-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
- Status
S
someguy14
Guest
God Himself is proof in every believer. All of Gods own have proof living inside of each of His own. God knows His own fully and is all the proof, proof itself infact, for all that are His own. God has the victory.
Upvote
0
Awareness can be shown to exist in nature. Dark energy cannot. Inflation cannot. SUSY theory cannot. Dark energy and inflation are placeholder terms for human ignorance, specifically the ignorance of signal broadening and plasma redshift as photons traverse ordinary plasmas. Those terms are nothing more than metaphysical gap filler to make up for the fact that they forgot about all that plasma in space (they just discovered most of it this year) and it's effect on photons. Since their maths left out real processes in real plasma from their calculations, they need metaphysical gap filler to make up the difference. I can even explain what they are actually ignorant of!
Dark energy is not the cause of photon redshift. We have five empirical known causes to choose from so it's irrelevant and unnecessary as Holushko's (and Ari and Ashmore's) work demonstrates. Since they can't deal with new tired light theories, the mainstream denies all knowledge of their existence and pretends it's 2001 rather than 2012.
Upvote
0
mzungu
INVICTUS
I always knew there was a creationist in disguise, and alas I am right after all! No wonder the people at PHYSORG kicked you out. I am sorry but it would be better if you just out rightly came forth with your ID a.k.a. creationism beliefs and stop hiding behind your pseudo scientific veil!
No offence is meant and if you take offence then I am sorry but my opinion will not change.
Upvote
0
Facepalm!
Apparently you never read that paper on "black holes" I helped to get published? Why do I even bother?
Since I neither support YEC, or "young universe creationism" (Lambda-CDM), and for all I know the universe/God has been here forever and ever, I have no idea what you're talking about. Apparently you're just tilting at windmills of your own design because you can't deal with me as an *individual* with *unique* beliefs.
The offensive part is that even when I tell you rather bluntly that I do not believe in *any* creation events, and my published papers make no predictions related to the age of the universe, you still accuse me of being a creationist.No offence is meant and if you take offence then I am sorry but my opinion will not change.
That's the offensive part.
Upvote
0
You're not an astronomer M, just an IT guy, so who asked you to even write on this topic
? A fantasy that this is an invitation only forum
Duh!
Upvote
0
What I posted was a comment on your inane usage of the term "mythical dead sky deities" to hide your ignorance of the science and evidence for dark matter, dark energy and inflation. This also implies a delusion that only things that can be detected in labs exist - no stars!, no galaxies!, etc.
Upvote
0
I am a rational thinker and skeptic. I know that the science and evidence bedind dark matter, dark energy and inflation. I even know the problems with these
. I am not under the delusion that plasma can explain the observational evidence for dark matter.
I am not under the delusion that plasma can explain the observational evidence for dark energy.
I am not under the delusion that plasma can explain the observational evidence for inflation.
Upvote
0
You're not an astronomer M, just an IT guy, so who asked you to even write on this topic
A fantasy that this is an invitation only forum
http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-55/#post61580486
We already covered that topic RC.
Upvote
0
No you're not. A rational thinker and skeptic would have actually read the paper that I suggested (and the link to photon kinetic energy). A skeptic would have left out all the trash talking. A rational thinker would have found a *real* argument, not a handwavy argument. I real skeptic would have found a mathematical or physical argument of *Holushko's* actual model, not his description of an *earlier* model which his generic model happens to be compatible with.
There is no evidence for SUSY theory. Exotic matter theory bit the dust in 2011 at LHC. Several of the simplest SUSY theories were actually falsified, and the standard model is now complete without any need of SUSY theory.
There is no evidence of dark energy or inflation, just evidence of signal broadening and plasma redshift, very *normal*, very well documented processes in plasma. Since you left out that part of plasma physics, you're left with placeholder terms for what amounts to human ignorance of plasma redshift and signal broadening, which you subjectively and dubiously associate with 'dark energy'.
Apparently you're under the delusion that if you ignore Holushko's work, or do a handwavy thing at it, it will miraculacely disappear off the face of planet Earth, along with me and everyone that ever read it. Sorry to burst your bubble but the delusion you suffer from is a direct result from your refusal to deal with Holushko's presentation (not his description of another persons prior theory).I even know the problems with these
I am not under the delusion that plasma can explain the observational evidence for dark matter.
That is because you are under the delusion that light will traverse light years of plasmas and dust of various temperatures and densities and "miraculously" never experience any signal broadening, not even a tiny little bit. Light must do an amazing dodgeball act, weaving itself into and around every particle in spacetime, missing everything for millions of light years in your fantasy universe.
That is again a direct result of your belief that photons contain no kinetic energy or mass. Hint: Photons only lack for *rest mass*, not *all* mass, or all kinetic energy! Your delusions are apparently all self inflicted based on your couch potato understanding of a toy brand of plasma physics theory. Anyone like Holushko that might actually open up your blind eyes, you attack as a "crank". Your behaviors are inexcusable for a mere retired IT guy.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This rational thinker found that paper you suggested did not exist.
