Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

So you have no scientific evidence to cite, just a consumer dissatisfaction with some specific brand of religion?

Except when it comes to dark energy and inflation and SUSY theory. You give them all a free pass in blatant hypocritical fashion.

Light passing through real plasma in real labs experiences signal broadening and photon redshift. The causes of plasma redshift include Compton redshift, the Wolf effect, Stark redshift and what Chen et all called 'plasma redshift". Unless the laws of plasma physics in space work differently than the laws of plasma physics in the lab, light in space will absolutely, positively experience some amount of signal broadening and plasma redshift over time and distance.

Since your toy brand of plasma physics does not account for these known causes of signal broadening and plasma redshift, your toy version of physics needs placeholder terms for human ignorance, specifically ignorance of basic plasma physics interactions between light and dusty plasmas. The only mystery I can't explain and the only real mystery that remains about 'dark energy' is when that bogus metaphysical mythology will finally give way to pure forms of empirical plasma physics. I know it will happen eventually, I just don't know when.

 

You seem to be posting here just fine aren't you? You aren't whining because "newbies" to the forum have a few normal restrictions to minimize spam are you?

Nobody asked you if it was peer reviewed in the first place? The fact it's peer reviewed or not has nothing to do with it's actual content!

Unlikely. If you believe that photons have no kinetic energy nor *any* form of mass, it's highly unlikely you really understand any paper on the topic of astronomy. I can't even believe you have the audacity to attempt to pass yourself off as some type of 'expert' when you don't even understand the basics of photon behaviors and maths.

Apparently you also forgot quite a bit of it, particularly as it relates to kinetic energy and photons.

No, I don't. I present them to folks at times, actually hoping someone might find some flaws in it. This was one such paper. I was curious how it would hold up to scrutiny, but alas I'll have to wait for someone that understand photon kinetic energy to get a useful external (to myself) opinion.

Not in the case of astronomy I don't. I see how CosmoQuest works and I've seen how the publishing channels work too.

Nope. My beliefs have changed dramatically over the years actually.

Actually all I claimed to have was a 2012 model of tired light theory/plasma redshift theory. Apparently you'd like to believe it's still 2001-2008. You're living in 2000&late.

False, just like the rest of you list. You cannot "know" that dark energy did it either! For goodness sake, you can't even name a source, let alone show a cause/effect link to photon redshift!

Apparently you get to decide all the labels too. Must be a fun insult game eh?

The biggest whopper of a lie that anyone has told in this thread was you when you told everyone that photons have no kinetic energy and no mass. That was the biggest lie of the entire thread RC. They are not thought to hold *rest* mass, but the rest of your lies are utterly false. You know nothing about photons or basic photon physics.

 

It's not a derail RC. You can't see, touch, taste, smell, or hear your dark sky deities. They could certainly be a figment of your imagination *if* there is an another cause of photon redshift. You've never seen any of them in a real lab, with real sources and real control mechanisms. You can't even name a source of "dark energy" and SUSY theory went up in smoke at LHC! The only 'evidence' you seem to think you have for these things is related to a pattern of photon redshift. Apparently you want us to think you've accounted for all the "normal" matter in the universe in spite of the fact that we're just finding most of the identified matter in the universe inside of ordinary plasma in 2012.

The "Duh" part is the fact that if it happens in the lab, it must necessarily happen in space. The fact you haven't figured that out yet, nor accounted for it in your math formulas is simply amazing. Well not so amazing since you're ignorant of basic photon mathematics. Duh!

Yet by some miracle of God, in spite of the author's personal writings on this topic suggesting otherwise, no photon in space ever experiences it?

 

I'll definitely grant you it's sloppy verbiage. I actually *know* from the lab that Stark redshift, the Wolf effect, Compton redshift and what Chen called "plasma redshift" that some amount of signal broadening and some amount of plasma redshift are an inevitable consequence of light traversing light years of plasmas and dust in various energy states and densities. It would take a *miracle* for such things to *not* occur in space plasmas.

