are there other universes?

[JoeyArnold]

Much older in fact. If it's not moving, it could be infinitely old for all we know.

People are sometimes fine with saying that the universe could be much older than imaginable, if not infinitely ancient. In other words, maybe the universe had no beginning, maybe this universe is eternally old. In other words, we sometimes want to say that is a possibility, & yet on the other hand, we do not even want to think about the existence of a God, let alone an infinitely ancient God with no beginning. It seems like if we had to pick from an eternally ancient universe & an eternally ancient Inteligent Designer, we seem to be more scientifically comfortable with the eternal existence of unintelligent matter as oppose the eternal existence of an eternal Father. We want to say, sure, maybe the universe had no beginning, but how dare we even imagine a higher power with no beginning. In other words, a universe with no beginning appears less problematic & less insane than does a Deity that has been around forever. We will pick up our scientific books & equipments, do some tests, say a bunch of things, do a bunch of things, & say that God is a fantasy that does not exist & cannot exist, but a no-beginning universe (that breaks some of the laws of thermodynamics) is the sure way to go.

 

[Michael]

Well...
Absense of evidence is evidence of absense, if the evidence would be expected.
You've repeatedly claimed that the space doesn't expand in the lab, which is a claim different compared to the default position 'space does or does not expand in the lab'.

So what they're asking is reasonable, the absense of evidence is no evidence of absense because it isn't expected to be detectable in that small scale and you should provide with evidence because you've made a claim that isn't the default position.

Nope. It's an attempt to shift the burden of proof. My theories relate only to "spacetime". Space isn't required in my theory (just distance and spacetime). It's the mainstream's claim and the mainstream's responsibility to demonstrate that A) 'space' exists at all as separate from spacetime, and B) define it physically, and C) demonstrate it "expands" as they claim.

There is no evidence that "space" even exists rather than simply spacetime, let alone any evidence at all that it magically expands in some mythical place in the sky.

 

[Michael]

People are sometimes fine with saying that the universe could be much older than imaginable, if not infinitely ancient. In other words, maybe the universe had no beginning, maybe this universe is eternally old. In other words, we sometimes want to say that is a possibility, & yet on the other hand, we do not even want to think about the existence of a God, let alone an infinitely ancient God with no beginning. It seems like if we had to pick from an eternally ancient universe & an eternally ancient Inteligent Designer, we seem to be more scientifically comfortable with the eternal existence of unintelligent matter as oppose the eternal existence of an eternal Father.

FYI, not all of us feel that way:

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

 

[Loudmouth]

I can only cite a *lack* of evidence of expansion!

Then you have no evidence of a lack of expansion.

You keep burden shifting all over the place.

You made the positive claim that space is static in the lab. I am asking you to support it.

 

[Elendur]

Nope. It's an attempt to shift the burden of proof. My theories relate only to "spacetime". Space isn't required in my theory (just distance and spacetime). It's the mainstream's claim and the mainstream's responsibility to demonstrate that A) 'space' exists at all as separate from spacetime, and B) define it physically, and C) demonstrate it "expands" as they claim.

There is no evidence that "space" even exists rather than simply spacetime, let alone any evidence at all that it magically expands in some mythical place in the sky.

It's not an attempt to shift the burden of proof you've just taken the opposite side.
Think of it as the letter V, as long as you're in the middle you say 'yes or no' and you're fine. As soon as you say either 'yes' or 'no' you've got to provide with the evidence for your side.

There is a difference to doubt, deny and promote. (I'm not sure if I got the choice of terms correctly, but I mean deny and promote as opposites and doubt in between)

 

[Michael]

Then you have no evidence of a lack of expansion.

Whereas you have no evidence for it.

You made the positive claim that space is static in the lab. I am asking you to support it.

That's like asking me to demonstrate that unicorns fail to show up in the lab, or leprechauns fail to show up in the lab. You have a lack of evidence for *your* claim that 'space expands'. You've never even physically defined space for me to even *begin* to "test' for it. You haven't shown that that space exists at all as separate from spacetime, let alone show any evidence that it 'expands'.

 

[Loudmouth]

You don't know that,

You don't know that expansion is occuring either.

