Before the Beginning of Time - Hawkings

[sjastro]

Boloney. I directly quoted the article and Lerner.



Nope. Where did you see the term LCDM or anything that deviates from this quote from the article?



I simply quoted the article and I was quite specific about *not* using the term "LCDM". In fact I even pointed out that the various ad hoc elements you need to actually get a fit aren't supported by the observational data.



No I didn't even use the term LCMD in the first place. You simply made that up.



No, quoting the article isn't "spin doctoring", it's simply quoting the article.



I suggest you stop with the strawmen and personal attacks. It's getting boring.

I simply said exactly what the article itself said:



And by the way, the static universe theory passes other complicated "tests" as well at LCDM too, not just the surface brightness test:

[1312.0003] Alcock-Paczynski cosmological test

Of course a static universe theory doesn't require your four metaphysical claims, or your claims about galaxy evolution which don't even jive with observation of the early universe.

These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the expanding Universe hypothesis.

Since this quote is waved around as some sort of trump card, you should have considered the ramifications of the statement more carefully, which is made clearer in the following passages.

Based on the analysis of the UV surface brightness of luminous disk galaxies from HUDF and GALEX 5, we show that the surface brightness remains constant~datasets, reaching from the local Universe to z as expected in a SEU.

Consistent with those preliminary reports and contrary to earlier conclusions by other authors, we here show that the surface brightness of these galaxies remains constant over the entire redshift range explored.

We find that the UV surface brightness of luminous disk galaxies are constant over a very wide redshift range (from z = 0.03 to z ~ 5). From this analysis we conclude that the Tolman test for surface brightness dimming is consistent with a non-expanding, Euclidean Universe with distance proportional to redshift.

For someone who argues Olbers’ paradox is clearly wrong because surface brightness cannot be constant while at the same time supporting Lerner’s paper is suffering from serious cognitive dissonance.
Furthermore your link [1312.0003] Alcock-Paczynski cosmological test included Lerner’s model (Static Universe with a linear Hubble law) was one of four models that failed.
Only two models the ∧CDM and a static Universe with tired light were inside the 95% confidence limit.

You cannot take a trick.
Apart from putting your foot in your mouth by referring to a cosmological test that ticks off Lerner’s model as a “fail”; supporting the model is an admission your rebuttal of Olbers’ paradox was wrong.
Is that why you have chickened out from supplying independent verification due to the enormous hole you have dug for yourself complete with quick setting concrete.

 

[Michael]

Since this quote is waved around as some sort of trump card, you should have considered the ramifications of the statement more carefully, which is made clearer in the following passages.

It's only a "trump card" as it relates to your "liar, liar, pants on fire" routine since I was simply paraphrasing the article to start with.

You surface brightness argument isn't valid beyond a certain distance as your 200 billion missing stars and 100,000 missing galaxies in the night sky demonstrates because at some point the flux from the object becomes too dim to even observe the object with the naked eye. Surface brightness probably is consistent within a specific range (That Earth and Mars example for instance), and with specific telescope enhancement, but when it comes to the limits of human eyesight, there obviously is a distance limit to that claim. What you're calling "flux" drops off with the inverse square law anyway so so called "surface brightness" becomes inapplicable as your 200 billion missing stars so clearly demonstrates. At some point we just don't receive enough photons to register the object with our limited human eyesight. Telescopes and long duration CCD images may overcome that limitation but it doesn't solve your human eyesight problem or your flux problem.

You've also never provided an adequate explanation for those missing stars and galaxies either, so your so called 'cement' is more like muddy water.

I haven't found any *published* literature yet to support my Olber's paradox arguments, but I haven't given up yet, and it wouldn't change my position either way. You still have a *massive* flux problem and a human eyesight problem that you haven't accounted for. You're also flat out ignoring the fact that *all* cosmology models offer a redshift explanation of some kind, so the redshift aspect of your Obler's paradox claim isn't even unique to an expanding cosmology model in the first place. That's a major oversight on your part. Doh!

Your point about Lerner's model *not* passing that 2nd cosmology test seems to be correct however. I missed that. I'll have to take a closer look at the second Alcock-Pacznsky test to be sure I fully and correctly understand the actual (mathematical) differences between a static universe model with tired light, vs. a static universe model with linear Hubble law. Obviously there's an important difference between the two.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Unless you can show me a study that shows that gamma rays and x-rays show *exactly* the same amount of redshift as radio waves, through the whole spectrum, I have no reason to believe that all wavelengths follow that rule in first place, and that you simply made that up too.

How about optical and x-ray?

Measuring redshifts using X-ray spectroscopy of galaxy clusters: results from Ch

 

[Michael]

How about optical and x-ray?

Measuring redshifts using X-ray spectroscopy of galaxy clusters: results from Ch

Well, that's getting us closer, but.....

I've only had time to skim through the paper a bit so far, but 7 of the 46 galaxy clusters studied are considered to be "catastrophic failures" in terms of a match. Table 4 would suggest that the rest are at least "in the ballpark", but I wouldn't consider them all to be a perfect fit. Some are within the margin of errors, and some are not. Still, it does seem to suggest as overall pattern of correlation, if not a perfect match for everything on the list.

 

[sjastro]

You surface brightness argument isn't valid beyond a certain distance as your 200 billion missing stars and 100,000 missing galaxies in the night sky demonstrates because at some point the flux from the object becomes too dim to even observe the object with the naked eye. Surface brightness probably is consistent within a specific range (That Earth and Mars example for instance), and with specific telescope enhancement, but when it comes to the limits of human eyesight, there obviously is a distance limit to that claim. What you're calling "flux" drops off with the inverse square law anyway so so called "surface brightness" becomes inapplicable as your 200 billion missing stars so clearly demonstrates. At some point we just don't receive enough photons to register the object with our limited human eyesight. Telescopes and long duration CCD images may overcome that limitation but it doesn't solve your human eyesight problem or your flux problem.

You've also never provided an adequate explanation for those missing stars and galaxies either, so your so called 'cement' is more like muddy water.

Here we go again with the explanation; flux decreases as the inverse square law, surface brightness does not as it equals flux/solid angle making your argument wrong and irrelevant.
Unless you show through independent sources surface brightness does not equal flux/solid angle you are engaging in the fallacy of argument by repetition.

Also by your reasoning Lerner is wrong.
Assuming Lerner’s model is correct and the distance R vs redshift z is linear for all z, then for z=5 which is the maximum value:

R= (300000 x 5)/70 ≈ 21,500 Mpc

Within this radius according to Lerner surface brightness is constant.
The furthest object which can be seen by the naked eye is around 0.8 Mpc well inside this radius but also considerably greater than your so called “specific range” of constancy.
Lerner evidently is as wrong as everyone else but you?

I haven't found any *published* literature yet to support my Olber's paradox arguments, but I haven't given up yet, and it wouldn't change my position either way. You still have a *massive* flux problem and a human eyesight problem that you haven't accounted for. You're also flat out ignoring the fact that *all* cosmology models offer a redshift explanation of some kind, so the redshift aspect of your Obler's paradox claim isn't even unique to an expanding cosmology model in the first place. That's a major oversight on your part. Doh!

You really do produce some inane comments; this is the classic false equivalence fallacy and there is no oversight while Lerner’s model is an example of no physical explanation for redshift. Doh!

Ignoring the lack of published literature is a complete cop out but not surprising as it is motivated by removing the option of failure as you don’t have the backbone of admitting you are wrong.

As explained ad nauseum there is no “flux” or “eyesight” problem.
Since the maths is beyond your level of comprehension the importance of having counterarguments against the maths from independent sources is much more important than your arguments which are nonsensical, or at best very weak and repetitious.

You need all the help you can get.

 

[Michael]

Here we go again with the explanation; flux decreases as the inverse square law, surface brightness does not as it equals flux/solid angle making your argument wrong and irrelevant.

