Relativity

[Loudmouth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, quote me or take back your claim.

Eddington said it too.

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

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

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

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

Still waiting for you to show me a picture of a galaxy that is 5x5 pixels. Show me that it wouldn't look like a blob. Until you do so, you have zero credibility.

 

[Michael]

Still waiting for you to show me a picture of a galaxy that is 5x5 pixels. Show me that it wouldn't look like a blob. Until you do so, you have zero credibility.

One of the key behaviors of your personal little 'denial-go-round' is a constant attempt to shift the burden of proof. You're always insisting that others have to demonstrate your beliefs to be in error, and ignoring your responsibility to support your own claims.

You're the one running around claiming that distant galaxies as "not blurry". To date however, you've produced nothing more than a 'red blob' which you *swear* is "not blurry". The blob has no distinguishing characteristics in terms of arms, or various features that might demonstrate *your* claim.

Since you apparently cannot demonstrate your actual claim, like every other one of you non demonstrated claims, you now try to shift the burden of proof to someone else! Boloney!

Your *entire* belief system is apparently one gigantic *unfalsifiable* claim, from start to finish because not a single one of your claims can or has been demonstrated in the lab. Even when inflation theory fails to predict that hemispheric disaster you have on your hands in the Planck data set, you ignore the falsification mechanism *entirely*. As david's "curvaton" claims demonstrate, when there's no limit to the supernatural constructs, there's no possibility of falsification.

What you have is an extremely bad, unfalsifiable 'religion' that requires blind faith in the unseen, and blind faith in things that defy the laws of (plasma) physics.

 

[Davian]

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

No, just linking to an article on "meditation" is not providing controls for the experimentation you suggested. Do you have nothing?

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

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

Tell me, keeping that article in mind, what are the field strengths you might be expecting during this "EM field measuring process during meditation and prayer".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

True, who in their right mind would think that the human body which generates it's own EM field, could possibly be affected by, or effect EM fields?

Body Charge: experimenting with electric force fields and the human body | Morgan Rauscher

I got news for you. EM fields are everywhere and affect everything. You have never measured anything that did not emit an EM field, ever.

 

[Inan3]

Loudmouth, does "space" do any real coo...

... nevermind.

 

[Michael]

No, just linking to an article on "meditation" is not providing controls for the experimentation you suggested. Do you have nothing?

Excuse me? At least I have an empirical cause/effect process to *measure*, whereas you can't even do that much with *any* of your claims.

Tell me, keeping that article in mind, what are the field strengths you might be expecting during this "EM field measuring process during meditation and prayer".

I'd assume it would be in the same range of the field strengths inside the human brain.

 

[Davian]

Excuse me? At least I have an empirical cause/effect process to *measure*, whereas you can't even do that much with *any* of your claims.

If you cannot answer the question, then I will presume you have nothing.

I'd assume it would be in the same range of the field strengths inside the human brain.

Numbers please.

 

[Michael]

If you cannot answer the question, then I will presume you have nothing.

Well, first things first. First you're going to need to explain what processes give rise to awareness and "feelings" before we can even begin to talk about how such processes might be influenced by external EM fields.

Electromagnetic theories of consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Numbers please.

Orders of magnitude (magnetic field) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Check out the third item on the list. There are also *numerous* papers published on this topic and the topic of MRI's.

 

[Davian]

Well, first things first. First you're going to need to explain what processes give rise to awareness and "feelings" before we can even begin to talk about how such processes might be influenced by external EM fields.

Electromagnetic theories of consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You still did not answer the question put to you, and now I am to explain a claim that I did not make?

*You* are the one claiming "such processes might be influenced by external EM fields." You start explaining.

Orders of magnitude (magnetic field) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Check out the third item on the list. There are also *numerous* papers published on this topic and the topic of MRI's.

Now, how do you intend to control for magnetic fields in/around the brain that "might" affect consciousness, while, as in the article you linked to, the brain is actively being scanned by a machine creating a field seven magnitudes greater?

