Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[Michael]

Colossal hydrogen bridge between galaxies could be fuel line for new stars - CSMonitor.com

The presence of neutral hydrogen in the bridge was first reported in 2004 and confirmed in follow-up observations published last year. But it's fiendishly difficult to detect. One way neutral hydrogen betrays its presence is via radio waves, with a tell-tale signal at about the same frequency that a typical cell-phone uses. But the clumps are so wispy that their radio emissions were too faint for detailed studies with the radio telescopes used in the early work.

Once invisible/dark plasma and gas are being found everywhere, yet not a drop of "exotic" matter.

 

[davidbilby]

You missed my point. You seem to "discount" the possibility of "God", based upon some objection about where God comes from.

I don't discount it, just find it unnecessarily improbable. I think it's unreasonable to look at the universe (which we can see) and draw the conclusion that it had a intelligent creator, which we can't see; but then when asked "what created that creator" to say "oh, the Creator didn't need a creator". If you are ok with a "Creator" being itself uncreated, why is such a stretch to say that just perhaps the universe didn't require a creator either? God is an entirely arbitrary construct. There's absolutely no necessity to it whatsoever. Further arbitrary constructs - such as saying "the creator is clearly my deity and not your deity" only compounds the problem, let alone the fact that so many humans have been killed for worshipping the "wrong" entirely arbitrary deity. Atheist suicide bombers? Not so much...

You still haven't address the late-time integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect measurements in baryon acoustic oscillation measurements, largely because a) you don't understand them and b) even if you did, you'd simply ignore it. Whereas every bit of "evidence" you have put forward, I've addressed with substantive comments, vis a vis, Chen, Ashmore, Holushko, and so and so forth. Your only rebuttal has been "that's your opinion" and other such unscientific ill-informed irrationalities.

You can't tell me where dark energy comes from. You can't tell me where inflation came from. You can't say "Next" based upon that objection or your own theory goes up in flames!

What do you mean by "comes from"? We don't really know, you're right, just as we don't know where the Higgs field (another scalar field interpretation of various secondary data) "comes from". That's why it's known as an 'open question'.

You ask an unscientific question in an unscientific manner, which is unsurprising. The scalar field interpretation - good enough for the Higgs - I could briefly summarize the field theory equations, and what replaced Guth's early work (particularly involving slow roll approximations) but it'd be a waste of time, since you don't understand considerably simpler math. So I won't bother, but you can go look it up if you want to spend the time.

Anyhow.....

This is another great example of your irrelevant emotional need to 'kill the messenger'. Apparently in your religion, if you cannot justify your claims in the lab, kill the guy that mentions it.

Have you ever proved Elvis is dead in the lab? I mean, actually? Then must you logically assume Elvis is alive? The messenger keeps shooting himself in the foot and bleeding out, whilst saying "it's only a flesh wound".

But when you did that and found a four billion light year long *flaw/falsification* in your theory, you blithely ignored it, and started making up any old excuse as to why it doesn't matter!

Huh? Please address my rebuttal. You have no direct evidence that this is a single structure, only Clowes' paper (which itself is non-committal) and the last time there was a structure too large it was shown to be three structures. This completely invalidated it as a challenge to the cosmological principle. Completely.

So why do you believe it a proven fact that this is a single structure? Your evidence, please. Once again you repeat an assertion and fail to address substantive physics, a solid rebuttal to your point. All you have said is that my rebuttal is an 'excuse'. So show how and why with evidence, please.

Your solar models failed it's convection speed "tests" by two entire orders of magnitude! Dol you folks care?

You don't care about grammar, clearly, but pedantry aside, solar physics isn't my thing and you change the subject purely because you have no substantive answers to any of my rebuttals. Or anybody elses', for that matter.

Your mathematical models are useless in terms of their falsification capacities, and you ignore their implications when it suits you.

Yeah, we're all frauds, fraudulent liars misappropriating grant money. Come on. Since you've never set foot inside a university physics department lately, I'm sure you don't know how many hungry graduate students who would easily point out mathematical fudges or errors. But oh yeah, we brainwash them all to think 2+2 = 7,260,000.266. Yeah, that's it.

Weak solar convection – approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected | Watts Up With That?

Since math is the king of physics, why doesn't that observation and your erroneous math falsify mainstream solar theory?

Let's say that it does. Firstly a) it was decidedly mainstream scientists that posted that paper, so so much for the mainstream not working to falsify models and b) would that of itself falsify, say, inflation, or any other theory in physics that you care to name? No.

You "preach" a good sermon about the need for math, but your blithely ignore the implication of that math as it relates to your own claims and your theories. When the math works right, you boast. When it's falls flat on it's face, you ignore it.

No, that would be you. Simply conservation of momentum proves your notions of tired light wrong on a quantum mechanics level. Please post the mathematics that I am ignoring as regards. If your answer is Holushko, then you need another answer, as to why you cannot understand how throwing out the constancy of C is a problem.

Actually the thing that makes it "hard" in terms of competing with your "magic physics", is that I can't simply "make up" new forms of matter and energy on a whim.

Did Peter Higgs?

I can't "cheat" and pretend to know something when I really don't know.

No, you do that all the time, vis a vis posting papers with complex mathematics that you don't understand, and presenting it as irrefutable fact and as if you understand what any of it says, which you don't. See - your preposterous citing of "dark flow", Chen, even Ashmore, and so on.

I can't *pretend* that dark energies exist and can magically save my otherwise falsified concept of on BB theory and redshift from instant destruction. It's not as easy to compete mathematically with "make believe" physics with real, actual physics.

Real actual physics IS mathematics and has been for five hundred years. What on earth do you think Newton's Principia is??? It's 100% mathematics, as is Einstein, as is pretty much any physical theory.

We get "dark matter' to turn on and off in neutrino experiments.

We do? We get dark matter to turn on and off? What do you even MEAN by this, even assuming that you just made a typo?

