Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

by **crawler** » Thu Aug 27, 2020 10:12 pm

Michael Mozina wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:20 pm
crawler wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 2:48 amThere is no such thing as spacetime.
That depends on whether or not one embraces General Relativity theory or not. I see no reason to "assume" that GR is invalid, even if the LCDM model is a complete metaphysical disaster.

The only bit of GR that is true is that light slows near mass (for some mysterious reason). I thank Einstein for that lucky guess (his reasoning is wrong). And the only bit of GR that has me worried is the apparent slowing of the Hulse Taylor binary in accordance with quadrupolar gravity waves (which dont exist)(which Einstein said didnt exist)(or at least he said that they could not carry energy). All other supposed proofs of SR & GR dont worry me (they are easily disposed of)(& have been).

Michael Mozina wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:20 pm
However it is correct that momentum/energy has to be lost to (passed along to) say a medium such that the momentum/energy is lost from "our world" (ie it enters the world that we cant easily see or feel).
Tired light explanations of redshift do not violate the conservation laws of energy laws of physics, whereas the LCDM model violates it *twice*, once with "space expansion" and a second time with "dark energy".

Yes i shouldnt have said that tired light explanations violate any laws.

Michael Mozina wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:20 pm
Elastic scattering & inelastic scattering wont do the trick. In which case they violate a law of physics. This is because Olbers' Paradox is a naive skoolkid paradox, the real paradox is why isnt the sky at an infinite temperature & brightness.
Your concept of a "infinite" temperature is neither supported by math or by logic, so I have no idea where you even get that concept.

That the real Olbers' should ask why dont we see an infinite temp everywhere (in our infinite eternal universe) is as i have explained before logical. But we neednt go into that again. But the infinite temp etc is why i insist that a helpful tired light theory needs to remove energy from our world. Elastic & inelastic scattering retains the energy somewhere (in which case we would have infinite temp)(which we dont)(hence the paradox)(hence the violations).

Michael Mozina wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:20 pm
A tired light model can do the trick (answer both the skoolkid paradox & the real paradox), one that does the trick belongs to Conrad Ranzan (as i have already pointed out).
The key point is that a tired light model doesn't violate any known laws of physics, whereas the alternatives proposed by the mainstream begin with tossing out the conservation laws of energy.

The violation that i have pointed out doesnt involve any known laws of physics i suppose, but it violates conservation laws that are not yet known (except that i have already pointed them/it out)(ie a conservation law that demands that energy can be lost from our world by transferring it out of our world)(or if u like a version that simply involves extinction in our world, without invoking an underworld, eg the aether).

The real Olbers' Paradox (that we dont see an infinite temp everywhere) shows that energy is (somehow) being created & (somehow) destroyed in our infinite eternal universe, all the time, & always has been, & always will be. And Ranzan has a beautiful theory for the destruction/annihilation/extinction, his best idea (& he has lots).

The creation part is not so easy. The aether somehow creates photons. Photons are an excitation of aether, plus an annihilation of aether. How does aether get excited?? How is aether annihilated?? I have some ideas but that is another topic.

by **Michael Mozina** » Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:51 pm

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75289377

sjastro wrote:The “Theory of Everything” serves as an example of another failure in Plasma Cosmology which is unable to explain the production of protons and neutrons in the universe by examining a preliminary process, the electroweak interaction or force highlighted in the diagram.

LOL! This type of bogus scientific argument is exactly why astronomers are stuck in the dark ages of astronomy.

First of all there is no *single* ("the") theory of everything, there are an infinite number of them, including a few put forth by folks in our own community. Secondly, the BB model doesn't ultimately "explain" anything with respect to where the original "GUT energy" comes from, or how it got "hot" to begin with, or how or why the whole thing wouldn't implode instantly, so the whole concept is utterly irrelevant.

A GUT also *assumes* that the various forces of nature originated from a singular source which isn't "known" to be true in the first place, and to make matters worse for LCDM proponents, a GUT requires a *QUANTUM* theory of gravity, which is a complete departure from GR theory, the foundational concept of gravity that every other part of the LCDM model is based upon! It's also the ultimate form of hypocrisy to claim that a "theory of everything" in any way supports the LCDM model since the LCDM model is based on GR theory, not a quantum gravity theory.

