Who are you trying to kid?
If you going to be dishonest at least have some subtlety behind it.
Before my previous post EM was not even been mentioned, all previous posts only referred to “rotation” and “momentum”.
You are engaging in pure deception by changing the goalposts.
You have a really bad habit of walking into the middle of a conversation, without bothering to read it, and then making a bunch of assertions about my position that are simply not true. You also have a bad habit of attacking *people* rather than sticking to the topic. The only "deception" going on here is your assertion that I suggested that *only* motion was involved in keeping the universe "static", or that *no* external influences would be required. In fact I even pointed out that Birkeland's cathode sun theory probably would produce charge repulsion between stars.
FYI, what I was pointing out to Leslie is that it wouldn't take a *huge* amount of external force to keep objects in motion, or to produce a static universe because superclusters are also in motion in EU/PC theory. Period.
Your lack of basic comprehension skills also includes the failure to recognize sarcasm.
Yawn. More personal attacks. Do you even know what a legitimate scientific conversation looks like without all the personal insults? Static universe theory predates me, and it will be around long after I'm dead too.
The simplest answer to the question is that there is no Doppler shift due to rotation because astronomers are highly dubious that galaxies are in definable orbits in the first place.
Your answer is nothing but word salad.
Horsepucky. Even the mainstream *assumes* that galaxies are moving around inside of a supercluster arrangement of galaxies which orbit around a common center of mass for the supercluster. They may not treat *superclusters* as moving objects, but they certainly treat galaxies as moving objects.
NOVA Online | Runaway Universe | Galaxies, Clusters, and Superclusters
Galaxies within a cluster are generally considered to be bound together by their mutual gravitational pulls. They each orbit around their common center of mass.
Whatever the "net effect" of that Doppler shift might be at cosmological scales, it's *tiny* compared to the net effect of the 'space expansion" claims about redshift.
On cosmological scales it is blindingly obvious that galaxies are not in orbits.
It's blindingly obvious that *every* galaxy is in orbit around some center of mass somewhere. The Doppler shift associated with that movement simply isn't worried about at cosmological scales because it's insignificant compared to the tired light/space expansion/cosmological redshift factor.
I don't think you even understand *mainstream* theory properly! Oy Vey. To save us both some time, I'm just going to skip the redundant and irrelevant nonsense.
Things don’t get any better at more modest intergalactic scales as blueshifted galaxies are found in the Virgo cluster 65 million light years away which is due to Doppler shift.
So which is it? Do galaxies orbit a center of mass and have a Doppler shift component or not?!? You can't even make up your mind, and you're certainly contradicting yourself.
Conveying the idea galaxies orbiting in space is a statement of fact is a straight out lie given the evidence is far from conclusive.
There you go again, blatantly cheating in debate by playing the liar, liar, pants on fire game. Sheesh. The only straight out lie is your claim that galaxies are not in motion. Even the fact that we believe that our galaxy will eventually merge with Andromeda is evidence that galaxies move, and they have a Doppler shift component in their redshift/blueshift.
About (and not necessarily) the only things in LCDM that don't have an intrinsic Doppler shift/physical movement component associated with them are distant *superclusters*. Those tend to be treated as "GR islands" unto themselves, and any redshift associated with them is attributed to "space expansion" rather than movement of objects, but only because the cosmological redshift component is much more significant than any movements associated with such distant galaxies.
Either you don't understand mainstream theory properly, or you didn't explain it properly.
Let me remind you this “electrical “component is the result of you changing the goalposts.
No. Let me remind you that the electrical component is *intrinsic* to EU/PC theory, and your whining is a result of you stepping into the middle of an ongoing conversation I've had with Leslie over the *amount* of the electrical component, not *if* it's applicable in EU/PC theory! Sheesh.
Does this mean that planetary orbits also have an “electrical” component since you have been drawing comparisons between the two?
