Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[Elendur]

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".

See point 1 and 3 on the list.

If you want to give your position some credibility, at least try to present your 'findings' in a professional manner.

 

[Michael]

See point 1 and 3 on the list.

If you want to give your position some credibility, at least try to present your 'findings' in a professional manner.

Right, it's all my fault now that LHC falsified simple SUSY theories.

I've provided all kinds of mathematical and empirical "findings" to astronomers in many different "manners", some more professional than others. Manners and the data are typically irrelevant in my experience.

What you seem to fail to acknowledge or recognize is the fact that PC/EU theorists are not treated 'professionally" by the so called "professionals". It's not a level playing field in the publishing channels, or even a level playing field in cyberspace!

The mainstream isn't making any type of effort to "be professional" about the way they do things, or they would have called it a "redshift camera", or something similar. Since they stuff their dogma into the very names they give to their equipment, it's a bit hard to see them as the consummate "professionals" that you make them out to be.

If they would actually deal with the known causes of plasma redshift in a professional manner, and incorporate some actual plasma physics into their formulas, it would be much easier to communicate with them professionally. Since they refuse to deal with any of the real plasma physics findings from the lab, it tends to make the conversations a lot more amateurish and lot more hostile in my experience.

From my vantage point, it's hard to see them as 'professionals' while they consistently and stubbornly remain in stanch denial of the findings of empirical lab tested physics related to plasma redshift, and they keep ignoring the findings at LHC and keep pointing at the sky and claiming SUSY particles did it.

 

[Elendur]

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.

So you're saying that we have an untestable theory on the loose?

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.

Notice how the parenthesis wasn't a separate paragraph, indicating it was related to the previous sentence where I mentioned the invisible, intangible unicorns.

How would you demonstrate that in the lab?

I wouldn't. I'm a math student.

 

[Elendur]

Right, it's all my fault now that LHC falsified simple SUSY theories.

I've provided all kinds of mathematical and empirical "findings" to astronomers in many different "manners", some more professional than others. Manners and the data are typically irrelevant in my experience.

What you seem to fail to acknowledge or recognize is the fact that PC/EU theorists are not treated 'professionally" by the so called "professionals". It's not a level playing field in the publishing channels, or even a level playing field in cyberspace!

The mainstream isn't making any type of effort to "be professional" about the way they do things, or they would have called it a "redshift camera", or something similar. Since they stuff their dogma into the very names they give to their equipment, it's a bit hard to see them as the consummate "professionals" that you make them out to be.

If they would actually deal with the known causes of plasma redshift in a professional manner, and incorporate some actual plasma physics into their formulas, it would be much easier to communicate with them professionally. Since they refuse to deal with any of the real plasma physics findings from the lab, it tends to make the conversations a lot more amateurish and lot more hostile in my experience.

From my vantage point, it's hard to see them as 'professionals' while they consistently and stubbornly remain in stanch denial of the findings of empirical lab tested physics related to plasma redshift, and they keep ignoring the findings at LHC and keep pointing at the sky and claiming SUSY particles did it.

So it's you complaining about your pet theory not holding up on its own?

 

[sandwiches]

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

This is why I stopped responding to him. Every single conversation on any topic turns to him babbling on about dark sky gods or whatever. I used the word "obsessed," however.

 

[Michael]

This is why I stopped responding to him. Every single conversation on any topic turns to him babbling on about dark sky gods or whatever. I used the word "obsessed," however.

There is a certain irony in a couple of atheists calling me "obsessed" over a simple expectation of an empirical cause/effect justification of a claim. If I claimed that EM fields accelerated plasma, or gravity accelerated plasma, I could easily demonstrate that claim in a lab, complete with control mechanisms. No big deal at all.

You two won't believe in "God", apparently because of some lack of cause/effect justification somewhere along some train of evidence. On the other hand, you evidently both expect me to simply ignore the *major* and gross violations of the laws of physics that Lambda-CDM proponents are doing, and throw out any need for any demonstration of their claim!

It would literally take a *miracle* for plasma redshift to not occur in space, because it would violate the laws of plasma physics as we know them from the lab! Chen's work alone demonstrates that it would be *physically impossible* for no photon redshift to occur in spacetime.

