Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[jgold]

That assertion needs support - please cite the publication of Santilli's experiment demonstrating the existence of isoredshift in a scientific journal.

I do hope you are not referring to Fig 1 in antilli's redshift PDF. That is not a measurement. It is hardly even an experiment ! That is a picture of monochromatic (orange?) laser light being refraction by a glass cube containing water and spliting into mostly red light. It is accompanied by Santilli's display of ignorance about modern science:

Your ignorance is the one on display at the moment.

Of course I am not referring to a picture refracted by a glass cube.

santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-isoredshift.pdf

You obviously have not read the many flaws in his ideas that I listed before so here are some JREF posts that show how crackpot the ideas are:

You obviously have not even read or tried to understand his work.

You are simply here attempting to prevent others from looking into it.

It is easy to see that Santilli has the apperance of a crackpot, e.g. states of matter that only he knows about, he overturns just about all of physics and it is pretty well ignored, supervisng an experiment not worthy of a first year student, major part of his work published in his own journal, etc. Add in the special feature that he sues journals!

Whoops- just scanned through Santilli's redshift PDF and found more crackpottery!
He thinks that H. Arp's idea that some quasars and galaxies are physically connected despite their very different redshifts is a discovery. He is wrong - it is a very wrong conjecture by Arp where galaxies that happen to be in the same line of sight as quasars are wrongly associated with the quasar.

I understand what was meant when Feynman said science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

It is my opinion that the galazy and quasar are connected with different redshifts. It doesn't appear to be "pixel bleeding"

See: answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v11/n3/quasar

Santilli's IsoRedShift and IsoBlueShift help explain the anomaly.

 

[Loudmouth]

He used aluminum as well. I guess he never actually tried iron, but the metallic exterior was right on target.

The Sun is too hot to have a metallic exterior. You have been shown this multiple times now.

You can't tell me where to get any "dark energy".

It's everywhere and is driving the expansion of space everywhere. We observe its effects in the supernova data. It is confirmed by the data collected in the field of astronomy.

Why can't it be measured in ordinary ways?

What is wrong with astronomical observations? Are you really trying to tell us that science only applies to experiments done in within the walls of a man made structure? For science, the entire universe is the lab. In this lab, we observe an accelerating expansion, and the name give to the force driving this acceleration is dark energy. This is no different than observing that planets are being accelerated towards the Sun, and naming the force of that acceleration gravity.

Plasma doesn't necessarily blur anything beyond recognition.

Yes, it does. Your continual handwave of this problem is noted.

None of those upper blown up images is a "clear" image, it's blurred big time.

No, they aren't. You continually fail to understand the difference between resolution and blurring. Please, learn some optics. It will help you greatly.

Your miraculous energy called "dark energy" that cannot accelerate a single atom in a lab?

Please show a single experiment sensitive enough to measure dark energy in a given lab experiment, and then show that it was not detected. You have yet to do this. You keep claiming that dark energy has been ruled out in the lab, but you can not point to a single experiment where this was done.

No. The only thing you "observe" is redshift.

Exactly what we should observe if the universe is expanding. This is called evidence for expansion.

Your dogma that "dark energy did it" is not observed,

The acceleration of expansion is observed, and the name given to that acceleration is dark energy. Dark energy is observed.

Even if you could actually demonstrate that acceleration happens,

It already has been demonstrated:

The Dark Energy Survey - Survey

The problem is that other theories predict the same observations.

As this entire thread demonstrates, no they don't.

 

[Michael]

You obviously have not even read or tried to understand his work.

You are simply here attempting to prevent others from looking into it.

Get used to it. That irrational behavior, along with an endless stream of personal insults are his 'trademarks'.

I've tried for two years to get him to read Alfven's book(s), Peratt's book, or *any* book on plasma physics to no avail. He's too lazy to properly educate himself, and he has no desire to learn anything that goes against, or completes with his personal beliefs.

I understand what was meant when Feynman said science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

FYI, RC is no 'expert' in astronomy, or any topic related to astronomy. He's apparently a retired IT guy that has never published any papers related to astronomy.

Expect him to cite himself a lot, to never read or respond to anything relevant that you offer him, and most of all, expect a lot of personal insults.

 

[Michael]

The Sun is too hot to have a metallic exterior. You have been shown this multiple times now.

No, I've been *told* such nonsense many times now based upon assumptions related to a now *FALSIFIED* solar theory. That particular solar theory that claims the photosphere is 'opaque" to all wavelenths bit the dust in 2012. The "photosphere" isn't "opaque", therefore such arguments are irrelevant and unrelated to Birkelands solar theories. There is no "jet speed' convection as 'predicted' in gas model solar theories, and therefore nothing would prevent the elements from mass separating. Nothing about the standard solar theory can be used to falsify a Birkeland solar theory. They don't work the same way.

It's everywhere and is driving the expansion of space everywhere. We observe its effects in the supernova data. It is confirmed by the data collected in the field of astronomy.

No, the only thing you can "confirm" in uncontrolled observations is that photon redshift happens. Why it happens or *how* it physically happens is something you're simply 'assuming' in your dark sky religion. It's not even a 'good' religion since none of it can possibly falsify the belief system. Not even "structures" that should not exist in mainstream inflation theory, that are *observed in space* can falsify the religion of inflation.

