Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[Michael]

The same applies to monotheism too, so according to your line of thought then your God does not exist!

There is one small problem with your logic. I can quite literally *see* and feel my concept of "God".

 

[mzungu]

There is one small problem with your logic. I can quite literally *see* and feel my concept of "God".

The same can be said of anyone believing in any supernatural being. Now unless you can give us the details of the lab experiment that proves the existence of your deity then suffice it to say that neither he nor any supernatural being exists.

 

[Michael]

The same can be said of anyone believing in any supernatural being.

No. The universe/God is entirely *natural* AFAIK! It's your beloved 'Guthianity' that requires supernatural forms of energy to exist.

Now unless you can give us the details of the lab experiment that proves the existence of your deity then suffice it to say that neither he nor any supernatural being exists.

Awareness shows up in the lab, if only to take 'measurements'! Unlike you, I'm not ascribing anything to the universe that doesn't show up in labs on Earth. There are no supernatural aspects in my concept of God or the universe. Only your beloved 'scientific' theory requires faith in things that fail to show up in labs on Earth.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Except BB models,

Including BB models which were updated with observations like dark matter and dark energy and an explanation for the observed properties of the universe (inflation) that then passed tests.

Ah, every "hit" is a "passed test"?

That is obviously true - every falsifiable, testable prediction that is tested and found to correct is a "passed test"!

Eddington predicted that background with a static universe!

Wrong: Eddington never predicted any CMB temperature.
Eddington's Temperature of Space

Arthur Stanley Eddington, in the last chapter of his 1926 book The Internal Constitution of the Stars, talks about Diffuse Matter in Space. In the first page of this chapter, Eddington computes an effective temperature of 3.18 K, but this has nothing to do with the 2.725 K blackbody spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB).
...
In fact, Eddington's model is a factor of more than 700 million times too small at the 2.64 mm wavelength of the CN transition [the vertical line on the left in the plot] where a measurement of 2.3 K was made in 1941. Unfortunately, this measurement by McKellar was not interpreted correctly and the CMB was not discovered until 1965.

Lambda-CDM doesn't "predict" such a thing,

Wrong: it matches the large scale structure in the distribution of galaxies.

These are simply the lightest elements and therefore they most easily escape the gravity wells of suns.

Wrong: This is about the abundances of hydrogen, helium, deuterium and lithium before stars.

Holushko's work demonstrates that there is no observed expansion in those photons,

Holushko's work is a tired light theory and thus wrong: Errors in Tired Light Cosmology
What is worse is that Holushko's "work" is a web page, not a published paper. That is essentially the definition of a crank idea. You are citing a crank idea.

GR no more supports 'dark energy' than it supports magic energy.
...more "magic" stuff snipped ...

Dark Enegy

The nature of this dark energy is a matter of speculation. The evidence for dark energy is only indirect coming from distance measurements and their relation to redshift.[19] It is thought to be very homogeneous, not very dense and is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity. Since it is quite rarefied—roughly 10−29 grams per cubic centimeter—it is unlikely to be detectable in laboratory experiments. Dark energy can only have such a profound effect on the universe, making up 74% of universal density, because it uniformly fills otherwise empty space. The two leading models are a cosmological constant and quintessence. Both models include the common characteristic that dark energy must have negative pressure.
...
The cosmological constant has negative pressure equal to its energy density and so causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate. The reason why a cosmological constant has negative pressure can be seen from classical thermodynamics; Energy must be lost from inside a container to do work on the container. A change in volume dV requires work done equal to a change of energy −P dV, where P is the pressure. But the amount of energy in a container full of vacuum actually increases when the volume increases (dV is positive), because the energy is equal to ρV, where ρ (rho) is the energy density of the cosmological constant. Therefore, P is negative and, in fact, P = −ρ.

It is about that ongoing false advertizing perpetuated by the mainstream. That particular claim is like claiming

Dark energy has evidence that shows that it exists.
There is no "advertising"g for it.
A camera that can provide information about an aspect observed about the universe can be named after that aspect, i.e.. Dark Energy Camera.

 

[Michael]

Including BB models which were updated with observations like dark matter

Exotic brands of 'dark matter' just bit the dust at LHC in 2011 RC. Care to acknowledge that in 2012, or is this never ending denial-go-round?

The only "missing mass" identified so far has been in the form of *plasma* and "stars" according to your hero Ned. Slowly be surely the real "astronomers" seem to be moving away from exotic matter theory RC. What's you're excuse?

and dark energy

Dark energy is pure ad hoc metaphysical gap filler because BB theories of the time expected a *decelerating universe*, not an accelerating one. It's pure metaphysical gap filler to save *one* and only one otherwise dead cosmology theory. It's *easily* replaced with ordinary plasma redshift processes in plasma. In fact it's now the mainstream weakest metaphysical link, exotic SUSY theories already having been falsified in the lab! Even the *tiniest* bit of plasma redshift negates any need for 'dark energy' at all! Even inflation is at risk, but dark energy is toast, and it's 70% of mainstream theory. The only thing left is that missing mass, and it's obviously nothing but ordinary plasma.

and an explanation for the observed properties of the universe (inflation) that then passed tests.

Inflation or "Guthianity" was postdicted from the start RC. Guth already *knew* that the layout of matter was more or less uniform across the whole sky. You high priest Guth created his invisible friend and endowed him with magical "superpowers" that were customized to postdict a fit to known observation. He endowed his inflation deity with all the necessary postdicted attributes to achieve a "perfect fit". It couldn't "not" fit! Big deal. One can start with the assumption. "It's just homogeneous because it is" achieve that much.

Of course you and Ned conveniently ignore the fact that it's 10 to 100th power more likely to be homogenous *without* inflation than with it!

Apparently even atheists believe in miracles, since it would clearly be a miracle for inflation to have anything at all to do with a homogeneous universe.

That is obviously true - every falsifiable, testable prediction that is tested and found to correct is a "passed test"!

Then pantheism passed it's tests in Compton redshift, the Wolf effect, Stark redshift, and what Chen called 'plasma redshift'. Pantheism passed those observational tests related to variable current flow patterns observed in Swift images. It's passes the observational tests in SDO images on a daily basis as well, since the sun's atmosphere is lit up with more circuits than exist inside an entire human body.

Wrong: Eddington never predicted any CMB temperature.
Eddington's Temperature of Space

About the only thing Ned is correct about is that Eddington did not know about distant galaxies. Had he known I'm sure he would have included them, and I'm sure he would have been a lot closer than 50 degrees, the earliest 'BB predictions". Ned's claim about any need great for "fine tuning" was laughably absurd consider it's 10 to the 100th power more likely the pattern is *not* related to inflation than with it, and that was *before* dark energy turned Lambda-CDM theory into 96 percent metaphysical ad hoc fudge factor.

Wrong: it matches the large scale structure in the distribution of galaxies.

It was customized fit, with nothing short of invisible magic no less, so of course it fits. It cannot not fit. It's also 10 to the 100th power more likely it's homogenous because it did *not* involve inflation than with inflation.

Wrong: This is about the abundances of hydrogen, helium, deuterium and lithium before stars.

There is no "before other stars". That's part of your mythology.

Holushko's work is a tired light theory and thus wrong: Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

Holusko's work is from 2012, whereas Ned has apparently left his website stuck in circa 2005, certainly predating Lerner's work.

What is worse is that Holushko's "work" is a web page, not a published paper.

Exactly which 'mainstream' publication did you expect it to be published in RC? What's wrong, you found an actual error in the C# code, or you couldn't follow it at all?

That is essentially the definition of a crank idea. You are citing a crank idea.

There you go back to name calling. You know how ironic that sounds coming from a retired IT guy that still (to this very day) insists that photons always have a zero amount of kinetic energy?

Dark energy has evidence that shows that it exists.

You can't even tell me where your mythical sky deity comes from RC. Why should I believe in your god when I can actually see and feel (in real heat) the living creator that I believe in? More importantly, why should I believe dark energy isn't a figment of your imagination if you can't even see it, or tell me where it comes from, or tell me anything about it?

