Hubble photos of "deepest space" PURE BS!

i read one 'scientist" say " these photos of the universe ,13 billion
years ago, show a cosmic train wreck just after the BIG BANG!"

What utter gabage and BS. I look at the same photos and i see the same
orderly galactic stuctures we see a mere 2 and 10 million light years
away. what i notice in the so called deep field is that there is no
warp observed even when huge gravtiational structures are on top of
each other...its clear that there is mult-layered bilateral symmetry
and plenty of mirror images espeically when you allow a little
statisitcal analysis into your analysis...


The funny thing is that if hubble focused on the so called deep field in
the opposite direct in space (north verses south) it would see the same
thing elsewhere. that would give us more than one big bang? Ok you
have string theory and curvature of space to help you explain the
impossible...i call the nonsense coming from astronomers BS because its
as if they want to ignore how their theory is already down the drain
when the observations are quite contrary to expectations...you show me
any train wreck in that picture and i will show you orderly gallaxy
spiral structures that are the same as thouse arriving similaneously to
hubble vision from 1 million light years away and 49 million and one
billion and supposedly 14 billlion now. When you have the same
structures at all distances similaneously and you then go ahead and say
that the apparenlty most distant objects are the somehow the genesis of
everything similaneously observed across the entire timeline going back
to 14 billion years...you have to either be indoctrinated, stupid or a
sock puppet!


hubble's doppler red shift is the big problem...its wrong wrong worng.
makes too many assumptions and confuses what really is refraction and
defraction due to interviening clouds of material substance out in space
with some magical idea that light should behave with a sound doppler
effect analogy. you can prove it does not if you think about it.

The Thermodynamic Cause of Gravity:
Site Below is due for update and removal of mistakes:

http://www.webspawner.com/users/gravity/index.html

gravity jones wrote:

i read one 'scientist" say " these photos of the universe ,13 billion
years ago, show a cosmic train wreck just after the BIG BANG!"

What utter gabage and BS. I look at the same photos and i see the same
orderly galactic stuctures we see a mere 2 and 10 million light years
away.

Huh? Is there something wrong with your eyes? Yes, there are many spiral
and elliptical galaxies in this picture - but there are also many
irregular shapes, unlike everything ever seen before in our
"neighbourhood".


what i notice in the so called deep field is that there is no
warp observed even when huge gravtiational structures are on top of
each other...

What "warp" are you talking about? And what do you mean by "on top of
each other"?


its clear that there is mult-layered bilateral symmetry

Huh? Where do you see a bilateral symmetry in this picture?


and plenty of mirror images espeically when you allow a little
statisitcal analysis into your analysis...

Please present your data.


The funny thing is that if hubble focused on the so called deep field in
the opposite direct in space (north verses south) it would see the same
thing elsewhere.

Obviously not entirely the same, but very similar.


that would give us more than one big bang?

No. Why on earth do you think so?


Ok you
have string theory and curvature of space to help you explain the
impossible...

You don't need string theory or curvature of space to explain this. This
would be explainable even in a perfectly flat, expanding space-time.


i call the nonsense coming from astronomers BS

Oh, all the astronomers are either incompetent or liars? Is it that?


because its
as if they want to ignore how their theory is already down the drain
when the observations are quite contrary to expectations...

They aren't. Why on earth do you think so?


you show me
any train wreck in that picture and i will show you orderly gallaxy
spiral structures that are the same as thouse arriving similaneously to
hubble vision from 1 million light years away and 49 million and one
billion and supposedly 14 billlion now.

You are repeating yourself. But repeating a falsehood doesn't make it
true.


When you have the same
structures at all distances similaneously

You haven't. Most of the structures in that picture are different from
the ones in our neighbourhood.


and you then go ahead and say
that the apparenlty most distant objects are the somehow the genesis of
everything similaneously observed across the entire timeline going back
to 14 billion years...

This is incomprehensible.


you have to either be indoctrinated, stupid or a
sock puppet!

