Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

They were comparing COLOR had you bothered to read, not singularity in shape. Show me any true color photograph of a galaxy that is not yellowish to reddish orange??? Anyone???? Just one, that's all I ask. Just one???

And that theory has nothing to do with EU/PC theory, just threw that in there since they wanted to talk about fascinating theories. And while you are searching for a galaxy not that color, please show me mathematically how a telescope the size of Hubble can see 13 billion light years????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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!"!

That link has nothing to do with EU/PC theory, they wanted fascinating theories so I gave them one. At least that guy has visual evidence to back him up, how much Dark matter have you seen?

Show me one single mathematical formula that backs up NASA's claim that the Hubble telescope can see 13 billion light years????

Inverse Square Law for Light

Here, let me help
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/teles2.html


I'll bet you 20 to one odds no one comes up with one single formula which allows that distance. As a matter of fact, the odds are getting even more against you.

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

So much dust it blocks 70% of edge on galaxies and half the light from galaxies. Which of course not only affects your distance claims, but also your mass claims.

The Motion of Stars
Most stars have nearly fixed positions in the sky, relative to each other. In fact, they are often referred to as the "fixed stars", in contrast with the planets, which are always in motion relative to each other, and the stellar background.
In reality, however, all stars are in motion relative to each other, and our Galaxy, with velocities of a hundred fifty miles per second or so relative to the center of the Galaxy, and a few tens of miles per second relative to each other. The difference between their rapid motion, relative to the Galaxy, and their much slower motion, relative to each other, is due to the fact that they are mostly going around the Galaxy in nearly the same direction, at nearly the same speed, much as cars on a freeway are heading in nearly the same direction, at nearly the same speed. Under such circumstances, their speeds relative to each other are much smaller than their speeds relative to objects not moving with them.

And yet gravity demands that stars at the edge of the galaxy rotate slower, not at the same speed as those closer in. Yes, I know, it's Dark Matter, better known as Fairie Dust.

Proper Motion

Since stars that are close to the Sun can have relatively small velocities and still have noticeable proper motions, one of the easiest ways to recognize nearby stars is to look for stars with large proper motions. In fact, the star with the fastest proper motion, Barnard's Star, with a proper motion of 10.3 seconds of arc per year, is the second closest stellar system to the Sun, and because it is rapidly approaching the Sun, will be the closest star to the Sun, with a distance of less than four light years, in less than ten thousand years.

But large proper motions is how we distinguish planets from stars. That's how Pluto was discovered not to be a star, That is how they discover planets supposedly around other stars.

Your explanation, stars rocketed out of the center of the galaxy.
Rogue stars give a better glimpse of our galaxy - Technology & science - Space - Space.com | NBC News

But wait, isn't that exact same thing Halton Arp is claiming about quasars, just from active galaxies, not quiet ones like ours is supposed to be.

Even planets are doing it now
https://community.emc.com/people/ble/blog/2012/11/27/rogue-stars-and-planets-2 Looks like a star to me, how about you? But of course it has large proper motion, so must be a planet. Conflicting explanations once again.

But of course we can clearly see what happens when a star moves in opposition to the plasma it is supposed to move with.
http://science1.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2007/08/15/15aug_mira_resources/mira1.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...eb_print.jpg/554px-Hs-2009-03-a-web_print.jpg

Are you sure you want this to be millions of stars in the center?
HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Heritage Project Celebrates Five Years of Harvesting the Best Images from Hubble Space Telescope (10/02/2003) - Release Images

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - A Wheel within a Wheel (09/05/2002) - Release Images

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - NASA's Hubble Space Telescope Images the Dense Nucleus of Galaxy M32 (04/08/1992) - Release Images

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - A Galaxy That's All Wound Up (04/04/2002) - Release Images

Just where are those millions of stars in the center?
The Sombrero Galaxy Tour- So Much More Than Meets The Eye

Even in ultraviolet
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/1/0/6/6/1/Sombrero-Galaxy-44002557077.jpeg

And Black Holes and galaxies now forming close to 12 billion years ago, and there's your dust again.
https://physicsforme.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/most-quasars-live-on-snacks-not-large-meals/

Wow, so many stars in this image, what happened? Check out all those points, I mean planetary disks.
http://www.ras.ucalgary.ca/CGPS/gallery/vistas/cygnus/800x686cygnusMOM_25um60um21cm74cm_q75.jpg


At least base an argument on something halfway rational.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

They just don't have any answers is all, I included a link for telescope distances in a previous post, waiting for them to show me how Hubble can see 13 billion ly. Of course they won't because they can't, but hey, throw out some unsupported claims and they think that is science.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.




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?????

Of course, we wouldn't consider Dark Matter a fascinating theory, even though we have never seen or detected it, but hey, the guy makes more sense than you all do. Black Holes against relativity, invisible Dark Matter, Neutron Stars spinning faster than a dentist's drill. Even though neutronium isn't even a substance. Lone neutrons spontaneously decay in 14 minutes and two or more immediately fly apart. How did those first few manage to get together? And why isn't the whole star decaying in 14 minutes being made up of neutrons?

Here's the formula again in case you missed it, although skipped over it would probably be more appropriate.

Refractive Telescopes

 

[davidbilby]

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?

