Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Big Bang Never Happened

page: 11
67
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 
I gave you a source to read but you didn't give me any, if you want to cite a source I'll look at it.

The reason I cited the source I did is that it takes the following approach:

www.astr.ua.edu...

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.


So without sources and direct examples to discuss your post might fall into the "oh yes it is" category? And the source I cited provided plenty of direct examples to discuss and you didn't rebut any of them.




posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
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, all of them are optical illusions by chance alone? Do a quick search on quasar/galaxy pairs and check out the pictures yourself, every single one is ... what? Fake? An illusion? A chance occurrence that just happens to have a bridge of matter aligned perfectly with the quasar?

I've read the explanations for quasars as accepted by current cosmology, but it just doesn't make any sense that all of them are by chance perfectly aligned with a bridge of matter that doesn't appear to have any other source of gravitational tug to produce it. I mean, that's one hell of a chance occurrence! I'd rather believe in god than that. o_0



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

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


What pics?

I see one pic in the link you sent me. And the distribution of quasars does allow for a few outliers that may not be 11 billion years old, so it's not shocking if there are exceptions. Do I have to buy that book mentioned in the link you sent me to see the other pics?

The link I sent you had 1 pic of a bridge, so I've seen that one, but I apparently haven't seen as many as you. I need specifics to investigate your claims please.

Thanks



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I think you skipped over the next sentence.


Do a quick search on quasar/galaxy pairs and check out the pictures yourself, every single one is ...


You asked for a link describing the problem, I provided it. I'm not going to run off hunting down all the pictures.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by masterp
 


Man, I can't even wrap my head around the dizzying amount of paradoxes and invisible "things" needed to explain current observations to make the BBT work. Just boggles my mind.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

I appreciate your knowledge and understanding on this subject, it has helped me to understand what my questions are more clearly (that might sound weird but it's true). One such clarity has been a difficulty in reading most material on cosmology. I now understand that this is due to the ambiguous way some terms and words are used, this has now been my focus.

When it comes to the age and distance of a celestial object I had previously assumed this was the same thing referring to the spot and time from emission of light. It was also my understanding that the way in which objects were measured for distance (and age) had limits with accuracy that decreased over greater distances. Now I am interested in how all of this has changed, or better yet, how it is being done now.

When I read comments like, "Distances have multiple definitions", I wonder how this effects age measurements. If the redshift of light has been used as a way to measure distance, age and velocity then concerns for inaccuracy multiply.
The contradiction of 'H' to Quasars' apparent brightness has to do with relativity. Some Quasars have greater luminosity than is possible for their respective distance according to the theory of relativity. I'm working from memory here so if I can find the original link I'll post it but it may have come from one of Dr. Arp's articles.

So if our way of measuring distance is flawed (has multiple definitions-Source PP download from your link), apparent bridging-grouping or quantization can have at least two very different explanations (several illistrations linked here) and the observed redshift from these QSO's is in contradiction to the theory of relativity (super luminous objects) then my question is, "What do we have?" Is there some other way of measuring age, distance and velocity? I think there is a double standard here and I feel that people do not see it, ignore it or I am missing the point. With your help in this discussion I am leaning away from "I am missing the point".


As where I have difficulty in reading cosmology it is the very opposite when it comes to reading about alternative theories. I have found that some subjects I love to read because it is easy to understand and this accelerates always coming back to the same point. The contradiction from what we observe in our Universe to what we are told we are observing. Philosophically, Understanding is truth and confusion is fallacy



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Discussing this with you has made me think and research further too so we've both benefited from our discussion here!

I looked at Arp's site and illustrations.

Let's start with his rebuttal here:

www.haltonarp.com...

He shows the NASA image that claimed there is no bridge.

Then he showed a manipulated photo showing a bridge, so he claims.
I tried what he said and downloaded the highest resolution image available here:
hubblesite.org...

