Relativity

[Michael]

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.

If we limit ourselves *only* to GR, that's true. In a plasma universe scenario however, it's *irrational* to limit ourselves *strictly* to GR. That's the hole in your logic. I choose a different path, specifically I intend to add back in and address those EM field influences that you simply ignored.

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.

You forgot C. Add ordinary *charge repulsion* and I get particle separation, additional distance between objects, and an *ordinary* force of nature that can help to explain why the whole thing doesn't implode.

The only reason you *need* a "negative pressure" out of a vacuum in the first place is because you *refuse* to consider charge repulsion between charged objects. It's a purely subjective choice on your part, and a dubious choice at that, especially considering the fact that most of the universe is in the plasma state.

 

[Michael]

FYI, inelastic scattering is not a supernatural process. Chen even empirically linked the *amount* of photon redshift to the number of free electrons in the plasma. More free electrons, more redshift. All of these inelastic scattering processes occur in the lab.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If we limit ourselves *only* to GR, that's true. In a plasma universe scenario however, it's *irrational* to limit ourselves *strictly* to GR.

Newtonian physics plus baseball is still Newtonian physics. GR plus plasma is still GR.

I choose a different path, specifically I intend to add back in and address those EM field influences that you simply ignored.

I have not ignored them. I have explained that ordinary matter and fields do not have negative pressure in the GR equation, and thus do not have the required properties to make spacetime static.

You forgot C. Add ordinary *charge repulsion* and I get

a complete failure to achieve a universe that looks like ours. I've already done the math. Your solution doesn't work.

 

[Loudmouth]

Only evil atheists limit evidence of God to controlled experimentation.

I would accept data collected through telescopes. Why don't you?

You haven't *experimentally* demonstrated that "space" does any magic expansion tricks.

Every measurement of a redshift from distant galaxies is another experiment demonstrating expansion. Every experiment that has tested GR has shown that the theory holds up, and GR is the theory used to define spacetime and model expansion.

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.

You honestly do not understand how science works, do you?

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.

You asked for a definition of space and spacetime. GR is it. You can then use GR to make predictions about the effects of expanding space on photons. GR predicts that we should see a redshift, and we have observed just that.

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

GR also allows for space to expand outside of the warping caused by objects and energy.

No you did not! You did *not* demonstrate that 'space' does expansion tricks.

That is exactly what the redshift data demonstrates.

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

I am using the scientific method.

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

GR models allow for space to expand without objects expanding.

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.

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.

GR predicts redshift for expanding space. That is the prediction. There is no way around it.

"There is a distinction between a redshift in cosmological context as compared to that witnessed when nearby objects exhibit a local Doppler-effect redshift. Rather than cosmological redshifts being a consequence of relative velocities, the photons instead increase in wavelength and redshift because of a feature of the spacetime through which they are traveling that causes space to expand."
Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That same wiki page gives all of the GR equations for expanding space.

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

You still can't tell the difference between blur and pixelation. You need to work on that. Scattering scatters photons. This causes the photons to come in at different angles, or not hit the eye of the observer at all. This can only lead to very blurry galaxies for those that are close, and an opaque universe further out.

 

[Michael]

Newtonian physics plus baseball is still Newtonian physics. GR plus plasma is still GR.

Ok, I'll buy that. It's still reasonable to use GR in your formulas, but you will still need to include the EM field effects in any cosmology theory you put forth that tries to describe a mostly plasma universe. Lambda-CDM is an *epic fail* in terms of *including* EM field effects.

I have not ignored them. I have explained that ordinary matter and fields do not have negative pressure in the GR equation, and thus do not have the required properties to make spacetime static.

Charged objects *do* repel each other, and you simply can't deny that. I don't need "negative pressure" from a vacuum since ordinary charge repulsion between objects will do nicely.

I've already done the math. Your solution doesn't work.

Your math didn't include the pressure of *charge repulsion*!

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't need "negative pressure" from a vacuum since ordinary charge repulsion between objects will do nicely.

How so?

 

[Michael]

FYI, according to Birkeland, every sun is a cathode with respect to the heliosphere (spacetime), with a 600,000 volt charge separation between them.

 

[Michael]

How so?

Where did you include the force of charge repulsion between charged objects?

 

[Michael]

I would accept data collected through telescopes. Why don't you?

No you don't accept data collected through telescopes. I don't doubt the redshift, I doubt your dogma about it.

Every measurement of a redshift from distant galaxies is another experiment demonstrating expansion.

No. As Hubble explained from the start, there are *two* known explanations for cosmic redshift, not one. The expansion of objects is one explanation for Doppler shift, inelastic scattering is the other cause of photon redshift, and your mythical space expansion claim isn't one of the known causes of photon redshift.