It's a *generic* set of formulas related to *all* types of redshift theories, not just one! GRRR. Denial is your only means of self defense apparently.

It applies to tired light hypotheses where the speed of light is not the same throughout space. That is not the Stark effect. The Stark effect is a change spectral lines for emission and absorption in an electrical field.

The velocity of objects is restricted to C.

The galaxies we observe redshift in are moving less than c.

Who cares? You keep asserting that the majority opinion is correct only because it's the majority view.

I am asserting that the majority opinion holds much more weight that Ari's unpublished papers and the fringe PC proponents.

Even worse, you don't even seem to properly understand the mainstream theory in the first place! By your logic, epicycles were "right' too for a while. By your logic Chapman was 'right' until the 70's when Birkeland finally became 'right' about aurora.

I accept the BB theory because it accurately predicts what we observe while PC does not.

Stark redshift does produce redshift. Did you even read any of the abstracts from the link to Google Scholar that I posted? I doubt it.

Please show how the Stark effect can redshift light passing through a plasma without absorbing or emitting the photons. Any absorption or emission has the same problems as the Compton shift.

Nope. That temperature was actually better 'predicted' by absorption theories. It was within .4 degrees the first time, whereas early BB models were off by more than a whole order of magnitude!

The PC model has starlight as the source of the CMB. Starlight does not have the same spectral properties as black body radiation. The CMB does. PC fails.

That's also a moot point because plasma redshift produces the same effects and it works in the lab.

Plasma is not observed in the lab to redshift starlight over vast distances without blurring, nor is it shown to produce a CMB that matches black body radiation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Whereas you have no evidence for it.

In the lab, no. We lack the equipment needed to measure such small changes. Instead, we look at cosmological data which is where it should show up, and it is there.

You have a lack of evidence for *your* claim that 'space expands'.

Redshifted starlight says different.

 

[Michael]

It's not an attempt to shift the burden of proof you've just taken the opposite side.

No, I'm simply noting that there is no evidence that "space" A) exists at all, B) has ever been physically defined by *anyone*, or C) that it expands by some physically described mechanism. I can rightfully reject the concept due to any of those failures to justify their claims.

I realize that there is a distinct difference between hard and weak atheism and I'm simply a 'weak atheist' in all three of the aforementioned categories. I lack belief that "space" even exists. I lack belief it's ever been physically defined, and I lack belief that it's ever been demonstrated in any empirical way that 'space" does anything, let alone expand. I lack belief in unicorns and leprechauns too because all of this stuff fails to haven any effect on anything on Earth and they all fail to show up in the lab.

Space isn't even physically described in GR theory or PC theory so I have no idea how to even test the idea that 'space' does anything.

 

[Michael]

In the lab, no. We lack the equipment needed to measure such small changes. Instead, we look at cosmological data which is where it should show up, and it is there.

No, that redshift isn't evidence that "space" expands. It provides evidence that plasma redshift happens in spacetime, just like it happens in the lab.

Redshifted starlight says different.

Nope, it says we live in a static universe where plasma redshift occurs.

 

[Elendur]

No, I'm simply noting that there is no evidence that "space" A) exists at all, B) has ever been physically defined by *anyone*, or C) that it expands by some physically described mechanism. I can rightfully reject the concept due to any of those failures to justify their claims.

I realize that there is a distinct difference between hard and weak atheism and I'm simply a 'weak atheist' in all three of the aforementioned categories. I lack belief that "space" even exists. I lack belief it's ever been physically defined, and I lack belief that it's ever been demonstrated in any empirical way that 'space" does anything, let alone expand. I lack belief in unicorns and leprechauns too because all of this stuff fails to haven any effect on anything on Earth and they all fail to show up in the lab.

Space isn't even physically described in GR theory or PC theory so I have no idea how to even test the idea that 'space' does anything.

Well you did claim;

...
You keep ignoring that space doesn't expand in the lab,
...

