Chapt 3, can the Hubble Space telescope see #74; ATOM TOTALITY
in [Math]
|
Prev: ==P Versus NP Solution Claimed==
Next: What are some of the more advanced convergence / divergence verification tests for infinite series'?
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 |