Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[Michael]

Objects do not "move" in inflationary theory, depending on how you define "move". We don't know what the mechanism for the cosmological constant is, yet you look at that and say we think it must be "magic"! Strawman much?

Evidently you missed my point, so let me try to clarify.

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

It's not *certain* that "space" needs to do any magic expansion tricks to explain photon redshift in an expanding universe. Mind you, you'd still have to ignore the laws of plasma physics and pretend that no amount of plasma redshift occurs in space to accept this idea, but I personally am open to and would personally accept Michal's explanation of an "expansion" theory. As long as you're not claiming that "space" does magic expanding tricks, I'm open to an expanding universe.

What I will *not* accept are "magical" space expansion claims since nothing like that has ever, or could ever be demonstrated in a lab. It's a "sky entity" claim, that again simply ignores all the mass in space in the form of plasma that would actually prohibit it from occurring anywhere in space.

You don't know what the electron-photon interaction is in your theory, yet you're entirely ok with that gap.

Actually, no, I know of *at least* four known mechanisms, and I'm pretty sure they *all* apply somewhere in space. I am intentionally not trying to "dumb it down" to a single form of plasma redshift, but rather I'm being inclusive of them all, and any that might be found in the future, like Holushko. That's really why I like his approach over any other. He intentionally uses a "generic" model that is meant to be *inclusive*, not exclusive, of all types of plasma redshift. IMO that is the only logical approach.

Not only are you insulting in your choice of words - some kind of inferiority complex perhaps - but you then accuse others of holding double standards.

Sorry, but when you've been virtually lynched a few times by astronomers for your "heresy" of daring to present empirical physical alternatives, one starts to become a tad jaded over time. I'm sorry if my preference for empirical physics is offensive to your personal belief systems as it relates to cosmology theory. I'm also sorry if my personal preference for empirical physics is offensive to your personal belief system as it relates to evolutionary theory as well (I'm a big fan of EV theory myself). I can't help the fact that others are offended by my preference for physics. That's just the way it goes IMO.

You complain about appeals to authority...and then appeal to that which you hold as authority (be it Brynjolfsson, Lerner, Holusko, or Alfven as you do here). Pot, meet kettle.

I'm simply pointing out to you that Ned's website is a decade old and stuck in the past. It's not like the PC/EU community has not addressed all of Ned's claims and debunked all of Ned's claims. There Ned's page sits today however, never updated, never brought into the 21st century, and there is every astronomer today, acting like Lerner's work still doesn't exist today, that Holushko and Brynjolfsson never addressed the supernova data! Holy stuck in the past denial process!

I've lost count of the number of times you've appealed to Chen's paper, knowing full well the limitation that it was on a tiny scale in carbon nanotubes as opposed to the plasma one might find in space.

I don't just appeal to Chen's work. I appeal to all work on all forms of plasma redshift. Chen's work is simply the *forth* type of plasma redshift that the mainstream has not addressed, whereas it has been addressed in the EU/PC community by Ashmore and others! As long as the mainstream remains stuck in 1986, prior to Alfven's double layer paper that ties the E and B orientations of plasma physics together, and they refuse to incorporate various forms of plasma redshift observed in the lab over the past three decades, they will forever be playing with a "toy" version of plasma physics theory!

But no...you're entirely happy to make the sweeping statement that your cosmological theory has been demonstrated "in the lab".

It has! Holushko's generic model of plasma redshift has been verified in the lab *at least* four times so far, and potentially several more forms may exist that we have yet to discover. Holushko's model is *inclusive* not exclusive, so it enjoys four "validations" thus far. Holushko's model now enjoys support from Compton redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect, and what Chen et all called "plasma redshift". How much more validation for a generic plasma redshift/tired light approach would you like? Holushko even offers a free download of the C# code that he used to test his model, right down to the spectral aging characteristics. What more can a single guy do to earn himself a Nobel Prize in astronomy anyway other than to explain the process through empirical physics? Does the mainstream recognize his work? Of course not. They hand out prizes on "dark energy" and can't even name a source.

You've not attempted to replicate the work, scale it up, or empirically test the implications that you have.

Fortunately you and I don't personally need to do that since Holushko and Ashmore have already done that for us. Did you not read their papers?

You've admitted the ac stark effect probably isn't the sole mechanism...but hello, that is what the Chen paper talks about! That is how they explain all their results!!

You again seem to believe it's a "one or nothing" thing. It's not. All forms of plasma redshift are likely to occur *somewhere* in space. Holushko's model is a "generic" model that is simply applied to the redshift process *in general*. I'm sure that if we wish to include quasar behavior and high energy processes in general, we might be able to create more advanced models that "pick and choose" between various forms of plasma redshift to explain very specific events. Unfortunately that is beyond the current state of sophistication in *all* cosmology models.

Great. So why haven't you tested your theory empirically?

Holushko did it for me.

You said that it makes predictions about the time delay of high energy photons. Superb. I pointed out that you could easily test that by showing data from across the night sky of pinpoint events and seeing whether the time delay is essentially uniform dependent on distance (since the redshift we see is uniform and specially independent across the night sky).

I've done that too:

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

Immediately you fall into a problem - the data from the Markarian cluster alone shows a wildly varying time delay, one that varies from seconds to hours, despite similar redshifts. Your explanation and citation of this paper relies wholly on the assumption that the photons were emitted more or less simultaneously at higher and lower energy levels. My explanation would be that emission was asynchronous - most likely due to varying electron injection levels (see Zheng/Zhang, 2011).

No, I'm not suggesting what you're suggesting. I'm suggesting that there are wavelength specific delays and broadening effects that must be accounted for that mainstream theory is ignoring.

Why aren't you testing your idea empirically?

IMO you have physics standing on it's head. Plasma redshift has been tested "empirically" in the lab, complete with real control mechanisms. It's been demonstrated in four unique forms. It's been applied to space by Holushko and Ashmore and countless other authors since. The concept of plasma redshift has been an alternative to BB theory, and written about by astronomers since as far back as Hubble himself. Hubble wrote about *two* possibilities, not one!

The Markarian results were published before Ashmore published his paper, so his prediction was actually a postdiction.

Oh, so Guth can do it, but nobody else can?

That is fine and good provided you all go out and test it again! If you really believed in it you'd be all over this like a rash...here is a way to empirically show you might be right? I'm baffled as to why you (plural) don't.

I'm baffled as to why you haven't read Holushko's paper. I'm thinking at the moment you simply missed it. It may be buried in the thread somewhere. Here:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0062v1.pdf

Holushko took all that supernova data and plugged it into a 'generic' plasma redshift/tired light theory and he demonstrated that it matches all the supernova data. Ari did it too. Unless you can pick out a flaw in their research, it is irrational IMO for you to claim that these ideas were not "tested" in space. Since four forms of plasma redshift show up in the lab, Holushko's generic model now enjoys four forms of empirical support. If you don't read it, and respond logically to it, it's not my fault.

(Snip generalized insulting rant about the competency of the mainstream, most of whom you don't know well enough to judge)

You're right, I don't know most of them. I know most of the "haters", and I know that most of them remain silent when the haters ignore the laws of physics during our debates. I'm not sure what to say about that other than the fact that it's a pity, and it's pity that the more moderate elements of mainstream cosmology do not rule the internet at mainstream websites. My experiences on the internet over the past 7 years have in fact left me a bit jaded and tired of the nonsense that passes for "science" in cosmology theory today. When they make blatant false claims about the capacity of their equipment, and the more moderate's in the industry do nothing to correct those mistakes, it really annoys me.

 

[davidbilby]

Before I address that Brobdingnagian post with its myriad errors, can I ask one question Michael?

Have you ever compiled and tinkered with Mr Holushko's C# code yourself? Or do you accept on faith that it does what he says it does?