What is wrong with astronomical observations?

You mean besides the fact that they actually *falsify* your beliefs?

Are you really trying to tell us that science only applies to experiments done in within the walls of a man made structure? For science, the entire universe is the lab.

So if I pilfer a bit of your math and claim 'Godflation, God energy, and God matter did it, does that work for you too? How do you propose we "test" my Godflation theory?

In this lab, we observe an accelerating expansion,

In *which* controlled lab experiment do we observe "acceleration expansion"? All we observe from space is "redshifted photons" which you subjectively *interpret* as expansion and acceleration. You've shown no actual cause/effect relationships between expansion and inflation and dark energy anymore than I can demonstrate a cause/effect link between "Godflation" and "God energy' and that same accelerated expansion. You can't even eliminate all other redshift interpretations.

and the name give to the force driving this acceleration is dark energy.

It's nothing but a "God energy of the gaps did it argument". You never redshifted a single real photon in lab using God energy or dark energy or any other "unseen energy".

This is no different than observing that planets are being accelerated towards the Sun, and naming the force of that acceleration gravity.

The clear difference is that "gravity" shows up in real labs on Earth, whereas your trio of impotent invisible entities do not.

Yes, it does. Your continual handwave of this problem is noted.

Even you best images you could find tell us a very different story than the one you are telling. They are nothing but blurred, smudged little dots, not the "crisp and clear" images you promised us.

No, they aren't. You continually fail to understand the difference between resolution and blurring. Please, learn some optics. It will help you greatly.

I do understand and respect the limits of our current technologies, whereas *you folks assume perfection*. I know better.

Please show a single experiment sensitive enough to measure dark energy in a given lab experiment, and then show that it was not detected.

Sure, right after you demonstrate an experiment that is sensitive enough to rule out "God energy did it".

You have yet to do this. You keep claiming that dark energy has been ruled out in the lab, but you can not point to a single experiment where this was done.

I'm not the one making the claim that "Dark energy did it", so I don't have to "rule out" anything in the first place. You are burden shifting. If I claimed "God energy did it", only *then* would I have to demonstrate that "God energy" exists, and "God energy" has the ability to accelerate mass.

Your argument amounts to me *insisting* that you personally rule out "God energy did it".

Exactly what we should observe if the universe is expanding. This is called evidence for expansion.

Nope. No control, therefore no evidence. All you have evidence of is "inelastic scattering" and photon redshift.

The acceleration of expansion is observed, and the name given to that acceleration is dark energy. Dark energy is observed.

By pilfering your math, I now claim "Godflation and God energy did it". Prove me wrong!

It already has been demonstrated:

The Dark Energy Survey - Survey

Again, all you demonstrated is that inelastic scattering happens in space just like it happens here on Earth. The only thing "dark" in the sky is human ignorance. In fact the term "dark energy" amounts to nothing more than a placeholder term for human ignorance, specifically ignorance of inelastic scattering in space.

As this entire thread demonstrates, no they don't.

Holushko's model, along with Byrnjolfsson's model "predict' the same patterns of photons redshift. Deny that fact all you like, but BB theory doesn't hold the exclusive rights to photon redshift explanations and predictions.

The one key differences is that those gigantic structures in space that exists in space are no threat to PC theory, whereas they *destroy* and in fact they *falsify* inflation theory outright. The new observations that falsify your beliefs are simply ignored!

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I've been *told* such nonsense many times now based upon assumptions related to a now *FALSIFIED* solar theory. That particular solar theory that claims the photosphere is 'opaque" to all wavelenths bit the dust in 2012. The "photosphere" isn't "opaque", therefore such arguments are irrelevant and unrelated to Birkelands solar theories. There is no "jet speed' convection as 'predicted' in gas model solar theories, and therefore nothing would prevent the elements from mass separating. Nothing about the standard solar theory can be used to falsify a Birkeland solar theory. They don't work the same way.

Already dealt with extensively in the other thread. The temperature of the sun is well above the melting point of iron, and yet you pretend that the sun is a solid metal ball.

No, the only thing you can "confirm" in uncontrolled observations is that photon redshift happens.

The redshift is the confirmation because that is exactly what we should see if the universe is expanding.

You mean besides the fact that they actually *falsify* your beliefs?

They don't.

So if I pilfer a bit of your math and claim 'Godflation, God energy, and God matter did it, does that work for you too? How do you propose we "test" my Godflation theory?

Why not do the same with gravity and electromagnetism? We don't see those either, only the effects these forces have on things we can see. Dark energy is no different.

In *which* controlled lab experiment do we observe "acceleration expansion"?

Which lab experiments are sensitive enough to detect it? You claim that expansion has been falsified in the lab, so lets see those experiments. Let's see those methodologies that are sensitive enough to measure expansion in the lab as you claim they are.

You've shown no actual cause/effect relationships between expansion and inflation and dark energy anymore than I can demonstrate a cause/effect link between "Godflation" and "God energy' and that same accelerated expansion. You can't even eliminate all other redshift interpretations.

You can say the same thing about gravity. Do you also reject gravity?

