Time Lapse (Stars)

  • 39 Replies
  • 5464 Views
?

Art

  • 133
Time Lapse (Stars)
« on: October 01, 2013, 07:47:55 PM »
Hi Guys,

A mountain I often climb... Was sent as a warning to stay away this weekend.

So if we do this at a few different locations either side of the equator, what then?

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Mt Barney Burning SD

Or is it the Universe rotating around us because we are the centre of the Universe?
RET:0 - FET:0

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2013, 07:51:07 PM »
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59911.0.html#.UkuJ2Z_n_qA

There is many threads about this but here is the most recent. I explained in detail why this happens and what to expect at different locations.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2013, 08:00:20 PM by rottingroom »

?

Art

  • 133
Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2013, 02:06:06 AM »
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59911.0.html#.UkuJ2Z_n_qA

There is many threads about this but here is the most recent. I explained in detail why this happens and what to expect at different locations.

Apologies, I should have looked, you have certainly made the effort.
No need for this one, happy for it to go mods, it's relatively superficial in comparison ;)
RET:0 - FET:0

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #3 on: October 02, 2013, 09:00:20 AM »
Hi Guys,

A mountain I often climb... Was sent as a warning to stay away this weekend.

So if we do this at a few different locations either side of the equator, what then?

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Mt Barney Burning SD

Or is it the Universe rotating around us because we are the centre of the Universe?

Numerous pieces of evidence exist which prove the earth sits at the center of the universe...  Even Stephen Hawking admits to the puzzling position of the earth's position from time to time.

Check out this website...

http://evidencepress.com/short-answers/are-we-in-the-center-of-the-universe/

Look at quantum red shift

Galaxy distribution density

and more...


*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2013, 10:56:07 AM »
Where does Stephen Hawking say anything about "the puzzling position of the earth's position"[sic]?  You have one quote about some sort of conceptual idea about the Big Bang, that Hawking maybe thought at that time that the universe, under that model, would require a center and a boundary.  Even if that were true, that does not mean Hawking is saying the Earth is that center.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2013, 11:29:41 AM »
In one of his past books, he talked about how redshift data places the earth at a point near the center of the universe...

I just forgot which book it was...  I forgot the page number as well... It was a while back; however, the information here touches on the same subject.

I just posted it all here in order to show the information and prove how its not my imagination...


?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #7 on: October 02, 2013, 11:32:50 AM »
In one of his past books, he talked about how redshift data places the earth at a point near the center of the universe...

I just forgot which book it was...  I forgot the page number as well... It was a while back; however, the information here touches on the same subject.

I just posted it all here in order to show the information and prove how its not my imagination...

I said the above while back.  I found the book where the info was said...

Quote
Stephen Hawking in his book, “A Brief History of Time,” seems to be tripping over the truth. He reports:

Now at first sight, all of this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in, might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!

Unfortunately, sometimes he attempts to run away from the information...  However, no one can run away from the redshift data... 

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #8 on: October 02, 2013, 11:38:15 AM »
Crank astronomy?  You are not being serious... I just presented this quote from one of Stephen Hawking's books... It should answer all the questions.  I did not even twist or remove information...

These websites stand as false websites that just invent false arguments to cloud the obvious.  This cycle must stop at some point.  The redshift data never does lie.  The answers come so simple.

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2013, 11:39:28 AM »
I could not even quote RR, because of some sticky wicked 404 error...  There was a error document issue and some other error protocols... I just left the above post.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2013, 11:43:47 AM »
In one of his past books, he talked about how redshift data places the earth at a point near the center of the universe...

I just forgot which book it was...  I forgot the page number as well... It was a while back; however, the information here touches on the same subject.

I just posted it all here in order to show the information and prove how its not my imagination...

I said the above while back.  I found the book where the info was said...

Quote
Stephen Hawking in his book, “A Brief History of Time,” seems to be tripping over the truth. He reports:

Now at first sight, all of this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in, might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!