 

[davidbilby]

And to reply to a single point first - what evidence do you have that the Markarian 501 photon emission was synchronous, and not time delayed at source due to (for one example) varying electron injection rates? Have you got any corroborating evidence from a different point in the night sky such that you can rule out local specially dependent effects?

Will deal with the rest tomorrow...

Ps...when answering the above, please remember the following statement from the original MAGIC paper, the one you always fail to link to:

"We cannot exclude the possibility that the delay we find, which is significant beyond the 95% C.L., may be due to some energy-dependent effect at the source."

 

[davidbilby]

pps...I reread the Chen paper. Not only is the paper solely about the AC Stark effect in carbon nanotubes, not true plasma; it is a laser induced effect!

It's about as irrelevant as it could be.

 

[Michael]

Have you ever compiled and tinkered with Mr Holushko's C# code yourself? Or do you accept on faith that it does what he says it does?

I was curious enough as a programmer to download and peek at the code and look at the formulas being used. I wasn't curious enough to duplicate his data sets for myself however, so you could rightfully say that I accept his work "on faith" (to a point). I read through his paper and math formulas before even looking at the code.

IMO the mainstream has a *huge* empirical problem their hands. They would have to demonstrate that *zero* plasma redshift occurs in space, from every single plasma redshift mechanism that is ever discovered, past, present and future. They'd have to demonstrate that the laws of physics in space work differently than they work in the lab.

IMO Holushko's model is the strongest tired light/plasma redshift model because it is an inclusive generic redshift model that allows for past, present and future forms of plasma redshift. It's a "postdicted fit" to known observations of course, a time honored tradition in astronomy I might add. He broke it down into various spectrum for us. He provided the code to us if we doubt his work. What more can he do? I didn't find any errors in his paper or his code. Did you?

If you folks can't find any serious flaw in his work (I did not), then I am inclined to go with a redshift explanation that is based upon pure forms of plasma physics, as opposed to three forms of metaphysics. As an atheist, I can't even understand how you could possibly blame me for my preference for physics over metaphysics.

By the way. After doing a bit of research on Wiki, and after various conversations I've had with different astronomers to date, it would seem that the mainstream guru of plasma redshift/tired light theory is some guy named Ned Wright that put up his website in 1996-2001, and apparently never updated it. He hasn't updated it since at least 2006 because it incorporates none of Ari's work and no mention of Learners work. It obviously makes no mention at all of Ashmore's work or Holushko's work. Apparently, it's stuck in 2001? In case you are interested, I ripped Ned's page to shreds over on Thunderbolts so that others in the EU community to can see how outrageously dated Ned's material is today:

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Plasma redshift observed in the lab.

It's kinda sad, and rather ironic IMO, that the *entire* handwavy arguments that the mainstream uses today to argue against plasma redshift theory comes from a single website that appears to be stuck in 2001(?). Today in 2012, all four of Ned's points have been demonstrated to be false. Apparently the mainstream doesn't know that Ned's points are all false in 2012, because some guy named Ned Wright, never bothered to update his website.

 

[Michael]

And to reply to a single point first - what evidence do you have that the Markarian 501 photon emission was synchronous, and not time delayed at source due to (for one example) varying electron injection rates? Have you got any corroborating evidence from a different point in the night sky such that you can rule out local specially dependent effects?

Will deal with the rest tomorrow...

Ps...when answering the above, please remember the following statement from the original MAGIC paper, the one you always fail to link to:

"We cannot exclude the possibility that the delay we find, which is significant beyond the 95% C.L., may be due to some energy-dependent effect at the source."

The technology upgrades over the past 12 years have been amazing, but they leave a lot of questions unanswered. My point is that plasma redshift theory does make very *unique*, and very testable predictions. Furthermore there is already some circumstantial evidence in favor of signal delays that are 'predicted' in tired light/plasma redshift theory.

