• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Michael, Sep 18, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Davian

    Davian fallible

    +1,159
    Ignostic
    Married
    Let me know when you get past the 'hope to "test"' stage.
    You still don't have 'pantheism in the lab', and falsifying the mainstream cosmological model is irrelevant to you showing that your opinions have merit.
    You'll have to figure out how things work outside the lab.
    More evasion. Again, how does a static universe deal with entropy?
    No. That is irrelevant to you establishing the validity of your claims.
    I would suggest doing scientifically.
    You claim it has been falsified, fail to support this claim, and now switch to 'unfalsifiable'. Show me the scientific papers that establish this 'fact'.
    I don't have 'faith' in it. If it were falsified tomorrow, I would look into with interest, but it is not religion. Stop putting words in my mouth.
     
  2. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    +787
    Atheist
    Let see. The insanity of citing Bruce who thought that lightning actually happens on the Sun continues :p!

    Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR is not a discharge :doh: and is obsolete!

     
  3. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    I already handed you Holushko's 'test' of a static universe. Did you find any errors in it? Why isn't that "evidence" to support Pantheism? What hope is there of experimentation with dark energy if you can't even tell me where it comes from?

    You're right I don't have 'pantheism in the lab'. :) That was actually kinda funny. :)

    You're also right that it's not enough to falsify mainstream theory, I must build a methodical case for Pantheism. In terms of Holushko's work, I'm simply building a case for Pantheism, and collecting evidence in favor of that specific cosmology theory.

    Lambda-CDM simply gets in the way almost immediately. ;) It's not technically my fault that the universe turns out to be static. Demonstrating it *is* static is just a necessary step in building a step by step case for Pantheism. If that happens to falsify another cosmology theory, so be it.

    Holushko did that. Did you find any flaws worth mentioning?

    Recycling? How do new stars form?

    From my perspective, it's not logical of you to accuse me of something that you excuse yourself from. We're both using a non zero constant inside of GR formula. I'm not suggesting that my constant causes the universe to accelerate away into the sunset. You're the one claiming that there is a whole lot of acceleration going on. A static universe needs no such extra energy. Simple charge repulsion between cathode suns might do the trick to simply stabilize the universe.

    For the life of me I can't figure out how or why your non zero "dark energy" constant is "ok", yet my non zero EM constant isn't "ok" by you. I really don't get it. Why is your own non zero constant so much less offensive to you when you can't even cite a single source of 'dark energy'? At least I can site a source of EM fields. :confused:

    :)

    Ya know.....

    From my vantage point there appears to be a whole lot of hypocritical finger pointing going on. :) A Pantheistic oriented non zero constant that is based upon ordinary EM fields isn't good enough for you apparently, but non zero dark energy constant gets a free pass even though nobody can even site a source of dark energy. I must also provide a host of falsification mechanisms (which I have done) and yet Lambda-CDM does not? CDM theory can fail every SUSY particle test on the books at LHC and still be 'fine'?

    Surely you can put yourself in my shoes for a moment is see how unfair that all seems can't you?

    That was my whole point in providing you with Holushko's work and Brynjolfsson's work, and Ashmore's work. Without the mathematical explanations to go with the qualified explanations from the lab, it's not a real cosmology theory. When it includes the math, and empirical qualification from the lab, it *must* be taken seriously.

    Holushko's generic tired light model demonstrates that cosmological redshift can and has been explained *without* any need of exotic types of energy in the form of inflation or dark energy. The revelations of the past few years in terms of finding "missing mass", all in the form of plasma, demonstrates that "Cold dark matter" theory is irrelevant and unnecessary. Worse yet, simple SUSY theories bit the dust at LHC and the standard particle physics model has no need of SUSY theory. It's complete without it.

    Well, from my perspective, you certainly do not have any actual 'tangible evidence' to support Lambda-CDM. You can't tell me where dark energy comes from. You can't site a single empirical experiment where cold dark matter has been shown to exist. What else can you call that but 'faith in the unseen'(in the lab)? It may not be a 'religion' in the purest sense, but it's a greater leap of faith in the unseen in the lab than I'm making to believe in "God". At least I know that 'awareness' exists in nature. You can't even be absolutely certain that dark energy does actually exist in nature. Which of us then has 'greater faith' in the final analysis?
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2012
  4. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    Right. It's not RC the IT guy that has never read a plasma physics book in his entire lifetime that is 'insane', it's Dungey, Birkeland, Bruce, Giovanelli, Peratt, the Russians and the Japanese that all utterly 'insane' and know *absolutely nothing* about plasma physics. :doh:

    Oh look, RC cites himself yet *again*, and *again* he dodges every request for an *external* reference to support his claims! Who would have guessed?

    I have provided you personally with more tangible physical evidence of 'God' than you have provided for 'dark energy'. Stark redshift, Compton redshift and Chen's plasma redshift show up in the lab. You can't even tell me where dark energy comes from, and *no* a 'constant' in a math formula isn't a 'physics cause', nor a physical source.

    Is that two days and counting now?
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2012
  5. Davian

    Davian fallible

    +1,159
    Ignostic
    Married
    I snipped the rest, as you just keep repeating yourself in your answers.
    Why do you not just say that you do not know? If this 'recycling' process is not 100% efficient then you do not have a static universe. If it is, then you have a perpetual motion machine. What other option is there?
     
  6. Elendur

    Elendur Gamer and mathematician

    +20
    Agnostic
    Engaged
    Tweaks, restrictions, limitations, percentages. Skippin' this part due to lack of parts to address.

    "Pointing to the sky"? You do realize that, depending how you mean it, you're either dismissing a bunch of evidence or haven't specified anything that is of any gain?
    "Absence all mass"? Could you explain what you mean?

    Verification has no meaning whether they've been made up or not (either that or you've changed what you mean with "made up").

    I don't get why you would mention limits or freedom given that. It doesn't fill any purpose I can conceive of, unless it's to spout text.

    Right now I'm more interested in what the scattering would result in over astronomical distances.

    It can't really be that hard to present with a multi-dimensional analysis of the accepted intervals.

    I guess so.

    The trouble is that they don't, those matters are (not to mention that the information is given from a, to me, dubious source) far beyond my capabilities.
    The redshift and scattering is a much easier concept to imagine and I don't think it's something that's scalable with only plasma concentration.
    Have they recorded how much of the light was scattered, along with at what distance it was scattered and at what angle?

    If it is reducing, and must be reduced, to plasma physics, why are you complaining? That would be a direct example of how they're not attached to the notion.

    It cannot be an expansion without something to counteract it if there's an infinite amount of time. Sorry, that's it.

    That last sentence is a good example of your predetermined notion.

    I wouldn't know. I don't trust your assertion for it either.

    Ok, if you say so.
     
  7. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    +787
    Atheist
    Right - Bruce was a crank who thought that lightning explained everything, Michael :doh:!

    I wrote this in the "An Empirical Theory Of God (2)' thread but this good science really belongs here in a expanded form.
    Michael, given that your four types of plasma redshift are
    It has been known since 1929 that Compton scattering cannot cause cosmological redshifts: Tired light
    ... light coming from distant nebulae would undergo a shift to the red by Compton effect on those free electrons [in interstellar spaces] [...] But then the light scattered in all directions would make the interstellar space intolerably opaque which disposes of the above explanation. [...] it is evident that any explanation based on a scattering process like the Compton effect or the Raman effect, etc., will be in a hopeless position regarding the good definition of the images.[6]
    IOW scattering causes distant objects to blur in telescopes more than near objects but we can look at very distant objects and get images that as as sharp as those from near objects.

    The Wolf effect needs specific conditions, e.g. 2 sources of non-Lambertian light. Wolf suggested that some quasars could provide these 2 sources (Wolf, Emil "Noncosmological redshifts of spectral lines" (1987) Nature 326: 363—365.)
    We detect cosmological redshifts from ordinary galaxies. These do not meet the criteria for the Wolf effect. They are
    • one source of light :doh: and
    • Lambertian - in general (maybe not starburst galaxies and there may be other exceptions).
    The Stark effect is the splitting of spectral lines by an external electric field. This is not a redshift at all. It causes broading of spectral lines.

    There is no evidence that Chen's plasma redshift is cosmological redshift unless Michael has an an answer to Where is the scientific literature linking Chen's redshift with cosmological redshift?
     
  8. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    +787
    Atheist
    And thinking about the "An Empirical Theory Of God (2)" thread, there is a question that belongs here.
    Since you seem to think that you know more about physics than me then the answer to this question should be easy:
    Micheal: Read Compton scattering.
    Can you see another possible problem with using it as a cosmological redshift?
    Just think about what we have learned in astronomy about interstellar, intergalactic and intra-cluster mediums since 1929 and you will easily see the issue.

    Hint 1: The energy of the electrons versus the energy of the photons means what for Compton scattering?
    Hint 2: The issue means that one assumption by Zwicky was incompete (free electrons exist in space and ...) and it also eliminates Compton scattering as cosmological redshift.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2012
  9. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    Alright, in the final analysis I simply do not know, and neither do you. :)

    Perhaps we live in an infinite universe, that by virtue of being infinite, ultimately makes it 100 percent efficient over time and distance? Energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, and the universe is certainly filled with energy. For all I know it's infinite and eternal and so is the energy.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2012
  10. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    We cannot tell based upon pure observation alone what the actual "cause" of photon redshift might be. I'm happy with you/anyone using object movement to explain some of that redshift because I know objects can move. GR only defines "spacetime", not 'space'. Space isn't even physically defined, and nobody can explain exactly "what" might be expanding in 'space'. It sounds a lot like an aether theory by the way.

    According to Lambda-CDM theory, the reason that "space expansion" never happens in a lab on Earth is due to the gravitational influences of the planet and other objects that supposedly "overwhelm" any "space expansion". In other words, the gravity of the objects and the mass of those objects prevents space from expanding in our region of "space". Our galaxy doesn't "expand". Our solar system doesn't expand. My waistline does seem to expand on occasion but it has nothing to do with "space expansion" I'm afraid. :)

    Spacetime isn't really "empty" as astronomers imagine. It's quite literally "filled" with plasma. What they are calling "dark matter" is simply plasma, or at least it's 99% plasma with some "dust" sprinkled around here and there. There isn't actually anywhere in "spacetime" that is so "empty" and devoid of matter that it would experience anything like an expansion of 'space' either. The mass of the plasma alone would overwhelm everything, everywhere in a plasma universe.

    I don't have to know anything about a math formula to experience gravity personally. It has a direct effect upon me as I sit here typing away. Whether you wish to use GR theory to mathematically express that feeling of gravity that I feel every moment of every day, or use Newton's maths to express it, I have no doubt whatsoever that gravity exists. The falsification of Newton's maths (replaced by GR) doesn't falsify the existence of "gravity". That simply falsifies (or simply replaces) a more limited mathematical expression of gravity and replaces it with another. If someday QM replaces GR to express gravity via gravitons, etc, gravity itself will have not changed one iota due to the falsification of GR. Math is actually "trivial" in terms of being able to personally experience gravity. I don't really care how you go about expressing the math for the most part because I know for a fact that gravity exists due to *personal experience*. The math might be "made up", but gravity itself is not. It certainly is 'real' and it has a tangible effect on me.

    There is a fundamental difference between Lambda-CDM and EU theory. EU theory cannot violate known laws of physics. It doesn't need to for starters. That does however impose some actual "limits", particular as it relates to object expansion, which do not exist in Lambda-CDM. The truth of the matter is that Lambda-CDM can be "tweaked" to do just about anything *except* explain a static universe. It can expand at any rate. It's a bit like a "dad" concept because it has a "different state past" during the inflation phase. M-theory is even *more* malleable. It could probably explain a static universe as well, although it would probably have to ditch the dark energy.

    PC theory takes longer to "figure out" because nobody is just "making up" new rules of nature to suit themselves. The "explanations" have to be "real" and tangible explanations that actually 'explain' the physical process of photon redshift. It's not like PC theory can simply "stuff in metaphysics" to replace human ignorance. It actually requires someone "figure it out" and not use placeholder terms for human ignorance.

