View Single Post
  #9  
Old October 31st 03, 11:13 PM
Craig Franck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST

"Ed Conrad" wrote



^----
Why do your posts show up with extra symbols in them?

The fact is, theBig Bang has been reduced to shreds by just
one photograph, that of the "Hubble Deep Field."

http://www.edconrad.com/images/istherereally.jpg


And you can be sure, the Scientific Establishment very much regrets
that it was ever taken.


What's wrong with the photo? It's the edge (or close to it) of the
observable universe.

To know for sure there is a stupendous array of galaxies in ALL
directions, far from what the best conventional telescopes previoulsy
had seen, presents even ANOTHER question that no scientist can
answer: Just how immense is our universe, and does it ever end?


There is really no way to tell that. The galaxies you see in the
HDF were about 1 billion light years from us when the light first
left. The universe is expanding so rapidly it took 14 billion years
to get here. Any galaxies further than that would be farther than
14 BLY away (actually, 28 billion because they are now 14BLY
away from where they look to be now) and hence the light
wouldn't have had time to reach us. Even if the universe is 900
BLY across, that doesn't hurt the BB model; every position just
gets to see their "chunk" equal to the age of the universe.

There is good evidence that the universe is much larger than the
visible portion since space is Euclidian across what's visible,
but Relativity theory says space should be curved. So it might be
so large the curvature flattens out. (I'm sure sci.astro will correct
this if it's wrong.)

And, be assured, when the Hubble someday likewise focuses
on a teeny-weeny dark patch of sky as shown in the "Hubble Deep
Field" photo -- if the Pseudosscientific Establishment can't prevent
it from being taken - there will be a similiar scene of unfathomable
magnificience, probably more majestic galaxies than are in the
original "Deep Field" photo itself.


I'm not sure what you can mean by that. An infinitely powerful
telescope would resolve all of the galaxies at the absolute edge
of the observable universe in high definition, but the space they
are set in would be black; you wouldn't get any more galaxies
until they "winked on" when the light finally hit us.

The galaxies that show up would look redder and redder and
eventually no new galaxies would appear because they are
moving away faster than the speed of light. Then visible galaxies
at the edge would start to wink out and in the end it will just be
us and the Virgo cluster.

Are you suggesting we will just keep seeing deeper and deeper
into space with no end in sight? I doubt it, but Hubble's photo
doesn't prove that. Anyway, the bogus tired-light theory should
provide some observational limit, if it were true.

--
Craig Franck

Cortland, NY