scatter light.
Light is being scatter and absorbed which is why mainstream models were off by 100 percent in terms of the light emitted by galaxies!
Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | STFC
All of which scatter light and would produce blurred images which is not seen.
Scattering isn't the same as blurriness. You're *assuming* that it's being "scattered", but only a "tiny" amount, and only at the very end of the process. Even a small deflection of light is more likely to cause the photon to never reach Earth, not blur the image. Only a small scattering event very *close to Earth* could produce such a blur in the first place and that would represent only a tiny fraction of the scattering events.
We have evidence which demonstrates that plasma is not responsible for the redshift.
No, you have handwaves from some guy's website, all of which turn out to be in error, laughably so on point 3.
Pointing to the flaws in other theories does not make the flaw in PC theory go away.
Pointing out that one cause of death isn't capable of explaining every death is not evidence that dark ghosts did it either. You're ignoring physics entirely, and you're unwilling to incorporate plasma physics into your calculations. No wonder the universe doesn't make any sense to you and you require placeholder terms for what amounts to human ignorance. No wonder you can't name a source of "dark energy", it's fundamentally something created and left over from your denial process related to plasma redshift.
Holushko's work does not even deal with how plasma blurs distant images.
It does. It describes a percentage of light that reaches Earth. The rest is scattered and absorbed.
Interaction with plasmas is what leads to blurriness.
Ya, and that's exactly why distant redshift objects are more blurry than closer objects.
Holushko's work does not even model this behavior with respect to image quality. All it does is look at how changes in the speed of light will stretch out the light pulse from distant type Ia supernovae. Nowhere does it deal with image quality.
Yes, it does calculate the spectral aging and the loss of light due to absorption/scattering.
Plasma is OBSERVED to scatter light in the lab. OBSERVED. To claim otherwise you need to change the laws of physics.
I observe fuzzy redshift objects, and those same *LAWS* and OBSERVATIONS include photon redshift.
Your argument amounts to "He looks to young to have died from a heart attack or any other natural causes. The dark ghost must have got him!"
Of course he knows the difference. We all know the difference. What you are ignoring is that photon interactions with plasma produce both a loss of momentum AND scattering.
Not once has anyone noted that error besides me. You didn't note any for the four error he made in fact.
Where have they been refuted?
I refuted them I cited at least one other author that took exception to Ned's rants as well. Lerner blew Ned's Tolman brightness test claims completely out of the water!
The exchange of momentum between the plasma and the photon is what causes the change in trajectory, and hence the bluriness.
That isn't what he claimed. His claim would not pass a peer review. His other three claims are also false.
And? How about the other three mechanisms seen in the lab?
When did you show how it applies, and the evidence that backs it?
Non-cosmological redshifts of spectral lines
Wolf himself explained how it applies. How did you intend to refute his work?
Says the guy who worships Ari's website
Huh? I cite his website, but I'm more impressed with a generic approach that includes all forms of redshift. I actually like Holushko's work more than Ari's work personally.
and handwaves away the bluriness caused by plasma redshifts.
Why not? You handwaved in your claim about it causing bluriness in the first place based upon Neds' website which is in error on all four points!
This is why PC theory is not taken seriously. You ignore the simplest of physics.
Wow. I've seen denial before, but that's amazing. You're ignoring four known causes of plasma redshift, ignoring the fact that the images *are blurred*, claiming they are *not* blurred when they are blurred, and then claiming a lack of blur (which there isn't) is somehow evidence that empirical physics isn't the cause! That's about as hard core of denial as I've seen. If there were no blur, you might have a case. Since there is a blur in many images, an in fact we can't even observe many objects in many wavelengths due to 'dust', your claim is utterly and patently absurd!
But not as much as should be seen with PC theory.
False. We see *exactly* as much blur as we should see.
Show me Holushko's work where scattering does not result in blurriness.
Show me where it does. Your claim, your responsibility.
It is the plasma redshift that causes scattering, not Ari's formulas. The map is not the territory.
Ya, which is why the universe is twice as bright as mainstream models predicted.
All interactions with plasma produce scattering like that seen in Compton scattering. ALL OF THEM. That is what is OBSERVED. To claim otherwise you need to change the laws of physics.
Nobody doubts that scattering happens. I simply doubt that dark energy is in any way related to photon redshift and you can't even name a source of 'dark energy'.
The real issue is related to the formulas used in Lambda-CDM theory. It makes *no* allowance from plasma redshift and it's been falsified 5 times in five years. The universe is dustier than we thought. It's brighter than we though. Why? Because 'scattering happens" and the mainstream did not account for it properly. Why do they need "Dark energy' placeholder terms for human ignorance? Because they are ignorant of plasma redshift! It's obvious as hell that they can't and won't deal with plasma redshift.