It's nothing but a "God energy of the gaps did it argument". You never redshifted a single real photon in lab using God energy or dark energy or any other "unseen energy".

There is no gap. We observe dark energy in action.

The clear difference is that "gravity" shows up in real labs on Earth, whereas your trio of impotent invisible entities do not.

No, it doesn't. All we do is observe that masses accelerate towards one another. According to you, it would be a religious belief to label this as gravity.

Even you best images you could find tell us a very different story than the one you are telling.

No, they don't. You can't tell the difference between pixelation and blurriness. Like I said, learn some optics so you can stop making a fool of yourself.

Sure, right after you demonstrate an experiment that is sensitive enough to rule out "God energy did it".

You are the one claiming that these experiments exist. Show us.

I'm not the one making the claim that "Dark energy did it", so I don't have to "rule out" anything in the first place.

You are the one claiming that dark energy does not exist in the lab. Prove it.

Nope. No control, therefore no evidence. All you have evidence of is "inelastic scattering" and photon redshift.

Inelastic scattering produces an opaque universe and blurring of galaxies. This is not seen. Inelastic scattering is also wavelength dependent while the observed redshift is not. Inelastic scattering has been disproven.
The evidence is consistent with expansion, not inelastic scattering.

Again, all you demonstrated is that inelastic scattering happens in space just like it happens here on Earth. The only thing "dark" in the sky is human ignorance. In fact the term "dark energy" amounts to nothing more than a placeholder term for human ignorance, specifically ignorance of inelastic scattering in space.

See above. Inelastic scattering has been falsified by the facts.

Holushko's model, along with Byrnjolfsson's model "predict' the same patterns of photons redshift.

Garbage in, garbage out, as I have already shown. Show me a single equation for inelastic scattering anywhere in Holushko's model. Anywhere.

The one key differences is that those gigantic structures in space that exists in space are no threat to PC theory, whereas they *destroy* and in fact they *falsify* inflation theory outright. The new observations that falsify your beliefs are simply ignored!

We shouldn't be able to see these structures if PC is true.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've tried for two years to get him to read Alfven's book(s), Peratt's book, or *any* book on plasma physics to no avail. He's too lazy to properly educate himself, and he has no desire to learn anything that goes against, or completes with his personal beliefs.

You still can't get over one fact about light passing through plasma:

"There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work."
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

When you actually deal with the facts then we can have a rational conversation.

 

[Elendur]

Again, demanding that expansion would be measured in the lab would be equal to demand that yoktometers would have to be measured with a regular 30 cm ruler.

 

[davidbilby]

No, the only thing you can "confirm" in uncontrolled observations is that photon redshift happens.

What is the cosmological control in your opinion? I address this again a bit further down, but saying we have no control is like the pot calling the kettle black, since within the same manner of criticism, tired light papers have no "control".

In actuality the objection makes no sense; the control is obviously a hypothetical universe model without expansion, and we test said against observation. Within a tired light theory I suppose you could say the control is a hypothetical universe with expansion.

Either way, the objection is meaningless both in terms of your own theory and the mainstream theory, so perhaps you should stop talking about 'controls'.

Why it happens or *how* it physically happens is something you're simply 'assuming' in your dark sky religion. It's not even a 'good' religion since none of it can possibly falsify the belief system. Not even "structures" that should not exist in mainstream inflation theory, that are *observed in space* can falsify the religion of inflation.

It's interesting within the frame of reference of a simplified FLRW space-time metric that we see such an anisotropy, but it's very far from a falsification of inflation.

One wishes that the field equations of our universe could have simple exact solutions - they may still do, but it's vastly too early to tell.

In *which* controlled lab experiment do we observe "acceleration expansion"?

Ignoring your 'control' misnomer once again, and assuming an Earth-bound laboratory built of bricks and mortar as you probably are, the answer is probably none; because as you may or may not know, the considerably stronger effects of the stress-energy tensor inherent with the presence of said matter precludes the observation of the expansion of the cosmos.

That's at the heart of GR space-time metrics - local effects are vastly stronger. To even ask, as you like to repeatedly, for a "bricks and mortar" experiment, demonstrates a misunderstanding or ignorance of GR, but since you don't have a physics degree (I'm guessing) I can see why you'd make that mistake. Simply put, unless you have an "antigravity machine" of some sort, it's not going to happen on Earth by the very definition of the theory itself.

There are indirect experiments that have been proposed, but they're not wholly convincing yet as constructs.

All we observe from space is "redshifted photons" which you subjectively *interpret* as expansion and acceleration. You've shown no actual cause/effect relationships between expansion and inflation and dark energy anymore than I can demonstrate a cause/effect link between "Godflation" and "God energy' and that same accelerated expansion. You can't even eliminate all other redshift interpretations.

Like which? You've not got a single lab experiment demonstrating a redshifting effect that is specially and wavelength independent. You've not even got a dependent one that isn't induced with very specific conditions (eg. lasers), even if that could even be 'part of' the observed cosmological effect, which it can't, because of said independence, which is acknowledged by every tired light paper I've seen as well as by every measurement of the cosmological redshift I've seen.

