Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 111

Thread: A Revolution in Astronomy

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    The more I look into the distance determination methods and their
    admitted margins of error, and in particular the uncertainties as to the
    nature of deep space, the less I am willing to accept the findings. ...
    The older direct parallax method I see as having too many variables
    that are not, IMO, easily corrected for. Our atmosphere is highly
    variable in so many respects that I can only have any faith in the
    method up to the very nearest objects.
    I can't imagine what potential problems you see.

    Would you list some of the variables you refer to, and how each of
    them might affect parallax measurements?

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,374
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    I really am surprised that we can not,
    to my satisfaction anyway, say with absolute certainty that our nearest star is
    indeed a star.
    I find this a strange statement, on more than one level.

    You mention "absolute certainty." I would say that we can't say the world exists with absolute certainty. So I don't see why that would be a relevant standard. Perhaps you could explain.

    Second, why are you surprised that you aren't satisfied? I'm not surprised, given the claims you've been making.

    Third, what is your definition of "star"?

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  3. #63
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    15,387
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Third, what is your definition of "star"?
    Charlie Sheen. Whoops... wrong thread.
    ____________
    "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

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,011
    Let me assure you... our nearest star, being the Sun is a 'STAR'...
    and that if you were then referring to the 'Alpha Cent.,' as the next closest...
    Then yes we KNOW they are also STARS... I would if I thought it would help invite you to use wikipedia...and all its links provided. Sure there are 'some' facts unknown... but these are not them.
    Would you please supply me with just one star that is not one ? I will wait over here...>>>>>>>>>>> :OH:

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,824
    Let's start with the astrometric parallax determinations for nearby stars. Suppose the early photographic work gave an uncertainty of 0.1 arcsecond, which if I am not mistaken was readily achieved with long focus refractors a century ago. For Alpha/Proxima Centauri, with the parallax between 0.7 and 0.8 arcsecond, that gives a distance of about 4 light years, with an uncertainty of less than a light year either way. From that we can infer with virtually 100% confidence that Alpha is about as luminous as the Sun, and that Proxima, while far fainter, is still vastly brighter than any planet could be at that location.

    Solon, if you cannot tell us, in appropriate technical and mathematical detail, what sort of problems you have with this, we can only conclude that your misgivings are in the ill-informed "It seems to me" category, or something along those lines. The advances in science have shown us that things are not always as they seem to those of us who are uninformed in the field.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,374
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    And one last question if I may. I am wondering if anyone is familiar with the
    Apollo 16 FUVC camera, and if so, what was inside it, and what the reason was
    for performing the only Lunar surface astronomy in just the far UV?
    http://www3.telus.net/summa/faruv/index.htm
    Many thanks.
    I'm puzzled what this had to do with your other questions, but here's a diagram of its twin on Skylab:


    http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servl...-Skylab-4-Far-

    That was flown after the successful Apollo work.

    Far UV imaging is something you can do in space, but not on the Earth's surface, and it was useful astronomy they could do on the Moon without taking a large telescope (impractical given their mass limits). Also, the astronauts' time was at a premium - their primary mission was to investigate the Moon's surface, so nobody would have wanted them to do astronomical work that could have been better done on Earth.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,374
    Quote Originally Posted by wd40 View Post
    "The author suspects that the distances of some of the
    globular clusters could be even closer to us than that of Pluto, but
    because they are very faint and move very slowly (as they are
    located away from the plane of the Milky Way), their distances are
    presumed to be tens of thousands of light years away. If a
    spacecraft were to be sent towards one of the so-called star clusters

    and were to observe how the apparent size of the objects in the
    cluster increases as the distance to them decreases, it would be
    easy to tell how close they are to Earth.
    " (page 40)

    Sounds like something out of "The Truman Show"!
    (emphasis added) Sounds like Pioneer 10 and 11, and Voyager 1 and 2. That is, spacecraft heading out of the solar system on various trajectories that never showed anything like this (and that information was available when he wrote that claim). Of course, the claim doesn't make sense with Earth-based astronomy either, and there are other spacecraft that also would have to show something if this were true, but I thought that was amusing.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    144
    Let's start with the astrometric parallax determinations for nearby stars. Suppose the early photographic work gave an uncertainty of 0.1 arcsecond, which if I am not mistaken was readily achieved with long focus refractors a century ago. For Alpha/Proxima Centauri, with the parallax between 0.7 and 0.8 arcsecond, that gives a distance of about 4 light years, with an uncertainty of less than a light year either way. From that we can infer with virtually 100% confidence that Alpha is about as luminous as the Sun, and that Proxima, while far fainter, is still vastly brighter than any planet could be at that location.
    Hi Hornblower,
    I am willing to accept the distance to the nearest objects within those
    margins of error. I would like to concentrate solely on the nearest objects
    in the hope it can be proved to me beyond a reasonable doubt that they
    are stars. And it may be fair to put me in the 'ill-informed "It seems to me"
    category', in astronomy, but when it comes to instrumentation, which is
    what most modern astronomy relies on, I'd say I was well informed. That is the
    reason I have to, for the present, not get into the sciences that rely on
    the processing of huge amounts of such tenuous data. If these were exact
    sciences there would be no disagreement between Hubble and Hipparcos, there
    would be no negative parallax measurements, no need to apply weightings or
    'probable error' numbers from a catalog.
    From that we can infer with virtually 100% confidence that Alpha is about as luminous as the Sun, and that Proxima, while far fainter, is still vastly brighter than any planet could be at that location.
    Well, there could be a reasonably simple answer to my nearest star question!
    I'll look into their bolometers and how they are being employed. Thanks!

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Longmont, CO
    Posts
    3,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Hi Hornblower,
    I am willing to accept the distance to the nearest objects within those
    margins of error. I would like to concentrate solely on the nearest objects
    in the hope it can be proved to me beyond a reasonable doubt that they
    are stars. And it may be fair to put me in the 'ill-informed "It seems to me"
    category', in astronomy, but when it comes to instrumentation, which is
    what most modern astronomy relies on, I'd say I was well informed. That is the
    reason I have to, for the present, not get into the sciences that rely on
    the processing of huge amounts of such tenuous data. If these were exact
    sciences there would be no disagreement between Hubble and Hipparcos, there
    would be no negative parallax measurements, no need to apply weightings or
    'probable error' numbers from a catalog.

    Well, there could be a reasonably simple answer to my nearest star question!
    I'll look into their bolometers and how they are being employed. Thanks!
    Why bother with bolometers? It's a fairly trivial calculation to determine that they could not possibly be planets just from the fact that they are easily visible to the human eye at a range of 4 Ly.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,011
    If you find that difficult some other methods might help... Information is knowledge and knowledge is power...
    Try to consider this line of thinking... Over several years of observation these two single points of light were seen to have relative motion... So a plot of track was drawn... OMG, they are orbiting about a central point. Each other. a period of orbit was calculated.. equal to 88 earth years. The mass of each component was tested. Energy readings over long periods has shown us much information. This much studied pair of STARS have a third component we call Proxima and we are studying the information as it becomes available. Honestly 'Solon' you talk as if we had just opened the window.Thats about 100 years ago... Books have been written. Reams of information gathered, tested, challenged, and tested some more... Its called science. The book and authors work you have been looking at are not excepted as mainstream science is. Its called rubbish. For that is all it is. You say you do not have time to research this for your self... then do not voice a opinion that is so clearly wrong. "Stars closer than Pluto ?" ... Yes, its called the Sun.
    Go outside at night when the sky is clear... see all those little single points of light... they are Stars. All of them., and all of them are a long way away.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    And it may be fair to put me in the 'ill-informed "It seems to me"
    category', in astronomy, but when it comes to instrumentation, which is
    what most modern astronomy relies on, I'd say I was well informed. That is the
    reason I have to, for the present, not get into the sciences that rely on
    the processing of huge amounts of such tenuous data. If these were exact
    sciences there would be no disagreement between Hubble and Hipparcos, there
    would be no negative parallax measurements, no need to apply weightings or
    'probable error' numbers from a catalog.
    If you don't understand why there are negative parallax measurements, nor the need to apply weightings to measurements when performing statistical calculations, nor the need for "probable error" numbers from a catalog, you are not "well informed" about instrumentation.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,782
    StupendousMan's point is absolutely fundamental. Understanding the
    sources, effects, and implications of measurement error is required to
    understand how any instrument works. And isn't particularly difficult.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,782
    Solon,

    You replied to Hornblower's comments in post #65. I'd like to see your
    replies to my questions in post #61 and Van Rijn's questions in post #62.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,169
    This sounds like it is getting quite adversarial. Solon - I don't want you to get the impression that you will be attacked for challenging the mainstream. Science thrives on challenges. I think the reason you are being questioned is that you have asked a question, got what many would see to be a good set of replies to it. Summarised behind them is a lot of science, decades of testing and observing. You don't like or don't see the strength of the arguments. That is fine. So long as you recognise that this is a personal belief. Sometimes someone's beliefs turn out to better fit the available evidence and a new theory is born. And that is all to the good. But is has to fit all the data. Not just a little bit of it (Hipparcos) or hinge on a new theory of how things are observed (spectral measurements). It has to work for everything - and nearby stars being planets doesn't.

    I guess what I am saying is that I don't think anyone here would challenge your right to hold beliefs about how things work. We all do. But at the same time you have to accept that by the scientific method what has been presented here is justified and 'correct' (for a given value of correct!). It meets the required level of proof to be accepted as the best theory out there - which may be different from reaching your own personal threshold to displace your own beliefs.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,692
    to expand on what Shaula says....you can have doubts but the alternative you have read can be ruled out completely. Unless you think that physics changes with distance but then you'd have to explain how that happens and why it seems that it changes in just a way that makes planets look like start. You'd be on the same level as saying invisible pink winged unicorns change the reflected light off planets to make them look like stars.

    You say you have problem with the error bars. Please do elaborate on that. Most of the maths isn't that hard. Most of the measurements are pretty easy to do even with basic equipment and where done a few hundred years ago. To this point it looks like you have a gut feel that you are having a hard time letting go of and would rather not be exposed to the facts so that you can think that your gut feel is still right.

    IE many of us are weary of hand waving claims backed up by statements like "I have a problem with the models" without going into detail about what exactly the person sees wrong with the models. Sure come and say "I have a problem with the xyz because it doesn't seem to factor in abc which could cause a error of n%...." Then we can either say "Yea your right!" or "That's not a problem because..."

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,824
    I just did some estimates for a hypothetical case which treats Proxima Centauri as being non-luminous on its own.

    The Hubble telescope has a resolution of about 0.05 arcsecond, which puts an upper limit of a few million miles on Proxima's diameter. Suppose we suspend what we know about astrophysics and admit the possibility of a nonluminous body that big. To be as bright as it is, it would need to be about as close to Alpha as Jupiter is from the Sun. Since it is upward of a thousand times farther away than that, we can decisively rule out reflected light from Alpha as the source of light. To me that is convincing evidence that it is a star.

    Let us generalize a bit. When I first started reading an entry level college textbook with no prior knowledge of astronomy, I was puzzled by the indirect means by which the astronomers were estimating the vast distances to Rigel and Betelgeuse, which did not have measurable parallaxes as of the late 1940s. Without the prerequisites I could not imagine how they could tell these stars from less luminous ones at shorter distances, or perhaps more luminous ones at greater distances. I asked my father and he did not know. Though he was a top level expert in electronics and radio aids to navigation, he had not had any occasion to study astrophysics. Did I assume that the astronomers were using poor methods? Not at all. Ten years later I had some college level mathematics and physics under my belt, and I was starting to see how the astronomers were doing their estimates. Trying to explain it in short answers in a forum like this is difficult.

    Note: I was 9 years old when I started this. If my father had so wished he could have acquired the necessary information to answer my questions in a few weeks, with good understanding of the mathematical methods. He chose not to, because I was too young to handle it at the time. He was confident that I could conquer the topic in a few years, and he was right.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    144
    @Hornblower
    we can decisively rule out reflected light from Alpha as the source of light.
    This is why I was interested in the Apollo 16 FUVC experiment. The far UV
    emitting region above the earth is not reflected solar UV, it is from
    the ionisation of H in a charged region above the Earth, and if Alpha was
    a planet with the same process occurring, then it would also be a strong UV
    emitter, not reflector. Yes, I will start another thread on the Apollo 16
    astronomy, but that will really open a can of worms!

    @Jeff Root
    Solon,
    You replied to Hornblower's comments in post #65. I'd like to see your
    replies to my questions in post #61 and Van Rijn's questions in post #62.
    I'd like to come back to some questions, as I think I'd have to demonstrate
    the feasibility of some of my other ideas to be able to show where my
    uncertainties with accepted science originate.

    Third, what is your definition of "star"?
    Something that behaves like our Sun, but why the Sun behaves like it does, in
    my view of the Universe, is really a long way from the accepted model, so we'd
    better not go there right now. And it is not the Electric Sun model either!

    @Shaula
    Summarised behind them is a lot of science, decades of testing and observing. You don't like or don't see the strength of the arguments. That is fine. So long as you recognise that this is a personal belief.
    Yes, it is a personal belief, but I feel there are some fundamentals we are missing
    in our 'big picture'. Even in the 550 pages of "The Fire Within the Eye: A Historical Essay on the Nature and Meaning of Light", by David Park, there is no definitive answer, so how can we say there are not unknown properties and mechanisms that could change our whole view of reality? Of course we are getting into philosophy at this point, and I know this is not the place for that.
    I guess what I am saying is that I don't think anyone here would challenge your right to hold beliefs about how things work. We all do. But at the same time you have to accept that by the scientific method what has been presented here is justified and 'correct' (for a given value of correct!). It meets the required level of proof to be accepted as the best theory out there - which may be different from reaching your own personal threshold to displace your own beliefs.
    Well put Shaula. I'm not trying to be confrontational, but I do have nagging
    uncertainties about some accepted scientific beliefs, so am trying to put those
    ideas to rest by methodically working through them. And I appreciate the help.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,442

    Lightbulb Are parallax distances valid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    I'm not trying to be confrontational, but I do have nagging uncertainties about some accepted scientific beliefs, so am trying to put those ideas to rest by methodically working through them.
    Then I suggest an equally methodical approach. Your ideas are not likely to be mutually exclusive. For instance, you did say ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    The far UV emitting region above the earth is not reflected solar UV, it is from the ionisation of H in a charged region above the Earth, and if Alpha was a planet with the same process occurring, then it would also be a strong UV emitter, not reflector.
    Clearly the distance is critical. If in fact Alpha Centauri is light years away, as opposed to the 40 or so light minutes to Jupiter, then it cannot possible be a "planet" and still look as UV bright to us as it does. So the distance is the place to start. I suggest you drop every other subject and concentrate on that one single topic, since it is actually crucial to everything else. Obviously, if you have an object with fixed properties (e.g., brightness, size, etc.), its appearance must depend on its distance, no matter how you choose to observe it. If our local & cosmological distances are correct, then your ideas may become untenable. On the other hand, if you can show that those distances are not correct, then your ideas might stand a chance at validity.

    Just keep in kind that the moderators of BAUT are rather ruthless when it comes to advocating anti-mainstream ideas outside the ATM sub-forum. It's one thing to ask questions and probe how we know what we claim to know, but quite another too actively assert that our claims are wrong. The latter will have you bounced back to ATM, or sanctioned by the moderator staff. So tread lightly.

    Perhaps a new thread not on Apollo, but on Hipparcos. Why are the Hipparcos distances greatly suspect? We already know that they are slightly suspect, but there is a difference. With that in kind, you also said ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    If these were exact sciences there would be no disagreement between Hubble and Hipparcos, there would be no negative parallax measurements, no need to apply weightings or 'probable error' numbers from a catalog.
    I am going to assert here & now that what you said here cannot be true (not "might not" but "can not"). Of course all of these are easily expected, and must happen in any exact science, distance measurements included. Negative parallaxes are the easiest to understand. They simply mean that the true distance to the object is too great for your distance measuring technology to measure it. What is the real significance, for instance, of a parallax that looks like -0.0000001 +/- 0.000002 arcseconds? Does this uncertainty range not include a good deal of positive number domain? Is it really a "negative parallax" or is it just a "lousy parallax"? Can you cite a truly negative measured parallax, which includes no positive domain in the uncertainty?

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    171
    Originally Posted by Van Rijn:

    Third, what is your definition of "star"?
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    ...Something that behaves like our Sun, but why the Sun behaves like it does, in
    my view of the Universe, is really a long way from the accepted model, so we'd
    better not go there right now. And it is not the Electric Sun model either...
    If you doubt the accepted model of the processes that occur in our sun then I suggest you start your search for understanding there. After you've reached an understanding of the accepted model of how our sun (and stars in general) works, you can then post questions about specific aspects of the accepted model that you don't understand.

    You stated: "...why the Sun behaves like it does, in my view of the Universe, is really a long way from the accepted model..."

    This section on Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers is intended to provide clarification about aspects of accepted scientific theories that a person may be unclear about or is having trouble understanding.

    So far, your replies in this thread have disputed the validity of the observations upon which accepted cosmological theories are based. There's nothing wrong with doubting the validity of currently accepted scientific observations and theories - but this is not the right section to do so.

    Chris

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,782
    Quote Originally Posted by csmyth3025 View Post
    If you doubt the accepted model of the processes that occur in our sun
    then I suggest you start your search for understanding there.
    Tim's suggestion that he start by getting a better understanding of how
    stellar distances are measured seems better, to me. Although there's
    no reason he can't work on multiple questions at once, the distance
    measure is required to know the intrinsic brightness of stars, which is
    both the reason we need to explain their brightness in terms of
    processes that occur in them, and a critical reason that we can
    explain their brightness in terms of those processes.

    The processes are numerous and complex, including the concepts of
    gravitational potential energy, heat transfer, radiative cooling, nuclear
    fusion, quantum interactions, and on and on. Getting the distances
    to the nearest few hundred stars right is simple in comparison.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,685
    What can of worms is that?


    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Yes, I will start another thread on the Apollo 16 astronomy, but that will really open a can of worms!

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    10,971
    Quote Originally Posted by wd40 View Post
    What can of worms is that?
    The one in another thread.
    Measure once, cut twice. Practice makes perfect.
    Bentleys Gonna Sort You Out!

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    144
    No, I haven't run away yet, just busy with other projects, but I did
    receive some information concerning the geocentric model that WD40
    brought up. It seems the Vedic model of the Universe was geocentric too,
    and a temple is being built to illustrate the model. A long read, but
    maybe a break from the rigors of hard science.

    Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy
    http://nitaaiveda.com/All_Scriptures..._Astronomy.htm
    The Temple of the Vedic Planetarium
    http://tovp.org/

  24. #84
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Here is one for you guys to pull apart. Bahram Katirai claimed that Astronomers have the size of the Universe all wrong, that most stars are planets, and things are a lot closer than we believe.

    http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source...JkHWl2B3d2pV1A

    I don't need to read this to know that it's wrong.

    That's how settled this particular area of science is.


    edit: this post is akin to someone dancing in the end zone during a 67-3 rout.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,890
    Solon,

    The Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers forum is where people get mainstream answers to their questions. You posts indicate that you're after some other kind of discussion. Clarify what that is and we can look at moving it to another forum.
    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)

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    144
    @Peters Creek
    You posts indicate that you're after some other kind of discussion.
    I'm really only trying to determine if the distance estimates of cosmic objects
    have any validity beyond our Solar system, and just thought it interesting that the
    Vedic cosmology supports the idea of closer distances.