Here are the 3 photos:

Nasa photo from Arp's site:


Arp's manipulation of that photo:


My manipulation of the highest resolution photo I could find (from hubblesite.org... )


If you want to call that a bridge like Dr Arp insists it is, then feel free. It looks to me like an optical artifact as a result of photographing 2 bright objects so close together. And I'm not the only one who thinks so, as Dr Arp points out:


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.


One might argue that prominent professionals might have something to lose by admitting it's real and that's why they don't, but I'm not a prominent professional and in my independent opinion, the prominent professionals are right on this one, there's no bridge here.

We have to look at specific cases and claims of bridges to evaluate them. Unlike the other bridge referenced here: www.astr.ua.edu... which may just be a coincidence, this one isn't even a coincidence, there is no bridge but of course everyone needs to form their own opinion.

I also looked at Dr Arp's illustrations where I also see no bridges:





The sky is a big place with 100 billion galaxies and lots of objects that are different distances away can appear close to each other from our perspective, but that doesn't mean that they are close to wach other. This should be obvious and especially with no bridge, the argument is not very credible without further proof.

Lastly I have one more point to make, going slightly off topic for an analogy. Quantum mechanics is extremely bizarre and the predictions from it are very non-intuitive and sometimes even mind-boggling. It seems like an inelegant theory and may not even be right in the sense that Newton's ideas about gravity weren't precisely right, but like Newton's theories, quantum mechanics does a great though not perfect job of predicting the observational evidence so that's why it's accepted whether it's right or not.

I suspect some part of the cosmological theory is wrong now, like the modern version of Phlogiston. But until someone comes up with a theory that explains the observational evidence better than current theories, the current theories will continue to be used. In the case of Phlogiston, somebody found that when magnesium burns it gets heavier which tanked the phlogiston theory. Some people seem to think these bridges are the "magnesium" that will tank the redshift theories, but Dr Arp's claim that the NASA photo shows a bridge doesn't hold up under scrutiny. So I don't think we've found the "magnesium" yet.

But I do have a gut feel our current theories have major problems, we just need somebody to provide credible evidence of this and provide a theory with better predictions of the observational evidence. So far Dr Arp has failed to do that, and nobody else has succeeded yet either. But that doesn't mean it won't happen, 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?

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   

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?


I concur and I have also seen a change towards this in the last few years, for example the usage of the word 'Quintessence'. Several years ago I researched this word out of curiosity and read through the links all the way into the Mythical-Supernatural and originating beyond recorded history. I didn't think much of all that until I looked up the word recently and found it has been adopted by cosmologists to describe the theoretical "dark energy". I think this was a big step.

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.

I am 'on the fence' over the issues of galactic bridging and QSO/galactic quantization. Add with that the super-luminosity of these Quasars at their supposed distance according to their redshift value and that fence sitting changes. I think we are observing a very different phenomena.

Just to be clear, for an object to have the magnitude that is observed from these QSO's and also be at the distances that the redshift values put them at contradicts relativity. How can anything generate that much energy without collapsing into a singularity? These single points of light are said to be generating more energy than an entire galaxy, I don't see how this does not violate relativity.

I think this is more than enough reason to consider light's Doppler effect to have another cause and I am not the only one that had this thought. William G. Tifft and even Edwin Hubble had their reservations about this saying this may represent an unrecognized principle of nature.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
The first two pages didn't mention the cosmic radiation.
Even Lerner the guy who wrote the book of the same title
had to mention the radiation cause.
All the billions and billions of stars of Carl Sagan must be
making quite a lot of UV that bust up interstellar gases.
Then the exploding stars adding very fast particles.
People who strive to engineer extra planet activity would
never tell the truth even if they had it.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   

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.


Actually the History channel played a rerun of a good "The Universe" episode today called "Dark Matter" (If you search "History.Channel.The.Universe.Season.2.06of18" you might find a link to it. But I didn't see it listed here: www.history.com... where you can watch full episodes of "The Universe" on the history.com site)

In that episode, they still don't know WHAT dark matter is, but they presented evidence that they now know WHERE it is, based on gravitational lensing studies.

That makes it a little harder to conclude dark matter doesn't exist depending on how good those studies are, I'll have to look for them and review them.

We live on dark matter (The Earth) so how can it be fictitious as you claim? 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)

The part of that episode that struck me as odd, is that 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.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:27 AM
link   

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. An interesting point is that all of the planets and probably all of the moons in this solar system emit their own EM waves (source and reflective), they're all singing-even our Moon (Google 'sounds from space')!

Again you got me rethinking about key words wondering if I understand them correctly, which is good. Before I put time into the understanding of dark energy/matter, and a possible connection to Aether/Quintessence, I wanted to work on QSO's.
My thought was to list what we know about quasars separating that from the descriptions from BBTs and alternate theories. I think there might be enough information available to get a good understanding of what they are.

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.

+An alternate theory has them as proto galaxies that have been ejected out of the center of a nearby 'parent' galaxy. Their high redshift values have to do with their low mass and their original velocity (z=v/m) and these values will change quickly as their mass increases. Higher velocity = higher 'z' value, higher mass = lower 'z' value. I think this will also work well with relativity.

-This not only contradicts the BBT but there is a lack of any real evidence proving for or against.


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.



[edit on 9/30/2009 by Devino]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   

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.


Here's one definition from AstronomyToday, the one I'm using:

www.astronomytoday.com...


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.

Now using that definition, hopefully you'll agree the Earth qualifies, in the sense that if an exact duplicate of Earth were located in another galaxy, I suspect even our manmade lights would not be observable from our location here. Very dim star remnants that emit a lot more light than the earth might also not be observable as luminous objects. So actually the criterion isn't really that it emits NO light, the criterion is that the amount of light emitted is so low as to be not observable when the object is located in another galaxy. The basic problem that dark matter must solve is the rotation rate of galaxies so the basic definition doesn't rule out objects like the Earth.

Now the attributes of dark matter that you describe, I have also heard, but I believe that those attributes are not based on the definition of dark matter, but instead based on theories that have determined what dark matter may or may not actually consist of. It is those theories I am bringing into question, which is why I said in my last post:

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.


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.

There's no doubt that QSOs are very amazing objects, whatever they are.


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.


Thanks that gave me a good laugh!



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

From your link.

whose existence [dark matter] is suggested because of the effects of its gravity on the rotation rate of galaxies.

First off I would consider the Earth and other similar objects 'matter', neither light nor dark, but I get your point about planets being virtually invisible at such great distances. Since our Sun is 99.9% of all the mass in this solar system then this leaves far too little to be considered dark matter.


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.

This is where I think it gets interesting, there is a yet to be discovered cause for rotation and galactic bonding. Not only is there a force that causes objects to rotate but the rotations are generally in the same direction and orbits on a plane in the same direction. This unknown force is also responsible for how galaxies hold themselves together as they rotate and not get their spiral arms twisted up even though the center of galaxies rotate at a faster rate than does the outer arms.

If a Quasar is a very bright object of subatomic particles that was recently ejected out from a galaxy then we should expect it to follow along the galactic plane (equatorial ejection). It may not actually orbit the galaxy but we should at least see a possible curve or arc in the same direction as the rotation of the parent galaxy. This is something that I have not yet looked into so I might be completely wrong.

The equation z=v/m is a description of the equivalence principle, in other words it shows that the observable local effects of a gravitational field are indistinguishable from those arising from acceleration. In this case mass slows down any observed acceleration so objects of very low mass outside of a galaxy will have a high RS value that is indistinguishable from an accelerating force such as an expanding Universe.
(z=redshift v=velocity & m=mass)


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.