Unfortunately, sometimes he attempts to run away from the information...  However, no one can run away from the redshift data...

I love how you forget to post the part of that Brief History of Time quote where he shows very succinctly why a uniformly expanding universe would appear the way you are interpreting it.  Regardless of what your feelings are on Hawkings interpretation of data, he most definitely does not believe we are in the center of the universe.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #11 on: October 02, 2013, 11:44:08 AM »
Crank astronomy?  You are not being serious... I just presented this quote from one of Stephen Hawking's books... It should answer all the questions.  I did not even twist or remove information...

These websites stand as false websites that just invent false arguments to cloud the obvious.  This cycle must stop at some point.  The redshift data never does lie.  The answers come so simple.

Yeah OK. I'm sure you read all of that in 5 minutes. There are something like 20 posts talking about redshift on that website. I just leave the links to let readers decide for themselves.

And what about the quote from Stephen Hawkings? That's how you talk about how the galaxies are moving away from each other. You first talk about how they appear to be moving away from us in this reference frame and then discuss why it's the same no matter where you go.

You need to throw away that bible son, it's clouding your judgement.

Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2013, 11:45:19 AM »
@JJ,

Stephen Hawkings didn't say we were at the centre of the universe. I would have carried on reading if I were you.

Quote
Now at first sight, all of this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in, might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe! In Friedmann’s model, all the galaxies are moving directly away from each other. The situation is rather like a balloon with a number of spots painted on it being steadily blown up. As the balloon expands, the distance between any two spots increases, but there is no spot that can be said to be the center of the expansion.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2013, 11:49:41 AM by Cartesian »
I think, therefore I am

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #13 on: October 02, 2013, 11:47:55 AM »


Here is a version of the diagram Hawkings provides in Brief History of Time.  It shows how uniformly expanding space and how, from every point, every object is moving away from the other.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #14 on: October 02, 2013, 11:56:28 AM »
Thanks for posting those Rama. I was just about to dig up the same thing. Lawrence Krauss explains this fantastically in "A Universe from Nothing."

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #15 on: October 02, 2013, 12:19:49 PM »
In one of his past books, he talked about how redshift data places the earth at a point near the center of the universe...

I just forgot which book it was...  I forgot the page number as well... It was a while back; however, the information here touches on the same subject.

I just posted it all here in order to show the information and prove how its not my imagination...

I said the above while back.  I found the book where the info was said...

Quote
Stephen Hawking in his book, “A Brief History of Time,” seems to be tripping over the truth. He reports:

Now at first sight, all of this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in, might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!

Unfortunately, sometimes he attempts to run away from the information...  However, no one can run away from the redshift data...

I love how you forget to post the part of that Brief History of Time quote where he shows very succinctly why a uniformly expanding universe would appear the way you are interpreting it.  Regardless of what your feelings are on Hawkings interpretation of data, he most definitely does not believe we are in the center of the universe.

If one reads Stephen's own quote, he gives the information about the Redshift.  It expands equally in all directions...  The alternate explanation never does occur in real life.  Something in the center will always be in the center.  Something with an equal rate of expansion in all directions outward, will always be centered.

If the position changes, the results change as well...  Its simple logic and prediction.  No made up theory covers up this simple precept.  The hypothesis that it looks the same in all other galaxies only poses a counter-intuitive scenario. 

He says he wishes to pursue modesty;however, his character leaves a pessimistic mark of arrogance.  His statement contradicts the concrete facts.  I cannot attack what he believes; however, belief should never cloud the hard data and evidence.


Once again, the redshift data fails to lie, while people do.  A general center still acts as a center.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #16 on: October 02, 2013, 12:28:40 PM »
You are deliberately ignoring Stephen Hawkings own words.  If you think he is wrong that is fine, but Stephen Hawkings does not believe the Earth is at the center of the universe.  If you say so, you are wrong.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #17 on: October 02, 2013, 12:31:52 PM »
Quote from: Jingle Jangle
If one reads Stephen's own quote, he gives the information about the Redshift.  It expands equally in all directions...  The alternate explanation never does occur in real life.  Something in the center will always be in the center.  Something with an equal rate of expansion in all directions outward, will always be centered.

If the position changes, the results change as well...  Its simple logic and prediction.  No made up theory covers up this simple precept.  The hypothesis that it looks the same in all other galaxies only poses a counter-intuitive scenario. 

Yes of course, in that frame of reference. It's not hard to grasp.

Quote from: Jingle Jangle
He says he wishes to pursue modesty;however, his character leaves a pessimistic mark of arrogance.  His statement contradicts the concrete facts.  I cannot attack what he believes; however, belief should never cloud the hard data and evidence.

Once again, the redshift data fails to lie, while people do.  A general center still acts as a center.

Quote from: Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy


In the plot above, there is not even the suggestion of alignment of galaxies along these curved lines.  Note that Hartnett & Hirano, using power spectral analysis (Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis of number counts N(z) using SDSS and 2dF GRS galaxy surveys) reported redshift periodicities at z = 0.0102, 0.0246, and 0.0448.  All of these values, and their integral harmonics, should be visible in this graphic as well-defined walls of galaxies confined between the green circles.  As I will illustrate in the coming posts, many different things can create peaks in power spectra.

Yet we see many of these 'walls' of galaxies cutting across the green circles, in violation of the claim that the distribution is spherically symmetric around the Earth. 

Here's some structures I've identified in the SDSS map.  None of them exhibit an Earth-centered symmetry.



It is possible to identify a number of apparent cross-sections of 'bubbles' in the structure.  I mark just a few in the graphic with light-blue ovals, but many more, with overlaps can clearly be identified.  These are like the slices through many of the cosmological simulations.



So I've tried to identify the 'concentric/geocentric structures' claimed by Mr. DeLano and others, but no objective tests seem to support the claim.  This suggests that the 'concentric structures' are a form of pareidolia and only exist in the mind of the observer who wishes them to exist.

I'm just not seeing it.


Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #18 on: October 02, 2013, 02:46:21 PM »
Quote from: Jingle Jangle
If one reads Stephen's own quote, he gives the information about the Redshift.  It expands equally in all directions...  The alternate explanation never does occur in real life.  Something in the center will always be in the center.  Something with an equal rate of expansion in all directions outward, will always be centered.

If the position changes, the results change as well...  Its simple logic and prediction.  No made up theory covers up this simple precept.  The hypothesis that it looks the same in all other galaxies only poses a counter-intuitive scenario. 

Yes of course, in that frame of reference. It's not hard to grasp.

Quote from: Jingle Jangle
He says he wishes to pursue modesty;however, his character leaves a pessimistic mark of arrogance.  His statement contradicts the concrete facts.  I cannot attack what he believes; however, belief should never cloud the hard data and evidence.

Once again, the redshift data fails to lie, while people do.  A general center still acts as a center.

Quote from: Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy


In the plot above, there is not even the suggestion of alignment of galaxies along these curved lines.  Note that Hartnett & Hirano, using power spectral analysis (Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis of number counts N(z) using SDSS and 2dF GRS galaxy surveys) reported redshift periodicities at z = 0.0102, 0.0246, and 0.0448.  All of these values, and their integral harmonics, should be visible in this graphic as well-defined walls of galaxies confined between the green circles.  As I will illustrate in the coming posts, many different things can create peaks in power spectra.

Yet we see many of these 'walls' of galaxies cutting across the green circles, in violation of the claim that the distribution is spherically symmetric around the Earth. 

Here's some structures I've identified in the SDSS map.  None of them exhibit an Earth-centered symmetry.



It is possible to identify a number of apparent cross-sections of 'bubbles' in the structure.  I mark just a few in the graphic with light-blue ovals, but many more, with overlaps can clearly be identified.  These are like the slices through many of the cosmological simulations.



So I've tried to identify the 'concentric/geocentric structures' claimed by Mr. DeLano and others, but no objective tests seem to support the claim.  This suggests that the 'concentric structures' are a form of pareidolia and only exist in the mind of the observer who wishes them to exist.

I'm just not seeing it.

I can see jangle's point of view. There is considerable debate regarding redshift quantization (periodicity) in the scientific community, however, most DO acknowledge it's existence. The debate is over the cause. It is sometimes difficult to see trends that emerge from fourier analysis when viewing the sample. That is one very good reason why fourier analysis is so useful: it can identify statistical trends that are not easily apparent to the naked eye.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2013, 03:04:52 PM »
Quote from: Jingle Jangle
If one reads Stephen's own quote, he gives the information about the Redshift.  It expands equally in all directions...  The alternate explanation never does occur in real life.  Something in the center will always be in the center.  Something with an equal rate of expansion in all directions outward, will always be centered.

If the position changes, the results change as well...  Its simple logic and prediction.  No made up theory covers up this simple precept.  The hypothesis that it looks the same in all other galaxies only poses a counter-intuitive scenario. 

Yes of course, in that frame of reference. It's not hard to grasp.

Quote from: Jingle Jangle
He says he wishes to pursue modesty;however, his character leaves a pessimistic mark of arrogance.  His statement contradicts the concrete facts.  I cannot attack what he believes; however, belief should never cloud the hard data and evidence.

Once again, the redshift data fails to lie, while people do.  A general center still acts as a center.

Quote from: Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy


In the plot above, there is not even the suggestion of alignment of galaxies along these curved lines.  Note that Hartnett & Hirano, using power spectral analysis (Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis of number counts N(z) using SDSS and 2dF GRS galaxy surveys) reported redshift periodicities at z = 0.0102, 0.0246, and 0.0448.  All of these values, and their integral harmonics, should be visible in this graphic as well-defined walls of galaxies confined between the green circles.  As I will illustrate in the coming posts, many different things can create peaks in power spectra.

Yet we see many of these 'walls' of galaxies cutting across the green circles, in violation of the claim that the distribution is spherically symmetric around the Earth. 

Here's some structures I've identified in the SDSS map.  None of them exhibit an Earth-centered symmetry.



It is possible to identify a number of apparent cross-sections of 'bubbles' in the structure.  I mark just a few in the graphic with light-blue ovals, but many more, with overlaps can clearly be identified.  These are like the slices through many of the cosmological simulations.



So I've tried to identify the 'concentric/geocentric structures' claimed by Mr. DeLano and others, but no objective tests seem to support the claim.  This suggests that the 'concentric structures' are a form of pareidolia and only exist in the mind of the observer who wishes them to exist.

I'm just not seeing it.

I can see jangle's point of view. There is considerable debate regarding redshift quantization (periodicity) in the scientific community, however, most DO acknowledge it's existence. The debate is over the cause. It is sometimes difficult to see trends that emerge from fourier analysis when viewing the sample. That is one very good reason why fourier analysis is so useful: it can identify statistical trends that are not easily apparent to the naked eye.

Most DO ????

Quote from: wikipedia
After Tifft made his proposal, discussion of it was generally confined to detractors of standard cosmology.[23] Nevertheless, it was nearly 20 years before other researchers tried to corroborate his findings. After a brief flurry of interest, the consensus in the astronomical community became that any quantization was either coincidental or due to so-called geometrical effects. Current observations and models of large-scale structure models trace filamentary superclusters and voids that cause most galaxies in a rough statistical sense to have correlated positions, but such groupings would not allow for a strength of periodicity required if it were a hallmark characteristic of the redshifts of galaxies. As such with exceedingly few exceptions, modern cosmology researchers have suggested that redshift quantizations are manifestations of well-understood phenomena, or not present at all.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11691
Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2013, 03:13:30 PM »
Is there any time lapse videos of stars going straight accross the sky? All the videos I have seen are stars curving.  They should be going straight somewhere.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2013, 03:26:55 PM »
Is there any time lapse videos of stars going straight accross the sky? All the videos I have seen are stars curving.  They should be going straight somewhere.

