Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[Michael]

What was the nature of that experiment?

Let's first distinguish between true "experiments" with actual control mechanisms, and simple observational 'tests' of concept. For instance, you may 'test' your faith in dark energy based on simple observation, but you can't 'experiment' to know it's real, and has a real effect on actual photons that way. We need real 'experiments' to determine cause/effect relationships.

The observation of pervasive, highly variable currents in space is one simple "test" of concept as it relates to intelligence in space. It "acts" in a way that is consistent with intelligent circuitry in living organisms. That's really about the best I'd be able to claim in any 'test'.

I did suggest an actual 'experiment' in the other Empirical theory of God thread that involves prayer, meditation, and the imaging of EM fields in the brain and in the room That would be an actual experiment where the prayer and/or meditation process becomes one of the "controlling factors" in the experiment.

Unlike a microscopic form of life, I can't put a macroscopic form of life in a lab, nor can I make it act upon my command.

For the most part, I'll certainly be limited to simple 'tests', but again, there is only so much that can be said about cause/effect relationships in simple tests.

Still stuck in the lab?

No me. My beliefs work in the lab. I'm not stuck in space either. Holushko's work demonstrates it.

Do you have successes outside of the lab?

Yes. Until you find some flaw in Holushko's work, you're not addressing it either.

Putting words in my mouth?

I'm trying not to.

Again with the straw man.

There is no strawman in noting that Lambda-never-shows-up-in-the-lab theory does not compete with *any* form of EU/PC theory in terms of demonstrating actual cause effect relationships in the lab, not even a Pantheistic version. It's just fact.

Have you tried?

I think you're missing the point of this thread and the collection of evidence. From my perspective it's evidence of the fact that astronomers are less than honest about their presentation of tired light theories. There is no justification for claiming plasma redshift is a *hypothetical* process. It's in fact a *demonstrated* process. Did you ever find a flaw in that paper by Chen or by Holushko?

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

Talk about irony overload. The difference is that I falsified your beliefs in the lab, and you can't even name a source of 'dark energy', nor even think up a way to "control" it in an actual experiment. It's a pure act of faith on your part, and even when offered a 'falsification' from the lab in terms of DE, you ignore it. Even when LHC falsified SUSY theory for you, that information is ignored as well, and back to pure acts of faith in the unseen in the lab you go.

Aye, aye, aye!

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

The same way Einstein and you are avoiding it with you never ending dark energy sky thingabob that never loses any strength apparently. It's the never ending energy source of Lambda-CDM.

As it is unfalsifiable.

I *just* (as in the very last thread) handed you a whole string of ways to falsify Pantheism, based on *unique* predictions it makes, including the delay time between high energy gamma rays and lower energy gamma rays.

You're not dealing with fact that everything I've given you is actually *more* falsifiable than Lambda-CMD theory.

Lambda-CDM was 'fudged fit' to cosmological observations. There is therefore only one way to falsify that theory, and not based on observations in space. The only way to falsify that theory is to demonstrate that it left out a very important feature of physics, specifically signal broadening and plasma redshift. Since these things do show up in the lab, and the number of free electrons in the plasma is related to the amount of redshift in Chen's work, there is no way in the universe that plasma redshift is not occurring in the million degree plasma around our galaxy.

Who promised you "fair"?

I'd settle for honest. I have multiple explanations from photon redshift in plasma that have nothing to do with the expansion of space. Space isn't "empty" in the first place so it's can't expand. The concept of 'expanding space' sounds *remarkably* like an aether theory. None of it works in the lab. None if it is necessary to explain simple photon redshift in plasma that contains lots of free electrons. Chen's paper alone explains it. Holushko's application of plasma redshift theory to the supernova data demonstrates that it explains cosmological observations. What more could anyone do?

What exactly *would* you accept as a legitimate falsification of Lambda-CDM theory?

 

[Michael]

My guess is this is:

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.

The problems in your logic are many, easily refuted, but unfortunately for you require a 'little' knowledge of plasma physics.

If the "blelching black hole" were the only thing generating fluctuating x-rays right near that one location, you might have a point. Since nothing like that is occurring, your so called "explanation" doesn't actually 'explain' anything.

