Method for accepting science

[Michael]

Huh? That's not even the same process as the plasma redshift theory you linked to? Can't have both be right?

How many variations of inflation theory are there now? They can't all be right can they? Why would I start to DISMISS any plasma redshift theories yet? Some physical process MUST explain that OBSERVED plasma redshift in the lab. I'm not CERTAIN what that process is yet, but both tired light theories correctly predicted that electron density was a significant factor in the process, and indeed the laboratory experiments demonstrate just that. It's nice when the PREDICTIONS pan out.

Sooner or later there will be enough lab data to correctly determine which physical process in plasma is responsible for that redshift effect, but at the moment I can't pick a 'favorite'.

You really might want to rethink this statement? Do you know why?

What happens to the photons momentum? You cannot lower the frequency of a photon without a corresponding momentum change. Hence blurring.

The transfer of kinetic energy from the photon to the electron doesn't cause blurring, just redshift. Blurring would require a DEFLECTION of the photons trajectory. You're right, SOME scattering/blurring is going to occur, but "how much" isn't really clear from the few lab tests I've read thus far.

That is not what he does.

I can't even see any evidence of in appendix A of him setting r to 0 in the first place. The closest thing I found was a single reference to the variable R SUB 0, but he didn't set r TO 0 anywhere in that appendix AFAIK. You seem (maybe I missed it?) to be trying to do that all on your own. Electrons are ALWAYS in motion, so the concept doesn't even make a lot of sense to me. That's certainly not what the rest of his paper is trying to suggest so I have no idea at all where you even get that idea, but it's late my time so maybe I missed it. r isn't 0 in equation 15, so where did you actually get that idea anyway? What did I miss?

FYI, I hope you're healing well from your fall, and the pain has subsided a bit. I really hate tendon tears because they take so darn long to heal and they can be REALLY painful.

 

[Elendur]

...
I can't even see any evidence of in appendix A of him setting r to 0 in the first place. The closest thing I found was a single reference to the variable R SUB 0, but he didn't set r TO 0 anywhere in that appendix AFAIK. You seem (maybe I missed it?) to be trying to do that all on your own. Electrons are ALWAYS in motion, so the concept doesn't even make a lot of sense to me. That's certainly not what the rest of his paper is trying to suggest so I have no idea at all where you even get that idea, but it's late my time so maybe I missed it. r isn't 0 in equation 15, so where did you actually get that idea anyway? What did I miss?
...

At the position of r = 0, the equation of motion for a plasma
electron, acted upon by the electrical field’s Fourier component E exp (iωt) = (A/&#949 exp (iωt) , is
[equation one]

See page 2.

Dunno about the appendix though.
(Not jumping into the discussion, just pointing out one occurrance of r=0)

Edit: I've gotta ask though, doesn't every equation using the first equation assume r=0?

 

[Greatcloud]

As regards to the OP. I believe GW and evolution are both wrong and I disagree with them on scientific grounds. This is the right way to disagree and although I am a christian. My faith is not how I would argue the debunking of these two theories.

 

[Nabobalis]

As regards to the OP. I believe GW and evolution are both wrong and I disagree with them on scientific grounds. This is the right way to disagree and although I am a christian. My faith is not how I would argue the debunking of these two theories.

So how would you debunk evolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

So how would you debunk evolution?

With the Bible's timeline.

Everything that happened in this universe, happened within 6100 years.

 

[Naraoia]

You're taking up a whole lot of unnecessary stuff. Don't you know how to argue?

I think he just has a lot more emotional attachment to his plasma universe than any mainstream cosmologist does to inflation, dark energy or supersymmetry...

Confirmation bias does apply to my observations of intelligent design in the universe. The is an equal level of seeming randomness with no Creator in sight.

But it doesn't apply to my experiences of answered prayer.
They come in at a 100% "success" rate. More important, the timing
is beyond instant. The "answers" are put in place before the request.
God does that just to prove a point I think.

Only remembering successes is confirmation bias.

 

[Michael]

At the position of r = 0, the equation of motion for a plasma
electron, acted upon by the electrical field’s Fourier component E exp (iωt) = (A/&#949 exp (iωt) , is
[equation one]

See page 2.

I think the problem is that I'm having a hard time figuring out which paper we're discussing at this point. I've been thumbing through the original 95 page whopper of a paper and Appendix A in that paper. The paper you're citing isn't the one I've been looking at.

