Dark energy is based on a dubious assumption.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jan 10, 2020

Michael said:
By the way, Sabine has a relatively new video out that discusses the state of affairs in physics in 2020. In the video she (briefly) explains the basics of the second dark energy paper (the one I posted initially), as well as discussing the state of low energy SUSY theory (naturalness) and LIGO. It's short and to the point.

Thanks for posting Sabine's videos - how refreshing to hear from a well-informed and relatively unbiased sceptic!

pleinmont · Jan 10, 2020

I have much more faith in scientists than I have in religionists, as they try to discover evidence to support their claims, which many theists don't.

Michael · Jan 10, 2020

pleinmont said:
I have much more faith in scientists than I have in religionists, as they try to discover evidence to support their claims, which many theists don't.

Unfortunately when it comes to cosmology, it's 6 of one, a half dozen of the other. Astronomers seem quite intent on simply ignoring all of the various "tests" of the LCDM model that fail. They have a very bad case of confirmation bias as all the failed dark matter tests of the past two decades clearly demonstrate.

In this particular case, at least two recent studies of a much larger SN1A data set show that there is no empirical SN1A evidence to support the "dark energy" claims of the LCDM model, and it will simply be ignored. The Nobel prizes for dark energy have already been handed out, and therefore they'll just sweep these new finding right under the rug. Watch and see.

Michael · Jan 10, 2020

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Thanks for posting Sabine's videos - how refreshing to hear from a well-informed and relatively unbiased sceptic!

And she's also constantly badmouthed online for her efforts.

sjastro · Jan 10, 2020

Michael said:
Um, the first paper that I cited doesn't even mention the Copernican principle. So how do you figure that results in any particular contradiction?

It is should be blindingly obvious.
The Copernican principle is integral in your cited paper and not worth commenting on by the authors unless it was impacted on.
In the Colin’s et al. paper the violation of the Copernican principle plays a central role.

Wait a minute! You first said that they *do not* contradict each other, and now you're claiming that they do. Which is it? What does the Copernican principle have to do with anything related to the paper that I cited?

Oh I see you are up to old tricks again of taking me out of context.
I made it perfectly clear in my previous post I had reread the Colin’s et al. paper and found details I missed previously.
The facts as they stand now the papers do contradict each other; the Copernican principle applies or it doesn’t; you can’t have it both ways.

Well, for starters, the existence of mass consistently results in gravity. Whether it's related to a curvature of spacetime or something else, it's definitely "caused" by mass.

GR theory doesn't require the existence of gravitons to begin with.

No, by my own logic only a claim about gravity which requires the existence of gravitons would be a "metaphysical" concept.

This is a non answer.
You either demonstrate by your own standards a lab test reproducing the cause of gravity otherwise gravity is a “metaphysical” concept.
That’s your definition not mine.

The gravity example highlights the ridiculousness of thinking lab tests are required to define causes.
The fact is there is no lab test; Newtonian gravity is a classical phenomenological theory which by definition doesn’t require a cause.
GR is a semi phenomenological theory which doesn’t explain the cause either.
Not understanding the cause hasn’t been an impediment in working out why planets orbit in ellipses, the trajectories in sending astronauts to the moon and back, or why celestial mechanics is still largely based on Newtonian gravity to name a few.

Meh. The sun emits (and presumably all suns emit) deuterium in solar wind.

The Abundance of Deuterium and He3 in the Solar Wind

Pretty well in most "tired light" models.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...tory-a_Discussion_in_Terms_of_New_Tired_Light

You misunderstood me; I asked you how the deuterium/hydrogen ratio which includes the nature of the spectrum itself can be explained by a static universe.

Um, no. The non-zero constant that Einstein introduced to explain a static universe could be caused by anything, including ordinary EM fields. It need not be composed of a new form of exotic energy.

It “can be caused by anything” is an amateurish response that might as well include unicorns and tooth fairies.
Since EM fields are mentioned show me the lab test that demonstrates how ordinary EM fields can keep the universe from collapsing.
Is it starting to sink in your arguments on lab testing are somewhat hypocritical.

No, it simply demonstrates that Thomson scattering can't be the *whole* cause of cosmological redshift. Since I never suggested such a thing, it's no skin off my nose.

