What a pathetic attempt at obfuscation and character assassination.
More projection I see. See my previous post. You two are the only one's engaging in character assassination in this thread.
Since I have already stated it was my conclusion I don’t have to show support for the reasons given previously.
That's an utterly *irrational* statement! If it's "your conclusion", it's up to you to show support for it. Period. You can't. You simply "made it up" and then tried to switch the burden of proof. That's worse than most creationist arguments.
However since you are now desperately trying to portray me as a liar by making things up to sidetrack the issues, I’m perfectly prepared to take you on.
In 1929 Fritz Zwicky the father of tired light theory recognized that Thompson scattering cannot work.
You have to go back to 1 specific tired light model from decades ago that suggested that Thompson scattering probably isn't the *only* cause of cosmological redshift? So what? Where did Zwicky state that absolutely no Thompson scattering occurs in space?
While I don’t have a copy of his 1929 paper this commentary came up in a moderated SF analysing the paper.
What paper, page number and paragraph?
So it while it was my conclusion it wasn’t a terribly original one as it was known as far back as 1929!!
FYI, you're *blatantly* misrepresenting what Zwicky said. I have read that paper and it certainly doesn't support your assertion.
Two can play this game Michael.
Show me a citation, text book reference or comments from a moderated SF that supports your claims a static universe doesn’t collapse due to some weird combination of electrostatic repulsion and gravity.
Nope, just Einstein's work on a non-zero constants. He doesn't describe the *nature* of that non-zero constant, so he certainly doesn't *forbid* EM fields as being the culprit. It certainly doesn't require anything exotic since he wasn't using a non-zero constant to drive an acceleration process, he was simply keeping it from collapsing.
Furthermore now that obfuscating nonsense has been cleared up you can now address the primary issue of observed Thomson scattering in the universe proving tired light models are wrong.
No, I am *not* required to do any such thing because A) you haven't demonstrated your claim, and B) most tired light models aren't even based on Thompson scattering to start with, nor do they assert that no Thompson scattering ever happens in plasma! You are simply asserting something as "fact" which turned out to be nothing more than you own unsupported (and unsupportable) conclusion.
Last edited:
Upvote
0