OK...firsly, your use of the word "suns" is odd. Do you mean stars?

Secondly, you don't know why the WMAP and PLANCK multipole expansions can be directly compared to the predictions of the LCDM model and consequent matter/dark matter/dark energy density ranges be calculated using GR?

Say - for example, why the first acoustic peak of the multipole expansion of the CMB TT spectrum is strongly Ω dependent, and thus can yield a value for Ω if measured accurately, and why your closed universe would require the first peak to be considerably to the left of the multipole l=200? This could get tricky if not....

Thirdly - the composition of the baryonic matter doesn't matter with these calculations, all you need to assume is that GR is correct (with or without a cosmological constant, it doesn't matter), and you can see how well LCDM fits with the observed TT spectrum, obtain a value for Ω, and then model the other parameters to see what fits the curve, which is what Planck did (see the table of results in the latest paper where they give different scenarios).

That's not to say other models can't fit the observed power spectrum - PLANCK does not rule that out - but LCDM fits about 98.4% of values for l, which is pretty stunning, and direct correlation GR yields 4.82% +- 0.01% baryonic matter. If you want to delve into how that calculation is derived from GR we can certainly do that.

Does that calculation of the baryonic matter density make the assumption that GR and LCDM is correct? Of course! That's the point! If another model can match the observed power spectrum as well or better, then you would derive the same calculations for it and yield another number for the baryonic matter density. But the model would have to match the observed TT spectrum extremely well, and yield a blackbody CMB. This is well before you find your tired light mechanism. Static models of the universe do not predict a blackbody spectrum for the CMB because the CMB in a static model was supposed to be scattered starlight....

What's your current state of knowledge on the subject? I'm really not trying to snipe, just trying to ask before we descend into discussing it.......I mean, if you're not sure what a multipole is....then it's going to be really hard to explain.

You did say you didn't want me to teach you anything, after all. How in depth would you like to go? Have you read the Planck data? I've not yet seen you cite anything from it (just saying "hemispherical asymmetry" doesn't quite cut it...)

 

[davidbilby]

Of course, we wouldn't consider Dark Matter a fascinating theory, even though we have never seen or detected it, but hey, the guy makes more sense than you all do.

So you actually think M88 might be a solar system? That distant stars...are actually planets reflecting light at us from...something else?

Tell me something, does the simple fact that planets exhibit two distinct peaks in their spectrum (one being the peak in the reflected starlight, and the other being their own thermal emissions), and stars exhibit only one distinct peak...escape you?

Do you actually think it is plausible that we can't tell reflected light off a planet apart from emitted light from a star? If you think that is plausible, there is absolutely no hope for you, and even Michael will agree with me on that. If you cannot differentiate complete lunacy from even the "slightly cranky but interesting" stuff from the fringes of physics like Tired Light and Santilli and co. (he barely qualifies), then discussion is truly pointless.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

OK...firsly, your use of the word "suns" is odd. Do you mean stars?

Umm, isn't the sun a star, and aren't all stars suns????

Secondly, you don't know why the WMAP and PLANCK multipole expansions can be directly compared to the predictions of the LCDM model and consequent matter/dark matter/dark energy density ranges be calculated using GR?

True, I only know that the WMAP is local noise.

As it happens, recent radiotelescopic data reported by Gerrit Verschuur of the University of Memphis indicates filaments are present in HI observations.
These HI clouds are almost certainly interstellar (inside our galaxy). Verschuur states:
quote:“The high frequency continuum emission data were obtained by the WMAP whose purpose was to study structure in the early universe. If the continuum emission peaks are in fact cosmological in origin, there should be absolutely no relationship between those signals and the galactic HI structure. Instead, in the examples shown above, close associations between the two classes of structure are found.
\Big Bang or Big Goof? Astronomer Verschuur Challenges 'Seeds' Proof

Say - for example, why the first acoustic peak of the multipole expansion of the CMB TT spectrum is strongly Ω dependent, and thus can yield a value for Ω if measured accurately, and why your closed universe would require the first peak to be considerably to the left of the multipole l=200? This could get tricky if not....

Thirdly - the composition of the baryonic matter doesn't matter with these calculations, all you need to assume is that GR is correct (with or without a cosmological constant, it doesn't matter), and you can see how well LCDM fits with the observed TT spectrum, obtain a value for Ω, and then model the other parameters to see what fits the curve, which is what Planck did (see the table of results in the latest paper where they give different scenarios).

That's not to say other models can't fit the observed power spectrum - PLANCK does not rule that out - but LCDM fits about 98.4% of values for l, which is pretty stunning, and direct correlation GR yields 4.82% +- 0.01% baryonic matter. If you want to delve into how that calculation is derived from GR we can certainly do that.

Does that calculation of the baryonic matter density make the assumption that GR and LCDM is correct? Of course! That's the point! If another model can match the observed power spectrum as well or better, then you would derive the same calculations for it and yield another number for the baryonic matter density. But the model would have to match the observed TT spectrum extremely well, and yield a blackbody CMB. This is well before you find your tired light mechanism. Static models of the universe do not predict a blackbody spectrum for the CMB because the CMB in a static model was supposed to be scattered starlight....

What's your current state of knowledge on the subject? I'm really not trying to snipe, just trying to ask before we descend into discussing it.......I mean, if you're not sure what a multipole is....then it's going to be really hard to explain.