The one part of actual "knowledge' required is that a *moving charged particle* is a form of 'current'. I'm sure that's going to trip you up.

The only way to explain such massive realignments of x-ray emissions over such a massive area over such short intervals is with massive and variable currents.

 

[SkyWriting]

You can apply Occam's razor when you have competing theories.

No you cannot. Read your link to find that Occam's razor (nothing that Occam came up with)
can only be used when creating theories and is not a tool to examine existing theories.

 

[Michael]

A question with a simple answer, Michael, not to your theory and the Lambda-CDM model .

Right. That's because you pretty much make up the physics and the rules as you go.

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.

Then you lose instantly. I can explain all the observations with nothing but plasma (physics) and awareness, and I can explain *more* with those two things than you can explain with:

Plasma (4%)
Dark energy (70+%)
Exotic matter (20+%)
Inflation (Party starter, not included in Lambda proper but necessary and used in BB theory)

I get rid of three of your invisible things that never show up on Earth, add one of my own (awareness) and explain *more* than you can!

The Lambda-CDM model

Then we have the components of the model. GR (Tests of general relativity),

GR isn't dependent upon inflation or dark energy or magic energy or magic matter or dark matter or unicorn matter.

dark matter (Observational evidence for dark matter),

None of that is evidence of *exotic* matter.

dark energy (Observational evidence for dark energy) and inflation (the observational evidence for inflation).

Those two dogs in the lab are *easily* replace with ordinary plasma physics, ordinary signal broadening, and ordinary plasma redshift.

The major problem with the pc cosmology model is that it does not exist !

Your denial factor is really off scale RC. Someone should really clue you in (besides me).

Have you read Peratt's book yet? Alfven's book yet? I guess it doesn't exist to you because you've never actually studied it!

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.

Er, no. You can't even count right. *Real* not 'toy' version of plasma redshift *include* (not not exclude) actual observations of plasma redshift, and Chen's work even shows a direct correlation between free electrons and the amount of plasma redshift. Ordinary plasma physics explains *all* of the redshift by itself, without any need for inflation or dark energy. Two of your mythical sky entities bite the dust the moment you abandon toy physics, and embrace the results from the lab.

Michael

, your personal version of the pc cosmology model has multiple mutually exclusive and wrong theories to explain cosmological redshift.

Nope. Nothing is mutually exclusive about the way plasma behaves in the lab. It causes photon redshift. Your toy brand ignores a key and observed feature in laboratory plasma, thus you need placeholder terms for human ignorance.

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.

Huh? You're just handwaving away now with irrational statements galore. In real plasma physics in the lab, photon redshift is a given. It's a 'four in one' deal that comes with having *plasma* in space, not a 'vacuum' in space. All that plasma they just found around our galaxy is radiating at millions of degrees and contains free electrons. Chen found a direct link between free electron density and the amount of plasma redshift observed. It would literally take an *act of God* for plasma redshift to *not* occur in that plasma in space.

 

[RealityCheck01]

No you cannot. Read your link to find that Occam's razor (nothing that Occam came up with)
can only be used when creating theories and is not a tool to examine existing theories.

You are right: "In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models"
So the answer to Michael's question is even simpler: Never!

 

[RealityCheck01]

If the "blelching black hole" were the only thing generating fluctuating x-rays right near that one location,

The "blelching black hole" is the only thnig generating X-rays. near that one location.
You see the X-rays before.
Youe see the belch (X-ray flare).
You see the X-rays after.

The only way to explain such massive realignments of x-ray emissions over such a massive area over such short intervals is with massive and variable currents.

Michael, you need to learn about black holes and their accretion discs which are another way of to explain such massive realignments of x-ray emissions over such a massive area over such short intervals.

Michael, Cite your scientific evidence for "massive and variable currents" causing (all?) X-rays in the universe?

 

[Michael]

Quote mining the WIKI page is not good practice.

Modifying them in the middle of a debate just because you're losing the debate isn't good practice either, but I've seen EU haters engage in exactly that activity.

