Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[Davian]

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.

You have not explained why the two might be comparable.

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

How does that support your claims?

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 don't have faith in it. Certainly not your straw man version of it.

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?

You have not established them as potential validation options. Religion is not proof of deities.

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.

Not in the way you have been presenting it.

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.

Straw man.

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.

I didn't ask about the standard model. Your universe - is it static? Does it run down, or not?

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.

No, what you are doing is mud slinging. Your pantheism appears to be stuck in the lab.

 

[Michael]

You have not explained why the two might be comparable.

The only examples of awareness that I can study in the lab all have approximately the same basic effect on matter that results in variable currents flowing through structures that we associate with 'thinking' circuits (brain cells). When we put such structures inside equipment to measure magnetic field alignments, or in something like a PET scan, we observe the effects of these variable currents on the current carrying structures of the brain. I have no reason to believe a macroscopic awareness wouldn't manifest itself exactly the same way through macroscopic structures, with larger voltages and bigger currents.

How does that support your claims?

It demonstrates that Pantheism is actually a "better" cosmology theory in the sense that it hasn't already been falsified in LHC experiments. That's a start.

I don't have faith in it. Certainly not your straw man version of it.

You keep claiming standard theory is "better' and that I need a 'better' theory to offer you. Technically I don't need a 'better' theory to falsify your theory. I certainly have no idea how you personally define "better" in this case. To me a "better" theory is one that works in the lab and wasn't already falsified in LHC experimentation.

You have not established them as potential validation options. Religion is not proof of deities.

But somehow in your mind, metaphysical dogma is proof of dark sky entities?

Not in the way you have been presenting it.

Yes it is! I've presented you with Holushko's work. Did you find any errors in it? I've provided you with mathematical alternatives to your belief systems. What more can I do exactly that I haven't already done for you?

Straw man.

It's not a strawman, it's a point of fact. Inflation, dark energy and dark matter are all 'supernatural' constructs that do not show up on Earth, and have no tangible effect on anything on Earth. They serve absolutely no logical or useful purpose outside of *one* otherwise falsified cosmology theory. That is a fact. All three of them can be replaced mathematically and in the lab with pure plasma physics.

I didn't ask about the standard model. Your universe - is it static? Does it run down, or not?

It's static. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so how would a closed system 'run down' or run out of energy?

No, what you are doing is mud slinging. Your pantheism appears to be stuck in the lab.

Pantheism *works* in the lab in terms of explaining photon redshift via pure physics. Lambda-CDM doesn't work anywhere *outside* of one otherwise falsified creation mythology. It's not mudslinging IMO to point out the problems in YEC, nor is it "mudslinging" to point out the empirical flaws of any creation mythology. Why is it "mudslinging" to point out that the theory in question defies the laws of physics? In the lab, the only cause of plasma redshift is the Wolf effect, Compton redshift, Stark redshift and Chen's "plasma redshift". Nothing else has any effect on photons in the lab. That's not mudslinging, it's fact.

I think the part that bothers you the most is the fact that I'm promoting a Pantheistic EU/PC theory, and even that blows the empirical doors off of mainstream theory. I "could" (if I wanted to make it less fun) defend a *non-aware* EU/PC model, but that would be terribly boring because you'd have no way to defend yourself and you would have nothing to complain about.

 

[Naraoia]

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

Can you think of an observation that would not be evidence of it?

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.

The mainstream can't explain it =/= it's inconsistent with pantheism being wrong. This is a false dichotomy and argument from incredulity all in one.

(1) False dichotomy: you're arguing as though the only two options were "mainstream" explanations and pantheism. What if the universe has highly active electric circuitry without godlike awareness?

(2) Argument from incredulity: the mainstream cannot currently explain X, therefore X cannot be explained without God.

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 may have pointed this out, but you haven't demonstrated it in any post of yours that I have read.

Heck, how would you demonstrate it? With an animal, you can take them to a lab and give them tasks they can only solve if they possess some defined aspect of "awareness" (e.g. self-recognition or learning). How do you do that with a universe?

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!

I'm not interested in comparing one theory against the other for the moment. I'm disputing whether pantheism is even good enough to enter the comparison. (And note that I'm treating plasma cosmology and pantheism as distinct ideas.)

 

[Michael]

Can you think of an observation that would not be evidence of it?

Well, there certainly could be observations that are inconsistent with a living universe. For instance, the absence of currents, or the absence of highly variable circuitry in space would be inconsistent the the idea that the universe is "alive" and "aware".

In fact I wasn't even remotely interested in Pantheism until I got into EU/PC theory and started seeing all the parallels to living organisms that I began to see. Even Irving Langmuir's original choice of the word "plasma" to describe the forth state of matter relates back to various behaviors of plasma that resemble the behaviors of blood plasma of living organisms. The more I began to study plasma physics, the more I began to entertain the concept of Pantheism. Until then, Pantheism wasn't even interesting to me.

FYI, I'm perfectly happy accepting my 'faith' in God as a pure act of faith. I'm fine either way.

The mainstream can't explain it =/= it's inconsistent with pantheism being wrong. This is a false dichotomy and argument from incredulity all in one.

It would be if I were doing that, but I'm not. EU/PC theory, and even Pantheism based upon EU/PC theory are supportable on their own merits, regardless of some other irrelevant creation mythology. In fact I personally think that the rapid variation the macroscopic currents just so happens to favor one version of PC theory over another, but other EU proponents might beg to differ and might actually give me a run for my money. A Lambda-CDM proponent however doesn't have a prayer's chance in hell of beating out *any* EU/PC theory in the lab.

It doesn't matter however if Lambda-CDM can compete or not. EU/PC theories stand on their own, as Holushko's work demonstrates. Plasma physics is capable of explaining everything we see in the universe around us. By itself, plasma physics alone doesn't explain human experiences, nor does it explain that large variation in current flows, but plasma physics alone is enough to compete with any theory at the level of pure physics.

(1) False dichotomy: you're arguing as though the only two options were "mainstream" explanations and pantheism. What if the universe has highly active electric circuitry without godlike awareness?

That is in fact entirely possible. It's possible that the universe is electric but not alive. What's *absolutely not* possible is that signal/pulse broadening never happens in plasmas in space.

(2) Argument from incredulity: the mainstream cannot currently explain X, therefore X cannot be explained without God.

I'll grant you that EU/PC theory comes in two flavors, atheistic and theistic brands. Either brand is entirely *empirical* (every attribute shows up in a lab) and both brands blow the empirical doors off of Lambda-CDM theory.

