Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Expansion shows up in this lab.
No, you didn't. You can't do that with "uncontrolled observations" in the first place.
All you observed is standard signal broadening in plasma and you misinterpreted it to be 'time dilation'.
When you can show me a galaxy with a redshift of 10 that isn't a blurry blob, you let me know.
Unpublished website nonsense . . .
Only the observations of redshift and signal broadening show up in that lab. Your interpretation of the *causes* of redshift and signal broadening does not.
Then you are also not observing plasma scatter light in the experiments you are citing. You are only assuming that it is the cause.
Yes, you can. That's how controls work.
Sure I did. I handed you those MAGIC data sets and you ignored them. The higher energy wavelengths traveled at a different speed from the lower energy wavelengths. You don't even care!Where did you show that it is being misinterpreted? You didn't.
Right. Anyone you disagree with is a "crackpot" (like me calling you evil) simply because you disagree with them. You don't even debate fairly.Citing other internet crackpots is not science.
There you go again running like pagan hades away from my request because they are all blurry!When you can show me that you understand the difference between blur and pixelation, let me know.
I understand and recognize a complete dodge when I see one.You have gotten that wrong every time. You can't understand something as simple as optical resolution.
Chen "controlled" the amount of redshift in his inelastic scattering experiments by increasing and decreasing the current flowing through his chamber.
Either you honestly cannot tell the difference between observation and experimentation, or you're not being honest, which is it?
Sure I did.
The thing you don't want to have to admit here is that your *assuming* the cause, you're not demonstrating it empirically.
I can empirically demonstrate that moving objects, inelastic scattering and heavy gravity wells cause photon redshift , so I have no need whatsoever for any other explanation for redshift and signal broadening.
You have *faith*
Then neither are you, by the very same reasoning.
I'm not "assuming* cause *before* I start pointing at the sky. I showed cause in plasma on Earth, and then logically applied it to plasma in space.No, you observe redshift, you are assuming the cause.
You only have evidence of redshift and you have near absolute faith that your invisible friends did it.I have evidence. No need for faith.
By your own logic, he only observed scattering. He just assumed that the current was causing it. He was not controlling the individual atoms and ions in the plasma, so it is just as uncontrolled as any measurement by a telescope.
False. By modifying the current he was able to vary the amount of redshift. They showed the free electron/redshift relationship empirically using actual control mechanisms to vary the current.You are the one not being honest. In the example above you make the very same mistake you keep accusing others of. You are confusing the observation of scattering with the conclusion that plasma is causing it.
The entire Christian (theistic) community disagrees with you too. What's your point?The entire field of astronomy disagrees with you.
It seems to me that you're not happy about the fact that your belief in hypothetical entities is an 'act of faith' on your part.
You'd rather keep trying to dance around the need for *qualification* in controlled experimentation like Chen did.
You didn't *qualify* any of your claims to start with, making your claims about your friends nothing more an an affirming the consequent fallacy, and a pure "act of faith" on your part.
You have *faith* that your invisible friends exist, and you have *faith* that your invisible friends have some sort of an effect on photons.
Sooner or later you're going to have to accept that "faith in the unseen' (in the lab)
is a necessary element in both science and religion, not *just* religion.
False. He *controlled* the current/free electrons in the plasma and noticed that it made a difference in his result.
You didn't control anything.
False. By modifying the current he was able to vary the amount of redshift.
They showed the free electron/redshift relationship empirically using actual control mechanisms to vary the current.
The entire Christian (theistic) community disagrees with you too. What's your point?
False. He only measured scattering. He only assumed that the changes he made to the current caused changes in the scattering.
You have never run imaging hardware and software, have you? If so, you wouldn't make massive mistakes like this one.
You are assuming that the current changes the redshift.
That your interpretation of the evidence runs contrary to everyone in the field of astronomy.
I have the evidence. No need for faith.
Why does that upset you?
No, that is you who keeps trying to assert this requirement that the scientific method has never needed nor used.
Observations of distant galaxies through a telescope are no different than the observations made by Chen or anyone else.
I have evidence. No need for faith.
This whole conversation comes right back to the same thing every time. Faith is an *integral* part of both science and religion. Deny it all you like, but your faith in invisible sky thingies is a pure act of faith in the unseen (in the lab).
Aren't you forgetting the difference? what happens in the lab is seen -- that's the whole point of doing it in the lab.
I agree with you of course, but hypothetical entities like SUSY sparticles remain "unseen" in the lab, whereas the Higgs has been seen. There is an empirical difference between *standard* particle physics theories and non standard theories in term of what is actually been "seen" in those labs.
Belief in a Higgs is no longer an "act of faith", whereas belief in SUSY sparticles remains an act of faith, perhaps forever.
I have the evidence. No need for faith. Why does that upset you?
No, that is you who keeps trying to assert this requirement that the scientific method has never needed nor used. Observations of distant galaxies through a telescope are no different than the observations made by Chen or anyone else.
I have evidence. No need for faith.
I have evidence that they exist. No need for faith.. [ /QUOTE]
Fundamental Naturalists have yet to learn and admit they walk by faith. They dislike those scientists who point out this truth.
As a mature geologist I cannot tell you how many times WHILE IN COLLEGE that fellow geologists around me and teaching me would base their geologic discussion on speculation, and over the past three decades in the working world it has been no different.
There is a fundamental reason for their continuing use of speculation - it's because in historical events on earth there have been no eye witnesses; no human who has first hand observed the historic event. Speculation is the middle name of godless geologists.
Once you know this geologic trait it is simple and easy to pickup. Go to some geology classes or the like and listen. But on this website naturalists are mute on this truth. And the same is true about how they walk by faith - they deny it's true. Who are they kidding?
Theories based on observation and math are not "pure speculation", are they? You just call it that because you don't like it.It is pure speculation that inflation exists or ever existed. That's why it's a *hypothetical* entity. Likewise it's pure speculation that "dark energy" exists or has any effect on a photon. Ditto for exotic matter. Speculation with math is still "speculation". All the popular SUSY theories went up in flame already at LHC. It's now an 'exotic matter of the gaps' claim. Yep, that's "speculation' alright.
I said, you have what the article said backwards. The article states "A particular problem is that most Boltzmann brains will exist in the far future when the universe is no more than an inky void, with a past indistinguishable from the future. This would make our experience of time's arrow highly unusual.I read it. I've also been the mainstreams biggest critic for the better part of decade now. I see no evidence at all that the universe has a finite age, a finite size, a finite *anything*!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?