No, it makes Olber's argument wrong and irrelevant. Contrary to his false claim, we can be staring directly at the surface of any of those 200 billion distant stellar surfaces and still see nothing from them because there isn't enough "flux" for our eyes to register it, let alone measure it's 'surface brightness" with our eyes. His basic concept was utterly and totally flawed as those 200 billions missing stars so clearly demonstrates. It doesn't even matter if we're looking right at the surface of any of those stars, we simply don't see them due to their distance and due to the inverse square laws of light.

Unless you show through independent sources surface brightness does not equal flux/solid angle you are engaging in the fallacy of argument by repetition.

Even the term "surface brightness" has no real meaning in this context and the context of the limits human eyesight. The term "flux" in this case however does matter, and once it drops to a low enough threshold, we see absolutely nothing.

Also by your reasoning Lerner is wrong.
Assuming Lerner’s model is correct and the distance R vs redshift z is linear for all z, then for z=5 which is the maximum value:

R= (300000 x 5)/70 ≈ 21,500 Mpc

Within this radius according to Lerner surface brightness is constant.

Lerner's so called "surface brightness" is measured not by direct human eyesight, but by telescopes and CCM cameras. In that context perhaps the term "surface brightness" has some meaning, but not in the context of Olber's arguments related to what humans would see in the night sky with their naked eyes. We do in fact see *far* more stars with telescopes and CCD's than would ever be possible without them.

The furthest object which can be seen by the naked eye is around 0.8 Mpc well inside this radius but also considerably greater than your so called “specific range” of constancy.
Lerner evidently is as wrong as everyone else but you?

No, I'm willing to be reasonable. I'm willing to accept that in the context of telescopes, CCD's and long duration images, the term 'surface brightness" has some meaning and some use as well. Flux still plays the deciding role however which is why we need to use long duration images to see anything in Hubble deep field images.

You really do produce some inane comments; this is the classic false equivalence fallacy and there is no oversight while Lerner’s model is an example of no physical explanation for redshift. Doh!

Holushko offers a tired-light redshift prediction however in that second paper, so redshift over distance isn't even unique to *only* expansion models.

Ignoring the lack of published literature is a complete cop out

Why? You do it all the time in relationship to "dark matter". You have *zero* published paper that show any laboratory evidence of 'dark matter'. You even go so far as to ignore published literature that is in *direct conflict* with your beliefs too.

Is the dark matter hypothesis even falsifiable?

It doesn't matter how many "tests" your model fails, in the lab, or in space, and it doesn't matter how many published papers have shown that your baryonic mass estimation techniques are *horribly* flawed. You simply ignore *published* papers that refute your claim and you have no published paper to support your claim in the lab.

but not surprising as it is motivated by removing the option of failure as you don’t have the backbone of admitting you are wrong.

It's ironic that you pulled another of your famous projection routines, right after I just admitted that I missed the differences between Lerner's model and the second published paper involving tired light. Meanwhile you *refuse* to admit that "no neutrino' error, your howler of an error related to that "surface brightness" experiment we discussed, or Selfsim's math error which you somehow try to turn into *my* error in some twisted strawman argument of your own making.

As explained ad nauseum there is no “flux” or “eyesight” problem.

Those 200 billion missing stars and 100,000 missing galaxies in the night sky demonstrate that statement is false too, but you refuse to admit it.

Since the maths is beyond your level of comprehension

Pure personal attack. Yawn. I even fixed *and* simplified Selfsim's math error for you and everything.

the importance of having counterarguments against the maths from independent sources is much more important than your arguments which are nonsensical,

Psst: That was the whole point of demonstrating that you're 268,770 AU shells short of a valid mathematical model as you're trying to compare the brightness of the night sky to the brightness of our sun during the day. You ignored that serious math problem too.

or at best very weak and repetitious.

You need all the help you can get.

I've learned that it really doesn't matter when I point out your math errors, like when I pointed out RC's missing non-zero rate of "reconection" formula in his vacuum contraption. It doesn't matter when I point out how many "tests" your dark matter claim has failed either. Denial is a tough nut to crack with you folks.

 

[SelfSim]

Even the term "surface brightness" has no real meaning in this context and the context of the limits human eyesight. The term "flux" in this case however does matter, and once it drops to a low enough threshold, we see absolutely nothing.

If you agree that "flux" has meaning, why would "surface brightness", defined as being flux per unit of solid angle then suddenly lose its meaning?

What you have said, is totally illogical. Your claim is devoid of reason! We can dismiss such claims on the same basis. So I will.

Lerner's so called "surface brightness" is measured not by direct human eyesight, but by telescopes and CCM cameras. In that context perhaps the term "surface brightness" has some meaning, but not in the context of Olber's arguments related to what humans would see in the night sky with their naked eyes. We do in fact see *far* more stars with telescopes and CCD's than would ever be possible without them.

Where some quantity is measurable, it is used by the scientific testing process. It doesn't lose its meaning because of a lack of sensitivity in the measuring device! Get real!

No, I'm willing to be reasonable.

Then accept the reason given!

Flux still plays the deciding role however which is why we need to use long duration images to see anything in Hubble deep field images.

Out of morbid fascination, do you accept that magnetic field lines have meaning? What about magnetic flux? How about magnetic field intensity?

Pure personal attack. Yawn. I even fixed *and* simplified Selfsim's math error for you and everything.

SelfSim made no math error. You did though ... and then you proceeded to mount a major defensive argument about it, which led to the tumultuous conclusion that 0.5 equalled 1!

Do not lie about this as well!

 

[Michael]

If you agree that "flux" has meaning, why would "surface brightness", defined as being flux per unit of solid angle then suddenly lose its meaning?

It loses any meaning with respect to Olber's paradox and human eyesight as your missing 200 billion stars and 100,000 missing galaxies so clearly demonstrates. The fact of the matter is that Olber was utterly wrong when he claimed that we'd see "bright surfaces" everywhere we look, because we're looking at over 200 billion surfaces of stars and we see absolutely nothing when we're looking right at them!

Maybe the concept of surface brightness has meaning in the age of telescopes, CCD images, and long duration exposures, but it has no meaning at all to human eyesight beyond some limited distance.

What you have said, is totally illogical. Your claim is devoid of reason! We can dismiss such claims on the same basis. So I will.

My statements are not only logical, they are verified in the night sky by those missing 200 billion stars and 100,000 missing galaxies. I can therefore dismiss Olber's claim about seeing 'bright surfaces" everywhere as pure nonsense, and I will.

Where some quantity is measurable, it is used by the scientific testing process. It doesn't lose its meaning because of a lack of sensitivity in the measuring device! Get real!

It certainly does if I can't see the object, and I can't see 200 billion objects in our own galaxy in direct opposition to Olber's false assertions.

Then accept the reason given!

You haven't offered me a 'reasonable' reason and you're 268,770 AU shells, and 72+ trillion suns short of a logical explanation. There's absolutely no possible way for the night sky to be as bright as the surface of our sun during the day at a distance of 1AU. Your blatant bait and switch routine between a comparison to the brightness of our sun at 1AU to galaxies measured in *light years* of distances routine is just silly. It's neither 'reasonable' or "logical'.

Out of morbid fascination, do you accept that magnetic field lines have meaning? What about magnetic flux? How about magnetic field intensity?

Magnetic field "lines" have about a much meaning as topology lines on a 2D topology map. Magnetic fields form as a full 3D continuum. What about the 'intensity'? Clinger and RC claimed that magic "lines" disconnect and reconnect in *null* points no less. Do you buy that nonsense too?

SelfSim made no math error.

Not only did you make an error, you failed to simplify your formula and put the permutations on the outside of the sqrt function. I fixed that for you too. I used the formula properly the first time too, with the .5 on the outside of the formula, and only the number of flip attempts inside the sqrt function.

You did though ... and then you proceeded to mount a major defensive argument about it, which led to the tumultuous conclusion that 0.5 equalled 1!

No, that was sjastro's strawman argument because I used the simplified formula properly, but you did not.

Do not lie about this as well!

Pfft. That's just another of your "no neutrino" rationalizations Selfsim. You guys specifically and intentionally kludge the thing to start with, and then you compound the problem by blaming everyone else for your nonsense.

