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.
Noted.
Does he mean *besides* the constant emission of solar wind, solar flares, solar jets, cathode rays from the sun, the aurora around the poles of the Earth, the excess heat in the corona, and all the other things that Birkeland successfully predicted with his cathode solar model? Oy Vey.Given that we're able to explain all the orbits in the solar system with a straightforward application of gravity, where's the problem that plasma cosmology is supposed to solve?
Not only does PC/EU theory show promise in terms of it's ability to actually 'explain' every observed feature of the universe in terms of tested laboratory physics, mainstream theory doesn't even actually offer any 'explanations' to begin with! Not only is Rob wrong about PC not being able to "explain' things fully, he's wrong about his claim about mainstream theory "explaining" anything! Wrong, wrong, pathetically wrong!Likewise, with the whole Universe, we explain a wide range of observations with Big Bang cosmology. If we are to even bother spending ten minutes thinking about plasma cosmology, we must first know: does it even show promise to explain everything, and what does it offer that the Big Bang does not? In other words, plasma cosmology is a waste of time.
The thing I thought was most noteworthy was the underdog part, because that's how I perceive the situation.FYI, there are so many problems in Rob's presentation, it's amazing and disgusting to me that a "professional" actually wrote it. Here's another example of his irrational biases:
Does he mean *besides* the constant emission of solar wind, solar flares, solar jets, cathode rays from the sun, the aurora around the poles of the Earth, the excess heat in the corona, and all the other things that Birkeland successfully predicted with his cathode solar model? Oy Vey.
Rob's supposed 'professional' opinions and attitude toward empirical physics is really about as ridiculous and biased as it gets. I could go on picking his absurd nonsense apart, point by point, but why bother? The fact that plasma redshift has been observed in the lab since he wrote that nonsense is all the evidence one needs to see what a joke that presentation turned out to be. Not only was the profession WRONG, he was DEAD WRONG on virtually every point he tried to make. The really ironic part is that while plasma redshift HAS actually been documented in the lab, his claims about cosmological redshift being related to "space expansion' has NEVER been demonstrated in a lab, nor will it EVER be demonstrated in a lab. What a huge distortion of the truth.
Not only does PC/EU theory show promise in terms of it's ability to actually 'explain' every observed feature of the universe in terms of tested laboratory physics, mainstream theory doesn't even actually offer any 'explanations' to begin with! Not only is Rob wrong about PC not being able to "explain' things fully, he's wrong about his claim about mainstream theory "explaining" anything! Wrong, wrong, pathetically wrong!
The thing I thought was most noteworthy was the underdog part, because that's how I perceive the situation.
Also, mind the caps
Wow! No! EU/PC proponents all tend to share one and only one thing in common AFAIK, specifically a preference for real empirical physics that produces real empirical physical results in real empirical experiments.As far as I can tell, the plasma cosmology people are basing all of their objections on a (probably unconscious) desire to be the Justified Iconoclast, latching on with their friends to a Truth that the mainstream refuses to see.
It's that kind of emotional reaction from the mainstream, and that kind of outright distortion of fact that tends to create so many hard feelings between EU/PC proponents and the mainstream. The fact they keep distorting the truth, and they keep getting caught in their lies is really only speeding up the process of transition. If they think we've been "persistent" in the past, watch how persistent we get in the future, particularly now that plasma redshift has been documented in the lab. PC/EU theory isn't going to go away anytime soon, and the more that the mainstream simply lies about the scientific facts, the more they simply undermine their own credibility, assuming they even have any credibility left at this point. A few "suckers' out there might believe this sort of nonsense, but all of it is based on an outright misrepresentation of scientific and historical fact. That's not a good long term strategy on their part.And, indeed, this is a very attractive notion, and I think this is part of why intelligent and interested members of the public get sucked in by it. The problem is, their justifications fall apart under even a little bit of scrutiny. Please, please, pay no attention to plasma cosmology. It's a persistent but extremely off-base crackpottery that plagues astronomy.
