Hey Ocre, let's have another look at Hubble's "real" data.... back when the world was discovering all kinds of facts about chemistry at near-light-speed, that pretty much all of them seemed to blow us away with the same force of grace..
The "speed theory" of the red shift was measured on the galaxies, and the more distant they appeared to be, the greater the measured red shifts were. They applied the Doppler effect, and ruled out all other possible things - that was BEFORE Einstein came up with his wonderful theory that gravity affected light. It wasn't even Einstein's "Special" Theory of Relativity, but the General Theory of Relativity that predicted this, and afterwards, proven by the sun when starlight was being bent by our very own Sun.
So, there's no such thing as a "blue shift", if the Doppler effect were the case with some stars or galaxies moving TOWARDS us, rather than AWAY from us. It is nowhere to be seen or observed. Yet, the Universe isn't just an empty spherical ball, that has everything on the surface, and is empty on the inside - it's the complete opposite of being such a "ball", with everything inside. If we're moving closer towards any given star even on the other side of our galaxy, or another galaxy in our rotating cluster, there should at least be a "blue shift" if the Doppler effect works both ways. However, this isn't the case.
First, gravity (like with the black hole), acts upon light. This was firmly rejected for decades following Hubble's epiphany, actually in order to help build Hubble's case. This itself would have put the Big Bang theory to crumbles, as such initial gravity would present itself as a center point, and be detectable with the CBR - where the black body radiation isn't so uniform and omni-directional, but rather radiating all in one direction from the same point. Before the CBR was proven to be omni-directional rather than radiating from one source, there was just too much publicity and rapport acclimatizing CBR as proof of the Big Bang, past the point of no return, among millions of scientists, that years later, it was already past the point of no return.
Imagine trying to take down the Vatican because the Pope was proven to be a incestuous child molester raping his own granddaughters, and that all the Popes in the past did the same thing as part of a secret Vatican ritual?
Another thing is that in addition to gravity affecting light (first predicted by Einstein, and now routinely proven by distant galaxies presenting themselves as mirror "doubles"), is that light could actually slow down as it loses energy traveling large distances over time (which would still hold true to the law of its relation to the source which naturally has gravity bound upon light photons anyway). OOPS - that's a huge "no-no" with the institution that we have built upon and placed so much faith in, saying that light has absolutely zero mass...... Great times of confusion and contradiction!
Yet, the temperature of the dust inside our own galaxy is shown to be roughly the same as the CBR, which is actually 2.7 degrees K, lower than the estimate of what all of the starlight in the universe around us should giving us (~3K).
Parallax measurement is the only current reliable method of determining star distances. The European space agency just sent out a Gaia mission to accurately measure parallax distances of thousands of stars, past the ~10% margin of error for about 300 light years, as is possible from the surface of Earth. Now, we can finally get fairly good measurements for up to 3000 light years away (beyond that on the scale of nanometers should be taken with a grain of salt as light is again shown to dynamically curve with gravitational perturbations during its course). I'm real excited that Europe is taking matters into their own hands, doing something that NASA would never do, but then I'd still be careful with the accuracy estimates - it's just too tempting to boast and exaggerate anything just to build authority.
The redshift of quasars is whole another can of worms. A few quasars have actually shown redshifts to be greater than the magnitude of "c", the speed of light, LONG after quasars were believed to prove the age of the universe. With the current "expansion" theory, these quasars have to be moving away from us faster than light. Of course, NASA doesn't really want to talk about this data at all - it's not fun to entertain discoveries that put the Big Bang theory at risk, unless light actually moves at a different speed at a different time/part of the universe. The history of quasar discovery is very interesting, with over 4,000 quasars discovered to date. One of the most renowned astronomers of all time was denied telescope time at the observatories (and relieved of his status here in America) because he started creating a map showing that these quasars were actually connected to the galaxies, with most impressive collection of distant galaxy/quasar data ever gathered (since the early 1980's).
See how "unpopular" his book is (with only 4 reviews), largely rejected by the institution and therefore by the masses...
The "speed theory" of the red shift was measured on the galaxies, and the more distant they appeared to be, the greater the measured red shifts were. They applied the Doppler effect, and ruled out all other possible things - that was BEFORE Einstein came up with his wonderful theory that gravity affected light. It wasn't even Einstein's "Special" Theory of Relativity, but the General Theory of Relativity that predicted this, and afterwards, proven by the sun when starlight was being bent by our very own Sun.
