Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[Michael]

There is no "covered' in my mind. It is a fact that .....

....RC is incapable of citing references outside of himself on almost every topic in dispute. I wonder why that is?

There is your assertion. There is Ashmore's assertion.

How about Hubble's assertion? Are you ignorant of Hubble's papers about tired light?

Why should I believe a random person with a web page (Ashmore)?

Maybe because he understands that photons do have kinetic energy and it is related to photon redshift for starters? Maybe because you know absolutely nothing about it?

Why should I believe someone who cannot address the strong evidence for dark matter

I've already accepted the fact that there is 'missing mass' and you've yet to demonstrate that any of that missing mass is exotic in nature. When can I expect you to do that in a real lab?

and dark energy

Holushko killed your dark energy entity dead. What a pity that your impotent on Earth dark energy entity never shows up in a lab.

(or who does not even know the temperature of the Sun's photosphere !)?

It's around 4600 degrees hotter than the surface. Then again the upper chromosphere is about 14,000 Kelvin hotter than the photosphere.

To make your assertions into evidence you or Ashmore will have to show that the redshift in Chen's experiment

1. does not vanish at lighter densities.

Bwahahahahahahahaha! Your dark energy deity vanishes at *all* densities!

The rest of your nonsense has already been dealt with by Holushko, Ashmore, Brynjolfsson, and many other tired light proponents. It's a pity that Ned Wright has never updated his website since at least 2006 when Lerner falsified his claims about the Tolman test. If an unpublished website that makes no mention of any "modern" tired light theory is the best you've got, you've literally got nothing. You can't even tell us where you invisible dark energy from comes from. You've got an impotent on Earth invisible friend in your pocket apparently.

They blur distant objects.

So sayeth some guy in 1929 who never heard of Chen, or Stark redshift and Ned Wright who apparently knows nothing more than the guy from 1929. Wow, what a pity.

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

That is because there isn't any. It does "predict" signal broadening and plasma redshift which are in fact observed, not time dilation.

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

Laughable nonsense since Penrose pointed out that it is 10 to the 100th power less likely that our flat universe has *anything* whatsoever to do with inflation than it happened without inflation. Talk about incredible coincidences! 10 to the 100th power isn't just a coincidence, it's a miracle!

The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test

False as Lerner's paper from 2006 demonstrated.

Tired light cannot explain why no object older than ~15 Gyrs has ever been found.

That's because objects that are older than that are *said* to be no older than 15Gyrs due to magical inflation and faster than light speed expansion mythologies.

Galaxies at high redshift look different than today.

Maybe. Maybe not. I'll wait for the James Webb telescope to decide that issue.

The cosmic star formation rate changes as a function of time

Again, maybe, maybe not. So what? That could be related to the amount of current traversing our visible sliver of the universe at the moment for all I know.

Effects induced by lasers and in dense plasmas tend to be nonlinear: Effects dense plasmas nonlinear
And I better add - in my limited experience as a solid state physicist!

So what? That plasma around our galaxy is *much* hotter, with more free electrons per pound of plasma, than anything Chen played with in the lab. There's also a lot more of that plasma than Chen ever played with in a lab.

ETA: Michael: Where are the older than ~15 Gyrs objects in the pc universe?

They are at the furthest limits of our visible universe since objects cannot expand at faster than the speed of light and it takes time for light to reach Earth. Anything and everything you think is 15 billion light years away is older than 15 billion years old.

 

[Michael]

Missed this fallacy that only things that do things in the lab exist!

What was your beef with God again?

Planets do not do anything in the lab: Michael do planets exist?

Yes and they emit (lightning) and reflect light like every other real object, unlike your trio of invisible dark thingies. Ditto for everything else on your list by the way.

There is no guessing that something is happening to photons in space.

There's no guessing what it is either, particularly since Chen shows a link between free electrons and redshift and we're surrounded by million degree plasma with free electrons galore!

We measure that something is happening to them. FYI, Michael this something is called redshift - you may have heard of it before !

Yes, and I also know it's "causes" from the lab. Your invisible friends aren't one of those known causes.

Or maybe not: Evidence for dark energy

The only thing that you have evidence for is the evidence that Lambda-CDM is pathetically broken because it's based upon a "fantasy/toy" brand of plasma physics where plasma redshift and signal broadening miraculously never happens.

 

[Davian]

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.

So much for your 'awareness' claim.

