|If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.|
||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
Brightness Chapt16.12 Limits of distance that light can travel andseen by telescopes #1450 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Chapt16.12 Limits of distance that light can travel and seen by
Now I hope I have the correct term used in physics, because there are
many terms similar over the issue of light transmission.
There is the term Luminosity and then there is the term Intensity, but
I think the term I need is Brightness.
Brightness is how bright a source appears to a distant observer and
depends on distance apart and the luminosity of the source. Now
earlier I talked about a telescope seeing Voyager 1 as it is at the
far end of the solar system and whether the reflected light off of
Voyager 1 makes it visible to our best telescopes.
Brightness is an inverse square law so that two identical flashlights,
one of them 1 unit distance and the other at 2 unit distance will look
1/4 as bright.
Now here is my complaint about astronomers. I do not see them ever
doing a limitation on seeing stars and galaxies due to distance and
Instead, what I see them doing such as Jarrett and Juric and Huchra &
Geller is compiling atlases of galaxies and assuming that what they
see in telescopes are galaxies 1 billion light years away and 14
billion light years away as seen he
You see, to a mathematician the above is very troubling, for the
astronomers all assumed that redshift was Doppler and that it measures
distance and that if a telescope sees an object with a Doppler
redshift that they can say it is 1 billion light years away.
But to a mathematician, he must worry first about Brightness of a
galaxy at a far away distance. Can any telescope, no matter what kind,
actually pull in enough light of a star or galaxy at a distance of 1
billion light years? I would say the answer is no. I would say the
limitations of telescopes, no matter what they are, whether the Hubble
space telescope or the best ones on the Earth, that none can see
anything at 1 billion light years.
Now I asked for the Voyager 1 experiment to see whether any telescope
and eye witness the spacecraft today, from reflected light on its
surface for we do know what it is made of. And through a translation-
factor we can estimate the limitations of the best telescope and that
we would not be able to see any star or galaxy beyond 90 million light
years away, never mind 1 billion light years.
But we should be able to arrive at that 90 million light years
limitation distance from the concept of Brightness. We know that Space
is not really a vacuum but a near vacuum which eventually slows down
and even absorbs the light in transit.
We know that Doppler redshift is impossible for it violates Special
Relativity and so the redshift is a curvature measure, not a distance
measure. This means that quasars are just normal galactic-centers
lying rather close to Earth in a bent part of space, the cylinder
surface analogy. And the redshift is likely to be caused by the
gravity-cell each galaxy possesses for the solar system must have a
gravity-cell to explain how Sun can travel at 220km/sec yet Earth only
So, with all these limitations:
a) Space not a vacuum slowing down light and absorbing light
b) Matter distributed rather evenly as in Euclid's Orchard Math
Problem would absorb much of the light
c) telescopes have an inherent limit on Brightness at a distance
d) redshift is curvature of Space, never a distance gauge
With all those limitations, why is it that astronomers never start
their textbooks or maps in a discussion of the "limit of distance".
Why do they blithely fumble and stumble around with hideous
assumptions that distance has no limits.
So, if I am correct and Huchra, Geller, Jarrett, and Juric are wrong,
then all their atlases end at 90 million light years away, and not
their 1 billion to 14 billion light years distance.
I think the grave problem over astronomy is that such a community
never had a leader who had a good supply of logic to guide them, and
so every crank and crackpot set up their own shops of compartments of
astronomy and the whole of astronomy is the assemblage of these error
Maybe there are astronomy textbooks that are honest about the science,
where they deal straight away with limitations of telescopes and that
it is impossible for any galaxy we know of, to be further away than 90
million light years in distance.
Google seems to have stopped doing author-archives as of 2012.
Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and fair author-
archiving of AP posts for the past several years as seen he
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|galaxies are spaced like Euclid's tree Orchard Chapt16.14 mathematicsof the force of gravity #1448 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed||Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]||Astronomy Misc||2||March 31st 13 10:53 PM|
|Gravity cells to patch up the Sun's 220km/sec Chapt16.14 mathematicsof the force of gravity #1446 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed||Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]||Astronomy Misc||1||March 31st 13 08:19 AM|
|Chapt16.14 mathematics of the force of gravity to explain galaxydistribution #1444 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed||Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]||Astronomy Misc||0||March 30th 13 06:52 PM|
|distribution of galaxies points to Atom Totality not Big Bang #176 ;3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory||Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]||Astronomy Misc||0||November 6th 09 08:29 AM|
|ESO telescopes, VLT in southern hemisphere, but we need a Fly's Eyein Australia #124 ; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory||Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]||Astronomy Misc||0||August 6th 09 05:15 AM|