Akhenaten2

Just This - since singularities do not exist you can compose them in any way you feel like!

Fair Comment I'll give it more thought - also I've edited my previous posting - any comments?

If I was going to be seduced by this "rescaling" theory I should want to see its curve providing a better fit to observations than the Dark Energy Model it was intending to replace. But it does not. In fact - above a redshift of 0.7 the rescaled curve simply does not provide a good fit at all!! Furthermore since I predicted several effects in the early 1990's (before D.E. was discovered) that would beset the Voyager and Ulysses spacecraft as a result of an "energy" of this kind - which effects have been patently in evidence and are continuing (for the 2 voyager craft at least) - I'm inclined to vote in favour of Dark energy - at least for now. I am however, not convinced that the values of several so called "Constants" are actually absolute. Additionally - you might like to visit Astronomy Now On-Line.

Hooray, Iv'e been trying to get the message over to physisists for 25 years or more, that despite A.E. describing it accurately to us 95 years ago, gravity continues to be still totally MIS-REPRESENTED as a FORCE. It is of course, an acceleration (which means it mimics and can be calculated as if a force) but never-the-less is not a force. Once you accept that you can start making sense of everything. "We have acceleration or exchange of momentum and that is enough" What kind of complacency is this? What about the billions of dollars and vast resources, being wasted on the futile search to unify gravity as a 4th force (the incredible weakness by comparison should be enough to realise it is not a force) with the other 3 forces of nature? What about all the mis-conceived experiments designed to find effects of a force which doesn't exist. Gravitons? - I ask you!!, Gravitinos? I ask you!!! - Total rubbish!!! For example - Gravity waves exist, but there is no way they can be detected by deflecting mirrors or other 'mechanical' devices. "LIGO" is a complete waste of time, as Iv'e I've already told them. GRAVITY IS NOT THE PRIME MOVER OF THE UNIVERSE!! - it is merely an effect!!! - This is probably all I'm prepared to say at the moment.

Don't worry, the vast majority of people agree with you. I dont', but I'm in a tiny minority. However that includes, besides me, Michio Kaku, Neil de Grasse Tyson, who have both said so on TV recently + a few other notables doing similarly + that other chap - er what's is name? I forget now! - oh yes that's it a Mr A. Einstein!!!

No John, I haven't missed any point. Its not about size its' about the amount of light. The "apparent" brightness of your torch (at 2.5 mtrs) is far, far greater than that of stars. There is little comparison between your torch-lit pinhole and star-shine except in your imagination. Many photons will get through, but many will be refracted in the atmosphere to peripheral areas to the main image and seen as colours, many similarly lost and some reflected back into space.

And if Gravity isn't a force?

John - re post 67. - "You can see an arbitrarily small thing, provided it's bright enough." This was an interesting experiment you did; could you complete it for me? By my calcs your distance/size relationship is out by a factor of about 100 (for a sun size object about 4 ly distance). Also your torch brightness could be out by a similar factor. So if you repeat the set up, but with the torch and pinhole (a more appropriate) 250 meters away, without brightening the torch but additionally shining the light down a small bore tube onto the pinhole (to simulate more of a point source) - please advise if you can still see it.

