Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[RealityCheck01]

Why don't you do something useful and see if any astronomers at JREF can help you find some problem with Holushko's presentation.

I hope that you do not think that anyone would be dumb enough to an look at an Internet cranks "presentation" when there is actual science to read about.

And a quick search shows that the astronomers at JREF have rightfully ignored this Internet crank and his GIGO program (tired light theories are the Garbage In!).

 

[Michael]

No and why should I buy an old book?

For starters you seem to fancy yourself as some sort of "crusader' against PC/EU theory. Here you are in fact on this forum playing exactly that same role. It would be *nice* if you had at least a *basic* understanding of the theory don't you think?

If I want to leran more about plasma physics I will buy a modern textbook.

The last time I checked you didn't own *any* book on the topic of *plasma* physics, whereas I own at least five of them. Did you buy a book on plasma physics yet (modern or otherwise)?

Yes or no, Michael:
have you even read a modern textbook on plasma physics?

Yes. I even told you which of Somov's books I own. Do you own one?

How about a modern textbook on solar physics?

Why bother? SDO just falsified standard theory.

Or even a modern textbook on any physics?

Do you own any book on *plasma* physics oh great "debunker" of PC theory, or are you just a legend in your own mind?

 

[RealityCheck01]

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.

So still no actual stars in a lab!
Stars do not do anything in the lab: Michael, do stars exist?
The question is about actual stars in a lab.

How about neutron stars, Michael (not mentioned in the original list): Neutron stars do not do anything in the lab: Michael, do neutron stars exist?

 

[Michael]

I hope that you do not think that anyone would be dumb enough to an look at an Internet cranks "presentation" when there is actual science to read about.

I never though anyone was dumb enough to believe that photons have no kinetic energy or that electrical discharge in plasma were impossible until I met a crank IT guy on the internet called RC.

 

[Michael]

So still no actual stars in a lab!

Apparently you can't tell the difference between "scaling issues" and qualification problems. Hydrogen and fusion show up on Earth. Your invisible friends do not. How can such a *fundamental difference* possibly be difficult to understand?

 

[RealityCheck01]

The last time I checked you didn't own *any* book on the topic of *plasma* physics, whereas I own at least five of them. Did you buy a book on plasma physics yet (modern or otherwise)?

That is right - you and I do not own modern textbooks on plasma physics.
I know about physics, I can research about physics and understand the results. I can fill in the gaps.

Why bother? SDO just falsified standard theory.

SDO did not falsify any "standard theory". It showed that the convection part of the standard solar model is either wrong or needs adjusting.

A model is not falsified by one observation. It is falsified when a set of observations show that the model is useless.
Astronomers are not going to throw away that stars are powered by fusion just because the convection part of the model does not match an observation that has not been confirmed.

 

[RealityCheck01]

His error is tired light.

 

[Michael]

That is right - you and I do not own modern textbooks on plasma physics.

No, that too is another example of the endless string of untrue statements that came out of your mouth. Somov's book is the most recently published book in my library. It's not here at work so I can't tell you the exact publishing date, but it's a current plasma physics textbook and it set me back over $100.00. Peratt's book is relatively 'modern' as well. Alfven's books (plural) are the oldest two books I own. I'm not even counting Langmuir's works.

I know about physics, I can research about physics and understand the results. I can fill in the gaps.

If that were true you wouldn't make such amateurish mistakes about photon kinetic energy and electrical discharges in plasma and you wouldn't have to run everytime I asked you for supporting evidence of your false claims. You fill in the gaps with stuff you simply "make up" apparently.

SDO did not falsify any "standard theory". It showed that the convection part of the standard solar model is either wrong or needs adjusting.

You just lost your ability to claim that iron and nickel stay mixed together with hydrogen and helium. You just lost all the power used to explain all high energy solar activity in standard theory. Sure, other than than, you're in *great* shape clinging to that falsified model.

A model is not falsified by one observation. It is falsified when a set of observations show that the model is useless.

I noticed it was useless in SOHO images.

Astronomers are not going to throw away that stars are powered by fusion just because the convection part of the model does not match an observation that has not been confirmed.

I'm not even asking you to "throw away' fusion as a power source. I'm simply noting you have no way to justify you claims, whereas that revelation does support Manuel's claim and my claim that a sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by atomic weight. Our theory is *supported* by those findings, whereas standard theory is undermined by those very same observations.

 

[Michael]

His error is tired light.

Pfft. No, your error in not accounting from plasma redshift is exactly why you need placeholder terms for human ignorance like dark energy. It's also why you can't even name a valid source of "dark energy'. It doesn't exist in nature. It's only use is to save one otherwise falsified cosmology theory from epic destruction.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I never though anyone was dumb enough to believe that photons have no kinetic energy or that electrical discharge in plasma were impossible until I met a crank IT guy on the internet called RC.

Oh wow - shall I list the ways that you are an Internet crank, Michael ?

• Web site containing pretty pictures and physically impossible assertions. Check .
• Asks a scientist about their area of expertise and ignores that the scientist says that they are wrong. Check .
• Cited by an crank scientist (Olivier Manuel). Check .
• Cannot understand relatively simple physics, e.g. negative pressure (though the derivation that a non-zero cosmological constant in GR means negative pressure is a bit complex). Check .
• Ignores experimental results, e.g. the Casimir experiments, Check .
• Ignores contents of posts in forums. So may to choise from but I will just cite the ones above:
  Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy
  Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma! The 'electrical discharge' term in MR is not a discharge and is obsolete!
  Check .
• Cannot back up his assertions with evidence, e.g. asserts that Birkeland has a solar model (which is a bit more than solar activity looks like my pictures and the sun is powered by radioactivity) and cannot produce a citation. Check .

 

[RealityCheck01]

Pfft. ....

His error is still tired light.

 

[Michael]

Your error is coming here to debate me on plasma physics without ever reading a book on that topic.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Your error is coming here to debate me on plasma physics without ever reading a book on that topic.

I do not have to read a book on plasma physics to address simple mistakes about plasma physics, e.g. that actual electrical discharges (lightning!) can happen in plasma.
If we were talking about complex plasma physics like Hall effect MHD then I would certainly swat up on the topic.

I would say that your error is starting a thread about cosmology without without apparently ever reading a book on that topic or even trying to learn the physics behind the observations that support the existence of dark energy (and dark matter and inflation!).

 

[Michael]

I do not have to read a book on plasma physics to address simple mistakes about plasma physics, e.g. that actual electrical discharges (lightning!) can happen in plasma.

Let's see. I cited Dungey, Birkeland, Peratt, Bruce, Giovanelli, a handful of Russian scientists, and a couple of Japanese scientists that all claimed that electrical discharges occurred in plasma. When I ask you for an *external* reference from yourself to support your claims that electrical discharges cannot occur in plasma, you continuously cite yourself. Do you think every reader is a fool RC? Do you think they all missed the fact it's the word of some ranting IT guy who's never even read a book on the topic of plasma physics against the word of the entire plasmas physics and solar physics community?

If we were talking about complex plasma physics like Hall effect MHD then I would certainly swat up on the topic.

PSSST: That's described in several plasma physics books I own, including Peratt's book. He also describes "whistler waves" and all sorts of ways to achieve a sudden release of stored electric *or* magnetic field energy, AKA an *electrical discharges* in plasma. It's really a pity that you get all you information from yourself. You might actually learn something if you actually read a book on the topic.

I would say that your error......

You don't have the knowledge to find any "error" in anyone's work apparently, not Dungeys' work, not those pesky Russians, not those crackpot Japanese scientists that talked about "electrical discharges" in plasma, not Holushko's paper, not Alfven's work, nothing. You're not even interested in an honest discussion on this topic, nor are you interested in actually educating yourself on this topic. If you were actually interested in education, you've had *years* to actually pickup a textbook on plasma physics. You never have.

Instead of actually educating yourself on this topic, you play the role of the couch potato critic, blow every major issue, refuse to backup your claims with *external* references, then claim you never said it, and then lather rinse repeat.


Your dark energy deity is more impotent on Earth than any average concept of God. At least everything that I believe in is *visible* and shows up in real physics experiments, with real control mechanisms, right here in labs on Earth.

Your trio of impotent sky deities can *easily* be replaced with *real* plasma physics, anytime you're actually interested in picking up a textbook and *learning* anything about it.

 

[mzungu]

I do not have to read a book on plasma physics to address simple mistakes about plasma physics, e.g. that actual electrical discharges (lightning!) can happen in plasma.
If we were talking about complex plasma physics like Hall effect MHD then I would certainly swat up on the topic.

I would say that your error is starting a thread about cosmology without without apparently ever reading a book on that topic or even trying to learn the physics behind the observations that support the existence of dark energy (and dark matter and inflation!).

The only thing that is tired is not light but the whole scientific community from the onslaughts of the crackpots who give science a bad name! Michael, give it a rest mate; You have been proven wrong on so many things that it is no longer funny. Perhaps you can post your ideas in a conspiracy theory forum!

 

[Michael]

The only thing that is tired is not light but the whole scientific community from the onslaughts of the crackpots who give science a bad name!

You mean the crackpots that are claiming that dark energy did it without even being able to name a single source of dark energy? Those crackpots that give science a bad name?

Everything I believe in shows up in the lab. Your nonsense does not.

 

[Naraoia]

Awareness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The concept of awareness has already been defined. That seems like a reasonable definition to me.

