Prev: "SpaceShipTwo could be single stage to SUBorbit"
Next: The End is Here
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 10 May 2010 16:37


Craig Markwardt wrote:

>
> It's fruity to think that telescope designers and observers do not
> consider the limiting capabilities of the telescope. Of course they
> do!
>

Fruityer yet is that Craig thinks the redshift is unique to speedy
galaxies
and a speedy Space:
> There are no known physical processes - other than Doppler shift or
> cosmological expansion - which could shift the center wavelength of
> all spectral lines emitted by an astrophysical source.  Dust
> absorption or scattering certainly does not.  Note that your
> "scattering" experiment is irrelevant because it involves a continuum
> ("white") emitter.

When Craig is shown a tiny prism as Space itself can easily duplicate
the Cosmic redshift, and what annoys Craig is that the white light is
not stationary but moving in the prism.

Almost any and every scientist, not just the run of the mill sort, get
into
huge trouble and error when they place their beliefs that a phenomenon
is "Unique". Especially in biology when someone blurts out some
uniquness, then usually someone finds the exception quite fast.

So can Craig ever admit to his error?



> Even a cursory search of Google for "hst limiting magnitude" finds
> pages like this:
> http://www.stsci.edu/hst/acs/documents/handbooks/cycle18/c05_imaging3.html
> which shows an observational limiting magnitude of ~28 or better for
> most modern HST instruments over a wide optical/IR wavelength range.
>
> Considering M87 as an example, the *absolute* magnitude is about -22 -
> this is the total magnitude of a galaxy as seen at 10 parsec
> distance. Using the definition of astronomical distance modulus -
> which uses the inverse-square law of intensity - the limiting distance
> for an M87-like galaxy would be about 100 billion parsecs, or 300
> billion light years.
>
> Intrinsically larger and brighter galaxies than M87 could be seen to
> further distances, and smaller/fainter galaxies to shorter distances.
>
> CM

Okay, Craig, do you ever stop to think that what you are concluding
makes
commonsense? That the astronomy community concensus is a Universe
with age of less than 14 billion years old, but you seem to think the
reporting using the HST of a quasar at 28 billion light years or
something
at 300 billion light years is justifiable. How you reconcile the
unreconcilable?

Do you just say "irrelevant"? Should I call you the irrelevant
scientist?

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: "SpaceShipTwo could be single stage to SUBorbit"
Next: The End is Here