Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

[Polymath257]

I’m not the one that keeps ignoring that GR has been tested to a 99.8% accuracy in the solar system without one spec of Fairie Dust.... then thinks adding 96% Fairie Dust to a theory already tested to a 99.8% accuracy is ok....

I assume you are talking about dark matter here.

Yes, one of the BIG constraints on both dark matter and alternatives is that we know what works in the solar system so well. For dark matter, the local density is small enough to not have affected the observations. If you want a scientific paper discussing this, I can provide one.

Alternatives to dark matter, such as MOND and TeVeS, also are subject to the constraint that they need to work at the level of the solar system. This was one of the big constraints in formulating alternatives to dark matter by considering different 'laws of gravity'.

Why do you keep ignoring its accuracy?

Nobody ignores it. In fact, it is one of the constraints to any model for galactic rotations that is proposed.

GR by the way breaks down at the event horizon of every mythical black hole. The math you claim supports you does just the opposite since the energy tensor is set to zero, declaring their is no other mass in the entire universe but that of the singularity. It’s what made the BB a scientific possibility to begin with, hence singularity. But you ignore that very math you claim to follow and insert them by the billions, despite the energy momentum transit being set to zero in all solutions, demanding no other mass exists but that of the singularity.

No, that is not *at all* what the math for the BB theory does. Quite the opposite, in fact. The basic assumption for the BB models are that GR works and that the universe is isotropic at any time (so the density is not zero everywhere--it is constant everywhere). That produces, via the math, either an expansion or a contraction. In the expansion, the density decreases over time, but has an infinite limit as t-->0. This is what is meant by a singularity: some variable goes to infinity as we approach a situation.

Please, you understand the math not at all or you would accept the very reason the BB was a possibility to begin with, because the math demands the singularity is the only mass that exists in the universe....

Let's see the math, then. I am a mathematician, so I guarantee I can understand it.

 

[tas8831]

I’m not the one that keeps ignoring that GR has been tested to a 99.8% accuracy in the solar system..

Unlike some people, I do not pretend to be an expert in GR, so please thrill me with your acumen - can you provide a source that supports this 98.8% accuracy claim? Not a blog?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I assume you are talking about dark matter here.

Yes, one of the BIG constraints on both dark matter and alternatives is that we know what works in the solar system so well. For dark matter, the local density is small enough to not have affected the observations. If you want a scientific paper discussing this, I can provide one.

Or the math didn’t work out outside the solar system and you added just enough Fairie Dust to make the numbers work out....

Instead of using the physics used in every plasma laboratory that exists as the dominating force in a universe 99.9% plasma.

So, to boil it down you apply the wrong physics to the wrong state of matter and then have to add Fairie Dust to make the numbers add up because you used the wrong physics as the dominating force in the wrong state of matter.

Alternatives to dark matter, such as MOND and TeVeS, also are subject to the constraint that they need to work at the level of the solar system. This was one of the big constraints in formulating alternatives to dark matter by considering different 'laws of gravity'.

Or how about using plasma physics in a universe 99.9% plasma instead of trying to sledgehammer gravity to be the dominating force despite 200 years of plasma experiments showing it isn’t in the plasma state of matter?

Why not just accept that gravity only dominates once those ionized particles combine into clumps?

Marklund convection | Plasma-Universe.com

Nobody ignores it. In fact, it is one of the constraints to any model for galactic rotations that is proposed.

Totally ignore it and try to sledgehammer it to a state of matter it is not the dominating force in.....

No, that is not *at all* what the math for the BB theory does. Quite the opposite, in fact. The basic assumption for the BB models are that GR works and that the universe is isotropic at any time (so the density is not zero everywhere--it is constant everywhere). That produces, via the math, either an expansion or a contraction. In the expansion, the density decreases over time, but has an infinite limit as t-->0. This is what is meant by a singularity: some variable goes to infinity as we approach a situation.

Or you are just missing a piece in the theory......

Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia

“Many theories in physics have mathematical singularities of one kind or another. Equations for these physical theories predict that the ball of mass of some quantity becomes infinite or increases without limit. This is generally a sign for a missing piece in the theory, as in the ultraviolet catastrophe, re-normalization, and instability of a hydrogen atom predicted by the Larmor formula.”

The missing piece a universe 99.9% plasma, not a planetary system of non-ionized matter....

No one is arguing GR isn’t an excellent theory for .1% of the universe, planetary systems. It just isn’t used in any plasma physics lab in existence to describe the behavior of plasma.... but keep hitting it with a bigger sledgehammer to force it to fit with those epicycles. Maybe you’ll be able to convince yourself it’s the dominating force in all states of matter.... despite 200 years of laboratory experiments..... despite it being 99.8% correct without that Fairie Dust..... it just isn’t the dominating force in any plasma laboratory..... once you accept that, you won’t keep needing to ignore it’s accuracy and trying to sledgehammer it to fit where it doesn’t apply.....

Let's see the math, then. I am a mathematician, so I guarantee I can understand it.

If you are discussing singularities you should know the equation and that the tensor is set to zero declaring no other mass but that of the singularity exists. Either you understand it or you don’t..... if you do, then you know your argument is null and void. If you don’t then you’ll continue to argue unknowingly against the math simply because you want to insert them wherever you need them....

 

[Polymath257]

Or the math didn’t work out outside the solar system and you added just enough Fairie Dust to make the numbers work out....

Instead of using the physics used in every plasma laboratory that exists as the dominating force in a universe 99.9% plasma.

So, to boil it down you apply the wrong physics to the wrong state of matter and then have to add Fairie Dust to make the numbers add up because you used the wrong physics as the dominating force in the wrong state of matter.

Let's first be clear. The reason 99.99% of the universe is plasma is because all stars are plasma. But let's ask. Is the dominant interaction between stars via the EM force or via gravity? Go ahead and look at the plasma equations and determine the magnitude of the effect at the distances involved.

The vast majority of interstellar matter is NOT plasma. It is unionized hydrogen atoms. Most of the rest is unionized helium atoms.

Similarly, the dominant interaction between galaxies is NOT via the EM force, but via gravity. It isn't like there is a line of plasma going between galaxies.

So, yes, go ahead and check out what the equations of plasma physics say for the situation we actually see in the universe. Then say whether we should worry about the EM force as a significant contributor to cosmology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's first be clear. The reason 99.99% of the universe is plasma is because all stars are plasma. But let's ask. Is the dominant interaction between stars via the EM force or via gravity? Go ahead and look at the plasma equations and determine the magnitude of the effect at the distances involved.

The vast majority of interstellar matter is NOT plasma. It is unionized hydrogen atoms. Most of the rest is unionized helium atoms.

Similarly, the dominant interaction between galaxies is NOT via the EM force, but via gravity. It isn't like there is a line of plasma going between galaxies.

So, yes, go ahead and check out what the equations of plasma physics say for the situation we actually see in the universe. Then say whether we should worry about the EM force as a significant contributor to cosmology.

I always find it highly ironic when a believe in "Fairie Dust" (in this case a magical plasma that does not follow the laws of physics) accuses others of relying on Fairie Dust. I have never seen an answer for the gravitational lensing done by dark matter that has been separated from galaxies due to a collision.

 

[Polymath257]

I always find it highly ironic when a believe in "Fairie Dust" (in this case a magical plasma that does not follow the laws of physics) accuses others of relying on Fairie Dust. I have never seen an answer for the gravitational lensing done by dark matter that has been separated from galaxies due to a collision.

Yes, I have yet to see a plasma physics explanation of the Bullet Cluster. In detail. As they say, the devil is in the details.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Let's first be clear. The reason 99.99% of the universe is plasma is because all stars are plasma. But let's ask. Is the dominant interaction between stars via the EM force or via gravity? Go ahead and look at the plasma equations and determine the magnitude of the effect at the distances involved.

The vast majority of interstellar matter is NOT plasma. It is unionized hydrogen atoms. Most of the rest is unionized helium atoms.