It was actually rather ironic and comical that you blew your own 'math quiz' with a typo and you ddin't even simply the formula. LOL! You blew your own pop quiz in two different ways! Doh!

 

[sjastro]

No, it makes Olber's argument wrong and irrelevant. Contrary to his false claim, we can be staring directly at the surface of any of those 200 billion distant stellar surfaces and still see nothing from them because there isn't enough "flux" for our eyes to register it, let alone measure it's 'surface brightness" with our eyes. His basic concept was utterly and totally flawed as those 200 billions missing stars so clearly demonstrates. It doesn't even matter if we're looking right at the surface of any of those stars, we simply don't see them due to their distance and due to the inverse square laws of light.



Even the term "surface brightness" has no real meaning in this context and the context of the limits human eyesight. The term "flux" in this case however does matter, and once it drops to a low enough threshold, we see absolutely nothing.



Lerner's so called "surface brightness" is measured not by direct human eyesight, but by telescopes and CCM cameras. In that context perhaps the term "surface brightness" has some meaning, but not in the context of Olber's arguments related to what humans would see in the night sky with their naked eyes. We do in fact see *far* more stars with telescopes and CCD's than would ever be possible without them.



No, I'm willing to be reasonable. I'm willing to accept that in the context of telescopes, CCD's and long duration images, the term 'surface brightness" has some meaning and some use as well. Flux still plays the deciding role however which is why we need to use long duration images to see anything in Hubble deep field images.



Holushko offers a tired-light redshift prediction however in that second paper, so redshift over distance isn't even unique to *only* expansion models.



Why? You do it all the time in relationship to "dark matter". You have *zero* published paper that show any laboratory evidence of 'dark matter'. You even go so far as to ignore published literature that is in *direct conflict* with your beliefs too.

Is the dark matter hypothesis even falsifiable?

It doesn't matter how many "tests" your model fails, in the lab, or in space, and it doesn't matter how many published papers have shown that your baryonic mass estimation techniques are *horribly* flawed. You simply ignore *published* papers that refute your claim and you have no published paper to support your claim in the lab.



It's ironic that you pulled another of your famous projection routines, right after I just admitted that I missed the differences between Lerner's model and the second published paper involving tired light. Meanwhile you *refuse* to admit that "no neutrino' error, your howler of an error related to that "surface brightness" experiment we discussed, or Selfsim's math error which you somehow try to turn into *my* error in some twisted strawman argument of your own making.



Those 200 billion missing stars and 100,000 missing galaxies in the night sky demonstrate that statement is false too, but you refuse to admit it.



Pure personal attack. Yawn. I even fixed *and* simplified Selfsim's math error for you and everything.



Psst: That was the whole point of demonstrating that you're 268,770 AU shells short of a valid mathematical model as you're trying to compare the brightness of the night sky to the brightness of our sun during the day. You ignored that serious math problem too.



I've learned that it really doesn't matter when I point out your math errors, like when I pointed out RC's missing non-zero rate of "reconection" formula in his vacuum contraption. It doesn't matter when I point out how many "tests" your dark matter claim has failed either. Denial is a tough nut to crack with you folks.

While you engage in this grotesque display of self grandiosity such as correcting everyone’s maths errors and boasting a superior insight, the rest of us can have a laugh as it is nothing more than hot air and a demonstration of the D-K effect.

Your true abilities are shown when you elevated Lerner’s model then posted a link on cosmological tests assuming the model passed with flying colours only to be informed it fails the test.
It is the level you operate at which is superficial and lacking in comprehending the detail.
Equally inept is your failure to see your rebuttal of Olbers’ paradox is so simplistic if correct would have been worked out centuries beforehand.
For someone who boasts of correcting maths errors, you seem to have forgotten the existence of independent verification was introduced as a very simple test, since the mathematical argument presented against your rebuttal was clearly beyond your intellectual capacity for comprehension.
Your inability to find one single supporting reference plus capitulating on accepting this fact settled the issue which was a foregone conclusion anyway but served its purpose.

Despite failing the test you continue to flog this dead horse which is an exercise in self delusion and aggrandizing and ultimately the only person you are fooling is yourself.

 

[Michael]

While you engage in this grotesque display of self grandiosity

You just make this stuff up as you go, and most of it boils down to pure personal attack. Yawn.

such as correcting everyone’s maths errors

Everyone's? Nah. I only ever corrected selfsim's obvious math errors, and I pointed out RC's missing math formula to describe a non-zero rate of reconnection without plasma. I can also see that you pulled a blatant bait a switch routine with respect to that Olber's paradox claim by "baiting" the argument by claiming to mathematically compare the brightness of objects in the night sky to the brightness of the sun, but then "switching" to a shell size that was something *other than* 1AU. You ended up 268,770 shells, and 72+ trillions stars short of a valid mathematical comparison to the brightness of the sun in that lame shell math. That's three math errors total at best that I pointed out.

and boasting a superior insight,

No, you're just projecting again. Even Olber solved his own so called "paradox", and so did others before him and after him too.

the rest of us can have a laugh as it is nothing more than hot air and a demonstration of the D-K effect.

Speaking of D-K effects, that "no neutrino' argument was a total howler! The fact that you two can't just admit it's a dumb error says volumes about who's suffering from obvious D-K effects.

Your true abilities are shown when you elevated Lerner’s model then posted a link on cosmological tests assuming the model passed with flying colours only to be informed it fails the test.
It is the level you operate at which is superficial and lacking in comprehending the detail.

Actually what that conversation demonstrated is that A) I, like all human beings, am capable of making mistakes, but B) unlike you I can admit them when they are pointed out to me. Compare and contrast that ability to admit my own mistakes to your "no neutrino" fiasco. Hell, you're not even capable of admitting *blatant* and completely *obvious* mistakes.

Equally inept is your failure to see your rebuttal of Olbers’ paradox is so simplistic if correct would have been worked out centuries beforehand.

Olber did so himself however, yet you folks simply ignored it just like you ignored previous solutions, and later solutions too ,like the paper I cited for you earlier in this thread. You simply handwaved at an entire paper and never even looked at it simply because it was a different solution than my solution.

For someone who boasts of correcting maths errors,

Er, "boasting" about finding a few math errors? Hardly. Most math teachers do that on a daily basis.

you seem to have forgotten the existence of independent verification was introduced as a very simple test, since the mathematical argument presented against your rebuttal was clearly beyond your intellectual capacity for comprehension.

You haven't presented any valid mathematical argument against my rebuttal. Where? When? When did you overcome that 268,770 AU shell deficit problem? When did you even acknowledge the fact that Olber was dead wrong with respect to claiming that we should see a "bright surface" everywhere we might look? You can't even see 200 billion 'bright surfaces" of stars which are located in our own galaxy because there is so little flux from them that they are *completely dark* to our eyes! Anything *behind* that star is also going to be 'dark' too or blocked, or both.

Your inability to find one single supporting reference

Bah. I handed you another solution to that paradox, I just haven't seen anyone else point out your bait and switch routine yet. I haven't given up yet, but my time is limited.

plus capitulating on accepting this fact settled the issue which was a foregone conclusion anyway but served its purpose.

Nothing is "settled" based on that *single* argument, particularly since you've not even acknowledged your 200 billion star deficit problem, or your 100,000 galaxy deficit problem, or your 268,770 AU shell deficit problem and the missing 72+ trillion stars that should be sitting in those 268,700 shells between us and the next closest star. There isn't even a single object in the night sky that has the same apparent magnitude of our sun. Your paradox is an utter *disaster* of an argument and it has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. You won't even deal with the effects of scattering or the fact that redshift isn't limited to expansion models. There's literally *nothing* valid about your entire argument from the standpoint of physics.

Despite failing the test you continue to flog this dead horse which is an exercise in self delusion and aggrandizing and ultimately the only person you are fooling is yourself.