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

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

I won't. It is irrelevant.

I'm trying not to.

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.

Then stop pushing this straw man at me.

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?

Irrelevant.

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!

Irrelevant, as it was only in the lab.

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.

You remain very evasive on how entropy and a static universe get along. This is definitely a show-stopper for me.

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.

Alternative explanations are not falsification.

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?

Irrelevant.

 

[Michael]

So much for your 'awareness' claim.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand that response. Why is that? I can certainly hope to 'test' the idea in a variety of ways, just as you claim to be able to "test" for inflation or dark energy. I also have provided the outline of at least one empirical experiment designed to measure EM fields both inside brains and outside brains during meditation to see if there is a connection between "experience" and real EM fields.

I won't. It is irrelevant.

That's not a good sign IMO. If you won't accept a *different* way of explaining the same data set, particularly an empirical solution to the same data set, it's going to be hard to convince you of anything.

Since your theory is "custom fit" to cosmological data, and you can't even cite a source, how *else* is it actually possible to falsify your belief in dark energy?

Then stop pushing this straw man at me.

It's not a strawman, nor is it my fault that Lambda-CDM cannot compete with Pantheism in the lab. It's not my fault.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant, as it was only in the lab.

This flippant attitude toward empirical lab results is making your belief system a rather tough nut to crack. I've seldom seen a theist with such absolute and unshakable faith in something that they've never seen have any effect on anything.

How exactly might one hope to falsify a belief system related to cause/effect relationships that do not exist in the lab? You cannot show cause/effect links, nor even provide sources or control mechanisms for any sort of actual experiment to determine cause/effect. You simply expect me to believe you *in spite* of the fact that it would take an act of God himself to *prevent* plasma redshift and pulse broadening from occurring in the million degree plasma around the galaxy. Chen's work even shows a direct link between the number of free electrons in the plasma and the amount of redshift they observed in the lab. He didn't even have *million* degree plasma to experiment with in the lab.

You remain very evasive on how entropy and a static universe get along. This is definitely a show-stopper for me.

It's show stopper for me that you can't explain to me how Einstein's use of a non zero constant is any different than mine or yours (DE). Until I understand what makes *my* non zero constant oh so special, I simply don't understand how you can even make that argument. If a non zero constant doesn't work for me, it shouldn't work for Einstein or for you either. If you can do it just to fudge some signal broadening and plasma redshift features that you forgot about, surely I can use a non zero constant to create a static universe just like Einstein. He never even defined the nature of his constant whereas I'm willing to suggest it's likely to be a very ordinary EM influence related to Birkelands' "cathode sun" ideas.

Alternative explanations are not falsification.

Then what exactly is a valid falsification mechanism for Lambda-CDM? You tell me.

Irrelevant.

Ya know.....

As long as empirical physical alternatives to your beliefs are "irrelevant" to you, I'm not sure I could convince you of anything. Since a preference for empirical solutions seems like something an atheists would appreciate, I'm truly baffled by your attitude. How *else* might I actually ever hope to falsify Lambda-CDM theory? It seems ironic that you've suggest Pantheism isn't falsifiable, when in fact it's Lambda-CDM that turns out to be unfalsifiable. Even blatant failures at LHC hasn't put a dent in your faith Lambda-CDM, so pretty much all falsification mechanisms are irrelevant as far as I can tell.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Too late to worry about that RC.

Well at least I know what the classical kinetic energy of the photon is, Michael

 

[Michael]

So *you* say.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You are continuing with the fallacy that only things that can be tested in the lab actually exist
That is obviously untrue - there are also observatiosn outside the lab that show that things exist, e.g. stars !

I will make this a separate post to be linked to every time that you repeat that fallacy.

Missed this fallacy that only things that do things in the lab exist!

Planets do not do anything in the lab: Michael do planets exist?
Exo-planets do not do anything in the lab (most are not even seen in telescopes!): Michael do exo-planets exist?
Stars do not do anything in the lab: Michael do stars exist?
Galaxies do not do anything in the lab: Michael do galaxies exist?

 

[Naraoia]

I shouldn't have to 'make up' such a definition on my own should I? I didn't even invent the theory of Pantheism myself.

Well, if not you, someone definitely should. You can't claim that the universe has X if you can't even say what X is. Scientists studying the "awareness" of living things have many reasonably well-defined concepts they can work with, such as object permanence, learning, theory of mind etc. etc. (I don't think "awareness" as a catch-all term for things minds do is actually defined or used much in science, and I'm not all that surprised. It seems like a singularly difficult idea to define.)