How nice if only he meant it, and if only his opinions changed because he actually LEARNED something. Unfortunately, he's just spewing misinformation based on a complete lack of knowledge:I was unprofssional and behaving badly by calling Plasma Cosmology a crackpot theory. Why can't I just engage the theory on its own merits? My tone was perhaps a little bit to dickish; I'll apologize to Phil Plait, at least, if not to the actual plasma cosmologists themselves.
There he goes with the name-calling. Astronomers argue like children.Because, the actual truth is that Plasma Cosmology is a crackpot fringe theory,
What a jerky thing to say. How offensive can you get anyway? Considering the fact that he's personally peddling a "creation mythos" akin to young earth creationism, who the hell is he to be comparing empirical physics to intelligent design concepts? What a stupid comment. And you wonder why EU/PC proponents have some hard feelings toward the mainstream?and to call it anything else would be little different from saying that creationism or intelligent design are "viable scientific alternatives" to evolution.
No, it's apparently based on willful or just plain standard ignorance of the scientific facts, including the fact that plasma redshift HAS ALREADY BEEN OBSERVED IN THE LAB AS *PREDICTED* BY PC/EU theory. Apparently his attitude is based on an 'ignorance is bliss' approach to physics. If he hasn't heard about it yet, the evidence must not exist!The widespread acceptance of standard cosmology is not because those of us in the mainstream are too afraid to look at the evidence and speak out against the unthinking consensus.
All of that so called "evidence" that he's talking about was just obliterated in the lab, not they he's even aware of that data.The widespread acceptance of standard cosmology is because there is a lot of evidence for it,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030402608000089and there's not evidence for the alternative proposed by the plasma cosmologists.
FYI, this claim was only 'half' correct. There is no good evidence that exotic forms of matter exist as they claim. There is however TREMENDOUS evidence that the mainstream's mass calculation models aren't worth the paper that they are printed on, and therefore most of the mass is "missing" in their theory. The fact they can't properly account for the correct amount of mass in a given galaxy or observation isn't evidence that exotic forms of matter exist however, it's simply evidence that their mathematical models of normal matter suck.There is no good evidence for the Big Bang model, Dark Matter, etc. These statements are just flatly incorrect. There is a tremendous amount of evidence for dark matter.
Nah, mostly this part:Do you mean this comment?
This as well, even though it's not really part of the underdog part:It helps that it feeds into the whole "few brave pioneers fighting the oppression of the mainstream dogma" story that seems to be so popular in (at least) American culture.
And that's why I don't like to take a personal stance, I refer to the mainstream since I don't think I can process the available evidence/information without considerable effort, sorting out the nonsense and understanding the rest.Unfortunately, rhetoric being what it is, it's very easy to find sites on the web (and books) that promote the notion of plasma cosmology, and after reading them it's easy for the interested but uninformed layman to be convinced.
Nah, mostly this part:It helps that it feeds into the whole "few brave pioneers fighting the oppression of the mainstream dogma" story that seems to be so popular in (at least) American culture."
It's really hard for me to believe that professional astronomers like Ron Knop have any particular advantage over any amateur in terms of PROPERLY understanding PC theory, or in "fairly" assessing various cosmology theories. In fact, it's their own professional biases that tend to get in the way in my experience. He's certainly more misinformed on the plasma redshift FACTS than most amateurs. No amateur would dare to make those kinds of false claims about redshift.This as well, even though it's not really part of the underdog part:
And that's why I don't like to take a personal stance, I refer to the mainstream since I don't think I can process the available evidence/information without considerable effort, sorting out the nonsense and understanding the rest.
