Planets-as-suns, and more (Astrophysics)

[Brian Ambrose]

Thanks Mick, but I’m just wondering if it would be better if you’d stop helping me.

[Mick Harper]

'Nuff said.

[Brian Ambrose]

Apology accepted, but I still can’t see a joke. Perhaps Borry enjoyed it. Or Shirley. Me, I’ll assume it’s lost, either in translation or in the post. As for mission creep, do consider my sensitivities in future and call it creative evolution.

PS The word I was struggling to find was 3D Animation.

PPS Where is Ishmael now I need him?

[Mick Harper]

Mission creep is something that afflicts all new theories. I suppose 'rabbit holes' is the modern expression ('mission creep' being of Vietnam War vintage). The point is once you're onto something new and big, vistas start opening in all directions. You can go with the flow but when you are wading out into the wine dark sea the flow might be a current sweeping you out to who-knows-where?

That's all I was trying to say.

[Mick Harper]

[Pete Jones]

[Boreades]

It's red shift, but not as we know it (Jim).

[Brian Ambrose]

Hi Pete.

Yes. Space expansion is very orthodox. So it's one of the reasons for not ever seeing stars clumping together. However, the (my) theory of the origin solar system is agnostic about the fabric of space expansion.

For your theoretical question I think you will need to have a chat with management. However, as far as I know there is no rule that says you cannot question new theories, so knock yourself out.

[Pete Jones]

Thanks Brian. Perhaps the following is already mentioned elsewhere (Searches find the name "Arp" on this forum in a few places), but I was persuaded that Halton Arp's purely empirical observations and measurements of galaxies, taken over a few decades, completely chopped the head off "redshift-as-indicator-of-movement" theory. Stars aren't moving away from one another, at least that's not what the measurable redshift shows (per Arp).

The images in his books (as well as images in a guy named Ratcliffe's books) show that redshift is a feature of matter. To demonstrate this, he presents images of stars lined up (rather like in MJH's SCUM video) in a somewhat regular pattern on either side of a so-called quasar. The stars that are equidistant from the quasar on either side have very similar redshifts. Stars further out (equidistant on either side) have a different redshift, but they are roughly equal.

The picture he paints is large objects ejecting smaller objects, which then line up relatively evenly on either side, and each corresponding star on either side has a roughly corresponding redshift.

Finally, if you took JUST the redshift measurements of this cluster, the ones that appear closer to the quasar would be deemed to be much closer to us than the quasar itself. The only reason Arp could tell that the stars and the quasars were at the same distance from Earth (rather than being at varying distances, based on the redshift-as-distance theory) was that he took the images through a telescope over 40 years or so. Over that time, he could see visible tracks of radio waves between all the cluster of stars and quasars (Ratcliffe's book captures it nicely...I'll find the title and post here)

(apologies if this is all old hat...Arp, to me, is one of those lonely figures who long ago demolished a paradigm and nobody seemed to notice. In his case, he even had all the credentials in the world, but it didn't matter. Funny thing, "Science.")

[Pete Jones]

Space expansion is an aspect of Einstein's theory, as well, I think. But that theory is completely out for me, based on Herbert Dingle's demolition, which is logical rather than empirical. Maybe this too is old hat here.

[Pete Jones]

Holy hell, "Dingle" is not mentioned on this labyrinthine forum. This is only noteworthy because literally everything else I've searched on here has come up with many hits

[Brian Ambrose]

On Arp, simplified version (which is all I remember)

Red shift says that the redder the star, the further away it is, due to the reducing and changing energy of the light (based on Einstein’s photons). On the other hand, light waves do not change colour (at every distance, the frequencies stay the same.)

Arp’s argument is that a redder star is just a redder star - nothing to do with distance. By observation he showed that some of the redder stars actually are closer. Of course, the rejoinder to that is, yeah duh, those stars are redder.

If Arp is right, the measurements showing space expansion (and where everything is) is a fallacy. But the big money is on orthodoxy, even if it increasingly gets its knickers in a twist.

[Mick Harper]

Doesn't it all go back to Big Bang? If that's true (we must take a vote) then everything must be getting further and further away all the time, including our time. Unless it's already rebounding back. (It happens with some universes. They're tricky to get right so a recall mechanism is built in. We lost a lot of the early ones because they weren't. Those were the days.)

[Pete Jones]

[Mick Harper]

The point of my last post was to emphasise that human beings have a need to assume they know more than they actually know when it comes to the Really Big Questions. I made the same point in THOBR about human creation myths. I am always amazed at how precisely astrophysicists can calculate the exact moment when...

The more general point is that 100% of astrophysicists believe implicitly in the Big Bang as a done deal when really a 100% of astrophysicists ought to be saying, 'Yes, Big Bang has a lot going for it but we must press on with other notions.'

I myself ignored it when formulating SCUM on the same grounds I always ignore 'Does God exist' type arguments -- 'not needed on this voyage'. [Or I may have assumed it, I forget now.] No doubt the same applies to Ambrosia (as Brian's theory is being provisionally referred to in the pubs and clubs) so we should not slow him down with it. This thread is called Planets-as-Suns for a reason.