I could start to distinguish between living and non living processes. I would expect two obvious differences would be that I would "predict" that the layout and arrangement of matter in the universe isn't simply 'random'. Rather it should resemble the types of structures that I observe in living organisms.

It's that tricky word "resemble". Resemblance in itself is nothing. The sky "resembles" my Kindle case in that both are blue, but that means jack squat. So simply saying X resembles Y is just wishy-washy nonsense. You have to show that the resemblance is meaningful.

Based upon the testimony of countless humans since the dawn of recorded civilization, I also have some hope of demonstrating an actual physical EM field interaction between humans and the larger universe during events like prayer and meditation.

The only thing the testimony of countless humans is likely to be informative about is the human mind.

 

[RealityCheck01]

How about Hubble's assertion? Are you ignorant of Hubble's papers about tired light?

I am aware of Hubble's opionion. He was wrong: Tired light

Maybe because he understands that photons do have kinetic energy and it is related to photon redshift for starters?
...snipped usual insults...

Well Duh! Who does not? I do . You should !

I've already accepted the fact that there is 'missing mass' and you've yet to demonstrate that any of that missing mass is exotic in nature.
[/quote3]
You still do not cannot understand that missing mass is normal mass .
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)

I've When can I expect you to do that in a real lab?

Oh dear - you do not think that stars exist !
Stars do not do anything in the lab: Michael do stars exist?

It's around 4600 degrees hotter than the surface. Then again the upper chromosphere is about 14,000 Kelvin hotter than the photosphere.
...usual rants about cranks, etc. snipped ...

Al last you have learned what phsysics says (~13,000,000 K at the core + ~5700 K at the surface = temperature increases with depth)!

False as Lerner's paper from 2006 demonstrated.

Lerner has never published a paper showing that the Lubin & Sandage (2001) paper (that showed that tired light fails this test by 10 standard deviations) is wrong.

That's because objects that are older than that are *said* to be no older than 15Gyrs due to magical inflation and faster than light speed expansion mythologies.

Stripping out the inane language just reveals a bit of ignorance, Michael.
The ages of objects like globular clusters and whit dwarf stars are not calculated using any cosmological observations like inflation or the vasic fact that the speed of light limit does not apply to spacetime (only objects in spacetime).
The ages of objects like globular clusters and whit dwarf stars are claustaled using the known laws of physics, e.g. nuclear physics, gas laws, gravitation, tec.

Maybe. Maybe not. I'll wait for the James Webb telescope to decide that issue.

Galaxies at high redshift in existng observations (e.g. Hubble) look different than today. The James Webb telescope will show that they look even more different at higher z.

Again, maybe, maybe not. So what?

"The cosmic star formation rate changes as a function of time" is again an observation

So what? That plasma around our galaxy is *much* hotter, with more free electrons per pound of plasma, than anything Chen played with in the lab.

I did not mention this because Chen's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times thicker plasma was enough to make Ashmore's assertion that this redshift will appear in intergalactic plasma ridiculous (withough any attempt to see if the redshift even exists in thinner plasma).
You are right - the temperature difference also makes Ashmore's assertion ridiculous !

FYI: Michael, did you notice what Ashmore's linear "by eye" statement means?
By (my) eye, it looks like an about 0.25nm redshift at a plasma with electron density = 0.

That is a intergalactic plasma that redshifts (according to Ashmore) about 0.25nm per very small distance ! Chen's experiment will be in the scale of centimeters!

They are at the furthest limits of our visible universe since objects cannot expand at faster than the speed of light and it takes time for light to reach Earth.

Wrong: You should learn what special relativity actually says, Michael. It states that objects in spacetime cannot travel faster than the speed of light.
A quick Google will give you plenty of sources about the expansion of spacetime faster than the speed of light.
For example: Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology

Michael: Where are the older than ~15 Gyrs objects in the pc universe?

 

[RealityCheck01]

What was your beef with God again?
...usual rants snipped...

And you accuse me of derailing this thread in the science section of the forum !
Stars do not do anything in the lab: Michael, do stars exist?

Michael, did you notice what Ashmore's linear "by eye" statement means?
For a start it requires that this redshift be nonlinear in order for us to see any light from any star including the Sun!