You're the one that keeps flogging a *very* dead horse by pretending that this lame Olber's paradox argument has any merit whatsoever. Even the mere fact that redshift isn't the sole domain of expansion models sinks your mathematical battleship. Even Olber solved his own "paradox" but you insist on ignoring the fact that the light doesn't have to be absorbed, just "scattered" a tiny little bit and his argument/solution is perfectly valid.

You won't deal with the fact that your dark matter claims have failed more "tests" than I can count, including lab tests and observational tests as well, not to mention the fact that your baryonic mass estimates have been a complete disaster.

All you've managed to demonstrate in this Obler's paradox conversation is that you're *great* at pure projection, and you're utterly incapable of admitting your blatant mistakes. Your misread of that surface brightness experiment was a *classic* in fact. Moving the barrier between the light source and the surface screen didn't change the "surface brightness" one iota, it only changed the *size* of the lit surface area! Holy cow!

But you go right ahead and project your D-K effects on me, while you two continue to defend that "no neutrino" nonsense. That's just *way* too funny.

 

[sjastro]

You just make this stuff up as you go, and most of it boils down to pure personal attack. Yawn.



Everyone's? Nah. I only ever corrected selfsim's obvious math errors, and I pointed out RC's missing math formula to describe a non-zero rate of reconnection without plasma. I can also see that you pulled a blatant bait a switch routine with respect to that Olber's paradox claim by "baiting" the argument by claiming to mathematically compare the brightness of objects in the night sky to the brightness of the sun, but then "switching" to a shell size that was something *other than* 1AU. You ended up 268,770 shells, and 72+ trillions stars short of a valid mathematical comparison to the brightness of the sun in that lame shell math. That's three math errors total at best that I pointed out.



No, you're just projecting again. Even Olber solved his own so called "paradox", and so did others before him and after him too.



Speaking of D-K effects, that "no neutrino' argument was a total howler! The fact that you two can't just admit it's a dumb error says volumes about who's suffering from obvious D-K effects.



Actually what that conversation demonstrated is that A) I, like all human beings, am capable of making mistakes, but B) unlike you I can admit them when they are pointed out to me. Compare and contrast that ability to admit my own mistakes to your "no neutrino" fiasco. Hell, you're not even capable of admitting *blatant* and completely *obvious* mistakes.



Olber did so himself however, yet you folks simply ignored it just like you ignored previous solutions, and later solutions too ,like the paper I cited for you earlier in this thread. You simply handwaved at an entire paper and never even looked at it simply because it was a different solution than my solution.



Er, "boasting" about finding a few math errors? Hardly. Most math teachers do that on a daily basis.



You haven't presented any valid mathematical argument against my rebuttal. Where? When? When did you overcome that 268,770 AU shell deficit problem? When did you even acknowledge the fact that Olber was dead wrong with respect to claiming that we should see a "bright surface" everywhere we might look? You can't even see 200 billion 'bright surfaces" of stars which are located in our own galaxy because there is so little flux from them that they are *completely dark* to our eyes! Anything *behind* that star is also going to be 'dark' too or blocked, or both.



Bah. I handed you another solution to that paradox, I just haven't seen anyone else point out your bait and switch routine yet. I haven't given up yet, but my time is limited.



Nothing is "settled" based on that *single* argument, particularly since you've not even acknowledged your 200 billion star deficit problem, or your 100,000 galaxy deficit problem, or your 268,770 AU shell deficit problem and the missing 72+ trillion stars that should be sitting in those 268,700 shells between us and the next closest star. There isn't even a single object in the night sky that has the same apparent magnitude of our sun. Your paradox is an utter *disaster* of an argument and it has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. You won't even deal with the effects of scattering or the fact that redshift isn't limited to expansion models. There's literally *nothing* valid about your entire argument from the standpoint of physics.



You're the one that keeps flogging a *very* dead horse by pretending that this lame Olber's paradox argument has any merit whatsoever. Even the mere fact that redshift isn't the sole domain of expansion models sinks your mathematical battleship. Even Olber solved his own "paradox" but you insist on ignoring the fact that the light doesn't have to be absorbed, just "scattered" a tiny little bit and his argument/solution is perfectly valid.

You won't deal with the fact that your dark matter claims have failed more "tests" than I can count, including lab tests and observational tests as well, not to mention the fact that your baryonic mass estimates have been a complete disaster.

All you've managed to demonstrate in this Obler's paradox conversation is that you're *great* at pure projection, and you're utterly incapable of admitting your blatant mistakes. Your misread of that surface brightness experiment was a *classic* in fact. Moving the barrier between the light source and the surface screen didn't change the "surface brightness" one iota, it only changed the *size* of the lit surface area! Holy cow!

But you go right ahead and project your D-K effects on me, while you two continue to defend that "no neutrino" nonsense. That's just *way* too funny.

For all your repetitious blather and largely irrelevant post doesn't change the fact you failed the test.
You took up the challenge of the test only to chicken out when you realised there is not one single shred of support for your nonsense.
It is simply the icing on the cake and provides further confirmation that your rebuttal of Olbers' paradox is nothing more than mindless word salad that not even your friends at Tbolts agree to with their alternative takes on the paradox.
Get yourself a backbone and admit you are wrong or at least disappear to stop making a fool of yourself.

 

[Michael]

For all your repetitious blather and largely irrelevant post doesn't change the fact you failed the test.

You have some very odd self defense mechanisms when it comes to defending your beliefs, but this one has to be the most bizarre one. *You personally* defined the parameters of this so called 'test', and you simply asserted that I'm somehow obligated to 'pass' your personal test, or face more ridiculous verbal abuse from you. Talk about skewing the odds in your favor. Horse pucky.

You took up the challenge of the test

Er, no. I agreed to continue to look around a bit, and see how other folks went about "solving" your so called paradox, but that doesn't mean that I agreed to agree with you if others didn't point out *all* of the very same problems in a single paper that I cited for you!

I did in fact find out through these discussions that this so called 'paradox' was solved by Thomas Digges *before Olber was even born*, essentially based on the inverse square laws, although they weren't even fully understood at that time. I also found out that Olber himself solved his own paradox based on absorption and/or scattering, which is *another* weakness of your argument that I cited at the start. You tried to deal with Olber's 'solution' by throwing in some more cheesy nonsensical math related to the same "bait and switch' routine you pulled originally. Olber didn't even have a clue about the existence of other galaxies. His arguments were based entirely upon the number of stars in various shells, and you came up 268,770 shells, and about 72+ *trillion* stars short of a rational argument based on his original shell claims. Even the fact you're missing at least 200 billion stars in our own galaxy, and 100,000 galaxies in our local supercluster in the night sky demonstrates that Olber's *assumption* about every surface in the line of human eyesight being "bright" to our eyes is utter nonsense. We're looking directly at over 200 billion stellar surfaces in our own galaxy which are *utterly dark to our naked eyes*, not "very bright" as Olber falsely claimed, demonstrating conclusively that Digges was right all along.

only to chicken out when you realised there is not one single shred of support for your nonsense.

That's utterly false. I found several different solutions to this problem for you, typically based on just *one* of the problems that I listed for you, just not all of them listed in the very same paper.

FYI, I did in fact find a conversation at PhysicsForums that sounded remarkably similar to this conversation because he too pointed out that the inverse square laws are the obvious solution to the problem, so of course the individual was ultimately banned, just as he predicted.

Inverse square law resolves Olbers' paradox

At no time did I "chicken out". In fact, I *will* continue to study this issue over time. That doesn't mean that I'm obligated to pass *your tests*, or else.

The irony of course is that my complaints about LCDM are ultimately based on *your complete lack of empirical cause/effect evidence to support any of your important claims*! You've not only chickened out when it comes to dealing with that problem, you *refuse* to even *try* to deal with it. It doesn't matter to you that you're utterly incapable of demonstrating in published literature that exotic matter has been shown to exist in a lab in a controlled experiment, nor has it been shown to have *any* of the properties that your otherwise failed cosmology model requires. It doesn't matter to you that you cannot even name so much as a single demonstrated source of "dark energy", let alone demonstrate that it actually exists in a controlled experiment. It doesn't matter to you that inflation can be traced back to the overactive imagination of one specific individual who tried to support their so called "free lunch" claim based on missing unicorns, er "monopoles", as though a non-existent hypothetical entity needs "explaining' in the first place! It doesn't matter to you that "space expansion' has never been empirical demonstrated to have any effect on a single photon in a controlled experiment. I doesn't even matter to you that you can't explain why the whole thing didn't implode in an instant due to the fact that all the mass/energy was concentrated to something smaller than it's own Schwartzchild radius!

