jackokie wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 7:08 pm
Dr Brian Keating
@LPPFusion “Why don’t you answer my questions”
Eric First, please look up Brandolini’s law for why I cannot possibly spend the time needed to refute all your claims. You still haven’t apologized for your behavior and misrepresentation and yet accuse the astrophysics community of censoring you.
IMO, Dr Lerner has no reason to apologize for his behavior (what behavior?). Nor should he apologize for the content of his latest scientific paper, lastest article and latest videos. He's right, if what he says is true about the Tolman Test and the data, to question the Big Bang Model.
And he and other plasma cosmology supporting scientists have most certainly been censored by the astrophysics community. It's a lie to claim otherwise. In fact, a distinguished group of them even collectively signed a letter complaining about that not too long ago. There's plenty of evidence that it's true, just as there is plenty of evidence that PC/EU supporters (like us) are censored on various mainstream astrophysics and science forums when we try to express PC/EU theories and opinions. For Keating to dismiss that accusation by just saying "uh uh, there isn't" is not at all convincing.
Also Lerner is not asking Keating to defend BB against all of his complaints about BB. It was VERY clear in his first video, linked earlier, that he wanted to narrow the discussion to just the Tolman test and what Hubble and JWST results say about that. *Dr* Brian is clearly trying to weasel out of doing that now. One can only wonder why? (sarcasm). Dr Keating says ...
no serious astronomer considers the Tolman test valuable or worthy of application. That’s because the Big Bang expansion is as well proven as can be. The TT is the least accurate method of “disproving” the Big Bang because of a host of factors like galactic substructure and the inability to calibrate sizes of galaxies. You seem to think galaxies have standard rulers calibrated to micron precision attached to them. They don’t.
Again, that's not at all convincing, Dr Keating. You're making vague statements and HANDWAVING in the hope that all of this will just going away. It won't, until it's settled. And it won't help your case to toss out even more lies, more obfuscation, more strawmen, more red herrings, and more tangents designed to avoid debating the topic honestly. Good examples of each are found in the rest of what you posted. For example ...
You say Dr Lerner treats the Milky Way like it’s a standard ruler, it’s not and that no one beside Lerner claims it's one. That's a lie.
You say Tolman was initially skeptical of the BBT, but then agreed the Big Bang was right. I don't see any proof of this or on what basis he supposedly did.
You say the Big Bang expansion model has nothing to say about galaxy formation or merger history. That's a lie. Note those who I quoted in my earlier posts regarding that issue. The Big Bang model most certainly does include what comes after the moment of creation ... and that has to include how galaxies are formed and evolve, especially if evidence regarding their evolution contradicts what Big Bang theorists have been saying for decades.
You say you have answered Lerner's questions many times. So has Ned. That's untrue. The questions Lerner asked in his video has not been answered by you or "Ned". You basically ignored them as anyone can see.
You say Lerner has refuse to answer any of my questions like why he believe In TL [tired light] despite it not being understood. First, Lerner is not a proponent of tired light. That's a lie. He may have latched onto it 30 years ago as an alternative explanation, but now he just maintains that if data proves redshift cannot be due to expansion, then SOME other mechanism must be responsible for it. There is nothing wrong with argument. It's obvious. And there are in fact several possibilities, beside tired light, that, curiously, the Big Bang establishment has steadfastly refused to explore over the years. They mostly dismiss the alternatives out of hand or with spurious logic ... just like your spurious logic now.
The issue, that you clearly don't want to debate in an honest manner, is whether Lerner makes the case with his Tolman argument that the universe is not expanding. To make this aspect of the discussion central, and hopefully reach some conclusion he offered a pointed video dealing primarily with the logic and data behind that claim, and he asked questions directly related to that ... questions that you basically ignored. Everyone can see that.
You say TL is ruled out at 100,000 sigma. That won’t change! In the above contact, that just a strawman. It doesn't bear on the logic, data, conclusions and questions that Lerner posed. You're just trying to change the subject and everyone here can see that.
You say Lerner claimed the Big Bang has 16 errors. True, but so what? Again, this an attempt by you not to address the one, critical issue that Lerner has now posed. One that if he's right, makes it irrelevant where there are 15 (or 16) other errors or not.
You say Lerner ignores the billions of redshift measures, 100,000 Cosmic Microwave Background data points, dark matter maps, BAO measures, SZ and more that you just ignore. You have to be joking, *Dr* Keating. Dark matter maps? LOL! It's obvious to every reader that you're just trying to muddy the water and avoid addressing the SINGLE problem that Dr Lerner has posed to you. And you're dishonest too. Lerner hasn't ignored redshifts. Good grief, man, he using what you astrophysics say are the redshifts from JWST observations against you. And it doesn't matter if there 100,000,000 CMB data points ... if his Tolman arguments proves there was no Big Bang. Then YOU will have to find another cause for the CMB.
You say you have yet to see Lerner refer to a single formula that is quantitative other than the linear angular size relation which he (you say) "incorrectly (or disingenuously?)" claims is how astronomers define z. Problem is he doesn't need more than the one formula and you have haven't proven that Lerner's formulas are wrong or his interpretation is wrong. You need to PROVE IT.
