DannyBloem

Joined

• started 78 topics
• posted 1,398 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by DannyBloem

• 
  14

  Should an Elder be involved in any of the following????

  by pr_capone in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am asking for a simple opinion here.

  according to the latest jw "laws", should and active witness, much less one serving as an elder, do any work for military institutions such as the air force, navy, and u.s. army?

  i submit the following link http://besappraisals.com/john.html (please copy and paste).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DannyBloem

  maybe from the time befor he found the troof?
• 
  18

  That Bloody Crazy Frog Song..

  by Englishman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  ..is driving me nuts!.

  revenge is here .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DannyBloem

  Wanted to do that for a long time.

  Well I shot your biggest export product

  Danny
• 
  19

  Ozzie's Weekend Poll #141

  by ozziepost in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  yep, we're up to number 141, not counting some mid-week polls (remember them?).

  so, how's the week been for you?

  progressed along the road to freedom?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DannyBloem

  There are not many unknown visitors,

  and I would think that they would not do something like it, because while sharing a bible with the person next to him/her he already starts to get his bible study.
  as sooma s you enter the KH, they don;t want to let you be just a unknown listener

  Danny
• 
  95

  Questioning the Big Bang Theory

  by Rod P in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DannyBloem

  Rod P,

  I did not read your article in your post yet, it is quite long, but I want to add something about the conclusions that Arp sketches first:

  I would harken back to the article by Halton Arp, with his rationale on red-shift, and then someone please show me where he is necessarily in ERROR:

  If the cause of these redshifts is misunderstood, then distances can be wrong by factors of 10 to 100, and luminosities and masses will be wrong by factors up to 10,000. We would have a totally erroneous picture of extragalactic space, and be faced with one of the most embarrassing boondoggles of our intellectual history.

  Because objects in motion in the laboratory, or orbiting double stars, or rotating galaxies all show Doppler redshifts to longer wavelengths when they are receding, it has been assumed throughout astronomy that redshifts always and only mean recession velocity. No direct verification of this assumption is possible, and through the years many contradictions have arisen and been ignored. The evidence presented here is, I hope, convincing because it offers many different proofs of intrinsic (non-velocity) redshifts in every category of celestial object.

  This really is the entirety of the theory on which our whole concept of cosmology has been rested for the last 75 years. It is interesting to note, however, that Hubble, the observer, even up to his final lecture before the Royal Society, always held open the possibility that the redshift did not mean velocity of recession but might be caused by something else.

  But of course, the stunning aspect of the ROSAT observations was that two quasars of redshift .63 and .45 are actually physically linked by a luminous connection to a low redshift object of z= .007. When I showed this to the local experts, there were alarmed states followed by annoyance.

  This result made it clear that the compact and interacting groups were just a more concentrated ensemble of young, non-equilibrium companion galaxies which had been ejected more recently from the parent galaxy, and were composed of material of higher redshift. Aside from being empirically true, this interpretation solves all the conventional paradoxes of the failure of the galaxies to merge into a single galaxy on a cosmic time scale, and also explains the unbearable presence of "discordant" redshifts.
  
  
  In later chapters we will show that galaxies and quasars tend to occur at certain preferred redshifts. This quantization implies that galaxies do not evolve with smoothly decreasing redshifts, but change in steps.
  
  
  One major point of the present book is to try to make it impossible to ignore the enormous amount of mutually supporting significant evidence which all points to the same conclusion.
  
  
  In the face of 28 years of accumulated evidence, to go on proclaiming that quasars are out at the edge of the universe seems unpardonable.

  Summary - Alignments, Quasars, BL Lac's and Galaxy Clusters

  1) Objects which appear young are aligned on either side of eruptive objects. This implies ejection of protogalaxies.
  
  
  2) The youngest objects appear to have the highest redshifts. This implies that intrinsic redshift decreases as the object ages.
  
  
  3) As distance from the ejecting central object increases, the quasars increase in brightness and decrease in redshift. This implies that the ejected objects evolve as they travel outward.
  
  
  4) At about z= .3 and about 400 kpc from that parent galaxy the quasars appear to become very bright in optical and X-ray luminosity. This implies there is a transition to BL Lac Objects.
  
  
  5) Few BL Lac objects are observed implying this phase is short-lived.
  
  
  6) Clusters of galaxies, many of which are strong X-ray sources, end to appear at comparable distances to the BL Lac's from the parent galaxy. This suggests the clusters may be a result of the breaking up of a BL Lac.
  
  
  7) Clusters of galaxies in the range z= .4 to .2 contain blue, active galaxies. It is implied that they continue to evolve to higher luminosity and lower redshift.
  
  
  8) Abell clusters from z= .01 to .2 lie along ejection lines from galaxies like CenA. Presumably they are evolved products of the ejections.
  
  
  9) The strings of galaxies which are aligned through the brightest nearby spirals have redshifts z= .01 to .02. Presumably they are the last evolutionary stage of the ejected protogalaxies before they become slightly higher redshift companions of the original ejecting galaxies. (p166-7)

  First of all, I do not like some of his usage of words. Normally I do not mind the words chosen or spelling errors, but consider for example this:

  and be faced with one of the most embarrassing boondoggles of our intellectual history.

  These are some strong words he used. Any why, is he not making things look worse then it actually is. Even if right ot wrong, those words just have the purpose of making the other party look bad. Just not very scientific, it is much better he used scientific arguments and not this kind of language to draw the public. But that is just my opinion.

  I agree that in the case of quasars only we should look at something differet to explain the red shifts found. Or at least in certain cases.
  It is hard for mee to say anyting about the conclusion as not the whole article here is present but:

  1) he implies that red shift is an identification of age, not of distance. Doe she suggest that for quasars only, or general?
  if that would be the case, why do we not see any redshift from things closeby? (objects in our own galaxy or closerby)?

  2) what causes the redshift? Does he give an alternative explanation?

  3) doe she have a better theory then the big bang?

  4) why the suggestion with age related red shift? What are the indicators that it is age related?

  Danny
• 
  95

  Questioning the Big Bang Theory

  by Rod P in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DannyBloem

  When you state "and has the same distance, I take it you mean "distance from us".

  yes of course, we are being egocentric here.

  I note that you have some doubts as to the RedShift = Speed being a good explanation.

  I have doubts, that in this case of the quasar, redshift = speed * H0 is not a good explanation.
  First of all, just to be clear. Speed -> red shift is proven. If there is speed, there will be red shift (or blue shift). I think everyone will agree on this.
  This does not automaticalay mean that red shift -> speed, of cause because it would be possible that there is another thing that can give red-shift.
  There are many galaxies that follow the red shift -> speed rule though (where you can messure red shift and distance independtly). So it is not something strage or totally invalid.

  I don't think this is a viable explanation either. If the quasar has a recessional velocity of at least 8X or 10X (or more) than that of the galaxy, heading out into deep space, how can it be interacting at all with the galaxy?

  Why not? Well it can, there is enough time to interact. Like a bullet pasing through a duck, you would say it interacted right?

  It is, instead, rapidly receding from the galaxy (as well as us), and long ago would have left it in the "cosmic dust" so to speak. Is it simply a mere coincidence that some twenty or so similar cases of quasars interacting with nearby galaxies have been discovered and observed?

  It is not totally impossible. Just a coincidence, but the question is more why it is moving at such a speed. That itself is very unlikely. But if there would be objects moving at the speed, it could be that we only see them when they interact. Like if there were bullets flying around you would only see the impacts.
  However I do not give it as very likely (but try to keep open the options, to let you think about it). The reasons why I think it is unlikely are: 1) why would theer be objects moving so fast, not logical.
  2) if there were, why are they all moving away from us? This last argument is a strong argument to indicate that in this case the red shift is not caused by speed.

  As for gravitational pull and possible nuclear processes, would you care to elaborate how either one of these would account for such a high red-shift (2.11)? These do not seem very plausible to me.

  When there is a heavy and small object, light comming from that object has a red shift. It loses energy gtting out of the gravitational pull. This has to do with the theory of genral relativity.
  I can imagine this is a valid explanation for this quasar. It is a very heavy object. It is bright because of interaction with matter in the galaxy. When light tries to leave it is red shifted because it is a small heavy object. Makes sense so far.
  It would need some calculations to see if this explanation holds or not. But as far as I can see now, it sounds possible.

  The problem with nuclear processes is that they work on small distances and can hardly provide answers here imo.

  Danny
• 
  95

  Questioning the Big Bang Theory

  by Rod P in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DannyBloem

  Danny,

  Okay, finally I am getting back to you.

  Ok.

  You did present a pretty good summation for the methods used to calculate the distances of stars that are not too far away (i.e. within our own Milky Way galaxy). However, I am not too sure how useful or applicable these methodologies are for galaxies and quasars that are very far away.

  A lot of the methods of distance calculations I mentioned are for other galaxies only, and are not applicable to our own galaxies. They are very usefull for other galaxies. Some methods are usefull for galxies close by (relatively) and others can be used on galaxies more far away.

  Similarly, for the Closer Galaxies, scientists may have produced some goo observational data using the techniques you outlined (say, for instance, up to 200 million light years away- and that is only my arbitrary assumption here). However, when the distances start to get very far, such as galaxies 300 million miles away, and quasars in the billions of light years away, I find the probability (indeed, certainty) for error, increasing exponentially. (Yes, I realize, they have to start somewhere, and I applaud that.)

  The variable star approach works to about that distance (I assume you eman light years not miles). The brightest star and some others work for objects much further, but also limited. The gravitational lense effect can work for objects very far.
  It is true, that the error increases with distance.
  In most scientific papers these errors are estimated and provided. In physisc in general in many cases error like 25% are acceptable.

  However, I note a lot of "tinkering around" with mathematical models and so-called "constants", manipulating space-time diagrams, producing a wide array of +/- uncertainty ranges and variances of orders of magnitude that I find quite disconcerting, given how vociferous they are about expecting us to "hang our hats" on the big bang theory and none else. It reminds me of Cinderella's wicked step-sisters who were trying on the glass slipper, and one of them said "Well, I'll just MAKE it fit!"

  I am sorry I do not agree with you there. You need a theory to explain the observations. This theory can require constants that have to be observed indirectly with observations. That is not tinkering around, that is finding a good theory that supports observations.

  That, to my mind, is not dissimilar to the situation where the scientists utilize a number of methods and multi-disciplinarian approaches to verifiying the big bang. But when one set of variables does not quite fit with other sets of variables, then they jigger the results of the different sets (of course, within the uncertainty ranges and tolerances) in order to make things "fit better". And I don't mind the exercise in playing with "educated guesses" and "what if" scenarios- in fact, I see that as a necessary exercise in the final analysis. What disturbs me is, that in the face of this, they still present the "big bang" as a kind of Holy Grail", and nothing else is possible. It is more about "attitude" than anything else, that bothers me.

  The big Bang theory is very much an open theory. It is far from complete. Adaptions and modifications are needed and will come in the future. I do not think it is presented as a holy grail.
  What we observe now is that the universe is expanding, there is enough proof for that IMO. This means that before it was smaller, and at a certain moment was very small. This can be a singularity or a small area, there are lots of possibilitie shere. Some more plausable and some fit the theory better.

  Now, on the other hand, proponents of teh bib bang theory do acknowledge:

  1) Observational data from many serouces support, or are consistent with, BOTH the big bang and the "steady state" theories of the universe

  Some observations are consistent with both, some observations are not consistent with the stady state also. The bing bang theory can explain ore of the observations then the stady state theory.

  2) None of these prove the big bang (or the "steady state" or other models).

  Prove is a difficult word. How do you prove anything, if you can't copy it.
  But in case of the big bang theory I do not think many astronomers will say that it is a proven fact or so.

  It is just that they are convinced that, taken together, the observations show that, in their opinion, Big Bang is the best current model for the universe, or that more observations support Big Bang than Steady State. And therein lies the basis for continued debate, wich, of course, will inevitably carry on.

  Yes, that sums it up. The BB is the best current model and fits to more observations then other theories.

  Now, respecting your comments on the connections between some quasars and normal galaxies:

  Come back to that.
• 
  20

  What are you doing tonight?

  by damselfly in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  i'm going to be here...... http://www.valleydrivein.com/index.asp.

  damselfly.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DannyBloem

  not in the theator silly!!!

  Then why you would bring your car? Never mind probably another american thing.....
  Sorry this post is later then my last post so here is some paradox.....
• 
  49

  If you're vegetarian...look away..

  by MidwichCuckoo in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  what's the strangest or most exotic food you've ever 'experienced'?.

  for me, i suppose, it was badly cooked (i cooked it myself, say no more) crocodile....i'd like to try swan, and if i can find a loophole in the law, i will.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DannyBloem

  That would probably be some monkey the indians shoot out of a tree in the amazon jungle. Didn't like it that much.

  Snake however tastes very good. Like chicken.

  For the vegiterians: The durian fruit is also quite exotic, especially if you can stand the smell long enough to taste it...

  Danny
• 
  20

  What are you doing tonight?

  by damselfly in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  i'm going to be here...... http://www.valleydrivein.com/index.asp.

  damselfly.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DannyBloem

  well since drive inss do no exists here,

  and fornication inside a normal cinema is a bit awkward, ritchie,

  I stayed home and did drink a bottle of german wine.

  Now I feel sleepy so this will be my last post it is past midnight...
• 
  44

  World War III - Has It Started?

  by truthseeker in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the enemy is invisible.

  there are no rules.

  they wear no uniform.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DannyBloem

  We can only wonder: Is what is happening today fulfilling Bible prophecy, or is there another sinister reason for all this bloodshed. Can it really be said that what is happening today is a World War? It could be. After all, the respective leaders of many countries are speaking about the "global war on terror."

  People always seem to think that our time is so special, and that what happened today is a majour disaster one of the worst in history bla bla bla. It is hard to see yourself and the world at a single moment from the right distance. (from the right perspective).