Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[Michael]

Apparently you are obsessed with this one quote from Penrose- can you spell fallacy of argument by authority?

At least I can find *external* references to support my statements, unlike you.

Apparently you need to read what you write. You have acknowledged that the universe is flat!

It's flatness is not related to any amount of missing mass however.

To get a flat universe, GR needs a certain amount of mass and energy.

No it doesn't. It can simply *start* as a *flat* universe. Only a "creation mythos" needs a certain amount of mass/energy to "inflate" from a near singularity thingy. Such claims are ultimately irrelevant to plasma physics.

Apparently you think that astronomy is so backward that it can only detect < 4% of the needed matter - matter that is busily emitting light!

The whole 4% figure is "made up* in the first place, particularly since "dark energy" is a whopping 70+ percent of the universe and it can be replaced with simple plasma redshift. SUSY theory bit the dust at LHC. What's left?

Ehh - there is no evidence of missing matter from lensing data and rotation patterns of galaxies!
This looks like a double dose of ignorance

Apparently your ignorance, not mine.

Missing matter is the visible matter that is missing from the ~4% (or ~96%) of normal matter that is needed to make a flat universe

The fact the universe is flat has nothing to do with the amount of matter in the universe in a static universe theory RC. Your claims are only applicable to *one* theory, 70 percent of which can be replace with ordinary plasma redshift.

The only actual "missing mass" is related to galaxy rotation patterns and lensing patterns, neither of which require exotic forms of matter to explain. A full 96 percent of your theory is related to impotent invisible sky gods that have no tangible effect on Earth.

 

[RealityCheck01]

He specifically refuted your claim:

Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!
How can photons have energy and momentum, but no mass?
Sorry for shouting at you but you do not seem to be able to read what I or my external reference write:
My claim:

Photons have no classical kinetic energy (i.e. zero)
​

His confirmation:

"if you plug in the mass and velocity for light you get

."
​

And yes - the classical kinetic energy of a photon is "no good"! I never said that it was any good.

 

[Michael]

Yes or no, do photons have kinetic energy in modern physics RC?

 

[Michael]

And yes - the classical kinetic energy of a photon is "no good"! I never said that it was any good.

So when you said this:

Photon "kinetic energy" cannot change (is always zero) and so has nothing to do with frequencey shifts.

And there is that "kinetic" again. A photon always has a kineteic energy of zero .

All this nonsense that you spewed was "no good" too right?

 

[RealityCheck01]

The fact you personally refuse to deal with Ashmore's presentation is really your problem, not mine.

What presentation and why should I waste my time witha crank's presentation?
I dealt with his pre-print where he assumed that Chen's result caused cosmological redshift without any evidence: There is no evidence that Chen's plasma redshift is cosmological redshift

Still waiting for that claim that photons have zero kinetic energy that claims it's a "correct" answer.

Since there is no "claim that photons have zero kinetic energy", you are going to have to Wait a long time!
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!

8 references claiming electrical discharges occur in plasma
0 references claiming electrical discharge are impossible in plasma

Oh that idiotic thing from the other thread. Since you brought it up here I will post the reply here for one time only time but I suggest you do not derail your own thread!
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is not a discharge and is obsolete!

 

[RealityCheck01]

All this nonsense that you spewed was "no good" too right?

The scientific fact is that photons have a classical kinetic energy of zero as I showed.
The scientific fact is that photons having a classical kinetic energy of zero is no good because we know that that have kinetic energy. This turns out to be relativistic kinetic energy.
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have (relativistic kinetic) energy!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yes or no, do photons have kinetic energy in modern physics RC?

Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy! , Michael

 

[Michael]

Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy! , Michael

Round you go, backpeddling forever.

Only in a your twisted like pretzel sense of "truth" were you "right" to claim that photon kinetic energy has nothing to do with redshift because the kinetic energy is always zero. Only in your backwards world were those statements ever anything other than "no good". You blew it. You also blew it on the discharge claim. 8 to 0.

 

[Michael]

What presentation and why should I waste my time witha crank's presentation?

The only crank is the guy claiming photons have no kinetic energy and electrical discharges in plasma are 'impossible'. The only crank is the guy that's never read a book on the topic in which he fancies himself to be quite the "expert". The only crank is the guy looking at you in the mirror in the morning making up another excuse to *not* pick up a book on plasma physics right before getting on the internet to debate plasma physics!

You don't have any right to call anyone any names RC, not after all the physics errors you've made at this (and other) forums.

I dealt with his pre-print where he assumed that Chen's result caused cosmological redshift without any evidence: There is no evidence that Chen's plasma redshift is cosmological redshift

Oh give me a break! You *assume* your invisible energy deity did it without any evidence. My claims show up in the lab. Yours do not.

Since there is no "claim that photons have zero kinetic energy", you are going to have to Wait a long time!

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-41/#post61575350

Photon "kinetic energy" cannot change (is always zero) and so has nothing to do with frequencey shifts.

A photon always has a kineteic energy of zero .

Those are your false and misleading words RC. The were bogus when you spoke them, and anyone can read the thread to see how you responded when I busted your show. You're not fooling anyone here RC.

Oh that idiotic thing from the other thread. Since you brought it up here I will post the reply here for one time only time but I suggest you do not derail your own thread!

You do not know the first thing about plasma cosmology or plasma physics. You've provided zero references to support your irrational comments.

8 to 0. The IT guy loses by default (and still hasn't read a book on the topic).

 

[Michael]

Here's what you said about photons two pages later when I busted your show.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-43/#post61575895

False. Light can made to travel at less than c in labs and so its speed changes. Its mass is still zero. Its kinetic energy remains as zero.

Holy cow - you do not seem to know what kinetic energy is!!!!!
A photon always has a mass of zero so its kinetic energy is always zero!