You did say you didn't want me to teach you anything, after all. How in depth would you like to go? Have you read the Planck data? I've not yet seen you cite anything from it (just saying "hemispherical asymmetry" doesn't quite cut it...)

Because it's completely worthless data? Data claimed to be more accurate than the best imaging scanners we have today. Do some real science for a change, maybe real scientists will listen to you then. No testing before launch but half-ass, and with no shield in place to verify.


http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/COBEwmap-3.pdf

On the balance of the evidence pre-flight testing of COBE's instruments was seriously compromised. Owing to the Challenger disaster, COBE could not be launched by space shuttle, and so the satellite underwent a major late stage redesign. John Mather, a principle investigator on the FIRAS, reported: "every pound was crucial as the engineers struggled to cut the spacecraft's weight from 10,594 pounds to at most 5,025 pounds and its launch diameter from 15 feet to 8 feet."

It couldn't even launch as designed, half its systems were stripped and its usefulness reduced to nill. Take that data and present it to people that don't know any better. Which you should being you want to rely on it. Oh, but that's right, you along with mainstream only consider things when they agree with your theories, and ignore the rest. You stripped it down to half of what it was supposed to be, with little or no testing, and then claim it was good. Lol, now that is a fascinating theory!!!

 

[davidbilby]

Pluto's spectrum cannot be distinguished from any star.

Rubbish.

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.

No - stars move too. What a curious statement you make. It was discovered in 1930 with a blink comparator, as anybody who's studied the history of astronomy knows, and those who don't have to Google to be able to pretend to know.

It moves relative to the objects behind at a greater relative speed across our field of view, so in the two images, the little dot that was Pluto "moved" where those behind "appeared" fixed (which of course they are not, just that relative to an observation over several days they move very slowly indeed).

Only recently have we been able to resolve its spectra from that of a star due to technology advances.

So after saying that we can't tell the two apart...you now admit that we can actually resolve the spectrum of a planet from that of a star - possibly because we know what the spectrum of a planet looks like because it consists of both the thermal emission from the planet itself AND the reflected light from the star and thus will almost always have two distinctive peaks? The only technical advance was considerably finer resolution such that the spectra of extremely faint objects can be accurately measured.

If you knew anything about spectra you would know that they apply ratioing to a planet to differentiate it from a star.

Uh, no. That's just wrong.

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 you knew anything about spectra you'd know that the singular of spectra is spectrum. The rest of this post is just gibberish. Why a "background star"? The reflectance spectrum from Pluto is that of the light from our own Sun being reflected off of the surface, and from that we can work out the chemical composition of the surface.

You don't calculate a reflectance spectrum from a 'background' star whose light is not being reflected off the surface of Pluto........because that is not reflectance!

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.

I literally have no idea what you are trying to say. Reflectance spectra depend on albedo. Your use of "pixels" and "value" is...weird. Maybe you could rephrase in a way that's vaguely scientifically understandable? I think you're an armchair google person with no knowledge of physics. Let's see if you can prove me wrong.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So you actually think M88 might be a solar system? That distant stars...are actually planets reflecting light at us from...something else?

Tell me something, does the simple fact that planets exhibit two distinct peaks in their spectrum (one being the peak in the reflected starlight, and the other being their own thermal emissions), and stars exhibit only one distinct peak...escape you?

Hmm, I didn't know that.

So much for that theory.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Rubbish.



No - stars move too. What a curious statement you make. It was discovered in 1930 with a blink comparator, as anybody who's studied the history of astronomy knows, and those who don't have to Google to be able to pretend to know.

It moves relative to the objects behind at a greater relative speed across our field of view, so in the two images, the little dot that was Pluto "moved" where those behind "appeared" fixed (which of course they are not, just that relative to an observation over several days they move very slowly indeed).



So after saying that we can't tell the two apart...you now admit that we can actually resolve the spectrum of a planet from that of a star - possibly because we know what the spectrum of a planet looks like because it consists of both the thermal emission from the planet itself AND the reflected light from the star and thus will almost always have two distinctive peaks? The only technical advance was considerably finer resolution such that the spectra of extremely faint objects can be accurately measured.




Uh, no. That's just wrong.



If you knew anything about spectra you'd know that the singular of spectra is spectrum. The rest of this post is just gibberish. Why a "background star"? The reflectance spectrum from Pluto is that of the light from our own Sun being reflected off of the surface, and from that we can work out the chemical composition of the surface.

You don't calculate a reflectance spectrum from a 'background' star whose light is not being reflected off the surface of Pluto........because that is not reflectance!



I literally have no idea what you are trying to say. Reflectance spectra depend on albedo. Your use of "pixels" and "value" is...weird. Maybe you could rephrase in a way that's vaguely scientifically understandable? I think you're an armchair google person with no knowledge of physics. Let's see if you can prove me wrong.

Again so much for that theory about Pluto.


Pluto: The Lost Planet Of The Kuiper Belt

Pluto was first discovered in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh. Using a blink comparator to rapidly look through photographs Tombaugh noticed an object that moved between one photograph and the next. Pluto was born.

Why do all the facts you all claim never turn out to be facts????

