Starship Asterisk*

The scientifics calculate the age of Universe with the bottom radiation.
The Universe has 14 billon years old. Zero point the Big Bang.
But I think that the Big Bang theory has many errors.
For example, What there were before of zero point? ( million years before of zero point )

That's where the philosophers take over, saturn2.

see, there it is again "NGC7337, NGC7335, NGC7336 are ten times farther away and would dwarf the largest in this scene if their distances were equalized." For the original statement of one tenth size so 10 times further to be true they would have to be the same size if distance was equalised.

magicman wrote:see, there it is again "NGC7337, NGC7335, NGC7336 are ten times farther away and would dwarf the largest in this scene if their distances were equalized." For the original statement of one tenth size so 10 times further to be true they would have to be the same size if distance was equalised.

The APOD caption assumes the more distant galaxies are about the same actual size as NGC7331, and are therefore ten times farther away (because they are 1/10 the size). R. Jay Gabany may be making a different assumption (or using different data) to assess the actual size of the background galaxies.

saturn2 wrote: What there were before of zero point? ( million years before of zero point )

There was nothing. Time did not exist, no more than space or matter existed.

You're finding it hard to think outside the box (in this case, outside the universe) because you're inside it.

-Noel

NoelC wrote:

saturn2 wrote:
What there were before of zero point? ( million years before of zero point )

There was nothing.

________ King Lear Act 1, Scene 1

KING LEAR: Nothing will come of nothing: speak again.

Okay, now I'm getting it, in amongst all this scientific data and facts, lots of people are just making assumptions without any provable observations, not the method I was taught. Interesting that so few seem to question those assumptions.

magicman wrote:Okay, now I'm getting it, in amongst all this scientific data and facts, lots of people are just making assumptions without any provable observations, not the method I was taught. Interesting that so few seem to question those assumptions.

Nobody said anything that was unreasonable, or likely deviated far from the truth. Why don't you apply a little of that scientific method yourself, and look up the redshift values for the more distant galaxies and let us all know just how far away they actually are?

You can complain, or you can add something positive to the discussion.

Interestingly, I had started to do precisely that, when I remembered Arp's work, and conclude it would not prove anything. But I stand by my original statement, it was not meant facetiously, and believe my negative response was in fact a contribution to the discussion because it will, I hope, prevent the propagation of potentially fallacious statements and ensure that individuals state any assumptions they have made explicitly. In today's world of instant communication and internet, what is put in writing seems to be there virtually forever, or at least until our galaxy collides with another, we should not condone possible inaccuracy, the next reader may not know that the information is unproven.

maicman wrote:Interestingly, I had started to do precisely that, when I remembered Arp's work, and conclude it would not prove anything. But I stand by my original statement, it was not meant facetiously, and believe my negative response was in fact a contribution to the discussion because it will, I hope, prevent the propagation of potentially fallacious statements and ensure that individuals state any assumptions they have made explicitly. In today's world of instant communication and internet, what is put in writing seems to be there virtually forever, or at least until our galaxy collides with another, we should not condone possible inaccuracy, the next reader may not know that the information is unproven.

Generally speaking, no argument with your point of how easy it is to publish false statements on the web, and the importance of asking questions (true with all media by the way). But I'm not sure what theoretical foundation(s) you have to evaluate conjectures, true or false. Regarding this APOD, you seemed to grapple onto a statement by R. Jay Gabany:

magicman wrote:see, there it is again "NGC7337, NGC7335, NGC7336 are ten times farther away and would dwarf the largest in this scene if their distances were equalized." For the original statement of one tenth size so 10 times further to be true they would have to be the same size if distance was equalised.

Had you trusted existing GR theory, and dug into the NASA data extragalactic database, some good would've come from it. Long story short, you would have realized that it is Gabany's statement about relative sizes appears plain wrong. In fact, when distances are equalized with NGC 7331, NGC 7337 and 7335 are the same size or smaller (within 20% or so), and NGC 7336 is about half the size. The point is, you posed a question about distance and angular size dependence which was wrong. Then you used Gabany's comment to criticize assumptions, or lack of, made by the APOD. When in essence, the general, simply put, APOD statements about approximate distances and angular sizes of neighboring galaxies were correct. In fact it was your objections that were founded in falsehoods, or at least you showed the desire to criticize without facts. I sincerely appreciate your points about representing truth, but unless you have some basis from which you can find the truth for youself, don't expect people to take your criticisms seriously. I apologize if you have taken offense, none is intended.

you are of course correct, the original error was mine, sort of, mentally when I read size I worked in 2 dimensions and read as area, hence my original question based on inverse square of distance, which would have made it 100th not 10th. Got it straight but then the second point of equalizing distance came up and blew me off course again. Ain't language a peculiar thing?, even the computer incorrects my English spellings.

magicman wrote:you are of course correct, the original error was mine, sort of, mentally when I read size I worked in 2 dimensions and read as area, hence my original question based on inverse square of distance, which would have made it 100th not 10th. Got it straight but then the second point of equalizing distance came up and blew me off course again. Ain't language a peculiar thing?, even the computer incorrects my English spellings.

I want say that response was thoughtful and gracious. Language is amazingly subtle sometimes and written language today can be easily misinterpreted in this fast-pace, quick-response world. You are certainly right about that. This is often an underlying concern of mine. Did I read that right?? What the hek did I just write?? There is always two sides to a story, and you did have an important point to make. And, as usual, the Devil's in the details ☺
Thanks for your reply.