Lay your case out in a simple, comprehensible manner like Lerner did. Show the correct formulas and be sure to provide your sources for what you claim. Because so far you're not convincing us. And probably the public is becoming suspicious about such unsourced, unverified claims from someone who still believes in a dozen gnomes or so after decades and decades of trying to prove (in a convincing way) their existence.
You say Lerner does not believe in GR, right? Whether he does or not, that's nothing but a red herring. A diversion from the issue at hand.
You tell Lerner "you can have expansion without any galaxies at all." Another red herring and again one you haven't proven.
You claim the Tolman test has been passed since Tolman himself. Again, PROVE IT with specific citations that can be debated by Lerner and judged by us. And prove it for the JREF data. Stop just claiming things, because quite frankly many of us no longer believe most of what you Big Bang *scientists* claim. You don't appear any more reliable than scientists in the mainstream's climate change arena. We don't believe in the many unproven, mythical gnomes that you've invented and used, as Lerner correctly noted, to TWEAK your theory in order to fit observations that contradicted the last rendition of your theory. You truly are playing games with Ptolemaic epicycles, just like Lerner observed.
We don't believe you because you've had 50 to 60 years to prove they aren't gnomes AND YOU'VE FAILED, while spending countless billion of OUR taxpayer dollars trying. That money has bought you lots of nice houses, cars, childrens educations in Ivy League schools, vacations and retirement plans, and accomplished nothing more than to give you excuses to spend even more of OUR money on the search for even more gnomes to tweak you theory.
We also don't accept all the handwaving you've constantly done to explain away observations that were problems for your model ... like the distribution of angular momentum in the solar system and the helical winding observed in plasma filaments at ALL scales (all the way up to the scale of galactic clusters and the filaments connecting them). We are tired of contradictory or unexplained observations being disappeared, never to be heard from again, once they are mentioned ... as if they were never discovered. And I could go on and on listing your side's BAD BEHAVIORS the past 20-30 years.
You claim Lerner's statements that "the Big Bang flunks the Tolman test with both sets of data" and that "you don't address these observations at all“ is wrong. You say you "addressed the angular size vs redshift — with actual data, with actual error bars in my previous video" and that "the Tolman test is passed and the TL static Universe [BAC - notice the red herring here folks?] is rule[d] out by 1000’s of standard deviations." Prove it. You showed no calculations whatsoever to come up with that claim. You waved your hand at a chart with no source and expected everyone to just bow down and believe you. I, for one, DON'T. You may be lying ... AGAIN. If you want to convince us, break your claims down into simple charts like Lerner did, spelling out your sources and logic, so if nothing else, Lerner has something to respond to other than your vague statements. Otherwise, much of the audience is not going to just accept your claims. You have too much vested interest in Big Bang for us to ignore. If you and Lewis can spend the hours it must have taken to prepare the video you produced to respond to Lerner's first video, then you can spend a few hours, like Lerner did, preparing a series of charts to prove what you calm ... rather than just making unfounded claims and waving your hands.
You say "All SNI, BAO, and galaxy size vs z data not only strongly motivate the Big Bang model, they obliterate the STL model of yours." Sorry, Dr Keating, but we are not going to simply accept your claims and handwaving, and no one else out there logically should. Especially given all the lies and irrelevant distractions you've posted in your response to this issue so far. The public would be foolish to just believe you, Dr Keating.
Next you say,
@Lerner “What Ned Wright wrote 30 years ago can’t possibly answer the research I and my colleagues Riccardo Scarpa and Renato Falomo have published over the past eight years, let alone the recent work on the JWST images.”
What recent work? Please send a citation to quantitative work not an IAI website.
*Dr* Keating, if you won't spend 1 minute of your *precious* *science communicator* time to search out Dr Lerner's latest peer reviewed scientific papers to learn what he is been talking about, you're not only stupid, but a downright lazy fool. In which case, I can see why you'd prefer to keep the status quo the status quo, where you have a nice gig that let's you can sit around on your butt patting yourself on the back pontificating with your Big Bang friends (who also have nice comfortable gigs). Defending the status quo for the mainstream has always been the safe, easy gig in science.
Finally, say to Lerner "You were wrong when Ned Wright wrote his damning obliteration of your STL model 20 (not 30 years ago by the way)." Wow! Not just stupid, foolish and lazy, but petty. Yes, Wright last UPDATED his criticism of Eric Lerner's Big Bang Never Happened book about 19 years ago (11 Oct 2003) not 30. Give Lerner a break. After all, you probably voted for a President who makes even bigger gaffs DAILY. And what you've failed to disclose is that Lerner replied to Wright's criticisms (
https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmi ... rong-2003/) and Wright just ignored his response. Much like you’re trying to do with Lerner here. But in any case, your Ned Wright attack on Lerner is completely irrelevant if what Lerner says about the Toleman test and JWST data is correct. So deal with that issue, rather than tossing yet out more red herrings.
jackokie wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 7:08 pm
I think there's a "No True Scotsman" argument somewhere in Keating's last response.
LOL! Had to look that one up. And yes, you’re right. Keating’s response is definitely an example of that fallacy. I think his belief must go something like this … *No TRUE astrophysicist believes Big Bang is wrong … thus keep sending us swimming in money to keep endlessly searching for Big Bang’s endless list of gnomes so we can pay for the endless homes, cars, vacations, etc. etc. etc that make being a modern astrophysicist (or science communicator) such a nice gig.*. Just saying …