Relativity

[Michael]

So nothing in Holushko's equations that deals with plasma or any EM field, correct?

Actually Holushko's equations are specifically related to 'generic' (as in all) types of inelastic scattering, so ya, it includes features of a "plasma" universe that you simply left out, including Brillouin scattering in a plasma medium that is full of EM field gradients which the photons must traverse.

 

[Michael]

Already did. Those galaxies are sharp pinpricks against a black background.

Excuse me? They're smeary "globs" of about 25 pixels of something that almost, but not quite looks completely unlike a galaxy. Your concept of a 'sharp pinprick' and mine aren't the same.

That should not be seen in a universe where light is being scattered by plasma.

Says who? You and Ned from an unpublished website?

Take a picture of a very sharp, local galaxy and reduce it to 25 pixels and you will get the same blob. You know this is true. Why you keep lying about it is beyond me.

Nobody is lying about anything other you and your claim that distant galaxies aren't blurred. You have *zero* observational evidence to support that claim, so why on Earth do you keep making it?

Simple optics. When you scatter light it either hits the observer coming from different angles which causes blur, or it doesn't hit the observer at all making the universe opaque. It is a simple concept.

It's simple when you leave out QM and the fact photons travel in waves, not just as individual particles. It's a simple concept to simply ignore all the temperature and EM field gradients inside spacetime, but that's not exactly rational IMO. Go right ahead and play in your make-believe universe, but in the real world of plasma physics, inelastic scattering happens, and so does 'blurring' over enough distance, with enough density.

Why do you keep lying about it?

Why do you keep taking the absolute low road in debate? Why do you present me with a smeared red blob and claim it's not 'blurry". It's blurry as pagan hades!

You really shouldn't be making any claims about what is or is not blurred based on 25 pixels worth of 'blob'. If that's the best you've got, you and Ned have absolutely nothing.

 

[Michael]

As I already told you, Lerner makes his 'mistake' when he assumes a Euclidean universe. He is not putting EM into a GR model.

He doesn't have to. He simply used GR to *eliminate your claims*. Now of course you can sit there and pretend he didn't just do that for you with *more* redshifted items at a *greater* distance for you, but that's exactly what he did, like it or not, and I still haven't seen you rebut his point with *better data*.

A static universe better fits the data set folks.

 

[Michael]

FYI, that Planck data set fiasco you have going is just the crowning blow to what is already one the universe's most *supernatural* creations of all time. It's become a "bad' religion, a supernatural creation mythology that is based on 'bad' faith in "Guthianity". Give it a rest already. Even my 'religion" requires no faith in anything "unseen' that is not directly experienced by humans right here on Earth.

 

[Davian]

... Even my 'religion" requires no faith in anything "unseen' that is not directly experienced by humans right here on Earth.

These religious "experiences" that you refer to... do you have any controls for those, for the purposes of experimentation?

 

[Michael]

These religious "experiences" that you refer to... do you have any controls for those, for the purposes of experimentation?

In the Empirical theory of God thread, I suggested that we measure EM fields both inside and outside human brain during prayer/meditation.

 

[Davian]

These religious "experiences" that you refer to... do you have any controls for those, for the purposes of experimentation?

In the Empirical theory of God thread, I suggested that we measure EM fields both inside and outside human brain during prayer/meditation.

So that would be a "no", then.

 

[Michael]

So that would be a "no", then.

Actually, it's a "yes".

The Dalai Lama and scientists unite to study meditation (May 23, 2001)

 

[Davian]

Actually, it's a "yes".

The Dalai Lama and scientists unite to study meditation (May 23, 2001)

Please quote the passages in that article that are applicable to the controls needed for the experimentation you mention in post #326 to have any validity.

And, is the Dalai Lama a Christian?

 

[Michael]

Please quote the passages in that article that are applicable to the controls needed for the experimentation you mention in post #326 to have any validity.

Meditation (potentially prayer as well) ends up being one of the "control mechanisms" actually. We're looking for EM field influence both during meditation, as well as during "normal" brain activities.

And, is the Dalai Lama a Christian?

Is that a requirement? Is theism even a requirement if we're trying to establish base line processes as well as "spiritually inclined" experiences?

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually Holushko's equations are specifically related to 'generic' (as in all) types of inelastic scattering,

Where?

 

[Loudmouth]

Excuse me? They're smeary "globs" of about 25 pixels of something that almost, but not quite looks completely unlike a galaxy.

Show me a picture of a human that is 5x5 pixels, and I want to see separation between fingers and the ability to see individual hairs on the head.

Do you know how imaging works, or not? Do you understand what resolution is?

