Posts by DannyBloem

95

Questioning the Big Bang Theory

by Rod P in

but halton arp's continuing research will forever change the direction of astronomy.

or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible?

gamow had argued that the stars' temperatures are too low to create elements heavier than helium.

DannyBloem

Elsewhere,

Ok, I'll get to my point.
Until Hubble discovered the relationship between the distance of an object and its red shift, people thought these "galaxies" were actually nebulas and were within our own galaxy and that there was nothing beyond our own galaxy. In fact the word "nebula" was originally used to describe these mysterious objects. It was not until later that the word nebula was used to describe the remnants of an exploded star.

Correct. At first they had of course no notion of how our own galxy looked like, or in fact that there were galaxis at all.

Unless you can measure how far away an object is, you cannot determine how large it is. The further away an object is the smaller it appears, however there are some small objects near by, so we need a more reliable way of measuring distance.

There are some cases where the size of a object can be measured without knowing the distance. For example in some real nebulas, we can observe the expansion rate (take picture now, and 20 years later), and we can also see know the speed of the expansion by spectroscopy. So the real size is known first. The distance follows then from the visible size.

There are basically two ways to measure long distances:
Cepheid Variable stars
The Red Shift

There are more ways. See my post above.

Cepheid Variable stars are a special kind of star in that their hydrogen fuel has run out and they have begun to flicker from bright to dim over a few days. The bright phase is always twice as bright as their dim phase. This is a well known and proven fact. With this information one can measure how far away a Cepheid Variable is by how bright and dim the cycle comparison is. This technique is reliable up to 20 million light years.

yes, you have to be able to view individual Cepheid stars, hence the limit in distance.

There are quite a few galaxies that are within 20 million light years from earth (The nearest is Andromeda at only 2.2 million light years) and we know this because we can observe the Cepheid Variable stars within them and accurately measure their distance.
What is interesting is that we can also measure the red shift, and guess what? The red shift gives us a distance that is essentially the same as the distance calculated with the Cepheid Variables. This is how we can confirm that the red shift gives us an accurate measurement for distance.

yes correct. However the is a constant between red shift and distance, called the hubble constant. This constant was unknown, so the Cepheid stars were used to calculate this constant. But the relation between distance and red-shift was constant, and that was a good confirmation.

Danny

95

Questioning the Big Bang Theory

by Rod P in

but halton arp's continuing research will forever change the direction of astronomy.

or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible?

gamow had argued that the stars' temperatures are too low to create elements heavier than helium.

DannyBloem

I first want to explain a bit more about the distance calculations in the universe. Then I will respond to some of the post above.

Anyway there are more then only the cepheid variable stars.

We do know the distances in our solar system very well. We know the mass, distance, rotation time etc. (we can send space crafts exactly)

This is a base for measuring stars that are not to far away. We can observe the paralax of the star when the earth in on one side of the sun, and then the other. (for example on jan and july). With simple math we can then calculate the distance.
There was also a satellite who did this more accurately and messured 1 million stars.

When you know the distance, you know the absolute brightness. This helped to classify the stars in groups, because we can also messure the temperature of the star directly.
It turned out there is a relation between temperature and brightness. The Hertzsprung russell diagram. Stars are placed in different catagories, OBAFGKM (we could easy remember this with the line "O Be A Fine Girl Kiss Me").

My measuring the temperature we can thus also estimate the distance.

Then there were the variable stars. The already mentioned Cepheid stars. But also the LL Lyrae stars.

There are other methods which can be used only in certain cases but they can all be used to check and calibrate the distances.
For example the Baade Wesseling Method. having to do with color and light flux curves.
With spectroscopy we can not only find the temperature and chemical composition of a star but we can also say something about the gravity at the stars surface. This can also be used to calculate the distance.
There are binary stars, for some we can calculate the orbit and compare it to the visual orbit, and so calculate the distance.
Then we can know the motion of certain stars, and can fit that with there position in the milky way, as all stars radial motion, circling around teh center.
There are some additional methods also for calculating distances to nebulas etc.

