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

If there was a big bang... do you think everyone stood well back?

PaulJ, no of course not, that explains why we did not hear anything from God since.....

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

Hey there Danny and Elsewhere, don't stop now. I'm quite enjoying your back and forth tete-a-tete.

Have to sleep sometimes, we ahave some time difference :)

I was not successful in identifying the points of light surrounding the primary object, and therefore could not comment on their respective distances either. I looked at literally dozens of sites to find such info and nothing shed any light on this. Perhaps you could enlighten me and the rest of us.

Because we are in our galaxy with lots of stars in each direction that you look you will find stars (not in each direction a equal amounth by the way) So the points of light are very probably all stars. Maybe one or two could be other galaxies, but they have a more fuzzy form. It is easy to examine if it is a star when you use a spectroscope. You can see what the star is made of and the temperature of the star. A spectroscopic analysis can always show if it is a single star or a whole galaxy of stars. You do not need the redshift for this.
See my picture of the Andromeda. There are two satelite galaxies, but it is clearly that they differ from the stars. Stars are more pointlike.

Danny, if you look to Velocity (Redshift) as an explanation, are you suggesting that if a quasar appears to be in front of a galaxy (nearer), and the galaxy has a lesser redshift, that therefore it is because the galaxy is travelling at a lesser velocity away from us, and so we get this lower reading? And therefore, the implication is that the quasar could still be farther away?? Please clarify what you are suggesting.

I do not really suggest this, as I do not think it is very likely.
First of all, from this and some other examples it seems that there is a connection between some quasars and some normal galaxies. There is also some support of this in observations made in radio wavelengths.
So this quasar is not in front or closer by then the galaxy, it is near the galaxy, and has about the same distance. So probably at least a few others.
Anyway, we have to ask if the red shift of the quasar is so high, and it is closer than expected, then what other process gives the quasar the red shift.
A possibilty is that it is moving away from us. Red shift is speed, this can be speed due to expansion of the universe or actual speed of the object. So if this object is moving for some reason at half the speed of light away from us, it would give this result in observation.
However I can not see any reason why this object whould travel so fast. So I don't think this is a good explanation, but it is a possible one however.
The second thing is that red shift can also be caused by gravitational pull. If this quasar is a very compact heavy object, its radiation would have a redshift even if it is not moving. So this could explain it.
There can maybe also be another process at atomic scale, causing a red shift.

Does this invalidate the relation between red shift and distance. No, not at all. This relation is shown to exists. It proves that there are maybe other factors, specially in quasars that have to be included in this relation. It can also mean that some or maybe all quasars are not as far as we though.

An anology: There is probably a relation betwen the temperature of the tires of a car, and the speed of the car. (in equal conditions, same kind of cars etc). Supose you have a formula for this (probably a notr very simple one) and it allows you to calculate or estimate the speed my measuring the temperature.
Now we see a motorbike come along and messure that the speed by the temperature of the tires. But this motorbike is traveling alongside a car, and we estimated of course a very different speed. The motor is lighter, different tires etc.
So what is our conclusion now: Cars do actually not move (there was no big bang) or the relation seem to be more complex and in case of cars it works out find, but in case for a motorbike we need to add some things?

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

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