To make matters worst, even sjastro's diagram points out the obvious other major problem of a GUT as it relates to the LCDM model. The LCDM model doesn't just require *four* known forces of nature be related to a single source since their dark matter claim requires a *non* standard particle physics model, not the "standard" particle physics model shown in his diagram. The LCDM model also requires dark energy and inflation to boot. In short the LCDM model begins by "assuming" that there are actually at least *7* different forces of nature that all originated from a singular process, three of which fail to show up in any lab experiment on Earth!

PC theory doesn't require a "theory of everything" to exist in the first place, although it doesn't preclude it either. PC theory is certainly is not dependent upon the existence of a GUT, so it's absolutely irrational to suggest that a "theory of everything', which may not even exist in the first place, is some sort of a problem for PC theory. That's a patently absurd argument.

This type of bogus nonsense is exactly why astronomers cannot even explain 95 percent of their own model. They're not really looking for any real answers, and all their so called "answers" are simply "made up" metaphysical nonsense to start with, just like their "fix" for a non existent bogus "paradox" that violates the inverse square laws of light.

by **Michael Mozina** » Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:20 pm

crawler wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 2:48 am There is no such thing as spacetime.

That depends on whether or not one embraces General Relativity theory or not. I see no reason to "assume" that GR is invalid, even if the LCDM model is a complete metaphysical disaster.

However it is correct that momentum/energy has to be lost to (passed along to) say a medium such that the momentum/energy is lost from "our world" (ie it enters the world that we cant easily see or feel).

Tired light explanations of redshift do not violate the conservation laws of energy laws of physics, whereas the LCDM model violates it *twice*, once with "space expansion" and a second time with "dark energy".

Elastic scattering & inelastic scattering wont do the trick. In which case they violate a law of physics. This is because Olbers' Paradox is a naive skoolkid paradox, the real paradox is why isnt the sky at an infinite temperature & brightness.

Your concept of a "infinite" temperature is neither supported by math or by logic, so I have no idea where you even get that concept.

A tired light model can do the trick (answer both the skoolkid paradox & the real paradox), one that does the trick belongs to Conrad Ranzan (as i have already pointed out).

The key point is that a tired light model doesn't violate any known laws of physics, whereas the alternatives proposed by the mainstream begin with tossing out the conservation laws of energy.

by **crawler** » Wed Aug 26, 2020 2:48 am

Michael Mozina wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 7:28 pmThe examples of professional incompetence just keep coming:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75281261

Hans Blaster wrote:There is a notion among some pseudoscience communities that scattering can cause a redshift. (The other major "alternative theory" is something called tired light, where I guess photons just wear down and drop in energy as they propagate or some such nonsense.)
The *empirical fact* the inelastic scatting is a *known* cause of photon redshift has been *well* documented in the lab over the years. In fact Chen even reported a link between the number of free electrons in a plasma and the amount of redshift that he observed.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2608000089

Note that it was Fritz Zwicky who first proposed a 'tired light' alternative to 'space expansion' as the cause of cosmological redshift. Tired light models have virtually *always* been an alternative to "space expansion" and unlike "space expansion", no laws of physics are violated. Whatever the light loses in terms of momentum is simply passed along to the medium of spacetime.

There is no such thing as spacetime. However it is correct that momentum/energy has to be lost to (passed along to) say a medium such that the momentum/energy is lost from "our world" (ie it enters the world that we cant easily see or feel).

Elastic scattering & inelastic scattering wont do the trick. In which case they violate a law of physics. This is because Olbers' Paradox is a naive skoolkid paradox, the real paradox is why isnt the sky at an infinite temperature & brightness.

A tired light model can do the trick (answer both the skoolkid paradox & the real paradox), one that does the trick belongs to Conrad Ranzan (as i have already pointed out).

by **Michael Mozina** » Tue Aug 25, 2020 7:28 pm

The examples of professional incompetence just keep coming:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75281261

Hans Blaster wrote:There is a notion among some pseudoscience communities that scattering can cause a redshift. (The other major "alternative theory" is something called tired light, where I guess photons just wear down and drop in energy as they propagate or some such nonsense.)