Says who? You and Ned from an unpublished website?

Says common sense. Says all of optics and physics.

Nobody is lying about anything other you and your claim that distant galaxies aren't blurred. You have *zero* observational evidence to support that claim, so why on Earth do you keep making it?

You lie every time you expect the same resolution seen in a 1,000 x 1,000 pixel picture in a 5x5 pixel picture. You are actually requiring features that can only be seen at much higher resolutions, and you know it. You are lying.

It's simple when you leave out QM and the fact photons travel in waves, not just as individual particles. It's a simple concept to simply ignore all the temperature and EM field gradients inside spacetime, but that's not exactly rational IMO. Go right ahead and play in your make-believe universe, but in the real world of plasma physics, inelastic scattering happens, and so does 'blurring' over enough distance, with enough density.

And yet there is no blurring from scattering. Therefore, it isn't scattered.

Why do you present me with a smeared red blob and claim it's not 'blurry".

A blob is not blur. When will you tell the truth?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you know how imaging works, or not? Do you understand what resolution is?



Says common sense. Says all of optics and physics.

So says the inverse square law of light that you ignore as well that says astronomers are full of it.

I am still waiting for that calculation showing the Hubble Telescope (based upon aperature, mirror size, etc.), can see 13 billion light years?

Inverse-square law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Especially when there is this much "dust" out there blocking even the light from nearby galaxies?

Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference

Even your own astronomers know the answer, just won't admit what that really means.

Cosmic dust | Herschel Space Observatory

"Astronomers used to consider dust as a nuisance because it absorbs the visible light from objects, keeping them hidden from our optical telescopes making the Universe appear very dark and hiding a lot of interesting things from us. But these dusty clouds have silver linings, however. When astronomers started to use infrared cameras, they discovered that the annoying cosmic dust is actually very interesting and important to lots of astronomical processes...

The dust converts the stolen starlight it absorbs into light at longer wavelengths."

Even the "dust" does it, let alone that 99% plasma.

 

[Michael]

Show me a picture of a human that is 5x5 pixels, and I want to see separation between fingers and the ability to see individual hairs on the head.

Do you know how imaging works, or not? Do you understand what resolution is?

Yes, I do understand what resolution is, which is why I know for a fact that you have exactly *zero* evidence to confirm your claim that distant galaxies are not blurred by the plasma medium. I also know what a *lame* claim that is in the first place since the plasma medium can be quite dense in some areas and scatter almost all the light from various wavelengths. It's no piece of cake for instance to see galaxies behind the Milky Way at certain wavelengths.

What I understand is that you've got a 25 pixel *blob* that almost but not quite, looks completely unlike a galaxy. It's got no features you might use to claim it's "not blurry". It's just a red blurry *smudge*.

Says common sense. Says all of optics and physics.

Sorry but common sense, optics, and physics *insist* that inelastic scattering happens in plasmas. You're effectively admitting that you have absolutely nothing *published* to support any of your claims related to tired light theory. They all apparently come from Ned Wrights unpublished website, which is *entirely* based on Zwicky's 1929 paper and one line of text the Zwicky included about *one* kind of inelastic scattering. Essentially your claims about inelastic scattering are stuck 80 years in past, and none of it relates to a *modern* understanding of the *various* types of inelastic scattering in plasma, including Chen's work.

I'm really tired of your liar, liar, pants on fire routine, as well as your complete *inability* to back up any of your claims related to "cause/effect" mechanisms, and related to what can and cannot be observed in images of distant galaxies.

Your "religion" is just a *bad* religion. Unlike most, your religion has *multiple* supernatural constructs, *none* of which can be falsified. It's got *no* logical basis for any of it's claims, and it ignores the laws of plasma physics. I've seen *bad* faith, and *misplaced* faith, but that nonsense is just absurd. Your faith requires *magical photons*. Your magical photons apparently weave and dodge their way around every temperature and EM field gradient in spacetime to arrive on Earth completely unaffected by the medium they traverse. Sorry, but denial of physics is not a rational basis for a religion. You can't leave out EM fields and inelastic scattering effects of a mostly plasma universe and expect to actually *understand* what's going on. You don't understand what's going on which is why you need so many supernatural constructs, and it's why you need so many dark placeholder terms for pure human ignorance!

Noting can even falsify your religion as david's curvaton paper demonstrated. As long as you can simply 'make up" any ad-hoc claim you want, it's a no brainer that you can make your math work out on paper by fudging the numbers with the necessary amount of supernatural constructs.