It's nothing but a "God energy of the gaps did it argument". You never redshifted a single real photon in lab using God energy or dark energy or any other "unseen energy".

The clear difference is that "gravity" shows up in real labs on Earth, whereas your trio of impotent invisible entities do not.

You repeat this 'lab" assertion, over and over, like it's a) clever b) a problem or c) demonstrating any understanding of the theory you dislike so much. It is none of those things. Please see above again for why the expansion of the cosmos is probably inobservable within a bricks and mortar 'lab'.

Even you best images you could find tell us a very different story than the one you are telling. They are nothing but blurred, smudged little dots, not the "crisp and clear" images you promised us.

Please point to any distant galaxy you like and explain why, within the resolution of the telescope, we should be able to obtain a clearer image, but because of the supposed "blurring" due to non-zero inelastic scattering angles induced in the redshifting of the photons in your theory, we can't.

A single image of a distant galaxy where the resolution of the telescope should allow for a better image will suffice, with simple mathematics showing the excess resolution that is supposedly available as regards the proposed distance to the object and the focal characteristics of the telescope.

Nope. No control, therefore no evidence. All you have evidence of is "inelastic scattering" and photon redshift.

No, strawman again. This is not evidence of inelastic scattering to anybody but you. That's YOUR theory.

The control, as I pointed out before and you so conveniently ignored is a simple model of the universe without expansion. Incidentally, since your making this objection, where precisely is the control in "tired light" experiments or data? Do you have an alternate universe to compare with somewhere you're not telling us about?

Again, all you demonstrated is that inelastic scattering happens in space just like it happens here on Earth.

Strawman much again? That's not what is demonstrated at all. That's YOUR theory.

Inelastic scattering undoubtedly takes place at some places and at some times in the universe, maybe extremely frequently, but it's irrelevant - it has not taken place as regards the light reaching us from distant galaxies forming a clear, coherent image of said galaxies.

Scattering angles of zero in your hypothetical godlastic scattering process violate conservation of momentum unless you can demonstrate how that math is wrong.

Non-zero scattering angles induce a ridiculous notion that photons somehow know how to reorder themselves just in time, as at relatively close distances - say 500 million light years - if the sum of the scattering deflections in just a single plane is 1 trillionth of a degree above zero, the photon will be deflected from its starting trajectory by around 40 million miles. Not a few inches, 40 million miles.

When we say blurring, you then look at images where the optical resolution of the telescope has an obvious limitations and say "Look! Blurring!!". Really, blurring is the wrong word. As Zwicky himself pointed out, if non-zero scattering angles are allowed, space should be opaque. Forget blurring perhaps Michael, you're not quite getting what we mean. Point images from deep space of any kind should be impossible if non-zero scattering angles are allowed - space would be opaque.

Incidentally, citing the correlation effects that are relatively well known in gallium arsenide membranes (where the direct propagation of light is inhibited, by the way, that's the whole point of GaAs membranes in studying optics) is simply a common misunderstanding of what correlation means. It does not mean that the photons can somehow reorder themselves, it does not include some kind of shared "knowledge" of position or vector.

The only thing "dark" in the sky is human ignorance. In fact the term "dark energy" amounts to nothing more than a placeholder term for human ignorance.

In a way, you're right. We don't exactly know what dark energy is specifically, you're absolutely right. We observe the effect that something is having, and theorize a mathematical structure to explain the space-time geometry observed. The difference is, our mathematical structure makes sense with other observations so far taken, your 'Godlastic' scattering process, as much as you've outlined it mathematically, which is to say, not at all, doesn't make sense.

I'm actually not an enormous fan of the term 'dark energy' simply because of its lay connotations and their potential for misunderstanding such as that you demonstrate.

Holushko's model, along with Byrnjolfsson's model "predict' the same patterns of photons redshift. Deny that fact all you like, but BB theory doesn't hold the exclusive rights to photon redshift explanations and predictions.

Please listen. Carefully. He requires, for the purpose of his mathematics, that light propagates in a medium, an aether. That is the only way he can propose a Gaussian distribution for photon travel time, in effect saying that different photons are travelling at different speeds, and C is not a constant. That is it. There's nothing else under the foundation of the math. If you wish C to remain a constant (as I think you probably do), his math is not generic, but meaningless. If you want to abandon SR then be my guest, but you're going to have a hard time reconciling an empirical approach with that given the last century.

Brynjolfsson's paper has simple mathematical errors in the argument that you've been shown repeatedly and have no answer for other than "I'll have to look at that". Then you either say "I'm one guy and I can't do the math, it's not my problem" or just wait a few weeks and try the same old argument again. Not going to work, sorry.

Perhaps you'd care, as I've asked before, to propose an alternative explanation for the observation of the late-time ISW effect to almost a 4-sigma degree of confidence?

[0801.0642] Correlation of CMB with large-scale structure: I. ISW Tomography and Cosmological Implications

 

[Michael]

Again, demanding that expansion would be measured in the lab would be equal to demand that yoktometers would have to be measured with a regular 30 cm ruler.

In terms of demonstration requirements, every atheist and agnostic that is participating in this thread "lacks belief" in any and all concepts of "God", presumably due to a perceived lack of a demonstration of empirical cause/effect relationship. Lots of folks experience something they call God. Why not accept their claims?