 

[davidbilby]

Umm, isn't the sun a star, and aren't all stars suns????

The sun is a star. To call all stars suns would be misleading, because that would imply that they were all the center of solar systems, and that's unlikely.

True, I only know that the WMAP is local noise.

Oooookay.

As it happens, recent radiotelescopic data reported by Gerrit Verschuur of the University of Memphis indicates filaments are present in HI observations.
These HI clouds are almost certainly interstellar (inside our galaxy). Verschuur states:
quote:“The high frequency continuum emission data were obtained by the WMAP whose purpose was to study structure in the early universe. If the continuum emission peaks are in fact cosmological in origin, there should be absolutely no relationship between those signals and the galactic HI structure. Instead, in the examples shown above, close associations between the two classes of structure are found.

That was in er...2007. Not recent in CMB terms. WMAP was not a full spectrum analysis of the CMB, and PLANCK is. Others did a considerably more stringent analysis in 2007 (before PLANCK) with Monte Carlo methods and found that there was actually no correlation whatsoever.....which is why you've not heard of it again. He was wrong.

[0706.1703] Correlation between galactic HI and the Cosmic Microwave Background

Because it's completely worthless data? Data claimed to be more accurate than the best imaging scanners we have today.

PLANCK is actually so accurate that it's unlikely we'll be able to make a more accurate picture of the CMB - since it is limited now only by the limitations imposed by our environment here in the solar system. I'm not sure why you're talking about "imaging scanners" and what you mean by that.

Do some real science for a change, maybe real scientists will listen to you then. No testing before launch but half-ass, and with no shield in place to verify.

Are you talking about PLANCK, the most accurate and up to date data? No. Because if you said that about PLANCK, that would be a lie. (Michael, are you taking note....you can't use PLANCK against inflation apparently, because it's all false data. You sure you're throwing in with this guy?)

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/COBEwmap-3.pdf

It couldn't even launch as designed, half its systems were stripped and its usefulness reduced to nill. Take that data and present it to people that don't know any better. Which you should being you want to rely on it. Oh, but that's right, you along with mainstream only consider things when they agree with your theories, and ignore the rest. You stripped it down to half of what it was supposed to be, with little or no testing, and then claim it was good. Lol, now that is a fascinating theory!!!

Er. That's COBE. We're talking about PLANCK. Are you actually unaware of the differences between these two?

 

[davidbilby]

Hmm, I didn't know that.

So much for that theory.

Erm. Those are partial spectra........

Are you a troll? I mean, you must be. Surely. One of those only shows 1.51 to 1.58 μm....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The sun is a star. To call all stars suns would be misleading, because that would imply that they were all the center of solar systems, and that's unlikely.

I disagree, I think it highly likely almost all of them have planetary systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planet#Number_of_stars_with_planets

Planet-search programs have discovered planets orbiting a substantial fraction of the stars they have looked at. However, the overall proportion of stars with planets is uncertain because not all planets can yet be detected.

Right now we can only detect Jupiter sized planets

Stars of spectral category A typically rotate very quickly, which makes it very difficult to measure the small Doppler shifts induced by orbiting planets since the spectral lines are very broad. However, this type of massive star eventually evolves into a cooler red giant which rotates more slowly and thus can be measured using the radial velocity method. As of early 2011 about 30 Jupiter class planets had been found around K-giant stars including Pollux, Gamma Cephei and Iota Draconis.

But wide-scale broadening is not supported.