Time will tell, don't fret so muchHmmm. Well, after reading Birkeland's work 100 years after it was written, in my case at least I actually felt like I arrived rather late to the party in terms of even hearing about EU/PC theory. I certainly don't fancy myself as any sort of "pioneer" on that particular scientific topic. Birkeland was a "pioneer" of EU/PC theory IMO. Alfven might also be thought of as a "pioneer" for his introduction of MHD theory and it's application to topics in space, although he actually was at least 40 years later than Birkeland. Maybe Dr. Charles Bruce falls into the category as well. I don't know anyone that really fancies themselves as a "pioneer" of EU/PC theory. I certainly don't see myself as a pioneer of EU/PC theory, I simply prefer that particular cosmology theory over any other cosmology theory.
It seems to me that the only reason there is a public "fight" between the mainstream and EU/PC proponents is because ignorant mainstream astronomers like Ron Knop say extremely ignorant and erroneous things about PC theory in public. If the mainstream didn't behave so badly toward empirical physics, it wouldn't be an issue. It's their own actions and their own fears and their own misstatement of the scientific facts that tend to lead to a public "fight".
It's really hard for me to believe that professional astronomers like Ron Knop have any particular advantage over any amateur in terms of PROPERLY understanding PC theory, or in "fairly" assessing various cosmology theories. In fact, it's their own professional biases that tend to get in the way in my experience. He's certainly more misinformed on the plasma redshift FACTS than most amateurs. No amateur would dare to make those kinds of false claims about redshift.
Mainstream astronomers tend to misrepresent the facts related to PC theory more often than they represent them correctly based on my experiences on the web. Amateurs tend to have fewer professional chips on their shoulder and they tend to be slightly more open to alternative ideas. Amateurs tend to be less emotionally attached to BB theory in general. Professionals tend to let their ego get in the way of even TRYING to properly comprehend PC theory, whereas amateurs rarely do so, although it does happen occasionally.
Time will tell, don't fret so muchjust keep the caps down and observe, there's plenty of material on the internet for the interested and those might be deterred by your tactics, as I have.
Everyone has their bright times (of course, that's only a hypothesis from my partThe odd part of that link to Rob's blog is that it includes a link to a recent speech given by Phil Platt. In the video, Phil was trying to suggest that "skepticism" should be applied "gently" and gracefully and with respect rather than rudely and without respect. I couldn't help but actually agree with him on that point.
The really amusing part from my perspective however is that Phil Platt is probably THE worst offender in terms of the misrepresentation of PC/EU theories on the web. Phil should listen to his own advice and stop banning and slandering everyone that he disagrees with. He's personally done more to turn me off towards mainstream theory than another other single individual on the internet. How ironic that Phil Platt of all skeptics should offer such good advice.
Everyone has their bright times (of course, that's only a hypothesis from my part).
Everyone has their bright times (of course, that's only a hypothesis from my part).
Why would you expect it to?When can I expect inflation to show up in lab on Earth?
You are never clear on which god of yours you are referring to; the Christian God or the universe one. What is this "Lambda-religion" you refer to?It's certainly a valid criticism of their sky religion. My concept of God doesn't require faith in ANYTHING that doesn't also appear on Earth. Even awareness exists on Earth in great abundance. Compared to Lambda-CDM, even an empirical theory of God walks all over it in terms of QUALIFICATION. There's no valid falsification mechanism to any of parts of Lambda-religion, particularly since plasma redshift has already been observed in the lab and they STILL cling to ONE possible "interpretation" of redshift and they completely ignore EVERY OTHER PROVEN WAY TO get it.
Why would astronomical observations necessarily be reproducible in a lab?Oh yes they are! Neither one of them can be linked to movement of atoms in a lab. Their only value at ALL is in ONE cosmology theory, and they do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the lab. They are MORE impotent on Earth than your average religious concept of "God". They do nothing at all in a lab, so any claim that they do anything somewhere else, or during some other time in the past, is pure nonsense. It's "made up"'. It's a "religion" based on a PROPERTIES were were assigned to their invisible buddies in a purely ad hoc fashion.
