Ask a physicist anything. (8)

[florida2]

Ask a scientist anything? That's a strange invitation! Very off-putting, indeed. You seem to be suggesting that scientists, because of their work, are funds of knowledge on all kinds of subjects - when the reverse is the case.

Their professional establishment is utterly totalitarian, clamping down ruthlessly on people who don't toe the line of know-nothing, atheist materialism. Working scientists are in the thrall of atheist scientism, scorned by most of the higher-level scientists, who however, have to keep their own council or lose their job.

All the great paradigms changes were initiated and pioneered by at the very least, deist believers in Intelligent Design. Surely, it's you who need to be the one asking questions.

The whole point of science jsto ask questions about anything - particularly if people don't know the answers. Tells us where we need to research next.

All that drivel about the scientific community - where did you get that from? Certainly not from actually working in science.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ask a scientist anything? That's a strange invitation! Very off-putting, indeed. You seem to be suggesting that scientists, because of their work, are funds of knowledge on all kinds of subjects - when the reverse is the case.

Not at all. I am a physicist, and I created the thread as a place for people to ask myself and others questions on physics. The vague OP meant the emphasis shifted to the 'anything' part, and so we now talk about a lot of things, generally revolving around mathematics, science, and the philosophy of science.

The point of the thread is to allow people to ask experts in a field a question regarding a field. The original intent was for people to ask a physicist questions about physics, but as I said, questions on all parts of science and mathematics are asked, which is fantastic.

Their professional establishment is utterly totalitarian, clamping down ruthlessly on people who don't toe the line of know-nothing, atheist materialism. Working scientists are in the thrall of atheist scientism, scorned by most of the higher-level scientists, who however, have to keep their own council or lose their job.

Nonsense. Any scientist who upsets the status quo is hailed as a revolutionary and showered in awards and accolades, and the whole enterprise of science is to ruthlessly disprove established beliefs - because only then can we advance human knowledge.

The charge of scientific totalitarianism, atheistic materialism, and conspiracies of silence, are only crowed by those whose beliefs have been thoroughly disproven by bedrock science. Creationism has been so thoroughly debunked by scientists that their only resort is to attack the community itself - they find it more plausible that tens of millions of academics and intellectuals from all corners of the globe, of all philosophies, religions, and creeds, of all languages and backgrounds, are somehow united against a tiny sect of American religious extremists, than the possibility that they're simply wrong.

That's the core difference between scientists, and the religious extremists of American Creationism and Arabic Islamism - scientists strive to disprove their beliefs so that they can better learn the truth. Religious extremists are go frothing-at-the-mouth enraged at the mere whisper that their childhood stories could be inaccurate. Thus, they concoct fabulous conspiracy theories where they are the poor persecuted victim at the hands of a shadowy conspiracy... of tens of millions of people publishing clear, proven, and replicable results.

All the great paradigms changes were initiated and pioneered by at the very least, deist believers in Intelligent Design. Surely, it's you who need to be the one asking questions.

Except for Madam Curie, Darwin, Einstein, Feynmann, Hawking, etc. And even of those paradigm-shifters who DO or DID believe, their beliefs never affected their results - Newton's groundbreaking advances in gravitation and mathematics never once include a 'God' variable or a 'Jesus' field, nor did Faraday's experimental results hinge on supernatural things. Their faith was, at best, inspirational.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

And frankly, if you're just here to mock those who seek understanding, and to sneer at those who wish to share their education and experience, you might want to ask yourself why you are possessed to act with such malice and cruelty, why you are compelled to bully, insult, and belittle.

But you won't, of course - conspiracy theorists are experts at weaving ad hoc security bubbles against criticism.

 

[Michael]

That's the core difference between scientists, and the religious extremists of American Creationism and Arabic Islamism - scientists strive to disprove their beliefs so that they can better learn the truth.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no depending on the topic. SUSY theory got falsified three different ways, in three different experiments in the last 14 months, but nobody seems to want to talk about rational, logical, empirical alternatives.