If you were to change that position then I wouldn't demand any evidence (of course, given that you change it into the default position)

 

[Michael]

Well you did claim;

If you were to change that position then I wouldn't demand any evidence (of course, given that you change it into the default position)

Every single time I put something down on my desk, it stays exactly where I left it. It doesn't matter how long I'm gone from my desk, the objects do not rearrange themselves by themselves and the "space" between various objects on the desk remain exactly the same. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide that evidence. It's not up to me to devise a "test" of space expansion, because I personally lack belief that A) space exists as separate from "spacetime", B) it's ever been physically defined, or C) it has the capacity to actually "do" anything, including, but not limited to "expansion".

 

[Michael]

You don't know that expansion is occuring either.

I do have every logical reason to 'lack belief' that any such thing happens because I have *lab tested* ways to explaining the same phenomenon. Since you haven't offered a logical way to even test the notion that space exists as separate from "spacetime" to begin with, let alone physically demonstrate your claim in any lab near any human ever, I see nothing valuable about it. It's uniquely *untestable* and unique to one and only one otherwise falsified cosmology theory. I'd say let the metaphysical kludge die a natural death already since there are *known* physical processes that produce redshift in plasma.

It applies to tired light hypotheses where the speed of light is not the same throughout space. That is not the Stark effect. The Stark effect is a change spectral lines for emission and absorption in an electrical field.

Apparently you know very little about EU/PC theory where every plasma particle has a unique electric and magnetic field around it due to it's local environment. It's going to be tough to discuss this topic with you until you can distinguish between various types of redshift, including various concepts of *cosmological* redshift that isn't related to *doppler shifting*.

The galaxies we observe redshift in are moving less than c.

Then Doppler redshift will not explain these redshift patterns. When did you intend to acknowledge that point and acknowledge your mistakes related to the differences between Doppler redshift and cosmological redshift? Let me guess: When hell freezes over?

I am asserting that the majority opinion holds much more weight that Ari's unpublished papers and the fringe PC proponents.

You apparently ignored Chen's work, Holushko's work, all the author's Holuskho mentioned by name and cites in his paper, Ashmore's work, etc, etc, etc. It doesn't matter to "deniers/haters" what published data exists, they ignore it all.

I accept the BB theory because it accurately predicts what we observe while PC does not.

No, it does not. I've even handed you the C# code (well Holushko did it actually) on a silver platter and you blatantly ignored it. You ignored Ashmore's work as well. You apparently never bothered to read much of anything on that list I handed you related to 'stark redshift' on Google Scholar. How predictable.

Please show how the Stark effect can redshift light passing through a plasma without absorbing or emitting the photons.

Why must it do that? Let me guess, it's a personal pet peeve of yours or something?

Any absorption or emission has the same problems as the Compton shift.

Nope. You keep handwaving away and you keep asserting things out of your back pocket without a single published study to your name.

The PC model has starlight as the source of the CMB. Starlight does not have the same spectral properties as black body radiation. The CMB does. PC fails.

Er, no. PC theory predicts a "background temperature" based on the absorption of starlight on materials in space. You've got no empirical link between inflation and the temperature of a single atom to your name.

Plasma is not observed in the lab to redshift starlight over vast distances without blurring,

Nothing could be shown over vast distances, not your space expansion claims either. Every time you toss in the blurring baloney, I'll just know you never bothered to study Holushko's spectral aging software. Did you even bother to download or look at the code?

nor is it shown to produce a CMB that matches black body radiation.

Baloney. The original estimates of the background temperatures of spacetime based on light absorption were within .4 degrees of the actual temperature, whereas the original "predictions" of early BB theories were off by more than an order of magnitude. You're in pure denial over the historical facts.

 

[Elendur]

Every single time I put something down on my desk, it stays exactly where I left it. It doesn't matter how long I'm gone from my desk, the objects do not rearrange themselves by themselves and the "space" between various objects on the desk remain exactly the same. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide that evidence. It's not up to me to devise a "test" of space expansion, because I personally lack belief that A) space exists as separate from "spacetime", B) it's ever been physically defined, or C) it has the capacity to actually "do" anything, including, but not limited to "expansion".

Oh well, I've stated my argument at least, post #180. I feel like I could present it several times but I choose to end it here.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, that redshift isn't evidence that "space" expands.

Are you saying that we should not observe a redshift if expansion is true? Most cosmologists would disagree with you.

 

[Michael]

Are you saying that we should not observe a redshift if expansion is true?

No. That isn't what I said. That is your strawman apparently.

Most cosmologists would disagree with you.

That's hardly surprising since I don't even agree with that statement.

 

[Loudmouth]

I do have every logical reason to 'lack belief' that any such thing happens because I have *lab tested* ways to explaining the same phenomenon.

So you have shown, in the lab, that plasma redshifts will preserve a crisp image of distant galaxies? I would really like to see those lab experiments.

Then Doppler redshift will not explain these redshift patterns.

How so?

You apparently ignored Chen's work, Holushko's work, all the author's Holuskho mentioned by name and cites in his paper, Ashmore's work, etc, etc, etc. It doesn't matter to "deniers/haters" what published data exists, they ignore it all.

What verified mechanisms did I ignore?

No, it does not. I've even handed you the C# code (well Holushko did it actually) on a silver platter and you blatantly ignored it. You ignored Ashmore's work as well. You apparently never bothered to read much of anything on that list I handed you related to 'stark redshift' on Google Scholar. How predictable.

C# code is not a mechanism. I can write a program based on gravity fairies if I want, and write the program so that the gravity fairies produce orbits that are consistent with what we observe. Such a program does not evidence gravity fairies. It is garbage in, garbage out. What you need to show is that plasmas act as the program models, and you haven't done that.

Why must it do that? Let me guess, it's a personal pet peeve of yours or something?

Any time you absorb and emit you blur the image. Images of distant galaxies are not blurred.

Er, no. PC theory predicts a "background temperature" based on the absorption of starlight on materials in space. You've got no empirical link between inflation and the temperature of a single atom to your name.

Right, and that prediction fails. The CMB is not starlight.

Cosmology FAQ: Can the CMBR be redshifted starlight?

The light given off by stars does not match the curve for black body radiation. If the CMB was produced by starlight then we would expect to see deviations from the black body curve as seen in stars. It isn't there. The CMB exactly matches black body radiation just as it should if the BB model is correct. PC fails this very important test.

Nothing could be shown over vast distances, not your space expansion claims either. Every time you toss in the blurring baloney, I'll just know you never bothered to study Holushko's spectral aging software. Did you even bother to download or look at the code?

Why good is a GIGO program? The map is not the territory.

Baloney. The original estimates of the background temperatures of spacetime based on light absorption were within .4 degrees of the actual temperature, whereas the original "predictions" of early BB theories were off by more than an order of magnitude. You're in pure denial over the historical facts.

The current PC model still does not match the measured CMB. It isn't starlight as the PC model requires.

 

[Michael]

Oh well, I've stated my argument at least, post #180. I feel like I could present it several times but I choose to end it here.

I do understand what you're saying. It's essentially the same difference between a 'strong' and 'weak' form of atheism in terms of "lacking belief".

As I explained, everything on my desk stays exactly where I left it, and no unicorns have ever walked through my office. Furthermore nobody has ever claimed to see 'space' do any sort of expanding in a lab, nor have any unicorns been documented to exist in nature. I therefore *lack belief* in such things. If LM or you would like to provide me with some empirical evidence of space expansion, I'm all ears. If not, it's an "act of faith' on the part of the 'believer' and it's not a form of empirical physics.

 

[Elendur]

I do understand what you're saying. It's essentially the same difference between a 'strong' and 'weak' form of atheism in terms of "lacking belief".

Yes, it's essentially the same basis.

As I explained, everything on my desk stays exactly where I left it, and no unicorns have ever walked through my office. Furthermore nobody has ever claimed to see 'space' do any sort of expanding in a lab, nor have any unicorns been documented to exist in nature. I therefore *lack belief* in such things. If LM or you would like to provide me with some empirical evidence of space expansion, I'm all ears. If not, it's an "act of faith' on the part of the 'believer' and it's not a form of empirical physics.

Then don't ask it to be demonstrated where it shouldn't be observed, ask for it to be demonstrated where it should be observed.

(I also claim that you have no evidence against my miniature unicorn army that is marching through your office right now, muahahaha!)

 

[Michael]

So you have shown, in the lab, that plasma redshifts will preserve a crisp image of distant galaxies? I would really like to see those lab experiments.

