Relativity

[Loudmouth]

Nope. Astronomers do that when they point at the sky and claim their invisible friends did it.

Nope, they point to observations of expansion. In your desperation you hope that calling it supernatural will make it go away.

False. The observation*s* (plural) are simply photon redshift and signal broadening.

That is an observation of expansion.

That not even an "explanation", that's pure religious dogma. Where does dark energy even come from? Show me a real experiment where "dark energy' had some effect on a photon.

Here is the experiment:

Clocking an Accelerating Universe: First Results from BOSS « Berkeley Lab News Center

True. Your *explanation* (which isn't actually an explanation in the first place) is wrong, but the photons are still reshifted, and the signal still experiences signal broadening.

That redshift is due to expansion.

It's supernatural because you can't show that photons are affected by anything you've claimed.

Yes, I can. We have shown redshift, time dilation, and surface brightness. These are all effects of expansion. All three sources of data confirm expansion.

He has exactly the same mathematical justification that you have, *and* he has laboratory physics on his side. Photons *are* affected by plasmas and light *does* experience signal broadening in plasma in the lab.

Holushko rejects relativity and doesn't use a single equation for inelastic scattering. He's a crank.

 

[Michael]

Nope, they point to observations of expansion.

No, they aren't. Apparently you don't comprehend the difference between *observation* (redshift) and *subjective interpretation* (expansion). There is one.

In your desperation you hope that calling it supernatural will make it go away.

That line is a riot coming from an atheist that believes in things he can't actually "see" or demonstrate in a lab.

Sorry, but the *whole reason* you folks "made up" this thing called "dark energy" is because is because no other "natural" (on Earth) type of energy has a "negative pressure"! You literally endowed your supernatural franken-creation with supernatural powers to save your one otherwise falsified cosmology theory from certain empirical death.

That is an observation of expansion.

No, that's a "subjective interpretation", one that is quite different from the subjective interpretation of Holusko, and/or Ashmore or Brynjolfsson.

Here is the experiment:

Clocking an Accelerating Universe: First Results from BOSS « Berkeley Lab News Center

How did they *control* any dark energy, dark matter, inflation, or space expansion in that instrument?

That redshift is due to expansion.

Expansion of objects, perhaps. Expansion of space, not a snowballs chance in pagan hades.

Yes, I can. We have shown redshift,

Redshift is *only* related to moving objects, not expanding space.

time dilation,

Irrelevant in terms of "cosmic expansion".

and surface brightness.

Lerner's paper demonstrates exactly the opposite!

These are all effects of expansion. All three sources of data confirm expansion.

If so, only the effects of *object expansion*, not your mythical made up brand of "space expansion" that smells suspiciously like an aether.

Holushko rejects relativity

Where in his relevant paper did he do that?

and doesn't use a single equation for inelastic scattering.

Except he does use a generic formula to explain the supernova signal broadening process.

He's a crank.

And you're evil.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ok, I will buy mainstream's redshift = velocity and distance equation. Which in turn means I must accept that the earth or its near proximity is the center of the Big bang, since objects in a 360 degree sphere are all moving away from the earth.

And if mainstream doesn't want the earth as the center then this means if the earth is not the center, then objects must be accelerating towards the center, since they are doing so no matter which direction one looks, again in a 360 degree sphere.

But, since the further one looks in a 360 degree sphere the further back in time one gazes, which means 13 billion years ago they were at their present distance, and are now 13 billion years further away. There is no evidence any one was closer than it is now, but we do know that 13 billion years ago some were 26 billion light years apart. We do not see those galaxies were they are today, but at their distances 13 billion years ago.

You claim the Milky-Way is not highly red-shifted, yet relativity demands that if one was inside a highly red-shifted quasar it would look normal, and our galaxy would be highly red-shifted.

So the further one gets from any object, the more distant objects look red-shifted. Since only plasma redshift or through a medium has been observed in the lab, the logical conclusion since the universe is 99% plasma, the red-shift is due to plasma effects, not only distance and a general velocity indicator, but energy density as well.

You have never observed red-shift outside of a medium, EVER. Why do you resist the experimental results?

Why do you insist it is expanding nothing which does this, despite the fact that no red-shift outside of a medium has ever been observed? Not once. You have yet to perform a single one in a vacuum, even space is not a pure vacuum. In a medium is all you have ever observed, just like with Doppler Shift, which is caused from moving bodies through a medium.

Oh that's right, red-shift is Doppler Shift, just without a medium even though no experiments without a medium have ever occurred.

Please, is that the best you got?

You can't even get the CMB or the Sun correct, and you want to base expansion on exploding stars when you do not even have the vaguest idea what a star really is?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Ok, I will buy mainstream's redshift = velocity and distance equation. Which in turn means I must accept that the earth or its near proximity is the center of the Big bang, since objects in a 360 degree sphere are all moving away from the earth.

And if mainstream doesn't want the earth as the center then this means if the earth is not the center, then objects must be accelerating towards the center, since they are doing so no matter which direction one looks, again in a 360 degree sphere.

But, since the further one looks in a 360 degree sphere the further back in time one gazes, which means 13 billion years ago they were at their present distance, and are now 13 billion years further away. There is no evidence any one was closer than it is now, but we do know that 13 billion years ago some were 26 billion light years apart. We do not see those galaxies were they are today, but at their distances 13 billion years ago.

You claim the Milky-Way is not highly red-shifted, yet relativity demands that if one was inside a highly red-shifted quasar it would look normal, and our galaxy would be highly red-shifted.

So the further one gets from any object, the more distant objects look red-shifted. Since only plasma redshift or through a medium has been observed in the lab, the logical conclusion since the universe is 99% plasma, the red-shift is due to plasma effects, not only distance and a general velocity indicator, but energy density as well.

You have never observed red-shift outside of a medium, EVER. Why do you resist the experimental results?

Why do you insist it is expanding nothing which does this, despite the fact that no red-shift outside of a medium has ever been observed? Not once. You have yet to perform a single one in a vacuum, even space is not a pure vacuum. In a medium is all you have ever observed, just like with Doppler Shift, which is caused from moving bodies through a medium.

Oh that's right, red-shift is Doppler Shift, just without a medium even though no experiments without a medium have ever occurred.

Please, is that the best you got?

You can't even get the CMB or the Sun correct, and you want to base expansion on exploding stars when you do not even have the vaguest idea what a star really is?

Quoted for incomprehensibility.

 

[Michael]

Quoted for incomprehensibility.

Actually....

Does Dark Energy Really Exist?: Scientific American

It is now over a decade later, and the existence of dark energy is still so puzzling that some cosmologists are revisiting the fundamental postulates that led them to deduce its existence in the first place. One of these is the product of that earlier revolution: the Copernican principle, that Earth is not in a central or otherwise special position in the universe. If we discard this basic principle, a surprisingly different picture of what could account for the observations emerges.

Emphasis mine.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, they aren't. Apparently you don't comprehend the difference between *observation* (redshift) and *subjective interpretation* (expansion). There is one.

So you are saying that expansion would not produce redshift, or any of the other evidence they point to? Really?

That line is a riot coming from an atheist that believes in things he can't actually "see" or demonstrate in a lab.

I wasn't aware that atheists were limited to the lab for acquiring evidence. Only crackpots limit evidence to the lab.

Sorry, but the *whole reason* you folks "made up" this thing called "dark energy" is because is because no other "natural" (on Earth) type of energy has a "negative pressure"!

False. Dark energy is the placeholder name for what is causing the observed accelerating expansion. It is no different than gravity as the placeholder name for the force that causes masses to move towards each other. We still don't know what causes gravity or where it comes from, but that doesn't change the fact that masses move towards each other. The same for accelerating expansion. Expansion is as much a property of spacetime as gravity is a property of mass.

You literally endowed your supernatural franken-creation with supernatural powers to save your one otherwise falsified cosmology theory from certain empirical death.

That is crackpot blather.