So "why" must I do all that? Evidently so you two can both claim that "dark stuff did it" in spite of the LHC falsification of simple SUSY theories, and in *spite* of the several recent (last 4 years) falsifications of mainstream galaxy mass estimation techniques by new satellites in space, and in spite of the fact that it would require an act of God for photons to *not* be redshifted on their way to Earth.

IMO you're both worse than a couple of YEC, because you two *should* both know better.

If I'm obsessed with empirical physics, so be it. This is my thread, and I guess you two will just have to ignore my one thread if you must.

 

[Michael]

So you're saying that we have an untestable theory on the loose?

Unless one of you can explain how to "test" your theory the way plasma redshift has been tested, yep. There is no empirical cause/effect justification for claiming inflation did anything or dark energy did anything to any photon in any experiment with real control mechanisms. These are mathematical claims devoid of empirical relevance in the real world.

I wouldn't. I'm a math student.

Math alone isn't a substitute for physics. Math alone is not an empirical demonstration of cause/effect relationships. If you can't tell me how to test their claim and demonstrate that dark energy isn't a figment of their imagination, why should I believe in the idea?

The very worst part from my perspective is that there's just no possible physical way for photons to traverse that much plasma and *not* be reshifted by several different *known* plasma redshift mechanisms. Chen even linked the number of free electrons in the plasma with the amount of redshift. Evidently quite a few extra electrons are running around inside that million degree plasma they just found around our galaxy. You mean to tell me that you expect to see *zero* plasma redshift as described by Chen even when passing though that much plasma? How can that possibly be the case?

 

[Michael]

So it's you complaining about your pet theory not holding up on its own?

No, this particular thread is devoted to complaining about the fact that the mainstream has never justified *any* of their irrational claims about space expansion, inflation, dark energy or dark matter.

It would take an act of God, and nothing short of a miracle, for plasma redshift to not be responsible for any of the redshift we see from space.

Lambda-CDM theory is a denial based belief system that is incapable of responding to recent data, and incapable of moving forward in the modern industrial age. Sooner or later you'll have to wake up and notice that four types of plasma redshift have been observed in the lab since expansion theories were first proposed to explain redshifted photons from space.

Furthermore the plasma densities of space are *significantly higher* than ever imagined by the mainstream, as observed in just the past five years.

Simple SUSY theories were tested and falsified at LHC and many observations have falsified mainstream galaxy mass estimation techniques in recent years. They can't even properly count stars yet and they're just noticing the plasma around our galaxy this year! No wonder mass is still 'missing' in their theories.

Oy vey.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

Do you even read my posts? I have clearly said that nearly every cosmologist HAS done their homework in regards to this topic, and they reject it.

And you still haven't said if you understand that highly technical stuff you;ve been posting.

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.

And you know this how? Did you do a survey? How precisely have you determined that the vast majority of cosmologists are uneducated when it come to plasma phenomena?

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.

Yeah, it's all a big conspiracy. There there, they'll be found out...

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.

If you think that if it can't happen in the lab it isn't science, then you are even more uneducated in science than I thought.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

You can start your defense by explaining how the universe is not collapsing under the force of gravity.

Funnily enough, I;ve asked this several times and I don't recall you ever answering me...

 

[Tiberius]

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.

Providing alternatives to the accepted theory is NOT proving the accepted theory wrong.

 

[Tiberius]

You're simply hiding behind an appeal to authority fallacy.

It's not a fallacy if the authority is an actual authority on the subject.

Claiming that the BB is wrong because your plumber told you is a fallacy because your plumber is not an authority on the big bang.

Claiming a cosmologist who has spent his entire professional life studying the big bang and gathering data on it, and using that data to make testable predictions which have consistently been validated... In what way he such a person NOT an authority on the BB?

 

[Michael]

Do you even read my posts? I have clearly said that nearly every cosmologist HAS done their homework in regards to this topic, and they reject it.

You've never shown any evidence that they understand plasma redshift anymore than you do! The fact they don't incorporate *any* amount of any type of plasma redshift in their calculations would suggest that your claim is false. They show absolutely no interest in the topic, and oh ya, they're "surprised" by all that plasma, aka 'hot gas' they see in the millions of degrees, all around the galaxy!

