Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[Michael]

I am addressing to the I.D. (a.k.a. creationism). As for your claims? They belong in the moon hoax conspiracy blogs.

BB theory is a creationist belief system. Static universe theory is not.

In terms of my beliefs, Holushko's work demonstrates that there is no need for your trio of invisible sky thingies. All of them can and have been explained via ordinary plasma physics, and ordinary processes in plasma.

The irony from my perspective is that someday your beloved Lambda-denial-of-LHC-results theory will seem as irrational as belief in moon hoaxes. That future is actually coming faster than you realize IMO. Modern technology and recent plasma physics research is utterly destroying mainstream beliefs about the universe. They are using a "toy" version of plasma physics theory, thus they require placeholder terms for human ignorance. It's really quite easy to explain once you realize they left out all forms of signal broadening and all forms of plasma redshift. No wonder they need "dark" placeholder terms for their ignorance of real plasma physics and demonstrated plasma redshift processes.

 

[mzungu]

BB theory is a creationist belief system. Static universe theory is not.

In terms of my beliefs, Holushko's work demonstrates that there is no need for your trio of invisible sky thingies. All of them can and have been explained via ordinary plasma physics, and ordinary processes in plasma.

The irony from my perspective is that someday your beloved Lambda-denial-of-LHC-results theory will seem as irrational as belief in moon hoaxes. That future is actually coming faster than you realize IMO. Modern technology and recent plasma physics research is utterly destroying mainstream beliefs about the universe. They are using a "toy" version of plasma physics theory, thus they require placeholder terms for human ignorance. It's really quite easy to explain once you realize they left out all forms of signal broadening and all forms of plasma redshift. No wonder they need "dark" placeholder terms for their ignorance of real plasma physics and demonstrated plasma redshift processes.

Can you read?

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?

 

[Tiberius]

Geez, Michael, your posts have degenerated until they are little more than ranting and preaching...

 

[Michael]

Geez, Michael, your posts have degenerated until they are little more than ranting and preaching...

When observed empirical plasma physics sounds like "preaching" to you, you've got a problem.

 

[Michael]

Can you read?

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?

What about it? Unlike your trio of invisible sky thingies, Jesus is not impotent on Earth. He touches peoples lives on a *daily* basis, all over this planet. Plasma physics explains everything else I see in the universe around me.

 

[mzungu]

What about it? Unlike your trio of invisible sky thingies, Jesus is not impotent on Earth. He touches peoples lives on a *daily* basis, all over this planet. Plasma physics explains everything else I see in the universe around me.

Yes dear; Some tea perhaps?

 

[Elendur]

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?

The one you didn't neatly dress up and put out on a field?
The one where you haven't addressed the issues of scattering in a satisfactory way?
The one that passes the arbitrary requirement of a lab (but not the one where you knows where it came from)?

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.

You didn't address what I wrote.
Knowing where something came from and observing it in the lab are two arbitrarily set conditions that have no real value.

 

[Michael]

Yes dear; Some tea perhaps?

Right. Empirically speaking, you can't even begin to compete in the lab, so "ridicule, ridicule, ridicule" and hope nobody sees through your show. How sad.

 

[mzungu]

Right. Empirically speaking, you can't even begin to compete in the lab, so "ridicule, ridicule, ridicule" and hope nobody sees through your show. How sad.

Snake oil and crackpot theories have no place in science! You have presented the same type of arguments that pseudo scientists present. Your ideas hold no water and never will. If you think that lab work alone produces sufficient evidence to explain the universe then show us your lab work that gives evidence of God!

 

[Tomk80]

Geez, Michael, your posts have degenerated until they are little more than ranting and preaching...

Having observed michael a couple of times before, this always happens. Usually sooner rather than later.

 

[Michael]

Snake oil and crackpot theories have no place in science!

Yep. That's why Lambda-in-denial-of-lhc-results theory has no place in modern science.

You have presented the same type of arguments that pseudo scientists present.

You have that backwards. My claims show up in a lab, right down to awareness in a variety of forms. Your ideas are based upon a "tinker toy" version of plasma physics, or a "let's pretend" brand of plasma physics. Lambda-CDM "pretends" that ordinary signal broadening and plasma redshift never happen in space plasmas, even though they occur in laboratory plasmas and must occur in space plasmas.

Your ideas hold no water and never will. If you think that lab work alone is sufficient evidence to explain the universe then show us your lab work that gives evidence of God!

I already did that in the appropriate thread, but I doubt you've read then anymore than you've read our paper that I cited for you. Unlike your invisible sky stuff, even awareness shows up in the lab, if only in the form of the individual taking the measurements. None of your claims show up in the lab. All of mine do.

 

[mzungu]

Yep. That's why Lambda-in-denial-of-lhc-results theory has no place in modern science.

You have that backwards. My claims show up in a lab, right down to awareness in a variety of forms. Your ideas are based upon a "tinker toy" version of plasma physics, or a "let's pretend" brand of plasma physics. Lambda-CDM "pretends" that ordinary signal broadening and plasma redshift never happen in space plasmas, even though they occur in laboratory plasmas and must occur in space plasmas.

I already did that in the appropriate thread, but I doubt you've read then anymore than you've read our paper that I cited for you. Unlike your invisible sky stuff, even awareness shows up in the lab, if only in the form of the individual taking the measurements. None of your claims show up in the lab. All of mine do.

Define awareness! Also you have provided absolutely no empirical evidence of God! You have no peer reviewed work. You are not an astronomer nor a cosmologist, and you haven't the slightest idea of how science is governed by rules that you so readily dismiss.