Nobody is 'quote mining' except for you. There's not a single mention of Stark redshift on that entire page. No mention of Chen's work. Why not? Stark redshift is not a 'hypothetical' form of redshift. Emil Wolf's work isn't mentioned. Why not? That whole page is pure nonsense, but it clearly demonstrates that bias of the mainstream. There's nothing *hypothetical* about these plasma processes, and they have no justification for leaving them out *entirely* from their maths!

"Hypothetical" is there beacuse there has been no published tired light theory that has ever solved the problem with tired light theories.

The fact you can't and won't deal with Holushko's work is no skin off my nose RC. Stark redshift isn't a "hypothetical" process. Chen's "plasma redshift' isn't a hypothetical process.

These are real physics effects that canno cause cosmological redsigt.

Holushko's work demonstrates otherwise.

Wrong: Observational evidence for dark energy.

It's just observational evidence that you need placeholder terms for human ignorance because you left out the effects of plasma redshift on photons in your maths!

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.

False. Your statement is idiotic. Chen demonstrate a direct link between the number of free electrons and the amount of plasma redshift. That plasma bubble contains *million degree* plasma RC, chalk full of 'free electrons'. Apparently your entire debate method consists of personal proclamations about things you have no expertise in at all, ignoring all external references on the topic that blow your claims away, and you continually provides links back to your own original (false) proclamation.

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

Right, and you're in denial of those electric fields in space. I keep forgetting how far that denial thing runs with you.

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.

Wrong Wolf!
Emil Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wolf wrote about his own theory *long* after Zwicky. Why wasn't his work ever mentioned?

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

It has been applied to quasars and some forms of photon redshift.

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

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.

It doesn't matter. It can be responsible for some of the redshift we observe in photons. It's just another example of a "tired light" effect that you're simply ignoring, and claiming is "hypothetical". Emil Wolf applied the theory to quasars in the very paper you cited!

 

[RealityCheck01]

I can explain all the observations with nothing but plasma (physics) and awareness, and I can explain *more* with those two things than you can explain with:

Then you lose instantly. The universe is not "aware". TYhere is no big brain in space doing stull with plasma.
And you lose instantly twice!
Michael: Explain the observations that the Lambda-CDM model explains using plasma.

These observations are:

1. The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
2. Cosmological redshift (Hubbles Law).
3. Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
4. the temperature of the CMB.
5. that the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.
6. Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
7. Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
8. Time dilation in supernova light curves.
9. Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
10. Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
11. Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.
12. The Lyman-alpha forest
13. Galactic rotation curves (explained by dark matter).
14. Velocity dispersions of galaxies (explained by dark matter).
15. The separation of normal and dark matter in galaxy clusters.
16. Sky surveys and baryon acoustic oscillations (explained by dark matter).
17. Large scale structure formation (explained by dark matter).
18. Dark matter & the CMB (see number 4 above).
19. The supernovae data (dark energy)
20. Cosmic microwave background needs dark energy to be explained.
21. Large-scale structure matches with models including dark energy
22. Late-time integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
23. Horizon problem (explained by inflation)
24. Flatness problem (explained by inflation)
25. magnetic monopole problem (explained by inflation).
26. The spectral index which is measured to be 0.963 ± 0.012 by WMAP and predicted to be 0.92 and 0.98 by models of inflation.

Try to cite valid theories, e.g. tired light theories that do not solve the problems with tired light theories are invalid.

Try to cite scientific (i.e. published) theories rather than citing Internet crank web sites.

Some of the observations are repeats because they are explained by several parts of the Lambda-CDM model. To explain the large scale structure formation using known laws of physics you need normal matter, dark matter and dark energy.

Start with 1, Michael: How does plasma explain the darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.

 

[Michael]

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

It is different. Scattering near Earth results in blurriness of objects and some loss of light. Scattering near the source would cause a loss of light. Even a very *tiny* deflection angle near the source would result in the photon never reaching Earth. The only type of scattering that could cause 'blurriness' would have to occur near the Earth.

Blurring is observed.

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.

Pfff! Every single assertion you have made has been from yourself, or from Ned right's lame page that is stuck in 2000&late.

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!