You are totally confused; I am the one making the claim not you.
You don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept of Thomson scattering.
Thomson scattering does not involve photon energy loss.
Thomson scattered photons reach us from the distant CMB with a familiar signature of being polarised but are also redshifted.
If the photons are redshifted by being scattered by plasma they lose energy, are not polarised and therefore not Thomson scattered by the time they reach the observer.
Cosmological redshift on the other hand preserves the polarised signature when the photons reach the observer.

You can throw up any link, spin story or lab test you like it doesn’t change the fact the existence of Thomson scattered photons totally destroys the idea that redshift is scattering by plasma.

Actually your comments simply demonstrate that you're simply misrepresenting my beliefs or don't understand them well.

Beliefs being the operative word; your confusion and misunderstandings in your post are a clear indication of who is suffering the comprehension problems.

Michael · Jan 10, 2020

sjastro said:
It is should be blindingly obvious.

It's not. It's never mentioned.

The Copernican principle is integral in your cited paper and not worth commenting on by the authors unless it was impacted on.

Where? How? You're making this up as far as I can tell. They aren't taking the *movement of our cluster* into account because it's not relevant to their model, or their criticism of the DE claim, but that's irrelevant. It certainly doesn't make either paper "wrong". Their could be movement related problems *and* age related problem.

In the Colin’s et al. paper the violation of the Copernican principle plays a central role.

Sabine even mentioned the paper that I cited, as well as the one you cited, and she also suggests that both criticisms of DE may be right, and then what? You're essentially handwaving as far as I can tell. There's nothing about either paper that undermines the *core* argument of the other paper.

The facts as they stand now the papers do contradict each other; the Copernican principle applies or it doesn’t; you can’t have it both ways.

Sure you can. It's entirely possible that dark energy is an artifact of the movement of our galaxy cluster relative to the rest of the supernova in the data set *and* it's affected by the ages of the supernova too. It's possible they both have valid points.

This is a non answer.
You either demonstrate by your own standards a lab test reproducing the cause of gravity otherwise gravity is a “metaphysical” concept.

It's been done a billion times by *every* lab test of gravity. They all involve (drum roll) *mass*! Give me a break. Gravity shows up in the lab, regardless of what it's "cause" might be, whereas your "space expansion" claims defies controlled laboratory support, as does "dark energy".

GR is a semi phenomenological theory which doesn’t explain the cause either.

Actually it explains it as a curvature of spacetime, so it's does explain the cause. It too requires (drum roll) *mass*!

You're totally misrepresenting my argument. Gravity isn't shy around the lab, regardless of it's cause. Dark energy however *is* shy around the lab, and you can't even name a single known source of the stuff, let alone explain how it retains a constant density throughout expansion.

You misunderstood me; I asked you how the deuterium/hydrogen ratio which includes the nature of the spectrum itself can be explained by a static universe.

It's simply an average ratio of the elements emitted by stars on a regular basis.

It “can be caused by anything” is an amateurish response that might as well include unicorns and tooth fairies.

Nice strawman. I cited the most likely 'cause'

Since EM fields are mentioned show me the lab test that demonstrates how ordinary EM fields can keep the universe from collapsing.

Google "repulsion". According to Birkeland, all stars have a negative charge with respect to space. They'd tend to repulse one another.

Is it starting to sink in your arguments on lab testing are somewhat hypocritical.

No, you're just grasping at straws at this point. Gravity isn't shy around the lab, nor is repulsion.

You can throw up any link, spin story or lab test you like it doesn’t change the fact the existence of Thomson scattered photons totally destroys the idea that redshift is scattering by plasma.

When did you provide even a single paper that makes that argument in the first place, and since when was every plasma redshift model based on Thompson scattering?

Beliefs being the operative word; your confusion and misunderstandings in your post are a clear indication of who is suffering the comprehension problems.

Yawn. More pointless personal attacks because you can't provide any *modern* (as in 2020) evidence that SN1A data supports "dark energy".

Hans Blaster · Jan 10, 2020

Michael said:
You're totally misrepresenting my argument. Gravity isn't shy around the lab, regardless of it's cause. Dark energy however *is* shy around the lab, and you can't even name a single known source of the stuff, let alone explain how it retains a constant density throughout expansion.

I would disagree. Gravity *is* quite shy.

Measuring the gravitational field/force within the same lab it was generated in is rather difficult. (See Cavendish Balance experiments.) Such experiments do not demonstrate that the mass creating a gravitational effect curves space in a detectable fashion.

