The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: finding the Translation-factor of telescopes from Voyager 1
Chapt16.12 Limits on what we can see in astronomy #1440 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 5   Last Post: Mar 31, 2013 12:10 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 838
From: nyc
Registered: 6/6/10
Posted: Mar 31, 2013 12:10 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

> Can any astronomer actually be honest?

Don't know, but I'm sure you cannot be honest. Nor competent. GO FUCK YOURSELF.

I mean, here
> we have an Oort
> Cloud that none of our telescopes has confirmed to
> exist and so we
> call it a
> "hypothesized Oort cloud". And if it does exist as
> shown in Wikipedia:
> --- quoting from Wikipedia ---
> The Oort cloud /??rt/[1] (named after Jan Oort), or
> Öpik?Oort cloud,
> [2] is a hypothesized spherical cloud of
> predominantly icy
> planetesimals that may lie roughly 50,000 AU, or
> nearly a light-year,
> from the Sun.[3] This places the cloud at nearly a
> quarter of the
> distance to Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to the
> Sun. The Kuiper
> belt and the scattered disc, the other two reservoirs
> of trans-
> Neptunian objects, are less than one thousandth of
> the Oort cloud's
> distance. The outer limit of the Oort cloud defines
> the cosmographical
> boundary of the Solar System and the region of the
> Sun's gravitational
> dominance.[4]
> The Oort cloud is thought to comprise two separate
> regions: a
> spherical outer Oort cloud and a disc-shaped inner
> Oort cloud, or
> Hills cloud. Objects in the Oort cloud are largely
> composed of ices,
> such as water, ammonia, and methane.
> --- end quoting ---
> And if it does exist as shown in Wikipedia of the
> Oort Cloud along
> with the Hill Cloud, they would distort any images of
> stars and
> galaxies that the telescopes manage to actually pick
> up.
> So we have Earth's atmosphere for distortion, and
> then we have the
> Oort Cloud distortion and then we would expect every
> star to have its
> own Oort Cloud.
> So repeating my question, can any astronomer be
> honest about the data
> and facts collected? For we have the silly situation
> that astronomers
> claim to see walls of galaxies and superclusters, yet
> they are unable
> to even see the ice planetesimals surrounding the
> solar system. That
> is like saying from my house on Earth, I can see a
> full hemisphere
> of Earth but I cannot see what is beyond my backyard.
> It is exactly these type of situations in the science
> of astronomy
> that gives astronomers a bad name. For what astronomy
> needs is a
> leader who can guide the direction of astronomy. At
> one time Hubble
> served as a leader, until, Hubble found objection to
> Doppler redshift
> as a distance measure. And although Hubble then
> renounced the redshift
> as a distance measure, none of the pipsqueaks that
> comprised the rest
> of the astronomy community had enough intelligence to
> renounce the
> Doppler redshift.
> What I want to know with some accuracy, is just how
> good is the Hubble
> telescope or any other telescope in seeing the
> Voyager 1? Is it fully
> out of sight from any of our most advanced
> telescopes? And if so, at
> what distance did it become "beyond view"?
> Why is that important?
> Because with that distance we can translate that
> distance to
> resolution. A shining star or galaxy is different
> from a Voyager 1 of
> reflected light, but with distance the star or galaxy
> becomes equal to
> the Voyager 1. So that if this translation-factor is
> 90 million light
> years, implies that nothing we have seen
> in the night sky is more than 90 million light years
> away.
> You see, after Hubble, there seems to have been no
> scientist in
> astronomy with a ability to logically think and
> reason clearly.
> Because, if there had been a clear thinker, he would
> have demanded
> this Limitation Gauge of Telescopes a long time ago,
> and not here in
> March of 2013.
> --
> Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple
> and fair author-
> archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen
> here:
> Archimedes Plutonium
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.