Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
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.
Let me know when you get past the 'hope to "test"' stage.
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?


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.
You still don't have 'pantheism in the lab', and falsifying the mainstream cosmological model is irrelevant to you showing that your opinions have merit.
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'll have to figure out how things work outside the lab.
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.
More evasion. Again, how does a static universe deal with entropy?
Then what exactly is a valid falsification mechanism for Lambda-CDM? You tell me.
No. That is irrelevant to you establishing the validity of your claims.
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?
I would suggest doing scientifically.
It seems ironic that you've suggest Pantheism isn't falsifiable, when in fact it's Lambda-CDM that turns out to be unfalsifiable.
You claim it has been falsified, fail to support this claim, and now switch to 'unfalsifiable'. Show me the scientific papers that establish this 'fact'.
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.
I don't have 'faith' in it. If it were falsified tomorrow, I would look into with interest, but it is not religion. Stop putting words in my mouth.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Let's see. I cited Dungey, Birkeland, Peratt, Bruce, Giovanelli, a handful of Russian scientists, and a couple of Japanese scientists that all claimed that electrical discharges occurred in plasma. ...
Let see. The insanity of citing Bruce who thought that lightning actually happens on the Sun continues :p!

Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR is not a discharge :doh: and is obsolete!

PSSST:
...
[/quote
PSSST: If we were talking about complex plasma physics like Hall effect MHD then I would certainly swat up on the topic.
And:
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR is not a discharge :doh: and is obsolete!

...insults snipped...
...ignorance of the scientific method (a demand that dark energy be detected in the lab!) snipped...
...usual "impotent sky deities" rant snipped...
But I will point out one thing:
Demanding that something that is unlikely be detected in the lab, has to be detected in the lab does not reflect on well on the demander :p!
It implies ignorance about what that thing is.
FYI, Michael: Dark energy
Nature
The nature of this dark energy is a matter of speculation. The evidence for dark energy is only indirect coming from distance measurements and their relation to redshift.[19] It is thought to be very homogeneous, not very dense and is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity. Since it is quite rarefied—roughly 10−29 grams per cubic centimeter—it is unlikely to be detectable in laboratory experiments. Dark energy can only have such a profound effect on the universe, making up 74% of universal density, because it uniformly fills otherwise empty space. The two leading models are a cosmological constant and quintessence. Both models include the common characteristic that dark energy must have negative pressure.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Let me know when you get past the 'hope to "test"' stage.

I already handed you Holushko's 'test' of a static universe. Did you find any errors in it? Why isn't that "evidence" to support Pantheism? What hope is there of experimentation with dark energy if you can't even tell me where it comes from?

You still don't have 'pantheism in the lab', and falsifying the mainstream cosmological model is irrelevant to you showing that your opinions have merit.
You're right I don't have 'pantheism in the lab'. :) That was actually kinda funny. :)

You're also right that it's not enough to falsify mainstream theory, I must build a methodical case for Pantheism. In terms of Holushko's work, I'm simply building a case for Pantheism, and collecting evidence in favor of that specific cosmology theory.

Lambda-CDM simply gets in the way almost immediately. ;) It's not technically my fault that the universe turns out to be static. Demonstrating it *is* static is just a necessary step in building a step by step case for Pantheism. If that happens to falsify another cosmology theory, so be it.

You'll have to figure out how things work outside the lab.
Holushko did that. Did you find any flaws worth mentioning?

More evasion. Again, how does a static universe deal with entropy?
Recycling? How do new stars form?

From my perspective, it's not logical of you to accuse me of something that you excuse yourself from. We're both using a non zero constant inside of GR formula. I'm not suggesting that my constant causes the universe to accelerate away into the sunset. You're the one claiming that there is a whole lot of acceleration going on. A static universe needs no such extra energy. Simple charge repulsion between cathode suns might do the trick to simply stabilize the universe.

For the life of me I can't figure out how or why your non zero "dark energy" constant is "ok", yet my non zero EM constant isn't "ok" by you. I really don't get it. Why is your own non zero constant so much less offensive to you when you can't even cite a single source of 'dark energy'? At least I can site a source of EM fields. :confused:

No. That is irrelevant to you establishing the validity of your claims.
:)

Ya know.....

From my vantage point there appears to be a whole lot of hypocritical finger pointing going on. :) A Pantheistic oriented non zero constant that is based upon ordinary EM fields isn't good enough for you apparently, but non zero dark energy constant gets a free pass even though nobody can even site a source of dark energy. I must also provide a host of falsification mechanisms (which I have done) and yet Lambda-CDM does not? CDM theory can fail every SUSY particle test on the books at LHC and still be 'fine'?