While measurements of a force toward the Earth are quite commonplace and fit within the Newtonian model of gravity with the Earth as a massive attractor (much more massive than the objects on the surface), the best evidence of Newton's model of gravitation is in the motion of the planets (and their spherical shapes).

I would not classify the Solar system as "a lab" (perhaps you would, I don't know).

Gravity as an emergent property of curved space-time can be demonstrated in the Solar system in at least three was: 1) orbital precession of Mercury 2) deflection of light past the limb of the Sun, and 3) differences between clocks in Earth orbit and in the gravitational well of the planet.

Other aspects of Einstein's gravitational theory appear in larger contexts or small(ish) things outside the Solar system. None of these occur with in the traditional understanding of the confines of a laboratory, so what in kind of lab do you expect to find "dark energy" given that it was first detected at the 100 megaparsec scale?

sjastro · Jan 10, 2020

Michael said:
It's not. It's never mentioned.

Where? How? You're making this up as far as I can tell. They aren't taking the *movement of our cluster* into account because it's not relevant to their model, or their criticism of the DE claim, but that's irrelevant. It certainly doesn't make either paper "wrong". Their could be movement related problems *and* age related problem.

Your conclusion is irrational and illogical.

Sabine even mentioned the paper that I cited, as well as the one you cited, and she also suggests that both criticisms of DE may be right, and then what? You're essentially handwaving as far as I can tell. There's nothing about either paper that undermines the *core* argument of the other paper.

Sabine states "the two theories are different"……."they give her a headache"…….."what’s happens if you combine the two?"
How does this lead to the conclusion the two theories are compatible, particularly when Sabine admits she doesn’t know.
Sabine is conveying a message designed to novices like yourself, and is not engaging in any rigorous arguments for any conclusions to be made.

Sure you can. It's entirely possible that dark energy is an artifact of the movement of our galaxy cluster relative to the rest of the supernova in the data set *and* it's affected by the ages of the supernova too. It's possible they both have valid points.

You are completely out of your depth to make such conclusions.
How is it that Sabine who is vastly superior to you in both knowledge and understanding cannot make any conclusions.

It's been done a billion times by *every* lab test of gravity. They all involve (drum roll) *mass*! Give me a break. Gravity shows up in the lab, regardless of what it's "cause" might be, whereas your "space expansion" claims defies controlled laboratory support, as does "dark energy".

Actually it explains it as a curvature of spacetime, so it's does explain the cause. It too requires (drum roll) *mass*!

You're totally misrepresenting my argument. Gravity isn't shy around the lab, regardless of it's cause. Dark energy however *is* shy around the lab, and you can't even name a single known source of the stuff, let alone explain how it retains a constant density throughout expansion.

You are being rather deceitful for changing the goalposts by referring to tests that examine gravity as an effect rather than a cause.
I have been explicit in asking you to define a test where gravity is a cause in much the same way where you tell us ad nauseum plasma scattering in the lab is a cause for redshift.

Curvature of spacetime is an effect of gravity not a cause.
Since Newtonian gravity is a first order approximation for GR, Newton's remarks still apply.

I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called a hypothesis, and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.

Letter to Robert Hooke (15 February 1676) [5 February 1676 (O.S.)]

The danger in ridiculing someone with drum rolls to convey contempt is that if you are caught out by changing the goalposts and being shown to be incorrect it makes you look foolish with your foot well and truly inserted in your mouth.

It's simply an average ratio of the elements emitted by stars on a regular basis.

This is plain dumb for its complete irrelevancy and doesn't address how the data supports a static universe.

Google "repulsion". According to Birkeland, all stars have a negative charge with respect to space. They'd tend to repulse one another.

No, you're just grasping at straws at this point. Gravity isn't shy around the lab, nor is repulsion.

So Birkeland stated stars have a negative charge which is not true anyway but we will assume it is in this case.
How do you explain the stability of binary star systems, star clusters and galaxy clusters when they would fly apart due to repulsion.
All you have done is substituted one problem with another.

When did you provide even a single paper that makes that argument in the first place, and since when was every plasma redshift model based on Thompson scattering?

You have a serious of lack of comprehension here.
I have never suggested there is a model that involves Thomson scattering at all.
Since tired light models involve photon energy loss the consequence is Thomson scattering does not occur.
This provides the basis for a prediction that at cosmological scales Thomson scattering should be absent.
The fact that CMB photons are Thompson scattered means tired light models are clearly wrong as the prediction fails.
If you still cannot comprehend this then it is the case of being in total denial.