Certainly a place to start.

So: how does one test whether a universe perceives and responds to stimuli?

I'm not exactly sure how we might apply the more esoteric ideas of awareness (like self awareness) from biology to something macroscopic in size, but the basic processes would be expected to be similar to microscopic organisms.

No microscopic organisms that I'm aware (hah) of are self-aware Back on topic: while I would expect something you call "god" to be not just aware but also self-aware, I don't necessarily want you to subject the cosmos to a mirror test. I just happen to think more about "advanced" forms of awareness than about the more basic stuff, and the cognitive skills I listed make quite testable predictions. Basically, testable predictions was the whole point here, for whatever level of awareness you think the universe possesses.

Even the concept of 'mind' gets messy with slime molds and their reactions to cold cycles.

Yeah, it kind of does That response really sounds like the work of an oscillatory gene network to me - something like the entrainment of the circadian clock to local light cycles. I think very few people would call circadian clocks "minds". Yet deep down, a brain is also just a very big and very complicated piece of chemistry, and minds emerge from that pot of gene expressions and ion flows and whatnot. I'm getting very philosophical, though...

I hear you, but we do have to start somewhere, and the 'resemblance' is more than cosmetic. There are *functional* (current carrying and cellular separation) similarities, not just material arrangement similarities to consider.

I'd call those mechanistic similarities, not functional ones. The two systems work in somewhat similar ways. The question is: do they do the same things with these mechanisms?

How will we actually know if the human mind is being influenced only by internal influences rather than by external influences (external EM fields?) unless we do active experiments to find out?

No how. And I'm sure such experiments have been/are being done.

 

[Michael]

Certainly a place to start.

So: how does one test whether a universe perceives and responds to stimuli?

Great question. The only thing that came to mind immediately was an experiment involving a meditating individual while measuring the magnetic fields inside and outside of their brain during meditation. If there is EM interaction between the universe and the individual, we may be able to observe the EM field interaction.

No microscopic organisms that I'm aware (hah) of are self-aware Back on topic: while I would expect something you call "god" to be not just aware but also self-aware, I don't necessarily want you to subject the cosmos to a mirror test. I just happen to think more about "advanced" forms of awareness than about the more basic stuff, and the cognitive skills I listed make quite testable predictions. Basically, testable predictions was the whole point here, for whatever level of awareness you think the universe possesses.

I agree with you in terms of the likelihood of self-awareness, and the likelihood of the universe being an advanced form of life. It is not as though that higher life form is *required* to 'bark on my command' however. Whatever experiments we come up with needs to take that into account.

Yeah, it kind of does That response really sounds like the work of an oscillatory gene network to me - something like the entrainment of the circadian clock to local light cycles. I think very few people would call circadian clocks "minds". Yet deep down, a brain is also just a very big and very complicated piece of chemistry, and minds emerge from that pot of gene expressions and ion flows and whatnot. I'm getting very philosophical, though...

The topic itself tends to be rather philosophical.

I'd call those mechanistic similarities, not functional ones. The two systems work in somewhat similar ways. The question is: do they do the same things with these mechanisms?

I hear you, and I'm not sure how to fully answer your question yet. IMO it's really hard to make much progress at the moment since the mainstream models related to solar physics and cosmology are so hopelessly stuck in the dark ages of science.

Once folks start to recognize the electrical nature of the universe, progress will take place at a *much* faster pace, including transportation technologies, and everything else I can think of. It's just a matter of time at this point, but once it begins, I do believe there will be a Renaissance in science and cosmology. Once that takes place, comparisons will be *much* easier to identify if only because more individuals will start looking for them. Right now everyone's busy looking for 'invisible sky thingies' that do not exist.

No how. And I'm sure such experiments have been/are being done.

I guess the primary point I'm trying to make is that every aspect of Pantheism is completely "testable" and even lab verifiable, at least potentially. That's more than can be said for current 'scientific' theory.

 

[Naraoia]

Good, I think our conversation came to a satisfactory conclusion (for once). I'm glad you recognise the difficulty of studying pantheism as a scientific hypothesis, and I hope I understand your views better than I did before.

And geez, did I even get a couple of posts out of you that included almost no jabs against mainstream cosmology? Peeps, here's the proof that it's possible to have a civil conversation with Michael. Yay for having my expectations busted in a positive way!

 

[Michael]

Good, I think our conversation came to a satisfactory conclusion (for once). I'm glad you recognise the difficulty of studying pantheism as a scientific hypothesis, and I hope I understand your views better than I did before.

And geez, did I even get a couple of posts out of you that included almost no jabs against mainstream cosmology? Peeps, here's the proof that it's possible to have a civil conversation with Michael. Yay for having my expectations busted in a positive way!

Thank you very much for a highly enjoyable conversation. It was delightful.