Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[mzungu]

It will take actual an physics argument to change my mind, not someone ranting on about how photons have no kinetic energy. For goodness sake.....

So long as it is not mainstream or applied, or even peer reviewed physics Sorry Michael but Science is an ongoing quest for erudition and your static "steady state" (pun intended) mindset is not in any way functioning in accordance to the rules governing science in general.

Sad, very sad.

 

[mzungu]

Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

 

[someguy14]

Wow; The arrogance! Michael this is an open debate forum. Now if you think that you own this thread and forum then you need a wake up call!

A debate thread?....
That sounds like no holds bar.

A debate thread says yes, a debater may say no, but a debates thread rejects none.

 

[someguy14]

Of course God cannot be proven wrong just as he cannot be proven right. God is an unfalsifiable notion and as such cannot be included in matters concerning the physical world; He or it or whatever can only be included in matters concerning the supernatural or spiritual world!

Im proof that God isn't wrong, who dares accuse me otherwise....

 

[someguy14]

God is an unfalsifiable notion and as such cannot be included in matters concerning the physical world; He or it or whatever can only be included in matters concerning the supernatural or spiritual world!

God created the "physical" world along with the "supernatural", "spiritual" world. Who can deny God except those against truth itself...

 

[someguy14]

So long as it is not mainstream or applied, or even peer reviewed physics Sorry Michael but Science is an ongoing quest for erudition and your static "steady state" (pun intended) mindset is not in any way functioning in accordance to the rules governing science in general.

Sad, very sad.

We are aware of "ongoing quests".

2 Timothy 3:7
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[someguy14]

Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

 

[mzungu]

Im proof that God isn't wrong, who dares accuse me otherwise....

Swords or pistols?

 

[mzungu]

A debate thread?....
That sounds like no holds bar.

A debate thread says yes, a debater may say no, but a debates thread rejects none.

I assume you are referring to a grammatical error on my part; English is not my mother tongue! Perhaps you may be so kind as to explain where I have erred.

 

[Michael]

Of course God cannot be proven wrong just as he cannot be proven right. God is an unfalsifiable notion and as such cannot be included in matters concerning the physical world; He or it or whatever can only be included in matters concerning the supernatural or spiritual world!

It's rather ironic that in the universe that I live in, I can see the "God" that I believe in every day, and every night, yet in your supernatural world of darkness, your universe is dark and invisible and utterly impotent in the lab.

 

[Michael]

So long as it is not mainstream or applied, or even peer reviewed physics

No, just so long as it's not invisible sky deity physics with invisible ghosts.

Sorry Michael but Science is an ongoing quest for erudition and your static "steady state" (pun intended) mindset is not in any way functioning in accordance to the rules governing science in general.

Holushko proved you wrong, and you've never found any error in his work. Plasma redshift shows up in the lab, so of course it shows up and has an effect in space. The rules regarding empirical physics in general provide a simple physical explanation for photon redshift that has *nothing* whatsoever to do with magical space expanding invisible sky deities.

 

[Michael]

Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

Whatever the value of that website in 2001, it's usefulness in 2012 is zero:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-51/#post61578499

All four of Ned's claims are false, and easily debunked in 2012. If RC is any indication, the only thing they can do now is deny any and all scientific progress in plasma redshift theory, and pretend that a toy version of physics applies in space. In the wacko world of mainstream theory, photons perform miracles in space, traversing millions of light years of plasma without a single bit of signal broadening. Your claim is nothing short of a Dad claim, where the laws of physics have to work differently in space than they work in the lab. Talk about sad theories.

 

[Michael]

Wow; The arrogance! Michael this is an open debate forum. Now if you think that you own this thread and forum then you need a wake up call!

Er no. I'm just sick and tired of an old retired IT guy, that believes photons have no kinetic energy, acting like he speaks for the whole of astronomy. He's clueless about basic physics as his comments about photon kinetic energy demonstrate. Worse yet, his attitude is like a cartoon characterature of the arrogance and willful ignorance of astronomy that leaves us wallowing around in the dark ages of astronomy. The problem however is that RC isn't even actually an astronomer at all. He's simply giving them a bad name in this thread IMO. Most astronomers I meet at least understand basic physics and photons. RC is verbally abusive, and utterly ignorant of basic particle physics theory. Even when presented with links demonstrating his error as it relates to photon kinetic energy, he continued to repeat his same false claims about photons having no kinetic energy! It wasn't a slip of the tongue in the heat of battle, he actually thought that photons have no kinetic energy!

