Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

Michael · Jun 20, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
Yes, they have quite the phobea to it, but I believe that is because it scares them. Not just because it means they've been wrong since they first said electric currents could not exist in space, but for deeper reasons as well.

Those deeper reasons relate to three basic issues IMO.

EU/PC not only threatens to overturn everything related to cosmology theory in general, but also solar physics, and pretty much every "specialty field" in astronomy. It's the ultimate "ego crush" for nearly everyone in astronomy today, some who've been presumed "experts" on solar physics, or inflation, or dark energy or SUSY theory. The loss of prestige is universal and across the board.

It also mucks up the complexity of the mathematics to the point of near absurdity, thus making it difficult and ugly to "quantify". With all that mathematical talent, it's more than a little disconcerting to have to deal with such complexity, and to what outcome?

EU/PC theory doesn't necessarily provide any "beginning of the universe" mythologies to latch onto. Humans tend to feel very comfortable with beginnings and endings, and things that have physical sizes, but they have a much harder time embracing concepts like eternity, and infinity. These are ideas that are much harder to wrap one's head around.

That's the one thing I like about this forum, it actually lets people speak their minds as long as they don't get too disrespectfull, unlike most mainstream forums that when you mention the word electricity they ban you in order to stop people from hearing about it.

It's rather ironic that a religious website turns out to be the 'best' forum to discuss scientific topics. It's also rather sad that "astronomy" websites like CosmoQuest are so draconian in terms of how they handle dissent and opposing points of view. They have no tolerance whatsoever. That's not a 'scientific' mentality, it's a cult mentality IMO.

They wanted to use the convection in the Sun to explain the magnetic fields to explain the electric currents they measure. But their convection theory was shattered, which now leaves nothing but the electric currents as the cause, as their cause for the magnetic fields just fell flat.

That's just it. Not only is Planck destroying their preconceived ideas, SDO is crushing their beliefs about solar physics. The whole field of astronomy is falling apart at that seams in terms of falsified predictions. It's not only that their 'big picture' claims have become untenable, they must face the fact that we don't even begin to understand solar physics yet. That's more than a little humbling.

Unfortunately for the mainstream, technology is simply catching up to their mythology. There's nothing they can ultimately do about it either, besides simply do the right thing and embrace empirical physics in the form of PC/EU theory.

That's so "boring" from their perspective however. It takes away all their exotic stuff in one fell swoop. No more string theory. No more dark energy theory. No more making up another brand of inflation on the fly. It's all so restrictive and boring in comparison to Lambda-CDM.

No, they are not free to discuss electric currents. They can mention them since they detect them, but are not allowed to posit them in any hypothesis.

IMO that particular issue is the worst part of the cult mentality. Anyone that even dares to mention electricity in space is looked at with contempt. Even Alfven is treated with contempt among a lot of the inner circles. They don't read his work. They don't understand it either.

They are slowly geting the general public used to hearing about electric currents, so one day they can switch without looking like the idiots they were for arguing against it for over 100 years.

I suspect it will be more like "We knew it was an electric universe all along. Aren't we just so smart for figuring it all out? "

Unlike the psychophants that follow mainstream theory, the scientists no longer argue against electric currents in space, they can't, they detected them. All they can do is ignore them for now.

They are getting rather difficult to ignore, particularly the solar wind, and it's *actual source*. That convection speed falsification by SDO was *absolutely devastating* to mainstream solar models. They no longer have a viable 'power supply' to explain solar atmospheric physics, and solar wind, and they have no justification for claiming that heavy elements like Iron and Nickel stay mixed together with wispy thin elements like Hydrogen and Helium. That one observation threatens to not only bring down the house on solar physics, but the whole field of astronomy as well.

Justatruthseeker · Jun 20, 2013

Michael said:
Those deeper reasons relate to three basic issues IMO.

EU/PC not only threatens to overturn everything related to cosmology theory in general, but also solar physics, and pretty much every "specialty field" in astronomy. It's the ultimate "ego crush" for nearly everyone in astronomy today, some who've been presumed "experts" on solar physics, or inflation, or dark energy or SUSY theory. The loss of prestige is universal and across the board.

It also mucks up the complexity of the mathematics to the point of near absurdity, thus making it difficult and ugly to "quantify". With all that mathematical talent, it's more than a little disconcerting to have to deal with such complexity, and to what outcome?