It doesn't even matter to you that your non-empirically demonstrated nonsense has failed more observational tests than it actually passes either, or that your Obler's paradox claim has *visually demonstrated holes in it*:

All that seems to matter to you is that someone told you that Olber's paradox had no solution without an expansion model, but that was an *obviously false claim* because redshift is *explained* and predicted in other tired light mechanisms and redshift predictions are not limited to expansion models in the first place!

It is simply the icing on the cake and provides further confirmation that your rebuttal of Olbers' paradox is nothing more than mindless word salad that not even your friends at Tbolts agree to with their alternative takes on the paradox.

Psst: *Everyone* is a unique individual, with individual ways of "resolving" the paradox, even the folks at Tbolts. Digges solved it one way. Olber himself did it another way. I simply haven't found a paper that solved it in *numerous* ways, all in the same way yet, that's all.

Get yourself a backbone and admit you are wrong or at least disappear to stop making a fool of yourself.

More pure projection on your part. You didn't even have the backbone to admit that your "no neutrino' argument was pure unadulterated nonsense. You didn't admit that you *botched* that inverse square law experiment that I tried (had) to explain to you. You didn't admit that you've got *zero* empirical cause/effect evidence to support any of your important LCMD claims. You didn't admit that redshift isn't *only* explained/predicted by expansion models. You didn't admit that Olber and Digges solved this so called 'paradox' before either us was even born! You didn't admit that you came up 200 billion stars, 100,000 galaxies, and 268,770 shells short of a valid mathematical argument in your blatant bait and switch routine. Please! Your projection routines are getting old and boring.

If and when I come across a paper or a presentation that includes *all* of the flaws in your argument that I have pointed out for you, I'll post it. I have however even handed you a paper on Arxiv that resolved the problem using *one* of those errors, and you simply handwaved at it simply because it didn't address *all* of the problems in your argument, just one of them. Get real.

[astro-ph/9909340] An optical solution of Olbers' paradox

 

[sjastro]

You have some very odd self defense mechanisms when it comes to defending your beliefs, but this one has to be the most bizarre one. *You personally* defined the parameters of this so called 'test', and you simply asserted that I'm somehow obligated to 'pass' your personal test, or face more ridiculous verbal abuse from you. Talk about skewing the odds in your favor. Horse pucky.



Er, no. I agreed to continue to look around a bit, and see how other folks went about "solving" your so called paradox, but that doesn't mean that I agreed to agree with you if others didn't point out *all* of the very same problems in a single paper that I cited for you!

I did in fact find out through these discussions that this so called 'paradox' was solved by Thomas Digges *before Olber was even born*, essentially based on the inverse square laws, although they weren't even fully understood at that time. I also found out that Olber himself solved his own paradox based on absorption and/or scattering, which is *another* weakness of your argument that I cited at the start. You tried to deal with Olber's 'solution' by throwing in some more cheesy nonsensical math related to the same "bait and switch' routine you pulled originally. Olber didn't even have a clue about the existence of other galaxies. His arguments were based entirely upon the number of stars in various shells, and you came up 268,770 shells, and about 72+ *trillion* stars short of a rational argument based on his original shell claims. Even the fact you're missing at least 200 billion stars in our own galaxy, and 100,000 galaxies in our local supercluster in the night sky demonstrates that Olber's *assumption* about every surface in the line of human eyesight being "bright" to our eyes is utter nonsense. We're looking directly at over 200 billion stellar surfaces in our own galaxy which are *utterly dark to our naked eyes*, not "very bright" as Olber falsely claimed, demonstrating conclusively that Digges was right all along.



That's utterly false. I found several different solutions to this problem for you, typically based on just *one* of the problems that I listed for you, just not all of them listed in the very same paper.

FYI, I did in fact find a conversation at PhysicsForums that sounded remarkably similar to this conversation because he too pointed out that the inverse square laws are the obvious solution to the problem, so of course the individual was ultimately banned, just as he predicted.

Inverse square law resolves Olbers' paradox

At no time did I "chicken out". In fact, I *will* continue to study this issue over time. That doesn't mean that I'm obligated to pass *your tests*, or else.

The irony of course is that my complaints about LCDM are ultimately based on *your complete lack of empirical cause/effect evidence to support any of your important claims*! You've not only chickened out when it comes to dealing with that problem, you *refuse* to even *try* to deal with it. It doesn't matter to you that you're utterly incapable of demonstrating in published literature that exotic matter has been shown to exist in a lab in a controlled experiment, nor has it been shown to have *any* of the properties that your otherwise failed cosmology model requires. It doesn't matter to you that you cannot even name so much as a single demonstrated source of "dark energy", let alone demonstrate that it actually exists in a controlled experiment. It doesn't matter to you that inflation can be traced back to the overactive imagination of one specific individual who tried to support their so called "free lunch" claim based on missing unicorns, er "monopoles", as though a non-existent hypothetical entity needs "explaining' in the first place! It doesn't matter to you that "space expansion' has never been empirical demonstrated to have any effect on a single photon in a controlled experiment. I doesn't even matter to you that you can't explain why the whole thing didn't implode in an instant due to the fact that all the mass/energy was concentrated to something smaller than it's own Schwartzchild radius!

It doesn't even matter to you that your non-empirically demonstrated nonsense has failed more observational tests than it actually passes either, or that your Obler's paradox claim has *visually demonstrated holes in it*:

All that seems to matter to you is that someone told you that Olber's paradox had no solution without an expansion model, but that was an *obviously false claim* because redshift is *explained* and predicted in other tired light mechanisms and redshift predictions are not limited to expansion models in the first place!



Psst: *Everyone* is a unique individual, with individual ways of "resolving" the paradox, even the folks at Tbolts. Digges solved it one way. Olber himself did it another way. I simply haven't found a paper that solved it in *numerous* ways, all in the same way yet, that's all.



More pure projection on your part. You didn't even have the backbone to admit that your "no neutrino' argument was pure unadulterated nonsense. You didn't admit that you *botched* that inverse square law experiment that I tried (had) to explain to you. You didn't admit that you've got *zero* empirical cause/effect evidence to support any of your important LCMD claims. You didn't admit that redshift isn't *only* explained/predicted by expansion models. You didn't admit that Olber and Digges solved this so called 'paradox' before either us was even born! You didn't admit that you came up 200 billion stars, 100,000 galaxies, and 268,770 shells short of a valid mathematical argument in your blatant bait and switch routine. Please! Your projection routines are getting old and boring.

If and when I come across a paper or a presentation that includes *all* of the flaws in your argument that I have pointed out for you, I'll post it. I have however even handed you a paper on Arxiv that resolved the problem using *one* of those errors, and you simply handwaved at it simply because it didn't address *all* of the problems in your argument, just one of them. Get real.

[astro-ph/9909340] An optical solution of Olbers' paradox

OK you have taken the option of being a fool and I respect your decision.
Your two links provide added confirmation.
The first one is shot down in flames for the same reasons given here even though the poster makes it very clear he/she is not arguing the case for a static Universe.
The second link as I have already explained tries to do away with the inverse square law.
For you to imply these links bear any similarity to your rebuttal when in fact they contradict your core beliefs as well as each other says it all....

 

[Ophiolite]

You have some very odd self defense mechanisms when it comes to defending your beliefs, but this one has to be the most bizarre one. *You personally* defined the parameters of this so called 'test', and you simply asserted that I'm somehow obligated to 'pass' your personal test, or face more ridiculous verbal abuse from you. Talk about skewing the odds in your favor. Horse pucky.



