are there other universes?

[Michael]

Then you should reject plasma cosmology for the same reason that you reject the standard BB model.

Er, no. Scaling will be required in any and all theories. Whereas I'm scaling *known* things like plasma and EM fields, you're scaling invisible sky thingies that lack empirical *qualification*. Totally different issues.

Yes, you change the properties and mechanisms of plasma until you get the results you want. That is the problem. You are inventing mechanisms by which plasma can produce a redshift and pretending as if these mechanisms are evidenced by the redshift itself. Doesn't work that way.

I'm only changing densities and temperatures and variable that are logical to change. I'm not *inventing* anything. The fact the you personal are ignorant of *other known mechanisms* of redshift isn't my fault. I'm also not "pretending" that three impotent on Earth sky thingies did it. You've got a very skewed concept of "changing' and "pretending'. Somehow it's "ok" to "pretend" that inflation and dark energy did it, but it's not 'ok' to speculate that plasma did it.

To produce redshift all we need is a difference in velocity. It doesn't matter if that difference in velocity is due to expansion or not. The redshift is still there. That is the mechanism.

Are you ever going to come clean about the difference between cosmological redshift (not demonstrated in a lab) and "Doppler shift" that has been demonstrated? Are you an actual astronomer, yes or no? I kinda doubt it based upon your statements. Most astronomers I've met understand the distinction between cosmological redshift and Doppler shift. In fact I've never met one that didn't.

You are using it as a slur. Period.

Really? I am a 'Christian' that loves Jesus. That is a "religion" isn't it? Am I slurring myself too? In the sense that I personally believe that there *should* be a distinction between science and religion, maybe it's a slur in that sense. The fact that there isn't a difference isn't my fault. If PC/EU theory were the prevailing cosmology theory today, I'd have darn little to complain about, and such a comparison wouldn't even be valid in the first place.

The vehemence behind the usage is obvious to everyone. You are trying to discredit ideas because you claim they rely on faith and deities. What does that say about your religious beliefs?

My "deity" is quite visible. It's not "dark". It's 100 percent empirical in nature and it's power is immense. Every bit of it interacts with humans on Earth, including it's light, it's heat, it's EM fields, etc. In terms of pure empirical physics, compared to your "religion", you have absolutely nothing to complain about in my "religion". My religion is based upon 100% empirical physics, whereas 96 percent of your religion epically fails to show up in any lab on Earth.

 

[Loudmouth]

SR prevents anything from traveling faster than the speed of light . . .

We are not talking about travelling through space. We are talking about expansion of space itself. What physical law does not allow the cumulative expansion of space adding up to larger than c?

and your mythos begins by putting all the Higgs of the universe into something smaller than an atom.

So far, all of the evidence has supported the BB theory, so I fail to see why it is a mythos.

Nope. I'm using the laws of physics.

Which ones? SR does not limit space expansion.

The term "plasma redshift" is most commonly associated with "Stark redshift".

Rob Knop already spoke on this, and he did a rather nice job of it:

"In the Chen paper, it's about how lines are modified by plasma effects where those lines are emitted. Things like the Stark effect, where the *energy levels of the atoms* are modified. Meanwhile, Plasma Cosmology depends on photons travelling through space having their energy modified by interactions with free electrons. Although the term "redshift" applies in both places, the two things have nothing to do with each other."
http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacti...isabled-with-an-aside-about-plasma-cosmology/

 

[Loudmouth]

Er, no. Scaling will be required in any and all theories. Whereas I'm scaling *known* things like plasma and EM fields, you're scaling invisible sky thingies that lack empirical *qualification*. Totally different issues.

Doppler shifts are known things as well.

The fact the you personal are ignorant of *other known mechanisms* isn't my fault.

The Stark effect is a source effect. You are saying that the intervening plasma is causing the redshift. That can not be the Stark effect. So what mechanism are they using in the model?

Are you ever going to come clean about the difference between cosmological redshift (not demonstrated) and "Doppler shift" that has been demonstrated?

The difference is meaningless as to the observations.

Really? I am a 'Christian' that loves Jesus. That is a "religion" isn't it? Am I slurring myself too?

By using faith and deities as slurs, yes you are.

 

[Michael]

We are not talking about travelling through space. We are talking about expansion of space itself.

You're talking nonsense because "space" isn't defined by GR, you've never defined it physically and you've never explained how it "expands". Talk about a lack of a "mechanism"! Holy cow! Double standard much?

What physical law does not allow the cumulative expansion of space adding up to larger than c?

Nothing prevents dark magic from doing anything you claim it does as long as you never have to demonstrate a word of it in a lab.

So far, all of the evidence has supported the BB theory, so I fail to see why it is a mythos.

It's a creation mythos, that requires faster than light speed expansion and faith in three different unseen (in the lab) entities. It's only 4% actual *empirical physics*.

Which ones? SR does not limit space expansion.

It doesn't limit magic either. So what?

Rob Knop already spoke on this, and he did a rather nice job of it:

"In the Chen paper, it's about how lines are modified by plasma effects where those lines are emitted. Things like the Stark effect, where the *energy levels of the atoms* are modified. Meanwhile, Plasma Cosmology depends on photons travelling through space having their energy modified by interactions with free electrons. Although the term "redshift" applies in both places, the two things have nothing to do with each other."
http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacti...isabled-with-an-aside-about-plasma-cosmology/

Rob's statement, like many of his other statements, is pure baloney! The fact that Rob closed his blog before I could point that out his error is your first clue that Rob is incapable of defending that position publicly. Rob is nothing more than a two bit EU/PC "hater/hack" that has a vested interest in misrepresenting this very issue. He has a greater interest than most because plasma redshift directly affects his work and his claims about observing "time dilation" in supernova events. Those features he's describing are actually related to signal broadening effects in plasma, not time dilation as Rob claimed and therefore Rob continues to blatantly misrepresent plasma redshift theory to this very day. Sheesh.

 

[Michael]

Are you actually an astronomer, yes or no?

 

[Michael]

Doppler shifts are known things as well.

Doppler shift is not used by the mainstream to explain redshift. Only you seem to be confused on this topic.

The Stark effect is a source effect.

Meaning what to you personally?

You are saying that the intervening plasma is causing the redshift.

Yep.

That can not be the Stark effect.

Ok, I'll bite. Why not?

The difference is meaningless as to the observations.

But it's not the same thing, and it's not what they claim in the first place. You're intentionally ignoring the distinction and distorting the distinction because you don't want to admit that you're evoking an unknown and untested "method" to explain these observations. Who do you think you're fooling anyway?

By using faith and deities as slurs, yes you are.

Why is it a slur to you and offensive to you to admit that you have "faith" in inflation, faith in dark energy and faith in exotic forms of matter? You certainly cannot demonstrate that any of them exist in nature. They are about as "supernatural' constructs as it gets.

 

[Michael]

Based upon the fact that you keep avoiding my question about whether or not you're an astronomer, and your confusion between cosmological redshift and Doppler shift, I am forced to assume that you're not actually an astronomer and you don't even properly/clearly understand these issues. How exactly do you expect to have a logical conversation about redshift if you can't tell the difference between Doppler shift and 'space expansion' claims unrelated to 'Doppler shift'?

 

[Loudmouth]

No.

Please explain why we would not see more redshift the further away a galaxy is if expansion is uniform.

 

[Loudmouth]

Doppler shift is not used by the mainstream to explain redshift.

A difference in velocity is capable of producing redshift. Yes or no?

Meaning what to you personally?

The splitting of emission lines occurs at the body emitting the photons. Therefore, the Stark effect would apply to the plasma in the stars, not the plasma in between.

But it's not the same thing, and it's not what they claim in the first place.

For all intents and purposes, yes it is. We don't need plasmas to explain the redshift. All we need is a difference in velocity.

Why is it a slur to you and offensive to you to admit that you have "faith" in inflation, faith in dark energy and faith in exotic forms of matter? You certainly cannot demonstrate that any of them exist in nature. They are about as "supernatural' constructs as it gets.

Why do you find it important to label these things as faith based?

 

[Michael]

A difference in velocity is capable of producing redshift. Yes or no?

If you can't distinguish between Doppler redshift (not used by mainstream astronomers to explain redshift) and 'cosmological redshift' (currently used by the mainstream to explain redshift), there is no point in continuing this conversation. You keep misrepresenting *mainstream* astronomy theory, so how on Earth can you possibly discuss alternative ideas on this topic?

The splitting of emission lines occurs at the body emitting the photons. Therefore, the Stark effect would apply to the plasma in the stars, not the plasma in between.

Nope. It would apply to *all* of the plasmas that the photon interacts with between the point of emission and it's final arrival at Earth. The more interactions, the greater the redshift.

For all intents and purposes, yes it is. We don't need plasmas to explain the redshift. All we need is a difference in velocity.

Doppler redshift describes the movement of objects and is not used by the mainstream to explain redshift. Do you understand that, yes or no?

Why do you find it important to label these things as faith based?

Because I like to keep track of which idea enjoy empirical support and which do not. Some beliefs are an act of faith on the part of the believer. If you believe that 'space' (how ever the heck you define it) somehow does a magical expansion trick, it's up to you to demonstrate that claim. I don't even believe in "space" as you put it (as separate from spacetime), and I certainly don't think it *does* anything. Inflation lacks and will always lack evidence from the lab. Ditto for dark energy. You might get lucky at LHC and they may find some unusual (if fleeting) forms of matter in the higher energy collisions sets, but like all 'argument of the gaps' arguments, dark matter theory was never predicated upon actual 'evidence' from the lab. It's therefore unlikely that all forms of 'dark matter' theory could or would be falsified in the lab.

 

[Michael]

Please explain why we would not see more redshift the further away a galaxy is if expansion is uniform.

Expansion of *what*? The movement of objects is described by "Doppler Redshift". Expansion of objects won't explain the observed redshift because it would require objects of mass to expand faster than C. That is physically impossible. It's not my fault that the mainstream chose to stuff every Higgs in the universe into a single clump, smaller than a single atom. They did that in their mythos, all on they own.

When you can distinguish between the expansion/movement of objects (Doppler redshift) and cosmological redshift, let me know. At the moment I'm tired of going around in circles with you and you don't seem to be able to differentiate between them.

 

[Loudmouth]

Expansion of *what*?

Expansion of space.

We will see redshift increase with distance if expansion is uniform. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[Loudmouth]

If you can't distinguish between Doppler redshift (not used by mainstream astronomers to explain redshift) and 'cosmological redshift' (currently used by the mainstream to explain redshift), there is no point in continuing this conversation. You keep misrepresenting *mainstream* astronomy theory, so how on Earth can you possibly discuss alternative ideas on this topic?

I see that you refuse to answer my question. Why is that?

Nope. It would apply to *all* of the plasmas that the photon interacts with between the point of emission and it's final arrival at Earth. The more interactions, the greater the redshift.

Those interactions are through absorption and emission. The Stark effect deals with emission and abosrption of excited atoms in an electrical field. This would produce substantial blurring of distant starlight, which we don't see.

Doppler redshift describes the movement of objects and is not used by the mainstream to explain redshift.

They don't use plasma redshift either.

Because I like to keep track of which idea enjoy empirical support and which do not.

Then let's take a look at the scientific consensus. We have thousands and thousands of physicists and astronomers who support the BB model. We have Ari who hasn't even published his papers on plasma redshift. Hmm, which way should I go . . .

If you believe that 'space' (how ever the heck you define it) somehow does a magical expansion trick, it's up to you to demonstrate that claim.

That explanation is the evidence supporting the BB model. I don't need faith. I have the evidence.

 

[Michael]

Expansion of space.

"Space" isn't physically defined in GR and you have never physically defined it. You have nothing more than a metaphysical claim and *blind faith* in that claim apparently.

We will see redshift increase with distance if expansion is uniform. Do you agree or disagree?

You keep ignoring that space doesn't expand in the lab, nor do objects expand faster than light. That only happens in creation mythologies, not labs.

 

[Michael]

I see that you refuse to answer my question. Why is that?

There's no point in answering your question. You keep confusing/ignoring/intentionally obfuscating the difference between "expansion of objects" and expansion of something you've never physically defined, specifically "space". You keep using the term 'expansion" as though it doesn't make a difference to your claim. It does make a difference in this case. You can't demonstrate your claim or your "mechanism".

Those interactions are through absorption and emission. The Stark effect deals with emission and abosrption of excited atoms in an electrical field. This would produce substantial blurring of distant starlight, which we don't see.