And you still haven't said if you understand that highly technical stuff you;ve been posting.

I seem to understand it a lot better than most. I've shown you quite a few authors that know a lot more about it than I do however. Ari's work is actually the most impressive to me. So far I've seen all your world famous authors pick out exactly one mathematical "typo" in his arguments (S sub 0, not s=0) and that was about it. Ari seems to know more about the plasma redshift topic than anyone I know.

And you know this how? Did you do a survey? How precisely have you determined that the vast majority of cosmologists are uneducated when it come to plasma phenomena?

I've personally spent the better part of seven years debating them in cyberspace, and I regularly ask them if they've read any of Alfven's book, specifically Cosmic Plasma. I think I've met a total of three that have read his book, and perhaps a forth that I shamed into finally reading it. In terms of raw percentages, that's around 1 percent of the astronomers I've talked to. Have you read that book? Alfven did write the Nobel prize winning book on plasma physics theory, and he was the first plasma physicist to apply MHD theory to the topic of space.

Yeah, it's all a big conspiracy. There there, they'll be found out...

Psst.... They've already been "found out" by the entire PC/EU community.

They were in fact "found out" a few months ago, when their convection predictions were falsified by SDO data. It's happening as we speak thanks to a lot of new hardware that was built and launched by some fabulous, hard working engineers. The technology leaps over the past decade have been unbelievable, particularly in terms of solar physics and high energy astronomy.

If you think that if it can't happen in the lab it isn't science, then you are even more uneducated in science than I thought.

So "God" is a "scientific" theory, regardless of whether or not God shows up in the lab. Is that what you're saying?

 

[Michael]

It's not a fallacy if the authority is an actual authority on the subject.

You've actually never demonstrated that you personally even speak for that authority.

Claiming that the BB is wrong because your plumber told you is a fallacy because your plumber is not an authority on the big bang.

Assuming the plumber has a love of astronomy, and can carefully and methodically explain his positions, it's possible he might know quite a bit about it actually. I don't tend to make a lot of "assumptions" about people based upon their profession like you apparently do.

You're still playing that appeal to authority fallacy to the exclusion of any other logical or scientific argument. The empirical facts work *against*, not with your "experts" in terms of the causes of redshifted photons. While a cause/effect link has been established between reshifted photons and the Wolf effect, Stark redshift, Compton redshift and what Chen et all called "plasma redshift" (same as Ari or Ashmore?), none has been made between redshifted photons and "dark energy". Whereas the known causes of redshift might produce useful tangible goods, the only useful thing about dark energy is to plug the gaps of one otherwise falsified cosmology theory.

Claiming a cosmologist who has spent his entire professional life studying the big bang and gathering data on it, and using that data to make testable predictions which have consistently been validated... In what way he such a person NOT an authority on the BB?

Oy Vey! It's hard to even know where to start. The most recent gap stuffing event (about 18 years ago) took place when 'dark energy' got stuffed into the gaps of a *falsified* BB theory. BB theory has made more FAILED predictions over it's history than it's made "accurate" ones. In fact most of the "accurate" stuff wasn't ever a "prediction" at all, it was a 'postdiction'' based on known observations of the time.

Those "testable" predictions went up in smoke at LHC. Simple SUSY theory bit the dust at LHC, and the Higgs was found at an energy state the precludes even the need for SUSY theory entirely!

It *failed* to predict that the universe was twice as bright, and more populated with smaller stars than we now know exist. It failed to incorporate *any* of the technological and lab documented forms of plasma redshift, and it failed to predict those million degree plasma bubbles around galaxies. Lambda-CDM theory has failed failed and failed some more in recent data. It's biting the dust in every new study, *literally*. We're discovering they *massively* underestimated the amount of scattering going on in the universe and the universe is twice as bright as they thought. Honestly, your understanding of actual history seems limited to something you read in a couple of recent textbooks on Lambda-CDM study, but not recent enough to incorporate the LHC findings, and not recent enough to incorporate any of those other links I've handed you on a silver platter.

 

[Michael]

Providing alternatives to the accepted theory is NOT proving the accepted theory wrong.