    Any type of scattering close to the source, or even "far away" from Earth isn't going to result in "blurring" as much as it's going to result in the loss of light. Photons are simply going to be scattered into the plasmas and ultimately absorbed by them. Eventually some of that energy gets released again at a lower energy wavelength.

    That's why the universe is twice as bright as astronomers expected. They treat the IGM as a "vacuum" when in fact it's actually a "thin plasma" that is absorbing and scattering photons galore. That causes us to underestimate the brightness and therefore the mass of virtually every galaxy.

    In terms of your "feelings" about the source of information, I'm afraid there isn't a lot I can personally do about your feelings other than to take your advice and listen to other people's advice when it makes sense. I can try to respect your feelings and other people's feelings, but I can't really change them instantly or easily. That's mostly due to the fact that I'm supporting a minority position on a topic related to "science".

    In terms of the information, IMO it's a bit of cop out to claim it's actually beyond your capabilities to judge the merits of one idea over another (plasma redshift vs. dark energy). One idea shows up in the lab. The other does not. One idea is congruent with plasma physics. The other isn't. One idea requires that space be nearly a "perfect vacuum" somewhere out there in distant space. The other theory requires no 'special' locations in spacetime. One concept quite literally requires a 'different state past' (inflation), the other doesn't.

    I don't believe it takes 'special' knowledge to make such a decision quite frankly.

    Any "real" physical concept is "easier to imagine". Concepts like dark energy, expanding space, inflation etc aren't easy to conceptually wrap one's head around. IMO that's just another strike again Lambda-CDM. It's overly complicated, and it uses a "toy" version of plasma physics.

    I'll have to revisit Holushko's code to see if it records scattering angles (I don't think so), but it does account for how much light is 'scattered' or lost due to scattering.

    I'm complaining because it hasn't been reduced yet. :)

    Oh, I think they've gotten the message from the LHC results that they need a "new approach" in terms of accounting for that 'missing mass'. They aren't however about to budge yet on the dark energy aspect of their theory, even though they can both be replace with "full" versions of plasma physics, one that accounts for plasma redshift and pulse/signal broadening.

    It can expand at times, contract during other phases, etc. PC theory is not limited to *one* directional movement in fact. Just because the mainstream uses a one directional model doesn't mean it must work that way in a PC model.

    In real labs there are real limits on real objects of mass. It's not like I'm personally "predetermining" anything that hasn't been tested a million times over.

    Fortunately you don't have to take my word for it as it relates to SUSY theory. There are many articles out explaining where things stand at the moment. There is no evidence for SUSY theory, and several 'simple' versions have already been tested at LHC and failed.

    Not just me by the way. Even Hubble himself realized that there were at least *two* solutions to the redshift problem. The mainstream has become arrogant and complacent over the years and they attempt to ignore the other options. The problem is that the lab evidence is piling up in favor of the *other* option that Hubble discussed!
     
  11. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    Sure RC, everyone who's ever written about electrical discharges in plasma is a "crank", a "crackpot", a "lair", yada, yada, yada, including solar physicists like Dungey, Giovanelli, Birkeland, Bruce, Peratt, the Russians, and the Japanese. The only guy that knows anything about real plasma physics is the IT guy that's never read a single textbook on the topic of plasma physics. :doh:

    Sorry, but I will put my money on the solar physicists, the Russians and the Japanese over some nameless, anonymous verbally abusive IT guy that's never read a textbook on the topic in question.

    You twist logic like a pretzel to suit yourself, and you refuse to site *external* sources when there is any dispute on any point of contention. You simply get more verbally abusive as you go, and more irrational with each post. You link to your own personal posts and claims more than any human I've met in cyberspace.

    Haters are all alike. They *refuse* to actually "study" the topic in question. When cornered over the physics, they run like cowards instead of providing external support for their erroneous claims. They tend to be verbally abusive, completely ignorant of the topics under discussion, and hell bent on remaining that way forever and ever. That pretty much sums up you behavior to a tee.

    When can I expect you to invest in your education on this topic RC? You've been ranting on for years like the world's greatest expert on plasma physics. You handwave off everyone from Alfven to the Russians without so much as single published paper that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma as you claimed. Do you *honestly* think anyone *here* (not at JREF) takes you seriously anymore RC? Two days and counting and still no external support for any of your ridiculous claims.