EU/PC theory doesn't necessarily provide any "beginning of the universe" mythologies to latch onto. Humans tend to feel very comfortable with beginnings and endings, and things that have physical sizes, but they have a much harder time embracing concepts like eternity, and infinity. These are ideas that are much harder to wrap one's head around.

It's rather ironic that a religious website turns out to be the 'best' forum to discuss scientific topics. It's also rather sad that "astronomy" websites like CosmoQuest are so draconian in terms of how they handle dissent and opposing points of view. They have no tolerance whatsoever. That's not a 'scientific' mentality, it's a cult mentality IMO.

That's just it. Not only is Planck destroying their preconceived ideas, SDO is crushing their beliefs about solar physics. The whole field of astronomy is falling apart at that seams in terms of falsified predictions. It's not only that their 'big picture' claims have become untenable, they must face the fact that we don't even begin to understand solar physics yet. That's more than a little humbling.

Unfortunately for the mainstream, technology is simply catching up to their mythology. There's nothing they can ultimately do about it either, besides simply do the right thing and embrace empirical physics in the form of PC/EU theory.

That's so "boring" from their perspective however. It takes away all their exotic stuff in one fell swoop. No more string theory. No more dark energy theory. No more making up another brand of inflation on the fly. It's all so restrictive and boring in comparison to Lambda-CDM.

IMO that particular issue is the worst part of the cult mentality. Anyone that even dares to mention electricity in space is looked at with contempt. Even Alfven is treated with contempt among a lot of the inner circles. They don't read his work. They don't understand it either.

I suspect it will be more like "We knew it was an electric universe all along. Aren't we just so smart for figuring it all out? "

They are getting rather difficult to ignore, particularly the solar wind, and it's *actual source*. That convection speed falsification by SDO was *absolutely devastating* to mainstream solar models. They no longer have a viable 'power supply' to explain solar atmospheric physics, and solar wind, and they have no justification for claiming that heavy elements like Iron and Nickel stay mixed together with wispy thin elements like Hydrogen and Helium. That one observation threatens to not only bring down the house on solar physics, but the whole field of astronomy as well.

Agreed. I realize the cost of redoing all the educational schools, new textbooks, etc will be beyond measure, but it is going to have to be done, so they just need to face up to it and get the ball rolling. I think they hope to put it off for those that will assume leadership in the future, let them worry about it so to speak.

Like you said, all these so called experts will no longer be experts, just students that need to go back to school and be retrained. This is unacceptable in their viewpoint, so denial is all that is left. And what does one do with Nobel Prizes handed out for Dark Matter theories, when those theories are no longer needed. Current research projects costing billions of dollars wasted. Of course they aren't worth the paper they are written on anyways, but how do they tell the public they wasted hundreds of billions of their tax dollars looking for Fairie Dust, while ignoring and excluding from research anything electrical? Especially when every data set returned since the space age has shown their theories to be incorrect.

Before then it was acceptable, but the first probe launched into space immediately built up charge short-circuiting electronics on board. The next probe contained equipment for measuring charged particles which proved Kristian Birkeland correct in 1963, yet they use Sydney Chapman's theory to this day to explain the magnetosphere. I have to give NASA credit though, they are trying to change, but mainstream still resists them. And like Halton Arp we know what happens to those that don't toe the line. They are using more and more electrical language as the years go by, and I agree, they will soon say "It's always been known the universe was electrical," and others will attempt to grab the credit and bypass those that are the true pioneers.

But really until the public gets tired of throwing away money on searching false trails, there isn't much that will be done. As long as the general public is entertained with the magic show, it will continue. 6 years ago I was on the other side of the fence, so I know it's not an easy thing to admit one is wrong. I also dismissed EU/PC theory. Then I actually started looking into it to answer questions and realized mainstream made less and less sense as one learned more and more. So about all we can do is get the facts out to the younger generation so at least science will someday advance instead of continuing to stagnate.

At least we got some good ones, and things look like they are fixing to change in the education system. Slowly yes, but it will happen
EVAN CAMP: Exciting Students with Unsettled Science | EU 2013 - YouTube

CabVet · Jun 20, 2013

Please do go on, I am very amused by your conspiracy theories.

Davian · Jun 20, 2013

I would like to hear more about the Earth as a perpetual motion machine. Fascinating.

Michael, seeing as you have those quotes in your sig, do you know if Einstein took issue with perpetual motion machines?