Similarly, the dominant interaction between galaxies is NOT via the EM force, but via gravity. It isn't like there is a line of plasma going between galaxies.

So, yes, go ahead and check out what the equations of plasma physics say for the situation we actually see in the universe. Then say whether we should worry about the EM force as a significant contributor to cosmology.

You apparently are unaware of how Alpha Lyman spectrum is produced.

Only someone completely unaware that the spectrum is produced only when those neutral atoms transition to an excited state, would dare use the word neutral when talking about the spectrums observed in the universe.

Lyman alpha systems and cosmology

It is the excitation of the atom from its neutral state to an excited state.

Is your belief similar to calling that ring of excited atoms around the suns heliosphere excited neutral atoms or ENA’s? Excited and neutral don’t even belong in the same sentence.

Your so lost to the reality when I present it you won’t even be able to see it....

Excited state - Wikipedia

You’ll keep ignoring reality to keep your fantasies alive.....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ask, not going back hoping to find the question you want answered so you can continue to avoid just restating it so you can continue to pretend it’s not being answered.

I said ask, and yet you avoided restating your question just so you can pretend it’s not being answered....
Sad....

Well I asked. Yet again. Here we are. Right back where you were. Living in avoidance. The sad thing is, you cannot answer my questions. You do not have the data. But you will make those claims again and again and again. Oodles and oodles of never ending poodles.

I just saw you on here. But no response to my questions. Like we did not see that coming.

Talk to me Goose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You apparently are unaware of how Alpha Lyman spectrum is produced.

Only someone completely unaware that the spectrum is produced only when those neutral atoms transition to an excited state, would dare use the word neutral when talking about the spectrums observed in the universe.

Lyman alpha systems and cosmology

It is the excitation of the atom from its neutral state to an excited state.

Is your belief similar to calling that ring of excited atoms around the suns heliosphere excited neutral atoms or ENA’s? Excited and neutral don’t even belong in the same sentence.

Your so lost to the reality when I present it you won’t even be able to see it....

Excited state - Wikipedia

You’ll keep ignoring reality to keep your fantasies alive.....

An excited atom is still an atom of hydrogen is still an excited atom of hydrogen with its electron orbiting it. It is neutral. Yes, they do belong in the same sentence. In plasma the electron is totally dissociated from the nucleus.

What makes you think otherwise?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I asked. Yet again. Here we are. Right back where you were. Living in avoidance. The sad thing is, you cannot answer my questions. You do not have the data. But you will make those claims again and again and again. Oodles and oodles of never ending poodles.

I just saw you on here. But no response to my questions. Like we did not see that coming.

Talk to me Goose.

Nor will he discuss escape velocity. When he knows he is wrong he appears to avoid those subjects.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nor will he discuss escape velocity. When he knows he is wrong he appears to avoid those subjects.

I am going to have to defend him here. He is an expert at escape velocity. When he is cornered and asked to provide support for his claims, he escapes with incredible velocity.

 

[Polymath257]

You apparently are unaware of how Alpha Lyman spectrum is produced.

Only someone completely unaware that the spectrum is produced only when those neutral atoms transition to an excited state, would dare use the word neutral when talking about the spectrums observed in the universe.

Lyman alpha systems and cosmology

It is the excitation of the atom from its neutral state to an excited state.

Is your belief similar to calling that ring of excited atoms around the suns heliosphere excited neutral atoms or ENA’s? Excited and neutral don’t even belong in the same sentence.

Your so lost to the reality when I present it you won’t even be able to see it....

Excited state - Wikipedia

You’ll keep ignoring reality to keep your fantasies alive.....

Yes, those excited states are electrically neutral. The electron is still there with the atom, so the atom does not have a net charge. And we are not talking about a plasma in this context.

So, yes excited and neutral *do* belong in the same sentence if you understand what those words actually mean in context.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, those excited states are electrically neutral. The electron is still there with the atom, so the atom does not have a net charge. And we are not talking about a plasma in this context.

So, yes excited and neutral *do* belong in the same sentence if you understand what those words actually mean in context.

