Re: Swift grb satelitte
From: sean (jaymoseley_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 02/14/05
- Next message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Swift grb satelitte"
- Previous message: Peter Harding: "Info on a particular little star"
- In reply to: George Dishman: "Re: Swift grb satelitte"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Swift grb satelitte"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Swift grb satelitte"
- Reply: George Dishman: "Re: Swift grb satelitte"
- Reply: George Dishman: "Re: Swift grb satelitte"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 14 Feb 2005 04:33:41 -0800
>> My impresssion is that in physics there
>> are no coincidences.
>I agree. Here are some more:
>* White dwarfs should shine for tens of billions of
> years but the oldest we see locally are of the order
> of twelve billion years old.
Yes, that is proof. But not neccesarrilay ruling out
the possibility that white dwarfs older than 12 billion
years are below the visibilty threshold and/or the other
possibilty that our galaxy is less than 13 billion years
old.
> http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2002/10/
> Unlike our galaxy, observations of galaxies
> 10 billion light years away suggest they contain
> mostly young stars, perhaps in the range 1 to 2
> billion years old.
The maths of these calculations is beyond me but could
it also be explained as the older cooler stars just
are not visible at distances like this? After all
the article on white dwarfs suggests just the same
problem with the white dwarf survey in that they had
to look at the closest source of white dwarfs to get
a reliable survey within our galaxy and even that was
at the very limits of `visibilty`.
It could easily be the same for distant galaxies. The
brighter stars are the younger stars and they are the
only ones visble at great distances. To me the logic
says that the older stars just arent visible.
Its like the SN data that I discussed on astro research.
I notice that the data is tested only for the
preffered theory of expansion and then when it
*sort of fits* they say `Oh that rules
out any other theory`. Without testing whether
the data fits an undilated non expanding template
(which it does as I have shown on astro research)
So yes, these you cite above are coincidences that
support BB but they can also all be shown to
support non expansion as well.
>* Stars can be dated by radioactive decay and give
> similar results (Look up "cosmochronometry").
>* WMAP gives an age of 13.7+/-0.2 billion years from
> the angular power spectrum of the CMBR (though this
> uses some other results and is less independent).
This is about the best so far for BB but I would
still prefer it if the experts had made an attempt
to see if a non expansing universe could have given
these results. Idont know enough myself to do the
test (as I have done with SN1a data where I can
show that the data also fits no expansion )
For instance doesnt hydrogen have more than
1 emmision peak? Shouldnt there be more than
one redshifted peak in the microwave frequencies as
a result?
>http://www.aip.de/~jcg/grbrsh.html
>For example, see the bottom of:
>http://www.aip.de/~jcg/grb000131.html
>redshift = 4.5 !!!
>You should remember also that originally it was
>thought they were within our galaxy and when
>redshift data suggested they wer far outside, it
>caused a major problem for the theories of the
>time.
Yes I`v been aware of these `redshifts` and keep them
in mind when I say that there wont be a redshift observed
from SWIFT. As far as I`m aware any spectra to date has
either had no obvious lines like 000301c and 970228 which
doesnt contradict my prediction or in the case of the one
you mention where there are some lines, it always is the
case that there is a galaxy in the same line of site
that essentially contaminates the spectra.
As far as I am aware there is no example of a grb that
has a spectra with a definite redshift that isnt also
contaminated by a so called `host galaxy`
Incidentally I worked out my GRB model in `92 and
predicted *then* that they would not be found within
our galaxy which was the prevailing wisdom of the time
I also predicted that they would all have afterglows in
other wavelengths , longer for longer wavelengths.
All these predictions were verified which is why
I am so convinced no redshift will be found.
>You also mentioned limitations of Swift some time
>ago. Don't forget it was built from 'leftovers'
>and does have major limitations compared to what
>might have been done for a dedicated craft.
I wasnt aware of this deficiency. Not good news.
I hope it doesnt prevent SWIFT from achieving some
of its objectives. I suppose it was not considered
high priority by NASA.
Sean
- Next message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Swift grb satelitte"
- Previous message: Peter Harding: "Info on a particular little star"
- In reply to: George Dishman: "Re: Swift grb satelitte"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Swift grb satelitte"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Swift grb satelitte"
- Reply: George Dishman: "Re: Swift grb satelitte"
- Reply: George Dishman: "Re: Swift grb satelitte"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
