Relativity

[Michael]

Still waiting.

You'll be waiting a long time if you're expecting me to demonstrate *your* claim about how distant galaxies are not blurred.

You aren't squirming out of this one.

Neither are you. You keep parroting Ned. Let's see you back it up.

 

[Michael]

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?

I've already answered that question. I intend to use charge repulsion between cathode suns.

 

[Loudmouth]

You'll be waiting a long time if you're expecting me to demonstrate *your* claim about how distant galaxies are not blurred.

I am waiting for you to demonstrate your claim that they are blurred.

What features do you expect to see in a picture of a galaxy that is 5x5 pixels?

 

[Loudmouth]

I've already answered that question. I intend to use charge repulsion between cathode suns.

Repulsion pushes things apart. How can this make an expanding universe a static one?

 

[Michael]

I am waiting for you to demonstrate your claim that they are blurred.

You already did that for me when you handed me that "blob". No arms, no obvious patterns of any sort.

What features do you expect to see in a picture of a galaxy that is 5x5 pixels?

I expected you to actually demonstrate your claim that distant galaxies are not blurred as you keep parroting from Ned Wright's website. So far all I've gotten from you is what can only be described as a reddish looking "blob" that looks almost, but not quite, entirely unlike a galaxy.

 

[Michael]

Repulsion pushes things apart. How can this make an expanding universe a static one?

It won't. Repulsion however will help to keep a static universe from imploding.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Repulsion pushes things apart. How can this make an expanding universe a static one?

That's the funny thing about the electrical force, it both attracts and repels, depending merely on the direction of the current and the angles between their centers. But being limited by gravity, all you have is an attractive force to work with, so you invented expanding nothing to explain repulsion. Black holes to explain million year light long plasma jets accelerating from the centers of galaxies. Black holes that sucked everything in until technology advanced and discovered these plasma jets. Then it morphed into something that then repelled too. Funny how that works.

MIT Physics Demo -- Forces on a Current-Carrying Wire | MIT Video

Being that the Birkeland Currents entering the polar regions carrying 100,000 amps are going both directions, one can begin to understand why the Earth neither plunges into the Sun, nor fly's away. It is being both attracted and repelled all at the same time.

One day you will realize it only depends on the current streams between galaxies, and the direction of the particles to other particles and angles between their centers. Galaxies that look like they are coming apart, are. Galaxies that look like they are colliding, are. All because you confuse what redshift really is do you have any expansion beyond normal.

Lets face it, 13 billion years ago those galaxies were at the distance apart that we see them at today. We are seeing the light from these distant galaxies from 13 billion years ago, and they are not close together, originating in a big bang. You can't move the galaxy to a beginning point. what you see is from 13 billion years ago, you see them exactly as they were 13 billions years ago, disproving your big bang time scale.

Get a grip on reality.

 

[Michael]

That's the funny thing about the electrical force, it both attracts and repels, depending merely on the direction of the current and the angles between their centers. But being limited by gravity, all you have is an attractive force to work with, so you invented expanding nothing to explain repulsion.

Yep.

The mainstream keeps leaving out EM field effects in their models, and the EU/PC community has been too slow to embrace some aspects of GR in their enthusiastic effort to find a replacement "theory of everything" based on EM fields. I think a more middle ground approach is currently in order, even if a TOE seems like a likely "replacement model" in the future. That's my two cents anyway.

 

[Loudmouth]

You already did that for me when you handed me that "blob". No arms, no obvious patterns of any sort.

How do you get arms with a 5x5 pixel picture? Do you understand how imaging works or not?

I expected you to actually demonstrate your claim that distant galaxies are not blurred as you keep parroting from Ned Wright's website.

They are very sharp pinpricks of light. They are not blurred.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's the funny thing about the electrical force, it both attracts and repels, depending merely on the direction of the current and the angles between their centers. But being limited by gravity, all you have is an attractive force to work with, so you invented expanding nothing to explain repulsion. Black holes to explain million year light long plasma jets accelerating from the centers of galaxies. Black holes that sucked everything in until technology advanced and discovered these plasma jets. Then it morphed into something that then repelled too. Funny how that works.

MIT Physics Demo -- Forces on a Current-Carrying Wire | MIT Video

Being that the Birkeland Currents entering the polar regions carrying 100,000 amps are going both directions, one can begin to understand why the Earth neither plunges into the Sun, nor fly's away. It is being both attracted and repelled all at the same time.

One day you will realize it only depends on the current streams between galaxies, and the direction of the particles to other particles and angles between their centers. Galaxies that look like they are coming apart, are. Galaxies that look like they are colliding, are. All because you confuse what redshift really is do you have any expansion beyond normal.

Lets face it, 13 billion years ago those galaxies were at the distance apart that we see them at today. We are seeing the light from these distant galaxies from 13 billion years ago, and they are not close together, originating in a big bang. You can't move the galaxy to a beginning point. what you see is from 13 billion years ago, you see them exactly as they were 13 billions years ago, disproving your big bang time scale.

Get a grip on reality.

