Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: jgreen on 28 Sep 2005 03:06 George Dishman wrote: > <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message > news:1127814856.490827.50300(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > Jim I said a few days ago you were missing some > posts and continuing to repeat old errors. There > is another example today: > > http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2005/28/full/ > > I said some time ago I thought we were going to see > mounting evidence that our ideas of galaxy formation > need an overhaul and this is leading the same way. > If galaxies formed by slow aggregation then this > would be problematic. There is mounting evidence > that supermassive black holes are a key component and > I wonder whether we are seeing evidence that they and > dark matter clump first and pull in large masses of > gas that then forms stars very quickly so galaxies > start large and shrink rather than starting small > and growing, at least in the earliest epochs. > > George Thanks for the link. Sure enough, I note that the data was FIRST subjected to analysis under the assumption that the universe is expanding, and therefore frequencies were looked at in that "light". So long as such embedded bias is applied, I remain very unimpressed. It still seems increasingly obvious, that the better the views of large distances away, the more obvious it becomes that the universe on average is homogenous throughout our (limitted) field of vision, both for age and chemical composition. I have read somewhere lately (and of course can't find the ****), that there may even be quasars within the Milky Way, which have previously been wrongly assessed for distance from earth; also some which are inter-galactic space??????? Ooroo Jim
From: Eric Gisse on 28 Sep 2005 03:22 jgr...(a)seol.net.au wrote: > George Dishman wrote: > > <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message > > news:1127814856.490827.50300(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > Jim I said a few days ago you were missing some > > posts and continuing to repeat old errors. There > > is another example today: > > > > http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2005/28/full/ > > > > I said some time ago I thought we were going to see > > mounting evidence that our ideas of galaxy formation > > need an overhaul and this is leading the same way. > > If galaxies formed by slow aggregation then this > > would be problematic. There is mounting evidence > > that supermassive black holes are a key component and > > I wonder whether we are seeing evidence that they and > > dark matter clump first and pull in large masses of > > gas that then forms stars very quickly so galaxies > > start large and shrink rather than starting small > > and growing, at least in the earliest epochs. > > > > George > > Thanks for the link. Sure enough, I note that the data was FIRST > subjected to analysis under the assumption that the universe is > expanding, and therefore frequencies were looked at in that "light". So > long as such embedded bias is applied, I remain very unimpressed. > It still seems increasingly obvious, that the better the views of large > distances away, the more obvious it becomes that the universe on > average is homogenous throughout our (limitted) field of vision, both > for age and chemical composition. > I have read somewhere lately (and of course can't find the ****), that > there may even be quasars within the Milky Way, which have previously > been wrongly assessed for distance from earth; also some which are > inter-galactic space??????? There aren't quasars in the Milky Way. If you are going to post asinine bullshit like that, at least have the courtesy to give us the link so we can mock that too. Please stop posting until you get an education in something. > > Ooroo > Jim
From: Henri Wilson on 28 Sep 2005 07:17 On 27 Sep 2005 18:36:10 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 26 Sep 2005 18:07:30 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >Henri Wilson wrote: >> > >> >[snip] >> > >> >> >> >> no point in discussing something about which YOU know nothing. >> > >> >The less things change, the more they stay the same. >> > >> >[snip] >> > >> >> >> >> Well, Paul, your alternative 'SR' explanation assumes an aether exists. >> > >> >The less things change, the more they stay the same. >> > >> >Why is it you refuse to accept what practically every other scientists >> >knows : SR is not an aether theory? >> >> then answer the following: >> >> ->S1______________________p >> <-S2 >> >> How does SR explain why pulses of light from differently moving sources should >> travel together through space? > >Why should I play your little game? You can't even answer some simple >questions about derivations you said you had done before. Geese, how are you getting on this year? Repeating first year must be SO boring. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: George Dishman on 28 Sep 2005 14:59 <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1127891216.712904.161860(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > George Dishman wrote: >> <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message >> news:1127814856.490827.50300(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > >> >> Jim I said a few days ago you were missing some >> posts and continuing to repeat old errors. There >> is another example today: >> >> http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2005/28/full/ >> >> I said some time ago I thought we were going to see >> mounting evidence that our ideas of galaxy formation >> need an overhaul and this is leading the same way. >> If galaxies formed by slow aggregation then this >> would be problematic. There is mounting evidence >> that supermassive black holes are a key component and >> I wonder whether we are seeing evidence that they and >> dark matter clump first and pull in large masses of >> gas that then forms stars very quickly so galaxies >> start large and shrink rather than starting small >> and growing, at least in the earliest epochs. >> >> George > > Thanks for the link. Sure enough, I note that the data was FIRST > subjected to analysis under the assumption that the universe is > expanding, I have no idea where you get that from. > and therefore frequencies were looked at in that "light". Of course, that's how all stellar work is done. How else do you work out what the temperature is, or what the composition is or the age of the stars? > So > long as such embedded bias is applied, I remain very unimpressed. There is no "bias", looking at the spectrum and intensity is the only way to find out anything. What else do you think they could do with the light? > It still seems increasingly obvious, that the better the views of large > distances away, the more obvious it becomes that the universe on > average is homogenous throughout