Every experiment that has tested GR has shown that the theory holds up, and GR is the theory used to define spacetime and model expansion.

Your basic problem in a nutshell is that GR is *not* in any way dependent upon any of your claims to achieve it's legitimacy, and I don't care how hard to try to ride the coattails of GR theory with your *blunder* claims, it's not going to fly. GR theory does *not* require the metric to expand. It does *not* require the metric to expand to explain redshift either.

You honestly do not understand how science works, do you?

I certainly do know how science works and I know that your claims aren't "science" to begin with. They are *unfalsifiable* claims as that Planck data demonstrates. You won't let your supernatural monstrosity die a natural scientific death, you fully intend to resurrect it from the empirical dead with yet *another* supernatural construct that was stuffed in there in a purely ad hoc manner.

You asked for a definition of space and spacetime. GR is it.

Nope. Physically speaking GR only describes "spacetime" and distance, not space. You folks tried to take every bit of matter and energy out of the universe and still claim that GR applies to "space", and that 'space' (now physically undefined) continues to expand. Epic fail. That's not GR, that's bogus supernatural nonsense and 'space' still remains physically undefined.

You can then use GR to make predictions about the effects of expanding space on photons. GR predicts that we should see a redshift, and we have observed just that.

You can't "predict" anything like what we observe in GR. You can only use a *blunder* theory to make the predictions you're making. Quit trying to deceive yourself. GR doesn't "predict" any of your nonsense. You can kludge up a blunder theory with curvatons and a half dozen supernatural claims to get a fit to some data set perhaps, but it's not a 'prediction' to begin with, it's a postdicted fit to *observed PLANCK data* using *supernatural* constructs galore!

GR also allows for space to expand outside of the warping caused by objects and energy.

By your logic GR allows for magic and everything else too but that's not actually GR, that is your *blunder* variation of GR theory. GR theory doesn't depend on any of your supernatural claims for it's legitimacy, and it doesn't "predict" blunder theory. Blunder theory is *optional* in GR.

That is exactly what the redshift data demonstrates.

Nope. That's what you *interpret* the redshift data to demonstrate. Big difference.

I am using the scientific method.

No you're not. If you were using the scientific method, the SN1A data would have *falsified* BB theory. The hemispheric data differences in the PLANCK data set would also falsify your claim. You're emotionally attached to a *religion*, so you keep making up more supernatural claims to supposedly 'explain away" all of your epic failures to actually apply the scientific method and falsify your theory as you should do.

GR models allow for space to expand without objects expanding.

Blunder theory models anything you want it to model. Your curvatons fiasco demonstrates that point conclusively.

More crackpottery.

More evil denial on your part.

GR predicts redshift for expanding space.

GR doesn't need expanding space to predict redshift. Only your blunder theory requires it.

That is the prediction. There is no way around it.

It's a metaphysical/supernatural prediction that you failed to demonstrate in controlled experimentation. Since GR is not *dependent* upon space expansions, it doesn't *predict* it either!

"There is a distinction between a redshift in cosmological context as compared to that witnessed when nearby objects exhibit a local Doppler-effect redshift.

Right because your supernatural claim is shy around humans apparently.

That same wiki page gives all of the GR equations for expanding space.

Not one of them can be verified in a lab in real experiments with real control mechanisms.

You still can't tell the difference between blur and pixelation.

False. You're just in denial that distant objects *are* blurry.

You need to work on that. Scattering scatters photons. This causes the photons to come in at different angles, or not hit the eye of the observer at all. This can only lead to very blurry galaxies for those that are close, and an opaque universe further out.

Let's see you produce a Z>10 redshifted galaxy that *isn't* blurry! You're all talk and no action.

 

[Loudmouth]

No you don't accept data collected through telescopes.

Yes I do accept data. Bunnies in clouds is still bunnies in clouds. I don't see why you have such a tough time understanding that.

I don't doubt the redshift, I doubt your dogma about it.

You refuse to accept that expanding space will produce a redshift even though that is exactly what GR shows.

No. As Hubble explained from the start, there are *two* known explanations for cosmic redshift, not one. The expansion of objects is one explanation for Doppler shift, inelastic scattering is the other cause of photon redshift, and your mythical space expansion claim isn't one of the known causes of photon redshift.

Then show me how a redshift can not occur in expanding space, according to GR.

Your basic problem in a nutshell is that GR is *not* in any way dependent upon any of your claims to achieve it's legitimacy, and I don't care how hard to try to ride the coattails of GR theory with your *blunder* claims, it's not going to fly. GR theory does *not* require the metric to expand. It does *not* require the metric to expand to explain redshift either.