No, I have spectral aging software by Holushko that tests that concept and it's fine.

How so?

I'm really sick and tired of going in circles with you over the Doppler shift claims you keep making. You're apparently in hardcore denial of scientific fact. No professional astronomer even uses Doppler redshift to explain cosmological redshift. If you refuse to the distinguish between Doppler redshift and cosmological redshift, what's the point of trying to have a conversation with you in the first place? It's like talking to dad because you're just making things up as you go!

What verified mechanisms did I ignore?

Besides the Wolf effect and Stark redshift? You've ignored pretty much every other possible mechanism related to plasma redshift and I don't think you've even provided a single published rebuttal of anything.

C# code is not a mechanism.

It's a *quantified* explanation of the observations based on *generic* models related to plasma redshift. It could apply to any and all of them. It's just a valid of a quantification as any that the mainstream have provided.

I can write a program based on gravity fairies if I want, and write the program so that the gravity fairies produce orbits that are consistent with what we observe.

That is *exactly* what the mainstream is doing, only they use "dark energy" faeries to make the match. I'm simply using *known physics* to explain those same features.

Such a program does not evidence gravity fairies. It is garbage in, garbage out. What you need to show is that plasmas act as the program models, and you haven't done that.

Boloney. I've done exactly what the mainstream did. I provided you mathematical support of concept. Your criticism are rather ironic from my perspective since 96 percent of mainstream theory is composed of invisible sky faeries that only show up in one and only one cosmology theory, certainly never in the lab.

Any time you absorb and emit you blur the image. Images of distant galaxies are not blurred.

Your first statement isn't necessarily true, so your second statement is a moot point.

Right, and that prediction fails. The CMB is not starlight.

Cosmology FAQ: Can the CMBR be redshifted starlight?

Pure unpublished handwaving. I'm amazed at the way folks argue their case based on unpublished website material. It's bizarre. Even the first sentence is highly suspect:

The CMB radiation is such a perfect fit to a blackbody that it cannot be made by stars. The reason for this is that stars are at best only pretty good blackbodies, and the usual absorption lines and band edges make them pretty bad blackbodies.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Stars/color.html

That's devastating news to the mainstream because they use 'blackbody' calculations to determine the temperature of every star in the universe and they describe them as "black bodies" with "opaque" surfaces. Suddenly stars are "bad blackbodies' based on one web author's unpublished claims? Nobody is claiming or requiring that the stars act like a "black body" in the first place, it's the *plasma and particles of spacetime* that emit the light we observe in the CMB, not the stars themselves. The stars are actually 'filtered out' on purpose. Wow, what a lame website.

The light given off by stars does not match the curve for black body radiation.

Boloney. It may not be a "perfect' fit, but it's certainly good enough for astronomers to use in terms of guestimating the temperature of the object in question. I love how you simply ignore the whole method they use to determine the temperature of a star.

If the CMB was produced by starlight then we would expect to see deviations from the black body curve as seen in stars. It isn't there.

No we would not. Again, that's pure handwaving on your part. It's not the suns that produce the background light we're observing, it's the *particles in spacetime* that do that. The original emitter doesn't even need to be a "black body' to begin with because we filtering out he emitters themselves to that all we observe is the background temperature of spacetime.

The CMB exactly matches black body radiation just as it should if the BB model is correct. PC fails this very important test.

That isn't a "test", that's a ridiculous handwave from some guys website that clearly makes a "questionable' set of assumptions to begin with. When astronomers calculate the temperature of stars they consider them to be a "black body". Suddenly now you're going to simply ignore that fact, and make just the opposite claim that suns are "bad blackbodies". Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too. If sun's are actually "bad blackbodies" you just falsified mainstream theory. Congrats for falsifying every mainstream theory under the sun.

Why good is a GIGO program? The map is not the territory.

What good is you code related to invisible sky entities. You put 96 percent garbage in, so you got 96 percent garbage out.

The current PC model still does not match the measured CMB. It isn't starlight as the PC model requires.

Boloney. Your simply handwaving based on false statements from some guys website. Your opinions aren't even based upon *published* materials, and the very first paragraph, if actually true, would necessarily falsify mainstream claims about the temperatures of every sun in the universe.