A New Cosmological Redshift

[doG]

Reaper

I can bring up a dozen questions that have no answers.

 

I can do that as well. All I have to do is go to any thread you've started where people are still waiting for you to support your claims and I will find dozens of questions without answers.

[New Science]

DH

 

If those 2 obects were separated as you claim, then to which object does that star bridge belong to?

 

If it belongs to NGC 7603B, then how would you esplain a quasar with only one arm?

 

And if it belonfs to the cpmpanion galaxy, then how do you explain a galaxy that has an arm that is 'cut' off at its 'elbow(?) that is not realistic.

 

NS

 

I can do that as well. All I have to do is go to any thread you've started where people are still waiting for you to support your claims and I will find dozens of questions without answers.

 

I always provide sources for my postings.

 

Like the Laws of Conservation, the M-M Int. experiments, Arps RS Anomaly,

Observations from NASA, S & T magazine articles and any other such sources.

 

Now can you answer a couple of questions regarding the BBT like:

 

What are the 'initial conditions' for its existense?

 

What is driving the current expansion since it is NOT an explosion? Dark energy would be a wrong answer.

 

No vague sources, please.

 

NS

[Reaper]

DH

 

If those 2 obects were separated as you claim, then to which object does that star bridge belong to?

 

If it belongs to NGC 7603B, then how would you esplain a quasar with only one arm?

 

And if it belonfs to the cpmpanion galaxy, then how do you explain a galaxy that has an arm that is 'cut' off at its 'elbow(?) that is not realistic.

 

NS

 

What are you talking about? Read the quote and the paper provided. The arm of one galaxy extends much further out then previously thought as revealed by better photos of the system.

 

 

 

I always provide sources for my postings.

 

Really? Save for the 22nd post on this thread, I have not observed any such thing at any part in your entire history on the net, and certainly not in our previous skirmishes .

 

 

Like the Laws of Conservation, the M-M Int. experiments, Arps RS Anomaly,

Observations from NASA, S & T magazine articles and any other such sources.

 

All of which support the mainstream theories, so that statement is pretty meaningless and reveals quite some, ahem, startling things about you .

 

Now can you answer a couple of questions regarding the BBT like:

 

What are the 'initial conditions' for its existense?

 

See, that's the thing, the BBT isn't a comprehensive "how/why did the universe begin in the first place" theory. It is a theory that specifically states that at some point in the past, the universe was much smaller and that some finite time ago it started expanding and continues to expand to this day. In fact, the Big Bang theory was not originally called the big bang theory until the 60's.

 

Technically, the Big Bang has never ended, it is still occurring because space is still expanding. And we have found that the expansion is now accelerating.

 

As for what caused this "primeval atom" to expand into the universe we observe today, that's something we are still trying to find out. Unlike you, we can admit that there are questions we don't know the answers to. And, we are also patient, we know that some of the answers will be solved eventually, one way or another.

 

What is driving the current expansion since it is NOT an explosion? Dark energy would be a wrong answer.

 

Actually, it is dark energy. Of course, I'm probably not being a bit fair here, would you care to explain why dark matter is the wrong answer?

 

 

No vague sources, please.

 

NS

 

Of course, you probably mean no sources that contradict or don't agree with you.

 

The first and only source you have provided thus far has been debunked with a simple check at wikipedia. You care to try again?

[New Science]

What are you talking about? Read the quote and the paper provided. The arm of one galaxy extends much further out then previously thought as revealed by better photos of the system.

 

But the arm between the two galaxies has a lot more stars between them.

the extended part has much less stars to be seen. Big difference!

 

Really? Save for the 22nd post on this thread, I have not observed any such thing at any part in your entire history on the net, and certainly not in our previous skirmishes .

 

All of which support the mainstream theories, so that statement is pretty meaningless and reveals quite some, ahem, startling things about you .

 

See, that's the thing, the BBT isn't a comprehensive "how/why did the universe begin in the first place" theory. It is a theory that specifically states that at some point in the past, the universe was much smaller and that some finite time ago it started expanding and continues to expand to this day. In fact, the Big Bang theory was not originally called the big bang theory until the 60's.

 

Technically, the Big Bang has never ended, it is still occurring because space is still expanding. And we have found that the expansion is now accelerating.