Justatruthseeker · Jun 20, 2013

Davian said:
I would like to hear more about the Earth as a perpetual motion machine. Fascinating.

Michael, seeing as you have those quotes in your sig, do you know if Einstein took issue with perpetual motion machines?

It is isn't it? E said this about the second law of thermodynamics:

“A law is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. (..) It is the only physical theory of universal content, which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown.”

What Einstein Thought About Thermodynamics | The Second Law of Life

E fully upheld the Laws of Thermodynamics, believed they were the most fundamental concept. See also:
http://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/courses/aph105c/2006/articles/Klein_Einstein.pdf

A quite common thought:
Thermodynamics - Wikiquote

So this core of the earth has been spinning away against all the laws of friction for 4.7 billion years. There is no spinning core violating thermodynamics. And to believe such a thing possible is to dismiss ALL of science, as everything is based upon these laws.

Of course others are entitled to their own beliefs, but I guess violation of the foundational laws of science is nothing new to them anyway. E told em Black Holes were not real, merely mathematical entities, but just read any science fiction story they call science news today. Black Holes here, Black Holes there, Black Holes everywhere!
http://www.cscamm.umd.edu/tiglio/GR2012/Syllabus_files/EinsteinSchwarzschild.pdf

Want an even more fascinating theory? Just dig this redshift = distance map. All point to the Earth (Sun) as the center, no matter which quadrant in the sky one observes.

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/fingers_of_god_in_an_expanding_universe

No, no, still more to go.

Just dig this distance map of stars and exoplanets.....

A Cosmic Map of the Exoplanets [Interactive]: Scientific American

Be sure to click on distance from the sun, upper right.

Getting interesting yet? Maybe just a tad bit?

Oh, but we have just gotten started on this fascinating theory. One even I haven't found an argument against, except for a few basic reliance's on non-electrical events.

https://11dc5d5d-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/cosmologyquest/files/AstronomyDec28-2008.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cpsW7Xe4E6vXLulR0MB2BbyDG2Sj3_EOT4ZE3N0sK4JLOGhdFzvR6Vt4pP6doM6ZZQc1vIFvbuUCc3C6xI6UNEbCWJeCxvSd-9EY_aIFFQG7N0fxWS9Rcyq5dI4cOR-4AdLNzuP_cU-7QvT0MKDv1XZ4vXXE644aoVND9LRHOTISuje6G1jWRZ4F5CkxsbfDGImoZCmghRJv3G25ycWzkM9zgBKYsbnWrhF6PmhGG2a8gbDmMQ%3D&attredirects=1

Now that is a fascinating theory!

Justatruthseeker · Jun 20, 2013

You might be wondering how I can accept E's theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies, yet dismiss mainstream as being incorrect? It is quite simple. I accept SR, which is the EM field of forces interpretation of matter, yet agree also with E that GR was not valid.

By his own later judgment, Einstein did not, in the end, find a theory that fully satisfied Mach's Principle. The immediate benefit of his new principle of equivalence, however, was that it let Einstein learn a lot about gravitation. For the principle delivered to Einstein one special case of a gravitational field that, he believed, conformed with relativity theory and in which all bodies truly fell alike. Einstein's program of research on gravity in the five years following 1907 was simply to examine the properties of this one special case and to try to generalize them to recover a full theory. His early hope was that the generalization of the principle of relativity would somehow emerge in the course of those investigations.

Einstein's Pathway

And this generalization of the principle of relativity (Electrodynamic interactions) has indeed emerged in the course of those investigations, the electrical force generated in plasma that comprise 99.99% of the universe. I so agree with E it is not even funny, E=mc^2! Although much better for understanding if written as mc^2=E.

It was when he tried to make moving frames fit to stationary frames that he encountered his problems. The Lorentz Force requires the movement of charged particles (electric current) to operate. By transforming those equations into no movement, the electrical force was lost, discarded by a later generation as unnecessary. E was not satisfied in the end with GR, and it is easy to see why. But the basic concept underlying the universe remains the same, the electrodynamics of moving bodies, which the EU/PC paradigms are emerging from the course of this investigation into those electrodynamic motions.

Come join us and E as we get science back on track once again and discover how those electrodynamic moving bodies really behave! Dare one say E-lectrically?