At first glance, I'd have to say that's probably a 'typo' and should be r *SUB* 0, not r = 0. Chalk one up to the value of proofreading and peer review, but it doesn't affect much else in the paper IMO.

 

[Michael]

Then the redshift should be measurably, markedly different in the light that passes close to suns and galaxies and that which doesn't - we could measure that very easily with our own sun and observing objects with light passing nearer to it than others? I don't think such an observation has ever been made.



I hadn't spotted this one, it is an error as NGC has shown and one he indeed repeats in the review, the second paper - "Plasma-redshift cosmology: a review"

http://plasmaredshift.org/Article_Archive_files/10CCC2AReviewFinal.pdf

In the equation on page 2, from (eq 2) we can see that r = 0 is only possible in one state, that if e = 0 or A = 0.

His mathematics seems to require electrons to be stationary.......

Incidentally, I am positive you can't normalize the Poynting vector of a single photon, since the EM "field" of a single photon is something of a meaningless idea in that sense due to uncertainty (especially when we're talking vectors) - but I'll have something more concrete on that when I get around to it.

I'll concede that is probably a typo and should read r SUB 0, not r = 0. I'll grant you it's an typo/error, but it's clear in all his papers that electrons are in motion, and that simple typo doesn't seem to affect anything else in the paper as far as I can see.

In terms of the Poynting vector claim, you'll need to provide me with something more substantive than "just your word for it". Ari's concept of redshift *IS* a quantum process full of all sorts of uncertainty factors. In fact his version is MORE complicated than most because he's not simplifying some of the QM effects as other authors typically do. He's necessarily including some of those lesser effects that typically get ignored in mainstream theory, and he's making me personally work much harder to understand all the nuances of things I've never had to think about in any other light/electron interaction theory I've ever read. He's WAY over my head in many areas, both in terms of the math AND the physics aspects. Trying to correctly conceptualize the actual physical interaction process that he's describing has really made my my head swim, I'll be honest.

What I like most about his theory is that is appears to suggest that there is a very small, but very measurable field to field transfer of kinetic energy as the small magnetic field of the photon interacts with the larger EM field of the electron. I'll admit for the record that in terms of quantum "ad ons" he's insisting must be "left in", I'm struggling to understand them myself. You "could" be right, but you "could be" wrong in terms of whether that's a 'legitimate' thing to do with the Poynting vector at the level of quantum mechanics as he INSISTS. His background however, and the fact nobody else in cyberspace has every complained about it that I can see, would suggest to me that you'll need to provide me with something more "concrete" when you get a chance.

It's the physics, and the physical interaction process he's describing that I've struggled with the most quite frankly. I'll concede that the ideas that he's presenting are at the limit of my understanding of QM, mathematics, *AND* the conceptual physics aspects. It's the fact that I'm in over my head at the level of conceptual physics that I find so disturbing quite frankly.

What I must note however is that *IN THE LAB*, plasma redshift has now been observed as many, many, many "tired light" theories have "predicted" for many decades. The observed plasma redshift in the lab shows a clear connection between the number of free electrons in the plasma, and the amount of redshift. The number of free electrons, and the amount of current traversing the plasma, plays a SIGNIFICANT role in the amount of redshift that occurs. Something, some physical process has to 'explain' that effect that we observe in the lab as ALL tired light theories predict. Ari's paper, and the second tired light paper I handed you do predict such a plasma redshifting process will be most affected by the number of electrons in the plasma and Ari's version seems to be THE most sensitive to that particular factor as far as I can tell. I can't rule out his 95 page paper based on a typo from a much later "overview' paper. You'll need to give me more to go on before I can toss out his ideas.

Keep in mind however, that we STILL need to explain those LAB results, with some mathematical explanation for that observed behavior in plasma. Plasma redshift happens in the lab. Falsifying one or more mathematical/physical "explanations' for that laboratory behavior doesn't change the fact that plasma redshift has been observed and we still need a way to "explain" it, physically and mathematically.

 

[Michael]

So then we have two arguments.
One that utilizes the term 'faith' as a term of unique value and one that utilizes the term 'faith' as a synonym.
One saying that 'faith' isn't a part of theories and one that confidence is a part of theories.
Too bad you took the easy way out, really.