Michael · Jan 11, 2020

Hans Blaster said:
I would disagree. Gravity *is* quite shy.

I'm not sure how or why you feel that gravity is 'shy' here on Earth (or in the lab) while it's pinning us both the planet 24/7.

Measuring the gravitational field/force within the same lab it was generated in is rather difficult. (See Cavendish Balance experiments.)

Maybe so, but it can (and has) been done.

Such experiments do not demonstrate that the mass creating a gravitational effect curves space in a detectable fashion.

Experiments do demonstrate that gravity A) exists, and B) is somehow related to mass. We may not be able to clearly determine the exact cause yet, but since gravity routinely shows up in the lab, it allows us to directly poke and prod at it until we figure it out. Compare and contrast that to "dark energy" where a whole host of *subjective* choice have to be made to even determine if it even exists or not, let alone measure it's effect in controlled experimentation.

I will grant you that determining the exact *cause* of gravity is tricky, demonstrating it's real and has a real effect on objects with mass is no problem.

While measurements of a force toward the Earth are quite commonplace and fit within the Newtonian model of gravity with the Earth as a massive attractor (much more massive than the objects on the surface), the best evidence of Newton's model of gravitation is in the motion of the planets (and their spherical shapes).

Ok, but we can go to the moon and measure it's effects there. We can (and have) landed on Mars and Venus and we can use instruments to measure it's effect on other planets too. It's definite a *real* force of nature, whatever it might be caused by. DE however is pure blind speculation based on a *whole host* of subjective assumptions, and we cannot directly measure it in controlled experimentation here on Earth, on Mars, on the moon, etc.

I would not classify the Solar system as "a lab" (perhaps you would, I don't know).

I would too. As long as humans (or their equipment) can get there, it's part of a larger "lab" where active experimentation can take place. We've not really ventured much beyond the sun's heliosphere so I'd say that's the limit of the "lab" at the moment.

Gravity as an emergent property of curved space-time can be demonstrated in the Solar system in at least three was: 1) orbital precession of Mercury 2) deflection of light past the limb of the Sun, and 3) differences between clocks in Earth orbit and in the gravitational well of the planet.

I agree.

Other aspects of Einstein's gravitational theory appear in larger contexts or small(ish) things outside the Solar system. None of these occur with in the traditional understanding of the confines of a laboratory, so what in kind of lab do you expect to find "dark energy" given that it was first detected at the 100 megaparsec scale?

But the problem is that it's not "detected" at all, it's "assumed" to be "detected". One has to start by "assuming" that all SN1A events are "standard candles" for instance. One of those two papers (the one I listed) makes no such assumption and comes up with a different result. It "assumes" that the age of the galaxy the star is located in has some effect on the SN1A event. The other study that sjastro listed "assumes" that our galaxy isn't stationary with respect to all SN1A events and the the relative movements of galaxies has a role in the timing measurements, and it also finds no evidence of "dark energy". We cannot and do not directly measure "dark energy". We *assume* things that "imply" it's existence (or lack thereof).

Compare "dark energy" for instance to ordinary EM fields. We can't see either one of them with our eyes, just the effects they may have on things. In the case of EM fields however, we can (and do) generate them in the lab, play with them in the lab, and use them in things like cell phones and computers. There can be no disputing the fact that EM fields A) exist, and B) have a tangible effect on real objects. No astronomer on Earth can even tell us where "dark energy" comes from, let alone how to control some quantity of it to see what effect it might have in active experiments on Earth.

Michael · Jan 11, 2020

sjastro said:
Your conclusion is irrational and illogical.

I'm afraid you're projecting. They are based on different "assumptions" but they aren't mutually exclusive assumptions.

Sabine states "the two theories are different"……."they give her a headache"…….."what’s happens if you combine the two?"

You can't "combine" them if they are mutually exclusive concepts, and they aren't mutually exclusive. They are clearly based on different "assumptions", but they aren't mutually exclusive assumptions.

How does this lead to the conclusion the two theories are compatible, particularly when Sabine admits she doesn’t know.

You're the only one claiming to 'know" they are *not* compatible yet you cannot explain why other than handwave without citing any specific reason. The paper I cited is based on the age of galaxies, not whether or not they are moving in comparison (or not) to the Earth.

Sabine is conveying a message designed to novices like yourself, and is not engaging in any rigorous arguments for any conclusions to be made.

No, she's pointing out that they are *not* mutually exclusive assumptions. Period.

You are completely out of your depth to make such conclusions.

More projection on your part. Sabine disagrees with you.

How is it that Sabine who is vastly superior to you in both knowledge and understanding cannot make any conclusions.

I not "concluding" they are mutually exclusive, and neither did she. You're the only one claiming to make conclusions about whether or not they are compatible.

You are being rather deceitful for changing the goalposts by referring to tests that examine gravity as an effect rather than a cause.

It's really pitiful that you consistently take the low road by attacking me as a person (deceitful) instead of focusing on the key points I make. Gravity shows up in controlled experiments on Earth. EM fields do so too. Dark energy does not. It's that simple. Effects are irrelevant, it's the *control* aspect that is different.

I have been explicit in asking you to define a test where gravity is a cause in much the same way where you tell us ad nauseum plasma scattering in the lab is a cause for redshift.

Every "test" of gravity demonstrates that *mass* is the "cause" of gravity.

Curvature of spacetime is an effect of gravity not a cause.

Um, no. Assuming that QM concepts of gravity are correct rather than GR, spacetime may not actually be "curved" at all. It may only *appear* to be "curved". If GR is correct, the presence of mass/energy *curves* spacetime.

Since Newtonian gravity is a first order approximation for GR, Newton's remarks still apply.

The apply only within a specific range of particle velocity.

The danger in ridiculing someone with drum rolls to convey contempt is that if you are caught out by changing the goalposts and being shown to be incorrect it makes you look foolish with your foot well and truly inserted in your mouth.

Yawn. The only one moving goalposts in this conversation is you. Gravity shows up in the lab in controlled experiments. Period. EM fields show up in the lab too. Period. Dark energy does *not* show up in controlled experiments. Period. There's no logical comparison between them!

This is plain dumb for its complete irrelevancy and doesn't address how the data supports a static universe.

Boloney. It simply *assumes* that the ratio is directly related to overall stellar output and has nothing to do with a "bang".

So Birkeland stated stars have a negative charge which is not true anyway but we will assume it is in this case.

Actually even in the standard model the surface has a negative charge (albeit much smaller than the charge it has in Birkeland's model).

How do you explain the stability of binary star systems, star clusters and galaxy clusters when they would fly apart due to repulsion.

Gravity. Gravity attracts them more than repulsion pushes them apart. As long as gravity is greater than repulsion, there is no problem.

All you have done is substituted one problem with another.

Nope, you just made up a problem that doesn't actually exist.

You have a serious of lack of comprehension here.

You have a bad habit of attacking me as a person and blaming me for your own communication problems.

I have never suggested there is a model that involves Thomson scattering at all.
Since tired light models involve photon energy loss the consequence is Thomson scattering does not occur.

Besides yourself, *who made that claim*?

This provides the basis for a prediction that at cosmological scales Thomson scattering should be absent.

Only according to you.

The fact that CMB photons are Thompson scattered means tired light models are clearly wrong as the prediction fails.

So apparently your own strawman failed. So what?

If you still cannot comprehend this then it is the case of being in total denial.

Since you seem to be making this up as you go, including your assertion that the two DE study methods are mutually exclusive (when they are not), I can only assume that you're confusing yourself and confusing your own 'predictions/subjective opinions" for fact.

sjastro · Jan 11, 2020

Michael said:
I'm afraid you're projecting. They are based on different "assumptions" but they aren't mutually exclusive assumptions.

You can't "combine" them if they are mutually exclusive concepts, and they aren't mutually exclusive. They are clearly based on different "assumptions", but they aren't mutually exclusive assumptions.

You're the only one claiming to 'know" they are *not* compatible yet you cannot explain why other than handwave without citing any specific reason. The paper I cited is based on the age of galaxies, not whether or not they are moving in comparison (or not) to the Earth.

No, she's pointing out that they are *not* mutually exclusive assumptions. Period.

More projection on your part. Sabine disagrees with you.

I not "concluding" they are mutually exclusive, and neither did she. You're the only one claiming to make conclusions about whether or not they are compatible.

It's really pitiful that you consistently take the low road by attacking me as a person (deceitful) instead of focusing on the key points I make. Gravity shows up in controlled experiments on Earth. EM fields do so too. Dark energy does not. It's that simple. Effects are irrelevant, it's the *control* aspect that is different.

