infinitesolid2 Posted August 15, 2009 Posted August 15, 2009 The satellite is falling to the Earth the same rate the curve of the Earth is falling away from the satellite thus an orbit is formed. Does not make sence. This orbit & gravity is a little bit strange. I don't even believe the universe is expanding. Pictures is taken of distant galaxys over many days, where the blur from expanding universe? Gafferuk, Bristol.
iNow Posted August 15, 2009 Posted August 15, 2009 Reality has no requirement to act in a way which makes sense to you, nor does your belief have anything whatsoever to do with the way nature operates. The satellites don't "float." They are placed at such a height and travel at such a speed that they fall down to the earth at the same rate that the earth curves away from them... Precisely as DJBruce already indicated above. As for expansion, the light reaching us is red shifted, which in some ways could be considered a blur if you really want to look at it in such a manner.
infinitesolid2 Posted August 15, 2009 Author Posted August 15, 2009 Reality has no requirement to act in a way which makes sense to you, nor does your belief have anything whatsoever to do with the way nature operates. The satellites don't "float." They are placed at such a height and travel at such a speed that they fall down to the earth at the same rate that the earth curves away from them... Precisely as DJBruce already indicated above. As for expansion, the light reaching us is red shifted, which in some ways could be considered a blur if you really want to look at it in such a manner. If something is moving away from us, then it will apear smaller.
DJBruce Posted August 15, 2009 Posted August 15, 2009 Something moving away won't appear smaller, but something really far away will. At the distances and speeds dealt with in expansion this observation is irrelevant, so the doppler effect is observed and a redshift is measured exactly like iNow said.
infinitesolid2 Posted August 15, 2009 Author Posted August 15, 2009 If i throw a fire ball, it looks smaller, if i took many pictures and blended them together, i would see a blur (tracer effect) Theres no blur in hubble pictures. So i don't belive it's an expanding universe.
DJBruce Posted August 15, 2009 Posted August 15, 2009 If i throw a fire ball, it looks smaller, if i took many pictures and blended them together, i would see a blur. Theres no blur in hubble pictures. So i don't belive it's an expanding universe. If you look at a golf ball a mile away can you tell if it is moving away? Observations on the micro-scale on Earth do not always translate to the macro-scale in space. How do you get around the redshift data?
infinitesolid2 Posted August 15, 2009 Author Posted August 15, 2009 Over 20 days you would, depense on the speed of the ball. Just remember when some chap made up the idea of an expanding universe, there ws no powerful telescopes to see other galaxys. There is no "REAL EVIDANCE" of an expanding universe.
iNow Posted August 15, 2009 Posted August 15, 2009 Just remember when some chap made up the idea of an expanding universe, there ws no powerful telescopes to see other galaxys. There is no "REAL EVIDANCE" of an expanding universe. No, that is not correct, infinitesolid2.
DJBruce Posted August 15, 2009 Posted August 15, 2009 Over 20 days you would, depense on the speed of the ball. Just remember when some chap made up the idea of an expanding universe, there ws no powerful telescopes to see other galaxys. There is no "REAL EVIDANCE" of an expanding universe. You are completely wrong, Edwin Hubble was the first to see other galaxies and then after that the idea of a expanding universe was made. I beg you do some research on redshifts, and how they prove that the universe is expanding.
Janus Posted August 15, 2009 Posted August 15, 2009 I don't even believe the universe is expanding. Pictures is taken of distant galaxys over many days, where the blur from expanding universe? Let's see, the best telescope has a resolution of 0.05 arc sec. This means that looking at a galaxy 200 million parsecs away, the smallest "piece" of the galaxy that it can resolve is about 5 parsecs across. A parsec is 2.26 light years and A light year is 9,460,800,000,000 km, so 5 parsecs is 153788544000000 km The Hubble constant which determines how fast an object is moving away from us is 75 km/sec/million parsec. So a galaxy 200 parsec away would be moving at 1500 km/sec. That means over a two week exposure, the galaxy will have moved 1,814,400,000 km. This is 1/847787 of the smallest part of the galaxy that the best telescope can resolve. So it would take a exposure time of over 32,000 years for the galaxy to move enough to produce a blur that could be resolved by our telescopes. Picking a further galaxy to get a higher speed of movement doesn't make any difference because you are also increasing the size of the smallest bit of the galaxy that can be resolved by the same factor.
infinitesolid2 Posted August 15, 2009 Author Posted August 15, 2009 So theres still no "real evidance" of an expanding universe? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI think i have to do a lot of research.
Klaynos Posted August 15, 2009 Posted August 15, 2009 Posts split from here The evidence for universal expansion is in the shift of frequency of photons due to the expansion. Over the distances that we are talking about the expansion over a few day long exposure is tiny,could you measure by blur a golf ball 10 miles away moving 0.1mm over a few days? Especially where the light level is very low. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWhat do you mean by "real evidence"?
Recommended Posts