Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,316 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 778,806
Pageviews Today: 1,282,286Threads Today: 511Posts Today: 8,825
01:06 PM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPORT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN REPLY
Message Subject Marko Rodin - Smart Lazer Technology
Poster Handle aether
Post Content
I'm not sure that red-shift is that important, to be honest.
 Quoting: observation





Really? I'm very surprised that you feel that way actually. From my perspective at least, plasma redshift is the single most important possible falsification mechanism for BB theory, and it's THE most important prediction of PC/EU theory. As a matter of fact, I can't even think of a more important possible falsification mechanism for mainstream theory, nor can I even think of a more important "prediction" of PC/EU theory.

If redshift can be shown, and has been shown to be a standard process in plasma, that empirical laboratory observation completely undermines the mainstream claims related to expansion and acceleration. It would be different IMO if they weren't trying to claim that the expansion of the universe was occurring "faster than light", and they weren't trying to claim that 'space' was magically expanding, but these are both "out there" claims. The fact that plasma redshift is a real and documented process in plasma completely undermines both of those ridiculous claims.

Pretty much every one of their expansion/acceleration claims is based on the ASSUMPTION that *ONLY* expansion/acceleration can explain the observed redshift from distant objects. In term of pure empirical, lab tested physics, that is absolutely not the case anymore. The onus of responsibility now falls on them to demonstrate why their explanation is actually 'better' than a known process in plasma that has already been demonstrated and documented in the lab. They won't ever be able to do that! IMO they were fine in making their claims about expansion and acceleration as long as nobody had a 'better' empirical solution to the redshift observation. Now that EMPIRICAL solutions can and do explain the redshift, where does that actually leave them? That observation of plasma redshift in the lab leaves mainstream claims about faster than light speed expansion, swinging in the metaphysical breeze IMO. No longer can they claim that there isn't an empirical solution to the problem, an no longer can they claim to have any advantage of static universe and/or PC theories.
 Quoting: observation
 
Please verify you're human:




Reason for copyright violation:







GLP