Re: OK, I'm Ready For the Patronizing Insults From the Resident Gurus!

From: Paul B. Andersen (paul.b.andersen_at_hia.no)
Date: 09/15/04 

Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:40:17 +0200

"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:4etak0921fqq36t6vce6q4pqorbapcs2t5@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 17:55:01 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
> >
> >Understanding of the Universe requires a certain amount
> >of foreknowledge, and the ability to observe. However,
> >one interesting observation, a fairly simple one, involves
> >the Crab Nebula -- or any supernova, for that matter.
> >
> >Older theories assumed that, if one accelerates a lightsource, that
> >the lightsource's photons would travel at a different speed than
> >a lightsource standing still; this might be characterized as
> >c'=c+v, where c is measured in observer A's reference frame (he's
> >standing still), and c' is measured by a moving observer B.
> >
> >The Universe of course then bangs photons at us from supernovae
> >to disprove this. :-) The relevant parameters (AFAICT) are
> >these:
> >
> >Crab Nebula
> >distance from Earth: 7,000 light-years (give or take)
> >estimated size: 10 light-years (ditto)
> >time of detonation: 1054 A.D. -- about 950 years ago
> >
> >Now, a naive computation [*] requires that the stuff from the nova
> >during the explosion is traveling at 1/95 c. If one makes
> >another naive assumption, that the shock wave is spherical
> >(which is not a given, BTW; it depends on how fast the
> >star was rotating prior to the bang, though it's probably
> >close enough as a first approximation), then one gets into
> >the interesting issue of how fast light travels from the leading
> >edge of the sphere pointing at us, versus the trailing edge.
> >
> >Light from the leading edge, according to Newtonian theory, is
> >traveling at c + 1/95 c, for a transit time of 6927 years.
> >The trailing edge emits light that, from our vantage-point,
> >is traveling at c - 1/95 c, for a transit time of 7074.5 years.
> >Therefore, the ancients would first see a dim blue dot, which
> >would slowly brighten as it turns greener/whiter, then the
> >intensity would dim again as it turns redder, in the space
> >of about 147.5 years.
> >
> >That's the theory.
>
> Crap!

Indeed.
We simply do not observe what the ballistic theory predicts we should.
The theory is falsified, or as you so eloquently put it - it's crap!

Paul

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is the Big Bang Still Happening?
    ... Huh? ... Do you mean the size of the observable universe? ... > while we observe it. ... But then the ionization energy of hydrogen should change in the same ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is the Big Bang Still Happening?
    ... Huh? ... Do you mean the size of the observable universe? ... > while we observe it. ... But then the ionization energy of hydrogen should change in the same ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Is the Big Bang Still Happening?
    ... >> The physical process of recombination occurs at the same temperature. ... > The expansion of the universe has little to do with that argument. ... >> adding to the total number of photons in our observable universe. ... "When astronomers observe a supernova receding from us at 60 percent ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is the Big Bang Still Happening?
    ... >> The physical process of recombination occurs at the same temperature. ... > The expansion of the universe has little to do with that argument. ... >> adding to the total number of photons in our observable universe. ... "When astronomers observe a supernova receding from us at 60 percent ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Yes Science Needs God
    ... and usually simply because they don't agree with our own concept of truth. ... Therefore if the universe does not exist without an observer, ... nothing exists apart from what we can observe. ... > Imagined Reality is the only kind of reality accessible. ...
    (sci.physics)