Davian · Jun 21, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
It is isn't it? E said this about the second law of thermodynamics:
What Einstein Thought About Thermodynamics | The Second Law of Life

E fully upheld the Laws of Thermodynamics, believed they were the most fundamental concept. See also:
http://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/courses/aph105c/2006/articles/Klein_Einstein.pdf

A quite common thought:
Thermodynamics - Wikiquote

So this core of the earth has been spinning away against all the laws of friction for 4.7 billion years. There is no spinning core violating thermodynamics. And to believe such a thing possible is to dismiss ALL of science, as everything is based upon these laws.
<snip>

So, has this perpetual motion machine (Earth) lost any heat in the 4 billion years since it was formed?

davidbilby · Jun 21, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
https://11dc5d5d-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/cosmologyquest/files/AstronomyDec28-2008.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cpsW7Xe4E6vXLulR0MB2BbyDG2Sj3_EOT4ZE3N0sK4JLOGhdFzvR6Vt4pP6doM6ZZQc1vIFvbuUCc3C6xI6UNEbCWJeCxvSd-9EY_aIFFQG7N0fxWS9Rcyq5dI4cOR-4AdLNzuP_cU-7QvT0MKDv1XZ4vXXE644aoVND9LRHOTISuje6G1jWRZ4F5CkxsbfDGImoZCmghRJv3G25ycWzkM9zgBKYsbnWrhF6PmhGG2a8gbDmMQ%3D&attredirects=1

Now that is a fascinating theory!

I read that link. Or as much as I could take. Painful.

We can't tell the reflected light from planets apart from the emitted light of stars? Seriously?

One look at the spectrum of a planet, and the light spectrum of a star, would tell you that's so stunningly, blindingly wrong as to be beyond comprehension.

Can either of you or Michael tell us why?

davidbilby · Jun 21, 2013

PS...I actually choked on my coffee at p.67, where a photo of the sun at sunset is compared to a photo of M88. As a serious comparison. There's more fail in there than I imagined possible in a single document.

This discussion has descended into farce, so I bid you all farewell.

Michael · Jun 21, 2013

davidbilby said:
I read that link. Or as much as I could take. Painful.

We can't tell the reflected light from planets apart from the emitted light of stars? Seriously?

One look at the spectrum of a planet, and the light spectrum of a star, would tell you that's so stunningly, blindingly wrong as to be beyond comprehension.

Can either of you or Michael tell us why?

I didn't make any such claim so don't even *think* about dragging me into it. And don't *even* get me started over the ridiculous way you claim to "know" the composition of a sun. Your solar theories are in worse shape than your cosmology theories at the moment thanks to SDO.

Michael · Jun 21, 2013

davidbilby said:
PS...I actually choked on my coffee at p.67, where a photo of the sun at sunset is compared to a photo of M88. As a serious comparison. There's more fail in there than I imagined possible in a single document.

This discussion has descended into farce, so I bid you all farewell.

The "farce" aspect is directly related to all the claims you make about what things actually have influence on photons.

The following things do have a known and measurable effect on photons:

Movement of objects
Inelastic scattering

The following things have *never* been shown to have any effect on *any* photon at any wavelength:

Expansion of space
Inflation
Dark energy
mythical forms of matter
curvatons
Elves
Fairies

The farce is you picking on *one* error on some random website and acting like it invalidates the whole EU/PC concept.

davidbilby · Jun 21, 2013

Michael said:
I didn't make any such claim so don't even *think* about dragging me into it. And don't *even* get me started over the ridiculous way you claim to "know" the composition of a sun. Your solar theories are in worse shape than your cosmology theories at the moment thanks to SDO.

I'll dive in for a couple of last points...I'm not talking (and don't really care) about the "composition of the sun". I know YOU didn't claim that, but you let it pass without comment. This is odd. It is like someone saying "I think the sun is made of cheese" and it going by uncommented on.

I'm sure you've looked at the spectra of stars...and have you looked at the spectra of planets? I wondered if you could possibly say what differentiates light from a reflected body that also has it's own thermal signature, and light from a star? (I mean, I'm dropping some pretty heavy hints in that last sentence)?

Can you actually say why that link he posted is unbelievably silly, that all the galaxies we see in the universe...are in fact...solar systems? Or is that an unimportant point to you? I'm genuinely interested to see what you think on the proposal. I don't care about what you think about any other theory for the purposes of this post, I'm interested as to what you think about that theory.