I've handed you four empirical examples of plasma redshift in the lab, and Holoshko handed you even more historical information on this topic *and* C# code to 'test' these ideas. That's about the best anyone might ever do in terms of offering you empirically tested alternatives and quantified alternatives.

Whereas static universe theory predicted plasma redshift/tired light, Lambda-CDM theory did not. Whereas plasma redshift shows up in the lab *and* works out on paper, Lambda-CDM only works on paper.

I can't disprove a negative, and you've never shown any empirical cause/effect link between the phenomenon of redshifted photons and "dark energy". You've offered no source, no control mechanism and no demonstration of concept in the lab. In fact you haven't even offered a suggestion as to how your idea might *ever* be put the test in the lab.

 

[Michael]

You can start your defense by explaining how the universe is not collapsing under the force of gravity.

Um, I think you massively misunderstand the point of this particular thread. I'm simply pointing out the irrational nature of claiming to have built a "dark energy camera". I'm not obligated to defend anything in this thread. The mainstream is obligated to make their case in court, and they haven't got a prayer's chance in hell of ever doing that in a controlled experiment in a courtroom setting.

On the other hand, plasma redshift probably could be demonstrated in a courtroom setting, maybe several versions.

Funnily enough, I;ve asked this several times and I don't recall you ever answering me...

I've answered it several times now actually. It's probably stable due to persistent EM fields and momentum. Gravity doesn't cause the Earth to immediately fall into the sun. Momentum and kinetic energy play a vital role in stability, not just gravity. It's also entirely possible that we live inside of an infinite universe and gravity is simply "balanced" over distance.

I've humored you several times now, and defending PC theory isn't even the point of this thread.

 

[mzungu]

Um, I think you massively misunderstand the point of this particular thread. I'm simply pointing out the irrational nature of claiming to have built a "dark energy camera". I'm not obligated to defend anything in this thread. The mainstream is obligated to make their case in court, and they haven't got a prayer's chance in hell of ever doing that in a controlled experiment in a courtroom setting.

On the other hand, plasma redshift probably could be demonstrated in a courtroom setting, maybe several versions.



I've answered it several times now actually. It's probably stable due to persistent EM fields and momentum. Gravity doesn't cause the Earth to immediately fall into the sun. Momentum and kinetic energy play a vital role in stability, not just gravity. It's also entirely possible that we live inside of an infinite universe and gravity is simply "balanced" over distance.

I've humored you several times now, and defending PC theory isn't even the point of this thread.

Steady state cannot justify why the universe has not collapsed due to gravity. Now unless you have something other than cartoon physics to try to convince us that your hypothesis can hold water then suffice it to say that snakes do not talk and hiding behind so called scientific theories does not and cannot hide your creationist motives!

 

[Elendur]

Unless one of you can explain how to "test" your theory the way plasma redshift has been tested, yep. There is no empirical cause/effect justification for claiming inflation did anything or dark energy did anything to any photon in any experiment with real control mechanisms. These are mathematical claims devoid of empirical relevance in the real world.

"One of you"? So you mean that unless that question gets answered here on the forum there's no way to test it?

Math alone isn't a substitute for physics. Math alone is not an empirical demonstration of cause/effect relationships. If you can't tell me how to test their claim and demonstrate that dark energy isn't a figment of their imagination, why should I believe in the idea?

Maybe because I'm not a physicist? Don't know why you would judge the validity of a theory because of the knowledge of someone who hasn't even studied physics (past basic mechanics).

The very worst part from my perspective is that there's just no possible physical way for photons to traverse that much plasma and *not* be reshifted by several different *known* plasma redshift mechanisms. Chen even linked the number of free electrons in the plasma with the amount of redshift. Evidently quite a few extra electrons are running around inside that million degree plasma they just found around our galaxy. You mean to tell me that you expect to see *zero* plasma redshift as described by Chen even when passing though that much plasma? How can that possibly be the case?

There isn't just the redshift to take into account, there's a lot of gravity unaccounted for. (And don't give me "it could be dust, yakyak,", present a study that shows that the dust can account for that gravity to those who actually work with it!)

No, this particular thread is devoted to complaining about the fact that the mainstream has never justified *any* of their irrational claims about space expansion, inflation, dark energy or dark matter.

It would take an act of God, and nothing short of a miracle, for plasma redshift to not be responsible for any of the redshift we see from space.