False. I write about astronomy almost every day. I haven't bothered to publish much recently because nothing much has changed in my beliefs over the past few years. The SDO data is utterly destroying your puny pathetic solar theory at the moment. It's like watching a train wreck unfold in slow motion. I'm not going to debate solar physics with you in *this* thread however, so I'm simply going to ignore all your nonsense about Dungey and Peratt and solar physics in this thread.

Have you even read Peratt's book or Alfven's book on astronomy yet RC? Stop dodging this question.

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

That is likely to be remedied shortly.

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

Considering you claimed photons have no kinetic energy, and electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, you're the last person to be lecturing anyone about lies.

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

You can't "debunk" laws of physics RC! Some amount of Compton redshift *must* occur in space. It's impossible that *no* amount of Compton redshift occurs in space. By itself it might not fully explain the full amount of redshift, but there are other mechanisms and there is the possibility for real Doppler shift, real movement of objects.

Then there are:

• Wright, E. L. Errors in Tired Light Cosmology.

Apparently your guru Ned is the sole source of information all all things related to plasma redshift, and his work never even mentions the Stark effect, Chen's work, or anything that's happened since 2006 since he never mentioned Lerners work.


All your other references either cite Ned's antique of a webpage, or quote from it directly to make their case, so everything you believe in apparently comes from one guys unpublished website written in 2005?

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.

Pfft. Your entire gang of presumed mathematical afficianados couldn't figure out a single typo in one page of one presentation he made. You'd already banned me by the time you'd even found that typo, so I couldn't explain it to you and as a whole group you couldn't figure it out! Oy Vey. Psst: It should have read S (sub) 0, not S=0. It was a simple *typo* that has no effect on any of the rest of the paper!

You guys didn't show he was wrong, you did what you always did, go into pure denial.

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!

You have to scale density since we can't scale distance. Duh!

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.

False. If his theory was garbage, his spectral aging data would not have matched. It matched. The only garbage is coming out of your mouth.

Why don't you do something useful and go present Holushko's paper on JREF. Maybe they're give you some useful hints on how you might actually deal with it, rather than simply running from it.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Wrong Wolf!
Emil Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exacty the Wolf (Emil Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) whose effect cannot explain cosmological redshift.

It can explain some non-cosmological redshift. It has been applied to quasars and some forms of photon redshift and blueshift.
Wolf, Emil "Noncosmological redshifts of spectral lines"

You seem still ignorant of what the Wolf effect is. It is not light losing energy as it travels. It is light losing energy when emitted from very specific light sources.

The Wolf Effect (sometimes Wolf shift) is a frequency shift in the electromagnetic spectrum.[1] The phenomenon occurs in several closely related phenomena in radiation physics, with analogous effects occurring in the scattering of light.[2] It was first predicted by Emil Wolf in 1987 [3] [4] and subsequently confirmed in the laboratory in acoustic sources by Mark F. Bocko, David H. Douglass, and Robert S. Knox,[5] and a year later in optic sources by Dean Faklis and George Morris in 1988. [6]
Theoretical description
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]
For two sources interacting while separated by a vacuum, the Wolf effect cannot produce shifts greater than the linewidth of the source spectral line, since it is a position-dependent change in the distribution of the source spectrum, not a method by which new frequencies may be generated. However, when interacting with a medium, in combination with effects such as Brillouin scattering it may produce distorted shifts greater than the linewidth of the source.

(my emphasis added - the effect happens at the source)


The Wolf effect needs two (count them Michael: 1, 2 ) non-Lambertian sources. A galaxy is

• one source (count it Michael: 1 ) and
• Lambertian

Emil Wolf applied the theory to quasars in the very paper you cited!

Yes he did and apparently you did not even read the title of the paper:"Noncosmological redshifts of spectral lines".

 

[RealityCheck01]

Scattering near the source would cause a loss of light.

Wrong: Even a very *tiny* deflection angle near the source can result in the photon reaching Earth.
You are also forgetting that there are multiple scatterings (a photon does not scatter off just one electron over billions of light years).

Pfff! ...
...lots of the usual stuff snipped...

So we have to rely on your unsupported assertion ! That is not going to happen give the number of errrors that you made in the JREF forum. And the meny errors that you have in your web site.
I can cite the JREF errors here if you want, Michael, (does 'negative pressure' remind you of anything? What about SDO publicity image?). I have listed the first errors in your electric sun thread.