A simple 'yes' would have sufficed.Be my guest. <rant deleted>
To me two things were apparent:Oy Vey......
It turns out that Ron Knop is nothing more than a typical irrational "hater" of empirical physics. Worse yet, he is utterly incapable of handling an actual scientific debate. He chooses to remain in pure denial of scientific fact, and he closed his own blog so that nobody can even disagree with him!
Not only did Ron ignore the plasma redshift observations from the lab, he's choosing to hang out in pure denial. He tried to claim that the redshift observed in the lab isn't even related to PC theory *in spite* of the paper by Ashmore that APPLIES those same redshift results to cosmology theory and he carefully explains how it relates to tired light theories. Wow! Haters are all alike. They are all complete cowards IMO.
rknob
"It's very clear that you're so convinced by your fringe theory that nothing is going to convince you otherwise. As I said before, this discussion is over; I see no point in engaging you further."
rknob
You keep harping on about how I never said anything about how that paper supposedly proves Plasma Cosmology, but I did: trying to tie that paper to plasma cosmology is like trying to use the failure to create a self-sustaining fusion reaction on Earth as evidence that stars can't be powered by fusion. In both cases, it simply doesn't make sense. You're trying to use the red skin on an apple to prove things about oranges.
rknob
I'm sorry, but no matter how much you use all caps, you're not going to get what you're looking for out of me. You want me to repudiate the strongly-supported-by-evidence paradigm of cosmology in favor of a fringe theory that most find wanting. Your all caps assertion of truth are far weaker than my pointing to the **entire body of the astronomical literature**. There's a *reason* why the Big Bang model is what the mainstream accepts. Again, the burden of proof is on you, not me.
Why would you expect it to?
There is a legitimate yes/no scientific answer to the question: "Does God exist"? It has little or nothing to do with any specific region. It's simply a scientific question with a scientific answer. The vast majority of all theist are "monotheists" meaning we all accept the fact that there is but one God and many different religions. There's no value in asking "which god" a theists believes in, just "which religion". The whole notion of multiple "gods" is an atheistic misnomer.You are never clear on which god of yours you are referring to; the Christian God or the universe one. What is this "Lambda-religion" you refer to?
Why wouldn't they be be able to reproduce ANY of their key claims in a lab? If they can't do so, why should I put any faith in such a "dark sky religion"?Why would astronomical observations necessarily be reproducible in a lab?
To me two things were apparent:
1. He tried to show you were you were wrong.
I provided him links too.By providing links to sources refuting your side and actually tackling key points himself.
I've tried to understand their objections for 7 years already, but such objections tend to A) ignore the fact that plasma redshift has already been observed in the lab, and B) ignore the mathematical and physical models that are actually proposed by "tired light" proponents. I've noticed that when confronted with tired light proposals such as Ari's model of plasma redshift, mainstreamers tends to frivolously handwave in some half baked claim. They typically try to write off 130+ pages of redshift presentations in MULTIPLE papers over a typo in a single paper, or based on some false claim about this work. That won't fly with me. The error cited has to be real, and it has to valid. So far that has not been the case. I'll admit that Rob's "objection" wasn't something I'd seen before, but without more to go on, I have no idea if it's even a valid argument.2. You didn't even try to see things from both sides.
There are three basic arguments on that website. Let's go through all three points, one by one.Links he provided, in order;
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology
First of all, changing the "momentum" of the photon doesn't lead to blurring, it simply results in photon redshift. Changing the trajectory/direction of the particle would cause blurring, not a loss of momentum. How am I supposed to take this website seriously when it begins with such a statement?There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work.
IMO, this is actually a (the only) valid "claim/argument" provided that it's actually "true", and provided that such a process was never addressed in any tired light theory. That isn't the case however. Ari's work DOES address this data set. I was attempting to understand Rob's criticisms of Ari's work on this topic, without so much as a page number reference on his part, but alas I didn't actually get that chance. Rob pretty much made one handwave of a claim and then he closed the thread before I could even figure out what he was trying to say.The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves. This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1.
The tired light model can not produce a blackbody spectrum for the Cosmic Microwave Background without some incredible coincidences.That particular argument is pure BS. Eric Lerner has addressed this issue in published papers and videos galore, and Ari's work addressed it too. The BB spectrum is simply an "average temperature of spacetime" caused by the effect of starlight on atoms in space. In actual fact, the earliest "predictions" related to the temperature of "space" based on the effect of starlight was *much* closer to the actual temperature of space, less than 1 degree off, verses the BB predictions which were originally a whole order of magnitude off! This is by far the lamest argument on that website.
Keep in mind that only way that BB theory gets the right temperature is by adding 96 percent metaphysical nonsense to 4 percent actual physics. Worse yet, according to Penrose, an early inflation proponent turned critic, the likelihood of that "expanding balloon" concept working out correctly *with* inflation is actually 10 to the 100'th paper *less* likely than without inflation. Talk about incredible coincidences! People who live in dark metaphysical glass houses really should not be throwing any stones about "incredible coincidences".
Again, these two pieces of data relate right back to the time dilation issue and Ari's model of plasma redshift. It is NOT as though these ideas have not been addressed in his work.
Talk about an offensive website. I won't even go there at the moment. If you'd like to pick a few argument from that piece of junk website, I'll be happy to pick it apart for you. That website is probably THE single worst example of PC bias on the internet by two of the world's foremost PC "haters". I'm not impressed at all, in fact I'm disgusted. Comparing pure physics to creationism is simply irrational behavior, particularly since the mainstream is peddling a "faster than light speed" creation event, just like YEC only on a slightly longer, and equally unsupportable timeline. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
No, he did not.Another important quote:
You keep harping on about how I never said anything about how that paper supposedly proves Plasma Cosmology, but I did:
BS. Here is where Rob went into pure denial of scientific fact. Those two papers that I handed him, including the paper on plasma redshift in the lab, absolutely, positively does support PC theory! In fact plasma redshift is *the* single most important prediction of not only PC theory, but of tired light theories of all types. You can't simply ignore the data that you don't like. The worst part of his claim is that the second paper takes the first work on plasma redshift in the lab and applies it to Hubble's law. By Rob then claiming it does not support PC theory is simply an example of pure denial on his part. How can I take him seriously when he makes such ridiculous claims?trying to tie that paper to plasma cosmology is like trying to use the failure to create a self-sustaining fusion reaction on Earth as evidence that stars can't be powered by fusion. In both cases, it simply doesn't make sense. You're trying to use the red skin on an apple to prove things about oranges.
Ya, ok, the caps thing is annoying. 1 point for Rob. It's still not a scientific argument.Oh, and:
I am interested in a "discussion" which is why I spent some time trying to figure out what his real/actual objection to Ari's work was. A "discussion" however works both ways, and it cannot begin with pure denial of scientific fact as Rob is trying to do. One can't simply *ignore* the verification one of PC's most important "predictions" and call that a "discussion". That's not a discussion, that's a form of pure denial.You're not interested in a discussion.
It would have been one thing for Rob to claim "Well Michael, there are still problems trying to apply those plasma redshift observation in the lab to cosmology theory because.......
That's very different than simply ignoring the value of the laboratory findings completely, and ignoring the second paper that already applied these laboratory findings to cosmology theory.
Essentially all Rob did was handwave at both papers I handed him, he never once acknowledged his mistake in claiming that plasma redshift was a "crank" idea, and he mostly handed me unpublished websites that were full of errors and who's errors were addressed in later PC models.
