what if (on colliding galaxies)

A general expansion is shown to be real, Paine. What's happening way
out there no one knows for sure.

Saul Levy


On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 08:09:59 GMT, "Painius"
wrote:

I think it's ludicrous to draw the conclusion that the
Universe is expanding based upon light that has taken
billions of years to reach our eyes. Nobody can say for
certain what those objects that were 10 billion light
years away 10 billion years ago are doing right now,
this moment. We look out and see expansion, but for
all we know, at this point in time, 10 billion years later,
the Universe has already entered a different phase of
development. Contraction? Stability and "stagnation"?
Nobody can really tell.

I thought they already have some evidence for a slow down in the
expansion, BradBoi. lmfjao!

Saul Levy


On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 07:36:29 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

I've never bought into the expansion only theory. I therefore agree
with the intent of what you have to offer. Our universe may in fact
already be contracting, as it'll be at least 10 billions of years
before we'll ever know if the physical expansion is slowing down.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

What are you in orbit around, BradBoi? lmfjao!

Saul Levy


On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 07:53:12 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

But everything is in orbit around something, right!

Possibly our universe is in orbit around the intercosmic point of
nullification, or that of some other mega black hole (aka God).

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

TW You are fairly new here. Others that have read my posts for the past
10 years do not tell me that I know nothing. You again say I do not
know what is happening to photons when their source is receding from us.
Answer is its wave length gets larger. Larger wave lengths mean slower
frequency. I could elaborate more but that would be boring to me.
Best to just keep in mind TW Gamma photons short wave lengths,and radio
have the longest. OK Keep in mind I know how every
thing works,and even know how to make them work better I have been
told by smarter people than you that I am very CLEVER I am also to old
to be modest. Bert

Right, you should learn to program a computer, BradBoi! lmfjao!

Even the INSANE can program! lmao!

Then you can make up simulations about everything. lmao!

Saul Levy


On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 10:27:41 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

There's lots (most) of this universe and that of our solar system I
don't know squat about, but at least unlike yourself, I'm honestly
trying to figure it out.

If you could find it within your black heart to contribute something/
anything on a positive/constructive manner, as such it would be
greatly appreciated.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

Try polaroids, BradBoi! lmfjao!

Saul Levy


On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 10:12:19 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

But there's so much cosmic dust getting in the way (not to mention
dark energy, dark matter and BHs of antimatter plus loads of pesky
graviton distortions), whereas it's like we're looking through layers
of those deeply rose colored glasses.

How about gamma-red-shift?

Shouldn't we be using pulsar gamma shift logic analogy?

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

In article ,
Saul Levy wrote:

On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 07:53:12 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

But everything is in orbit around something, right!

Possibly our universe is in orbit around the intercosmic point of
nullification, or that of some other mega black hole (aka God).

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

What are you in orbit around, BradBoi? lmfjao!

Saul Levy

No, the world revolves around his little finger.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
People who can't spell get kicked out of Hogwarts.

On Aug 12, 12:11 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
Gamma photons of 1e19 to 1e20 hz have a cosmic penetrating frequency
or wavelength that's least affected or otherwise attenuated by the
cosmic dust, dark matter or dark energy, by which to measure if
there's any change in their frequency or wavelength as caused by a
given angular velocity.

What do you think angular velocity means? I think it means speed around
an axis, along the tangent.

If it's headed directly towards us, I suppose that's zero degrees
worth of angle, and thus whatever closing angular velocity is going to
be the maximum. I'm sure there's a better word or phrase for that
kind of motion.


If two essentially identical gamma producing pulsars of 1.5e20 hz
existed, and if one were moving away from us at 0.05'c', while the
other was headed our way at the same 0.05'c',

Here you're talking about radial motion. (Motion side to side or across
the sky is called proper motion.)

Thanks, proper to us in perpetual 3D motion, though nothing travels in
a straight line (not even photons) or in a perfect circle. I was
speaking as though we're smack in the center of those those two pulsar/
quasar sources of gamma, one headed directly towards us and the other
directly away from us.


the perceived doppler
difference or red/blue shift in each frequency would become what?

Easy.

f' = f ( v / (v+vr) )

where v is the speed of waves in the medium (here, c) and vr is the
radial speed from the observer.

The one moving away would have an observed frequency of 1.43E20 and the
one moving toward would have an observed frequency of 1.58E20.

Thanks much, for confirming that folks like Bert and myself are not
entirely crazy about the visual color of red getting a slightly deeper
red and blue getting bluer or headed towards purple if the closing
velocity were sufficient.


Besides a few local galactic pulsars, surely there were a few other
pulsars

There are more than just a few.

Then by all means such gamma pulsars and if need be quasars should be
utilized for mapping stellar proper motion instead of the visual
spectrum of most other stars that can have their visible photons
altered or color/hue shifted by the ISM.

As of 8.6 years ago, we're supposedly still headed towards Sirius at
7.5 km/s. Perhaps the true closing velocity in Sirius time is getting
closer to 10 km/s, that is if it were measured at the sol-sirius L1.


created and existing at the furthest reaching or event horizon

I love the way you consistently misapply astronomic terminology.

Once I read or hear of the more proper terminology, I tend to follow
suit.


of our universe. If so we should be able to pinpoint and measure
their angular velocity, as well as noting any chance in that angular
velocity.

That is true.

Thanks, for catching the intent of what I'd meant to say "change in
that angular velocity".

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

What does BEERTbrain really know about astronomy? lmao!

Not much.

Saul Levy


On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:29:01 -0700, Timberwoof
wrote:

In article ,
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Timberhead Further out we see the redder and redder it gets. That is
the evidence used to show that galaxies are moving away from each other
faster and faster. Hubble gave us this valuable information. He was a
very great astronomer,and a nice guy Bert

Glazier, I'm not certain what you're trying to accomplish by calling me
"Timberhead" and giving me flawed explanations of basic concepts of
astronomy. I've been reading about astronomy since I was a little boy; I
did a summer university program in astronomy between my junior and
senior years in high school; I took honors astronomy courses in college.
I think you'd be safe to assume that I know a lot more about astronomy
than the average layman. I certainly have enough Google Fu to look up
any new concepts and ideas I read about. This may be new and exciting to
you, but please don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

Cactus Saul My posts show I know A LOT more than you. You are in
reality a witless wonder,and your posts prove this. Sad but true
You are not hard to figure Bert