What's your problem? Oh ya, you don't even know where to get any of your exotic matter

Sure we do, galactic center seems to have a lot of it. Sorry that it is a bit far away for you, therefore it must not exist. We don't have any pieces of pluto either, for that matter.

let alone how to "control" it in any way. Notice the contrast?

It has a real measurable effect on me.

If dark matter lenses a photon from a distant galaxy and that photon reaches you when it otherwise would not have, then it has a real measurable effect on you, albeit one that you wouldn't notice in any human way. Your objection is nonsensical.

Try as I might, I just cannot jump to the moon.

So you can't control gravity. Thanks for admission. Perhaps you'll stop asking for ways to 'control' dark energy.

It's not shy around the lab. It shows up every time.

EXACTLY. You have no "control" over it at all.

Ditto for EM fields. They show up in the lab and accelerate plasma all the time.

They do many other things besides, but again, that's irrelevant. Pluto's not shown up in a lab any time recently....does it not exist?

Apparently only your impotent dark stuff needs a free pass in the lab?

Again, comparing gravity to your dark impotent stuff only shows just how *impotent* it actually is. Gravity isn't a no show in the lab.

You keep dodging the question. Where does gravity 'come from', and when you answer that, where does your 'answer' come from (eg. curvature of space) and to each and every answer, where does 'that' come from? See what you do?

Right. I hand you a paper which you simply ignored, and now I have no "proof". Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

That's the Nile and blithe cliches aside, you have no proof it's a structure, and even Clowes HIMSELF says that it's open to different interpretations. I'm not ruling it out, but it can't be ruled in yet, not conclusively, not enough to toss an entire discipline of physics based on one paper. This would be not be scientific, especially since the last time we had a huge structure in space it was then conclusively shown to be three structures. So rushing to conclusions is hasty.

I'm well aware that you'd like to cut it apart into pieces, but when can I expect a paper that does so?

Not sure who's working on that. Not me, at present anyhow. When can I expect your tired light mechanism? Oh wait, you don't like that kind of rebuttal used against you "because you're ever so busy and only one man" but it's okay to use against other people. I see....

Don't take it personally. I answer these posts between tech calls at work. It's "sloppy" at times I'll admit, but my point typically comes across pretty clearly.

Yeah, same point every time. What I'd like is for you to actually address some physics such as;

1) conservation of momentum mathematics as regards GR and why you think classical conservation of energy holds in GR, even if you assumed a non-inflating universe

2) late-time integrated sachs-wolfe effect in baryon acoustic oscillation measurements

3) why a doppler-like redshift cannot be made up of non-doppler like component redshifts that are either wavelength dependent, induced or requiring precisely aligned phonons, for example...and so on and so forth

 

[davidbilby]

continues:

You more than most show a strong public emotional attachment to Lambda-CDM theory. In that sense it is "personal' with you. Not everyone feels compelled to "defend" that particular theory for instance.

So anybody who defends a theory, no matter how incorrect or correct, can be described as emotionally attached to it as a rebuttal? Please. You are emotionally attached to your theory. You have no credible mathematical model (or method of constructing one) to back it up, is the problem....

Absolutely false! Birkeland actually tested his models in a lab and *predicted* a whole host of things about the universe, including it's charge with respect to the surface of a sun.

Explain to me again how space-time itself carries an electrical charge...since space-time is not actually made up of fermions, leptons etc....

My ideas enjoy *lots* of mathematical support, just not support *you personally* want to see. So what?

You've only shown me Holushko (demonstrably wrong, faulty premise, not actually relevant to your idea even if it weren't wrong), Ashmore (demonstrably wrong, errors in equations and doesn't satisfy conservation of energy-momentum which is entirely applicable on the quantum level), Chen (completely irrelevant as describes an entirely different induced effect that doesn't match observation)...any others? I think that was just about it. So, no you've not got any mathematical support.

Any loss of momentum of the photons would simply be passed into the medium.

Yes, but that's not the end of the story...that's not the calculation. That comes next! We can calculate what should happen if the v_1 component is said to remain the same....and there must be a change in the v_2 component, a scattering angle. Momentum, once again, is a VECTOR quantity. You don't get to wave your hand and say it's conserved. You have to show it for BOTH sides of the vector.

It's not a violation of conservation of energy-momentum

Then prove it. Show me an equation with A) adding up to B). It's not hard.

You won't be able to precisely because you are wrong. It IS a violation of conservation of energy-momentum. Simply saying it's "not" isn't good enough. Prove it. If you are right, it's easy math that should be well within your grasp, it's nothing beyond high school really if you look up the terms...energy and momentum before and energy and momentum after of both particles. Oh wait, that's exactly what I showed you.

unlike your never ending dark energy acceleration claims.

Once again, demonstrate that classical conservation of energy holds in GR, with or without the cosmological constant. Without that, your argument is nothing....because you don't know what you're talking about.

You have a weird fixation on this conservation thing, but only when it suits you

No, only when classical conservation of energy can be thought of in a meaningful sense, which is a subtlety you don't understand, because you don't understand this subject.

You have no problem at all violating that conservation concept by mucking up a GR formula with magical energies

OK. Remove Lambda from GR for the sake of argument. Does classical conservation of energy hold? No. If you think it does, prove it, but let me assure you that it doesn't. There is no meaningful expression of the total energy of the universe unless you talk about the Hamiltonian, a special case where energy conservation holds because the total energy of the universe is zero. I'm sure you'd love that case....

I repeat.

You don't know what you're talking about.

If you do - prove it, show me how momentum is conserved in your scenario as you say it is - "passed to the medium", for both sides of the vector quantity... or show me how classical conservation holds in GR, removing any bit of inflationary notions that you find unacceptable if you like...the problem doesn't go away.

and then claiming the magic makes the GR formula too complicated to claim it violates any energy laws!

Only complicated to those who don't actually have any math beyond high school....

