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 3 Oct 2005 00:55 George Dishman wrote: > <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. For "everyone", read that they ALL accedit c constant, and BB expansion a given. Of course they will agree; they are singing from the same psalm. > > > 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. Yep. And if redshift is attributable to other than expansion??????? > > >> > 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 have a friend doing a family tree, who is having trouble understanding that putting in adopted members leads to fraud down the page (no relation!). Similarly, genetic testing will render many trees useless, when it becomes apparent that great-grandma fooled with the milkman. THAT is what I suspect is happening with astronomy- false assumptions have been used to produce a "model" which is the victim of "infidelity". > > > > 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. And the "forbidden" lines of H > > > 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. Rubbish! What I claim, is that galaxies of ALL AGES exist locally. They are forming and decaying throughout the infinite universe eternally. The existence of this OLDER galaxy amongst other smaller (younger?) ones, IS evidence for large scale homogeneity. The mobs are "boxed" as we old farmers say; ewes of all ages, rams and lambs all mixed. If BB was correct, an accurate age of a galaxy could be determined purely by its distance from us. You need do much more than reconsider" models of galaxy and star formation. > > > > 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 Chow Jim c'=c+v
From: Timo Nieminen on 3 Oct 2005 01:23 On Mon, 2 Oct 2005 jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: > Timo Nieminen wrote: > > > > 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). > > If astronomers can't even agree on the chemistry of the sun, do you not > think it is pulling the long bow to claim accurate "knowlege" of the > composition (read age) of bodies at 12Gya ? > I do not suggest that they have no idea, but I object to spectra and > data from distant objects being claimed as "evidence" for BB, UNTIL it > contradicts. > Then BigBangers rush to "review models of galaxy formation" What particular claims are you objecting to? Who claims accurate and precise knowledge of the composition of distant objects? Before you object too strenuously, you should learn (a) how accurately the composition of the sun can be determined (b) how accurately the composition of individual stars can be determined (c) how large is the difference in composition between old and young stars compared to (b) (d) how accurately the composition of a distant galaxy can be determined (e) how large is the difference in composition between old and young galaxies compared to (e). Who knows? You might be able to learn enough to make an argument that makes sense and will actually convinve people. Surely that would be worth putting some effort into it? -- 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
From: George Dishman on 3 Oct 2005 04:42 <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1128315340.986276.145770(a)g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > George Dishman wrote: >> <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message >> news:1127956173.244694.132110(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... .... >> > 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. > > For "everyone", read that they ALL accedit c constant, and BB expansion > a given. > Of course they will agree; they are singing from the same psalm. We are talking about what is measured, not possible explanations for those observations. Temperature and composition come from spectrographic evidence in a way that is not dependent on the speed of light or expansion. >> > 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. > > Yep. And if redshift is attributable to other than expansion??????? It would make no difference whatsoever. Do some research Jim, learn a bit about what you are discussing. >> >> > 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 have a friend doing a family tree, who is having trouble > understanding that putting in adopted members leads to fraud down the > page (no relation!). > Similarly, genetic testing will render many trees useless, when it > becomes apparent that great-grandma fooled with the milkman. > THAT is what I suspect is happening with astronomy- false assumptions > have been used to produce a "model" which is the victim of > "infidelity". Sorry Jim, that's just handwaving nonsense. >> > 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. > > And the "forbidden" lines of H Just do some research Jim, you'll talk less nonsense. >> > 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. > > Rubbish! What I claim, is that galaxies of ALL AGES exist locally. Then why do we locally see vastly more galaxies that are over 9 billion years old than all the rest put together? Why don't we see any galaxies over 13 billion years old. Why do all the galaxies we see have stellar populations that show that the rate of new stars was much higher withing the first couple of billion years of the galaxies life than now? There are two things unusual about this galaxy. First the Milky way is considered large by local standards, this one is eight time larger. Second the majority of local galaxies had a rapid burst of new stars being formed about 10 billion years ago and have had a decreasing rate ever since, this galaxy seems to have had a shorter burst and then stopped completely. I know of no galaxy _anywhere_ else that has done that. It is unlike anything we have seen before. That can't be construed as evidence of homogeneity by any stretch of the imagination. > They are forming and decaying throughout the infinite universe > eternally. Nice fantasy, but every shred of evidence says otherwise. George