So, there's no such thing as a "blue shift", if the Doppler effect were the case with some stars or galaxies moving TOWARDS us, rather than AWAY from us. It is nowhere to be seen or observed. Yet, the Universe isn't just an empty spherical ball, that has everything on the surface, and is empty on the inside - it's the complete opposite of being such a "ball", with everything inside. If we're moving closer towards any given star even on the other side of our galaxy, or another galaxy in our rotating cluster, there should at least be a "blue shift" if the Doppler effect works both ways. However, this isn't the case.
First, gravity (like with the black hole), acts upon light. This was firmly rejected for decades following Hubble's epiphany, actually in order to help build Hubble's case. This itself would have put the Big Bang theory to crumbles, as such initial gravity would present itself as a center point, and be detectable with the CBR - where the black body radiation isn't so uniform and omni-directional, but rather radiating all in one direction from the same point. Before the CBR was proven to be omni-directional rather than radiating from one source, there was just too much publicity and rapport acclimatizing CBR as proof of the Big Bang, past the point of no return, among millions of scientists, that years later, it was already past the point of no return.
Imagine trying to take down the Vatican because the Pope was proven to be a incestuous child molester raping his own granddaughters, and that all the Popes in the past did the same thing as part of a secret Vatican ritual?
Another thing is that in addition to gravity affecting light (first predicted by Einstein, and now routinely proven by distant galaxies presenting themselves as mirror "doubles"), is that light could actually slow down as it loses energy traveling large distances over time (which would still hold true to the law of its relation to the source which naturally has gravity bound upon light photons anyway). OOPS - that's a huge "no-no" with the institution that we have built upon and placed so much faith in, saying that light has absolutely zero mass...... Great times of confusion and contradiction!
Yet, the temperature of the dust inside our own galaxy is shown to be roughly the same as the CBR, which is actually 2.7 degrees K, lower than the estimate of what all of the starlight in the universe around us should giving us (~3K).
Parallax measurement is the only current reliable method of determining star distances. The European space agency just sent out a Gaia mission to accurately measure parallax distances of thousands of stars, past the ~10% margin of error for about 300 light years, as is possible from the surface of Earth. Now, we can finally get fairly good measurements for up to 3000 light years away (beyond that on the scale of nanometers should be taken with a grain of salt as light is again shown to dynamically curve with gravitational perturbations during its course). I'm real excited that Europe is taking matters into their own hands, doing something that NASA would never do, but then I'd still be careful with the accuracy estimates - it's just too tempting to boast and exaggerate anything just to build authority.
The redshift of quasars is whole another can of worms. A few quasars have actually shown redshifts to be greater than the magnitude of "c", the speed of light, LONG after quasars were believed to prove the age of the universe. With the current "expansion" theory, these quasars have to be moving away from us faster than light. Of course, NASA doesn't really want to talk about this data at all - it's not fun to entertain discoveries that put the Big Bang theory at risk, unless light actually moves at a different speed at a different time/part of the universe. The history of quasar discovery is very interesting, with over 4,000 quasars discovered to date. One of the most renowned astronomers of all time was denied telescope time at the observatories (and relieved of his status here in America) because he started creating a map showing that these quasars were actually connected to the galaxies, with most impressive collection of distant galaxy/quasar data ever gathered (since the early 1980's).
Quote:Halton Arp graduated cum laude from Harvard in 1949 and earned a Ph.D. from Caltech in 1953 (also cum laude). His first postdoctoral position was as an assistant to Edwin Hubble. He worked as a staff astronomer at Mt. Wilson and Mt. Palomar for 29 years before moving to Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics in Munich. Arp's observations of quasars and galaxies are world-renowned. He is the author of the Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies (1963: a collectors' item), Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (1987), as well as numerous articles in scholarly journals. He has been awarded the Helen B. Warner Prize of the American Astronomical Society and the Newcomb Cleveland award of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and served as president of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific from 1980 to 1983. In 1984, he received the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award.http://www.amazon.com/Catalogue-Discorda...0968368999
See how "unpopular" his book is (with only 4 reviews), largely rejected by the institution and therefore by the masses...
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws... 