Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[Michael]

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

No, and I have carefully explained why Ned's handwavy claims are not true. They are not inseparable:

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

First of all, a loss of momentum is called "redshift". It's not *necessarily* the cause of "blurriness". Only a photon *deflection* can actually cause blurriness. Apparently Ned has an incredibly hard time distinguishing between photon redshift (loss of photon momentum), and photon deflection, and he makes no allowances for one without the other. Furthermore, only a very *tiny* deflection, very close to the Earth would result in blurriness. Most of the photons that experience large scattering angles would simply be lost and never reach Earth, particularly such events that occur at great distances from Earth. I'll grant him that Compton redshift by itself probably won't work to explain *all* the redshift we observe, but so what? There are at least three more options to work with *and* Compton redshift. How about Stark redshift Ned? Chen's plasma redshift Ned? How about the Wolf effect Ned? How about various combinations of factors Ned?

It's also *entirely* possible for photons to pass on their kinetic energy to electrons/protons in the direction of the photon's travel path, particularly polarized light and coherent light. As long as the photons pass on their collective energy to the particle in question, in it's direction of travel, no defection of the photons occur, and the loss of momentum/kinetic energy is towards it's original travel path. There's not even any guarantee that every redshift event will result in a deflection of the photon(s)!

Ned's entire argument is actually bogus.

Keep in mind that PC theory predict that a lot of light is lost to the medium. We also have recent evidence that the mainstream *grossly* underestimates the effect of plasmas/dust on light from distant objects:

Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | STFC

That particular claim of Ned's was *never* entirely true, nor was his third point since according to Penrose, the odds of inflation being responsible for the universe we live in is less than 1 in 10 to the 100th power!

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.

All I know *for certain* is that we're here and the universe is here and according to the laws of physics energy cannot be created or destroyed so something has existed eternally. Most of the mass of the universe is in the plasma state. Nothing about our technologies is 'flawless'. The rest is pretty much a subjective interpretation of the data we receive from space in the from of photons.

Because I have no reason to believe.

Likewise I have no reason to believe in Lambda-"please-ignore-the-fact-that-exotic-matter-was-falsified-at-LHC-in-2011" theory.

Holushko's work demonstrates that all the plasma redshift that we observe in photons can be explained by rather ordinary and mundane processes in plasma. I have no need for placeholder terms for human ignorance because I'm using a *real* version of plasma physics where signal broadening and plasma redshift are taken into consideration. Since Lambda-CDM theory is predicated upon a *mythical/toy/pretend* version of of plasma physics theory that ignores the *real* processes going on in plasma, it requires a whole host of placeholder terms for human ignorance. I can even explain *why* they need that junk! I have absolutely no logical or rational reason to believe that signal broadening will not occur in space. I have no logical or rational reason to believe that photons magically traverse billions of light years of plasma without experiencing *any* plasma redshift. Since I can use empirical physics to explain all these redshift features, I lack belief in invisible new forces of nature. They are redundant and irrelevant since they can easily be replaced with *real* plasma physics!

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.

IMO that's an absurd claim. There's nothing arbitrary about it. If you and I were looking at an electrical discharge in the Earth's atmosphere and I was claiming that "My invisible God did it", would you believe me? Of *course not*. You have a logical 'empirical' solution to the release of energy to explain that very same observation. You would not consider it be "arbitrary" that you chose the empirical solution to that observation, you would consider it to be a 'logical', 'rational', and 'scientific' explanation.

The only reason you're trying to claim it's 'arbitrary' to prefer demonstrated physics in this particular case is because you can't compete! It's like me claiming that it's arbitrary that you prefer an empirical solution to electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere. It's not ''arbitrary" at all. It's 'physics'.

