Author The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast  (Read 43070 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #390 on: February 04, 2017, 03:51:17 PM »
Nice! I'm listening to it now. I like the cross-over :) Interesting questions hashed. Maybe we can hope you'll do one with the Hoagland Imaging Team?
That would be awesome if you could do this, astroguy!

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #391 on: February 04, 2017, 04:02:08 PM »
That would be awesome if you could do this, astroguy!

That would literally be "The Flintstones" meet "The Jetsons" lol

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #392 on: February 04, 2017, 07:00:01 PM »
Hi, Astroguy! ;D  I am interested in your take on these videos.  Thank you.

PLANET X Update...THE EARTH'S CRUST IS SHIFTING PART #1 of 3.  2.4.17.



PLANET X Update...THE EARTH'S CRUST IS SHIFTING PART #2 of 3.  2.4.17.



PLANET X Update...THE EARTH'S CRUST IS SHIFTING PART #3 of 3.  2.4.17.




Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #393 on: February 04, 2017, 07:52:05 PM »
Hi, Astroguy! ;D  I am interested in your take on these videos.  Thank you.

here and here

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #394 on: February 04, 2017, 08:17:31 PM »

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #395 on: March 05, 2017, 03:03:58 PM »

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #396 on: March 19, 2017, 08:04:41 PM »



Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #399 on: March 20, 2017, 09:06:35 AM »

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #400 on: April 02, 2017, 03:55:28 AM »
Star Formation Is Virtually Finished

by Brian Thomas, M.S. 

An international team of astronomers recently analyzed a specific frequency of light that hot gas clouds in outer space produce. Very hot stars, like blue stars, are thought to burn near or within these clouds, energizing the gas so that it can emit this characteristic light signature. Secular astronomers are also convinced that stars form inside these distant, turbulent, and gaseous zones.

The team, publishing in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, surveyed the light from a wide range of redshifts.(1) A higher redshift—when a characteristic light pattern appears shifted more toward the red end of the light spectrum—indicates a greater distance between the observer and the light source. So, they examined this light from near and far.

Higher redshifts are also supposed to indicate that more time has elapsed since that light departed from the faraway glowing clouds. However, this assumes that light travels at the same speed in all directions—an assumption called the Einstein synchrony convention. No experiment has verified this assumption. Nobody has yet invented one that could.

The astronomers found more of these hot gases at higher redshifts. They interpreted that result to conclude that half of all stars formed naturally during a two-billion-year window of time that ended eight billion years ago. But these conclusions amount to mere speculation when considering how unproven the assumptions are that undergird them.

News describing this study fails to mention these assumptions. For example, the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan said in a press release, "Using the same method and techniques is a powerful way to look back in time to obtain fully comparable chunks of the Universe, which contain hundreds of star-forming galaxies."(2) But do astronomers really peer "back in time," and do "star-forming galaxies" really exist?

No direct evidence supports either assertion, and some evidence refutes them. First, star formation has never been observed, even in the hot gas clouds in galaxies where it supposedly occurs. Stars could only form in theory through an unlikely nearby star explosion. And then that exploded star would need another earlier nearby star explosion. Clearly, the first star would never have formed.(3) Plus, this process would have littered the universe with debris from countless star explosions. Instead, it is as clean as a whistle, which is a big problem for secular astronomers looking for missing supernova remnants.(4)

There is no good scientific reason to think that these distant glowing gas clouds are star nurseries. But calling them that is the only way to justify the existence of stars in a naturalistic worldview—one in which a universal Creator is universally ruled out of bounds. Scripture says that God made the stars all on one day and then completed that creative work. Based on this, one would not expect to find stars forming today. Star formation is an assumption, not an observation.

Second, the Monthly Notices authors assumed that high redshifts equaled billions of years. One could, with equal validity, assume that starlight travels instantaneously from its source to the viewer, as long as it travels at half the measured round-trip speed of light in the other direction.(5) This way, starlight represents what is happening right now, albeit trillions of miles away.

But rejecting the Einstein synchrony convention—that light travels at the same rate both toward and away from the viewer—means that although stars are billions of light-years away, they are not necessarily billions of years old. Is there any observable evidence to suggest that distant stars or galaxies are younger than billions of years?