If you had some empirical justification for claiming that dark energy did it as it relates to acceleration, I wouldn't complain. EM fields can and do show up in a lab, and can and do accelerate plasma and various metals. They can have a *dramatic* effect in terms of acceleration of objects in the lab. Rail guns and the LHC are great examples of demonstrating cause/effect relationships between EM fields and acceleration.

Compare and contrast that kind of demonstrated cause/effect relationship with 'dark energy'. Nobody knows where the stuff comes from. Nobody knows how to generate it. Nobody knows how to control it. Nobody has ever shown it to accelerate anything. It's like claiming God energy did it. If God energy doesn't work for you to explain that same acceleration based on the very same math and observation of acceleration, why not?

The contrast in expectations related to God are *nothing* like the expectations that atheists and agnostics apply to 'dark' things or inflation theories. Inflation theory bit the dust *again* just recently based on the observations of huge structures in space that should not be there if inflation causes a homogenous layout of matter. Dark matter in the form of SUSY theories has all but been eliminated by the LHC results from experiments run to date. Nobody knows where to get "dark energy" or create dark energy, but I'm supposed to know where to get a quantity of "God"? Why? Double standards here seem to be off scale as it relates to astronomy topics vs. the topic of God. I can at least *see* God every day and every night. You can't even "see" the stuff you believe in, just the "effects" that you *think* you see based on a photon redshift pattern. If we applied that 'effect based on subjective interpretation" thing you apply to human experiences of God to the topic of "dark" whatever, I have every logical right to reject your dark stuff due to a lack of justified cause/effect demonstrations of claims. The only difference is that atheists tend to apply one standard to anything with the label of "science", and a completely different standard to the topic of God or religion.

 

[davidbilby]

In terms of demonstration requirements, every atheist and agnostic that is participating in this thread "lacks belief" in any and all concepts of "God", presumably due to a perceived lack of a demonstration of empirical cause/effect relationship. Lots of folks experience something they call God. Why not accept their claims?

If you had some empirical justification for claiming that dark energy did it as it relates to acceleration, I wouldn't complain. EM fields can and do show up in a lab, and can and do accelerate plasma and various metals. They can have a *dramatic* effect in terms of acceleration of objects in the lab. Rail guns and the LHC are great examples of demonstrating cause/effect relationships between EM fields and acceleration.

Since you don't have a mechanism for your 'InGodWeTrustlastic scattering process' (whether you want it to yield scattering angles of zero and be allowed to violate conservation of momentum, or whether you want it to yield non-zero scattering angles and require an extraordinary degree of knowledge on the photons part of the exact vector and scattering angle sum of every other photon in the universe), aren't you by your own argument appealing to an invisible sky deity, either one that reorders photons "just so" or one that can inelastically scatter photons, leaving them on the same path of travel, and somehow dealing with the conservation of momentum problem inherently defined therein?

You have no lab experiments demonstrating the cosmological redshift; just other people's observations of induced effects (that cannot take place consistently in the cosmos) that lack pretty much any of the characteristics unquestionably observed in the cosmological redshift.

You have no mathematical model, other than one requiring an aether to apply gaussian distribution to photon travel time, which you claim is somehow "generic" to your theory, which doesn't require an aether.

You cite ONE paper claiming delayed high energy photons in blazar observations, but omit that source effects could equally be the cause, ostensibly because you thought that a blazar was a supernova event.

Yet you're happy to frequently throw out there "we've observed plasma redshift in the lab" despite knowledge of the fatal flaws in the argument and a complete lack of understanding of the basics of GR from your armchair.

That's called hypocrisy, sir.

And essentially, taken to the logical extension of your argument, are you saying that for any atheist scientist to make a hypothesis at all (by definition, citing the as yet unobserved) is hypocrisy?

 

[Loudmouth]

In terms of demonstration requirements, every atheist and agnostic that is participating in this thread "lacks belief" in any and all concepts of "God", presumably due to a perceived lack of a demonstration of empirical cause/effect relationship. Lots of folks experience something they call God. Why not accept their claims?

Subjective experiences are not evidence.

If you had some empirical justification for claiming that dark energy did it as it relates to acceleration, I wouldn't complain.

What evidence would you need to accept that gravity causes masses to accelerate towards each other?

EM fields can and do show up in a lab, and can and do accelerate plasma and various metals.

What evidence do you have that EM fields are causing the acceleration of plasmas and various metals?

Rail guns and the LHC are great examples of demonstrating cause/effect relationships between EM fields and acceleration.

The redshift of supernova is the demonstration of the cause and effect relationship between dark energy and accelerating expansion in the same way that the LHC is a demonstration of EM fields.

Nobody knows where the stuff comes from.

Just like no one knows where gravity comes from.

It's like claiming God energy did it.

No, it isn't. It is like claiming that dark energy did it.

Inflation theory bit the dust *again* just recently based on the observations of huge structures in space that should not be there if inflation causes a homogenous layout of matter.

That is, unless, inflation doesn't produce a homogenous layout.

Dark matter in the form of SUSY theories has all but been eliminated by the LHC results from experiments run to date.