Surely you can put yourself in my shoes for a moment is see how unfair that all seems can't you?

I would suggest doing scientifically.
That was my whole point in providing you with Holushko's work and Brynjolfsson's work, and Ashmore's work. Without the mathematical explanations to go with the qualified explanations from the lab, it's not a real cosmology theory. When it includes the math, and empirical qualification from the lab, it *must* be taken seriously.

You claim it has been falsified, fail to support this claim, and now switch to 'unfalsifiable'. Show me the scientific papers that establish this 'fact'.
Holushko's generic tired light model demonstrates that cosmological redshift can and has been explained *without* any need of exotic types of energy in the form of inflation or dark energy. The revelations of the past few years in terms of finding "missing mass", all in the form of plasma, demonstrates that "Cold dark matter" theory is irrelevant and unnecessary. Worse yet, simple SUSY theories bit the dust at LHC and the standard particle physics model has no need of SUSY theory. It's complete without it.

I don't have 'faith' in it. If it were falsified tomorrow, I would look into with interest, but it is not religion. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Well, from my perspective, you certainly do not have any actual 'tangible evidence' to support Lambda-CDM. You can't tell me where dark energy comes from. You can't site a single empirical experiment where cold dark matter has been shown to exist. What else can you call that but 'faith in the unseen'(in the lab)? It may not be a 'religion' in the purest sense, but it's a greater leap of faith in the unseen in the lab than I'm making to believe in "God". At least I know that 'awareness' exists in nature. You can't even be absolutely certain that dark energy does actually exist in nature. Which of us then has 'greater faith' in the final analysis?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Let see. The insanity of citing Bruce who thought that lightning actually happens on the Sun continues :p!

Right. It's not RC the IT guy that has never read a plasma physics book in his entire lifetime that is 'insane', it's Dungey, Birkeland, Bruce, Giovanelli, Peratt, the Russians and the Japanese that all utterly 'insane' and know *absolutely nothing* about plasma physics. :doh:

Oh look, RC cites himself yet *again*, and *again* he dodges every request for an *external* reference to support his claims! Who would have guessed?

But I will point out one thing:
Demanding that something that is unlikely be detected in the lab, has to be detected in the lab does not reflect on well on the demander :p!
It implies ignorance about what that thing is.
FYI, Michael: Dark energy
I have provided you personally with more tangible physical evidence of 'God' than you have provided for 'dark energy'. Stark redshift, Compton redshift and Chen's plasma redshift show up in the lab. You can't even tell me where dark energy comes from, and *no* a 'constant' in a math formula isn't a 'physics cause', nor a physical source.

Is that two days and counting now?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
I snipped the rest, as you just keep repeating yourself in your answers.
More evasion. Again, how does a static universe deal with entropy?

Recycling? How do new stars form?

Why do you not just say that you do not know? If this 'recycling' process is not 100% efficient then you do not have a static universe. If it is, then you have a perpetual motion machine. What other option is there?
 
Upvote 0

Elendur

Gamer and mathematician
Feb 27, 2012
2,405
30
Sweden - Umeå
✟17,952.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Engaged
In terms of cosmology theories in general, EU/PC theory is *far* more restricted than most. One of the "raps" against M-theory is the fact it can be "tweaked" to accommodate just about any scenario. I mean if you're going to allow for more than a half dozen new "dimensions" of spacetime, just about anything and everything can be explained by tweaking variables somewhere in the process that happen to be "invisible" in our three dimensions plus time.

Lambda-CDM has no less than *three* metaphysical fudge factors that can be "tweaked" to accommodate just about any expansion scenario, though they die a slow, agonizing and horrible death when facing a static universe scenario, and that 2011 data from LHC.

Plasma physics theory is basically restricted to the known laws of physics. IN PC theory there is no place in "space" where plasma does not exist. PC expansion theories for instance are limited to "object expansion", and nothing with mass can travel faster than C. That's a "real" physical limitation in electric universe theory that does not exist in most "scientific" cosmology theories. Most cosmology theories have extra dimensions galore to hide various fudge factors, and Lambda-CDM has three fudge factors that essentially make up more than 96 percent of their theory, particularly as we factor in inflation theory. It's possible to do just about anything if the laws of real physics are limited to only 4 percent of the entire theory in question and 96 percent of the theory is just "made up" to accommodate about anything one wants it to do.
Tweaks, restrictions, limitations, percentages. Skippin' this part due to lack of parts to address.

The only type of expansion that shows up in a lab is object expansion. Unless you have evidence to the contrary *without* pointing to the sky, it's a metaphysical concept. Supposedly this expansion of space thing requires the absence all mass, which never happens in PC theory.
"Pointing to the sky"? You do realize that, depending how you mean it, you're either dismissing a bunch of evidence or haven't specified anything that is of any gain?
"Absence all mass"? Could you explain what you mean?

Not exactly. Some laws do seem to be "verifiable" in empirical experimentation. They are replicable by others, meaning that the universe does operate based on certain physical principles that do seem to be universe in scope. GR theory for instance (without the metaphysical kludges) has been verified again and again and again. That isn't to say it will not fail one day, or be replace by a "quantum field" orientation to gravity, but so far, so good for GR. It works, just like Newton's ideas work to get us around inside this solar system rather effectively I might add.
Verification has no meaning whether they've been made up or not (either that or you've changed what you mean with "made up").

"Natural science" is based upon a respect for nature, and an appreciation of the laws of nature. It recognizes the universal laws of physics that show up in labs and Earth, on the moon, and every place we've sent a probe to in this universe thus far.
I don't get why you would mention limits or freedom given that. It doesn't fill any purpose I can conceive of, unless it's to spout text.

AFAIK, it's only been attempted for Compton redshift based upon an oversimplified attempt at *falsification*, not *explanation* as I recall. Unfortunately however all the funding is currently being misdirected at "dark energy" research, and nobody seems to care what plasma and photons actually do in the lab.
Right now I'm more interested in what the scattering would result in over astronomical distances.

Most such calculations would require that we actually *know* how much plasma and dust are in space, it's temperatures, it's composition, it's average electron densities, etc. All of these numbers would need to be "made up" to fit the observation in the final analysis. That's essentially what Holushko did actually. He did it the "old fashion" way, he "postdicted" a fit. I'd say that's probably the best anyone could do at the moment.
It can't really be that hard to present with a multi-dimensional analysis of the accepted intervals.

I do not think we will know until the James Webb telescope is launched. Right now Hubble sees "blurry patches" at the furthest reaches of it's technology. I suspect those blurry patches will turn out to be mature galaxies for as far as the Webb Telescope can see. Stick around for another decade or two and we'll find out. :)
I guess so.

IMO what should be "central to your doubt" is the fact that both inflation and dark energy can be replaced with pure forms of plasma physics, and processes that actually can be demonstrated in the lab. What should also be central to your doubt is the fact that SUSY theory died a painful, agonizing death at LHC in 2011, and the standard particle physics model is now complete without the need for SUSY theory. These should fuel your doubts IMO. :)
The trouble is that they don't, those matters are (not to mention that the information is given from a, to me, dubious source) far beyond my capabilities.
The redshift and scattering is a much easier concept to imagine and I don't think it's something that's scalable with only plasma concentration.
Have they recorded how much of the light was scattered, along with at what distance it was scattered and at what angle?

The problem is simple to demonstrate. If they are incorrect, and plasma redshift is the real cause of photon redshift, then both dark energy *and* inflation become "gods of the ever shrinking gaps" arguments. That's also true of "dark matter" theory, every time someone like Ned Wright finds "normal matter" in the form of plasma that nobody has yet accounted for. The whole theory starts to 'reduce itself" to pure PC theory, the very moment we start to include any plasma physics *realities* that have been demonstrated in the lab! Their entire theory starts to reduce itself toward pure PC theory, whereas PC theory adapts itself to expansion models *without* resorting to metaphysical entities! Surely you can see how this all plays out in terms of how it works? If we *realize* they left out plasma physics processes like plasma redshift from their calculations, it's easy to see why the whole thing starts to reduce itself to PC theory the moment we start to incorporate PC physics into their theory. It *must* reduce to PC theory because we're introducing real plasma physics processes into it's maths. Lambda-CDM theory is a metaphysical house of cards that is predicated upon *not* recognizing the effect of plasma on photons.
If it is reducing, and must be reduced, to plasma physics, why are you complaining? That would be a direct example of how they're not attached to the notion.

I assume it's a static universe, but if we allow for expansion, there is no guarantee that our little "sliver" of the visible universe would contain a "peek" at that particular hole in the middle. We might observe some odd layouts of matter, and indeed, if you study the actual mass layouts in the universe, they have some odd features.

Dark flow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It cannot be an expansion without something to counteract it if there's an infinite amount of time. Sorry, that's it.