Hubble himself acknowledged and wrote about the fact that there are two possible solutions to the redshift observation, not one. Astronomers today have lost their scientific objectivity, and they have lost their ability to think openly and explore all avenues of thought and belief. They want instead to "herd" everyone into a single mythos, even after simple SUSY theories bit the dust at LHC and the standard particle physics model is complete without SUSY theory. That still doesn't stop them from pointing at every high energy photon they find in the sky and claiming 'WIMPS did it!'.

 

[davidbilby]

Cool. So that's a tentative yes to the first question, you take it partially on faith. (Nothing necessarily wrong with that yet, but there is a point coming). Will read the other points with interest!

 

[Michael]

pps...I reread the Chen paper. Not only is the paper solely about the AC Stark effect in carbon nanotubes, not true plasma; it is a laser induced effect!

It's about as irrelevant as it could be.

Nope. You just *assume* it's irrelevant because that is what you *need* to believe. In your opinion what are the odds that *no* amount of any form of plasma redshift occurs in space? Do you even allow for, or entertain an 'electrical' perspective of the universe we live in?

 

[Michael]

Cool. So that's a tentative yes to the first question, you take it partially on faith. (Nothing necessarily wrong with that yet, but there is a point coming). Will read the other points with interest!

FYI, I'll happily admit that some of Michal's work is simply a bit over my head too, and I accept some of his mathematical viewpoints on faith by the way. In fact, about every scientific paper I read has some information provided by the author that I simply "accept on faith" to some degree or another.

If you can point out an error, you have a valid criticism. Otherwise, not so much.

 

[davidbilby]

The technology upgrades over the past 12 years have been amazing, but they leave a lot of questions unanswered. My point is that plasma redshift theory does make very *unique*, and very testable predictions. Furthermore there is already some circumstantial evidence in favor of signal delays that are 'predicted' in tired light/plasma redshift theory.

Hubble himself acknowledged and wrote about the fact that there are two possible solutions to the redshift observation, not one. Astronomers today have lost their scientific objectivity, and they have lost their ability to think openly and explore all avenues of thought and belief. They want instead to "herd" everyone into a single mythos, even after simple SUSY theories bit the dust at LHC and the standard particle physics model is complete without SUSY theory. That still doesn't stop them from pointing at every high energy photon they find in the sky and claiming 'WIMPS did it!'.

But Michael...you pointed to a popular science version of this paper on numerous occasions, telling me it was verification of a prediction of the latest tired light theories! Now you're saying its a circumstantial bit of evidence? Do you have any other measurements from anywhere else in the galaxy showing a time delay? Otherwise this big point you made so vehemently, links to UC Davis press releases and all, is a big heap of nothing? If you can't show that it is a reasonable assumption that the emission was synchronous then it's not a piece of evidence in your favor at all (yet - I'm not ruling it out, because that would be unfair, just pointing out the point is so very weak).

 

[davidbilby]

Nope. You just *assume* it's irrelevant because that is what you *need* to believe. In your opinion what are the odds that *no* amount of any form of plasma redshift occurs in space? Do you even allow for, or entertain an 'electrical' perspective of the universe we live in?

Lasers in space inducing much redshift that you can see? I'm not opposed to anything that might make sense, but this paper requires a laser to induce the AC stark effect - the precise mechanism suggested in this paper is unlikely to have a cosmological implication unless we're talking Star Trek....

 

[Michael]

Lasers in space inducing much redshift that you can see? I'm not opposed to anything that might make sense, but this paper requires a laser to induce the AC stark effect - the precise mechanism suggested in this paper is unlikely to have a cosmological implication unless we're talking Star Trek....

Except we do observe culminated, near light speed "jets" around some of the black holes that exist in every galaxy, and black holes can even be "charged" in mainstream theory! How did you rule out the existence of AC, DC and lasers (coherent light) in space exactly?

 

[Michael]

But Michael...you pointed to a popular science version of this paper on numerous occasions, telling me it was verification of a prediction of the latest tired light theories! Now you're saying its a circumstantial bit of evidence?