 

As for what caused this "primeval atom" to expand into the universe we observe today, that's something we are still trying to find out. Unlike you, we can admit that there are questions we don't know the answers to. And, we are also patient, we know that some of the answers will be solved eventually, one way or another.

 

Actually, it is dark energy. Of course, I'm probably not being a bit fair here, would you care to explain why dark matter is the wrong answer?

 

Sure. Dark matter would not contribute to expansion but rather to a contraction.

Dark energy is just a tiny addition to the Hubble expansion and SN1a's are really the most unreliable for use as distance candles. So instead of using magnitudes, they use 'time dilation'.

 

NS

[Klaynos]

 

Sure. Dark matter would not contribute to expansion but rather to a contraction.

Dark energy is just a tiny addition to the Hubble expansion and SN1a's are really the most unreliable for use as distance candles. So instead of using magnitudes, they use 'time dilation'.

 

NS

 

How so? Why are SN1a's so bad? Bit more than a tiny addition in it's result though....

[D H]

But the arm between the two galaxies has a lot more stars between them.

the extended part has much less stars to be seen. Big difference!

Those goalposts of yours have some mighty big wheels.

SN1a's are really the most unreliable for use as distance candles.

First thing, please stop with the acronyms. Second thing, what the ???? Type 1a supernovae are deemed as the most reliable standard candle precisely because we have a very good model of how they form, very definite predictions of what we should see based on those models, and observations that match the predictions. In short, science. A blanket rejection doesn't cut it. One reason this thread is in pseudoscience is because http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=33653

You are contradicting accepted science. Accepted science has a large amount of data supporting it, so if your thesis runs contrary to experimental results, you have basically pre-falsified your work. If you are proposing a new theory, it has to do better than the one it's supplanting. Remember, you have to be consistent with all of what has been observed, not just some small subset of it.

[New Science]

How so? Why are SN1a's so bad? Bit more than a tiny addition in it's result though....

 

There were about 8 versions of 'distance candles' used to measure the distance to the Virgo Cluster of galaxies.

 

The SN1a's had the largest error margin of them all at +/- 5 megaparsecs out of a distance of 16.7 megaparsecs.

 

I will try to locate that reference later.

 

NS

 

First thing, please stop with the acronyms. Second thing, what the ???? Type 1a supernovae are deemed as the most reliable standard candle precisely because we have a very good model of how they form, very definite predictions of what we should see based on those models, and observations that match the predictions. In short, science. A blanket rejection doesn't cut it. One reason this thread is in pseudoscience is because http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=33653

 

I will post a reference for the error margins of SN1a's soon to show you how inacurate they are.

 

White Dwarf stars have very large temperature ranges from about 3000K to as high as 100,000K

Also, there are mass variations.

So with such large variations in temperature and mass differences, how can their radiation patterns be so accurate to measure distance?

It just does not seem logical.

 

That reference above about psuedoscience is just opinions.

 

The BBT should be classified as Psudo science since it is not real science but CosmoGONY .

 

Remember, it was the opinions of the POWER faction that threatened Galileo with death and forced him to recant the truth. Galileo was Italys greatest scientist.

 

NS

[Klaynos]

Galileo was Italys greatest scientist.

 

And his ideas were fundamentally based on maths!

[Mr Skeptic]

And his ideas were fundamentally based on maths!

 

New observations with his telescope were quite important. Observing phases of planets in accordance with Copernicus' theory.

 

Michael Faraday was the only great scientist I have ever heard of that was mathematically challenged. I believe he was considered the greatest experimentalist of his time. Needless to say, theory was not his strong suit.

[New Science]

And his ideas were fundamentally based on maths!

 

He was a math professor but his main accomplishments were in his home made telescopes and experiments with gravity.

 

NS

 

To All

 

I have recovered the site that shows the different methods of measuring space distances for the Virgo Cluster of galaxies.

See below:

 

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cosmicd.html

 

You wll notice as you scroll down to the different methods of distance candles, that the SN1a's have the largest error of all the others.

 

NS

[YT2095]

 

Michael Faraday was the only great scientist I have ever heard of that was mathematically challenged.

 

it`s not That uncommon I`m sure?, although I`m by no means "Great" I`m non the less a Scientist and Avid experimenteer, and yet I Totally suck at maths!