I would assume that QSOs follow the inverse square law and by comparing their magnitude to that of some individual stars it's obvious that they are many, many times brighter. Even if QSOs were in the same location as the galaxies they would be considered the brightest single objects known and at that point the only thing that is brighter are whole galaxies. Put QSOs at their respective distance according to the observed RS values and this makes them even brighter than entire galaxies.

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.

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.


Cosmology does not follow the rule, "The simple answer is usually the best". They seem to prefer the most complex answer which says a lot about the desired goal.

[edit on 9/30/2009 by Devino]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   

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.


I suspect you're confused between the age of the QSO and the age of the light coming from it. Almost all of the QSOs we see burned up all their energy over 10 billion years ago, and now they're gone and have been for 0ver 10 billion years. there may be a few odd ones around but most are gone. They didn't last that long. Remember this graph from page 10?


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
See this thread: www.scienceforums.net...



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.


I see your arguments.

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.


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.


Look at the raisin bread analogy cosmologists are so fond of using. Assume the raisins are the galaxies.

When the bread rises/expands, the raisins all move apart, but the raisins never get any bigger, just the space between them. Their reasoning is that the local gravitational field of the galaxy prevents the expanding space "within the raisin". So the space only expands "between the raisins" I admit it sounds strange to me, and may not be right, but that's what they think. I can't prove them wrong but that doesn't make them right.

And if you want to use the balloon analogy, put little stickers on the balloon instead of drawing spots, that way the stickers won't get bigger when you blow up the balloon!



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


That graph is more like assumptions based upon assumptions and relying on impossible to prove evidence. This goes back to some of the earlier questions I brought up.

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? Just because this fits in with a big bang model and that is what should happen is not nearly good enough. Besides the energy emitted from these things would still be way too much...it still contradicts 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.

Quasi-stellar object was a name derived before anything was known about it. It appears to emit light just like stars but act more like galaxies.


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.
-Source, Answers.com

It is not a star but it is also not a galaxy. Again the proof happens to be arbitrarily adjustable measurements and is no proof. It has been admitted over and again that some of these redshift values are in error, there seems to be a yet unrecognized phenomena that makes these z values so high. I have shown a good alternate explanation to how these redshifts can be in error (z=v/m) but lets look at relativity.

How large can a star get before becoming a black hole?

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.

If these redshift values are in error and QSOs are actually next to these galaxies then they don't need to defy relativity. This does bring up another question though.
Do galaxies create stars or do stars cluster together and create galaxies?



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


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?


The velocity is deemed to be inferred from redshift. But regarding distance/age, there are many other measurements for objects greater than the distance of the Andromeda galaxy as shown in this graph:

universe-review.ca...


Type 1A supernovae, Cepheid variables and other measurements can help confirm distance. Astronomers look for multiple correlations if possible to confirm their results.

Type 1A Supernova explained:



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?


QSOs do pose a special challenge. Unline galaxies which have type 1A supernovae that can be used to determine distance, I'm not aware of any such standard candle for the QSO, so the distance estimates may be based largely on redshift assumptions. I agree it's somewhat of a circular argument, but almost all have high redshifts. There is some debate about whether the redshift is cosmological but the majority of cosmologists think it is.


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.


Just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean it can't happen. What if the mass in the quasar has enough rotational speed to keep it from collapsing but just barely, like the core of a developing galaxy? Then huge masses could collapse slowly yet release huge amounts of energy. I think this video might be right?



There's no violation of relativity in that, and it explains why we don't see any newer QSOs.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I think using Cepheid Variables yields good measurements but beyond its limitations the rate of inaccuracy increases with distance no matter what is used. As for QSOs cosmology is way off in my opinion and this is the basis for my debate and what inspired me to think that science is heading in the wrong direction.

What's the critical mass for a star?
Your video link said it was 1.4 solar masses for the white dwarf star and Wiki claims 20 solar masses or more, maybe up to 33.
I realize that I need to be careful when using terms like apparent brightness and emitting energy. A supernova has an apparent brightness that is greater than all of the stars in the Milky Way which is different than how much energy it emits.