The only reason you're on the indefensible side of the argument in this case, is because Lambda-CDM is the 'mainstream scientific' theory. It can't even compete with pantheism for crying out loud. You could in fact easily defend a non-aware EU/PC theory of the universe and I would not be able to pick your beliefs apart in the lab. It's only because you're emotionally attached to one and only one "solution" to the redshift issue that you're claiming it's an "arbitrary" choice on my part. Hubble mentioned two possible solutions to the redshift observation not just one. Physics, particularly laboratory plasma physics has come a long way since then.

 

[Michael]

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!

Some stars are overwhelmed by gravity, others are held together by gravity. Oh goody, let's play make believe.......

Oy Vey. Do you have *any* logical arguments? Let me guess? You'll ignore everything I've said in the thread and accuse me of being a creationist again?

 

[mzungu]

Some stars are overwhelmed by gravity, others are held together by gravity. Oh goody, let's play make believe.......

Oy Vey. Do you have *any* logical arguments? Let me guess? You'll ignore everything I've said in the thread and accuse me of being a creationist again?

It matters little if you are a creationist or not; Your debunked SS hypothesis holds no water and it becomes laughable when you insist that gravity chooses which galaxy to attract another galaxy resulting in their merger while other galaxies are kept apart by "Electricity"

I have heard my share of crackpot theories but this is the cherry on the icing!

 

[Elendur]

No, and I have carefully explained why Ned's handwavy claims are not true. They are not inseparable:

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

So, if the light is scattered earlier we wouldn't detect it?
Bull****. We would have a blanket of photons bombarding us from all around if that were the case!
Compton redshift -> Scattering
Wolf redshift -> Scattering
Stark effect -> Scattering
I can't find the redshift you attribute to Chen, does it go under another name?

That particular claim of Ned's was *never* entirely true, nor was his third point since according to Penrose, the odds of inflation being responsible for the universe we live in is less than 1 in 10 to the 100th power!

How I love when people bring up odds... Not... Why not apply the same logic to you being born?

All I know *for certain* is that we're here and the universe is here and according to the laws of physics energy cannot be created or destroyed so something has existed eternally. Most of the mass of the universe is in the plasma state. Nothing about our technologies is 'flawless'. The rest is pretty much a subjective interpretation of the data we receive from space in the from of photons.

You know anything for certain? You sure don't know your philosophy, huh?

Likewise I have no reason to believe in Lambda-"please-ignore-the-fact-that-exotic-matter-was-falsified-at-LHC-in-2011" theory.

Holushko's work demonstrates that all the plasma redshift that we observe in photons can be explained by rather ordinary and mundane processes in plasma. I have no need for placeholder terms for human ignorance because I'm using a *real* version of plasma physics where signal broadening and plasma redshift are taken into consideration. Since Lambda-CDM theory is predicated upon a *mythical/toy/pretend* version of of plasma physics theory that ignores the *real* processes going on in plasma, it requires a whole host of placeholder terms for human ignorance. I can even explain *why* they need that junk! I have absolutely no logical or rational reason to believe that signal broadening will not occur in space. I have no logical or rational reason to believe that photons magically traverse billions of light years of plasma without experiencing *any* plasma redshift. Since I can use empirical physics to explain all these redshift features, I lack belief in invisible new forces of nature. They are redundant and irrelevant since they can easily be replaced with *real* plasma physics!

So you place a hefty amount of belief that the scattering won't be noticed. Got it.

IMO that's an absurd claim. There's nothing arbitrary about it. If you and I were looking at an electrical discharge in the Earth's atmosphere and I was claiming that "My invisible God did it", would you believe me? Of *course not*. You have a logical 'empirical' solution to the release of energy to explain that very same observation. You would not consider it be "arbitrary" that you chose the empirical solution to that observation, you would consider it to be a 'logical', 'rational', and 'scientific' explanation.

The only reason you're trying to claim it's 'arbitrary' to prefer demonstrated physics in this particular case is because you can't compete! It's like me claiming that it's arbitrary that you prefer an empirical solution to electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere. It's not ''arbitrary" at all. It's 'physics'.

