Thread: Dimensions
View Single Post
Old 21-07-2009, 07:21 PM   #20
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.

To recap - quasars, black holes and the like are composed of collapsed matter - essentially massive nuclear conglomerates without the density-reducing effects of atomic electron shells. My old chemistry teacher told me that if all the space were removed from Earth, it would be the size of a cherry stone.

The term 'Flying Saucer' was coined after

Quote:
the first highly publicized sighting by Kenneth Arnold on June 24, 1947, resulted in the creation of the term by U.S. newspapers. Although Arnold never specifically used the term "flying saucer", he was quoted at the time saying the shape of the objects he saw was like a "saucer", "disc", or "pie-plate", and several years later added he had also said "the objects moved like saucers skipping across the water." (The Arnold article has a selection of newspaper quotes.) Both the terms "flying saucer" and "flying disc" were used commonly and interchangeably in the media until the early 1950s.
Quote:
In addition to the extraterrestrial hypothesis, a variety of possible explanations for flying saucers have been put forward. One of the most common states that most photos of saucers were hoaxes; cylindrical metal objects such as pie tins, hubcaps and dustbin lids were easy to obtain, and the poor focus seen in UFO images makes the true scale of the object difficult to ascertain.[1] However, some photos and movies were deemed authentic after intensive study. An example was the saucer-like object photographed by farmer Paul Trent near Portland, Oregon in 1950, which passed all tests when studied by the Condon Committee in the 1960s. [7]

Quasars presented the Big Bangers with a Big Problem - some so-called cosmological redshifts indicated that certain quasars were older than the Big Bang allowed.

Quote:
One great topic of debate during the 1960s was whether quasars were nearby objects or distant objects as implied by their redshift. It was suggested, for example, that the redshift of quasars was not due to the expansion of space but rather to light escaping a deep gravitational well. However a star of sufficient mass to form such a well would be unstable and in excess of the Hayashi limit.[6]

Eventually the prevailing (ie funded) wisdom settled for space itself is expanding. Now I think space is space, and I cannot imagine there is a boundary, for if there is, what lies beyond it? (Similar argument is who created God).

Furthermore I smell several rats.

While all photographs of quasars - black hole-type supermassive bodies - that I have managed to source, show a beam emerging in a single direction, the popular depiction of the quasar is one where beams emerge equally from both poles.



Why the promotion of dual-beam quasars? Well, if the idea got out that quasars were essentially single-ended entities, this would imply that the material and energy was being ejected one-way along the axis of a rotating supergravitational body. Then people might get to thinking about all those gravitational anomalies closer to home like variation the Moon's orbit (for which 'ephemeral time' was invented, as 'expanding space' had to be for quasars) and wonder if another mechanism was not in play.

more later

Last edited by rodin; 21-07-2009 at 07:26 PM.
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote