PDA

View Full Version : Big Bang under scrutiny:Hail Darwin or Hallelujah?



Dunash
2002-Mar-08, 06:17 PM
One of the keys to falsifying the Big Bang theory is the state of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB). Measurements of it are now being performed by the Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP) spacecraft and the first results of those measurements are
due to at the end of this month, with results expected to be better than COBE's.

If they're not in line with the Big Bang Theory, and more in line with the Creationist-Geocentrist view, can we expect another NASA cover-up? Is it gonna be "Hail Darwin" or "Hallelujah"?!

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.html .

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Mar-08, 06:29 PM
On 2002-03-08 13:17, Dunash wrote:
If they're not in line with the Big Bang Theory, and more in line with the Creationist-Geocentrist view, can we expect another NASA cover-up?

"Another" coverup? I assume then you have citations and evidence for a previous coverup. I won't let you post something like that without asking for some backup.

aurorae
2002-Mar-08, 06:32 PM
On 2002-03-08 13:17, Dunash wrote:
If they're not in line with the Big Bang Theory, and more in line with the Creationist-Geocentrist view, can we expect another NASA cover-up?


"Another" NASA cover-up? I can imagine the sort of "proof" you would point to for the previous cover-ups (about the quality of Hoaxland's stuiff, no doubt).

Hey, Dunash, I thought Creationists believed that the universe was "created"? Hence the name? Are you saying that you are a Creationist and yet you do not believe that the universe was created at a single point?

Sounds sort of oxymoronic.

CJSF
2002-Mar-08, 07:32 PM
So, what you are saying is that if MAP shows the cosmic background radiation to be in line with the "big bang", you will assume the REAL data is covered-up?

Gimme a break

CJSF

Chip
2002-Mar-08, 07:53 PM
Dunash wrote:
"One of the keys to falsifying the Big Bang theory is the state of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB)."

Chip:
Not quite correct. Better to say: One of the keys to better understanding Big Bang cosmology is the state of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

Dunash:
"Measurements of it are now being performed by the Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP) spacecraft and the first results of those measurements are due to at the end of this month, with results expected to be better than COBE's."

Chip:
That should be interesting.

Dunash:
"If they're not in line with the Big Bang Theory, and more in line with the Creationist-Geocentrist view, can we expect another NASA cover-up?"

Chip:
Whoa there! I don't know where you're going with this one. I thought creationists liked the idea of a Big Bang universe because they can bend it to fit their dogma.

Then again, since the Earth came about very long after the universe, and is not even at the center of the Milky Way -- and since all observations of the cosmos do not indicate a center but rather an accelerating expansion everywhere -- I suppose deeper reading of Big Bang theory would bother some fundamentalist viewpoints.

Dunash:
"Is it gonna be "Hail Darwin" or "Hallelujah"?!

Chip:

I think not. It is more likely to be: "Big Bang Model A" or "Big Bang Model B" or "C" or "C+B" or "A-C+1" or....."

P.S. Mr. Darwin was interested in biology. Cosmology really wasn't one of the sciences in his time. "Hallelujah" is an expression of joy best reserved for Handel's "Messiah", Black Gospel music, or the exclamation of JPL staff when the first pictures come back from the next Mars Lander. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.html .




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-03-08 23:33 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Mar-08, 10:17 PM
On 2002-03-08 13:17, Dunash wrote:
If they're not in line with the Big Bang Theory, and more in line with the Creationist-Geocentrist view, can we expect another NASA cover-up?
In line with the Creationist-Geocentrist view? What does that view predict? And why? Couldn't it have been created some other way? Are you sure you understand the thoughts of God, in this matter?

Silas
2002-Mar-09, 11:47 PM
And, chiming in with another dull and pro-forma objection, Charles Darwin never said anything about the origin of the cosmos. He was a naturalist, most interested in observational botany and zoology.

Personally, I say hallelujah for the TRUTH, whatever it may turn out to be.

Silas

John Kierein
2002-Mar-10, 11:12 AM
The microwave background disagrees with the big bang. See history of the 2.7 background prior to Penzias & Wilson: http://www.dfi.uem.br/~macedane/history_of_2.7k.html
Also, the even longer wavelenth observations deviate strongly from a black body. The 100 meter and 500 meter observations are more consistant with a 3.5 million degree black body!
See:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/9335/G_Reber.html
and the referenced paper in the Journal of the Franklin Institute of Jan 1968, pages 1-12 "Cosmic static at 144 meters wavelength."

ToSeek
2002-Mar-11, 01:57 PM
[quote]
On 2002-03-10 06:12, John Kierein wrote:
The microwave background disagrees with the big bang. See history of the 2.7 background prior to Penzias & Wilson: http://www.dfi.uem.br/~macedane/history_of_2.7k.html</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

Eddington did not predict the CMB (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Eddington-T0.html). And what Guillaume is talking about does not appear to have anything to do with the black-body background radiation.

Dunash
2002-Dec-07, 05:31 PM
If only Gould could speak to us now from the Afterlife whether he's changed his views. I suspect he's up (down?) there with Charles, in the Tropical section!

http://www.economist.com/books/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1477461

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dunash on 2002-12-07 12:33 ]</font>

informant
2002-Dec-07, 05:45 PM
If only Gould could speak to us now from the Afterlife whether he's changed his views. I suspect he's up (down?) there with Charles, in the Tropical section!

Very convincing argument, Dunash! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Dec-07, 05:56 PM
Dunash has given us a standard creationist false dichotomy.

Why would the CMB and the Big Bang have anything to do with Darwin? The only connection is that evolution needs a long time to work. Astronomers say the Universe is old enough for evolution to have had time to work. That's it, that's the connection.

For creationists to call the Universe Darwinian, or, even more bizarrely, to call astronomers "stellar evolutionists" (as many have) is simply wrong. It's misleading at best, and a lie at worst. It's also downright ridiculous.

JS Princeton
2002-Dec-07, 06:39 PM
On 2002-03-10 06:12, John Kierein wrote:
The microwave background disagrees with the big bang. See history of the 2.7 background prior to Penzias & Wilson: http://www.dfi.uem.br/~macedane/history_of_2.7k.html</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

I wish you would stop, John, saying patently untrue things that you obviously know nothing about. Others have told you that these arguments are wrong AND have given you the citations to back themselves up before but you have nothing to say back other than to repeat the same worthless tripe back as though it were dogma. I for one think it's dishonest, disingenuous, and utter baloney. Why should we believe anything you say if you continue to demonstrate that your head is firmly planted in the sand.

[quote]
Also, the even longer wavelenth observations deviate strongly from a black body. The 100 meter and 500 meter observations are more consistant with a 3.5 million degree black body!
See:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/9335/G_Reber.html</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

This has got to be some of the biggest nonsense I've seen from you. Looking at radiation that is so far down in the tail tells us nothing about the actual blackbody curve. To extrapolate a blackbody curve from such data is utter baloney. It's not observed where the peak should be, therefore we know that the measurement is entirely erroneous. By that point, we're dealing with error bars that are so much larger than the signal it is ridiculous to draw any conclusions from them.

Also, John, you know that there are other sources of microwave radiation that are manifestly NOT isotropic across the sky. The CMB IS isotropic across the sky. That's the signal we're talking about and it fits a blackbody curve perfectly for the wavelengths across the spectrum. Using an out-of-date paper from a small think-tank in Tanzania to back up your statements is laughable when we have evidence that is from multiple microwave astronomy observatories to show that your statement is completely false.

[quote]
and the referenced paper in the Journal of the Franklin Institute of Jan 1968, pages 1-12 "Cosmic static at 144 meters wavelength."



Using papers from 1968 on detection threshhold detection limits for radio waves hardly constitutes evidence for or against the Big Bang. All it does is show how desperate you are to pretend you have a case...

If you want to read about real prospects for long wavelength astronomy, read this paper (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2000GMS...119..243W&db_key=AST&high=3da749ef2922734).

JS Princeton
2002-Dec-07, 09:11 PM
On 2002-12-07 12:56, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
Dunash has given us a standard creationist false dichotomy.

Why would the CMB and the Big Bang have anything to do with Darwin? The only connection is that evolution needs a long time to work. Astronomers say the Universe is old enough for evolution to have had time to work. That's it, that's the connection.

For creationists to call the Universe Darwinian, or, even more bizarrely, to call astronomers "stellar evolutionists" (as many have) is simply wrong. It's misleading at best, and a lie at worst. It's also downright ridiculous.


I think Dunash is just lashing out because he's bitter at being shown to be utterly wrong in the dust on the moon thread. There are so few creationists who care to admit when they make mistakes, aren't there? Instead they start new threads!

ljbrs
2002-Dec-07, 11:09 PM
In a way, I can be thankful that some of the writers here go off on a tangent about their ideas which are far from reasonable when compared to the present-day cosmological and astrophysical understanding. I am most thankful for the answers given by the more knowledgeable writers here on Bad Astronomy. It is a great way for me to increase my understanding of the cosmos and very, very educational.

Thanks.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Silas
2002-Dec-07, 11:29 PM
Stephen Jay Gould did much of his most productive work in tropical and subtropical areas -- he specialized in snails on small islands -- so I'm sure that, if God is kind, he is still on those islands in spirit.

Darwin's heaven would likely be a manicured and tidy English Garden; he rather got his fill of raw nature with the Beagle.

There is no "hell" for scientists; they've served their time in the purgatory of ignorance, seeking the light of knowledge. Scientists know: there is nothing wrong with being wrong. In science, the only sin is faking data, something neither Darwin nor Gould would ever have dreamed of.

Silas

nebularain
2002-Dec-07, 11:47 PM
On 2002-03-08 13:17, Dunash wrote:
If they're not in line with the Big Bang Theory, and more in line with the Creationist-Geocentrist view, can we expect another NASA cover-up? Is it gonna be "Hail Darwin" or "Hallelujah"?!

I think Dunash's focus was that the CMB was going to show evidence for geocentrism - and geocentrism is tied in with Creationism. I have no idea what he means by a "cover-up," though.

xriso
2002-Dec-08, 12:34 AM
Obviously Dunash can't be serious about a comment like that, with so many contradictions and misunderstandings. My conclusion: YHBT. HAND.

ljbrs
2002-Dec-08, 01:09 AM
Could Dunash be verging on blasphemy in assuming that he speaks for his deity? Creationists seem to take great liberties in their religious views without ever asking their deity's permission.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif

Silas
2002-Dec-08, 10:19 PM
On 2002-12-07 20:09, ljbrs wrote:
Could Dunash be verging on blasphemy in assuming that he speaks for his deity?

I don't want to insult anyone, nor should this become another (soon to be locked) thread on theology.

Instead, please consider this insight on "alternative science." Most alternative science is based on a single specific notion, and that notion defines the viewpoint.

The Flat-Earthers, for instance (for whom I may speak as an official member) believe the world is flat. That is what *defines* us as Flat-Earthers.

We *can't* surrender that view; otherwise, we'd have to surrender our identity. We've put the cart before the horse; we've put our theory ahead of the data. The theory must be protected at all costs.

On the other hand, among real Astronomers, there are no "Big Bangers." There are only Astronomers. Real Astronomers want to discover the truth. They put the data first, and the theory second. They don't have anything to defend. They go, in Huxley's wonderful phrase, "...As a little child before the truth."

A true explorer on the seas doesn't make a map ahead of time and then insist that he has landed in China when he has actually stumbled onto the sands of some Caribbean islet. A true explorer starts out with a blank map, which he fills in with a pencil, such markings he often erases.

The pseudo-scientist has already drawn his map in ink and published it widely: to him, every sandy beach is the Chinese foreshore, no matter how many of the locals try to explain otherwise.

Silas

bad undergrad
2002-Dec-09, 07:29 AM
On 2002-03-08 13:17, Dunash wrote:
If they're not in line with the Big Bang Theory, and more in line with the Creationist-Geocentrist view, can we expect another NASA cover-up?


Now, hold on there. "Creationist" is one thing, "Geocentrist" another entirely. By "geocentrism," you can't possibly mean the notion that the sun and other planets revolve around the Earth, can you? And how could data about the CMB possibly support this idea?

g99
2002-Dec-09, 01:01 PM
Creationists constantly use non sequitor's like Dunash just did. Darwin and space have nuthing to do with eachother (as previousdly mentioned). (Well I will give that he probobly did look up at the sky at least once, but i doubt he ever tried to tell its mechanics or origin. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif)

On a side note, it does not matter what the instrument will say about the origin of the universe because the creationists will use it to their advantage. If it comes back that our current theory is incorrect, they will jump around like bunnies stating that since ours is incorrect, theirs must be right. It does not work that way. It just means ours is not correct. It does not mean that yours is. One does not mean the other.

Secondly, if it verifies the BB hypothysis then they will just say that it is another NASA coverup (as previously stated), or it was created by God to fool people and to weed out the true believers and those going to heaven.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

P.S. One thing i do have to say is i have to congradulate Dunash and other creationists on their courage to consistently post their views of a creationist world in a scientific forum. They know most of their claims will be denounced and shown wrong, but still do it. While not trying to inflate Dunash's ego more than it already is, that takes courage. It is hard to be shown that your beliefs are not as foolproof as you think and have to back them up (while i do give that his "backing up" is not done very effectively).

_________________
"I am not conceited, i'm perfect"
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." by Dan Sandler 2002

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-12-09 10:55 ]</font>

Yul
2002-Dec-09, 03:42 PM
Is there anything more recent than this from the Creationists?

http://www.icr.org/research/as/drsnelling7.html

Rich
2002-Dec-09, 06:02 PM
On 2002-12-08 17:19, Silas wrote:


On 2002-12-07 20:09, ljbrs wrote:
Could Dunash be verging on blasphemy in assuming that he speaks for his deity?

I don't want to insult anyone, nor should this become another (soon to be locked) thread on theology.

Instead, please consider this insight on "alternative science." Most alternative science is based on a single specific notion, and that notion defines the viewpoint.

The Flat-Earthers, for instance (for whom I may speak as an official member) believe the world is flat. That is what *defines* us as Flat-Earthers.

We *can't* surrender that view; otherwise, we'd have to surrender our identity. We've put the cart before the horse; we've put our theory ahead of the data. The theory must be protected at all costs.

On the other hand, among real Astronomers, there are no "Big Bangers." There are only Astronomers. Real Astronomers want to discover the truth. They put the data first, and the theory second. They don't have anything to defend. They go, in Huxley's wonderful phrase, "...As a little child before the truth."

A true explorer on the seas doesn't make a map ahead of time and then insist that he has landed in China when he has actually stumbled onto the sands of some Caribbean islet. A true explorer starts out with a blank map, which he fills in with a pencil, such markings he often erases.

The pseudo-scientist has already drawn his map in ink and published it widely: to him, every sandy beach is the Chinese foreshore, no matter how many of the locals try to explain otherwise.

Silas



I'll have to use that analogy sometime. I really like it Silas. Quite a good way to highlight the differences in arguments.

JS Princeton
2002-Dec-09, 09:57 PM
On 2002-12-09 10:42, Yul wrote:
Is there anything more recent than this from the Creationists?

http://www.icr.org/research/as/drsnelling7.html


No. They do not have anybody that's even remotely familiar with the Big Bang model to offer a critique. The last e-mail I got from a creationist supporting his claims had the following links:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp#big_bang

and

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V09NO2PDF/V09N2tvf.PDF

Which are both laughable in their content and in their portrayal of mainstream science. Their absolute lulus when it comes to this material.

AstroMike
2002-Dec-10, 12:29 AM
Here's someone who offer a rebuttal of one of their critiques.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/dear_aig.htm

Tim Thompson
2002-Dec-10, 01:41 AM
One should keep in mind that the Big Bang cosmology is an empirical creation, the offspring on interpretation of observation, and not purely theoretical musing (although it could have been the latter had not Einstein chickened out and went with the now infamous "cosmological constant (which, of course, may not be "constant" (are parens inside parens a sign of bad grammar?))).

JK: The microwave background disagrees with the big bang. ...

Nonsense. As a matter of true fact (as opposed to theoretical musing), the microwave background is in exquisite agreement with big bang cosmology. See my review webpage "Cosmic Microwave Background (http://www.tim-thompson.com/cmb.html)", which includes links to more detailed tutorial & informational webpages, and CMB measuring experiments.

JK: See history of the 2.7 background prior to Penzias & Wilson: ... (the page wouldn't load, but I've seen it before) ... Also, the even longer wavelenth observations deviate strongly from a black body.

Well, as for the history of the CMB before Penzias & Wilson, I suggest a more reliable, and less biased source: Genesis of the Big Bang (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195111826/qid%3D1039483461/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/102-6264038-9494554) by Ralph A. Alpher & Robert Herman, Oxford University Press, 2001 (and well worth the $29.95 Amazon.com proce tag, in my opinion). Alpher & Herman were principle architects of the theory (which I argue is more properly a metatheory, but maybe that's another message), along with Gamow. They present an excellent & authoritative look at the history of the CMB.

As for the "longer wavelength deviations", well, duh. No big bang theory would dare to suggest that they should be thermal. Even Eddington, in his alleged determination of the CMB, explicitly says that the background cannot be thermal over a large range of wavelengths. The background that we observe is a superposition of a whole bunch of backgrounds, all generated by different sources; the cosmic thermal background (CMB), the IR background (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CIBR/) (integrated starlight done correctly), and etc. There's all kinds of stuff out there, and the longer wavelengths certainly should not be thermal (it would be most strange indeed if they were).

One must come up with better arguments than these flimsy entries, if one is to argue that CMB and BB are in some kind of disagreement.

ljbrs
2002-Dec-10, 02:00 AM
One should keep in mind that the Big Bang cosmology is an empirical creation, the offspring on interpretation of observation, and not purely theoretical musing (although it could have been the latter had not Einstein chickened out and went with the now infamous "cosmological constant (which, of course, may not be "constant" (are parens inside parens a sign of bad grammar?))).

The cosmological constant, Lambda (a/k/a Dark Energy) has been center stage in cosmology ever since the 1 January 1998 issue in Letters to NATURE, where Perlmutter, et al. brought the accelerating universe to the public's attention. It was named *Discovery of the Year* in the 12 December 1998 issue of SCIENCE, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Cosmology has not been the same since.

Lambda is back in fashion in cosmology.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

JS Princeton
2002-Dec-10, 06:46 AM
Here's my rebuttal of the other site:

1) A static universe does not fit the data because we see doppler shifts
in the spectra of all galaxies. The universe is moving and that's the best
fit.

2) The integrated spectra model for the microwave background would not be
a blackbody. Since COBE measured it to be so, steady-state modellers have
had to abandon that explanation. The only theory currently giving us a
good explanation of the CMB is the Big Bang

3) The adjustable parameters work because they are set by other
observations (specifically peaks in the CMB power spectrum, large scale
structure observations, and the FRW metric)

4) Large Scale Structure is a feature of the Big Bang and the largest
scales are predicted based on the model. Specifically, they are seen in
the first peak of the angular power spectrum of the CMB.

5) The average luminosity of distant quasars IS actually correct... and
the physics is that at 10 times the distance it should be 100 times as
faint. That we didn't see this before is because we saw only the bright
quasars at more distant epochs.

6) Patently untrue. The ages of globular clusters have error bars on them
that are extremely large. They appear to be formed soon after the creation
of the universe. All the globular cluster age measurements do is place a
lower bound on the age of the universe and these ages support the current
predictions from gravitational cosmology.

7) The local streaming motions of galaxies are exactly what is expected
from a universe that satisfies Einstein's Equations of General Relativity.

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif The Dark Matter problem has nothing to do with Big Bang Cosmology not working

9) This "fact" is not true. The most distant objects known are now
lensed galaxies that are at nearly the same redshift as the most distant
quasars. The record holders go back and forth between the two
objects. Galaxies and quasars are parts of the similar objects, after all.
We expect to find them both back to those redshifts at least.

10) The flat universe problem is dealt with by inflation rather nicely.

11) Pencil beam surveys have given way to full sky surveys which reveal
homogeneity and isotropy.

12) The energy limit is bogus for local particles can be given any amount
of energy. It's just relics that the limit applies to.

13) Matter/anti-matter anisotropy is explained by CP or CPT violation.
Even a small difference in the two results in the baryons we see today.

14) The Gunn-Peterson trough is now a well-observed phenomenon.

15) galaxy-QSO correllation is meaningless now that we have enormous
surveys that show an isomorphic distribution of quasars.

16) Quantum vacuum flucuations on a local scale violate all sorts of
energy laws. As long as the potential exists for a tunnelling into
reality, there is no problem.

17) Large Scale homogeneity has been observed by 2MASS and SDSS.

18) Elliptical galaxies are old galaxies that are post collision phase. We
see galaxies interacting all the time, but they are younger (spirals).
Also, this has nothing to do with the Big Bang.

19) This observation has been nullified with new survey statistics.

20) Angular Power spectrum has been observed by many different groups and
early MAP data releast show the same.

21) Quantization of redshifts is laughable now that we have allsky surveys
that show it isn't true.

22) There is quasar evolution as well. The optical peak is observed to
coincide with what we know about quasar evolution. Again, this doesn't say
a thing about the Big Bang.

23) This is a local phenomenon only and is shown to be incorrect in
general where the temperature goes as the CMB temperature. It is only in
hot ionized areas that we see the 20,000 K signature (and these are local
areas, not global).

24) The Fine Structure Constant MIGHT vary with time. It doesn't have to.

25) The 2-point correlation function actually provides support for the Big
Bang in the form of giving us fits to the CMB angular power spectrum which
is shown to be beautifully done. This is another triumph of the Big Bang.

26) z>4 quasar metallicities are NOT found to be higher than solar. This
is just a lie.

27) These are diffuse nebula and beyond the sensitivity of the HST
spectrograph.

28) There is no a priori reason to assume BCGs should have uniform
evolution in clusters at different epochs.

29) There is no mystery about globular clusters as they are a local and
not a global phenomenon.

30) Blue galaxy counts have found an excess due to the early age of the
galaxies. This is exactly what is predicted by an evolving universe.


Well, that just about does it.

Spaceman Spiff
2002-Dec-10, 02:54 PM
On 2002-12-08 17:19, Silas wrote:


On 2002-12-07 20:09, ljbrs wrote:
Could Dunash be verging on blasphemy in assuming that he speaks for his deity?

I don't want to insult anyone, nor should this become another (soon to be locked) thread on theology.

Instead, please consider this insight on "alternative science." Most alternative science is based on a single specific notion, and that notion defines the viewpoint.

The Flat-Earthers, for instance (for whom I may speak as an official member) believe the world is flat. That is what *defines* us as Flat-Earthers.

We *can't* surrender that view; otherwise, we'd have to surrender our identity. We've put the cart before the horse; we've put our theory ahead of the data. The theory must be protected at all costs.

On the other hand, among real Astronomers, there are no "Big Bangers." There are only Astronomers. Real Astronomers want to discover the truth. They put the data first, and the theory second. They don't have anything to defend. They go, in Huxley's wonderful phrase, "...As a little child before the truth."

A true explorer on the seas doesn't make a map ahead of time and then insist that he has landed in China when he has actually stumbled onto the sands of some Caribbean islet. A true explorer starts out with a blank map, which he fills in with a pencil, such markings he often erases.

The pseudo-scientist has already drawn his map in ink and published it widely: to him, every sandy beach is the Chinese foreshore, no matter how many of the locals try to explain otherwise.

Silas




Quite perceptive of you, Silas. However, in light of the fact that you **actually recognize** these things (which I don't believe to be the case for many who adhere to pseudoscience in support of some belief), how is it that you remain a 'flat-earther'? What is so compelling, personally, physically, spiritually, or whatever that you continue to place the horse in front of the cart, as you say?

Just curious.

Spaceman Spiff
2002-Dec-10, 03:10 PM
On 2002-12-10 01:46, JS Princeton wrote:
Here's my rebuttal of the other site:

26) z>4 quasar metallicities are NOT found to be higher than solar. This
is just a lie.



By quasar metallicities, I assume you are referring to that gas found in the intergalactic medium producing the intervening absorption lines - not the gas in the emission line region of the quasar itself. Because the latter gas is solar or higher in metallicity. See this work by my colleagues:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0211466
and references therein.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-12-10 10:10 ]</font>

Silas
2002-Dec-10, 04:42 PM
On 2002-12-10 09:54, Spaceman Spiff wrote:
. . . how is it that you remain a 'flat-earther'?


Well, it only costs $15.00 a year, and you get a nifty membership card, and... (Grin!)

In fact, I'm not one, really: I just take the position for the rhetorical pleasure. Because, you see, all of the arguments that Dunash puts forward for his geocentric universe also support a flat-earth universe. I'm just "out-Heroding Herod."

To be scrupulously fair, I've actually gone to the shores of large lakes in very calm weather, and observed the "mounding" of the water. But, then, on the other hand, just to have fun, I turn around and claim that the light waves were refracted by temperature differences in the air.

(This isn't entirely a joke: in geology, the well-known Palmdale Bulge, an apparent rising of land around Palmdale, near Los Angeles, was partially an artifact of a biased observational regime. The people surveying the bulge were using railroads as their base lines. But railroads are built atop rr ballast: heaps of gravel and rock. And this material absorbs heat. This heat, in turn, alters the index of refraction of the air, and subtly distorted the sight lines of the surveyors!)

So, to make a long answer short: I am a flat earther because I've learned so much by looking at the world from that viewpoint, even while well aware that it is wrong!

Silas

Spaceman Spiff
2002-Dec-10, 07:24 PM
On 2002-12-10 11:42, Silas wrote:


On 2002-12-10 09:54, Spaceman Spiff wrote:
. . . how is it that you remain a 'flat-earther'?


Well, it only costs $15.00 a year, and you get a nifty membership card, and... (Grin!)

In fact, I'm not one, really: I just take the position for the rhetorical pleasure. Because, you see, all of the arguments that Dunash puts forward for his geocentric universe also support a flat-earth universe. I'm just "out-Heroding Herod."

To be scrupulously fair, I've actually gone to the shores of large lakes in very calm weather, and observed the "mounding" of the water. But, then, on the other hand, just to have fun, I turn around and claim that the light waves were refracted by temperature differences in the air.

(This isn't entirely a joke: in geology, the well-known Palmdale Bulge, an apparent rising of land around Palmdale, near Los Angeles, was partially an artifact of a biased observational regime. The people surveying the bulge were using railroads as their base lines. But railroads are built atop rr ballast: heaps of gravel and rock. And this material absorbs heat. This heat, in turn, alters the index of refraction of the air, and subtly distorted the sight lines of the surveyors!)

So, to make a long answer short: I am a flat earther because I've learned so much by looking at the world from that viewpoint, even while well aware that it is wrong!

Silas



Ok, that sounds good!

JS Princeton
2002-Dec-10, 09:11 PM
On 2002-12-10 10:10, Spaceman Spiff wrote:


On 2002-12-10 01:46, JS Princeton wrote:
Here's my rebuttal of the other site:

26) z>4 quasar metallicities are NOT found to be higher than solar. This
is just a lie.



By quasar metallicities, I assume you are referring to that gas found in the intergalactic medium producing the intervening absorption lines - not the gas in the emission line region of the quasar itself. Because the latter gas is solar or higher in metallicity. See this work by my colleagues:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0211466
and references therein.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-12-10 10:10 ]</font>


This is a good point, Spaceman, but the QUASARS THEMSELVES are not what is doing the absorption. I stand by my statment. The ISM or the IGM is not a quasar.

Spaceman Spiff
2002-Dec-10, 10:10 PM
On 2002-12-10 16:11, JS Princeton wrote:


On 2002-12-10 10:10, Spaceman Spiff wrote:


On 2002-12-10 01:46, JS Princeton wrote:
Here's my rebuttal of the other site:

26) z>4 quasar metallicities are NOT found to be higher than solar. This
is just a lie.



By quasar metallicities, I assume you are referring to that gas found in the intergalactic medium producing the intervening absorption lines - not the gas in the emission line region of the quasar itself. Because the latter gas is solar or higher in metallicity. See this work by my colleagues:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0211466
and references therein.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-12-10 10:10 ]</font>


This is a good point, Spaceman, but the QUASARS THEMSELVES are not what is doing the absorption. I stand by my statment. The ISM or the IGM is not a quasar.


Yes, yes, I know. I was just trying to clarify things for the other readers. The point is that there are some aspects of quasar spectra that are extrinsic (like the narrow quasar absorption lines) and so tell us about the IGM along the entire sight line (and so history along that sight line), in addition to the intrinsic nature of the quasar spectra themselves. These things get confused by the layperson, often, and I was just trying to clarify the language presented in your response.

To those who are interested, two of the major factors thought to be important in determining the level of heavy element "pollution" in the spectrum of a star or gas cloud are (1) time and (2) depth of the grav. potential well that cloud or star sits in. The mechanism for producing the heavy elements is generations of stellar life and death, and it takes time for that to happen -- the more generations do their thing, the more enriched the gas becomes, all else equal (and different elements take different amounts of time depending upon the types of stars that produced the element, but that's going off too far). But not all is equal. Because if the gravitational well is shallow, then much of the polluted gas is blown out in superwinds (supernovae and stellar winds), and therefore doesn't have the chance to be incorporated in another generation of stars. BUT if the well is deep - the expelled gas is not as easily ejected from the environment, AND the star formation rate is generally much higher (more gas, more activity leading to collapsing molecular gas clouds), and stars can pollute their environment with heavy elements at a faster rate.

This is how the centers of giant ellipticals and apparently the gas the emits the broad emission lines in the very central nuclei of high redshift quasars are able to attain above solar "metallicities" (aka heavy element abundances).

Hope this helps.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-12-10 17:15 ]</font>

Conqueror Worm
2002-Dec-10, 11:05 PM
What effect, if any, will the eventual discovery of gravity waves have on current cosmological models? Will their discovery be conclusive proof of the existence of black holes? Could detectable gravity waves left over from the big bang still be reverberating throughout the universe?

D J
2002-Dec-10, 11:22 PM
JS Princeton wrote,
Quote:
The most distant objects known are now
lensed galaxies that are at nearly the same redshift as the most distant
quasars. The record holders go back and forth between the two
objects. Galaxies and quasars are parts of the similar objects, after all.
We expect to find them both back to those redshifts at least.
_________________________

Are you saying than Quasars and Galaxies can be located at the same distance side by side like Arp said?

D J
2002-Dec-10, 11:42 PM
On 2002-12-10 18:05, Conqueror Worm wrote:
What effect, if any, will the eventual discovery of gravity waves have on current cosmological models? Will their discovery be conclusive proof of the existence of black holes? Could detectable gravity waves left over from the big bang still be reverberating throughout the universe?

I think this prove the theory of Paul Laviolette:" The luminous cosmic ray emitting source at the center of our Galaxy is not a "black hole" as some astronomers and the unwitting mass media would have you believe:
http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Gravity.html

http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Galactic.html

Gravity waves
http://www.elfrad.com/prominence.htm

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-10 18:52 ]</font>

Spaceman Spiff
2002-Dec-11, 12:54 AM
On 2002-12-10 18:05, Conqueror Worm wrote:
What effect, if any, will the eventual discovery of gravity waves have on current cosmological models? Will their discovery be conclusive proof of the existence of black holes? Could detectable gravity waves left over from the big bang still be reverberating throughout the universe?


These are great questions!
I suspect that such waves are in principle identifiable in the cosmic background radiation, though I don't know whether even PLANCK is capable of seeing their signature (not the actual waves themselves). Primordial black holes are also possible, and they would have formed very early on -- I would speculate that some signature of their formation is in principle observable. But maybe somebody out there is an expert on these topics and can elaborate beyond my mere speculations.

Spaceman Spiff
2002-Dec-11, 01:04 AM
On 2002-12-10 18:22, Orion38 wrote:
JS Princeton wrote,
Quote:
The most distant objects known are now
lensed galaxies that are at nearly the same redshift as the most distant
quasars. The record holders go back and forth between the two
objects. Galaxies and quasars are parts of the similar objects, after all.
We expect to find them both back to those redshifts at least.
_________________________

Are you saying than Quasars and Galaxies can be located at the same distance side by side like Arp said?


Quasars are now understood to be "Active Galactic Nuclei". That is, probably most massive galaxies went through a stage earlier in their evolution in which copious amounts of matter were fed into the central supermassive black hole, now observed to exist in most massive galaxies - even today.
So yes, quasars are associated with galaxies - the nuclei of galaxies, but not at all Arpian. They are not some mysterious, isolated "beasts".

The reason we don't observe quasars today is that the supermassive black holes aren't being fed, much of the gas having gone into the formation of stars and galaxy mergers being much more rare.

Whatever you call the thing at the center of massive galaxies (even our own Milky Way), it looks like a black hole, it smells like a black hole, and it tastes like a black hole.
Maybe black holes have properties (even on their outsides) that we don't fully understand, but whatever they are, they pack a lot of gravitational mass into an extremely small volume of space.

In fact, the supermassive black holes of quasars may have been associated with the initial "seeding" that led to the eventual formation of galaxies themselves. The masses of these supermassive black holes correlate with the masses of stellar spheroids - the first large stellar objects to form.

see, for example:
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0212002
and references therein.






<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-12-10 20:05 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-12-10 20:10 ]</font>

ToSeek
2002-Dec-11, 01:11 AM
On 2002-12-10 20:04, Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Whatever you call the thing at the center of massive galaxies (even our own Milky Way), it looks like a black hole, it smells like a black hole, and it tastes like a black hole.


Tasting a black hole sounds like an even bigger mistake than licking a lamp post in wintertime! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Zathras
2002-Dec-11, 03:05 AM
On 2002-12-10 18:05, Conqueror Worm wrote:
What effect, if any, will the eventual discovery of gravity waves have on current cosmological models?

Not much, unless we observe a system that will allow it to be a further test of GR. See below.


Will their discovery be conclusive proof of the existence of black holes?

The most likely source of grav waves that could be observed would be two black holes orbiting each other. Only such compact objects orbiting in close proximity would be likely to have the requisite mass and acceleration to give appreciable grav radiation.


Could detectable gravity waves left over from the big bang still be reverberating throughout the universe?

Good question. Some theorists think that, for example, there should be grav waves particularly associated with the inflationary epoch. Such an observation would be a true milestone in astronomy.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Zathras on 2002-12-10 22:43 ]</font>

D J
2002-Dec-11, 03:48 AM
On 2002-12-10 20:04, Spaceman Spiff wrote:
In fact, the supermassive black holes of quasars may have been associated with the initial "seeding" that led to the eventual formation of galaxies themselves. The masses of these supermassive black holes correlate with the masses of stellar spheroids - the first large stellar objects to form.


Explain how a Black Hole can produce that kind of energetic outburst as demonstrated in that link.
http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Galactic.html
The demonstration by Laviolette is clear this is not a supermassive Black Hole being the central engine of Quasars or Galaxies.

http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Gravity.html

JS Princeton
2002-Dec-11, 04:19 AM
On 2002-12-10 18:22, Orion38 wrote:
JS Princeton wrote,
Quote:
The most distant objects known are now
lensed galaxies that are at nearly the same redshift as the most distant
quasars. The record holders go back and forth between the two
objects. Galaxies and quasars are parts of the similar objects, after all.
We expect to find them both back to those redshifts at least.
_________________________

Are you saying than Quasars and Galaxies can be located at the same distance side by side like Arp said?


No, unlike Arp's oft-quoted conjecture that some quasars are local, current models hold that quasars are actually early-type cores of Seyfert galaxies. In that way, we expect them to be near other galaxies too!

JS Princeton
2002-Dec-11, 04:21 AM
On 2002-12-10 18:42, Orion38 wrote:


On 2002-12-10 18:05, Conqueror Worm wrote:
What effect, if any, will the eventual discovery of gravity waves have on current cosmological models? Will their discovery be conclusive proof of the existence of black holes? Could detectable gravity waves left over from the big bang still be reverberating throughout the universe?

I think this prove the theory of Paul Laviolette:" The luminous cosmic ray emitting source at the center of our Galaxy is not a "black hole" as some astronomers and the unwitting mass media would have you believe:
http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Gravity.html

http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Galactic.html

Gravity waves
http://www.elfrad.com/prominence.htm

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-10 18:52 ]</font>


No, gravity waves have nothing to do with black holes, and, Orion, the black hole at the center of the Milky Way is now almost a slam dunk ever since they tracked the orbit of a star around it. It moves too fast for the object to be anything other than a black hole.

JS Princeton
2002-Dec-11, 04:22 AM
On 2002-12-10 19:54, Spaceman Spiff wrote:


On 2002-12-10 18:05, Conqueror Worm wrote:
What effect, if any, will the eventual discovery of gravity waves have on current cosmological models? Will their discovery be conclusive proof of the existence of black holes? Could detectable gravity waves left over from the big bang still be reverberating throughout the universe?