It's *one* observation that does corroborate tired light models. I'd feel 'better' if there were a few dozen, wouldn't you? The fact there *is* a way to test the idea, *and* it passes those tests thus far is all I'm noting.

Do you have any other measurements from anywhere else in the galaxy showing a time delay? Otherwise this big point you made so vehemently, links to UC Davis press releases and all, is a big heap of nothing? If you can't show that it is a reasonable assumption that the emission was synchronous then it's not a piece of evidence in your favor at all (yet - I'm not ruling it out, because that would be unfair, just pointing out the point is so very weak).

You can't name a source of dark energy, and that isn't a "weak" argument? You can't show any tangible laboratory evidence that that dark energy is necessary to redshift a photon, nor can you even create an experiment that uses "dark energy" to redshift any photon in any controlled experiment. You don't call that a weak argument? I have *some* evidence from space and *a lot* of evidence from the lab. What more do you want that will not come with time? Holushko and others have already provided you with a way to differentiate between mainstream redshift ideas and plasma redshift theories. Time will tell which is right for sure, but even right now there is 'some' evidence to support the idea.

 

[davidbilby]

Except we do observe culminated, near light speed "jets" around some of the black holes that exist in every galaxy, and black holes can even be "charged" in mainstream theory! How did you rule out the existence of AC, DC and lasers (coherent light) in space exactly?

Um - I didn't. I just want to know how often you see lasers of the magnitude and power used in the Chen paper, the specific one you cite? Because the Chen paper doesn't examine in the slightest any of those things you mentioned other than a specific, man-made coherent light source. Perhaps there might be a few phenomena in space causing this effect - probably are - but their prevalence could not be high enough to account for any part of a constant, unchanging redshifting fect? The effect would at the very least fluctuate wildly with any natural phenomenon, surely.

The Chen paper doesn't even deal with a true plasma, merely "free" electrons within the structure of a carbon nanotube...the effects observed being consistent with the species dependent AC Stark effect. It has good communications implications, but you have not shown cosmological relevance in any meaningful sense yet.

 

[Michael]

Um - I didn't. I just want to know how often you see lasers of the magnitude and power used in the Chen paper, the specific one you cite? Because the Chen paper doesn't examine in the slightest any of those things you mentioned other than a specific, man-made coherent light source.

Um, that's like tossing out the results because the whole experiment is 'mad made'!?!?!? What? Unless you're trying to claim that no coherent light exists in space, you can't rule these results out! The fact it uses powerful lasers is irrelevant.

Perhaps there might be a few phenomena in space causing this effect - probably are - but their prevalence could not be high enough to account for any part of a constant, unchanging redshifting fect? The effect would at the very least fluctuate wildly with any natural phenomenon, surely.

Even if it can't be the cause of *all* redshift, it might be the cause of some forms of redshift in very specific events. Like I said, it might be possible develop very sophisticated models that pick and choose between different types of redshift in different types of circumstances in space. Holushko's model however is a "generic" model that applies to *all* forms. Even if it's not enough to be the cause of it all, it is possible it's the cause of *some* cosmological redshift.

The Chen paper doesn't even deal with a true plasma, merely "free" electrons within the structure of a carbon nanotube...the effects observed being consistent with the species dependent AC Stark effect. It has good communications implications, but you have not shown cosmological relevance in any meaningful sense yet.

The problem is that the mainstream does not allow for electric universe theory, therefore nothing I might present is likely to 'sway' you will it? Black holes can even hold a charge in mainstream theory, and they generate light speed currents near their poles. How can you possibly rule out Chen's work as being applicable to every event in space? Chen's work *does* show a cause/effect link between the number of free electrons and the amount of redshift. Again, why should I ignore that data in favor of a space mythos that makes no allowances for *any* form of plasma redshift?

It's not like the mainstream is even the least bit prepared to accept *any* amount of plasma redshift will occur in the plasmas of space. They might as well be claiming that the laws of physics in space *must* work differently than they do on Earth! Oh wait, I forgot. They do that anyway with "dark energy" and "inflation" and falsified SUSY theories, so what's new?