Er, no. I agreed to continue to look around a bit, and see how other folks went about "solving" your so called paradox, but that doesn't mean that I agreed to agree with you if others didn't point out *all* of the very same problems in a single paper that I cited for you!

I did in fact find out through these discussions that this so called 'paradox' was solved by Thomas Digges *before Olber was even born*, essentially based on the inverse square laws, although they weren't even fully understood at that time. I also found out that Olber himself solved his own paradox based on absorption and/or scattering, which is *another* weakness of your argument that I cited at the start. You tried to deal with Olber's 'solution' by throwing in some more cheesy nonsensical math related to the same "bait and switch' routine you pulled originally. Olber didn't even have a clue about the existence of other galaxies. His arguments were based entirely upon the number of stars in various shells, and you came up 268,770 shells, and about 72+ *trillion* stars short of a rational argument based on his original shell claims. Even the fact you're missing at least 200 billion stars in our own galaxy, and 100,000 galaxies in our local supercluster in the night sky demonstrates that Olber's *assumption* about every surface in the line of human eyesight being "bright" to our eyes is utter nonsense. We're looking directly at over 200 billion stellar surfaces in our own galaxy which are *utterly dark to our naked eyes*, not "very bright" as Olber falsely claimed, demonstrating conclusively that Digges was right all along.



That's utterly false. I found several different solutions to this problem for you, typically based on just *one* of the problems that I listed for you, just not all of them listed in the very same paper.

FYI, I did in fact find a conversation at PhysicsForums that sounded remarkably similar to this conversation because he too pointed out that the inverse square laws are the obvious solution to the problem, so of course the individual was ultimately banned, just as he predicted.

Inverse square law resolves Olbers' paradox

At no time did I "chicken out". In fact, I *will* continue to study this issue over time. That doesn't mean that I'm obligated to pass *your tests*, or else.

The irony of course is that my complaints about LCDM are ultimately based on *your complete lack of empirical cause/effect evidence to support any of your important claims*! You've not only chickened out when it comes to dealing with that problem, you *refuse* to even *try* to deal with it. It doesn't matter to you that you're utterly incapable of demonstrating in published literature that exotic matter has been shown to exist in a lab in a controlled experiment, nor has it been shown to have *any* of the properties that your otherwise failed cosmology model requires. It doesn't matter to you that you cannot even name so much as a single demonstrated source of "dark energy", let alone demonstrate that it actually exists in a controlled experiment. It doesn't matter to you that inflation can be traced back to the overactive imagination of one specific individual who tried to support their so called "free lunch" claim based on missing unicorns, er "monopoles", as though a non-existent hypothetical entity needs "explaining' in the first place! It doesn't matter to you that "space expansion' has never been empirical demonstrated to have any effect on a single photon in a controlled experiment. I doesn't even matter to you that you can't explain why the whole thing didn't implode in an instant due to the fact that all the mass/energy was concentrated to something smaller than it's own Schwartzchild radius!

It doesn't even matter to you that your non-empirically demonstrated nonsense has failed more observational tests than it actually passes either, or that your Obler's paradox claim has *visually demonstrated holes in it*:

All that seems to matter to you is that someone told you that Olber's paradox had no solution without an expansion model, but that was an *obviously false claim* because redshift is *explained* and predicted in other tired light mechanisms and redshift predictions are not limited to expansion models in the first place!



Psst: *Everyone* is a unique individual, with individual ways of "resolving" the paradox, even the folks at Tbolts. Digges solved it one way. Olber himself did it another way. I simply haven't found a paper that solved it in *numerous* ways, all in the same way yet, that's all.



More pure projection on your part. You didn't even have the backbone to admit that your "no neutrino' argument was pure unadulterated nonsense. You didn't admit that you *botched* that inverse square law experiment that I tried (had) to explain to you. You didn't admit that you've got *zero* empirical cause/effect evidence to support any of your important LCMD claims. You didn't admit that redshift isn't *only* explained/predicted by expansion models. You didn't admit that Olber and Digges solved this so called 'paradox' before either us was even born! You didn't admit that you came up 200 billion stars, 100,000 galaxies, and 268,770 shells short of a valid mathematical argument in your blatant bait and switch routine. Please! Your projection routines are getting old and boring.

If and when I come across a paper or a presentation that includes *all* of the flaws in your argument that I have pointed out for you, I'll post it. I have however even handed you a paper on Arxiv that resolved the problem using *one* of those errors, and you simply handwaved at it simply because it didn't address *all* of the problems in your argument, just one of them. Get real.

[astro-ph/9909340] An optical solution of Olbers' paradox

Forum rules, quite rightly, prohibit the application of the "Funny" icon to posts when it is used to ridicule them, rather than applaud a piece of humour.

So I didn't.

 

[Michael]

OK you have taken the option of being a fool and I respect your decision.

Projecting again I see. That seems to be your favorite pastime as of late.

Your two links provide added confirmation.
The first one is shot down in flames for the same reasons given here even though the poster makes it very clear he/she is not arguing the case for a static Universe.

Actually the conversation at PhysicsForums got shut down in a banning and a burning of the heretic, as is typical anytime and every time that LCDM proponents get "questioned" by anyone for any reason. So much for 'free thought' and open discourse.

The second link as I have already explained tries to do away with the inverse square law.
For you to imply these links bear any similarity to your rebuttal when in fact they contradict your core beliefs as well as each other says it all....

Actually, the fact that you won't even deal with the solution in that Arxiv paper says it all.

The scientifically lame and bankrupt 'Olber's paradox' has been solved a half dozen different ways since Thomas Digges originally solved it *before* Olber was even born based on only a vague understanding of the inverse square laws. It was even solved by Heinrich Olber himself based on the scattering/absorption of light, which can even be verified in various images of the universe.

That so called 'paradox' has been solved by many other authors, in many ways since Olber solved it too.

You simply ignore and deny every possible empirical solution to the problem in favor of a goofy 'bait (stars) and switch (galaxies)' routine that is *obviously* 200 billion stars, 100,000 galaxies, and 268,770 AU shells short of a valid mathematical or scientific argument. Wow.

The most devastating part of your oversimplified argument is the fact redshift has *numerous* empirical explanations in the lab, and it's a feature that is also predicted in all tired light explanations of redshift, yet you ignore all possible empirical explanations for redshift other than a single metaphysical claim that's not even based on an empirically demonstrated cause/effect mechanism to start with! Man, oh man, what a lame and absurd argument. It's right up there with your "no neutrino" D-K effect nonsense.

It's very obvious that LCMD proponents don't even begin to understand any cosmology model other than the LCDM model, and the LCDM model isn't even based on real "knowledge' to start with. A full 95 percent of the LCDM model is based on nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance, not real empirical physics. The other 5 percent is mostly mathematically modeled with pure 'pseudoscience' according to the author of MHD theory. Basically *nothing* about LCDM is actually based on empirical 'knowledge' or empirical physics. It's mostly just invisible metaphysical nonsense and pseudoscientific superstition.

You may be very happy wallowing around in the metaphysical dark ages of astronomy, with a cosmology model that enjoys no better empirical support in the lab than astrology, but that just doesn't work for me. I'll take empirical solutions to cosmology (and any scientific) problems every single time, including empirical solutions to photon redshift and empirical explanations that don't required me to toss out the standard particle physics model entirely. Thanks, but no thanks. You can keep LCDM.

 

[SelfSim]

OK you have taken the option of being a fool and I respect your decision.

Projecting again I see. That seems to be your favorite pastime as of late.

Actually, sjastro was drawing a conclusion on behalf of a purely evidenced based, logical (and scientific), viewpoint. Your claim of 'projection' on the other hand, offers only a singular, weak, individualistic opinion basis (ie: only your opinion).

You have thus excluded yourself from the scientific viewpoint, and therefore your future claims on behalf of scientific thinking (or thinkers), are also excluded ... all by your own hand.

Statements such as:

The scientifically lame and bankrupt 'Olber's paradox'

therefore, have no informed basis in scientific thinking, whatsoever.

Continued claims about these matters, would then consitute a deliberate and therefore, blatant lie on your part .. all by your own hand.

Continually using such lies to demean other individual members of the forum, then constitutes a sustained Ad-Hom attack on such members .. all by your own hand.

Own the responsibility for once!

And now I suppose we can all expect the pathetic: "but I'm a victim" routine .. which then only serves to exacerbate this most distasteful and highly anti-social behavior.

 

[sjastro]

Projecting again I see. That seems to be your favorite pastime as of late.



Actually the conversation at PhysicsForums got shut down in a banning and a burning of the heretic, as is typical anytime and every time that LCDM proponents get "questioned" by anyone for any reason. So much for 'free thought' and open discourse.



Actually, the fact that you won't even deal with the solution in that Arxiv paper says it all.

The scientifically lame and bankrupt 'Olber's paradox' has been solved a half dozen different ways since Thomas Digges originally solved it *before* Olber was even born based on only a vague understanding of the inverse square laws. It was even solved by Heinrich Olber himself based on the scattering/absorption of light, which can even be verified in various images of the universe.

That so called 'paradox' has been solved by many other authors, in many ways since Olber solved it too.

You simply ignore and deny every possible empirical solution to the problem in favor of a goofy 'bait (stars) and switch (galaxies)' routine that is *obviously* 200 billion stars, 100,000 galaxies, and 268,770 AU shells short of a valid mathematical or scientific argument. Wow.

The most devastating part of your oversimplified argument is the fact redshift has *numerous* empirical explanations in the lab, and it's a feature that is also predicted in all tired light explanations of redshift, yet you ignore all possible empirical explanations for redshift other than a single metaphysical claim that's not even based on an empirically demonstrated cause/effect mechanism to start with! Man, oh man, what a lame and absurd argument. It's right up there with your "no neutrino" D-K effect nonsense.

It's very obvious that LCMD proponents don't even begin to understand any cosmology model other than the LCDM model, and the LCDM model isn't even based on real "knowledge' to start with. A full 95 percent of the LCDM model is based on nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance, not real empirical physics. The other 5 percent is mostly mathematically modeled with pure 'pseudoscience' according to the author of MHD theory. Basically *nothing* about LCDM is actually based on empirical 'knowledge' or empirical physics. It's mostly just invisible metaphysical nonsense and pseudoscientific superstition.

You may be very happy wallowing around in the metaphysical dark ages of astronomy, with a cosmology model that enjoys no better empirical support in the lab than astrology, but that just doesn't work for me. I'll take empirical solutions to cosmology (and any scientific) problems every single time, including empirical solutions to photon redshift and empirical explanations that don't required me to toss out the standard particle physics model entirely. Thanks, but no thanks. You can keep LCDM.

And here we have along with the repetitious nonsense an example of you being the fool by responding to the issue of the links contradicting your beliefs as the case of people being treated as heretics and my failure of not addressing the Arxiv paper.
It’s these illogical irrational responses that lead to the conclusion you are a fool.

Since your posts always go off on a tangent, I’ll afford the luxury of doing the same.
You want to play the innocent victim card and claim this is all verbal abuse then I suggest you look at your own "innocent" behaviour.
You are a coward for using Tbolts to attack members here as sleazebags and scumbags as well as circumventing the moderators authority.

Then there is the “object of your affection” Brian Koberlein where the moderators took the action of stopping your personal attacks against him, so you decide to up the ante at Tbolts by equating him with the mass murderer Jim Jones.

What a twisted sick mind…………
In fact it probably explains your illogical and irrational nature as well.

 

[Michael]

Actually, sjastro was drawing a conclusion on behalf of a purely evidenced based, logical (and scientific), viewpoint. Your claim of 'projection' on the other hand, offers only a singular, weak, individualistic opinion basis (ie: only your opinion).

Psst: It's all just "personal opinion".

I've seen how your industry operates. Anyone and everyone that disagrees with you folks is immediately subjected to an endless string of personal attacks, name calling and personally demeaning nonsense. It's just boring after awhile. I think you do it because you're afraid that others will start to simply see right through your metaphysical nonsense, and you really don't have any empirical evidence to support any of it, so the name calling is meant as a deliberate distraction.

You have thus excluded yourself from the scientific viewpoint, and therefore your future claims on behalf of scientific thinking (or thinkers), are also excluded ... all by your own hand.

What you're calling a 'scientific viewpoint' is actually nothing of the sort IMO. It's more of a metaphysical viewpoint, rather than an empirical scientific viewpoint. For instance, LCDM cosmology beliefs require one to reject the standard particle physics model without any empirical laboratory evidence for doing so. They require one to dumb down *electro*magnetic processes in plasma to purely magnetic "pseudoscientific" viewpoints, which results in a bizarre case of electrophobia towards all things related to space. I simply embrace empirical physics, including the standard particle physics model, and including electricity in space, and things/processes that actually work in the lab.

Statements such as:therefore, have no informed basis in scientific thinking, whatsoever.

No, your "no neutrino" nonsense shows a complete lack of informed scientific thinking, and it's ultimately an unethical misrepresentation of alternative views which are meant to mislead others.

There isn't just a *single* problem with your Olber's (non) paradox, there are *many* problems with it, including the one that Olber himself pointed out, and the including the one that Thomas Digges pointed out before Olber.

Continued claims about these matters, would then consitute a deliberate and therefore, blatant lie on your part .. all by your own hand.

Oh please! After that whole no neutrino nonsense, you're *clearly* projecting your own unethical behaviors on others.

Continually using such lies to demean other individual members of the forum, then constitutes a sustained Ad-Hom attack on such members .. all by your own hand.

More projection.

Own the responsibility for once!

I refuse to take responsibility for *your* bad behaviors. I don't go out of my way to misdirect the conversation onto *people* on a daily basis the way you two do constantly. I get tired of the attacks and I have been guilty of reciprocating at times, but it's not my "style" to attack *people* in every post as it is with you two. FB manages to get his points across just fine without all that same personal attack nonsense that you two engage in.

And now I suppose we can all expect the pathetic: "but I'm a victim" routine .. which then only serves to exacerbate this most distasteful and highly anti-social behavior.

If you don't wish me to point out your personal attacks, you *could* try sticking to the *topics* for a change you know.

 

[Michael]

And here we have along with the repetitious nonsense an example of you being the fool by responding to the issue of the links contradicting your beliefs as the case of people being treated as heretics and my failure of not addressing the Arxiv paper.
It’s these illogical irrational responses that lead to the conclusion you are a fool.

No, you simply misrepresent my statements at every turn, and you constantly attack *people* rather than ideas. It's your "style" evidently. It's just a waste of time too, because you're never going to sway my beliefs that way, or demonstrate anything other than your own childish behaviors.

Since your posts always go off on a tangent, I’ll afford the luxury of doing the same.
You want to play the innocent victim card and claim this is all verbal abuse then I suggest you look at your own "innocent" behaviour.

I don't run around calling you a "fool" and a "coward" every day, or hurling personal insults at you on a regular basis. Even my criticisms on other forums are typically directed at a topic, or a particular behavior, not "usually" a person. There are a couple of exceptions that I can think of, but it's virtually always the unethical behaviors that I most resent and comment on, not the people themselves.

You are a coward

Case in point. You've called me both a fool and a coward thus far in your response, but you've not addressed the Arxiv paper, or any of the other *problems* in your claim! You've got *many* problems to deal with too, but you refuse to do so. You won't even touch the fact that redshift isn't restricted to expansion models with a 10 foot pole! It's not like redshift is *only* predicted in expansion models, but you simply "pretend" that only expansion can result in redshift, and expansion is the only resolution to the paradox. That is just utter nonsense. Instead of acknowledging the actual points I've raised and I'm making, you're deliberately engaging in pure personal attacks. Sheeesh. How transparent can you be anyway?

for using Tbolts to attack members here as sleazebags and scumbags

Members plural? That's actually news to me. I can only think of one person's unethical behaviors that I've commented on at Tbolts that I'm sure also posts here from time to time. It's the gish-gallop and false misrepresentation that I've commented on for the most part too, but since the behaviors have been consistent and widespread around the internet, I have commented on the individual. If there are actually multiple crossovers that post here, it's news to me.