The only reason you're on the indefensible side of the argument in this case, is because Lambda-CDM is the 'mainstream scientific' theory. It can't even compete with pantheism for crying out loud. You could in fact easily defend a non-aware EU/PC theory of the universe and I would not be able to pick your beliefs apart in the lab. It's only because you're emotionally attached to one and only one "solution" to the redshift issue that you're claiming it's an "arbitrary" choice on my part. Hubble mentioned two possible solutions to the redshift observation not just one. Physics, particularly laboratory plasma physics has come a long way since then.

And there was that rant tangent.

Empirical has nothing to do with "has to be in the lab" nor "know where it came from".

Also, I have no emotional attachment to any specific theory (if you think that you're mistaken gravely). Except perhaps the Pythagoras Theorem and a couple of theorems connected to Laplace transform, though I wonder over the difference between "theory" and "theorem" (and I am certain that's irrelevant).

 

[Michael]

It matters little if you are a creationist or not;

What matters is whether or not I'm actually having a two way conversation or not. It's typical that someone "ask" about my beliefs rather than simply accusing me of them. When I go to all the trouble of explaining myself, in a published paper no less, and they still accuse me of something I lack belief in, I start to wonder if we're even having a two way conversation.

Your debunked SS hypothesis holds no water and it becomes laughable when you insist that gravity chooses which galaxy to attract another galaxy resulting in their merger while other galaxies are kept apart by "Electricity"

The currents and plasma filaments of spacetime dictate where the "clumps" (galaxies) end up forming. Most of the mass of the universe is not found in galaxies at all. It's found in the plasma around the galaxies. Move the bulk of the plasma that isn't found in galaxies around a bit, and it will have a direct effect on galaxies via gravity. EM field, gravity and *real* plasma physics explain the universe quite nicely. Ned's ancient website hasn't "dunbunked" anything since 2006. In terms of 21st century technologies and data collected over the past decade, it's an absolute dinosaur! Ned should be ashamed of that particular page. How about fast forwarding to 2012 and dealing with Holushko's work, or Ari's work, or Ashmore's work? You guys act like only mainstream theory gets to be 'updated' based on new data, and you can't 'debunk' some old version of PC theory and pretend no advancements in PC theory have ever taken place. What a crock. How about doing something constructive and finding a flaw in Holushko's paper for me. Then you might actually impress me.

I have heard my share of crackpot theories but this is the cherry on the icing!

The really amazing and amusing part is that the peer reviewed paper that I cited for you was just given a gigantic boost by SDO just this year. Convection predictions of mainstream theory were falsified by heliosiesmology findings by SDO. It turns out that convection occurs at only 1 percent of 'predicted' value, meaning there is no way that the sun is not a plasma diffuser that sorts atom by mass. It's impossible for Iron and Nickel to remain mixed up with hydrogen and helium in the presence of such *huge* gravitational and electromagnetic fields without convection. Funny how the "crackpot" theory passed SDO heliosiesmology findings with flying colors, yet the 'scientific' theory bit the dust.

 

[Jamin4422]

you insist that gravity chooses which galaxy to attract another galaxy resulting in their merger while other galaxies are kept apart by "Electricity"

Gravity is pretty much just a theory.

"In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton is expected to be massless (because the gravitational force appears to have unlimited range) and must be a spin 2 boson. The spin follows from the fact that the source of gravitation is the stress-energy tensor, a second-rank tensor (compared toelectromagnetism's spin 1 photon, the source of which is the four-current, a first-rank tensor). Additionally, it can be shown that any massless spin-2 field would give rise to a force indistinguishable from gravitation, because a massless spin-2 field must couple to (interact with) the stress-energy tensor in the same way that the gravitational field does.[4] This result suggests that, if a massless spin-2 particle is discovered, it must be the graviton, so that the only experimental verification needed for the graviton may simply be the discovery of a massless spin-2 particle.[5]" wiki

 

[Michael]

So, if the light is scattered earlier we wouldn't detect it?