The *empirical fact* the inelastic scatting is a *known* cause of photon redshift has been *well* documented in the lab over the years. In fact Chen even reported a link between the number of free electrons in a plasma and the amount of redshift that he observed.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2608000089

Note that it was Fritz Zwicky who first proposed a 'tired light' alternative to 'space expansion' as the cause of cosmological redshift. Tired light models have virtually *always* been an alternative to "space expansion" and unlike "space expansion", no laws of physics are violated. Whatever the light loses in terms of momentum is simply passed along to the medium of spacetime.

by **Michael Mozina** » Thu Aug 20, 2020 5:58 pm

antosarai wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 1:32 pm interesting?

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/the-entir ... everywhere

This was my favorite part of the article:

The question now is, what is causing this hydrogen to glow? The authors posit it might be due to the cosmic ultraviolet background, a diffuse glow of UV light seen all across the sky. The sources of that are something of a mystery, too. Turtles all the way down, it seems.

That the Universe for you: Enigmas wrapped in puzzles. But we're getting really good at unwrapping them. Especially when they write their message over literally the entire sky.

Gee, we see magnetic fields and hot hydrogen all over the universe. Could it possible be related to current flowing in space? Nah! That can't be it.

They'll dream up some other metaphysical kludge to "explain" it.

by **antosarai** » Thu Aug 20, 2020 1:32 pm

interesting?

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/the-entir ... everywhere

by **Michael Mozina** » Sun Aug 16, 2020 4:51 pm

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75246799

I think the last post in the Plasma Cosmology thread at CF clearly demonstrates the complete professional incompetence of mainstream astronomers. Even when I mathematically demonstrated that their beloved "Olber's paradox" is 268,770 AU shells short, 250 billion visible stars in our own galaxy short, and 100,000 galaxies in our supercluster short of a valid scientific argument, they *still* just bury their collective heads in the sand and repeat the same falsified nonsense. In fact *nothing* on sjastro's list is a valid scientific criticism of PC theory.

Meanwhile their beloved LCDM model violates the conservation of energy laws *two different ways*, it's internally self conflicted with respect to the Hubble constant, and it fails every high redshift observational test on the books, from "mature and massive" galaxies that defy the the expansion model, to massive quasars that cannot be explained in their model, to a complete lack of first generation stars seen at high redshift as their model requires. There's *nothing* about the expansion model of cosmology that even comes close to being a rational scientific model. 'Space' doesn't do any magic expansion tricks. "Dark energy" was nothing but an ad hoc "fix" to save the model from otherwise being falsified by SN1A data, and "dark matter" is nothing but another form of metaphysical "gap filler" to attempt to cover up the fact that they refuse to include any *electrical* aspects in plasma in space.

The complete lack of professionalism in astronomy today is simply staggering. There's nothing even remotely "scientific" about the LCDM model. It's nothing but a hodge-podge metaphysical kludge.

by **Michael Mozina** » Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:03 pm

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75244940

Hans Blaster wrote:I can handle it, I'm a big boy. I only read their site for my amusement. They are so silly. They had a link to that SN Ia thread a week ago or so, and looked through it then. I spent several hours deconstructing the paper that triggered the OP in the thread, but it all got buried by a stupid discussion of Olbers' paradox. Sigh.

Olbers' paradox is something that gets covered in 5-15 minutes in a lecture on the early attempts to apply rigor to cosmology. It's a *very* simple exercise.

If that's the case Hans, the problem is that it takes less time to "debunk" the whole Olber's paradox claim than is typically spent trying to support it. Worse yet you're *continuing* to try to support that "bright as the sun" nonsense in spite of it being 260,770 shells short of a valid "brightness" model (compared to sun), 250 billion or so stars short of a valid argument and 100 thousand galaxies short of a valid scientific argument and in spite of the fact that it violates the known laws of physics (again). You won't and can't touch the Hubble deep field images I mentioned with a 10 foot pole because such images *conclusively* demonstrate that "surface brightness" does not remain constant over infinite distances. It takes *days* to receive enough photons to even see those galaxies in a CCD image, and human eyes could *never* see them directly.