Give me a break! Get over the conservation aspect of particle moment loss already.

translation:

"Please stop pointing out my mistakes and glaring omissions! Get over my mistakes already". It's like a burglar saying in court "oh well, you would bring up the fact that I robbed that house. Get over it already!".

No, sorry, you don't get off by pleading ignorance. Rebut or move on. You are making an erroneous statement and you don't get to just repeat it like it's true, when it's not.

I've conceded the fact that energy is *gained* by the medium, as well as lost by the photon.

You've 'conceded' that? What? The equations I gave you ASSUME that energy is gained by the medium and lost by the photon. That's the point. Nothing wrong with that...the question comes after that - does energy-momentum in the quantum sense THEN hold true if you assume that the photon angle is unchanged, and the answer is -no-.

It doesn't.

You're the one mucking up the conservation laws with magical, never ending acceleration energies.

Show how classical conservation of momentum holds as regards GR, please, not going to let that drop or let you keep repeating this false assertion. It's insulting to anybody who's actually studied it. Bring some actual physics or drop it.

That's about the only actual "complaint" you've actually got. You're right, I can't say *exactly* which inelastic scattering methods are *most* and *least* responsible for photon redshift yet

You haven't demonstrated even one yet despite your myriad "demonstrated in the lab claims". Chen? Irrelevant, AC stark effect induced in carbon nanotubes does not any portion of the doppler-like cosmological redshift make. Nor does Compton scattering, Brillouin scattering and so on and so forth. Wavelength dependent processes cannot make up part of a wavelength independent doppler-like process. If you don't understand this there's little point in going on.

That isn't to say that these processes couldn't occur in space - I'm sure that they do, but they are NOT part of the observed cosmological redshift, which is doppler-like, specially and wavelength independent. So find some wavelength independent components if you like. I have one - the expansion of space-time. Works rather beautifully, which is why it's the mainstream theory.

*because* they all can and do have a role in photon redshift in the real world. I can't rule out all the models yet, in fact I can't rule out the movement of objects as being responsible for *some* of that redshift!

I can, because entirely wavelength dependent components do not an entirely wavelength independent total make...

How many brands of inflation are there now?

Quite a few, varying from very plausible, to pretty crackpot cyclical ones leaving supposed imprints on our present universe.

How many possible energy states can "dark matter" exist in?

What do you mean by "energy state" in this context? If you are referring to the equation of state, many models currently lie well within the boundaries of cosmological observation, for an excellent recent paper read:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.6785v1.pdf

How *exactly* does 'dark energy' cause "space" to expand, and what *exactly* is space, and how does it physically 'expand'?

At last, some excellent questions. Do you want to have a sensible discussion about these very much unresolved topics with an open mind, or are you just being sarcastic as if you think these are questions that have been entirely resolved. Nice try at entrapment if so.

Pots and kettles. What about the plurality of string theories and inflation theories?

What about them? Nobody ever got killed for supporting a different string theory....

You mean the ones that "dreamed up" things like inflation and unseen forms of matter and energy? Those aren't minor delusions?

No, they're hypotheses with solid mathematical models that can be falsified, and people are actively trying to do so. Religion professes absolute truth. Science does not.

You do realize of course how absurd that sounds to a skeptic when you are the one peddling another "creation myth"

Whoever said dark energy or dark matter created anything?

complete with three different invisible metaphysical entities, some with 'supernatural' powers galore!

But when you tell at story about how "dark energy" cause "space" to expand, that not anecdotal?

No, that would be theoretical. Theoretical is "I think my cat ate my sandwich".

Anecdotal is "I talked to my dead mother this morning in a seance". Neither is evidence but one is a testable proposition.

Meditation can bring health benefits and aid function in aging brains, research suggests - Business - The Boston Globe

Do you have any idea how many tangible benefits come from meditation?

And that speaks to the truth of the visions one might obtain, how? I'm sure masturbation brings tangible psychological benefits to many people, but it's not evidence of anything other than our natural libido needing fulfillment...

Right. Somehow when Guth slaps some math to a new form of magical energy is "empirical science", with or without any scientific precedent.

"Slaps some math". You crack me up. You know what Linde's competing model was based on, almost entirely? Higgs field mathematics. Yeah, all slapped together, none of it adds up despite many hungry graduate students having ripped it apart. Yeah, we're all brainwashed, and see glaring errors and just feel that little bit dirty as we fudge it all up. Yeah, that's exactly how it is.

But not yours?

No, my mind is easily fooled, as is yours, which is why anecdote is not scientific evidence. You can collect mountains of it, but it is not scientific evidence. If it were, then we would have indubitably confirmed alien life in the galaxy that has visited Earth (and always places like Alabama. I mean, if you crossed the galaxy, would the middle of nowhere in Alabama be where you went first?):

List of reported UFO sightings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh for goodness sake. I don't have time for "trick questions" and I regularly give everyone the benefit of the doubt over something as obscure as that even if I *had* noticed. Get real.

Ha, yeah. It was a low blow, but I thought I'd try it. You frequently don't read what I read though, was the point. I read what you write very carefully.

[1303.6896] Gravitational lensing evidence against extended dark matter halos

Where do you even "get off" talking about five or six times baryonic anything? You've (as a collective) never even *bothered* to update any of your models in the past five years based on *any* new data! Sure, just ignore the fact that the lensing data blows you claims out of the way

"Our results thus suggest that, if dark matter is present in early-type galaxies, its amount does not exceed the amount of luminous matter and its density follows that of luminous matter, in sharp contrast to what is found from rotation curves of spiral galaxies".

Bolding mine. Then see the paper itself:

"We do not ignore the many successes of the dark matter hypothesis, which helps solving a number of problems in cosmology."

 

[Michael]

I don't discount it, just find it unnecessarily improbable.

Likewise I find your dark stuff to be unnecessary and improbable.