 

[Loudmouth]

One of the key behaviors of your personal little 'denial-go-round' is a constant attempt to shift the burden of proof. You're always insisting that others have to demonstrate your beliefs to be in error, and ignoring your responsibility to support your own claims.

You're the one running around claiming that distant galaxies as "not blurry". To date however, you've produced nothing more than a 'red blob' which you *swear* is "not blurry". The blob has no distinguishing characteristics in terms of arms, or various features that might demonstrate *your* claim.

Since you apparently cannot demonstrate your actual claim, like every other one of you non demonstrated claims, you now try to shift the burden of proof to someone else! Boloney!

Your *entire* belief system is apparently one gigantic *unfalsifiable* claim, from start to finish because not a single one of your claims can or has been demonstrated in the lab. Even when inflation theory fails to predict that hemispheric disaster you have on your hands in the Planck data set, you ignore the falsification mechanism *entirely*. As david's "curvaton" claims demonstrate, when there's no limit to the supernatural constructs, there's no possibility of falsification.

What you have is an extremely bad, unfalsifiable 'religion' that requires blind faith in the unseen, and blind faith in things that defy the laws of (plasma) physics.

Look who is in denial now. Show me a crisp, unblurred galaxy that has been reduced down to 25 pixels, then show me how it is not a blob. Every post where you avoid doing this you prove my point.

 

[Michael]

You still did not answer the question put to you, and now I am to explain a claim that I did not make?

*You* are the one claiming "such processes might be influenced by external EM fields." You start explaining.

We already had that conversation in the Empirical theory of God threads. Perhaps you'd like to peruse them a bit?

Now, how do you intend to control for magnetic fields in/around the brain that "might" affect consciousness, while, as in the article you linked to, the brain is actively being scanned by a machine creating a field seven magnitudes greater?

If I can hope to measure internal EM fields inside the brain, then I can hope to measure *external* fields influencing the brain. I might also hope to isolate *internal* areas of interest in such a manner.

Compare and contrast that with a lack of a *source* of "dark energy", a lack of a *control mechanism* or *measuring device* associated with "dark energy", etc. It's not even a comparison.

At least there is *hope* of empirical vindication/verification/falsification in the experiments I've suggested. You don't even have any hope for *that* much in your dark energy claims in a lab.

 

[Davian]

We already had that conversation in the Empirical theory of God threads. Perhaps you'd like to peruse them a bit?

I did, and they were a dead end, if you recall.

If I can hope to measure internal EM fields inside the brain, then I can hope to measure *external* fields influencing the brain. I might also hope to isolate *internal* areas of interest in such a manner.

As usual, you did not address my point at all. Is that just an obsession with getting the last word in?

<snip rant>

Broken record is broken.

 

[Michael]

As usual, you did not address my point at all.

What is the point that you believe that I did not address?

 

[Michael]

2nd Question:

Do you believe there is any difference between Lambda-CDM/Big Bang theories and "net-zero energy" claims?

 

[Davian]

What is the point that you believe that I did not address?

2nd Question:

Do you believe there is any difference between Lambda-CDM/Big Bang theories and "net-zero energy" claims?

[/derail]

 

[Justatruthseeker]

^^Avoidance.

Must not have been important enough to point out so Michale could address it, just needed some comment to make without presenting any facts I expect.

I am still waiting for someone to explain how you can treat plasma the same in your math as you do solids, liquids and gasses, yet admit it does not behave like those solids, liquids and gasses?

I want someone to explain to me how mainstream can blatantly violate their own science and that is ok?

 

[Davian]

^^Avoidance.

Must not have been important enough to point out so Michale could address it, just needed some comment to make without presenting any facts I expect.

Michael's derail and continuing commenting without presenting any facts was getting a bit much, particularly when he makes the same derails in multiple threads.

I am still waiting for someone to explain how you can treat plasma the same in your math as you do solids, liquids and gasses, yet admit it does not behave like those solids, liquids and gasses?

I want someone to explain to me how mainstream can blatantly violate their own science and that is ok?

Perhaps you should take your questions to a discussion board that focuses on astrophysics.

Also, I am still waiting for your response to this post:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7765317-54/#post63999378

Or do you concede that you have nothing?