You may have pointed this out, but you haven't demonstrated it in any post of yours that I have read.

https://www.google.com/search?q=lay...1f97d30028e145&bpcl=37189454&biw=1280&bih=761

I thought I'd discussed it in the Empirical theory of God threads, but apparently not.

Heck, how would you demonstrate it? With an animal, you can take them to a lab and give them tasks they can only solve if they possess some defined aspect of "awareness" (e.g. self-recognition or learning). How do you do that with a universe?

All I can do is compare the overall layout of current carrying material in the universe and verify that it's active and variable. There's prayer/meditation and human experience of course but that seems to be off the table in terms of evidence that atheists will accept.

I'm not interested in comparing one theory against the other for the moment. I'm disputing whether pantheism is even good enough to enter the comparison. (And note that I'm treating plasma cosmology and pantheism as distinct ideas.)

Well, I'd be the first to admit that it would be *easier* to defend a non living based EU/PC oriented cosmology theory, but that would also fail to explain the variability of currents, not to mention any human experiences of God. I can not only make *more* prediction with a pantheistic oriented PC theory, I can make *accurate* ones too.

 

[Davian]

The only examples of awareness that I can study in the lab all have approximately the same basic effect on matter that results in variable currents flowing through structures that we associate with 'thinking' circuits (brain cells). When we put such structures inside equipment to measure magnetic field alignments, or in something like a PET scan, we observe the effects of these variable currents on the current carrying structures of the brain. I have no reason to believe a macroscopic awareness wouldn't manifest itself exactly the same way through macroscopic structures, with larger voltages and bigger currents.

You missed the step where you explained why stellar structures could be compared to human brain function.

It demonstrates that Pantheism is actually a "better" cosmology theory in the sense that it hasn't already been falsified in LHC experiments. That's a start.

No, pantheism is not falsifiable. It's a non-starter.

You keep claiming standard theory is "better' and that I need a 'better' theory to offer you. Technically I don't need a 'better' theory to falsify your theory. I certainly have no idea how you personally define "better" in this case. To me a "better" theory is one that works in the lab and wasn't already falsified in LHC experimentation.

You don't have a scientific theory.

But somehow in your mind, metaphysical dogma is proof of dark sky entities?

That is not what I said. Religion is not proof of deities. You have no 'consensus'.

Yes it is! I've presented you with Holushko's work. Did you find any errors in it? I've provided you with mathematical alternatives to your belief systems. What more can I do exactly that I haven't already done for you?

My belief systems? Just what do I believe?

It's not a strawman, it's a point of fact. Inflation, dark energy and dark matter are all 'supernatural' constructs that do not show up on Earth, and have no tangible effect on anything on Earth. They serve absolutely no logical or useful purpose outside of *one* otherwise falsified cosmology theory. That is a fact. All three of them can be replaced mathematically and in the lab with pure plasma physics.

They only need to support one cosmology theory. And how was it falsified?

It's static. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so how would a closed system 'run down' or run out of energy?

Entropy. Does this not apply to your universe?

Pantheism *works* in the lab in terms of explaining photon redshift via pure physics. Lambda-CDM doesn't work anywhere *outside* of one otherwise falsified creation mythology. It's not mudslinging IMO to point out the problems in YEC, nor is it "mudslinging" to point out the empirical flaws of any creation mythology. Why is it "mudslinging" to point out that the theory in question defies the laws of physics? In the lab, the only cause of plasma redshift is the Wolf effect, Compton redshift, Stark redshift and Chen's "plasma redshift". Nothing else has any effect on photons in the lab. That's not mudslinging, it's fact.

I think the part that bothers you the most is the fact that I'm promoting a Pantheistic EU/PC theory, and even that blows the empirical doors off of mainstream theory. I "could" (if I wanted to make it less fun) defend a *non-aware* EU/PC model, but that would be terribly boring because you'd have no way to defend yourself and you would have nothing to complain about.

You are still stuck in the lab. And you think the standard model somehow "defies the laws of physics". I curious to why you cannot explain how (using science).

 

[Loudmouth]

You missed the step where you explained why stellar structures could be compared to human brain function.

For the same reason that this shower curtain really is Lenin:

http://icbseverywhere.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/lenin_plait.jpg

 

[Michael]

You missed the step where you explained why stellar structures could be compared to human brain function.

Stellar structures are the focal point of electrical energy in the universe, just like neutrons are focal points of electrical current in a brain.

No, pantheism is not falsifiable. It's a non-starter.

That's obviously false. I've given you *dozens* of ways to falsify it. Did you find any error in Holushko's presentation?

You don't have a scientific theory.

False. Pantheism is a scientific theory and Lambda-CDM doesn't even compete with it at the level of empirical physics. In fact, it's not even close. You apparently don't have a flaw to site in Holushko's work, so you're getting desperate.

That is not what I said. Religion is not proof of deities. You have no 'consensus'.

Um, photon redshift is not proof of dark anything. Consensus or not, it's a flop in the lab!

My belief systems? Just what do I believe?

You're supporting Lambda-CDM for some reason.

They only need to support one cosmology theory. And how was it falsified?

You missed my point. The trio of invisible sky entities can all be replaced with pure plasma physics as Holushko's work demonstrates. Cosmology theory is fine without them. Only *one* otherwise *failed* theory requires them, not *every* cosmology theory. LHC looked for evidence of CDM and didn't find any. How is it possible to falsify the concept of exotic matter at this point?

Since dark energy can be replaced with ordinary signal broadening and plasma redshift, how does one actually falsify dark energy claims?

You keep claiming that Pantheism cannot be falsified, but you refuse to accept any sort of falsification for any type of dark entities.

Entropy. Does this not apply to your universe?

I don't know. Does it apply to yours? When does this "dark energy" even come from and when will it "weaken"?

Einstein added a non zero constant, you're adding a non zero constant, and I'm adding a non zero constant. How does your non zero constant get a free pass? If I understood that much, maybe I'd be able to explain why your constant isn't "better than" any other.

You are still stuck in the lab. And you think the standard model somehow "defies the laws of physics". I curious to why you cannot explain how (using science).

I did that when I handed you Holuhsko's paper. You've never cited a flaw in it. It clearly demonstrates that the basic laws of plasma physics fully explain photon redshift without the need for inflation or dark energy. It would take an act of God almighty for signal/pulse broadening and plasma redshift to *not* occur in the spacetime plasmas!

The only reason Lambda-CDM theory requires placeholder terms for human ignorance is because they are ignorant of processes that occur in plasma physics from the lab!

The bottom line is that in order for dark energy to be the actual cause of photon redshift, no other *known* cause could be having *any* effect whatseover on photons in space. That's simply not physically possible. The laws of physics in space would have to be completely different than the laws of physics in the lab.

