Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 34

Thread: Stationary stellar Universe

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    67

    Stationary stellar Universe

    Modern astronomers use parallax to determine the distance to a star. The change in the position of a star is measured after an observer on the earth propagates the distance of the earth's orbital diameter (six months). The earth's orbital diameter is used as the reference distance where the parallax method is dependent on the motion of a star after the earth propagates to the position L that forms a path that light propagates that is equal to the distance of the earth's orbital diameter KL but the stellar universe is stationary since the shape of the constellations that constitute the stellar universe do not change shapes, as time increases. The change in the position of a distance star is caused by the earth's daily and yearly motions affect upon the observer's measurements since the change in the position of any star results in the rotational shift of all of the stars' positions in the entire stellar universe that rotation is centered around the North Star which proves modern astronomy is a hoax. In addition, the image of the Eagle Nebula obtained using the Spitzer space telescope was arbitrarily created using computer induced images since the image of the Eagle Nebula represents a celestial gas cloud (fig 13) but the vacuum of celestial universe cannot support the structure of a gas cloud since the vacuum of celestial space would immediately dissipate a gas. Example, a cumulus cloud is formed by the earth's atmosphere that is supporting the water vapor that constitutes a cumulus cloud. Without an atmosphere it would not be physical possible to form a celestial cloud that is depicted in the photographs of the Eagle Nebula. There are no celestial gas cloud in our solar system yet astronomers are suggesting that a gas cloud exist on a distance planet that distance is determine using parallax. Furthermore, Chilean astronomers state that a planet has been discovered orbiting the star Proxima Centauri that is 4.22 light years from the earth using the La Silla telescope (Escude, p. 408–409) but the Hubble space telescope that is more powerful than the La Silla telescope (because of the earth's atmosphere) cannot view the lunar lander that is located on the surface of the moon. For the Hubble telescope to view an object on the surface of the moon would require an illuminated object with a diameter of 200 meters. Using a proportionality, for the Hubble to detect a planet 4.22 light years from the earth would require an illuminated planet with a diameter equal to more than ten times the orbital diameter of our solar system! Consequently, Chilean astronomers use the dimming that occurs when a planet, 4.22 light years from the earth, moves between the star Proxima Centauri and the La Silla telescope to justify the existence of a distance planet but if the intensity of a planet 4.22 light years from the earth, cannot be determined using a telescope then the change in the intensity of the star 4.22 light years from the earth, caused by the described planet's area affecting the intensity of a star also cannot be detected. Any detection of the variation of the intensity of a 4.22 light year star would be within the uncertainty of the optical distortion caused by the thermodynamic variations of the earth's atmosphere. Furthermore, the Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge detected a blackhole of the Perseus Clustera that is 250 millions light years from the earth using the Chandra X-ray space telescope but X-rays cannot be focused which would make it extremely difficult to detect stellar X-rays produced by a 250 million light year blackhole. Blackholes represent the maximum range of an optical telescope. Example, when a scientist examines the stellar universe using a pair of binoculars at certain locations one cannot see the images of stars which represents the range of a binocular optical device yet modern astronomers are detecting millions of stars within the small segment of space that the binocular optical device did not detect an image. Modern astronomers need to limit their range to our solar system to avoid these outrageous misrepresentation and patently fabrications of what an optical device can or cannot do since according to modern astronomers a telescope has an unlimited range yet the Hubble cannot view the lunar lander that is located on the surface of the moon. The Hubble space telescope and the fact that the celestial universe is stationary renders all land based telescopes obsolete. Once an astronomer photographs the stellar universe then there is absolutely nothing else that can be done since the stellar universe is stationary. Certainly celestial events do occur but the destruction of a distance star or other celestial events take so long a time interval that any observation would be futile. Using an analogy, it would be futile for scientists to observe a gold fish to detect a gold fish evolving into a Homo sapiens.