Let us see what actual astonomers who know what they are talking about have said.
Zwicky

light coming from distant nebulae would undergo a shift to the red by Compton effect on those free electrons [in interstellar spaces] [...] But then the light scattered in all directions would make the interstellar space intolerably opaque which disposes of the above explanation. [...] it is evident that any explanation based on a scattering process like the Compton effect or the Raman effect, etc., will be in a hopeless position regarding the good definition of the images.[6]

Ned Wright

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

False. If his theory was garbage, his spectral aging data would not have matched. It matched.\

The garbage in was a tired light theory. That makes any results garbage even if they match data.
The fact is that tired light theories work even though they are garbage! They are customized to fit Hubbles Law.

 

[Michael]

Then you lose instantly. The universe is not "aware".

Yes it is. Lot's of folks experience the presence of God in their lives RC. There is *plenty* of evidence that the universe is aware.

TYhere is no big brain in space doing stull with plasma.

Because you say so?

And you lose instantly twice!

Again, with the proclamations eh?

Michael: Explain the observations that the Lambda-CDM model explains using plasma.

These observations are:

1. The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
2. Cosmological redshift (Hubbles Law).
3. Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
4. the temperature of the CMB.
5. that the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.

Ashmore did that all for you by himself over at Comso Quest. You banned him of course. Brynjolfsson explained it for you too. In fact every single thing on your list has been explained by Holushko or Lerner, or Peratt or Alfven, or someone you've never bothered to deal with or read in the first place.

Try to cite valid theories, e.g. tired light theories that do not solve the problems with tired light theories are invalid.

Apparently everything you know about plasma redshift comes from two sources, Ned Wright, and a Wiki page that was probably mostly written by Ned Wright. The WIKI page starts with a bald faced lie since Chen's plasma redshift isn't hypothetical, Stark redshift isn't hypothetical and Compton redshift isn't hypothetical.

Try to cite scientific (i.e. published) theories rather than citing Internet crank web sites.

That's hysterical considering your two tired light references are not PUBLISHED either!

Some of the observations are repeats because they are explained by several parts of the Lambda-CDM model. To explain the large scale structure formation using known laws of physics you need normal matter, dark matter and dark energy.

You might need it. I don't. All I need is plasma physics and a different set of starting conditions.

Start with 1, Michael: How does plasma explain the darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.

http://www.marmet.org/cosmology/redshift/mechanisms.pdf

Gravitational type of tired-light theories do not provide photon absorption and therefore do not solve Olbers’ paradox. Only the light-matter interactions proposed by Brynjolfsson (§6.3), Kierein (§6.5), Ashmore (§6.10), L. Marmet (§6.14), Vaughan (§6.17), Mamas (§6.18) and Thomson (§B.2) use electrons as the red-shift medium. Thomson scattering blurs images beyond recognition, causes a red-shift and the cross section is wavelength independent, thus taking care of Olbers’ paradox. Therefore: The Tolman surface brightness test, Olbers’ paradox and light-matter interaction theories producing a Doppler-like red-shift require the following:
1- Thomson scattering on electrons, and
2- A mechanism independent of wavelength, and
3- A tired-light mechanism involving a photon-electron interaction.

Cue Chen's lab results....

Holy Cow RC! How far behind the PC/EU curve are you anyway. Virtually every author has dealt with Obler's paradox. The fact you never acknowledge when an issue has been dealt with is not evidence that it hasn't been explained. You're living in the past RC. Get over it already.

 

[Michael]

Wrong: Even a very *tiny* deflection angle near the source can result in the photon reaching Earth.
You are also forgetting that there are multiple scatterings (a photon does not scatter off just one electron over billions of light years).

No, I'm counting on it. Even small deflections occurring near the source will result in a deflection angle that takes the photons away from the Earth. There is no 'blurring' from a deflection near the source, there is simply a loss of light.

So we have to rely on your unsupported assertion ! That is not going to happen give the number of errrors that you made in the JREF forum.