IMO you have a highly glamorized, rather naive view of science. It's composed of flawed, irrational human beings, just like religious organizations, and the concept of 'truth' get's blurry when there are funding dollars at stake.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

IMO you have a highly glamorized, rather naive view of science. It's composed of flawed, irrational human beings, just like religious organizations, and the concept of 'truth' get's blurry when there are funding dollars at stake.

Which is why the system is set up to counteract human flaws. Peer review exists to strip away human error in experiments - with rare exception, the only way published material gets general acceptance is if it is done right.

I stand by my view of science. My favourite body of evidence that supports my view of science is technology. Technology only works if the underlying theory is highly accurate, at least as far as the machinery needs it to be. The tiniest transistors use QM, and the highest satellites use GR, and that they continue to function on a daily basis in their multitude just proves that science works. Whatever the flaws of the scientific community, they are not so big that they impede science itself.

In my opinion, the flaws of the community are the old publishing traditions, including pay-per-view papers. The nature of funding is done well, in my opinion, as most scientific institutions and grant-givers are well-aware of the value of pure research. I don't buy into the conspiracy theories of Big Pharma and such like.

 

[Ellwood3]

Yes. I have a question for a physicist:

"Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" (Job 38:1).




Keith Green - Soften Your Heart - 1982 - YouTube

Happy New Year.

 

[Ellwood3]

Oh - here's the reference:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/job/38-31-compare.html

 

[Ellwood3]

Oh, and here's another question:

Do you understand this song?

How Great Thou Art - Acapella Arrangement - YouTube

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes. I have a question for a physicist:

"Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades

No, gravity does that.

or loose the belt of Orion?"

(Job 38:1).

The belt of Orion is an asterism. The stars are not actually close together or bound together in any way, apart from an accident of perspective.

 

[Michael]

Which is why the system is set up to counteract human flaws. Peer review exists to strip away human error in experiments -

Peer review combined with empirical physics is great. When it's combined with hypothetical entities however, it can become akin to any other ordinary faith based system, AKA a religion, complete with all the pitfalls of a religion.

with rare exception, the only way published material gets general
acceptance is if it is done right.

Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by 'done right'. If it's done to the liking of the peer reviewers, it sees the light of publishing day. If not, well, maybe not.

I stand by my view of science. My favourite body of evidence that supports my view of science is technology. Technology only works if the underlying theory is highly accurate, at least as far as the machinery needs it to be. The tiniest transistors use QM, and the highest satellites use GR, and that they continue to function on a daily basis in their multitude just proves that science works. Whatever the flaws of the scientific community, they are not so big that they impede science itself.

I would say that technology demonstrates that "empirical physics' works. Science however is more broad than empirical physics, and includes things like string theory. It's not the same thing. I agree with you to the degree that technology demonstrates that *empirical physics* works, but not necessarily science as a whole.

In my opinion, the flaws of the community are the old publishing traditions, including pay-per-view papers. The nature of funding is done well, in my opinion, as most scientific institutions and grant-givers are well-aware of the value of pure research. I don't buy into the conspiracy theories of Big Pharma and such like.

IMO it's more a case of ignorance than conspiracy as it relates to various hypothetical branches of physics. String theory for instance sees the light of publishing day all the time, but that doesn't make it "right'.

 

[Strathos]

The belt of Orion is an asterism. The stars are not actually close together or bound together in any way, apart from an accident of perspective.

Bah, if you were a real physicist you would be able to reach up and grab them out of the sky!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes. I have a question for a physicist:

"Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" (Job 38:1).

No.

Oh, and here's another question:

Do you understand this song?

Yes.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nonsense. Any scientist who upsets the status quo is hailed as a revolutionary and showered in awards and accolades, and the whole enterprise of science is to ruthlessly disprove established beliefs - because only then can we advance human knowledge.

Then why deny Halton Arp telescope time if he did not change his research associating quasars with nearby galaxies? Since that had never been done before, one can not claim because previous research precluded that assumption. Especially when the founder of the Hubble Relationship, Edwin Hubble said repeatedly he believed redshift was an intrinsic phenomenon not yet discovered which better explained the observed results?

But since you are a physicist, perhaps you can tell me if plasma redshift has lately just been observed in the laboratory and what percentage of the universe is made of plasma?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Then why deny Halton Arp telescope time if he did not change his research associating quasars with nearby galaxies?

Since observation time is at a premium, they ration it out to maximise productivity. As far as I can tell, Arp was denied because it was an unproductive use of the observatory's time - scanning for exoplanets or whatever was deemed more useful.

Since that had never been done before, one can not claim because previous research precluded that assumption.

What?

Especially when the founder of the Hubble Relationship, Edwin Hubble said repeatedly he believed redshift was an intrinsic phenomenon not yet discovered which better explained the observed results?

Argumenta ab auctoritate are fallacious.

But since you are a physicist, perhaps you can tell me if plasma redshift has lately just been observed in the laboratory

The only recent paper on plasma redshift I could find was this one from January 2013.

and what percentage of the universe is made of plasma?

About 4%. The rest is dark matter and dark energy.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Since observation time is at a premium, they ration it out to maximise productivity. As far as I can tell, Arp was denied because it was an unproductive use of the observatory's time - scanning for exoplanets or whatever was deemed more useful.

So scanning for extrasolar planets or whatever that wouldn't affect any theory in astronomy was more important then evidence that would falsify the incorrect redshift assumption?

What?


Argumenta ab auctoritate are fallacious.

So now appeal to actual science is a fallacy? So your reliance on dark matter and energy never once detected because the majority follows is a fallacious argument? We agree.

The only recent paper on plasma redshift I could find was this one from January 2013.


About 4%. The rest is dark matter and dark energy.

No, no, the 4% is what is claimed of visible matter, the other 96% is imaginary Fairie Dust never once observed in any laboratory experiment. being a physicist you should know this and should not try to mislead people with misdirection and claims of non-detection as being evidence of fact.

After all, if we can't trust scientists to give us the facts, even if it disproves their theory, what good are they?


Plasma makes up 99% of the universe. Again, being a physicist you should know this.

99% of the universe and other plasma facts – video | UCL Events


So by ignoring what 99% of the universe is, requires the addition of 96% Fairie Dust.


But this is if you ignore all the newly discovered mass in the universe.

2008 | Universe shines twice as bright | University of St Andrews

So now we must assume these unbelievable energies you assign to distant objects are now twice as energetic because of false redshift = distance.


Twice the mass of our galaxy itself has recently been found, and scientists are still debating just how far it really extends.

Colossal Gas Cloud Discovered Around Milky Way | Space.com


And don't forget all the mass from the stars never counted before.

Scientists Find 200 Sextillion More Stars in the Sky | Fox News

NASA - Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount


Nor the vast plasma filaments linking every galaxy together.

Vast Cosmic Filament Discovered Connecting Milky Way to the Universe


Currently it is being debated if this halo of gas surrounding every galaxy will account for the missing mass problem, considering it is exactly where dark matter is needed. And this isn't even counting all the stars, dust and gas discovered as well.

Being that redshift has now been observed in plasma itself, which makes up 99% of the universe, there is no longer any reason to believe in fairie Dust theories attempting to use ad-hoc explanations to prevent current theory from being falsified.

You should know the history of redshift. At first it was due only to velocity, but as technology advanced and galaxies would be required to be moving at fractions of c, even astronomers could not stomach that idea. So untestable and unfalsifiable mechanism were then added. None of these Fairie Dust ad-hoc add ons are needed in the solar system, just everywhere else where we can't test for them.




No, not just one.

Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas - Optik - International Journal for Light and Electron Optics - Tom 120, Numer 10 (2009) - Biblioteka Nauki - Yadda

L853-L855

SciTech Connect:

Does a possible laboratory observation of a frequency anisotropy of light result from a non-zero photon mass m?

Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 205003 (2005): Observation of Laser-Pulse Shortening in Nonlinear Plasma Waves

Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1658 (2000): Enhanced Forward Scattering in the Case of Two Crossed Laser Beams Interacting with a Plasma

Fast ignition and related plasma physics issues with high-intensity lasers - Abstract - Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion - IOPscience

Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 432 (2001): Experimental Evidence of Plasma-Induced Incoherence of an Intense Laser Beam Propagating in an Underdense Plasma

Even on our sun, which certainly is not traveling away from us at fractions of c.

1995ApJ...453..945A Page 945

The solar abundance of helium determined from a redshifted plasma flow over a su

Observed redshifts of transition region/corona lines - Springer

Not to mention it fits observations much better than speculating untestable mechanisms.

http://rxiv.org/pdf/1203.0062v3.pdf

http://www.plasmaredshift.org/Article_Archive_files/10CCC2AReviewFinal.pdf

[astro-ph/0411666] Hubble constant from lensing in plasma-redshift cosmology, and intrinsic redshift of quasars

 

[Subduction Zone]

I love how the person who does not understand even the most basic math that is used in physics and treats plasma as if it were magical calls the matter he does not understand "fairie dust".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I love how the person who does not understand even the most basic math that is used in physics and treats plasma as if it were magical calls the matter he does not understand "fairie dust".

And I love how the person that thinks fantasy math applies to reality and treats plasma as an ordinary gas of no significance supports Fairie Dust that has never once been detected. And he talks of magical. Nothing magical about the electromagnetic force, that's your problem, you lack knowledge on electrical forces and so consider it magic. Your ad hominem remarks ill-become a claimed follower of science.

And for someone that claims science supports him, I wonder why you can never produce a single solitary paper that I asked for????? Not even an example relating your fantasy math to the real world. Your faith in your religion is strong though!

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I love how the person that thinks fantasy math applies to reality and treats plasma as an ordinary gas of no significance supports Fairie Dust that has never once been detected. And he talks of magical. Nothing magical about the electromagnetic force, that's your problem, you lack knowledge on electrical forces and so consider it magic. Your ad hominem remarks ill-become a claimed follower of science.

And for someone that claims science supports him, I wonder why you can never produce a single solitary paper that I asked for????? Not even an example relating your fantasy math to the real world. Your faith in your religion is strong though!

ROFLMAO!!!

Sorry, the math that I used is the same math used to get the Apollo rockets to the Moon and back. And I even told you how you could make the chamber you did not understand yourself. And worse you cannot be honest. Plasma is only treated as a hot gas when there are no measurable E/M fields. A neutral plasma, a mix of positive an negative ions, is no different from a hot gas when there are no fields. Show that there are significant E/M fields and you might have a point. So far have nothing.

Of course you don't understand the math so you have no clue why a neutral plasma is just a ball of hot gas without E/M fields.

Ignorance is not your friend just.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

ROFLMAO!!!

Sorry, the math that I used is the same math used to get the Apollo rockets to the Moon and back.

Another deception. Newton mechanics is used for all orbital launches.


Basics of Space Flight: Orbital Mechanics

And I even told you how you could make the chamber you did not understand yourself. And worse you cannot be honest. Plasma is only treated as a hot gas when there are no measurable E/M fields.

Where does that exists?

Electromagnetic field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The electromagnetic field extends indefinitely throughout space and describes the electromagnetic interaction."

http://how.gi.alaska.edu/ao/msp/chapters/chapter3.pdf

Journal of Theoretics

A neutral plasma, a mix of positive an negative ions, is no different from a hot gas when there are no fields. Show that there are significant E/M fields and you might have a point. So far have nothing.

Of course you don't understand the math so you have no clue why a neutral plasma is just a ball of hot gas without E/M fields.

Ignorance is not your friend just.

I thought you approved of quantum mechanics and understood it?

Vacuum state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space",[1] and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."[2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence."

So now we throw out quantum mechanics? Show me a paper which says space isn't filled with electromagnetic waves? You won't find one. That state only exists in your own mind. It seems you are ignorant of the theories you claim to support.

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON

Since the OP hasn't participated in quite some time, and some members just can't seem to make an argument without throwing out insults, this thread is being closed permanently.
MOD HAT OFF
​