Wrong.....

Like I said, will ignore the reality.... or another claiming to understand but that doesn't understand anything..


Lyman-alpha emitter - Wikipedia

"The Lyman-alpha line in most LAEs is thought to be caused by recombination of interstellar hydrogen that is ionized by an ongoing burst of star-formation."

Now you just keep believing that hydrogen that is ionized is neutral and ignoring reality all you like.

It's nothing new from what I have seen...

Lyman-alpha forest - Wikipedia

"The Lyman series of spectral lines are produced by electrons transitioning between the ground state and higher energy levels (excited states)."

I tried to teach you reality, but you continually ignore it. There is not much hope for people that constantly ignore 99.9% of the universe and pretend it is something other than it is. it's no wonder you are so confused in your cosmology and require 96% Fairie Dust......

But lets research further, lets find out how those Lyman emissions were discovered....

Lyman series - Wikipedia

"The first line in the spectrum of the Lyman series was discovered in 1906 by Harvard physicist Theodore Lyman, who was studying the ultraviolet spectrum of electrically excited hydrogen gas."

But you will still ignore reality to keep your false beliefs....

Balmer series - Wikipedia

"The visible spectrum of light from hydrogen displays four wavelengths, 410 nm, 434 nm, 486 nm, and 656 nm, that correspond to emissions of photons by electrons in excited states transitioning to the quantum level described by the principal quantum number n equals 2"

But you'll ignore the reality, because the reality doesn't match your beliefs. So instead of correcting your false beliefs, youll change reality in your own mind so that your beliefs are not damaged......

Not that you will understand, but hopefully you can learn and are not too far lost in wonderland..

Ionised Hydrogen | COSMOS

H II region - Wikipedia

Please try to learn and give up your false beliefs, it is keeping you from understanding 99.9% of the universe.

https://phys.org/news/2017-04-milky-ionized-hydrogen-focus.html

“Everywhere he looked with his novel telescope, Reynolds observed the faint red glow of ionized hydrogen gas. It was the first hard evidence that vast clouds of ionized hydrogen—hydrogen gas atoms stripped of electrons—permeate the space between the stars. "No one expected to see ionized hydrogen out in the middle of nowhere," he said in a 2004 interview. "It's all over the sky, but it is brightest in the plane of the galaxy."

Please try to abandon your false beliefs for the reality.... abandon the falsified predictions that no one predicted due to their false beliefs....

And do we need to actually mention what those plasma halos at 2 million K that every galaxy is immersed in are? That has twice the mass of the galaxy right where your Fairie Dust Dark matter is, that was once dark until technology advanced? That’s not even counting the plasma down to 5,000 K, the temperature of the suns surface...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong.....

Like I said, will ignore the reality.... or another claiming to understand but that doesn't understand anything..


Lyman-alpha emitter - Wikipedia

"The Lyman-alpha line in most LAEs is thought to be caused by recombination of interstellar hydrogen that is ionized by an ongoing burst of star-formation."

Now you just keep believing that hydrogen that is ionized is neutral and ignoring reality all you like.

One has to hand it to Justa, he is a master of grasping at straws. I am sorry but that does not help you very much. That is only about light coming from specific old and distant galaxies. They are called Lyman-alpha emitters because they are rather unique in the spectra of light found from around them.

It's nothing new from what I have seen...

Lyman-alpha forest - Wikipedia

"The Lyman series of spectral lines are produced by electrons transitioning between the ground state and higher energy levels (excited states)."

Holy crap! He put "excited stats" in bold and did not understand how that refutes his claims.

I tried to teach you reality, but you continually ignore it. There is not much hope for people that constantly ignore 99.9% of the universe and pretend it is something other than it is. it's no wonder you are so confused in your cosmology and require 96% Fairie Dust......

Oops, the believer in Fairie Dust is projecting again.

But lets research further, lets find out how those Lyman emissions were discovered....

Lyman series - Wikipedia

"The first line in the spectrum of the Lyman series was discovered in 1906 by Harvard physicist Theodore Lyman, who was studying the ultraviolet spectrum of electrically excited hydrogen gas."