 

[Michael]

Well, if not you, someone definitely should.

Awareness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Awareness is the state or ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects, or sensory patterns. In this level of consciousness, sense data can be confirmed by an observer without necessarily implying understanding. More broadly, it is the state or quality of being aware of something. In biological psychology, awareness is defined as a human's or an animal's perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event.

The concept of awareness has already been defined. That seems like a reasonable definition to me.

You can't claim that the universe has X if you can't even say what X is. Scientists studying the "awareness" of living things have many reasonably well-defined concepts they can work with, such as object permanence, learning, theory of mind etc. etc.

I'm not exactly sure how we might apply the more esoteric ideas of awareness (like self awareness) from biology to something macroscopic in size, but the basic processes would be expected to be similar to microscopic organisms.

(I don't think "awareness" as a catch-all term for things minds do is actually defined or used much in science, and I'm not all that surprised. It seems like a singularly difficult idea to define.)

Even the concept of 'mind' gets messy with slime molds and their reactions to cold cycles.

It's that tricky word "resemble". Resemblance in itself is nothing. The sky "resembles" my Kindle case in that both are blue, but that means jack squat. So simply saying X resembles Y is just wishy-washy nonsense. You have to show that the resemblance is meaningful.

I hear you, but we do have to start somewhere, and the 'resemblance' is more than cosmetic. There are *functional* (current carrying and cellular separation) similarities, not just material arrangement similarities to consider.

The only thing the testimony of countless humans is likely to be informative about is the human mind.

How will we actually know if the human mind is being influenced only by internal influences rather than by external influences (external EM fields?) unless we do active experiments to find out?

 

[Michael]

And you accuse me of derailing this thread in the science section of the forum !
Stars do not do anything in the lab: Michael, do stars exist?

You might have a problem getting *your* solar models to work in the lab, but Birkeland had no such difficulty.

Every single cosmology theory under the sun is going to need to be 'scaled' to an appropriate size sooner or later. Scaling *known* things that show up on Earth is fine. If you want to scale a hydrogen/helium ball to solar proportions, that's fine by me. I won't complain even if I think your ideas won't work correctly. Its only when you try to scale "dark voodoo" that I'm likely to cry foul.

Michael, did you notice what Ashmore's linear "by eye" statement means?
For a start it requires that this redshift be nonlinear in order for us to see any light from any star including the Sun!

It's been awhile since I read the paper. Without some context I can't even make a logical guess as to what he meant by the that phrase "by eye". Did you find any mathematical errors in his work?

 

[Michael]

I am aware of Hubble's opionion. He was wrong: Tired light

Same tired webpage from Ned? How many times do I have to 'debunk' an unpublished website that never mentions Chen's work, Stark redshift, Holushko, Brynjolfsson, Ashmore, Lerner, or anyone else that's done anything on plasma redshift/tired light theory in 20 years.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-50/#post61578499

Well Duh! Who does not? I do .

No you don't:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-41/#post61575350

Photon "kinetic energy" cannot change (is always zero) and so has nothing to do with frequencey shifts.
And there is that "kinetic" again. A photon always has a kineteic energy of zero .

You still do not cannot understand that missing mass is normal mass .

Now I have to decide whom to believe again. That isn't how NASA tells it:

Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science

Dark matter makes up about 25%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe.

Emphasis mine.

We are much more certain what dark matter is not than we are what it is. First, it is dark, meaning that it is not in the form of stars and planets that we see.

Of course our hero Ned blew that last claim away completely:

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

Oh dear - you do not think that stars exist !

I know they exist because I can see them and even feel one of them. That's more than will ever be said of your impotent sky entities.

Al last you have learned what phsysics says (~13,000,000 K at the core + ~5700 K at the surface = temperature increases with depth)!

I already knew what your falsified solar model predicts and I already know it's been falsified by SDO helioseismology data in 2012.

Lerner has never published a paper showing that the Lubin & Sandage (2001) paper (that showed that tired light fails this test by 10 standard deviations) is wrong.

False (like nearly everything that comes out of your mouth).

Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF

You do at least realize that Google makes your false claims very easy to debunk, right?

The ages of objects like globular clusters and whit dwarf stars are not calculated using any cosmological observations like inflation or the vasic fact that the speed of light limit does not apply to spacetime (only objects in spacetime).

Care to quote me where I said otherwise, or is this just another pointless strawman?

