Why are astronomers so blind

mick wrote:
When hubble first discovered that some galaxies were red shifted and the
theory that they were moving away from us was reasonable. When it was
discovered that all galaxies were redshifted should have caused some to
think again about the doppler effect. When it was discovered that the
further away a galaxy was the greater the redshift should have had alarm
bells ringing in the heads of all the astronomers. Now when galaxies have
been discovered whose light was emitted before the big bang is supposed to
have happened. This is evidence that light is redshifted when it passes
through vast amounts of space not that the body giving off the light is
moving (which it maybe doing).
Let the Big Bang theory and the Expanding universe theory Die and RIP..

postman
Whew! HOT Thread here...

Ok, both points you are making, I have already mentioned above but I
think I did it a little more tactfully. Something I learned a long time
ago is that you can't gain the respect of those you're trying to talk to
by insulting them. The subject line is definitely insulting. A second
point that I would like to make is that the study of the age of the
universe is something a Cosmologist does, not an Astronomer. Of course
there is a thin dividing-line between the two but there is a distinction
that should be recognized.

Ok, a little about me: I am what is refered to (or what I refer myself
as) a layman. I'm not an astronomer or physicist or chemist but I have
in my own time and by my own desire to learn, studied everything that I
need to know in order to understand what I want to fully comprehend.
Six years ago I hit these newsgroups with the same passion and ignorance
that you are doing now and made a complete fool of myself because of my
lack of knowledge. It was a hard lesson to learn but it served only to
push me to the point where I am now, devoted to learning, willing to
listen and reason but still keeping my own theories to myself until the
day comes when I can prove them without dispute.

In a previous post I made about the age of the universe, I stated my own
conclusion that the universe is, 'At least 13.7 billion years old' I
believe this to be the best way to state the age of the universe since
it keeps the current border that we have on it now but also conceads
that it could be and likely is older.

The redshift problem you mention is also something that I've held as
theory. I'm not sure if I've tossed that on the table for discussion
for the mear reason that I don't believe I know enough about the
relationship between the EM spectrum and spacetime. However, I hope to
answer this question before I die and I am actively studying the various
bands of the EMS as well as GR. I also hope to put to rest the whole
'dark matter' theory because I think it's just a blanket solution to
explain our lack of understanding of gravity and spacetime.

The thing I like best about the Universe (aside from being alive in it)
is that despite how big it is, you must understand the smallest of the
smallest particles in it to even begin to comprehend what it's all about.

One more thing: I do believe in God. If God didn't want me to think, He
wouldn't have gifted me with a brain. If curiosity is a sin, then I
guess my heart is black with it. If God didn't want us to study the
Universe we'd all be blind and the world would be black. My God is the
Who and Why of the Universe but he's left me (us) to figure out the how,
what, and where. Perhaps that's too hard for some to swallow but it's
my belief and it's non-negotiable.

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 22:54:57 +0000, mick
wrote:

SNIP


Have you ever heard of a cepheid variable, and do you understand the
implications of them?

When you have answered this, then we shall proceed to attempt to
educate you.

i don't think you can call on cepheid variables to help you here. In fact I
think that cepheid variables are typical of the kind of science that
astronomers do ie extrapolate from very little data. To suggest that a star
pulsating in a galaxy 12 billion light years away is exactly the same kind
of star as one in a galaxy close by. Add to that the fact that they have
never been very acurate at measuring distance.

No one is saying that Cepheid Variables are used out to 12 billlion
LY.

Evidently, you DON'T understand the physics, and you *certainly* don't
understand cepheid variables, nor how astronomers came to understand
the relationship between periodicity and absolute magnitude, and where
we go from there.

It figures.

--

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 03:26:31 GMT, Southern Hospitality
wrote:

SNIP


Ok, both points you are making, I have already mentioned above but I
think I did it a little more tactfully. Something I learned a long time
ago is that you can't gain the respect of those you're trying to talk to
by insulting them. The subject line is definitely insulting. A second
point that I would like to make is that the study of the age of the
universe is something a Cosmologist does, not an Astronomer. Of course
there is a thin dividing-line between the two but there is a distinction
that should be recognized.

Ok, a little about me: I am what is refered to (or what I refer myself
as) a layman. I'm not an astronomer or physicist or chemist but I have
in my own time and by my own desire to learn, studied everything that I
need to know in order to understand what I want to fully comprehend.
Six years ago I hit these newsgroups with the same passion and ignorance
that you are doing now and made a complete fool of myself because of my
lack of knowledge. It was a hard lesson to learn but it served only to
push me to the point where I am now, devoted to learning, willing to
listen and reason but still keeping my own theories to myself until the
day comes when I can prove them without dispute.

In a previous post I made about the age of the universe, I stated my own
conclusion that the universe is, 'At least 13.7 billion years old' I
believe this to be the best way to state the age of the universe since
it keeps the current border that we have on it now but also conceads
that it could be and likely is older.

The redshift problem you mention is also something that I've held as
theory. I'm not sure if I've tossed that on the table for discussion
for the mear reason that I don't believe I know enough about the
relationship between the EM spectrum and spacetime. However, I hope to
answer this question before I die and I am actively studying the various
bands of the EMS as well as GR. I also hope to put to rest the whole
'dark matter' theory because I think it's just a blanket solution to
explain our lack of understanding of gravity and spacetime.

The thing I like best about the Universe (aside from being alive in it)
is that despite how big it is, you must understand the smallest of the
smallest particles in it to even begin to comprehend what it's all about.

One more thing: I do believe in God. If God didn't want me to think, He
wouldn't have gifted me with a brain. If curiosity is a sin, then I
guess my heart is black with it. If God didn't want us to study the
Universe we'd all be blind and the world would be black. My God is the
Who and Why of the Universe but he's left me (us) to figure out the how,
what, and where. Perhaps that's too hard for some to swallow but it's
my belief and it's non-negotiable.


Nicely put. I know several astronomers who believe in God. As one put
it to me (and I agreed with him), "What on Earth makes anyone thing
God couldn't start it all off billions of years ago? Why restrict
God?"

Besides, astronomy and cosmology are not about proving the existence
or non-existence of God.

--

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

Wally Anglesea wrote:


Where did you get the idea that Cephid variables are used for distances
to 12B Ly ?

Exactly. After I'd gone over Cepheid Variables, I was going to go into the
various kinds of supernovae, and the brightness calculations therefrom.
The graph is pretty consistent. Of course, he can claim supernovae in
other distant galaxies are different and the laws of physics are different
elsewhere. Then he'll have to prove it.
Are these not measurements of distance. If they can be used to measure the
speed at which galaxies are receeding then please inform me and I will go
and study the data and shut up here..

postman

Southern Hospitality wrote:

mick wrote:

Let the Big Bang theory and the Expanding universe theory Die and RIP..

postman
Whew! HOT Thread here...

Ok, a little about me: I am what is refered to (or what I refer myself
as) a layman. I'm not an astronomer or physicist or chemist but I have
in my own time and by my own desire to learn, studied everything that I
need to know in order to understand what I want to fully comprehend.
Six years ago I hit these newsgroups with the same passion and ignorance
that you are doing now and made a complete fool of myself because of my
lack of knowledge. It was a hard lesson to learn but it served only to
push me to the point where I am now, devoted to learning, willing to
listen and reason but still keeping my own theories to myself until the
day comes when I can prove them without dispute.

In a previous post I made about the age of the universe, I stated my own
conclusion that the universe is, 'At least 13.7 billion years old' I
believe this to be the best way to state the age of the universe since
it keeps the current border that we have on it now but also conceads
that it could be and likely is older.

The redshift problem you mention is also something that I've held as
theory. I'm not sure if I've tossed that on the table for discussion
for the mear reason that I don't believe I know enough about the
relationship between the EM spectrum and spacetime. However, I hope to
answer this question before I die and I am actively studying the various
bands of the EMS as well as GR. I also hope to put to rest the whole
'dark matter' theory because I think it's just a blanket solution to
explain our lack of understanding of gravity and spacetime.

The thing I like best about the Universe (aside from being alive in it)
is that despite how big it is, you must understand the smallest of the
smallest particles in it to even begin to comprehend what it's all about.


First I would like to thank you for taking the time to reply and the manner
of the reply is most appreciated.