We don't detect a lot of it. Most of it never reaches Earth in the first place.

New View: Universe Suddenly Twice as Bright | Space.com

Bull****. We would have a blanket of photons bombarding us from all around if that were the case!


Compton redshift -> Scattering
Wolf redshift -> Scattering
Stark effect -> Scattering
I can't find the redshift you attribute to Chen, does it go under another name?

Have you taken a gander at a gamma ray image of the universe recently?
NASA Spacecraft Lifts Veil on Universe's Brightest Explosions | Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope | Gamma-ray Bursts | Space.com

Assuming we stripped out all the foreground effects of the galaxy and close objects, like we do in the microwave WMAP wavelengths, it looks just about the same in terms of "homogenous bombardment of Earth from all sides". Scattering confirmed!

How I love when people bring up odds... Not... Why not apply the same logic to you being born?

Uniquely me, or just the fact I'm another life form that is the result of another human birth?

You know anything for certain? You sure don't know your philosophy, huh?

I'm simply pointing out that these are the *most* likely things to be true, and the rest is far less likely to be true.

So you place a hefty amount of belief that the scattering won't be noticed. Got it.

How can you possibly miss it in gamma wavelengths and other wavelengths? Scattering and absorption isn't uniform across the spectrum and various "clouds" obscure our views of various areas in various wavelengths.

Also, I have no emotional attachment to any specific theory (if you think that you're mistaken gravely). Except perhaps the Pythagoras Theorem and a couple of theorems connected to Laplace transform, though I wonder over the difference between "theory" and "theorem" (and I am certain that's irrelevant).

IMO you missed my point. My point is that I have a logical, rational, reasonable, empirical plasma redshift theory to explain redshifted photons. I don't need anything other than plasma physics, and observed laboratory photon behaviors in plasma to explain the redshifted photons from space. The various forms of plasma redshift are validated "successful predictions" of EU/PC static universe theories. Tired light/plasma redshift has been verified in the lab as *predicted* by Hubble. Even Hubble was very well aware of *two* possible solutions to his observations,and I'm sure he would have kept up with the times and recognized the value of plasma redshift/tired light theory in the 21st century. I can rightfully claim that static PC universe theory has had *multiple* (not just one) successful validations from the lab.

I can explain a standard electric discharge without making up new forces of nature that do not appear in labs on Earth. Likewise I can explain photon redshift via ordinary plasma physics. It therefore makes the invention of multiple fudge factors, irrelevant and obsolete. I can explain these events with known physics.

After watching a few videos recently on M-theory, I'm starting to think that mathematicians just find 3 dimensions plus time too limiting for them. They can't be as "creative" in terms of violating laws of physics as we understand them. They therefore cannot even fathom a "simple" solution to a very "simple" problem. They need to create more than a 1/2 dozen new dimensions of space and time to explain something as simple as ordinary plasma redshift and ordinary signal broadening in plasma.

Astronomy is going backwards in terms of complexity in their solutions to very simple problems. They are now dreaming up absolutely absurdly complicated solutions to explain something simple. They can easily resolve all their need for extra dimensions, inflation, dark energy, and dark matter, simply by embracing a *real* version of plasma physics rather than playing around with a "toy" version of plasma physics and *pretending* that signal broadening never happens in space.

 

[Elendur]

We don't detect a lot of it. Most of it never reaches Earth in the first place.

New View: Universe Suddenly Twice as Bright | Space.com

Have you taken a gander at a gamma ray image of the universe recently?
NASA Spacecraft Lifts Veil on Universe's Brightest Explosions | Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope | Gamma-ray Bursts | Space.com

Assuming we stripped out all the foreground effects of the galaxy and close objects, like we do in the microwave WMAP wavelengths, it looks just about the same in terms of "homogenous bombardment of Earth from all sides". Scattering confirmed!

The first article mentions that they've earlier missed 50% of the light, that does nothing to address the scatter blanket.
The second article, including the video, never mentions redshifted light, gamma light is on the other side of the spectrum.