From my perspective you left me very little choice because you didn't seem to even want to discuss how things work in the real world of applied physics.

Admittedly, *IF* you'll consider the fact that 'plasma redshift' has now been observed in the lab, and *IF* you'll concede that could destroy their whole claim about BB theory, and falsify BB theory entirely, then you MIGHT be able to see that their so called 'evidence of expansion/acceleration' is in MORTAL danger of being DESTROYED by one single observation in the lab, the observation of plasma redshift.

*IF* you will talk about and deal with these REALITIES, then and only then is it worth looking at definition number 2. IMO the entire BB theory is about to come crashing down due to that observation of plasma redshift in the lab. It doesn't matter how many mathematical papers the mainstream tries to shoot down, the plasma redshift is real, and measurable in the lab, in real empirical experiments. Mark my words, that single observation will eventually DESTROY dark energy theory, and there goes 70 percent of their theory. Even if it turns out that the effect is too small to to explain away expansion, it's definitely a large enough effect to explain away any concept of acceleration. Current theory is is MORTAL danger now. That redshift observation in the lab is HUGE. Every tired light theory that was ever written predicted that particular observation. The value of any theory is how well it can predict REAL physical process in REAL physical interactions. PC theory has another feather in it's cap now, and it's only a matter of time before SOME tired light theory WILL explain those lab results.

Sure, if it's all about the confidence. If you'd read my argument, you'd noticed that I use it as the unique term it is (which makes your strong statements much more sensible, since going on and on about having confidence in something makes no sense).

But ultimately it doesn't matter. Whatever "confidence' they have in their math formulas, they were USELESS in terms of PREDICTING that plasma redshift observation in the lab. Several variations of PC theory however DID predict that observation. That's important.

Their "confidence" was always a mental/mathematical illusion. Expansion/acceleration claims have always been based on a highly subjective *INTERPRETATION* of the redshift phenomenon. Now that plasma redshift has been observed in the lab, that observation will eventually erode their claims over time. It will likely take them a DECADE or more to accept reality however, particularly if history is any indicator of how long it takes them to "wake up and smell the coffee". They're so emotionally and financially attached to their 'dark religion', it's simply going to take time before it all unravels on them.

I'm simply worried that while the west drags their feet, China, Russia, Dubai and many other countries don't show that same arrogance and ignorance. All the EU haters come from Europe, the US, Canada, and Australia. I've never seen a hater from China, or Russia, or any 'Eastern" nation. If we aren't careful in the west, we could end up DECADES behind in the space race in terms of applied technology. Chinese scientists are already WAY ahead of the US in MANY areas of technology. I'd hate see us lose our last few technological advantages, particularly our space based technologies. That's exactly what will happen if we don't wake up and recognize that we live inside an electric universe and plasma physics is the name of the game in space sciences.

 

[Elendur]

From my perspective you left me very little choice because you didn't seem to even want to discuss how things work in the real world of applied physics.

Is it that strange? That wasn't the reason for why I started the discussion.

Admittedly, *IF* you'll consider the fact that 'plasma redshift' has now been observed in the lab, and *IF* you'll concede that could destroy their whole claim about BB theory, and falsify BB theory entirely, then you MIGHT be able to see that their so called 'evidence of expansion/acceleration' is in MORTAL danger of being DESTROYED by one single observation in the lab, the observation of plasma redshift.

Evidence can't be destroyed. You should know that.

*IF* you will talk about and deal with these REALITIES, then and only then is it worth looking at definition number 2. IMO the entire BB theory is about to come crashing down due to that observation of plasma redshift in the lab. It doesn't matter how many mathematical papers the mainstream tries to shoot down, the plasma redshift is real, and measurable in the lab, in real empirical experiments. Mark my words, that single observation will eventually DESTROY dark energy theory, and there goes 70 percent of their theory. Even if it turns out that the effect is too small to to explain away expansion, it's definitely a large enough effect to explain away any concept of acceleration. Current theory is is MORTAL danger now. That redshift observation in the lab is HUGE. Every tired light theory that was ever written predicted that particular observation. The value of any theory is how well it can predict REAL physical process in REAL physical interactions. PC theory has another feather in it's cap now, and it's only a matter of time before SOME tired light theory WILL explain those lab results.

It doesn't matter! I'm not talking about physics and certainly not astronomy, if I would like to discuss astronomy I know less biased, and more to-the-point, sources.