Galaxies at high redshift in existng observations (e.g. Hubble) look different than today. The James Webb telescope will show that they look even more different at higher z.

We'll see. Right now there are just too many exceptions to your rule to feel 'comfortable' with that claim:

Headlines@Hopkins: Johns Hopkins University News Releases

I did not mention this because Chen's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times thicker plasma

It was several OOM *cooler* than than 2.5 million degree plasma around the galaxy RC. It was also *many* OOM shorter distance in his lab than exists in space. You're fixated on one of only 3 major factors and ignoring the other two entirely. I shouldn't be surprised mind you.

The rest of your post is pure redundant nonsense.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You ...

Nothing to do with my question so here is it again Michael
Stars do not do anything in the lab: Michael, do stars exist?
First asked 7 November 2012

You do not need to read his paper - I quote from it in:
Michael, did you notice what Ashmore's linear "by eye" statement means?
For a start it requires that this redshift be nonlinear in order for us to see any light from any star including the Sun!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Same tired webpage from Ned?
...usual rant about Ned Wright's basic physics snipped.....

Same old ability to assume things that are wrong:
I am aware of Hubble's opionion. He was wrong: Tired light

No you don't:

I do .
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy
Of course I do not expect you to ever read that post. You seem to have ignored or not understood it since it was written on 18th October 2012.

Now I have to decide whom to believe again. That isn't how NASA tells it:

What a waste of your time, Michael.
That is dark matter not missing matter!

Of course our hero Ned blew that last claim away completely:
Astronomers report dark matter 'halos' may contain stars, disprove other theories / UCLA Newsroom

Wow - you cannot eben understand a news article, Michael ?

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

Stars emit light. They are not dark! They are not dari matter!

I know they exist because I can see them and even feel one of them.

Ignoring the actual question yet again: Stars do not do anything in the lab: Michael, do stars exist?

What I wrote was

At last you have learned what phsysics says (~13,000,000 K at the core + ~5700 K at the surface = temperature increases with depth)!

...irrelevant stuff snipped..
False (like nearly everything that comes out of your mouth).

Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF

False (like nearly everything that comes out of your mouth).
That is a conference proceeding not a paper.

You do at least realize that Google makes your false claims very easy to debunk, right?

Then use Google to debunk the scientific papers, statements by scientists and basic physics (e.g. scattering blurs distant objects in telescopes) that I have written about.

Care to quote me where I said otherwise

Sure (my emphasis added)

Originally Posted by Michael

That's because objects that are older than that are *said* to be no older than 15Gyrs due to magical inflation and faster than light speed expansion mythologies.
​

Stripping out the inane language just reveals a bit of ignorance, Michael.
The ages of objects like globular clusters and whit dwarf stars are not calculated using any cosmological observations like inflation or the vasic fact that the speed of light limit does not apply to spacetime (only objects in spacetime).
The ages of objects like globular clusters and whit dwarf stars are claustaled using the known laws of physics, e.g. nuclear physics, gas laws, gravitation, tec.

Headlines@Hopkins: Johns Hopkins University News Releases

Why should I send email to these people ?

...You're fixated on one of only 3 major factors and ignoring the other two entirely.

Thanks for pointing out that Chen's result is even more unrelated to cosmological redshift than I thought. I will update my post about that.

 

[Michael]

Nothing to do with my question so here is it again Michael
Stars do not do anything in the lab: Michael, do stars exist?
First asked 7 November 2012

Birikeland's star did things in the lab RC. More pure denial on your part.

Stars also emit light, unlike your invisible friends. When did you intend to acknowledge that point and difference between the two claims?

You do not need to read his paper - I quote from it in:

I've seen you quote people RC. I don't trust you as far as I can throw you.

I don't frankly care what Ashmore meant by that statement since it's not relevant to Holushko's work, and that's the paper that I like and it's the paper you can't handle! Maybe you should see if your astronomer friends at JREF have anything constructive to say about Holushko's work?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Michael, the Chen et. al. paper is:
Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas

In low-temperature plasmas, the specific emission mechanism and the evolvement of the continuum and isolated lines are quite complex, which are described in detail. The calculations from the Stark-broadening measurement of individual lines show the density to be of the order of magnitude of 1018 cm−3. It is seen that the redshifts of spectral lines detected in this experiment are influenced by the electron density. A possible reason for this is given.

Michael, Any problems with understanding that intergalactic plasmas are

• high temperature,
• low density plasma
• that extend over billiopns of light years

and so not the plasma in this experiment?

What Ashnmore says is

In fact the lines are redshifted with the degree of redshift increasing with the surrounding free electron density.
...
The lines are redshifted and the line shift increases with plasma free electron density – by ‘eye’ there is a linear relationship for all but one of the data points. The shift in the wavelength of the 435.83 line is approximately 1nm at an electron density of just over 1x1024m-3 rising to just over 2.5nm at an electron density of 3x1024m-3.

So this redshift decreases with electron denstiy. This is a problem with an intergalctic medium that is currently measured as 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 thiner than that plasma.

By (my) eye, it looks like an about 0.25nm redshift at a plasma with electron density = 0. That implies that a intergalactic plasma will redshift (according to Ashmore) about 0.25nm per very small distance ! Chen's experiment will be in the scale of centimeters!

Then there is the problem of scale. Plasma physics does scale with some restrictions (a pity the Wikipedia explanation of this has vanished!). If I remember correctly the problems come with the scaling in density.
However we have an experiment on a small bit of plasma. Centimeters is exaggerations. If lasers are being used the plasma may be in millimeter scales. There is no evidence that this redshift would exist for cubic light year volumes of plasma.

There is no evidence that Chen's plasma redshift is cosmological redshift or happens in astronomical plasma.

 

[Michael]

Same old ability to assume things that are wrong:
I am aware of Hubble's opionion. He was wrong: Tired light

Every point Ned made in 2005(?) is false in 2012.

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

Not a peep from Ned about anything that's gone in PC theory for the past decade.

I do .
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy

Oh look, you cited yourself again and have never produced an *external* reference for any of your claims. How many external links did I provide you that claimed you were wrong about the kinetic energy of a photon? I know exactly how many external references that you provided, *ZERO*. I still have no idea what you personally even mean by 'classical' anything. Apparently that term "classical" means anything you want it to mean.

Of course I do not expect you to ever read that post.

Reading them and agreeing with them are two entirely different issues. I read, you don't. I know you didn't read Peratt's book yet. I'll ask so I don't get myself in trouble: Have you read Cosmic Plasma by Alfven yet oh great "debunker" of a theory you don't even understand properly?

Thanks for pointing out that Chen's result is even more unrelated to cosmological redshift than I thought. I will update my post about that.

Thanks for demonstrating that you don't care about physics in the first place. Have you actually read Chen's whole paper or just the abstract?

 

[Michael]

Michael, Any problems with understanding that intergalactic plasmas are

They are beyond your understanding, that much I know.

• high temperature,
• low density plasma
• that extend over billiopns of light years

and so not the plasma in this experiment?

Any problems with understanding that it's impossible to replace all aspects of intergalactic space on Earth, particularly that scaling issue related to distance? How *would* you suggest that the photon redshift experiment be 'scaled' for the laboratory *without* increasing plasma density oh great science guru?

What Ashnmore says is

So this redshift decreases with electron denstiy. This is a problem with an intergalctic medium that is currently measured as 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 thiner than that plasma.

It's not even *measured* with any precision in the first place since most of the mass in the universe wasn't "visible" to us or known to us until just this year! You're effectively "guessing' at the density of spacetime, and ignoring the other scaling issues entirely. Ashmore doesn't do that.

FYI, talk about stupid arguments. Your mythical dark energy deity has no effect on any photon in *any* condition at all!

There is no evidence that Chen's plasma redshift is cosmological redshift or happens in astronomical plasma.

That's just another untrue statement from an IT guy who's infamous for *not* telling the truth.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Birikeland's star did things in the lab RC. ...

Still no answer to: Stars do not do anything in the lab: Michael, do stars exist?

And the delusion that Birkeland had a star in his lab !
Birkeland never had a ball of plasma in his lab.


Birkeland states that what he has is pictures from his experiment that are analogies to pictures of solar activity. He was right - his pictures do look like 1913 photos of solar activity. The probelm is that they look very different from modern pictures of solar activity, e.g.

• Sunspots have a lot of structure (they are not blobs)
• A minor difference: Sunspots are darker than the photosphere (Birkeland's sunspots are brighter than his brass ball surfaces).
• No granules.
• No plasma twisting around magneteic fields.
• No flares.
• No CME.
• His 'filaments' look as if that are always vertical, e.g. oriented from the equator toward the pole. Actual filaments can be horizontal.