Yes. Ironically, the same blue stars that likely cause the gas cloud radiation that the international team of astronomers surveyed are just such evidence. Blue stars burn out so fast that they can barely last a million years. And blue stars are found throughout the universe—both near and far—showing that the whole universe is far younger than secular astronomers are willing to admit.

Spiral galaxies are also like cosmic egg-timers, still ticking away as though they are young.(6) Because they are also distributed near and far throughout the universe, they refute the secular notion of billions of years of cosmic history.

Do stars form today? Not according to observational knowledge. Do astronomers see into the past through telescopes? Only if they assume that they do. And distant blue stars and spiral galaxies refute the claim that the universe is billions of years old.

The study authors claimed that star formation has dramatically slowed. But their observations are more consistent with Scripture, which teaches that star formation has totally stopped.

November 20, 2012

 References

    1.Sobral, D. et al. 2012. A large Hα survey at z = 2:23; 1:47; 0:84 & 0:40: the 11 Gyr evolution of star-forming galaxies from HiZELS. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Published online before print, November 7, 2012.
   2. Time-Traveling with One Method Illuminates the Evolution of Star Formation in the Universe. National Astronomical Observatory of Japan press release, November 5, 2012.
   3. Lisle, J. 2012. Blue Stars Confirm Recent Creation. Acts & Facts. 41 (9): 16.
   4.Thomas, B. Rare Supernova Recalls Missing Remnants Mystery. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org September 6, 2011, accessed November 15, 2012.
    5.Lisle, J. 2010. Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem. Answers Research Journal. 3 (1): 191-207.
   6. Thomas, B. Distant Galaxies Look Too Mature for Big Bang. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org November 30, 2011, accessed November 14, 2012.

http://www.icr.org/article/study-star-formation-virtually-finished/

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #401 on: April 03, 2017, 10:47:57 AM »
Is that drivel something you'd want me to address?

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #402 on: April 03, 2017, 10:57:10 AM »
something you'd want me to address

What caused someone to suddenly notice that the EM drive works? Asking for both of my friends.

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #403 on: April 03, 2017, 10:57:58 AM »
Star Formation Is Virtually Finished

Basically just getting started.

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #404 on: April 03, 2017, 10:59:28 AM »
What caused someone to suddenly notice that the EM drive works? Asking for both of my friends.
I'm not an engineer and I haven't read the paper.

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #405 on: April 03, 2017, 11:58:15 AM »
Apollo Moon Hoax:
Why does the US flag wave?
And, why no return?

Episode 160, "Apollo Hoax: The US Flag Waving, and the Moon of No Return," has been posted.

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #406 on: April 03, 2017, 12:12:45 PM »
I'm not an engineer and I haven't read the paper.


Perfect, because it's a sociological question. You're hired.

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #407 on: April 03, 2017, 12:35:22 PM »
What caused someone to suddenly notice that the EM drive works? Asking for both of my friends.

I'll bite.

Watch what happens with the EmDrive. Whenever someone brings up something that violates fundamental laws of the universe, in this case conservation of momentum, it always falls short. Remember the faster than light neutrino detection a few years back that questioned the validity of the speed of light rule? Turned out to be a loose cable.

With the EmDrive in the NASA experiment, it produced a very, very, very tiny amount of thrust given the energy put in. Saturn V this is not. But it's thrust nonetheless. You can take that to imply that Newton was wrong. That's the only reason anyone popularly cares about the EmDrive.

Trouble is, conservation of momentum is something you can research and experiment with yourself and see it's right. You don't need to trust anyone's word for it, you can do it yourself. A simple experiment would be that when you drive, press on the steering wheel really hard and watch the speedometer. Despite the car being pushed on, it doesn't go faster because that energy you are expending does not leave the system. In other words, you don't need other people's evidence going back 300 years that indicate Newton was right. You can see for yourself.

Given that, it seems simpler that the EmDrive that NASA experimented with has a glitch and is not a closed system and is leaking radiation from somewhere. In which case, it's just a really inefficient normal engine accidentally producing exhaust. That would not be popularly interesting because it preserves conservation of momentum. So you hardly ever hear of that side of things. And, like good old cold fusion, it may not be a reproducible experiment, others will need to do the same thing with the same set up to prove it. And it needs to be proven that it's not just leaky.   

