Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 2 votes

The Universe is rotating

why telescopes lie?

  • Please log in to reply
127 replies to this topic

#1    Weitter Duckss

Weitter Duckss

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2014

Posted 11 June 2014 - 08:24 PM

Even t Even though I was certain we had grasped the modern technology of our telescopes, it seems not to be the case.

By observing the celestial objects the astronomers found out that a red spectral shift increases with the distance, i.e., the objects increase the distance from us faster and faster.  Even Mr. Hubble stated that the universe expands in accordance to his constant, which has been, as time passes, continuously increasing.  The object like Andromeda,  which is relatively close to us, moves 330 km/sec. faster than us, according to the measurements from the end of the last millennium, or 2 000 km/sec., according to the measurements from this millennium. Both measurements were conducted by the same institution. With the distance, the speed is also increasing, therefore the most distant objects – more than 13 billion of light-years away – increase their distance by the speed of 270 000 km/sec., almost the speed of light (9/10). The universe is, therefore, expanding faster and faster.


Here, some problems occur. These the most distant objects that move almost at the speed of light are not in the present time, but these are the objects that were there more than 13 billion of light-years ago! it should actually mean that these objects were moving at that huge speed 13 billion of years ago and that the objects from the recent past move only 300 – 2 000 km/sec. faster than us. It is obvious that the spectroscopy on these telescopes lies when it claims that celestial objects were moving much faster earlier in the past and that now, in comparison, they almost don’t move. The reason for it is the Hubble constant, which does not refer to the past, but to the present and future time.


I am more inclined to trust the telescopes and spectrography, after all, because they state facts.  These facts don’t fit into the scientific theories, which are, besides, only the constructs of mind. To set things right, we must go back to the time of Isaac Newton, the time when there was not so many far-fetched theories.

A rotating object has its movement direction (planets, stars) and that direction is inside the next bigger rotating object (galaxy), which also has a movement direction inside the universe, as a result of rotation… The rotation of universe satisfies the results of the observations: the objects closer to us move slower than the more distant objects, with the most distant objects being the fastest. That is a reflection of the relations inside galaxies – nothing new about it. The telescopes are not designed to foretell the past but to estimate the distance and speed of the celestial objects.


It goes similar with the devices for measuring background radiation, which estimate the distance from the source to the device, i.e. Earth. Let’s assume it originates from the Big Bang. If a background radiation from 13 billion of years ago travels at the speed of light, while matter at its best travels 10% slower, with taking the same starting place into account – how is it possible for them to meet now? What is the calculation that explains it?

Background radiation arrives from the distance of 13.7 billion of light-years. These data are the same as the distance of the most distant space objects that have been observed. Background radiation arrives from the end of the Universe.




#2    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 18,414 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 11 June 2014 - 08:42 PM

When we observe distant cosmic objects, and note the relative speed they have, we are actually measuring the difference in the speed of the expansion of the universe today from the time that object existed.

It is actually us who is moving away from what we observe because, as you note, the object is being viewed in our past and so it must be assumed to be 'at rest'. It is the distant object which is the frame of reference from which our relative velocity (or rather, the rate of expansion of the modern universe) is measured.

Also, while I use the word 'moving' we are actually talking about the expansion of space which is not really the same as the independent motion between two objects.

And welcome to UM, btw. Hope you enjoy it here.

Edited by Leonardo, 11 June 2014 - 08:43 PM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#3    StarMountainKid

StarMountainKid

    Cheese

  • Member
  • 5,507 posts
  • Joined:17 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Star Mountain, Corporate States of America

  • We have problems because we stray from what is innocent and pure.

Posted 12 June 2014 - 12:15 AM

Weitter Duckss said:

The rotation of universe satisfies the results of the observations: the objects closer to us move slower than the more distant objects, with the most distant objects being the fastest.

A rotating universe would presume a center and axis of rotation. It would also presume a preferred direction of space. For instance, if we looked in one direction the universe would look different than if we looked in some other direction.

If we looked toward the 'center' of rotation, galaxies would seem to be moving away from us more slowly than the galaxies we see in the opposite direction. In fact, there is no preferred direction in space. Space is expanding isotropically, uniformly in all directions, including the acceleration of the expansion.

The acceptance of authority does not lead to intelligence.
A mind untouched by thought...the end of knowledge.
To see reality loose your opinions.

#4    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,904 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 June 2014 - 11:13 AM

View PostWeitter Duckss, on 11 June 2014 - 08:24 PM, said:

It goes similar with the devices for measuring background radiation, which estimate the distance from the source to the device, i.e. Earth. Let’s assume it originates from the Big Bang. If a background radiation from 13 billion of years ago travels at the speed of light, while matter at its best travels 10% slower, with taking the same starting place into account – how is it possible for them to meet now? What is the calculation that explains it?

I don't think you fully understand the Big Bang Theory.

The background radiation is everywhere in the Universe, and always has been. The matter in the Universe is (reasonably, and on the intergalactic scale) evenly distributed throughout the Universe, and always has been.

Incidentally, the possibility of a rotating Universe has been intensively studied since Kurt Godel showed in 1949, with the Godel metric, that it was possible for backwards time-travel in a rotating Universe (or rather, there existed closed, time-like curves, see here for all the beautiful technical details).

As StarMountainKid points out, there is no observational evidence that our Universe is rotating, and the currently accepted mathematical description of our Universe follows the Freidmann-Lamaitre-Robertson-Walker metric (see here for all the beautiful technical details).


#5    Weitter Duckss

Weitter Duckss

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2014

Posted 12 June 2014 - 04:56 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 11 June 2014 - 08:42 PM, said:

And welcome to UM, btw. Hope you enjoy it here.
Thanks for the welcome.


#6    Weitter Duckss

Weitter Duckss

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2014

Posted 12 June 2014 - 05:01 PM

View PostStarMountainKid, on 12 June 2014 - 12:15 AM, said:

A rotating universe would presume a center and axis of rotation.
Globular star also has no center, and rotates.
We carry out observations of the broader center of the universe. In the center are small and the speed increases towards the end of the universe.


#7    toast

toast

    President of the Galaxy

  • Member
  • 5,415 posts
  • Joined:24 Nov 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hamburg/Germany

  • Let there be Ziggy

Posted 12 June 2014 - 05:09 PM

View PostWeitter Duckss, on 12 June 2014 - 05:01 PM, said:

Globular star also has no center, and rotates.
What do you mean with "Globular star"?

“For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled.”  - Hunter S. Thompson -
"Very funny, Scotty, now beam down my trousers!" - James T. Kirk -
"I think enormous harm is done by religion – not just in the name of religion, but actually by religion." - Steven Weinberg -  
"I am discounting the reports of UFOs. Why would they appear only to cranks and weirdos?" - Stephen Hawking -

#8    Weitter Duckss

Weitter Duckss

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2014

Posted 12 June 2014 - 05:11 PM

View Postsepulchrave, on 12 June 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

I don't think you fully understand the Big Bang Theory.

The background radiation is everywhere in the Universe, and always has been

In the next few articles I will try, along with proof of rotation of the universe and to point out the shortcomings of the Big Bang. However, matter and radiation had to start from the same point (400,000 by the so-called big bang) and had constant different speeds.


#9    Weitter Duckss

Weitter Duckss

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2014

Posted 12 June 2014 - 05:15 PM

View Posttoast, on 12 June 2014 - 05:09 PM, said:

What do you mean with "Globular star"?
Cluster. Sorry, there will be a "little" problem with understanding.


#10    Eldorado

Eldorado

    Unforgiven

  • Member
  • 11,916 posts
  • Joined:29 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland

  • I reckon so.

Posted 12 June 2014 - 05:16 PM

i knew it!

*glues ornaments onto shelves*


#11    toast

toast

    President of the Galaxy

  • Member
  • 5,415 posts
  • Joined:24 Nov 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hamburg/Germany

  • Let there be Ziggy

Posted 12 June 2014 - 05:38 PM

View PostWeitter Duckss, on 12 June 2014 - 05:15 PM, said:

Cluster. Sorry, there will be a "little" problem with understanding.
Ok.

View PostWeitter Duckss, on 12 June 2014 - 05:01 PM, said:

Globular star cluster also has no center, and rotates.
This is an incorrect statement. As we are able to measure star distances we are able to determine the geometric
center of globular star clusters. In addition, globular star clusters are subject to gravitation effects and some have
a black whole in the center. Also, we would not name an object globular if it would not be of a globular shape, means
with an geometric center.

“For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled.”  - Hunter S. Thompson -
"Very funny, Scotty, now beam down my trousers!" - James T. Kirk -
"I think enormous harm is done by religion – not just in the name of religion, but actually by religion." - Steven Weinberg -  
"I am discounting the reports of UFOs. Why would they appear only to cranks and weirdos?" - Stephen Hawking -

#12    toast

toast

    President of the Galaxy

  • Member
  • 5,415 posts
  • Joined:24 Nov 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hamburg/Germany

  • Let there be Ziggy

Posted 12 June 2014 - 05:41 PM

View PostWeitter Duckss, on 12 June 2014 - 05:11 PM, said:

In the next few articles I will try, along with proof of rotation of the universe and to point out the shortcomings of the Big Bang.
However, matter and radiation had to start from the same point (400,000 by the so-called big bang) and had constant
different speeds.
Can you please be a little bit more accurate with your posts in general? 400.000 of what?

Edited by toast, 12 June 2014 - 05:42 PM.

“For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled.”  - Hunter S. Thompson -
"Very funny, Scotty, now beam down my trousers!" - James T. Kirk -
"I think enormous harm is done by religion – not just in the name of religion, but actually by religion." - Steven Weinberg -  
"I am discounting the reports of UFOs. Why would they appear only to cranks and weirdos?" - Stephen Hawking -

#13    Hammerclaw

Hammerclaw

    Far Traveler

  • Member
  • 5,358 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:East Tennessee, Just over the hill from Oak Ridge.

  • "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

Posted 12 June 2014 - 05:48 PM

I love it when people try to talk mathematical concepts in plain english. A three-dimensional object always rotates around an imaginary line called a rotation axis. If the axis is within the body, and passes through its center of mass the body is said to rotate upon itself, or spin.

"An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial."

#14    Weitter Duckss

Weitter Duckss

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2014

Posted 13 June 2014 - 02:13 PM

View Posttoast, on 12 June 2014 - 05:41 PM, said:

Can you please be a little bit more accurate with your posts in general? 400.000 of what?
400,000 years after theBig Bang when the universe began to brighten or when the first light able to be separated from the compact mass. It is time zero point of the time to the Big Bang, matter is traveling faster than the radiation that is now coming as background radiation.


#15    Weitter Duckss

Weitter Duckss

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2014

Posted 13 June 2014 - 02:24 PM

View Posthammerclaw, on 12 June 2014 - 05:48 PM, said:

I love it when people try to talk mathematical concepts in plain english. A three-dimensional object always rotates around an imaginary line called a rotation axis. If the axis is within the body, and passes through its center of mass the body is said to rotate upon itself, or spin.
When you rotate a drop of water on the ISS station she has no center. In order to speed small galaxies in the center of it is not pronounced. Speed ​​around the center are 100 to 200 km / sec, it increases when the distance increases. The farthest and fastest 270,000 km / sec.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users