|
|
my mistake, probably 1 not 3.5 billion light years;Re: limits on
galaxy luminosity and limits on distance in mapping galaxies in astronomy
#1246 New Physics #1366 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Posted:
Feb 20, 2013 3:02 AM
|
|
On Feb 20, 1:25 am, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alright, I am worried that I will not get back to New Physics and
> where I left off with rest-mass, spin, and magnetic monopoles being
> only attractive force not repelling. So I will interrupt with the Atom
> Totality before I reach page 1300. I wanted to make clear that
> astronomy in the past has done a very poor job of recognizing that
> lightwaves from stars, their intensity or luminosity or magnitude,
> whichever concept you want to use, that distance takes a toll on light
> waves and that if the star or galaxy is far enough away, there is no
> chance of seeing them, no matter what the power of the telescope or
> equipment you use.
>
> So my point is that if the Observable Universe is taken to be 14
> billion years old, that only a fraction of of the galaxies from Earth
> can and will be seen and a large fraction never able to be physically
> seen, simply because the light from those galaxies, no matter if they
> are the brightest galaxies of all, will be able to travel the distance
> without being dissipated.
>
> So we have two major limitations in astronomy, and this is what angers
> me in that astronomers are ignorant of these two limitations.
>
> (1) galaxies have an upper limit of how powerful they are as a shining
> body
> (2) the most powerful shining galaxy/galaxies light have an upper
> limit of distance
>
> So let me give a analogy to what that says. If we have 3 AA batteries
> in any type of flashlight you want to build, whether laser or some
> other, there is a distance from that flashlight for which a person
> cannot see the flashlight anymore, because of dissipation of the
> lightwaves.
>
> Now in Halliday & Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd edition, 1988,
> they discuss this on page 852 with the equation I = P/4pi(r^2), which
> is basically the intensity is an inverse square law.
>
> Now astronomers talk about luminosity and about magnitude, where
> luminosity has no distance factor but magnitude has a distance factor.
>
> The point I am making is that astronomy has failed to recognize that
> at a certain distance we no longer can see galaxies, no matter how
> powerful they are. Because there is a limitation on how powerful they
> are and a limitation of traversing Space and still be coherent enough
> so that someone at a far away distance can know it is there.
>
> So what that means is that the mapping of galaxies by Juric or Jarrett
> or many others, that they never used these physical limitations and
> blithely assumed that stars and galaxies at a distance of infinity can
> be spotted, analyzed and mapped.
>
> So what I want to do is find what that upper limit of distance and the
> upper limit of a galactic luminosity is. So that if the Maxwell
> Equations are taken as the axioms over all of Physics, then the upper
> limit of galactic luminosity is a laser star filled galaxy-- a quasar
> to be more exact. In other words our richest laser star laden galaxy
> is the upper limit of luminosity, or if I am wrong, perhaps a
> supernova is the upper limit. And the upper limit of distance, I
> suspect is 1/4 the distance of 14 billion light years.
>
> So that all those mappings of galaxies have to stop at a distance of
> 3.5 billion light years.
>
Sorry I should have looked up a representative supercluster before I
voiced my opinion as to a 3.5 billion light-year in distance upper
limit. For as we read this Sloan Great Wall report we see a distance
of 1 billion light years.
--- quoting from Wikipedia on distances of the Sloan Great Wall ---
Its discovery was announced from Princeton University on October 20,
2003, by J. Richard Gott III, Mario Juri?, and their colleagues, based
on data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.[1] The wall measures 1.38
billion light years (1.30×1025 m) in length, which is approximately
1/60 of the diameter of the observable universe, and it is located
approximately one billion light-years from Earth.
--- end quote ---
So I am going to downsize my guess as to the upper limit of distance
to see galaxies as being just 1 billion light years.
But another feature of current day astronomy is their horrible guess
of the Sloan Great Wall being 1.38 billion light years in diameter. I
cannot point to where their mistake is in thinking it is so vastly
large in diameter. But I can point out the errors they made overall.
That they thought redshift was Doppler when it all it is, is a
curvature of Space redshift and that the Sloan Great Wall is actually
very close to Earth compared to many other galaxies. For if you take
Space to be a ellipsoid tear drop shape, and Earth on the axis of this
ellipsoid and looking down the flank or side of the ellipsoid is the
Sloan Great Wall and giving the reason for that immense curvature to
make a large redshift. So that the Sloan Great Wall may actually be
much closer than 1 billion light years and perhaps 300 million light
years. And because we can see so much of the structure of the Sloan,
hints to us that like approaching a city and starting to see all the
structures, tells us we are closer than we think.
So let me revise my wild guess of 3.5 billion light years as the upper
limit of seeing galaxies to that of a mere 1 billion light years and
that most galaxies are in the 300 million light year range. And the
length of the Sloan should also be downsized significantly.
--
Google's archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from search-engine-
bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and
fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here:
http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