The theory of gravity does not require our solar system to have 8 planets, but that doesn't change the fact that our solar system does have 8 planets, and the theory of gravity does explain their orbits.

In the same way, GR does not require a universe to expand, but GR does include the possibility that a universe can expand. GR also allows us to predict what we should see in an universe that is expanding, and those predictions have been born out. That is called science.

Blunder theory models anything you want it to model. Your curvatons fiasco demonstrates that point conclusively.

More crackpottery.

GR doesn't need expanding space to predict redshift.

GR does predict redshift in a universe with expanding space.

It's a metaphysical/supernatural prediction that you failed to demonstrate in controlled experimentation.

It has been demonstrated in tons of controlled experiments, including this one:

Lubin & Sandage, Tolman Surface Brightness Test. III.

Since GR is not *dependent* upon space expansions, it doesn't *predict* it either!

It does predict that an expanding universe will produce a distance dependent redshift, and that is exactly what we observe.

Not one of them can be verified in a lab in real experiments with real control mechanisms.

Only crackpots limit experiments to the lab.

False. You're just in denial that distant objects *are* blurry.

You still don't know what bluriness is. You are confusing it with pixelation and a lack of telescope resolution. You don't understand simple optics.

 

[Loudmouth]

Where did you include the force of charge repulsion between charged objects?

How would a repulsion that pushes particles apart counter the expansion?

 

[Michael]

Space slinky: Jet of superheated gas -- 5,000 light-years long -- ejected from supermassive black hole

Apparently the entire mainstream community *still* doesn't understand the difference between a "gas" and a "plasma" and they wouldn't recognize a Birkeland current it if hit them in the face. No wonder we're wallowing around in the dark ages of astronomy. They think plasma is a gas, and they think Birkeland currents are a "magnetic slinky".

 

[Michael]

Yes I do accept data.

No, you don't. You cherry pick from the data you like, and ignore the stuff you don't like. If you treated the Planck data as a real falsification mechanism for your theory, you'd "accept" the data. Since you intend to stuff curvatons in there to *fix* your broken piece of junk theory, it's clear you do *not* accept the data, nor is your theory falsifiable.

Bunnies in clouds is still bunnies in clouds.

You've got nothing but invisible, impotent on Earth sky bunnies running around the clouds of spacetime.

I don't see why you have such a tough time understanding that.

Likewise I don't buy your invisible sky bunny story. I don't see why an atheist would have a tough time understanding that.

You refuse to accept that expanding space will produce a redshift even though that is exactly what GR shows.

I refuse to believe your *dogma* until I see you make "space" do expansion tricks in controlled experimentation. That's never going to happen because your invisible space expansion gods are entirely impotent on Earth apparently.

GR does *not* require metric expansion, nor can you demonstrate it happens.

Then show me how a redshift can not occur in expanding space, according to GR.

I don't have to do that, nor do I need to do that. Redshift can occur in GR *without* space expansion. You're just making things up now. GR does *not* require space expansion to explain photon redshift.

That's your core problem in a nutshell. You keep trying to associate your *blunder*claims with GR, but GR in no way is dependent upon *any* of your claims!

The theory of gravity does not require our solar system to have 8 planets, but that doesn't change the fact that our solar system does have 8 planets, and the theory of gravity does explain their orbits.

What a pitiful excuse for "I can't demonstrate my claim in a lab". Your invisible supernatural space gods are just as impotent on any of those 8 planets as it happens to be on this one.

In the same way, GR does not require a universe to expand, but GR does include the possibility that a universe can expand.

If that is the case, then you should be able to demonstrate your claim in *real experiments*. You can't!

GR also allows us to predict what we should see in an universe that is expanding, and those predictions have been born out.

No they haven't because you can't demonstrate *any* of your claims about photons being influence by A) expanding space, B) inflation, C) dark energy, or D) your new supernatural savior (of your otherwise dead theory) "curvatons". Holy cow. You might as well be claiming that the existence of "supernatural" entities has been "born out" based on telescope observations.

That is called science.

Your theory isn't falsifiable as that curvaton paper demonstrated. That is not science, that's *bad religion*.

More crackpottery.

More evil commentary from an evil atheist.

GR does predict redshift in a universe with expanding space.

No, it does not. GR doesn't "predict" any such thing, nor can you make it do any such thing in a controlled experiment.

It has been demonstrated in tons of controlled experiments, including this one:

Lerners paper is newer, it included *more* redshift data from more distant objects, and it *refutes* your claim entirely.