 

[Michael]

So you are saying that expansion would not produce redshift, or any of the other evidence they point to? Really?

No. That's 'really' just your strawman. What I *said* was that *moving objects* will in fact produce photon redshift, as will inelastic scattering in a plasma medium (Chen). These are demonstrated facts.

Your claims however are pure "invisible creation mythology", full of all sorts of supernatural claims, none of which show up in any controlled experiment in any lab on Earth. "Space' doesn't do any expansion tricks in the lab. Your claim is *not* related to Doppler shift, or moving objects, so *your* claim is *not demonstrated*. It's pure *faith* on your part, and 'bad faith' to boot. In fact it's a "bad faith" based on three claims that lack empirical experimental support, "space expansion", "inflation" (supposed cause of space expansion), and "dark energy" supposed cause of "space acceleration". Your entire supernatural invisible belief system requires three pure "leaps of faith" in the unseen (in the lab). Even most religions boil down to but *one* such entity, maybe two at the most. You're up to three claims you can't demonstrate, and we haven't even talked about "dark matter" or the up and coming supernatural "curvatons" to rescue your falsified theory from the PLANCK data set. That's not even "good faith", that is misplaced faith in pure supernatural metaphysics. When one's faith in invisible stuff becomes more important than empirical physics, and starts to *conflict* with empirical physics, its time to reevaluate your faith.

I wasn't aware that atheists were limited to the lab for acquiring evidence. Only crackpots limit evidence to the lab.

*Exactly* what kind of evidence for a living universe will you accept, and how do you apply those same exact standards to your mythical trio of impotent on Earth supernatural sky entities?

False. Dark energy is the placeholder name for what is causing the observed accelerating expansion.

You don't even *observe* expansion, let alone *observe* acceleration. When did you intend to get off that empirical denial-go-round? You refuse to even differentiate between your *subjective* interpretation of redshift and signal broadening, and the actual redshift itself. Whereas Hubble himself wrote about *two* possible solutions to the redshift phenomenon, you're personally in pure denial of one of them.

It is no different than gravity as the placeholder name for the force that causes masses to move towards each other.

Boloney. Gravity shows up on Earth, whereas your trio of supernatural invisible sky entities are entirely impotent on Earth. False comparison.

We still don't know what causes gravity or where it comes from, but that doesn't change the fact that masses move towards each other. The same for accelerating expansion. Expansion is as much a property of spacetime as gravity is a property of mass.

You're trying to take the mass out of the equations and still claim ''space expansion". That's pure nonsense. It's literally supernatural "nothing expansion" on a stick.

That is crackpot blather.

Ya, and all your commentary on a Christian website is evil atheistic blather as well.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. That's 'really' just your strawman. What I *said* was that *moving objects* will in fact produce photon redshift, as will inelastic scattering in a plasma medium (Chen). These are demonstrated facts.

Will expanding space produce a redshift? Yes or no?

Your claims however are pure "invisible creation mythology", full of all sorts of supernatural claims, none of which show up in any controlled experiment in any lab on Earth.

Science is not limited to the lab. Only crackpots limit science to the lab.

Boloney. Gravity shows up on Earth, whereas your trio of supernatural invisible sky entities are entirely impotent on Earth. False comparison.

Expansion shows up in the data for distant galaxies. Only crackpots ignore data collected from telescopes.

 

[Michael]

Will expanding space produce a redshift? Yes or no?

No. You never demonstrated that space does any magical expansion tricks in any controlled experiments. Your *religion* starts with faith in the unseen (in the lab). Doppler shift is demonstrated physics. Your claim is pure sky mythology on a stick.

Science is not limited to the lab. Only crackpots limit science to the lab.

Why *exactly* do you reject a living intelligent universe theory again?

Expansion shows up in the data for distant galaxies.

Your argument amounts to 'dark sky deity did it'.

Only crackpots ignore data collected from telescopes.

I'm not. I'm ignoring one evil atheist's subjective interpretation of the photons redshift phenomenon.