The bigger problem is that you're peddling false assertions to unsuspecting children and then failing them in class if they don't buy your nonsense, or attacking them personally.

You definitely *don't* want to get into scattering and absorption processes in space because they only dismantle your Olber's paradox nonsense even further.

The reason the whole night sky isn't as bright as the sun is due entirely to distance and dust and it has absolutely nothing to do with expansion. Even every static universe model would have to include a method to explain cosmological redshift, and any redshift model would lead to the inevitable scenario where light from very distance sources ends up redshifted beyond the ability for it to ever reach Earth.

Olber's paradox is a great example of how "old astronomer's wives tales" are never "let go of", even when they *clearly* have no relevancy to anything.

by **crawler** » Sun Aug 09, 2020 10:19 pm

antosarai wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 12:12 pm
This is Don Scott from Thoth VIII(2), Mar. 2004:
Olber's Paradox (...) is yet another example of theoretical mathematics applied incorrectly to a
real world phenomenon. Don Scott
Are not for instance Zeno's paradoxes yet other examples?

Zeno's P is explained when u realize that u can halve the distance for eternity, in which case the hare never catches the tortoise, no matter what the speeds. If u dont allow enough time then the hare never catches the tortoise, no matter what the speeds.

Nothing like Olbers' P.

by **antosarai** » Sun Aug 09, 2020 12:12 pm

This is Don Scott from Thoth VIII(2), Mar. 2004:

Olber's Paradox (...) is yet another example of theoretical mathematics applied incorrectly to a
real world phenomenon.
Don Scott

Are not for instance Zeno's paradoxes yet other examples?

by **JP Michael** » Sun Aug 09, 2020 4:16 am

@Michael Mozina, Scott has an analysis of Olber's.

This is Don Scott from Thoth VIII(2), Mar. 2004.

OLBER'S PARADOX
By Don Scott

"Why is the sky dark at night?"

According to the following logical thought sequence (mathematical
derivation), it should be horrendously bright.

1) The apparent intensity of a light source decreases with the square of
its distance from the observer. (Assuming no interstellar dust absorption,
this is true. Lumens received from a star will vary inversely as the
square of the distance to that star.)

2) If the distribution of stars is uniform in space, then the number of
stars at a particular distance, r, from the observer will be proportional
to the surface area of a sphere whose radius is that distance. This area
is directly proportional to the distance squared. A = (pi)r^2

3) Therefore, at each and every possible radial distance, r, the amount of
light coming toward us should be both directly proportional to the radius
squared (the number of stars) and inversely proportional to the radius
squared (they get dimmer with distance).

4) These two effects cancel each other.

5) So every spherical shell of radius r should add the same additional
amount of light.

6) Ergo: In an infinite universe, if we sum (integrate) the light coming
from all the infinite number of possible values of r, the sky should be
infinitely bright.

But the sky is not infinitely bright. Why?

The resolution of this paradox can be achieved by considering how
astronomers solved the problem of defining the ABSOLUTE luminosity
(brightness) of a star. Because of (1) above, the more distant a star is,
the dimmer it appears to be. In order to set up a standard, astronomers
arbitrarily agreed that if a star was placed at a distance of 10 parsecs
(approximately 32 1*2 light-years) from us and if it looked like a
magnitude 1.0 star at that distance, they would agree to say that its
ABSOLUTE LUMINOSITY was 1.0.

There is a well-known relationship between distance and apparent magnitude
of a star. For example, if we put that same 1st magnitude star at a
distance of 517 LY (light-years), its APPARENT MAGNITUDE would be only
6.0. Humans cannot see any star whose magnitude is higher (less luminous)
than 6.4. The 200 inch Hale telescope at Mt. Palomar can see down to
about magnitude 23 or so.