It does predict that an expanding universe will produce a distance dependent redshift, and that is exactly what we observe.

So what? A moving object universe produces the same thing.

Only crackpots limit experiments to the lab.

Ya, and only evil atheists limit God to empirical physics.

You still don't know what bluriness is. You are confusing it with pixelation and a lack of telescope resolution. You don't understand simple optics.

What an absolutely pitiful excuse for "Michael, I certainly know that those distant galaxies are blurry too, but I won't admit it".

 

[Loudmouth]

No, you don't. You cherry pick from the data you like, and ignore the stuff you don't like. If you treated the Planck data as a real falsification mechanism for your theory, you'd "accept" the data. Since you intend to stuff curvatons in there to *fix* your broken piece of junk theory, it's clear you do *not* accept the data, nor is your theory falsifiable.

We've been over this a million times. The Planck data is highly questionable, and it was from the start.

You've got nothing but invisible, impotent on Earth sky bunnies running around the clouds of spacetime.

Redshift is not invisible.

I refuse to believe your *dogma* until I see you make "space" do expansion tricks in controlled experimentation.

Only crackpots limit evidence to the lab.

GR does *not* require metric expansion, nor can you demonstrate it happens.

Redshift, supernova time dilation, CMB, and galaxy brightness are all demonstrations that space is expanding.

What a pitiful excuse for "I can't demonstrate my claim in a lab". Your invisible supernatural space gods are just as impotent on any of those 8 planets as it happens to be on this one.

Then please describe for me the experimental setup that would be required to measure the proposed rate of expansion. Last calculation I did showed that the amount of expansion over a length of a mile during 1 years time is less than the width of an atom. We don't have the instruments sensitive enough to measure that with a lab setup. However, we can use telescopes to detect that expansion, and we have.

You still have not explained why expansion would not produce a redshift, even after being shown the equations that demonstrate an expansion would produce a redshift.

 

[Michael]

We've been over this a million times. The Planck data is highly questionable, and it was from the start.

Horse pucky. Your *claims* were highly questionable, and they went *up in flames* in the PLANCK data set! You can't face the facts, so here comes another supernatural sidesick to save the day from empirical falsification. If your basic theory and your claims about redshift can't be falsified, it's not science.

Redshift is not invisible.

It has two *known causes* that have nothing to do with "expanding space". You lose big time based on a simple Occum's razor argument. Nobody needs your supernatural nonsense in the first place.

Only crackpots limit evidence to the lab.

Only evil atheists limit God to "empirical physics".

Redshift, supernova time dilation,

None of these claims support your views. The supernova data actually falsified your "redshift=expansion" claim, but alas you couldn't deal with it, so we ended up with 70 percent metaphysical gap filler called "dark energy". Next we'll have "curvatons". There's no end to your metaphysical claims.

CMB,

Boloney! That hemispheric difference in the PLANCK data set *destroys* your theory. It's dead. You're going to have to let it die a natural empirical death (which we all know you won't do), or you'll have to resurrect it from the empirical dead with yet *another* supernatural construct. I'm sure what you're going to do. No religion is falsifiable, and your religion is no different.

and galaxy brightness

Lerner demonstrated exactly the opposite, and your cited paper is 4 years older than Lerners paper, and uses *fewer* distant objects at a *lesser* distance to do it's calculations. In short, your *older* paper got blown out of the water in newer data sets (as always).

are all demonstrations that space is expanding.

"Space" is a figment of your overactive imagination. It doesn't exist. Only "spacetime" exists, and it's *cause* (curvature) is directly related to the location and concentration of matter/energy. Spacetime may indeed be expanding, but "space" isn't even defined in GR. GR only defines spacetime and distance. In terms of actual physics, what the blazes is 'space'?

Then please describe for me the experimental setup that would be required to measure the proposed rate of expansion.

Burden shift much?

Last calculation I did showed that the amount of expansion over a length of a mile during 1 years time is less than the width of an atom. We don't have the instruments sensitive enough to measure that with a lab setup.

What a pitiful excuse because your invisible gods are impotent on Earth. Whatever problems you have are *your* problems, not mine. I don't have to *disprove* your claim, you have to *demonstrate it*. You can't. All you can do is pull an affirming the consequent fallacy while *ignoring* plasma physics, and photon redshift in a plasma medium.

However, we can use telescopes to detect that expansion, and we have.

No, they only detect photon redshift and signal broadening. They do not detect "space expansion". That's your BS claim that has nothing to do with the actual data recorded in telescopes.

You still have not explained why expansion would not produce a redshift,

That's like claiming "You still haven't explained why God would not produce the results we see in human writings." You're trying to shift the burden of proof to *me* when you should be doing it yourself in *real experiments*. You can't even tell the difference between a real experiment with real control mechanism, and pure observation followed by gigantic leaps of subjective faith in the unseen (in the lab).

even after being shown the equations that demonstrate an expansion would produce a redshift.

We've all agreed that you can kludge and butcher GR theory to do just about anything and everything if so desired in a "blunder" theory. If you can't demonstrate that your mathematical manipulations actually work in the lab, it's not my fault.

The *entire* reason you cannot produce a Z>10 galaxy that *isn't blurred* is because there is no such thing in the universe. The plasma between distant objects *scatters* the light. It blurs the images. You cannot and will not produce any images to support your claims. This is another *perfect* example of where you go into pure denial and start blaming me for *your* failures to support your claims. You're even avoiding the issue now because you know full well that every single distant galaxy *is* blurry, all due to inelastic scattering in plasma.

 

[Loudmouth]

Horse pucky. Your *claims* were highly questionable, and they went *up in flames* in the PLANCK data set! You can't face the facts, so here comes another supernatural sidesick to save the day from empirical falsification. If your basic theory and your claims about redshift can't be falsified, it's not science.

More crackpottery.

It has two *known causes* that have nothing to do with "expanding space".

Inelastic scattering can not produce a transparent universe like the one we have. It is out. The only mechanism that explains all of the data is expansion, including a transparent universe.

The *entire* reason you cannot produce a Z>10 galaxy that *isn't blurred*

Pixelation is not blurring. Learn some basic optics and get back to us. Would you say that this picture is not blurry?

I would say that this picture is pretty sharp and without blurring. So let's zoom in to mimic the pictures you keep pointing to. Those galaxies are just a few pixels across, so we will do the same here for the attached photo. As you can see, it is the same "blur" that you are pointing to even though we know it is from a non-blurred photo.

But keep up the denial. It is only exposing PC for what it is.

 

[Michael]

More crackpottery.

More pure denial on your part. It's not like the hemispheric differences do not exist or that *inflation* theory alone predicts such a thing. It won't be long now before astronomers are handing out Nobel Prizes for the "discovery" of a new supernatural sidekick called "curvatons" to save the day.

Inelastic scattering can not produce a transparent universe like the one we have.

It's not transparent, it's blurry at a distance which is why you won't post any Z>10 galaxies that aren't blurry. Round and around you go on that denial-go-round, and away you run from my request to post a Z>10 galaxy that isn't blurred.

It is out. The only mechanism that explains all of the data is expansion, including a transparent universe.

False. Learners paper and Holushko's paper demonstrates that a static universe also explains the very same data set.

Pixelation is not blurring.

Those Z>10 galaxies aren't *just* pixelated, they're downright blurry which is why you won't even post such an image.

But keep up the denial. It is only exposing PC for what it is.

The only one in pure denial is the guy that simply refuses to back up his claim with a real posted and clear image from a Z>10 redshift galaxy.

 

[Loudmouth]

More pure denial on your part. It's not like the hemispheric differences do not exist or that *inflation* theory alone predicts such a thing. It won't be long now before astronomers are handing out Nobel Prizes for the "discovery" of a new supernatural sidekick called "curvatons" to save the day.

The Planck data does not show what you want it to show.

It's not transparent,

It most certainly is. PC is falsified.

 

[Michael]

The Planck data does not show what you want it to show.

The real problem is that the data does not show what *you* want it to show according to your claims:

ESA Science & Technology: Simple but challenging: the Universe according to Planck

At the same time, the extraordinary quality of the Planck data reveals the presence of subtle anomalies in the CMB pattern that might challenge the very foundations of cosmology. The most serious anomaly is a deficit in the signal at large angular scales on the sky, which is about ten per cent weaker than the standard model would like it to be. Other anomalous traits that had been hinted at in the past - a significant discrepancy of the CMB signal as observed in the two opposite hemispheres of the sky and an abnormally large 'cold spot' - are confirmed with high confidence. Planck's new image of the CMB suggests that some aspects of the standard model of cosmology may need a rethink, raising the possibility that the fabric of the cosmos, on the largest scales of the observable Universe, might be more complex than we think.

It most certainly is. PC is falsified.

Only in your supernatural dreams.

 

[Michael]

It most certainly is. PC is falsified.

FYI, that particular statement demonstrates just how out of touch you are with recent (last 5 years) events in astronomy. The universe is not *nearly* as 'transparent' as you folks *assumed*. That's the whole problem!

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