It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
If any of these claims hold up, extragalactic astronomy is in for a real shock. We will examine the direct issues individually, hoping to avoid the "oh yes it is - oh no it's not" tone of many published papers.
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Arbitrageur
LINK
It's only assumed that redshifts are a similar to the Doppler Effect. Yet, it's shown here on good old planet earth that redshifts can be variable in nature and not an accurate measure of distance. Not only that, but I mean c'mon... look at the pics
Do a quick search on quasar/galaxy pairs and check out the pictures yourself, every single one is ...
Personally I can say that after more than 30 years of evidence disputed by widely publicized opinions that the bridge was false, I was saddened that not one prominent professional has now come forward to attest that it is, in fact, real.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I suspect a breakthrough may happen in the future. After all something has to be done about this dark matter and dark energy nonsense, right?
Originally posted by Devino
It has been my opinion for quite some time that the BBT did not and could not ever happen and more than likely space is not expanding, at least not as energetic as cosmologists explain it. It is also my opinion that neutron stars, magnetars, lookback time, dark matter, dark energy and gravity waves are all fictitious. I always say that we will most likely not find what we are not looking for no matter how many billions are spent.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
We live on dark matter (The Earth) so how can it be fictitious as you claim?
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
they have had people looking deep underground for dark matter for 10 years, and of course they never found it there. That's the last place I would have thought of looking.
Originally posted by Devino
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
We live on dark matter (The Earth) so how can it be fictitious as you claim?
If this is the case then I stand corrected, however I think calling the Earth "dark matter" is incorrect. I had thought dark matter was stuff that did not emit any kind of EM waves, neither source nor reflective, and was virtually non-detectable. This rules out all the planets and moons that I know of.
Dark matter is non-luminous matter, that cannot be directly detected by observing any form of electromagnetic radiation (light), but whose existence is suggested because of the effects of its gravity on the rotation rate of galaxies and the presence of clusters of galaxies.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But cosmologists think there are reasons why dark matter can't all be non-luminous bodies like the Earth, or dead stars that have burnt out all their fuel, or whatever. I'm not sure I agree with their reasons for eliminating all those possibilities. It seems to me that there could be burnt-out dead stars all over the place (brown dwarfs and MaCHOs were 2 types they mentioned)
Originally posted by Devino
What we know about QSO's
QSO, Quasi-Stellar Objects or Quasars seem to be extra galactic objects of single points of light that emit EM waves. They have high redshift values and are observed near galaxies and/or clusters.
+Cosmologists described them as point like galactic nuclei that are very energetic emitting light similar to how stars do rather than galaxies. Because of their high redshift values and super-luminisity they are considered to be the brightest and most energetic objects in the Universe. Expelling more energy from a single source than entire galaxies. Because of these high RS values they are considered to be very old and very distant objects.
-This super-luminosity directly contradicts relativity, that amount of energy from a single source brings up several problems.
Originally posted by Devino
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
they have had people looking deep underground for dark matter for 10 years, and of course they never found it there. That's the last place I would have thought of looking.
I know, I had some dark matter in my closet once but then I lost it. My mom would always say to look in the last place because when you're searching for something it's always in the last place you look.
whose existence [dark matter] is suggested because of the effects of its gravity on the rotation rate of galaxies.
Astronomers and cosmologists know that dark matter exists but as yet do not know what it is composed of, or how much of it there actually is....
Based on their rates of rotation, many astronomers think that up to 90 percent of the matter in a typical galaxy is invisible.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You mentioned before it directly contradicts relativity, what is your evidence for this? Now if you say the inflation part of the Big Bang model contradicts relativity I would automatically understand you, but this is more subtle.
Originally posted by masterp
If the universe is expanding, then matter should be expanding as well. Therefore, we should not perceive a doppler effect from the expansion of the universe.
In the balloon analogy, a spot on the balloon's surface expands in the same rate as the rest of the balloon.
If matter does not expand in the same rate as the universe, then the Big Bang is not a quantum explosion, but a normal explosion of matter, which violates relativity.
Originally posted by Devino
My point is how can an object be that far away, be as old as they are said to be and emit more energy than entire galaxies? E=mc^2 shows that they cannot.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
See this thread: www.scienceforums.net...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5c218f6efda8.jpg[/atsimg]
Note: "This plot dramatizes the relative brevity of the quasar era when the universe was 2-3 billion years old".
Stars emit light (single source) yet they can only get so big. Very large stars are said not to last long, they burn out quickly. If they continue to get bigger then at some point they will collapse into a singularity, explode or both yet this is still far smaller than the apparent size of QSOs (perhaps billions of times smaller). So as the theory goes, one Quasar emits more energy than all of the stars in the Milky Way galaxy combined. This is in contradiction to almost everything we know about stellar formation.
Every time I read about supposed evidence that is in favor of the BBT I see that it either doesn't make any sense at all or it contradicts it.
Then there are quotes like this one that make it sound so simple...
Originally posted by masterp
If the universe is expanding, then matter should be expanding as well. Therefore, we should not perceive a doppler effect from the expansion of the universe.
In the balloon analogy, a spot on the balloon's surface expands in the same rate as the rest of the balloon.
If matter does not expand in the same rate as the universe, then the Big Bang is not a quantum explosion, but a normal explosion of matter, which violates relativity.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
What you seem to be concluding is that a QSO is not a star. That's why they call it a QUASI-stellar object, since it's NOT a star. So the fact that something that is not a star doesn't follow stellar formation theory should come as no shock. So while you've proven it's not a star, which is true, you haven't proven any violation of relativity.
-Source, Answers.com
An astronomical object that appears starlike on a photographic plate but possesses many other characteristics, such as a large redshift, that prove that it is not a star.
Originally posted by Devino
If information for these surveys are derived from measurements that have multiple definitions then what do we actually have?
How do they discern distance, age and velocity?
Is the redshift value used to define all three of these measurements?
As for the impossible to prove evidence it is that these Quasars burned out 10 billion years ago but we will continue to see their light for another 2 billion years. Since the point is that we cannot see that they burned out then how can it be said that they burned out?
I know that there are many different sizes of stars and, IIRC, the larger ones burn out faster but there is a limit to how large they can get. There is also a limit to how much energy one can produce, for example a star cannot become the size of a galaxy and produce an equal or greater amount of energy. The thought is ridiculous but this is what we are lead to believe. To be honest I can't even imagine an object of that size emitting energy like a star yet thousands of times brighter than the Milky Way, and I have tried...it is beyond my imagination and in my opinion total fiction.
Originally posted by Devino
I would like to spend more time on this but my priority list is long so I do appreciate your contribution.
Add: Videos are almost always fun