Of course you are right in guessing that I am not an academic in fact what I
feel like is a small child looking at the Emperor and all the time I am
getting slapped about the head and told look at the fine clothes that the
Emperor is wearing while all I can see is his nakedness. I can see the
redness of his small penis but I am convinced it is caused by something
other than redshifting.

The biggest problem I have with the Big Bang theory is that it needs several
laws of nature to be broken in order for the theory to work.

1. The galaxies have to have been traveling faster than the speed of light
inorder to be where we are now. and not for a short period but for several
billion years.
2. The latest reports ( I admit it was a news report. please don't tell me
the BBC gets things wrong) says the furthest away galaxies are still
accelerating. Where is the force for this acceleration coming from. First
they are traveling at faster than the speed of light and now they are
accelerating but not up to the speed of light yet.
3. The latest pictures from the Hubble space telescope show pictures of
galaxies 13 billion light years away. This is not a picture of the present
but of a time when the big bang has just gone off so there should be a
whole load of glaxies heading this way perhaps even the milkyway might be
visable. But there are no signs of any galaxies heading this way. They are
all redshifting away.

On the other hand if electromagnetic radiation is redshifted as it travels
through space and if this redshifting gets greater with distance what we
have is a nice big (infinite) stable universe which follows most of the
laws of nature.

Of course all I need is more knowledge.. I will read more! and then maybe I
will be able to believe in the Big Bang.

postman

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:00:26 +0000, mick
wrote:

Wally Anglesea wrote:


Where did you get the idea that Cephid variables are used for distances
to 12B Ly ?

Exactly. After I'd gone over Cepheid Variables, I was going to go into the
various kinds of supernovae, and the brightness calculations therefrom.
The graph is pretty consistent. Of course, he can claim supernovae in
other distant galaxies are different and the laws of physics are different
elsewhere. Then he'll have to prove it.
Are these not measurements of distance. If they can be used to measure the
speed at which galaxies are receeding then please inform me and I will go
and study the data and shut up here..

Well then you had better shut up. Yes, they are not measured of
distance, but the determination of the speed of regression follows
simply from measurements of distance, and are so far consistent with
observations.

However, I can get a pretty good estimate of distance from a 40 watt
light bulbs placed at increasing distances from me.

You are being disingenuous, your dumb claim is that astronomers are
blind, and the "Big Bang" theory should die. You offer no alternative,
and ALL of the established evidence to date supports a big bang event.


Both Cepheid Variables and Supernovae are reasonably well understood.
The period-luminosity relationship of cepheid variables is well
established, and this allows us to determine with reasonable accuracy
the distance of the star, and the distance of glaxy that the star is
in, when we study cepheid variables in other galaxies. Then the
redshift is in very real agreement of those calculations.

Since redshift/blueshift observations of the rotations of the galaxies
is pretty consistent also, then the maths follows.

Type 1 supernovae in galaxies show remarkably consistent light curves,
and measuring them, we can see how consistent they are with the known
redshift of known galaxies. The graphs are pretty consistent.

So, since we know there is a top speed for light to get here, then
since the absolute magnitude of an object tells us how far away it is,
yes. Pretty much sums it up that since the maths follows, it's
reasonable to accept that redshift is indicative of how far away
something is, and the degree of redshift, how fast it's "traveling".

The Universe seems to be at least 13 billion years old, possibly
older. Live with it.

--

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

mick wrote:
Southern Hospitality wrote:


mick wrote:


Let the Big Bang theory and the Expanding universe theory Die and RIP..

postman

Whew! HOT Thread here...


Ok, a little about me: I am what is refered to (or what I refer myself
as) a layman. I'm not an astronomer or physicist or chemist but I have
in my own time and by my own desire to learn, studied everything that I
need to know in order to understand what I want to fully comprehend.
Six years ago I hit these newsgroups with the same passion and ignorance
that you are doing now and made a complete fool of myself because of my
lack of knowledge. It was a hard lesson to learn but it served only to
push me to the point where I am now, devoted to learning, willing to
listen and reason but still keeping my own theories to myself until the
day comes when I can prove them without dispute.

In a previous post I made about the age of the universe, I stated my own
conclusion that the universe is, 'At least 13.7 billion years old' I
believe this to be the best way to state the age of the universe since
it keeps the current border that we have on it now but also conceads
that it could be and likely is older.

The redshift problem you mention is also something that I've held as
theory. I'm not sure if I've tossed that on the table for discussion
for the mear reason that I don't believe I know enough about the
relationship between the EM spectrum and spacetime. However, I hope to
answer this question before I die and I am actively studying the various
bands of the EMS as well as GR. I also hope to put to rest the whole
'dark matter' theory because I think it's just a blanket solution to
explain our lack of understanding of gravity and spacetime.

The thing I like best about the Universe (aside from being alive in it)
is that despite how big it is, you must understand the smallest of the
smallest particles in it to even begin to comprehend what it's all about.



First I would like to thank you for taking the time to reply and the manner
of the reply is most appreciated.

Of course you are right in guessing that I am not an academic in fact what I
feel like is a small child looking at the Emperor and all the time I am
getting slapped about the head and told look at the fine clothes that the
Emperor is wearing while all I can see is his nakedness. I can see the
redness of his small penis but I am convinced it is caused by something
other than redshifting.

The biggest problem I have with the Big Bang theory is that it needs several
laws of nature to be broken in order for the theory to work.

1. The galaxies have to have been traveling faster than the speed of light
inorder to be where we are now. and not for a short period but for several
billion years.
2. The latest reports ( I admit it was a news report. please don't tell me
the BBC gets things wrong) says the furthest away galaxies are still
accelerating. Where is the force for this acceleration coming from. First
they are traveling at faster than the speed of light and now they are
accelerating but not up to the speed of light yet.
3. The latest pictures from the Hubble space telescope show pictures of
galaxies 13 billion light years away. This is not a picture of the present
but of a time when the big bang has just gone off so there should be a
whole load of glaxies heading this way perhaps even the milkyway might be
visable. But there are no signs of any galaxies heading this way. They are
all redshifting away.

On the other hand if electromagnetic radiation is redshifted as it travels
through space and if this redshifting gets greater with distance what we
have is a nice big (infinite) stable universe which follows most of the
laws of nature.

Of course all I need is more knowledge.. I will read more! and then maybe I
will be able to believe in the Big Bang.

postman

I believe there is a concept you are missing about inflation.

If you take a balloon and fill it up with just enough air to keep it's
shape, then imagine a 3 dimensional elastic mesh inside of it that is
attached to the sides. At each intersection of the mesh is a point.
Each point could represent anything but lets just say that it's a
galaxy. If you start filling up the balloon, the points become farther
apart, seemingly travelling away from each other but on the other hand
they are in reality moving in the same direction, the direction of
inflation. Of course in this example, every point is static and in the
universe, nothing is static. Everything has a motion of its own but
without a reference outside the universe to measure by, we can only make
our own attempts at figuring out how fast we are actually moving based
on how everything else is moving around us.

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:35:32 +0000, mick
wrote:

Southern Hospitality wrote:

mick wrote:

Let the Big Bang theory and the Expanding universe theory Die and RIP..

postman
Whew! HOT Thread here...

Ok, a little about me: I am what is refered to (or what I refer myself
as) a layman. I'm not an astronomer or physicist or chemist but I have
in my own time and by my own desire to learn, studied everything that I
need to know in order to understand what I want to fully comprehend.
Six years ago I hit these newsgroups with the same passion and ignorance
that you are doing now and made a complete fool of myself because of my
lack of knowledge. It was a hard lesson to learn but it served only to
push me to the point where I am now, devoted to learning, willing to
listen and reason but still keeping my own theories to myself until the
day comes when I can prove them without dispute.

In a previous post I made about the age of the universe, I stated my own
conclusion that the universe is, 'At least 13.7 billion years old' I
believe this to be the best way to state the age of the universe since
it keeps the current border that we have on it now but also conceads
that it could be and likely is older.

The redshift problem you mention is also something that I've held as
theory. I'm not sure if I've tossed that on the table for discussion
for the mear reason that I don't believe I know enough about the
relationship between the EM spectrum and spacetime. However, I hope to
answer this question before I die and I am actively studying the various
bands of the EMS as well as GR. I also hope to put to rest the whole
'dark matter' theory because I think it's just a blanket solution to
explain our lack of understanding of gravity and spacetime.

The thing I like best about the Universe (aside from being alive in it)
is that despite how big it is, you must understand the smallest of the
smallest particles in it to even begin to comprehend what it's all about.


First I would like to thank you for taking the time to reply and the manner
of the reply is most appreciated.

Of course you are right in guessing that I am not an academic in fact what I
feel like is a small child looking at the Emperor and all the time I am
getting slapped about the head and told look at the fine clothes that the
Emperor is wearing while all I can see is his nakedness. I can see the
redness of his small penis but I am convinced it is caused by something
other than redshifting.

The biggest problem I have with the Big Bang theory is that it needs several
laws of nature to be broken in order for the theory to work.

1. The galaxies have to have been traveling faster than the speed of light
inorder to be where we are now. and not for a short period but for several
billion years.


Not quite correct. More correctly,space has been expanding for at
least that lenght of time


2. The latest reports ( I admit it was a news report. please don't tell me
the BBC gets things wrong) says the furthest away galaxies are still
accelerating. Where is the force for this acceleration coming from.

Einstein called his cosmological constant his greatest mistake. If he
had followed through with it, we would not be having this discussion,
as the matter probably would have been well understood (*possibly*)


First
they are traveling at faster than the speed of light and now they are
accelerating but not up to the speed of light yet.
3. The latest pictures from the Hubble space telescope show pictures of
galaxies 13 billion light years away. This is not a picture of the present
but of a time when the big bang has just gone off so there should be a
whole load of glaxies heading this way perhaps even the milkyway might be
visable.

Why should there be wholesale galaxies heading our way. FYI, there
*ARE* some galaxies in the local group approaching us, it is a result
of something called gravity.


But there are no signs of any galaxies heading this way. They are
all redshifting away.

"The closest spiral galaxy is Andromeda, a galaxy much like our own
Milky Way. It is 2.2 million light years away from us. Andromeda is
approaching our galaxy at a rate of 670,000 miles per hour. Five
billion years from now it may even collide with our Milky Way galaxy."

Read this:
http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resou...ackground.html




On the other hand if electromagnetic radiation is redshifted as it travels
through space and if this redshifting gets greater with distance what we
have is a nice big (infinite) stable universe which follows most of the
laws of nature.


Instead of which, we have an expanding universe which is consistent
with all of the observations, and follows the known laws of physics.



Of course all I need is more knowledge.. I will read more! and then maybe I
will be able to believe in the Big Bang.

postman

--

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

"mick" wrote in message
...
Wally Anglesea wrote:


Where did you get the idea that Cephid variables are used for distances
to 12B Ly ?

Exactly. After I'd gone over Cepheid Variables, I was going to go into
the
various kinds of supernovae, and the brightness calculations therefrom.
The graph is pretty consistent. Of course, he can claim supernovae in
other distant galaxies are different and the laws of physics are
different
elsewhere. Then he'll have to prove it.
Are these not measurements of distance. If they can be used to measure the
speed at which galaxies are receeding then please inform me and I will go
and study the data and shut up here..

The only leg you have to stand on is that we determine Cepheid distances in
other galaxies first from distance measurements taken of objects in this
galaxy first, and that it all rests on a foundation derived from parallax
measurements done very carefully. If those are just a bit off, our distance
scale will be in error. Right now, our baseline for parallax measurements is
only the orbit of the Earth, which is IMO much too small to achieve
precision measurements with distance. If I had a few hundred million
dollars burning a hole in my pocket, I would launch 3 satellites, linked to
me and to each other by continuous lasers so I cold get more accurate
parallax measurements as they leave the solar system. As an added bonus,
they would also provide a nice gravitational map of our local neighborhood.

Greysky

www.allocations.cc

First of all, there was no time before the big bang, time and space both
started with the BB. Also the main reseach people say the for the first few
seconds of time, before the natural laws came to be, that the hot gases and
everything there was sped out at many times what we call the speed of light.
Then everything settled down and slowly everything came to be.

There is just so much more, I keep reading and watching and when I see
something like what you keep saying, I just redirect it into the Cyber Black
Hole Never to be seen again.



--


The Forgotten
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/forgotten.htm


SIAR
http://starlords.netfirms.com
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord

"mick" wrote in message
...


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.779 / Virus Database: 526 - Release Date: 10/19/04