 

[florida2]

Ok, I will buy mainstream's redshift = velocity and distance equation. Which in turn means I must accept that the earth or its near proximity is the center of the Big bang, since objects in a 360 degree sphere are all moving away from the earth.

And if mainstream doesn't want the earth as the center then this means if the earth is not the center, then objects must be accelerating towards the center, since they are doing so no matter which direction one looks, again in a 360 degree sphere.

But, since the further one looks in a 360 degree sphere the further back in time one gazes, which means 13 billion years ago they were at their present distance, and are now 13 billion years further away. There is no evidence any one was closer than it is now, but we do know that 13 billion years ago some were 26 billion light years apart. We do not see those galaxies were they are today, but at their distances 13 billion years ago.

You claim the Milky-Way is not highly red-shifted, yet relativity demands that if one was inside a highly red-shifted quasar it would look normal, and our galaxy would be highly red-shifted.

So the further one gets from any object, the more distant objects look red-shifted. Since only plasma redshift or through a medium has been observed in the lab, the logical conclusion since the universe is 99% plasma, the red-shift is due to plasma effects, not only distance and a general velocity indicator, but energy density as well.

You have never observed red-shift outside of a medium, EVER. Why do you resist the experimental results?

Why do you insist it is expanding nothing which does this, despite the fact that no red-shift outside of a medium has ever been observed? Not once. You have yet to perform a single one in a vacuum, even space is not a pure vacuum. In a medium is all you have ever observed, just like with Doppler Shift, which is caused from moving bodies through a medium.

Oh that's right, red-shift is Doppler Shift, just without a medium even though no experiments without a medium have ever occurred.

Please, is that the best you got?

You can't even get the CMB or the Sun correct, and you want to base expansion on exploding stars when you do not even have the vaguest idea what a star really is?

There is no 'center' of the Big Bang. There is no point in the universe which you can along to and say 'This is exactly where the Big Bang started'

The Big Bang happened everywhere. All the galaxies are not only moving away from us but from each other. Space isn't expanding away from a single point - it's expanding in every direction.

I know - I find it virtually impossible to get my head around!

 

[Michael]

There is no 'center' of the Big Bang. There is no point in the universe which you can along to and say 'This is exactly where the Big Bang started'

The Big Bang happened everywhere. All the galaxies are not only moving away from us but from each other. Space isn't expanding away from a single point - it's expanding in every direction.

I know - I find it virtually impossible to get my head around!

Does Dark Energy Really Exist?: Scientific American

FYI, from a purely mathematical perspective, there are actually at least two ways to 'interpret' the concept of a BB (redshift=expansion), one that requires "dark energy" and one that doesn't. The one that doesn't require dark energy, requires us to be located at the center of the 'bang'.

 

[Loudmouth]

No.

Then you reject General Relativity because GR shows that an expanding universe would produce a redshift.

In order to deny redshift due to expansion you have to reject GR.

You never demonstrated that space does any magical expansion tricks in any controlled experiments.

Only crackpots limit evidence to the lab.

 

[Michael]

Then you reject General Relativity because GR shows that an expanding universe would produce a redshift.

When you can actually demonstrate that space does expansion tricks in the real world, you can claim the empirical high ground of GR theory. Until then you're whistling Dixie.

In order to deny redshift due to expansion you have to reject GR.

Nope. I just have to reject your claim about an expanding metric in a *flat* static universe.

Only crackpots limit evidence to the lab.

Why do you reject the theory of a living aware God (the universe) again?

 

[Loudmouth]

When you can actually demonstrate that space does expansion tricks in the real world, you can claim the empirical high ground of GR theory. Until then you're whistling Dixie.

If space was expanding would there be a redshift? Yes. Therefore, redshift is one piece of evidence for expansion. It is really that simple. There are also additional pieces of evidence that are also consistent with expansion.

When you have multiple and indepenent lines of evidence that are consistent with a theory scientists consider that to be a supported theory. You? Not so much. You ignore the evidence because you don't like the conclusion.

Nope. I just have to reject your claim about an expanding metric in a *flat* static universe.