These are great questions!
I suspect that such waves are in principle identifiable in the cosmic background radiation, though I don't know whether even PLANCK is capable of seeing their signature (not the actual waves themselves). Primordial black holes are also possible, and they would have formed very early on -- I would speculate that some signature of their formation is in principle observable. But maybe somebody out there is an expert on these topics and can elaborate beyond my mere speculations.



Primordial gravitational waves are actually one of the sensitive problems in High Energy cosmology that is dealt with by inflation. We don't expect to see any primordial gravity waves, but a slight adjustment of a few parameters could send their detection into LIGO ranges, for instance. Wait and see!

JS Princeton
2002-Dec-11, 04:24 AM
On 2002-12-10 22:48, Orion38 wrote:


On 2002-12-10 20:04, Spaceman Spiff wrote:
In fact, the supermassive black holes of quasars may have been associated with the initial "seeding" that led to the eventual formation of galaxies themselves. The masses of these supermassive black holes correlate with the masses of stellar spheroids - the first large stellar objects to form.


Explain how a Black Hole can produce that kind of energetic outburst as demonstrated in that link.
http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Galactic.html
The demonstration by Laviolette is clear this is not a supermassive Black Hole being the central engine of Quasars or Galaxies.

http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Gravity.html


No, black holes, in fact, are the most efficient energy generators that can be imagined. A significant amount of rest mass energy is emitted from a black hole. We are not surprised that there is a lot of energy eminating from that area. Contrary to popular imagery, black holes are not just enormous vacuum cleaners, but actually have accretion disks and possibly jets surrounding them that are EXTREMELY luminous.

D J
2002-Dec-11, 04:36 AM
On 2002-12-10 23:19, JS Princeton wrote:
[quote]
No, unlike Arp's oft-quoted conjecture that some quasars are local, current models hold that quasars are actually early-type cores of Seyfert galaxies. In that way, we expect them to be near other galaxies too!

All depend about the interpretation of what Arp means by "local":Quote from Arp "It follows from all this that we don't see nearly as far into the universe as conventionally thought; the immense distances contemplated by orthodoxy are artifacts of the orthodox interpretation of redshift. The whole observed extragalactic zoo--including quasars, BL LACs and faint cluster galaxies--is only about as distant as the Local Superclusters Virgo and Fornax, about 55 million light years. The next farthest objects may be very distant indeed, too faint for current telescopes to detect."
Note:
*All is relatif depending of the observer`s interpretation of what "local" means of course.*
http://www.quackgrass.com/roots/arp.html


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-10 23:38 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-11 00:09 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Dec-11, 02:23 PM
Yes, Orion, you have told us about intrinsic redshift before. However, it lacks any sort of physicality that simply allowing the Redshift-Distance relation to hold has. We are getting to the point, too, where the cosmological distance ladder is reaching ever more distant locations (with type Ia supernovae, for example). When we can see independent distance measurements out past z=1 it becomes very hard to argue that the universe is smaller than we expect from Hubble Flow modelling.

Spaceman Spiff
2002-Dec-11, 02:41 PM
Anybody notice that the original poster of this poster (Dunash) is nowhere to be found? This guy seems to just move around setting fires and as soon as he sees that the fire is "under control" he moves on to set another. In this case he didn't even stay that long - he didn't even respond to the BA's request that he provide some substantiation for the original claims.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-12-11 09:43 ]</font>

D J
2002-Dec-11, 08:00 PM
On 2002-12-10 23:21, JS Princeton wrote:


On 2002-12-10 18:42, Orion38 wrote:
[quote]
I think this prove the theory of Paul Laviolette:" The luminous cosmic ray emitting source at the center of our Galaxy is not a "black hole" as some astronomers and the unwitting mass media would have you believe:
http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Gravity.html

http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Galactic.html

Gravity waves
http://www.elfrad.com/prominence.htm



No, gravity waves have nothing to do with black holes, and, Orion, the black hole at the center of the Milky Way is now almost a slam dunk ever since they tracked the orbit of a star around it. It moves too fast for the object to be anything other than a black hole.

Whith a mass of 2 million times the mass of our Sun the object describe by Laviollete at the center of our galaxy can also have an star orbiting around it.An this object is a perfect candidate for the origine of Gravity Waves.
http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Gravity.html

http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Galactic.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-11 15:01 ]</font>

D J
2002-Dec-11, 08:24 PM
On 2002-12-11 09:23, JS Princeton wrote:
Yes, Orion, you have told us about intrinsic redshift before. However, it lacks any sort of physicality that simply allowing the Redshift-Distance relation to hold has. We are getting to the point, too, where the cosmological distance ladder is reaching ever more distant locations (with type Ia supernovae, for example). When we can see independent distance measurements out past z=1 it becomes very hard to argue that the universe is smaller than we expect from Hubble Flow modelling.

The following is to showing how Arp calculate the Hubble constant.What is your evaluation about that?:
-Variable mass exist Quasars became BLAC Object and later became Galaxies so increase in mass.-

Quote from Arp.

"Hubble constant from one datum

Why do we see redshifts almost everywhere we look? According to variable mass theory, we see redshifts because we see objects as they were when the light left them. If you gaze at a tree 30 feet away, you see the tree as it was 30 nanoseconds ago; if you gaze at a galaxy 10,000,000 light years away, you see it as it was 10,000,000 years ago. Even if the distant matter is the same age as our own, we see the galaxy (or the tree!) as it was when it was younger and less massive--and therefore redshifted.

If we assume that the distant matter we see is the same age as our own, this "look-back" effect allows one to calculate a Hubble constant for such matter. The Hubble constant is the constant of proportionality in the Hubble relation that says distance is proportional to redshift.

The Hubble relation is well established observationally for normal galaxies, and it is very dear to the orthodox. In fact, their chief sin against science is to turn the Hubble relation into dogma, and to apply it to everything in sight. They use it, e.g., to calculate bloated quasar distances in defiance of observation. But orthodoxy cannot agree on the value of the crucial Hubble constant, despite endless fiddling and adjustments.

The variable mass theory not only explains the Hubble relation for normal galaxies as due to "look-back" time, it gets the Hubble constant right on the first try! The variable mass theory calculates the Hubble constant from a single datum: the age of the oldest stars in our Milky Way, which are between 13 and 17 billion years old. From this age the variable mass theory calculates a Hubble constant between 39 and 51 km/sec/Megaparsec. The best observational values are between 42 and 56 km/sec/Mpc.

Arp notes:

"... the variable mass theory has no adjustable constants--the Hubble constant depends on only one value, the age of our oldest stars. Nothing can be changed and it gets it right."
http://www.quackgrass.com/roots/arp.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-11 15:28 ]</font>

Zathras
2002-Dec-11, 09:17 PM
On 2002-12-11 15:24, Orion38 wrote:


On 2002-12-11 09:23, JS Princeton wrote:
Yes, Orion, you have told us about intrinsic redshift before. However, it lacks any sort of physicality that simply allowing the Redshift-Distance relation to hold has. We are getting to the point, too, where the cosmological distance ladder is reaching ever more distant locations (with type Ia supernovae, for example). When we can see independent distance measurements out past z=1 it becomes very hard to argue that the universe is smaller than we expect from Hubble Flow modelling.

The following is to showing how Arp calculate the Hubble constant.What is your evaluation about that?:
-Variable mass exist Quasars became BLAC Object and later became Galaxies so increase in mass.-

Quote from Arp.

"Hubble constant from one datum

Why do we see redshifts almost everywhere we look? According to variable mass theory, we see redshifts because we see objects as they were when the light left them. If you gaze at a tree 30 feet away, you see the tree as it was 30 nanoseconds ago; if you gaze at a galaxy 10,000,000 light years away, you see it as it was 10,000,000 years ago. Even if the distant matter is the same age as our own, we see the galaxy (or the tree!) as it was when it was younger and less massive--and therefore redshifted.

If we assume that the distant matter we see is the same age as our own, this "look-back" effect allows one to calculate a Hubble constant for such matter. The Hubble constant is the constant of proportionality in the Hubble relation that says distance is proportional to redshift.

This is nothing more than a redressing of the discredited tired light theory (wavelength lengthening over time). There are many posts on tired light explaining why this is discredited.


The Hubble relation is well established observationally for normal galaxies, and it is very dear to the orthodox. In fact, their chief sin against science is to turn the Hubble relation into dogma, and to apply it to everything in sight. They use it, e.g., to calculate bloated quasar distances in defiance of observation. But orthodoxy cannot agree on the value of the crucial Hubble constant, despite endless fiddling and adjustments.

The variable mass theory not only explains the Hubble relation for normal galaxies as due to "look-back" time, it gets the Hubble constant right on the first try! The variable mass theory calculates the Hubble constant from a single datum: the age of the oldest stars in our Milky Way, which are between 13 and 17 billion years old. From this age the variable mass theory calculates a Hubble constant between 39 and 51 km/sec/Megaparsec. The best observational values are between 42 and 56 km/sec/Mpc.

Arp notes:

"... the variable mass theory has no adjustable constants--the Hubble constant depends on only one value, the age of our oldest stars. Nothing can be changed and it gets it right."
http://www.quackgrass.com/roots/arp.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-11 15:28 ]</font>


Absolutely specious. How do these old stars give such a value?

By the way, why is Arp going to such absurd lengths to discredit cosmology, but in doing so, he is willing to treat the theory of stellar interiors and evolution (which give the ages of stars) as gospel? The error bars on the theories of stellar interiors are much larger than the error bars for Hubble's constant.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: zathras on 2002-12-11 17:25 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Dec-11, 09:24 PM
Zathras hit the nail right on the head. By selectively editting his own data bars, Arp makes himself look dishonest and just plain prejudiced.

D J
2002-Dec-11, 09:34 PM
On 2002-12-11 16:24, JS Princeton wrote:
Zathras hit the nail right on the head. By selectively editting his own data bars, Arp makes himself look dishonest and just plain prejudiced.

-Zathras hit the nail right on the head.-

Outch! I hope Arp is waring a helmet.

a7304757
2002-Dec-11, 09:37 PM
Hi folks,

there is a tiny videoclip out there on this.
It worked on Real1 if installed.

http://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/3df7b05a002415fe2719ac1410010609/Product/View/30-1-109

tjm220
2002-Dec-11, 10:05 PM
On 2002-12-11 16:37, a7304757 wrote:
Hi folks,

there is a tiny videoclip out there on this.
It worked on Real1 if installed.

http://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/3df7b05a002415fe2719ac1410010609/Product/View/30-1-109


Does this video also explain how relativity can be used to show that the universe was made in only 6...pick a scale:
1) seconds
2) microseconds
3) bananoseconds
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: tjm220 on 2002-12-11 17:06 ]</font>

Chip
2002-Dec-11, 11:45 PM
On 2002-12-11 16:37, a7304757 wrote:
Hi folks,
there is a tiny videoclip out there on this.
It worked on Real1 if installed.
http://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/3df7b05a002415fe2719ac1410010609/Product/View/30-1-109


The page above states: "Learn a cosmological model which shows how God may have made and used relativity to create the cosmos in six ordinary days."

In other words:
Learn a model of how the universe was created within a measure of time (i.e. "six days") based on light and shadow cycles on a tiny rotating planet that wasn't going to exist for at least 15+ billion years after the universe formed. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

D J
2002-Dec-12, 03:44 AM
I forward this from another group because that seem an interesting observation.Expertise from an expert would be appreciate.Thanks!

HDF redshifts
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Deep_Fields/mirror/hdfn/index.html

Quote:
""I have been scrutinizing the redshifts in the Hubble Deep Field North, available at http:// nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Deep_Fields/mirror/hdfn/index.html What I found was that there are no objects in the entire field with a redshift with a redshift of 3 or greater, WITH THE EXCEPTION of a single area. Just above the centre of the field is the largest object in the field, galaxy #669, with a 2_phot of .084. (I use z_phot here as some objects do not have a z_spec listed.) Stretching away to the left of #.669, within two "669 diameters" is a chain of objects including #764, z3.162, #771, z3.206, ##776, z3.048, and #768, z3.548. Within a similar distance across the axis are found #895, z3.548, #783,z4.13, #773, z3.206, and #846, z3.373, along with #834 at z2.89. Again, apart from these few objects, nothing else in the field of over 900 listed objects has a redshift greater than 3. In fact, only #25, at the far edge of the field, comes close at z2.98. Thus, smack dab in the middle of the miniscule dot of sky chosen by the HST scientists turns out to contain a classic Arp system. People can argue theories all they like, but this kind of observation is worth a thousand theses. It points up the need for a "Space Schmidt Camera", which Dr. Arp has proposed.""

irony
2002-Dec-12, 04:35 AM
Whatever you call the thing at the center of massive galaxies (even our own Milky Way), it looks like a black hole, it smells like a black hole, and it tastes like a black hole.


Does it quack like a black hole?

*runs* Sorry! Sorry! I couldn't help myself!

nebularain
2002-Dec-12, 04:41 AM
On 2002-12-11 23:35, irony wrote:
Sorry! Sorry
No your not! You enjoyed every second of it /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif !

David Hall
2002-Dec-12, 12:41 PM
On 2002-12-11 22:44, Orion38 wrote:
I forward this from another group because that seem an interesting observation.Expertise from an expert would be appreciate.Thanks!

HDF redshifts
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Deep_Fields/mirror/hdfn/index.html

Quote:
""I have been scrutinizing the redshifts in the Hubble Deep Field North, available at http:// nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Deep_Fields/mirror/hdfn/index.html What I found was that there are no objects in the entire field with a redshift with a redshift of 3 or greater, WITH THE EXCEPTION of a single area. Just above the centre of the field is the largest object in the field, galaxy #669, with a 2_phot of .084. (I use z_phot here as some objects do not have a z_spec listed.) Stretching away to the left of #.669, within two "669 diameters" is a chain of objects including #764, z3.162, #771, z3.206, ##776, z3.048, and #768, z3.548. Within a similar distance across the axis are found #895, z3.548, #783,z4.13, #773, z3.206, and #846, z3.373, along with #834 at z2.89. Again, apart from these few objects, nothing else in the field of over 900 listed objects has a redshift greater than 3. In fact, only #25, at the far edge of the field, comes close at z2.98. Thus, smack dab in the middle of the miniscule dot of sky chosen by the HST scientists turns out to contain a classic Arp system. People can argue theories all they like, but this kind of observation is worth a thousand theses. It points up the need for a "Space Schmidt Camera", which Dr. Arp has proposed.""


This is provably false. In fact, using the very link you provided to us, I have, in just a few minutes, found several galaxies with redshifts above 3, including a 3.77 and a 3.9, and in widely separate areas of the photo. Not only that, but this link, while interesting and useful, does not provide any info on many of the dimmest objects in the image. In order to truly support this quote, why not use a list (http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Deep_Fields/mirror/hdfn/HDFNpzmag.dat) of objects and their redshifts, instead of just a simple applet map? I'll tell you why not. Because the list doesn't support it.

David Hall
2002-Dec-12, 01:17 PM
BTW, whoever this is doesn't even know how to be consistant. He claims he uses z-photo for his comparisons, but in actuality he freely mixes the two numbers. For example, #764 and his last one, #25, are z-spec numbers. The z-phot for #25 is actually 3.048.

Oh, and I've now found several more galaxies that don't match what this guy is saying. What about #218 on the right side of the image with a z-phot of 4.130, for example?

Edit: Also number 8, pretty much invisible at the bottom of the image right above the 'e' in Hubble, with a z-phot of 4.571 and a z-spec of 5.340. See? This guy's claim is laughably false!
_________________
...And that, my leige, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-12-12 08:23 ]</font>

D J
2002-Dec-12, 06:00 PM
On 2002-12-12 08:17, David Hall wrote:
BTW, whoever this is doesn't even know how to be consistant. He claims he uses z-photo for his comparisons, but in actuality he freely mixes the two numbers. For example, #764 and his last one, #25, are z-spec numbers. The z-phot for #25 is actually 3.048.

Oh, and I've now found several more galaxies that don't match what this guy is saying. What about #218 on the right side of the image with a z-phot of 4.130, for example?

Edit: Also number 8, pretty much invisible at the bottom of the image right above the 'e' in Hubble, with a z-phot of 4.571 and a z-spec of 5.340. See? This guy's claim is laughably false!

What he probaly means is he has not found object with Z greater than the Z= 3 range so Z=4+ only in the EXEPTION of a single aera.
The one you are talking about.
""What I found was that there are no objects in the entire field with a redshift with a redshift of 3 or greater, WITH THE EXCEPTION of a single area""
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Deep_Fields/mirror/hdfn/index.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-12 13:03 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Dec-12, 06:28 PM
HDF doesn't say a rooster's egg about the distribution of quasar redshifts across the sky. Isolated incidents of coincidence are just a stupid way to think you have discovered a "fact" about the universe. The "fact" is that sky surveys have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that we live in a uniformly distributed universe in both angular and redshift space. End of story.

D J
2002-Dec-12, 06:54 PM
Maybe this is the heart of the problem that uniformly distributed universe in both angular and "redshift" space.Could difficult be producing in an explosive event.But I know the secret of that uniformity is causing by the Dark matter /or Dark Energie causing the expansion of the universe.What a fayrie tale!!!/// Go to :What's Wrong with the Big Bang??
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=3175&forum=1&13

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-12 14:08 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-12 14:55 ]</font>

David Hall
2002-Dec-13, 10:49 AM
On 2002-12-12 13:00, Orion38 wrote:

What he probaly means is he has not found object with Z greater than the Z= 3 range so Z=4+ only in the EXEPTION of a single aera.
The one you are talking about.
""What I found was that there are no objects in the entire field with a redshift with a redshift of 3 or greater, WITH THE EXCEPTION of a single area""
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Deep_Fields/mirror/hdfn/index.html


I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, since your grammar is far from clear, but the writer's meaning is very clear from his post. He's saying that there is only one small area on the entire image where redshifts are above 3, and that area is around galaxy #669. I have quickly and decisively shown that was false, and I needed absolutely no "expert knowledge" to do so. The two examples of z=4+ galaxies I gave before are in locations both far from each other and far from galaxy #669. One is on the right edge of the photo and the other is at the very bottom left. And these are just the most dramatic examples I've found. I could post quite a few others if you really wanted me to.

The truth is, high redshift galaxies are found all across the HDF, not just in one location. Maybe not exactly randomly, but they are not grouped in any way anomalously. But even if they were, as JS says, it would mean nothing. Local concentrations may just mean there's a particularly large and distant supercluster in the shot, for example.

D J
2002-Dec-13, 07:33 PM
I have to admit than I have some problems with the english language.What the author of that observation said is there are few Redshift higer than 4+ compare to lower redshift found in the deep space field.I never said this have some analyse or statistical value .This is why i asking for another evaluation.I agree with you.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-13 14:40 ]</font>

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Dec-14, 05:06 AM
Criminy, folks. Watch the tones here. All of you.

David Hall
2002-Dec-14, 06:43 AM
Sorry BA, if I managed to sound antagonistic. It wasn't my intent. Especially I want to apologise if I sounded like I was ridiculing Orion's grammar. I only wanted to point out that I didn't understand what he was saying.

I do think that the person "analyzing" the HDF doesn't have a leg to stand on, and is only muttering ridiculous comments. I think he's a perfect example of someone only seeing what he want's to see.

Finally, Orion, I think I understand you now. You're wondering at the lack and distribution of 4+ redshifts. But those far galaxies are quite rare to begin with, and with such a small area covered in the HDF's, a non-random distribution is not strange at all. We'd need to sample dozen's of Deep Fields before we could say that something was wrong. And I've found 4+ galaxies in most areas of the image anyway, and 3+ galaxies everywhere.

Espritch
2002-Dec-14, 07:51 PM
All depend about the interpretation of what Arp means by "local":Quote from Arp "It follows from all this that we don't see nearly as far into the universe as conventionally thought; the immense distances contemplated by orthodoxy are artifacts of the orthodox interpretation of redshift. The whole observed extragalactic zoo--including quasars, BL LACs and faint cluster galaxies--is only about as distant as the Local Superclusters Virgo and Fornax, about 55 million light years. The next farthest objects may be very distant indeed, too faint for current telescopes to detect."

The type Ia supernova survey data used these supernovi as standard candles to measure distances to various galaxies. When the distances measured where compared to the Z values, they indicated that the galaxies were actaully farther away than expected based on the Z values. This evidence seems to stand in direct oppostion to Mr. Arp's assertion. If anything, it would suggest that the distances based on red shift are too small rather than being substantially too large.

John Kierein
2004-Dec-21, 10:48 PM
I agree with most of Flandern's page. The globular clusters ARE older than the universe. What those who deny it forget is that they are seen at the biggest red shifts known. So these old objects are seen even when the universe was apparently very young and when you consider their age at these supposed early times they are very much older than the big bang universe.

When the Hubble deep field was images was first taken it appeared that the very distant galaxies had different shapes than the nearby ones, with an absence of spiral galaxies. But when the NICMOS deep field images were taken, it turned out that there were as many spirals as the nearby ones. The reason was that NICMOS was able to image the near IR and saw the older redder stars that had been red shifted out of the spectral region of the previous Hubble image. They were at the spiral edges of the galaxies and not near the center where the younger bluer stars were in elliptical shapes. These older stars so near the time of the supposed big bang are older than the supposed time of the big bang.

My website addresses lots of these issues. http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html

ToSeek
2004-Dec-21, 10:59 PM
I agree with most of Flandern's page. The globular clusters ARE older than the universe. What those who deny it forget is that they are seen at the biggest red shifts known. So these old objects are seen even when the universe was apparently very young and when you consider their age at these supposed early times they are very much older than the big bang universe.

Are we talking about something different with regard to globular clusters? The oldest reliably dated one is M92 (http://www.seds.org/messier/m/m092.html), which is only 26,000 light years away and not subject to a significant redshift. I would think globular clusters at significant redshifts would be too dim to be detected.

R.A.F.
2004-Dec-21, 11:04 PM
I agree with most of Flandern's page.

That's nice...I am curious though...do you agree with Van Flandern's "exploding planet" hypothesis?

I am also curious as to why you've "bumped" a thread that's over 2 years old?

TriangleMan
2004-Dec-22, 11:49 AM
I agree with most of Flandern's page.
I am also curious as to why you've "bumped" a thread that's over 2 years old?
This thread was linked to in a recent PX thread discussing Flandern.