Well, I would say you are the stupid (or better: deluded) one.


hubble's doppler red shift is the big problem...its wrong wrong worng.

In cosmology, the red shift isn't attributed to the Doppler effect. Get
an education about the things you attack instead of making nonsensical
arguments, please.


makes too many assumptions

For example?


and confuses what really is refraction and
defraction due to interviening clouds of material substance out in space

Err, refraction and defraction wouldn't produce a red shift. Why on
earth do you think they would?


with some magical idea that light should behave with a sound doppler
effect analogy.

Err, you can observe the Doppler effect for light already for stars.
Hint: other a hundred of extrasolar planets were discovered with this
method.

Hey, IIRC, you can observe this even in our own solar system, when you
look at the light reflected from other planets, which are moving towards
or away from us!

Additionally, it can be proven using the Moessbauer effect even here on
earth!


you can prove it does not if you think about it.

Sorry, but there is a slight problem with your "proof": it contradicts
observations.


The Thermodynamic Cause of Gravity:
Site Below is due for update and removal of mistakes:

http://www.webspawner.com/users/gravity/index.html

You could start by removing the nonsensical claim that there is no
Doppler effect for light.


Bye,
Bjoern

(gravity jones) wrote:

i read one 'scientist" say " these photos of the universe
,13 billion years ago, show a cosmic train wreck just after
the BIG BANG!"

What utter gabage and BS. I look at the same photos and i
see the same orderly galactic stuctures we see a mere 2 and
10 million light years away. what i notice in the so
called deep field is that there is no warp observed even
when huge gravtiational structures are on top of each
other...its clear that there is mult-layered bilateral
symmetry and plenty of mirror images espeically when you
allow a little statisitcal analysis into your analysis...

You might have a better chance of fooling a few really dumb
people if you'd say "that photo," but even they might want to
know how you discerned huge structures on top of each other in
that single image.

I'm not saying you aren't amusing. You just need to try harder,
and get all the help you can find.

Don't be confused by the normal looking galaxies; they're all nearby, a few
billion light years away at most. The most distant objects in that image
are the tiny red spots that barely show up in a newspaper reproduction or a
low-resolution screen shot. You're welcome :_

The big bang happened everywhere. Hard to picture? You're inside an
infinitely large stick of dynamite with timed detonators sprinkled
throughout. The dynamite explodes all at once. Imagine what each bit of
debris sees around itself.

gravity jones wrote:

When you have the same
structures at all distances similaneously

Similaneously?
Interesting new word.
Would that be having two anuses at the same time?
Sorry, couldn't resist....

"Richard Schumacher" wrote in message
...
Don't be confused by the normal looking galaxies; they're all nearby, a few
billion light years away at most. The most distant objects in that image
are the tiny red spots that barely show up in a newspaper reproduction or a
low-resolution screen shot. You're welcome :_

The big bang happened everywhere. Hard to picture? You're inside an
infinitely large stick of dynamite with timed detonators sprinkled
throughout. The dynamite explodes all at once. Imagine what each bit of
debris sees around itself.



I think that argument is as valid as a Dr. of thinkology that I heard on art Bell
from the archives the other day.

He said the universe was 5,000 years old, and that he has been responsible
for unearthing some dinosaurs and so he knows these things. Then he
stated the speed of light _to 5 decimals!_ from memory! Twice!

The people with accents from the Bible Belt who phoned in were very impressed
with him.

He also said there was this really advanced kind of quantum geometry that only
a few really smart people knew, and that due to time dilation, the universe
is just 5 thousand years old, just like the Bible says.

He sounded _very convincing. Except for the couple times he almost burst
out laughing.

He was referred to as a creationists creationist and I wish I could find
the show name or his name, but I can't. It was quite entertaining.

Maybe someone in Art Bell can help me out.

(gravity jones) wrote in message ...
i read one 'scientist" say " these photos of the universe ,13 billion
years ago, show a cosmic train wreck just after the BIG BANG!"