And he does not understand what the phrase that he boldened again. The fail is in the last two words after that.

But you will still ignore reality to keep your false beliefs....

Balmer series - Wikipedia

"The visible spectrum of light from hydrogen displays four wavelengths, 410 nm, 434 nm, 486 nm, and 656 nm, that correspond to emissions of photons by electrons in excited states transitioning to the quantum level described by the principal quantum number n equals 2"

But you'll ignore the reality, because the reality doesn't match your beliefs. So instead of correcting your false beliefs, youll change reality in your own mind so that your beliefs are not damaged......

Not that you will understand, but hopefully you can learn and are not too far lost in wonderland..

Ionised Hydrogen | COSMOS

H II region - Wikipedia

Please try to learn and give up your false beliefs, it is keeping you from understanding 99.9% of the universe.

https://phys.org/news/2017-04-milky-ionized-hydrogen-focus.html

“Everywhere he looked with his novel telescope, Reynolds observed the faint red glow of ionized hydrogen gas. It was the first hard evidence that vast clouds of ionized hydrogen—hydrogen gas atoms stripped of electrons—permeate the space between the stars. "No one expected to see ionized hydrogen out in the middle of nowhere," he said in a 2004 interview. "It's all over the sky, but it is brightest in the plane of the galaxy."

Please try to abandon your false beliefs for the reality.... abandon the falsified predictions that no one predicted due to their false beliefs....

And do we need to actually mention what those plasma halos at 2 million K that every galaxy is immersed in are? That has twice the mass of the galaxy right where your Fairie Dust Dark matter is, that was once dark until technology advanced? That’s not even counting the plasma down to 5,000 K, the temperature of the suns surface...

Wrong.....

Like I said, will ignore the reality.... or another claiming to understand but that doesn't understand anything..


Lyman-alpha emitter - Wikipedia

"The Lyman-alpha line in most LAEs is thought to be caused by recombination of interstellar hydrogen that is ionized by an ongoing burst of star-formation."

Now you just keep believing that hydrogen that is ionized is neutral and ignoring reality all you like.

It's nothing new from what I have seen...

Lyman-alpha forest - Wikipedia

"The Lyman series of spectral lines are produced by electrons transitioning between the ground state and higher energy levels (excited states)."

I tried to teach you reality, but you continually ignore it. There is not much hope for people that constantly ignore 99.9% of the universe and pretend it is something other than it is. it's no wonder you are so confused in your cosmology and require 96% Fairie Dust......

But lets research further, lets find out how those Lyman emissions were discovered....

Lyman series - Wikipedia

"The first line in the spectrum of the Lyman series was discovered in 1906 by Harvard physicist Theodore Lyman, who was studying the ultraviolet spectrum of electrically excited hydrogen gas."

But you will still ignore reality to keep your false beliefs....

Balmer series - Wikipedia

"The visible spectrum of light from hydrogen displays four wavelengths, 410 nm, 434 nm, 486 nm, and 656 nm, that correspond to emissions of photons by electrons in excited states transitioning to the quantum level described by the principal quantum number n equals 2"

But you'll ignore the reality, because the reality doesn't match your beliefs. So instead of correcting your false beliefs, youll change reality in your own mind so that your beliefs are not damaged......

Not that you will understand, but hopefully you can learn and are not too far lost in wonderland..

Ionised Hydrogen | COSMOS

H II region - Wikipedia

Please try to learn and give up your false beliefs, it is keeping you from understanding 99.9% of the universe.

https://phys.org/news/2017-04-milky-ionized-hydrogen-focus.html

“Everywhere he looked with his novel telescope, Reynolds observed the faint red glow of ionized hydrogen gas. It was the first hard evidence that vast clouds of ionized hydrogen—hydrogen gas atoms stripped of electrons—permeate the space between the stars. "No one expected to see ionized hydrogen out in the middle of nowhere," he said in a 2004 interview. "It's all over the sky, but it is brightest in the plane of the galaxy."