Your multiple 'acts of faith' in the unseen (in the lab) are not warranted by the data. That's why your claims about the CMB don't actually match the Planck data, and that's why your entire industry is pretty much clueless when it comes to solar physics too. They're still peddling what Alfven called 'pseudoscience' and ignoring the electrical fields that make it all 'work'.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, I do understand what resolution is, which is why I know for a fact that you have exactly *zero* evidence to confirm your claim that distant galaxies are not blurred by the plasma medium.

I have all the evidence that is needed. Those distant galaxies are pinpricks against a black background. That is the evidence. If there were scattering of light there would not be a black background and there would be a haze throughout the universe that is most strongly seen around galaxies. It would be like looking at headlights in a fog during the day. That is not what we see.

What I understand is that you've got a 25 pixel *blob* that almost but not quite, looks completely unlike a galaxy.

Reduce any sharp, unblurred image to 25 pixels and it will look exactly as you describe.

Sorry but common sense, optics, and physics *insist* that inelastic scattering happens in plasmas.

Scattering also happens, and you continue to ignore it.

I'm really tired of your liar, liar, pants on fire routine, as well as your complete *inability* to back up any of your claims related to "cause/effect" mechanisms, and related to what can and cannot be observed in images of distant galaxies.

When you stop lying I will stop calling you a liar. You continue to lie about distant galaxies, so I will continue to call you on your lies. You know that any image of a galaxy shrunk down to 5x5 pixels is going to be a blob, and yet you continue to lie about it.

Your "religion" is just a *bad* religion.

Another lie. It isn't a religion. It's called physics. You should look into it.

Unlike most, your religion has *multiple* supernatural constructs, *none* of which can be falsified.

Another set of lies. None of them are supernatural, and they are all falsifiable. Show me a very distant galaxy that is blue shifted and you have falsified the expansion of space.

It's got *no* logical basis for any of it's claims, and it ignores the laws of plasma physics.

Another lie. You are the one ignoring the physics of plasma by ignoring the consequences of scattering.

Noting can even falsify your religion as david's curvaton paper demonstrated. As long as you can simply 'make up" any ad-hoc claim you want, it's a no brainer that you can make your math work out on paper by fudging the numbers with the necessary amount of supernatural constructs.

Your multiple 'acts of faith' in the unseen (in the lab) are not warranted by the data. That's why your claims about the CMB don't actually match the Planck data, and that's why your entire industry is pretty much clueless when it comes to solar physics too. They're still peddling what Alfven called 'pseudoscience' and ignoring the electrical fields that make it all 'work'.

And more crackpot blather.

 

[Michael]

I have all the evidence that is needed.

Pfft. You've got pure supernatural dogma on a stick, one published line from one published paper written in 1929 by a guy with ulterior motives (he was promoting his own tired light theory in that paper), and apparently a red "smudge" that you claimed isn't 'blurred' when you feel like it, and is blurred because it's 25 pixels when you say so.

Those distant galaxies are pinpricks against a black background.

It's not a "pinprick, it's 25 pixels of *smear* against a *relatively* darker background.

That is the evidence.

All you have is evidence of a smudge.

If there were scattering of light there would not be a black background and there would be a haze throughout the universe that is most strongly seen around galaxies.

It's called the CMBR! A lot of wavelengths do that actually.

It would be like looking at headlights in a fog during the day. That is not what we see.

You have *no idea what we should see* based on Brynjolfsson's concept of "plasma redshift". You have no idea what we "should see" based on Ashmore's concept of "new tired light". What you have apparently is a strawman argument that has nothing to do with reality or any of the plasma redshift maths I've shown you.

Reduce any sharp, unblurred image to 25 pixels and it will look exactly as you describe.

A blurred mess? What then is your evidence that it's not "blurred"? You keep going in circles with what amounts to a "red blob' that has no details whatsoever. It's not inconsistent with any of the plasma redshift maths that I handed you, and it in no way actually shows a "clear" galaxy.

Scattering also happens, and you continue to ignore it.

BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Edinburgh, East and Fife | Universe twice as bright as known

False, I'm counting on inelastic scattering in plasma, and *you* are ignoring it. You haven't even updated your stupid galaxy mass estimate models to deal with the scattering we *know* for a fact that we observe! You folks have consistently and intentionally underestimated the amount of inelastic scattering from day one, and you've *failed miserably* to even update your models based on the newer data!

When you stop lying I will stop calling you a liar.

Your remaining tactic it seems it to simply smear the messenger. You cannot show any empirical link between photons redshift any expanding space, inflation or dark energy. All you have is an affirming the consequent fallacy that was *falsified in the Planck data set*!

When you start dealing with those facts, your name calling might not sound so desperate and so pathetic.