There are approximately 8400 stars in our night sky that are brighter than
magnitude 6.4. We do not see the others; they are too dim. Yes, yes, Carl
Sagan used to talk about millions and millions of stars ? but we can only
see about 8400 with our naked eyes. Carl was well known for his tendency
to exaggerate. We get the impression of millions and millions when we
look up at the Milky Way, but we can see only 8400 stars ? that's it ? and
that1s under ideal conditions.

Of course, some stars are VERY much brighter than absolute magnitude 1.0
and thus would be visible farther out than 517 LY. But, many are much
dimmer too, so as a rough approximation let us consider the average star.
If it is farther away than 517 LY, we cannot see it (AT ALL). So it might
as well not be there AT ALL. The total light in our night sky (at least
the way we can see it with our naked eyes) is not affected by much of
anything that is dimmer than magnitude 6.4 (typical stars farther away
than around 517 LY). Even for the blue-white giant stars whose absolute
luminosity puts them at ?10 or ?12 (much brighter than absolute magnitude
1.0), there exists some finite distance beyond which they too become
invisible to us ? their apparent magnitude slips down beyond 6.4.

There are a very few vastly distant objects that we can see such as the
Great Andromeda Galaxy M 31. It is over 3 million LYs away. But it is
such a concentrated collection of stars and plasma that it looks to us
about as bright as a single magnitude 4 star.

The point is this ? the infinite sum implied in step (5), above, is
incorrect. The sum STOPS (is truncated) at a distance of about 500+ light
years for the typical star (and somewhere beyond that even for the
brightest ones). There is an upper limit on the absolute brightness of a
single star; there is no such thing as an infinitely brilliant star. So
there is a finite upper limit to the integration process described in step
(5) above. It doesn't go out to infinity.

It may also help to remember that the human eye is different from
photographic film or a CCD chip. It does not integrate over time. The
longer we expose a photographic plate to starlight the brighter the image
becomes. (There is a limit even to this process in film due to what is
called reciprocity failure.) But, humans can stare at the night sky all
night long and not see anything they didn't see after the first few
minutes. Things don't get brighter for us the longer we look at them. So
theoretically the longer we expose our CCD camera chip, the brighter the
image (deeper into space we can see). This is not true for the human eye.
We can see the 8400 or so stars that we can see, and all the zillions of
others might as well not be there AT ALL as far as our humble naked human
eyes are concerned.

Olber's Paradox is not a paradox at all if you look at it correctly. It
is yet another example of theoretical mathematics applied incorrectly to a
real world phenomenon. Or a mathematician might say, "They got the upper
limit on the integral wrong."

Don Scott

by **JP Michael** » Sun Aug 09, 2020 2:16 am

Doesn't Olber's paradox assume light arrives at Earth unhindered from all quarters of the universe? I am just wondering if this assumption is at all correct, not just because of the inverse square law, but because the 'edge' of our own solar system is an unknown. Thornhill and others suppose that the Earth and the other planets are orbiting inside the Sun's extended atmosphere. At what point does that atmosphere cease, and what conditions exist at its cessation and the commencement of interstellar space? What effects does this region have on light penetrating from the outside (or light escaping from the inside)?

What I mean to say is this: if the edge of our solar system is some kind of double-layer plasma phenomenon, what kind of filtering effect could it have on EMF entering from the outside? Against this, of course, is that telescopy is able to peer outside of this region (if it exists, and I would like to suppose it does), so it may well be a dark-mode plasma double layer.

by **Michael Mozina** » Sat Aug 08, 2020 4:39 pm

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75240525

Hans Blaster wrote:The sad thing is that on those intellectually dark places on the Web where there is a stubborn refusal to comprehend the paradox, is that it's just a geometry problem. [Particularly for the classical form.] For ANY infinite cloud of discrete objects of finite size there will not be any directions that do not intersect an object at some distance. For Olbers' paradox, these finite objects are stars, so when we look in any direction we are always looking at the surface of some star.

Actually it's a *law of physics* problem in your *model* and a blatant mathematical *error* in your "shell" model. You're also obviously confusing the the concept of "comprehension" with "agreement". I comprehend your math and your model just fine which is why I'm able to point out the scientific and mathematical problems with it.

You're trying to insist that all surfaces are the same "brightness" at *any* distnace, when in fact a single Hubble deep field image blows that claim out of the water, as does your 250 billion star deficit, and your 100 thousand galaxy deficit. The reasons for your shell problem are obvious too because you're trying to compare the "brightness" of an object at 1AU with the brightness of surfaces that are measured in *light years* of distance. None of your claims add up. None of them jive with observation either. Your claim is a piece of scientific junk.

Your entire industry is based on *not asking questions* and not thinking "critically" because the moment that someone peaks under the scientific hood of your claims, the claims fall completely apart. You won't touch that Hubble deep field image problem with a 10 foot pole and we all know why too. Your argument is scientific trash and the observational evidence *destroys* it. That's also why you're forced to attack the *person* rather than to address the scientific and mathematical issues I've raised. You aren't fooling anyone.

by **Michael Mozina** » Sat Aug 08, 2020 4:18 pm

I'd say the reaction to my *scientific* criticisms of Olber's paradox at CF clearly demonstrate the basic problem in astronomy today. Astronomers cannot handle *scientific* criticisms with real scientific rebuttals. Instead they resort to nothing but personal attacks anytime and every time their dogma is attacked and dismantled scientifically.

They simply *ignored* the fact that even though they're comparing the brightness of the night sky to the brightness of the sun at 1AU, they irrationally insist that the size of their "shells" is magically immune from being directly related to AU sized shells. Likewise when one points out the fact that *nothing* in the night sky is anywhere near as bright as the sun, they simply ignore it. They also ignored the fact that they're 268,770 AU shells short of a valid mathematical model for "shell" brightness. They ignore the fact that they're 250 billion stars short of a valid observational argument about "surface brightness", and they're 100 thousand galaxies short of a decent "surface brightness" argument related to galaxies. They won't even touch the Hubble deep field image problem with their argument, nor will they bother to *explain* or deal with any of the aforementioned *scientific* problems in their claim. Instead they pull the oldest and sleaziest trick in the book by blaming the *messenger* for their scientific problems, and they resort to trying to attack the *individual* rather than the deal with the actual scientific problems that have been pointed out to them.

As the Hubble deep field images *clearly* demonstrate, the concept of "surface brightness" is completely irrelevant and it only applies to the brightness at the *source*, not the "brightness" at the detector We cannot look up at the night sky and "see" those distant galaxies in Hubble deep field images no matter how long we stare at them, nor would Hubble see them either without *days* of viewing time. The concept of "surface brightness" is a completely bogus argument as all the *observational* evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates. They won't touch any of those observational or mathematical problems in their model with a 10 foot pole because they don't have any logical scientific rebuttal to any of them. Instead it's all about trashing the *person* and ignoring the overwhelming number of problems with their claim. How sad is that?

The same is true anytime anyone points out the *countless* problems with their beloved LCDM model. It's self conflicted with respect to the Hubble constant, it blatantly violates the known laws of physics, it's based on 95 percent metaphysical nonsense, and it *still* is in direct conflict with those mature and massive objects at the highest redshifts. They simply don't have a valid scientific rebuttal to any of those points either, so again, it's "trash the messenger" and "burn the witch" time anytime that anyone points out those problems to them in public.

They resort to outright lies, constant personal attacks, and virtual lynchings to try to deflect the attention away from the *scientific* problems with their claims. That's just unethical and it's highly unprofessional behavior. They do all that unethical crap while hiding like complete cowards behind anonymous handles too. Sheesh. They are not real scientists. They're sleazy cowardly con men.

Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

Olber's Paradox

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Olber's Paradox

Re: Olber's Paradox

Re: Olber's Paradox

Re: Olber's Paradox

Re: Olber's Paradox

Re: Olber's Paradox

Re: Olber's Paradox

Re: Olber's Paradox

Re: Olber's Paradox

Re: Olber's Paradox

Re: Olber's Paradox

Re: Olber's Paradox

Re: Olber's Paradox

Re: Olber's Paradox

Re: Olber's Paradox

The sad reality.....