Nonsense. You simply ignore Holushko's work. Denial at it's finest.

They don't use plasma redshift either.

So what? I was discussing the fact that you're ignoring the difference between Doppler shift and cosmological redshift. You keep butchering the mainstream position on this topic, apparently quite intentionally.

Then let's take a look at the scientific consensus.

Ah, so you *should be* a theist by that logic too. Is that an appeal to authority fallacy, an appeal to popularity fallacy, or both?

We have thousands and thousands of physicists and astronomers who support the BB model.

Lots of scientists think it's baloney too:

cosmologystatement.org

We have Ari who hasn't even published his papers on plasma redshift. Hmm, which way should I go . . .

You have a lot more published material to go with and to go through, that I have provided for you to read if you wish, but then you aren't interested in education apparently. Until today you seemed to believe that Compton scattering was the only type of interaction with matter that causes redshift. Denial seems to be your primary means of self defense. If you didn't bother to read it, it must not exist.

That explanation is the evidence supporting the BB model. I don't need faith. I have the evidence.

You have no evidence to support any of your key claims, not one bit of it. It's 96 percent pure "statement of faith" in unseen entities, and only 4 percent actual physics.

 

[Loudmouth]

There's no point in answering your question.

Then there is no reason to answer your questions since plasma is not the cause of the observed redshift.

Nonsense. You simply ignore Holushko's work. Denial at it's finest.

What is there to deny? Holushko's work involves an ether, not the Stark effect.

So what? I was discussing the fact that you're ignoring the difference between Doppler shift and cosmological redshift. You keep butchering the mainstream position on this topic, apparently quite intentionally.

We don't need expansion in order to have a redshift. All we need is a difference in velocity. That's it.

Ah, so you *should be* a theist by that logic too. Is that an appeal to authority fallacy, and appeal to popularity fallacy, or both?

I was unaware that God was a scientific consensus. Weren't you going on and on about how there is a separate of religion and science?

Lots of scientists think it's baloney too:

cosmologystatement.org

And how many of those are plasma cosmologists?

Until today you seemed to believe that Compton scattering was the only type of interaction with matter that causes redshift.

And it still is. The Stark effect splits the spectral lines. It doesn't produce a redshift.

You have no evidence to support any of your key claims, not one bit of it. It's 96 percent pure "statement of faith" in unseen entities, and only 4 percent actual physics.

Yes, I do have the evidence. First, there is the CMB. Second, redshift increases with distance. I could go on and on. It is all there.

 

[Loudmouth]

"Space" isn't physically defined in GR and you have never physically defined it.

This is laughable. Spactime is the three spatial dimensions and time.

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

Evidence please.

 

[Michael]

This is laughable. Spactime is the three spatial dimensions and time.

None of those spatial dimensions have ever done any magic expansion tricks in the lab, and they have no ability to "expand" in physics.

Evidence please.

I can only cite a *lack* of evidence of expansion! You keep burden shifting all over the place. Unicorns never show up in the lab either. How exactly would you suggest that I provide "evidence" that they consistently fail to show up in the lab?

 

[Michael]

Then there is no reason to answer your questions since plasma is not the cause of the observed redshift.

You don't know that, whereas I do know for sure that astronomers do not attributed redshift to Doppler shift, not even in *theory*. Sheesh. Discussions with you are clearly pointless.

What is there to deny? Holushko's work involves an ether, not the Stark effect.

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.

We don't need expansion in order to have a redshift. All we need is a difference in velocity. That's it.

The velocity of objects is restricted to C. So sorry to break the bad news to you, the velocity of object will not explain the redshift that we observe.

I was unaware that God was a scientific consensus.

You're unaware of a lot of things apparently.

Weren't you going on and on about how there is a separate of religion and science?

Sometimes there is, something there isn't. If you've been following my conversations, I've explained that religion is just a subset of 'science' and both require "acts of faith" in the unseen at times, although not *every* time.

And how many of those are plasma cosmologists?

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

And it still is. The Stark effect splits the spectral lines. It doesn't produce a redshift.

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.

Yes, I do have the evidence. First, there is the CMB.

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!

Second, redshift increases with distance. I could go on and on. It is all there.

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

 

[Elendur]

I can only cite a *lack* of evidence of expansion! You keep burden shifting all over the place.

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.