Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #381302 > unrolled thread

Modern Astonomy

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Modern Astonomy Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 16:23 -0700
    Re: Modern Astonomy rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 17:30 -0700
    Re: Modern Astonomy Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 17:48 -0700
      Re: Modern Astonomy rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 20:52 -0700
    Re: Modern Astonomy Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-10 23:43 -0500
    Re: Modern Astonomy Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 13:14 -0700
      Re: Modern Astonomy rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 14:39 -0700
    Re: Modern Astonomy Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 15:18 -0700
      Re: Modern Astonomy rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 17:09 -0700
        Re: Modern Astonomy mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-12 05:10 -0700
      Re: Modern Astonomy Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-12 10:04 -0500
    Re: Modern Astonomy Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:36 -0700
    Re: Modern Astonomy "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-12 13:32 +0200
      Re: Modern Astonomy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-12 13:52 +0000
    Re: Modern Astonomy Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 14:04 -0700
    Re: Modern Astonomy Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 14:06 -0700
    Re: Modern Astonomy ljustine@gmail.com - 2016-04-13 15:15 -0700
    Re: Modern Astonomy ljustine@gmail.com - 2016-04-13 15:16 -0700
    Re: Modern Astonomy ljustine@gmail.com - 2016-04-13 16:24 -0700
    Re: Modern Astonomy ljustine@gmail.com - 2016-04-13 17:55 -0700
    Re: Modern Astonomy Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 23:04 -0700
      Re: Modern Astonomy pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-14 22:19 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#381302 — Modern Astonomy

 Modern astronomy uses parallax to determine the distance to a star. The distance to Alpha Centauri is calculated, using parallax, where the distance of the earth's orbital diameter is used as the parallax reference distance. The change in the angular position of Alpha Centauri, after the observer propagates the distance of half an earth orbit (6 months), is used to determine the distance to Alpha Centauri but since the advent of stellar photography, the stellar universe is stationary since a stellar photographs taken in 2015 can be found to match exactly the stellar photograph taken in 1900. In other words, the position of Alpha Centauri has not change in the last 100 years; the change in position of Alpha Centauri measured by astronomers is caused by manipulating the earth's daily and yearly motions; consequently, the calculation of the distance to a star, using the change in the position of a star, cannot be calculated, since the stellar universe is stationary (stellar maps). The alleged motion of the stellar universe, is used to justify the existence of the optical ether, composed of matter, and Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light, using the aberration but aberration is also formed by the earth's daily and yearly rotational motions. The same method of deception, based on the earth's daily and yearly rotational motions, used to justify the theory that the earth is the center of the universe is also used to determine the distances to the stars.


 The expansion of the universe (big bang) is justified using a spiral galaxy but the photograph of a spiral galaxy is arbitrarily created, by manipulating the photographic plate, since the original photograph of the alleged galaxy resembles a smudge. Also, the photograph of the Milky Way spiral galaxy, that contains the sun and the earth, is fictional, since to take this photograph would require that the photographer be many light years away from the earth. In addition, the photograph of the Eagle Nebula, using the Spitzer telescope is also fictitiously created, using computer imaginary, since the photograph represents the view of a celestial gas (fig 18) yet the vacuum of celestial space is void of the quantity of gas molecules implied in the photograph of the Eagle Nebula. Also, modern astronomers are viewing a single point in space (.1 arcseconds), using the Spitzer telescope, in photographing the Eagle Nebula that has a width of more than 70 light years and represents over 8000 stars yet the Spitzer space telescope does not have the resolution power to view the lunar lander on the surface of the moon. Astronomers are assuming that the Spitzer telescope has the power to resolve the stars of the Eagle Nebula that is 7000 light years from the earth. In addition, to determine the resolution, of the Eagle Nebula, requires the distance from the earth to the Eagle Nebula but the stellar universe is stationary; consequently, the distance, from the earth to the Eagle Nebula, necessary to determine the resolution, cannot be determined which is experimental proof the photograph of the Eagle Nebula is fiction. Furthermore, the red shift is used to justify the expansion theory but every star, at different times and positions, forms both red and blue shifts since the stellar universe is stationary. The same method of deception, based on the earth's daily and yearly rotational motions, that ancient scientists used to justify the theory that the earth is the center of the Universe is used to verify the expansion theory.





"Hey, wait a sec! Hubble's resolution is only 0.1 arcseconds, so the lander is way too small to be seen as anything more than a dot, even by Hubble. It would have to be a lot bigger to be seen at all. In fact, if you do the math (set Hubble's resolution to 0.1 arcseconds and the distance to 400,000 kilometers) you see that Hubble's resolution on the Moon is about 200 meters! In other words, even a football stadium on the Moon would look like a dot to Hubble." (By Phil Plait | August 12, 2008, Discover online).

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#381312

On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 7:23:32 PM UTC-4, Carl Susumu wrote:

>the stellar universe is stationary since a stellar photographs taken in 
>2015 can be found to match exactly the stellar photograph taken in 1900.

This is not true. Why do you lie so? Comparing past and recent stellar photographs, astronomers have observed noticeable change in relative positions of some of the stars in the photographs. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381313

Then there would be up dates of the stellar universe?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381328

On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 8:48:42 PM UTC-4, Carl Susumu wrote:
> Then there would be up dates of the stellar universe?

If you are asking if there are regular updates to the "photographs", yes. Astronomers regularly take pics and compare them to past pics to find changes. Didnt you know that already?? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381330

On 4/10/16 4/10/16   6:23 PM, Carl Susumu wrote:
> Modern astronomy uses parallax to determine the distance to a star.

Yes, at least for stars near enough for it to work.


> but since the advent of stellar
> photography, the stellar universe is stationary since a stellar photographs
> taken in 2015 can be found to match exactly the stellar photograph taken in
> 1900.

This is just plain not true. Why do you make things up and pretend they are true?


> In other words, the position of Alpha Centauri has not change in the
> last 100 years;

This is not a given, but let us stipulate it for now. It is not the "change in 
the position of AC" that is being discussed, but rather the change in IMAGES of 
it made by astronomers -- counter to what you fantasize above.


> the change in position of Alpha Centauri measured by
> astronomers is caused by manipulating the earth's daily and yearly motions;
> consequently,

How do you think "the earth's daily and yearly motions" can be "manipulated"???? 
Humans are many orders of magnitude away from being able to do that.


> [... further fantasies ignored]

> The expansion of the universe (big bang) is justified using a spiral galaxy

NONSENSE! No single spiral galaxies contributes significantly at all.

Why do you make things up and pretend they are true?

The major contributions to modern cosmological models are the observed redshifts 
of distant galaxies, measurements of Type Ia supernovae in them, and of course 
measurements of the CMBR. There are surely more, but I am not expert here.


> [... further fantasies ignored]

Why do you make things up and pretend they are true?

Like other "conspiracy theorists" your claims are hopelessly naive and not worth 
discussing.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381370

The major contributions to modern cosmological models are the observed redshifts 
of distant galaxies, measurements of Type Ia supernovae in them, and of course 
measurements of the CMBR. There are surely more, but I am not expert here. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The red and blue shift is caused by the earth's yearly and daily motions since at different times and positions a star forms both the red and blue shift or the star would visually disappear and not by the expansion of the universe since the stellar universe is stationary. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381383

On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 4:14:52 PM UTC-4, Carl Susumu wrote:

> The red and blue shift is caused by the earth's yearly 

"causes" or "interpretations" are irrelevant. Let stick to the facts, facts which you are voluntary ignoring like a coward:

> star forms both the red and blue shift 

Not quite; Thats valid only for a fraction of the stars. MOST stars have only redshifts. And this is more noticeable the further those stars (galaxies) are.
So, how do you explain that very far away stars have *only* redshifts, no matter what time of year we "look" at them ?

> or the star would visually disappear 

And they (most) do. Many stars (galaxies) are observed to fall out of the visible range. You are not aware of such facts & such photographs? look like you are purposely hiding your head underground to keep away from facts. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381397

When the earth's daily and yearly motions produce an effect, at the surface of the earth where the observe is, and the net motion is towards the star a blue shift is formed.  When the net motion is away from the star, the red shift is formed. Your keeping your head in the ground to keep the flies away.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381407

On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 6:18:37 PM UTC-4, Carl Susumu wrote:
> When the earth's daily and yearly motions produce an effect, at 
> the surface of the earth where the observe is, and the net motion 
> is towards the star a blue shift is formed.  

That is not quite true. For far away stars, the sift is *always* redshift. These are facts and confirmed by a whole lot of independent astronomers. So, how do you explain those observations? By hiding your head underground again for a few years? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381430

W dniu wtorek, 12 kwietnia 2016 02:09:50 UTC+2 użytkownik rotchm napisał:


> That is not quite true. For far away stars, the sift is *always* redshift. 

Shift from - what?
Idiot physicist has invented a brilliant theory of stars.
It was obviously confirmed by many observations!!!!!!!!!
The theories of an idiot physicist always are!!!!!!!!!