Stellar evolution in the electric universe

Spectral Lines in Various Types of Stars

In a paper entitled “Stellar Spectra” (Aeon, Vol. V, No. 5, Jan. 2000, p. 37.) the late Earl R. Milton, Professor of Physics, University of Lethbridge reported on research he had performed on spectral line broadening in 1971 while at the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory in Vancouver, British Columbia. This work provides strong evidence in support of the Electric Sun model. If a relatively cool gas comes between a wide-band light source and an observer, absorption lines will appear in the light's spectrum. These lines arise because of the absorption of (light) energy by the atoms of the gas. Electrons in those atoms jump from lower to higher discrete quantum energy states - they get the energy to make that jump from the light (having exactly the frequency that corresponds to that energy gap) that is passing through the gas. Each element in the gas produces its own signature pattern of lines. By recognizing the line patterns, we can identify the gas that is causing those lines. This method is used to discern what elements and molecules are present in the upper atmospheres of stars.
If, on the other hand, a sufficiently strong electric current is passed through a gas, the gas itself will emit a light spectrum in which only a few discrete colors (frequencies) appear. These are called emission lines. They are located precisely at those wavelengths (frequencies) at which that same gas produces absorption lines as described in the previous paragraph.
The spectra of most stars are heavily dominated by absorption lines. Spectra from the cooler stars (such as types G and K) are dominated by molecular bands arising from oxides (like ZrO and TiO) and from compounds of carbon like CH, CN, CO, and C2. Stars like the Sun (type G) show “metal” absorption lines. Astronomers call any element heavier than Helium a “metal”. In fact the Sun shows the presence of 68 of the known elements. The spectra of hot O and B type stars show few lines, and what lines they do have appear quite blurred or “broadened”. There are a few possible causes of this broadening.
If the absorbing gas is in a magnetic field, each line may split, symmetrically, into multiple, closely spaced lines. This is called the Zeeman effect - named for its discoverer, Pieter Zeeman (1865-1943).
If the gas is in an electric E-field, then lines split unsymmetrically - this is called the Stark effect named for Johannes Stark (1874-1957). These secondary lines are very closely spaced in frequency (wavelength) and so the effect is sometimes called line-broadening or blurring. A most important property is that the degree of Stark (electric field) broadening depends on the atomic mass of the affected gas. The lines of heavy elements are only slightly broadened whereas those of lighter atoms and ions are quite smeared out. This effect is not noted in Zeeman (magnetic field) broadening.
As we progress from right to left up the “main sequence” in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram – from the less electrically stressed stars toward those experiencing higher current input, we see an increasing broadening of spectral lines. In fact at the upper left end (O-type stars) there is so much blurring that we can distinguish very little structure in the line spectra. Is this caused by the increasing strengths of the E-fields in the stars' DLs as electrical stress increases? And, is increased E-field strength the only possible explanation for this line broadening? Milton states that two pieces of evidence strongly suggest that the answer is yes.
In highly stressed B-type stars:
1. A line at 4471.6 Angstroms is accompanied by a 'forbidden' partner at 4469.9 Angstroms. It is well known that this latter line only occurs when an electric field is present.
2. There is an extreme difference between the degree of broadening of the lines from hydrogen and helium (light elements) and those arising from sodium and ionized calcium (heavier elements). This effect is only noted in Stark effect broadening.
The usual mainstream explanation of line broadening is that the star must be rotating rapidly – light from the limb going away from us is red shifted, and light from the limb coming at us is blue shifted – the total effect being to smear out the line widths. BUT, if that were the true explanation, the lines from hydrogen should be no more smeared out than those from calcium. Both of these observations (1 and 2 above) strongly suggest that it is the presence of a strong electric field that is selectively broadening the spectral lines in B-type stars.
There is no simple explanation of these spectral effects via the (non-electrical) thermonuclear core model. So, let us consider to what degree this phenomenon – the existence of spectral absorption lines and their selective broadening – is consistent with the Electric Sun model.
In the Electric Sun model it is clear that the photosphere is the site of a strong plasma arc discharge. This produces the Sun's continuous visible light spectrum. Immediately above this in the Sun’s atmosphere there is the Double Layer (DL) in which an intense, outwardly directed electric field resides. It is within this strong E-field that many heavy elements are created by z-pinch fusion. Recall that the strong E-field dethermalizes the ions in that region and thus it is the (relatively) coolest layer of the Sun's atmosphere. Light that originates in the photosphere passes through the relatively cool, newly formed heavier elements in the DL. These heavier elements selectively absorb energy from the light's spectrum and thus the absorption lines are created. In fact they are created in exactly the place where the Sun's E-field is strongest. Thus we have the ideal situation for selective broadening of those lines due to the Stark effect.
In those instances wherein we see emission lines in a star’s spectrum we may speculate that, just as in the laboratory, the easiest way to generate them is by passing a strong electric current through a tenuous gas cloud. For example, type W (Wolf-Rayet) stars are under such intense electrical input that they are hotter even than type O stars. They are located to the left of the top of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. They typically show strong emission lines in their spectra. Since these stars experience stronger electrical currents than any other type star, there is ample probability that any tenuous coronal gases will be excited by such currents to produce emission lines.
At the other end of the HR diagram, type M (relatively cool) stars also sometimes exhibit spectral emission lines. Can we explain this via the Electric Sun model as well? Consider the star Betelgeuse – a type M red 'giant'. The average density of Betelgeuse is less than one ten thousandth of the density of the air we breathe. A star of such tenuous nature has often been called a 'red hot vacuum'. The outer surface of this tenuous sphere (the radius of which is larger than the orbit of Jupiter from the Sun) has been found to have three bright areas of photospheric tufting above which we would expect to find DLs wherein z-pinch fusion may occur. It is from this source that the absorption lines in the M-type spectra come. But, in addition, Betelgeuse is surrounded by a coronal plasma that extends out several hundred radii from the surface of the star. This corona is even less dense than the star itself. Thus we have a gigantic gas cloud through which (according to the Electric Star model) electric current is passing – an ideal situation for the production of spectral emission lines.
So, once again, in the case of stellar emission and absorption lines and their selective broadening, we observe a stellar phenomenon that is more consistent with the Electric Sun model than it is with the “fusion core” model (in which, of course, no mention is made of electric fields).

Your own causes of broadening don't fit your own definitions. I disagree with both Mainstream and EU when it comes to Betelgeuse. The average density of Betelgeuse is less than one ten thousandth of the density of the air we breathe. Do you really believe that in a stellar atmosphere less dense than the air around us that gravity is keeping a thermonuclear reaction confined???????? There is a stellar body there, it is it's corona that is tenuous, just like our suns.

It is the same effect we see with the coma of comets, sometime 100's of kilometers, a tenuous atmosphere indeed, just a strong e-field passing through it.

Diameter of coma of comet Elenin exceeded 200,000 km | SpaceObs

200,000 Kilometers for a little ball of ice? Why didn't the solar wind just blow it away? That's 124,274.238 miles in diameter. Such a strong gravitational field that little ball of dust and ice has. Must be why you can't figure out galaxy rotations either, you believe gravity does it, just like with comets and Betelgeuse. That's right, I don't agree with everything the EU says either if they can't prove it. But they sure got a better track record than mainstream without needing Fairie Dust. But they got something you don't have in any of your theories, laboratory evidence.

We have actually tested the stuff ejected off of comets, and found NO water, only miniscule amounts of dust, and crystals that require liquid water to form, compounds that require no water to form, crystals that require low heat to form, and crystals requiring high heat to form, all from the same comet. From a frozen snowball that shouldn't have any of these crystiline forms in them. But that's mainstream, ignore the evidence against your theory.

Must be Dark Matter, right?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Io, volcanoes emitting UV light now, lol.

Cassini Observations of Io's Visible Aurorae | USGS Astrogeology Science Center


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

UV light is found in sunlight (where it constitutes about 10% of the energy in vacuum) and is emitted by electric arcs and specialized lights such as mercury lamps and black lights.

So sunlight or electric arcs, take your pick since they are one and the same. And before you try the slide around.

A mercury-vapor lamp is a gas discharge lamp that uses an electric arc through vaporized mercury to produce light.

And what is light?

Light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Visible light (commonly referred to simply as light) is electromagnetic radiation that is visible to the human eye, and is responsible for the sense of sight.

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

Electromagnetic radiation

(EM radiation or EMR) is a form of energy emitted and absorbed by charged particles which exhibits wave-like behavior as it travels through space. EMR has both electric and magnetic field components, which stand in a fixed ratio of intensity to each other, and which oscillate in phase perpendicular to each other and perpendicular to the direction of energy and wave propagation. In a vacuum, electromagnetic radiation propagates at a characteristic speed, the speed of light.

Take it somewhere else, it's an Electric Universe.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That was in er...2007. Not recent in CMB terms. WMAP was not a full spectrum analysis of the CMB, and PLANCK is. Others did a considerably more stringent analysis in 2007 (before PLANCK) with Monte Carlo methods and found that there was actually no correlation whatsoever.....which is why you've not heard of it again. He was wrong.

The FIRAS team initially published spectra for 1-21 cm deviation from a blackbody by less than 1%. But in 1994 a new set of data was published, indicating a deviation from blackbody by 0.03%. Then in 1996 it is reported that the "rms deviations are less than 50 part per million of the peak of the cosmic microwave background radiation." In 1999 the deviations are reported as less than 0.01%; and in 2002 the deviations become "50 parts per million of the peak brightness of the CMBR spectrum, within the uncertainty of the measurement." But using technology established in the 1970's, the FIRAS team reported spectral precision well beyond that commonly achievable today in the best radiometry laboratories in the world.


Even the Plank satellite can not obtain results better than the best medical imaging equipment we currently posses, which are used in controlled labs, where all conditions are known. That you rely on results above our best ability to test just shows you want to hear only what you want to hear. Plank was launched in 2009, and today we still do not posses equipment capable of the claims commonly made by those supporting it.

How is an entire sky map obtained when the results are from data that is due to the limited number of points in the sky at which it is possible to perform measurements.
New Planck Data Challenges Our Understanding of the Universe | SciTech Daily

Yet taking measurements in only limited areas, you somehow make an entire map. Such narrow-minded people.

Such fluctuations, from barely over 0 to 6000K, but all you are interested in is the tiny little green area that might support your theory, the rest is ignored.

But what do the real scientists think?

While the observations on small and intermediate angular scales agree extremely well with the model predictions, the fluctuations detected on large angular scales on the sky – between 90 and six degrees – are about 10 per cent weaker than the best fit of the standard model to Planck data. At angular scales larger than six degrees, there is one data point that falls well outside the range of allowed models. These anomalies in the Cosmic Microwave Background pattern might challenge the very foundations of cosmology, suggesting that some aspects of the standard model of cosmology may need a rethink. ESA and the Planck Collaboration

Like I said, tell it to people that don't know better.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Erm. Those are partial spectra........

Are you a troll? I mean, you must be. Surely. One of those only shows 1.51 to 1.58 μm....

Havnt seen any from you yet, just claims, so pop up those spectra then. Or are YOU a troll?

 

[Michael]

OK...firsly, your use of the word "suns" is odd. Do you mean stars?

Yes. Call them whatever you like.

Secondly, you don't know why the WMAP and PLANCK multipole expansions can be directly compared to the predictions of the LCDM model and consequent matter/dark matter/dark energy density ranges be calculated using GR?

I don't actually recall listening to anyone try to explain such things without talking about elemental abundances and things related to solar physics. You seem to be suggesting that your model is independent of these factors, and can fit *any* solar/gas in space elemental composition models. That's not something I've heard anyone try to claim before. I'm curious how you would justify such a claim.

Furthermore, it would be really useful to hear you explain all the *assumptions* you're making related to the differences between baryonic and non baryonic matter, and how that ties back into those peaks and valleys you're so interested in.

FYI, so far your tone has been great. I encourage you to explain the basics of your beliefs in a way that allows even a "novice" person to comprehend the basics. I'll be happy to ask some very basic questions in areas where I think you haven't explain some of the necessary details.

You might start by explaining for our readers what a "multipole" is, how it relates to baryonic and/or non baryonic matter, etc.