Uniquely me, or just the fact I'm another life form that is the result of another human birth?

Uniquely you.

I'm simply pointing out that these are the *most* likely things to be true, and the rest is far less likely to be true.

You usually do a whole lot more than that, but I'm satisfied that you answered in a more careful manner now.

How can you possibly miss it in gamma wavelengths and other wavelengths? Scattering and absorption isn't uniform across the spectrum and various "clouds" obscure our views of various areas in various wavelengths.

Isn't gamma wavelengths the most energized photons, making them the least likely candidates for redshift?

IMO you missed my point. My point is that I have a logical, rational, reasonable, empirical plasma redshift theory to explain redshifted photons. I don't need anything other than plasma physics, and observed laboratory photon behaviors in plasma to explain the redshifted photons from space. The various forms of plasma redshift are validated "successful predictions" of EU/PC static universe theories. Tired light/plasma redshift has been verified in the lab as *predicted* by Hubble. Even Hubble was very well aware of *two* possible solutions to his observations,and I'm sure he would have kept up with the times and recognized the value of plasma redshift/tired light theory in the 21st century. I can rightfully claim that static PC universe theory has had *multiple* (not just one) successful validations from the lab.

I can explain a standard electric discharge without making up new forces of nature that do not appear in labs on Earth. Likewise I can explain photon redshift via ordinary plasma physics. It therefore makes the invention of multiple fudge factors, irrelevant and obsolete. I can explain these events with known physics.

After watching a few videos recently on M-theory, I'm starting to think that mathematicians just find 3 dimensions plus time too limiting for them. They can't be as "creative" in terms of violating laws of physics as we understand them. They therefore cannot even fathom a "simple" solution to a very "simple" problem. They need to create more than a 1/2 dozen new dimensions of space and time to explain something as simple as ordinary plasma redshift and ordinary signal broadening in plasma.

Astronomy is going backwards in terms of complexity in their solutions to very simple problems. They are now dreaming up absolutely absurdly complicated solutions to explain something simple. They can easily resolve all their need for extra dimensions, inflation, dark energy, and dark matter, simply by embracing a *real* version of plasma physics rather than playing around with a "toy" version of plasma physics and *pretending* that signal broadening never happens in space.

I don't see many people claiming it doesn't happen at all, I see a lot of people claiming that the redshift isn't explained nearly enough by it since the lack of scattering.

 

[Michael]

The first article mentions that they've earlier missed 50% of the light, that does nothing to address the scatter blanket.
The second article, including the video, never mentions redshifted light, gamma light is on the other side of the spectrum.


Uniquely you.


You usually do a whole lot more than that, but I'm satisfied that you answered in a more careful manner now.


Isn't gamma wavelengths the most energized photons, making them the least likely candidates for redshift?


I don't see many people claiming it doesn't happen at all, I see a lot of people claiming that the redshift isn't explained nearly enough by it since the lack of scattering.

It's just about 5:00Pm on a Friday night my time, and I'm ready for a break my friend. I'm running out creative ways to attempt to justify my preference for empirical physics over three various kinds of metaphysics. Considering your atheism, I would think you would naturally appreciate a preference for pure physics, whenever and wherever possible. I'll have a few beers, think about a bit, and see if I can' think a new angle.

I picked gamma rays simply as another wavelength that occurs in space. I could have picked a lot of various wavelengths and come up with that same "background glow" due to scattering. Some wavelengths are more sensitive to scattering and absorption than others due to the chemical composition of the ISM and IGM. Some wavelengths are blocked in some directions entirely. Some images are *horrifically* "brurred" by foreground dust and plasma. It all depends on the various conditions, chemical compositions and the particular wavelength under discussion.

It's therefore just plain "handwavy" (and wrong) to claim no blurring is observed. It's also plain silly to suggest every wavelength is likely to be effected exactly the same way, particularly from the perspective of EU/PC theory, not a mainstream mindset.

