Some questions for better understanding of Main Stream Cosmology

Well, I heard a casual rumor, from a friend at U.C. Berkley who has a close association with the South Pole Telescope (SPT) who feels like the data they have lends itself to the same conclusions that the BICEP2 team found. They are staying out of the fray and not publishing on it as matter of courtesy to the Planck team's upcoming announcement of their data as applied to the so-called "dust problem". Which in my opinion is not the problem people believe/pretend to believe it is. The entire issue is focused on just one method out of six used to make the so-called "subtractions/adjustments for dust" contained the original Planck project work. You might check the South Pole Telescope website to see if they have made any "hints" about their work. Much of their work was/is also on the B-mode polarization. But until Planck makes the next move, they probable won't have much to say about it one way or another.

NO ONE on the Planck team is going to breath a word on how it is going until they release their findings. (Unless they don't particularly care about becoming a pariah in their field.) They are going to dot every i, and cross every t, particularly as this one method out of six that has been called into question is a method based on the original Planck mapping of the CMB. And the precision and quality of THAT work is beyond any question.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When I said you missed it badly, then it was with reference to what Rabon was suggesting. As far as I understood, what he stated that a Galaxy which was x mly away, could not be found there now. Which is a reality. Giving comoving distances for Galaxies which are billions of light years away is out of context. Throwing some figures like 26 bly, 46 bly (or even bringing in uncertainty principle) is of no use here in this context, why stop at 46 bly, why not 180 bly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, Aqueous Id
You may disagree with the formula, but the circumstance remains the physical bodies of stars are not located or plotted on star maps or programs, the coordinates for stars are only those for light received on photographic plate or device. the physical position of bodies existing in the depth of space is unrecorded.

As the light received remains constant to position or coordinates assigned we can openly assume that the physical is stable and fixed to a region of space, this position in space is the same as the determination for its distance at the view of light at earth surface giving us it parallax. (meaning that we measure light to determine the distance by use of parallax, which gives us the distance of the physical body, But it does not give us the location of the solid physical body ( the measure of light only gives us a distance).

To gain a position of the real physical body you need another formula, the suggest formula 21.386 miles per light year is the assumed correction for not having a means to located the distance from the point of light received coordinates to where the physical body rest in space, it is in error but provides a reference to the type of condition or circumstance the world science is faced with when viewing the physical order of our galaxy. A new more accurate formula will assign a similar displacement of coordinates for physical bodies and their location.

After the provisions of distance from earth obtained by parallax, and the distance obtained by the physical body formula, you will then need another formula to find the physical body be it east,west,south or north of the coordinates mapped for star light(on most star maps). even though you know its distance from earth and its distance from star light map coordinates.

You may work at a observatory or institution but you are going to have to face this fact.

Dwayne D.L. Rabon

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Orientation and proper distance are major issues in astronomy, still you say so!! A knowledgeable person like you should show his presence with some substantial contribution, which is lacking from your side.

 

You have been doing your best to infer these delusional major issues in Astronomy/Cosmology since you started....for obvious reasons.
Most of your hypothesis have been invalidated and irrelevant to the standard cosmological model.
And yet you persist.
When will you get it into your head, that the "problems/questions" that do exist, are well known by our mainstream astronomers, and are being improved on as we speak.
But again, these details you keep raising for whatever reasons, do not and will not invalidate the overwhelming certainty we have with the evolution of spacetime at what we call the BB

http://www.astronomische-gesellscha...views-in-modern-astronomy-18-1/Brunthaler.pdf

http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.7186

 

http://www.researchgate.net/publica..._proper_motion_of_the_Triangulum_Galaxy_(M33)


http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/seri/ZA.../0069//0000330.000.html



""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Distant Galaxies Confirm Dark Energy's Existence and Universe's Flatness
The orientation of hundreds of galactic pairs provides a new test of the standard cosmological

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/geometric-test-universe/
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


http://www3.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/abrunthaler/pub/loeb.pdf

 

Paddoboy,


The post was not marked to you.

On one side you admit (MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE) that there are certain issues, but as soon as these issues are taken up by some one else, you become uncomfortable and start escalating the issue.


Calm down, I do not think that you have an iota of contribution in any of these theories, so please, be dispassionate about these issues.

 

Thanks for taking the time to write that down. Folks must be ready to burst open with excitement. I am. Predicting what the signature would look like and finding it would be a great scientific accomplishment. No shit Sherlock. Duh. Maybe it will inspire some cranks to actually read the literature. Nah. Thanks Declan.

 

Wrong in all respects. Everyone that has contributed realise that our present cosmological models has some unfinished and as yet unexplained details. None of them though, like you, see them as threatening the model as a whole, which you seem to do, and have done since you started this thread.
In other words you have an agenda.
The post is there for comment, and I will comment when I find it appropriate.

Whether you believe I have contributed or not, does not worry me in the least.
My only concern is your continued unsupported irrelevant issues that you want to highlight to discredit the model as a whole.
That contribution will continue as I see fit.

I see you have failed to comment on any of the links that do not support your stand.

 

They are? I do?

What do you mean by 'some substantial contribution'?

 

There is much to still undertand about cosmology. I don't think anybody is uncomfortable talking about the issues. The problem is that your suggestions so far have been poorly thought out unreasonable ideas based on ignorance of math, physics and cosmology.

 

Open up man, let the forum know your true identity and what you have contributed to cosmology. There is no harm in receiving some applause, and I would be the first one to do so, with all the sincerity and humility.

 

It's you that needs to open up....It's you that has made nonsensical claims from the beginning, It's you with your insidious hidden agenda, visible from the outset of this thread....
I'll keep on keeping on, and supporting the scientific method and proper peer review, which obviously leaves you out in the cold.

 

Are you joking? I can pretty much guarantee that there is no one on this forum that has contributed anything to cosmology. I know that there are several PhDs on the site so it is true that they all have contributed some original work to their fields, however I do not know of any PhDs on the site with a background in cosmology or astrophysics.

Most of us are students of science. I have worked as an engineer for 25 years and I still consider myself a student of science. I can safely say I will never contribute anything to the knowledge base of astrophysics, astronomy and cosmology. My goal is to continue to struggle to learn about these subjects because I find them fascinating.

If you want to contribute something to cosmology, there is a clear path to do so. Get a 4 year undergraduate degree in astronomy, cosomology etc. Graduate in the upper 25% or so of the class and then get a PhD in cosmology. You will then be in a position to contribute.

Thowing out wild guess that are based on a solid foundation of ignorance is about the worst way to contribute (even to a discussion).

 

I missed nothing. The fact that "things" are not "now" where the "were" suggests no problem with "Main Stream Cosmology". That is exactly what "Main Stream Cosmology" addresses. That is what the study of "Main Stream Cosmology" is all about. The history and evolution of the Universe. You are positing as a neglected or overlooked facet of the Universe, a thing that every cosmologist is perfectly aware of and makes an integral part of his studies.

That's about as "Main Stream" as thing any cosmologist has ever committed to words. It's no revelation. If you said that at the "International Convention of Main Stream Cosmology and Old School Astrophysics" the response would be, "gee it took you long enough to figure that out it". It is an obvious and internal part of "Main Stream Cosmology"

Wow, who would have thunk it? That a thing has moved, wow, how profound. Somebody better tell the cosmologists that the Universe is dynamic.

As opposed to: "Well it was sorta over there, but now it's somewhere over here"?

Because there is a physical foundation for positing 46 bly. it is inferred from 1st principles,,,,,, 180 bly is just a random number snatched out the air without any thought.

The uncertainty principle applies to particles, not galaxies. Galaxies don't just pop up here and there at random. Observing a galaxy does not alter it's momentum or position.

Were you hoping to make a case for some metaphysical construct for reality when you started this thread? If so it's in the wrong sub. And it's sophistry to the point of dishonesty because you present "a thing that the cosmologists don't account for and they ignore" as a problem, when that very same thing is at the heart and foundation of everything they do.

 

Declan Lunny

About reality and distance : Thats what Rabon was referring to. I do not understand what brings me into thick of this with agenda attached. There was nothing with a motive to agree to him that what is indicated as mly is not the real position as on date.

Comoving distances are fine, but they have better significance with locked objects..

Moreover it was someone else, who brought Uncertainty principle into picture, out of context.

180 bly is also not a random number thrown by me.

 

Fine and dandy. Carry on. I pass.

 

It is not fine and dandy with answers..

It is stated that Red Shift is due to space expansion, then what about differential energy. Energy of observed photon is less than energy of origin photon...so where did this energy go ??

 

There is no such thing as conservation of energy across relative reference frames. Energy is a function of time, and the time standard across the two frames has been altered. Conservation of energy only makes sense when the time standard is the same. Otherwise there would be no such thing as conservation of energy, which is of course absurd.

 

Thats mathematics, physically where does differential energy go...