Pfft. Considering the source, you'll pardon me if I'm not impressed with your claims Mr. "electrical discharges in plasma are impossible". You've probably *still* never read Alfven's book or Peratt's book and yet you fancy yourself as a great debunker of all EU/PC theories no less. It's like a guy never reading the Bible professing to be an expert at debunking Christianity. Your behaviors are utterly irrational and they are based on blind ignorance of the actual scientific content.

And the meny errors that you have in your web site.
I can cite the JREF errors here if you want, Michael, (does 'negative pressure' remind you of anything? What about SDO publicity image?).

Ya, and I remember that you were wrong on both counts and you don't know anything about physics in general or SDO images! Stop hijacking this tread RC. This thread is not related to solar physics or JREF.

Let us see what actual astonomers who know what they are talking about have said.
Zwicky

Apparently we are supposed to believe that in 1929 everything that could be said about tired light theory was said, and every type of plasma redshift mechanism was known.

Ned Wright

Ned Wright's page isn't published RC. It's just nonsense on a page that wasn't updated and it therefore became obsolete and irrelevant to modern physics.

The garbage in was a tired light theory. That makes any results garbage even if they match data.

So essentially in your personal denialville, nothing matters. No math matters. No lab tested physics matters. You're just in hardcore denial of all possible solutions to any problem other than the one you personally like.

The fact is that tired light theories work even though they are garbage! They are customized to fit Hubbles Law.

Well no duh! All your invisible friends were created to create a customized fit to Hubble's law as well. Postdicting a fit to cosmological observations has been going on since before Guth. The difference of course is that you can't even name a source of dark energy, whereas Chen has already demonstrated a connection between the amount of free electrons and the amount of plasma redshift. Fifteen years later however, you can't even name a source for your invisible friend.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Even small deflections occurring near the source will result in a deflection angle that takes the photons away from the Earth.

And even smaller deflections occurring near the source will result in a deflection angle that does not takes the photons away from the Earth.

Pfft.

Ok. Looks like you want your errors pointed out here too!


Electrical discharges are impossible in plasma!

• Peratt's title is a title!
• Peratt's section is about electrrical discharges in solids and gases, e.g. lighning and the aurora.
• Peratt's section and book never gives an example of actual electrical discharges in plasma.
• There are no references to actual electrical discharges in plasma in any scientific paper.
• There are no references to actual electrical discharges in plasma in any textbook.
• Dungey states that magnetic reconnection causes both solar flares and large current densities. Dungey looks like the only author to ever have labeled large current densities as 'electrical discharges'. The reason that this term was dropped is obvious - there are no discharges! There are small current densities that MR increases to large current densities.

Ya, and I remember that you were wrong on both counts
...insults snipped...

In order to address your statement (and insults) I will have to derail this thread a bit - not that it has been on track much !

• Negative pressure is standard physics as in the Casimir effect and the fact that a non-zero cosmological constnt exerts negative pressue.
• You tried the foolish act of analyzing an SDO public relations image on JREF. It was foolish because PR people mess around with their images. So a poster asked them about the green line you found and they confirmed that it was a processing artifact.
  4th May 2010: The SDO image"green line" is a processing artifact as confirmed by the NASA team.
  Which lead to the question earlier this year (22nd March 2012)
  Why have you never in almost 2 years, contacted the SDO team about the image
  And even a new question )). Michael: Why did you not process the raw data then or in the 2.5 years since then?
  FITS files are complex but there are tutorials out there and software to help.

Chen has already demonstrated a connection between the amount of free electrons and the amount of plasma redshift.

Yes Chen, et. al. did - a plasma 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times thicker than intergalactic medium had a small redshift that decreased with decreasing electron density!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Ashmore did that all for you by himself over at Comso Quest. You banned him of course.
...

Wrong: I am not a Cosmo Quest moderator.

That's hysterical considering your two tired light references are not PUBLISHED either!

That's really hysterical Michael!
Firsly it is easily understood physics, e.g. scattering causes bluring of distant objects.
One of these days you have to actually read Tired Light ! Ned Wright's web page is not published but...

J. E. Peebles The Standard Cosmological Model in Rencontres de Physique de la Vallee d Aosta (1998) ed. M. Greco p. 7
Zwicky, F. 1929. On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space. PNAS 15:773-779. Abstract (ADS) Full article (PDF)
Alpher, R.A. (1962). "Laboratory Test of the Finlay-Freundlich Red Shift Hypothesis". Nature 196 (4852): 367–368
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",". Nature 280: 255–256.
Wright E. L. (February 1987). "Source counts in the chronometric cosmology". Astrophysics Journal 313: 551-555.

Guess who E. L. Wright is Michael!

Cue Chen's lab results....

Cue ignorance about Chen's lab results about a plasma 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times thicker than intergalactic medium had a small redshift that decreased with decreasing electron density!

Virtually every author has dealt with Obler's paradox.

So cite them Michael!

Of course you cold have just cited Olbers' paradox - no problem in Steady State theories but they are wrong because the evidence is that the universe is expanding (the next 11 observations that your pc cosmology model has to explain). I expect that the Homogeneity and Isotropy observationscan just be added as new entities to the pc model.

1. Cosmological redshift (Hubbles Law).
2. Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
3. the temperature of the CMB.
4. that the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.
5. Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
6. Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
7. Time dilation in supernova light curves.
8. Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
9. Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
10. Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.
11. The Lyman-alpha forest

 

[RealityCheck01]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Wright

Wright E. L. (February 1987). "Source counts in the chronometric cosmology". Astrophysics Journal 313: 551-555

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Wright

And just in case you think that Ned Wright is a minor astronomer who writes web pages, Michael: An author searh on NASA/ADS gives 765 papers that he has authored or co-authored.

 

[mzungu]

And just in case you think that Ned Wright is a minor astronomer who writes web pages, Michael: An author searh on NASA/ADS gives 765 papers that he has authored or co-authored.

You are wasting your time debating with Michael and his crackpot theories. He believes God is Plasma Red shift amongst other things. You may as well be knocking on a deaf man's door for Michael makes claims and when challenged he simply avoids bringing forth the evidences for his claims. He claims to have lab evidence of the existence of God and when challenged to give the details of the experiment for others to recreate the experiment and for peer review he simply waves it away.

I have stopped answering to his posts. It really is not worth arguing with conspiracy theorists!

Yes Elvis did move to Mars

 

[Michael]

And even smaller deflections occurring near the source will result in a deflection angle that does not takes the photons away from the Earth.

No. Like every other "fact" or claim that comes out of your mouth, you simply *make up* your own facts as you go. That's why you never cite *anyone* outside of yourself to support your (false) claims. You simply cite yourself over and over and ignore all external references as that photon conversation so clearly demonstrated.

Ok. Looks like you want your errors pointed out here too!

I'm frankly getting tired of you *hijacking* this particular thread. If you can't keep on topic, don't post here.

Electrical discharges are impossible in plasma!

Oh look! RC quotes himself *again*, and *again* he fails to produce a reference *outside of self* that supports the claim that electrical discharges are impossible. I guess you figure nobody else noticed that you never cite a reference or link outside of yourself?

Unlike Dungey, you are are not a solar physicist and he claimed that electrical discharges *are* possible and *do occur* in solar flares! You're not a plasma physicist either, and your statement don't jive with Peratt's definition of a discharge in plasma either. You're just full of hot air and you're incapable of citing a reference outside of yourself that actually claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. You're just going to quote yourself over and over again like you always do.

Peratt's.....

Peratt's book is a complete mystery to you personally because you've never read it. You apparently get all you information from yourself, not from any external sources.

There are no references to actual electrical discharges in plasma in any scientific paper.

That's a blatant lie. Dungey wrote about them in the 1950's as did Bruce. You're outright lying now.
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
1958IAUS....6..135D Page 135
Successful Predictions of the Electrical Discharge Theory of Cosmic Atmospheric Phenomena and Universal Evolution

There are no references to actual electrical discharges in plasma in any textbook.

Again, this is another blatant lie. I've provided you with a reference that you've simply never read.

Dungey states that magnetic reconnection causes both solar flares and large current densities.

False. Dungey states that reconnection is related *electrical discharges*. You're "dumbing down" his use to terms to suit yourself as usual.

