Starship Asterisk*

Newest image "Bigger lakes":

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMo ... modest.jpg

Dr. Skeptic wrote:Newest image "Bigger lakes":

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMo ... modest.jpg

Notice the two parallel straight dotted lines running through this photo. wonder what caused those?
Orin

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassi ... 89180.html
Must be
Titania the methane bog beast trudging from her swampy lair to find the huygens probe

Must be the Big Zipper

This sort of imaging artifact often shows up in synthetic aperture radar images. In all likelihood, that is what it is. It happens when the receiver gets a slightly lower power or out of phase signal for a while. If true, then the scalloped edges are caused by a phenomenon called beat frequency. This is where the two signals, when integrated together, produce a changing signal that is the sum and difference of the two. The sum frequency is usually filtered out, and difference shows up as the scallops (a lower frequency).

aichip wrote:This sort of imaging artifact often shows up in synthetic aperture radar images. In all likelihood, that is what it is. It happens when the receiver gets a slightly lower power or out of phase signal for a while. If true, then the scalloped edges are caused by a phenomenon called beat frequency. This is where the two signals, when integrated together, produce a changing signal that is the sum and difference of the two. The sum frequency is usually filtered out, and difference shows up as the scallops (a lower frequency).

Damn, and I was thinking it was a Humvee
Although I don't think even a Humvee has a wheelbase that wide.
Nice explanation. Thanks for that Charles.

Hello All

Dr Skeptic said

The full light spectrum was created during the "re-ionization period" about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. Radio, IR, visible, UV up to gamma rays are all electromagnetic waves able to be generated upon the first stable atoms forming.

If the Big Bang did occur you maybe right.

Since its only a theory and not a fact, its an opinion.

harry wrote:Hello All

Dr Skeptic said

The full light spectrum was created during the "re-ionization period" about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. Radio, IR, visible, UV up to gamma rays are all electromagnetic waves able to be generated upon the first stable atoms forming.

If the Big Bang did occur you maybe right.

Since its only a theory and not a fact, its an opinion.

The continuity of the Hubble constant, the heat/expansion rate, observable star and galaxy formation, etc... all confirm the re-ionization period. Your steady-state theory is not supported and for all practical purposes is disproved by above stated observations.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/wat ... jects.html

Hello Dr Skeptic

If I was you I would do a little lore research before concluding.

You said

The continuity of the Hubble constant, the heat/expansion rate, observable star and galaxy formation, etc... all confirm the re-ionization period.

Mate have you got any idea what you are saying. I think you have it wrong. But! If you wish to think along those lines so be it.

Read up on the hubble constant. Better still read up on Hubble himself.

Heat/expansion rate. Prove it to me.

Star formation. What are you saying?

Galaxy formation please explain.

Most Big Bang people stick by this theory, for reasons I do not know.

In the next 12 months, there is going to be a very large info against the BBT.

I have taught classes on the expansion theory, you need to start looking at the universe as a complete "System" and see how the pieces fit. Across the board, steady-state universe models fail the continuity test between subtheories.

Hello Skeptic

Skeptic said

I have taught classes on the expansion theory, you need to start looking at the universe as a complete "System" and see how the pieces fit.

You are not the only one who has taught along these lines.
That does not make it correct.

Please define complete system.

I agree we need to know how the pieces work and than put them together.
That is where I'm at.

Andy Wade wrote:

aichip wrote:This sort of imaging artifact often shows up in synthetic aperture radar images. In all likelihood, that is what it is. It happens when the receiver gets a slightly lower power or out of phase signal for a while. If true, then the scalloped edges are caused by a phenomenon called beat frequency. This is where the two signals, when integrated together, produce a changing signal that is the sum and difference of the two. The sum frequency is usually filtered out, and difference shows up as the scallops (a lower frequency).

Damn, and I was thinking it was a Humvee
Although I don't think even a Humvee has a wheelbase that wide.
Nice explanation. Thanks for that Charles.

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMo ... modest.jpg
If you look at the picture; you'll notice that there are also lines that connect between the two parallel lines, and don't continue beyond them. The two lines also look lower than the surrounding terrain, like a valley. Doesn't that suggest that the straight lines are actually legitimate geological artifacts of the terrain?
Orin

I think it's because of the way the image is stitched together. In this image you can see better how it probably has been created:

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMo ... modest.jpg

You can see on the far left and right that it consists of small bands of image data, which are obviously stitched together somehow. In this image you can also see similar parallel artifacts.

The page where I found that image is: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/target/Titan

On that page there are more examples of the same thing.

inertnet wrote:I think it's because of the way the image is stitched together. In this image you can see better how it probably has been created:

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMo ... modest.jpg

You can see on the far left and right that it consists of small bands of image data, which are obviously stitched together somehow. In this image you can also see similar parallel artifacts.

The page where I found that image is: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/target/Titan

On that page there are more examples of the same thing.

Thanks Inertnet! http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA09181 this one helps; but on it you can see the facial features match; while on the other there is still the cross lines that stop at the parallel lines. Just a coincidence I guess
Orin

harry wrote:Hello Skeptic

Skeptic said

I have taught classes on the expansion theory, you need to start looking at the universe as a complete "System" and see how the pieces fit.

You are not the only one who has taught along these lines.
That does not make it correct.

Please define complete system.

I agree we need to know how the pieces work and than put them together.
That is where I'm at.