What utter gabage and BS. I look at the same photos and i see the same
orderly galactic stuctures we see a mere 2 and 10 million light years
away. what i notice in the so called deep field is that there is no
warp observed even when huge gravtiational structures are on top of
each other...its clear that there is mult-layered bilateral symmetry
and plenty of mirror images espeically when you allow a little
statisitcal analysis into your analysis...



Preacher BOBO says it can't be more than 10,000 LightYears Away!

Sounds like Rael

"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:6eG4c.791991$X%5.662899@pd7tw2no...

"Richard Schumacher" wrote in message
...
Don't be confused by the normal looking galaxies; they're all nearby, a
few
billion light years away at most. The most distant objects in that
image
are the tiny red spots that barely show up in a newspaper reproduction
or a
low-resolution screen shot. You're welcome :_

The big bang happened everywhere. Hard to picture? You're inside an
infinitely large stick of dynamite with timed detonators sprinkled
throughout. The dynamite explodes all at once. Imagine what each bit
of
debris sees around itself.



I think that argument is as valid as a Dr. of thinkology that I heard on
art Bell
from the archives the other day.

He said the universe was 5,000 years old, and that he has been responsible
for unearthing some dinosaurs and so he knows these things. Then he
stated the speed of light _to 5 decimals!_ from memory! Twice!

The people with accents from the Bible Belt who phoned in were very
impressed
with him.

He also said there was this really advanced kind of quantum geometry that
only
a few really smart people knew, and that due to time dilation, the
universe
is just 5 thousand years old, just like the Bible says.

He sounded _very convincing. Except for the couple times he almost burst
out laughing.

He was referred to as a creationists creationist and I wish I could find
the show name or his name, but I can't. It was quite entertaining.

Maybe someone in Art Bell can help me out.

"Bert" wrote in message
...

Sounds like Rael

I could claim the universe is only two minutes old if I get to define "minute."

Jim



"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:6eG4c.791991$X%5.662899@pd7tw2no...

"Richard Schumacher" wrote in message
...
Don't be confused by the normal looking galaxies; they're all nearby, a
few
billion light years away at most. The most distant objects in that
image
are the tiny red spots that barely show up in a newspaper reproduction
or a
low-resolution screen shot. You're welcome :_

The big bang happened everywhere. Hard to picture? You're inside an
infinitely large stick of dynamite with timed detonators sprinkled
throughout. The dynamite explodes all at once. Imagine what each bit
of
debris sees around itself.



I think that argument is as valid as a Dr. of thinkology that I heard on
art Bell
from the archives the other day.

He said the universe was 5,000 years old, and that he has been responsible
for unearthing some dinosaurs and so he knows these things. Then he
stated the speed of light _to 5 decimals!_ from memory! Twice!

The people with accents from the Bible Belt who phoned in were very
impressed
with him.

He also said there was this really advanced kind of quantum geometry that
only
a few really smart people knew, and that due to time dilation, the
universe
is just 5 thousand years old, just like the Bible says.

He sounded _very convincing. Except for the couple times he almost burst
out laughing.

He was referred to as a creationists creationist and I wish I could find
the show name or his name, but I can't. It was quite entertaining.

Maybe someone in Art Bell can help me out.

(Donald L Ferrt) wrote in message . com...
(gravity jones) wrote in message ...
i read one 'scientist" say " these photos of the universe ,13 billion
years ago, show a cosmic train wreck just after the BIG BANG!"

What utter gabage and BS. I look at the same photos and i see the same
orderly galactic stuctures we see a mere 2 and 10 million light years
away. what i notice in the so called deep field is that there is no
warp observed even when huge gravtiational structures are on top of
each other...its clear that there is mult-layered bilateral symmetry
and plenty of mirror images espeically when you allow a little
statisitcal analysis into your analysis...



Preacher BOBO says it can't be more than 10,000 LightYears Away!
I dont agree because the beggining universe is billions of Miles away
and you can be mistaken by wot you see !!!