TheOneRaven: Thank you noblackhole. Yes, the discussion is most definately for or against the Big Bang. When you mentioned that the relativists hijacked the Hubble-Humason relation and reinterpreted it as a redshift/recessional-velocity, I was certain that in 1912 Vesto Slipher measured the first Doppler shift of a spiral galaxies, and soon discovered that almost all such nebulae were receding from Earth, hence the first mention of the recessional-velocity of galaxies. Doesn't sound like the idea was hijacked, but rather originated as a recessional-velocity to begin with. Much in between, but then there is Hubble's observations, etc... Not to redicule you or anything, but what I'm looking at is all the work done by these people as a whole point to a universal expansion."
Nonetheless, the Hubble-Humason relation was adduced by them as a redshift/distance relation, not a redshift/recessional-velocity relation. The relativists simply altered it to a redshift/recessional-velocity relation because they wanted it to comply with their theory of expansion of the Universe from a primevial atom (big bang). Slipher measured shifts in spectra of galaxies, both to the blue and to the red. It is claimed that the red shifts indicategalactic recessional velocities; by means of Doppler Shift; the blue shift an approaching galactic velocity, again by invoking the Doppler Shift argument. So the interpretation of both blue and red shifts as approach and recessional velocities respectively are reliant upon the Doppler interpretation in all cases.
"In 1912 Slipher obtained a set of spectrographs that indicated the Andromeda spiral was approaching the Sun with a velocity of 300 km/s. Most of the other spirals he examined, however, seemed to be flying away from us. His 1925 catalogue, which included the radial velocities of almost all of the 44 known spirals, provided powerful evidence that these systems lays outside our galaxy and paved the way for Edwin Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe."
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/Slipher_Vesto.html
Slipher's most important achievement however was his determination of the radial velocities of spiral nebulae by the measurement of the displacement of their spectral lines. Such measurement relies on the Doppler effect by which the wavelength of light from an object moving away from an observer will be lengthened, i.e., shifted toward the red end of the spectrum, while light from an object moving toward an observer will have its wavelength shortened, i.e., moved toward the blue end of the spectrum.
http://www.answers.com/topic/vesto-slipher
But the Hubble-Humason relation was determined by them as a redshift/distance relation, not as a redshift/recessional-velocity relation. Concerning Slipher,
In 1912, he was the first to observe the shift of spectral lines of galaxies, so he was the discoverer of galactic redshifts. ... Edwin Hubble was generally incorrectly credited with discovering the redshift of galaxies; these measurements and their significance were understood before 1917 by James Edward Keeler (Lick & Allegheny), Vesto Melvin Slipher (Lowell), and William Wallace Campbell (Lick) at other observatories.
Combining his own measurements of galaxy distances with Vesto Slipher's measurements of the redshifts associated with the galaxies, Hubble and Milton Humason discovered a rough proportionality of the objects' distances with their redshifts. This redshift-distance correlation, nowadays termed simply Hubble's law, was formulated by Hubble and Humason in 1929 and became the basis for the modern model of the expanding universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesto_Slipher
Using exposure times as long as 80 hours, he was the first to measure the enormous radial velocities of spiral nebulae; these data were later used and extended by Edwin P. Hubble to begin modern observational cosmology.
http://www.phys-astro.sonoma.edu/BruceMedalists/Slipher/index.html
He was a pioneer of spectroscopy, and discovered the rotation and the high radial velocities (in 1912) of those "nebulae" we now know as galaxies.
http://messier.obspm.fr/xtra/Bios/slipher.html
What Slipher measured were spectral shifts, not radial velocities. The claim for radial velocities of galaxies is due to the Doppler argument. Hubble and Humason also measured spectral shifts, not radial velocities, which they related as redshift/distance. Nobody has ever measured galactic radial velocities, either approaching or receeding. All have measured galactic spectral shifts, and attribute them to Doppler, and so claim the redshift/recessional-velocity, ignoring any blue shifts by Doppler interpretation. By attributing the galactic spectral red shifts to Doppler the relativists contrive for themselves a correlation with their erroneous theory of big BANG and concomitant expansion from General Relativity. But General Relativity violates the usual conservation of energy and momentum and so is in direct conflict with the experimental evidence, and so it is invalid (see my previous post).
TheOneRaven: "My mention of the earth needing to be at the center of the universe without the Big Bang is because the recessional-velocities of all measured nebulas seems to be moving away from the earth according to Hubble and others who followed his work, including measurements with todays technology seemed to verify the recession."
You have simply employed the ad hoc reformulation of the Hubble-Humanson redshift/distance relation as a redshift/recessional-velocity relation by the Dopper argument. What evidence do you have that the galactic redshifts and the galactic blueshifts are due to Doppler effects? How do you interpret the galactic blueshifts, also found by Slipher?
TheOneRaven: "
When I look at any reasoning behind one of great astrophysical intelligence to cover up errors only to prove bogus theories, I can not rationalize the purpose. Science is about learning and discovery. Every scientist that I know about wants to learn, and to come to accurate result to better understand what it is their studying. No one ever learned anything by making falsifications in their experiments, only that one cannot have self-satisfaction nor accurate results. It is elementary that anyone utilizing equations to prove their theories would ensure those very equations are accurate to begin with, and ensure their pupils following in their foot steps would also adopt these methods."
Do you really think that scientists are so different to most people? Do you really think that scientists do not take deliberate measures to protect their work and reputations, their jobs and their funding grants? Do you really think that scientists are any more honest than the populace at large? Science is indeed about learning and discovering, as a discipline. It does not follow that all those who do science are motivated only by the satisfaction of learning and discovery. The reality is that scientists are no different to most other people. They are no less greedy, envious, self-centered, career laddered, disingenuous and petty as any other element of society. And so they, severally and jointly, deliberately use all the usual tricks in the book to further their careers, status, and bank accounts. As a case in point, the proponents of the big bang and associated paraphernalia on this site have been silent on the matters I reported in my previous post. Silence is a common method of deliberately avoiding the facts: but it is not a scientific method.
You cannot prove a theory by equations. A theory is never absolute. Physical theory lives or dies by the sword of experiment. A mathematical theory must be consistent with the rules of mathematics and with the physical principles that set the boundary conditions of the mathematical model. If the mathematical theory violates the rules of mathematics it is invalid. If the mathematical theory violates the physical principles upon which the theory is based, them it is invalid. If the mathematical theory violates both the rules of mathematics and the physical principles on which it is based, it is invalid. If the mathematical theory violates well-established experimental facts, then it is invalid. The theoretical basis for the big bang is General Relativity. But General Relativity violates both the rules of mathematics and the usual conservation of energy and momentum, and so it is invalid (see my previous post). Thus, the big bang has no basis in General Relativity. The alleged observational evidence for the big bang has also been deliberately misconstrued in order to fudge a match with an erroneous theory.
TheOneRaven: "
If as you say the WMAP and COBE are inaccurate, what sort of technology would you suggest to gain accurate data. I know I couldn't imagine one. That line of technology is beyond me. It just seems that we have these theories of all these great minds, then we create technology to examine from space to see if these theories are indeed true. The technology provides positive results, but again the question remains "Is the technology accurate?" Besides the one source you mentioned, which neutral party would have these answers?"
I am neither an experimental science nor a technologist, and so I can't come up with any experiments or any apparatus for them. Current technology can tell us much, provided it is used correctly, that the data obtained are not doctored to favour a desired or preconceived outcome, provided that experiments are not designed to produce a preconceived or desired result. Neutral parties have provided critical analyses of WMAP and COBE, and of the theory upon which they rely. Robitaille is one such party, Crothers another. There are many others. But being neutral parties they are not members of the right 'clubs', and so the club members do their usual utmost to ignore them, ridicule them, and pretend that legitimate criticisms do not exist, pretending that these are 'scientific methods'. Free and open discussion is the hallmark of science. Every interested person has the right to know all the facts so that they can come to a conclusion based upon all the evidence. Unfortunately, proponents of the big bang and associated, such as black holes and Einstein gravitational waves, do not give people all the facts, being selective in what they do give, because the full complement of facts subverts their claims. Here is a recept paper by Prof. Robitaille, on the COBE project; hot off the presses:
Robitaille P.-M.
COBE: A Radiological Analysis
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -19-03.PDF
TheOneRaven: "
I also wondered why no publisher for the Annalen der Physik picked up on ANY of Einstein's errors before. There are only a select few that challenge Einstein's theories. I would also be certain that if Crother's paper prove beyond shadow of doubt that Einstein, Friedmann, Hubble, etc... that the IAU (International Astronaumical Society) or the RAS (Royal Astronaumical Society) would have picked up on it, and accepted it. Discovering errors is only one part of science. The other is learning from them."
The falsities in Einstein's arguments should not have escaped the eyes of the Editors of Annalen der Physik. In fact, many people did spot Einstein's errors e.g. Schrodinger, Bauer, Levi-Civita, Lorentz. And once again, scientists are no different to non-scientists - they are mostly motivated by the same things, and so there is no reason to expect the like of the IAU, the RAS, etc. to accept the facts when the facts subvert their cherished theories. Inconvenient truths are ignored or hushed up or suppressed. I have given previously an extract from a recent paper by Crothers: I refer you to it once again, and the cited paper by Crothers. What errors, if any, do you allege of Crothers in the extract of my previous post, and why are they errors?
TheOneRaven: "
But this brings me to another point. If light can be bent as Einstein proved during a solar eclipse in his younger years, then would light also not exhibit the same "drag" as say... I guess the example that comes to mind at present is a jet. As a jet banks left or right at a high rate of speed; it's momentum is slowed. Could the momentum of light on the larger scales exhibit this same affect and cause a red-shift of sorts?"
Einstein did not prove bending of light in a gravitational field; he claimed on theoretical grounds that light would be deflected by the presence of a massive body. Isaac Newton was in fact the first to make the hypothesis, not Einstein, but Einstein gave a quantitative claim. The deflection of light can be accounted for without recourse to General Relativity (see for example the paper by Prof. B. Lavenda):
http://search.arxiv.org:8081/paper.jsp? ... B.+Lavenda
What would cause the drag on light, assuming the light moving in a vacuum? The atmosphere exerts a drag on a jet. The banking of a jet involves a change in momentum and so an acceleration. The bending of light involves a change of direction and so an acceleration, i.e. a rate of change of momentum. I don't see how this can be associated with redshifts in the fashion you suggest.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram