Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Why telescopes lie?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    8

    Why telescopes lie?

    Even though I was certain we had grasped the modern technology of our telescopes, it seems not to be the case.

    By observing the celestial objects the astronomers found out that a red spectral shift increases with the distance, i.e., the objects increase the distance from us faster and faster. Even Mr. Hubble stated that the universe expands in accordance to his constant, which has been, as time passes, continuously increasing. The object like Andromeda, which is relatively close to us, moves 330 km/sec. faster than us, according to the measurements from the end of the last millennium, or 2 000 km/sec., according to the measurements from this millennium. Both measurements were conducted by the same institution. With the distance, the speed is also increasing, therefore the most distant objects – more than 13 billion of light-years away – increase their distance by the speed of 270 000 km/sec., almost the speed of light (9/10). The universe is, therefore, expanding faster and faster.

    Here, some problems occur. These the most distant objects that move almost at the speed of light are not in the present time, but these are the objects that were there more than 13 billion of light-years ago! it should actually mean that these objects were moving at that huge speed 13 billion of years ago and that the objects from the recent past move only 300 – 2 000 km/sec. faster than us. It is obvious that the spectroscopy on these telescopes lies when it claims that celestial objects were moving much faster earlier in the past and that now, in comparison, they almost don’t move. The reason for it is the Hubble constant, which does not refer to the past, but to the present and future time.

    Maybe the scientists realized that a malfunction occurred, so they just compensated for the errors – just like in “Star Trek” series – but they did not have time to print the new results!

    I am more inclined to trust the telescopes and spectrography, after all, because they state facts. These facts don’t fit into the scientific theories, which are, besides, only the constructs of mind. To set things right, we must go back to the time of Isaac Newton, the time when there was not so many far-fetched theories.

    A rotating object has its movement direction (planets, stars) and that direction is inside the next bigger rotating object (galaxy), which also has a movement direction inside the universe, as a result of rotation… The rotation of universe satisfies the results of the observations: the objects closer to us move slower than the more distant objects, with the most distant objects being the fastest. That is a reflection of the relations inside galaxies – nothing new about it. The telescopes are not designed to foretell the past but to estimate the distance and speed of the celestial objects.

    It goes similar with the devices for measuring background radiation, which estimate the distance from the source to the device, i.e. Earth.

    Let’s assume it originates from the Big Bang. If a background radiation from 13 billion of years ago travels at the speed of light, while matter at its best travels 10% slower, with taking the same starting place into account – how is it possible for them to meet now? What is the calculation that explains it?

    Background radiation arrives from the distance of 13.7 billion of light-years. These data are the same as the distance of the most distant space objects that have been observed. Background radiation arrives from the end of the Universe. 2013.y. (Published)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,848
    Weitter Duckss

    First, welcome to CQ. If you have not read the rules of our forum, I strongly urge you to do so.

    Second, you are advocating a non-mainstream idea. This may only be done in our Against The Mainstream (ATM) forum. I have moved your thread there. This forum incurs responsibilities onto the advocate of the ATM idea, including answering questions put to you. I suggest you review the stickies at the top of ATM forum.

    If you do not wish to follow the ATM rules, say so in your very next post and this thread will be closed. Otherwise, you will be expected to follow them.

    Have fun.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Weitter Duckss View Post
    Even Mr. Hubble stated that the universe expands in accordance to his constant
    Just a detail, but I'm not sure he was ever happy with that explanation.

    The object like Andromeda, which is relatively close to us, moves 330 km/sec. faster than us, according to the measurements from the end of the last millennium, or 2 000 km/sec., according to the measurements from this millennium. Both measurements were conducted by the same institution. With the distance, the speed is also increasing, therefore the most distant objects – more than 13 billion of light-years away – increase their distance by the speed of 270 000 km/sec., almost the speed of light (9/10). The universe is, therefore, expanding faster and faster.
    Andromeda is not really relevant; it is part of our local cluster and therefore not affected by expansion and is, in fact, moving towards us (ie is blue-shifted).

    The most distant objects we can see are receding at much more than the speed light, so something seem to have gone wrong with your calculation there.

    These the most distant objects that move almost at the speed of light are not in the present time, but these are the objects that were there more than 13 billion of light-years ago! it should actually mean that these objects were moving at that huge speed 13 billion of years ago and that the objects from the recent past move only 300 – 2 000 km/sec. faster than us.
    You need to understand a few things, here. For one, the red-shift is not the same as the Doppler shift, in other words it is not caused by the speed they are moving away from us.

    Both the (apparent) recessional speed and the red-shift are caused by the changing scale factor. Basically, expansion is a scaling effect and, as a result (by basic arithmetic), the speed of separation is inevitably proportional to distance.

    Also, the light that has taken 13 billion years to reach us was emitted when the source was about 4 billion light years away (and that source is now about 45 billion light years away).

    In summary, it is not the difference in speed that causes the red shift, it is the change in scale factor of the universe between when it was emitted and when we receive it.

    It is obvious that the spectroscopy on these telescopes lies when it claims that celestial objects were moving much faster earlier in the past and that now, in comparison, they almost don’t move.
    It doesn't claim any such thing.

    To set things right, we must go back to the time of Isaac Newton, the time when there was not so many far-fetched theories.
    We know that Newtonian gravity doesn't work. That was part of the motivation for developing GR.

    A rotating object has its movement direction (planets, stars) and that direction is inside the next bigger rotating object (galaxy), which also has a movement direction inside the universe, as a result of rotation… The rotation of universe satisfies the results of the observations: the objects closer to us move slower than the more distant objects, with the most distant objects being the fastest.
    But these relative speeds would all be in the same direction and there would be no Doppler shift (the distance between galaxies would not be changing).

    It goes similar with the devices for measuring background radiation, which estimate the distance from the source to the device, i.e. Earth.
    You would need to come up with an alternative source for the CMB. No one has done this, which is why it was the final nail in the coffin of other theories.

    Let’s assume it originates from the Big Bang. If a background radiation from 13 billion of years ago travels at the speed of light, while matter at its best travels 10% slower, with taking the same starting place into account – how is it possible for them to meet now? What is the calculation that explains it?
    The background radiation is coming from increasingly far away all the time. The "surface of last screaming" is a good analogy to explain this: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/...weaver7_2.html

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    8
    Andromeda is not really relevant; it is part of our local cluster and therefore not affected by expansion and is, in fact, moving towards us (ie is blue-shifted).

    The most distant objects we can see are receding at much more than the speed light, so something seem to have gone wrong with your calculation there.

    „compiled a list of 65 galaxies in Virgo with VLG < 0 (blue shift).
    Designation VLG…(blue shift)
    NGC4419 −383
    VCC997 −360
    KDG132 −100
    NGC4438 −43
    DSS −0
    VCC1129 −105
    VCC1163 −564
    VCC1175 −118
    VCC1198 −470
    IC3416 −198
    VCC1239 −672
    VCC1264 −539
    IC3435 −150
    VCC1314 −37
    IC3445 −470
    IC3471 −235
    IC3476 −280
    IC3492 −604
    IC3548 −37
    VCC1682 −66
    NGC4569 −345
    UGC7795 −78
    VCC1750 −258
    VCC1761 −269
    KDG172 −42
    VCC1812 −351
    VCC1860 −124
    IC3658 −69
    UGC7857 −7
    VCC1909 −16
    IC0810 −188
    VCC2028 −52
    Designation VLG…(blue shift)
    IC3036 −126
    IC3044 −298
    VCC087 −267
    NGC4192 −246
    NGC4212 −199
    VCC181 −267
    VCC200 −98
    A224385 −204
    IC3094 −275
    VCC237 −423
    IC3105 −284
    VCC322 −323
    VCC334 −350
    VCC501 −224
    IC3224 −100
    VCC628 −540
    VCC636 −113
    IC3258 −593
    IC3303 −427
    VCC788 −3
    VCC802 −318
    IC3311 −287
    VCC810 −470
    VCC815 −866
    VCC846 −845
    NGC4396 −215
    VCC877 −212
    NGC4406 −374
    VCC892 −784
    NGC4413 −16
    VCC928 −395
    IC3355 −126
    VCC953 −563
    http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Uni...ml#Hubbles-law

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,347
    Not sure what the relevance of that list is. That has nothing to do with Hubbles law.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,229
    I could argue that telescopes neither lie nor tell the truth. They are tools with which we gather data, and as fallible human beings we can make good, bad or indifferent inferences from analysis of the data.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    716
    Quote Originally Posted by Weitter Duckss View Post
    Andromeda is not really relevant; it is part of our local cluster and therefore not affected by expansion and is, in fact, moving towards us (ie is blue-shifted).

    The most distant objects we can see are receding at much more than the speed light, so something seem to have gone wrong with your calculation there.

    „compiled a list of 65 galaxies in Virgo with VLG < 0 (blue shift).
    Designation VLG…(blue shift)
    NGC4419 −383
    VCC997 −360
    KDG132 −100
    NGC4438 −43
    DSS −0
    VCC1129 −105
    VCC1163 −564
    VCC1175 −118
    VCC1198 −470
    IC3416 −198
    VCC1239 −672
    VCC1264 −539
    IC3435 −150
    VCC1314 −37
    IC3445 −470
    IC3471 −235
    IC3476 −280
    IC3492 −604
    IC3548 −37
    VCC1682 −66
    NGC4569 −345
    UGC7795 −78
    VCC1750 −258
    VCC1761 −269
    KDG172 −42
    VCC1812 −351
    VCC1860 −124
    IC3658 −69
    UGC7857 −7
    VCC1909 −16
    IC0810 −188
    VCC2028 −52
    Designation VLG…(blue shift)
    IC3036 −126
    IC3044 −298
    VCC087 −267
    NGC4192 −246
    NGC4212 −199
    VCC181 −267
    VCC200 −98
    A224385 −204
    IC3094 −275
    VCC237 −423
    IC3105 −284
    VCC322 −323
    VCC334 −350
    VCC501 −224
    IC3224 −100
    VCC628 −540
    VCC636 −113
    IC3258 −593
    IC3303 −427
    VCC788 −3
    VCC802 −318
    IC3311 −287
    VCC810 −470
    VCC815 −866
    VCC846 −845
    NGC4396 −215
    VCC877 −212
    NGC4406 −374
    VCC892 −784
    NGC4413 −16
    VCC928 −395
    IC3355 −126
    VCC953 −563
    http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Uni...ml#Hubbles-law
    Wait, what? Had you a point to make?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    8
    "Maybe I have misunderstood Hubble´s law. Indeed: „Objects observed in deep space - extragalactic space, 10 megaparsecs(Mpc) or more - are found to have a red shift, interpreted as a relative velocity away from Earth;“.
    It means that if 10 Mpc equals 32,6 millions of light-years then Hubble's law doesn't apply for galaxies and objects, the values of which are more easily determined.
    Let's check that on the distances at which Hubble's law should apply:
    It is interesting that
    NGC 1.600 is 149,3 Kly away and its speed is 4.681 km/s,
    NGC 7320c is 35 Mly away and with the speed of (a red shift) 5.985 ± 9,
    NGC 5010 that is 469 Mly away has the speed of distancing of 2.975 ± 27, and the galaxy
    NGC 280 that is 469 Mly away has the speed of distancing of 3.878!
    The guys and girls that measure these values must have missed something or Hubble´s law and the constant don't apply (any value of the constant).

    At the distance of 52 ± 3 (M86) there is a blue shift (-244 ± 5 km/s) that is also present with the galaxy M90 at the distance of 58.7 ± 2.8 (−282 ± 4), while the other galaxies at the same distance (Messier 61, NGC 4216 , Messier 60, NGC 4526, Messier 99 (except NGC 4419 -0,0009 (-342)) are with a positive sign and completely different speeds."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,676

    Try Using The Quotte Function

    Quote Originally Posted by Weitter Duckss View Post
    "Maybe I have misunderstood Hubble´s law. Indeed: „Objects observed in deep space - extragalactic space, 10 megaparsecs(Mpc) or more - are found to have a red shift, interpreted as a relative velocity away from Earth;“.
    It means that if 10 Mpc equals 32,6 millions of light-years then Hubble's law doesn't apply for galaxies and objects, the values of which are more easily determined.
    Let's check that on the distances at which Hubble's law should apply:
    It is interesting that
    NGC 1.600 is 149,3 Kly away and its speed is 4.681 km/s,
    NGC 7320c is 35 Mly away and with the speed of (a red shift) 5.985 ± 9,
    NGC 5010 that is 469 Mly away has the speed of distancing of 2.975 ± 27, and the galaxy
    NGC 280 that is 469 Mly away has the speed of distancing of 3.878!
    The guys and girls that measure these values must have missed something or Hubble´s law and the constant don't apply (any value of the constant).

    At the distance of 52 ± 3 (M86) there is a blue shift (-244 ± 5 km/s) that is also present with the galaxy M90 at the distance of 58.7 ± 2.8 (−282 ± 4), while the other galaxies at the same distance (Messier 61, NGC 4216 , Messier 60, NGC 4526, Messier 99 (except NGC 4419 -0,0009 (-342)) are with a positive sign and completely different speeds."
    Do you understand that the local galaxies out as far as the local group and the local cluster are gravititationally bound and are not part of the general expansion?
    Last edited by John Mendenhall; 2018-May-08 at 02:17 AM. Reason: typos

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Weitter Duckss View Post
    "Maybe I have misunderstood Hubble´s law.
    Seems quite possible.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    8
    @ John Mendenhall
    In article: http://www.globalscientificjournal.c...-COSMOLOGY.pdf the first table is an overview of the local galaxy set. It just needs to be read.

    @ Strange
    „Hubble constant „For most of the other half of the 20th century, the value was estimated between 50 and 90 (km / s) / Mpc. "Wikipedia (there are several constants today and all of them are about 70 km/s).
    There is again something wrong with the law and a constant! M90 is 58.7 ± 2.8 Mly away and, can you imagine the „miracle“: it has a blue shift of −282 ± 4 km/s !
    According to „nobody-knows-whose-constant“, the galaxies that are 32,6 Mly away should possess the speed of some 700 km/s and on the double distance of 65,2 Mly they should have the speed of increasing distance of some 1.400 km/s, etc.“
    Now look at the data from tables 2, 3 and 4.
    If you know how to apply Hubble's law, please teach me and others.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Weitter Duckss View Post
    @ John Mendenhall
    In article: http://www.globalscientificjournal.c...-COSMOLOGY.pdf the first table is an overview of the local galaxy set. It just needs to be read.
    And you just need to explain how that answers the question Mr. Mendenhall asked. Just telling someone to go read an offsite reference is not acceptable.
    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)

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Weitter Duckss View Post
    If you know how to apply Hubble's law, please teach me and others.
    It is pretty easy, you apply it on average. Take all known objects, plot distance vs redshift and work out the best fit to the data. You will find it is a straight line with a gradient of Hubble's constant.

    Your claim is that observations are best matched by a rotating universe, I believe? Can you please, in reasonable detail, account for the isotropy of the CMBR and redshift observations under this paradigm? Do you require us to be at the centre of the universe? Where are the polar effects or do you propose some more complex form of rotation? In short can you provide more details on your claims.

    Worth pointing out that even if you could convince people that the mainstream is wrong it doesn't make your claims any more right. To do that you need to clearly articulate them in detail provide observational evidence where possible and feasible tests of your ideas.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Weitter Duckss View Post
    @ John Mendenhall
    In article: http://www.globalscientificjournal.c...-COSMOLOGY.pdf the first table is an overview of the local galaxy set. It just needs to be read.

    @ Strange
    „Hubble constant „For most of the other half of the 20th century, the value was estimated between 50 and 90 (km / s) / Mpc. "Wikipedia (there are several constants today and all of them are about 70 km/s).
    There is again something wrong with the law and a constant! M90 is 58.7 ± 2.8 Mly away and, can you imagine the „miracle“: it has a blue shift of −282 ± 4 km/s !
    According to „nobody-knows-whose-constant“, the galaxies that are 32,6 Mly away should possess the speed of some 700 km/s and on the double distance of 65,2 Mly they should have the speed of increasing distance of some 1.400 km/s, etc.“
    Now look at the data from tables 2, 3 and 4.
    If you know how to apply Hubble's law, please teach me and others.
    As you have been told, Hubble's law doesn't apply to local galaxies (or the stars in a galaxy or the solar system) because they are held together by gravity.

    Expansion of space only affects things which are sufficiently far apart that there are negligible forces acting on them. Therefore you have to look at more distant galaxies.

    So what is the point of cherry-picking irrelevant data instead of looking at the data that confirms Hubble's Law?

    And, yes, over time we have been making more accurate measurements of the Hubble constant and they have converged on a value.

    (You mention Wikipedia but you don't give a reference so there is nothing to say about that.)

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Weitter Duckss View Post
    @ John Mendenhall
    In article: http://www.globalscientificjournal.c...-COSMOLOGY.pdf the first table is an overview of the local galaxy set. It just needs to be read.