 

[Davian]

Stellar structures are the focal point of electrical energy in the universe, just like neutrons are focal points of electrical current in a brain.

You will need to do more than say "just like".

That's obviously false. I've given you *dozens* of ways to falsify it. Did you find any error in Holushko's presentation?

False. Pantheism is a scientific theory and Lambda-CDM doesn't even compete with it at the level of empirical physics. In fact, it's not even close. You apparently don't have a flaw to site in Holushko's work, so you're getting desperate.

How do you get from Holushko's work to pantheism? Are you also positing that aether exists? That Einstein's theory of relativity is false?

Um, photon redshift is not proof of dark anything. Consensus or not, it's a flop in the lab!

"Um" . No consensus then.

Again you did not address my point. Still stuck in the lab?

You're supporting Lambda-CDM for some reason.

Where did I do that? I only point out your misrepresentations as I understand them.

You missed my point. The trio of invisible sky entities can all be replaced with pure plasma physics as Holushko's work demonstrates. Cosmology theory is fine without them. Only *one* otherwise *failed* theory requires them, not *every* cosmology theory. LHC looked for evidence of CDM and didn't find any. How is it possible to falsify the concept of exotic matter at this point?

Since dark energy can be replaced with ordinary signal broadening and plasma redshift, how does one actually falsify dark energy claims?

You keep claiming that Pantheism cannot be falsified, but you refuse to accept any sort of falsification for any type of dark entities.

Where did I say that? Where do the claims of mainstream cosmology conflict with astronomical observations?

I don't know. Does it apply to yours? When does this "dark energy" even come from and when will it "weaken"?

Einstein added a non zero constant, you're adding a non zero constant, and I'm adding a non zero constant. How does your non zero constant get a free pass? If I understood that much, maybe I'd be able to explain why your constant isn't "better than" any other.

So you don't know how entropy works in a static *or* an expanding universe?

I did that when I handed you Holuhsko's paper. You've never cited a flaw in it. It clearly demonstrates that the basic laws of plasma physics fully explain photon redshift without the need for inflation or dark energy. It would take an act of God almighty for signal/pulse broadening and plasma redshift to *not* occur in the spacetime plasmas!

The only reason Lambda-CDM theory requires placeholder terms for human ignorance is because they are ignorant of processes that occur in plasma physics from the lab!

The bottom line is that in order for dark energy to be the actual cause of photon redshift, no other *known* cause could be having *any* effect whatseover on photons in space. That's simply not physically possible. The laws of physics in space would have to be completely different than the laws of physics in the lab.

I am not even going to look at it for errors. The existence of an alterative hypothesis to doppler redshift does not falsify mainstream cosmology. Do you understand what falsify means?

 

[Michael]

You will need to do more than say "just like".

How much information would you like? Have you read any of Birkeland's work? Alfven?

How do you get from Holushko's work to pantheism?

An eternal God cannot have a "beginning" nor an ending and eventually fade away into nothing. Pantheism predicts a *static* universe. Holushko's work demonstrates it is a static universe.

Are you also positing that aether exists? That Einstein's theory of relativity is false?

No, and neither is Holushko. His model is generic to all forms of plasma redshift, including EM field-field kinetic energy transfer effects. He's explaining a *variety* of redshift theories, one of which happens to include a concept of aether.

My point is that I gave you a valid prediction of this theory that is falsifiable. You've yet to extend me that same courtesy as it applies to invisible sky entities that flop at the LHC.

"Um" . No consensus then.

Fine. It's optional anyway. I have physics on my side.

Again you did not address my point. Still stuck in the lab?

Irony overload. I'm not stuck in the lab. All my claims show up in the lab, right down to awareness. Its you that are stuck in the lab because you can't even cite a known source for "dark energy", let alone explain a way to actually "control" it. It's not my fault your impotent on earth sky entities have "mysterious ways".

Where did I do that? I only point out your misrepresentations as I understand them.

You effectively ignored the entire point of that paragraph! You've provided no logical or empirical way to falsify your invisible sky entity theory. It turns out that inflation and dark energy are nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance of plasma redshift, and they can both be replaced with simply plasma physics. Even the CDM claims that we *could* actually test in true experiments went up in empirical smoke at LHC. How is it then possible to actually "falsify" any of your dark entity claims?

Where did I say that? Where do the claims of mainstream cosmology conflict with astronomical observations?

They conflict in the lab! In real labs, real pulse/signal broadening occurs in plasma, as does plasma redshift. It can't conflict with astronomical observations because it was *postdicted to fit them in the first place*! The worst part is I've given you every logical and scientific reason to abandon your faith in these mythical creation entities, yet you persist in defending them. Why? What logical reason prevents you from simply embracing a pure form of plasma physics? Even a "stripped down" (non-aware) EU/PC theory runs empirical circles around Lambda-falsified-at-LHC theory.

So you don't know how entropy works in a static *or* an expanding universe?

I know that energy cannot be created or destroyed. You've never explained why I should therefore expect energy to simply "disappear".

I am not even going to look at it for errors.

In other words, you're doing what any YEC does, and simply ignoring all data that happens to conflict with their preconceived creation ideas. On the other hand you expect me to find some "error" in a math formula related to what amounts to "dark magic".

The existence of an alterative hypothesis to doppler redshift does not falsify mainstream cosmology. Do you understand what falsify means?

"Expanding space" is *not* "Doppler redshift". Doppler redshift occurs as a result of the movement of *objects* not the expansion of space. No bait and switch analogies please.

You've provided no logical way to actually falsify Lambda-CDM. No exotic matter was found at LHC. So much for the CDM part of that theory. Dark energy can easily be replaced with lab tested plasma physics. So much for the dark energy part of that theory. There's no logical way to falsify any of it if the evidence from LHC and plasma redshift in the lab won't do it.

 

[Davian]

How much information would you like? Have you read any of Birkeland's work? Alfven?

I am not doing your homework for you. You figure it out and present your falsifiable hypothesis.

An eternal God cannot have a "beginning" nor an ending and eventually fade away into nothing. Pantheism predicts a *static* universe. Holushko's work demonstrates it is a static universe.

No it does not. It only makes the claim that you want to hear.

No, and neither is Holushko. His model is generic to all forms of plasma redshift, including EM field-field kinetic energy transfer effects. He's explaining a *variety* of redshift theories, one of which happens to include a concept of aether.

Maybe I have the wrong Herman Holushko.

from http://www.holushko.net/index.html

"After a decade of analysis of experimental and observational evidence I came to the following outlook:"

• Aether exists
• Theories of Relativity are false
• There are no relativistic contraction, time slowdown or mass increase
• Space is tridimensional and rectilinear, it does not curve
• “Spacetime” is nonsense
• Physical constants are not constant
• There is no “wave-particle” dualism
• Photons do not have gravitational mass
• Universe does not expand
• Big Bang never happened
• There is no “dark energy”
• Gravitation lensing is an artefact (the lensing is thermal)
• Equivalence principle is not universal
• Motion relative to aether can be detected
• Gravitational shielding is possible
• Aether-reaction thrust is possible

My point is that I gave you a valid prediction of this theory that is falsifiable. You've yet to extend me that same courtesy as it applies to invisible sky entities that flop at the LHC.

No, you have cited particular works or experiments, not theories. And this is not about your "invisible sky entities" straw men.

Fine. It's optional anyway. I have physics on my side.

Not in any way that you have demonstrated.

Irony overload. I'm not stuck in the lab. All my claims show up in the lab, right down to awareness. Its you that are stuck in the lab because you can't even cite a known source for "dark energy", let alone explain a way to actually "control" it. It's not my fault your impotent on earth sky entities have "mysterious ways".

"I'm not stuck in the lab. All my claims show up in the lab..." and another handful of mud towards your "sky entities" straw man.

You effectively ignored the entire point of that paragraph! You've provided no logical or empirical way to falsify your invisible sky entity theory. It turns out that inflation and dark energy are nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance of plasma redshift, and they can both be replaced with simply plasma physics. Even the CDM claims that we *could* actually test in true experiments went up in empirical smoke at LHC. How is it then possible to actually "falsify" any of your dark entity claims?

I am ignoring your attempts to shift the burden of evidence from yourself to this straw man of mainstream cosmology that you haul around, and will continue to do so.

They conflict in the lab! In real labs, real pulse/signal broadening occurs in plasma, as does plasma redshift. It can't conflict with astronomical observations because it was *postdicted to fit them in the first place*! The worst part is I've given you every logical and scientific reason to abandon your faith in these mythical creation entities, yet you persist in defending them. Why? What logical reason prevents you from simply embracing a pure form of plasma physics? Even a "stripped down" (non-aware) EU/PC theory runs empirical circles around Lambda-falsified-at-LHC theory.

So, no conflicts that you can cite.

I know that energy cannot be created or destroyed. You've never explained why I should therefore expect energy to simply "disappear".

Entropy does not mean energy "disappears'.

In other words, you're doing what any YEC does, and simply ignoring all data that happens to conflict with their preconceived creation ideas. On the other hand you expect me to find some "error" in a math formula related to what amounts to "dark magic".

"Expanding space" is *not* "Doppler redshift". Doppler redshift occurs as a result of the movement of *objects* not the expansion of space. No bait and switch analogies please.

You've provided no logical way to actually falsify Lambda-CDM. No exotic matter was found at LHC. So much for the CDM part of that theory. Dark energy can easily be replaced with lab tested plasma physics. So much for the dark energy part of that theory. There's no logical way to falsify any of it if the evidence from LHC and plasma redshift in the lab won't do it.

Where did I say that Holuhsko's work conflicted with anything?

If space expands, do not the objects move relative to each other?

 

[Davian]

You missed the step where you explained why stellar structures could be compared to human brain function.

For the same reason that this shower curtain really is Lenin:

http://icbseverywhere.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/lenin_plait.jpg

Spooky!

 

[mzungu]

For the same reason that this shower curtain really is Lenin:

http://icbseverywhere.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/lenin_plait.jpg

Dat is Vary Spooky comrade!

 

[Michael]

I am not doing your homework for you. You figure it out and present your falsifiable hypothesis.

I have made *lots* of very unique "predictions" related to this specific theory of cosmology, up to and including the presence of a macroscopic awareness that permeates spacetime.

Let's review of a few of the unique "predictions" of this cosmology theory that are unique to this theory and set it apart from Lambda-CDM.

This theory "predicts" the existence of large macroscopic currents that permeate spacetime, starting with the flow of current between the surface of the sun and the heliosphere. This theory predicts that large variable currents traverse the Milky Way, and every other galaxy of the universe. It predicts that magnetic fields found in space are the direct result, and are powered by *electrical current* traversing the universe.

It "predicts" that the universe is *not* expanding, nor contracting, but is relatively "static" in terms of it's basic mass layout. It "predicts" the existence of various plasma redshift mechanisms. It "predicts" that blazar events will produce high and low energy gamma rays that will arrive at different times due to the different scattering and plasma redshift issues that apply to each wavelength.

It *predicts* the existence of a macroscopic awareness that *interacts* with humans on Earth. It *predicts* that the EM field is the primary *interactive force* that applies in such interactions.

Each and every single one one these "predictions" is *unique* to this theory of cosmology and is *not* found in Lambda-CDM. If you can't figure out a way to falsify Pantheism, it's not my fault, and it's not for lack of falsification mechanisms.

No it does not. It only makes the claim that you want to hear.

No, it only makes the claim that is consistent with plasma physics in the lab, and it only makes the claim that your impotent sky entities are not necessary to explain photon redshift.

Maybe I have the wrong Herman Holushko.

I *really* need to be more careful about how I phrase things and *not* put words in people's mouths. It's never a smart idea. My bad.

*For purposes of the paper itself* his *unrelated* personal biases and beliefs are irrelevant. It is no skin off my nose if he personally has a problem with GR. I think the basic problem stems from the fact that the mainstream has metaphysically *kludged* GR to the point of absurdity and most EU/PC proponents don't understand the fully history of GR theory, including it's *zero* constant configuration.

In the sense that plasmas permeate spacetime, as do the EM fields that are the result of the currents that traverse those plasmas, there is something to the notion that the universe if filled with photon kinetic energy aether that are acting as carrier particles for the EM field.

It's still irrelevant since his model is *generic* by design, and he's simply *explaining* how an aether theory works under a plasma redshift/tired light *generic* mathematical model that also includes Compton redshift by name.

No, you have cited particular works or experiments, not theories.

The overall theory is *pantheism*. I've cited works that support it, just as anyone must provide words to support their theory.

And this is not about your "invisible sky entities" straw men.

You keep dancing around my point IMO. The *only* place those entities exist or have any value or use whatsoever is inside of one (and only one of many) cosmology theory. All three of them can be replace with pure forms of plasma physics, with or without any concept of "awareness" permeating spacetime. Either way you look at it, the claim to have created a "dark energy camera" is a blatant example of false advertizing, as is that WIKI page that claims Compton Redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect and what Chen called "plasma redshift" are "hypothetical" causes of photon redshift.