Please try to abandon your false beliefs for the reality.... abandon the falsified predictions that no one predicted due to their false beliefs....

And do we need to actually mention what those plasma halos at 2 million K that every galaxy is immersed in are? That has twice the mass of the galaxy right where your Fairie Dust Dark matter is, that was once dark until technology advanced? That’s not even counting the plasma down to 5,000 K, the temperature of the suns surface...

Pretty much more of the same. A lack of understanding that almost all of those are examples of transitions from one excited (which means that the electron is still associated with the atom) to another. Almost none of them are examples of ions recombining with electrons.

@Justatruthseeker , you need to remember: Some is not all, and very few is not all at all. The example that you relied upon are only a small proportion of all galaxies. And you should try to read and understand whole articles. The article that you linked supports the existence of Dark Matter. You must not have gotten that far into it.

 

[Polymath257]

Wrong.....

Like I said, will ignore the reality.... or another claiming to understand but that doesn't understand anything..


Lyman-alpha emitter - Wikipedia

"The Lyman-alpha line in most LAEs is thought to be caused by recombination of interstellar hydrogen that is ionized by an ongoing burst of star-formation."

OK, now you are misquoting your sources, I can only suspect deliberately.

From YOUR source. The very first line:

"A Lyman-alpha emitter (LAE) is a type of distant galaxy that emits Lyman-alpha radiation from neutral hydrogen."

See that? *Neutral* hydrogen. That *neutral* hydrogen is *temporarily* ionized by star formation and *recombines* making it neutral again.

Now you just keep believing that hydrogen that is ionized is neutral and ignoring reality all you like.

It's nothing new from what I have seen...

Lyman-alpha forest - Wikipedia

"The Lyman series of spectral lines are produced by electrons transitioning between the ground state and higher energy levels (excited states)."

Hydrogen in an excited state is electrically neutral. Ionized hydrogen is the same as a proton. it is not an excited state.

I tried to teach you reality, but you continually ignore it.

You aren't qualified to teach anything about astrophysics. Nor physics. Nor biology.

There is not much hope for people that constantly ignore 99.9% of the universe and pretend it is something other than it is. it's no wonder you are so confused in your cosmology and require 96% Fairie Dust......

But lets research further, lets find out how those Lyman emissions were discovered....

Lyman series - Wikipedia

"The first line in the spectrum of the Lyman series was discovered in 1906 by Harvard physicist Theodore Lyman, who was studying the ultraviolet spectrum of electrically excited hydrogen gas."

But you will still ignore reality to keep your false beliefs....

Electrically excited hydrogen is electrically neutral.

Balmer series - Wikipedia

"The visible spectrum of light from hydrogen displays four wavelengths, 410 nm, 434 nm, 486 nm, and 656 nm, that correspond to emissions of photons by electrons in excited states transitioning to the quantum level described by the principal quantum number n equals 2"

All of these are between states of neutral hydrogen atoms.

But you'll ignore the reality, because the reality doesn't match your beliefs. So instead of correcting your false beliefs, youll change reality in your own mind so that your beliefs are not damaged......

Not that you will understand, but hopefully you can learn and are not too far lost in wonderland..

Ionised Hydrogen | COSMOS

H II region - Wikipedia

Please try to learn and give up your false beliefs, it is keeping you from understanding 99.9% of the universe.

Switching topics a bit? We were talking about Lyman Alpha Emitters, which have *neutral* hydrogen.

I never said there was NO ionized hydrogen in the universe: there is. But it is *by far* not the majority of hydrogen.

https://phys.org/news/2017-04-milky-ionized-hydrogen-focus.html

“Everywhere he looked with his novel telescope, Reynolds observed the faint red glow of ionized hydrogen gas. It was the first hard evidence that vast clouds of ionized hydrogen—hydrogen gas atoms stripped of electrons—permeate the space between the stars. "No one expected to see ionized hydrogen out in the middle of nowhere," he said in a 2004 interview. "It's all over the sky, but it is brightest in the plane of the galaxy."

Please try to abandon your false beliefs for the reality.... abandon the falsified predictions that no one predicted due to their false beliefs....