Because I would imagine all of the very tiny number of people who agree with you on tired light would go..."that's completely ridiculous!"!

davidbilby · Jun 21, 2013

Michael said:
The following things do have a known and measurable effect on photons:

Movement of objects
Inelastic scattering

And yet neither of them have ever been shown to produce anything close to the cosmological redshift observed in all quadrants of the night sky, a fact you always conveniently leave out.

Inelastic scattering is dispersive. Every form of inelastic scattering is dispersive. We understand them all very well, and you've not proposed any alternative that isn't. Quantum mechanics shows that they should be dispersive (assuming a photon-particle interaction). If you want it to be something else then you have to say what and how, the onus is on YOU. You've repeatedly proposed plasma as the cause of the redshift - why would the inelastic scattering not be photon-free electron interactions, in which case that is Compton scattering?

You have faith that you could 'put stuff in a chamber and shine some light and stuff and connect some AC/DC or something' and magically a new inelastic scattering process would appear, that wasn't simple photon - particle interactions (Compton/Thompson) or involve broadening of spectral lines and not redshift (Stark shift).

You pray that it'll be wavelength independent, despite quantum mechanics saying that's impossible...because quantum mechanics is entirely wrong, despite every empirical test of it ever done (those were all just wrong somehow).

PS - I tried to hint you towards this earlier, but your lack of physics education meant that I guess you never heard about it. You should read about Einstein-Cartan theory, it's the closest you might ever get to being right.

Michael said:
The farce is you picking on *one* error on some random website and acting like it invalidates the whole EU/PC concept.

Except that website wasn't about EU/PC, you just assumed it was because you don't have the respect for other human beings to actually see what it was they said in reality. You assume every post by an actual physicist is going to be bashing of EU/PC...what an inferiority complex you seem to have developed!

I never said that it had anything to do with EU/PC, never even vaguely implied it. Nor did the original post! Are you so worried about the strength of your theory that you have to defend it even when nobody is attacking?

I just pointed out that it was unbelievably silly to say that M88 is a solar system instead of a galaxy. Do you not agree? Do you think that is a sensible suggestion that the guy made or complete and utter stupidity (since his evidence is looking at a picture of the sunset and going "ooh, looks like they're the same!). I'm genuinely interested to know. I know you're fond of looking at two pictures and saying "they look alike", so do you think that M88 is a solar system, or a galaxy? It's not a difficult question to answer.

(Rather like Santilli, who you looked at with interest and praised his experimental spirit....without noticing that he says he's disproved special relativity with what appears to be an uncalibrated 0.02nm spectrometer in a garden shed. Empiricism doesn't just mean doing experiments no matter what - it means calibration, repeated results etc.)

That random website proposed that galaxies are in fact solar systems, and it was posted by your buddy as a "fascinating theory" and left uncommented on by you so far, yet you're easily able to dive in and froth on any other subject. This is odd.

When someone who supports your ideas makes a preposterous claim - (and we're not even talking new scalar fields here, we're talking M88 being a solar system!!!!) and says that idea is "fascinating", you really have nothing to say?????

Michael · Jun 21, 2013

Dave Ellis said:
And seeing as the peer review process has demonstrated it's very effective at confirming experiments, and discrediting dubious ones, I don't really share your lack of confidence in peer review.

As it relates specifically to *non hypothetical* forms of matter and energy, I agree with you on the peer review process issue. As it relates to *hypothetical* aspects of physics however, it's a completely different story IMO.

If you can clearly define what it is you hope to prove, then provide the methodology on how to verify it, the peers reviewing your work will reach the same results you do.

Not in my experience as it relates to astronomy. Your statement is true for some branches of science, but not all. EU/PC theory however is the satanic figure of astronomy. They hate the idea with a passion, probably because it's a threat to their entire belief system.

Faith is belief without evidence, and fields like Astronomy and Cosmology have plenty of evidence to make their cases for various hypotheses and theories.

There actually isn't any 'cause/effect' evidence for inflation or dark energy or hypothetical forms of matter, anymore than you can say that someone's "inner experience" is direct cause/effect evidence of God. There are many reasons why a photon might be redshifted that have absolutely nothing to do with inflation or dark energy. In fact no actual experiments, with real control mechanisms even supports their claims. It's a complete "statement of faith" that photons are influence by *hypothetical* entities like inflation or dark energy.