Not only had you not corrected your error, you repeated it, never used the term "classical" and you've never produced an external reference that agreed with it. Now you're claiming you never said it, and you're making up excuses using the term "classical" and citing references that claim that your statements were "no good" in the first place.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Round you go, backpeddling forever.

You really need a dictionary, Michael
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!
First posted 18th October 2012

It has been the same for 3 weeks until I added the external reference that states that I was right twice:

• Photons have no classical kinetic energy and
• thus we need (relativistic kinetic) energy.

 

[Michael]

The scientific fact is that photons have a classical kinetic energy of zero as I showed.

No, you did *not* show that! Your single reference on this topic explicitly said that a calculation of zero was "no good" and explained that Newton's laws were limited. It was *wrong* then, it's wrong now, and it's always going to be wrong! You were simply wrong and you can't admit it!

You have a classic case of never being able to admit being wrong. You just make up excuses as to why you spewed nonsense in the first place, and then you rationalize it all away as though it was actually "right" from day one! Wow! I've seen twisted rationalizations before, but you take the cake.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...usual insults snipped...
...usual ignorance of cosmology snipped
http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-41/#post61575350

Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy! , Michael

You really do not want to take this to the other thread, Michael?
Ok then:
Claim 1: Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! Claim 2: The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is Dungey's large current density (not really a discharge ) and is obsolete!
Thta includes:
1 external reference that supports claim 1.
6 external reference (from you!) that support claim 2.
1 reference (from you!) that is interesting but has no "electrical discharges in the body of the paper.
1 reference (from you!) that is is about the electrical discharges within comet nuclei!

So the score is 7:0:1 (support my claims, do not support my claims, have nothing to do with my claims)

 

[Michael]

You really need a dictionary, Michael
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!
First posted 18th October 2012

It has been the same for 3 weeks until I added the external reference that states that I was right twice:

• Photons have no classical kinetic energy and
• thus we need (relativistic kinetic) energy.

You didn't say a word about "classical" anything for two full days after making your original error. When you did finally admit they have kinetic energy, you refused to recant your original claims, and your reference states that your original claims were "no good"! You simply cannot admit making a mistake, and that's the same exact problem that you have with the discharge issue. You can't admit that 8 authors are right and RC the IT tech is wrong. You can't admit that a discharge is actually a discharge because somehow if you wave your magic wand and say they aren't the same, you're *right*!

About the only thing you've demonstrated is an inability to admit being wrong when it's shown that you are wrong. You simply ignore the fact you can't provide *external* references to support your false claims. The one reference you did provide on photon kinetic energy said your claim was "no good".

 

[RealityCheck01]

The scientific fact is that photons have a classical kinetic energy of zero as I showed.

No, you did *not* show that!

Yes I did show that a photon has a classical kinetic energy of zero:
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy! , Michael

 

[Michael]

Thta includes:
1 external reference that supports claim 1.

Only in your dreams. All you will find in the actual papers and books are 9 references that directly and completely refute your false claims.

Nothing at all supports your statements RC. No author listed required a dielectric breakdown to occur. Only the emotionally motivated IT guy imposes any such requirement in plasma. Only you would believe any of those authors supports your ridiculous statements. All of them claim you're wrong. All of them claim that electrical discharges occur in plasma. None of them require a breakdown of a dielectric during the "electrical discharge" process. None of them support your erroneous nonsense.

8 to 0. You've not even provided *your own* list of references for crying out loud, you're just handwaving like crazy at mine! Wow! You bend reality like a pretzel to suit yourself on every topic.

 

[Michael]

Yes I did show that a photon has a classical kinetic energy of zero:
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy! , Michael

No you didn't! Your one external (not yourself) reference claimed that an answer of zero was "no good"! He explained why it's no good too. Your original statements were false, you didn't fix them, and you're incapable of simply admitting an error!

 

[Michael]

This whole cyberstalking thing you have going all comes back to one issue and one issue only. You are incapable of admitting your mistakes. That was the problem with the photon kinetic energy debate, and it's the problem in the electrical discharge debate. Somehow in your mind, an IT guy that has never published any papers on solar physics, and who's never read a single book on the topic of plasma physics, knows more about electrical discharges in plasma than the entire physics and astronomy communities combined! If you could simply admit to making a mistake, you'd have done so by now. Round and round and round you go.....

 

[RealityCheck01]

No you didn't!

Yes I did show that a photon has a classical kinetic energy of zero:
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy! , Michael

photons have no classical kinetic energy because their mass is zero (1/2mv^2)

It is really simple math, Michael, put m = 0 into 1/2mv^2 and you get 0!

But that answer is "no good" (a KE that is always zero is useless) so I mentioned:
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy! , Michael

photons have a relativistic kinetic energy that depends on their wavelength.

The reference is: How can photons have energy and momentum, but no mass?

Physicist: Classically (according to Newton) kinetic energy is given by

and the momentum is given by

, where m is the mass and v is the velocity. But if you plug in the mass and velocity for light you get

. But that’s no good. If light didn’t carry energy, it wouldn’t be able to heat stuff up.

and then goes onto relativistic kinetic energy.

 

[Michael]

Yes I did show that a photon has a classical kinetic energy of zero:

This statement demonstrates just how out of touch with reality you actually are. You *own reference* claimed an answer of zero was "no good". I told you it was bogus too. Your own citation claims that your original statements were false. You somehow think you were "right" when you gave the "no good" answer. You are utterly incapable of admitting your mistakes, and you twist people's words to suit yourself. It doesn't matter that your own author said your answer was "no good", you claim you're right anyway! Who needs reality when you make it up as you go?

You're so out of touch with everyone's statements, even blatant statements of 'no good' do not register to you. Somehow in your twisted sense of reality, you were "right" anyway! Oy Vey.