Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[Michael]

The first thing that you get wrong - they are mot my claims. They are the evidence for dark matter, dark energy and inflation.

You're not even an astronomer, nor have you honestly responded to Holushko's work. Until you do, refrain from claiming to speak for any mainstream astronomers. You aren't doing them any favors at all IMO. Most them understand photon kinetic energy. Clearly you're no astronomer, and it's clear that you're not even interested in an honest discussion until you deal with Holushko's work.

Wrong again. The mainsteam models account fro all of the mass in the universe. The observations split that into the 4% of normal matter (mostly located now!) and the 73% from dark matter (all located).

Nope. Until you fess up to the fact it's *plasma*, not exotic SUSY particles, you haven't *found* anything.

Wow - you did not even address one bit of evidence for dark matter !

I did. I told you that I have no doubt that mainstream galaxy mass estimation techniques are not worth the paper that they are printed on as recent observations about the brightness of the universe demonstrate. They can't even properly account for all the stars in a given galaxy yet, so *of course* they haven't found all the plasma in the universe yet.

An outright lie:
Dark Energy - evidence
Inflation - Observational status

Apparently anyone and everyone, including rather famous astronomers that happen to disagree with your personal opinions in astronomy (and you aren't even one yourself) is a "liar", a "crackpot", a "crank", yada, yada yada. If you didn't go personal, you'd clearly have nothing to discuss because it's plain as day you're afraid to touch Holushko's work from 2012 that blows Ned Wright's decade old claims out of the water.

Good - I was beginning to think that you were so ignorant that you thought that cosmological redshift was caused by inflation!
(Dark energy does have an effect - it accelerates the expansion).

Boloney. You can't even name a source of "dark energy"! Why are you an "atheist" exactly, and why aren't you a "liar and a crackpot" for being in the minority position as it relates to Jesus Christ?

And another lie:

And a repeat of the delusion that QM in involved with photon relativistic kinetic energy!

It's impossible to explain how photon kinetic energy change results in blueshift and redshift if you're ignorantly claiming that photons have zero kinetic energy state. It's even worse since you ignore every reference outside of yourself, apparently on every topic under the sun.

And yet another delusion - that I need QM explained to me! I got QM stuffed into my brain for 7 years at university (3 undergraduate, 4 postgraduate).

Yet somehow you remain miraculously ignorant of photon kinetic energy? What kind of school did you go to exactly? I'm pretty sure Kong's presentation was a first year physics class, and he certainly could properly and exquisitely explain photon kinetic energy. I also provided you a second link to demonstrate you're wrong about photon kinetic energy. You refuse to look outside of yourself at all on any topic.

I still have fond memories of a third year math class which had an a simple assignment - show the derivation of a significant part of mathematical physics. I chose spinors and the path that Dirac took in deriving his equation for electrons that needed them.
Feynmann diagrams rule!
The Wannier representation in QED rules!

Yet it's impossible to even talk to you about photon kinetic energy. All those years of math, and evidently not lick of actual *physics*. Let's see you put all that math experience of yours to productive use for us and pick out the mathematical flaws in Holushko's work, or your egotistical bragging and diplomas mean absolutely nothing. Any sleaze artist on the planet could do what you've done so far. Let's see if you're really any sort of "math/physics" expert. Put your cards on the table and deal with Holushko's paper like a real scientist, or fold em and run away.

 

[Michael]

You are right

so here it is: Micheal's solar model

My suspicion is that you are going to either ignore that thread

Bingo! You refuse to look outside yourself, so over all these years of debates, you've *still* never learned to spell my first name properly! Besides, you're just spamming the board. I already started an electric sun thread a long time ago. Don't expect me to answer any of your solar questions until you deal with Holushko's work with some sort of intellectual integrity.

 

[Tiberius]

A criticism about spelling? And you talk about intellectual honesty.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Bingo! You refuse to look outside yourself, so over all these years of debates, you've *still* never learned to spell my first name properly!

Bingo - all you can do is obsess about a spelling mistake!

Besides, you're just spamming the board.

You are lying - I did what you asked and started a new thread.

I already started an electric sun thread a long time ago.
...the insanity of obsessing with the crank Holushko snipped again...

The "electric sun" is not your iron sun idea. The electric sun thread is just a fantasy about physically impossible electrical discharges on the Sun. It does have some interesting posts aboutr solar activity (combined with your ignorance physics though!)
I have posted there.

 

[RealityCheck01]

But hey - you want to talk about a crank web site then lets do it!!!!!
Herman Holushko Site in Physics

1. Aether exists
2. Theories of Relativity are false
3. There are no relativistic contraction, time slowdown or mass increase
4. Space is tridimensional and rectilinear, it does not curve
5. “Spacetime” is nonsense
6. Physical constants are not constant
7. There is no “wave-particle” dualism
8. Photons do not have gravitational mass
9. Universe does not expand
10. Big Bang never happened
11. There is no “dark energy”
12. Gravitation lensing is an artefact (the lensing is thermal)
13. Equivalence principle is not universal
14. Motion relative to aether can be detected
15. Gravitational shielding is possible
16. Aether-reaction thrust is possible

(numbered his fantasies)

1. Luminiferous aetheris ruled out by experiment.
2. Theories of relativity work.
3. Relativistic time slowdown or mass increase have been measure (nnot contractionyet).
4. GR works so spacetime curves.
5. Spacetime is standard mathematics.
6. The evidence is that physical constants are constant (but there is interacting physics if they do not!).
7. Ignorance.
8. One thing right - Photons do not have gravitational mass.
   Photons have energy. Space-time is curved (causing gravity) by both mass and energy.
9. Ignorance of the evidence that the universe is expanding.
10. Ignorance of the evidence that the Big Bang happened.
11. Dark energy has been measured.
12. More ignorance.
13. More ignorance.
14. More ignorance.
15. More ignorance.
16. Just gibberish!

Wow - I cannot believe that you trust anything this crank writes given his display of abysmal ignorance!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Tired Light and Type Ia Supernovae Timescale Stretching
First problem: "Modern mainstream cosmologists use the phenomenon of supernova timescale stretching to rule out "tired light" hypothesis..."
Wrong. This is one thing that tired light models fail. There is also (Errors in Tired Light Cosmology)

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.
...
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. This is essentially the same effect as the CMB prefactor test, but applied to the surface brightness of galaxies instead of to the emissivities of blackbodies. Lubin & Sandage (2001) show that tired light fails this test by 10 standard deviations.

 

[Michael]

A criticism about spelling? And you talk about intellectual honesty.

I've handed him several external references, including some that explain photon kinetic energy. Not once has he looked outside of himself for *anything*. He and I have debated on various boards (apparently he's decided to play cyberstalker) for several years, and he can't even spell my name correctly! What's the point of trying to have a conversation about photon redshift with a guy claiming that photons have zero kinetic energy?!?!?

How could that *possibly* be an intellectually honest conversation when he refuses to even respond to external ideas (from himself) without going postal (liar, crackpot, crank, etc)?

 

[Michael]

Tired Light and Type Ia Supernovae Timescale Stretching
First problem: "Modern mainstream cosmologists use the phenomenon of supernova timescale stretching to rule out "tired light" hypothesis..."
Wrong. This is one thing that tired light models fail. There is also (Errors in Tired Light Cosmology)

So let's see:

I still have fond memories of a third year math class which had an a simple assignment - show the derivation of a significant part of mathematical physics. I chose spinors and the path that Dirac took in deriving his equation for electrons that needed them. Feynmann diagrams rule! The Wannier representation in QED rules!

All your physics experience, and the that was the best scientific rebuttal you could come up with? Really? Wow! That was pitiful.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Tired Light and Type Ia Supernovae Timescale Stretching
The next but minor problem the theory is not Holushko's!
All he did was write a computer program.

The actual theory is from Karim A. Khaidarov. Yet another web site only idea (can you smell crank, Michael?)! He is another luminiferous aether exists crank.

And that is all you have - a couple of cranks with web sites!

 

[Michael]

A criticism about spelling? And you talk about intellectual honesty.

FYI, I'll be *happy* to answer any question you have on that or any other topic because I know you're interested in a two way dialog, and you're not verbally abusive in every post. RC isn't interested in a two way dialog. I know this from many years of experience. RC is sort of the personal embodiment of everything that is wrong with astronomy today, and the sad part is, he's not even one himself. That never stops him from "pretending" to know stuff he knows absolutely nothing about. Notice how he's dealt with Holushko's C# code? He never touched it. He just cranked up the sleaze routine: "Crackpot, crank, liar, liar, pants on fire". It's like arguing about high end physics with a teenager. Even a lot of teenagers understand that photons have and carry kinetic energy, and most of them read the material you provide to them and respond intelligently to it.

 

[Michael]

Tired Light and Type Ia Supernovae Timescale Stretching
The next but minor problem the theory is not Holushko's!
All he did was write a computer program.

The actual theory is from Karim A. Khaidarov. Yet another web site only idea (can you smell crank, Michael?)! He is another luminiferous aether exists crank.

And that is all you have - a couple of cranks with web sites!

If that's all you are able to do with all that physics and math, you should contact your college and ask for a refund. Pathetic......

 

[Michael]

Tired Light and Type Ia Supernovae Timescale Stretching
The next but minor problem the theory is not Holushko's!
All he did was write a computer program.

All he did was blow your dark sky entities out of the sky using C# and empirical physics. That's all.

Holushko's presentation was *highly* professional, very impressive, and he cited tired light proponents that even I did not know existed until he cited their work. Furthermore he did a full spectral aging analysis as well.

All Guth ever did ultimately is come up with a computer program, and ditto for dark energy proponents. They still can't even cite a single source for dark energy and Holushko's work explains why they need placeholder terms for human ignorance.

The actual theory is from Karim A. Khaidarov. Yet another web site only idea (can you smell crank, Michael?)! He is another luminiferous aether exists crank.

I hate to break it to you, but the EM field as described as an "aether" does in fact exist. Since you're no astronomer, you have no business calling anyone a crank. Evidently everyone that disagrees with RC about space on any topic in space, is a "Crackpot", "crank", "liar", etc.

If we play by your rules RC, what does that make you as it relates to faith in Christ? Are you willing to call yourself a liar, crackpot and a crank simply because you're in a minority position, or are you just a verbally abusive hypocrite?

And that is all you have - a couple of cranks with web sites!

I really see no evidence at all that you're even actually a physicist as you claim. Even most physicists would not make bush league mistakes about photon kinetic energy.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I've handed him several external references, including some that explain photon kinetic energy.

Yes you did. And I have repeatly ttold you that I have read those links and that say exactly what I have always knone

Not once has he looked outside of himself for *anything*.
...obsessing with speling yet again...

You are lying.

He and I have debated on various boards (apparently he's decided to play cyberstalker) for several years,

We have debated on JREF from which you were banned (you had a couple of suspensions and then violated a rule while on probation)

I tried debate you on the Thunderbolts forum but was banned for some unknown reason (no suspension, no probation, no warning).

What's the point of trying to have a conversation about photon redshift with a guy claiming that photons have zero kinetic energy?!?!?

Another lie - read my posts. My claim was that a photon has zero kinetic energy because it has no mass. That is obviusly a reference to classical kinetic energy.

The problem is that you are citing at least a couple of Internet physics cranks - Holushko and Karim A. Khaidarov.

 

[mzungu]

All he did was blow your dark sky entities out of the sky using C# and empirical physics. That's all.

If the universe has always been in existence then You cannot account for the lack of our universe being totally populated by black holes.
If the universe is static then you cannot account for the fact that gravity did not crunch the universe. You cannot account for what keeps it from collapsing!

You throw at us hypotheses that were debunked in a way that reminds me of the people who believe the moon landings were a hoax.

 

[someguy14]

Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

All liars should be punished.

 

[RealityCheck01]

All he did was blow your dark sky entities out of the sky using C# and empirical physics. That's all.

You are remain deluded about this crank. It is just a computer program based on a idea that was thrown away decades ago beause the experimental evidence said it did not exist.

All Guth ever did ultimately is come up with a computer program, and ditto for dark energy proponents.

And the ignorance continues!
What Guth did was produce a scientific theory backed up with mathematics. That theory made predictions. Those predictions were tested and found to be correct.
I strongly suspect that computer programs were involved somewhere but they started with valid physics.

Dark energy is an observation.

I hate to break it to you, but the EM field as described as an "aether" does in fact exist.

I hate to break it to you but you remain ignorant about the luminiferous aether. The experimental evidence is that it does not exist.

I really see no evidence at all that you're even actually a physicist as you claim.

Well you would be really dumb to say that because I have never claimed to be a physicist.
I am an ex-physicist. I have worked in the IT industry since I finished my postgraduate studies (one published paper: Effect of localized spin fluctuations on transport properties in the one-band Wolff model)

 

[Michael]

Yes you did. And I have repeatly ttold you that I have read those links and that say exactly what I have always knone

No. Earlier today you told me photons had zero kinetic energy. That's false. There's no way to discuss the loss or gain of photon kinetic energy with you.

You are lying.

You are incapable of having an intellectually honest discussion that is devoid of personal insults because you know absolutely nothing about physics as you *clearly* demonstrated tonight.

We have debated on JREF from which you were banned (you had a couple of suspensions and then violated a rule while on probation)

You guys ban good PC proponents from your hangouts and they ban all you haters from their websites like you were banned from Thunderbolts. Cosmology folks can't seem to handle honest debates.

I tried debate you on the Thunderbolts forum but was banned for some unknown reason (no suspension, no probation, no warning).

Right, no reason at all....

Like they don't know you or something RC?

Another lie - read my posts. My claim was that a photon has zero kinetic energy because it has no mass. That is obviusly a reference to classical kinetic energy.

They have no *rest* mass, but they *always* have kinetic energy! You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

The problem is that you are citing at least a couple of Internet physics cranks - Holushko and Karim A. Khaidarov.

You are incapable of finding any real errors in Holushko's work. Your boastful, egotistical claims about being a big physics hot shot have now been shown to be all full of hot air. Whatever math you understand seems pretty useless, and your grasp of photon physics is simply laughable.

If you didn't put the terms liar, crank, crackpot, etc into every single one of your posts, it wouldn't be so obvious that you're blowing smoke. Since you can't pick out a single legitimate flaw in Holushko's work, do you think anyone is really impressed with your physics degrees? I know I'm not.

 

[someguy14]

Quantum Theory.

Quantum Leap Theme / Intro / Opening - JUST THE INTRO (episode clip seamlessly edited out) - YouTube

 

[RealityCheck01]

If that's all you are able to do with all that physics and math, you should contact your college and ask for a refund. Pathetic......

If that's all you are able to do with a brain, you should contact your parents and ask for a refund. Pathetic......to cite an Internet physics crank who is ignorant of a lot of physics and seems to be parroting another Internet physics crank.

There is nothing to look at these web sites - they start with the delustion that the luminiferous aether exists when the experimental evidence is that it does not exist.

One thing that 7 years at university, especially the work on my MSc thesis (try wading through a 100 page review of the state of the art reading every paper that it references!), did was teach me how to recognize cranks. Basically if someone is unable to publish their work in a peer-reviewed journal then that is a big signal that they are a crank.

 

[Michael]

You are remain deluded about this crank. It is just a computer program based on a idea that was thrown away decades ago beause the experimental evidence said it did not exist.

The experimental evidence demonstrates that Compton redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect and what Chen et all called "plasma redshift" all show up in the lab. You threw away empirical physics and never found a flaw in Holushko's work!

And the ignorance continues!
What Guth did was produce a scientific theory backed up with mathematics. That theory made predictions. Those predictions were tested and found to be correct.

Holushko backed up his claims with mathematics *and* C# code to boot, and his work was found to be correct! You'd love to ignore reality, but there it is, staring you in the face anytime you wish to deal with that work honestly and in scientific integrity.

I strongly suspect that computer programs were involved somewhere but they started with valid physics.

No, they started with math and ZERO physics. Inflation doesn't show up in the lab. It's more empirically impotent in the lab than your average theistic concept of God. Even God effects humans on Earth in most religions.

Dark energy is an observation.

Liar. Photon redshift is an observation. Dark energy is a *THEORY* designed to deal with that observation (in a highly pathetic manner).

I hate to break it to you but you remain ignorant about the luminiferous aether. The experimental evidence is that it does not exist.

EM fields do show up in the lab and they do exist and they do have a tangible effect on charged particles. Your dark sky deities are DOA in the lab.

Well you would be really dumb to say that because I have never claimed to be a physicist. I am an ex-physicist. I have worked in the IT industry since I finished my postgraduate studies (one published paper: Effect of localized spin fluctuations on transport properties in the one-band Wolff model)

Ah, so you're nothing but a retired IT guy and you probably can't even write or follow C# code. What business do you have judging anyone since you can't even correctly describe the kinetic energy state of a photon, and your information (and IT experience?) seems to be stuck decades in the past?

You still keep avoiding my question (well another one). Since Jesus is revered by more than half of the planet, and you (as an atheist) are in a minority viewpoint, does that make you a liar, a crackpot and a crank on the topic of God? If not, how are you not a hypocrite?