Say - for example, why the first acoustic peak of the multipole expansion of the CMB TT spectrum is strongly Ω dependent, and thus can yield a value for Ω if measured accurately, and why your closed universe would require the first peak to be considerably to the left of the multipole l=200? This could get tricky if not....

I would also encourage you to not *assume* things about "my closed universe", particularly since it could be infinite and eternal for all I know. I'm not presuming to know such details, you are. Let's stick to your beliefs, and just your beliefs.

Thirdly - the composition of the baryonic matter doesn't matter with these calculations, all you need to assume is that GR is correct (with or without a cosmological constant, it doesn't matter), and you can see how well LCDM fits with the observed TT spectrum, obtain a value for Ω, and then model the other parameters to see what fits the curve, which is what Planck did (see the table of results in the latest paper where they give different scenarios).

Um, you left out a *lot* of the details here, like how you can claim that the composition doesn't matter, yet also claim to know that some of it is one type of matter, and some of it is another type of matter. Again, I'd like you to explain the details so *anyone* can understand your beliefs, not just me.

That's not to say other models can't fit the observed power spectrum -

That's the whole problem in a nutshell from my perspective by the way, but we'll ignore that for the time being.

PLANCK does not rule that out - but LCDM fits about 98.4% of values for l, which is pretty stunning,

When you say it fits the values without explaining what those values even relate to, nobody except maybe a *few select individuals* even has a clue what you're talking about by the way. Take a few steps back and explain what those peaks mean, and how they relate to your theory please. Again, the *novice reader* is your audience, and we both know that you already believe that's true of me as well, so go right ahead and explain it very thoroughly for everyone's benefit.

and direct correlation GR yields 4.82% +- 0.01% baryonic matter. If you want to delve into how that calculation is derived from GR we can certainly do that.

Yes, please. I'm particularly interested in how your even know which type of matter is which. The theoretical details would be highly useful for everyone, whereas the math may not.

Does that calculation of the baryonic matter density make the assumption that GR and LCDM is correct? Of course!

So effectively it's a great example of an affirming the consequent fallacy with math. Got it.

That's the point!

It's my point too, but some background on how you differentiate ordinary matter from any other type of matter will help explain that very clearly I think.

If another model can match the observed power spectrum as well or better, then you would derive the same calculations for it and yield another number for the baryonic matter density.

Again, you'll need to explain for everyone's benefit why you need non-baryonic matter in the first place to make your calculations work. Remember I'm not your only audience, nor your target audience ultimately. What I think at the end of the conversation is not as important as what your other readers think.

But the model would have to match the observed TT spectrum extremely well, and yield a blackbody CMB. This is well before you find your tired light mechanism.

Nobody doubts that real empirical physics is *harder*, takes more time, and requires more sweat equity that simply mathematical speculations.

The fact that no other model addresses or even takes interest in this data set is therefore not a falsification of any other theory, nor does it demonstrate that your theory is the *only* theory that could match such a data set. Frankly the concept of 'match' seems dubious, particularly if you intend to toss in yet *another* metaphysical entity, with yet *another* unique metaphysical property, just to make the math work out right.

Static models of the universe do not predict a blackbody spectrum for the CMB because the CMB in a static model was supposed to be scattered starlight....

Sorry, but I disagree. Even Eddington was closer than the first couple of BB "guestimates" on the average temperature of spacetime. Of course his 'spacetime" was smaller, but his number was actually *much* closer than the very first BB estimates.

What's your current state of knowledge on the subject? I'm really not trying to snipe, just trying to ask before we descend into discussing it.......I mean, if you're not sure what a multipole is....then it's going to be really hard to explain.

Again, I'm basically irrelevant here, your larger audience is everyone. I'd rather you take the time to explain these words and ideas so that *everyone* can at least *try* to follow along. You might as well assume that everyone here is a novice, myself included, which shouldn't be hard for you to imagine.

FYI, I actually appreciate your tone thus far, and I too will try to keep my sniping to a minimum, and allow you the freedom to explain things in your own words, without trying to skew the claims as you present them.

I'll reserve the right to give my opinions at the end of your explanation, but I'll try to be fair and let you present things in your own words.

You did say you didn't want me to teach you anything, after all.

For purposes of this discussion, I rescind that statement.

Like I said, tailor your presentation toward the novice reader that knows something about math and physics, but nothing about astronomy. I'll try to ask simple questions if I think you've overlooked something that needs to be explained a bit better to a novice in order for them to follow along. Again, I'll try *not* to snipe and I'll do my best to make elundur proud.

 

[Davian]

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.

So, the Earth would have been too hot for those dinosaurs of four billion years ago?

You're not doing science, are you?

 

[Davian]

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.
...

It looks like you just cherry pick what you want to prop up your own beliefs.

I suppose you disagree with Einstein on the subject of religion? He was an atheist, was he not?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Had to take that graph out, was messing it up.

Your misconception lies in your reasoning. Quasar's are the most distant to us (say astronomers) and therefore the oldest thing we can observe, looking back in time. Therefore we are further away from the source of the BB, then the quasar we look back in time to see, 14 billion years ago, when it had no choice but to be closer. Otherwise it would be furthest from this source, and we would have to look into the future to see it. To be further, this quasar would had to have caught up to us and passed us, making its present speed but a fraction of what it should be if current theory is correct regarding the age of the universe. But they insist it is still accelerating, So it had to have been slower in the past, and the time required for it to reach its present (claimed) distance would not be sufficient. A distance that is supposed to be 14 billion years ago, just after the BB. Which then requires our galaxy to have reached its present distance before the quasar. Unless of course everything was expanding away from the earth, and we are the center of the universe, but that's silly, but, everywhere we look it is claimed quasar's are accelerating away from us. So I expect it's your theories about quasar's that are wrong, and the Earth is NOT the center of the universe. But such is what redshift = distance requires, that everywhere we look a quasar is accelerating away from us at fractions of c. Unless again it is your theories on quasar's that are wrong. After all, no matter which direction we look, we see 14 billion years into the past, so the start must be exactly where we are. Unless once again, those theories are incorrect. I thought we did away with an earth centered universe ages ago?
Both theories by mainstream to explain this oppose each other:
Fingers of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Such little explanation by mainstream for such a profound observance, a gloss-over. Explanation that don't really explain. It's the entire red shift = distance that leads to inaccuracies of measurements.
But the real explanation lies elsewhere:
FingersofGod in an ExpandingUniverse - Halton Arp's official website
Halton Arp, a Modern Day Galileo

But wait, am sure someone can come up with a Dark Matter cause.
Modern Statistical Methods for Astronomy: With R Applications - Eric D. Feigelson, G. Jogesh Babu - Google Books
Yep, we got that too, wouldn't you know that one would come in sooner or later.

So you can see where theories can go dreaming that we are the center of the universe. Fascinating theories, to be sure, but taken on the whole is in reality no less valid than Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Black Holes, Neutron Stars, all the Fairie Dust of mainstream cosmology. The largest fallacy is the Big Bang, as if once again all things point to a common center. Of course the Big Bang theory arose from the study of quasar's and the incorrect assumption of red shift. This study has led you to the conclusion that all galaxies are expanding away from one another, as if they were stuck on the 2D surface of a balloon. Space, I am sad to say, is 3 dimensional. That means that no matter where you gaze into the sky, left, right, up, down, backwards or forwards, you see galaxies. If you are expanding outward on the balloon analogy, then looking towards the source of the explosion you see quasar's accelerating TOWARDS the source, not AWAY, since you believe red shift = distance. And this theory makes our Sun the source since all are actually accelerating AWAY from us, preposterous!

But such are fascinating theories claiming these things, to which a reasonable person would agree. One just need play the Devil's Advocate now and then to get those to see how preposterous are theories implying our Sun is the center. Yet that is what red shift = distance requires one to believe. So, if quasar's are all accelerating away from our galaxy, and almost all other galaxies are moving away from us but a few, well, explosions go outward.

Or we can theorize that since plasma red shift has been duplicated in the laboratory, the features on the Sun and Planets have been duplicated in the laboratory with plasma and electric currents, and since 99.99% of the universe is plasma: that red shift is caused by youth of a new formed galaxy, caused by ejection from the parent galaxy, which is ALWAYS an active galaxy. Even your Black Holes eject matter millions of light years into space. In all cases the further they are from the parent galaxy, the lower their red shift becomes. The more they go from quasar's to BL Lac objects and eventually form into smaller galaxies as they draw in the plasma from space and their red shift lessens.

Hubble himself stated many times: “It seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination… We may predict with confidence that the 200-inch will tell us whether the red-shifts must be accepted as evidence of a rapidly expanding Universe, or attributed to some new principle of nature.” (Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific Vol. 59, No. 349).

And lo and behold, the 200-inch telescope did indeed “tell us whether the red-shifts must be accepted as evidence of a rapidly expanding Universe, or attributed to some new principle of nature.” Halton Arp found quasars in connection with their parent galaxies. But you ignored Hubble and his assistant Halton Arp.

Halton Arp was the lone voice among a crowd of scientists who conformed to the standard Big Bang model when he began to publish papers that did not demonstrate that inflation—or the Big Bang hypothesis—was valid. As Edwin Hubble predicted, Arp’s research using the 200-inch Hale reflector demonstrated “some new principle of nature.” For daring to question he was denied access to any telescope in the US, this is how science treats those who might question the proposed model.

And now with the Hubble Space Telescope we not only see the bridge linking the two clearly, but also observe two other quasars’ embedded inside this filament. That one might be chance alignment but that 4 are is astronomically impossible.
NGC 7603
Origins of Quasars and Galaxy Clusters - Halton Arp's official website

So yes, some theories are fascinating indeed, but like you I am sure there is some other cause for red shift that leads to the conclusion our Sun is the center of the Big Bang, since your WMAP data shows the source is all around us, exactly what one would observe if gazing out at the light coming back from the expanding cloud from the initial event. Preposterous!

If we were on the balloon edge, then in some directions left/right, would be denser. Up/Down would be slightly less dense. Forward would be less dense and backwards towards the source even less, as you must see the light from the same expanding diameter on the other side of the source. But WMAP shows only slight variations, leaving one with no conclusion but we are the center, the point source of the Big Bang. This is what your red shift equals distance has led you to. Fascinating theories yes, but really?