Well the place to do that is over the equator.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Clouds and Stars over Cotopaxi Volcano in Ecuador

This one is in ecuador but unfortunately the camera is pointed at the horizon instead of straight up. If it were pointed up then the stars in the center of the camera would be going straight. Even pointed at the horizon though the stars in this video are much straighter than any other video's I've seen

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #22 on: October 02, 2013, 04:09:11 PM »
This link goes to a photographer who shot a long exposure of the celestial equator.

http://www.douglasvincent.com/photography/star-trails/
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #23 on: October 02, 2013, 04:31:29 PM »
All in all, sad to say, the information by many professionals in the field differs only because of shallow personal view.  However, this information needs to be dragged into the open limelight...

Quote
an article from John Hartnett in TJ (Technical Journal — An Answers in Genesis Journal) vol 19(1) 2005 states,

 “This is what Edwin Hubble concluded; his observations of the galaxies’ red shifts indicated to him that we are at the center of a symmetric matter distribution. But Hubble rejected his own conclusion — that we are in a very special place — on philosophical grounds. And Hubble wasn’t alone in realizing the situation: “people need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only excluded on philosophical grounds. In my view there is actually nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11691
Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #24 on: October 02, 2013, 05:09:24 PM »
Is there any time lapse videos of stars going straight accross the sky? All the videos I have seen are stars curving.  They should be going straight somewhere.

Well the place to do that is over the equator.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Clouds and Stars over Cotopaxi Volcano in Ecuador

This one is in ecuador but unfortunately the camera is pointed at the horizon instead of straight up. If it were pointed up then the stars in the center of the camera would be going straight. Even pointed at the horizon though the stars in this video are much straighter than any other video's I've seen
These stars all seem to be traveling in an arc. If it were pointed up, I still haven't seen the stars moving straight.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #25 on: October 02, 2013, 05:32:59 PM »
Is there any time lapse videos of stars going straight accross the sky? All the videos I have seen are stars curving.  They should be going straight somewhere.

Well the place to do that is over the equator.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Clouds and Stars over Cotopaxi Volcano in Ecuador

This one is in ecuador but unfortunately the camera is pointed at the horizon instead of straight up. If it were pointed up then the stars in the center of the camera would be going straight. Even pointed at the horizon though the stars in this video are much straighter than any other video's I've seen
These stars all seem to be traveling in an arc. If it were pointed up, I still haven't seen the stars moving straight.

Rama set linked you to some pictures.

Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #26 on: October 02, 2013, 05:40:28 PM »
Is there any time lapse videos of stars going straight accross the sky? All the videos I have seen are stars curving.  They should be going straight somewhere.
If the camera is pointed straight up, they would be seen moving straight (how straight depends on field of view of the lens)

If the camera is pointed at the horizon east or west, the stars would be straight out of, or into, the horizon (their path would be angled, the degree of which depending on latitude of observer)

If the camera is pointed at the horizon east or west on the equator, the stars path would be straight up and down.  (again, stars toward the edge of the frame may either be parallel, or curve a tad depending on camera zoom or fisheye FOV )

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #27 on: October 02, 2013, 05:43:04 PM »
So, let’s see. We can consider that every object observed from our stationary vantage point not only dances around us, but all inner-system objects also form a complicated Spirograph design around the Sun at the same time, all beholden to every last law of planetary motion, gravity, and relativity, except us mind you…

…or we can assume that we simply move around the Sun like everything else in our system.

Hmmmm. And equatorial bulges, tidal/gravitational drag, and atmospheric movement systems are all just coincidental, or indicative of the Earth’s rotation.

Golly. Hard to tell where to put the smart money. I gotta admit, trusting in an ancient tome that disagrees with every last facet of science is mighty tempting (hah! Oh, the puns, the puns…), and it’s got that whole “damnation if you even sneeze” thing going for it as well.

