Prev: Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
Next: CRUCIAL THEOREM IN THERMODYNAMICS
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 6 May 2010 15:30
The Luminet team of researchers found a diameter of the Cosmos at 30
billion light
years across with a Poincare Dodecahedral Space.

I was wondering if that matches the 3rd layer Ring of Jarrett's
mapping:

> http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
> The third layer (0.01 < z < 0.02) is dominated by the P-P
> supercluster

Apparently not as indicated by Wikipedia's redshift entry:
--- quoting Wikipedia ---
The highest redshift known for a quasar (as of December 2007) is 6.43,
[2] which corresponds to a (comoving) distance of approximately 28
billion light-years from Earth.
--- end quoting ---

So today I am wondering if the 3rd layer of Jarrett's is the end of
DISTANCE
Calibration in Astronomy using only standard candles of luminosity and
not
using the "expansion redshift"

--- quoting Wikipedia on Nova ---
Novae as distance indicators

Novae have some promise for use as standard candles. For instance, the
distribution of their absolute magnitude is bimodal, with a main peak
at magnitude -8.8, and a lesser one at -7.5. Novae also have roughly
the same absolute magnitude 15 days after their peak (-5.5).
Comparisons of nova-based distance estimates to various nearby
galaxies and galaxy clusters with those done with Cepheid variable
stars have shown them to be of comparable accuracy.[6

--- quoting Wikipedia on 1a Supernova ---

Type Ia supernovae that have a very well-determined maximum absolute
magnitude as a function of the shape of their light curve and are
useful in determining extragalactic distances up to a few hundred Mpc.
[9] A notable exception is SN 2003fg, the "Champagne Supernova," a
type Ia supernova of unusual nature.
--- end quoting ---

So I am wondering today, if we dismissed all redshift distance
accounting in Astronomy
and relied only on well known physics of distance measure, whether the
edge of the
Universe is the 3rd layer as given by Jarrett with his "Ring".

Now it says that the 1a Supernova are good for a few hundred
megaparsecs. So I wonder
if the 3rd layer Ring of Jarrett's mapping is this few hundred
megaparsecs?

Let us make a commonsense, a rational inference. Does it make sense to
see pointlike
objects of quasars that are redshifted and alleged to be 28 billion
light years away, yet
still seeing those objects optically? Or is the commonsense rational
inference that the
redshift has nothing to do with distance and that these quasars are
not powered by
some enormous energy source, meaning that they are nearby faint and
dull stars.
It is easy to know which of those two choices Occam's Razor would
pick.

What I am saying is that, if you can optically see a quasar that is
alleged to be
28 billion light years away, then you have redshift theory all wrong.

So where is the optical limit of Cosmology? We can see Supernova out
to Jarrett's
3rd layer. Can we see Supernova out to 28 billion light years? We
should if we can
see faint red dull quasars out there. So why are we not seeing at
least a Supernova
explosion out in the Great Walls about one per day or in the quasar
belt? And I suspect
the answer is that these Great Walls and quasars are much closer to
Earth. And that
they are within Jarrett's 3rd layer.

The trouble with Hubble's Law, redshift expansion, is that they never
realized there is
a optic limit to seeing astro bodies. Because of their bogus and
erroneous interpretation
of redshift, they have us believe quasars are optically visible at
billions of light years
away, far beyond where optic visibility of astro bodies ceased.

It is commonsense, it is rational, that if I take my flashlight and
walk a distance from an
observer, that at some point the observer is never able to see the
flashlight. This principle
of Luminosity applies to astronomy. That at some distance, we simply
cannot observe
an object in space. But the Hubble Law and the redshift Big Bang
expansion ignore this
principle. Somehow they have been so propagandized as to believe that
a quasar at
28 billion light years is able to be observed.

The better idea is that in Jarrett's mapping of the Cosmos, there is a
limit of observation
of the optic and visible observation and I suspect that limit is the
RING seen in Jarrett's
third layer.

Now I have to reeducate myself on astronomy's distance candles.

I do not think anyone in astronomy has correlated the distances of
supernova with
the Doppler-Hubble redshifts and notices a glaring contradiction of
distances. The
many contradictions of distance in astronomy are routinely swept under
the rug
and ignored.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
Next: CRUCIAL THEOREM IN THERMODYNAMICS