Nothing you wrote was evidence so: There is no evidence that Chen's plasma redshift is cosmological redshift!Have you actually read Chen's whole paper or just the abstract?
No - have you? If so how about posting the actual paper here?
Upvote
0
Nothing you wrote was evidence so: There is no evidence that Chen's plasma redshift is cosmological redshift!Have you actually read Chen's whole paper or just the abstract?
Every point Ned made in 2008 (and even the original verions in 2001) is physics that is still correct in 2012.Every point Ned made in 2005(?) is false in 2012.
...usual rants snipped...
Still no answer to: Stars do not do anything in the lab: Michael, do stars exist?
Every point Ned made in 2008 (and even the original verions in 2001) is physics that is still correct in 2012.
The physics that scattering blurs distant objects in telescopes was known in 1929!
Zwicky, F. 1929. On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space. PNAS 15:773-779. Abstract (ADS) Full article (PDF)
If so how about posting the actual paper here?
Like always, still no answer to: Stars do not do anything in the lab: Michael, do stars exist?Like always...
Like always, still no answer to: Stars do not do anything in the lab: Michael, do stars exist?
He did have a working solar *model* in his lab that generated *electrical discharges* in plasma too.
Standard physics debunks tired light theories, e.g....Zwicky stuff snipped...
Every point Ned made in 2008 (and even the original verions in 2001) is physics that is still correct in 2012.
The physics that scattering blurs distant objects in telescopes was known in 1929!
Zwicky, F. 1929. On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space. PNAS 15:773-779. Abstract (ADS) Full article (PDF)
Standard physics debunks tired light theories, e.g.
Your answers have nothing to do with the question: Stars do not do anything in the lab: Michael, do stars exist?
You have that totally wrong twice!You have that backwards. Standard physics, including plasma redshift debunks your trio of impotent sky deities.
So you are in the same situation as me:Why? ...
Your answers have nothing to do with the question: Stars do not do anything in the lab: Michael, do stars exist?
So you are in the same situation as me:
SUSY theory isn't "standard physics", it's 'theoretical physics" that partially falsified at best case. Ditto on your other invisible entities.You have that totally wrong twice!
Standard physics
Yet another theory that RC has 'debunked' without ever once reading the material in question.including plasma redshift debunks tired light heores.
Nope. Empirical physics blows your claims out of the water as Holushko's work demonstrates. That's also why you'll never find any error in his work and you'll never actually deal with his work in an honest manner.Standard physics supports dark matter, dark energy and inflation !
A fantasy that stars are composed of ordinary elements we find on Earth when we have never measured the composition of a star in the lab !Stars are simply composed of ordinary elements we find on Earth.....
No and why should I buy an old book?Yes or no have you even read Alfven's book yet?
A fantasy that stars are composed of ordinary elements we find on Earth when we have never measured the composition of a star in the lab !
No, that's not what I said. I said fusion shows up on Earth, as do various elements that stars are thought to be made of. When did you intend to acknowledge that point? Never!You may be saying that we can ignore that we have no stars in labs.