There is no "advertising"g for it.

Baloney! Even the name of a "dark energy camera" was a sales pitch that begs the believer to *not* believe in plasma redshift, and *to* believe in things that do not show up in labs on Earth. Had they called it a 'God camera' it would have actually been more accurate.

A camera that can provide information about an aspect observed about the universe can be named after that aspect, i.e.. Dark Energy Camera.

We do not observe dark energy. We observe redshifted photons from space. So? We also observe redshifted photons in the lab caused by Compton redshift, the Wolf effect, plasma redshift and Stark redshift. I have no need of your mythical, impotent on Earth sky entities RC. I can replace every single one with pure forms of plasma physics.

I've yet to see you pick out an error in Holushko's C# code. A lot of the real 'IT 'techs' that I know can write and follow C# code. You certainly have no right to call anyone a crank until you find something wrong in the code. If your profession as a IT tech was of any value or gives you any expertize, it should allow you to cite the actual error in Holushko's code. I doubt you'll actually do that mind you, but that's about as close as you'll ever get to be an 'expert' on any part of this topic.

You aren't even qualified to call anyone a crank RC. Only a crank would be claiming that photons have a zero amount of kinetic energy! Your stance on photon kinetic energy is simply appalling. In the past when you used the term "we", I thought that meant that you were an actual astronomer. Now that I know your not an astronomer, and you haven't the first clue about photon kinetic energy, it's almost sad listening to you call anyone else a "crank" on this (or frankly any other) topic.

 

[Davian]

False. If you can claim that Lambda-CDM passes any kind of observational "test", the same things apply to pantheism.

You did not address the question. Where does the standard model posit a deity? How do we test specifically for yours?

It's there and your theory fails to explain it, whereas Pantheism predicts it. Now what?

I asked, should it?

Really? I must have missed it. Got a link?

Simply: substantiate your claim that the standard model has been falsified.

No mud throwing.

It doesn't actually pass *any* version of it, particularly since the CDM claims went up in smoke at LHC in 2011. The whole theory is on life support thanks to LHC, and nobody dares touch it lest the whole thing fall apart. Dark energy was simply the latest "ad hoc" construct related to the mainstreams failures to account for plasma redshift. As Holushko's work demonstrates, plasma redshift fully explains the supernova pulse broadening and photon redshift features *without* any need for exotic forms of matter and energy.

But never replicated in the lab with conditions matching that of deep space, as you previously admitted.

I don't buy that the universe functions like a perpetual motion machine.

 

[Michael]

You did not address the question. Where does the standard model posit a deity?

It doesn't. It's also not even close to being empirically competitive with a cosmology theory that does posit an aware and living universe.

How do we test specifically for yours?

I explained that in the other couple of threads that I started on that topic. I recently mentioned plasma redshift, and Holushko's C# code as being one such "observational test" of the theory. I also mentioned the Swift images.

I asked, should it?

Does Lambda-CDM attempt to fully explain our universe, or just a few minor things based on a metaphysical gap filler galore? Pantheism makes a whole host of predictions about the *functional* nature of the universe, and it's effect on human beings, not just it's mechanical attributes.

Simply: substantiate your claim that the standard model has been falsified.

No mud throwing.

Fair enough:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dama-dark-matter
Is Supersymmetry Dead?: Scientific American

We've tested what we can test so far, and nothing so far. More importantly, the energy state of the Higgs is such that it's not certain that SUSY theory is relevant or helpful.

But never replicated in the lab with conditions matching that of deep space, as you previously admitted.

So what? I'll never be able to *completely* match every attribute of deep space (particularly distance). In terms of scaling, every theory deals with that problem.

I don't buy that the universe functions like a perpetual motion machine.

I didn't claim it was a "perpetual motion" machine by the way. That seems to be your take on things, but that isn't my actual belief. I simply said it "recycles" energy.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Exotic brands of 'dark matter' just bit the dust at LHC in 2011 RC.

Wrong: The simplest SUSY theory seems to be excluded by the LHC in 2012.
This does not have anything to do with the strong evidence that dark matter exists.

The only "missing mass" identified so far has been in the form of *plasma* and "stars"

Wrong: The "missing mass" identified so far has been in the form of *plasma* and "stars" does not have anything to do with dark matter. It is part of the normal matter that has bee known to be missing from the ~4% of normal matter in the universe.

Dark energy is pure ad hoc metaphysical gap filler
...

Wrong: Dark erngy is an observation.

Even the *tiniest* bit of plasma redshift ...

Plasma redshift is a tired light theory and so invalid: Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

Inflation or "Guthianity" was postdicted from the start RC.
...stating the known and pantheism stuff snipped...

Who said it was not, Michael !
Any scientific theory that does not postdict (match existing data) is useless. Inflation does match existing data and so is useful.
FYI: Observational status of inflation

Inflation is a concrete mechanism for realizing the cosmological principle which is the basis of the standard model of physical cosmology: it accounts for the homogeneity and isotropy of the observable universe. In addition, it accounts for the observed flatness and absence of magnetic monopoles. Since Guth's early work, each of these observations has received further confirmation, most impressively by the detailed observations of the cosmic microwave background made by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) spacecraft.[52] This analysis shows that the universe is flat to an accuracy of at least a few percent, and that it is homogeneous and isotropic to a part in 10,000.
In addition, inflation predicts that the structures visible in the universe today formed through the gravitational collapse of perturbations which were formed as quantum mechanical fluctuations in the inflationary epoch. ...

About the only thing Ned is correct about is that Eddington did not know about distant galaxies.

This has nothing to do with the fact that Eddington was not claculating the temperature of the CMB.
Eddington never predicted any CMB temperature.
Eddington's Temperature of Space

50 degrees, the earliest 'BB predictions".

What you miss out is: assuming a 3-billion-year old Universe!
Timeline of Observations of the CMB

It was customized fit,

You do not seem to know what "it matches the large scale structure in the distribution of galaxies" means.
This is that fact that computer simulations using the Lambda-CDM model match the observations of the large scale structure in the distribution of galaxies.

There is no "before other stars". That's part of your mythology.

What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
That's part of the scientific world.

Holusko's work is from 2012,

So what? Holusko's work is still a crank idea on a web page.
There are many scientific journals where he could have published his idea. That he did not publish makes it a crank idea.
He could have even published it as a pre-print! ArXiv needs a sponsor. So can we say that Holusko cannot even convince one person to sponsor him onto ArXiv?

As foir his C++ code: It may be correct but why should I waste my time looking at it. A garbage tired light theory in means garbage out (GIGO).

There you go back to name calling.
...long spiel snipped...

That is not name-calling (from an active IT guy )Y.
Crank is the best label for his idea, i.e. the "A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held as to be ludicrous."
and since it is a tired light theory ( Errors in Tired Light Cosmology )
it is ludicrous.
Since Holusko does not know this it makes him at least ignorant of the science that excludes tired light theories. He also seems to be blindly believing in the idea (he has no tired light theory of his own - just the C++ code you go on about), thus he is behaving like a crank.

The rest of your post is easy to answer:
Observational evidence for dark matter.
Observational evidence for dark energy.
Observational evidence for inflation.

A camera that can provide information that will tell us more dark energy can be called a Dark Energy Camera.
No one expects it to take pictures of dark energy !

 

[Naraoia]

There is one small problem with your logic. I can quite literally *see* and feel my concept of "God".

You can also quite literally see the black dots in this image.

 

[Nabobalis]

You can also quite literally see the black dots in this image.

Those are definitely black dots!

 

[Michael]

Wrong: The simplest SUSY theory seems to be excluded by the LHC in 2012.
This does not have anything to do with the strong evidence that dark matter exists.

You don't have any evidence that "dark matter" exists in any form *other than* plasma!

Hot-gas halo surrounds our Milky Way, scientists say | Space | EarthSky
Astronomers report dark matter 'halos' may contain stars, disprove other theories / UCLA Newsroom

It's not even "dark" matter, it's just matter we're finally (after all these years) starting to find (missing mass)!

Wrong: The "missing mass" identified so far has been in the form of *plasma* and "stars" does not have anything to do with dark matter. It is part of the normal matter that has bee known to be missing from the ~4% of normal matter in the universe.

You've still not addressed any of the recent findings about the actual brightness and star counts of galaxies RC. Care to finally do so?

Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | STFC
NASA - Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount

Probably not...

Wrong: Dark erngy is an observation.

False. Dark energy is a *myth* invented by astronomers who are ignorant of plasma redshift.

Plasma redshift is a tired light theory and so invalid: Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

Been there and trashed that antique of an unpublished website already.

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Plasma redshift observed in the lab.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-50/#post61578499

Please wake me up with Ned updates his website from somewhere beyond 2005, preferably all the way to this year!

Who said it was not, Michael !
Any scientific theory that does not postdict (match existing data) is useless. Inflation does match existing data and so is useful.
FYI: Observational status of inflation

You claimed it was a *prediction*, when it fact it was nothing of the sort. You're also just ignoring the fact that according to Penrose it's 10 to the 100th power more likely that a homogenous "flat" layout of matter has nothing at all to do with inflation!
Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data we could get. Paul J. Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics. He calls ‘bad inflation’ a period of accelerated expansion whose outcome conflicts with observations, and ‘good inflation’ one compatible with them: “Not only is bad inflation more likely than good inflation, but no inflation is more likely than either. … Roger Penrose considered all the possible configurations of the inflaton and gravitational fields. Some of these configurations lead to inflation … Other configurations lead to a uniform, flat universe directly –without inflation. Obtaining a flat universe is unlikely overall. Penrose’s shocking conclusion, though, was that obtaining a flat universe without inflation is much more likely than with inflation –by a factor of 10 to the googol (10 to the 100) power!”[100]

This has nothing to do with the fact that Eddington was not claculating the temperature of the CMB.
Eddington never predicted any CMB temperature.
Eddington's Temperature of Space

So what if Eddington didn't personally do several different calculations himself. It's not like he was 45 degrees off like early BB theories, or that his other number would have been off by 45 degrees had he done so.

What you miss out is: assuming a 3-billion-year old Universe!
Timeline of Observations of the CMB

Ya, and you've been fudging the numbers to make it fit ever since. It's therefore laughable that Ned whines about the need for fine tuning in other theories.

You do not seem to know what "it matches the large scale structure in the distribution of galaxies" means.
This is that fact that computer simulations using the Lambda-CDM model match the observations of the large scale structure in the distribution of galaxies.

Apparently you don't know what 10 to the 100th power means.

So what? Holusko's work is still a crank idea on a web page.

You're just a crank and apparently you don't have a webpage or any understanding of photon kinetic energy even. Who cares what you think of Holuksko or anyone else?

As foir his C++ code: It may be correct but why should I waste my time looking at it. A garbage tired light theory in means garbage out (GIGO).

It's not C++ code, it's C# code. It's short, sweet and to the point. There's nothing "garbage" other than your pitiful excuse for not dealing with it. It's a good tired light theory, and that's why it's got spectral aging software to go with it.

That is not name-calling (from an active IT guy )Y.

Actually I do more than just IT, I actually write software for a living and I've been self employed for 20 years. I simply took exception to your "we" comments as though you speak for anyone that actually understands photon kinetic energy.

Crank is the best label for his idea, i.e. the "A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held as to be ludicrous."
and since it is a tired light theory ( Errors in Tired Light Cosmology )
it is ludicrous.

The ludicrous part is some IT guy that doesn't know squat about photon kinetic energy or C# calling Holushko a "crank". You don't have credentials to call anyone a crank, and Holushko can so something more than IT too, he also wrote code. Apparently that was beyond your job description which is why you can't and won't find any flaws in his actual work.

The fact you're using some guys *unpublished website* as "gospel" is more than a little ironic after that tirade you pulled about Holushko. Apparently your 'bible' isn't published either, and it's 10 years old and now full of errors!

Since Holusko does not know this it makes him at least ignorant of the science that excludes tired light theories.

Holushko's work refuted that page RC, and you've not found any error in his work. Until you do, he's not 'ignorant' of anything, he's just pointing out Ned's ignorance.

He also seems to be blindly believing in the idea (he has no tired light theory of his own - just the C++ code you go on about), thus he is behaving like a crank.

Unlike you I know it's C# code. I've actually downloaded it and you have not. I've actually looked at the code and you have not. I have actually looked at the math and been through the paper with a fine tooth comb and you have not. I therefore have more qualifications on this topic that you will ever have, particularly while you are in hard core denial of the fact that photons have kinetic energy!

The rest of your post is easy to answer:
Observational evidence for dark matter.
Observational evidence for dark energy.
Observational evidence for inflation.

You mean it's easy to handwave at while ignoring Holushko's work, and the findings of LCH that destroy all those references.

A camera that can provide information that will tell us more dark energy can be called a Dark Energy Camera.
No one expects it to take pictures of dark energy !

The term "photon redshift camera" would have been acceptable. The term "dark energy camera" is a blatant example of false advertizing and another perfect example of all the ridiculous names the mainstream uses to promote their dogma.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You don't have any evidence that "dark matter" exists in any form *other than* plasma!

That is doubly wrong: Plasmsa is not dark!
And Observational evidence for dark matter.

Hot-gas halo surrounds our Milky Way, scientists say | Space | EarthSky

Evidence for missing matter, not dark matter.

Astronomers report dark matter 'halos' may contain stars, disprove other theories / UCLA Newsroom

Could it be that dark matter "halos" — the huge, invisible cocoons of mass that envelop entire galaxies and account for most of the matter in the universe — aren't completely dark after all but contain a small number of stars? Astronomers from UCLA, UC Irvine and elsewhere make a case for that in the Oct. 25 issue of the journal Nature.

Nice link to a bit of science, Michael.
No mention of dark matter not existing.

Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | STFC
NASA - Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount

Addressed in the JREF forum.

False. Dark energy is a *myth* invented by astronomers who are ignorant of plasma redshift.

Doubly wrong: Astronomers have heard of tired light theories and know that they are wrong. As an astronomer stated: Errors in Tired Light Cosmology
The first point is something an undergraduate physics student (which astronomers were!) knows. Redshift = change in energy = change in momentum = scattering = distant objects are blurred !

And Observational evidence for dark energy.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-50/#post61578499

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to work, and as pointed out by Roger Penrose from 1986 on, inflation requires extremely specific initial conditions of its own, so that the problem (or pseudoproblem) of initial conditions is not solved: ...

That is a good criitism but ignores the success of inflation ins solveing the problems and making valid predictions of it own.

So what if Eddington didn't personally do several different calculations himself.

The point is that Eddington never made a calculation of the CMB temperature.

Ya, and you've been fudging the numbers to make it fit ever since.

Wait - you do not know that science progresses !
The reason that there have been multiple different calculations for he CMB temperature is because there have been multiple different estimations for the age of the universe:
Timeline of Observations of the CMB

1948: George Gamow calculates a temperature of 50 K (assuming a 3-billion-year old Universe),[16] commenting it ".. is in reasonable agreement with the actual temperature of interstellar space", but does not mention background radiation.
1948 Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman estimate "the temperature in the Universe" at 5 K. Although they do not specifically mention microwave background radiation, it may be inferred.[17]
1950 Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman re-estimate the temperature at 28 K.

Later explicit calculations of CMB termpertaure get 7K , 3±2 K (observation!), 6 K, 4±3K, 40K and then the actual measurement at 3K.

The fact you're using some guys *unpublished website* as "gospel"

I am not treating "some guys *unpublished website* as "gospel".
I know a far amount of physics.
I read it and can see that there is no complex physics in it. The points that the astronomer Ned Wright makes are clear and valid physics

• There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed.
• The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves.
• The tired light model can not produce a blackbody spectrum for the Cosmic Microwave Background without some incredible coincidences.
• The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test.

I also read the references that he cited.
P.S. The web page is not 10 years old. It was updated in 2008.