Every "test" of gravity demonstrates that *mass* is the "cause" of gravity.

Um, no. Assuming that QM concepts of gravity are correct rather than GR, spacetime may not actually be "curved" at all. It may only *appear* to be "curved". If GR is correct, the presence of mass/energy *curves* spacetime.

The apply only within a specific range of particle velocity.

Yawn. The only one moving goalposts in this conversation is you. Gravity shows up in the lab in controlled experiments. Period. EM fields show up in the lab too. Period. Dark energy does *not* show up in controlled experiments. Period. There's no logical comparison between them!

Boloney. It simply *assumes* that the ratio is directly related to overall stellar output and has nothing to do with a "bang".

Actually even in the standard model the surface has a negative charge (albeit much smaller than the charge it has in Birkeland's model).

Gravity. Gravity attracts them more than repulsion pushes them apart. As long as gravity is greater than repulsion, there is no problem.

Nope, you just made up a problem that doesn't actually exist.

You have a bad habit of attacking me as a person and blaming me for your own communication problems.

Besides yourself, *who made that claim*?

Only according to you.

So apparently your own strawman failed. So what?

Since you seem to be making this up as you go, including your assertion that the two DE study methods are mutually exclusive (when they are not), I can only assume that you're confusing yourself and confusing your own 'predictions/subjective opinions" for fact.

Instead of being insulted by this post which was your objective, I find it quite humorous.
Since your campaign in this forum is to spread disinformation about mainstream science while at the same time conning readers into thinking you know what you are talking about, this tirade is counterproductive as is the 20 odd quote/responses that produce a humungous volume of text which effectively drowns out your message.

You seem to have run out of your quota of lies so you have decided to accuse me of the lies you are well known for such as “making things up”.
It’s your role as random sentence generator that creates the word salad which is the most amusing as many of your responses don’t make any sense whatsoever.
It appears you think increasing the word count makes you more convincing.

Thanks for saving me the effort of refuting your nonsense you have done a sterling job in undermining your own position.

Michael · Jan 11, 2020

sjastro said:
Instead of being insulted by this post which was your objective, I find it quite humorous.

Despite what you might think, you really are not an accurate mind reader. I wasn't trying to insult anyone, or be humorous. Unfortunately you seem to take my lack of agreement with your opinions as "insulting".

Since your campaign in this forum is to spread disinformation about mainstream science

False. My only intent of posting to this forum is to point out the limits and pitfalls of the LCDM model, and/or to promote EU/PC theory, and discuss the topic of God. You're always claiming to read my mind and you do a very poor job of it.

while at the same time conning readers into thinking you know what you are talking about,

The readers can decide for themselves what they think I know and don't know. I don't care. I took all kinds of insults for daring to "doubt" the BICEP2 claim, yet look how that worked out.

this tirade is counterproductive as is the 20 odd quote/responses that produce a humungous volume of text which effectively drowns out your message.

There's no "tirade" involved actually.

You seem to have run out of your quota of lies

There you go with the personal attacks again. Yawn. Is it possible for you to disagree with someone without accusing them of lying?

so you have decided to accuse me of the lies you are well known for such as “making things up”.

What did I "make up" or lie about in your opinion?

It’s your role as random sentence generator that creates the word salad which is the most amusing as many of your responses don’t make any sense whatsoever.
It appears you think increasing the word count makes you more convincing.

When you toss out a one line claim about two papers being incompatible that makes no sense, a little more verbosity on your part might actually help to understand your argument. Instead you tend to blame me personally for not grasping whatever point your trying to make, or in this case blame me for trying to spend the time to explain my position more clearly. Oh well.

Thanks for saving me the effort of refuting your nonsense you have done a sterling job in undermining your own position.

If you say so, but you still haven't *clearly* explained why you think those two papers are mutually exclusive and why Sabine disagrees with you. Sometimes a little higher word count in your own responses is warranted and helpful when trying to gasp whatever point you're trying to make.

sjastro · Jan 11, 2020

Michael said:
Despite what you might think, you really are not an accurate mind reader. I wasn't trying to insult anyone, or be humorous. Unfortunately you seem to take my lack of agreement with your opinions as "insulting".

False. My only intent of posting to this forum is to point out the limits and pitfalls of the LCDM model, and/or to promote EU/PC theory, and discuss the topic of God. You're always claiming to read my mind and you do a very poor job of it.

The readers can decide for themselves what they think I know and don't know. I don't care. I took all kinds of insults for daring to "doubt" the BICEP2 claim, yet look how that worked out.

There's no "tirade" involved actually.

There you go with the personal attacks again. Yawn. Is it possible for you to disagree with someone without accusing them of lying?

What did I "make up" or lie about in your opinion?

When you toss out a one line claim about two papers being incompatible that makes no sense, a little more verbosity on your part might actually help to understand your argument. Instead you tend to blame me personally for not grasping whatever point your trying to make, or in this case blame me for trying to spend the time to explain my position more clearly. Oh well.

If you say so, but you still haven't *clearly* explained why you think those two papers are mutually exclusive and why Sabine disagrees with you. Sometimes a little higher word count in your own responses is warranted and helpful when trying to gasp whatever point you're trying to make.

Thanks Michael for providing yet another example of the issues.

I gave you some advice about limiting the number of responses.
My post was composed of three paragraphs; instead of responding per paragraph there are eight separate responses many of which are not even relevant; (who cares of you painting yourself as a martyr that was “right” all along about BICEP2).

If you want an example of lying which in inextricably linked with making things up take another look the sub thread involving Thomson scattering.

Here are facts.
(1) Tired light models are based on photon energy loss.
(2) Tired light models predict Thomson scattering doesn’t occur at cosmological scales.
(3) Observation of CMB Thomson scattered photons contradicts tired light models.

What was your response; accusing me of making things up and assuming I thought tired light model(s) WERE BASED on Thomson scattering.
What was the motivation; since you can’t accept your precious theory is destroyed by evidence you invents lies (=making things up) to discredit me.

This is your MO which you have employed many times over the years against various individuals which has led to you being banned from many SFs including lengthy suspensions here.
So don’t paint yourself as some squeaky clean individual who is always the victim.

Michael · Jan 12, 2020

FYI, I respond to individual *ideas*/statements as I see fit, and I'm not obligated to be cryptic in my responses. If that bothers you, just don't respond to my posts.

If you want an example of lying which in inextricably linked with making things up take another look the sub thread involving Thomson scattering.

Here are facts.
(1) Tired light models are based on photon energy loss.
(2) Tired light models predict Thomson scattering doesn’t occur at cosmological scales.

Please demonstrate for us that *all tired light models* (or even most, or even a few models) predict that *no* amount of Thomson scattering on all (or any for that matter) wavelengths occurs at cosmological scales. Cite a few papers and paragraphs for us where various authors make that specific claim. As far as I know, you simply made that up. As best as I can tell, that's a complete strawman (and false) argument on your part.

sjastro · Jan 12, 2020

Michael said:
FYI, I respond to individual *ideas*/statements as I see fit, and I'm not obligated to be cryptic in my responses. If that bothers you, just don't respond to my posts.

Another irrelevant comment.

Please demonstrate for us that *all tired light models* (or even most, or even a few models) predict that *no* amount of Thomson scattering on all (or any for that matter) wavelengths occurs at cosmological scales. Cite a few papers and paragraphs for us where various authors make that specific claim. As far as I know, you simply made that up. As best as I can tell, that's a complete strawman (and false) argument on your part.

Seriously are you so totally bereft of any critical thinking skills?
How many times do I need to repeat myself before it sinks in; the lack of Thompson scattering at cosmological scales is a logical outcome for any tired light model and forms a prediction that can be tested.
This is my conclusion and doesn’t shift the burden of proof as in this case the proof is in the logic and further supported by the fact Thompson scattering can be tested for as photons are polarized.

I don’t need to cite papers to support the conclusion as it is ridiculously illogical and doesn’t prove anything, particularly if the conclusion is original although it is highly unlikely as it is so trivially true.

Whether you like it or not the onus is on you to prove it is wrong and the only way you can do that is to show the photons are not polarized.

Michael · Jan 12, 2020

sjastro said:
Seriously are you so totally bereft of any critical thinking skills?

No, I'm bereft of the citations to support your (apparently false) claims that I asked you for.

I didn't ask you to "repeat yourself", I asked you to provide specific references from specific papers and specific paragraphs from redshift models to support your bizarre assertions.

This is my conclusion and doesn’t shift the burden of proof .......

Translation: You simply "made it up" just as I figured, and you refuse to support your own burden of proof to support your false claim.