Decisions, decisions…

But I suppose the next time someone assures me that the Earth is stationary, I’m going to have to ask where they’re measuring it from.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #28 on: October 02, 2013, 08:37:12 PM »
Well I linked to this, but it seems like Hoppy ignored it.

Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« Reply #29 on: October 02, 2013, 10:26:51 PM »
Quote from: Jingle Jangle
If one reads Stephen's own quote, he gives the information about the Redshift.  It expands equally in all directions...  The alternate explanation never does occur in real life.  Something in the center will always be in the center.  Something with an equal rate of expansion in all directions outward, will always be centered.

If the position changes, the results change as well...  Its simple logic and prediction.  No made up theory covers up this simple precept.  The hypothesis that it looks the same in all other galaxies only poses a counter-intuitive scenario. 

Yes of course, in that frame of reference. It's not hard to grasp.

Quote from: Jingle Jangle
He says he wishes to pursue modesty;however, his character leaves a pessimistic mark of arrogance.  His statement contradicts the concrete facts.  I cannot attack what he believes; however, belief should never cloud the hard data and evidence.

Once again, the redshift data fails to lie, while people do.  A general center still acts as a center.

Quote from: Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy


In the plot above, there is not even the suggestion of alignment of galaxies along these curved lines.  Note that Hartnett & Hirano, using power spectral analysis (Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis of number counts N(z) using SDSS and 2dF GRS galaxy surveys) reported redshift periodicities at z = 0.0102, 0.0246, and 0.0448.  All of these values, and their integral harmonics, should be visible in this graphic as well-defined walls of galaxies confined between the green circles.  As I will illustrate in the coming posts, many different things can create peaks in power spectra.

Yet we see many of these 'walls' of galaxies cutting across the green circles, in violation of the claim that the distribution is spherically symmetric around the Earth. 

Here's some structures I've identified in the SDSS map.  None of them exhibit an Earth-centered symmetry.



It is possible to identify a number of apparent cross-sections of 'bubbles' in the structure.  I mark just a few in the graphic with light-blue ovals, but many more, with overlaps can clearly be identified.  These are like the slices through many of the cosmological simulations.



So I've tried to identify the 'concentric/geocentric structures' claimed by Mr. DeLano and others, but no objective tests seem to support the claim.  This suggests that the 'concentric structures' are a form of pareidolia and only exist in the mind of the observer who wishes them to exist.

I'm just not seeing it.

I can see jangle's point of view. There is considerable debate regarding redshift quantization (periodicity) in the scientific community, however, most DO acknowledge it's existence. The debate is over the cause. It is sometimes difficult to see trends that emerge from fourier analysis when viewing the sample. That is one very good reason why fourier analysis is so useful: it can identify statistical trends that are not easily apparent to the naked eye.

Most DO ????

Quote from: wikipedia
After Tifft made his proposal, discussion of it was generally confined to detractors of standard cosmology.[23] Nevertheless, it was nearly 20 years before other researchers tried to corroborate his findings. After a brief flurry of interest, the consensus in the astronomical community became that any quantization was either coincidental or due to so-called geometrical effects. Current observations and models of large-scale structure models trace filamentary superclusters and voids that cause most galaxies in a rough statistical sense to have correlated positions, but such groupings would not allow for a strength of periodicity required if it were a hallmark characteristic of the redshifts of galaxies. As such with exceedingly few exceptions, modern cosmology researchers have suggested that redshift quantizations are manifestations of well-understood phenomena, or not present at all.

Yes, most DO! Most of those that do, however, believe it explainable by already understood phenomena, and not a separate, new one (as you were able to find and even indicated in BOLD). The issue of its existence is not really one of its final explanation, but merely that many acknowledge the statistics which show it are valid. There are some who do not think so, of course, but they argue the analysis procedure itself (one cannot really argue that the result exists given the procedure is valid, the mathematics show it there).

If the majority is correct, then redshift quantization is a bit of a red herring, although still important for them to understand in relation to existing knowledge...of course....as are all things.