    Physics, particularly plasma physics has improved a bit since 1929 RC. Unfortunately you wouldn't know anything about it since you refuse to read a textbook on the topic of plasma physics.

    Holushko and Lerner "debunked" that pathetic left in the past unpublished website RC. Get over Ned as your tired light Guru. The guy never even mentioned Chen's plasma redshift, the Stark effect, or anything by Brynjolfsson, Ashmore, Holushko or anyone who's worked on plasma redshift theory over the past decade! Apparently your guru thinks he can "debunk" plasma physics with an unpublished website that is stuck in 2008&late. I don't think Ned knows anymore about the advancements in plasma redshift than the guy from 1929! Apparently that's where Ned's education ended on that topic.

    Bzzt! Pure assumption on his part. There is in fact a 'background radiation" that is caused by the scattering of photons, but the "opacity" claim is pure baloney. Pure handwave.

    Here's the proof that Ned is hopelessly stuck in 1929. That is apparently the *only* reference he has on which to base *any* of his claims. Ned simply "dismisses" any possibility of *some* redshift due to plasma redshift. He's incapable of thinking beyond black or white. His entire argument (and yours) is based upon an oversimplification fallacy. It's not an "either/or" proposition in the first place!

    His 'claim' about the no blurring taking place is utter nonsense. I defy him to peer beyond the core of our galaxy in wavelengths related to white light. It's never going to happen. The notions that space is all "nice and tidy" in every direction on every wavelength is utter nonsense. More oversimplification fallacies in play now. Ned's entire 'game' seems to be predicted upon oversimplification fallacies.

    I'm sure you have an *external* published claim to the effect? Those galaxies at the edge of Hubbles view are *exactly* as crystal clear *every time* as close galaxies? I'm sure I'll never see such a paper from you on that claim either.

    Gravitational lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    There may indeed by instance where the Wolf effect does come into play RC. It's a *real* and *demonstrated* cause of photon redshift.

    That is about the *only* point I would concede.

    That highighted part is another of those famous handwaving things you do that is devoid of external support for your claim. I think I'll have to start one of your famous lists for all the unsubstantiated claims you've made and run from when asked for external confirmation of that claim. I think you have nearly a half dozen of them going now, but I forget some of them. I need a list.... :)

    Unsupported (by external references) claims by RC:

    Photons always have zero kinetic energy
    Electrical discharges in plasmas are "impossible"
    Stark redshift is not a redshift at all
    High redshift galaxies are always just as clear as the closest galaxies regardless of direction or wavelength.
    Without so much a reading a single textbook on plasma physics, RC knows that a published author (Bruce) is a 'crackpot' on the topic of solar physics.

    I'll add to the the list as they occur to me RC. :)

    I handed you Ashmore's work on a silver platter. Your denial of his work won't make it go away RC. There is no external link to anything that you claim, not ever. It all comes from you or some dead guy's paper from 1929. Apparently that's where your personal understanding of physics ended. :(
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2012
  12. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    I don't just "think" I know more, I know I know more. I know I've read at least five more textbooks on the topic of plasma physics than you have read, and I know that photons have kinetic energy! I'm not claiming to be the most knowledgeable human alive on the topic, but I know more than an IT guy that refuses to pickup a textbook on plasma physics.

    I refuse to even think about trying to read *your* mind RC. Forgetaboutit. Apparently your education in physics ended in 1929. Mine did not. I have no idea where you go left behind and I have no desire to figure it out.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2012
  13. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    +787
    Atheist
    So use that better knowledge of physics to answer the question and show that you know more than me :clap:!
    This is not "reading my mind" :doh:.
    This is reading about the physics of Compton scattering (which you should already know) and stating what it means for cosmological redshift.

    The physics showing the problem is all in Compton scattering.
    Micheal: Read Compton scattering.
    Can you see another possible problem with using it as a cosmological redshift?

    Hint 0: Just think about what we have learned in astronomy about interstellar, intergalactic and intra-cluster mediums since 1929 and you will easily see the issue.
    Hint 1: The energy of the electrons versus the energy of the photons means what for Compton scattering?
    Hint 2: The issue means that one assumption by Zwicky was incompete (free electrons exist in space and ...) and it also eliminates Compton scattering as cosmological redshift.
    Hint 3a: Compton scattering does what to CMB photons?
    Hint 3b: The cosmological redshift from Compton scattering does what to the identical photons from galaxies?

    P.S. There is a high school science version of Hints 3a and 3b. I hope that I do not have to embarass you by adding it as hint 4.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2012
  14. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    There's one major problem with our conversation RC. Can you figure out what it is?

    Hint 1: No external references for "photons always have zero kinetic energy"
    Hint 2: No external references for "Electrical discharges are impossible in plasma"
    Hint 3: Only one of us has ever read a plasma physics textbook.

    Can you guess which one of us has no idea what they are talking out as it relates to plasma physics?
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2012
  15. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    FYI, I sat down last night and actually read through Zwicky's paper from 1929.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/15/10/773.full.pdf

    Keep in mind that the "great debate" about the question of external galaxies took place only 9 years earlier. They still tended to refer to them as "nebula" and their telescopes were down right *primitive* compared to today's technologies.

    Not *once* did Zwicky make any calculations related to "blurring". His sole reasoning for claiming that photon redshift could not be related to Compton scattering comes from this single paragraph in his paper:

    In other words, he simply *eyeballed it* based on the incredibly limited information he had in 1929! Zwicky's claims in 1929 are based *entirely* upon a simple "handwave", specifically that paragraph! How sad that everything you and Ned think you know about tired light comes from that single paragraph written over 80 years ago!

    It wasn't a total waste of my time however. He did mention another type of known plasma redshift mechanism that I never thought about:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_scattering
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2012
  16. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
  17. Davian

    Davian fallible

    +1,159
    Ignostic
    Married
    There is your show stopper for me. I do not believe that Einstein would be so dismissive of the laws of thermodynamics, do you?
    In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I expect entropy to have its way with the cosmos.
    And that's what you need for your plasma redshift claims to work out?
     
  18. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    Apparently he was. He added a constant just like I did to explain a *static* universe. How was he any different?

    As do I, but the universe is *excellent* at recycling. It created me out of a little dust and water. The same molecules may have been used before in perhaps countless other life forms. It's still creating stars.

    Unless you can demonstrate that energy can be created of destroyed, I'll have to assume that some form of energy has *always* existed.

    Not at all. All that is required for my plasma redshift claims to work out is for the laws of physics to work the same in space as they work in the lab. Unless plasma physics in space isn't the same as plasma physics in the lab, some amount of plasma redshift and signal broadening are a given.

    The other stuff is just pure speculation, just like you're doing. :)
     
  19. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    I'm not sure I'm prepared to create a completely new category for Chen's work since it's essentially an AC Stark effect as best as I can tell. Even still, there are at *least* 6 empirical ways for photons to lose momentum in plasma:

    Brillouin scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Raman scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Compton scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Stark effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Zeeman effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Wolf effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The only author that is cited by Ned Wright's tired light page on the topic of "blurring" is Zwicky. In the paper cited by Wright, Zwicky did *not* provide any mathematical description of "blurring" nor did he provide any mathematical calculations to demonstrate blurring (or lack thereof) in any distant object.

    Apparently Zwicky was interested in selling *his own* theory of photon redshift in the paper that Ned cites, and therefore Zwicky handwaved in the claim that blurring would occur in Compton scattering. Ned Wrights entire basis for claiming that Compton redshift causes blurring comes down to this mathematically bankrupt paragraph:

    So, apparently by "eyeballing" a few galaxies that could be seen in telescopes of the 1920's, Ned Wright in 2012 has determined that all heavily redshifted objects are not blurry on any wavelength in any direction, and Compton redshift causes blurring. Neither of them provided so much as a single line of math to back up the assertion that distant galaxies are not blurred or that Compton redshift causes blurring. Pure handwaves!
     
  20. Davian

    Davian fallible

    +1,159
    Ignostic
    Married
    He changed his views in the light of new evidence.
    That's a quick change from "I don't know" to "prove me wrong". ^_^

    We agree, your stuff is pure speculation.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...