hi there,.. im a psychic.. ive watch your video.. i can help you explain to interpret, about that subject.. you can e-mail me t asti7natividadf@yahoo.com...
I can't even begin to imagine a shape which has no centre, so what shape do you think the Universe is ?
Why do you think that Redshift is only caused by movement (especially when this movement has not been verified by any other means) ? Aren't you aware of the several 'tired light' mechanisms which have been published ?
I would have no problem with space expanding if anyone can demonstrate that space is a thing/object/material that can (stretch or) expand - and do this in a lab.
The definition of velocity is: change in distance (displacement) divided by change in time (period) - and velocity is a vector so the direction is important. If a galaxy is detected moving away from us then it is unscientific to redefine this as anything other than a velocity just to suit your (cosmologist's) theory.
Direction stops being a factor when measuring galaxies moving away from us, because the universe isotropic. There is no center, therefore the direction isn't interesting - yes all galaxies move away from us, but all galaxies also move away from Andromeda (except that we're heading straight for it).
You can actually see for yourself, through redshift, that the universe is expanding. Distant light goes toward the red end of the spectrum. Why? Because of the expansion of the universe.
Wait, since this is a constant, doesn't special relativity come into play. What if the universe is constantly expanding but without a measure of time from our perspective?
2. As you think the expansion can be done in 3D, please give an example - a video would be good as I can't find one.
When you project the expansion backwards in time, you get to either a singularity or a 'Big Bang' creation event - which is it ? Or do you prefer another option ? - and if so please explain it.
A singularity has some properties which are infinite, and as such is impossible - as is creating something out of nothing. We have no evidence for either.
1. If Hubble's data is due to a galaxy's recessional velocity (a vector), this means that we are at the centre of the Universe. Cosmologists say no - galaxies are not moving through space but are embedded 'in' space, which is expanding. First, this violates the definition of velocity. Second, how do you tell the difference between a 'real' velocity and expanding space. Third, do you imagine space is a material that you can embed something into ? If so what is its Young's Modulus ?
The exact value of the Hubble constant is, of course, zero. The Universe is not expanding - the expansion cannot be described or even imagined in 3 dimensions and the 2-D surface of a balloon example can't be done in 3 dimensions.
The actual velocity of any galaxy has never been measured directly - not by Hubble nor anyone else. Redshift has always (wrongly) been assumed to be a Doppler effect - it is not, it is a 'tired light' effect.
"the expansion cannot be described or even imagined in 3 dimensions and the 2-D surface of a balloon example can't be done in 3 dimensions."
Failure to comprehend 3 dimensional expanding must be solely yours, sir. If you thought about it for a second, you'd realize saying the demonstration cannot be done in 3D is just silly.
Mathematically it is trivial to describe as many dimensions as needed, though once you are at 4 or more imagining them does become, I'd say, impossible
"the Police do not take Internet complaints from private citizens of this country"
New Zealand Department of Internal affairs
dia,govt,nz/web/submitforms.nsf/cencomp?OpenForm
that is a link to forum to report information that violates New Zealands Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993. Which includes child nudity.
Good luck with investigation that is likely already under way
I'm done, the words just circle around; I feel like I am in a jet fighter in a tight circle looking for advantage. The Hubble Constant is well known, practiced, and based upon variables observed in the sky. You cannot get distance from frequency shift of the Doppler Effect, and distance for stars and galaxies is measured by luminosity as the stars are convenient and burn as bright as possible: I see cosmic answers, but that is some kind of interpretation in application and not the science.
@sykeo123 Your cruelty is based upon wanting to stab Jesus Christ as well, you are a soulless creature who openly uses murder words as your opening remarks--you are a common pedestrian in your values, and never saw society as you fall from your Heaven personal viewpoint, as you declared yourself perfection and the World your enemy. Your friends should be aware of you, that you intend to have them live under a bridge to be killed by the State upon failure to report an address; because you lie.
You can't read, never talk to me. The Internet connects every weirdo, psycho, and dummy; and I cannot even go to a Christian prayer site without seeing your hoard showing up in their sins and freaked out that someone might notice morality as you go to disable, censor, and ruin the witness. Before a bookcase of family codes, penal codes, and tax codes you declare there is no sin, and then practice anti-Semite behavior as that was a Torah site you defamed. I am not Jew. We also read the Torah.
One thing, I gave you a strong hint for your personality profile; you will love 4Chan; it was founded in New York City, and is one of the most perverted sites on the Internet that passed legal review because it is anonymous posting: My world is bigger than yours, as your narrow minded vision saw Jesus Christ somewhere and wanted to spike the crucifixion of the Son of Man yourself. This is a science site, and you are so blind that you don't make distinctions of content and abuse video blogs.
@WOWJBEOWULF I am still waiting for your skype contact, so that I can send you some scientific papers. Although it is quite clear that you are not available to learn something, and you are stuck on your incomplete knowledges. BTW,redshift used as a proxy of distance in another paper on astro-ph today (and to be published in the astrophysical journal).
@supergiuovane I don't care, you are not getting distance out of a frequency shift. Your claim of knowing Einstein, the relativity is everywhere, in every ray of light. I gave some common examples that are so self-evident that you are wrong, that I only see a suppression of my personality: This is studied in college, in philosophy, that discusses the various flavors of truth; when you get a radar that measures speed by frequency shift and that is all; from the ground to the galaxies, speed.
@WOWJBEOWULF As I wrote many times, you are not taking into account the frame of the measurements. It would be like trying to explain the curvature of light in presence of matter by just newtonian gravity.
Do you do this to all Americans? When I discussed specialization, as knowledge is so much more and why we are valued (we are not valued for being easy, we are valued for knowing the hard), and we bring the truths together. The military does many things, and I have been a Notary, as we demand truth in our conduct and witness of events, by our very official witness; your errors and omissions is a form of fraud, you have to bring the entire story. You want wrong, pay attention.
@WOWJBEOWULF No, because Americans are usually very skilled in astrophysics. You are a clear exception. If you were a bit modest, you will just try to know whether what I'm saying is really true. You don't even care of checking if astronomers really use this. Or maybe you did check all the references that I gave, and you realized you are wrong. But you just don't want to admit it.
@supergiuovane Any index chart you have is a creation of measured distance with the frequency shift of relative speed (that is not velocity, you have no idea the direction). The entire truth, is to claim the Red Shift means distance is a misnomer, anything your community does better understand it; professors have such details, and I see sloppy. This has been gone over, as I noticed you used my statements as entire proof when the Hubble observations are evidence, and leads to other conclusions.
In the literal science sense, it is wrong; Red Shift cannot give you distance, as it is only a frequency shift; in the cosmic application of massive galaxies that don't appear to be teenager zooming around in different directions, the astronomy claim in the light that speed and distance are proportional, and in Newtons own law of any mass in motion remains in motion unless interrupted by an outside force, they see bigger red shifts for greater measured distances, duh.
@WOWJBEOWULF It is wrong as when you are saying that you measure a mass with a balance,and instead you are measuring a weight. You see? You act as you don't read. I am not talking about proper motions.
I believe that you don't believe your own works; everything we believe becomes part of our personality, and the fundamental truths are not a topic of discussion as they are implicit into our believe truths: It is why people become stinky, in the personality mismatch, obvious different. You had better start to study your works, because people sense trouble; you had such problems on something so simple; this is not tensor calculus, this is the observed results and you don't like it.
@WOWJBEOWULF Hum... Maybe you are right. Maybe you should come to some congress and explain everybody that they are wrong. It's not a lot of people, just some thousands of physicists and astrophysicists.
You see? The point is that you are missing something, and you don't admit it. First read Landau & Lifshitz' book, and then you can understand. But I don't think you will. It's easier to say that other thousands of people are wrong instead of thinking that maybe there's something you don't know
@supergiuovane Your problem is you take a simple topic and create a logic bottom; that is your crucible, you make the claim that I am wrong, as you claim Red Shift (i.e. Doppler Effect) means distance and that is fraud, but then you make a cosmic claim of an application with galaxies and I can't know because I didn't get your diploma; contradiction means bottom (p and not p), and we choose our result: Logic and philosophy are truths without moral outcomes, and you choose away from me.
@WOWJBEOWULF I am not making any claim. IT is the whole scientific community. If you don't understand is your problem: you refuse to know about the topic and you are stuck to your lack of basic knowledges
@supergiuovane In such unrefined values from you, as you proclaim being an expert, you have to refine your topic until we don't have contradiction or ambiguous choices (the opposite of bottom is the logic top--p or not p--ambiguous choices and we choose, the logic continues, and there are entire math sets that let you prove something, but often ends after the top or bottom, and your choice shows your personality). You didn't even enter physics 101, as you claim distance means speed: fraud.
@WOWJBEOWULF I don't claim distance means speed. This is an oversemplification of the topic and if you had read a bit what I have written you would have understood.
@supergiuovane The only reason I introduced some fundamental science terms is because language is a negotiation; as it is also our personality and I introduced common terms to explain we are in the topic of science--supposed to narrow the subject to be more serious, and in absence of serious we measured far away galaxies, they have a relative speed measurement based upon the spectral line shift (red shift), and distance is measured with luminosity, the topic is about the Hubble observations.
@WOWJBEOWULF DISTANCE IS NOT MEASURED FROM LUMINOSITY!! You talk about terms and you don't use proper words. Luminosity is an intrinsic property. What we measure from stars and galaxies is a FLUX.To know luminosity you have to know the distance,that's why you cannot measure distance from luminosity.
@supergiuovane Your claims don't hold up in physics, that is so well proven with Newton. The Moon landings nailed Newton forever into truth, about observed masses that are significant beyond the quantum world. Until the Moon landing with a laser reflector to measure actual distance, we had ratios; and always an ambiguous crucible like you gives that we didn't actually measure anything, as you choose away. Moon distance showed everything was true with the space probes. Galaxies, big: Newton.
@WOWJBEOWULF 1) it is NOT my claim, i thought you understood it by now (always available to send you papers with references). 2) Newton physics gives accurate prediction for general purposes. But it cannot, for example, explain the observed precession of Mercury's orbit. Something that general relativity can explain. 3)You are completely confused (and don't read): proportionality between redshift and distance holds for objects more distant than about 60-70 Mpc.
@supergiuovane In the ridicule that distance means fraud, a race car driver at the Indy 500, that is an American event: The race car goes around in circles, but it is not velocity, unless you measure a specific moment, like Schrodinger's Cat we can only know at the moment of observation, as the trajectory is always changing for hundreds of miles in a circle, all we have is speed. In the American South there are car rentals with pictures of race car drivers, don't rent, they only do speed.
@supergiuovane While you mentioned frames of reference, our only reference is based here on Earth and in orbit of Earth; and all we measure is the electromagnetic spectrum, and we have been using the light wave example. The relative speed we measure (not velocity, as direction is a mystery) as based upon the spectral line shift, as we cannot send a probe to another galaxy for a laser distance; the galaxies are big objects that seem to not change courses, and you cannot admit that assumption.
@WOWJBEOWULF Nice attitude, yours: you stick to your beliefs and imagination. Lasers has nothing to do with the topic. While don't you go and talk to a real person, to an astrophysicist (or a physicist)? Why don't you read a book about astrophysics? You don't believe me?I don't care. Are you really willing to prove you are right and explain me where I'm wrong? I'll give you book references and you'll tell me why they are wrong. let's do it!
@supergiuovane While we are at the crossroads of the assumptions you delegated to nobody can know without your diploma, in the use of Newton's laws; with we only measure light waves and intensity (we actually count the photons), we only get relative speed (by the spectral line shift), and then you claim speed means distance--until you show your assumptions, you are ready to choose away from me again, and I believe you do this to all Americans.
@WOWJBEOWULF Again a bunch of words with no meaning.You cannot explain light curved path in presence of matter with newton's laws only. While with GR you not only explain that, but you can make very accurate predictions. As I already said: americans usually have very good knowledges about astronomy. You don't. And it is a bit arrogant to think that everybody thinks like you do. I have some american colleagues:I can send you a paper already published in the Astrophysical Journal.
@supergiuovane One thing about luminosity. Pop quizzes are not good for video blogs, but I would ask this: Does light intensity increase by making the photons brighter or does light intensity increase by increasing their number count--you get 50-50 to answer on only a guess? Should you not understand, please try to stay on a topic you understand, because the underlying science is the same that is used throughout the World. What makes astronomers special is they know more of the ways & means.
@WOWJBEOWULF Quite stupid question: how can you make a photon brighter? A photon can be more or less energetic. Brightness is of course a matter of number of photons. A photon is just an energy package.
Bridge Troll, "Who are you?" WowJBeowulf, "I am WowJBeowulf." Troll, "what is your purpose?", James, "to seek the Holy Grail." Troll, " What is your favorite color?", James, "Green." Troll, "What is galactic frequency shift?", James, "What do you mean? Galactic measurements based upon spectral line shift and luminosity, or the Doppler Effect that is only a measurement of relative speed?" Troll, "I don't know." Troll is cast into the chasm of eternal peril. Love Monty Python.
@WOWJBEOWULF Ahah.. trying to be funny? I have it quite clear, you know: you realized that you are not quite right but you don't want to admit it. As I said you think you are THE ONLY ONE who knows the true,and people (thousands) with specialized diploma and PhD just do not understand anything. yes that makes sense. I keep on saying that I can give you all the OFFICIAL references you want,but you refuse to have a look at any.Just explain why.
@supergiuovane You have a PhD, congratulations. My military diploma has years of work and they require it to show application (in the trenches in the realm of reality, your theory falls short of actual engineering), and you are so wrong that you would have made a commander's report (not my problem when you cannot understand it, you have to come to the team as a volunteer): Military is really funny about application, we have to know it all, and your little frequency shift as distance is fraud.
@WOWJBEOWULF Well it seems that military is not very open-minded. There is no application for such thing, because it is observed ONLY ON LARGE SCALES, by its own nature.
Why don't you try to verify this? Let's go to books,then. Physics books. Do you want references? I am talking very seriously. Just ask me and I'll provide titles and authors of commonly used books.
@supergiuovane You would only have Newton for galaxies, but not automobiles, because we didn't get your specialization. Bad attitude, I am so serious about team work; you face hundreds of specialist and you want them all to be you. When you choose to speak, you have to come to team with the whole story and with your volunteer status. The terror of the valley shuts down everything, it is a leadership problem of firefighter management, because they don't plan (always an emergency).
@WOWJBEOWULF Team work??? It's not a matter of team work. All astrophysicists agree on the cosmological origin of redshift in distant galaxies. Why are you constantly moving the issue to my opinion.I wrote it tens of times: it's not me. It is the whole world of astrophysicists. Again: I can give you more references (I think we both know we you never accept to have them)
@supergiuovane You choose to speak science, when you become that role, then you choose team or opposition. Our information is so little that even our personality influences choices; this is a popular communication problem, build the tallest tower (some physically tall, some at the highest mountain point, some just put it up and hope it is the best, all of them tall somehow); you choose opposition, we cannot find tall anywhere. Tell me, do you hate Americans? The galactic information is small.
@WOWJBEOWULF The galactic information is small??? What's the meaning of this?Again: it's not a problem of nationality,and not even of hate.Again: do you want me to send you a paper (by some american citizens) where redshift is used as a proxy for distance?I will do that, if you allow me to. But of course you don't want. because of course this will prove your ideas are wrong. Because you are missing something.
@supergiuovane Is that what you wanted, put the thing down, the terror of the valley? The people I know don't believe in civil rights; you put people's lives on the line because you served your ego: When I stated that truth is beyond me, I didn't mean I was empty of it; truth is also beyond you. Our truths in science is based upon independent observation; if it was only you, then we know the fraud it is about as people serve themselves; the science truths are universal, from Earth to galaxies.
@WOWJBEOWULF I don't put people anywhere, please... I know that physics is the same. What is clearly beyond your understanding is that some phenomena are not observable in all context or physical situation. One example? Curvature of the light path in presence of matter. You cannot observe it in any laboratory. You do observe it in astrophysical situation.
@supergiuovane Your choice of abstracting the issue to cosmic is not a problem; but you have to state your thesis of your hypothesis. You cannot create distance from a frequency shift, that is like measuring the frequency shift of an automobile and claim it is a galaxy, relative speed is all you measure (the information is relative, and this is fundamental physics, all of those questions to find out how to read information); when you admit your distance information, then we are closer.
@WOWJBEOWULF There are observations,made by hubble. The observed redshift of a galaxy turned out to be strictly correlated to its distance (and distance was calculated with independent estimators): the higher the redshift, the higher the distance.Observed in the '20s, and confirmed with more an more data in the following 80 years. This became one of the evidences for the fact that universe is expanding.If the universe behavies like this,redshift is proportional to the distance (above 70 Mpc)
@supergiuovane We are done, I really don't care for you: Don't talk to me. You really really never understood application, and we can't get to galaxies on your personality. These truths are so public that when you refute the GPS system, we are sure you are lost and blind. Your data is flawed, because you wanted a victim; you could never admit the source of your data, because the fundamentals of science is for everyone, and the applications in the specializations don't change that.
@WOWJBEOWULF Yes, we are done because you cannot understand things you don't know. I don't refute GPS,and I never did in any of my response.You never let me show you the source of my data, I have asked you tens of time to let me send you the papers or book reference. Why don't you want more information? Why don't you want to know the sources? Please let me make clear where all this data/information come from.Skype or private,or mail.Whatever you prefer.
@supergiuovane Do you understand the underlying technology uses the same physics principles. GPS is proved, it is so old that we are seeing the second generation of satellites go up, and proven as it is popular and used world wide; it uses atomic clocks and your relative information. I don't like to talk to walls, but you choose science, I can make a fool of anyone.
@WOWJBEOWULF Underlying technology for what? You still don't understand that (it's already the millionth time I say so) the effect of an expanding universe are observable only for large distances. Again: why don't you want me to send you official references?
@supergiuovane I am not talking to the whole world, I am talking to you; and you choose the public realm to go unsophisticated. The Special Relativity predicts all of this that has become proven; but it is all at light speed (for the electromagnetic spectrum) and what changes in our observation based upon velocity is the red shift or blue shift (labels), but it is all relative speed. We didn't have to get into this, but you wanted "wrong"; I am not going to leave the proven science.
@WOWJBEOWULF This is proven science as well. You are talking to me yes, saying that a physical concept is wrong, as if I made it up. You are talking to me so what science recognize as a proven fact is not true. Nice reasoning..
@supergiuovane I bring up the leadership stuff, because our personalities influence everything; we are not wind-up toys, we actually have to believe what we are about. It is an old theme in leadership, the toy soldier; and the battlefields are examples of the edge, where any advantage is used, but you have to volunteer to be there. Galactic light has no distance information by frequency shift, it is so proven that I seriously wonder what you really want? You can't get there from frequency.
@WOWJBEOWULF I agree on the influence of the personality,but this is not a matter of personality. It is clearly written in every astrophysics book. You can't get there from frequency? I have no time to count the scientific papers that do so, but they must be some ten of thousands, but probably many more. Why don't you want references????
@supergiuovane Every square-yard of the Earth says you really didn't come here to share: If you have something special to say, then you should say it, as we have seen many applications. The galactic information is what we don't interact with, we only get incoming light; and none of the frequency shift--that is used for relative speed--shows distance. That is why I don't like you, your hidden joke is not funny, because you choose here, of the millions of blog sites: State your case.
@WOWJBEOWULF I did not come to share? I even offered to give you articles!!! And explain: what is my hidden joke? What am I saying that other astronomers are not?
@supergiuovane The infotainment articles you use obviously never explained the source of your data. This is discussed in topics on research, of competent sources; if you get a famous astronomer claiming he saw a "red shift" in People magazine, that it infotainment; for our entertainment, but really has not topic information beyond the keywords. I already covered all fundamental data, and used examples of use, for public character; if someone shines a flashlight at you, you claim distance.
@WOWJBEOWULF Astronomy & Astrophysics, Astrophysical Journal & co, are some of the official journals that the astrophysical community uses to exchange knowledges.All astronomers in the world publish in such journals. Source of my data? Well the sloan digital sky survey,to give you just an "american" example.
@WOWJBEOWULF I know it is the same... I have always talked about a phenomenon that becomes appreciable at large scales. Special Relativity is the same: its effects are not observed in common life, they only become visible at speed closer to that of light. It is the same principle. Come on, it's not so difficult
@supergiuovane This is a joke in California technology industry, a medical doctor went to a government council meeting (Town Hall style), and after opposition the medical school proved to be better than the Internet. Anyway, you changed the frequency of your radio; now tell us, how far away is the radio station? I built my first radio at age 13-years, it was a Radio Shack kit; nowhere did it say frequency means distance.
@WOWJBEOWULF With posts like this you are showing again and again that you did not understand anything,and that you are not able to read.I wrote millions of time that this is a cosmological effect,that you can observe only on large scales.That is why on the Nasa Extragalactic Database they offer alternative way to compute distance for nearby galaxies.If you were really convinced of your statements you would have accepted to read some papers.But you think Big Bang is wrong.Your problem.
@supergiuovane Your cosmic effect of someone shining a flashlight on you as a measure of distance is fraud; you have to elaborate your claims to be able to use someone shining light on you for distance (do you believe there are different model stars?). If you cannot understand this metaphor, I am going to claim you functionally literate but cannot understand literature, with all of its meanings used in metaphor and allegory--the world is beyond the technical pursuit of your language usage.
@WOWJBEOWULF Of course there are stars of different kind!!!This is basic astrophysics!!!The characteristics of the stars depend on their mass,different masses will lead to different emissions and lifetimes! I don't understand the literature, yes.So do all astronomers that use the N.E.D., or that write papers.You never answered to my question: why don't you want me to send you some official articles? What are you afraid of?
@supergiuovane You realize that two galaxies traveling in opposite directions of our observed frame of reference here on Earth can have the same red shift, or two galaxies in opposite directions approaching each other can have the same blue shift. The Doppler Effect is only a radar name for the Einstein observations of the frequency shifts based upon our relative observations; it also works when someone shines a light on you from the object with observed frequency shifted.