The most telling part from my perspective is the fact he closed the page from further comment. If he can't take the heat he shouldn't be in the kitchen. If he intends to bash empirical physics publicly on the web, he should be man enough to take public criticism. Evidently he's not honest enough to allow for public dissent. If someone doesn't agree with him instantly, they're a "crank fringe theory supporter" that has to be silenced. How pitiful. And he calls himself a "scientist"?
True, you didn't close it, but he had good reason. He stated that reason.Yes, just as I tried to show him where he was wrong. Note however that I wasn't the one to terminate the conversation and close the discussion.
I provided him links too.
Why would you? You know very well I have no knowledge in the matter. I'm in no position to tell if you're lying, you're wrong or if you're correct (or whatever mix that might be).FYI, his links about plasma redshift are actually very old and irrelevant links that simply IGNORE the proposed "mechanisms" of redshift that have already been put forth by PC proponents. I'll be happy to go through those links and those ideas point by point if you like.
So that error is a typo? Is that something that the author has announced? If no, how can you state that it's a typo, it seems to have a major impact.I've tried to understand their objections for 7 years already, but such objections tend to A) ignore the fact that plasma redshift has already been observed in the lab, and B) ignore the mathematical and physical models that are actually proposed by "tired light" proponents. I've noticed that when confronted with tired light proposals such as Ari's model of plasma redshift, mainstreamers tends to frivolously handwave in some half baked claim. They typically try to write off 130+ pages of redshift presentations in MULTIPLE papers over a typo in a single paper, or based on some false claim about this work. That won't fly with me. The error cited has to be real, and it has to valid. So far that has not been the case. I'll admit that Rob's "objection" wasn't something I'd seen before, but without more to go on, I have no idea if it's even a valid argument.
Sure thing. You know my stance though.There are three basic arguments on that website. Let's go through all three points, one by one.
There's few people who wants to waste time writing a paper refuting what they think is obvious, which seems to be the case.First of all, before I even address the three points, let's start by noting that Rob's link isn't actually a link to a published paper like that paper by Chen. He's asking me to respond to what is actually nothing more than a bunch of handwaves from some guy's website. Let's start with the first handwave of an argument:
That's simply an assertion from your side to me (as well as their side of course), I can't tell whether you're correct or not.First of all, changing the "momentum" of the photon doesn't lead to blurring, it simply results in photon redshift. Changing the trajectory/direction of the particle would cause blurring, not a loss of momentum. How am I supposed to take this website seriously when it begins with such a statement?
Space expansion from the BB theory? That seems off the point atm. He either hasn't gotten to it or it's beside the point he's making.Secondly, there is no proposed mechanism for "space expansion" either, but the author never notes that small fact.
And this is as well assertions from your side to me. Except for the photon redshift in plasma, but he summed that up in the apple and orange statement.Lastly there are now known mechanisms that result in photon redshift in plasma, whereas there are no known mechanisms in physics that explain faster than light speed expansion of a physical universe composed of matter. Nothing composed of mass can travel faster than the speed of light according to Einstein, and "space" doesn't do any actual magical expansion tricks except in their "religion". It definitely has never been demonstrated in the lab, and it definitely will *never* be demonstrated in the lab.
The two errors are assertions from you in my case and the omission is only an omission if it is vital for what he's discussing, and to me it seems beside the point.That's a total of three errors/omissions in just he first sentence of that website.
And this is another assertion to me.IMO, this is actually a (the only) valid "claim/argument" provided that it's actually "true", and provided that such a process was never addressed in any tired light theory. That isn't the case however. Ari's work DOES address this data set. I was attempting to understand Rob's criticisms of Ari's work on this topic, but alas I didn't actually get that chance. He pretty much made one handwave and then closed the thread before I could even figure out what he was trying to say.