Still, I'm all for EmDrive research. I'd like to know how it's producing thrust as much as the next guy. But as an alternate form of propulsion in space, it's gonna need to produce a whole lot more thrust for the energy expended to be of use regardless of the method of how it works. And, it would be interesting as hell if conservation of momentum ended up having a loophole. Every scientist I know would agree with that. It's just that the universe, as we understand it, couldn't work if it is wrong. Since it appears to be working, I find myself skeptical.

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #408 on: April 03, 2017, 12:41:47 PM »
I'll bite.

Good to see you back as well!

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #409 on: April 03, 2017, 12:52:48 PM »
Watch what happens with the EmDrive.

Great idea, I can ask SDM for a tour.


I'll bite.

massive rolleyeteeth

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #410 on: April 03, 2017, 07:02:11 PM »
http://bellgab.com/radio-and-podcasts/the-'exposing-pseudoastronomy'-podcast/msg1031422/#msg1031422

Quote from: Up All Night

    Star Formation Is Virtually Finished

Basically just getting started.

And some would like to believe that about humankind.

In the beginning, was the end.

De-Evolution


Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #411 on: April 04, 2017, 04:46:04 PM »
Apollo Moon Hoax:
Why does the US flag wave?
And, why no return?

Episode 160, "Apollo Hoax: The US Flag Waving, and the Moon of No Return," has been posted.

Thanks astroguy, I have fond memories of my Dad waking up us kids to watch the landing.  :)

(I cheated a little and just read your transcript of the show rather than listen to it today. Sorry, long day)

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #412 on: April 05, 2017, 11:58:49 AM »
Great idea, I can ask SDM for a tour.

SDM is a little busy right now. Appearing in Federal Court on 56 counts including conspiring to defraud the United States, filing false claims against the United States, passing/presenting and/or offering false or fictitious financial instruments. Melissa is also accused--she had the good sense to get a defense attorney whereas Sean David is defending himself.

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #413 on: April 09, 2017, 03:24:43 PM »
Update: Last Friday Sean and Melissa were found guilty on one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, two counts of filing false claims against the United States, and 30-ish counts of passing false or fictitious financial instruments. Sentencing in June.

A day later Melissa suffered a very serious stroke. As I write she's in a coma and not expected to live. SDM's life is over, basically.

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #414 on: April 09, 2017, 03:26:19 PM »
SDM's life is over, basically.

P'raps he can change his name to Kenneth Lay. I heard that one's available.

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #415 on: April 09, 2017, 04:26:14 PM »
Update: Last Friday Sean and Melissa were found guilty on one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, two counts of filing false claims against the United States, and 30-ish counts of passing false or fictitious financial instruments. Sentencing in June.

A day later Melissa suffered a very serious stroke. As I write she's in a coma and not expected to live. SDM's life is over, basically.
(A.1) I hope Melissa recovers, that's a crappy way to go (though quick, I s'pose).
(A.2) If she's faking it, I hope she suffers extra-harsh sentencing.
(B) I'm glad SDM's never going to be able to do this crap again.

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #416 on: April 22, 2017, 05:51:28 PM »
Water on the Earth:
Do tides affect you? Does the
Coriolis, too?

Episode 161, "Water on Earth: Coriolis and Tides," has been posted.

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #417 on: April 22, 2017, 05:56:49 PM »
Do tides affect you?

Fuck, no! I go sailing and fishing and surfing whenever the f*** I want! F*** you, I won't do what you tell me!

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #418 on: April 23, 2017, 10:03:32 PM »
any word on the latest solar cme and any ongoing power outages? is anyone seeing aurora in places they don't normally see them? i know there have been several outages across the USA, but i dunno if they may have been due to the cme.

Re: The "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" Podcast
« Reply #419 on: April 23, 2017, 10:04:49 PM »
any word on the latest solar cme and any ongoing power outages? is anyone seeing aurora in places they don't normally see them? i know there have been several outages across the USA, but i dunno if they may have been due to the cme.
I have not heard anything about this.