But ultimately it doesn't matter. Whatever "confidence' they have in their math formulas, they were USELESS in terms of PREDICTING that plasma redshift observation in the lab. Several variations of PC theory however DID predict that observation. That's important.

It does matter, I only started this due to your poor choice of words. That has nothing to do with anything else.

Their "confidence" was always a mental/mathematical illusion. Expansion/acceleration claims have always been based on a highly subjective *INTERPRETATION* of the redshift phenomenon. Now that plasma redshift has been observed in the lab, that observation will eventually erode their claims over time. It will likely take them a DECADE or more to accept reality however, particularly if history is any indicator of how long it takes them to "wake up and smell the coffee". They're so emotionally and financially attached to their 'dark religion', it's simply going to take time before it all unravels on them.

You can keep going on and on if you like, you still don't get that I don't care about it.

I'm simply worried that while the west drags their feet, China, Russia, Dubai and many other countries don't show that same arrogance and ignorance. All the EU haters come from Europe, the US, Canada, and Australia. I've never seen a hater from China, or Russia, or any 'Eastern" nation. If we aren't careful in the west, we could end up DECADES behind in the space race in terms of applied technology. Chinese scientists are already WAY ahead of the US in MANY areas of technology. I'd hate see us lose our last few technological advantages, particularly our space based technologies. That's exactly what will happen if we don't wake up and recognize that we live inside an electric universe and plasma physics is the name of the game in space sciences.

And now politics? What?

You've missed everything I've been trying to convey to you. I've repeated that you keep harping on about irrelevant things several times, several others not involved in the discussion has understood, why haven't you?

 

[Split Rock]

As regards to the OP. I believe GW and evolution are both wrong and I disagree with them on scientific grounds. This is the right way to disagree and although I am a christian. My faith is not how I would argue the debunking of these two theories.

So how would you debunk evolution?

With the Bible's timeline.

Everything that happened in this universe, happened within 6100 years.

Did you even read what your compatriot wrote? He said he would not use his faith, he would use science. That means no bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you even read what your compatriot wrote? He said he would not use his faith, he would use science. That means no bible.

Methinks someone needest a lesson in the Spiritual armor.

No Bible = no Sword.

No Faith = no Shield.

 

[Naraoia]

Methinks someone needest a lesson in the Spiritual armor.

Whereas someone else needeth a lesson in old-fashioned English conjugation

 

[AV1611VET]

Whereas someone else needeth a lesson in old-fashioned English conjugation

... What?

I used "needest" because 'needest' is second person, whereas 'needeth' is third person.

 

[Naraoia]

... What?

I used "needest" because 'needest' is second person, whereas 'needeth' is third person.

Oh, then darn your unusual sentence construction! "Someone" generally behaves as a third-person subject, doesn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, then darn your unusual sentence construction! "Someone" generally behaves as a third-person subject, doesn't it?

Okay ... point taken.

Methinks someone needeth a lesson in the Spiritual armor.

 

[RickG]

As regards to the OP. I believe GW and evolution are both wrong and I disagree with them on scientific grounds. This is the right way to disagree and although I am a christian. My faith is not how I would argue the debunking of these two theories.

I know, you use the Heartland Institute and other like-wise non science sources. And please don't cite Fred Singer again, he's been incorrectly saying were in a cooling cycle for over 20 years. 98% of practicing climate scientists agree that GW is real and due to anthropogenic sources. Get your head out of the sand and look at the scientific literature for once.

Expert credibility in climate change

 

[SkyWriting]

Okay ... point taken.

Methinks someone needeth a lesson in the Spiritual armor.

A guy would do well to gauge it's strength.

 

[SkyWriting]

Only remembering successes is confirmation bias.

As I said, 100% is not up for debate.
I'd give you credit for me not remembering
90% or even 95% of the "failures"

 

[Davian]

Confirmation bias does apply to my observations of intelligent design in the universe. The is an equal level of seeming randomness with no Creator in sight.

But it doesn't apply to my experiences of answered prayer.
They come in at a 100% "success" rate. More important, the timing
is beyond instant. The "answers" are put in place before the request.
God does that just to prove a point I think.

Only remembering successes is confirmation bias.

As I said, 100% is not up for debate.

Yes, confirmation bias is a powerful tool for establishing what you want to be true.