Not in any way that you have demonstrated.

What exactly constitutes a "demonstration". You can't even tell me where "dark energy" might come from, let alone explain an experiment where your dark energy theory has a direct effect on a photon in a lab experiment. Chen fully explains how to achieve "plasma redshift" in a lab. What exactly have *you* bothered to demonstrate?

"I'm not stuck in the lab. All my claims show up in the lab..." and another handful of mud towards your "sky entities" straw man.

Apparently when atheist complain they have a lack of empirical support for God, often referred to as "sky daddy" or some other some derogatory fashion, it's somehow justifiable. On the other hand when I point out that you have three major qualification problems in your "sky entity" claims, I'm somehow guilty of "mud slinging"?

At least I can actually *see* and feel the "sky daddy" that I believe in!

I am ignoring your attempts to shift the burden of evidence from yourself to this straw man of mainstream cosmology that you haul around, and will continue to do so.

It's no strawman. There is no empirical evidence that dark energy exists. There's no evidence that it's anything more than a placeholder term for human ignorance of plasma redshift. There no evidence it has a source. There's no evidence dark energy has any effect on any photon in any way, shape, or form. There is no such thing as a "dark energy camera". That is a blatant example of false advertizing on the part of the mainstream. There is clear evidence of "tampering with evidence" on that WIKI page as well. Compton redshift, the Wolf effect, Stark redshift and Chen's "plasma redshift" are absolutely *NOT* "hypothetical entities" like dark energy. They all show up in the lab, unlike dark energy. That first sentence on the WIKI tired light page demonstrates the severe bias of the mainstream against empirical physics.

So, no conflicts that you can cite.

How could it "conflict" with observations in space? Your essentially using an affirming the consequent fallacy! You built your "invisible entity" theory to "fit" that cosmology data, and then you want me to falsify it mathematically. How?

I can't do that. What I can do however is falsify you claims in the lab with Compton redshift, the Wolf effect, Chen's plasma redshift and Stark redshift. They all have a direct effect on photons in plasmas in a lab. They must therefore have an effect on photons in the plasmas of spacetime.

[QUTOE]Entropy does not mean energy "disappears'. [/quote]

Then I'm not guilty of anything you aren't just as guilty of by introducing a non zero constant into what Einstein called a "blunder" theory. At least I can demonstrate the the "constant" I'm using is real and exists in nature.

Where did I say that Holuhsko's work conflicted with anything?

If it doesn't, you have a major scientific hole in your belief systems. If it works as claimed to explain photon redshift, you have direct evidence that photon redshift is *not* related to your dark sky entities, and no way to demonstrate your belief in "dark energy". Now what did you intend to do about it?

If space expands, do not the objects move relative to each other?

If magic expansion occurs, do not the objects move relative to each other?

Sorry, Doppler shift is directly related to the *movement of objects*. You *may not* use "bait and switch" methods to attempt to justify your faith in "expanding space" claims. If you can't demonstrate that space does any magical expanding tricks on Earth, it's a pure "act of faith" on your part.

 

[Davian]

I have made *lots* of very unique "predictions" related to this specific theory of cosmology, up to and including the presence of a macroscopic awareness that permeates spacetime.

Let's review of a few of the unique "predictions" of this cosmology theory that are unique to this theory and set it apart from Lambda-CDM.

This theory "predicts" the existence of large macroscopic currents that permeate spacetime, starting with the flow of current between the surface of the sun and the heliosphere. This theory predicts that large variable currents traverse the Milky Way, and every other galaxy of the universe. It predicts that magnetic fields found in space are the direct result, and are powered by *electrical current* traversing the universe.

It "predicts" that the universe is *not* expanding, nor contracting, but is relatively "static" in terms of it's basic mass layout. It "predicts" the existence of various plasma redshift mechanisms. It "predicts" that blazar events will produce high and low energy gamma rays that will arrive at different times due to the different scattering and plasma redshift issues that apply to each wavelength.

It *predicts* the existence of a macroscopic awareness that *interacts* with humans on Earth. It *predicts* that the EM field is the primary *interactive force* that applies in such interactions.

Each and every single one one these "predictions" is *unique* to this theory of cosmology and is *not* found in Lambda-CDM. If you can't figure out a way to falsify Pantheism, it's not my fault, and it's not for lack of falsification mechanisms.

Then what you need are some *successful* experiments, particularly the one that would demonstrate this "macroscopic awareness that permeates spacetime".

No, it only makes the claim that is consistent with plasma physics in the lab, and it only makes the claim that your impotent sky entities are not necessary to explain photon redshift.

But does not falsify them, right?

I *really* need to be more careful about how I phrase things and *not* put words in people's mouths. It's never a smart idea. My bad.

You do that a lot.

*For purposes of he paper itself* his *unrelated* personal biases and beliefs are irrelevant. It no skin off my nose if he personally has a problem with GR. I think the basic problem stems from the fact that the mainstream has metaphysically *kludged* GR to the point of absurdity and most EU/PC proponents don't understand the fully history of GR theory, including it's *zero* constant configuration.

In the sense that plasmas permeate spacetime, as do the EM fields that are the result of the currents that traverse those plasmas, there is something to the notion that the universe if filled with photon kinetic energy aether that are acting as carrier particles for the EM field.

It's still irrelevant since his model is *generic* by design, and he's simply *explaining* how an aether theory works under a plasma redshift/tired light *generic* mathematical model that also includes Compton redshift by name.

So we can be clear, can you just check off which of his points you do agree with, and those you do not?

from http://www.holushko.net/index.html

• Aether exists
• Theories of Relativity are false
• There are no relativistic contraction, time slowdown or mass increase
• Space is tridimensional and rectilinear, it does not curve
• “Spacetime” is nonsense
• Physical constants are not constant
• There is no “wave-particle” dualism
• Photons do not have gravitational mass
• Universe does not expand
• Big Bang never happened
• There is no “dark energy”
• Gravitation lensing is an artefact (the lensing is thermal)
• Equivalence principle is not universal
• Motion relative to aether can be detected
• Gravitational shielding is possible
• Aether-reaction thrust is possible

The overall theory is *pantheism*. I've cited works that support it, just as anyone must provide words to support their theory.

You do not have scientific theory.

You keep dancing around my point IMO. The *only* place those entities exist or have any value or use whatsoever is inside of one (and only one of many) cosmology theory. All three of them can be replace with pure forms of plasma physics, with or without any concept of "awareness" permeating spacetime. Either way you look at it, the claim to have created a "dark energy camera" is a blatant example of false advertizing, as is that WIKI page that claims Compton Redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect and what Chen called "plasma redshift" are "hypothetical" causes of photon redshift.

What exactly constitutes a "demonstration". You can't even tell me where "dark energy" might come from, let alone explain an experiment where your dark energy theory has a direct effect on a photon in a lab experiment. Chen fully explains how to achieve "plasma redshift" in a lab. What exactly have *you* bothered to demonstrate?

Apparently when atheist complain they have a lack of empirical support for God, often referred to as "sky daddy" or some other some derogatory fashion, it's somehow justifiable. On the other hand when I point out that you have three major qualification problems in your "sky entity" claims, I'm somehow guilty of "mud slinging"?

In the manner that you are doing it, yes.

At least I can actually *see* and feel the "sky daddy" that I believe in!

That is not science.

It's no strawman. There is no empirical evidence that dark energy exists. There's no evidence that it's anything more than a placeholder term for human ignorance of plasma redshift. There no evidence it has a source. There's no evidence dark energy has any effect on any photon in any way, shape, or form. There is no such thing as a "dark energy camera". That is a blatant example of false advertizing on the part of the mainstream. There is clear evidence of "tampering with evidence" on that WIKI page as well. Compton redshift, the Wolf effect, Stark redshift and Chen's "plasma redshift" are absolutely *NOT* "hypothetical entities" like dark energy. They all show up in the lab, unlike dark energy. That first sentence on the WIKI tired light page demonstrates the severe bias of the mainstream against empirical physics.

Then fix it.

How could it "conflict" with observations in space? Your essentially using an affirming the consequent fallacy! You built your "invisible entity" theory to "fit" that cosmology data, and then you want me to falsify it mathematically. How?

I can't do that. What I can do however is falsify you claims in the lab with Compton redshift, the Wolf effect, Chen's plasma redshift and Stark redshift. They all have a direct effect on photons in plasmas in a lab. They must therefore have an effect on photons in the plasmas of spacetime.

Only in the lab, though?

Entropy does not mean energy "disappears'.

Then I'm not guilty of anything you aren't just as guilty of by introducing a non zero constant into what Einstein called a "blunder" theory. At least I can demonstrate the the "constant" I'm using is real and exists in nature.

Einstein was not promoting deities or perpetual motion machines.

If it doesn't, you have a major scientific hole in your belief systems. If it works as claimed to explain photon redshift, you have direct evidence that photon redshift is *not* related to your dark sky entities, and no way to demonstrate your belief in "dark energy". Now what did you intend to do about it?

To repeat myself, an alternative explanation does not falsify the previous explanation.

If magic expansion occurs, do not the objects move relative to each other?

Sorry, Doppler shift is directly related to the *movement of objects*. You *may not* use "bait and switch" methods to attempt to justify your faith in "expanding space" claims. If you can't demonstrate that space does any magical expanding tricks on Earth, it's a pure "act of faith" on your part.

To repeat, I don't have faith in it. Certainly not your straw man version of it.

 

[Michael]

Then what you need are some *successful* experiments, particularly the one that would demonstrate this "macroscopic awareness that permeates spacetime".

I gave you one example in those Swift observations. What is the cause of the fluctuation in those x-ray outputs of the galaxy in Lambda-CDM theory?

But does not falsify them, right?

Actually it does falsify them for two reason. In a blunt trauma application of Occam's razor argument, they are unnecessary. Secondly, and more importantly, since plasma redshift occurs in plasmas in the lab, it must *necessarily* occur in the plasmas of spacetime, particularly that million degree plasma around each galaxy where Chen has already demonstrated a cause/effect link between free electrons and plasma redshift. You'd literally need the laws of plasma physics to work differently in space than they work in the lab. In short, you'd need an act of God to pull off that trick.

So we can be clear, can you just check off which of his points you do agree with, and those you do not?

from http://www.holushko.net/index.html

• Aether exists
• Theories of Relativity are false
• There are no relativistic contraction, time slowdown or mass increase
• Space is tridimensional and rectilinear, it does not curve
• “Spacetime” is nonsense
• Physical constants are not constant
• There is no “wave-particle” dualism
• Photons do not have gravitational mass
• Universe does not expand
• Big Bang never happened
• There is no “dark energy”
• Gravitation lensing is an artefact (the lensing is thermal)
• Equivalence principle is not universal
• Motion relative to aether can be detected
• Gravitational shielding is possible
• Aether-reaction thrust is possible

It depends on what you mean by "aether". I believe that photons are the carrier particle of the EM field and they have kinetic energy. Since space isn't "empty" but rather it's full of plasmas and currents, it's also full of variable EM fields galore. One "could" call that variable EM field a "type" aether or sorts, but I prefer to simply think of it as an ordinary EM field. It could have an influence on photons.

GR without any metaphysical constants works just fine by me. When you muck them up with dark metaphysical mumbo-jumbo however, I start to get offended. I actually like GR as Einstein personally taught it, so count me out on anything that disagrees with GR without dark energy.

I have no doubt that lensing occurs and is a result of 'missing mass', none of which is "exotic" in nature.

I lack belief in a "big bang" theory. I see more evidence for a static universe.

I do tend to believe that all the physical law of the universe are universal in scope.

The rest I don't care about or have no opinion about.

You do not have scientific theory.

This is a blatant denial based statement. Pantheism is *at least* as *empirically* scientific as anything you've proposed or science has proposed. Pantheism makes *unique* predictions about the universe that do not appear in Lambda-CDM or other cosmology theories. It's predictions are *at least* as "testable" in the lab as any scientific cosmology theory put forth. It's predictions can all be tested and falsified like any other cosmology theory.

In the manner that you are doing it, yes.

From my perspective, it just looks like sour grapes. You're unhappy that Lambda-CDM cannot compete with a simple EU/PC brand of Pantheism.

Then fix it.

Why? It's evidence of their bias! Why should I bother fixing it when it clearly demonstrates the whole point of this thread?

I'd call that "Exhibit T" (tired light misresentations).

Only in the lab, though?

You're definitely playing an affirming the consequent fallacy for all it's worth. The invisible parts of Lambda-CDM are metaphysical gap filler that are specifically intended to create a "custom fit" with observations from space. Of course I can't 'falsify' your claims based on those observations because you've built a menagerie of supernatural entities that custom fit those observations to a tee!

I can however blow them out of the water in the lab with real laboratory plasma by demonstrating that your theory of choice *forgot to include* real physically demonstrated processes in plasma, specifically plasma redshift and signal broadening.

Einstein was not promoting deities or perpetual motion machines.

The only reason Einstein introduced a non zero constant into GR in the first place was to explain a *static* universe. If he did not promote a perpetual motion machine by introducing a non zero constant into GR, then neither am I!

To repeat myself, an alternative explanation does not falsify the previous explanation.

Likewise Lambda-CDM does not falsify Pantheism.

To repeat, I don't have faith in it. Certainly not your straw man version of it.

You can't demonstrate a single one of your claims in the lab! What else would you call it? LHC experiments actually *falsified* most if not all the "simple" versions of SUSY theory that hey could actually "test" to date. The gaps in exotic dark matter theory are shrinking every year! DE and inflation can easily be replace with plasma redshift, and unlike DE and inflation, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect, Compton redshift and Chen's "plasma redshift" all show up in the lab.

When is it "fair" and appropriate to apply a simple Occam's razor test to two theories in your opinion?

 

[RealityCheck01]

There are no "slightly non-parallel paths" that will reach Earth unless they occur *extremely close to Earth*!

That seems to be based on really bad assumption - that scattering near Earth is somehow different from acattering away from Earth!

But this is another unsupported assertion from you so
Michael, Cite your sources that state that only light from "near" Earth can be scattered out of or into a telecope.

After our conversations on photons and electrical discharges in plasma, I wouldn't believe anything you say on any topic related to astronomy.

That is strange because I wouldn't believe anything you say on any topic related to astronomy because you have written quite wrong things about astronomy for a few years!


Aboult electrical discharges:

• Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
  First asked 7 December 2010
• Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning which happen in air not plasma?
  First asked 3rd February 2011
• Michael Mozina: Is pair production an electrical discharge?
  28th October 2011
• Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any other textbook?
  26th September 2011 (over a month and counting!)
• Michael: Google Books list for electrical discharges within plasma?
  28th October 2011
• Michael: Google Scholar articles on electrical discharges within plasma?
  28th October 2011

What remains is Dungey's obsolete usage

1. Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different.
   13th January 2011
2. Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
   18th October 2011
3. MM: Citing Dungey means that cause of solar flares is magnetic reconnection!
   8th November 2011

There is your claim dating from 2006 that the sun has a solid iron crust. It is absurdly easy to show that this is wrong. The photosphere has a temperature of ~5700K. The second law of thermodynamic means that this is a minimum temperature. If a colder region existed below the photosphere then it has had billions of years to the same temperature, i.e. ~5700K
But the Sun is heated from within so the temperature increases with depth! It is measured to be ~9400K 100 kilometers below the top of the photosphere.

There is your claim to see below the photosphere in solar images which is physically impossibe.



There is your attempt to analyze a public relations image! It turned out that all you were looking at was an artifact from the processing to make the image pretty.

• Did you cherry pick the SDO image to support your idea? - the answer is yes. Michael saw a "green line" in one PR image and ignored its absence in another.
• The SDO image"green line" is a processing artifact as confirmed by the NASA team.

Apparently all your understanding of plasma redshift is related to Zwicky's 1929 paper on Compton scattering and that is the last type of redshift ever considered by the mainstream.

I am sory, Michael, but as you well know that is a lie.
I have looked at (as you know) several different recent tired light theories.

How about fast forwarding almost 100 years to 2012 and how about dealing with a *modern* tired light theory?

That would be hard because there were no tired light theories published in 2012 in the scientific literature !

The infinitely sad part of your supposed "sources" plural,
...

The infinitely sad part is that closeness that statement comes to a lie:


The first ("ultimate") source is Zwicky's paper that debunked several tired light theories. Then there are:

• Wright, E. L. Errors in Tired Light Cosmology.
• Tommaso Treu, Lecture slides for University of California at Santa Barbara Astrophysics course. page 16.
• P. J. E. Peebles The Standard Cosmological Model in Rencontres de Physique de la Vallee d Aosta (1998) ed. M. Greco p. 7
• Alpher, R.A. (1962). "Laboratory Test of the Finlay-Freundlich Red Shift Hypothesis".
• Beckers, J. M. and Cram, L. E. (July 1979). ""Use of the solar limb effect to test photon decay and cosmological redshift theories",".
• Wright E. L. (February 1987). "Source counts in the chronometric cosmology". Astrophysics Journal 313: 551-555

Apparently the only way you can keep this denial game going is by pretending that Brynjolfsson, Ashmore and Hulushko never existed.

Apparently you remain ignorant that I know that these people exist !
I ignore Brynjolfsson here because he was wrong as shown in the JREF forum.
But at least he had the courage to put his ideas on ArXiv as pre-prints!
So he had a chance to show that his idea would not cause burring of distant objects, etc. He did not do this.

I ignore your obsession with Ashmore because he took the ridiculous step of applying a laboratory result in a plasma that does not exist in nature (except maybe at the center of stars) and applied it to a plasma that was 1000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 thinner!

I ignore your obsession with Hulushko because all he has is a program that starts with garbarge (a tired light theory) and so gets garbage out.

 

[RealityCheck01]

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

Quote mining the WIKI page is not good practice.
"Hypothetical" is there beacuse there has been no published tired light theory that has ever solved the problem with tired light theories.

There is nothing "hypothetical" about Compton redshift, the Wolf effect, Stark redshift, or what Chen calls "plasma redshift".

These are real physics effects that canno cause cosmological redsigt.
Wrong: Observational evidence for dark energy.

The page never mentioned Chen's work

That would be idiotic because Chen's works does not apply to the plasmas beateen us and galaxies. and so has nothing to do with cosmological redshift.

or Stark redshift

That woudl be another idiotic thing for the page to do.
FYI, Michael: Stark effect

The Stark effect is the shifting and splitting of spectral lines of atoms and molecules due to presence of an external static electric field.

It erroneously attributes a Wolf effect to Zwicky's work when the in fact Zwicky didn't do that.

Oh dear - try reading the page Michael!
It is the Sachs–Wolfe effect (not the Wollf effect) and it was looked at by Zwicky as a tired light theory.

It never mentioned the published works of Emil Wolf at all!

And why should it when there is no evidence that anyone has claimed that the Wolf effect causes cosmological redshift?

ETA: Michael, you may want to learn what the Wolf efffect is:

In optics, two non-Lambertian sources that emit beamed energy can interact in a way that causes a shift in the spectral lines. It is analogous to a pair of tuning forks with similar frequencies (pitches), connected together mechanically with a sounding board; there is a strong coupling that results in the resonant frequencies getting "dragged down" in pitch. The Wolf Effect requires that the waves from the sources are partially coherent - the wavefronts being partially in phase. Laser light is coherent while candlelight is incoherent, each photon having random phase. It can produce either redshifts or blueshifts, depending on the observer's point of view, but is redshifted when the observer is head-on.[3]

Lambertian sources are basically ones that have the same radiance when viewed from any angle. Stars and galaxies are near Lambertian sources. Quasars, especially ones with jets, are uiually non-Lambertian sources. Thus Wolf, Emil "Noncosmological redshifts of spectral lines" .

The Wolf effect cannot cause cosmological redshift (it depends on the source, not the distance to the source, so no Hubbles Law). The Wolf effect cannot cause cosmological redshift for normal galaxies.

 

[Davian]

I gave you one example in those Swift observations. What is the cause of the fluctuation in those x-ray outputs of the galaxy in Lambda-CDM theory?

What was the nature of that experiment?

Actually it does falsify them for two reason. In a blunt trauma application of Occam's razor argument, they are unnecessary. Secondly, and more importantly, since plasma redshift occurs in plasmas in the lab, it must *necessarily* occur in the plasmas of spacetime, particularly that million degree plasma around each galaxy where Chen has already demonstrated a cause/effect link between free electrons and plasma redshift. You'd literally need the laws of plasma physics to work differently in space than they work in the lab. In short, you'd need an act of God to pull off that trick.

Still stuck in the lab?

It depends on what you mean by "aether". I believe that photons are the carrier particle of the EM field and they have kinetic energy. Since space isn't "empty" but rather it's full of plasmas and currents, it's also full of variable EM fields galore. One "could" call that variable EM field a "type" aether or sorts, but I prefer to simply think of it as an ordinary EM field. It could have an influence on photons.

GR without any metaphysical constants works just fine by me. When you muck them up with dark metaphysical mumbo-jumbo however, I start to get offended. I actually like GR as Einstein personally taught it, so count me out on anything that disagrees with GR without dark energy.

I have no doubt that lensing occurs and is a result of 'missing mass', none of which is "exotic" in nature.

I lack belief in a "big bang" theory. I see more evidence for a static universe.

I do tend to believe that all the physical law of the universe are universal in scope.

The rest I don't care about or have no opinion about.

This is a blatant denial based statement. Pantheism is *at least* as *empirically* scientific as anything you've proposed or science has proposed. Pantheism makes *unique* predictions about the universe that do not appear in Lambda-CDM or other cosmology theories. It's predictions are *at least* as "testable" in the lab as any scientific cosmology theory put forth. It's predictions can all be tested and falsified like any other cosmology theory.

Do you have successes outside of the lab?

From my perspective, it just looks like sour grapes. You're unhappy that Lambda-CDM cannot compete with a simple EU/PC brand of Pantheism.

Putting words in my mouth?

Again with the straw man.

Why? It's evidence of their bias! Why should I bother fixing it when it clearly demonstrates the whole point of this thread?

I'd call that "Exhibit T" (tired light misresentations).

Have you tried?

You're definitely playing an affirming the consequent fallacy for all it's worth. The invisible parts of Lambda-CDM are metaphysical gap filler that are specifically intended to create a "custom fit" with observations from space. Of course I can't 'falsify' your claims based on those observations because you've built a menagerie of supernatural entities that custom fit those observations to a tee!

I can however blow them out of the water in the lab with real laboratory plasma by demonstrating that your theory of choice *forgot to include* real physically demonstrated processes in plasma, specifically plasma redshift and signal broadening.

So no actual falsification, then. You are just proposing alternative mechanisms.

The only reason Einstein introduced a non zero constant into GR in the first place was to explain a *static* universe. If he did not promote a perpetual motion machine by introducing a non zero constant into GR, then neither am I!

You still have not addressed entropy in a static universe. How do you avoid it?

Likewise Lambda-CDM does not falsify Pantheism.

As it is unfalsifiable.

You can't demonstrate a single one of your claims in the lab! What else would you call it? LHC experiments actually *falsified* most if not all the "simple" versions of SUSY theory that hey could actually "test" to date. The gaps in exotic dark matter theory are shrinking every year! DE and inflation can easily be replace with plasma redshift, and unlike DE and inflation, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect, Compton redshift and Chen's "plasma redshift" all show up in the lab.

When is it "fair" and appropriate to apply a simple Occam's razor test to two theories in your opinion?

Who promised you "fair"?

 

[RealityCheck01]

What was the nature of that experiment?

My guess is this is:

X-ray Black Hole Revealed By Stealthy Nova Star | Video | Space.com

Swift images show the x-ray activity in our own galaxy is highly variable, particularly as we look toward the center of the galaxy. That is a direct result of the variable *currents* that traverse the structures of spacetime.

The caption to this video is:
A few degrees from the center of our galaxy, a black hole feeding off a nearby star is caught belching a sudden outburst of X-rays in a telltale pattern. NASA's Swift satellite spotted this secretive pair 20-30 million light years from Earth

So Michael is looking at a video and ignoring what is actually happening as stated in the caption (no magical *currents*).

If you really want to see X-rays then NuSTAR catches a black hole’s hot belch is a good blog post about the NuStar X-ray satellite watching our supermassive black hole causing a gas cloud to belch out X-rays.

 

[RealityCheck01]

When is it "fair" and appropriate to apply a simple Occam's razor test to two theories in your opinion?

A question with a simple answer, Michael, not to your theory and the Lambda-CDM model .
You can apply Occam's razor when you have competing theories.
In the scientific method that means that the theories have to explain the same things. Once this condition ie meet then it is possible (but not certain) that the theory with the fewer entities is correct.

The Lambda-CDM model

the simplest model that provides a reasonably good match to the following observations:

• the existence and structure of the cosmic microwave background
• the large scale structure in the distribution of galaxies
• the abundances of hydrogen, helium, deuterium and lithium
• the accelerating expansion of the universe observed in the light from distant galaxies and supernovae

Then we have the components of the model. GR (Tests of general relativity), dark matter (Observational evidence for dark matter), dark energy (Observational evidence for dark energy) and inflation (the observational evidence for inflation).

The major problem with the pc cosmology model is that it does not exist ! What there is are individual collections of various plasma-related theories many of which are invalid or mutually.

For example:
The Lambda-CDM model has an expanding universe to explain the cosmological redshift. Plus dark energy for the acceeleration. That is two 'entities', Michael.

Michael, your personal version of the pc cosmology model has multiple mutually exclusive and wrong theories to explain cosmological redshift. Ignoring that they are wrong, that is at least four 'entities'! Add in all of the other pc cosmology theories for redshift that you have ignored (e.g. Lerners) and the 'entities' just keep on increasing.