DITTO:Please explain this in detail in your own words to show that it is both true and understood by you.
Upvote
0
DITTO:Please explain this in detail in your own words to show that it is both true and understood by you.
It's much more fun IMO (and more personally gratifying) to publicly point out their nonsense. It's also cheaper.
Please explain this in detail in your own words to show that it is both true and understood by you.
So why not take it to the press or some scientific establishment*, rather than an internet forum or blogs?
Your idea (if true) would shake our knowledge of the universe as we know it yet you seem remarkably blase about it all, instead merely debating with people on the internet.
*Potential conspiracy theory incoming
"In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level."
So in other words, it could emit, absorb or scatter light, just not to the degree at which we can detect most of it with our current technology.
So pretty much exactly what we've been saying all along.
Cold dark matter
Main article: Cold dark matter
Today, cold dark matter is the simplest explanation for most cosmological observations. "Cold" dark matter is dark matter composed of constituents with a free-streaming length much smaller than the ancestor of a galaxy-scale perturbation. This is currently the area of greatest interest for dark matter research, as hot dark matter does not seem to be viable for galaxy and galaxy cluster formation, and most particle candidates become non-relativistic at very early times, hence are classified as cold.
The composition of the constituents of cold dark matter is currently unknown. Possibilities range from large objects like MACHOs (such as black holes[70]) or RAMBOs, to new particles like WIMPs and axions. Possibilities involving normal baryonic matter include brown dwarfs or perhaps small, dense chunks of heavy elements.
Studies of big bang nucleosynthesis and gravitational lensing have convinced most scientists[5][71][72][73][74][75] that MACHOs of any type cannot be more than a small fraction of the total dark matter.[3][71] Black holes of nearly any mass are ruled out as a primary dark matter constituent by a variety of searches and constraints.[71][73] According to A. Peter: "...the only really plausible dark-matter candidates are new particles." [72]
The DAMA/NaI experiment and its successor DAMA/LIBRA have claimed to directly detect dark matter particles passing through the Earth, but many scientists remain skeptical, as negative results from similar experiments seem incompatible with the DAMA results.
Many supersymmetric models naturally give rise to stable dark matter candidates in the form of the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (LSP). Separately, heavy sterile neutrinos exist in non-supersymmetric extensions to the standard model that explain the small neutrino mass through the seesaw mechanism.
Most members of the press don't understand the implications of plasma redshift and it's implications to mainstream theory. I think of myself more as an "educator" in various alternative ideas at the moment. If the press is interested, they'll pick it up.
The problem is that lots of folks have written about tired light theories and have written about observed forms of plasma redshift, including Emil Wolf himself. The mainstream has never once batted an eye at any empirically observed form of plasma redshift. I've personally written about several topics in astronomy and so far, no response from the mainstream. What might I personally do that is so Earth shattering anyway? I can pick on them publicly, but that's about it.
I can and do attempt to "do my part" in educating the public, but frankly the mainstream doesn't allow for that on their websites. *In fact, they hold actual witch hunts, burn their heretics at the public stake, and close all "against the mainstream" threads after thirty days and nobody can ever discuss that topic again there.
*You seem to want a conspiracy claim, and frankly that's exactly how Cosmo Quest handles their "skeptics".
So your excuse is that the press is too thick to understand what your saying? Or that they simply do not care?
I'm the first to admit that I reject pretty much all of mainstream theory in favor of electric universe theory. So what? That's actually very typical for all PC/EU proponents. Once you lose your faith in mainstream metaphysical dogma, it's pretty much an all or nothing proposition and it's virtually impossible to buy into any type of metaphysical dogma anymore.We both know your ideas go beyond just plasma redshift (which actually doesn't show many results on a simple google search).
First of all, what passes for modern "science" in this case doesn't actually "explain" anything. "Dark" things are ultimately nothing more than a placeholder term for what amounts to human ignorance, and 96 percent of their theory is based upon placeholder terms for human ignorance. They can't even say where "dark energy" might come from, and several simple SUSY theories bit the dust at LHC. Mainstream theory isn't an 'explanation' in the first place.Well you certainly didn't disappoint me did you.
My point was your actions do not seem to be of a man who confidently believes he has knowledge that is beyond what modern science has/can explain.
If you give a name to an admission of gross ignorance—‘dark matter’, ‘dark energy’—then you may eventually believe you have explained something.
Dark matter, dark energy, inflation, etc are such items, ones on which history will probably pass unfavourable judgement.
The many well-qualified critics of the big bang have rightly lambasted dark matter and dark energy as ‘hypothetical entities’ or ‘fudge factors’.
The need for the dark energy has been invoked by a need to explain the acceleration of distant galaxies. Besides the supernova data, there is no hard evidence for this additional long-range force.
FYI, I actually included the hyperlink from the WIKI page to a useful reference on this topic, if you don't understand the implications:
3.7 Baryonic matter for An Introduction to the Science of Cosmology
I think under the circumstances, it's better you explain to me in your own words so we know that *you* understand the implications of all dark matter being "normal" matter. It's not as simple as you make it sound for the mainstream to simply give up on the idea of SUSY theory. They are emotionally and scientifically heavily invested in exotic types of matter.
