LightHeavyW8

Res ipsa loquitur. LHW 89, count 'em, 89 astronomers feverishly searching the heavens for evidence of gravitational lensing - I can't wait to reap the benefits... LHW

To quote Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven: "In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents. Space is filled with a network of currents which transfer energy and momentum over large or very large distances. The currents often pinch to filamentary or surface currents. The latter are likely to give space, as also interstellar and intergalactic space, a cellular structure.[2]" Alfvén's work was disputed for many years by the senior scientist in space physics, the British-American geophysicist Sydney Chapman. Alfvén's disagreements with Chapman stemmed in large part from trouble with the peer review system. Alfvén rarely benefited from the acceptance generally afforded senior scientists in scientific journals. He once submitted a paper on the theory of magnetic storms and auroras to the American journal Terrestrial Magnetism and Atmospheric Electricity and his paper was rejected on the ground that it did not agree with the theoretical calculations of conventional physics of the time. He was regarded as a person with unorthodox opinions in the field by many physicists,[3] R. H. Stuewer noting that "... he remained an embittered outsider, winning little respect from other scientists even after he received the Nobel Prize..."[4] and was often forced to publish his papers in obscure journals. Alfvén recalled: "When I describe the [plasma phenomena] according to this formulism most referees do not understand what I say and turn down my papers. With the referee system which rules US science today, this means that my papers are rarely accepted by the leading US journals.[5]" Alfvén believed the problem with the Big Bang was that astrophysicists tried to extrapolate the origin of the universe from mathematical theories developed on the blackboard, rather than starting from known observable phenomena. He also considered the Big Bang to be a scientific myth devised to explain creation.[7] LHW

Gladly - A couple of dozen is 24, but the number of authors to the article I linked is 89. That's not a collaboration, nor even a committee - it is a CONVENTION! Are MY tax dollars financing this boondoggle? Meanwhile, Halton Arp, Hubble's assistant, is denied access to major observatories for daring to question Cosmological Red Shift... LHW

My theory is that astronomers have to eat, just like the rest of us - MY PROOF! LHW

You know, with three of you waiting to pounce on me, please try and avoid the hazards of a circular firing squad. I gather, Swansont, that you will not be signing the petition... LHW

I am reminded of the Kosovo resident who who voiced his optimism for the future to a reporter as they huddled behind a barricade to evade small-arms fire. "How can you be optimistic in the middle of this?" asked the reporter. "Well, the heavy shelling subsided yesterday!" was the response... LHW

So help me out a little here, Mr. Mod - hypothetically now, if I were to start a thread asking readers to go HERE and sign it if they agree, where should it go? I assume you would make your editorial position known, for sure... LHW

Spyman's last post implied that theoretical cosmologists are all a harmonious bunch of elves merrily reconstructing the history of the universe in Santa's workshop - but it is NOT so. Hubble was not so certain about what red shift actually represented. I attempted to offer proof more substantial than merely my personal opinion, but it seems this approach is not well-tolerated here. Pity, that... LHW

Ah, but what do we have HERE? Dissidents? Crackpots, I say - every #@*& one of 'em! LHW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YBPcoI4OE9Y That's all I want, EVERYONE HAPPY!

What seems to have disappeared in public discourse this millenium is any capacity for self-criticism. If my repartee somehow manages to delay Armageddon by a single moment, it will have been a worthwhile effort, no? LHW

I was, and still am, happy to leave it at THIS! LHW

The point I take issue with is your interpretation of "closing speed", which is bottom-line real for both collider operators and the EO. They both know when the experiment ends as well as, if not better than, any traveling "observers". Even Janus grudgingly acknowledged that my claim that EO observes information exchange between A & B at 1.7c is valid, even though light is only travelling through space at c. LHW

OK, since nobody else seems to have any real solutions, let me take care of it with a few epithets - To the Arabs: Enough children, already! To the Israelis: Enough mikvahs, already! To the Americans: Enough socialism for the elite, smiley-faced fascism for the masses, and right-wing demagoguery for everyone - already! LHW

How can we tell which phenomenon we are observing? LHW

You will frequently see the proclamation here that "Nothing can travel faster than light", and that's exactly what BBers think - that Space, i.e., Nothing, is expanding... faster than light! LHW

The history of the Big Bang Theory is most instructive as an exploration into the philosophy of civilizations and cultures, imho. Abbe Georges Lemaitre proposed his Theory of the Primordial Atom in 1927, and one Albert Einstein was, shall we say, somewhat skeptical? Einstein, while not taking exception to the mathematics of Lemaître's theory, refused to accept the idea of an expanding universe; Lemaître recalled him commenting "Vos calculs sont corrects, mais votre physique est abominable"[4] ("Your math is correct, but your physics is abominable.") LHW

Phyti - You must have missed Janus' Animation LHW

Well, this seems to be as close to vindication as I am going to get - Thank you! LHW

1. Does EO see A & B close and collide at 1.4c? (yes or no) 2. Does EO see the light from A reach B sooner, i.e., at 1.7c? (yes or no) 3. If B sends a laser pulse to EO when B receives the light from A, will this not confirm to EO that EO has seen information exchanged between A & B at 1.7c? (yes or no) LHW

I will yield the point that light will get from A to B before the collision, but if you pick up the thread from HERE, I maintain that I am not the one who is confused. And will at least ONE poster at least acknowledge that scaling up the known behavior of particle colliders to spaceships makes for an interesting discussion? LHW

I stand corrected - but does Varshni? Did Luyten record a high proper motion for TON 202 (TN 202 per Luyten 1969), regardless as to whether or not Luyten called it a quasar? Is the location of TON 202 different between Luyten 1969 and H & B 1993 (which identified quasars, not proper motion). Since you appear to be willing and able, would YOU kindly compare the ra and decl between Luyten 1969 and H & B 1993, and show us what proper motion it reveals? Note that Varshni WELCOMED more study on his observations, but his work has been (systematically?) ignored for over 30 years. Some of Varshni's critics may take pleasure in the SYSTEM'S RETRIBUTION for his heresy. LHW

I'm sure you have a point, but seriously - WHO is available to record any more data points? Halton Arp is barred from major observatories and EVERYONE ELSE seems to be looking for gravitational lensing (89, count 'em, 89 authors at my last tally)... LHW

Umm, I believe Varshni wanted to have two data points that differed in time, so he used the best sources he had which provided this. I'm sure a current data point would be most helpful. I cannot help but feel that it might be career-ending for a young astronomer to provide this, somehow. LHW There is Biretta's observation of superluminality, and his conjectural explanation that doesn't "rock the boat". His explanation appears unprovable and unfalsifiable to me, but I would be delighted with a more definitive answer. Peace, y'all! LHW

Well, maybe we're getting to the heart of the matter - why would A or B have a BETTER idea about the information exchange rate than EO? Does he not, like the collider operator, have a valid idea - in fact, EO appears to be the one with the BEST idea about when they will collide, imo. The purpose of B sending a laser pulse to EO is to confirm, for any skeptics, that indeed, B received light from A before the collision, thus proving that,according to EO, A and B exchanged information at 1.7c, even though, according to A & B, the info exchange occurred at c. LHW