My apologies to everyone. I made this throw away comment, which I thought everyone would understand. It turns out to be highly controversial and I didn't think to revisit and substantiate it. Naughty of me, but the thread has developed too far for me to respond on any but a general basis. Actually this should not have caused any controversy. My comment is a true and accurate comment about Relativity theory, but perhaps many have trouble seeing this connection. Firstly, one of you physisists should by now have pointed out to everyone that both the Special and General theories of Relativity are actually theories of MOTION and (more to the point) the motion of the universe. SR describes the behaviour of objects moving at constant velocity and - to briefly quote J.Cribben from Q is for Quantum - "GR deals with accelerations, which is why it is more general, BUT CRUCIALLY is ALSO a theory of gravity. The cornerstone of GR is the 'equivalence principle' which says that Acceleration and gravity are precisely equivalent". I think we should all now conclude that Relativity theory is ALL ABOUT MOTIONS. GR only became an "acclaimed" theory of gravity after 1919 when Einsteins calculation of the bending of light by the sun, was confirmed ahead of Newtons. It was not widely accepted as the definitive theory of gravity until much later. If Mercury did not exist, or had been behaving in line with Newtonian gravitation, Einstein might never have looked for an alternative explanation for its "strange" motion relative to the sun. So it would be quite legitimate for me to claim I only meant that, without motion, Relativity theory wouldn't exist. But of course that is not quite what I intended. Einstein theorised that its motion could be explained if Mercurys' mass-energy was interacting with an all pervasive field of "Space-Time" emanating from the sun. In doing so he quashed any idea that any 'force of attraction' was causing this motion. This was 95 years ago. He realised that his discovery further implied that all clumps of matter in the universe would behave similarly, because the "Principle of Relativity" (the laws of physics are the same everywhere) says everything must be in motion relative to everything else and all must contribute proportionately to the overall "background" of space-time. To be cont... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedcont.... Einsteins' field equation relating this mass-energy to space-time, indicated to him that the universe should be either expanding or contracting. It couldn't be static. Almost everyone on the planet, at that time, believed that the universe (on a non-local scale) was totally static. He was therefore entreatied to modify his equation to nullify this "unseemly"motion. To do this he invented and added to the field equation, the "infamous" cosmological (or lambda) constant (more properly a small acceleration of undetermined sign - or put more simply one motion to stop another) Clearly AE was preoccupied with 'Motion' and preoccupied enough to risk devaluing his most important lifes-work. Both Special and General Relativity are now well proven theories. Cribben comments:- "There is no doubt the General theory is a good and accurate description of the behaviour of matter in the universe and of the relationship between space, time and matter." He goes on to say - " One of the most important features of the general theory, is that it provides a COMPLETE description of the universe and of the way the universe has expanded away from a "singularity" (I might argue with him here) at the beginning of time, via the Big Bang, to reach its present state." This is the expansion of ALL the universe; everything in the universe; from the instant of the BB, through any inflationary expansion, subject always to gravity and now (we realise) Dark Energy. Trust me - if its in the universe - ITS MOVING - there is no tenable option - GR says so! If it isn't in the universe now, it never was and therefore does not exist in our reality. GR implies so! This also ligitimately answers all criticism of my comment - but is still not my full response. TB cont...

I think Iv'e explained perfectly well how and why atmospheric effects only enhance the ability of humans to observe stars on earth using our "less than perfect" eyesight and its (slightly time-lapsed) relationship with our "less than perfect" brains - not that they add to their brightness. This topic was raised during the Apollo era and has arisen several times since - mostly in relation to debunking theories. I have related what I recall to be the consensus view. To the best of my recollection very few (possibly none) of the astronauts either on the moon or in orbiting craft, recalled seeing stars when interviewed.

yes exactly - overexposed.

No there's nothing else. The question was would you "notice" them on the moon rather than 'can you see them'. I think you have helped me explain that they would not be as noticeable on the moon for the reasons I (and you) have now laid out. So thanks for that.

I stand corrected Swansont I didn't think it worth bothering with adjustments for tiny earth/sun differentials - I'll amend my 'estimate' to "about 2.4 seconds + or - about a millisecond. OK? Your comments regarding the varying positions and times of observers and where the light originated from, have no bearing on the original concept of the discussion.

John, your'e not listening to either me or Mr Skeptic, earths atmosphere makes all the difference!!! Stars (at the distances involved) are much tinier than you can clearly conceive and their light behaves only as a point source. Earths atmosphere, whether twinkling or not, smears out this tiny amount of light (as I have described) and makes them appear much bigger than they actually look in space. You need to read a bit about eyes, receptors and quantum behaviour to appreciate the very low probability that even two photons from a "point source" would hit the same receptor cell. Even if they did, receptors are so small you would barely notice.

I apologise, I understood all human eyes to register the twinkle similarly, but I accept this could be only a majority. Logically it might depend on where you live and where you observe from. I can see that people at altitude or in areas of low atmospheric disturbance, would see less twinkling than at sea level or heavy atmosphere generally. The planets and stars all twinkle for me too, though I understand that the planets are not supposed to. Maybe atmospheric pollution is starting to vary this phenomenon differently?