 

[Michael]

The one you didn't neatly dress up and put out on a field?

Does Holushko's work require 'dressing up' in any particular way?

The one where you haven't addressed the issues of scattering in a satisfactory way?

Apparently you didn't like Holushko's work for some reason? Do share. You did see me shred Ned Wright's ancient website didn't you?

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

The one that passes the arbitrary requirement of a lab (but not the one where you knows where it came from)?

I know where the "missing mass" came from, or at least I now know where a huge chunk of it is located.

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

You certainly don't know where the universe came from if that's what you're getting at.

You didn't address what I wrote.
Knowing where something came from and observing it in the lab are two arbitrarily set conditions that have no real value.

Why do you lack belief in God again?

Since Holushko can explain supernova signal broadening and plasma redshift via pure plasma physics, physics that manifests itself in a lab, what *possible* logical or rational use do I have for a "sky religion" that defies the laws of plasma physics as we know them from the lab, and requires 96 percent metaphysical gap filler as a result? I can even explain *why* they require placeholder terms for human ignorance, and I can explain what they are ignorant of, specifically signal broadening and plasma redshift. They didn't include them in their calculations, so now they need "fudge factors".

If the roles were reversed and it was "science" that supported EU/PC theory and it was a religion that was claiming "Invisible Godflation, Invisible God energy and Invisible God matter did it", you laugh and you wouldn't even think twice about such nonsense.

 

[mzungu]

If the roles were reversed and it was "science" that supported EU/PC theory and it was a religion that was claiming "Invisible Godflation, Invisible God energy and Invisible God matter did it", you laugh and you wouldn't even think twice about such nonsense.

Pray tell us what "invisible force keeps your SS universe from collapsing? Show us the lab evidence of this mysterious force?

 

[Michael]

Define awareness!

Why? You aren't aware of the meaning of awareness? You don't have access to Google?

Also you have provided absolutely no empirical evidence of God!

Pfft. I've provided more evidence for God than you've provided for dark energy, inflation and dark matter combined!

You have no peer reviewed work.

False:
The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass - Springer

You are not an astronomer nor a cosmologist,

Einstein was a patent clerk. What's your point?

and you haven't the slightest idea of how science is governed by rules that you so readily dismiss.

You mean those rules of plasma where broadening and redshift are "normal" behaviors of plasma? The fact Lambda-CDM never included them is exactly why they need so many placeholder terms for ignorance!

 

[Michael]

Pray tell us what "invisible force keeps your SS universe from collapsing?

PICTURES UNIVERSE ELECTRIFIED SPACE - Prof. Birkeland of Norway Holds That Suns and Stars Are Charged Negatively. - Article - NYTimes.com

It's called "electricity" and "charge repulsion".

Show us the lab evidence of this mysterious force?

Kristian Birkeland - (The Plasma Universe Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

 

[Elendur]

Does Holushko's work require 'dressing up' in any particular way?

(As in producing a strawman)

Apparently you didn't like Holushko's work for some reason? Do share. You did see me shred Ned Wright's ancient website didn't you?

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

Isn't the redshift inseparable from the change of direction, aka scattering?

I know where the "missing mass" came from, or at least I now know where a huge chunk of it is located.

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

You certainly don't know where the universe came from if that's what you're getting at.

Then tell me, if I don't know where the universe comes from, how can you claim you know where the missing mass comes from?
You'd better apply the same logic.

Why do you lack belief in God again?

Because I have no reason to believe.

Since Holushko can explain supernova signal broadening and plasma redshift via pure plasma physics, physics that manifests itself in a lab, what *possible* logical or rational use do I have for a "sky religion" that defies the laws of plasma physics as we know them from the lab, and requires 96 percent metaphysical gap filler as a result? I can even explain *why* they require placeholder terms for human ignorance, and I can explain what they are ignorant of, specifically signal broadening and plasma redshift. They didn't include them in their calculations, so now they need "fudge factors".

If the roles were reversed and it was "science" that supported EU/PC theory and it was a religion that was claiming "Invisible Godflation, Invisible God energy and Invisible God matter did it", you laugh and you wouldn't even think twice about such nonsense.

You still haven't addressed it. Those two, arbitrarily set, requirements are bull**** and are a waste of time to write and read.
Feel free to convince me otherwise, but try to stick to arguing about the requirements instead of ranting off in a tangent.

 

[mzungu]

PICTURES UNIVERSE ELECTRIFIED SPACE - Prof. Birkeland of Norway Holds That Suns and Stars Are Charged Negatively. - Article - NYTimes.com

It's called "electricity" and "charge repulsion".

Kristian Birkeland - (The Plasma Universe Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

Absolute HOGWASH; We have observed galaxies colliding and asteroids smashing into a planet! Where is the repulsive force here then eh?

Why do I have this nagging feeling that I am talking to DAD?

 

[Michael]

Absolute HOGWASH; We have observed galaxies colliding and asteroids smashing into a planet! Where is the repulsive force here then eh?

It's overwhelmed by gravity in such cases.

Why do I have this nagging feeling that I am talking to DAD?

Beats me. You're the one that is claiming that plasma physics in space works completely and radically differently than it does on Earth. I feel like *I* am talking to Dad.

 

[mzungu]

It's overwhelmed by gravity in such cases.

So some galaxies are overwhelmed by gravity while others are kept apart by electricity Oh goody lets play make believe: I believe that the moon is made of cheese!