But when stars didn't match his theory, he invented 
The Big Bang.
Then inflation.
Then dark matter.
And so on.

Everything confirmed by many observations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381446

On 4/11/16 4/11/16 - 5:18 PM, Carl Susumu wrote:
> When the earth's daily and yearly motions produce an effect, at the surface
> of the earth where the observe is, and the net motion is towards the star a
> blue shift is formed.  When the net motion is away from the star, the red
> shift is formed.

Yes. The annual and daily Doppler shifts are well known, and all astronomers 
routinely correct for them when appropriate. Orbital Doppler shifts for orbiting 
telescopes are also important.

But those are a VERY SMALL part of the overall redshift for distant galaxies -- 
there are other, MUCH larger and more important phenomena involved.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381410

That is not quite true. For far away stars, the sift is *always* redshift. 

_+-----------------------------


If a far away star always produced red shift then it would the star would turn purple.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381429

On 11.04.2016 01:23, Carl Susumu wrote:
> <utter nonsense>

This is not even a troll, but please don't feed the creature anyway.

plonk

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381436

"Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> writes:

>On 11.04.2016 01:23, Carl Susumu wrote:
>> <utter nonsense>

>This is not even a troll, but please don't feed the creature anyway.

>plonk

I wonder if it's the nymshifter troll who finally figured out how to use
Google Groups instead of aioe.

We'll know soon enough, as the nymshifter can't help but to give himself 
away, if it is him.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381462

Yes. The annual and daily Doppler shifts are well known, and all astronomers 
routinely correct for them when appropriate. Orbital Doppler shifts for orbiting 
telescopes are also important. 

But those are a VERY SMALL part of the overall redshift for distant galaxies -- 
there are other, MUCH larger and more important phenomena involved. 


Tom Roberts 

________________________________


Dear Tiny Tommy,


The earth's yearly and daily motions are causing the red and blue shifts since the stellar universe is stationary.  Have you seen the Big Dipper changing shapes recently.  Like, the big sauce pan or the big plate or maybe the big bucket?

 












 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381463

The Big Sauce Pan.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381560

but since the advent of stellar  photography, the stellar universe is stationary since a stellar photographs  taken in 2015 can be found to match exactly the stellar photograph taken in 1900.


.......................... 


137 said: This is just plain not true. Why do you make things up and pretend they are true? 



--------------------------------------


Let me change to --->



but since the advent of stellar  photography, the stellar universe is stationary since a stellar photographs taken in 2015 can be found to match exactly the stellar photograph taken in 1900, using the exact same equipment.


---------------------------------------



since using different size lens with alter the image of the stellar universe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381561

Wake up. The US economy is not recovering with a 20 trillion dollar debt. Its similar to a heroin addict with a 500$ a day habit who stops smoking cigarettes and states he is recovering.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381566

Modern astronomy uses parallax to determine the distance to a star but parallax requires a change in the position of the star yet since the advent of celestial photography, the celestial universe is stationary (stellar maps); consequently, the calculation of the distance to a star, using the change in the position of a star (parallax), is physically invalid. The same method of deception, based on the earth's daily and yearly rotational motions, that scientists used to justify the theory that the earth is the center of the Universe is used to determine the distances to the stars. In addition, the photograph of the Eagle Nebula (fig 13), using the Spitzer telescope, is fictitiously created, using computer imaginary, since the photograph represents the optical view of a celestial gas yet the vacuum of celestial space is void of the quantity of gas molecules implies in the photographic representation of the Eagle Nebula.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#381570

The expansion of the universe is justified using a spiral galaxy but the photograph of a spiral galaxy is arbitrarily created, by manipulating the photographic plate. Also, the photograph of the Milky Way spiral galaxy, that contains the sun and the earth, is fiction, since to take this photograph would require that the photographer be many light years away from the earth.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------



You see those photographs of the Milky Way in your science books they are all fake and make believe like your teachers are who think very highly of themselves but the fact is that to take a picture you have to be away from the picture but the Milky Way is 50 light years in length that mean to take this photo of the Milky Way would require you to be many light years away.  For instant if you want to take a picture of Fido you have to stand away from Fido.  You cannot take a picture of Fido by setting the camera on Fido head.  I know that this seem silly but astronomers are silly.  Another, thing is those real pretty pictures of Nebula that you see on postage stamps are also completely fake since they are depicting stellar gases yet space is vacuum and cannot contain a gas.  Tell that to your teacher when he or she give you attitude.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web