Prev: Quantum Gravity 396.4: USA (U. Mass. Dartmouth) Finds Yang-Mills Gravity Better than GR
Next: MULTIMEDIA: 12 Events That Will Change Everything, Made Interactive
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 21 May 2010 03:09
I maybe wrong on this guess, that the observations of the quasars and
Great Walls
and superclusters to date have all been well recorded with details of
the images
such as magnification, and date and time and location. Detailed
information of
the derived images of these distant astro bodies. So that one can
repeat or duplicate
the image. And that the old images are always saved in some place,
some archive.

What I am getting at, is that we have decades old images of quasars,
Great Walls
and superclusters that we can repeat the experiment today.

Because if the Doppler redshift is a true distance indicator, we can
expect for alot
of the images of those decades old quasars to be so lessened or weaker
of an image
today, then when those images were made decades earlier for the
obvious reason in
that the Doppler redshift of moving away is so enormous, that they
would become so
small of an image a decade later, what was a nail hole image a decade
ago becomes
a needle hole now of a quasar.

But in reality, if we look at a quasar image a decade ago and look at
that same quasar
under the same telescope of the same magnification, the quasar becomes
bigger,
brighter image. Now this becomes science at a ludicrous level of
comprehension
in that how many decades have transpired with scientists claiming a
Doppler redshift
of enormous speeds moving away, and yet they see crisper, sharper,
larger images
as each year passes. Now some of these astronomers would attribute
that better
image as time goes on due to better telescope instruments.

But the Telescopic-Eclipse Technique takes into account the better
telescopes at
present than in the past. I recognize our technology is improving, but
the technique takes
that into account and asks only of a uniform testing from one time to
a future interval
of time. We can use the very same telescope for these two different
time periods. The
technique wants all the parameters the same, and the only change is a
future time
which allows the star or galaxy or cluster to move. If it is moving
towards Earth, the
image will be better in the future time, and if away the image will be
weaker and less.

As far as I know and from the literature on Great Wall, superclusters
and quasars
and distant galaxies, our images of all these astro bodies are
improving tremendously
and that they are becoming larger such as from a small nail hole to a
large nail hole,
even though they have purportedly large Doppler redshifts.

So the evidence points to the idea that the Doppler redshift is a
bogus and a fake
reckoning of the distance to faraway astro bodies. The Doppler
redshift has more
to do with the Intergalactic Space Medium then it has to do with the
speed of
a body. As the fiberglass experiment shows, the medium through which
light travels
causes the redshift.

So unless I am mistaken, all the astronomy data and details to date
point to an
ever increasing clarity, size and brightness of distant astro bodies,
meaning that
at least 1/2 of all astro bodies are moving towards Earth in
contradiction to the
Hubble law and the Doppler redshift.

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
From: Craig Markwardt on 21 May 2010 19:02
On May 21, 2:01 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> The point of this post is to ask the question, in astronomy, is it
> reasonable to think
> that the Intergalactic Medium of Space is not complex and complicated
> and that
> stars, galaxies, superclusters of galaxies have a natural physical law
> that easily
> tells the distance to and from that object?

Your reasoning is turned around. The Hubble "Law" is not a law of
nature, but rather an observational correlation.

Astronomers use **OTHER INDEPENDENT** measures of distance - not
redshift. See "standard candles" on wikipedia, for example. These
independent distance measures are completely separate from a redshift
measurement. Once this independent estimate has been made, as Edwin
Hubble did first, it is possible to compare the two measures and by
gosh, redshift is a pretty good indicator of distance. Not a perfect
one - we have known about "peculiar" velocities since the beginning.

Formally, no cosmologist ever assumes that redshift can be converted
to a distance using Hubble's "law." How distance and redshift are
related is governed by a cosmological model - and models can be
*tested* by comparing the two measures.

So you have it the wrong way around. Cosmological models are tested,
and rejected or accepted, by comparing independent distance measures
to redshift measures. The Hubble "law" is not assumed to be correct.

CM
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Quantum Gravity 396.4: USA (U. Mass. Dartmouth) Finds Yang-Mills Gravity Better than GR
Next: MULTIMEDIA: 12 Events That Will Change Everything, Made Interactive