    @ Strange
    „Hubble constant „For most of the other half of the 20th century, the value was estimated between 50 and 90 (km / s) / Mpc. "Wikipedia (there are several constants today and all of them are about 70 km/s).
    There is again something wrong with the law and a constant! M90 is 58.7 ± 2.8 Mly away and, can you imagine the „miracle“: it has a blue shift of −282 ± 4 km/s !
    According to „nobody-knows-whose-constant“, the galaxies that are 32,6 Mly away should possess the speed of some 700 km/s and on the double distance of 65,2 Mly they should have the speed of increasing distance of some 1.400 km/s, etc.“
    Now look at the data from tables 2, 3 and 4.
    If you know how to apply Hubble's law, please teach me and others.
    Hmm. I don't see the all-important words "peer review" anywhere wrt Global Sciewnce"

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Weitter Duckss View Post
    "Maybe I have misunderstood Hubble´s law. Indeed: „Objects observed in deep space - extragalactic space, 10 megaparsecs(Mpc) or more - are found to have a red shift, interpreted as a relative velocity away from Earth;“
    No. At least, cosmologically distant objects are no longer "interpreted as a relative velocity away from Earth." The more accurate analogy is that the space in between is expanding - the objects are not moving through space that much. Physicists, though, use General Relativity to model these cosmological workings. It's got a remarkable track record. To say the least.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    8
    If it's out of line, my apology.

    We discuss:
    “These the most distant objects that move almost at the speed of light are not in the present time, but these are the objects that were there more than 13 billion of light-years ago! it should actually mean that these objects were moving at that huge speed 13 billion of years ago and that the objects from the recent past move only 300 – 2 000 km/sec. faster than us. It is obvious that the spectroscopy on these telescopes lies when it claims that celestial objects were moving much faster earlier in the past and that now, in comparison, they almost don’t move. The reason for it is the Hubble constant, which does not refer to the past, but to the present and future time.”

    It does not matter the mainstream, the important thing is true. If the mainstream says: The universe is expanding faster "why are the objects distant (sorry, oldest objects) 13, xx ly fastest?
    "If a background radiation from 13 billion years ago travels at the speed of light, while matter at its best travels 10% slower, with taking the same starting place into account - how is it possible for them to meet now? calculation that explains it? "
    The starting point is 300-400 thousand years by the so-called Big Bang. Let's suppose it is a compact mass of Sun size. They start with "Sun" radiation and run an expansion. "how is it possible for them to meet now (CMBR)?"
    In Hubble's law I did not find a warning "you have to apply the average, otherwise not worth Hubble's law."
    Help find the average red shift for a distance of 48 to 58 Mly with Hubble´s law „Objects observed in deep space - extragalactic space, 10 megaparsecs(Mpc) or more - are found to have a red shift, interpreted as a relative velocity away from Earth; and Hubble constant „For most of the other half of the 20th century, the value was estimated between 50 and 90 (km / s) / Mpc. “.

    Messier 88..........47 ± 8......................2235 ± 4 km/s
    IC 3258...............48............................-0,0015 (-517)
    NGC 3949...........50............................800 ± 1
    NGC 3877...........50,5..........................895 ± 4
    NGC 4088...........51,5 ± 4,5................757 ± 1
    NGC 1427A.........51,9 (+5,3, -7,7)...2028 ± 1
    NGC 1055...........52...........................994 ± 5
    M86.....................52 ± 3....................-244 ± 5
    Messier 61..........52.5 ± 2.3..............1483 ± 4
    NGC 4216..........55..............................131 ± 4
    Messier 60..........55 ± 4......................1117 ± 6
    NGC 4526...........55±5.........................448 ± 8
    Messier 99..........55,7.........................2407 ± 3
    NGC 4419..........56............................-0,0009 (-342)
    M90....................58.7 ± 2.8................−282 ± 4

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    14,829
    Weitter Duckss: stop telling us that mainstream is wrong, and start explaining what ATM idea you are proposing that explains the evidence better . This forum is for defending your idea, and you only get to do that ONE time. For a maximum 30 days. After that your topic will be closed and you may never bring it up again. If this thread remains just a list op posts with you requesting us to explain your misconceptions it will be closed too. So: less attacking, more presenting.
    ____________
    "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

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Weitter Duckss View Post
    It does not matter the mainstream, the important thing is true. If the mainstream says: The universe is expanding faster "why are the objects distant (sorry, oldest objects) 13, xx ly fastest?
    Because expansion is a scaling effect, the apparent recessional speed is proportional to distance (this is simple arithmetic). If you don't understand this then you could ask a question in the appropriate part o the forum, instead of just making silly claims.