@WOWJBEOWULF Yes I perfectly know that, and I have no problem with that. The one having problem is you. If you don't think the Big Bang theory is correct, is your problem, as I already said
@supergiuovane I spent a summer counting birds because some dummy radar contractor was convinced it was the birds causing fuzzy pictures the air traffic control radar. The military does full case studies on contractors, when things don't work, and will even count birds in our spare duty time. Birds didn't have anything to do with the radar pictures, but the contractor was told to fly away. The physics of electromagnetic spectrum is used away from your astronomy. Fly away.
@WOWJBEOWULF I think I know the physics of light much better than you do. I proposed you several times to have a polite exchange of official literature. Why don't you want to read a bit more? We all know why: you'll have to admit that you are wrong, and you don't want to.
@supergiuovane You are so dishonest, that you cannot admit the structure of your information; because you want to leave a beggar on the street--my world leaves behind beggars, over trust such as yours. Sources of dishonesty are many, if you didn't want to be embarrassed in front of your peers, the Internet is voluntary; I saw an Italian court case in the national news, the judge is testing it, we need your permission to view your own posted content. You need to give permission to view you.
@WOWJBEOWULF Please, you don't need any permission.Send me a private message with whatever contact, and I will send you any kind of references, book and journals, or whatever you need. The thing is that you don't want to really know. If you are really convinced,why not discuss on real documents? Your game?Saying I AM claiming something,by my own, while it is the whole scientific community.
@supergiuovane I don't want your private messages, you cannot even be trusted with public applied physics. It is applied, they teach it to high school graduates in the military; so proven, that when they get it wrong, then they face their doom. We are not into theories, as astronomy has moved beyond spectrum shift into counting planets, based upon observed rotational brightness and wobble of the foreign stars. What I don't like about you is you juggle the topic to create a wrong.
@WOWJBEOWULF That you did not want a fair comparison was clear from the beginning, as the fact that you don't want to be proven wrong. So are all astronomers wrong? Because all astronomers know and accept the redshift-distance correlation.. I am just proposing to send you some papers from astrophysical journals. Or I can give you the references. Ah no.. wait.. There are no references, I made all them up...
@supergiuovane You are so wrong. Now you say correlation, when the whole topic started with "Red Shift" as I responded to an abuse of it, then you ignored every point about distance information: This is a physics problem to train students, that distance and speed are two different things, and you ignored the assumptions used by astronomers to create a "wrong," that means you didn't enter the topic and targeted a victim. This is why you need to give permission to view you, it means observed.
@WOWJBEOWULF Correlation, like there is a correlation between mass and weight. You give an astronomer a redshift higher than 0.01, and he will compute a distance. I never claimed that distance and speed are the same (and I think not even students think they are the same, come on...). I have always said: from redshift you can compute distances (above ~70 Mpc); or that redshift is a proxy for distance. In fact, in scientific papers, redshift is used INSTEAD of distance (I even gave you examples)
@supergiuovane American technology has been copied across the world because of your problem. Saddam Hussein--before the Americans justice--hired an European engineer to build a super artillery gun; we do this for our hobbies here in America, even the best catapults; but in other parts of the World they cannot say it without the Cult of Personality of bigoted leadership. One guy to build a gun to shell Israel, and he was assassinated, because it was believed Islam couldn't build artillery.
@WOWJBEOWULF Nice move.No more arguments,let's change topic.I have cited the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, making use of redshift to compute distances. It's from the US. What about the Hubble Deep Field (distances computed by redshift again)? Very nice and milestone study with a US instrument. It's not me, it's people from the US. Hubble was american. I can send you the papers, IF YOU WANT THEM!
@supergiuovane We also use speed to calculate velocity; but you need direction; you don't admit the total of your data sources. I am not wrong, and before someone like you, I will never be wrong.
It's strange that today's accepted value (70.6 ± 3.1) is at the geometric mean of 50 and 100 units.
Some 15 years ago, my astronomy professor thought that estimating the Hubble constant was pretty straightforward and didn't even consider the other value. I cannot remember if he was in the 50 or 100 camp.
The Hubble Constant depends upon locating the center of the Universe, we have no idea how big the Universe really is about; as we see Hubble Telescope data proving it is bigger than we have ever imagined.
@libbern Then, how do you know, without a center? It denies the Big Bang, makes us a simple creation of infinity and everywhere all at once. Like the surface of an expanding balloon, we can only measure our relative arc and know nothing about the Universe creation itself, except that it exists; and leaves us with a conclusion that if we look at light far enough away, then maybe we might see something as viewing distance becomes more and more.
Well, I did'nt say we know the universe doesn't have a center, but our theory and models says it has not. That the universe expands doesn't mean it have a center. Its not like everything expands out and away from a center, but space itself expands (again, in theory).
@libbern That is not the reported model, if you change the Big Bang too much we are back to being the dream of a tiny space bunny, that when the tiny space bunny wakes up, then will hop into a black hole, thus ending creation in the big dream ending. The only thing consistent with science is the center of the Universe is unknown, but we are created out of nothing in a sudden inrush of energy that created super-hot hydrogen, and this was centrally located--there is not another way by claims.
@WOWJBEOWULF No, the HC does not depend on this. There is no real centre in the universe. In fact, all the cosmological models never took this issue into account.
@supergiuovane You have no Big Bang, just a random bit of the Universe doing something; you have no meaning, no message, and have less information. The Red Shift is anonymous and has no meaning, except we believe the local galaxy cluster in our visible universe is moving away from us. Essentially you described measuring the Universe in Time & Space like observing a Big Bang of the Iraq Conflict and using it to measure a Big Bang of World War II that you cannot see: Fallacy.
@sykeo123 That is crass and uncalled for, how come you atheists follow me to science sites. I am science educated and follow the hard sciences; the social sciences we still vote them in a court of law. I have never seen anyone like you understand what "science" really is about, if you visit American books stores, you will find a famous book published for decades that is the Tao of science, from music to math sets written for the general public and big, go find it.
@sykeo123 I am still amazed at you doing this at an obvious simple science question that is the Doppler Effect, weather radars use this idea. I took a lot of science classes, with a laboratory with almost every class; I spend so much time looking at tiny details that I found out people know almost nothing. We have this tiny seed of information, and work as teams to do anything, like filling the sea with a bucket; and you go into the public with a great big ego and know almost nothing.
@sykeo123 While on the topic, you should see the mediocre thinking on the public. Say Red Shift in the Doppler Effect, and they go they didn't see any red in the sky: You found your team. Education on weapons, that is one of my science diplomas, military science; I served three armed conflicts: When we send the Grim Reaper robot into combat, I stand happy--it is the son of the Predator robot that was sent into combat. Favorite aircraft names: Master of Disaster, Angel of Death, Wild Card.
@WOWJBEOWULF Redshift has not meaning. Yes really. The redshift-distance correlation is one of the tightest and best proved relation in astrophysics. But sure.. No meaning. How do you explain that, then?
@supergiuovane Redshift does not indicate distance. It is a relative speed indication using the speed of light, constant, that is a reference. It is a measure of relative magnitude and not velocity. Distance is measured differently based upon the intensity of the starlight. I never studied astrophysics, but this is common technology in aviation, the radar mile relative measurements, then the weather radars that give relative speed of storms: It is all relative, absolute would be different.
@WOWJBEOWULF Astrophysics is not aviation. Redshift, in this context, can be used as a very good distance estimator because of the expansion of the universe. The more distant is a galaxy, the higher its APPARENT recession speed will be. That is why,over a certain distance (about 50 Mpc),you can use it as a distance measure.While light intensity also depends on many other factors
@supergiuovane While I was discussing someone who claimed more to the Hubble Constant than it deserved, the Hubble Constant is used as evidence of the Big Bang (that thing the famous Stephen Hawking wrote about that I read in his book). If there is no Big Bang, then all we ever measured is the relative magnitude of speed compared to our own Galaxy and any meaning beyond that is wrong, with expected variations with our own orbital trajectory of solar and galactic (we should see oscillations).
@WOWJBEOWULF Yes,indeed we see oscillation,but very small since our speed is small compared to the speed of galaxies.And no, Hubble constant is NOT the proof of the BB.THere are many others: the relative abundances of Hydrogen and Helium, the spectrum of the microwave background, and among the others, the fact (which is measured) that the recession velocity of a galaxy correlates with its distance.How would you explain galaxies with speed higher than light?
@supergiuovane I didn't claim proof, I said evidence; because Hubble predicted a linear equation to determine the age for the Universe: This was an early way of saying "Big Bang" somewhere at the origin. If we have no origin point, then the idea of the Big Bang is taught wrong, and we are looking at something else. One other explanation used by Carl Sagan, is the Hubble Constant is evidence that the Universe is expanding, like a small arc on a surface of a balloon (little other information).
@WOWJBEOWULF This is no evidence.And the hubble law is linear just up to relatively short distances. And again Hubble constant is not a proof, but a consequence.
@supergiuovane Hubble's observation came up, that we get a linear expansion, and it has been used to predict the age of the Universe. If the center of the Big Bang is not local withing a few billion years, all that was ever measured is the correlation with distance and speed over time--they are proportional.
@supergiuovane Speed of light is a constant, if we measure a speed greater than light-speed, your equipment need a recalibration and a posted expected error rate. This is why Albert Einstein expected equations from professional physics people; because our imaginations are incomplete and biased (I had a hard time with it, because I thought in absolute terms, like reading literature thinking the words are absolute then meet the pun master, language is also relative in its descriptions and usage).
@WOWJBEOWULF Again, no. You do not need any recalibration. Receding speeds greater than that of light are observed in very distant galaxies. This is a direct consequence of the expansion of the universe. In fact, it is not that their own speed is larger that that of light, it is the whole space that is expanding.
@supergiuovane If you are a physics profession, you are fraud. The constant of light-speed is used in everyday applications, 24-hours each day; it is so proven that anyone who ignores it in science is foolish. You come up with something faster, then your Nobel Prize is a competent report away with independent verification; but you are not looking at the speed-of-light. You misunderstand the time effect so much, that you didn't even read the popularization of science by Carl Sagan.
@supergiuovane If you find something faster than the speed of light, then you get to be recognized, but you have to allow the People of the World independently demonstrate it in their own laboratories. My chosen word for something fastest is "Plaid," nothing goes faster than Plaid--from the comedy movie Spaceballs. Find Plaid and get the Nobel Prize.
@WOWJBEOWULF Look, I am not claiming anything. Astrophysicists and physicists have found loads of such galaxies (In the hubble deep field, for example), to explain this, but not only this, the big bang is the only consistent explanation, currently. As I said,apparent super-luminal motion of galaxies are not the only evidence for the BB.
@supergiuovane Anyway, the Big Bang falls when you claim there is not start, no center; and our tiny visible Universe is awe inspiring; we are making many assumptions, and no witnessing, in things that might be unprovable and forever be described as hypothesis with a fancy name. A field of galaxies in a dark spot of our sky by the Hubble, showing galaxies behind galaxies by the lens effect. There is much more to know, before we get definite answer; but teach the Big Bang, you have a center.
@supergiuovane The speed of light thing has fascinated the Public. Two rockets going toward each other, each near the speed of light, with each emitting a headlight beam; they would only see the time shift and hard radiation, but still only receive the light energy at light-speed. Two rockets moving away from each other, each near light-speed, each emitting a tail lamp beam; they would only see the time shift and a very low frequency wave, but still receive it at the speed of light.
@WOWJBEOWULF I know special relativity. Actually Einstein's equation of general relativity are those that have been used to study and explain the expansion of the universe (you can have a look at the Einstein-de Sitter cosmology model). Everything is in the fact that you need a frame to perform measurements. If this frame is expanding, you need to take this into account.
@supergiuovane Einstein never explained the expansion, he put in a constant, and it is based upon assumption, and it is one of the most mysterious things; because nobody knows what it really means. All of that hidden mass of the Universe is important, because the mathematics shows that we might be in a Black Hole ourselves; since in great enough mass even light will curve back in, and we are facing a big crunch for our ultimate end.
@supergiuovane I have been attempting to understand your answer of correlation of velocity and distance. Distance is proportional to velocity that is speed and direction (we only can measure the relative magnitude of speed): Correlation and not cause. Any non-conformity would indicate a trajectory change by some external intervention. This is how a black hole was found in the center of our galaxy, trajectory changes of something big enough to be a star, but invisible to instrument detection.
@WOWJBEOWULF Correlation between distance and receding speed is a consequence of the expansion of the universe, and ONLY of that. It cannot be applied to anything else.If space is expanding, points (in our case galaxies) will (apparently) move away each one from each other.Every point will see the others moving away.Draw this picture on a paper.You'll find that the largest the distance,the higher its apparent speed will be. It is basic cosmology
@supergiuovane Who knows, the correlation is not cause; and nobody witnessed any of the claimed events, people are so horrible at guessing, the math of that says less then 1% chance when you have less than perfect information (insignificant in our guessing, and too many partial answers); we might be looking at our fragment of the Universe: In my lifetime, the Universe mysteriously got bigger, with each new telescope. The upshot is we can describe our visible Universe, it is often moving away.
@WOWJBEOWULF Correlation is not cause by default, of course, but when you are able to understand and predict physical properties this means you are at least in the right way. Now, you understand that there is no sense in saying that redshift has no meaning..
@supergiuovane Looking back on the messages, is this an intelligence test? The topic of this video blog is the Hubble Constant, and it has been used as evidence of the Big Bang; but the story comes out that there is no Universe center: Philosophy thinking this is correct, because there is no outside, like describing your address when there is no outdoors; but in science, if the teaching is a Big Bang, then we do have a beginning and central start. By the way, nothing goes faster than light.
@WOWJBEOWULF Of course nothing goes faster than light (well, actually.. nothing until this is proved to be wrong..). But, again, when you measure something, you put yourself and the object of your measurement, in a frame, and your measurements depends on that frame. Again: the hubble constant itself, cannot be used as an evidence for the big bang. The expansion of the universe, of which the HC is one (and just one) expression, is one (and just one) of the evidence for a BB.
@supergiuovane You said, "How would you explain galaxies with speed higher than light?" Why I asked, is this an intelligence test? Really bizarre for something so well known, that we even have laser thermometers by pointing at a hot pot and knowing its digital readout temperature: Light-speed is well known, and, then, your choice of words is strange. You now claim no Big Bang; physics is like a house of cards, you remove the fundamentals, then the conclusions fall. Explain your words.
@WOWJBEOWULF Again: as I said already too many times, this is an "apparent" superluminal motion,due to the fact that the frame itself is expanding. It is NOT at rest.There is no physicist or astronomer going against the speed of light limit.But this is something DIFFERENT,completely consistent with general relativity.I never claimed no BB, btw.
@supergiuovane You realize the Red Shift of a galaxy traveling away from us in an opposite direction--while near the speed of light--would be so low, that it would be entertaining to radio astronomy. I seriously doubt they have the means to recognize one at this time, or it would be the Next Big Thing in such fields that it takes decades to prove anything due to the distances involved: To show the black hole at the center of our galaxy took 10-years to measure the star movement.
@WOWJBEOWULF No.Completely wrong.Redshift is proportional to speed.A galaxy **intrinsic** motion can be up to 1000/1500 km/s (in cluster galaxies for example).Do the calculation your own:this would turn into a 0.005 redshift.Such redshift are VERY easy to measure from spectra.If redshift is "cosmological",that is arising from the expansion effect, it is NORMAL to measure redshift of 1 and above,meaning recession speed higher than c.But this speed is NOT intrinsic,but just and effect of expansion
@supergiuovane I didn't discover the Hubble Constant, the evidence and statements to the public are beyond anything ever said here. I believe this conversation is over. The observations made by the Hubble Constant has been used for evidence in other things, including the Big Bang, age of the Universe, expansion of the Universe, and the most simple is most galaxies are moving away from us--but look at Andromeda (our nearest). In short, moving away seen as expansion, sic.
@WOWJBEOWULF Again,and again:the HC is just derived from observation.It's a consequence,NOT a proof.It is a proxy for the age of the universe and to measure the distance of galaxies,but just as a consequence. Andromeda?I see that you did not get the whole point:M31 is not the only galaxy approaching us.In very short distance scale you do not detect the effect of the universe expansion.That is the whole point:the larger the scale,the largest the effect (again:see Einstein-de Sitter theory)
@supergiuovane My science specialization is in mathematics, and I am very serious about data. This is a broad topic, and if you really intend to sterilize it, then you never entered the topic. There are many broad claims, and on the surface of data is we cannot really say anything about it, except its identity; change one thing, its identity is gone and it has a new identity (way beyond the public perception). On the surface, we measured a red shift; but we do have public conclusions.
@WOWJBEOWULF If redshift was the only evidence, I would agree with you that a number of other explanations could be given. As I was telling you before, it is not the only one, but it perfectly and logically matches with the overall BB picture. As all theories, we are waiting for a counter-example or for a deviation from the predicted behaviour, and by the moment we don't have such a counter-evidence,just other evidences pointing to this direction.
@supergiuovane You said, "As all theories, we are waiting for a counter-example or for a deviation from the predicted behaviour, and by the moment we don't have such a counter-evidence,just other evidences pointing to this direction." That is a hypothesis problem, Science can be slow, Socrates over 2000-years ago claimed the Sun is a type of stone, and that hypothesis stood until the 20th century with fusion. Still looking for counter-evidence and better understanding.
@WOWJBEOWULF Hypothesis problem? There is no problem, just a series of observations and a theory that was build up trying to explain all of them. You want proofs that the sun is not a stone?
@supergiuovane Finally the abuse of evidence and proof. Evidence is not proof; and proof means "test" at its root, it was tested. This is deduction, from the points of evidence, then we find our conclusion that is tested. Many people practice induction, but that is fraud outside of the limited, fully-known, math sets; it is why some famous math statements never enter truth as induction proved them, and there might be a wrong case (we test every case when used on computers for number range).
@WOWJBEOWULF Ok, I agree with that. A theory is just e tentative explanation of reality, and it holds until some other better explanation comes out. BB, is the best explanation we have at the present time to explain what we see.
@supergiuovane A hypothesis is an unproven claim, it becomes a theory when it has acceptance by the peers of the science community; and fact requires independent verification and absolute proof within its domain by its own standards; standards are the hard part, because any induction becomes hard, not impossible (hard is a science word that the ability to know can be beyond our means to verify it, even though it seems to work). All knowledge is by definition and standards.
@WOWJBEOWULF Ok. Perfect. BB is the theory currently accepted by the astrophysical community, and so is the cosmological origin of redshift (including those implying recession speed higher than light). Only Halton Arp is the only one that still claims a different explanation
@supergiuovane Not sure what you want? The words we are dealing with are hypothesis, theory, fact, synthesis, analysis, deduction, induction, standards, definition, and hard. There is more to be said, but we look at a fragment of the sky in the darkest region with the Hubble, and find a field of galaxies, we conclude then in synthesis that there are many more galaxies--look again and test it. The Hubble Constant has many implications as we observed the sky to find it.
@supergiuovane Two more words analysis and synthesis. Analysis is breaking down the topic, top to down review: in college this is philosophy, literature, social sciences, a view of everything from the top and then draw conclusions. We see the hard sciences in synthesis, that is taking the fragments and forming conclusions: Science is in the details, we take those bits and put them together for a bottom to top review. Using the Hubble observations to conclude a Big Bang is synthesis.
@supergiuovane Priming is a psychology word that uses how we organize information; it is used by magicians that can change the stage colors four-times, including their clothes, without you noticing by getting your mind to focus on something, such as a card trick: The priming is telling the audience it is a card trick, and they are looking for how it is done, but the trick is changing all stage colors. You want other things, and primed it different. Hubble observations are evidence.
@WOWJBEOWULF I don't see the connection. I Have tried to explain you the meaning of redshift. I have told you that astronomers and physicists commonly accept the cosmological origin of redshift (according to your own words you should be fine with scientific community accepting this picture), I have tried to explain that redshift is not the only observable by which BB was hypothesized. On the other hand you say you don't know much about astronomy.Maybe you should read a bit..
@WOWJBEOWULF Credit for what? Listen: you admit that you don't know about astronomy, ok. You say that redshift makes no sense, but have you tried to verify why astronomers do use such measurements to calculate distances? Did you know that redshift is actually used INSTEAD of distances? My only point is: why discuss/argue about things without knowing their context?
@supergiuovane I read your remark about aviation not being astronomy, that is is correct; what I was discussing was technology. The underpinnings of science are true everywhere. In my military history studies, I got to see some British science thinking (early 20th century, my reference was a WWI general), and they actually had to teach that what is true in physics in Britain is also true in Africa (reliable artillery); means physics is universal. The Doppler Effect is everywhere.
@WOWJBEOWULF It is. But doppler effect for light, is more complicated. It has a relativistic form which in normal condition (from the general relativity point of view) is the one that everybody knows. On our very small scales, we don't experience any universe's expansion, since the effect is far too small. Any book about general relativity will explain this...
@supergiuovane You never graduated science that I ever knew. You separated light from the rest of it; what makes light special is that is the frequencies we use to see everything, and we assign values by our perception and separate the rest of it. It is all one electromagnetic spectrum, and light is a small set of frequencies our human eyes perceive. Using infrared filters, you can false color shift it and discover our clothes are transparent in the infrared, the physics is the same.
@WOWJBEOWULF I have a degree in science. Do you know how redshifts (or blueshift, when it is the case) are measured?Mainly by spectral lines, from gas. Ultraviolet,Optical, infrared, radio. Please, google "astro-ph".Today there are 2 papers in which title the word "redshift" is used with the same meaning of "distance".
@supergiuovane Why are we having a disagreement that there is a shift in observed frequencies, and galaxy observations you use the spectrum lines as everything of the electromagnetic spectrum is frequency shifted? If you don't want to understand it, that is your personal agenda; and the credit for such things are so obvious in our modern science. This is a video blog, and science discussion is obviously into what we believe about it, being so limited in blog response scope of things.
Golly... Sounds like an important number. Where do you keep it? I think I'd keep it in a cabinet. Don't be losing it now!
Andrewh313 1 month ago
the one dislike was a guy who doesn't speak physics =P
FutebolFanatico001 6 months ago
hi there,.. im a psychic.. ive watch your video.. i can help you explain to interpret, about that subject.. you can e-mail me t asti7natividadf@yahoo.com...
asti8ful 7 months ago
A constant that's changing over time? Well that's a paradox.
AudioJustG 7 months ago 3
@Thetarget1
I can't even begin to imagine a shape which has no centre, so what shape do you think the Universe is ?
Why do you think that Redshift is only caused by movement (especially when this movement has not been verified by any other means) ? Aren't you aware of the several 'tired light' mechanisms which have been published ?
1thermon 7 months ago
are you trying to beat the "fast talking" world record? ;)
majortomjlm 9 months ago
hahaha cosmic halitosis
dreasim 9 months ago
@supergiuovane
I would have no problem with space expanding if anyone can demonstrate that space is a thing/object/material that can (stretch or) expand - and do this in a lab.
The definition of velocity is: change in distance (displacement) divided by change in time (period) - and velocity is a vector so the direction is important. If a galaxy is detected moving away from us then it is unscientific to redefine this as anything other than a velocity just to suit your (cosmologist's) theory.
1thermon 9 months ago
@1thermon
Direction stops being a factor when measuring galaxies moving away from us, because the universe isotropic. There is no center, therefore the direction isn't interesting - yes all galaxies move away from us, but all galaxies also move away from Andromeda (except that we're heading straight for it).
You can actually see for yourself, through redshift, that the universe is expanding. Distant light goes toward the red end of the spectrum. Why? Because of the expansion of the universe.
Thetarget1 7 months ago
Wait, since this is a constant, doesn't special relativity come into play. What if the universe is constantly expanding but without a measure of time from our perspective?
aso123321 10 months ago
@arpakyna
2. As you think the expansion can be done in 3D, please give an example - a video would be good as I can't find one.
When you project the expansion backwards in time, you get to either a singularity or a 'Big Bang' creation event - which is it ? Or do you prefer another option ? - and if so please explain it.
A singularity has some properties which are infinite, and as such is impossible - as is creating something out of nothing. We have no evidence for either.
1thermon 10 months ago
@arpakyna
1. If Hubble's data is due to a galaxy's recessional velocity (a vector), this means that we are at the centre of the Universe. Cosmologists say no - galaxies are not moving through space but are embedded 'in' space, which is expanding. First, this violates the definition of velocity. Second, how do you tell the difference between a 'real' velocity and expanding space. Third, do you imagine space is a material that you can embed something into ? If so what is its Young's Modulus ?
1thermon 10 months ago
@1thermon what's the problem with space expanding? And what does "violation of velocity definition" mean?
supergiuovane 9 months ago
Allan Sandage thought it was 75, pretty close.
335snails 11 months ago
The exact value of the Hubble constant is, of course, zero. The Universe is not expanding - the expansion cannot be described or even imagined in 3 dimensions and the 2-D surface of a balloon example can't be done in 3 dimensions.
The actual velocity of any galaxy has never been measured directly - not by Hubble nor anyone else. Redshift has always (wrongly) been assumed to be a Doppler effect - it is not, it is a 'tired light' effect.
1thermon 11 months ago
@1thermon That's what she said.
andy16666 10 months ago
@1thermon
"the expansion cannot be described or even imagined in 3 dimensions and the 2-D surface of a balloon example can't be done in 3 dimensions."
Failure to comprehend 3 dimensional expanding must be solely yours, sir. If you thought about it for a second, you'd realize saying the demonstration cannot be done in 3D is just silly.
Mathematically it is trivial to describe as many dimensions as needed, though once you are at 4 or more imagining them does become, I'd say, impossible
arpakyna 10 months ago
@xorthisss that what i thought. it the same glasses than he were in his films
gavyns 1 year ago
This is why I love science. There is so much we still don't know!
Mojosbigstick 1 year ago
@XXY4LIFE2
"the Police do not take Internet complaints from private citizens of this country"
New Zealand Department of Internal affairs
dia,govt,nz/web/submitforms.nsf/cencomp?OpenForm
that is a link to forum to report information that violates New Zealands Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993. Which includes child nudity.
Good luck with investigation that is likely already under way
sykeo123 1 year ago
@XXYZGUY1
you notice no one takes you serious everyone knows your crazy have the New Zealand police shown up at your house yet?
Caused I reported you to them
sykeo123 1 year ago
I'm done, the words just circle around; I feel like I am in a jet fighter in a tight circle looking for advantage. The Hubble Constant is well known, practiced, and based upon variables observed in the sky. You cannot get distance from frequency shift of the Doppler Effect, and distance for stars and galaxies is measured by luminosity as the stars are convenient and burn as bright as possible: I see cosmic answers, but that is some kind of interpretation in application and not the science.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF
and you base that on what? your training on being a racist biggot?
sykeo123 1 year ago
@sykeo123 Your cruelty is based upon wanting to stab Jesus Christ as well, you are a soulless creature who openly uses murder words as your opening remarks--you are a common pedestrian in your values, and never saw society as you fall from your Heaven personal viewpoint, as you declared yourself perfection and the World your enemy. Your friends should be aware of you, that you intend to have them live under a bridge to be killed by the State upon failure to report an address; because you lie.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
You can't read, never talk to me. The Internet connects every weirdo, psycho, and dummy; and I cannot even go to a Christian prayer site without seeing your hoard showing up in their sins and freaked out that someone might notice morality as you go to disable, censor, and ruin the witness. Before a bookcase of family codes, penal codes, and tax codes you declare there is no sin, and then practice anti-Semite behavior as that was a Torah site you defamed. I am not Jew. We also read the Torah.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
One thing, I gave you a strong hint for your personality profile; you will love 4Chan; it was founded in New York City, and is one of the most perverted sites on the Internet that passed legal review because it is anonymous posting: My world is bigger than yours, as your narrow minded vision saw Jesus Christ somewhere and wanted to spike the crucifixion of the Son of Man yourself. This is a science site, and you are so blind that you don't make distinctions of content and abuse video blogs.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@sykeo123 If d bravery is to make a video expressing ones ideas, putting ones image where ones mouth is, what is cowardice?
MrXXYZGUY 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF I am still waiting for your skype contact, so that I can send you some scientific papers. Although it is quite clear that you are not available to learn something, and you are stuck on your incomplete knowledges. BTW,redshift used as a proxy of distance in another paper on astro-ph today (and to be published in the astrophysical journal).
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane I don't care, you are not getting distance out of a frequency shift. Your claim of knowing Einstein, the relativity is everywhere, in every ray of light. I gave some common examples that are so self-evident that you are wrong, that I only see a suppression of my personality: This is studied in college, in philosophy, that discusses the various flavors of truth; when you get a radar that measures speed by frequency shift and that is all; from the ground to the galaxies, speed.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF As I wrote many times, you are not taking into account the frame of the measurements. It would be like trying to explain the curvature of light in presence of matter by just newtonian gravity.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
Do you do this to all Americans? When I discussed specialization, as knowledge is so much more and why we are valued (we are not valued for being easy, we are valued for knowing the hard), and we bring the truths together. The military does many things, and I have been a Notary, as we demand truth in our conduct and witness of events, by our very official witness; your errors and omissions is a form of fraud, you have to bring the entire story. You want wrong, pay attention.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF No, because Americans are usually very skilled in astrophysics. You are a clear exception. If you were a bit modest, you will just try to know whether what I'm saying is really true. You don't even care of checking if astronomers really use this. Or maybe you did check all the references that I gave, and you realized you are wrong. But you just don't want to admit it.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane Any index chart you have is a creation of measured distance with the frequency shift of relative speed (that is not velocity, you have no idea the direction). The entire truth, is to claim the Red Shift means distance is a misnomer, anything your community does better understand it; professors have such details, and I see sloppy. This has been gone over, as I noticed you used my statements as entire proof when the Hubble observations are evidence, and leads to other conclusions.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
In the literal science sense, it is wrong; Red Shift cannot give you distance, as it is only a frequency shift; in the cosmic application of massive galaxies that don't appear to be teenager zooming around in different directions, the astronomy claim in the light that speed and distance are proportional, and in Newtons own law of any mass in motion remains in motion unless interrupted by an outside force, they see bigger red shifts for greater measured distances, duh.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF It is wrong as when you are saying that you measure a mass with a balance,and instead you are measuring a weight. You see? You act as you don't read. I am not talking about proper motions.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
I believe that you don't believe your own works; everything we believe becomes part of our personality, and the fundamental truths are not a topic of discussion as they are implicit into our believe truths: It is why people become stinky, in the personality mismatch, obvious different. You had better start to study your works, because people sense trouble; you had such problems on something so simple; this is not tensor calculus, this is the observed results and you don't like it.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Hum... Maybe you are right. Maybe you should come to some congress and explain everybody that they are wrong. It's not a lot of people, just some thousands of physicists and astrophysicists.
You see? The point is that you are missing something, and you don't admit it. First read Landau & Lifshitz' book, and then you can understand. But I don't think you will. It's easier to say that other thousands of people are wrong instead of thinking that maybe there's something you don't know
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane Your problem is you take a simple topic and create a logic bottom; that is your crucible, you make the claim that I am wrong, as you claim Red Shift (i.e. Doppler Effect) means distance and that is fraud, but then you make a cosmic claim of an application with galaxies and I can't know because I didn't get your diploma; contradiction means bottom (p and not p), and we choose our result: Logic and philosophy are truths without moral outcomes, and you choose away from me.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF I am not making any claim. IT is the whole scientific community. If you don't understand is your problem: you refuse to know about the topic and you are stuck to your lack of basic knowledges
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane In such unrefined values from you, as you proclaim being an expert, you have to refine your topic until we don't have contradiction or ambiguous choices (the opposite of bottom is the logic top--p or not p--ambiguous choices and we choose, the logic continues, and there are entire math sets that let you prove something, but often ends after the top or bottom, and your choice shows your personality). You didn't even enter physics 101, as you claim distance means speed: fraud.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF I don't claim distance means speed. This is an oversemplification of the topic and if you had read a bit what I have written you would have understood.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane The only reason I introduced some fundamental science terms is because language is a negotiation; as it is also our personality and I introduced common terms to explain we are in the topic of science--supposed to narrow the subject to be more serious, and in absence of serious we measured far away galaxies, they have a relative speed measurement based upon the spectral line shift (red shift), and distance is measured with luminosity, the topic is about the Hubble observations.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF DISTANCE IS NOT MEASURED FROM LUMINOSITY!! You talk about terms and you don't use proper words. Luminosity is an intrinsic property. What we measure from stars and galaxies is a FLUX.To know luminosity you have to know the distance,that's why you cannot measure distance from luminosity.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane Your claims don't hold up in physics, that is so well proven with Newton. The Moon landings nailed Newton forever into truth, about observed masses that are significant beyond the quantum world. Until the Moon landing with a laser reflector to measure actual distance, we had ratios; and always an ambiguous crucible like you gives that we didn't actually measure anything, as you choose away. Moon distance showed everything was true with the space probes. Galaxies, big: Newton.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF 1) it is NOT my claim, i thought you understood it by now (always available to send you papers with references). 2) Newton physics gives accurate prediction for general purposes. But it cannot, for example, explain the observed precession of Mercury's orbit. Something that general relativity can explain. 3)You are completely confused (and don't read): proportionality between redshift and distance holds for objects more distant than about 60-70 Mpc.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane In the ridicule that distance means fraud, a race car driver at the Indy 500, that is an American event: The race car goes around in circles, but it is not velocity, unless you measure a specific moment, like Schrodinger's Cat we can only know at the moment of observation, as the trajectory is always changing for hundreds of miles in a circle, all we have is speed. In the American South there are car rentals with pictures of race car drivers, don't rent, they only do speed.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF This has NOTHING to do with the topic. Absolutely nothing and just shows you have not clue of the topic.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane While you mentioned frames of reference, our only reference is based here on Earth and in orbit of Earth; and all we measure is the electromagnetic spectrum, and we have been using the light wave example. The relative speed we measure (not velocity, as direction is a mystery) as based upon the spectral line shift, as we cannot send a probe to another galaxy for a laser distance; the galaxies are big objects that seem to not change courses, and you cannot admit that assumption.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Nice attitude, yours: you stick to your beliefs and imagination. Lasers has nothing to do with the topic. While don't you go and talk to a real person, to an astrophysicist (or a physicist)? Why don't you read a book about astrophysics? You don't believe me?I don't care. Are you really willing to prove you are right and explain me where I'm wrong? I'll give you book references and you'll tell me why they are wrong. let's do it!
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane While we are at the crossroads of the assumptions you delegated to nobody can know without your diploma, in the use of Newton's laws; with we only measure light waves and intensity (we actually count the photons), we only get relative speed (by the spectral line shift), and then you claim speed means distance--until you show your assumptions, you are ready to choose away from me again, and I believe you do this to all Americans.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Again a bunch of words with no meaning.You cannot explain light curved path in presence of matter with newton's laws only. While with GR you not only explain that, but you can make very accurate predictions. As I already said: americans usually have very good knowledges about astronomy. You don't. And it is a bit arrogant to think that everybody thinks like you do. I have some american colleagues:I can send you a paper already published in the Astrophysical Journal.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane One thing about luminosity. Pop quizzes are not good for video blogs, but I would ask this: Does light intensity increase by making the photons brighter or does light intensity increase by increasing their number count--you get 50-50 to answer on only a guess? Should you not understand, please try to stay on a topic you understand, because the underlying science is the same that is used throughout the World. What makes astronomers special is they know more of the ways & means.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Quite stupid question: how can you make a photon brighter? A photon can be more or less energetic. Brightness is of course a matter of number of photons. A photon is just an energy package.
Next question please.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
Bridge Troll, "Who are you?" WowJBeowulf, "I am WowJBeowulf." Troll, "what is your purpose?", James, "to seek the Holy Grail." Troll, " What is your favorite color?", James, "Green." Troll, "What is galactic frequency shift?", James, "What do you mean? Galactic measurements based upon spectral line shift and luminosity, or the Doppler Effect that is only a measurement of relative speed?" Troll, "I don't know." Troll is cast into the chasm of eternal peril. Love Monty Python.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Ahah.. trying to be funny? I have it quite clear, you know: you realized that you are not quite right but you don't want to admit it. As I said you think you are THE ONLY ONE who knows the true,and people (thousands) with specialized diploma and PhD just do not understand anything. yes that makes sense. I keep on saying that I can give you all the OFFICIAL references you want,but you refuse to have a look at any.Just explain why.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane You have a PhD, congratulations. My military diploma has years of work and they require it to show application (in the trenches in the realm of reality, your theory falls short of actual engineering), and you are so wrong that you would have made a commander's report (not my problem when you cannot understand it, you have to come to the team as a volunteer): Military is really funny about application, we have to know it all, and your little frequency shift as distance is fraud.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Well it seems that military is not very open-minded. There is no application for such thing, because it is observed ONLY ON LARGE SCALES, by its own nature.
Why don't you try to verify this? Let's go to books,then. Physics books. Do you want references? I am talking very seriously. Just ask me and I'll provide titles and authors of commonly used books.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane You would only have Newton for galaxies, but not automobiles, because we didn't get your specialization. Bad attitude, I am so serious about team work; you face hundreds of specialist and you want them all to be you. When you choose to speak, you have to come to team with the whole story and with your volunteer status. The terror of the valley shuts down everything, it is a leadership problem of firefighter management, because they don't plan (always an emergency).
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Team work??? It's not a matter of team work. All astrophysicists agree on the cosmological origin of redshift in distant galaxies. Why are you constantly moving the issue to my opinion.I wrote it tens of times: it's not me. It is the whole world of astrophysicists. Again: I can give you more references (I think we both know we you never accept to have them)
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane You choose to speak science, when you become that role, then you choose team or opposition. Our information is so little that even our personality influences choices; this is a popular communication problem, build the tallest tower (some physically tall, some at the highest mountain point, some just put it up and hope it is the best, all of them tall somehow); you choose opposition, we cannot find tall anywhere. Tell me, do you hate Americans? The galactic information is small.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF The galactic information is small??? What's the meaning of this?Again: it's not a problem of nationality,and not even of hate.Again: do you want me to send you a paper (by some american citizens) where redshift is used as a proxy for distance?I will do that, if you allow me to. But of course you don't want. because of course this will prove your ideas are wrong. Because you are missing something.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane Is that what you wanted, put the thing down, the terror of the valley? The people I know don't believe in civil rights; you put people's lives on the line because you served your ego: When I stated that truth is beyond me, I didn't mean I was empty of it; truth is also beyond you. Our truths in science is based upon independent observation; if it was only you, then we know the fraud it is about as people serve themselves; the science truths are universal, from Earth to galaxies.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF I don't put people anywhere, please... I know that physics is the same. What is clearly beyond your understanding is that some phenomena are not observable in all context or physical situation. One example? Curvature of the light path in presence of matter. You cannot observe it in any laboratory. You do observe it in astrophysical situation.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane Your choice of abstracting the issue to cosmic is not a problem; but you have to state your thesis of your hypothesis. You cannot create distance from a frequency shift, that is like measuring the frequency shift of an automobile and claim it is a galaxy, relative speed is all you measure (the information is relative, and this is fundamental physics, all of those questions to find out how to read information); when you admit your distance information, then we are closer.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF There are observations,made by hubble. The observed redshift of a galaxy turned out to be strictly correlated to its distance (and distance was calculated with independent estimators): the higher the redshift, the higher the distance.Observed in the '20s, and confirmed with more an more data in the following 80 years. This became one of the evidences for the fact that universe is expanding.If the universe behavies like this,redshift is proportional to the distance (above 70 Mpc)
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane We are done, I really don't care for you: Don't talk to me. You really really never understood application, and we can't get to galaxies on your personality. These truths are so public that when you refute the GPS system, we are sure you are lost and blind. Your data is flawed, because you wanted a victim; you could never admit the source of your data, because the fundamentals of science is for everyone, and the applications in the specializations don't change that.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Yes, we are done because you cannot understand things you don't know. I don't refute GPS,and I never did in any of my response.You never let me show you the source of my data, I have asked you tens of time to let me send you the papers or book reference. Why don't you want more information? Why don't you want to know the sources? Please let me make clear where all this data/information come from.Skype or private,or mail.Whatever you prefer.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane Do you understand the underlying technology uses the same physics principles. GPS is proved, it is so old that we are seeing the second generation of satellites go up, and proven as it is popular and used world wide; it uses atomic clocks and your relative information. I don't like to talk to walls, but you choose science, I can make a fool of anyone.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Underlying technology for what? You still don't understand that (it's already the millionth time I say so) the effect of an expanding universe are observable only for large distances. Again: why don't you want me to send you official references?
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane I am not talking to the whole world, I am talking to you; and you choose the public realm to go unsophisticated. The Special Relativity predicts all of this that has become proven; but it is all at light speed (for the electromagnetic spectrum) and what changes in our observation based upon velocity is the red shift or blue shift (labels), but it is all relative speed. We didn't have to get into this, but you wanted "wrong"; I am not going to leave the proven science.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF This is proven science as well. You are talking to me yes, saying that a physical concept is wrong, as if I made it up. You are talking to me so what science recognize as a proven fact is not true. Nice reasoning..
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane I bring up the leadership stuff, because our personalities influence everything; we are not wind-up toys, we actually have to believe what we are about. It is an old theme in leadership, the toy soldier; and the battlefields are examples of the edge, where any advantage is used, but you have to volunteer to be there. Galactic light has no distance information by frequency shift, it is so proven that I seriously wonder what you really want? You can't get there from frequency.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF I agree on the influence of the personality,but this is not a matter of personality. It is clearly written in every astrophysics book. You can't get there from frequency? I have no time to count the scientific papers that do so, but they must be some ten of thousands, but probably many more. Why don't you want references????
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane Every square-yard of the Earth says you really didn't come here to share: If you have something special to say, then you should say it, as we have seen many applications. The galactic information is what we don't interact with, we only get incoming light; and none of the frequency shift--that is used for relative speed--shows distance. That is why I don't like you, your hidden joke is not funny, because you choose here, of the millions of blog sites: State your case.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF I did not come to share? I even offered to give you articles!!! And explain: what is my hidden joke? What am I saying that other astronomers are not?
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane The infotainment articles you use obviously never explained the source of your data. This is discussed in topics on research, of competent sources; if you get a famous astronomer claiming he saw a "red shift" in People magazine, that it infotainment; for our entertainment, but really has not topic information beyond the keywords. I already covered all fundamental data, and used examples of use, for public character; if someone shines a flashlight at you, you claim distance.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Astronomy & Astrophysics, Astrophysical Journal & co, are some of the official journals that the astrophysical community uses to exchange knowledges.All astronomers in the world publish in such journals. Source of my data? Well the sloan digital sky survey,to give you just an "american" example.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane Hey dummy, the underlying physics is the same, even a nurse can claim a heart beats after a doctor said so.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF I know it is the same... I have always talked about a phenomenon that becomes appreciable at large scales. Special Relativity is the same: its effects are not observed in common life, they only become visible at speed closer to that of light. It is the same principle. Come on, it's not so difficult
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane This is a joke in California technology industry, a medical doctor went to a government council meeting (Town Hall style), and after opposition the medical school proved to be better than the Internet. Anyway, you changed the frequency of your radio; now tell us, how far away is the radio station? I built my first radio at age 13-years, it was a Radio Shack kit; nowhere did it say frequency means distance.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF With posts like this you are showing again and again that you did not understand anything,and that you are not able to read.I wrote millions of time that this is a cosmological effect,that you can observe only on large scales.That is why on the Nasa Extragalactic Database they offer alternative way to compute distance for nearby galaxies.If you were really convinced of your statements you would have accepted to read some papers.But you think Big Bang is wrong.Your problem.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane Your cosmic effect of someone shining a flashlight on you as a measure of distance is fraud; you have to elaborate your claims to be able to use someone shining light on you for distance (do you believe there are different model stars?). If you cannot understand this metaphor, I am going to claim you functionally literate but cannot understand literature, with all of its meanings used in metaphor and allegory--the world is beyond the technical pursuit of your language usage.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Of course there are stars of different kind!!!This is basic astrophysics!!!The characteristics of the stars depend on their mass,different masses will lead to different emissions and lifetimes! I don't understand the literature, yes.So do all astronomers that use the N.E.D., or that write papers.You never answered to my question: why don't you want me to send you some official articles? What are you afraid of?
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane You realize that two galaxies traveling in opposite directions of our observed frame of reference here on Earth can have the same red shift, or two galaxies in opposite directions approaching each other can have the same blue shift. The Doppler Effect is only a radar name for the Einstein observations of the frequency shifts based upon our relative observations; it also works when someone shines a light on you from the object with observed frequency shifted.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Yes I perfectly know that, and I have no problem with that. The one having problem is you. If you don't think the Big Bang theory is correct, is your problem, as I already said
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane I spent a summer counting birds because some dummy radar contractor was convinced it was the birds causing fuzzy pictures the air traffic control radar. The military does full case studies on contractors, when things don't work, and will even count birds in our spare duty time. Birds didn't have anything to do with the radar pictures, but the contractor was told to fly away. The physics of electromagnetic spectrum is used away from your astronomy. Fly away.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF I think I know the physics of light much better than you do. I proposed you several times to have a polite exchange of official literature. Why don't you want to read a bit more? We all know why: you'll have to admit that you are wrong, and you don't want to.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane You are so dishonest, that you cannot admit the structure of your information; because you want to leave a beggar on the street--my world leaves behind beggars, over trust such as yours. Sources of dishonesty are many, if you didn't want to be embarrassed in front of your peers, the Internet is voluntary; I saw an Italian court case in the national news, the judge is testing it, we need your permission to view your own posted content. You need to give permission to view you.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Please, you don't need any permission.Send me a private message with whatever contact, and I will send you any kind of references, book and journals, or whatever you need. The thing is that you don't want to really know. If you are really convinced,why not discuss on real documents? Your game?Saying I AM claiming something,by my own, while it is the whole scientific community.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane I don't want your private messages, you cannot even be trusted with public applied physics. It is applied, they teach it to high school graduates in the military; so proven, that when they get it wrong, then they face their doom. We are not into theories, as astronomy has moved beyond spectrum shift into counting planets, based upon observed rotational brightness and wobble of the foreign stars. What I don't like about you is you juggle the topic to create a wrong.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF That you did not want a fair comparison was clear from the beginning, as the fact that you don't want to be proven wrong. So are all astronomers wrong? Because all astronomers know and accept the redshift-distance correlation.. I am just proposing to send you some papers from astrophysical journals. Or I can give you the references. Ah no.. wait.. There are no references, I made all them up...
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane You are so wrong. Now you say correlation, when the whole topic started with "Red Shift" as I responded to an abuse of it, then you ignored every point about distance information: This is a physics problem to train students, that distance and speed are two different things, and you ignored the assumptions used by astronomers to create a "wrong," that means you didn't enter the topic and targeted a victim. This is why you need to give permission to view you, it means observed.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Correlation, like there is a correlation between mass and weight. You give an astronomer a redshift higher than 0.01, and he will compute a distance. I never claimed that distance and speed are the same (and I think not even students think they are the same, come on...). I have always said: from redshift you can compute distances (above ~70 Mpc); or that redshift is a proxy for distance. In fact, in scientific papers, redshift is used INSTEAD of distance (I even gave you examples)
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane American technology has been copied across the world because of your problem. Saddam Hussein--before the Americans justice--hired an European engineer to build a super artillery gun; we do this for our hobbies here in America, even the best catapults; but in other parts of the World they cannot say it without the Cult of Personality of bigoted leadership. One guy to build a gun to shell Israel, and he was assassinated, because it was believed Islam couldn't build artillery.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Nice move.No more arguments,let's change topic.I have cited the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, making use of redshift to compute distances. It's from the US. What about the Hubble Deep Field (distances computed by redshift again)? Very nice and milestone study with a US instrument. It's not me, it's people from the US. Hubble was american. I can send you the papers, IF YOU WANT THEM!
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane We also use speed to calculate velocity; but you need direction; you don't admit the total of your data sources. I am not wrong, and before someone like you, I will never be wrong.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Ok. Let's go to the data, then. What kind of information do you want? Please make a precise list so I can answer in the best way.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
It's strange that today's accepted value (70.6 ± 3.1) is at the geometric mean of 50 and 100 units.
Some 15 years ago, my astronomy professor thought that estimating the Hubble constant was pretty straightforward and didn't even consider the other value. I cannot remember if he was in the 50 or 100 camp.
FlashFizz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ready to night party and meet naughty women **mworld5.info**
TarynViviana 1 year ago
The Hubble Constant depends upon locating the center of the Universe, we have no idea how big the Universe really is about; as we see Hubble Telescope data proving it is bigger than we have ever imagined.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF
The universe doesn't have any center^^
libbern 1 year ago
@libbern Then, how do you know, without a center? It denies the Big Bang, makes us a simple creation of infinity and everywhere all at once. Like the surface of an expanding balloon, we can only measure our relative arc and know nothing about the Universe creation itself, except that it exists; and leaves us with a conclusion that if we look at light far enough away, then maybe we might see something as viewing distance becomes more and more.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF
Well, I did'nt say we know the universe doesn't have a center, but our theory and models says it has not. That the universe expands doesn't mean it have a center. Its not like everything expands out and away from a center, but space itself expands (again, in theory).
libbern 1 year ago
@libbern That is not the reported model, if you change the Big Bang too much we are back to being the dream of a tiny space bunny, that when the tiny space bunny wakes up, then will hop into a black hole, thus ending creation in the big dream ending. The only thing consistent with science is the center of the Universe is unknown, but we are created out of nothing in a sudden inrush of energy that created super-hot hydrogen, and this was centrally located--there is not another way by claims.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF No, the HC does not depend on this. There is no real centre in the universe. In fact, all the cosmological models never took this issue into account.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane You just emptied out the Hubble Constant, there is no expansion to measure.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF No, of course. And 99.99% of all galaxies are moving all away from us at speed sometimes exceeding that of light. SUre.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane You have no Big Bang, just a random bit of the Universe doing something; you have no meaning, no message, and have less information. The Red Shift is anonymous and has no meaning, except we believe the local galaxy cluster in our visible universe is moving away from us. Essentially you described measuring the Universe in Time & Space like observing a Big Bang of the Iraq Conflict and using it to measure a Big Bang of World War II that you cannot see: Fallacy.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF
and you know this all from what?
your education on how to shoot a gun?
why not leave science to scientist... and if we need a uneducated grunt we will call you.
sykeo123 1 year ago
@sykeo123 That is crass and uncalled for, how come you atheists follow me to science sites. I am science educated and follow the hard sciences; the social sciences we still vote them in a court of law. I have never seen anyone like you understand what "science" really is about, if you visit American books stores, you will find a famous book published for decades that is the Tao of science, from music to math sets written for the general public and big, go find it.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@sykeo123 I am still amazed at you doing this at an obvious simple science question that is the Doppler Effect, weather radars use this idea. I took a lot of science classes, with a laboratory with almost every class; I spend so much time looking at tiny details that I found out people know almost nothing. We have this tiny seed of information, and work as teams to do anything, like filling the sea with a bucket; and you go into the public with a great big ego and know almost nothing.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WOWJBEOWULF
"and you go into the public with a great big ego and know almost nothing."
yup... except that little fact that I am a scientist.
sykeo123 1 year ago
@sykeo123 While on the topic, you should see the mediocre thinking on the public. Say Red Shift in the Doppler Effect, and they go they didn't see any red in the sky: You found your team. Education on weapons, that is one of my science diplomas, military science; I served three armed conflicts: When we send the Grim Reaper robot into combat, I stand happy--it is the son of the Predator robot that was sent into combat. Favorite aircraft names: Master of Disaster, Angel of Death, Wild Card.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Redshift has not meaning. Yes really. The redshift-distance correlation is one of the tightest and best proved relation in astrophysics. But sure.. No meaning. How do you explain that, then?
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane Redshift does not indicate distance. It is a relative speed indication using the speed of light, constant, that is a reference. It is a measure of relative magnitude and not velocity. Distance is measured differently based upon the intensity of the starlight. I never studied astrophysics, but this is common technology in aviation, the radar mile relative measurements, then the weather radars that give relative speed of storms: It is all relative, absolute would be different.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Astrophysics is not aviation. Redshift, in this context, can be used as a very good distance estimator because of the expansion of the universe. The more distant is a galaxy, the higher its APPARENT recession speed will be. That is why,over a certain distance (about 50 Mpc),you can use it as a distance measure.While light intensity also depends on many other factors
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane While I was discussing someone who claimed more to the Hubble Constant than it deserved, the Hubble Constant is used as evidence of the Big Bang (that thing the famous Stephen Hawking wrote about that I read in his book). If there is no Big Bang, then all we ever measured is the relative magnitude of speed compared to our own Galaxy and any meaning beyond that is wrong, with expected variations with our own orbital trajectory of solar and galactic (we should see oscillations).
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Yes,indeed we see oscillation,but very small since our speed is small compared to the speed of galaxies.And no, Hubble constant is NOT the proof of the BB.THere are many others: the relative abundances of Hydrogen and Helium, the spectrum of the microwave background, and among the others, the fact (which is measured) that the recession velocity of a galaxy correlates with its distance.How would you explain galaxies with speed higher than light?
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane I didn't claim proof, I said evidence; because Hubble predicted a linear equation to determine the age for the Universe: This was an early way of saying "Big Bang" somewhere at the origin. If we have no origin point, then the idea of the Big Bang is taught wrong, and we are looking at something else. One other explanation used by Carl Sagan, is the Hubble Constant is evidence that the Universe is expanding, like a small arc on a surface of a balloon (little other information).
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF This is no evidence.And the hubble law is linear just up to relatively short distances. And again Hubble constant is not a proof, but a consequence.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane Hubble's observation came up, that we get a linear expansion, and it has been used to predict the age of the Universe. If the center of the Big Bang is not local withing a few billion years, all that was ever measured is the correlation with distance and speed over time--they are proportional.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@supergiuovane Speed of light is a constant, if we measure a speed greater than light-speed, your equipment need a recalibration and a posted expected error rate. This is why Albert Einstein expected equations from professional physics people; because our imaginations are incomplete and biased (I had a hard time with it, because I thought in absolute terms, like reading literature thinking the words are absolute then meet the pun master, language is also relative in its descriptions and usage).
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Again, no. You do not need any recalibration. Receding speeds greater than that of light are observed in very distant galaxies. This is a direct consequence of the expansion of the universe. In fact, it is not that their own speed is larger that that of light, it is the whole space that is expanding.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane If you are a physics profession, you are fraud. The constant of light-speed is used in everyday applications, 24-hours each day; it is so proven that anyone who ignores it in science is foolish. You come up with something faster, then your Nobel Prize is a competent report away with independent verification; but you are not looking at the speed-of-light. You misunderstand the time effect so much, that you didn't even read the popularization of science by Carl Sagan.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@supergiuovane If you find something faster than the speed of light, then you get to be recognized, but you have to allow the People of the World independently demonstrate it in their own laboratories. My chosen word for something fastest is "Plaid," nothing goes faster than Plaid--from the comedy movie Spaceballs. Find Plaid and get the Nobel Prize.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Look, I am not claiming anything. Astrophysicists and physicists have found loads of such galaxies (In the hubble deep field, for example), to explain this, but not only this, the big bang is the only consistent explanation, currently. As I said,apparent super-luminal motion of galaxies are not the only evidence for the BB.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane Anyway, the Big Bang falls when you claim there is not start, no center; and our tiny visible Universe is awe inspiring; we are making many assumptions, and no witnessing, in things that might be unprovable and forever be described as hypothesis with a fancy name. A field of galaxies in a dark spot of our sky by the Hubble, showing galaxies behind galaxies by the lens effect. There is much more to know, before we get definite answer; but teach the Big Bang, you have a center.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@supergiuovane The speed of light thing has fascinated the Public. Two rockets going toward each other, each near the speed of light, with each emitting a headlight beam; they would only see the time shift and hard radiation, but still only receive the light energy at light-speed. Two rockets moving away from each other, each near light-speed, each emitting a tail lamp beam; they would only see the time shift and a very low frequency wave, but still receive it at the speed of light.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF I know special relativity. Actually Einstein's equation of general relativity are those that have been used to study and explain the expansion of the universe (you can have a look at the Einstein-de Sitter cosmology model). Everything is in the fact that you need a frame to perform measurements. If this frame is expanding, you need to take this into account.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane Einstein never explained the expansion, he put in a constant, and it is based upon assumption, and it is one of the most mysterious things; because nobody knows what it really means. All of that hidden mass of the Universe is important, because the mathematics shows that we might be in a Black Hole ourselves; since in great enough mass even light will curve back in, and we are facing a big crunch for our ultimate end.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@supergiuovane I have been attempting to understand your answer of correlation of velocity and distance. Distance is proportional to velocity that is speed and direction (we only can measure the relative magnitude of speed): Correlation and not cause. Any non-conformity would indicate a trajectory change by some external intervention. This is how a black hole was found in the center of our galaxy, trajectory changes of something big enough to be a star, but invisible to instrument detection.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Correlation between distance and receding speed is a consequence of the expansion of the universe, and ONLY of that. It cannot be applied to anything else.If space is expanding, points (in our case galaxies) will (apparently) move away each one from each other.Every point will see the others moving away.Draw this picture on a paper.You'll find that the largest the distance,the higher its apparent speed will be. It is basic cosmology
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane Who knows, the correlation is not cause; and nobody witnessed any of the claimed events, people are so horrible at guessing, the math of that says less then 1% chance when you have less than perfect information (insignificant in our guessing, and too many partial answers); we might be looking at our fragment of the Universe: In my lifetime, the Universe mysteriously got bigger, with each new telescope. The upshot is we can describe our visible Universe, it is often moving away.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Correlation is not cause by default, of course, but when you are able to understand and predict physical properties this means you are at least in the right way. Now, you understand that there is no sense in saying that redshift has no meaning..
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane Looking back on the messages, is this an intelligence test? The topic of this video blog is the Hubble Constant, and it has been used as evidence of the Big Bang; but the story comes out that there is no Universe center: Philosophy thinking this is correct, because there is no outside, like describing your address when there is no outdoors; but in science, if the teaching is a Big Bang, then we do have a beginning and central start. By the way, nothing goes faster than light.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Of course nothing goes faster than light (well, actually.. nothing until this is proved to be wrong..). But, again, when you measure something, you put yourself and the object of your measurement, in a frame, and your measurements depends on that frame. Again: the hubble constant itself, cannot be used as an evidence for the big bang. The expansion of the universe, of which the HC is one (and just one) expression, is one (and just one) of the evidence for a BB.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane You said, "How would you explain galaxies with speed higher than light?" Why I asked, is this an intelligence test? Really bizarre for something so well known, that we even have laser thermometers by pointing at a hot pot and knowing its digital readout temperature: Light-speed is well known, and, then, your choice of words is strange. You now claim no Big Bang; physics is like a house of cards, you remove the fundamentals, then the conclusions fall. Explain your words.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF
still pretending to yourself your iq is above 4?
ranting like a retard with misinformation is nothing more than you being a retard.
do you understand?
sykeo123 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Again: as I said already too many times, this is an "apparent" superluminal motion,due to the fact that the frame itself is expanding. It is NOT at rest.There is no physicist or astronomer going against the speed of light limit.But this is something DIFFERENT,completely consistent with general relativity.I never claimed no BB, btw.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane You realize the Red Shift of a galaxy traveling away from us in an opposite direction--while near the speed of light--would be so low, that it would be entertaining to radio astronomy. I seriously doubt they have the means to recognize one at this time, or it would be the Next Big Thing in such fields that it takes decades to prove anything due to the distances involved: To show the black hole at the center of our galaxy took 10-years to measure the star movement.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF No.Completely wrong.Redshift is proportional to speed.A galaxy **intrinsic** motion can be up to 1000/1500 km/s (in cluster galaxies for example).Do the calculation your own:this would turn into a 0.005 redshift.Such redshift are VERY easy to measure from spectra.If redshift is "cosmological",that is arising from the expansion effect, it is NORMAL to measure redshift of 1 and above,meaning recession speed higher than c.But this speed is NOT intrinsic,but just and effect of expansion
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane I didn't discover the Hubble Constant, the evidence and statements to the public are beyond anything ever said here. I believe this conversation is over. The observations made by the Hubble Constant has been used for evidence in other things, including the Big Bang, age of the Universe, expansion of the Universe, and the most simple is most galaxies are moving away from us--but look at Andromeda (our nearest). In short, moving away seen as expansion, sic.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Again,and again:the HC is just derived from observation.It's a consequence,NOT a proof.It is a proxy for the age of the universe and to measure the distance of galaxies,but just as a consequence. Andromeda?I see that you did not get the whole point:M31 is not the only galaxy approaching us.In very short distance scale you do not detect the effect of the universe expansion.That is the whole point:the larger the scale,the largest the effect (again:see Einstein-de Sitter theory)
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane My science specialization is in mathematics, and I am very serious about data. This is a broad topic, and if you really intend to sterilize it, then you never entered the topic. There are many broad claims, and on the surface of data is we cannot really say anything about it, except its identity; change one thing, its identity is gone and it has a new identity (way beyond the public perception). On the surface, we measured a red shift; but we do have public conclusions.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF If redshift was the only evidence, I would agree with you that a number of other explanations could be given. As I was telling you before, it is not the only one, but it perfectly and logically matches with the overall BB picture. As all theories, we are waiting for a counter-example or for a deviation from the predicted behaviour, and by the moment we don't have such a counter-evidence,just other evidences pointing to this direction.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane You said, "As all theories, we are waiting for a counter-example or for a deviation from the predicted behaviour, and by the moment we don't have such a counter-evidence,just other evidences pointing to this direction." That is a hypothesis problem, Science can be slow, Socrates over 2000-years ago claimed the Sun is a type of stone, and that hypothesis stood until the 20th century with fusion. Still looking for counter-evidence and better understanding.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Hypothesis problem? There is no problem, just a series of observations and a theory that was build up trying to explain all of them. You want proofs that the sun is not a stone?
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane Finally the abuse of evidence and proof. Evidence is not proof; and proof means "test" at its root, it was tested. This is deduction, from the points of evidence, then we find our conclusion that is tested. Many people practice induction, but that is fraud outside of the limited, fully-known, math sets; it is why some famous math statements never enter truth as induction proved them, and there might be a wrong case (we test every case when used on computers for number range).
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Ok, I agree with that. A theory is just e tentative explanation of reality, and it holds until some other better explanation comes out. BB, is the best explanation we have at the present time to explain what we see.
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane A hypothesis is an unproven claim, it becomes a theory when it has acceptance by the peers of the science community; and fact requires independent verification and absolute proof within its domain by its own standards; standards are the hard part, because any induction becomes hard, not impossible (hard is a science word that the ability to know can be beyond our means to verify it, even though it seems to work). All knowledge is by definition and standards.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Ok. Perfect. BB is the theory currently accepted by the astrophysical community, and so is the cosmological origin of redshift (including those implying recession speed higher than light). Only Halton Arp is the only one that still claims a different explanation
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane Not sure what you want? The words we are dealing with are hypothesis, theory, fact, synthesis, analysis, deduction, induction, standards, definition, and hard. There is more to be said, but we look at a fragment of the sky in the darkest region with the Hubble, and find a field of galaxies, we conclude then in synthesis that there are many more galaxies--look again and test it. The Hubble Constant has many implications as we observed the sky to find it.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Do you know what these implications are?
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane Two more words analysis and synthesis. Analysis is breaking down the topic, top to down review: in college this is philosophy, literature, social sciences, a view of everything from the top and then draw conclusions. We see the hard sciences in synthesis, that is taking the fragments and forming conclusions: Science is in the details, we take those bits and put them together for a bottom to top review. Using the Hubble observations to conclude a Big Bang is synthesis.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF But BB is not (again...) coming from just these observations, but from many more...
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane Priming is a psychology word that uses how we organize information; it is used by magicians that can change the stage colors four-times, including their clothes, without you noticing by getting your mind to focus on something, such as a card trick: The priming is telling the audience it is a card trick, and they are looking for how it is done, but the trick is changing all stage colors. You want other things, and primed it different. Hubble observations are evidence.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF I don't see the connection. I Have tried to explain you the meaning of redshift. I have told you that astronomers and physicists commonly accept the cosmological origin of redshift (according to your own words you should be fine with scientific community accepting this picture), I have tried to explain that redshift is not the only observable by which BB was hypothesized. On the other hand you say you don't know much about astronomy.Maybe you should read a bit..
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane I understand now, you wanted credit.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF Credit for what? Listen: you admit that you don't know about astronomy, ok. You say that redshift makes no sense, but have you tried to verify why astronomers do use such measurements to calculate distances? Did you know that redshift is actually used INSTEAD of distances? My only point is: why discuss/argue about things without knowing their context?
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane I read your remark about aviation not being astronomy, that is is correct; what I was discussing was technology. The underpinnings of science are true everywhere. In my military history studies, I got to see some British science thinking (early 20th century, my reference was a WWI general), and they actually had to teach that what is true in physics in Britain is also true in Africa (reliable artillery); means physics is universal. The Doppler Effect is everywhere.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF It is. But doppler effect for light, is more complicated. It has a relativistic form which in normal condition (from the general relativity point of view) is the one that everybody knows. On our very small scales, we don't experience any universe's expansion, since the effect is far too small. Any book about general relativity will explain this...
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane You never graduated science that I ever knew. You separated light from the rest of it; what makes light special is that is the frequencies we use to see everything, and we assign values by our perception and separate the rest of it. It is all one electromagnetic spectrum, and light is a small set of frequencies our human eyes perceive. Using infrared filters, you can false color shift it and discover our clothes are transparent in the infrared, the physics is the same.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago
@WOWJBEOWULF I have a degree in science. Do you know how redshifts (or blueshift, when it is the case) are measured?Mainly by spectral lines, from gas. Ultraviolet,Optical, infrared, radio. Please, google "astro-ph".Today there are 2 papers in which title the word "redshift" is used with the same meaning of "distance".
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@supergiuovane Why are we having a disagreement that there is a shift in observed frequencies, and galaxy observations you use the spectrum lines as everything of the electromagnetic spectrum is frequency shifted? If you don't want to understand it, that is your personal agenda; and the credit for such things are so obvious in our modern science. This is a video blog, and science discussion is obviously into what we believe about it, being so limited in blog response scope of things.
WOWJBEOWULF 1 year ago