Dark matter in the form of non-iluminated mass has been observed in space by its gravitational effects.

Nobody knows where to get "dark energy" or create dark energy,

Same applies to gravity.

 

[davidbilby]

Huh? Any loss of momentum from the photon is gained by the atom or dust particle it interacts with. There is no violation of the conservation of energy they way you violate that conservation of energy concept with "dark energy". It's the never ending power supply and you can't even tell me where it comes from!

That's a new one. Why does dark energy violate the conservation of energy, exactly?

I love the way you split off atoms and 'dust particles' as separate, as if dust is made of something else other than atoms. But never mind - I thought your idea was that its a free electron plasma out there and the photons are interacting with said free electrons, so quite why you are bringing up whole atoms and dust baffles me. Care to explain?

Back to electrons.

Any loss of momentum by the photon to the electron it interacts with thereby requires a non-zero scattering angle for the photon. This isn't billiard ball mechanics where the white ball can keep going straight forward. Why is that? Here's why - this is quantum mechanics, classical mechanics does not apply. It's hard to write equations without superscript here and I'm not sure how to do that, but I'll try and make it as clear as possible.

Firstly, we shall use Δ to show the change of a given value.

Therefore, a photon with energy E that undergoes inelastic scattering will lose energy such that the change is ΔE. (i.e. energy of photon before scattering minus energy of photon after scattering = ΔE).

Clear so far? Energy change of photon = ΔE.

The hypothetical photon (or wave, or any quantum thereof) in this interaction has the momentum E/C.

(If you need an explanation of why this is the case, then the rest of this will be word soup to you)

If this photon interacts with an electron, that electron is obviously in motion in a direction which we can describe, as it differs (or not) from the direction of the photon.

So...we can either say that this electron is travelling in precisely the same direction as the photon, with velocity v_1, or we can add a transverse component v_2 describing the vector of travel as it differs from the photon's.

Irrespective of which of the above one chooses (either v_1 or v_1 + v_2), during the process of this interaction, there will be an increase quite clearly in the forward component v_1 of the electron's travel...there will be a change in v_1.

So, we say that the change in this component is Δv_1.

Since v squared = v_1 squared + v_2 squared, after the interaction the relationship to energy and mass can be expressed by:

1/2m (v_1 squared + v_2 squared) + E = 1/2m [(v_1 + Δv_1) squared + v_2 squared] + (E - ΔE).

This reduces to the first order to what we will call "Statement 1".

mΔv_1 = ΔE/v_1

When you add up the momentums of the particles before and after the interaction, they must be equal for conservation of momentum to be true. Therefore:

mv_1 + E/C = m(v_1 + Δv_1) + (E - ΔE)/C

That is to say - the momentum of the particle, plus the momentum of the photon before the interaction (the left side of the equation)...must equal the momentum of the photon and the momentum of the particle AFTER the interaction (the right side of the equation).

We can reduce that equation algebraically to this, which we'll call "Statement 2":

mΔv_1 = ΔE/C

Ok so far?

So we now have two statements:

mΔv_1 = ΔE/v_1
mΔv_1 = ΔE/C

If both of these statements are true, then I'm sure you see that v_1 = C.

V_1 cannot equal C, for obvious reasons (the electron has mass, and therefore it cannot travel forwards at C).

Conservation of momentum is therefore impossible without deflection of the photon with a transverse component, i.e. a non-zero scattering angle.

Therefore, we can say that for ANY hypothetical inelastic scattering process, it is not possible for the photon to lose momentum and not be deflected off at an angle.

Do you now see why to have a photon-electron interaction as you must for your theory to be true, you have to introduce non-zero scattering angles??

 

[Elendur]

In terms of demonstration requirements, every atheist and agnostic that is participating in this thread "lacks belief" in any and all concepts of "God", presumably due to a perceived lack of a demonstration of empirical cause/effect relationship. Lots of folks experience something they call God. Why not accept their claims?

I don't accept their claims because they do not meet my standard of verification (often they won't even get to the stage of being verifiable).

If you had some empirical justification for claiming that dark energy did it as it relates to acceleration, I wouldn't complain. EM fields can and do show up in a lab, and can and do accelerate plasma and various metals. They can have a *dramatic* effect in terms of acceleration of objects in the lab. Rail guns and the LHC are great examples of demonstrating cause/effect relationships between EM fields and acceleration.

Again, demanding that expansion would be measured in the lab would be equal to demand that yoktometers would have to be measured with a regular 30 cm ruler.

Or perhaps something a bit more distant analogy:

I claim I have a pony in my bedroom.
In order to verify that I have a pony in my bedroom, would you check my tool shed?

Compare and contrast that kind of demonstrated cause/effect relationship with 'dark energy'. Nobody knows where the stuff comes from. Nobody knows how to generate it. Nobody knows how to control it. Nobody has ever shown it to accelerate anything. It's like claiming God energy did it. If God energy doesn't work for you to explain that same acceleration based on the very same math and observation of acceleration, why not?

Nobody knows where mass came from as well, is that as much of a problem?
Nobody knows what gravity really is, is that as much of a problem?

I don't accept your god as explanation because it doesn't meet my standard of verification.