I also know that Lambda-CMD makes *zero* allowance for signal broadening and zero allowance for any type of plasma redshift. That is why their 'toy' brand of plasma physics requires metaphysical placeholder terms for human ignorance. They forgot to include the effects of the plasmas on the light passing through that plasma. There's no great mystery as to why their toy version of plasma physics doesn't fit the data without a huge number of fudge factors (96 percent fudge factor). They dumbed down plasma physics to the point of utter stupidity!

They did the same thing with "reconnection' theory according to Hannes Alfven. He called that theory 'pseudoscience' till the day he died.

 

You just had to mention that didn't you? Now it's bugging me. (Must resist the urge to edit)

 

Sure you did. Every time you measure the mass of the universe, you measure 'God'.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

False. Dark matter actually failed it's tests at LHC. All you observe is "missing mass" like that cloud of plasma they just found around the galaxy. None of that matter needs to be found in exotic matter except to save your theory from falling apart at the mathematical seams of course.

Nope. All you have is evidence of plasma redshift and signal broadening and overly simplistic mathematical models that clearly never accounted for ordinary processes in plasma.

Nothing short of a miracle would be required to prevent signal broadening and plasma redshift from occurring in the plasmas of space. You're peddling another Dad argument and pretending it's physics. Lambda-nonsense theory is based upon a *toy/pseudoscientific* understanding of plasma physics. No wonder you're stuck with placeholder terms for human ignorance in your toy physics fantasy world where photons have no kinetic energy at all, and plasma redshift and signal broadening never happen.

 

Awareness, plasma, signal broadening and plasma redshift all show up on Earth. Inflation does not. Dark energy does not either. SUSY theory not only doesn't show up in the lab as expected, it was a *complete* bust at LHC and several SUSY theories were actually falsified. See the difference?

Yep. Plasma redshift works everywhere, and we find awareness in *many* various forms of life.

You really need a new gig. I simply lack faith in all creation events. According to Alfven it is the mainstream that has a "pseudoscientific" understanding of plasma physics. Their stuff *never* shows up in the lab, just in their imagination. I can even tell you *why* they need placeholder terms for human ignorance in their toy, dumbed down version of plasma physics for goodness sake!

 

Yes, I know. Someone explained it to me in April when I posted the preprint RC. You're about 5-6 months late. Note however that this was just another perfect example of "missing mass" in the form of ordinary plasma, that's been "missing" until this year. That's how long it took them to account for *most* of the "normal" mass that they absolutely *knew* had to exist. It just demonstrates the fact that our technologies are still limited and we're still discovering normal mass we didn't catch before.

First of all, any remaining missing matter is bound to be found in the plasma state. That's the state of *most* of the mass we've located, and its likely to be true in the future. PC theory only needs to explain rotation patterns and it's not a creation mythos, so your 25 times figure has nothing to do with PC theory.

 

Huh? Plasma redshift shows up in the lab. Dark energy does not. What are you talking about?

What you're calling "science" is nothing more than a combination of what Hannes Alfven called "pseudoscience", and metaphysical gap fillers to make up for the fact that the mainstream uses a toy version of plasma physic theory that doesn't include signal broadening and plasma redshift processes that are *known* to occur in plasma!

 

Wow, you have the fantasy that photons traverse million of light years of plasma and never experience even the slightest bit of signal broadening or plasma redshift. How really ignorant of you RC. Even a religious/spiritual viewpoint of the universe is more easily scientifically defended than mainstream "scientific" dogma about our universe. That is a fact.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7681399/

No. LHC did test the mainstream claims about exotic matter at LHC. They went up in smoke! The only thing observed from space is "missing mass" and we know from this year that most of it is plasma. They haven't found *any* missing mass that was not in the plasma state in fact.

No, they were possible candidates for "exotic matter", and there isn't any.

The metaphysical gaps just keep getting smaller and smaller and smaller. All the simple (more likely) versions were falsified. Now you're just grasping at straws.

It is matter that was "missing" up until this year. If you just found more mass this year than all the mass you'd already identified for thousands of years, why should I believe *any* exotic matter is required?

The problem is that you never accounted for theses features in plasma in your toy plasma models, so you need placeholder terms for them in your model!