I think it's unreasonable to look at the universe (which we can see) and draw the conclusion that it had a intelligent creator, which we can't see;

Er.... Maybe in *your* religion God can't be seen, but that's not true in mine. In fact "God" is completely visible, and has an empirical effect on human beings in my religion, unlike your invisible sky thingies. You have everything *backwards* IMO.

but then when asked "what created that creator" to say "oh, the Creator didn't need a creator".

I don't know what "created" the universe, or that it was "created" as you imagine it. All I can say is that it exists, and it could have existed eternally for all I know. It recycles energy in a highly efficient manner, and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change 'forms'.

If you are ok with a "Creator" being itself uncreated, why is such a stretch to say that just perhaps the universe didn't require a creator either?

It's effectively the *same* statement of faith in my "religion".

God is an entirely arbitrary construct.

Er, no. "God" (an intelligent creator) has been discussed in human literature since the dawn of the earliest human literature. Inflation on the other hand is a completely arbitrary construct without scientific precedent. Invisible forms of energy are "arbitrary" constructs too.

There's absolutely no necessity to it whatsoever.

You mean except to explain all those human experience that humans have written about since the dawn of recorded human civilization?

There's certainly no "necessity" for inflation, or exotic forms of matter or energy other than to prop up *one* otherwise falsified cosmology theory from epic empirical destruction.

Further arbitrary constructs - such as saying "the creator is clearly my deity and not your deity" only compounds the problem,

Er, in my "religion", that would be akin to me claiming it's "my universe.". Admittedly you and I see the physical universe quite differently, but it's the same physical universe.

let alone the fact that so many humans have been killed for worshipping the "wrong" entirely arbitrary deity.

You mean as apposed to Stalin's wholesale slaughter of humans?

Atheist suicide bombers? Not so much...

Actually Buddhists can be violent, and China isn't exactly the Stirling model of human rights.

You still haven't address the late-time integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect measurements in baryon acoustic oscillation measurements, largely because a) you don't understand them and b) even if you did, you'd simply ignore it.

I'm ignoring it for the same reason you'd ignore me waving my hand around claiming that "God" was responsible for exactly those same measurements. You can't provide a "cause/effect" connection in the lab between "acoustic oscillations" and your invisible stuff. I have to "accept on faith" that these things exist and have the physical effect you claim they have.

The whole "positrons are evidence of exotic matter" claim is *typical* of your range of "point at the sky and claim your invisible friend did it" types of claims. You have no physical evidence that exotic matter exists, or that it emits positrons of *any* energy state. On the other hand you have *tons* of physical evidence that electrical discharges, and specifically the discharges around pulsars emit them, yet you reject the obvious solution in favor of "dark sky religion".

Whereas every bit of "evidence" you have put forward, I've addressed with substantive comments, vis a vis, Chen, Ashmore, Holushko, and so and so forth. Your only rebuttal has been "that's your opinion" and other such unscientific ill-informed irrationalities.

No, my rebuttals have been consistent and they have been consistently ignored. You completely *skipped* the whole cause/effect demonstration of your claims, much as if I had simply claimed "God energy did it", or "God matter did it", or "Godflation did it". Better yet, it's akin to "God did it with Godflation, God energy, and God matter'. That's about the *qualification level* of your claim. You have nothing but mathematical equations that related to invisible entities that supposedly have all these "properties" you cannot actually demonstrate, including longevity and *invisibility*, but only when you say so. Sometimes the invisible stuff emits positrons and gamma rays on command apparently.

What do you mean by "comes from"? We don't really know, you're right, just as we don't know where the Higgs field (another scalar field interpretation of various secondary data) "comes from". That's why it's known as an 'open question'.

Likewise where "God/The physical universe" comes from remains an 'open question'. Only in your sky religion must it have a "beginning" of any sort in terms of the creation of matter as we know and understand it.

You ask an unscientific question in an unscientific manner, which is unsurprising.

Oh baloney. I ask "inconvenient questions" which you don't like.

The scalar field interpretation - good enough for the Higgs - I could briefly summarize the field theory equations, and what replaced Guth's early work (particularly involving slow roll approximations) but it'd be a waste of time, since you don't understand considerably simpler math.

If I was waving my hands around claiming that your problem was related to math, your pathetic jab at my math skills might be a logical self defense mechanism. Since I'm complaining about your lack of empirical cause/effect justification, your personal attacks related to my math skills are irrelevant, and frankly quite sad. Since you can't respond to the actual question/problem you attack the messenger. Pitiful. You operate just like a religious zealot when you "faith" is questioned.

So I won't bother, but you can go look it up if you want to spend the time.

It's not the math I object to. Do you understand that?

Huh? Please address my rebuttal. You have no direct evidence that this is a single structure, only Clowes' paper (which itself is non-committal) and the last time there was a structure too large it was shown to be three structures. This completely invalidated it as a challenge to the cosmological principle. Completely.

So you're hoping for (another) miracle, is that it? What is it going to take to falsify your religion anyway? You've never offered us a way to do that. When the observations falsify your claims, you claim the observations are false! When the observations justify pulsar and discharge activity, you claim "my invisible exotic matter did it". When we look at the LHC results however, your WIMPS and SUSY theory itself failed it's own "golden test", and all the popular brands of SUSY theory went up in smoke! When we find *normal* matter right were "dark matter" is presumably located, you "blow it off" like its nothing. Whatever the observation might be, you always skew things to work the way you see fit!

So why do you believe it a proven fact that this is a single structure? Your evidence, please.

Well, for starters we're finding "threads" in space by the truckload, so it's only a matter of time before we find "long" ones. We've already seen *long* ones that have required your industry to *FUDGE THE NUMBERS* just to even get to *one* billion light years in size. We have *that* observation that you seem to wish to sweep under the carpet.

We also have *zero* physical evidence that inflation exists or has or had any effect on matter. We have *zero* empirical evidence that 'dark energy' causes anything to accelerate, not even an electron. We have evidence that SUSY theory failed it's own "golden test". What more evidence do I need to reject your invisible sky religion?