    The Big Bang expansion theory is justified using the symmetry of a spiral galaxy but the image of a spiral galaxy was arbitrarily created. Example, the image of the Milky Way spiral galaxy that contains the sun and the earth would require that the photographer be many millions of light years away from the earth. Also, the density of the stars of the celestial universe viewed from all direction from the earth is constant yet the image of the Milky Way represents a non-consistent arrangement of stars since the image of the Milky Way galaxy represents a higher density of stars at the center of the Milky Way which conflicts with the constant density of stars of the celestial universe viewed from the earth. If the earth was part of the Milky Way spiral galaxy then the star of the stellar universe would not be constant yet from the earth, the stars of the stellar universe have a constant density in all directions which proves that the hypothesis that the earth is part of the Milky Way spiral galaxy is physically invalid. Furthermore, the red shift is used to justify the Big Bang expansion theory but every star in the universe at different times and positions forms both red and blue shifts since the stellar universe is stationary. When the observer on the surface of the earth propagates towards a star (caused by the earth's daily and yearly motions) the blue shift is produced and when the observer is propagating away from the star, the red shift is observed. The stellar red and blue shifts are formed by the earth's daily and yearly motions affect on the observer viewing the stars of a stationary celestial universe which contradicts the Big Bang theory that is based on a celestial universe that is expanding.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Third stone from the Sun, Old Country, the land of Saints, Navigators and Poets.
    Posts
    279
    Could you please break down the wall of text into easily readable chunks ?
    It's nearly painful to look upon....

    Apart from that, I think (wall of text......) that you are advocating something similar to the (not even wrong) idea of "fixed stars" of ancient history, but I may have misread......something.
    Eppur si muove....

    This works
    This DOESN'T work...


    Fatti non foste a viver come bruti,
    ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza

    Ye were not form’d to live the life of brutes,
    But virtue to pursue and knowledge high.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,487
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu
    but the stellar universe is stationary since the shape of the constellations that constitute the stellar universe do not change shapes, as time increases.
    They do given enough time. This is called proper motion and is regularly observed. The effects are just very small. See https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...nning-10-years for an example of proper motion.

    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu
    but the vacuum of celestial universe cannot support the structure of a gas cloud since the vacuum of celestial space would immediately dissipate a gas
    By the same argument the Earth cannot have an atmosphere. What you are ignoring is behind both observations - gravity.

    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu
    Furthermore, Chilean astronomers state that a planet has been discovered orbiting the star Proxima Centauri that is 4.22 light years from the earth using the La Silla telescope (Escude, p. 408–409) but the Hubble space telescope that is more powerful than the La Silla telescope...
    You should do some research about how they discovered the planet. Your arguments and back-of-envelope calculations are based on a very naive understanding of observational techniques, statistics and optics.

    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu
    Astronomy in Cambridge detected a blackhole of the Perseus Clustera that is 250 millions light years from the earth using the Chandra X-ray space telescope but X-rays cannot be focused which would make it extremely difficult to detect stellar X-rays produced by a 250 million light year blackhole.
    X-rays can be focused. Just not very efficiently. But efficiently enough to get half an arc second resolution with Chandra. Which is in turn enough to localise the X-ray emissions to an optical counterpart.

    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu
    Example, when a scientist examines the stellar universe using a pair of binoculars at certain locations one cannot see the images of stars which represents the range of a binocular optical device yet modern astronomers are detecting millions of stars within the small segment of space that the binocular optical device did not detect an image.
    Yes, it is called better optics. You should try using a simple telescope one evening. It would probably blow your mind what you can see.

    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu
    Modern astronomers need to limit their range to our solar system to avoid these outrageous misrepresentation and patently fabrications of what an optical device can or cannot do since according to modern astronomers a telescope has an unlimited range
    So your eye can see things outside the solar system but telescopes cannot?

    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu
    yet the Hubble cannot view the lunar lander that is located on the surface of the moon
    The LRO can and did see it. Why the obsession with Hubble? It cannot resolve details that fine due to fundamental physics limits - see http://www.askamathematician.com/201...her-telescope/

    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu
    The Big Bang expansion theory is justified using the symmetry of a spiral galaxy
    No, it really isn't

    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu
    but the image of a spiral galaxy was arbitrarily created
    No, it really isn't. See M74 for example (https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imag...ture_2132.html)

    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu
    Example, the image of the Milky Way spiral galaxy that contains the sun and the earth would require that the photographer be many millions of light years away from the earth.
    Handily there are other galaxies out there that we are outside and therefore can image. Your example is simply not relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu
    Also, the density of the stars of the celestial universe viewed from all direction from the earth is constant
    No they are not. You should try looking at the night sky one day. See the big band running across it? That is not indicative of an isotropic distribution.