    I came upon this while looking into redshift and distance.
    Plasma Redshift Cosmology.
    http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.ph...Display&id=411
    I am not advocating for this fellow, so I will ask a question. Does Mainstream
    astronomy accept that plasma will affect photons, at some or all wavelengths?
    I don't think it should be in the ATM section, as it "is based entirely on conventional
    axioms of physics", but I'm sure the Mods will be the judge of that.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,692
    Any matter will effect the speed of photons. This is why c is the speed of light in a vacuum.
    The problem is these changes also cause refraction where different frequencies of light are bent more then others.

    I've personally not been exposed to any explanation that would red shift photons in the manner described and that explain the cosmological redshift we see without any other evidence that such a plasma would display.

    The full paper to that brief can be found here http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ASPC..413..169B

    I have not read the paper yet but I'm not sure it has even gone through any peer review process. All I know is I wouldn't call "Crisis in Cosmology Conference" as part of the peer review process. Basically they ask for papers that contradict conventional cosmology and don't care if the different papers are completely at odds with one another or even self consistent within themselves. Its a bit of a "big tent" mentality where they turn a blind eye to contradictions just to try to bolster their own idea via a false sense that there is some big group of scientists that agree with them.

    This topic has been discussed before here on BAUT.

    From my understanding there is a few problems like the fact that Dr. Ari Brynjolfsson claims there is no gravitational redshift but ignores the fact that GR has been verified by more then just measuring red shift in incoming photons. Gravitational redshift can be measured in vacuum in the lab. Seems like a bunch of maths based on cherry picked data and some wild speculations and claims that we'll eventually verify his prediction more then anything.

    I could be wrong about one or all of these points tho.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    @Peters Creek


    I'm really only trying to determine if the distance estimates of cosmic objects
    have any validity beyond our Solar system,
    They do, as has been demonstrated (or, if you prefer, shown) several times already, in this very thread.

    May I ask what questions - concerning such distance estimates - you still have?

    I came upon this while looking into redshift and distance.
    Plasma Redshift Cosmology.
    http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.ph...Display&id=411
    I am not advocating for this fellow, so I will ask a question. Does Mainstream
    astronomy accept that plasma will affect photons, at some or all wavelengths?
    I don't think it should be in the ATM section, as it "is based entirely on conventional
    axioms of physics", but I'm sure the Mods will be the judge of that.
    (bold added)

    This document is not a peer-reviewed paper.

    As far as I know, no papers by AB have been published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals.

    That's usually a pretty good indication that, despite how many times the phrase [this] "is based entirely on conventional axioms of physics" is repeated, it isn't.

    So, to make it quite clear to you, that document is grade A ATM material.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,011
    To address Solon's question. No. No no no... The distances we value are tested and 'proven' as real and accurate. We do know how far away Alpha Cent., Is. I know that if we measure angles to them and compare it with a six month later image there is movement... Its measured. Calculable. and factual science.
    What ever it is that this proponent of the woo woo idea that the whole universe is really really small... and we know its not. It would seem to be really really big. Which is both relevant and interesting and it seems to bother the 'universe by design' school of thought proponents...Which is from where this fruit loop of a idea has come from. Look at what you are being told here. Its rubbish. It is not good science. It is a ATM idea to be sure. Mainstream science has shown to be right in this regard.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,550
    I too somewhat doubt that "plasma redshift cosmology" is "based entirely on conventional axioms of physics", depending on what are considered to be the said conventional axioms of course. I'm not sure there even is a complete consensus as to how to define the axioms of physics, ref:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_sixth_problem
    The dog, the dog, he's at it again!

Similar Threads

  1. A Revolution in Astronomy
    By Solon in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: 2011-Mar-30, 10:56 PM
  2. A revolution in the way we get around
    By DrWho in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 2009-Sep-26, 02:49 PM
  3. Green Revolution: What does it mean now?
    By PraedSt in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2008-Nov-12, 04:52 PM
  4. Come the Revolution...
    By Glom in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 2007-Mar-13, 01:52 AM

Posting Permissions

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