So we know the distances in our galaxy reasonably well. Now other galaxies:

We have the following methods:

We can find LL Lyrae stars and Cypheid stars in other galaxies, and thus calculate the distance. (only closer galaxies)
There seems to be a limit to the size of a star, so to find the brighests stars in a galaxy we can estimate its distance.
There are supernova that have a predictable absolute brightness. Called type 1a supernova. We can measure the brightness and thus estimate the distance. (they are events, so you have to be lucky)

We can measure the rotation of a galaxy, (by spectroscopy). There is a relation between rotation and luminosity.

Then there is a gravitational lens time delay. Consider a massive invisible object in path of sight of a farther brighter object. The light will bend around the object, giving multiple images of the object. It will take the light longer on different paths. In some cases the time delay can be measured and thus the distance calculated. (I have personally done some research on gravitational lenses, but not time delay).

Oh yeah, and then there is the red-shift.

There are still more methods. So it is not just one. Some are not very accurate, but all give indication that things are not totally wrong.

Hope this helps, to understand the issue is a bit more complex then assumed in the articles of the original post.

Danny

9

Piercings and tattoos...

by hannahpowell in

jw
friends

hello i am a 15 year old.

i used to be a jehovah's witness growing up but left the meetings a few years ago.

now i'm keen to go back with my parents but i'd like to know what jehovah's witnesses think of piercings and tattoos.

DannyBloem

You can get away with a belly button piercing (some sisters have). But that is here, maybe in USA not.

But do not expect them to let you be baptized with several face piercings.
A lot of brothers have tattoo's, when they got them before they found the 'truth'. Once you have them they can hardly say anything about it.

As long as you are not baptized and play a person who is interested, they will let you. They can not say that much. But if you want more (fieldservice, God forbid, or TS) then they will nt let you probably.

By the way, why do you want to come back?

Danny

95

Questioning the Big Bang Theory

by Rod P in

but halton arp's continuing research will forever change the direction of astronomy.

or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible?

gamow had argued that the stars' temperatures are too low to create elements heavier than helium.

DannyBloem

How do you know this? When I look at the image of the object it appears to be a swirling cloud of gas. Maybe there is a very massive object in the middle that has captured these gasses and is making them glow because of the friction.
What makes you think that object has thousands of stars? All I see is a fuzzy organized cloud shaped like a swirl.

How do you know it is outside our own galaxy? For all we know it is only 5000 light years away (a short distance compared to the 100,000 light year diameter of our galaxy)

It is not a strange question actually. It was long not understood. One of the first signs were that the galaxies were found equally in all directions. THe nebulas were found mostly in the direction of the disk of our own galaxy. So in the area of the visible band the milkey way at the sky.

When a star becomes a supernova it increases brightness by a huge factor. It is found in the other galaxies also. They are recognicable because of the time it takes to become bright, a spectral analysis etc. This sugegsted a far creater distance.

It was first discovered with stars called Cepheid variable stars. We can see some individual stars is closeby galaxies. These cepheid stars are very bright individual stars who have some variable brightness period. We have found them in our own galaxy and in other galaxies. They seem to be all about equally bright in our own galaxy, so it can be interpolated to other galaxies. The brightness is of course a messure of the distance, how more far, how less bright it appears. When you have an indication of how bright the star should be, you can estimate its distance.

The result is that the galaxy in the picture above is about 2 milion lightyears away. It is considered the object that is most far that is still visible with human eye alone.
p.s. It must have been quite a shock for creationistm because 2 million lightyears away, means of course two million years old.

Danny

(Again, I'm not being a smart ass... this is going somewhere)

97

Was Jesus Created?

by 9thWonder in

was jesus created?

this question came out of a discussion i was having with a preacher of a no-denominational church.

he was trying to convince me of the truth of the trinity doctrine.

DannyBloem

leolaia,

I see lots of texts but what is the answer. Yes or No?

if yes: jezus is not the same as god, who had no beginning.

if no: jezus is not influenced by time and could not have been dead.

Danny

2

125 big scientific questions - great read

by cyborg in

jw
friends

DannyBloem

Very interest Cyborg.

Which of those 125 questions would you like to see solved? And which questions do you think are more likely to become solved first?

Danny

95

Questioning the Big Bang Theory

by Rod P in

but halton arp's continuing research will forever change the direction of astronomy.

or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible?

gamow had argued that the stars' temperatures are too low to create elements heavier than helium.

DannyBloem

When I look at the image it looks like a nebula, only more organized. I would guess that it is just a very organized nebula that is relatively close to the earth.
I'm sorry, but I am confused. What do you mean by "galaxy"? I don't understand what that is. (No, I'm not being a smart-ass... seriously, what is a galaxy and how do you know that the object in the image is a "galaxy"?)

Allright, There is a difference made between nebulas are galaxy's.
Galaxy is a huge group of stars, that is outside out own galaxy the milky way. (galaxy of stars).
A nebula is made of gas and is inside our own milky way. (in other galaxies we can not see them, they are not very bright). There are different types of galaxy's, the most common have spiral arms, like our own galaxy the milky way. You can recognice them on the distance (yes redshift and other methods). With a nebula you see the dust, with a galaxy you just see many starts close together, that it looks like dust. Here a pic of a galaxy and a nebula:

95

Questioning the Big Bang Theory

by Rod P in

but halton arp's continuing research will forever change the direction of astronomy.

or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible?

gamow had argued that the stars' temperatures are too low to create elements heavier than helium.

DannyBloem

elsewhere,

It is NGC4565, I think.

The surrounding objects are probably stars of our own galaxy. I do not know if this galaxy has any satelite galaxies like andromeda,

I get your point here,
But in return I would like to ask you, to make a list of known QSO's, then to give the appearent distance (in arcseconds) to the closest normal galaxy. Then to to the same with random points. Then calculate the chance that the QSO's are so close to normal galaxies.

I do not indicate here that this is a prove against the big bang.

The article says basically this:

there is a problem with the redshift of this quasar. This there is a problem with all red shifts of quasars. Thus there is a problem with all redshifts also those of normal galaxies. There is a problem with the red shift so the universe is not expanding. Not expaning no big bang.

See the faults in this reasoning?

Danny

95

Questioning the Big Bang Theory

by Rod P in

but halton arp's continuing research will forever change the direction of astronomy.

or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible?

gamow had argued that the stars' temperatures are too low to create elements heavier than helium.

DannyBloem

1) How can you say that there is no evidence that the quasar is in front of the galaxy? As I told Elsewhere, these astronomers have access to some of the best astronomical instruments in the world, and are right there with the original photographs.They and their fellow astronomers are the ones who get to examine these things "up close and personal". When they point out the physical observation that a certain quasar is in front of a certain galaxy, then I do not think they would make such a public statement lightly, or without compelling evidence. I also don't think their fellow astronomers are disputing their observations, but that the debate is over their interpretation of the meaning of the Redshift measurements. Since most scientists accept the Big Bang theory as the "truth", and one of the pillars of that theory is Redshift = Distance (and Velocity), therefore these "maverick" astronomers must be interpreting the data wrongly when they observe a quasar in front of a galaxy, with the quasar having a much higher Redshift than that of the Galaxy.

So then, you go on to say that "Most probable it is inside it." Well, that's fine, but then I think you must now provide some basis for stating that as an alternative. For example, can you find somewhere some statement or testimony by an astronomer who supports that idea as an alternative to the observation of these astronomers that the quasar IS in front of the galaxy? That, IMO, would be much more useful than "this article is trying to make things more sexy as they are."

This in front of or inside is actually not important at all for their case. Both give a problem with the red shift. I do not say it is probably behind it. I was objecting to the word 'in front' here. It sounds as it is maybe half way between here and the galaxy. It is much more reasonable to conclude it is related to this galaxy and interacts with this galaxy, then to say in front of it.
Maybe you say it is just a matter of words. Maybe, but it sounds they want to make it better then in actually is.
I gave a link to two acticles about this galaxy. They both place it at the same distance.
Who has written this article, I guess not the astromers that discovered this red shift of this QSO. (have to look into it, I do not know the backgroud of the people who wrote it).