    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu
    Furthermore, the red shift is used to justify the Big Bang expansion theory but every star in the universe at different times and positions forms both red and blue shifts since the stellar universe is stationary.
    Nope. The Earth's motion is not enough to conteract the larger reshift effects due to metric expansion. Your claim is against observations made every day in universities and observatories across the world.

    Do you have a coherent, simple hypothesis you want to present? Because all you seem to have here are a lot of misconceptions about basic physics and a series of accusations and claims that are not even internally logically consistent.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    They do given enough time. This is called proper motion and is regularly observed. The effects are just very small. See https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...nning-10-years for an example of proper motion..
    I disagree.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    67
    Furthermore, the percentage of the ratio of the earth's orbital diameter (9.3 x 10^7 miles) with respect to the distance to the star Proxima Centauri that is 4.22 light years from the earth or 2.5 x 10^13 miles is [(9.3 x 10^7 miles)/ (2.5 x 10^13 miles)] x 100% = .00004%. In addition, the percentage of the ratio of the earth's orbital diameter with respect to the distance of the Perseus Clustera that is 250 million light years from the earth or 1.5 x 10^21 is [(9.3 x 10^7 miles)/ (1.5 x 10^21 miles)] x 100% = is 6.2 x 10^12 or .0000000000062% which proves parallax using the earth's orbital diameter to measure the distance to a star or cluster of stars is physically invalid.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    46,280
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    I disagree.
    bentsutomu,

    If your responses to questions are going to be "I disagree", this thread is going to be closed very quickly, and you will be infracted and suspended. You will address the points that are raised with data, calculations, or something concrete, or this topic is done.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    11,420
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    Furthermore, the percentage of the ratio of the earth's orbital diameter (9.3 x 10^7 miles) with respect to the distance to the star Proxima Centauri that is 4.22 light years from the earth or 2.5 x 10^13 miles is [(9.3 x 10^7 miles)/ (2.5 x 10^13 miles)] x 100% = .00004%. In addition, the percentage of the ratio of the earth's orbital diameter with respect to the distance of the Perseus Clustera that is 250 million light years from the earth or 1.5 x 10^21 is [(9.3 x 10^7 miles)/ (1.5 x 10^21 miles)] x 100% = is 6.2 x 10^12 or .0000000000062% which proves parallax using the earth's orbital diameter to measure the distance to a star or cluster of stars is physically invalid.
    Are you claiming that the distance to the Perseus cluster was determined by parallax measurement? If so, please cite a source for that method of measurement.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    3,046
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    Furthermore, the percentage of the ratio of the earth's orbital diameter (9.3 x 10^7 miles) with respect to the distance to the star Proxima Centauri that is 4.22 light years from the earth or 2.5 x 10^13 miles is [(9.3 x 10^7 miles)/ (2.5 x 10^13 miles)] x 100% = .00004%. In addition, the percentage of the ratio of the earth's orbital diameter with respect to the distance of the Perseus Clustera that is 250 million light years from the earth or 1.5 x 10^21 is [(9.3 x 10^7 miles)/ (1.5 x 10^21 miles)] x 100% = is 6.2 x 10^12 or .0000000000062% which proves parallax using the earth's orbital diameter to measure the distance to a star or cluster of stars is physically invalid.
    Your second sentence is a false equivalence. Stellar parallax is useful out to a few thousand light-years, which is basically our local neighborhood within the Milky Way, and astronomers know this. The Perseus cluster is not a star or cluster of stars. It is a cluster of galaxies about 240 million light-years away, well outside the Milky Way. This distance is far beyond what stellar parallax can measure, and only someone ignorant of this would attempt to use stellar parallax to measure it.

    There are several steps in the cosmic distance ladder. Please read the Wikipedia article:
    Cosmic Distance Ladder.

    Fred
    Hey, you! "It's" with an apostrophe means "it is" or "it has." "Its" without an apostrophe means "belongs to it."

    "For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
    -- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

    Earth's sole legacy will be a very slight increase (0.01%) of the solar metallicity.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek View Post
    Are you claiming that the distance to the Perseus cluster was determined by parallax measurement? If so, please cite a source for that method of measurement.
    https://lco.global/spacebook/paralla...e-measurement/

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    11,420
    I didn't ask you for basic information about measuring parallax. I asked you to cite a source that describes measuring the distance to the Perseus cluster...specifically...using the parallax method.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    46,280
    Since bentsutomu is taking a little break for a suspension, this thread is closed.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    14,015
    Reopened
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,493
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    Modern astronomers use parallax to determine the distance to a star ....
    The OP is really bad and has no clear ATM idea, bentsutomu.
    We know how parallax works!
    What looks like ignorance about "Big Bang expansion theory" and cosmological redshift. Cosmological redshift is the measured redshift of the spectrum from galaxies, not individual stars. The =increase with distance is what show that the redshift is cosmological.
    A fantasy that the clouds in nebulae are the same as clouds on Earth. The overwhelming majority of the universe is vacuum. In that vacuum is lots of gas. That gas can be collected into clouds by gravity.
    We have Milky Way "images" constructed from measuring the positions of stars and features from the Earth which is inside the Milky Way!
    Some nonsense about "stars of the stellar universe".

    We have images of Apollo landing sites, the equipment left there, the astronaut footprints and rover tracks from spacecraft designed to take images of the Moon, e.g. the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. Can Hubble see the Apollo landing sites on the Moon?
    No, Hubble cannot take photos of the Apollo landing sites.

    An object on the Moon 4 meters (4.37 yards) across, viewed from HST, would be about 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution instrument currently on HST is the Advanced Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec. So anything we left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any HST image. It would just appear as a dot.
    A bit of advice, bentsutomu. Before stating an Against The Mainstream idea you need to learn the mainstream, if only to prevent embarrassment from writing ignorant statements about textbook science. I already knew that Hubble was too far from the Moon to resolve small objects like Apollo equipment and found the above about Hubble in about a minute.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Apr-19 at 09:22 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    540
    To answer your questions posed to me in your earlier thread (replying here since it is on-topic to the question of a "stationary stellar universe"), RE: the proper motion of Polaris:
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu
    0.001 arcsecond = 1/3600000 degree--------------By the way, what telescope are you using and what is the measurement uncertainty in determining the position of the Polaris Star?
    The high resolution measurements of the proper motion of Polaris come from the 2007 reduction of the Hipparcos data:
    http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs...aa8357-07.html
    The proper motion of Polaris can be independently verified using ground-based telescopes; since proper motion builds up over time, using high resolution images taken decades apart you can see its effect from one image to the next. For example, you can detect the proper motion of Polaris in images from the first and second Palomar Sky Survey that were taken using the same telescope almost 50 years apart. I used the following photographic film plates:

    Plate XO001 (A2TX) photographed Aug 22, 1952 5:20 UT
    Astrometrically solved image:
    http://nova.astrometry.net/user_imag...8701#annotated

    Plate XJ896 (A2NG) photographed Jan 17, 1998 5:12 UT
    Astrometrically solved image:
    http://nova.astrometry.net/user_imag...8703#annotated

    The images 46 years apart should have a total motion of Polaris of about 2.1 arcseconds according to the hipparcos data (44.48 x 11.85 mas = combined vector of 46 milliarcseconds per year = 0.046 arcseconds per year * 46 years = 2.1 arcseconds).

    For diffraction centroiding of Polaris, I measured the intersection of the diffraction spikes to find the position of Polaris in each image:
    http://h.dropcanvas.com/yucl0/paloma...to1998wide.jpg
    http://h.dropcanvas.com/yucl0/paloma...o1998wide2.jpg

    Zooming in on the difference between the intersection points in the diffraction spikes, and drawing a line between those intersection points, you can see that Polaris has moved about 2 arcseconds between 1952 and 1998, just as expected according to the Hipparcos data. And just as expected, the direction of motion is positive in right ascension and negative in declination (resulting in a higher right ascension value and slightly lower declination value in the 1998 image):
    http://h.dropcanvas.com/yucl0/paloma...1952to1998.jpg

    So yes, Polaris has proper motion and does move over time, but due to the vast distance between our solar system and Polaris it takes years for these motions to become noticeable even in telescopic images at arcsecond resolution.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,493
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    Furthermore, ...is physically invalid
    An argument from incredibility that a percentage is small does not make parallax physically invalid. A valid calculation is needed. So a formal question:
    IF01: Show your calculation that parallax cannot be used to measure the distance to Proxima Centauri, bentsutomu.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    67