Holushko's work refuted that page RC,

Holushko's work has nothing to do with that page, Michael.
Holushko's work is a C# program and contains no valid physics.

The term "dark energy camera" is a blatant example of false advertizing and another perfect example of all the ridiculous names the mainstream uses to promote their dogma.

Observational evidence for dark energy thus not false advertising.

 

[Michael]

That is doubly wrong: Plasmsa is not dark!

It was "dark" (missing) to our technologies until rather recently however. You have no evidence at all that any of the rest of the missing mass is exotic matter, and plenty of falsification for simple SUSY theory.

Nice link to a bit of science, Michael.
No mention of dark matter not existing.

Notice however that "dark matter" is presumably found in a halo around the galaxy, and so is all that missing plasma, along with all the stars Ned just found. (Who's side is he on anyway)?

Addressed in the JREF forum.

You mean handwaved at by haters.

Doubly wrong: Astronomers have heard of tired light theories and know that they are wrong.

They (and you) apparently only "know" what Ned Wright personally tells them to believe, and his website hasn't been updated in *eons* in technological-cosmological terms.

As an astronomer stated: Errors in Tired Light Cosmology
The first point is something an undergraduate physics student (which astronomers were!) knows. Redshift = change in energy = change in momentum = scattering = distant objects are blurred !

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-50/#post61578499
Apparently everything you think you "know" is based on false information. A change in momentum doesn't cause blurriness, it's called "redshift". Only a change in trajectory can do that. Apparently that's all you've got too because the rest of the page is pathetically outdated and it obviously didn't prepare you to deal with any C# code.

And Observational evidence for dark energy.

There isn't any evidence for "Dark energy". It's nothing more than a placeholder term for human ignorance, specifically the ignorance of plasma redshift in cosmic plasma.

That is a good criitism but ignores the success of inflation ins solveing the problems and making valid predictions of it own.

It created at problem that is magnified by 10 to the 100th power! How much "good" could it actually be when it's 10 to the 100th power *more likely* that a flat universe has nothing to do with inflation? Holy cow!

The point is that Eddington never made a calculation of the CMB temperature.

He did make his best guess at what he believed to be the temperature of 'space' based on the effect of starlight on molecules in space. He was *far closer* even with limited information than early BB proponents. Ned's whine about needing "adjustments" is just ridiculous all things considered.

Wait - you do not know that science progresses !

Apparently you're projecting now because you're stuck with Ned in 2000&late, not 2012.

The reason that there have been multiple different calculations for he CMB temperature is because there have been multiple different estimations for the age of the universe:
Timeline of Observations of the CMB

Ya, and CMB estimates for PC theories have also been updated, not that Ned bothered to update his website.

I am not treating "some guys *unpublished website* as "gospel".

Of course you are since that is the *only* reference you have even cited. Apparently everything you think you know comes from Ned's 2005 website.

I know a far amount of physics.

Apparently all of it is some kludged "classical" version you learned and promptly forgot.

I read it and can see that there is no complex physics in it.

That's because there's no physics in it past about 2006. What would you expect from something stuck in the past that was never published and never updated?

The points that the astronomer Ned Wright makes are clear and valid physics

No. Even an amateur like myself was able to pick it to pieces in 2012. Whatever validity it had in 2005, it's useless in 2012.

There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed.

False. You're ignoring the fact that photon can pass it's momentum to a particle *in it's direction of travel*. That's one "known" way that Ned is full of hot air.

The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves.

There isn't any observed time dilation, just signal/pulse broadening, which is predicted in Holushko's model, Brynjolfsson's model and Ashmore's model.

The tired light model can not produce a blackbody spectrum for the Cosmic Microwave Background without some incredible coincidences.

False as demonstrated by many authors. It's just the average temperature of space based on the effect of starlight on dust in space.

The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test.I also read the references that he cited.

Lerner's work blew that claim away in 2006.

P.S. The web page is not 10 years old. It was updated in 2008.

It's not been updated since at least 2005 since it includes no mention of Lerner, Ashmore, Holushko or Brynjolfsson.

Holushko's work has nothing to do with that page, Michael.
Holushko's work is a C# program and contains no valid physics.

This is another example of pure denial on your part. Holushko's paper and C# code directly address the same supernova data set, right down to the spectral aging characteristics. The fact you can't deal with it causes you to go into pure denial of scientific fact, including the fact the Holushko's model enjoys four forms of empirical support including Compton redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect and plasma redshift.

Observational evidence for dark energy thus not false advertising.

More bunk related to the fact that astronomer forgot to include any redshift calculations into the mathematical formulas. They are then left with a mystery as to why the redshift occurs. They call their ignorance "dark energy" and they can't even tell us where it comes from, because it's born of their ignorance of the actual physical process that causes plasma to strip some momentum/kinetic energy from the photons over time and distance.

 

[Michael]

You can also quite literally see the black dots in this image.

Sorry, but the warmth from the sunshine hitting my skin is no optical illusion.

 

[mzungu]

No. The universe/God is entirely *natural* AFAIK! It's your beloved 'Guthianity' that requires supernatural forms of energy to exist.

Typical creationist mumbo jumbo!

Awareness shows up in the lab, if only to take 'measurements'! Unlike you, I'm not ascribing anything to the universe that doesn't show up in labs on Earth. There are no supernatural aspects in my concept of God or the universe. Only your beloved 'scientific' theory requires faith in things that fail to show up in labs on Earth.

OK then give us the lab experiment details that we need in order to have the same results as yours. You are the first creationist that claims to have lab evidence of God. Lab evidence is empirical evidence but it can only be accepted if the results can be recreated in all other labs.
Now put your money where your mouth is and give is the lab experiment details that prove God exists!

 

[Michael]

Typical creationist mumbo jumbo!

You're the only one of the two of us that professes to be a creationist!

OK then give us the lab experiment details that we need in order to have the same results as yours. You are the first creationist that claims to have lab evidence of God. Lab evidence is empirical evidence but it can only be accepted if the results can be recreated in all other labs.
Now put your money where your mouth is and give is the lab experiment details that prove God exists!

Chen and Wolf explained how to duplicate their work on plasma redshift in the lab. Did you try it yet?

 

[mzungu]

You're the only one of the two of us that professes to be a creationist!

Chen and Wolf explained how to duplicate their work on plasma redshift in the lab. Did you try it yet?

God is plasma redshift

 

[Michael]

Indeed!

God is plasma redshift

If the mainstream can claim to have evidence of "dark energy" or inflation based entirely upon observations and predictions related to spacetime, then yes, plasma redshift is certainly (without a doubt) a "successful prediction" of Pantheism, as are those variable currents that we observe in Swift x-ray images of our galaxy. You can't claim that the observational evidence supports one theory without accepting that it might support two or more cosmology theories based on that same observation. The fact that your theory is utterly incapable of predicting anything that we can validate in the lab isn't my fault. The fact we can validate that aspect of pantheism in the lab is more than will ever happen for 'dark energy' or inflation. CDM theory already bit the dust in the lab at LHC, not that anyone actually cares.

 

[mzungu]

If the mainstream can claim to have evidence of "dark energy" or inflation based entirely upon observations and predictions related to spacetime, then yes, plasma redshift is certainly (without a doubt) a "successful prediction" of Pantheism, as are those variable currents that we observe in Swift x-ray images of our galaxy. You can't claim that the observational evidence supports one theory without accepting that it might support two or more cosmology theories based on that same observation. The fact that your theory is utterly incapable of predicting anything that we can validate in the lab isn't my fault. The fact we can validate that aspect of pantheism in the lab is more than will ever happen for 'dark energy' or inflation. CDM theory already bit the dust in the lab at LHC, not that anyone actually cares.

Ah yes, they spray chemicals on us with aeroplanes and the moon landings were a hoax; Yeah right

 

[Michael]

Ah yes, they spray chemicals on us with aeroplanes and the moon landings were a hoax; Yeah right

Oh I see. When faced with the real possibility that your data fits/provides evidence for another theory that you simply don't care for, you ridicule the idea.