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: Eric Gisse on 28 Sep 2005 23:00 jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: > 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." That is called the abstract, you asshat. If you have any questions about the analysis, you read the paper. Though I question what effect the paper would have on you, considering the amazing amount of misunderstandings you have about pretty much everything. > > > > > 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. Yess....spectrocopy obviously only deals with the top micron of the object in question, even gas clouds! I would indeed suggest you get a book instead of making uneducated guesses about how science works. [snip]
From: Paul B. Andersen on 29 Sep 2005 15:17 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:29:13 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: > > >>> >>>Well, Paul, your alternative 'SR' explanation assumes an aether exists. >>> >>>I think I prefer mine. >> >>Quite. >>Invent new laws of nature if that's what it takes to >>explain away an obvious falsification of the ballistic theory. >>That's Wonderland physics at its very best. >> >> >>>>There is no limit to the stupidities you can invent >>>>to explain why the ballistic theory doesn't predict >>>>what it predicts, is it? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>PS: You wont find this in any book. >>>> >>>>I wonder why. :-) >>>> >>>>Seriously, Henri. >>>>If you really believe your fantasies yourself, >>>>you have a serious sanity problem. >>>> >>>>But you do not really believe it, of course. >>> >>> >>>Ask yourself: >>>What happens to the axis of a photon when it bounces off a mirror? >>>What happens to the axis of a photon when it bounces off a MOVING mirror? >> >>The photon gets dizzy? :-) >> >>The fact that you to defend the ballistic theory have to >>claim that the Sagnac interferometer works in unknown, >>mysterious ways different from all other interferometers, >>is indeed a convincing argument for that Sagnac falsifies >>the ballistic theory. > > > What happened when Michelson's interferometer was rotated? The photons became dizzy. Paul
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 29 Sep 2005 15:58 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dhhek9$cbg$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... From: "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)deletethishia.no> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:00:34 +0200 Local: Wed, Sep 14 2005 1:00 pm Subject: Re: Spectrum! "But the two stars of Algol have different mass, radius and density, and the B8 is well outside of the Roche limit of the K2, while the K2 is just at the Roche limit of the B8. That is, the K2 fills its Roche lobe completely, and mass is transferred to the B8. So the K2 IS torn apart and there is an accretion disk around the B8 akin to the rings of Saturn. (This accretion disk is not stable, though. It is a transient disk; the mass transferred from the K2 bounces off the surface of the B8 and eventually falls back to the surface.) " Being a B8, the surface the accretion disk bounces off looks like this: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2003_11_04/c2w.gif Of course a B8 is much gentler than our own sun, isn't it, tusselad? Androcles.
From: George Dishman on 30 Sep 2005 09:58 <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1127956173.244694.132110(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > 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 There is no doubt about that anyway, but I still don't see where you get that in the paragraph. > 2) the universe is expanding That is the current best model so we use it for the analysis. If that model is wrong, it should show up as errors in the results. There is no other way to analyse the data. > "Those who believe they have the truth in their hand, will not find > it." Such as those who ignore that fact that all the evidence leads to expansion and cling to steady state models for which there is no evidence at all? Check your mirror. >> > 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) That is one of the key aspects of the peer review that results like this go through. Everyone reading the paper will be looking for missed effects. > 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. It's a press release. The redshift is crucial to the methods used. >> > 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. You also need to find out why the Lyman Alpha line is very important in astronomy, and in particular why it creates a hard edge to spectra of high redshift objects. > 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. You can always say that but it is just baseless hand-waving. We don't know everything but we do have a good idea of how far we trust our models and it is vastly more reliable than you imagine. >> > 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! But it doesn't contradict the big bang, only our tentative ideas on the formation of galaxies. That's an area where our knowledge is almost entirely from modelling and may well be wrong. > "Unusual" (read ignore it) doesn't work. Unusual in this case does work, isn't what was expected and is unlike anything around today so is more evidence against homogeneity in time. As you said > "Those who believe they have the truth in their hand, will not find > it." >> 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, No, they said "less than 100 million years", not "less than 24 hours". > between 13.5 > and 13.3 Gya. Then the 2nd generation is introduced etc, as these burnt > out. No Jim, that is what is most unusual about this galaxy, there was no second generation or third or fourth. There was just a first generation then everything stopped. It is very large too and if the stars were formed around z=15 to 20, they might be Pop III stars which we have never seen. > Young stars (galaxies) are seen at large distance, ALONG WITH much > older ones. Maybe older, maybe not. All we know is that the light seems to have very little blue content which implies no new stars being formed at a cosmic age of about 800 million years. > As we look with better telescopes for longer periods at large > distances, the homogeneity of the universe _will- become more apparent. Why do you say that when this discovery introduces yet more inhomogeneity, a type of galaxy unlike anything ever seen before? > even that article admits that looking in the wrong band would have > missed that unacceptable galaxy. Of course, that is what we expect, look up how the Lyman Alpha absorbtion line produces a cutoff. >> > 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. Only very faint ones, quasars are very bright so the bias means we should see _more_ nearby but instead we see less. >> 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) OK, but do try to read it sometime, it will tell you a lot about quasars that will save you asking pointless questions. >> > 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? Definitely. George
From: Timo Nieminen on 30 Sep 2005 14:41
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, George Dishman wrote: > <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote: >> >> I do need a book on Fraunhoffer, spectrum of elements, comparisons of >> elements at differing temperatures, and absorbtion lines. > > You also need to find out why the Lyman Alpha line is > very important in astronomy, and in particular why it > creates a hard edge to spectra of high redshift objects. > >> 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. > > You can always say that but it is just baseless > hand-waving. We don't know everything but we do > have a good idea of how far we trust our models > and it is vastly more reliable than you imagine. Worth pointing out that "vastly more reliable than you imagine", while probably correct (but depends on Jim Greenfield's imagination), astronomers generally don't believe that they know exactly the composition of a distant object. There is a healthy respect for the uncertainties inherent in such measurements, even for such nearby well-studies objects such as the sun. Alas, I don't have a list of uncertainties in solar abundances of elements at hand, but I can offer the observation that I once measured the cobalt content of the sun to +/- 25%, and that uncertainty was as good as the best published results I could find. Jim might find it educational to read about the fluctuating opinions on the iron content of the sun (no, not the iron sun stuff, but the real controvery with abundances varying significantly between different workers for quite some time). -- Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/ E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html |