    Modern Astronomy

    Modern astronomers use parallax to determine the distance to a star. The earth's orbital diameter is used as the reference distance; a change in the position of a star, after an observer on the surface of the earth propagates to the position L, where KL represents the distance of the earth's orbital diameter that is used as the reference distance in the calculation of the distance to a star but since the advent of photography, the celestial universe has remained stationary. The shapes of the constellations that constitute the stellar universe have not changed shapes in the last 120 years. The change in the position of a distance star is caused by the affects of the earth's daily and yearly motions upon a stationary celestial universe since the change in the position of a single star results in the rotational shift of all the stars' positions in the entire stellar universe that rotation is centered around the North Star which proves that parallax is physically invalid in determining the distance to a star. In addition, the photograph of the 7,000 light year Eagle Nebula (fig 13) using the Spitzer telescope is created using computer imaginary since the photograph of the Eagle Nebula represents a celestial gas cloud yet the vacuum of celestial space cannot sustain the structure of a gas cloud represented in the photograph of the Eagle Nebula. A gas would immediately dissipate after being formed in the vacuum of stellar space. There are no celestial gas clouds that exists in the stellar space of our solar system. The celestial gas cloud of the Eagle Nebula was fictional created using a computer algorithm that was used to create the fictitious photographic images of the Eagle Nebula. Plus, the Spitzer UV telescope has a resolution of 2 arcsec yet to view the stars of the 7,000 light year Eagle Nebula would require a resolution of 10-3 arcsec which proves the photographs of the Eagle Nebula are fake. Furthermore, Chilean astronomers discovered a planet orbiting the star Proxima Centauri using the La Silla telescope (Escude, p. 408–409) but the Hubble space telescope that is more powerful than the La Silla telescope and cannot view the lunar lander located on the surface of the moon. For the Hubble telescope to detect an object on the surface of the moon would require an illuminated object with a diameter of 200 meters. Chilean astronomers use the dimming that occurs when a planet moves between the star Proxima Centauri and the La Silla telescope to detect the existence of a planet 4.22 light-years from the earth but the variation of the said intensity of a distance star is within the uncertainty caused by the thermodynamic variations of the earth's atmosphere.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    67
    "yet to view the stars of the 7,000 light year Eagle Nebula would require a resolution of 10^(-3) arcsec which proves the photographs"

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    11,420
    bentsutomu,

    You have been warned repeatedly to follow our rules. Do not post your ATM claims outside of the ATM forum again. In your very next post, you must begin answering the questions put to you in this thread.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,493
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    Modern astronomers use parallax to determine the distance to a star. ....
    Repeating most of your OP does not make it clearer or contain an ATM idea, bentsutomu. It does emphasize that all you have so far is unsupported accusations and some ignorance (Can Hubble see the Apollo landing sites on the Moon? - No).
    IF02: Give your evidence and calculations that show that the images of the Eagle Nebula taken by the Spitzer telescope were faked.
    N.B. That needs sources for the telescope resolution needed to resolve stars in the Eagle Nebula.

    The many images of the Eagle Nebula taken by lots of telescopes and by eye since 1746 is just one example of a nebula. They have been recorded visually since around 150 AD, in telescopes since 1610 and then along came photographs, etc.
    IF03: Is your "ATM idea" that every observation of a nebula in outer space has been faked for the last 400 years? Or the last 40 years? Or just one image of the Eagle Nebula?

    FYI: Pressure makes gas clouds expand. Gravity makes gas clouds contract. What happens to a gas cloud depends on the balance between pressure and gravity. Generally gas clouds dissipate slowly on scales of thousands or millions of years. Sometimes they collapse to form planetary system, e.g. the Solar System.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Apr-20 at 03:25 AM.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    67
    Is the stellar universe stationary? If not then explain why the shapes of the consellation do not chang.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    67
    IF02: Give your evidence and calculations that show that the images of the Eagle Nebula taken by the Spitzer telescope were faked.


    The resolution of the spritzer tele is 2 arcsec. Is that to hard for you to comprehend, Einstien?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    67
    That gas can be collected into clouds by gravity.