And do we need to actually mention what those plasma halos at 2 million K that every galaxy is immersed in are? That has twice the mass of the galaxy right where your Fairie Dust Dark matter is, that was once dark until technology advanced? That’s not even counting the plasma down to 5,000 K, the temperature of the suns surface...

We've known about the x-ray halos for decades. That is where those high temperature *and low density* clouds are. Sorry, that isn't enough to explain the rotation rates, let alone the specifics of lensing. Dark matter is required to do that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wrong.....

Like I said, will ignore the reality.... or another claiming to understand but that doesn't understand anything..


Lyman-alpha emitter - Wikipedia

"The Lyman-alpha line in most LAEs is thought to be caused by recombination of interstellar hydrogen that is ionized by an ongoing burst of star-formation."

Now you just keep believing that hydrogen that is ionized is neutral and ignoring reality all you like.

It's nothing new from what I have seen...

Lyman-alpha forest - Wikipedia

"The Lyman series of spectral lines are produced by electrons transitioning between the ground state and higher energy levels (excited states)."

I tried to teach you reality, but you continually ignore it. There is not much hope for people that constantly ignore 99.9% of the universe and pretend it is something other than it is. it's no wonder you are so confused in your cosmology and require 96% Fairie Dust......

But lets research further, lets find out how those Lyman emissions were discovered....

Lyman series - Wikipedia

"The first line in the spectrum of the Lyman series was discovered in 1906 by Harvard physicist Theodore Lyman, who was studying the ultraviolet spectrum of electrically excited hydrogen gas."

But you will still ignore reality to keep your false beliefs....

Balmer series - Wikipedia

"The visible spectrum of light from hydrogen displays four wavelengths, 410 nm, 434 nm, 486 nm, and 656 nm, that correspond to emissions of photons by electrons in excited states transitioning to the quantum level described by the principal quantum number n equals 2"

But you'll ignore the reality, because the reality doesn't match your beliefs. So instead of correcting your false beliefs, youll change reality in your own mind so that your beliefs are not damaged......

Not that you will understand, but hopefully you can learn and are not too far lost in wonderland..

Ionised Hydrogen | COSMOS

H II region - Wikipedia

Please try to learn and give up your false beliefs, it is keeping you from understanding 99.9% of the universe.

https://phys.org/news/2017-04-milky-ionized-hydrogen-focus.html

“Everywhere he looked with his novel telescope, Reynolds observed the faint red glow of ionized hydrogen gas. It was the first hard evidence that vast clouds of ionized hydrogen—hydrogen gas atoms stripped of electrons—permeate the space between the stars. "No one expected to see ionized hydrogen out in the middle of nowhere," he said in a 2004 interview. "It's all over the sky, but it is brightest in the plane of the galaxy."

Please try to abandon your false beliefs for the reality.... abandon the falsified predictions that no one predicted due to their false beliefs....

And do we need to actually mention what those plasma halos at 2 million K that every galaxy is immersed in are? That has twice the mass of the galaxy right where your Fairie Dust Dark matter is, that was once dark until technology advanced? That’s not even counting the plasma down to 5,000 K, the temperature of the suns surface...

Can you point to where you responded to my questions? I surely must have missed the responses, since you are such a stickler about avoidance.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

One has to hand it to Justa, he is a master of grasping at straws. I am sorry but that does not help you very much. That is only about light coming from specific old and distant galaxies. They are called Lyman-alpha emitters because they are rather unique in the spectra of light found from around them.

Sorry, but you are wrong as usual. It’s from star forming regions.....

Holy crap! He put "excited stats" in bold and did not understand how that refutes his claims.

Says the guy that can’t understand the difference between neutral and excited..... so your opinion isn’t worth the space you used to type it.

Oops, the believer in Fairie Dust is projecting again.

I’m not the one that believes in Fairie Dust. That’s you.... trying to project your beliefs onto others as usual when you can’t defend your stance with actual science..... the mark of a battle already list...

And he does not understand what the phrase that he boldened again. The fail is in the last two words after that.

Says the person that doesn’t understand the difference between neutral and excited states. So your opinion wasn’t worth the space to type it.

But then that’s why all of you fail to provide scientific links showing excited state are the same as neutral. Because we all know you can’t...

Pretty much more of the same. A lack of understanding that almost all of those are examples of transitions from one excited (which means that the electron is still associated with the atom) to another. Almost none of them are examples of ions recombining with electrons.

@Justatruthseeker , you need to remember: Some is not all, and very few is not all at all. The example that you relied upon are only a small proportion of all galaxies. And you should try to read and understand whole articles. The article that you linked supports the existence of Dark Matter. You must not have gotten that far into it.

That positive H II regions are everywhere, but then that’s why you ignored that because it told you it was an ionized state.......

Scientific misfits one and all who understand nothing....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Can you point to where you responded to my questions? I surely must have missed the responses, since you are such a stickler about avoidance.

Ask, or point out the post and you’ll get your answer.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

OK, now you are misquoting your sources, I can only suspect deliberately.

From YOUR source. The very first line:

"A Lyman-alpha emitter (LAE) is a type of distant galaxy that emits Lyman-alpha radiation from neutral hydrogen."

See that? *Neutral* hydrogen. That *neutral* hydrogen is *temporarily* ionized by star formation and *recombines* making it neutral again.

But it emits the radiation in the transition state from excited to neutral or from neutral to excited. Which means the hydrogen is ionized during the transition phase. Don’t try to play stupid...

Hydrogen in an excited state is electrically neutral. Ionized hydrogen is the same as a proton. it is not an excited state.

Ionized gasses are electrons or pisitively charged atoms or negatively charged atoms.

Who you trying to fool? Yourself?

You didn’t learn, did you.

H II region - Wikipedia

“An H II region or HII region is a region of interstellar atomic hydrogen that is ionized.”

Deny reality to your hearts content.....

You aren't qualified to teach anything about astrophysics. Nor physics. Nor biology.

More than you are since they tell you in black and white that atomic hydrogen is ionized, yet you refuse to accept reality....

Electrically excited hydrogen is electrically neutral.

Lol, I can’t stop laughing...

Had you actually read and just stopped opening your mouth.....

Ionised Hydrogen | COSMOS

“Ionised hydrogen, commonly called HII (pronounced H-two), is a hydrogen atom that has lost its electron and is now positively charged.”

All of these are between states of neutral hydrogen atoms.

No, they are transitioning between excited states and neutral states. They don’t emit radiation because the are neutral. When they are neutral they are optically transparent.

Switching topics a bit? We were talking about Lyman Alpha Emitters, which have *neutral* hydrogen.

No, they are visible because the hydrogen is not in a neutral state. Hydrogen in a neutral state is optically transparent...

I never said there was NO ionized hydrogen in the universe: there is. But it is *by far* not the majority of hydrogen.

Plasma makes up 99.9% of the universe....

The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target | Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute

“But life on Earth is substantially different from, well, almost everywhere else. Beyond Earth’s protective atmosphere and extending all the way through interplanetary space, electrified particles dominate the scene. Indeed, 99% of the universe is made of this electrified gas, known as plasma.”

Why are you the only one that fails to understand reality???? Even NASA understands.

We've known about the x-ray halos for decades. That is where those high temperature *and low density* clouds are. Sorry, that isn't enough to explain the rotation rates, let alone the specifics of lensing. Dark matter is required to do that.

And that’s at 2 million K. I asked you what about all that plasma down to 5,000 K the temperature of the suns surface that we can’t detect?

Twice the mass of the galaxy itself, just with that at 2 million K and higher.

So show me that it takes more than twice the mass of the galaxy in dark matter to make those numbers add up? Or are you just spouting personal belief with no numbers to back up anything you claim? As usual.... because Fairie Dust is your epicycles of the decade????

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ask, or point out the post and you’ll get your answer.

Yeah. Like I am going to fall for that again. I have already done this several times. I have grown tired of your avoidance and lies.