You have a very annoying habit of misrepresenting various models (in this case redshift models (plural)) and burning your own strawmen as you see fit.

SelfSim · Jan 13, 2020

sjastro said:
.. the lack of Thompson scattering at cosmological scales is a logical outcome for any tired light model and forms a prediction that can be tested.
This is my conclusion and doesn’t shift the burden of proof as in this case the proof is in the logic and further supported by the fact Thompson scattering can be tested for as photons are polarized.
...
Whether you like it or not the onus is on you to prove it is wrong and the only way you can do that is to show the photons are not polarized.

The problem I see here, is that Michael doesn't recognise logical proofs .. I mean, need I cite anything more than his outright rejection of his famous '1=0.5', as evidence of his general denial of proofs by logic?

Since he seems to hold his opinion above any demonstrated proofs, I wonder whether he would accept something simple like: on a 2 dimensional plane, a triangle's interior angles sum to 180 degrees? If so, I wonder why he would accept that?

Well, Michael: What say ye?

sjastro · Jan 13, 2020

Michael said:
No, I'm bereft of the citations to support your (apparently false) claims that I asked you for.

I didn't ask you to "repeat yourself", I asked you to provide specific references from specific papers and specific paragraphs from redshift models to support your bizarre assertions.

Translation: You simply "made it up" just as I figured, and you refuse to support your own burden of proof to support your false claim.

You have a very annoying habit of misrepresenting various models (in this case redshift models (plural)) and burning your own strawmen as you see fit.

What a pathetic attempt at obfuscation and character assassination.
Since I have already stated it was my conclusion I don’t have to show support for the reasons given previously.

However since you are now desperately trying to portray me as a liar by making things up to sidetrack the issues, I’m perfectly prepared to take you on.

In 1929 Fritz Zwicky the father of tired light theory recognized that Thompson scattering cannot work.
While I don’t have a copy of his 1929 paper this commentary came up in a moderated SF analysing the paper.

TDM: However, one cannot just claim, as Zwicky did, that all interactions in IGM must be described by Compton scattering.

They certainly aren't, in fact the vast majority would be described by Thomson scattering because the photon energy is far lower than the electron mass, but Thomson scattering doesn't change the energy at all, so Zwicky mentioned Compton scattering because in that energy is transferred to the electron as it recoils. Usually it is only applicable to hard x-rays though, the mass of an electron is 411keV while visible photons are around 2eV so 5 orders of magnitude less energetic but he might have been imagining an as yet undiscovered very low mass charged particle.

So it while it was my conclusion it wasn’t a terribly original one as it was known as far back as 1929!!
Two can play this game Michael.
Show me a citation, text book reference or comments from a moderated SF that supports your claims a static universe doesn’t collapse due to some weird combination of electrostatic repulsion and gravity.

Furthermore now that obfuscating nonsense has been cleared up you can now address the primary issue of observed Thomson scattering in the universe proving tired light models are wrong.

sjastro · Jan 13, 2020

SelfSim said:
The problem I see here, is that Michael doesn't recognise logical proofs .. I mean, need I cite anything more than his outright rejection of his famous '1=0.5', as evidence of his general denial of proofs by logic?

Since he seems to hold his opinion above any demonstrated proofs, I wonder whether he would accept something simple like: on a 2 dimensional plane, a triangle's interior angles sum to 180 degrees? If so, I wonder why he would accept that?

Well, Michael: What say ye?

The problem is Michael has an abnormal emotional attachment to his pet theory where logic flies out the window.
Anyone challenging the pet theory is automatically vilified as illustrated in this thread.
Let's not forget in the anti science hate site he resides in we have been labelled as EU/PC haters.
Personally I think it's a badge of honour.

Michael · Jan 13, 2020

sjastro said:
The problem is Michael has an abnormal emotional attachment to his pet theory where logic flies out the window.
Anyone challenging the pet theory is automatically vilified as illustrated in this thread.
Let's not forget in the anti science hate site he resides in we have been labelled as EU/PC haters.
Personally I think it's a badge of honour.

When you two can't win a particular debate in "scientifically", you both resort to attacking the individual. How sad.

EU/PC theory certainly isn't "anti-science", it's "empirical physics" that actually works in a lab, unlike any of your supernatural mumbo-jumbo. Your misinformation campaign is just goofy.

Dark energy is based on a dubious assumption.

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

On August Recess

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

A non "-ist"

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency