Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[mzungu]

Huh? Plasma redshift shows up in the lab. Dark energy does not. What are you talking about?

So you do not believe black holes or neutron stars or stars exist? I'd like to see you show up in the lab a black hole first and then we can talk!

 

[Michael]

So you do not believe black holes or neutron stars or stars exist?

Oy Vey! You know....

If you guys ask me for published works, and I go to all the trouble of helping my ideas to get published (Manuel did the heavy lifting frankly), you could at least do me the courtesy of reading them!

I'd like to see you show up in the lab a black hole first and then we can talk!

If you would read the paper I provided to you, which you can find freely on Arxiv, and the accompanying article I cited, you would already understand that I do not believe in infinite mass concentration, and I'm a static universe proponent not a big bang "creationist". I do believe in neutrons, since they do in fact show up in labs on Earth and we can study them in labs on Earth, including their structure. If you wish to have a meaningful conversation on this topic with me, please read our paper on neutron stars and we'll talk about my *actual* beliefs.

Then again, maybe you find it fun to keep hurling irrational and irrelevant labels at me (like creationist), it's your call.

Scientist says neutron stars, not black holes, at center of galaxies

 

[mzungu]

Oy Vey! You know....

If you guys ask me for published works, and I go to all the trouble of helping my ideas to get published (Manuel did the heavy lifting frankly), you could at least do me the courtesy of reading them!

If you would read the paper I provided to you, which you can find freely on Arxiv, and the accompanying article I cited, you would would understand that I do not believe in infinite mass concentration, and I'm a static universe proponent not a big bang "creationist". I do believe in neutrons, since they do in fact show up in labs on Earth and we can study them in labs on Earth, including their structure. If you wish to have a meaningful conversation on this topic with me, please read our paper on neutron stars and we'll talk about my *actual* beliefs.

Then again, maybe you find it fun to keep hurling irrational and irrelevant labels at me (like creationist), it's your call.

Scientist says neutron stars, not black holes, at center of galaxies

Sorry, unless you can create in the lab a neutron star then I dismiss your claims! You are the one who set this rule about lab proof and you have to abide by your rule. I on the other hand prefer to go with science instead of pseudo science! Also I do not read papers by crackpots! I only read peer reviewed work.

 

[Michael]

Sorry, unless you can create in the lab a neutron star then I dismiss your claims!

Every single cosmology theory that a human might dream up, *absolutely, positively must* be scaled to size.

I cannot nor will any human ever be able to scale every object that exists in space to that same size in a lab on Earth. You're asking for the impossible.

Gravity shows up on Earth. Neutrons show up on Earth, including their Oreo cookie layered structure with a negative charge on the inside and outside and a positive layer sandwiched in between. Put gravity and layered neutrons into a "scaled" model, and I have absolutely no doubt at all, that you'll end up with a "neutron star". Gravity and neutrons exist on Earth. I have no problem with you scaling anything you find on Earth to whatever size you need to explain any object in space. What I will object to is you inserting placeholder terms for human ignorance into math formulas, and pointing at the sky and claiming "my-invisibly/dark-thingamabob-did-it."

Holushko's model clearly explains the supernova signal broadening and plasma redshift/tired light features we observe in photons that happen to reach Earth. I have no need for anything other than plasma physics (and God) to explain every single feature in space, and every single experience I've had on Earth. What need then do I have for your placeholder terms for human ignorance of *real* (not toy) plasma physics theory?

Honestly, I can "rationally" explain every single feature in space, and every single human experience I've ever had on Earth with nothing more than God (Jesus), and plasma physics. What need do I have of anything else?

 

[Loudmouth]

Every single cosmology theory that a human might dream up, *absolutely, positively must* be scaled to size.

Then why do you use the wrong scales for your plasmas? The Chen paper uses a plasma that is tens of orders of magnitude more dense than intergalactic plasma, and the plasma redshift described by Chen is density dependent. So what should the redshift be for the density of plasma found in space, according to Chen? It would seem to me that it would be miniscule, if even measurable.

Gravity shows up on Earth. Neutrons show up on Earth,

No, the evidence for these shows up on Earth just as the evidence for inflation shows up on Earth. You can not directly see a neutron. You can only gather evidence that neutrons exist. The same for inflation, dark matter, and dark energy.

Holushko's model clearly explains the supernova signal broadening and plasma redshift/tired light features we observe in photons that happen to reach Earth.

It does not explain why images are not blurred. Therefore, the model fails.

What need then do I have for your placeholder terms for human ignorance of *real* (not toy) plasma physics theory?

The real plasma in Chen's paper is orders of magnitude more dense than the plasma found in intergalactic space. True or false?

 

[Michael]

Then why do you use the wrong scales for your plasmas? The Chen paper uses a plasma that is tens of orders of magnitude more dense than intergalactic plasma, and the plasma redshift described by Chen is density dependent. So what should the redshift be for the density of plasma found in space, according to Chen? It would seem to me that it would be miniscule, if even measurable.

It's simply a scaling issue. What I can't scale in terms of distance I'll have up make up for in *current*. The currents do exist in space and heat that million degree plasma around our galaxy and they exist in the IGM as well. What I can't do in terms of distance, I *must* make up for in terms of current density.

No, the evidence for these shows up on Earth just as the evidence for inflation shows up on Earth. You can not directly see a neutron. You can only gather evidence that neutrons exist. The same for inflation, dark matter, and dark energy.

Actually you can directly see a neutron, or at least directly observe its empirical effect on light in a lab. You could claim I don't see *people* too, just the light that bounces off their body. So what? At least I can *see* them in some energy wavelength, or their direct effect on real particles in real labs. There are known sources of neutrons, etc. You're comparing empirical oranges to poisonous metaphyiscal apples. "Here Empirical Snow White, eat this metaphysical apple. It tastes wonderful!".

Holusko's work makes inflation and dark energy theory obsolete which is why you'll never touch it's content.

It does not explain why images are not blurred. Therefore, the model fails.

False on two counts. The largest redshift produce the blurriest images. They are blurred. False on point one. It's also possible for coherent and polarized light to transfer photon kinetic energy to a particle *without* changing it's trajectory. False on two counts.

The real plasma in Chen's paper is orders of magnitude more dense than the plasma found in intergalactic space. True or false?

True. What cannot be scaled to size in distance, must be scaled up in terms of current density.

 

[Michael]

Jesus isn't impotent on Earth today. He comes into people's lives and hearts on a daily basis in fact. Your trio of invisible sky entities have no effect on anything on Earth, not people, not photons, not plasma, nothing! I have absolutely no use for your impotent sky entities to explain the universe and my experiences on Earth, nor to explain the whole universe. I can explain them all with Jesus, light and plasma physics and these things have a real effect on real things on Earth, including people.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's simply a scaling issue.

Right, and in your case the scaling goes the wrong way. The lower the density the lower the redshift. The density of plasma in space is what? Trillionths of times less than that seen in the plasmas needed for measurable redshift? The effect is DENSITY dependent, not distance dependent.

Actually you can directly see a neutron, or at least directly observe its empirical effect on light in a lab.

Yes, just as you can directly observe the empirical effects of inflation and dark matter on light in the telescope which is in the lab.

Holusko's work makes inflation and dark energy theory obsolete which is why you'll never touch it's content.

It doesn't matter since Holusko's model does not reflect reality. The map is not the territory. Garbage in, garbage out.

The largest redshift produce the blurriest images. They are blurred.

Not to the extent expected with plasma as everyone has told you.

It's also possible for coherent and polarized light to transfer photon kinetic energy to a particle *without* changing it's trajectory.

Starlight is not coherent.

 

[Michael]

Right, and in your case the scaling goes the wrong way. The lower the density the lower the redshift.

Um, right, but I'm making up for lost distance, remember? I have to scale *up* the current, so I can see the redshift over a very *short* distance compared to cosmological distances! Of course there will be less redshift per meter in space than in the lab. If I scaled down the current, I'd never be able to see the plasma redshift effect in the first place!

The density of plasma in space is what?

I don't know and neither do you and neither do all the astronomers. Holy smokes, they just found a big plasma bubble around our galaxy that contains more mass than all the mass they knew to exist in the whole of human history, and that just happened this year. They aren't even entirely sure how far the plasma goes. What might they find next year or the year after?

Trillionths of times less than that seen in the plasmas needed for measurable redshift? The effect is DENSITY dependent, not distance dependent.

False. It's dependent upon both distance and current density, and it's also dependent upon the mainstream recognizing the existing currents in space. Since they refuse to acknowledge the currents, they have no way to be sure what amount of redshift might occur. Whatever that number might be, it must be far greater than zero, and far greater this year than last year. It would have to be 'zero' in Lambda-CMD theory however. It would literally take an act of God for plasma to *not* cause signal broadening and plasma redshift in space. I can toss out Lambda-CDM based on that issue alone since I can fully explain why they need placeholder terms for human ignorance. They are playing around with a magical *toy* form of plasma physics, not the real version of plasma physics. In real plasma, plasma redshift and signal broadening happen. Only in dumbed down toy versions of plasma physics do photons pass unabated through light years of plasma, magically experiencing no signal broadening nor any plasma redshift at all.

Yes, just as you can directly observe the empirical effects of inflation and dark matter on light in the telescope which is in the lab.

False. We observe the effects of signal broadening and plasma redshift in a telescope and that isn't a "lab" with real control mechanisms.

It doesn't matter since Holusko's model does not reflect reality. The map is not the territory. Garbage in, garbage out.

Holushko's model does reflect the reality of plasma physics in the lab. It's Lambda-CDM theory that does not. Garbage in, garbage out, and therefore the need for placeholder terms for human ignorance. Holushko's model wins hands down. It's based on *real* plasma physics, not toy, stripped down versions.

Not to the extent expected with plasma as everyone has told you.

Ya, they 'tell' me with a handwave and a website that has four physics errors in four points it tries to make. Wow, not real impressive.

Starlight is not coherent.

That isn't entirely true and there are different types of coherence.

cohorent light star - Single Post

 

[Elendur]

{snip}
If I scaled down the current, I'd never be able to see the plasma redshift effect in the first place!
{snip}

Wait a minute... That's the same argument several others (including me) have told you when you dismiss space expansion (with slight modifications of course)...
What's up with that?

 

[Michael]

Wait a minute... That's the same argument several others (including me) have told you when you dismiss space expansion (with slight modifications of course)...
What's up with that?

Whats up is that is that I have a source of current, a control mechanism for current and the ability to scale up current and demonstrate it has a real effect on real photons in real labs.

You can't name a source for "dark energy", nor a control mechanism for dark energy, nor demonstrate it has any effect on a photon.

That's what's up with that.

 

[Elendur]

Whats up is that is that I have a source of current, a control mechanism for current and the ability to scale up current and demonstrate it has a real effect on real photons in real labs.

You can't name a source for "dark energy", nor a control mechanism for dark energy, nor demonstrate it has any effect on a photon.

That's what's up with that.

I thought it did have an effect on photons, hence the redshift and/or the lensing.
And as for the need for a source, that's nonsense. We don't know where anything came from, why would we add that weird requirement to the dark energy?

 

[Loudmouth]

Um, right, but I'm making up for lost distance, remember?

Distance does not increase the density.

I don't know and neither do you and neither do all the astronomers.

Then you have no evidence for the plasma that you need.

False. It's dependent upon both distance and current density,

Not current density. It is dependent on PLASMA density. Increasing the distance does not increase the density.

It would literally take an act of God for plasma to *not* cause signal broadening and plasma redshift in space.

It would also take an act of God to prevent scattering and massively blurred images.

In real plasma, plasma redshift and signal broadening happen.

As does scattering which is not observed in distant images.

False. We observe the effects of signal broadening and plasma redshift in a telescope and that isn't a "lab" with real control mechanisms.

We observe the effects of inflation in the lab just like we observe the effects of neutrons in the lab. They are entirely the same where empiricism is concerned.

Holushko's model does reflect the reality of plasma physics in the lab.

Holushko's model predicts blurring of distant objects which isn't seen. Therefore, the model does not reflect reality. You somehow expect reality to conform to the model. That's not how it works. If the model fails to predict what we see in reality then we throw away the model, not reality.

It's Lambda-CDM theory that does not.

Inflation would produce both redshifts and sharp images. This is what we observe. That is why the inflation model is preferred over the plasma model because the inflation model makes accurate predictions.

Ya, they 'tell' me with a handwave and a website that has four physics errors in four points it tries to make.

Says the person who can't tell the difference between distance and density. Says the person who doesn't understand that a change in photon momentum necessarily involves a change in trajectory.

That isn't entirely true and there are different types of coherence.

The type of coherence needed is not the type of coherence that starlight has. The experiments cited used lasers. Starlight lacks that the type of coherence found in lasers.

 

[Michael]

Distance does not increase the density.

