Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[Michael]

That is insane, Michael:

There you go using loaded terms like "insane" because you only know how to attack the messenger.

I have an idea about the electron density in space. It is documented in books and all over the Intenet that the intergalactic medium has a densition of 1 m3 (one H atom per cubic meter or 1 electron + proton per cubic meter).

Did they dream up that number before or after they found all that "missing plasma" around our galaxy?

A Huge Reservoir of Ionized Gas around the Milky Way: Accounting for the Missing Mass? - Abstract - The Astrophysical Journal Letters - IOPscience

Oh wait, that was *before* and before they realized it's radiating at a million degrees, and they still haven't figured out that those high temperatures are sustained by *current*.

You have supplied no evidence for current between the Sun and heliosphere.

Birkeland beat me to it by 100 years.

Unless this is a delusion that the neutral solar wind is a current!

Gee, "delusion" and "insane" in one post already. Who would have guessed you'd take the low road in debate anyway?

You are still impressively ignorant about Ned Wright's web page using standard physics that has been known for decades and is still in the textbooks.

Ya, and Pluto is still planet in a lot of decade old textbooks too RC. I've yet to see you even touch the content of Holushko's work. Could that be fear I smell RC?

I predict personal attacks on Holushko will ensue, followed by a full retreat from the content of his paper and his C# code.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The citation is to a paper from 2001 and that ....

The citation is to a 2001 paper that contains valid data and analysis that debunks any tired light model produced by Lerner, Holushko, Ari and Ashmore.
The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. IV. A Measurement of the Tolman Signal and the Luminosity Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies

We conclude that the Tolman surface brightness test is consistent with the reality of the expansion to within the combined errors of the observed depression and the theoretical correction for luminosity evolution. We have also used the high-redshift HST data to test the "tired light'' speculation for a nonexpansion model for the redshift. The HST data rule out the tired light model at a significance level of better than 10 σ.
​

My emphasis added.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Already dealt with by *many* authors since 2001.

Cite the papers produced by these *many* authors since 2001 that shows that the Dandage 2001 papers are invalid.
First Asked 17 October 2012.

 

[Michael]

Pure ignorance, fantasy and nothing to do with what I posted.

New Page 1
No Errors in Stolmar's CMB Model

Pure truth on my part, and nothing but bogus nonsense on your part. Ned apparently has a history of manipulating his graphs by the way and he's made several folks mad enough to put up websites explaining Ned's error, not that Ned has ever fixed it.

Eddington understood that photons have kinetic energy and they are absorbed and scattered by atoms and molecules in space. He knew they radiated at a temperature above zero, due to the effect of starlight. His calculation of the temperature of space was within 1/2 of one degree, whereas original BB "guestimates" were close to 50 degrees off! It's not even horse race in terms of the "fine tuning" required in "Lambda-falsified SUSY" theory in terms of what it takes to get to the right number. According to Penrose the odds of inflation having anything to do with our universe is 10 to the 100th power *against* the idea. Talk about wild fantasies!

The fantasy is that you think that redoning measurements to be nore accurate is wrong!

You fudged the fit with metaphysical gap filler galore! Your theory is 4 percent physics and 96 percent gap filler to make it work right!

The ignorance is in thinking that Eddington's calculation of the temperature of space has anything to do with the BB. The BB produces a blackbody spectrum. Eddington's calculation did not.

Boloney. It's just an average temperature of space. Period. You'd love to muck it up with fancy nonsense, but in the end it comes back to the backgound temperature of space and nothing but that issue. Eddington nailed to within about 1/2 a degree. Original BB theory was closer to 50 degrees off at the start, and more than 2 degrees off even after the first round of "fudging the numbers"! I think it took them a decade to finally compete with Eddington.

What I posted was:

Forget about my suspicion that science progresses and astronomers have made observations sine 2001!

The fact remains that the tired light model fails the blackbody CNB test by 100,000 standard deviations.

You're really still quoting from a website with four known physics errors RC? Is that really your best reference which I already debunked with two references of my own? Would you like a third? Holy cow! Ned has *never* addressed *any* of Lerner's work, none of it!

http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/The Case Against The Big Bang.pdf

 

[Naraoia]

OK, you asked me what I thought about the CQ rules, I gave you my opinion, and you had another turn at complaining. Are you expecting me to react, or can I leave you to it?

RC attacked my ideas based on Ned Wright's single website that contains four physics errors in a row. It's like citing a single creationist website containing four physics errors and claiming to have 'debunked' evolutionary theory with that one guy's website written 11 years ago and never updated. What kind of argument is that?