The persons cited by Michael by Michael appear to by these:http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0062v1.pdf
http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf
You may already know, but Herman Holushko has plugged the supernova data into a generic tired light/plasma redshift theory, and it also explains those same supernova "broadening" (not time dilation) features. Holushko even included C# code to test the spectral aging characteristics.
"Lyndon AshmoreAshmore has taken Chen's recent findings in the lab, and applied them to Hubble's Law. Ashmore also has suggestions on how to 'test' his ideas, as does Holushko.
The persons cited by Michael by Michael appear to by these:
Apparently in your mind it's bad to use computer technology in cosmology or something? What's with this cult anyway? Whatever you can't accomplish in the lab, you try to make up for by attacking individuals?Herman Holushko has an engineering degree, and runs a software company in Canada.
Mr.Holushko has plugged some data into some software he apparently wrote himself.
Avoidance. I thought so.
Didn't answer the question and shifted the burden onto me. How typical this is.
He goes on to talk about various SUSY theories including Axions, WIMPS, nutralinos and other SUSY related theories. In other words, they can't divorce themselves from magical forms of matter and make other parts of their theory work correctly even if they wanted to, and of course they don't want to. It doesn't matter how many SUSY theories LHC falsified and put to rest in the lab, astronomers keep pointing at the sky and claiming WIMPS did it.3.11 The non-baryonic dark matter
We have seen that there is strong evidence from the dynamics of galaxies and galaxy clusters that the matter which makes up the Universe constitutes about 35% of the critical density. At the same time the theory of nucleosynthesis in the early Universe leads to the conclusion that the only matter that we know of, matter made from baryons, amounts to, at most, 6% of the critical density... The conclusion is that at least 85% of the matter is of an unknown form. Attempts have been made to escape from this unpalatable admission of our ignorance. For example, considerable effort has gone into attempts to modify the standard picture of big-bang nucleosynthesis by considering the possibility that the baryons were distributed in a clumpy fashion at the epoch of nucleosynthesis (Schramm and Turner 1998). By adjusting the density of the clumps and the typical distance between them it was hoped that the predicted baryon density could be raised sufficiently to close the gap between and thus remove the need for non-baryonic dark matter. In the end it turned out not to be possible to do this while retaining the successes of the standard theory.
If that doesn't suffice, maybe I'll round up some papers on PC theory by Peratt and Alfven for you to trashtalk next?
Apparently in your mind it's bad to use computer technology in cosmology or something? What's with this cult anyway? Whatever you can't accomplish in the lab, you try to make up for by attacking individuals?
Slap the label "science" to something and atheists will believe just about anything, including a dark energy camera sold to them by some guys that can't even name a single source of "dark energy", let alone name a way to control it. "Psst, Hey buddy! Wanna buy an invisible, er "dark energy" camera?" Oy Vey!
Sure, go back to bashing people and pretend that those empirically demonstrated forms of plasma redshift never showed up in the lab as "predicted" by every static universe theory in the universe. Without denial and ad hom attacks, astronomers have nothing, certainly nothing that actually works in the lab.
Just sayin'
The Wolf Effect can't explain shifting of spectral lines if the lines have shifted more than the line width.
FYI, I love how you just handwave away at stuff rather than provide a published rebuttal, and I noticed that you didn't actually touch any of the rest of the empirical options on the table.However, when interacting with a medium, in combination with effects such as Brillouin scattering it may produce distorted shifts greater than the linewidth of the source.
EM influences and momentum no doubt.I'm curious. If the universe is not expanding, what is prenting it from collapsing due to gravity?
No, he carefully lays out the math and shows that it does work in fact.He argues that photons are pushed out of a gravitational well. Wouldn't this mean that gravitational lensing wouldn't work?
They all relate to empirical physics and their inability to demonstrate any of their absurd claims such as:actually, I;d be very interested in seeing you detail exactly what the flaws in standard cosmology are.
We didn't detect it directly, but plasma interacts with light and it has *known and demonstrated* effects on various wavelengths of photons in the lab.I'd also be interested to see how we have directly detected this plasma which is allegedly permeating the universe.
Fortunately my life doesn't depend on the existence of dark energy, only one otherwise falsified cosmology is at risk.Would you trust a plumber when it came to open-heart surgery?
Of course this isn't a valid scientific argument either, it's apparently an appeal to authority fallacy run amuck.Would you trust a driver when it came to flying a plane? Would you trust the postman when it came to fixing your television? of course not.
Because he wrote the C# code to test these theories and they work. Why would his programming background be a problem for you? Let me guess? You can't read C# code, or you don't understand how to apply it to the redshift issue?So why are you trusting a computer engineer when it comes to cosmology?
You're essentially asking an irrelevant question. Physics isn't a popularity contest for starters, and the PC community is in fact growing all the time. The fact it's still a minority viewpoint is irrelevant. Many "scientists" have supported PC theory over the years, including the author of MHD theory.well, we've asked questions about it and not got any answers. I've asked you why PC is not accepted in the general scientific community if it has so much evidence, and you've replied with vague claims about how it's a big conspiracy about how scientists don't want to change their views.
Ooops, you missed a point:
FYI, I love how you just handwave away at stuff rather than provide a published rebuttal, and I noticed that you didn't actually touch any of the rest of the empirical options on the table.