In terms of the fact that it becomes a metaphysical entity of the gaps argument, it sure does. Whereas EU/PC theory allows for expansion without incorporating metaphysics, the metaphysics of their theory literally "melts away' the moment we start to introduce plasma redshift into their calculations. Huloshko's model shows the limits of that "shrinking of the gaps" until there literally are no gaps, and there is no longer any need for metaphysics in the first place! Anything in between would suit me fine actually, as long as nobody is claiming the universe is expanding faster than C.
That last sentence is a good example of your predetermined notion.

Whereas PC/EU theory accommodates expansion by allowing for expansion of objects, Lambda-was-falsified-at-LHC-in-2001 theory reduces to pure PC/EU theory.
I wouldn't know. I don't trust your assertion for it either.

Not every photon will experience the same number of interactions inside of a plasma or fiber optic cable. Ashmore does a good job giving a simple explanation of pulse broadening inside of a fiber optic cable. Light will in fact "separate" into colors to a degree, and the signal will "elongate" as some photons experience more interactions in the medium and are "slowed down" more than others. The whole signal gets longer over time and distance. What they mainstream "interprets" as "time dilation" is simply an example of pulse broadening in plasma.
Ok, if you say so.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Right.
...usual rants snipped...
Right - Bruce was a crank who thought that lightning explained everything, Michael :doh:!

Stark redshift, Compton redshift and Chen's plasma redshift show up in the lab.
I wrote this in the "An Empirical Theory Of God (2)' thread but this good science really belongs here in a expanded form.
Michael, given that your four types of plasma redshift are
It has been known since 1929 that Compton scattering cannot cause cosmological redshifts: Tired light
... 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]
IOW scattering causes distant objects to blur in telescopes more than near objects but we can look at very distant objects and get images that as as sharp as those from near objects.

The Wolf effect needs specific conditions, e.g. 2 sources of non-Lambertian light. Wolf suggested that some quasars could provide these 2 sources (Wolf, Emil "Noncosmological redshifts of spectral lines" (1987) Nature 326: 363—365.)
We detect cosmological redshifts from ordinary galaxies. These do not meet the criteria for the Wolf effect. They are
  • one source of light :doh: and
  • Lambertian - in general (maybe not starburst galaxies and there may be other exceptions).
The Stark effect is the splitting of spectral lines by an external electric field. This is not a redshift at all. It causes broading of spectral lines.

There is no evidence that Chen's plasma redshift is cosmological redshift unless Michael has an an answer to Where is the scientific literature linking Chen's redshift with cosmological redshift?
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
And thinking about the "An Empirical Theory Of God (2)" thread, there is a question that belongs here.
Since you seem to think that you know more about physics than me then the answer to this question should be easy:
Micheal: Read Compton scattering.
Can you see another possible problem with using it as a cosmological redshift?
Just think about what we have learned in astronomy about interstellar, intergalactic and intra-cluster mediums since 1929 and you will easily see the issue.

Hint 1: The energy of the electrons versus the energy of the photons means what for Compton scattering?
Hint 2: The issue means that one assumption by Zwicky was incompete (free electrons exist in space and ...) and it also eliminates Compton scattering as cosmological redshift.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Why do you not just say that you do not know?

Alright, in the final analysis I simply do not know, and neither do you. :)

If this 'recycling' process is not 100% efficient then you do not have a static universe. If it is, then you have a perpetual motion machine. What other option is there?
Perhaps we live in an infinite universe, that by virtue of being infinite, ultimately makes it 100 percent efficient over time and distance? Energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, and the universe is certainly filled with energy. For all I know it's infinite and eternal and so is the energy.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
"Pointing to the sky"? You do realize that, depending how you mean it, you're either dismissing a bunch of evidence or haven't specified anything that is of any gain?

We cannot tell based upon pure observation alone what the actual "cause" of photon redshift might be. I'm happy with you/anyone using object movement to explain some of that redshift because I know objects can move. GR only defines "spacetime", not 'space'. Space isn't even physically defined, and nobody can explain exactly "what" might be expanding in 'space'. It sounds a lot like an aether theory by the way.

"Absence all mass"? Could you explain what you mean?
According to Lambda-CDM theory, the reason that "space expansion" never happens in a lab on Earth is due to the gravitational influences of the planet and other objects that supposedly "overwhelm" any "space expansion". In other words, the gravity of the objects and the mass of those objects prevents space from expanding in our region of "space". Our galaxy doesn't "expand". Our solar system doesn't expand. My waistline does seem to expand on occasion but it has nothing to do with "space expansion" I'm afraid. :)

Spacetime isn't really "empty" as astronomers imagine. It's quite literally "filled" with plasma. What they are calling "dark matter" is simply plasma, or at least it's 99% plasma with some "dust" sprinkled around here and there. There isn't actually anywhere in "spacetime" that is so "empty" and devoid of matter that it would experience anything like an expansion of 'space' either. The mass of the plasma alone would overwhelm everything, everywhere in a plasma universe.

Verification has no meaning whether they've been made up or not (either that or you've changed what you mean with "made up").
I don't have to know anything about a math formula to experience gravity personally. It has a direct effect upon me as I sit here typing away. Whether you wish to use GR theory to mathematically express that feeling of gravity that I feel every moment of every day, or use Newton's maths to express it, I have no doubt whatsoever that gravity exists. The falsification of Newton's maths (replaced by GR) doesn't falsify the existence of "gravity". That simply falsifies (or simply replaces) a more limited mathematical expression of gravity and replaces it with another. If someday QM replaces GR to express gravity via gravitons, etc, gravity itself will have not changed one iota due to the falsification of GR. Math is actually "trivial" in terms of being able to personally experience gravity. I don't really care how you go about expressing the math for the most part because I know for a fact that gravity exists due to *personal experience*. The math might be "made up", but gravity itself is not. It certainly is 'real' and it has a tangible effect on me.

I don't get why you would mention limits or freedom given that. It doesn't fill any purpose I can conceive of, unless it's to spout text.
There is a fundamental difference between Lambda-CDM and EU theory. EU theory cannot violate known laws of physics. It doesn't need to for starters. That does however impose some actual "limits", particular as it relates to object expansion, which do not exist in Lambda-CDM. The truth of the matter is that Lambda-CDM can be "tweaked" to do just about anything *except* explain a static universe. It can expand at any rate. It's a bit like a "dad" concept because it has a "different state past" during the inflation phase. M-theory is even *more* malleable. It could probably explain a static universe as well, although it would probably have to ditch the dark energy.

PC theory takes longer to "figure out" because nobody is just "making up" new rules of nature to suit themselves. The "explanations" have to be "real" and tangible explanations that actually 'explain' the physical process of photon redshift. It's not like PC theory can simply "stuff in metaphysics" to replace human ignorance. It actually requires someone "figure it out" and not use placeholder terms for human ignorance.

Right now I'm more interested in what the scattering would result in over astronomical distances.
Any type of scattering close to the source, or even "far away" from Earth isn't going to result in "blurring" as much as it's going to result in the loss of light. Photons are simply going to be scattered into the plasmas and ultimately absorbed by them. Eventually some of that energy gets released again at a lower energy wavelength.

That's why the universe is twice as bright as astronomers expected. They treat the IGM as a "vacuum" when in fact it's actually a "thin plasma" that is absorbing and scattering photons galore. That causes us to underestimate the brightness and therefore the mass of virtually every galaxy.

The trouble is that they don't, those matters are (not to mention that the information is given from a, to me, dubious source) far beyond my capabilities.
In terms of your "feelings" about the source of information, I'm afraid there isn't a lot I can personally do about your feelings other than to take your advice and listen to other people's advice when it makes sense. I can try to respect your feelings and other people's feelings, but I can't really change them instantly or easily. That's mostly due to the fact that I'm supporting a minority position on a topic related to "science".

In terms of the information, IMO it's a bit of cop out to claim it's actually beyond your capabilities to judge the merits of one idea over another (plasma redshift vs. dark energy). One idea shows up in the lab. The other does not. One idea is congruent with plasma physics. The other isn't. One idea requires that space be nearly a "perfect vacuum" somewhere out there in distant space. The other theory requires no 'special' locations in spacetime. One concept quite literally requires a 'different state past' (inflation), the other doesn't.

I don't believe it takes 'special' knowledge to make such a decision quite frankly.

The redshift and scattering is a much easier concept to imagine and I don't think it's something that's scalable with only plasma concentration.
Any "real" physical concept is "easier to imagine". Concepts like dark energy, expanding space, inflation etc aren't easy to conceptually wrap one's head around. IMO that's just another strike again Lambda-CDM. It's overly complicated, and it uses a "toy" version of plasma physics.

Have they recorded how much of the light was scattered, along with at what distance it was scattered and at what angle?
I'll have to revisit Holushko's code to see if it records scattering angles (I don't think so), but it does account for how much light is 'scattered' or lost due to scattering.

If it is reducing, and must be reduced, to plasma physics, why are you complaining?
I'm complaining because it hasn't been reduced yet. :)

That would be a direct example of how they're not attached to the notion.
Oh, I think they've gotten the message from the LHC results that they need a "new approach" in terms of accounting for that 'missing mass'. They aren't however about to budge yet on the dark energy aspect of their theory, even though they can both be replace with "full" versions of plasma physics, one that accounts for plasma redshift and pulse/signal broadening.

It cannot be an expansion without something to counteract it if there's an infinite amount of time. Sorry, that's it.
It can expand at times, contract during other phases, etc. PC theory is not limited to *one* directional movement in fact. Just because the mainstream uses a one directional model doesn't mean it must work that way in a PC model.

That last sentence is a good example of your predetermined notion.
In real labs there are real limits on real objects of mass. It's not like I'm personally "predetermining" anything that hasn't been tested a million times over.

I wouldn't know. I don't trust your assertion for it either.
Fortunately you don't have to take my word for it as it relates to SUSY theory. There are many articles out explaining where things stand at the moment. There is no evidence for SUSY theory, and several 'simple' versions have already been tested at LHC and failed.

Ok, if you say so.
Not just me by the way. Even Hubble himself realized that there were at least *two* solutions to the redshift problem. The mainstream has become arrogant and complacent over the years and they attempt to ignore the other options. The problem is that the lab evidence is piling up in favor of the *other* option that Hubble discussed!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Right - Bruce was a crank who thought that lightning explained everything, Michael :doh:!

Sure RC, everyone who's ever written about electrical discharges in plasma is a "crank", a "crackpot", a "lair", yada, yada, yada, including solar physicists like Dungey, Giovanelli, Birkeland, Bruce, Peratt, the Russians, and the Japanese. The only guy that knows anything about real plasma physics is the IT guy that's never read a single textbook on the topic of plasma physics. :doh:

Sorry, but I will put my money on the solar physicists, the Russians and the Japanese over some nameless, anonymous verbally abusive IT guy that's never read a textbook on the topic in question.

One experiment by Chen et. al. that demonstrates a redshift in plasmas that do not exist in space.
You twist logic like a pretzel to suit yourself, and you refuse to site *external* sources when there is any dispute on any point of contention. You simply get more verbally abusive as you go, and more irrational with each post. You link to your own personal posts and claims more than any human I've met in cyberspace.

Haters are all alike. They *refuse* to actually "study" the topic in question. When cornered over the physics, they run like cowards instead of providing external support for their erroneous claims. They tend to be verbally abusive, completely ignorant of the topics under discussion, and hell bent on remaining that way forever and ever. That pretty much sums up you behavior to a tee.

When can I expect you to invest in your education on this topic RC? You've been ranting on for years like the world's greatest expert on plasma physics. You handwave off everyone from Alfven to the Russians without so much as single published paper that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma as you claimed. Do you *honestly* think anyone *here* (not at JREF) takes you seriously anymore RC? Two days and counting and still no external support for any of your ridiculous claims.

It has been known since 1929 that Compton scattering cannot cause cosmological redshifts:
Physics, particularly plasma physics has improved a bit since 1929 RC. Unfortunately you wouldn't know anything about it since you refuse to read a textbook on the topic of plasma physics.

Holushko and Lerner "debunked" that pathetic left in the past unpublished website RC. Get over Ned as your tired light Guru. The guy never even mentioned Chen's plasma redshift, the Stark effect, or anything by Brynjolfsson, Ashmore, Holushko or anyone who's worked on plasma redshift theory over the past decade! Apparently your guru thinks he can "debunk" plasma physics with an unpublished website that is stuck in 2008&late. I don't think Ned knows anymore about the advancements in plasma redshift than the guy from 1929! Apparently that's where Ned's education ended on that topic.

... 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
Bzzt! Pure assumption on his part. There is in fact a 'background radiation" that is caused by the scattering of photons, but the "opacity" claim is pure baloney. Pure handwave.

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]
Here's the proof that Ned is hopelessly stuck in 1929. That is apparently the *only* reference he has on which to base *any* of his claims. Ned simply "dismisses" any possibility of *some* redshift due to plasma redshift. He's incapable of thinking beyond black or white. His entire argument (and yours) is based upon an oversimplification fallacy. It's not an "either/or" proposition in the first place!

His 'claim' about the no blurring taking place is utter nonsense. I defy him to peer beyond the core of our galaxy in wavelengths related to white light. It's never going to happen. The notions that space is all "nice and tidy" in every direction on every wavelength is utter nonsense. More oversimplification fallacies in play now. Ned's entire 'game' seems to be predicted upon oversimplification fallacies.

IOW scattering causes distant objects to blur in telescopes more than near objects but we can look at very distant objects and get images that as as sharp as those from near objects.
I'm sure you have an *external* published claim to the effect? Those galaxies at the edge of Hubbles view are *exactly* as crystal clear *every time* as close galaxies? I'm sure I'll never see such a paper from you on that claim either.

The Wolf effect needs specific conditions, e.g. 2 sources of non-Lambertian light. Wolf suggested that some quasars could provide these 2 sources (Wolf, Emil "Noncosmological redshifts of spectral lines" (1987) Nature 326: 363—365.)
Gravitational lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There may indeed by instance where the Wolf effect does come into play RC. It's a *real* and *demonstrated* cause of photon redshift.

We detect cosmological redshifts from ordinary galaxies. These do not meet the criteria for the Wolf effect.
That is about the *only* point I would concede.

The Stark effect is the splitting of spectral lines by an external electric field. This is not a redshift at all. It causes broading of spectral lines.
That highighted part is another of those famous handwaving things you do that is devoid of external support for your claim. I think I'll have to start one of your famous lists for all the unsubstantiated claims you've made and run from when asked for external confirmation of that claim. I think you have nearly a half dozen of them going now, but I forget some of them. I need a list.... :)

Unsupported (by external references) claims by RC:

Photons always have zero kinetic energy
Electrical discharges in plasmas are "impossible"
Stark redshift is not a redshift at all
High redshift galaxies are always just as clear as the closest galaxies regardless of direction or wavelength.
Without so much a reading a single textbook on plasma physics, RC knows that a published author (Bruce) is a 'crackpot' on the topic of solar physics.

I'll add to the the list as they occur to me RC. :)

I handed you Ashmore's work on a silver platter. Your denial of his work won't make it go away RC. There is no external link to anything that you claim, not ever. It all comes from you or some dead guy's paper from 1929. Apparently that's where your personal understanding of physics ended. :(
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
And thinking about the "An Empirical Theory Of God (2)" thread, there is a question that belongs here.
Since you seem to think that you know more about physics than me

I don't just "think" I know more, I know I know more. I know I've read at least five more textbooks on the topic of plasma physics than you have read, and I know that photons have kinetic energy! I'm not claiming to be the most knowledgeable human alive on the topic, but I know more than an IT guy that refuses to pickup a textbook on plasma physics.

then the answer to this question should be easy:
Micheal: Read Compton scattering.
Can you see another possible problem with using it as a cosmological redshift?
Just think about what we have learned in astronomy about interstellar, intergalactic and intra-cluster mediums since 1929 and you will easily see the issue.
I refuse to even think about trying to read *your* mind RC. Forgetaboutit. Apparently your education in physics ended in 1929. Mine did not. I have no idea where you go left behind and I have no desire to figure it out.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
I don't just "think" I know more, I know I know more.
So use that better knowledge of physics to answer the question and show that you know more than me :clap:!
This is not "reading my mind" :doh:.
This is reading about the physics of Compton scattering (which you should already know) and stating what it means for cosmological redshift.

The physics showing the problem is all in Compton scattering.
Micheal: Read Compton scattering.
Can you see another possible problem with using it as a cosmological redshift?

Hint 0: Just think about what we have learned in astronomy about interstellar, intergalactic and intra-cluster mediums since 1929 and you will easily see the issue.
Hint 1: The energy of the electrons versus the energy of the photons means what for Compton scattering?
Hint 2: The issue means that one assumption by Zwicky was incompete (free electrons exist in space and ...) and it also eliminates Compton scattering as cosmological redshift.
Hint 3a: Compton scattering does what to CMB photons?
Hint 3b: The cosmological redshift from Compton scattering does what to the identical photons from galaxies?

P.S. There is a high school science version of Hints 3a and 3b. I hope that I do not have to embarass you by adding it as hint 4.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
There's one major problem with our conversation RC. Can you figure out what it is?

Hint 1: No external references for "photons always have zero kinetic energy"
Hint 2: No external references for "Electrical discharges are impossible in plasma"
Hint 3: Only one of us has ever read a plasma physics textbook.

Can you guess which one of us has no idea what they are talking out as it relates to plasma physics?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
FYI, I sat down last night and actually read through Zwicky's paper from 1929.

http://www.pnas.org/content/15/10/773.full.pdf

Keep in mind that the "great debate" about the question of external galaxies took place only 9 years earlier. They still tended to refer to them as "nebula" and their telescopes were down right *primitive* compared to today's technologies.

Not *once* did Zwicky make any calculations related to "blurring". His sole reasoning for claiming that photon redshift could not be related to Compton scattering comes from this single paragraph in his paper:

(4) The optical image of an extragalactic nebula seems to be as well defined as can be expected from the resolving power of the telescopes. The distance apparently is only geometrically involved and no additional blurring of the images occurs due to some such process as multiple scattering and superposition of incoherent light beams.
In other words, he simply *eyeballed it* based on the incredibly limited information he had in 1929! Zwicky's claims in 1929 are based *entirely* upon a simple "handwave", specifically that paragraph! How sad that everything you and Ned think you know about tired light comes from that single paragraph written over 80 years ago!

It wasn't a total waste of my time however. He did mention another type of known plasma redshift mechanism that I never thought about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_scattering
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
Alright, in the final analysis I simply do not know,
There is your show stopper for me. I do not believe that Einstein would be so dismissive of the laws of thermodynamics, do you?
and neither do you. :)
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I expect entropy to have its way with the cosmos.
Perhaps we live in an infinite universe, that by virtue of being infinite, ultimately makes it 100 percent efficient over time and distance? Energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, and the universe is certainly filled with energy. For all I know it's infinite and eternal and so is the energy.
And that's what you need for your plasma redshift claims to work out?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
There is your show stopper for me. I do not believe that Einstein would be so dismissive of the laws of thermodynamics, do you?

Apparently he was. He added a constant just like I did to explain a *static* universe. How was he any different?

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I expect entropy to have its way with the cosmos.

As do I, but the universe is *excellent* at recycling. It created me out of a little dust and water. The same molecules may have been used before in perhaps countless other life forms. It's still creating stars.

Unless you can demonstrate that energy can be created of destroyed, I'll have to assume that some form of energy has *always* existed.

And that's what you need for your plasma redshift claims to work out?

Not at all. All that is required for my plasma redshift claims to work out is for the laws of physics to work the same in space as they work in the lab. Unless plasma physics in space isn't the same as plasma physics in the lab, some amount of plasma redshift and signal broadening are a given.

The other stuff is just pure speculation, just like you're doing. :)
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
I'm not sure I'm prepared to create a completely new category for Chen's work since it's essentially an AC Stark effect as best as I can tell. Even still, there are at *least* 6 empirical ways for photons to lose momentum in plasma:

Brillouin scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Raman scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Compton scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Stark effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Zeeman effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wolf effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only author that is cited by Ned Wright's tired light page on the topic of "blurring" is Zwicky. In the paper cited by Wright, Zwicky did *not* provide any mathematical description of "blurring" nor did he provide any mathematical calculations to demonstrate blurring (or lack thereof) in any distant object.

Apparently Zwicky was interested in selling *his own* theory of photon redshift in the paper that Ned cites, and therefore Zwicky handwaved in the claim that blurring would occur in Compton scattering. Ned Wrights entire basis for claiming that Compton redshift causes blurring comes down to this mathematically bankrupt paragraph:

(4) The optical image of an extragalactic nebula seems to be as well defined as can be expected from the resolving power of the telescopes. The distance apparently is only geometrically involved and no additional blurring of the images occurs due to some such process as multiple scattering and superposition of incoherent light beams.
So, apparently by "eyeballing" a few galaxies that could be seen in telescopes of the 1920's, Ned Wright in 2012 has determined that all heavily redshifted objects are not blurry on any wavelength in any direction, and Compton redshift causes blurring. Neither of them provided so much as a single line of math to back up the assertion that distant galaxies are not blurred or that Compton redshift causes blurring. Pure handwaves!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
Apparently he was. He added a constant just like I did to explain a *static* universe. How was he any different?
He changed his views in the light of new evidence.
As do I, but the universe is *excellent* at recycling. It created me out of a little dust and water. The same molecules may have been used before in perhaps countless other life forms. It's still creating stars.

Unless you can demonstrate that energy can be created of destroyed, I'll have to assume that some form of energy has *always* existed.
That's a quick change from "I don't know" to "prove me wrong". ^_^

Not at all. All that is required for my plasma redshift claims to work out is for the laws of physics to work the same in space as they work in the lab. Unless plasma physics in space isn't the same as plasma physics in the lab, some amount of plasma redshift and signal broadening are a given.

The other stuff is just pure speculation, just like you're doing. :)
We agree, your stuff is pure speculation.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.