From: Paul B. Andersen on 3 Oct 2005 05:02 Androcles wrote: > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dhm3i2$f75$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... > | Androcles wrote: > | > I think you have demonstrated that I was right when saying: > | > "Having realized that you screwed up, you must find > | > something else to talk about." > | > How could you screw up such a simple case of elementary > | > Roche limit and get it 3,000,000,000% wrong, tusselad? > | > | I am beginning to suspect that your stupidity is even > | greater than I initially could bring myself to believe. > > I'm sure the opinion of a phuckwit is highly regarded by > the other phuckwits, tusselad. > > > | I now think it's so gigantic that you do NOT realize > | how thoroughly you screw up when you claimed: > | "If the Moon were a fluid > | it would break apart like droplets of mercury." > > I preceeded that with "If", tusselad; how could you screw up > such a simple case of elementary logic? Well, in your case how > could you not screw it up? I would like to say "nice try". But I can't. It was an extraordinary stupid attempt to divert the attention from the fact that you have still not realized that your statement: "If the Moon were a fluid it would break apart like droplets of mercury." is factually wrong. You must be a slow learner, though. Because I told you: | You would have to bring the Moon very close to | the Earth before anything like that would happen. | The critical distance is the Roche limit. | The Roche limit for a liquid Moon is 2.86 Earth radii. | The orbital radius is 21 times bigger than that. | A liquid Moon would do just fine. | And its shape would be the same. | (A sphere slightly distorted by the tidal forces.) That's why your statement reveals your ignorance of Roche limits and Roche lobes. > | But even if you are too stupid to realize it, > | that statement reveals your ignorance of > | Roche limits and Roche lobes. > > Yes, of course, tusselad. > "That is, the K2 fills its Roche lobe completely, and mass is > transferred to the B8. So the K2 IS torn apart", but still carries > on eclipsing the B8. Right, tusselad? Right. Like I told you: | 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.) | | It doesn't happen in a minute, though. | The mass transfer is in the order of 10^-11 solar masses per year. | A star isn't a rigid body which suddenly can break apart. | The outer layers are very thin gas. | | When a star overflows its Roche lobe, it doesn't come apart. | The part of the star within the Roche lobe will be unaffected | even if the overflowing mass will fall onto the other star | and make an accretion disk around it. | Which is just what is happening. | | What did YOU imagine would happen, Androcles? To which you answered: | I've told what would happen. | One minute later and the model becomes this: | http://www.nineplanets.org/saturn.html Which reveals your ignorance of Roche limits and Roche lobes. > I'm too stupid to realize it, I'm sure, and you are not stupid at all. Right. Which you yet again have demonstrated in this posting. > A stupid person has an IQ of 10 or more. You didn't make the > grade. Quite. But my IQ of 9 suffice to notice your stupidity. You are so stupid that you think your statement: "If the Moon were a fluid it would break apart like droplets of mercury." is correct just because it starts with an "If". Hilarious, no? :-) Paul
From: Paul B. Andersen on 3 Oct 2005 05:06
Henri Wilson wrote: > > A, I have supported you on this. In Algol's case, the WCH happens to be the > large planet 'Androcles'. Do you have any objections to that? > It is likely that flares occuring on the main star are reflected from > 'Androcles' and mistaken for flares on IT. Very likely, indeed. :-) There IS no limit to the stupidities you can utter, is there? :-) You have no idea of what a flare is, do you? :-) > However I might be inclined to agree with the tusselad that a small third > object does orbit the main Algol star. The "third object" is not a particularly small star. It is an A5 V. That means it is bigger and brighter than the Sun. But it is smaller than Algol A and B. > On the published curve, there is a small departure from our predicted curves > that might be associated with an object orbiting with the same period but > lagging in phase behind the main star. The orbital period of Algol C is 681 days, that is 235 times the period of the inner binary. The "small departure" from your predicted curves, is the second minimum when Algol A eclipses Algol B. Your "drawing program" is unable to mimic that because the degrees of freedom is too small. So you are unable to invent any fantasy data that will produce the correct light curve. > This star, if it exists, plays little part in the basic observed brightness > curve. Right. C is not eclipsing A and B, and it is too far away to have a great effect. It does have a small observable effect on A and B, though. > Algol is obviously not an eclipsing binary. Quite. The light curve is exactly as it should be if it were an eclipsing binary - with the second minimum and all - So according to Wilsonian logic, it obviously isn't. Paul |