Greater distance increases the number of electron/particle interactions.

Then you have no evidence for the plasma that you need.

I have lots of evidence that they still can't find most of the plasma of the universe too. SUSY theory is all but completely falsified at this point, certainly it's on life support and in a coma, and we know most of the mass of the universe is in the plasma state!

Not current density. It is dependent on PLASMA density. Increasing the distance does not increase the density.

The number of particle interactions I can expect to observe are based on four basic factors, plasma density, electron density, photon density and distance. I don't have billion of light years of space to work with in a lab, so I'll need to increase plasma and electron density in the lab to compensate for what I can't do in distance.

It would also take an act of God to prevent scattering and massively blurred images.

No, just basic photon physics. Most scattering events will simply result in a loss of light, which explains why the universe is twice as bright as we once believed.

As does scattering which is not observed in distant images.

Distant images *are* blurred more than closer images. Your assumption is wrong from the very start! When did you intend to correct that error, or were you just planning on handwaving away, ignoring reality altogether?

We observe the effects of inflation in the lab just like we observe the effects of neutrons in the lab. They are entirely the same where empiricism is concerned.

LOL! No. You have no "lab" where inflation shows up. You have nothing but a couple of "toy" math formulas that left out signal broadening and plasma redshift, so you need placeholder terms for human ignorance to make up the difference!

Holushko's model predicts blurring of distant objects which isn't seen.

False. It predicts loss of light that is seen, and blurring of distant objects is observed. In fact many wavelengths are absorbed/scattered entirely!

Therefore, the model does not reflect reality.

No, it does reflect the *reality* of real plasma physics with *real* signal broadening and *real* plasma redshift, including Compton redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf Effect, and what Chen et all call 'plasma redshift'. It's Lambda-CDM that leaves out these factors, and that's why it doesn't reflect 'reality' and it's held together with metaphysical bubblegum and placeholder terms for human ignorance!

You somehow expect reality to conform to the model.

Reality does conform to Holushko's model as demonstrated in the lab. It's lambda-nonsense theory that does not conform to reality, which is why you cannot even name so much as a single source of "dark energy'

Inflation would produce both redshifts and sharp images.

Ya, if only magic were real, if only Guth hadn't dreamed it up in his head without scientific precedent, and if only he hadn't claimed to have violated the laws of physics and achieved a 'free lunch' and a "negative pressure vacuum", it might work. Magic might work too. Godflation would probably work equally well if I simply pilfer his math. So what? Sure, as long as we ignore the laws of physics, anything is possible.

This is what we observe. That is why the inflation model is preferred over the plasma model because the inflation model makes accurate predictions.

Bah! The whole thing was made up in one guys head and made to fit *known observations*. It's postdicted ad hoc gap filler because he's ignorant of plasma redshift just like you.

Says the person who can't tell the difference between distance and density. Says the person who doesn't understand that a change in photon momentum necessarily involves a change in trajectory.

It's you that seem to ignore every law of physics on the book just to save an ancient sky mythos created long before the Wolf effect and plasma redshift were fully understood. Today there are empirical explanations for photon redshift that do in fact show up in the lab. Inflation never will.

The type of coherence needed is not the type of coherence that starlight has. The experiments cited used lasers. Starlight lacks that the type of coherence found in lasers.

So says the guy that can't understand the reason why we have to scale density to achieve what we cannot achieve with distance, and never fixed RC's error about photons not containing mass and kinetic energy. Sheesh.

 

[Michael]

I thought it did have an effect on photons, hence the redshift and/or the lensing.

That's not a lab, that's a "subjective interpretation" of photon redshift and "missing mass".

And as for the need for a source, that's nonsense. We don't know where anything came from, why would we add that weird requirement to the dark energy?

What need do I have for inflation and dark energy when I can explain the same broadening and redshifting processes via ordinary plasma physics? FYI, static universe theory predicts things we do actually observe in the lab (tired light/plasma redshift), whereas Lambda-CDM has to predict things that *cannot and never will* show up in the lab so they cannot ever be falsified.

There is LM "complaining' about density differences and the effect they might have. The only reason he can do that is because these are *real and measured* quantities of something that does show up on Earth.

I'm not imposing any weird requirements that I'm not also imposing on EU/PC theory. If you can't compete in the lab, it's not my fault.

