Nothing you wrote was evidence so: There is no evidence that Chen's plasma redshift is cosmological redshift!
No - have you? If so how about posting the actual paper here?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
- Status
No - have you? If so how about posting the actual paper here?
Every point Ned made in 2008 (and even the original verions in 2001) is physics that is still correct in 2012.
The physics that scattering blurs distant objects in telescopes was known in 1929!
Zwicky, F. 1929. On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space. PNAS 15:773-779. Abstract (ADS) Full article (PDF)
ETA:
You may go on about your assertion about scattering just causing loss of intensity. If so I will call that a rant unless you back it up with evidence. Defaming Wick is not evidence. Defaming Ned Wright is not evidence.
It is obvious to me (any other posters here care to comment?) that scattering turns parallel paths into a forest of non-parallel paths at angles from zero to tiny to minute to small to medium to large to enormous.
A telescope looking at these photons in these non-parallel paths will not be able to focuse them to a point. The images are blurred.
As an aside: This scattering will also affect the intensity of light recieved at the telescope compared to the non-scattering situation.
Some photons will now miss the telescope. Some photons will now be detected by the telescope. I do not know if the two effects cancel out or not.
This is an aside since there will still be blurred images (astronomers should have to use longer exposure times).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Like always, you refuse to accept the answer that was given and you refuse to acknowledge the answer. Stars emit photons. Your invisible buddies do not! They don't do anything in the lab. Do you have any other argument to offer because that one is just DOA. If you can't tell the empirical difference between something you can see like a sun, and something you can't see (like magic or voodoo), I can't help you.
The only serious 'delusion' in play in this thread is your delusion about "debunking' a theory you've never even bothered to read!
Birkeland's solar model correctly predicted the location of the transition region in the first light SDO images to within 100KM. Birkeland's model is not the least bit falsified by slow convection speeds like your now dead solar theory. I won't debate any other solar points in this thread. Your solar theory is already falsified RC. It doesn't matter how much you hate to admit it, but you *need* a new solar theory. Yours is dead.
Upvote
0
Sure, some guy in 1929 who never heard of Chen or Stark redshift somehow 'debunked' all tired light theories for the whole of time.
When Zwicky comes back from the dead to falsify Holoushko's paper from 2012, let me know. Until then, you might as well be quoting some ancient astronomer that claimed to have "debunked" all solar centric belief systems for all time with his handful of maths related to epicyles.
Upvote
0
Why? So you can personally kludge his statements too and claim that his work shows that photon redshift is *impossible* and then turn right around and claim you never said any such thing?
Upvote
0
Like always, still no answer to: Stars do not do anything in the lab: Michael, do stars exist?
ETA: Birkeland never had a star in his lab!
Upvote
0
You don't like the answer so you ignored my answers, then you blatantly misrepresented the facts (again) and claimed I didn't give you an answer.
He did have a working solar *model* in his lab that generated *electrical discharges* in plasma too.
Upvote
0
You have that backwards. Standard physics, including plasma redshift debunks your trio of impotent sky deities.
Upvote
0
Your answers have nothing to do with the question: Stars do not do anything in the lab: Michael, do stars exist?
Your answer is you repeating the fantasy that Birkeland had a star in his lab. He had brass balls in his lab. brass balls are not stars.
Thus: Birkeland never had a star in his lab!
Upvote
0
You have that totally wrong twice!You have that backwards. Standard physics, including plasma redshift debunks your trio of impotent sky deities.
Standard physics including plasma redshift debunks tired light heores.
Standard physics supports dark matter, dark energy and inflation
!
Upvote
0
So you are in the same situation as me:
We do not have the paper so we have to rely on the abstract.
We do not have the paper and so you rely in an Internet crank (Ashmore) and I rely on the science (see if that is any scientific literature linking Chen's experiment with cosmological redshift). I also trust this Internet crank to at least quote correctly from the paper!
Guess what, Michael: There is no evidence that Chen's plasma redshift is cosmological redshift!
But I have misses the scientific literature linking Chen's experiment with cosmological redshift.
Michael: Where is the scientific literature linking Chen's experiment with cosmological redshift?
Upvote
0
Stars are simply composed of ordinary elements we find on Earth. Every cosmology theory has to be scaled. Apparently you can't tell the difference between a scaling issue and the concept of just "making up" new forms of mass and energy. Even fusion has been demonstrated on Earth.
I'm just going to ignore you irrational commentary about Birkeland in this thread. The only fantasy this tread relates to is your fantasy about dark energy being related to photon redshift. That's the only fantasy in play in this thread.
Upvote
0
No, I'm just at work at the moment and I can't access that paper from here. You and I aren't at all in the same situation because unlike you I actually read the materials in question.
Upvote
0
SUSY theory isn't "standard physics", it's 'theoretical physics" that partially falsified at best case. Ditto on your other invisible entities.
Yet another theory that RC has 'debunked' without ever once reading the material in question.including plasma redshift debunks tired light heores.
Nope. Empirical physics blows your claims out of the water as Holushko's work demonstrates. That's also why you'll never find any error in his work and you'll never actually deal with his work in an honest manner.Standard physics supports dark matter, dark energy and inflation
Upvote
0
Yes or no have you even read Alfven's book yet, or are you the world's greatest expert on a theory and book you've never read?
Upvote
0
A fantasy that stars are composed of ordinary elements we find on Earth when we have never measured the composition of a star in the lab
!Still not an answer to: Stars do not do anything in the lab: Michael, do stars exist?
You may be saying that we can ignore that we have no stars in labs. We can use the existing laws of physics that we get from labs and use then to deduce the existence if stars.
Thus we can ignore that we have no dark matter in labs and use the known laws of physics to deduce that dark matter exists.
Thus we can ignore that we have no dark energy in labs and use the known laws of physics to deduce that dark matter exists.
Thus we can ignore that we have no inflation in labs (and that it would be insane to expect this!) and use the known laws of physics to deduce that inflation existed.
Upvote
0
Why don't you do something useful and see if any astronomers at JREF can help you find some problem with Holushko's presentation. As long as you remain incapable of defending against it, I'll keep pointing out that you're *not* dealing with it. Apparently you're still stuck in 1929.
Upvote
0
No and why should I buy an old book?
If I want to leran more about plasma physics I will buy a modern textbook.
Yes or no, Michael:
have you even read a modern textbook on plasma physics?
How about a modern textbook on solar physics?
Or even a modern textbook on any physics?
Upvote
0
A fantasy that stars are composed of ordinary elements we find on Earth when we have never measured the composition of a star in the lab
I won't complain about what composition you use to describe a star *unless* you start claiming that it's made of something you *can't* find on Earth.
No, that's not what I said. I said fusion shows up on Earth, as do various elements that stars are thought to be made of. When did you intend to acknowledge that point? Never!
The only thing we can definitely ignore is an IT guy that claims photons have no kinetic energy and electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. That kind of nonsense we can definitely ignore.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