I can even logically explain *why* the mainstream needs what amounts to placeholder terms for human ignorance and *why* they can't find or describe a 'source' of their placeholder term for human ignorance. The redshift phenomenon in question isn't related to 'dark energy' it's related to the scattering/redshift effects that occur in plasma which the mainsteam has never accounted for. They can't find 'dark energy' or cite a single source for dark energy because dark energy never existed and never was the actual cause of plasma redshift in the first place! They simply created a "dark sky religion" due to their utter ignorance of plasma redshift.

Honestly, even the primary reference used by astronomers today to supposedly 'debunk' tired light/plasma redshift theories is a website that hasn't been updated in a decade! Ned might as well be bashing away at non dark energy BB theories, and wildly claiming that the supernova data has never been addressed in BB theory, and therefore all BB theories are false! Sheesh.

 

[davidbilby]

It's *one* observation that does corroborate tired light models. I'd feel 'better' if there were a few dozen, wouldn't you? The fact there *is* a way to test the idea, *and* it passes those tests thus far is all I'm noting.

But you just admitted the test, even in the hands of the original researchers, can't be said to even show what you say it shows. It cannot be shown there wasn't a time delay at source, and without that confirmation it cannot be considered a test of anything.

I have *some* evidence from space and *a lot* of evidence from the lab. What more do you want that will not come with time? Holushko and others have already provided you with a way to differentiate between mainstream redshift ideas and plasma redshift theories. Time will tell which is right for sure, but even right now there is 'some' evidence to support the idea.

We're talking about your theory right now, not anybody else's: the strength or lack of on the part of another theory doesn't enhance or otherwise your theory, so please stop trying to change the subject as you do in the section that follows this quote.

You ask what more do I want? Let's look at what you have presented...

Your "some" evidence from space can't even be shown to be relevant, and hasn't been replicated even once. You can't be sure that the effect observed in Markarian 501 wasn't source induced, you can't be sure that it fits with the tired light delay prediction in terms of magnitude and isn't caused by some other effect such as quantum foam structure: that isn't evidence at all for tired light.

Your evidence "from the lab" is of a well known small scale species dependent effect, induced by a powered laser, and not even in a plasma of anywhere near the densities found in space - in fact not even in a true plasma at all but in carbon nanotubes, and not causing a species independent cosmological redshift.
Since you cannot show how this could even be part of a cosmological redshift, this is not evidence supporting your cause (yet).

What I want is some real evidence, not arguments consisting of "I think dark energy's evidence is weak, therefore my theory must be right, and if dark energy is allowed to use weak evidence then so am I!".

I don't need Holushko's help to do anything, I note most of his stuff is on the non-peer reviewed vixra instead of arxiv. The two are not equal. If your answer starts or finishes with anything regarding the validity or not of dark energy theories, I'll assume that you have nothing further: to repeat, we're discussing the validity of your theory, and the validity of dark energy work does not strengthen or weaken the direct validity of your theory either way.

 

[Michael]

But you just admitted the test, even in the hands of the original researchers, can't be said to even show what you say it shows. It cannot be shown there wasn't a time delay at source, and

Woah! Unless the whole event works *differently* than your precious theories "predict", they should have been emitted at the same time, and they should arrive at the same time. Since they didn't arrive at the same time, you now want to sweep it under the carpet by claiming your theories related to supernova events and gamma ray emissions may be messed up instead? Aren't you "fine tuning" now to avoid the problem?

We're talking about your theory right now, not anybody else's: the strength or lack of on the part of another theory doesn't enhance or otherwise your theory, so please stop trying to change the subject.

My theories are stronger than yours because mine don't just work out on paper, they predict events that actually show up in the lab. We do observe plasma redshift in the lab, a key 'prediction' of static universe theories. You can *ignore* that data at your own peril if you like, but it won't make it go away. More importantly there is a way to differentiate between your beliefs and mine, and logical tests that will requires further research.