Once again you repeat an assertion and fail to address substantive physics, a solid rebuttal to your point. All you have said is that my rebuttal is an 'excuse'. So show how and why with evidence, please.

Again, you simply *swept* the evidence I presented away, and then asked for more as though I owe you more. I don't. I don't owe you anything more than what I've already handed to you. Since your rebuttal amounts to "It could be wrong", what is there to discuss?

You don't care about grammar, clearly, but pedantry aside, solar physics isn't my thing and you change the subject

Only in *your invisible universe* are solar physics and astronomy as whole "different subjects". In EU/PC theory, solar physics, and those positrons we observe in space are related topics. We can't just "make up" mythical forms of matter and claim that they emit positrons. We work with *real* things in PC theory, like real plasma and real scattering.

purely because you have no substantive answers to any of my rebuttals. Or anybody elses', for that matter.

You don't have an "substantive' argument to begin with! It's all math, and no physical justification! You can't justify that dark energy exists or that it accelerates anything without pointing at your sky math and attempting to build a whole argument around an affirming the consequent fallacy!
"My invisible friend did it, and here's the math to prove it!" That isn't substance, that's math on a metaphysical stick!

Yeah, we're all frauds, fraudulent liars misappropriating grant money.

Nope, a lot of you are simply misguided and *HERDED* by an educational and publishing system that systematically denies anything in space is electrical in nature! You've been DUPED into believing that your invisible sky math is god.

Come on. Since you've never set foot inside a university physics department lately,

I've sat in at a LMSAL meeting on solar physics in the past year. Does that count? Why is that you have such a strong emotional need to bash the messenger anyway?

I'm sure you don't know how many hungry graduate students who would easily point out mathematical fudges or errors. But oh yeah, we brainwash them all to think 2+2 = 7,260,000.266. Yeah, that's it.

Your industry does actually *brain wash* students on a regular basis by *insisting* that exotic matter exists and *insisting* that it does things in space. You can't even conceive of a universe without it! You're BRAINWASHING an unsuspecting public too. They don't know your SUSY theory failed it's golden test at the LHC. They don't know how much data you simply *ignore* when you feel like it. They don't know that dark matter does not emit positrons because it SUSY particles do not exist at all as far as anyone knows. They actually believe your nonsense hook line and sinker for the most part. Your industry is guilty on that count.

Let's say that it does. Firstly a) it was decidedly mainstream scientists that posted that paper, so so much for the mainstream not working to falsify models

Not all of you are as emotionally or as professionally invested in Lambda-CDM, and that *will* be your downfall.

and b) would that of itself falsify, say, inflation, or any other theory in physics that you care to name? No.

Um, yes it most certainly *would* falsify a whole range of inflation theories and a whole range of claims you've made in the past. I cant keep you from constantly modifying another metaphysical inflation frankenstein to replace the dead ones, but such an observation would undermine inflation's last claim to fame, namely a reasonably uniform distribution of matter.

I'll pickup where I left off as I get time.

 

[Davian]

<snip>
Er.... Maybe in *your* religion God can't be seen, but that's not true in mine. In fact "God" is completely visible, and has an empirical effect on human beings in my religion, unlike your invisible sky thingies. ...

I do not recall any claims of dark matter/dark energy having an empirical effect on human beings, but I will ask of you, what are these "empirical effects on human beings" that we can test for, specific to your religion, and how would we do that?

 

[Michael]

No, that would be you.

No, that's your behavior. When shown "structures" that defy your size predictions, you ignore them. When all the popular brands of SUSY theory are falsified at LHC and SUSY theory fails it's "golden test", you ignored it. When you found more plasma around the galaxy than all the rest of the mass in the galaxy you ignored it. When you found out the universe is twice as bright and filled with many more stars than you estimated, you ignored that data too. Pretty much every piece of data that falsifies you theory is ignored outright on a whim!

Simply conservation of momentum proves your notions of tired light wrong on a quantum mechanics level. Please post the mathematics that I am ignoring as regards.

How about those two papers on VP's I handed you? Have you mentioned them yet? Did I miss something?

Did Peter Higgs?

Well, not without a precedent, and not without a way to 'test' his claim in controlled experimentation. Compare and contrast that with Guth's 'made up" inflation deity. It's forever shy around the lab. Pretty much ditto for dark energy, and of course SUSY theory has been a complete disaster at LHC.

No, you do that all the time, vis a vis posting papers with complex mathematics that you don't understand, and presenting it as irrefutable fact and as if you understand what any of it says, which you don't.

There you go again, spending all your time attacking individuals and not addressing the VP papers or anything I've actually presented. Instead you continue to blame me for your inability to deal with the material presented. Your response on that large structure paper amounts to; "Oh that paper must be wrong because I say so".

See - your preposterous citing of "dark flow", Chen, even Ashmore, and so on.

You've never even properly addressed Holushko's work. You flippantly handwaved away the possibility of a 'new" form of redshift interactions in Ashmore's work, and pretty much ignored Chens' work because you can't accept the fact that the universe *could have* AC/DC features in it. Unless I missed it, you didn't touch those VP papers.

Real actual physics IS mathematics and has been for five hundred years. What on earth do you think Newton's Principia is??? It's 100% mathematics, as is Einstein, as is pretty much any physical theory.

Mathematics with electrons is fine. Mathematics with invisible bunnies is an irrational use of mathematics. You've never demonstrated that dark energy exists or that it belongs in a physics formula. When can I expect you do to that *before* you wave at the sky with an affirming the consequent fallacy of an argument?

We do? We get dark matter to turn on and off? What do you even MEAN by this, even assuming that you just made a typo?

When neutrinos were postulated we had a *known* physical process that *seemed* to A) either lose energy, or B) emit a smaller particle than we had yet seen to date. Since the *source* of the "invisible matter" was known, we could set up true *experiments*, complete with actual control mechanisms to turn on and off the reactions in question to be sure we were actually measuring what we though we were measuring.

You can't do that with your exotic matter claims. You don't know where it might come from. You don't know it's actual energy state. You don't know anything about it actually, except you *think* it exists, in *spite of* it's blatant failures at the LHC, and in spite of failing it's "golden test".

Sure we do, galactic center seems to have a lot of it.

The center? I thought *most* of it was *not* near the center? Why the center? How does a lot of invisible matter at the center of a galaxy help explain why the galaxy spins faster around the *outside* of the galaxy?

Sorry that it is a bit far away for you, therefore it must not exist. We don't have any pieces of pluto either, for that matter.

I can see photons from Pluto. My own planet emits and reflects them as well.

If dark matter lenses a photon from a distant galaxy and that photon reaches you when it otherwise would not have, then it has a real measurable effect on you, albeit one that you wouldn't notice in any human way. Your objection is nonsensical.

I handed you a recent paper on lensing that demonstrates that *normal* matter would suffice. Why do I need exotic matter to explain lensing patterns?

So you can't control gravity. Thanks for admission. Perhaps you'll stop asking for ways to 'control' dark energy.

Actually, I can control it. I can control when it accelerates an object and when it doesn't with a control mechanism as simple as an ordinary finger. I can also control how much "gravity" something has by controlling it's mass. You shot your own claim in the foot.

EXACTLY. You have no "control" over it at all.

But I do. You simply failed to notice.

They do many other things besides, but again, that's irrelevant. Pluto's not shown up in a lab any time recently....does it not exist?

This planet (or parts of it) show up on Earth. I can put a satellite around Earth and see it from space too. Likewise I can launch a satellite to orbit Pluto or any other planet, and I can land objects on it. Again your analogy is terrible in comparison to something like invisible matter and energy.

You keep dodging the question. Where does gravity 'come from',

Mass!

and when you answer that, where does your 'answer' come from (eg. curvature of space) and to each and every answer, where does 'that' come from? See what you do?

You mean I answer the question directly with the term "mass"?

That's the Nile and blithe cliches aside, you have no proof it's a structure, and even Clowes HIMSELF says that it's open to different interpretations. I'm not ruling it out, but it can't be ruled in yet, not conclusively, not enough to toss an entire discipline of physics based on one paper.

How about those VP papers, or that paper on "dark matter" in lensing studies, or that observation of tons of plasma and dust surrounding our galaxy? How much evidence is enough?

This would be not be scientific, especially since the last time we had a huge structure in space it was then conclusively shown to be three structures. So rushing to conclusions is hasty.

So the fact that inflation theory fails an observational test is a "rush to judgement", and the fact that SUSY theory failed it's golden test is a "rush to judgement", and the fact that you can't even explain where dark energy comes from, let alone show it can accelerate a single atom is a "rush to judgement". Pretty much any damning evidence I present is going to be a "rush to judgement" in your book.

Not sure who's working on that. Not me, at present anyhow. When can I expect your tired light mechanism? Oh wait, you don't like that kind of rebuttal used against you "because you're ever so busy and only one man" but it's okay to use against other people. I see....

No, it's a valid criticism actually. The problem is that I'm just one guy and not even professionally employed in that industry. It's therefore hardly surprising that I might not yet be able to identify *which* type(s) of inelastic scattering are most influential. On the other hand, it's a tad unusual for 20 years to go buy and not a single human being can explain where "dark matter" comes from, it's energy state, etc. Ditto for dark energy.

I at least *acknowledge* the limitations of my ideas, whereas you do not acknowledge the limitation and problems within your beliefs.

Yeah, same point every time. What I'd like is for you to actually address some physics such as;

1) conservation of momentum mathematics as regards GR and why you think classical conservation of energy holds in GR, even if you assumed a non-inflating universe

First of all conservation of energy is *demonstrated* as a *LAWS* of physics. It's not a "suggestion" that energy is conserved, it's a *LAW* of physics as we understand it. Secondly, in a Newtonian scheme of things, acceleration *must be* an added amount of "energy". Even you're calling it "dark energy" to get it to *accelerate* something.

2) late-time integrated sachs-wolfe effect in baryon acoustic oscillation measurements

Bah. When you can get your exotic matter or energy to have an effect on baryon acoustic oscillations, let me know. Until then it's just another affirming the consequent fallacy, just like your positron claims in relationship to exotic matter.

3) why a doppler-like redshift cannot be made up of non-doppler like component redshifts that are either wavelength dependent, induced or requiring precisely aligned phonons, for example...and so on and so forth

I've already explained to you that since suns are *cathodes* in an EU universe, the EM fields *must be* aligned to some degree. Furthermore the concentration of matter around galaxies in an EM universe would align phonons.

Doppler shift is related to moving objects, not expanding space. You're blatantly pulling a bait and switch routine by trying to ride the coat tails of Doppler shift experiments. While I remain open to an expanding universe made of moving objects, you do not.

 

[davidbilby]

Ok. Point by point.

You say that energy conservation in the classical sense applies to General Relativity. Here is a sample quote:

First of all conservation of energy is *demonstrated* as a *LAWS* of physics. It's not a "suggestion" that energy is conserved, it's a *LAW* of physics as we understand it. Secondly, in a Newtonian scheme of things, acceleration *must be* an added amount of "energy". Even you're calling it "dark energy" to get it to *accelerate* something.

I contend that you are wrong. Not even close to right, unless you're invoking some particular special cases that you are simply not...(eg. total energy of universe being zero).

Not only are you wrong, but your error shows you never really looked at or studied General Relativity at all, because to make so basic, flippant and erroneous a statement as you do could not be done by someone who had. Simply couldn't. You know neither your history of science nor your actual science.

Here's some particular textbook citations:

"The only resolution of this apparent paradox is that there is not a general global energy conservation law in general relativity".

Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology (1993)


"In the modern interpretation of general relativity the equation T_uv;v = 0 stands for energy conservation only in the exceptional case when space-time exhibits time-translation symmetry".