Whatever I might be guilty of at Tbolts, you've all done far worse to me at forums all over the internet, particularly at ISF, so I'd suggest you climb down off that high horse before you hurt yourself.

as well as circumventing the moderators authority.

More blatantly false accusations. I've done no such thing. The few times that I've crossed the line here at CF, the moderators at CF have put their foot down and I've complied with their requests to clean up my act. It's frankly not easy to constantly turn the other cheek while you continue to hurl personal attacks at me *here* on nearly a daily basis, including today too, but I usually keep my cool.

I've *never once* been reprimanded at Tbolts for anything I've posted there, so I've certainly never circumvented their authority either.

Then there is the “object of your affection” Brian Koberlein where the moderators took the action of stopping your personal attacks against him, so......

....so you keep bringing his name up here at CF hoping and *praying* that I'll take the bait so you can report me to the moderators. Sorry to disappoint you. If you or anyone else has a problem with something that I've said about someone else, somewhere else, take it up with the appropriate moderators of that specific forum.

What a twisted sick mind…………
In fact it probably explains your illogical and irrational nature as well.

More personal attack nonsense. Yawn. It just never ends with you two. Admittedly it's a 'higher moral option" to turn the other cheek every single time, but it's not a "twisted sick response" to get tired of turning the other cheek to every unethical attack hurled my direction from every single person. Admittedly two wrongs do not make a right, but the concept of an "eye for an eye" isn't sick or twisted, it's a typical human response. It may not be the "right' response or the "best" response, but it's actually a pretty typical and "normal" human response.

In a probably futile attempt to put the thread back on topic:

Thomas Digges correctly *solved* your paradox by apparently "guessing" that the inverse square law prevented a brightly lit night sky, which prevents you from seeing the "bright surfaces" of those 200 billion missing stars in our own galaxy, before the inverse square law was even fully understood. Olber himself also solved his own paradox with absorption/scattering. The Arxiv paper addresses and resolves the problem differently still. About the only unusual thing I've 'added' in this discussion (and which has probably been addressed by someone before me) is the fact that redshift isn't restricted to expansion models, and I've pointed out your blatant "bait (stars) and switch (galaxies)" problem which are directly related to your shell size errors. Those two things are about the only "new" things that I've pointed out. Frankly, I'm pretty sure those two problems have also been pointed out by others before me, and your industry most likely simply ignored them too, just like you personally ignored that Arxiv paper. Care to point out the error in that Arxiv paper, or shall we just assume they 'solved' the paradox too, and stumped you?

 

[sjastro]

No, you simply misrepresent my statements at every turn, and you constantly attack *people* rather than ideas. It's your "style" evidently. It's just a waste of time too, because you're never going to sway my beliefs that way, or demonstrate anything other than your own childish behaviors.



I don't run around calling you a "fool" and a "coward" every day, or hurling personal insults at you on a regular basis. Even my criticisms on other forums are typically directed at a topic, or a particular behavior, not "usually" a person. There are a couple of exceptions that I can think of, but it's virtually always the unethical behaviors that I most resent and comment on, not the people themselves.



Case in point. You've called me both a fool and a coward thus far in your response, but you've not addressed the Arxiv paper, or any of the other *problems* in your claim! You've got *many* problems to deal with too, but you refuse to do so. You won't even touch the fact that redshift isn't restricted to expansion models with a 10 foot pole! It's not like redshift is *only* predicted in expansion models, but you simply "pretend" that only expansion can result in redshift, and expansion is the only resolution to the paradox. That is just utter nonsense. Instead of acknowledging the actual points I've raised and I'm making, you're deliberately engaging in pure personal attacks. Sheeesh. How transparent can you be anyway?



Members plural? That's actually news to me. I can only think of one person's unethical behaviors that I've commented on at Tbolts that I'm sure also posts here from time to time. It's the gish-gallop and false misrepresentation that I've commented on for the most part too, but since the behaviors have been consistent and widespread around the internet, I have commented on the individual. If there are actually multiple crossovers that post here, it's news to me.

Whatever I might be guilty of at Tbolts, you've all done far worse to me at forums all over the internet, particularly at ISF, so I'd suggest you climb down off that high horse before you hurt yourself.



More blatantly false accusations. I've done no such thing. The few times that I've crossed the line here at CF, the moderators at CF have put their foot down and I've complied with their requests to clean up my act. It's frankly not easy to constantly turn the other cheek while you continue to hurl personal attacks at me *here* on nearly a daily basis, including today too, but I usually keep my cool.

I've *never once* been reprimanded at Tbolts for anything I've posted there, so I've certainly never circumvented their authority either.



....so you keep bringing his name up here at CF hoping and *praying* that I'll take the bait so you can report me to the moderators. Sorry to disappoint you. If you or anyone else has a problem with something that I've said about someone else, somewhere else, take it up with the appropriate moderators of that specific forum.



More personal attack nonsense. Yawn. It just never ends with you two. Admittedly it's a 'higher moral option" to turn the other cheek every single time, but it's not a "twisted sick response" to get tired of turning the other cheek to every unethical attack hurled my direction from every single person. Admittedly two wrongs do not make a right, but the concept of an "eye for an eye" isn't sick or twisted, it's a typical human response. It may not be the "right' response or the "best" response, but it's actually a pretty typical and "normal" human response.

In a probably futile attempt to put the thread back on topic:

Thomas Digges correctly *solved* your paradox by apparently "guessing" that the inverse square law prevented a brightly lit night sky, which prevents you from seeing the "bright surfaces" of those 200 billion missing stars in our own galaxy, before the inverse square law was even fully understood. Olber himself also solved his own paradox with absorption/scattering. The Arxiv paper addresses and resolves the problem differently still. About the only unusual thing I've 'added' in this discussion (and which has probably been addressed by someone before me) is the fact that redshift isn't restricted to expansion models, and I've pointed out your blatant "bait (stars) and switch (galaxies)" problem which are directly related to your shell size errors. Those two things are about the only "new" things that I've pointed out. Frankly, I'm pretty sure those two problems have also been pointed out by others before me, and your industry most likely simply ignored them too, just like you personally ignored that Arxiv paper. Care to point out the error in that Arxiv paper, or shall we just assume they 'solved' the paradox too, and stumped you?

You are a fool and a coward as your posts demonstrate.
If I showed no cause they are personal attacks.

For example this latest pathetic attempt at keeping the thread going instead of admitting failure by insisting I have to show an error in the Arxiv paper.
As I have explained the paper does not use an inverse square law to refute the paradox.
You are the fool for wanting to have a fight at any cost including over a paper which contradicts your rebuttal!!!

Your cowardly behaviour speaks for itself.
The fact you have confessed your rebuttal is wrong by capitulating on finding supporting evidence yet you want to continue this nonsense because you are too spineless to admit it.
Running off to Tbolts where the long arm of moderation doesn’t apply so you can engage in spiteful personal attacks knowing the right of reply is missing as none of the individuals attacked are members; while being aided and abetted by your local moderators who conveniently turn a blind eye is another example of your cowardly behaviour.
To stupidly state you have had no moderator issues at Tbolts as if this proves your posts are non offensive then why don’t you post your thread “Reality Check is the clueless king of sleaze” here.

As far as the ends justifying the means who are you trying to kid by legitimizing calling individuals sleazebags, scumbags and “mass murderers”?
One of the biggest lies you perpetrate with this “justification” which also includes accusing individuals as being unethical, liars or “EU/PC haters” is in the pretext itself where you have to vilify the individual or group in order to justify your personal attacks.
Brian Koberlein is a prime example and incidentally if you think mentioning his name is a form of entrapment you are paranoid as well.
You have the absolute gall of portraying yourself as the innocent victim while you spout cowardly libellous rhetoric at Tbolts.