You ask what more do I want? Let's look at what you have presented...

Your "some" evidence from space can't even be shown to be relevant, and hasn't been replicated even once.

How about Emil Wolf's personal work, or the modern theories based upon his findings?

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9807205.pdf

You can't be sure that the effect observed in Markarian 501 wasn't source induced,

Unless *your* supernova theories are broken I do! There's no logical reason for a 4 minute delay! You're just 'hoping' now.

you can't be sure that it fits with the tired light delay prediction in terms of magnitude and isn't caused by some other effect such as quantum foam structure: that isn't evidence at all for tired light.

I have quantified mathematical models by Holushko, Ari, Wolf and many others that corroborate the fact that redshift happens in space. I have every bit as much "evidence" as you do in terms of how this stuff applies to events in space. I have something you don't have though. I have a theory that makes useful and testable predictions in the lab, and they show up in the lab as *predicted* by my theory. Your theory doesn't predict plasma redshift and makes not allowances for it. Your claims don't show up in the lab.

Your evidence "from the lab" is of a well known small scale species dependent effect, induced by a powered laser, and not even in a plasma of anywhere near the densities found in space - in fact not even in a true plasma at all but in carbon nanotubes, and not causing a species independent cosmological redshift.

So what? I have so much distance to work with, what I lack in some areas, I easily make up for in the distance aspect. I don't need the *exact same* conditions, I just need conditions that cause *some* amount of redshift.

Since you cannot show how this could even be part of a cosmological redshift, this is not evidence supporting your cause (yet).

False. I don't have to make some special connection that you don't have to make. You can't demonstrate dark energy isn't a figment of your overactive imagination. You can't demonstrate it has any effect on even a single photon in a controlled experiment with actual control mechanisms (like on off switches on a laser). You've got *zilch* in term of evidence *before* you even start waving at the sky, let alone any evidence that the conditions in space are 'conducive to dark energy photon redshift". Holy Cow. You require *more* from any other theory than you require of your own.

What I want is some real evidence, not arguments consisting of "I think dark energy's evidence is weak, therefore my theory must be right, and if dark energy is allowed to use weak evidence then so am I!".

What exactly counts as "evidence" in your mind? You claim to have "evidence' of dark energy that amounts to nothing more than mathematical models of how dark energy *might* work the way you claim, and that's it! I have mathematical models to offer you, but you claim they don't count as evidence?!?!? Talk about blatant double standards. I'm even able to 'go the extra mile' and do something you cannot do. I can demonstrate that plasma redshift *does* cause photon redshift in controlled experimentation. You can't even do that much, yet you expect me to now look at "conditions in space" to be sure they work for you? Are you personally even willing to entertain EU/PC theory, because without it, you won't explain the universe or the redshift.

I've given you *more* evidence to favor EU/PC theory than you have provided in support of Lambda-CDM. You're even in the uncomfortable position of defending SUSY theory, even after simple SUSY theories were *falsified* at LHC. You've got *nothing* in terms of tangible physics to work with. I just have to "take you word for it" that the conditions somewhere in space are just right for your magic invisible sky deity to do it's magic.

I don't need Holushko's help to do anything, I note most of his stuff is on the non-peer reviewed vixra instead of arxiv. The two are not equal.

You didn't cite an actual flaw in his work. Do you think I didn't notice? I don't care where it comes from, so long as it is mathematically correct. Did you find an mathematical error in his work?

If your answer starts or finishes with anything regarding the validity or not of dark energy theories, I'll assume that you have nothing further: to repeat, we're discussing the validity of your theory, and the validity of dark energy work does not strengthen or weaken the direct validity of your theory either way.

The problem from my perspective is that you're unwilling to be like Edwin Hubble and recognize that there are at least two logical and possible explanations for the redshift phenomenon. You're subjectively choosing the one option that enjoys the *least possible* empirical support. Why? You've got no logical reason to do that.