The Expanding Worlds of General Relativity, Hubert Goenner (1999)

(This is pointing out that only when you can talk about hypothetically "stationary" observers do you get time translation symmetry, meaning that classical energy conservation has any meaning whatsoever in GR, except that we know that "stationary" in this sense is an impossibility)


"However, in general relativity there exists no meaningful local expression for gravitational stress-energy and thus there is no meaningful local conservation law which leads to a statement of energy conservation."

General Relativity, Robert Wald (2010)


"Since general relativity theory does not possess a general analog of Newtonian energy conservation, this is difficult to address."

General Relativity: An Introductory Survey (Israel and Hawking, 1979)


"Energy conservation in the usual sense does not hold in general relativity."

Guide to Physics, Peter Landsberg, (2002)


I can probably give you a hundred further citations proving the point...or feel free to read ANY general relativity textbook. Like, pick one. Any one. Done.

You are wrong. Why don't you get that??? Classical energy conservation does not hold in GR (with or without dark energy) and thus using it as a point against dark energy is wrong. Incorrect. Inapplicable. Unscientific. And, once shown to you repeatedly, kind of idiotic.

Will move on to the next point after we're done discussing this one. The back and forth thing makes my head hurt and the character limit keeps kicking in.

 

[Michael]

Ok. Point by point.

You say that energy conservation in the classical sense applies to General Relativity.

Since you insist on starting with all mass/energy condensed into something smaller than a breadbox, start by explaining to me how you even get off *using GR* in the first place!?!?!?!? SR sure, GR *hell no*!

 

[Michael]

Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity?

 

[Michael]

I do not recall any claims of dark matter/dark energy having an empirical effect on human beings,

That alone makes Lambda-CDM a bit of a "religion", a bit akin to deism IMO.

but I will ask of you, what are these "empirical effects on human beings" that we can test for, specific to your religion, and how would we do that?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

I came up with at least one good experiment I could think of, mostly related to the measurement of EM fields inside and outside the human brain during meditation/prayer, much like the Buddhist meditation studies with PET scans.

An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans.

 

[Davian]

That alone makes Lambda-CDM a bit of a "religion" IMO.

Not really. There is observational evidence for them, making them quite different from the typical deity. A swing and a miss for you on that one. Keep swinging! (I know you will )

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

I came up with at least one good experiment I could think of, mostly related to measure EM fields inside and outside the human brain during meditation/prayer, much like the Buddhist meditation studies with PET scans.

An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans.

No, I asked what are these "empirical effects on human beings" that we can test for, specific to your religion. If all you have is that one experiment, which does not have much value, I take it you have nothing?

Also, what would be the comparable strength, in orders of magnitude, of this claimed "EM influence" of your "electric universe" compared to more every day EM fields, like that of an MRI, or the PET scans you mentioned?

 

[Michael]

Not really. There is observational evidence for them, making them quite different from the typical deity.

No, not actually. One could say that there is "observational evidence' of God in human literature. The cause/effect issue is where things get "sticky". While the lensing data tells us more mass is there than we 'estimate', it doesn't tell us that the mass is 'exotic' in nature.

Likewise, even if you could be sure the universe is accelerating (which you can't), there's no physical cause/effect justification for claiming that 'dark energy did it" anymore than there is cause/effect justification for claiming that "God energy did it".

No, I asked what are these "empirical effects on human beings" that we can test for, specific to your religion. If all you have is that one experiment, which does not have much value, I take it you have nothing?

The only unique aspect of my "religion" that I'm aware of that one could "test" for is an active and intelligent EM influence between the universe and humans. Any experiment to "test' that idea would necessarily need to measure EM fields.

Also, what would be the comparable strength, in orders of magnitude, of this claimed "EM influence" of your "electric universe" compared to more every day EM fields, like that of an MRI, or the PET scans you mentioned?

I believe there was a discussion on a "God helmet" in that thread. The EM field effects would likely need to be of similar field strength.

 

[Michael]

No, I asked what are these "empirical effects on human beings" that we can test for, specific to your religion. If all you have is that one experiment, which does not have much value, I take it you have nothing?

FYI, that "one experiment" as you call it is one more "experiment" (with actual control mechanisms) than you can provide for inflation, or for dark energy. Even a lack of a "verified" response to date is better than you can provide for SUSY theory which has in fact *failed* every test run to date at LHC, including it's "golden test'.

 

[davidbilby]

Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity?

Er...are you quite sure you wanted to cite that page? I mean, really?

That webpage says pretty much exactly what I've been saying, and exactly the opposite of what you've been saying. Thanks.

The integral and differential forms differ in curved space-time geometries, and there is no meaningful description of the total energy of the universe. Pseudo-tensors are an elegant albeit incomplete way of solving the puzzle.

Quite a nice summary there of why the expansion of space-time in GR isn't a problem as you've been trying to misrepresent.

So...why exactly did you post that page? You just proved all my points.

 

[davidbilby]

Since you insist on starting with all mass/energy condensed into something smaller than a breadbox, start by explaining to me how you even get off *using GR* in the first place!?!?!?!? SR sure, GR *hell no*!

Huh? I thought you were ok with GR - sans lambda (which of course is curious since, lambda removed, the universe would also expand, to obtain a static universe you need a cosmological constant, just one of a different kind to the expanding concept of dark energy).

Since you like things that are experimentally verified...I'm puzzled as to why you're now...not liking GR? Your argument is going rapidly off the rails.

Amongst many empirical tests of GR:

A precision measurement of the gravitational redshift by the interference of matter waves : Abstract : Nature

Test of relativistic gravitation with a space-borne hydrogen maser

The Relativity Effect in Planetary Motions

A confirmation of the general relativistic prediction of the Lense-Thirring effe

[1105.3456] Gravity Probe B: Final Results of a Space Experiment to Test General Relativity

http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de...Gravitational Physics with Optical Clocks.pdf

 

[Michael]

Er...are you quite sure you wanted to cite that page? I mean, really?