How many solar masses are in the Milky Way, billions? So if a Quasar is a single point or source of energy and they are very far away that would make them billions of solar masses at least perhaps even trillions which is what I mean by contradicting relativity E=mc^2.
I don't know how better to explain this, this is beyond imagination and not just my imagination. Energy, Mass and the velocity of light are relative. There are limits to how much we can increase any of these values before we have problems with the theory. The amount of energy and mass an object consists of has limitations just like the velocity of light.

I found your second video also interesting, they called Quasars young or proto galaxies, I know the cosmological model would have them tens of billions of years old/LYs away but never the less it was interesting.

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

[edit on 10/3/2009 by Devino]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   

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


Almost always fun, but 30 year old videos aren't as much fun as some stuff made today. But they can be informative if you can tolerate the dryness.

Here's a very informative 4 part series on quasars, which is the best I could find. While much on cosmology has changed in 30 years, it seems much of the material presented in this video is still valid today. They even look at alternative theories including an interview of Dr. Arp!

And if someone can post links to better, more updated videos on quasars, please do so, as understanding them is key to some of the concepts in this thread such as Arp's claims of bridges, etc.

Project Universe - Quasars


That's part 1 and you'll find the links to parts 2 and up in the lower right section of the youtube page.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
There are several things that effect our concept of time here on Earth. Earth's gravity, rotation and magnetic field. We are also under the effects of the gravity and electro-magnetic energy of the Sun and the Milky Way. Linear velocity is not considered acceleration but rotation and orbital motions are. A big factor is the rotation of the galaxy itself, everything in it is effected by the gravity pressure and rotational acceleration which creates a galactic time bubble. Time is different outside of this bubble.

Time is relative to acceleration from a force so the greater the acceleration the slower time will appear to move. This works the same for gravity, the more gravity the slower time will appear to move.
E=mc^2 has an upper limit of how fast something can go (speed of light), how big it can get and how much energy it can produce. The equation also has a lower limit; light can only travel so slow, mass can be only so small and there will always be a small amount of energy never reaching absolute zero. Relativity shows that with lower accelerations time will appear to move faster and the same with lower gravitational forces, low gravity faster time. This is a combination of squaring the constant and the equivalence principle, it has an upper and lower limit and is indistinguishable from gravity or motion.

Think of the difference between linear and rotational motions. Linear motion needs a constant force to cause acceleration, remove the force and the acceleration stops. Rotation is motion that can be both an acceleration and a constant velocity simultaneously. I think there is a force causing rotation but that is another topic, in a way.

An object will keep spinning long after the applied force is gone and yet inertia is still felt, centrifugal force, which indicates acceleration. To measure or feel inertia is a true indication of acceleration and I think is proof for the existence of a Luminiferous Aether. The Aether is resisting the presence of accelerations of a mass and the by-product is gravity and rotation.

As we rotate with the Milky Way galaxy our concept of time is created by all of these forces and accelerations within it. When we observe an object outside of any galaxy that potentially has low mass/gravity and is rotating very slowly or not at all we should observe a different measure of time from this object. This is what I think is happening with Quasars.

The equivalence principle states that we cannot discern between motional accelerations and gravitational accelerations so these high redshift values might not mean motional accelerations after all and therefore don't need to be billions of LYs away. It could be the product of a very low mass and non rotating object that is showing a faster time then from our frame of reference. To observe the Milky Way from a high redshift Quasar it may appear that we have a high blue shift because time is moving very slow for us.

In my opinion this is by far the simplest explanation and not only follows the theory of relativity but actually is proof in favor of it. Complications are from the contradictions between the laws of physics/relativity and cosmology. The more I learn from this debate and from researching for it the better I understand how simple this concept is. This strengthens my belief that most cosmologists do not understand relativity and therefore I cannot take them seriously.





new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join