[Klaynos]

He was a math professor but his main accomplishments were in his home made telescopes and experiments with gravity.

 

NS

 

 

Telescope design is highly mathematical, and he didn't just watch things and go "oh pretty" and you were comparing himself to you and that's what you're doing pretty much.

 

I suspect that's due to the measurement of the SN not being too great, do you know when it was done?

[New Science]

Telescope design is highly mathematical, and he didn't just watch things and go "oh pretty" and you were comparing himself to you and that's what you're doing pretty much.

 

I suspect that's due to the measurement of the SN not being too great, do you know when it was done?

 

I just mentioned that the SN1a's are a poor example for measuring distances because their error margins are the largest of the 8 different methods used in that URL above.

That post on the different methods were being taught by a university in the UK?, I think.

 

This Dark Energy was a serindipidy discovery by the researchers that included Santage and Permutter to establish a precise Hubble constant..

 

NS

[Reaper]

The tables provided on that link apply to distance. That same table also shows the range for which they can be reliably used. Supernova a1's have the furthest range of any of them, so given it's uncertainly it's actually a very good and a very reliable cosmic yardstick. I would imagine that the reason that the uncertainty was high in that case is because the Virgo Cluster is so close and supernova events are rare. How far something is and how fast the universe is expanding are two different things, and as such the way they are determined is different.

 

 

 

 

In any event, this still doesn't make your theory any more credible or your position any more tenable. Sorry, try again.

[Klaynos]

That was only teh uncertainty for one measurement wasn't it? One very specific case, and we don't know how old that was... technologies more on...

[Reaper]

That was only teh uncertainty for one measurement wasn't it? One very specific case, and we don't know how old that was... technologies more on...

 

Well, on the topic of measuring distances using supernova, that is actually a relatively recent thing. It's only been around for about 10 or so years. Because supernovas are so rare, the only way you can detect them is by taking a picture of a large portion of the sky, and then a couple of weeks or so later to take another picture of that same portion and then compare the photos and/or spectral analysis, etc. The technology to do this has since improved from it's first inception, but the method is still the same. So, I doubt you can get the measurements that much better unless you improve the resolution of such photos, or limit yourself to certain types of objects.

 

 

Determining distances across interstellar and intergalactic space tends to be very tricky in general, because of the vast size of the universe and also the vast size of the objects in general too. An object like a galactic cluster is HUGE, which I'm sure most of us know. In the case of the tables on the Virgo Cluster in that link, we don't know what galaxy that supernova was from, and where it came from is important because if it happened at the far side (relative to us) of the cluster then the uncertainty could be larger then usual. It's the same with any other method, whether it be Cepheids, nebula, nova, etc. The reason supernova's are good is because, as it has been mentioned before, they are more or less all the same brightness.

 

The best and most accurate way to measure distances across the universe is to use a parallax, but that only works for stars close to Earth, not for galaxies and superclusters.

 

 

Regardless, given the range at which supernova's can reliably determine distances and can be detected, it's uncertainty is inconsequential for the most part, and they are very reliable cosmic candles. And the fact that supernova's can sometimes have a significant uncertainty at times does not invalidate the Big Bang Theory or the fact that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

 

This pretty much smashes Mike C's objections. And to top it all off, all you really need is the galaxy's velocity in order to determine how fast the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, so I don't know what he's trying to get at.

Edited July 1, 2008 by Reaper
multiple post merged

[freezy]

we don't know how old that was... technologies more on...

 

From the source that was listed, the info in that chart is at least 12 years old. I agree, we've progressed quite a bit since then.

[Klaynos]

But we've now got experiments like swift which when a supernovae is detected you turn your telescope very very quickly to point at it... (Swift isn't a great example because it goes for GRBs which may or may not be precursors to supernovae)

[New Science]

This pretty much smashes Mike C's objections. And to top it all off' date=' all you really need is the galaxy's velocity in order to determine how fast the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, so I don't know what he's trying to get at.[/quote']

 

Reaper

 

You can use the Virgo Cluster redshift to determine its distance.

Its RS is determined to be .0035 for a selected group of the clusters galaxies or its central giant M87 that has a RS of .004.

 

I did this by using the redshift as a 'partial' of a redeshift of 'one' because that is what it is.