You continue to lie about distant galaxies, so I will continue to call you on your lies.

What *lie* have I told? You've produced nothing more than a red smudge. Unlike you I'm not trying to make any claims about that red "smudge".

You know that any image of a galaxy shrunk down to 5x5 pixels is going to be a blob, and yet you continue to lie about it.

I don't care *why* you're unable to demonstrate a *clear and non blurred galaxy*. I only care that you cannot do so. The only lie being told here is your lie about how distant galaxies are not blurry. On one hand you're claiming they're blurry *because* of something, and in the next breath you're claiming they aren't blurry!

Make up your mind, and quit blaming the messenger because you have a blurry blob!

Another lie. It isn't a religion. It's called physics. You should look into it.

You don't hold faith in empirical physics. You hold faith in *hypothetical* physics, and *hypothetical* entities galore! It's not empirical science, it's supernatural dogma on a stick! It's an act of faith in the unseen (in the lab), just like any other *religion*. You're not promoting *empirical* physics, you're promoting dead supernatural dogma that died at LHC and died in the Planck data set.

Another set of lies. None of them are supernatural,

Dark energy is the ultimate *supernatural* entity. You specifically endowed it with a *supernatural* property of "negative pressure", since no other *natural* field would work.

and they are all falsifiable.

Boloney! How? If so, that Planck hemispheric data fiasco should do the trick! You've *never* had any evidence that the CMBR is related to a BB and you still do not!

Show me a very distant galaxy that is blue shifted and you have falsified the expansion of space.

Inelastic scattering would prevent such a thing from ever occurring even in a *static* universe! You're setting requirements that you know for a fact cannot be met. Worse yet, redshifted galaxies aren't the sole *prediction* of your theory. Again, there is no way to falsify your claims based on physics, since the laws of physics preclude that from occurring even in a static scenario.

Another lie. You are the one ignoring the physics of plasma by ignoring the consequences of scattering.

Not me. I showed you that article and you've never updated your galaxy mass estimates to deal with it! You guys just go into *pure denial* when the data doesn't suit you. You then just *make up* whatever supernatural construct you need to *fix* your supernatural disaster.

And more crackpot blather.

Evil lies from the atheist.....

 

[Loudmouth]

It's not a "pinprick, it's 25 pixels of *smear* against a *relatively* darker background.

It is a black background, and it is not a smear. It is exactly what we would expect to see from a non-blurred galaxy.

It's called the CMBR!

No, it isn't. First, the CMBR is not scattered starlight. Second, it is the wrong wavelength. It should be in the visible range just like the rest of the light you claim is redshifted by plasma. It isn't. PC is falsified.

You have *no idea what we should see* based on Brynjolfsson's concept of "plasma redshift".

I do know the real concept of how plasma scatters light, the way it actually scatters light in the laboratory. This would produce a haze of visible light throughout the universe that isn't there, as well as obscuring distant objects. None of the observations match up with what real plasma does. All I can conclude is that you are using a supernatural type of scattering that somehow doesn't scatter light.

A blurred mess? What then is your evidence that it's not "blurred"?

If you would open your eyes you would see that I already explained that multiple times.

False, I'm counting on inelastic scattering in plasma, and *you* are ignoring it.

And yet you ignore the scattering which would produce observations that we don't see.

Your remaining tactic it seems it to simply smear the messenger.

You smear yourself by relying on lies and insults like this one . . .

When you start dealing with those facts, your name calling might not sound so desperate and so pathetic.

You are so deserate to try and get rid of common sense that you actually think that a 5x5 pixel picture of a galaxy should look the same as a galaxy that is 1000x1000 pixels. That's pathetic.

What *lie* have I told? [/qutoe]

That we should see sharp features in a galaxy that is 5x5 pixels. That scattering light would not produce blur and an opaque universe. That the CMBR is scattered starlight. I could go on and on.

I only care that you cannot do so. The only lie being told here is your lie about how distant galaxies are not blurry.

Then show me what a non-blurred galaxy would look like at 5x5 pixels. Show me.

But you won't, will you.

You don't hold faith in empirical physics.

So says the person who ignores the consequences of scattered light.

 

[Davian]

Meditation (potentially prayer as well) ends up being one of the "control mechanisms" actually. We're looking for EM field influence both during meditation, as well as during "normal" brain activities.

That's not what I asked for, is it?

Is that a requirement? Is theism even a requirement if we're trying to establish base line processes as well as "spiritually inclined" experiences?

No, but I thought it humorous that you pointed to scientists working with atheistic individuals for some sort support for your "god" experiment.

You didn't read the article, did you?

 

[Michael]

That's not what I asked for, is it?

I thought you were looking for control mechanisms. Meditation is one of them.

No, but I thought it humorous that you pointed to scientists working with atheistic individuals for some sort support for your "god" experiment.

You didn't read the article, did you?

Of course I read the article *years* ago when it first came out. I'm simply noting that it's a useful way to tracking brain wave changes during meditation, and to see the effects of meditation on the brain.

I was simply proposing that we expand the EM field measurement capacity to include *external* EM fields as well as internal ones. The EM field measuring process during meditation and prayer is all I was interested in at the moment.

 

[Michael]

It is a black background,

It's a relatively *darker* background, I'll go that far.

and it is not a smear.

It's nothing but a smudge! What else would you call a "red blob" in an image?

It is exactly what we would expect to see from a non-blurred galaxy.

If you say so chief, but there is not nearly enough detail in the image to demonstrate that it's not blurred. That's your problem in a nutshell. You're making claims without evidence to support it. The fact the red blob "looks like clear bunny' to you personally is rather irrelevant, particularly since it's nothing but a red smudge.

No, it isn't. First, the CMBR is not scattered starlight.

Yes it is. Eddington *nailed* the actual background temp of starlight in his first shot. It took the BB proponents three or four tries to get it even in the right ballpark.

Second, it is the wrong wavelength.

Spacetime is full of all kinds of wavelengths. Is there a "wrong" wavelength?

It should be in the visible range just like the rest of the light you claim is redshifted by plasma.

Woah. Scattering occurs at different rates for different wavelengths in different directions. It's not homogenous and smooth because the plasma isn't homogenous.

It isn't. PC is falsified.

You're a trip. You can't falsify empirical physics. You might as well be trying to falsify evolutionary theory with some archaic point of philosophy.

I do know the real concept of how plasma scatters light, the way it actually scatters light in the laboratory. This would produce a haze of visible light throughout the universe that isn't there,

Show me *how you decided that*. How do you know how much scattering will occur? Did you use Ari's plasma redshift calculations to see how *he* claimed it would work or are you just making this up as you go?

as well as obscuring distant objects.

Show me a galaxy a z>20. How would you know if it's obscuring more distant objects or not?

None of the observations match up with what real plasma does.

False. Real plasma causes real inelastic scattering and that is what we observe in the redshift pattern.

All I can conclude is that you are using a supernatural type of scattering that somehow doesn't scatter light.

Nope, just the standard *brands* (plural).

If you would open your eyes you would see that I already explained that multiple times.

You haven't *explained* anything. You keep handwaving, but that's about it. You have a red smudge which you *swear* isn't blurry, but there's no detail in the image to make that kind of claim in the first place! You've got no arms to pick out, no detail of any sort! Your claims don't agree with your image.

And yet you ignore the scattering which would produce observations that we don't see.

Apparently you're just making up the 'observations' that you think we should see (according to you). Where did you use any of Ashmore's calculations or Ari's calculations to determine 'how much' scattering we "should" see?

You are so deserate to try and get rid of common sense that you actually think that a 5x5 pixel picture of a galaxy should look the same as a galaxy that is 1000x1000 pixels. That's pathetic.

No, that's just your pathetic strawman. You're the one making claims about a *non blurry* galaxy, with only *5x5* pixels to work with. I'm not making claims about that image, you are!

That we should see sharp features in a galaxy that is 5x5 pixels.

Quote me about what I said we *should* see. I only said with we *do* see, specifically *no details* worth noting.

That scattering light would not produce blur and an opaque universe.

Again, quote me or take back your claim.

That the CMBR is scattered starlight.

Eddington said it too.

I could go on and on.

I'm sure you can and I'm sure you will.

Then show me what a non-blurred galaxy would look like at 5x5 pixels. Show me.

It's not my claim, and I don't have to show you anything. You're the one claiming they are not blurred *without* a single image that shows a single arm in *any* highly redshifted object. I have no idea how you *personally decided* that the red smudge isn't blurred, or is blurred.

But you won't, will you.

Why would I help you in any way with *your* claims? You're constantly trying to shift the burden of proof. Sorry, that won't fly. You claimed it wasn't blurry, yet you haven't produced a single image that has any detail with which to make such a claim.

So says the person who ignores the consequences of scattered light.

Not me. You're the one that never even bothered to fix your broken galaxy mass estimates based on the scattering we *have already observed*. You're in pure denial of scientific fact at this point, and you could care less about empirical physics. Planck data set falsifications of your theories? You won't even touch them with a 10 foot pole.