This is something you've mentioned before, and I still don't know whether you're correct, wrong and/or lying. So, in short, that's another assertion.Let's look at the last argument:
That particular argument is pure BS. Eric Lerner has addressed this issue in published papers and videos galore, and Ari's work addressed it too. The BB spectrum is simply an "average temperature of spacetime" caused by the effect of starlight on atoms in space. In actual fact, the earliest "predictions" related to the temperature of "space" based on the effect of starlight was *much* closer to the actual temperature of space, less than 1 degree off, verses the BB predictions which were originally a whole order of magnitude off! This is by far the lamest argument on that website.
And a bunch of assertions to me.Keep in mind that only way that BB theory gets the right temperature is by adding 96 percent metaphysical nonsense to 4 percent actual physics. Worse yet, according to Penrose, an early inflation proponent turned critic, the likelihood of that "expanding balloon" concept working out correctly *with* inflation is actually 10 to the 100'th paper *less* likely than without inflation. Talk about incredible coincidences! People who live in dark metaphysical glass houses really should not be throwing any stones about "incredible coincidences".
If you say so.Again, these two pieces of data relate right back to the time dilation issue and Ari's model of plasma redshift. It is NOT as though these ideas have not been addressed in his work.
Why would I pick any arguments from it? I wouldn't know the implications of half of them.Talk about an offensive website. I won't even go there at the moment. If you'd like to pick a few argument from that piece of junk website, I'll be happy to pick it apart for you. That website is probably THE single worst example of PC bias on the internet by two of the world's foremost PC "haters". I'm not impressed at all, in fact I'm disgusted. Comparing pure physics to creationism is simply irrational behavior, particularly since the mainstream is peddling a "faster than light speed" creation event, just like YEC only on a slightly long timeline. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
See his comment,July 7, 2012 at 1:23 amNo, he did not.
Are you certain that the redshift observed in the labs is identical to the one occurring in space?BS. Here is where Rob went into pure denial of scientific fact. Those two papers that I handed him, including the paper on plasma redshift in the lab, absolutely, positively does support PC theory! In fact plasma redshift is *the* single most important prediction of not only PC theory, but of tired light theories of all types. You can't simply ignore the data that you don't like. The worst part of his claim is that the second paper takes the first work on plasma redshift in the lab and applies it to Hubble's law. By Rob then claiming it does not support PC theory is simply an example of pure denial on his part. How can I take him seriously when he makes such ridiculous claims?
Nope, but a social. Who would you listen to, the guy who sits down and talks calmly or the one who shouts in your face?Ya, ok, the caps thing is annoying. 1 point for Rob. It's still not a scientific argument.
Sure it's no discussion, but if that prediction is based upon an erroneous calculation there's little need for it.I am interested in a "discussion" which is why I spent some time trying to figure out what his real/actual objection to Ari's work was. A "discussion" however works both ways, and it cannot begin with pure denial of scientific fact as Rob is trying to do. One can't simply *ignore* the verification one of PC's most important "predictions" and call that a "discussion". That's not a discussion, that's a form of pure denial.
Sure, but his nuclear argument made sense to me, you weren't exactly the model of a debater, I can understand why he lost his patience with you.It would have been one thing for Rob to claim "Well Michael, there are still problems trying to apply those plasma redshift observation in the lab to cosmology theory because.......
It was the application that he was questioning.That's very different than simply ignoring the value of the laboratory findings completely, and ignoring the second paper that already applied these laboratory findings to cosmology theory.
Asserted errors and asserted fixes to me.Essentially all Rob did was handwave at both papers I handed him, never once acknowledge his mistake in claiming that plasma redshift was a "crank" idea, and handed me websites that were full of errors and who's errors were addressed in later PC models.
What you were doing wasn't criticism, it was flaming.The most telling part from my perspective is the fact he closed the page from further comment. If he can't take the heat he shouldn't be in the kitchen. If he intends to bash empirical physics publicly on the web, he should be man enough to take public criticism. Evidently he's not honest enough to allow for public dissent. If someone doesn't agree with him instantly, they're a "crank fringe theory supporter" that has to be silenced. How pitiful. And he calls himself a "scientist"?
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?