Yes. It seems like a good presentation of the facts.

That webpage says pretty much exactly what I've been saying, and exactly the opposite of what you've been saying. Thanks.

Ok, I'll bite. Where *exactly* (and how) does it say that?

The integral and differential forms differ in curved space-time geometries, and there is no meaningful description of the total energy of the universe. Pseudo-tensors are an elegant albeit incomplete way of solving the puzzle.

Resolving the puzzle in a knowingly incomplete way in no way resolves you from abiding by the *LAWS* of physics!

Quite

a nice summary there of why the expansion of space-time in GR isn't a problem as you've been trying to misrepresent.

When did I say that the expansion of *space-time* was a problem and when did you start making "space" expand instead?

So...why exactly did you post that page? You just proved all my points.

I have no idea what you think your points actually are. You're not just claiming space is "expanding", you're also claiming it's *accelerating* as well!

All I said is your claim about conservation of energy is a ruse. I'm not doing anything of the sort by transferring photon momentum into a medium, whereas you've got a never ending energy source accelerating an entire universe into the sunset and claiming it's "all ok". Baloney.

 

[Michael]

Huh? I thought you were ok with GR - sans lambda (which of course is curious since, lambda removed, the universe would also expand, to obtain a static universe you need a cosmological constant, just one of a different kind to the expanding concept of dark energy).

Since I'm starting with matter all spread out, I can reasonably start with GR. You've yet to explain to me how or why you get to start with anything other than SR?

I have no doubt about the validity of GR theory, just your use (actually abuse) of it.

 

[davidbilby]

Resolving the puzzle in a knowingly incomplete way in no way resolves you from abiding by the *LAWS* of physics!

Why do you think it is a "law" in terms of the entire universe considered as a single thing? What makes you assume the entire universe is an isolated system such that it should hold? Now that you've read a page detailing very clearly why conservation does NOT hold in most cases of GR (unless you invoke certain very specific conditions)...why are you still bringing this up? What don't you understand about this??

When did I say that the expansion of *space-time* was a problem and when did you start making "space" expand instead?

Er, I've always said space-time. It's you who gets the distinction wrong (frequently). But no matter....I guess you changed your mind since here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7658994-86/#post60988228

I quote...

"Matter cannot travel faster than light according to GR, and "space" never does any magic expanding tricks in the lab. Objects move, but "space" does not."

A quick google of your posts brought that up. There's you doing the 'space' instead of space-time error....and wow, that's the completely opposite opinion you just espoused! Space does not expand, you say. Space expanding would be magic, you say!

So either you have a problem with the concept of the expansion of space-time....or you don't. Direct contradiction. Which is it? I'm glad we're finally digging into the inconsistencies in your thinking....

 

[Michael]

Why do you think it is a "law" in terms of the entire universe considered as a single thing?

Why would I automatically start off by *assuming* that the laws of physics suddenly break down, or do not apply, just because the scales get larger?

What makes you assume the entire universe is an isolated system such that it should hold?

If our physical universe has energy flowing into or out of it, so what? I still have no evidence the laws of physics suddenly become meaningless based on scale alone.

Now that you've read a page detailing very clearly why conservation does NOT hold in most cases of GR (unless you invoke certain very specific conditions)...why are you still bringing this up?

Guess which "specific condition" of the universe I most happen to favor?

What don't you understand about this??

Apparently the problem is related to what you do not understand about my position.

Er, I've always said space-time. It's you who gets the distinction wrong (frequently). But no matter....I guess you changed your mind since here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7658994-86/#post60988228

I quote...

"Matter cannot travel faster than light according to GR, and "space" never does any magic expanding tricks in the lab. Objects move, but "space" does not."

A quick google of your posts brought that up. There's you doing the 'space' instead of space-time error....and wow, that's the completely opposite opinion you just espoused! Space does not expand, you say. Space expanding would be magic, you say!

So either you have a problem with the concept of the expansion of space-time....or you don't. Direct contradiction. Which is it? I'm glad we're finally digging into the inconsistencies in your thinking....

The contradiction comes from the double-speak within your industry. Objects cannot and do not travel faster than the speed of light. The universe is larger than 28 billion light years wide, yet presumably less than 14 billion years old. Your industry isn't claiming that objects travel faster than light are they?

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

That is one specific interpretation of GR expansion that I *might* entertain, but all too often I hear your side claim "space expands", not objects.

"Spacetime" expansion is simply based upon the fact that objects in motion tend to stay in motion. That kind of "spacetime" expansion is fine. Your magic brand of faster than light speed expansion from a single clump of mass/energy is not fine.

Care to explain why you think that you even get to start with anything other that *SR*? How large was that "clump" of mass/energy before all that mass/energy started to expand?

 

[Davian]

No, not actually. One could say that there is "observational evidence' of God in human literature.

One could say that there is "observational evidence' of fairies in human literature. Whatever.

The cause/effect issue is where things get "sticky". While the lensing data tells us more mass is there than we 'estimate', it doesn't tell us that the mass is 'exotic' in nature.

So you agree that the mass is there. What the mass consists of is to be discovered.

Likewise, even if you could be sure the universe is accelerating (which you can't), there's no physical cause/effect justification for claiming that 'dark energy did it" anymore than there is cause/effect justification for claiming that "God energy did it".

Gibberish. How can you be sure that the universe is not expanding?

The only unique aspect of my "religion" that I'm aware of that one could "test" for is an active and intelligent EM influence between the universe and humans. Any experiment to "test' that idea would necessarily need to measure EM fields.

If you have nothing, then just say you have nothing.

I believe there was a discussion on a "God helmet" in that thread. The EM field effects would likely need to be of similar field strength.

You did not address the question. We know what the field strengths are of the "god" helmut, MRIs, etc.

What is the field strength of your "electric universe" on the biology on this planet?