About all I can think to say at his point is that my preference for a physical solution to the plasma redshift observation has already been explained by Holusko, Ashmore and many other authors. Ned's website got stuck in time, and it's tilting at ancient windmills and ancient PC theory. Some of the material, like the comment in question were *never* true, not even the day they were written. I'll grant him that Compton scattering alone might not do the trick, and it might generate too much blurring, but there are several other forms of redshift that also have to be factored in, and not ignored. As long as the mainstream insists on ignoring new information and new forms of plasma redshift and continues to leave them out of their mathematical calculations, they will forever wallow around in the "dark ages" of astronomy. I want no part in that nonsense. I have a simple empirical solution to for all the placeholder terms of human ignorance that exist in Lambda-CDM. It's called "plasma physics".

 

[Michael]

Ok Elendur, I think I have a logical way for us to proceed. I think we would both agree that "extremism" toward one direction or another ends up being an unlikely scientific scenario, and difficult if not impossible to scientifically defend after awhile. For instance any extremist claims about Biblical infallibility (or historic uselessness) become virtually indefensible sooner or later. Some historic events might be verified in the Bible for instance, but that would not "automatically" mean that every event is accurate.

As it applies to photon redshift and this issue, and the topic of this thread, Hubble himself talks about two ways that might explain photon redshift, but he does *not* claim that one extreme position or another *must* be true. In other words, it's "more likely" or at least entirely possible that it's a "combination" of factors, not simply one, and only one. Would you agree with this assessment so far? If so, I think I can logically win you over.

 

[Elendur]

Ok Elendur, I think I have a logical way for us to proceed.

Great.

I think we would both agree that "extremism" toward one direction or another ends up being an unlikely scientific scenario, and difficult if not impossible to scientifically defend after awhile.

I agree.

For instance any extremist claims about Biblical infallibility (or historic uselessness) become virtually indefensible sooner or later.

I agree.

Some historic events might be verified in the Bible for instance, but that would not "automatically" mean that every event is accurate.

I agree.

As it applies to photon redshift and this issue, and the topic of this thread, Hubble himself talks about two ways that might explain photon redshift, but he does *not* claim that one extreme position or another *must* be true.

Ok.

In other words, it's "more likely" or at least entirely possible that it's a "combination" of factors, not simply one, and only one. Would you agree with this assessment so far? If so, I think I can logically win you over.

I would agree this far.

 

[Michael]

I would agree this far.

Very cool. I would have to concede that plasma physics and Electric Universe theory in general has limits on how far it can be logically extended, at least if we're going to limit PC/EU theory to pure forms of empirical (lab tested) physics. No PC/EU theory (at least for now) can include metaphysical concepts like 'space expansion', so indeed, PC/EU can't just "make up" new laws of physics, rather it's bound by them, and furthermore it's not all that constraining to be bound by them.

Holushko's "static universe" theory more or less sets a "base line", in terms of what can be "explained" via by use of pure plasma redshift as an "explanation" for all forms of photon redshift.

Plasma cosmology as whole however is fully capable of allowing for an expanding universe. It is limited to a pure empirical type of expansion however. So let's ask ourselves for a moment just how "constraining" that really is? Is there room to at least explain 'some' of redshift via pure empirical types of expansion? It turns out that actually, there is in fact quite a bit of 'wiggle room' in terms of pure forms of empirical expansion:

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

Whatever limitations might actually exist in pure forms of empirical physics, they are relatively minor overall. Much of the photon redshift could be accounted for by pure forms of empirical expansion in PC theory, albeit probably not all of it. Even still, there's plenty of "wiggle room" in PC theory for all sorts of future observations we might come across, in terms of true (non superluminal) expansion options.

More importantly, Holushko's model is already a "generic" tired light model, one quite like Hubble's first proposal in the sense that it acknowledges both the current known forms of plasma redshift, but allows for other forms to be added as they are found. In other words, thanks to Holusko's work, the need for 'adjustments' due to later laboratory findings will be minimal. It's possible to up with more complex models that "separate" the various types of redshift for various types of activities in space as well.