What we have here is a retired IT guy with zero understanding of photon kinetic energy, pretending to "debunk" an entire paper based on a single sentence of an introductory explanation of the basic theory. He never touched the math. He never addressed the C# code. He just ran like a frightened child while verbally abusing Ari and Ashmore and Holushko. He has no right at all to be including himself in any group. No self respecting astronomer would be running around claiming that photons have no kinetic energy! Sheesh. The fact you said absolutely nothing about his error also says volumes!

 

[Naraoia]

Swords or pistols?

I suggest science and/or Bible trivia

 

[Michael]

If God is proven in His own, then one must admit, believers in God or not, that God is in fact truth. In order to go against that, one must provide evidence against it. The burden of proof against God lies squarely on the shoulders of the those that don't believe in God. God is eternal. The truest of the true. Truth itself, is God.

It's fascinating from my perspective that a bunch of atheistic leaning astronomers all expect me to shoulder the burden of proof to demonstrate that their dark feeble trio of metaphysical gap fillers do not really exist in nature. They've never provided a single cause/effect laboratory justification for claiming that inflation did it, or dark energy did it, or m-theory did it, or anything of the sort. They all wave around a little bit of math and pretend that the laws of physics in space work differently in space than they work in the lab. They then to proceed to simply handwave away all maths that are based upon empirical physics in favor of their trio of invisible impotent friends.

Meanwhile, the God that I believe in is visible to me, loves me and interacts with me (and many others) on a daily basis, right here on Earth. The God that I believe in can be explained entirely via empirical physics. Everything I have proposed to exist in nature actually shows up in the lab and has a tangible effect on real things, right down to awareness in a variety of forms.

They can't even justify a single one of their nonsensical dark sky claims in any lab on Earth and they expect unwavering faith and allegiance to their "free lunch" creation mythos that defies the conservation of energy laws, or the militant character assassination squad (typically atheists) comes crawling out of the woodwork.

 

[Michael]

I suggest science and/or Bible trivia

LOL! The Gospel of John at 20 paces.....

 

[mzungu]

Er no. I'm just sick and tired of an old retired IT guy, that believes photons have no kinetic energy, acting like he speaks for the whole of astronomy.

Likewise why are you speaking for astronomy when you are not an astronomer

 

[mzungu]

It's fascinating from my perspective that a bunch of atheistic leaning astronomers all expect me to shoulder the burden of proof to demonstrate that their dark feeble trio of metaphysical gap fillers do not really exist in nature. They've never provided a single cause/effect laboratory justification for claiming that inflation did it, or dark energy did it, or m-theory did it, or anything of the sort. They all wave around a little bit of math and pretend that the laws of physics in space work differently in space than they work in the lab. They then to proceed to simply handwave away all maths that are based upon empirical physics in favor of their trio of invisible impotent friends.

Meanwhile, the God that I believe in is visible to me, loves me and interacts with me (and many others) on a daily basis, right here on Earth. The God that I believe in can be explained entirely via empirical physics. Everything I have proposed to exist in nature actually shows up in the lab and has a tangible effect on real things, right down to awareness in a variety of forms.

They can't even justify a single one of their nonsensical dark sky claims in any lab on Earth and they expect unwavering faith and allegiance to their "free lunch" creation mythos that defies the conservation of energy laws, or the militant character assassination squad (typically atheists) comes crawling out of the woodwork.

You do realise that if I supplant the words "Dark Matter" with "God" then in essence your argument becomes a boomerang! Prove God in a lab then, since you are so fond of lab experiments as the only evidence worth anything!

 

[Michael]

Likewise why are you speaking for astronomy when you are not an astronomer

The difference between us is that I am not promoting mainstream theory so I'm not claiming to speak for astronomers. I also not trying to argue points by calling the author of every paper presented in the debate a 'liar/crank/crackpot' and proceeding into a character assassination routine. I'm actually providing you with real reading material complete with real math to inspect for yourself and deal with should you choose to do so. I'm also not running around claiming that photons always have zero kinetic energy! Holy cow!

 

[Michael]

You do realise that if I supplant the words "Dark Matter" with "God" then in essence your argument becomes a boomerang!

Nope. I can 'see' God and experience the presence of God on a moment to moment basis. You can't see "dark" anything. You just have 'faith' it has some effect on photons "somewhere out there" where humans can never reach.

Prove God in a lab then, since you are so fond of lab experiments as the only evidence worth anything!

I can prove that awareness exists in a variety of forms on Earth in a lab. In fact "measurements" aren't even possible in the lab without "awareness". Nothing that I claim exists out there in space is a no show in the lab. That's light years ahead of your invisible trio of friends that are more impotent on Earth than my concept of God.