Relativity

[Loudmouth]

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

That doesn't falsify expansion, Michael. All it is challenging is the conditions of the singularity at the beginning of the universe.

Only in your supernatural dreams.

Says the person who has to deny the fact that light scatters due to plasma redshift which would produce an extremely blurred and opaque universe, one that is not the universe we see.

 

[Loudmouth]

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*.

We have covered this crackpottery over and over. Wake up chief. Plasma blurs. There is no blur. Thousands of astronomers have confirmed this. Here is a picture that contains z=10 redshift galaxies, and they show up as extremely sharp pinpricks, just as they should be in a universe with redshift caused by expansion and not plasma.

http://images.iop.org/objects/ccr/cern/46/9/12/CCEast1_11-06.jpg

Even though the galaxies are just a few pixels across you can still pick out structre. That is as unblurred as it can get. If you understood optics and imaging you would know this.

 

[Michael]

That doesn't falsify expansion, Michael.

Nothing can falsify your claim about "space expansion" because *nothing actually supports it* in the first place!

It's not even necessary:

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

There are already *two* ways to explain cosmological redshift *without* any "space expansion".

All it is challenging is the conditions of the singularity at the beginning of the universe.

What "singularity"? What "beginning"? You've already *made up your mind* about all kinds of things that you cannot *even begin* to demonstrate, starting with your claim that all matter/energy *necessarily* would collect to a single point in spacetime, simply by running time backwards.

Alfven wrote a "bang" theory too, but never did all matter/energy have to collect to single point. He simply used matter/antimatter and it never got smaller than about 10% of it's current size.

Says the person who has to deny the fact that light scatters due to plasma redshift which would produce an extremely blurred and opaque universe, one that is not the universe we see.

Oh yes it is blurry at great distances which is exactly why you won't show us an Z>10 galaxies that aren't blurry.

Run from that request all you like, but everyone knows why you're doing it.

 

[Michael]

We have covered this crackpottery over and over. Wake up chief.

Ya, and you've spewed your "evil" misinformation over and over again. Wake up chief.

Plasma blurs. There is no blur.

What a crock. The image you posted is nothing more than a blurry *smudge*, without any distinct "arms", or obvious structure. It's blurred nearly beyond recognition, even *before* we talk about the pixelation problems.

Thousands of astronomers have confirmed this.

Thousands of astronomers once confirmed that the Earth was the center of the universe too. What they can't begin to do is demonstrate more than 95 percent of their supernatural claims in controlled experimentation.

Here is a picture that contains z=10 redshift galaxies, and they show up as extremely sharp pinpricks, just as they should be in a universe with redshift caused by expansion and not plasma.

http://images.iop.org/objects/ccr/cern/46/9/12/CCEast1_11-06.jpg

Even though the galaxies are just a few pixels across you can still pick out structre. That is as unblurred as it can get. If you understood optics and imaging you would know this.

You've got *nothing remotely like a "clear" galaxy in that image*! You couldn't even pick out an actual "structure" in such an image. It's one gigantic "blob" at that distance. No nice tidy arms. No nice clean structure. Nothing that even remotely resembles anything like a galaxy.

Your "looks like a Z>10 galaxy bunny" turns out to look more like a blurry blob than a bunny.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ya, and you've spewed your "evil" misinformation over and over again. Wake up chief.

Projection at its finest.

What a crock. The image you posted is nothing more than a blurry *smudge*, without any distinct "arms", or obvious structure. It's blurred nearly beyond recognition, even *before* we talk about the pixelation problems.

It is a few pixels across. Do you not understand how imaging works? You apparently don't. Even though the galaxies are just a few pixels across you can actually pick out structure demonstrating that they are not blurred. In the full photo the galaxies are precise prinpricks meaning that they are not blurred.

Why don't you show me a picture of a person that is only a few pixels across and then show me the separationg between their fingers. Go for it. Back up your claims and show us what an unblurred image a few pixels across looks like.

 

[Michael]

Projection at its finest.

Ditto on your "crackpot" commentary.

It is a few pixels across. Do you not understand how imaging works? You apparently don't.

More projection at it's finest.

Even though the galaxies are just a few pixels across you can actually pick out structure demonstrating that they are not blurred. In the full photo the galaxies are precise prinpricks meaning that they are not blurred.

Boloney. They are blurred. Your image resembles a "blob', not galaxy bunny.

Why don't you show me a picture of a person that is only a few pixels across and then show me the separationg between their fingers. Go for it. Back up your claims and show us what an unblurred image a few pixels across looks like.

Until you can show me a *clear* z>10 galaxy, with distinct details, you've got *no* evidence whatsoever that the universe is as "transparent" as you claim. Your "lame excuse" for being unable to show us a clear z>10 galaxy is just another excellent example of the fact that none of your claims can actually be demonstrated. They all require *acts of faith* on the part of the "believer", and your data almost never actually jives with your claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

Boloney. They are blurred. Your image resembles a "blob', not galaxy bunny.

Nope, they are pixelated.

Still waiting for you to show me a picture of a human that is 5 pixels by 5 pixels that has clearly separated fingers and individual hair strands, and that doesn't look like a blob.

 

[Michael]

Nope, they are pixelated.

It's a smudgy *blob*! Your so called "galaxy" isn't even recognizable as a galaxy. It's got no structure to speak of, no obvious arms, and nothing that even remotely resembles the details of an actual galaxy.

Still waiting for you to show.....

Still trying to burden shift eh?

You failed. You failed to support your claim. You failed by trying to shift the burden to me. It's not my job to *disprove* your claims, it's your job to demonstrate them. You did not do that. You showed us a "smudge" and you claim it's not blurred. What pure nonsense.

 

[Loudmouth]

Still trying to burden shift eh?

Already held up my side of the burden. The galaxy is about 5 pixels by 5 pixels. You should not see the features you are asking for in a picture that is 5 pixels by 5 pixels. It should look like a blob. I am using the example of a picture of a human as another example. You would not be able to see even separate fingers in a 5 pixel square picture of a human, so why are you asking for the same level of detail in a picture of a galaxy that is 5 by 5 pixels?

You showed us a "smudge" and you claim it's not blurred.

And it isn't. The larger picture at full resolution proves it. The galaxy is a very well defined pinprick, exactly what you should see in a non-blurred photo. Do you understand how imaging works or not?

What pure nonsense.

You are the one who expects the same resolution of features in a 5 x 5 pixel picture as that seen in a 1,000 x 1,000 pixel image. That is nonsense.

 

[Michael]

Already held up my side of the burden.

Er no. You didn't hold up your side of the "clear image" burden, you simply gave me an "excuse" related to *your* pixelation problems.

The galaxy is about 5 pixels by 5 pixels.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. That's all I ever hear from you when asked for an empirical demonstration of your claims. There's always some reason in your imagination as to why you don't have to provide such support for your *religion*. It's not even a "good' religion because every single photon that reaches Earth would have to weave and dodge their way around every temperature gradient, every EM field gradient, every dust particle and every plasma particle between here and distant galaxies to reach Earth unscathed. Your explanation defies logic and the laws of physics which is exactly why you need so much supernatural gap filler.

You should not see the features you are asking for in a picture that is 5 pixels by 5 pixels.

I should not have to listen to you making excuses for why you don't have to support your own claims. That's what I should not have to do.

It should look like a blob.

It sure does. If all you have are blobs to work with, what right in pagan hades do you have to be claiming they aren't blurred?

I am using the example of a picture of a human as another example.

You're making up an *excuse* as to why you can't demonstrate your claim! I don't care why you can't demonstrate your claim, I only care that you *cannot* do so! Why are you running around making so many claims that you cannot support?

You would not be able to see even separate fingers in a 5 pixel square picture of a human, so why are you asking for the same level of detail in a picture of a galaxy that is 5 by 5 pixels?

Do you think that I *actually care* about *why* you cannot support your claim?

You are the one who expects the same resolution of features in a 5 x 5 pixel picture as that seen in a 1,000 x 1,000 pixel image.

No, I expect to see you demonstrate your claims or quit making them!

That is nonsense.

Your pitiful excuses for not being able to demonstrate your claims are nonsense. Unsupported claims that come with an endless stream of excuses, excuses, excuses. That's all I ever hear from you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Er no. You didn't hold up your side of the "clear image" burden, you simply gave me an "excuse" related to *your* pixelation problems.

Please, try to learn about imaging and how it works. You are making a fool of yourself.

Show me an image of a human that is 5 pixels by 5 pixels that is not a blob. Try it. I dare you. You are the one claiming that a picture 5 x 5 pixels should have extreme detail, so let's see you back your claim.

 

[Michael]

Please, try to learn about imaging and how it works. You are making a fool of yourself.

In "science", the person making the claim is required to demonstrate their claim. You didn't. You made up lame excuses as to why you should not have to do so. You're making a fool of yourself.

You can't hand me a blurry blob and tell me that it's not blurry! Your actions and your excuses are irrational.

 

[Loudmouth]

In "science", the person making the claim is required to demonstrate their claim.

That is what I am asking you to do. Please support your claim that a 5 x 5 pixel image of a galaxy should have the detail you are asking for.

You can't hand me a blurry blob and tell me that it's not blurry! Your actions and your excuses are irrational

You haven't shown that it is blurred. Please support your claim.

 

[Michael]

That is what I am asking you to do.

 

[Loudmouth]

So you can't back your claims that we should see a highly detailed galaxy in a 5 x 5 pixel picture?

 

[Loudmouth]

Back to the topic:

essentialsaltes also had a great question that you sidestepped:

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.

 

[Michael]

So you can't back your claims that we should see a highly detailed galaxy in a 5 x 5 pixel picture?

So....

You can't *actually* demonstrate that photons are redshifted due to "space expansion" in real experiments.

You can't demonstrate that photons are affected by inflation in real experiments.

You can't demonstrate that photons are affected by "dark energy" in real controlled experimentation.

You can't demonstrate that distant, highly redshifted galaxies are not blurred.

Is there *anything* that you actually *can* demonstrate in real experimentation or real images of distant galaxies?

I've seen pitiful pure "acts of faith" in belief systems that just didn't deserve them, but yours takes the cake. The moment you cannot demonstrate your claim, you try to shift the burden of proof. That is *so typical* of a pure denial based belief system.

At least I *can* demonstrate that object movement causes redshift. At least I can demonstrate in real experiments that *plasma* causes photon redshift. You've got zip.

Even my "faith in God" is faith in an *empirical* concept of an intelligent creator! Your pitiful belief system requires so many pure acts of faith in supernatural constructs that it's *worse than an average bad religion*.

 

[Michael]

Back to the topic:

essentialsaltes also had a great question that you sidestepped:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7763208-27/#post64012367

I already answered his oversimplification fallacy.

 

[Loudmouth]

So....

Still waiting. What details should we see in a picture of a galaxy that is 5 x 5 pixels? Describe them for me. Should we see several galactic arms? If so, how do you get that in just a 5x5 pixel picture?

You aren't squirming out of this one.

 

[Loudmouth]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7763208-27/#post64012367

I already answered his oversimplification fallacy.

You cited a repulsive positive energy that would add to the expansion. So the question still stands. What are you going to add to make the universe static?