The contrast in expectations related to God are *nothing* like the expectations that atheists and agnostics apply to 'dark' things or inflation theories. Inflation theory bit the dust *again* just recently based on the observations of huge structures in space that should not be there if inflation causes a homogenous layout of matter. Dark matter in the form of SUSY theories has all but been eliminated by the LHC results from experiments run to date. Nobody knows where to get "dark energy" or create dark energy, but I'm supposed to know where to get a quantity of "God"? Why? Double standards here seem to be off scale as it relates to astronomy topics vs. the topic of God. I can at least *see* God every day and every night. You can't even "see" the stuff you believe in, just the "effects" that you *think* you see based on a photon redshift pattern. If we applied that 'effect based on subjective interpretation" thing you apply to human experiences of God to the topic of "dark" whatever, I have every logical right to reject your dark stuff due to a lack of justified cause/effect demonstrations of claims. The only difference is that atheists tend to apply one standard to anything with the label of "science", and a completely different standard to the topic of God or religion.

I don't believe in it. Whether it's correct or not doesn't phase me. Do you know why?
It doesn't affect me.
I have no vested interest in it.

I'm applying the same standard to science as to religion. It's cool to discuss, but in the end it won't matter one bit as long as it doesn't affect me.


Edit:
Perhaps I should add that I'll say that this or that theory is the best I've heard of. unless it's about math, then I'll actually tell you about my few assumptions.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Your ignorance is the one on display at the moment.

Sorry, jgold, but your is the one on display at the moment .
You cannot cite the publication of Santilli's experiment demonstrating the existence of isoredshift in a scientific journal.

I can cite actual scientists and a mathematician who have looked at his work and are not impressed.
this post by ben m shows that isoredshift does not exist
ben m (an experimental nuclear physicists looks at Santilli's experiment (a really bad undergraduate exercise)
Lunar ranging invalidates isoredshift
My simplifying of ben m's post
W.D.Clnger looks at Santilli comments on The Current Historical Moment in Gravitation.

All you can do is link to a PDF on web site that does not contain nay valid experiment demonstrating the existence of isoredshift
.
I have read and uinderstood his work. It is just another tired light theory that does not address the basic flaws in tired light theories. Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work.
The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves.
The tired light model can not produce a blackbody spectrum for the Cosmic Microwave Background without some incredible coincidences.
The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test.

It is my opinion that the galazy and quasar are connected with different redshifts. It doesn't appear to be "pixel bleeding"

It is my opinion is that it does appear to be the well known phenomena of pixel bleeding between 2 bright objects in images .

However the science is that there is at least one "bridge" between NGC 4319/Markarian 205

The currently favored explanation appears to be that it is a background galaxy that just happens to lie in exactly the right position on the sky to appear like a connection. (A bridge is clearly visible in the above enhanced RealSky image. In fact there are two bridges! Pretty weird, isn't it?)

N.B. citing a religious web site like answersingenesis rather than the scientific literature makes your scientific knowledge look dubious.

 

[RealityCheck01]

It's an outright falsification of inflation theory!

It has nothing to do with "inflation theory". Get a grip.
This is a challenge to the cosmological principle, not a falsification of the Lambda-CDM model or "inflation theory".

 

[Michael]

I don't accept their claims because they do not meet my standard of verification (often they won't even get to the stage of being verifiable).

Then you can understand why I reject mainstream dogma. Even when the data *falsifies* inflation, and dark matter, they simply ignore it. Why look for dark matter at the LHC if you don't intend to abide by the findings (or lack thereof) in the first place?

Again, demanding that expansion would be measured in the lab would be equal to demand that yoktometers would have to be measured with a regular 30 cm ruler.

That's absurd IMO. An ordinary $20 plasma ball demonstrates plasma acceleration, but you can't accelerate a single atom in a controlled experiment using "dark energy", not even if I handed you *billions* of dollars! A simple bomb exploding in space demonstrates *object* expansion, but you cannot demonstrate "space" does any expansion tricks.

Or perhaps something a bit more distant analogy:

I claim I have a pony in my bedroom.
In order to verify that I have a pony in my bedroom, would you check my tool shed?

In this case you're claiming to have an invisible pony, you don't know here it comes from, and you have no clue how to control it. Why would I bother checking your claims *anywhere*?

Nobody knows where mass came from as well, is that as much of a problem?

I know it comes from ordinary energy and reverts back to ordinary energy. I can name a source of matter, explain how to control it in experiments, convert matter into energy, etc.

Nobody knows what gravity really is, is that as much of a problem?

No, it shows up in ordinary labs and it's not falsified by observation unlike dark stuff or inflation.

I don't accept your god as explanation because it doesn't meet my standard of verification.

Well, it's a lot more scientifically viable that "dark stuff and inflation did it".

I don't believe in it. Whether it's correct or not doesn't phase me. Do you know why?
It doesn't affect me.
I have no vested interest in it.

Well, you sure seem to be interested in supporting or arguing in favor of metaphysics.

I'm applying the same standard to science as to religion. It's cool to discuss, but in the end it won't matter one bit as long as it doesn't affect me.