 

[mzungu]

Honestly, I can "rationally" explain every single feature in space, and every single human experience I've ever had on Earth with nothing more than God (Jesus), and plasma physics. What need do I have of anything else?

Why do you creationists always start with claiming science to prove creationism and when this fails you slowly end up with God did it case closed. You really are not qualified in astronomy nor cosmology. Your claims are nothing but quackery as they have no scientific basis. You may as well tell us that Elvis lives on the moon.

Sometimes I wonder if you are DAD!

 

[Elendur]

That's not a lab, that's a "subjective interpretation" of photon redshift and "missing mass".

Of course the interpretation is subjective, they're always subjective.

What need do I have for inflation and dark energy when I can explain the same broadening and redshifting processes via ordinary plasma physics? FYI, static universe theory predicts things we do actually observe in the lab (tired light/plasma redshift), whereas Lambda-CDM has to predict things that *cannot and never will* show up in the lab so they cannot ever be falsified.

There is LM "complaining' about density differences and the effect they might have. The only reason he can do that is because these are *real and measured* quantities of something that does show up on Earth.

I'm not imposing any weird requirements that I'm not also imposing on EU/PC theory. If you can't compete in the lab, it's not my fault.

You're imposing very strange limitations that are without reason.
Knowing where things (as the subset of everything) came from isn't possible (at least not given the current limitations of human knowledge).
Observing everything in the lab isn't possible (excluding certain, in practice impossible, scenarios).
Therefore these two demands from you are stupid, fair and square.

 

[Michael]

Of course the interpretation is subjective, they're always subjective.

The difference is that one "subjective" interpretation shows up in the lab in the form of Compton redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect, and what Chen called "plasma redshift". The other interpretation is based upon the premise that none of those observed processes in plasma *ever* occurs in space plasmas! One interpretation is capable of correctly predicting all those forms of plasma redshift we now observe in the lab, and one interpretation is predicated on *never* being able to demonstrate their claims on Earth. Guess when one I'm going with?

You're imposing very strange limitations that are without reason.
Knowing where things (as the subset of everything) came from isn't possible (at least not given the current limitations of human knowledge).
Observing everything in the lab isn't possible (excluding certain, in practice impossible, scenarios).
Therefore these two demands from you are stupid, fair and square.

This conversation is a bit "surreal" IMO. Which one of us is the "theist" again? I'd swear we have our roles reversed here, particularly since there *is* a simple empirical explanation. In the real world of laboratory plasma physics, plasma redshift is a known and demonstrated process, as is signal broadening. It would be physically and logically impossible for these process to *not* occur in space plasmas.

My method is *completely* fair. Suppose I were running around claiming that "observation x", absolutely must be caused by God, yet there was a simple explanation for the observation in question. Which option would you choose and why? Suppose that simple laws of physic would actually have to be suspended for there *not* to be a "natural" explanation of the observation in question? Now which answer would you go with and why?

How am I being in any way unfair, when plasma physics based explanations offer a natural and logical way to explain redshift? On the other hand, the alternative explanation would require a act of God to suspend known laws of plasma physics. It doesn't seem like a tough choice from where I sit.

You'd literally have to suspend the laws of plasma physics to beam photons across billions of light years of plasma without signal broadening and plasma redshift.

Lambda-CDM leaves out these very "normal" and "typical" and "observed" behaviors in plasma. It's based upon a "toy" version of plasma physics theory, one that includes no mention or allowance for these observed scattering effects. It therefore requires placeholder terms for what amounts to pure human ignorance, specifically ignorance of "real" plasma physics.

I'm not being unfair in any way. If the roles were reversed, and EU/PC theory were the mainstream theory, and I was handwaving away with a little math, and claiming "God energy" and "Godflation" did it, without being able to cite a source of either thing, you'd laugh your head off, and have a field day picking my claims apart.

 

[Michael]

Why do you creationists

Either everything that I say to you goes in one ear and out the other, or you're addressing the big bang "creationists". Which is it?

 

[mzungu]

Either everything that I say to you goes in one ear and out the other, or you're addressing the big bang "creationists". Which is it?

I am addressing to your I.D. (a.k.a. creationism) comments:

Originally Posted by Michael

Honestly, I can "rationally" explain every single feature in space, and every single human experience I've ever had on Earth with nothing more than God (Jesus), and plasma physics. What need do I have of anything else?
​

As for your claims? They belong in the moon hoax conspiracy blogs.