our (limitted) field of vision, both > for age and chemical composition. Nope, this is an unusual galaxy by local standards so more evidence for inhomogeneity. I can't find the prime paper but there is more information in this which refers to the findings: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509605 It says Mobasher et al found that the period of star formation was probably less than 100 M years long and occurred when the universe was between 200 M and 400 M years old. > I have read somewhere lately (and of course can't find the ****), that > there may even be quasars within the Milky Way, It may have been an old article, when they were first discovered it took some years to confirm they were distant. The nearest known quasar is over 800 million light years away. Incidentally, with over 60000 known in total, there should be about a dozen closer than that if they were homogenous, and probably more because we should see more closer just because they would be easier to detect. I skimmed this and it looks informative: http://cas.sdss.org/dr4/en/proj/advanced/quasars/spectracomparisons.asp > which have previously > been wrongly assessed for distance from earth; also some which are > inter-galactic space??????? Not that I know of but in some cases they are so bright it is hard to detect the host galaxy. If it is close to using up the matter in its vicinity, there is no reason in theory why they shouldn't be isolated of course. George
From: jgreen on 28 Sep 2005 21:09
George Dishman wrote: > <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message > news:1127891216.712904.161860(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > > > George Dishman wrote: > >> <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message > >> news:1127814856.490827.50300(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> > > >> > >> Jim I said a few days ago you were missing some > >> posts and continuing to repeat old errors. There > >> is another example today: > >> > >> http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2005/28/full/ > >> > >> I said some time ago I thought we were going to see > >> mounting evidence that our ideas of galaxy formation > >> need an overhaul and this is leading the same way. > >> If galaxies formed by slow aggregation then this > >> would be problematic. There is mounting evidence > >> that supermassive black holes are a key component and > >> I wonder whether we are seeing evidence that they and > >> dark matter clump first and pull in large masses of > >> gas that then forms stars very quickly so galaxies > >> start large and shrink rather than starting small > >> and growing, at least in the earliest epochs. > >> > >> George > > > > Thanks for the link. Sure enough, I note that the data was FIRST > > subjected to analysis under the assumption that the universe is > > expanding, > > I have no idea where you get that from. Read the paragraph in that link beginning "Mobasher and his...." It is obvious that the analysis of ALL collected data is subjected to the assumptions that 1) c is constant 2) the universe is expanding "Those who believe they have the truth in their hand, will not find it." > > > and therefore frequencies were looked at in that "light". > > Of course, that's how all stellar work is done. How > else do you work out what the temperature is, or > what the composition is or the age of the stars? Hopefully, by maintaining an open and questioning mind as to what may influence _apparent_ observations, from being the real situation (temp/composition) FI: In that link, blue light is claimed to have been absorbed by free intergalactic H- no mention of it being redshifted out of contention. > > > So > > long as such embedded bias is applied, I remain very unimpressed. > > There is no "bias", looking at the spectrum and intensity > is the only way to find out anything. What else do you > think they could do with the light? I do need a book on Fraunhoffer, spectrum of elements, comparisons of elements at differing temperatures, and absorbtion lines. I would suggest even the composition of the earth at depth is educated guess work, and to claim detailed analysis of objects of which we only see the top micron, or its atmosphere, may have astronomers wrongfully believing that they know exactly the composition of a distant object, due to mistaken analysis of the temp, velocity, gravitational pull (mass), chemical composition of the emmitting object of the emr reaching us. > > > It still seems increasingly obvious, that the better the views of large > > distances away, the more obvious it becomes that the universe on > > average is homogenous throughout our (limitted) field of vision, both > > for age and chemical composition. > > Nope, this is an unusual galaxy by local standards so > more evidence for inhomogeneity. Even ONE contradictory body or situation brings the theory down! "Unusual" (read ignore it) doesn't work. > > I can't find the prime paper but there is more > information in this which refers to the findings: > > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509605 > > It says Mobasher et al found that the period of star > formation was probably less than 100 M years long and > occurred when the universe was between 200 M and > 400 M years old. Which would mean that ALL stars were born on the same day, between 13.5 and 13.3 Gya. Then the 2nd generation is introduced etc, as these burnt out. Young stars (galaxies) are seen at large distance, ALONG WITH much older ones. As we look with better telescopes for longer periods at large distances, the homogeneity of the universe _will- become more apparent. even that article admits that looking in the wrong band would have missed that unacceptable galaxy. > > > I have read somewhere lately (and of course can't find the ****), that > > there may even be quasars within the Milky Way, > > It may have been an old article, when they were first > discovered it took some years to confirm they were > distant. The nearest known quasar is over 800 million > light years away. Incidentally, with over 60000 known > in total, there should be about a dozen closer than > that if they were homogenous, and probably more because > we should see more closer just because they would be > easier to detect. Whole galaxies are "discovered" much closer than that. > > I skimmed this and it looks informative: > > http://cas.sdss.org/dr4/en/proj/advanced/quasars/spectracomparisons.asp I might not get a chance to look at it till next week (camping trip) > > > which have previously > > been wrongly assessed for distance from earth; also some which are > > inter-galactic space??????? > > Not that I know of but in some cases they are so bright > it is hard to detect the host galaxy. If it is close to > using up the matter in its vicinity, there is no reason > in theory why they shouldn't be isolated of course. Put them on my list of places to avoid? Seeya Jim |