By definition dark energy and inflation cannot and does not affect me directly so they have no value to me, and I'm not really interested in them either. On the other hand, if I am right (or virtually any theist is right) about the existence of God, God *does* have a direct effect on humans on Earth including you.

Edit:
Perhaps I should add that I'll say that this or that theory is the best I've heard of. unless it's about math, then I'll actually tell you about my few assumptions.

I'd still be quite interested in your mathematical opinion/critique of Holushko's work by the way. So far I've not heard of any valid mathematical objections to his work.

 

[Michael]

It has nothing to do with "inflation theory". Get a grip.
This is a challenge to the cosmological principle, not a falsification of the Lambda-CDM model or "inflation theory".

The "principle" in question is directly related to inflation theory. Inflation supposedly caused matter to spread out evenly and homogeneously. Structures of this size should *not* exist if inflation did it. Inflation clearly didn't do it, but no type of falsification is ever accepted. Inflation theory is a religious faith in the unseen (in the lab) that defies *any* falsification method possible. You simply turn a blind eye toward everything you don't want to hear or deal with.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's absurd IMO. An ordinary $20 plasma ball demonstrates plasma acceleration, but you can't accelerate a single atom in a controlled experiment using "dark energy", not even if I handed you *billions* of dollars! A simple bomb exploding in space demonstrates *object* expansion, but you cannot demonstrate "space" does any expansion tricks.

We can demonstrate that space is expanding. We have the redshift observations.

Also, please describe how to build a machine that fits inside of a laboratory that can measure an exapansion of less than the width of an atom over a distance of a mile in a years time. Please show us where they have built this machine, and show us that this machine did not measure expansion. If you can't, then your claims that expansion does not exist in the lab is completely unsupported.

In this case you're claiming to have an invisible pony, you don't know here it comes from, and you have no clue how to control it. Why would I bother checking your claims *anywhere*?

It is not invisible. We can see its effects.

No, it shows up in ordinary labs and it's not falsified by observation unlike dark stuff or inflation.

You have yet to show a single observation that falsifies dark energy or inflation, in the lab or not.

By definition dark energy and inflation cannot and do not affect me directly so they have no value to me, and I'm not really interested in them either.

Then this will be your last post in this thread?

I'd still be quite interested in you mathematical opinion of Holushko's work by the way. So far I've not heard of any valid mathematical objections to his work.

I'm still waiting for you to show us how inelastic scattering is a part of Holushko's model. I am also waiting for you to show us how Holushko's aehter model should even be considered given the fact that the aether was falsified over a century ago.

 

[Loudmouth]

The "principle" in question is directly related to inflation theory. Inflation supposedly caused matter to spread out evenly and homogeneously.

Where does inflation theory require a homogenous distribution of matter? If the original singularity was not perfection homogenous then inflation would not produce a homogenous distribution of matter. What you are pointing to is evidence that energy was not even distributed at the beginning of the inflationary period. This does not falsify inflation.

Inflation theory is a religious faith in the unseen (in the lab) that defies *any* falsification method possible.

Inflation theory is a well supported scientific model that is supported by scientific observations.

 

[RealityCheck01]

jgold, you need to know the background to Michael's post.

I've tried for two years to get him to read Alfven's book(s), Peratt's book, or *any* book on plasma physics to no avail.
...usual insults snipped...

This is Michael irrational demand that I have to read these books in order to understand asection in 1 book that has been quoted in full !
As stated before on 4th December 2012 (44 days and counting!)
The irrelevance of the inane demand that I read Peratt's book): When we get to discussing real MHD (plasma physics) rather than one section in one book !

FYI, RC is no 'expert' in astronomy, or any topic related to astronomy. He's apparently a retired IT guy that has never published any credible papers related to astronomy.

FYI, jgold, Michael is no 'expert' in astronomy, or any topic related to astronomy. He's apparently a IT guy that has never really published any papers related to astronomy.
Michael has a fair amount of ignorance about what science is, e.g. he thinks that everything needs to be tested in labs. Thus all his irrational demands that dark energy be tested in labs.

What he has done is contribute an image with a totally invalid interpretation to a couple of papers about an obviously invalid model of the Sun, e.g. that it contains a neutron star!
That the other authors of the paper included his image reflects badly on their knowledge of physics.

The scientific authors (i.e. not you) of the papers were so ignorant about solar physics that they included your images demonstrating a delusion that images of solar flares in the transition zone can be processed to magically show solid mountain ranges below the photosphere. The basic ignorance is

• images in the 171A passband are of light emitted from material at temperatures of > 160,000 K! Thus no no solids.
• all light from the Sun's body comes from the photosphere so by definition you cannot have an image of anything below the photosphere.

Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!

Errors in Michael's site V (transition region is above photosphere)!!
Errors in Michael's site VI (RD processing does not move original images)!
Errors in Michael's site XIV (no mountain ranges in TRACE RD movie)!
Including the obvious delustiuon that light is emitted from under the photosphere, e.g. How can we detect the less than 1 photon per year from your iron crust?
First asked 24 April 2010
​

FYI, jgold, I am not an expert in astronomy. I am not a retired IT guy.
I am an IT guy who has a Master in Science in solid state physics. That means that I have an education that includes how to evaluate scientific theories.