The universe as a complete system: Ideally, when a single theory supports all other theories and all other theories support a single theory.

Hello Dr Skeptic

Sounds like you are going around in circles.

The Big Bang is not supported.

Its foundations are so weak its a miracle and I do not undestand why its still the standard theory.

The Big Bang people are up for their largest shock within the next two years.

Mark my words, the Big Bang will be called the biggest crank theory of the last 90 years.

Imagine having super clusters of clusters of galaxies and being told they formed in just 13.7 Gyrs and to do that they ad ad hoc ideas to support the theory. Scientists who went against the theory were put aside and not given funds to proceed with research. All this is coming out big time against NASA and other large research places. These places treated people like cattle and told them which way to move.

Hey! don't take my opinion read up on it your self.

People say, this could not happen in todays TIME. Hello it has and it still happening.

Going in circles is proof of continuity.

If a "steady sate" universe were to be true:

- Quantum mechanics cannot be true
- The Hubble Constant would need to be redefined
- The Cosmic Background Radiation observations would need to be redefined
- Variances in galaxies and star vs age and location would need to be explained
- Lack of uniform matter distribution throughout the universe would need to be explained
- The detection of primordial helium, hydrogen and Tritium would need to be redefined
- The high percentage of light elements in the universe would need to be explained
- The observed interstellar abundance of radioactive elements and their 1/2 life calculations ...


I could go on and on why a steady state universe has no continuity in scientific observations or the individual subtheories forming its foundation. I admit the BB theory has hole, but they are pinholes in comparison to the major breaches you choose to ignore.

Hello Dr Skeptic

What I think is not important.

How you think about it is.

You have options right now.

Do more research and find the answers.

Or wait until they expose which ever theory.

You put up logical points.

I have done the research, note my points. I can add more if you like.

Hello Dr Skeptic

Humor me for just one time.

Do more research.

Try to see it from another angle.

I can give you hundreds of papers supporting the Big Bang Theory. Read them all.

I have look at many of your links, for the most part they don't pass the smell test.

You need to understand the relationships or co-dependence of the universe's "Systems" or the subtheories to judge the validity of the major theory(s). Stars do not/cannot have Fe cores, (other than shortly before going novae), The laws dictating entropy prove a steady state theory is invalid - a steady state theory just doesn't fit observations. Agreed that the BB theory has holes such as traces of Boron mixed where only H and He should be seen in the early universe and other much smaller scale anomalies than the gross inconsistencies with a steady state universe - I suggest that you need to start reading higher quality journals and get away from the web based pseudoscience or you'll never get a clear picture.

Hello Dr Skeptic

You said

You need to understand the relationships or co-dependence of the universe's "Systems" or the subtheories to judge the validity of the major theory(s). Stars do not/cannot have Fe cores, (other than shortly before going novae), The laws dictating entropy prove a steady state theory is invalid - a steady state theory just doesn't fit observations. Agreed that the BB theory has holes such as traces of Boron mixed where only H and He should be seen in the early universe and other much smaller scale anomalies than the gross inconsistencies with a steady state universe - I suggest that you need to start reading higher quality journals and get away from the web based pseudoscience or you'll never get a clear picture.

I agree with you about stars cannot have an Iron Core. The Iron can form on the outer layer of the core.

What triggers the super novae is the question.
Lets discuss this point.



Who said the steady state cannot fit observations.

Most BBT paper make fit what ever they want by adding ad hoc ideas.
Smile I do read quality journals and I'm in commication with several prof's around the world.

Fe core, Fe layer, neutron star core, it doesn't matter, none of them match the observable physics of a healthy star. A dying star will have an Fe core once it's Si is exhausted but only for a short period of time before going novae.

What we know about star births and deaths rule out a static universe simply by the extraordinary high percentage of H and He in the universe, hydrogen and helium make up about 98% of all baryonic matter in the universe, 2% all other elements. In a static universe those % would need to be inverted, there is no viable explanation to these observation in a static universe model = it must be wrong (augmented at least a dozen other major inconsistencies).

Hello Dr Skeptic

You said

Fe core, Fe layer, neutron star core, it doesn't matter, none of them match the observable physics of a healthy star. A dying star will have an Fe core once it's Si is exhausted but only for a short period of time before going novae.

This used to be the thinking.

Now we know that stars go through this process more than once.
Our sun is a prime example.
You also fail to understand rejuvination and gravity sink.

What we know about star births and deaths rule out a static universe simply by the extraordinary high percentage of H and He in the universe, hydrogen and helium make up about 98% of all baryonic matter in the universe, 2% all other elements. In a static universe those % would need to be inverted, there is no viable explanation to these observation in a static universe model = it must be wrong (augmented at least a dozen other major inconsistencies).

You have your facts wrong. Go back and research the formation of the elements during the life of a star and the formation of the heavier elements above Fe and Ni. Also the formation of the elements from the Jet streams ejected from black holes.

I'm not the one that is wrong here, jet streams from black hole are nothing more than incident matter from an accretion disk - no accretion disk - no jets, thousands of observation to prove this. The only way for a Black Hole to evaporate is by gravity waves via the loss of space time inside the event horizon. Once again, your subtheory fails to support or be supported by observations and a grand theory. For the universe to be 98% H and He, there would need to be 100 to 10,000+ black holes for every 1 star, that also is disproved by observations. Everything about the static universe theories is pushing a square peg into a round hole.