Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[Cromulent]

You know, there was a point in history where people couldn't provide a source or a control mechanism for electric current. Guess what, electricity still existed!

 

[Michael]

Because the stuff you link to is so technical I can't understand it, and I doubt you can either.,

Logically speaking, you're not off to a good start. I guess you think that if you didn't personally do any homework on the subject in question, nobody did.

However, the vast majority of cosmologists DO understand it, and they say it's wrong!

The vast majority haven't ever even read Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven, let alone Birkeland's work. It's like never having read the Bible and being sure someone else smarter than you did read that book and understands it. Of course not one of your authors ever once addressed the validity of the mathematical models I have presented to you.

They are unable to think outside of their box, and they use overly simplified claims (handwaves) to try to ignore empirical physics entirely! Not one of the models incorporates *any* of the four lab demonstrated forms of plasma redshift, not Compton redshift, not Stark redshift, not the Wolf effect, and not Chen's plasma redshift, not one! The truly *pitiful* arguments used against empirical physics is based upon *oversimplification fallacies* that insist it's an 'all or nothing' proposition and only *one* factor can be right! In fact, 4 or 5 (including object expansion not space expansion) could be a factor, not just *one*! That's their whole "game" in a nutshell in fact.

It would literally take an act of *God almighty* for *none* of the empirically demonstrated forms of plasma redshift to have no influence on photons in space.

Now, I'll ask you again, why should I take your word over theirs? Answer this and then we'll talk further.

That's extremely easy. All of my claims show up in the lab, whereas they can't even tell you where "dark energy" might come from. Space never does any magical expansion tricks in the lab, but *at least* four types of plasma redshift have been documented in the lab to date. That's why.

 

[Michael]

You know, there was a point in history where people couldn't provide a source or a control mechanism for electric current. Guess what, electricity still existed!

That's a rather weak argument IMO. Static electricity, and a charge on the human body became a "source" of current for the first individual that ever experienced a static shock on Earth. The charge of a human body was the "source" of the current whether she/he realized it or not. Haven't you ever touched a doorknob with a charge on your body?

Something I can personally *feel*, touch, experience, smell, ect on Earth is radically different from something that has no effect on *anything* in any lab on Earth, and no known source!

There's a more fundamental denial problem with mainstream theory however. Lambda-CDM theory incorporates *none* of the empirically demonstrated forms of plasma redshift in any of it's calculations, not one. It would in fact violate the laws of physics as we understand them for *none* of the four demonstrated forms of plasma redshift to have *no* significant influence on the photons that traverse spacetime! Mainstream theory is based upon faith in the physically impossible! It's based upon some bogus claim that *none* of the documented plasma redshift influences in the lab have any significant effect in space. That's simply an absurd and untenable assumption. That's not even empirically possible, and it's not the least big logical or likely.

It's not as though Lerner hasn't pointed out their problem with the Tolman brightness test. It's not as though Ari, or Ashmore, or Holushko haven't put forth a mathematical model for you to test. You can even get C# code from Holushko website that applies a generic model of tired light/plasma redshift to spacetime redshift. What more can I do for you other than round up the hard work of the individuals that can explain all this to you without evoking any mythical entities?

 

[Elendur]

...
That's extremely easy. All of my claims show up in the lab, whereas they can't even tell you where "dark energy" might come from.

Great, so can you show me the results you got when you measured the universes awareness in the lab?

Space never does any magical expansion tricks in the lab, but *at least* four types of plasma redshift have been documented in the lab to date. That's why.

Great, so can you show me the results you got when you measured the expansion (or lack thereof) of the space in the lab?

 

[Michael]

Great, so can you show me the results you got when you measured the universes awareness in the lab?

In terms of this topic and this thread, that particular issue is irrelevant. I'll simply defend a standard static universe theory in this thread, but thanks for thinking of me.

Great, so can you show me the results you got when you measured the expansion (or lack thereof) of the space in the lab?

Ashmore already applied Chen's plasma redshift findings to Hubble's constant. Did you check it out?

 

[Michael]

Here's the part that seems surreal from my perspective:

Here I am as a theist defending/supporting empirical physics against atheists and agnostics that are claiming that invisible stuff did it, when in fact there are at *least* four empirical alternatives to choose from, five if you include some expansion related to object expansion (optional in most static universe theories).

I'm personally open to any combination of those five empirically documented causes of redshift, but I simply "lack belief" in all unseen (in the lab) entities. I can't for the life of me figure out why an atheist (strong or weak) in particular would be defending Lambda-sky-religion, and intentionally rejecting all the known types of empirical physics that actually show up in labs on Earth.

 

[Elendur]

In terms of this topic and this thread, that particular issue is irrelevant. I'll simply defend a standard static universe theory in this thread, but thanks for thinking of me.

Fair 'nuff.

Ashmore already applied Chen's plasma redshift findings to Hubble's constant. Did you check it out?

I don't see how that would demonstrate that the space in the lab doesn't expand.

 

[Michael]

Fair 'nuff.


I don't see how that would demonstrate that the space in the lab doesn't expand.

You're effectively asking me to disprove mainstream claims. I've already done that by demonstrating that there are 4 or more empirical alternatives to choose from. I've provided you with many papers full of lots of math, and Holushko even provided you with C# code if you're interested in checking it out.

That's really about the best 'disproof' I could ever hope to offer you. Objects move in the lab and the distance between objects therefore changes, but no scientist has ever demonstrated that space magically expands in a controlled test in a real lab on Earth, not ever. Unless you have a paper that says otherwise, I have no logical reason to believe otherwise. Space cannot expand on Earth even according to their theory!

More importantly however, it would literally take a *miracle* for *none* of the four documented forms of plasma redshift to occur in plasmas in space. It would literally require that the laws of physics work *differently* in space than they work in the lab for Lambda-CDM theory to be correct. How likely is that in your mind? How could *none* of the known and demonstrated forms of plasma redshift have any significant influence on photons in space? Talk about believing in miracles!

 

[Elendur]

Here's the part that seems surreal from my perspective:

Here I am as a theist defending/supporting empirical physics against atheists and agnostics that are claiming that invisible stuff did it, when in fact there are at *least* four empirical alternatives to choose from, five if you include some expansion related to object expansion (optional in most static universe theories).

I'm personally open to any combination of those five empirically documented causes of redshift, but I simply "lack belief" in all unseen (in the lab) entities. I can't for the life of me figure out why an atheist (strong or weak) in particular would be defending Lambda-sky-religion, and intentionally rejecting all the known types of empirical physics that actually show up in labs on Earth.

Personally I think you seems suspicious when you insist on, or repeat, these things:
1. There is a major cover up, a global scam or fraud.
2. Lab, lab, lab, lab, lab...
3. Empirical, empirical, empirical...
4. Religion, religion, religion...

(Accidentally, nr 2, 3 and 4 are demonstrated in your post)

And as a final touch, that you always return (often without relevance) to the subject (I've mentioned the word "fanatic" before).

(And I could mention the fact that you often seem to misunderstand very simple concepts/differences)

 

[Elendur]

You're effectively asking me to disprove mainstream claims. I've already done that by demonstrating that there are 4 or more empirical alternatives to choose from. I've provided you with many papers full of lots of math, and Holushko even provided you with C# code if you're interested in checking it out.

That's really about the best 'disproof' I could ever hope to offer you. Objects move in the lab and the distance between objects therefore changes, but no scientist has ever demonstrated that space magically expands in a controlled test in a real lab on Earth, not ever. Unless you have a paper that says otherwise, I have no logical reason to believe otherwise. Space cannot expand on Earth even according to their theory!

More importantly however, it would literally take a *miracle* for *none* of the four documented forms of plasma redshift to occur in plasmas in space. It would literally require that the laws of physics work *differently* in space than they work in the lab for Lambda-CDM theory to be correct. How likely is that in your mind? How could *none* of the known and demonstrated forms of plasma redshift have any significant influence on photons in space? Talk about believing in miracles!

You misunderstand, you've claimed that the space doesn't expand in the lab. Given your affinity for the 'empirical' I gather you've got evidence to support that.

 

[mzungu]

I'll simply defend a standard static universe theory in this thread

Dear me What year is it You are aware that this is 2012 and not 1930

 

[Michael]

Personally I think you seems suspicious when you insist on, or repeat, these things:
1. There is a major cover up, a global scam or fraud.
2. Lab, lab, lab, lab, lab...
3. Empirical, empirical, empirical...
4. Religion, religion, religion...

(Accidentally, nr 2, 3 and 4 are demonstrated in your post)

And as a final touch, that you always return (often without relevance) to the subject (I've mentioned the word "fanatic" before).

(And I could mention the fact that you often seem to misunderstand very simple concepts/differences)

At least some of point one can be demonstrated just by taking a gander at the rule system imposed over at Cosmo Quest, formerly "Bad Astronomy". It doesn't take a genius to figure out that they operate like a cult. They impose two entirely different rule systems for "mainstream" beliefs vs. non mainstream beliefs, and they publicly lynch all heretics, and close of heretical discussions! Wow! Even most religious websites are more liberal in terms of the criticisms they'll put up with.

I have also provided you with plenty of evidence that mainstream galaxy mass estimation techniques have been falsified several times over the past 5 years by a whole new generation of powerful satellites in space. About the only thing left standing in mainstream theory *was* their solar theories, and even those claims just bit the dust in SDO heliosiesmology data a few months ago. They lost their entire atmospheric power supply in fact.

Last year, LHC blew away "simple" brands of SUSY theory, and they found the Higgs, completed the standard particle physics model, and all without the need for SUSY particles in the first place! SUSY theory is a *non-standard* and now partially falsified theory!

Both parts of Lambda-CDM theory, (redshift/Lamba) and CDM (AKA wimp/axions/ect.) have been blown out of the water in the lab in recent years. What more can I do for you than point that sad (for them) little fact out for you?

In the real world of physics, PC/EU theory *stomps all over* mainstream theory in the lab. Somehow it makes me a "fanatic" when I point that fact out for you. Oh well! I guess I'm a fanatic for empirical physics.

 

[Michael]

Dear me What year is it You are aware that this is 2012 and not 1930

Dear you indeed. Don't you realize that four new types of plasma redshift have been found since then, including Compton redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect and what Chen calls "plasma redshift"? I don't suppose you'd care to comment on Ari's work from the the last decade?

I'm afraid the mainstream is still stuck in a 1930's mentality and a 1930's knowledge of plasma physics. In the real world of plasma physics it would take a *miracle* for plasma redshift to work differently in space than it works in the lab.

 

[Michael]

You misunderstand, you've claimed that the space doesn't expand in the lab. Given your affinity for the 'empirical' I gather you've got evidence to support that.

I don't need to provide empirical evidence of a negative, anymore than I have to demonstrate the claim that unicorns do not show up in labs. It's up to the one making a positive claim to support that claim. I can support the claim that photons can be redshifted by Compton redshift, the Wolf effect, Stark redshift and what Chen calls plasma redshift. You however can show no empirical cause/effect link between a photon and "dark energy".

The most fundamental problem in Lambda-CDM theory is that it incorporates *no* forms of plasma redshift in any of it's calculations.

 

[mzungu]

Dear you indeed. Don't you realize that four new types of plasma redshift have been found since then, including Compton redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect and what Chen calls "plasma redshift"? I don't suppose you'd care to comment on Ari's work from the the last decade?

I'm afraid the mainstream is still stuck in a 1930's mentality and a 1930's knowledge of plasma physics. In the real world of plasma physics it would take a *miracle* for plasma redshift to work differently in space than it works in the lab.

I question your motives and they are as clear as crystal to me; You will support any hypotheses that will in your mind confirm creationism. My money is on the majority of cosmologists who accept the BB theory!

 

[Michael]

I question your motives and they are as clear as crystal to me; You will support any hypotheses that will in your mind confirm creationism.

What? Unlike Lambda-CDM theory, PC/EU theory involves no "creation events" in terms of creating matter or energy. It simply assumes that energy and possibly matter as well, have existed eternally. PC/EU theory isn't even just for theists, lots of atheists support the idea. Few of them support creation events, or creationism. I personally do not support YEC anymore than I support 'young universe creationism' (AKA Lambda-CDM theory). For all I know the universe has existed eternally.

My preference for PC theory is related to it's performance in the lab, and it has nothing to do with religious viewpoints.

My money is on the majority of cosmologists who accept the BB theory!

You're simply hiding behind an appeal to authority fallacy, and you're ultimately supporting a theory that defies the laws of plasma physics as we understand them. In real plasma, photon redshift happens. It's impossible for it to *not* happen in spacetime.

 

[Elendur]

At least some of point one can be demonstrated just by taking a gander at the rule system imposed over at Cosmo Quest, formerly "Bad Astronomy". It doesn't take a genius to figure out that they operate like a cult. They impose two entirely different rule systems for "mainstream" beliefs vs. non mainstream beliefs, and they publicly lynch all heretics, and close of heretical discussions! Wow! Even most religious websites are more liberal in terms of the criticisms they'll put up with.

I have also provided you with plenty of evidence that mainstream galaxy mass estimation techniques have been falsified several times over the past 5 years by a whole new generation of powerful satellites in space. About the only thing left standing in mainstream theory *was* their solar theories, and even those claims just bit the dust in SDO heliosiesmology data a few months ago. They lost their entire atmospheric power supply in fact.

Last year, LHC blew away "simple" brands of SUSY theory, and they found the Higgs, completed the standard particle physics model, and all without the need for SUSY particles in the first place! SUSY theory is a *non-standard* and now partially falsified theory!

Both parts of Lambda-CDM theory, (redshift/Lamba) and CDM (AKA wimp/axions/ect.) have been blown out of the water in the lab in recent years. What more can I do for you than point that sad (for them) little fact out for you?

In the real world of physics, PC/EU theory *stomps all over* mainstream theory in the lab. Somehow it makes me a "fanatic" when I point that fact out for you. Oh well! I guess I'm a fanatic for empirical physics.

You do so much more than "point out", you shove it down everyones throats, through their eyes.

 

[Elendur]

I don't need to provide empirical evidence of a negative, anymore than I have to demonstrate the claim that unicorns do not show up in labs. It's up to the one making a positive claim to support that claim. I can support the claim that photons can be redshifted by Compton redshift, the Wolf effect, Stark redshift and what Chen calls plasma redshift. You however can show no empirical cause/effect link between a photon and "dark energy".

The most fundamental problem in Lambda-CDM theory is that it incorporates *no* forms of plasma redshift in any of it's calculations.

Oh dear, you can't tell those things apart?

The only reason you don't have to provide with evidence for the claim with invisible, intangible unicorns is because of it being untestable and without basis. (And the claim it doesn't exist would still be an unscientific claim, because it wouldn't be based in evidence)

There are theoretical ways to demonstrate the expansion of space, which makes your claim that it doesn't expand in the lab wanting for evidence.

 

[Michael]

You do so much more than "point out", you shove it down everyones throats, through their eyes.

Oh, I see. It's "OK" for the mainstream to shove their dark metaphysical dogma down my throat, my children's throats, and the throats of everyone else in the classroom. It's fine to virtually lynch me for my heresy on public forums. It's fine to label all heretics "crackpots and cranks", and lock down all threads that they disagree with.

God forbid however that I (or anyone else for that matter) should have the audacity to actually question their dogma, or even worse, actually present any empirical evidence that sinks their ship. Evidently that's not being "nice" or respecting their feelings, and suddenly I'm "shoving empirical facts down their throat".

 

[Michael]

Oh dear, you can't tell those things apart?

The only reason you don't have to provide with evidence for the claim with invisible, intangible unicorns is because of it being untestable and without basis.

That is *exactly* true of dark energy and inflation too. They certainly cannot be "lab tested". There is no empirical cause/effect link between photons redshift and either inflation or dark energy. They might as well be claiming invisible unicorn breath did it.

(And the claim it doesn't exist would still be an unscientific claim, because it wouldn't be based in evidence)

Yes it is! I have plenty of empirical evidence that plasma redshift happens in the lab, and they've never accounted for those known redshift mechanisms in their theory! I have empirical evidence that their theory is FUBAR from the start! Every new form of redshift in the lab simply hurts their case even more.

There are theoretical ways to demonstrate the expansion of space, which makes your claim that it doesn't expand in the lab wanting for evidence.

How would you demonstrate that in the lab?