Wow, a gravity denier trying to lecture people on evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yep.

The mainstream keeps leaving out EM field effects in their models, and the EU/PC community has been too slow to embrace some aspects of GR in their enthusiastic effort to find a replacement "theory of everything" based on EM fields. I think a more middle ground approach is currently in order, even if a TOE seems like a likely "replacement model" in the future. That's my two cents anyway.

You keep failing to include them in the equations and show that they make a difference.

 

[Michael]

You keep failing to include them in the equations and show that they make a difference.

Lerner showed you how they make a difference. Brynjolfsson showed you. Ashmore showed you . Holushko showed you. Even Hubble himself described the *two* possible explanations for redshift, and your claims weren't even *one* of them!

You folks work the equations with supernatural constructs until you get whatever you want. It's irrelevant to you how it *actually* works in the lab, or in space. You guys could care less that Birkeland *predicted* all the important solar atmospheric activity we observe today based on *empirical experimentation*! It doesn't matter one iota to you that you *left out* all the EM field influences in spacetime. It doesn't matter to you that you *left out* all the inelastic scattering processes in plasma. It doesn't matter one iota to you that you simply *left out* electrical current in your supernatural belief system. The only thing that matters is whether or not the equations can be bent like a pretzel to do anything and everything.

No *empirical* theory could compete with mathematical equations that describe *supernatural* constructs. Empiricists actually have to admit when "I don't know" is the 'correct' answer. They cannot just "make up" a half dozen supernatural constructs on the fly. They cannot just ignore the laws of physics on a whim.

The mainstream is constantly ignoring the *glaring* failures of BB theory, like the failures of BB theory in the SN data set, and like failures of inflation theory in the Planck data set. The SN data set gave us "dark energy", and it looks like you folks intend to use the Planck data set to hand us a new supernatural sidekick called 'curvatons'. Whenever your belief system bites the empirical dust in the data, you simply invent a supernatural savior to resurrect it from the empirical dead!

 

[Michael]

How do you get arms with a 5x5 pixel picture? Do you understand how imaging works or not?

I understand that you've got exactly *zero* evidence that high redshift galaxies are not blurred in spite of all that parroting you've done from Ned Wright's *unpublished* website nonsense.

They are very sharp pinpricks of light. They are not blurred.

Baloney. They're a 25 pixel blurry "blob" in that image. That's all you can even say about it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I understand that you've got exactly *zero* evidence that high redshift galaxies are not blurred in spite of all that parroting you've done from Ned Wright's *unpublished* website nonsense.

I do have the evidence. They are pinpricks against a black background. The blurring that PC would produce is not seen. We would expect to see light from all around the galaxy from incident light being scattered from other galaxies. It would look like trying to pick out a candle a mile away in dense fog. We just wouldn't see it.

These are the facts that falsify PC, and this has been known for decades.

Baloney. They're a 25 pixel blurry "blob" in that image. That's all you can even say about it.

That's the lie that you keep pushing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Lerner showed you how they make a difference. Brynjolfsson showed you. Ashmore showed you . Holushko showed you.

Let's start with Holushko. Where did he use a single equation for plasma to show that it is capable of producing the force needed to produce a static universe. Last I checked, Holushko did not use one equation for plasma or even EM in any of his calculations.

 

[Michael]

Let's start with Holushko. Where did he use a single equation for plasma to show that it is capable of producing the force needed to produce a static universe. Last I checked, Holushko did not use one equation for plasma or even EM in any of his calculations.

Eh? Nice dodge. How about checking Lerner's paper for me, and tell me where he made his mistake.

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

 

[Michael]

I do have the evidence.

If you do, you sure haven't shown it.

They are pinpricks against a black background.

They are 25 pixel blobs that almost but not quite look almost completely *unlike* a galaxy.

The blurring that PC would produce is not seen.

How did you decide what PC would produce based on Brynjoffson's work or Ashmore's work?

We would expect to see light from all around the galaxy from incident light being scattered from other galaxies. It would look like trying to pick out a candle a mile away in dense fog. We just wouldn't see it.

Why would we expect to see that from Brynjollfson's paper? You seem to be making this up as you go.

These are the facts that falsify PC, and this has been known for decades.

These are apparently just allegations that you make up whenever it suits you.

That's the lie that you keep pushing.

When you can produce something that shows some detail and looks like more than a red smudge, let me know. Until then the only lie is the lie that that image that you handed us shows crisp 'clear' galaxies at a z>10 distance.

 

[essentialsaltes]

How about checking Lerner's paper for me, and tell me where he made his mistake.

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

 

[Loudmouth]

If you do, you sure haven't shown it.

Already did. Those galaxies are sharp pinpricks against a black background. That should not be seen in a universe where light is being scattered by plasma.

They are 25 pixel blobs that almost but not quite look almost completely *unlike* a galaxy.

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.

How did you decide what PC would produce based on Brynjoffson's work or Ashmore's work?

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.

When you can produce something that shows some detail and looks like more than a red smudge, let me know.

Why do you keep lying about it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Eh? Nice dodge.

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