What you suggested was a pre-print that is so bad that the author could not even get it onto ArXiv!
You think that skeptic means polite - it does not
!I will call a spade a aspade. When people meat the criteria for a crank (e.g. cannoy get their ides peer-reviwed), then I will call tghen a crank.
That is insane - this rational thinker has found plenty of arguments based on valid science.
A real skeptic knows how to read and know that *Holushko's* actual model does not exist.
Just in case I missed it:
Michael: Please cite or quote Holushko's actual model
First asked 18 October 2012
First asked 18 October 2012
Wow that is really delusional - it has already disappeared off the face of planet as far as science is concerned.
Physically that pre-print will site on the file server forever and be ignored by scientists because they do not know that it exists. That is one thing you do not know about science - no scientists goes looking through every PDF or web page in the Internet! They read credible sources like scientific journals and look at sources like ArXiv for a heads up on upcoming science.
That is a lie. I am aware that astronomers know that lines in spectra broaden.
This has nothing to do with cosmology (e.g cosmological redshift).
Upvote
0
No we have not. What is your evidence that this forum is an initation only forum?
Or who gave you the papwer to say who can post in thei forum?
Upvote
0
The post is interesting thopugh.
You demand that I be an astronomer in order to post here.
But you imply (and I know that you are not) that you are not an astronomer in that post!
Then you go off on a bit of a rant:
- No one can call pepole who write lies, liars.
- No one can call people who make themselves into cranks by not publishing their work, cranks.
- No one can call people who make themselves into crackpots by not publishing their work, crackpots.
No one here claimed has that photons always have zero kinetic energy.
I claimed that photons always have zero classical kinetic energy because their mass is zero.
Upvote
0
You can say whatever you want RC. I've already pointed out that we're both on equal footing. You're the only one professing to speak for all of science, past, present and future. You're the only one calling everyone that disagrees with you on a topic that isn't even your personal field of expertize, a 'liar, a crank, a crackpot', etc, and pretending to play astronomy guru and speak for every astronomer on Earth for the whole of time! You're the only one that claims that photon have no kinetic energy and no mass of any kind. Oy Vey!
Upvote
0
Noting to do with what I wrote but because any evidence for him is wrong or contradictory, e.g. the cosmology in the Bible is basically a disk under a dome and then there are the different versions of Genesis.
That is the position of a skeptical persion - claims need evidence and must not violate what we observe.
Hmmm maybe no so much of a derail!
Tired light theories fail because they do not describe the universe as we know it.
Upvote
0
Because you never clicked the link, or you remain in denial of it's contents?
Apparently that's the difference between most theists and a few bad apple atheists. You have no moral values when it comes to debate. Whereas most theists will attempt to apply their basic moral beliefs to every conversation, haters don't have morals when it comes to debate. No road is too low for a hater, no trash talking to extensive, no person that is not assailed and victimized by their blatant personal attacks. Haters come in all flavors of course, but atheists, particularly ones that don't use their real names, don't believe they'll answer to anyone or anything, and some very few, some tiny percentage have a very pitiful internal control mechanism. You debate in the sleaziest manner possible and debase every conversation you engage yourself in. Your behaviors are an affront to humanism, astronomy, scientific neutrality, skepticism, rational thought, theism, atheism, and common sense!You think that skeptic means polite - it does not
You're the only crank that believes that photons have no kinetic energy nor *any* form of mass. Only a crank would say something so utterly and totally and completely ridiculous!
Rational thinkers read the website that explains photon kinetic energy and accept that photons have kinetic energy! You aren't rational or skeptical, you're just in hardcore denial of all possible information that exists outside of yourself as that kinetic energy conversation demonstrated rather dramatically.
Its not worth bothering with the rest of your post. It's pure denial based nonsense. Apparently you can't click a link and read like every other English speaking human on the planet.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Who said that we were nto on equal footing as far as the ability to post here.
We are not on an equal footing as far as science is involved.
For example:
I know how to evaluate whether someone on the web is a valid source of science (no peer-review means no
Duh!).I know how to evaluate an actual scientific paper (or even a conference presentation or pre-print) against known physics.
I know that my knowledge is limited and much of it is outdated and do research to get more and current knowledge.
You blindly believe that anything that agrees with what you think is right. You do not even ask for basic checks and balances like peer-review.
You blindly believe that anything that agrees with what you think is right.
You seem to believe that you have complete and up-to-date knowledge
. But seriously - You do not know that Compton scattering scatters photons and so cannot be a cause of cosmological redshift.
- You do not know that the Wolf effect happens at the source (no travelling through plasma) and so cannot be a cause of cosmological redshift.
- You do not know that the Stark effect happens at the source (no travelling through plasma) and so cannot be a cause of cosmological redshift.
That is a lie.
That is lie. I disagree with lots of astronomy papers and thus many authors.
I do not call these authors liars bwecause they have not lied. I do not call then cranks because they are not cranks. I do not call them crackpots because thay are not crackpot.
That is a lie.
That is a lie.
That is a lie.
Oy Vey - so many lies!
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