2) When it comes to the statement "This proves the big bang theory to be wrong", I wish to put things into better context here, since you feel that this kind of logic does not give much credit to the authors, and, as well, you feel that they have oversimplified things, which is not very scientific.
The article came from a website known as "Thunderbolts, which traces back to www.rense.com, which appears to me to be the main site. Amy Acheson, as Managing Editor for "Thunderbolts", seems to be leading the charge here, as she opened this up with the lead article "Big Bang Broken and Can't Be Fixed". From here, the article provides the six links which are included above. The first link "Quasar in Front of Galaxy" is an article I believe was penned by Amy, not the scientist-astronomers themselves. Within that link they feature a book entitled "Seeing Red" by Halton Arp. I believe that the six astronomers who wrote the paper on their discovery of the galaxy NGC 7319 with the associated quasar being in front of said galaxy, was written up in Halton Arp's book. Therefore, the article/link by Amy Acheson is giving her editorial opinion that "This proves the big bang theory to be wrong". She has based this opinion on the content of the Halton Arp book. Therefore, I would not be in too much haste to blame the astronomers for the statement(s) Amy Acheson makes. At the same time, IF what these astronomers and Halton Arp are saying is true, then Big Bang must be wrong, based on the evidence that contradicts it. Therefore, I can understand why Amy Acheson would say what she does, even though it is less than scientific.
But I do take your point, that such a statement is not scientific. At the same time, I do not discount or discredit the scientists for the reasons above.

So, didn't I. I did not discredit the scientists here. Just made an observation about what they said.

3) "It could be very well possible that for some other reason this quasar has a huge redshift, and yet the big bang theory is still true. Their quick conclusion is so invalid." Here again, Danny, I don't see how it is even logically possible that you can have a Quasar in front of a Galaxy, and at the same time the Quasar have a Redshift much greater than the Galaxy. According to Big Bang theory, RedShift = Distance (and Velocity).
Therefore this means or implies that the Quasar HAS TO BE much farther away than the Galaxy. Yet, here it is in front ot the Galaxy. To prove the position of Halton Arp and his colleagues wrong, we have to establish that their observational data is wrong. We have to prove that the Quasar is definitely NOT in front of the Galaxy. It is not enough just to say "No, they are wrong." Even if we go along with what you state, namely that the Quasar might not be in front of the galaxy, but may be inside the galaxy, interacting with the galaxy, this still can't work. The difference in the Redshifts under Big Bang theory MEANS that the Quasar has to be BILLONS of light years further away from us than the Galaxy is. Observation is saying that that is simply not the case here.

What I say here is that their reeasoning is wrong. There can be other reasons why in the case of Quasars in general there is another patern of red-shifts. One reason can be a velocity not as a result of the expanding universe, but that for some other reason this object is moving from us at a fast speed. (I do not think this is likely, but it is a possibility). Red shift can be the result of gravitational influences.
So we could have an expanding universe with galaxies moving away from us with a red shift found in those galaxies, and also some quasars that have another reason for this red shift.
This is a very real possibility, and this is what objects me the most to this article. They make conclusions that are not valid. The miss out a lot of possibilities and directly conclude that there was not a big bang. I think that very wrong, and unscientific.

Therefore, if the Quasar and the Galaxy are much closer together than heretofore thought, then the RedShift readings must mean something OTHER THAN Redshift = Distance (and Velocity). By extension of logic, then, this is not an expanding universe, which is a theory that absolutely depends on the Redshift premise of the Big Bang theory.

This does not have to be so.

It is proven that velocity causes a red shift (or blue shift). So when we measure galaxies redshift it is very possible that this is caused by velocity. Different methods of determing the distance confirm this, and there seems to be a good relation between velocity (red shift) and distance in galaxies that are not extremly far.
So my guess is the universe is expanding, but another process causes quasars to have a additional red shift.

For the closest galaxies it is a different story because they have a small velocity of their own. But at 'close' distances this is more then the expandding universe velocity. So (if I rememebr correctly) for example the andromeda galaxy has a blue shift.

Danny

Rod P.

42

Was there something you could not explain on the doors?

by badboy in

jw
friends

.

i heard from someone that they asked about the bible and dinosauros,the jw didn't believe and talked about whales in reply!.

was there something you couldn't explain on the doors?

DannyBloem

the theory of relativity Oh, that would be a easy one. Somebody wanted to study the Revelation book with me. I did, but of course I could hardly explain all those things in it, to a very sincere and intelligent person. Danny