You said he always attacks the person and not the ideas. That is demonstrably false, and the quality of his arguments has nothing to do with it.

 

[Michael]

Cite the papers produced by these *many* authors since 2001 that shows that the Dandage 2001 papers are invalid.
First Asked 17 October 2012.

I handed you Holushko's paper and C# code on a silver platter. You've been running from that material as fast as possible since I first asked you about it. Are you ever going to deal with it, just are you just going to keep running?

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

 

[Michael]

OK, you asked me what I thought about the CQ rules, I gave you my opinion, and you had another turn at complaining. Are you expecting me to react, or can I leave you to it?

I appreciate your candor actually. I know you have some experience at supporting a minority position here, so I wondered what you thought of the process there. I appreciate your response.

You said he always attacks the person and not the ideas.

Ok, so he spends *a lot* of time attacking people rather than the ideas, and only a minor amount of time repeating the same falsified nonsense.

That is demonstrably false, and the quality of his arguments has nothing to do with it.

Continuing to point at Ned's website while running away from Holushko's work and Lerner's work and ignoring the last 10 years of plasma cosmology research doesn't say much for the quality of his arguments in 2012. Whatever merit Ned's website may have had in 2001, they've been proven false today.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Nope. You're doing the two things you do best, attacking the individual and ignoring the law of (plasma) physics. Ned's first statement was *never* true, not even when it was first written.
...more unsupported ranting and crank citation snipped...

Nope. I am doing the two things I do best,

1. pointing put that the individual is ignorant of physics and
2. stating the physics along with lnks that this individula is too lazy to read!

Ned's first statement was *and remains* true. Since it is standard textbook physics, only an truly ignorant person would expect him to try to publish it.

I know that it is quite hard to educate you Michael, (how many weeks did it take you to find the definition of pressure in the JREF forum ), but I will try.
Your claim is that a change in photon momentum produces a change in frequency (red or blue shift). The answer in physics is - sometimes !
A change in photon momentum can be produced by an elastic collision where there is no energy exchange and so only a change in direction.
An example of this is Thompson scattering.

A change in photon momentum can be produced by an inelastic collision where there is an energy exchange and a change in direction.
An example of this is Compton scattering.

Only a change in energy always produces a change in frequency (red or blue shift).

Errors in Tired Light Cosmology. Ned Wright's first point is valid

There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work.

In bits easy to digest:

• Tired light theories change the energy of photons.
• There is no known interaction that can do this (Compton scattering, etc.) without changing the momentum of photons.
• Changing the momentum of photons leads to bluring of distant objects that is not observed.

A naive person would think that scattering would just make distant objects dimmer by removing photons that can be detected by a telescope. They forget that the scattering apples to all of the emitted photons, the angle of scattering is random and thus photons will be also scattered so that they will be detected by the telescope (when they would not have been detected without the scattering).
The scattering thus:

• Scatters some photons away from the telescope.
• Scatters some photons into from the telescope.
• Scatters some photons that would have been detected so that they are still detected.

The result is that photons enter the telescope at a wider range of angles than without scattering. This blurs the image.

 

[Naraoia]

I appreciate your candor actually. I know you have some experience at supporting a minority position here, so I wondered what you thought of the process there. I appreciate your response.

I'm not sure supporting evolution is a minority position here. As an advocate of evolution, I nearly always have the support of fellow posters, some of whom are as well or better educated about the subject than I am.

My real experience with supporting a minority position ended with a very quick chicken move It was some Yahoo mailing list (can't remember the name) full of cdesign proponentsists, and I rapidly realised that I just didn't have the energy to deal with all of their replies alone. So, in a way, I admire guys like you

I think it's always best when the two sides are balanced in numbers/activity. Otherwise it turns into a massacre and no one benefits except for the majority getting some giggles.

 

[RealityCheck01]

citeseerx(dot)ist(dot)psu(dot)edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.5845&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Oh dear - a crank who thinks that quasars are ejected by galaxies!
The paper is about the "Redshift Components of Apparent Quasar-Galaxy Associations", not about cosmological redshifts.

Nope. Light only travels at the speed of light.

That was my (rather mangled!) point! Photon "kinetic energy" cannot change (is always zero) and so has nothing to do with frequencey shifts.

Yes which is why a loss of kinetic energy in a photon is called "redshift",

And there is that "kinetic" again. A photon always has a kineteic energy of zero .

Nobody denies that. I simply pointed out that a loss of energy is not the same as a deflection of the photon.

Inelastic scattering like Compton scattering is always a change in energy. That is what the inelastic bit means!

Pfft. Until you can distinguish between redshift and photon deflection, there is little for us to discuss.

Pfft. Physics does distinguish between redshift and photon deflection and so do I. They are two different things (look up their definitions!).

The important thing is the physics, e.g. Thompson scattering produces scattering and no frequency shifts (elastic scattering) while Compton scattering produces scattering and frequency shifts (inelastic scattering)

 

[Michael]

Nope. I am doing the two things I do best,

1. pointing put that the individual is ignorant of physics and

Attacking the individual.....

stating the physics along with lnks that this individula is too lazy to read!

I read it, and *CRUSHED* it already.


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


Read it this time please.

Ned's first statement was *and remains* true. Since it is standard textbook physics, only an truly ignorant person would expect him to try to publish it.

Nonsense. Only a scientist would expect him to publish his claims. Only an ignorant person would be reduced to handwaves from one guy's website from 2001 when trying to make a scientific argument related to 2012.

I know that it is quite hard to educate you Michael, (how many weeks did it take you to find the definition of pressure in the JREF forum ), but I will try.

You have no interest in anything but cyberstalking and character assassination. That's quite obvious.

Errors in Tired Light Cosmology. Ned Wright's first point is valid

No, it's not. A change in momentum isn't the same as a change in direction and one can happen without the other. Until you stop playing with toy physics, the only thing you're "teaching" anyone is baloney.

In bits easy to digest:Tired light theories change the energy of photons.

Duh! They don't *always* change the direction of the photon!

There is no known interaction that can do this

False. I already explained how it can happen in coherent or polarized light. Remaining in pure denial of physics isn't really getting you anywhere. You're claiming they *must* be related when in fact they do not have to be related in each and every case.

Changing the momentum of photons leads to bluring of distant objects that is not observed.

That is a *false* statement! Only a change in the *direction* of the photon can cause blurring. Furthermore blurring and even *blocking* of various wavelengths is observed all the time in space! It's a bogus claim on both counts!

A naive person would think that scattering would just make distant objects dimmer by removing photons that can be detected by a telescope. They forget that the scattering apples to all of the emitted photons, the angle of scattering is random and thus photons will be also scattered so that they will be detected by the telescope (when they would not have been detected without the scattering).

Huh? A "scatter" at any significant angle will simply cause the photon to never reach Earth. Only a *tiny* deflection, very close to Earth has any hope of causing any sort of "blurring". You're again ignoring the fact that most scattering incidents will result in the simple loss of light, not "blurring". Only a "lucky angle" deflection would result in any sort of blur, and it would have to occur *extremely* close (in cosmic terms) to Earth.

The scattering thus:

• Scatters some photons away from the telescope.
• Scatters some photons into from the telescope.
• Scatters some photons that would have been detected so that they are still detected.

The result is that photons enter the telescope at a wider range of angles than without scattering. This blurs the image.

Again, you're just parroting the same falsified nonsense from 2001 and you keep running from Holushko's paper from 2012. Do you think nobody else notices that you keep avoiding Lerner's work and Holushko's work? The transparency of your argument is so obvious it's pathetic RC. You can't handle Holushko's work, so you won't deal with it. Classic denial.

 

[Michael]

I'm not sure supporting evolution is a minority position here. As an advocate of evolution, I nearly always have the support of fellow posters, some of whom are as well or better educated about the subject than I am.

My real experience with supporting a minority position ended with a very quick chicken move It was some Yahoo mailing list (can't remember the name) full of cdesign proponentsists, and I rapidly realised that I just didn't have the energy to deal with all of their replies alone. So, in a way, I admire guys like you

It does require stamina, that's for sure.

I think it's always best when the two sides are balanced in numbers/activity. Otherwise it turns into a massacre and no one benefits except for the majority getting some giggles.

I was enjoying the conversation more when the attacks were focused on ideas, not people. RC has a way of dragging the *individual* through the mud and ignoring the work/content entirely. Just watch and see. Everyone he disagrees with is a 'crank', a "crackpot", "crazy", "idiotic", etc. You'll see.

 

[RealityCheck01]

There you go using loaded terms like "insane" because you only know how to attack the messenger.

I labelled your statement insane beacuse it was insanely ignorant , e.g. a claim that I had "no idea" about the electron density of space (maybe you can read my mind ) when it is a well known part of astrophysics.
I have an idea about the electron density in space. It is documented in books and all over the Intenet that the intergalactic medium has a densition of 1 m3 (one H atom per cubic meter or 1 electron + proton per cubic meter).

Did they dream up that number before or after they found all that "missing plasma" around our galaxy?

They measured that number many decades ago!

Oh wait, that was *before* and before they realized it's radiating at a million degrees, and they still haven't figured out that those high temperatures are sustained by *current*.

Oh wait - you are still ignorant of plasma physics and why astrono0mical plasmas have different temperatures!

Birkeland beat me to it by 100 years.

And now we a re back to lies about Birkeland!
Birkeland postulated that the solar wind wxists. This is not a current (it is neutral). It is a mass flow not a current.

I've yet to see you even touch the content of Holushko's work. Could that be fear I smell RC?
[/quopte]
No - you smell the knowledge of physics and that this rules out any tired light theory. So Holushko theory is wrong and only an idiot would touch the content of his work. I am not that idiot.

I predict personal attacks on Holushko will ensue, followed by a full retreat from the content of his paper and his C# code.

I predict that you will continue to ignore the reality of physics:

• There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed.
• The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves
• The tired light model can not produce a blackbody spectrum for the Cosmic Microwave Background without some incredible coincidences.
• The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test.

and continue to tout Holushko and obsess on the trival fact that he has C# code !

 

[Michael]

Oh dear - a crank who thinks that quasars are ejected by galaxies!

Like Arp? Just out of curiosity, is there anyone that you disagree with on any subject in astronomy that isn't a 'crank' or a "crackpot"?

The paper is about the "Redshift Components of Apparent Quasar-Galaxy Associations", not about cosmological redshifts.

So why did you call him a crank anyway?

That was my (rather mangled!) point! Photon "kinetic energy" cannot change (is always zero) and so has nothing to do with frequencey shifts.

False. Kinetic energy changes to the photon can and do occur in the lab. A change in the wavelength is a change in the kinetic energy of the photon.

And there is that "kinetic" again. A photon always has a kineteic energy of zero .

What? A photon *always* has kinetic energy. It's mass that is zero! Holy cow. Since you are *not* an astronomer, and you clearly no *nothing* about photons, why are you even engaging yourself in this thread? What makes you such the "expert" that you can call everyone a 'crank' anyway?

There's no logical point in even talking to you until you learn about kinetic energy and photons. Do a little reading:

Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RealityCheck01]

No Errors in Stolmar's CMB Model

Pure truth on my part,
..snipped lies about Ned Wrighyt "history of manipulating his graphs"...

Pure inability to read on your part: This is a reply to Ned Wrights "Errors in Stolmar's Cosmic Background Model". This is not a model for cosmological redshift though it is a tired light model. So only one point in Ned Wrights "Errors in Tired Light Cosmology" applies

• The tired light model can not produce a blackbody spectrum for the Cosmic Microwave Background without some incredible coincidences.

In Stolmar's Cosmic Background, the "incredible coincidences" are that the Earth is the center of the universe and the rest of the universe is arranged so that a tired light theory can produce a CMB just for us!

Eddington understood ...

Yes he did. You remain ignorant that his calculation was an effective temperature for starlight which is not a blackbody spectrum.
The CMB predictions for BB include that it is a blackbody spectrum and are worked out from colsmology.

You're really still quoting from a website with four known physics errors RC?

You are still parroting your unsupported assertion that there are 4 errors on that web page, M.

1. No known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum and so bluring images of distant objects is basic physics.
2. The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves.
   You have not even mentioned this!
3. The tired light model can not produce a blackbody spectrum for the Cosmic Microwave Background without some incredible coincidences. And you cite a geocentric theory!
4. The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test.
   Still waiting for your citation of the scientific literature that the Sandage papers were wrong. Of course there is Lerner's paper playing about with a unphysical toy universe, e.g. he ignores the known evolution of surface brightness with age.

 

[Michael]

I labelled your statement insane beacuse it was insanely ignorant , e.g. a claim that I had "no idea" about the electron density of space (maybe you can read my mind ) when it is a well known part of astrophysics.

Were it not for the fact that they just found more mass in plasma around the galaxy than all the mass in all the stars in the galaxy, just a month ago, I might actually be foolish enough to believe you. Since it's *insane* to simply ignore the newer and more recent data that you don't wish to deal with, all you can do is attack the individual with loaded language. Keep running from Holushko's work and keep hurling personal insults if that floats your boat. Sure, that's bound to work......NOT!

I have an idea about the electron density in space. It is documented in books and all over the Intenet that the intergalactic medium has a densition of 1 m3 (one H atom per cubic meter or 1 electron + proton per cubic meter).

The recent failures of all those models is also plastered all over the internet and all over this thread.

Milky Way is Surrounded by Hot Gas, Says NASA | WebProNews

So much for your knowledge claims. What exactly do you do for a living if you're not an astronomer?

They measured that number many decades ago!

Ya, but apparently they measured it incorrectly.

Oh wait - you are still ignorant of plasma physics and why astrono0mical plasmas have different temperatures!

No, I understand current just fine. It's you that remain ignorant of the current that sustains those temperatures. Alfven explained it all to you along with double layers if you're interested in actually learning anything about it.

And now we a re back to lies about Birkeland!

Can you even carry on an "adult" conversation where you don't call anyone a liar for a week simply because you disagree with them?

Birikeland's writings are available to anyone that wishes to read them.
PICTURES UNIVERSE ELECTRIFIED SPACE - Prof. Birkeland of Norway Holds That Suns and Stars Are Charged Negatively. - Article - NYTimes.com

Birkeland postulated that the solar wind wxists. This is not a current (it is neutral). It is a mass flow not a current.

False. Then again you're batting 1000. You've been consistently wrong on every topic related to astronomy. What exactly do you do for a living anyway?

No - you smell the knowledge of physics and that this rules out any tired light theory. So Holushko theory is wrong and only an idiot would touch the content of his work. I am not that idiot.

So let's see....

Everyone you meet with a different astronomy belief than you hold is an "idiot", "insane", a "crackpot" and "crank". You've got to be the single most verbally abusive hater on the internet.

You can't find any errors in his work. You know it. I know it , and everyone else here knows it too. You can't handle the physics so you go for the sleaze.

I predict that you will continue to ignore the reality of physics:

• There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed.

Repeating the same falsified nonsense only "teaches me' that you're in denial. Running from the materials I present to you also "teaches me" that you're in denial. Verbally abusing me also teaches me that you're in denial. Did you have anything else to actually "teach" me, and did you *ever* intend to touch the content of Holushko's work, or just verbally abuse him forever and ever too?

The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves

That's because there isn't any time dilation, just *signal broadening* as you would know if you touched Holushko's actual work. Since you won't, you keep repeating nonsense from 2001 and you live in perpetual fear of actually dealing with content from 2012.

The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test.

I guess Lerner was an "idiot" too because you won't touch his paper either?

and continue to tout Holushko and obsess on the trival fact that he has C# code !

The thing is RC, not only does his code work on paper, it works in the lab and it predicts behaviors that actually show up in the lab. That is more than will ever be said for Lambda-CDM theory and it's trio of invisible, impotent on Earth sky deities.

FYI, last year was a *terrible* year for SUSY theory.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I handed you Holushko's paper and C# code on a silver platter.

So you are stating that Holushko's paper explicitly cites the Lubin & Sandage and does a Tolman brightness test using data comparable to theirs?

If I read it and find that he does not address the papers then can I call you a liar?

ETA: I actually that not-even-a preprint back in August 2012.
It is called "Tired Light and Type Ia Supernovae Observations" so nothing to do with the Tolman test. But you are not quite a liar !
He cites Lerners flawed conference presentation.
He cites a pre-print on arXiv ("Sandage versus Hubble on the reality of the expanding universe" which is unpublished and more an editorial rather then a scientific paper.

 

[Michael]

Pure inability to read on your part:

The problem is directly related to your inability to deal with any *newer* data, and any *newer* tired light models that address the supernova data and the tolman brightness issues. You haven't dealt with Lerners paper on Tolman brightness. Why not?

 

[Michael]

So you are stating that Holushko's paper explicitly cites the Lubin & Sandage and does a Tolman brightness test using data comparable to theirs?

If I read it and find that he does not address the papers then can I call you a liar?

The fact you even have to ask me questions about it's content says volumes. If you were actually interested in a serious and honest scientific conversation on this subject, you would already know it's contents. Apparently you aren't actually interested in science, you're just looking for any excuse to call people childish names and to avoid the content entirely. What exactly is your purpose in this thread since you're not an astronomer and you clearly are not interested in reading any of the the work that I provide you? Cyberstalking?

 

[Michael]

You know RC, your verbal abuse of both myself and Holushko is quite a riot considering the fact that you never bothered to even read the paper. You called the guy and idiot *before* reading the paper. Wow!