So dividing the RS .0035 into one gives us a value of 285 partials.

So mulitiply this with the VC distance that is determined to be 54^6 light years or 16.7 mega parsecs that equals the same value and you get a distance of 15^9 ly's. WOW!

 

Somthing is wrong here and I would call this the best way to determine the distance to any objects, by using the expansion method of the light waves because these redshifts are supposed to be precise methods of measurement..

 

NS

[New Science]

Reaper

 

You can use the Virgo Cluster redshift to determine its distance.

Its RS is determined to be .0035 for a selected group of the clusters galaxies or its central giant M87 that has a RS of .004.

 

I did this by using the redshift as a 'partial' of a redeshift of 'one' because that is what it is.

So dividing the RS .0035 into one gives us a value of 285 partials.

So mulitiply this with the VC distance that is determined to be 54^6 light years or 16.7 mega parsecs that equals the same value and you get a distance of 15^9 ly's. WOW!

 

Somthing is wrong here and I would call this the best way to determine the distance to any objects, by using the expansion method of the light waves because these redshifts are supposed to be precise methods of measurement..

 

NS

 

I would like to add the fact that this is an example of Arp's RS Anomaly.

The reason for this is that the current Virgo Cluster RS's are based on ordinary galaxies that have lower Red Shift 'ENERGIES than the galactic RS's that were derived from the HDFN where RS's of 7+ were observed.

So we can say that the ones observed in that deep field are the high energy QUASARS rather than the ordinary galaxies that the Malmquist bias eliminates.

 

So this would be further proof of the reality of Arps RS Anomaly.

 

NS

[Reaper]

It's truly amazing! After 2 pages of refutations, never mind the months you've spent at hypography pushing this garbage, you still re-post the exact same thing!

 

I don't think anyone here has anything more to add to this thread, if you didn't even bother to understand all the arguments we put forth, it's unlikely we will make any progress.

 

Before we inevitably close this topic, just like what happens in all the other threads, I'm just simply going to yet again repeat what I said earlier:

 

So' date=' in conclusion, it isn't mainstream science. There is very strong evidence that these intrinsic redshifts [u']simply do not exist[/u]. Nice try though. Hopefully, next time you will force me to have to actually get out my textbook on the subject .

 

 

 

All in favor of locking this thread and/or letting it sink, say I *raises hand*. There is no more to discuss.

 

Remember, it was the opinions of the POWER faction that threatened Galileo with death and forced him to recant the truth. Galileo was Italys greatest scientist.

 

NS

 

 

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

 

--->

I know Galileo' date=' and you're no Galileo. On the contrary, you're one of "they", people who, without any evidence in their favor, contradict real scientists. (Actually, "they" to whom you refer have been dead for over 300 years. The world has changed a bit since then.)

[/quote']

Edited July 7, 2008 by Reaper
multiple post merged

[New Science]

It's truly amazing! After 2 pages of refutations, never mind the months you've spent at hypography pushing this garbage, you still re-post the exact same thing!

 

I don't think anyone here has anything more to add to this thread, if you didn't even bother to understand all the arguments we put forth, it's unlikely we will make any progress.

 

Before we inevitably close this topic, just like what happens in all the other threads, I'm just simply going to yet again repeat what I said earlier:

 

 

 

 

 

All in favor of locking this thread and/or letting it sink, say I *raises hand*. There is no more to discuss.

 

 

 

 

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

 

--->

 

Hey, I admire ducks.

 

If quacks are not credible, than who is?

The chauvinist lion and his followers that practice the 'one god concept' that constitutes slavery?

 

Incidentally, that last post of mine is a DIFFERENT version of my real science. So there is no repitition!.

 

And regarding the BBT, I can promote a dozen different versions of falsifying the BB.

 

So throw away your religious BADGE and accept others opinions that can make sense.

 

NS

 

 

 

NS

[ajb]

Great come back New Science, now you really do sound like a quack!

 

3 pages and this is still going on?

[swansont]

So throw away your religious BADGE and accept others opinions that can make sense.

 

NS

 

What is demanded is that it not be opinion, but instead be something rigorous, falsifiable, and properly supported.

[D H]

So throw away your religious BADGE and accept others opinions that can make sense.

Your opinions run contrary to the facts. "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts." - Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.