It might, particularly if a "theory of everything" can be shown to exist which ties gravity back to EM fields. It might still have an effect, albeit a *tiny* effect compared to gravity. For the sake of my conversation with Leslie however I *assumed* that only gravity and momentum were involved, and that *no* EM influences were necessary to explain events in planetary orbits, or even galaxy orbits inside their superclusters.
Funny how the science of Celestial Mechanics has many wide varied applications from predicting the positions of the planets, to navigating probes in space which work perfectly well without your “electrical” component.
Funny how I used that to my advantage in my conversation with Leslie too.
Yet another bald face lie.
What!?!?! Holy Cow. You really do cheat at debate every single time. You can't stick to the topic and you're always attacking my character. Knock it off.
You created your own strawman and then you called me a "liar" with it. That's just pitiful.
You have got to be kidding.
For someone whose entire argument is to use the solar system as an analogy for a Static Universe, to claim the question is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with Cosmology is the height of hypocrisy.
The facts are the question is very relevant because it applies to local scales as well.
You are trying to squirm out of a response because you can’t admit of not knowing the answer.
You apparently just are not paying attention to the prior conversations I've been having with Leslie. Unlike you, Leslie seems to be fine with galaxy movement and momentum holding superclusters together and the only debate we're really having is about supercluster movements. That's the only thing in debate between Leslie and myself, even if you personally have some problem with galaxy movements and momentum. I'm going to assume that even you actually accept that galaxies rotate around a center of mass that is associated with the supercluster, and you just oversimplified the explanation somewhere along the way.
What an absolute load of rubbish.
You have this idiotic.....
More loaded language aimed at the individual. How sad for you.
.....idea that reproducing a process in a laboratory trumps observation.
No, that's just a false statement about my beliefs, and you apparently should keep your day job because you stink at mind reading. The only place where processes in a lab trump *supernatural claims* as to *cause*, is when one cause/effect process in the lab can be demonstrated in the lab, whereas the supernatural claim is a dud in the lab.
I don't doubt the existence of cosmological redshift, I just assume it's related to tired light/inelastic scattering because there are numerous types of scattering that are *known and demonstrated* to have a tangible effect on photon momentum in the lab, and there are *hypothetical* ones being introduced on a regular basis, including the one which I cited in the OP of this very thread!
What is more important the satellite that measures magnetic variations in the Earth’s ionosphere as a Birkeland current or a planeterella demonstration in a laboratory?
In an ideal scenario, they both have equal value in terms of "science", but the working solar model also allowed Birkeland to make a *host of different* predictions which a simple measurement might not. For instance, with his "working lab model", in addition to his predictions about planetary aurora, Birkeland correctly predicted a *hot corona*, electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere, polar jets, cathode rays/electron beams coming from the sun, both types of charged particles coming from the sun in high speed solar wind, etc. A simple in situ measurement of the Earth's aurora wouldn't necessarily allow for someone to make all those other successful predictions about solar physics. From the standpoint of making *predictions*, the working model is *way better* than a simple in situ measurement.
Furthermore where are these Birkeland currents warming up the Sun’s corona?
Electrons streaming away from the surface are what heat up the overall corona. Individuals coronal loops might be described as "Birkeland currents/magnetic ropes", and the current inside those loops heats them up to *millions* of degrees.
To suggest that a planeterella demonstration leads to the conclusion that the Sun’s corona is being heated by Birkeland currents without any evidence of Birkeland currents in the first place is sheer stupidity.
The only thing that is "sheer stupidity" is your assertion that there is no evidence of field aligned currents in the solar atmosphere. Every single coronal loop contains *massive* amounts of current which heat up the loops to *millions* of degrees! How can you miss all that "evidence" that's staring you in face in every SDO high energy image of the sun?
FYI, Birkeland *predicted* and even *simulated* the existence of coronal loops in the solar atmosphere as a result of his experiments.
Once again you are employing word salad by suggesting EM fields playing a role in shaping a cosmological model.
Once again you are ignoring the definition of the term "Electric Universe" theory!
You obviously have zero comprehension that the range of the electromagnetic force is limited to several Debye lengths.
The Debye length argument is one of those BS EU/PC hater claims. What's the Debye length of a cathode ray from Birkeland's cathode sun experiment going to be when you scale it up to solar system proportions? That is simply the lamest argument in the solar system.
The Debye length for the intergalactic medium is around 10^5 metres, not much beyond this value the electromagnetic force drops to zero.
Is that a mainstream *estimated* number or something which they actually measured in space somewhere? Let me guess.......
It is totally ludicrous to think that such a short range force has any effect at cosmological scales.
It's totally ludicrous to ignore the massive Birkeland currents that wire the universe together too, but you do it anyway. Even the mainstream acknowledges (based on observation) that the universe is "threaded" and has massive "dark matter' threads where galaxies and superclusters seem to be concentrated. Those are simply Birkeland currents, and the currents running through them should not be ignored as the mainstream does.
Finally let me state this.
It’s one thing for you to display a level of dishonesty,
You're the one being "dishonest" in this thread by continuing to attack the *messenger* rather than the message itself. That's the "dishonest" behavior in this thread. Look yourself in the mirror if you wish to get rid of "dishonesty" in this conversation.
Right or wrong, all EU/PC ideas work in the lab, and I believe in them, even if their wrong. Being proven to be wrong doesn't even make me "dishonest", it would just make me wrong.
Stop interjecting personal attacks into a discussion about *science*. It's unethical behavior on your part.
it is a far more serious matter when you post personal attacks on a forum from another website with complete impunity knowing that the individual concerned has no right of reply having been banned by the same moderators who turn a blind eye to you.
The only individuals that I have ever gone out of my way to "personally attack" as you put it are two (potentially three) specific individuals who have a *proven track record* of making *willfully* false claims about EU/PC theory and or me personally. I've simply pointed out their direct lies too. Whatever goes on at Thunderbolts in terms of personal attacks *pales* in comparison to the BS that comes out of EU/PC hater's mouths at ISF on a daily basis.
If you'd like me to come back to ISF and tell him the same thing to his face, just petition for my reinstatement and I'll be happy to point out his false statement on ISF too.
I raise this issue here for a couple of reasons.
First of all this individual posts in this forum as well,
Then apparently he is able to take up his concerns here if he feels compelled to do so.
secondly is my own experience where you took a post of mine from a science blog site which you then edited before doing a critique on.
Which blog entry might that be? How did I "edit it"? I cut up everyone's posts into manageable units, typically based on a specific idea or paragraph content just to respond on a point by point basis. I'm not trying to be unethical in that case, I'm just trying to respond thoroughly to each argument that is being made.
Very poor behaviour indeed.
Without any specific example to work with, I have no way to know that in your case. You'll have to be more specific about what you think I "edited" and how that was "unethical' in some way.
I issue this challenge to you.
Since you display “courage” on the other forum why don’t you post the same stuff here and give individuals like myself the right of reply……. I’m sure the other gentleman would be very pleased to respond as well.
What does that conversation have to do with 'Christianity'?
I have a *much* better idea. I have more than enough courage to come back over to the lion's den at ISF where all the trash talking about EU/PC theory is taking place on a daily basis, and I will be very happy to repeat whatever I may have said at Thunderbots right to his face if you get me reinstated. Then we can take the gloves off for real and deal with the problem right where it starts.
You can all engage in your personal attack nonsense too because the forum is skewed in your favor.
Whatever I may have stated about anyone at Thunderbolts has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of "Christianity". I have also made personal agreements with the moderators at this forum which I must abide by, and which I have agreed to abide by, so I seriously doubt that this specific forum would be the proper forum for that particular conversation.
Go petition to get me reinstated at ISF and I promise to repeat anything that I may have said at Thunderbolts right to the individual's face and we can air all the dirty laundry in the offending forum.
I'd be willing to petition for the reinstatement of that same individual at Thunderbolts too, but I have no control over the choices of the moderators at Thunderbolts, and he will probably have to behave much better at Thunderbolts. You'd have a home field advantage at ISF.
