Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[Michael]

P.S. Tired light

The very first sentence of the WIKI page you cited is false:

Tired light is a class of hypothetical redshift mechanisms that was proposed as an alternative explanation for the redshift-distance relationship.

"Hypothetical" my eye!

That is absolutely and completely false and it's another perfect example of false advertizing by the mainstream. There is nothing "hypothetical" about Compton redshift, the Wolf effect, Stark redshift, or what Chen calls "plasma redshift". They all show up in real experiments in real labs. Dark energy is the "hypothetical" entity the mainstream uses to attempt to justify their exclusion of all known forms of plasma redshift from their calculations.

The page never mentioned Chen's work or Stark redshift. It erroneously attributes a Wolf effect to Zwicky's work when the in fact Zwicky didn't do that. It never mentioned the published works of Emil Wolf at all! That page is more erroneous and more stuck in the past than Ned Wrights page, and of course it's first two references point us right back to Ned's unpublished work! What a crock of a WIKI page. Even the very first sentence is a blatant lie.

 

[mzungu]

The very first sentence of the WIKI page you cited is false:

"Hypothetical" my eye!

That is absolutely and completely false and it's another perfect example of false advertizing by the mainstream. There is nothing "hypothetical" about Compton redshift, the Wolf effect, Stark redshift, or what Chen calls "plasma redshift". They all show up in real experiments in real labs. Dark energy is the "hypothetical" entity the mainstream uses to attempt to justify their exclusion of all known forms of plasma redshift from their calculations.

The page never mentioned Chen's work or Stark redshift. It erroneously attributes a Wolf effect to Zwicky's work when the in fact Zwicky didn't do that. It never mentioned the published works of Emil Wolf at all! That page is more erroneous and more stuck in the past than Ned Wrights page, and of course it's first two references point us right back to Ned's unpublished work! What a crock of a WIKI page. Even the very first sentence is a blatant lie.

You made a claim that you have lab evidence that proves God exists. When i asked you for the details of the experiment you refused to give any; This is not how science works. This is how creationism works. Unless you give us the experiment details so that we can recreate your results that supposedly proves that God exists then you are just making false claims!

Sorry Michael but you are in the conspiracy theory class of people!

 

[Michael]

You made a claim that you have lab evidence that proves God exists. When i asked you for the details of the experiment you refused to give any;

False. I gave you Chen's plasma redshift, Emil Wolf's work on the Wolf effect, Stark redshift and Compton scattering. Unlike your mythical trio of invisible impotent sky gods, all the aforementioned forms of plasma redshift shows up in a lab. Even awareness shows up in a lab in a variety of physical forms. I provided (in the appropriate thread) a concept for a real 'experiment' to test to see what EM connections take place between human brain activity, and external EM fields.

You can't even so much as name a single *source* of dark energy, not after 15+ years of handwaving around some primitive math formulas that *left out* known causes of plasma redshift! It's no mystery why the mainstream needs placeholder terms for human ignorance in their *toy* brand of plasma physics.

This is not how science works.

Every bit of 'science' that I have proposed shows up in real lab experiments. Even when your CMD theory bit the dust in LHC, your "faith in the unseen'' is unshaken. I've yet to see a theist with such unwavering faith in invisible sky stuff.

This is how creationism works.

Between the two of us, only you personally believe there was a 'creation date' that you can somehow justify. I lack such a belief. You're the creationist that is peddling a creation mythos with a creation date. Who do you think you're fooling anyway? Certainly not me. Whomever you might be posturing for, it's not working. I lack belief that there is a "creation event" on a 'specific date', whereas you do. Your 13.7 billion year creation date claim about this universe is no more justifiable than YEC. It's just another unjustifiable timeline that gives you some emotional comfort in some way.

Unless you give us the experiment details so that we can recreate your results that supposedly proves that God exists then you are just making false claims!

Go read the thread. I've explained how Compton redshift, the Wolf effect, Stark Redshift and Chens work can be replicated in the lab if you're interested in trying it out. If not, oh well. Your trio of impotent sky thingamobobs can't redshift a single photon in real lab. I've given you four lab tested solutions to explaining redshift which you simply ignored.