Would a cosmologist state absolute certainty in something like inflation? Of course not,

You should see some of david's responses to the Planck data. Apparently he'd rather *invent* yet *another* hypothetical particle than to let inflation theory die a natural scientific death.

however the available evidence does point to inflation, just like it points to the existence of Dark Matter / Energy.

What *experimental* (real control mechanisms in a lab) actually show that inflation even exists, let alone that it has any effect on a photon? Ditto for 'dark energy'?

Is it possible we'll uncover some new evidence that overturns our current understanding of the universe? Of course. But all we can go off of is the evidence we currently have.

Unlike Lambda-CDM, a *real* cause/effect link can be made between inelastic scattering, and the loss of photon momentum. Unlike Lambda-CDM, an empirical cause/effect link exists between the *movement of objects* (not expansion of space) and photon redshift. There is already *ample* evidence to support PC/EU theory.

That being said, the evidence we currently have still objectively exists,

No, not "objectively" anyway. Objective evidence is something you can demonstrate in a lab and repeat in the lab, regardless of who does the test. Inflation has never had any effect on any photon in a lab. It's a *subjective* sort of evidence in a *best case* scenario, not unlike claiming that internal experiences of God are evidence of God. Maybe. Maybe not.

So a wholesale overturning of our picture of the universe is very unlikely (but not impossible)... if anything new information will allow us a better understanding or knowledge far deeper than we currently possess.

I do think PC/EU theory will *eventually* overturn our creation myths, but that isn't likely to happen anytime soon IMO.

Michael · Jun 21, 2013

davidbilby said:
I'll dive in for a couple of last points...I'm not talking (and don't really care) about the "composition of the sun". I know YOU didn't claim that, but you let it pass without comment. This is odd. It is like someone saying "I think the sun is made of cheese" and it going by uncommented on.

Had I even had time to read the link yet, maybe your complaint might have merit.

I'm really tired of you playing the role of ''grand inquisitor' by the way. You're not my teacher, and I'm not your student.

You're constantly asking me "test" questions, which I often answer (like your Copernicus vs dark energy question), and you typically ignore it. If you don't ignore my answer outright (I never get credit of course), you leap on some arcane aspect of that issue to go ballistic over. Get over yourself.

Michael · Jun 21, 2013

davidbilby said:
And yet neither of them have ever been shown to produce anything close to the cosmological redshift observed in all quadrants of the night sky, a fact you always conveniently leave out.

You wouldn't know if it was close or not close because you've never actually taken the time to *experiment* with these things in exhaustive testing. You just handwave in your own personal opinions without any real support other than one paper from 1929!

Inelastic scattering is dispersive.

New View: Universe Suddenly Twice as Bright | Space.com

Yes, and so is spacetime.

Every form of inelastic scattering is dispersive.

You do not technically even *know* that from exhaustive experimentation, you *think* that based apparently on nothing more than six lines of math and a handwave. It's not even necessary for scattering to be the *whole cause* of photon redshift.

We understand them all very well,

No, you don't. You haven't run any real exhaustive experiments. You simply *assume* what you want.

Quantum mechanics shows that they should be dispersive (assuming a photon-particle interaction).

But not always in a purely random way!

If you want it to be something else then you have to say what and how, the onus is on YOU.

No, it's not just on me. You've never shown that photons are even *influenced at all* by inflation or dark energy or mythical forms of matter, let alone your newest metphysical kludge, the curvaton. You didn't demonstrate *your* claims at all!

You've repeatedly proposed plasma as the cause of the redshift -

I've shown you real life experiments to support my claims too.

why would the inelastic scattering not be photon-free electron interactions, in which case that is Compton scattering?

Spacetime has more in it than *just* electrons, that's why.

You have faith that you could 'put stuff in a chamber and shine some light and stuff and connect some AC/DC or something' and

Yes, I have faith in experimental physics. My computer is one of the reasons I have faith in experimental physics. It produces *tangible* results.

magically

No, not magically, physically! Plasma has a *physical* and real and measurable effect on photons, unlike your *magical* inflation and dark energy.

a new inelastic scattering process would appear,

Why would it have to be "new"? All it can't be *exclusively* is Compton scattering. That's all I'm "pretty sure" about.

You pray that it'll be wavelength independent,

No, but I'll admit it's an act of faith on my part at the present moment. Since I can create *real experiments* however, with *real control mechanisms*, that faith can one day be replaced by real empirical knowledge. That's more than you can even hope for in your lifetime.

despite quantum mechanics saying that's impossible...

Baloney. QM says nothing of the sort. You're just stuffing in your own opinions again as "fact".

- I tried to hint you towards this earlier, but your lack of physics education meant that I guess you never heard about it. You should read about Einstein-Cartan theory, it's the closest you might ever get to being right.

There you go again whacking away at the messenger based on your stupid "tests". You're a one trick personal attack pony.

Except that website wasn't about EU/PC, you just assumed it was

I already explained to you that I had not even read the page in question yet, but there you go again....

I never said that it had anything to do with EU/PC, never even vaguely implied it. Nor did the original post! Are you so worried about the strength of your theory that you have to defend it even when nobody is attacking?

I'm not.

It's pointless to respond to the rest of your stuff, because it's just a rehash of the same stuff.

Michael · Jun 21, 2013

The double standard is amazing:

You *insist* that I produce laboratory experiments *and results* that verify *all* of my claims, yet you can't get *any* of your mythical entities to have *any* effect on *any* photon at *any* wavelengths in *any* experiment! Blatant double standards are not even close to a rational basis for picking scientific winners and losers.

Michael · Jun 21, 2013

davidbilby said:
I'll dive in for a couple of last points...I'm not talking (and don't really care) about the "composition of the sun"!

Ok, I'll bite. Without *knowing* the actual composition of suns, how can you even justify making any claims about how much baryonic matter there "should be" based on Planck data alone, and how can you use Planck data to determine the amount of "non baryonic" matter that might exist in nature?

Justatruthseeker · Jun 21, 2013

Davian said:
So, has this perpetual motion machine (Earth) lost any heat in the 4 billion years since it was formed?

Still plenty of volcanoes, and the heat would all depend on the current density flowing thru it. But I am sure there must be some math whiz out there that if science is correct about the current temperature of the core is 5700K almost the temp of the suns surface, then what temp would it have needed to be back when the dino's lived? They must have had hot foot if you go for mainstream theory.

But if the temperature fluctuates only depending on outside current flow, then the Earth could indeed have gone thru priods of temperate weather, and also periods of ice ages.

Yet mainstream requires the further back in time we go, the hotter the planet must of been, yet according to geologists the Earth has went thru many ice ages in the billions of years it has been around. They just don't know what to say because everything contradicts something else.

Justatruthseeker · Jun 21, 2013

davidbilby said:
I read that link. Or as much as I could take. Painful.

We can't tell the reflected light from planets apart from the emitted light of stars? Seriously?

One look at the spectrum of a planet, and the light spectrum of a star, would tell you that's so stunningly, blindingly wrong as to be beyond comprehension.

Can either of you or Michael tell us why?

Pluto's spectrum cannot be distinguished from any star. The only reason it was discovered to be a planet is because it moves. But of course you didn't bother to do any research to find out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto

Pluto's visual apparent magnitude averages 15.1, brightening to 13.65 at perihelion.[2] To see it, a telescope is required; around 30 cm (12 in) aperture being desirable.[70] It looks star-like and without a visible disk even in large telescopes, because its angular diameter is only 0.11".

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Hubble's Latest Look at Pluto's Moons Supports a Common Birth (03/10/2006) - Introduction

All three of Pluto's satellites reflect the Sun's light equally across the visible spectrum and have essentially the same color as Earth's moon. Pluto, in contrast, has a reddish hue.

Only recently have we been able to resolve its spectra from that of a star due to technology advances. If you knew anything about spectra you would know that they apply ratioing to a planet to differentiate it from a star. They take a believed background star and divide each pixel of pluto by the value of the pixel from the object believed to be a star. This gives a reflectance spectra.
If the star has a value of 2 at that pixel and Pluto 2, then Pluto becomes 1, even though it was originally 2. If the star has a value of 6 for a pixel and Pluto 2, then it becomes .333. If Pluto has a value of 6 and the star 2 then Pluto's becomes 3. The spectra this way always becomes less than the original spectra. But they only do this for planets. Why? is not spectra spectra????? Why must you ratio the spectra of Pluto but not an object believed to be a background star? There is no defensible reason for doing so other than to obtain a spectra less than its original value.

Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

Contributor

Newbie

Question everything

fallible

Newbie

Newbie

fallible

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency