The universe is not free of coherent or polarized light however. You make it sound like the conditions in space or the energy state of the photons must be *exactly* the same in space as they are in the lab to apply. Where did you get that idea? We may need to "scale up" things like say "current" to make up in current what we cannot achieve in distance. It might be necessary to make concessions here and there while "testing".
Ya, 10 to the 100th power is quite a chasm alright.
There is no real or serious problem, simply a host of perceived problems in your mind, specifically every hurdle that you can dream up in your head for not accepting the concept.
At least my ideas do show up in labs on Earth. Maybe they do not work in the lab *exactly* the way want them to, but at least they do show up.Your cross mixing ideas so let's look at them individually. The C# code makes us "equal" in terms of "explaining" redshift. Holushko doesn't need inflation or dark energy to explain it, just "generic" observations of normal types of plasma redshift. He sites Compton redshift specifically and uses the term "generic" quite specifically in his presentation. He provides a historical perspective on tired light theory going all the way back to Edwin Hubble himself. More importantly however, Holushko "postdicted a fit" (a time honored tradition in physics) to known observation. He then checked his postdicted fit across several spectrum, and checked it against the spectral aging data as well. He handed us the C# code that he used to inspect, to enjoy and to play with at our leisure. What more can we ask for?
I do not need inflation or dark energy to explain what Holushko explains via empirical physics. Unless you have something more convincing than the supernova data to work with, inflation and dark energy are irrelevant and unnecessary.
FYI, If we played by *mainstream* rules, or we were playing on a level playing field, Holushko's C# code by itself is "mathematical evidence" of the existence of plasma redshift/tired light in space. In other words, his postdicted fit to the supernova data is a confirmation of the existence of plasma redshift in space. It essentially documents the process mathematically for us. If we play by mainstream rules, where quantification is king, Holushko just demonstrated evidence of plasma redshift in space, just as you seem to think you have evidence of "dark energy". Of course only one of those actually shows up in the lab.
You do expect me to believe that dark energy is the cause of redshift based upon nothing more than math, and a few software variables that are plugged into a program don't you? You can't even name a source of dark energy, let alone figure out a way to "test" it in controlled experiments on Earth. You keep insisting that a mathematical postdicted fit is evidence of 'dark energy", so why isn't Holushko's postdicted fit of "tired light(plasma redshift)" evidence of "tired light/plasma redshift"? Honestly! Astronomers apply two completely different sets of rules to their own theories than they apply to any other theory under the sun!
Holushko intentionally chose a "generic" tired light/plasma redshift model that is *inclusive*, not exclusive of *all* forms of plasma redshift/tired light. It's an *averaged* formula that may include influences from every single type of plasma redshift observed in the lab to date, and every one that we might discover in the future.
Holushko's work is well 'tested' across the spectrum, and well tested in terms of the spectral aging data. It provides testable *predictions* that are unique to plasma redshift theories, including signal broadening, and including various wavelength delays. This is what *real* physics is all about IMO. Those *predictions* (hey, if you can do it, I can do it) have been "verified" in the lab several times now, and there may be many more to come! What we can test in the lab, does work so far. What more can anyone do at the moment?
If Guth and the inventors of 'dark energy' can claim their maths represent evidence of inflation and dark energy, then Holushko has every right to claim he has produced evidence of plasma redshift. You can't have it both ways. The difference however is that Holushko's model enjoys several forms of plasma redshift confirmations in the lab. That's more than will *ever* occur for inflation or dark energy theory.
You'll have to be more specific for me to comment. I'd rather we begin with Holushko's work since it's my personally favorite at the moment.
That sounds great. When you get back, start at new thread with a new title of something like "Lambda-CDM vs Plasma Cosmology theory" or something like that, and we'll have some fun. I'll try to lay off the insulting language, but I may appeal to your desire for empirical support for God when explaining why I prefer PC theory over Lambda-CDM.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
: Scientists know from previous observations of dark energy what the properties of dark energy are: Wikipedia: Dark energy