    "If a background radiation from 13 billion years ago travels at the speed of light, while matter at its best travels 10% slower, with taking the same starting place into account - how is it possible for them to meet now? calculation that explains it? "
    Instead of just repeating this, can you explain what is wrong with the explanation provided before?

    In particular, the radiation and the matter didn't come from the same place. The matter (us) is here. The source of the radiation is (now) about 45 billion light years away.

    Again, if you don't understand this, it would be better to ask questions in the appropriate part of the forum.


    The starting point is 300-400 thousand years by the so-called Big Bang. Let's suppose it is a compact mass of Sun size. They start with "Sun" radiation and run an expansion. "how is it possible for them to meet now (CMBR)?"
    The radiation we are receiving now was about 4 billion light years away. So " suppose it is a compact mass of Sun size" is just nonsense.

    In Hubble's law I did not find a warning "you have to apply the average, otherwise not worth Hubble's law."
    So you don't know how science works. (You could ask about that too.)

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Weitter Duckss View Post
    If it's out of line, my apology.

    We discuss:
    “These the most distant objects that move almost at the speed of light are not in the present time, but these are the objects that were there more than 13 billion of light-years ago! it should actually mean that these objects were moving at that huge speed 13 billion of years ago and that the objects from the recent past move only 300 – 2 000 km/sec. faster than us. It is obvious that the spectroscopy on these telescopes lies when it claims that celestial objects were moving much faster earlier in the past and that now, in comparison, they almost don’t move. The reason for it is the Hubble constant, which does not refer to the past, but to the present and future time.”

    It does not matter the mainstream, the important thing is true. If the mainstream says: The universe is expanding faster "why are the objects distant (sorry, oldest objects) 13, xx ly fastest?
    "If a background radiation from 13 billion years ago travels at the speed of light, while matter at its best travels 10% slower, with taking the same starting place into account - how is it possible for them to meet now? calculation that explains it? "
    The starting point is 300-400 thousand years by the so-called Big Bang. Let's suppose it is a compact mass of Sun size. They start with "Sun" radiation and run an expansion. "how is it possible for them to meet now (CMBR)?"
    In Hubble's law I did not find a warning "you have to apply the average, otherwise not worth Hubble's law."
    Help find the average red shift for a distance of 48 to 58 Mly with Hubble´s law „Objects observed in deep space - extragalactic space, 10 megaparsecs(Mpc) or more - are found to have a red shift, interpreted as a relative velocity away from Earth; and Hubble constant „For most of the other half of the 20th century, the value was estimated between 50 and 90 (km / s) / Mpc. “.

    Messier 88..........47 ± 8......................2235 ± 4 km/s
    IC 3258...............48............................-0,0015 (-517)
    NGC 3949...........50............................800 ± 1
    NGC 3877...........50,5..........................895 ± 4
    NGC 4088...........51,5 ± 4,5................757 ± 1
    NGC 1427A.........51,9 (+5,3, -7,7)...2028 ± 1
    NGC 1055...........52...........................994 ± 5
    M86.....................52 ± 3....................-244 ± 5
    Messier 61..........52.5 ± 2.3..............1483 ± 4
    NGC 4216..........55..............................131 ± 4
    Messier 60..........55 ± 4......................1117 ± 6
    NGC 4526...........55±5.........................448 ± 8
    Messier 99..........55,7.........................2407 ± 3
    NGC 4419..........56............................-0,0009 (-342)
    M90....................58.7 ± 2.8................−282 ± 4
    This looks like a sample of the Virgo cluster of galaxies. The mean velocity away from us is about 850 km/sec. Converting the distances to megaparsecs yields about 53 km/sec per megaparsec, within the uncertainty of 50 to 90 you quote as prevailing for much of the 20th century. It is outside the narrower range of 70 to 75 from more recent work, but not by much considering the large range of local variation in this sample. The cluster as a whole could easily have local motion that would account for the difference. The Hubble parameter is estimated from data over a much larger radius so the local motions become less of a factor. It should be noted that Hubble's original estimate of the parameter was several times the currently accepted value, because the distances to the relatively nearby objects were underestimated with the primitive means available at the time, for various reasons. Things are never as neat and clean in the real universe as in thought exercise models.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,229
    Addendum: The telescopes and the spectrographs attached to them do not lie. They just show us that most of these galaxies have redshifts. Our theoretical models in which we interpret the data can lie if they are bad enough.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Weitter Duckss View Post
    In Hubble's law I did not find a warning "you have to apply the average, otherwise not worth Hubble's law."
    Maybe you should start with the Wikipedia page and head to Q&A if you need more information.
    "Hubble discovered a rough proportionality between redshift of an object and its distance. Though there was considerable scatter (now known to be caused by peculiar velocities – the 'Hubble flow' is used to refer to the region of space far enough out that the recession velocity is larger than local peculiar velocities), Hubble was able to plot a trend line from the 46 galaxies he studied and obtain a value for the Hubble constant of 500 km/s/Mpc (much higher than the currently accepted value due to errors in his distance calibrations)."
    There is also a figure showing the Virgo cluster data as strongly affected by proper motions.

    But on to your actual claims. Can you please provide the details and answers I asked for in post 13?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    8
    @ moderator
    The article title (topic) is "Why Telescopes Lie". The article is conceived to point out the misconceptions of the dominant official theories. The purpose of this article is not to prove my views. Of course, I'm not out of evidence and presentation of my attitudes and evidence, but it's not a topic. Who wants to see my views before time can visit my site or academija.edu. If it is not permissible to prove the maladministration of existing theories, what is the forum for?
    About my proofs or lies will be within the theme:
    http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Theory-of-Zadar.html ;
    http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/U%20potrazi%20za%20izgubljenim%20svemirom.html
    http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/the-Universe-rotating.html#19b
    http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#Weitter-Duckss-Theory-of-the-Universe ;
    http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#Universe-and-rotation & http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#Processes
    and fifty other articles (themes).
    It is unrealistic to expect that 14 years of work be explained in one line. Of course, if you do not want to allow it, giving up anti-evidence on the existing science you can freely lock my registration.

    @Strange
    „The source of the radiation is (now) about 45 billion light years away.“
    Now please clarify. Is Big Bang formed before 13.7 (8) billion ly or before 45 Gly? There is no radiation before the time of Big Bang. There is only singularity there (according to Big Bang theory).
    „The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological description of the development of the Universe. Under this theory, space and time emerged together 13.799±0.021 billion years ago with a fixed amount of energy and matter that has become less dense as the Universe has expanded. ..
    when the temperature was around 3000 K or when the universe was approximately 379,000 years old. As photons did not interact with these electrically neutral atoms, the former began to travel freely through space, resulting in the decoupling of matter and radiation.“ Wikipedia
    There are no speeds bigger than light.
    Again question: 379,000 ly by Big Bangu start radiation and flow expansion (total in Big Bang history exists 13,799 ± 0.021 billion years ago)?
    "So you do not know how science works. (You can also ask for it.) "
    I put a very simple question and set clear relations and counter-evidence. All evidence is official evidence. So if there are no speeds greater than light and the universe is expanding; how are these radiation coming now?

    @Hornblower
    „The Virgo Cluster is a cluster of galaxies whose center is 53.8 ± 0.3 Mly (16.5 ± 0.1 Mpc)[2] away in the constellation Virgo.“ Wikipedia
    By what constant, did you get 850 km / s?
    In our local galaxy group, the ratio of red and blue displacements is ~ 50/50. Are we the center of the universe?
    In the rotation, does not have to be polarity (clusters of stars, clusters of galaxies, Superclusters ..) like: smaller bodies, stars and galaxies part).

    @Addendum
    I agree, but it should be noted that "most of these galaxies have redshifts" and it is not (most likely) true.
    “Using the Chandra and Hubble Space Telescopes we have now observed 72 collisions between galaxy clusters, including both ‘major’ and ‘minor’ mergers” …
    Cluster (Supercluster) is by definition an object that rotates (as a whole) at a rate other than zero.
    Last edited by PetersCreek; 2018-May-09 at 05:10 PM. Reason: Deactivated links

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    8
    @Shaula
    http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#Hubbles-law
    Last edited by PetersCreek; 2018-May-09 at 05:12 PM. Reason: Deactivated link

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,245
    Thread closed pending moderator discussion.

    Edit to add:

    Weitter Duckss,

    You were warned to read and follow our rules. You were warned not to make your argument via off-site links. You argued with moderation within this thread. If you aren't going to follow our rules and if you are not going to defend an against the mainstream theory, this thread will remain closed. If you later decide (prior to June 4th) that you can defend this as an ATM theory and that you will do so according to the rules, report this post to ask that it be reopened.
    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)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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