You reject the evidence.

Why do you reject the theory of a living aware God (the universe) again?

Talk about your superstitions.

 

[Michael]

If space was expanding would there be a redshift? Yes.

Your statement is the empirical equivalent of "If magic occurs in spacetime, would there be redshift? Yes." You haven't established a connection between photon redshift and 'expanding space', anymore than I established a connection between magic and photon redshift. You're engaging in a pure affirming the consequent fallacy.

Therefore, redshift is one piece of evidence for expansion.

False. You failed to demonstrate that "space" does any expanding, and you have yet to physically define 'space'. You folks tried to take *all* matter and energy out of the equation and still claim GR applies to "expanding nothing". Boloney.

It is really that simple. There are also additional pieces of evidence that are also consistent with expansion.

You haven't shown any *other* kind of expansion *besides* object expansion. You've shown no experimental link between redshift and any of your claims.

When you have multiple and indepenent lines of evidence that are consistent with a theory scientists consider that to be a supported theory.

You don't. You folks had to 'make up' dark energy because your theory *botched* the predictions of a slowing universe. You're about to stuff your supernatural construct with more supernatural curvatons to fix your PLANCK data set blowout too. Whenever your theory *fails*, you simply load up it with even more supernatural invisible sky stuff.

You? Not so much. You ignore the evidence because you don't like the conclusion.

I actually reject your supernatural claims because I know for a fact that you left out some very important empirical forces of nature, and some very important observed laboratory phenomenon when trying to describe the behaviors of plasma. Specifically you left out EM fields, inelastic scattering and signal broadening in every single one of your equations. Since your cosmology theory leaves out these important influences in plasma, and the vast majority of the universe is in the plasma state, it's no mystery as to why you need all that supernatural ad hoc gap filler.

You reject the evidence.

I have all the evidence I need to reject your supernatural nonsense in the form of all the actual *plasma physics* that you left out of your equations!

Talk about your superstitions.

You're the one praying to a trio of invisible sky entities that are *entirely* impotent on Earth, not me. People that live in supernatural metaphysical glass houses really shouldn't be throwing any empirical stones.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your statement is the empirical equivalent of "If magic occurs in spacetime, would there be redshift? Yes."

That is crackpottery. You could apply the same crackpot logic to all fundamental forces in nature.

"Saying gravity does it is like saying magic does it."

Using your crackpot logic, I have just falsified gravity.

You haven't established a connection between photon redshift and 'expanding space',

Yes, we have. That connection is relativity. We also have multiple lines of independent evidence outside of just redshift, and it is all consistent with what general relativity says we should see if space is expanding.

False. You failed to demonstrate that "space" does any expanding, and you have yet to physically define 'space'.

There is no evidence that you will accept because you reject expansion from the very start.

You folks tried to take *all* matter and energy out of the equation and still claim GR applies to "expanding nothing". Boloney.

With matter and energy in the equation there is still expanding space.

You haven't shown any *other* kind of expansion *besides* object expansion.

That is what the redshift, CMB, galaxy brightness, supernovae time dilation, and tons of other independent pieces of evidence demonstrate. That's what they show. You have never once shown that these are inconsistent with an expanding universe.

You've shown no experimental link between redshift and any of your claims.

Only crackpots limit evidence to the lab.

 

[Michael]

That is crackpottery. You could apply the same crackpot logic to all fundamental forces in nature.

You're the one making the "crackpot" claim and you're blaming me because you cannot demonstrate your claim in controlled experimentation?

"Saying gravity does it is like saying magic does it."

Using your crackpot logic, I have just falsified gravity.

What on *Earth* are you talking about? You haven't demonstrated that 'space' even exists as separate from "spacetime". You haven't demonstrated that "space" does any magical expansion tricks in the lab. You haven't physically even defined 'space', let alone explained how space (whatever the heck that might be) does this expansion trick that you're yacking on about, let alone demonstrate *why* it occurs in controlled experimentation.

Yes, we have. That connection is relativity.

General Relativity doesn't rise and fall on your claim about 'expanding space". Just your one otherwise falsified *blunder* theory is dependent on *any* of your claims.

We also have multiple lines of independent evidence outside of just redshift,

You have nothing but a pure affirming the consequent fallacy, actually several of them rolled into a single supernatural creation mythos.

and it is all consistent with what general relativity says we should see if space is expanding.

GR doesn't "say" anything about whether the universe should expand, contract or do the Irish gig. You're making up your own claims as you go. GR could just as easily predict *anything* given all the supernatural nonsense you've packed into your blunder theory.

There is no evidence that you will accept because you reject expansion from the very start.

No I don't. I don't reject any expansion of objects claims, I just reject your *supernatural* claim about 'space expansion' since you tried to take *every* bit of mass/energy out of the equation and still claim that GR theory applies to "nothing", and that a 'space' composed of nothing kept on expanding. What a bunch of metaphysical horse manure!

With matter and energy in the equation there is still expanding space.

When you can actually demonstrate that claim in a *controlled* experiment on Earth, let me know. Until then it's just part of your 'dogma' related to your 'blind faith in the unseen' (in the lab), it's not 'empirical physics'.

That is what the redshift, CMB,

Boloney. The CMB isn't homogeneous as "predicted" by inflation theory. It's got hemispheric differences that should not even be there! You're cherry picking from the data set while you attempt to slip *yet another* supernatural construct in the back door called 'curvatons'! Your claims about a homogeneous CMB were falsified by the PLANCK data. Wake up and smell the coffee.

galaxy brightness,

False.

[astro-ph/0509611] Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF

supernovae time dilation,

http://www.holushko.net/download/TiredLightAndSupernovae.pdf

Simply signal broadening in plasma. That's another one of those *demonstrated physics* in the lab that you *completely left out* of your equations.

and tons of other independent pieces of evidence demonstrate.

Like what "tons" of other evidence do you actually have in your "affirming the consequent" back pocket?

That's what they show. You have never once shown that these are inconsistent with an expanding universe.

Utterly false:

[astro-ph/0509611] Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF

Only crackpots limit evidence to the lab.

And only evil atheists limit God to experiments on Earth.

 

[essentialsaltes]

GR could just as easily predict *anything* given all the supernatural nonsense you've...

As you have previously agreed, if we remove all the 'supernatural nonsense', then general relativity predicts that a universe with matter in it cannot be static.

So your choices are:

A) Get rid of the cosmological redshift by adding supernatural nonsense (to make the universe static).
B) Add no supernatural nonsense and recognize that the redshifts are cosmological.

 

[Loudmouth]

You're the one making the "crackpot" claim and you're blaming me because you cannot demonstrate your claim in controlled experimentation?

Only crackpots limit evidence to labs.

What on *Earth* are you talking about? You haven't demonstrated that 'space' even exists as separate from "spacetime".

That is exactly what the experiments confirming GR have demonstrated.

You haven't demonstrated that "space" does any magical expansion tricks in the lab.

Only crackpots limit evidence to the lab.

You haven't physically even defined 'space', let alone explained how space (whatever the heck that might be) does this expansion trick that you're yacking on about, let alone demonstrate *why* it occurs in controlled experimentation.[/qutoe]

GR does all of those things. It defines spacetime, and it allows us to predict what we should see in experiments if the universe is expanding, such as the experiments done with telescopes. All of those things have been demonstrated.

You have nothing but a pure affirming the consequent fallacy, actually several of them rolled into a single supernatural creation mythos.

So you are saying that the scientific method is just one big fallacy?

GR doesn't "say" anything about whether the universe should expand, contract or do the Irish gig.

It does say what we should observe if the universe is expanding. Those are called hypotheses, in case you were wondering. Those hypotheses are then tested with data empirically collected by telescopes. Those are called experiments. When the data matches the predictions made by the hypothesis, guess what you have? You have a confirmed hypothesis. That's called science.

GR could just as easily predict *anything* given all the supernatural nonsense you've packed into your blunder theory.

More crackpottery. GR does not predict a blueshift for expanding space, for example.

No I don't. I don't reject any expansion of objects claims, I just reject your *supernatural* claim about 'space expansion' since you tried to take *every* bit of mass/energy out of the equation and still claim that GR theory applies to "nothing", and that a 'space' composed of nothing kept on expanding. What a bunch of metaphysical horse manure!

GR models with mass and energy still expand. I really don't know what you are going on about.

When you can actually demonstrate that claim in a *controlled* experiment on Earth, let me know.

Only crackpots limit evidence to the lab.

Boloney. The CMB isn't homogeneous as "predicted" by inflation theory. It's got hemispheric differences that should not even be there! You're cherry picking from the data set while you attempt to slip *yet another* supernatural construct in the back door called 'curvatons'! Your claims about a homogeneous CMB were falsified by the PLANCK data. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Expansion does not require a completely homogenous CMB.

[astro-ph/0509611] Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF

[astro-ph/0106566] The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. IV. A Measurement of the Tolman Signal and the Luminosity Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies

http://www.holushko.net/download/TiredLightAndSupernovae.pdf

Holushko is a crank and relativity denier.

Simply signal broadening in plasma. That's another one of those *demonstrated physics* in the lab that you *completely left out* of your equations.

False. That would produce blurred images and an opaque universe which is not seen.

 

[Michael]

Only crackpots limit evidence to labs.

Only evil atheists limit evidence of God to controlled experimentation.

That is exactly what the experiments confirming GR have demonstrated.

You haven't *experimentally* demonstrated that "space" does any magic expansion tricks. More importantly, GR theory doesn't depend on *any* of your supernatural claims for it's legitimacy. Only *one* otherwise *falsified* blunder theory depends on *any* of your claims.

Only crackpots limit evidence to the lab.

Only evil atheists limit evidence of God to controlled empirical experimentation too.

GR does all of those things.

No, it does *not*! GR only defines *spacetime* and distance. You never demonstrated that the metric *must* expand in GR theory, let alone that it *does* expand.

It defines spacetime,

Spacetime is warped by *objects/energy*, not "space".

and it allows us to predict what we should see in experiments if the universe is expanding, such as the experiments done with telescopes. All of those things have been demonstrated.

No you did not! You did *not* demonstrate that 'space' does expansion tricks. Your entire claim is one gigantic affirming the consequent fallacy that goes something to the effect:

If magic, then redshift
redshift is observed
therefore magic did it

So you are saying that the scientific method is just one big fallacy?

No, I'm saying your bogus affirming the consequent fallacy is one big fallacy.

It does say what we should observe if the universe is expanding.

Spacetime can expand as objects expand, and that's the only thing it tells us.

Those are called hypotheses, in case you were wondering. Those hypotheses are then tested with data empirically collected by telescopes. Those are called experiments. When the data matches the predictions made by the hypothesis, guess what you have? You have a confirmed hypothesis. That's called science.

What pure horse pucky. The last time your hypothesis failed a "test", you added more ad hoc metaphysical claims to your nonsense. You're about to do it again too because that Planck data otherwise *destroys* your claims. Supernatural curvaton city, here we come.......

More crackpottery. GR does not predict a blueshift for expanding space, for example.

More evil deception on your part. You're abusing the whole concept of riding the coattails of GR. GR theory is *not* dependent upon *expanding space* to predict "redshift' in distant objects. Only your *mythology* requires that! GR doesn't *predict* space expansion. GR theory doesn't even *predict* that 'spacetime' must necessarily expand, or that space *must* expand to explain redshift. You're just making up claims right and left and doing your best to ride the coattails of a theory that is in *no way* dependent upon any of your claims for it's legitimacy.

Expansion does not require a completely homogenous CMB.

Inflation does. Here come the curvatons flying out of your supernatural bag of tricks.

Holushko is a crank and relativity denier.

Ya, ya, and you're an evil God denier.

False. That would produce blurred images and an opaque universe which is not seen.

False. You can't even produce a Z>10 galaxy image that *isn't* blurred.