Overall, PC/EU theory has a lot of room to grow, and a lot of ability to be adjusted for both real expansion, and it adjusts for known form of plasma redshift without any need for expansion, at least at the moment. It has plenty of 'wiggle room' now both in terms how much adjustment really can be done to incorporate new information.

Just how much 'wiggle room' do you figure there actually is in Lambda-CDM theory for any significant amount of signal broadening and plasma redshift in space?

 

[someguy14]

Tired light theories fail because they do not describe the universe as we know it.

God is light, God is all. God explains it all. One may try, one may fight, the truth is, God is it. One way or another, all will know eventually. Suit up.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT


This thread has undergone a clean up.


Keep it civil.

 

[Tiberius]

MOD HAT


This thread has undergone a clean up.


Keep it civil.

And Someguy's proselytizing survived? Why?

 

[Elendur]

Michael, I'll answer you as soon as I get the time, sorry for the wait.

 

[Michael]

Michael, I'll answer you as soon as I get the time, sorry for the wait.

No sweat. Take your time.

 

[Blayz]

In the case of astronomers however, they're making a "knowledge claim". They claim to have created a "dark energy camera", when in fact nothing like that does exist or could exist.

How does this constitute false advertising, and what is your grounds for suing them, and in which court would you the action?

Ordinarily when a scientist makes a false claim, it gets shown to be false in the literature and the claim is then retracted.

This whole "advertising", "suing" thing, it's so...unscientific. Is it because you get all your science from uncorroborated websites and science press?

 

[mzungu]

How does this constitute false advertising, and what is your grounds for suing them, and in which court would you the action?

Ordinarily when a scientist makes a false claim, it gets shown to be false in the literature and the claim is then retracted.

This whole "advertising", "suing" thing, it's so...unscientific. Is it because you get all your science from uncorroborated websites and science press?

We should sue all the churches for the Bible's false claims regarding astronomy and biology!

 

[Michael]

How does this constitute false advertising,

Contrary to their claim, they did not build, nor could they ever build a "dark energy camera". They can't even name a source of dark energy, so they could never have "tested" their claim in the first place.

and what is your grounds for suing them,

False advertizing! They can't name a sourse of dark energy. They can't name a control mechanism. They can't show any empirical cause/effect connection between "dark energy" and photon redshift either. It's all "hype", like claiming to have a cure for cancer without ever "testing" their claim in any empirical experiment on Earth!

They built a standard camera that is sensitive to photons in a specific wavelength, in this case the red end of the spectrum. That's it. It's not a "dark energy" camera, or a "space expansion" camera, nor is it an "inflation" camera. It's just an *ordinary* camera. Period.

and in which court would you the action?

I'd probably have to sue them in federal court, which sounds prohibitively expensive. Publicly flogging them is much cheaper, and much more personally rewarding.

Ordinarily when a scientist makes a false claim, it gets shown to be false in the literature and the claim is then retracted.

Yes, ordinarily that's how it works. Sometimes however the public simply "sues" because it's been lied to.

This whole "advertising", "suing" thing, it's so...unscientific.

It's typically a *highly* scientific process that involves demonstrating any manufacturer's "cause/effect" claims in controlled circumstances. In this case it involves plasma redshift and plasma physics. I'd say it's quite "scientific" since I could in fact (with enough cash) demonstrate several cause/effect links between photons, plasma and photon redshift. That' more than can ever be done for "dark energy".

Is it because you get all your science from uncorroborated websites and science press?

No, I get all my science from corroborated laboratory experimentation. Unlike mainstream claims, I know an actual "source" of photon redshift and Chen's even showed a way to "control" it based on the number of free electrons in the plasma. What's you're excuse for peddling uncorroborated pseudoscience that is all apparently based on Ned Wrights ancient (and thoroughly debunked) bogus website?