Dungey looks like the only author to ever have labeled large current densities as 'electrical discharges'.

False. Birkeland use the term discharges as did Bruce. Again, your entire set of statements is simply one string of false statements after another, after another.

The reason that this term was dropped is obvious - there are no discharges! There are small current densities that MR increases to large current densities.

It's never been "dropped" except by those who choose to live in pure denial of scientific fact.

In order to address your statement (and insults) I will have to derail this thread a bit - not that it has been on track much !

Stop derailing this thread! There are other threads you can spam if you like, but this thread is *not* related to JREF! Get over it.

Negative pressure is standard physics as in the Casimir effect and the fact that a non-zero cosmological constnt exerts negative pressue.

I see that you still do not understand the difference between *relative* and *absolute* pressure.

You tried the foolish act of analyzing an SDO public relations image on JREF.

It wasn't "foolish" and that 4800KM figure from Kosovichev's work came popping right out of the first light SDO images.

It was foolish because PR people mess around with their images. So a poster asked them about the green line you found and they confirmed that it was a processing artifact.

False. The green color is directly related to the *color combination* that they assigned to the iron ion wavelengths. The fact you folks never figured that out only demonstrate how little you really understand about satellite imagery.

4th May 2010: The SDO image"green line" is a processing artifact as confirmed by the NASA team.

False. Nobody besides GM made any claims about that image and GM isn't a trustworthy source to begin with!

Yes Chen, et. al. did - a plasma 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times thicker than intergalactic medium had a small redshift that decreased with decreasing electron density!

And it *increases* with *increasing* distance! Holy smokes. We cannot create light year long lab experiments, so some other variable has to compensate. Get real.

 

[Michael]

Wrong: I am not a Cosmo Quest moderator.

The term "you' was generic and refers to "haters" in general. You're more like one of the lynch mob.

That's really hysterical Michael!
Firsly it is easily understood physics, e.g. scattering causes bluring of distant objects.

That's a handwave from an unpublished work RC.

One of these days you have to actually read Tired Light ! Ned Wright's web page is not published but...

Not only is not *not* published, it's not *updated* either. You might as well be pointing to a pre-dark energy BB theory and claiming it was falsified. Who cares what Ned thinks?

Guess who E. L. Wright is Michael!

Apparently his the mainstream guru on all topics related to tired light and apparently hes' never heard of Chen's work or Ashmore's work, or Brynjolfsson's work, etc.

Cue ignorance about Chen's lab results about a plasma 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times thicker than intergalactic medium had a small redshift that decreased with decreasing electron density!

Cue RC's false information. You pulled you density figure out of you back pocket and you ignored the need for increased density to compensate for decreased distance.

So cite them Michael!

Of course you cold have just cited Olbers' paradox - no problem in Steady State theories but they are wrong because the evidence is that the universe is expanding (the next 11 observations that your pc cosmology model has to explain). I expect that the Homogeneity and Isotropy observationscan just be added as new entities to the pc model.

What's the point of talking to you? Even though I cited a reference *outside* of myself, and it demonstrates that Obler's paradox has been addressed by *several* authors, you go right back to pure denial!

Arguing with EU/PC hater is like arguing with YEC. Information is irrelevant because you go right back to pure denial and you repeat the same falsified claims over and over and over again, and you simply pretend that nobody blew your false claims away. Yes or no has Obler's paradox been "explained" in PC/EU tired light theories RC?

 

[Michael]

You are wasting your time debating with Michael and his crackpot theories. He believes God is Plasma Red shift amongst other things. You may as well be knocking on a deaf man's door for Michael makes claims and when challenged he simply avoids bringing forth the evidences for his claims. He claims to have lab evidence of the existence of God and when challenged to give the details of the experiment for others to recreate the experiment and for peer review he simply waves it away.

I have stopped answering to his posts. It really is not worth arguing with conspiracy theorists!

Yes Elvis did move to Mars

What a load of horse pucky. I have provided you with lab evidence to support a static universe theory. You can't even name a source of "dark energy", or inflation, let alone demonstrate it has any effect on a photon, but somehow I'm the "crackpot" in your mind. Go figure. Creationists like yourself are all alike.