I've explained how Pantheism "predicts" the existence of variable high energy currents in space, and indeed we observe their effect in x-ray satellite images of our own galaxy. None of that is 'predicted' in mainstream dark dogma.

Sorry Michael but you are in the conspiracy theory class of people!

Right. It's just my imagination that the WIKI page outright *lies* about plasma redshift/tired light being a *hypothetical* process?

It's just my imagination it never mentioned Emil Wolf's work? It's just my imagination it never mentioned Brynjolfsson, or Ashmore, or Holushko, or anyone that written anything positive about plasma redshift/tired light theory since the release of the supernova data set?

What a load of pure unadulterated cow manure! I've literally seen the 'haters' modify WIKI pages in the middle of our debates on JREF because they refused to accept the contents. I've been banned and burned at the heretical stake at more than a few astronomy hangouts as well. Sure, it's just all my imagination.

 

[sandwiches]

False. I gave you Chen's plasma redshift, Emil Wolf's work on the Wolf effect, Stark redshift and Compton scattering. Unlike your mythical trio of invisible impotent sky gods, all the aforementioned forms of plasma redshift shows up in a lab. Even awareness shows up in a lab in a variety of physical forms. I provided (in the appropriate thread) a concept for a real 'experiment' to test to see what EM connections take place between human brain activity, and external EM fields.

You can't even so much as name a single *source* of dark energy, not after 15+ years of handwaving around some primitive math formulas that *left out* known causes of plasma redshift! It's no mystery why the mainstream needs placeholder terms for human ignorance in their *toy* brand of plasma physics.

Every bit of 'science' that I have proposed shows up in real lab experiments. Even when your CMD theory bit the dust in LHC, your "faith in the unseen'' is unshaken. I've yet to see a theist with such unwavering faith in invisible sky stuff.

Between the two of us, only you personally believe there was a 'creation date' that you can somehow justify. I lack such a belief. You're the creationist that is peddling a creation mythos with a creation date. Who do you think you're fooling anyway? Certainly not me. Whomever you might be posturing for, it's not working. I lack belief that there is a "creation event" on a 'specific date', whereas you do. Your 13.7 billion year creation date claim about this universe is no more justifiable than YEC. It's just another unjustifiable timeline that gives you some emotional comfort in some way.

Go read the thread. I've explained how Compton redshift, the Wolf effect, Stark Redshift and Chens work can be replicated in the lab if you're interested in trying it out. If not, oh well. Your trio of impotent sky thingamobobs can't redshift a single photon in real lab. I've given you four lab tested solutions to explaining redshift which you simply ignored.

I've explained how Pantheism "predicts" the existence of variable high energy currents in space, and indeed we observe their effect in x-ray satellite images of our own galaxy. None of that is 'predicted' in mainstream dark dogma.

Right. It's just my imagination that the WIKI page outright *lies* about plasma redshift/tired light being a *hypothetical* process?

It's just my imagination it never mentioned Emil Wolf's work? It's just my imagination it never mentioned Brynjolfsson, or Ashmore, or Holushko, or anyone that written anything positive about plasma redshift/tired light theory since the release of the supernova data set?

What a load of pure unadulterated cow manure! I've literally seen the 'haters' modify WIKI pages in the middle of our debates on JREF because they refused to accept the contents. I've been banned and burned at the heretical stake at more than a few astronomy hangouts as well. Sure, it's just all my imagination.

So, in short: There is no lab evidence of your universal God. Is that right?

 

[mzungu]

False. I gave you Chen's plasma redshift, Emil Wolf's work on the Wolf effect, Stark redshift and Compton scattering. Unlike your mythical trio of invisible impotent sky gods, all the aforementioned forms of plasma redshift shows up in a lab. Even awareness shows up in a lab in a variety of physical forms. I provided (in the appropriate thread) a concept for a real 'experiment' to test to see what EM connections take place between human brain activity, and external EM fields.

Are you claiming that God is plasma red shift

 

[Naraoia]

Well, I can empirically demonstrate a host of evidence that is consistent with Pantheism, including but not limited to plasma redshift, variable currents in space, layouts of matter that resemble a brain, and the accounts of human beings since the dawn of recorded civilization.

"Consistent with" being the keyword here.

Are they inconsistent with the non-existence of your god?

That's far more than can be said for "dark energy", "inflation" or exotic forms of "dark matter". When you combine all three metaphysical gap fillers into one theory, it can't even compete with Pantheism. Even awareness shows up in labs on Earth. I'm not ascribing anything to the universe that doesn't exist here, and have an effect right here on Earth.

Only a few minor logical problems... as in, living beings have awareness + brains are electric =/=> the universe is aware. Making that argument is about as daft as arguing that Mars is covered in blood because dried blood is kind of rusty-coloured and you can see blood in the lab.

Other than that: blah, blah, I've heard your anti-mainstream rant a thousand times before. It got old long ago. Please don't bother repeating it again.

I've "sensed" it subjectively during prayer and meditation, as have others. Not everyone prays and not everyone meditates, so maybe not everyone has that experience. If however we look at the *entire* range of human beliefs, and the percentages of theists to atheists on planet Earth, it's not even close.

You didn't twig that this is why I brought up a demonstrably non-existent phenomenon that most people can nonetheless "sense"...

In a "subjective* sense God does have an effect on human beings today on Earth. Dark energy does not. Inflation does not. SUSY theories do not.

Once again, I didn't ask you about dark energy, inflation or supersymmetry. Why do you keep bringing these up whether or not they're relevant?

 

[Davian]

I can demonstrate that awareness exists in many forms here on Earth which is much more than you can do with any three of the mainstream claims related to dark energy, dark matter and inflation. I can't "see" my own 'awareness' because it doesn't emit any photons directly. I can see it's effect on my brain in PET scans however, just as I can see the effect of those variable currents in Swift images.

That is not what I asked, and has nothing to do with dark energy, dark matter and inflation.

The subject is the 'awareness' of the universe. Demonstrate it.

In my experience the term "parsimonious" is a very subjective judgement call. I'm not having to *assume* that everyone that claims to have an experience of 'God' is crazy. To me that's a plus. Your mileage may vary.

I don't assume. Until those individual can demonstrate the validity of their claims, they are dismissed.

It does point out a now verified observation that Pantheism does predict that your theory does not predict. Already Lambda-CDM theory seems weak, but in terms of competing with functional aspects of the universe, it's not competitive at *all*! It doesn't predict the presence of currents at all, and nobody much touches the topic of currents in space in mainstream models. It's a "side issue" at best in mainstream theory. Mainstream theory can't compete with Pantheism in terms of function, nor can Lambda-CDM explain anything related to human experiences on Earth.

So it is not falsified. You are just creating a straw man version of it.

A brain the size of a universe won't fit in a lab, but awareness exists in nature in a myriad of forms. I've even described some real experiments that might actually demonstrate external EM fields interacting with EM fields of a human brain. I don't really know what shows up and doesn't show up yet. What I do know is that awareness isn't limited to a single form, and it's prevalent on Earth. Awareness is not just a "made up" idea like dark energy. It's quite real.

So this 'awareness' of the universe does not show up in the lab, or in any other way you can demonstrate?

I'm sorry, but Einstein's introduction of a non zero constant into GR didn't turn GR into a perpetual motion machine, and I'm not even accusing you of creating a perpetual motion machine (yet anyway) by the introduction of dark energy into that constant. According to Birkeland's cathode sun theories, all suns would be somewhat repulsive toward one another. It's a standard EM field that stabilizes the universe IMO, nothing exotic or magical.

What is with the dark energy red herrings? That isn't even coherent.

How does a static universe can stay static without working like a perpetual motion machine?

 

[Tiberius]

Well, yes. A static universe is actually observed and that configuration of matter in the universe is impossible in standard theory:

http://www.holushko.net/download/TiredLightAndSupernovae.pdf

That seems to be circular reasoning to me.

You are assuming that the evidence points towards a static universe, then concluding that the universe is static. You then count this as evidence that your hypothesis that led you to the idea of a static universe is correct.

Can you show me a prediction of your plasma cosmology idea that is measured and is yet impossible according to mainstream physics?

 

[Michael]

So, in short: There is no lab evidence of your universal God. Is that right?

Er, no. The lab, everything inside the lab, and everything outside the lab is evidence of our universal God.

It seems to me that you're all setting a "wee" high standard here in terms of producing "lab evidence" of a macroscopic awareness. There are limits imposed by physics itself as to how much physical "evidence" I can provide of *my own* "awareness". One might argue that the active circuity inside my brain gives rise to my "awareness". Just as PET scan images reveal the active circuitry of a brain, Swift images reveal the macroscopic circuitry of our galaxy, and that is but a *tiny sliver* of the overall circuitry of spacetime.

Not only does Pantheism require no leaps of faith in any exotic forms of matter or energy, it's entirely "visible" in every wavelength imaginable. There are going to be limits on how much physical evidence I can personally provide you in terms of putting a macroscopic awareness inside a microscopic lab.

At least everything I believe in shows up on Earth, including awareness in a variety of forms. Pantheism allows us to make "predictions" about the function of spacetime in ways that Lambda-CDM cannot do even *with* 96 percent "dark magic".

What exactly would you accept as "evidence" in this particular case?

 

[Michael]

That seems to be circular reasoning to me.

You are assuming that the evidence points towards a static universe, then concluding that the universe is static. You then count this as evidence that your hypothesis that led you to the idea of a static universe is correct.

But that is *exactly* what Lambda-CDM proponents do as well. There is however one fundamental and highly significant difference between their predictions and mine:

Can you show me a prediction of your plasma cosmology idea that is measured and is yet impossible according to mainstream physics?

Yes, it's called "Compton redshift", "Stark redshift", "The Wolf effect" and what Chen et all called "plasma redshift". These can all be measured *physically* in labs on Earth. It is fundamentally *impossible* for the mainstream to begin to incorporate *any* amount of these known forms of plasma redshift into their calculations without turning their theory into an ever shrinking metaphysical energy of the gaps argument. It's impossible for them to embrace even a little of *any* of them, let alone *all* of them into their calculations without mucking up the whole thing, destroying dark energy and 70+ percent of their theory.

The difference is that plasma redshift has a tangle effect on real photons. That's more than will *ever* be said for dark energy or inflation. Not a single astronomer on Earth can even name a source of "dark energy", let alone show it has some tangible effect on a photon in a lab. That's the key empirical difference between our "assumptions".

 

[Michael]

Are you claiming that God is plasma red shift

No, I'm claiming God is relatively "static".

 

[Michael]

"Consistent with" being the keyword here.

Are they inconsistent with the non-existence of your god?

Kinda. Why would we expect to observe highly active circuitry inside the Milky Way in standard theory? To this very day, the mainstream cannot explain the circuitry in the *solar atmosphere*. In fact, thanks to SDO and heliosiesmology they just lost their most important power supply, AKA convection.

Only a few minor logical problems... as in, living beings have awareness + brains are electric =/=> the universe is aware. Making that argument is about as daft as arguing that Mars is covered in blood because dried blood is kind of rusty-coloured and you can see blood in the lab.

Wait a minute! I've pointed out that the mass layouts of space (according to mainstream theory) are not just "random", they are highly organized, and organized into a macroscopic structure that looks like a brain! Furthermore it's composed of "current carrying" plasma, and it generates x-ray bursts as currents traverse the structures of a galaxy, just like the currents in our brains light up the circuits of our brains. You're ignoring the evidence you don't care for, only because you don't care for it apparently.

You didn't twig that this is why I brought up a demonstrably non-existent phenomenon that most people can nonetheless "sense"...

It wasn't why I made my comment. Ok then...

How do we *know* one way or another? You tell me? What exactly are you folks willing to accept as "evidence", and how far of an extreme must I go to anyway? Are you applying the *exact same* standards to Lambda-CDM that you apply to Pantheism?

How can I *know* that dark energy isn't just an "optical illusion" of mainstream theory because they left out the *plasma redshift*?

Once again, I didn't ask you about dark energy, inflation or supersymmetry. Why do you keep bringing these up whether or not they're relevant?

They are relevant if we are going to be "scientifically fair" and "neutral" in deciding how much "evidence" is necessary or required to support one cosmology theory over another. You can't run around applying one standard to Pantheism and an entirely different standard to so called "scientific" cosmology theories!

 

[Michael]

That is not what I asked, and has nothing to do with dark energy, dark matter and inflation.

The subject is the 'awareness' of the universe. Demonstrate it.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7584137-30/#post61641469

I can't put macroscopic awareness inside a lab, but I can show the effects of awareness on the currents traversing the galaxy and universe.

I don't assume. Until those individual can demonstrate the validity of their claims, they are dismissed.

You mean except if it's "dark" something or other that fails to show up at LHC?

So it is not falsified. You are just creating a straw man version of it.

Oh baloney. It's not my fault that the mainstream dreamed up WIMPS in space. They've been writing about SUSY theories for *years*. When the lab results come in, nobody wants to deal with the fact that SUSY theory bit the dust. Somehow it's all my fault that the mainstream left out important aspects of plasma physics from their calculations I suppose?

So this 'awareness' of the universe does not show up in the lab, or in any other way you can demonstrate?

Just as awareness shows up in the patterns that it creates in PET scan images, the effects of macroscopic awareness can be observed in Swift images of our galaxy and universe. Given the fact that "awareness" is more of a physical function rather than a tangible thing, exactly what "evidence' will suffice in this case? Do human experience and human 'consensus' matter?

What is with the dark energy red herrings? That isn't even coherent.

If we're going to apply 'requirements' and standards on one cosmology theory (Pantheism), the very same standard has to apply to them all!

How does a static universe can stay static without working like a perpetual motion machine?

How does it work *like* a perpetual motion machine in your opinion? When Einstein introduced a non zero constant into GR did he create perpetual motion machine? Did the mainstream create a perpetual motion machine with 'dark energy'?

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, it's called "Compton redshift", "Stark redshift", "The Wolf effect" and what Chen et all called "plasma redshift". These can all be measured *physically* in labs on Earth.

Please show me that the redshift observed in distant galaxies etc is caused by these forms of redshift instead of what mainstream cosmology says causes it.

 

[Michael]

Please show me that the redshift observed in distant galaxies etc is caused by these forms of redshift instead of what mainstream cosmology says causes it.

I've given you the mathematical (and C# code) work of Brynjolfsson, Ashmore, Holushko, Emil Wolf, and many other authors to consider. What more can I do than provide you with real empirical lab results to back up those mathematical models?

Furthermore, Lambda-CDM theory requires nothing short of an act of God for these to *not* have some influence in spacetime plasmas. Apparently God is hiding SUSY particles too, so we can't find them in LHC experiments. Lambda-CDM sounds more like YEC every year.

 

[Michael]

Please show me that the redshift observed in distant galaxies etc is caused by these forms of redshift instead of what mainstream cosmology says causes it.

It occurs to me that you're attempting to shift the burden of proof. I've shown empirical cause/effect links between photon redshift and the Wolf Effect, Compton redshift, Stark redshift and what Chen called "plasma redshift". Chen's work even shows a direct link between free electron density and the amount of photon redshift. I've met *my* empirical burden of proof 4 times over.

You've never empirically demonstrated that "dark energy" is anything more than a placeholder term for pure human ignorance, specifically ignorance of the 4 aforementioned ways of generating photon redshift in plasmas.

 

[Tiberius]

It occurs to me that you're attempting to shift the burden of proof. I've shown empirical cause/effect links between photon redshift and the Wolf Effect, Compton redshift, Stark redshift and what Chen called "plasma redshift". Chen's work even shows a direct link between free electron density and the amount of photon redshift. I've met *my* empirical burden of proof 4 times over.

You've never shown "dark energy" is anything more than a placeholder term for pure human ignorance, specifically ignorance of the 4 aforementioned ways of generating photon redshift in plasmas.

Talk about shifting the goalposts...

First of all, you may have been able to demonstrate an effect in the lab, but that doesn't show me that the same effect MUST be responsible for what we see in the universe. I am asking you to demonstrate that the effects you've shown are responsible for the effects we see in the real world.

Secondly, I have not been trying to say that Dark Matter is correct. I'm simply asking you to show that your position is correct.

So can you address my questions or are you going to keep whinging about this?

 

[Michael]

Talk about shifting the goalposts...

First of all, you may have been able to demonstrate an effect in the lab, but that doesn't show me that the same effect MUST be responsible for what we see in the universe.

The reason I like Holushko's model more than any other is because it is specifically a "generic" (inclusive) model that does away with oversimplification fallacies of all sorts. I don't know *which* of those four effects are responsible for each bit of photon redshift. What I do know however is that "magic" didn't do it, invisible unicorns didn't do it, and nothing else that has yet to be shown to cause photon redshift in controlled experimentation did it. I don't need *hypothetical* options when I already have four empirical ways to "explain" the redshift.

I am asking you to demonstrate that the effects you've shown are responsible for the effects we see in the real world.

In the "real world" of the lab, these are the things that "really" cause "real" redshift in "real" photons in "real" experiments, with "real" control mechanisms, and "real" defined sources. Define "real world" for me. We seem to be living in different universes at the moment.

Secondly, I have not been trying to say that Dark Matter is correct. I'm simply asking you to show that your position is correct.

I've done that by presenting you with both mathematical quantification, and empirical qualification from the lab. You've only handed me math, and no empirical lab results. In terms of "dark matter", you've actually got *failed* lab results on your hands. Now what?

So can you address my questions or are you going to keep whinging about this?

I need to understand what you mean by the term "real". In my empirical physics universe, lab results are "real" evidence. I'm not sure what you mean by "real" other than by empirical lab tested physics.

String theories for instance look fabulous on paper. They do nothing for me at the level of lab tested physics however. If I can fix a problem with ducktape and a paperclip, I have no use for 7 new dimensions of spacetime to solve that problem.

Photon redshift is a *known* empirical cause of photon redshift. It's not a "hypothetical" group of causes, it's a *known* group of photon redshift causes that are related to plasma physics from "real" labs on Earth.

 

[Davian]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7584137-30/#post61641469

I can't put macroscopic awareness inside a lab, but I can show the effects of awareness on the currents traversing the galaxy and universe.

State that in the form of a falsifiable hypothesis. You have not done so in that thread.

You mean except if it's "dark" something or other that fails to show up at LHC?

No.

Oh baloney. It's not my fault that the mainstream dreamed up WIMPS in space. They've been writing about SUSY theories for *years*. When the lab results come in, nobody wants to deal with the fact that SUSY theory bit the dust. Somehow it's all my fault that the mainstream left out important aspects of plasma physics from their calculations I suppose?

You did not address my point. It is not falsified. If you can falsify the standard model, do it. If you have a better, falsifiable hypothesis, present it. You have yet to do this in your "god" thread.

Just as awareness shows up in the patterns that it creates in PET scan images, the effects of macroscopic awareness can be observed in Swift images of our galaxy and universe. Given the fact that "awareness" is more of a physical function rather than a tangible thing, exactly what "evidence' will suffice in this case? Do human experience and human 'consensus' matter?

I note that you put 'consensus' in quotes, as you may realize that it is not a scientific consensus. If religion is just something that has evolved with human culture, then, no, it does nothing for your pantheistic claims.

If we're going to apply 'requirements' and standards on one cosmology theory (Pantheism), the very same standard has to apply to them all!

No. Pantheism is not a theory, and the standard model does not posit deities.

How does it work *like* a perpetual motion machine in your opinion? When Einstein introduced a non zero constant into GR did he create perpetual motion machine? Did the mainstream create a perpetual motion machine with 'dark energy'?

Is your universe static, or not? Can you not take a stand for your own claims without throwing mud?

 

[Michael]

State that in the form of a falsifiable hypothesis. You have not done so in that thread.

We're going to have to have a discussion on the concept of 'falsifiability' as it relates to your theory by the way.

Since awareness in humans give rise to all sorts of variable currents inside the human brain, I would expect/predict to observe large variations in current flow patterns between objects in space. According to Birkeland and Alfven, the voltages involved are somewhere between 600 million and 1 billion volts.

No.

Then why isn't "CDM" dead/falsified yet? Did they find any exotic matter in LHC experiments?

You did not address my point. It is not falsified. If you can falsify the standard model, do it. If you have a better, falsifiable hypothesis, present it. You have yet to do this in your "god" thread.

I have offered you a "better" and more falsifiable hypothesis about our universe! How is it even *possible* to falsify Lambda-CDM? It's got three parts, plasma (ordinary matter), "dark matter" which is claimed to be *unlike* ordinary matter, and "dark energy". Normal matter only makes up 4 percent of Lambda-CDM. LHC just blew the doors off of exotic matter theory in 2011. Not even a *hint* of a single SUSY particle emerged from the data set.

I've also demonstrated *why* there is a need for a placeholder term for human ignorance related to photon redshift in Lambda-CDM. "Dark energy" is nothing more than a placeholder term for human ignorance, specifically the ignorance of pulse/signal broadening and plasma redshift.

I've provided you with *four* empirical alternatives to "dark energy" and mathematical models that demonstrate that the universe is static, it's not expanding.

Since nobody can even cite a single source of "dark energy", and it's pure metaphysical fudge factor, and I've already provided four alternatives to it, how exactly is it possible to falsify your claim about dark energy causing photon redshift?

You've created a metaphysical Fankenstien of a theory that defies any and all mechanisms of falsification! It's not even possible at this point to falsify Lambda-CDM because nothing matters to you in terms of falsification mechanisms. Apparently it doesn't matter to you personally that exotic matter theory went up in empirical smoke in LHC experiments. Your faith in exotic matter is unshaken. Likewise it's impossible to falsify dark energy theory because even though four empirical solutions exist to solve the redshift problem, you've chosen a *metaphysical* solution that has no laboratory support. It's not even possible to falsify your faith in Lambda-CDM theory even via LHC experiments, so what exactly does it take?

I note that you put 'consensus' in quotes, as you may realize that it is not a scientific consensus. If religion is just something that has evolved with human culture, then, no, it does nothing for your pantheistic claims.

So effectively you've taken all possible human interaction between God and humans off the table? Nothing like tying both of my hands behind my back and then insisting I validate my theory.

You do realize that you're limiting my potential validation options at least, right?

No. Pantheism is not a theory,

Yes it is! Pantheism is a cosmology theory that is actually hundreds of years older than Lambda-CDM. It's absolutely a cosmology theory in every real sense of the word. The fact it bothers you that it is a logical possible replacement for Lambda-CDM theory is not a valid reason to claim it's not a competitive cosmology theory. It's absolutely a cosmology theory that is a direct threat to Lambda-CDM at the level of empirical physics.

and the standard model does not posit deities.

It posits a trio of supernatural sky entities that serve no purpose whatsoever outside of *one* otherwise falsified cosmology theory. It's got three "invisible supernatural entities" in it that apparently never show their ugly face on Earth.

Is your universe static, or not?

Relatively so, yes. It's not expanding faster than light if that's what you're getting at. I don't preclude the possibility that objects move, but "space" doesn't do any magical expansion tricks in the lab, or in space.

Can you not take a stand for your own claims without throwing mud?

There's no real way to provide "evidence" to support an alternative cosmology theory without at least comparing it to what is now accepted as "standard dogma". It's not rational of you to impose *greater* restrictions upon one cosmology theory than another.

At the level of pure empirical lab tested physics, Pantheism blows the doors off of Lambda-CDM theory. It's not "mud slinging", it's just "empirical fact". It's not my fault that plasma redshift shows up in the lab, whereas dark energy and exotic forms of matter do not. That's just the way it is.