Lambda-CDM theory is a denial based belief system that is incapable of responding to recent data, and incapable of moving forward in the modern industrial age. Sooner or later you'll have to wake up and notice that four types of plasma redshift have been observed in the lab since expansion theories were first proposed to explain redshifted photons from space.

Furthermore the plasma densities of space are *significantly higher* than ever imagined by the mainstream, as observed in just the past five years.

Simple SUSY theories were tested and falsified at LHC and many observations have falsified mainstream galaxy mass estimation techniques in recent years. They can't even properly count stars yet and they're just noticing the plasma around our galaxy this year! No wonder mass is still 'missing' in their theories.

Oy vey.

First you say (write) it isn't testable, now you say (write) that it has failed tests. Could you make up your mind?

 

[Michael]

"One of you"? So you mean that unless that question gets answered here on the forum there's no way to test it?

Surely you don't think this is the first time I've asked anyone for a method to "test" the idea on Earth in a lab with real control mechanisms do you? I've asked hundreds of astronomers the same question. They can't answer it any better than you can. They can't name a source of dark energy, so they certainly can't name a control mechanism. They certainly never came up with a photon redshift lab experiment based on 'dark energy'.

Instead they insist on pointing to the sky and claiming their trio of invisible friends did it, and "Don't worry about empirical physics".

The problem is that it would literally take an act of God almighty himself to prevent *any* plasma redshift from occurring in space. It occurs in the lab in at least four flavors, and *must* occur in spacetime as well.

Instead of dealing with the facts from the lab, Lambda-CDM proponents ignore the lab results entirely, claim they aren't important or relevant to cosmology theory in a plasma universe, and then proceed to ignore the laws of plasma physics entirely.

I'm not really expecting you to do anything that hundreds of astronomers were incapable of doing, I'm just pointing out that unless you have a magic rabbit in your hat, the idea is completely untestable in the lab.

Maybe because I'm not a physicist? Don't know why you would judge the validity of a theory because of the knowledge of someone who hasn't even studied physics (past basic mechanics).

There really isn't anything "physical' about their theory. All they are doing is replacing a zero in a GR formula with a non negative constant, and calling it 'dark energy'. It's math exercise, not a physics experiment.

There isn't just the redshift to take into account, there's a lot of gravity unaccounted for. (And don't give me "it could be dust, yakyak,", present a study that shows that the dust can account for that gravity to those who actually work with it!)

I just presented you with several articles done by the mainstream themselves that showed that they underestimated the number of small stars in a galaxy, discovered the universe is more dusty and twice as bright as they imagined. They just 'discovered' more mass around our galaxy that exists in all the stars in the galaxy. Not only did they find their missing baryonic material, it's located *outside* the main body of mass, and it's positioned perfectly to account for faster galaxy rotation patterns. In other words it's a "fit" with their missing mass needs, but it's composed of ordinary matter.

First you say (write) it isn't testable, now you say (write) that it has failed tests. Could you make up your mind?

It's possible to test SUSY theory and several simple SUSY theories bit the dust at LHC. Why 'test' if you have no intention of abiding by the results?

It's not possible to test dark energy or inflation because there is no known source and only objects move in the lab. Space doesn't expand on Earth.

 

[Michael]

Steady state cannot justify why the universe has not collapsed due to gravity.

Of course it can. Einstein did it himself. He never characterized the nature of his constant mind you, but I'd use an ordinary EM field myself.

Now unless you have something other than cartoon physics to try to convince us that your hypothesis can hold water then suffice it to say that snakes do not talk and hiding behind so called scientific theories does not and cannot hide your creationist motives!

You really haven't been listening to me. I'm not a "creationist", not a young earth creationist, nor a young universe creationists. For all I know this universe is eternal and it has been here forever and ever and ever. Do you understand my beliefs on this issue?

Plasma physics is not "cartoon physics", it actually works in a lab. EM fields can and do accelerate plasma in controlled experimentation, and plasma redshifts photons on a regular basis in the lab.

Invisible sky entities are "cartoon physics" which is why they never show up in labs on Earth. You can keep your cartoon physics. I'm personally quite happy with empirical lab tested physics thank you very much.