Holushko has demonstrated that a generic tired light/plasma redshift theory, based entirely on plasma physics, is sufficient to explain supernova data. Lerner has demonstrated that a static universe theory *does* pass the Tolman brightness test. Even Eddington was closer to the correct temperature of space based on scattering and absorption of light than the early BB proponents. What need do I then have of anything other than empirical physics to explain the universe around me? What need do I have of the mainstream's impotent on Earth sky entities when they can't even site a source for them?

Wow, for an atheist, you really aren't particularly "skeptical" of anything related to "dark energy", or "dark matter", or "inflation". Why do you believe in such things if there is already an empirical alternative that doesn't requires any of that dark placeholder stuff, and it's based entirely upon the laws of plasma physics? I don't get it?

 

[davidbilby]

Woah! Unless the whole event works *differently* than your precious theories "predict", they should have been emitted at the same time, and they should arrive at the same time. Since they didn't arrive at the same time, you now want to sweep it under the carpet by claiming your theories related to supernova events and gamma ray emissions may be messed up instead? Aren't you "fine tuning" now to avoid the problem?

Unless *your* supernova theories are broken I do! There's no logical reason for a 4 minute delay! You're just 'hoping' now.

I'm amused you think a blazar flare is a supernova event. Not only do you not understand that none of your evidence shows what you think it does, you think Markarian 501 went supernova and that is what was measured. Hilarious. May I suggest you reread what a blazar is and then try again? There is no reason to think that particle emission was simultaneous and the delay not caused by source effects, as the MAGIC researchers pointed out themselves, and even if it was synchronous there's no evidence that shows it wasn't something else causing the delay (eg quantum foam explanations, although they have their own issues...).

There's no hope involved. You don't even know the basics of one of your own tent poles...like the really simple basics of what was being measured.

 

[Michael]

I'm amused you think a blazar flare is a supernova event. Not only do you not understand that none of your evidence shows what you think it does, you think Markarian 501 went supernova and that is what was measured. Hilarious. May I suggest you reread what a blazar is and then try again? There is no reason to think that particle emission was simultaneous and the delay not caused by source effects, as the MAGIC researchers pointed out themselves, and even if it was synchronous there's no evidence that shows it wasn't something else causing the delay (eg quantum foam explanations, although they have their own issues...).

There's no hope involved. You don't even know the basics of one of your own tent poles...like the really simple basics of what was being measured.

You're right of course, it was not a supernova event. Sometimes responding between tech calls at work makes it impossible for me to proofread. My basic argument however still stands. You're *fine tuning* conditions at the start to make it FIT the evidence you want it to fit at the end of the process. My theory doesn't require all that "fine tuning". In other words, you're just subjectively observing what you like, and ignoring what you do not like. You're not even open to an actual "test".

 

[davidbilby]

"I don't have to make some special connection that you don't have to make."

I showed you a yawning chasm between the Chen paper and what might be possible space (which is largely laser free, I think). I'm not saying that there aren't chasms to leap in certain inflationary theories either, but merely claiming that "it's been shown in the lab" and leaving it there is a problem and I can find many examples of you and others doing. You are claiming an empirical validity to the idea that is unwarranted with what you've presented so far. A tenuously connected paper on the AC Stark effect and a wholly tenuous paper on blazars isn't enough, nor is some non peer-reviewed C# code. I read some of the other papers and there's a few mathematical errors rendering some of them kind of problematic: mostly related to equations that can't be reasonably used as they are or just plain wrong.

I'm not actually commenting yet you'll notice on dark energy theories and I would be happy to have a concerted debate in another pair of thread perhaps, one for dark energy and one for tired light/plasma redshift. I'd be happy to have a fresh canvas to debate this subject with you carefully, point by point. No ad-hominems, nothing emotive, no "invisible deity" or "crank" insults flown out, just the science in its factual form presented clearly. I'd be happy to defend the expanding universe theories.

I'm on vacation as of tonight for 10 days - but after would be fun.