    You are joking aren't you. HA Ha

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    11,420
    Last warning, bentsutomu. Stop the snarky insults and answer the questions.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,493
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    Is the stellar universe stationary? If not then explain why the shapes of the consellation do not chang.
    The shapes of the constellations do change. The Solar System and stars move.
    ETA: Think about the configuration of planets in the Solar System as the planets move. The configuration of stars in the Milky Way changes in a similar way but very much slower.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Apr-20 at 03:34 AM.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,493
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    IF02: Give your evidence and calculations that show that the images of the Eagle Nebula taken by the Spitzer telescope were faked.
    Correct: IRAC
    the InfraRed Array Camera (IRAC), a four channels imager operating at 3.6, 4.5, 5.8 and 8.0 μm. Each channel has a spectral resolution between ~3 and 5, a field of view of ~5 arcmin and a spatial resolution of ~2 arcsec.
    But not an answer to the question.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,493
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    That gas can be collected into clouds by gravity.
    That is physics, bentsutomu. Gas clouds are made of atoms. Atoms have mass. Atoms thus attract each other using gravity. Pressure can overwhelm the attraction. Gravity can overwhelm the pressure. They can balance and we have stars like the Sun!
    Gravitational collapse
    Gravitational collapse is the contraction of an astronomical object due to the influence of its own gravity, which tends to draw matter inward toward the center of mass. Gravitational collapse is a fundamental mechanism for structure formation in the universe. Over time an initial, relatively smooth distribution of matter will collapse to form pockets of higher density, typically creating a hierarchy of condensed structures such as clusters of galaxies, stellar groups, stars and planets.

    A star is born through the gradual gravitational collapse of a cloud of interstellar matter.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,862
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    That gas can be collected into clouds by gravity.


    You are joking aren't you. HA Ha
    When you raised this same 'argument' in an earlier post, I pointed out that you could disprove your own argument by simply going outside on a clear night and looking at the Orion nebula through a cheap pair of binoculars. You will see for yourself the very type of gas cloud that you claim cannot exist. Buy yourself a cheap telescope and you will be able to see dozens and dozens of them.

    You don't need to believe anything anyone else says. You can see it for yourself by simply going outside and looking up.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,487
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    I disagree.
    I'd like better responses to my points, please. "I disagree" is hardly a convincing or powerful argument.

    As a summary:
    Explain why the observations posted are not proper motion and why they don't completely invalidate your idea about stars being stationary (when we can clearly see one move in this example - and there are plenty of other examples out there)
    Explain why we can observe gas clouds in space and why the Earth has an atmosphere (since by your arguments is one is impossible so is the other)
    Explain how Chandra doesn't disprove your claim that X-rays can't be focused
    Explain how naked eye observations of Andromeda and, in fact, other stars don't contradict your claims about valid limits of observations with telescopes
    Explain your belief that the Hubble Space Telescope should be able to resolve objects below its diffraction limit
    Explain how spiral galaxy shapes are critical to the Big Bang Theory
    Explain how you think the shape of spiral galaxies are arbitrarily created (for galaxies other than our own)
    Explain your belief that the distribution of stars is isotropic and how that doesn't contradict the fact that we can see a large bar of them across one portion of the sky
    Explain your version of how redshift works to justify your claims about the Earth's motion

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    The shapes of the constellations that constitute the stellar universe have not changed shapes in the last 120 years.
    This is demonstrably false. Specifically, I just showed you proper motion of Polaris, Polaris has moved to such an extent that you can measure its motion by comparing telescopic photographs of it taken decades apart. Polaris is the tip of the tail of Ursa Minor, thus it also demonstrates that the constellations do change shape over time, but that the rate of this change is usually orders of magnitude too slow to perceive by naked eye even over many generations. It is moving though, it is not stationary. If you disagree, then please show where my measurements above are wrong?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by bentsutomu View Post
    The celestial gas cloud of the Eagle Nebula was fictional created using a computer algorithm that was used to create the fictitious photographic images of the Eagle Nebula.
    The Eagle nebula has been photographed by many more observatories than just the Spitzer space telescope. In fact, many amateurs including myself have photographed the Eagle nebula for ourselves. You claim that the Eagle nebula cannot exist and that the photographs of it are computer fakes, so does that mean my image of it is fake as well?
    http://h.dropcanvas.com/6557a/eaglenebula.jpg

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •