Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Enoch2021

Red Shift (Death Knell for Big Bang, Starlight Distance,...)

46 posts in this topic

Greetings,

 

My Presupposition:  "Secular" science is evil and is the hand of satan.  Rationale?  ....

 

(Genesis 3:1-4) "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?  {2} And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:  {3} But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.  {4} And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:"

 

GOD tipped satan's hand and revealed his core tactics in Genesis 3:

1. Create Doubt
2. Outright Denial of the WORD

 

What "Establishment"/Organization on the Planet Earth and on a MASSIVE SCALE attempts to Cast the Most DOUBT and then Outright Denial of the Existence of GOD, Bar None???  "Secular" Science.

 

 

 

Well alrighty then, please watch this in it's Entirety (You Tube Documentary):  Universe - Episode 1 - The Cosmology Quest - The Electric Universe and Plasma Physics.

The Video Systematically, Comprehensively, and Unequivocally Renders:  The Big Bang, Science Search for Truth, "Light Year" Distances, Peer Review, et al:  A Laughing Stalk right BELOW 13th Century Alchemy and Phlogiston!!

 

Basically, A VERY LARGE BODY of Astronomy/Cosmology/Astrophysics has it's basis in Red Shift.  Red Shift or Hubble's Law states that Galaxies and the Universe is Expanding and Distances can be obtained by analyzing their Red Shift or shifts in their Color Spectra... the further away, the Larger the "Red Shift".

But in the 1960's Astronomers like Halton "Chip" Arp discovered QSO's (Quasar Stellar Objects) that are "Attached" to Galaxies with "Extremely" Different Red Shifts than their Parent/Neighbor Galaxies.
These data and research was subsequently "SQUASHED" by "Secular" science to defend the Big Bang and Light Year Distance fiasco. (Black Listing/Funding/Expelled et al)

 

"The Peer Review System and NASA itself which is very conformist will always do just that, that's one of the reasons why the Road ahead is hammered out, as {Fred}Hoyle said, anytime you point a New Telescope to the sky now you're only going to find what you already know is up there".
Geoffrey Burbridge PhD Astrophysics, Director Kitt Peak National Observatory

 

Sounds like the Quest for TRUTH to Me!!!!

 

 

Lets do Specifics, shall we.....

 

NGC 7603 and Companion Galaxy with 2 QSO's in the Arm.  The arm has the same "Red Shift" as NGC 7603 but the 2 QSO's and Companion Galaxy are all different!!!!

 

 

NGC7603A_zps88f33def.jpg   NGC7603B_zps5b1f1ee9.jpg    NGC7603C_zps4fa74dbe.jpg

 

 

López-Corredoira & Gutiérrez (2002).....

 

"We have clearly shown that two of the compact emission lines objects in the filament have redshifts very much greater than those of NGC7603 and its companion galaxy. Thus we have presented a very well known system with anomalous redshifts, NGC 7603, to be an apparently much more anomalous than was previously thought. There are 4 objects with very different redshifts apparently connected by a filament associated with the lower redshift galaxy. This system is at present the most spectacular case that we know among the candidates for anomalous redshift."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A%26A...390L..15L

 

 

NGC 4319 and it's Companion Markarian 205 Discordant Redshifts:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1983ApJ...265L..49S

 

This one caused quite a stir back in the day LOL. Even Unsolicited Government Supported Institution Press Releases Exclaiming there was no connection with the Two Galaxies.  Complete with Doctored Photos!!....Photo manipulation comments from video above.

 

NGC4319A_zps12f4284b.jpg  NGC4319B_zps9736e959.jpgNGC4319E1_zpsfbf60057.jpgNGC4319D_zps2be1abf8.jpg

 

 

Note PIC NGC 4319 E1 (3rd Pic from left) in the magnified isophote view of the 2002 Photo reveals there is a distention of the shape of the Mark 205 inner isophotes back toward NGC 4319. There are also a series of secondary masses within Mark 205 on a line connecting 4319 and the center of Mark 205.

 

Naaa, There is no Paradigm to be defended.... @ THE HIGHEST LEVELS.  Wonder who's up there?  See Daniel 10: 13-20 for some perspective.

 

Jack Sulentic Professor Astronomy and Astrophysics, Comments from You Tube Interview Above:

 

"There was a famous paper that claimed to show that there was no connection between NGC 4319 and the Quasar Markanian 205, so @ that time I had the opportunity to work at JPL using the new image processing facilities that had been developed for the Voyager Program; in fact, and it took 1 Hours Effort to show there was some kind of a Luminous Feature between those 2 Objects....there's NO Question.... and it cannot be dismissed in the ways that it was dismissed."

 

Regarding the Press Release and Pics {NGC 4319 and Markarian 205} from a Government Supported Agency (NASA and the Hubble Heritage Team) in 2002.....

 

"No Connection {Laughing} between the two objects.  So I looked @ their picture then I downloaded it and it took me 5 Minutes to show that it's still there {Laughing}....but I was really surprised that they they felt it necessary to issue a Press Release saying it's not there; it's not real, when, it's the same thing we saw 20 years ago."

 

"It's a strange attitude, I don't understand it as a scientist, really....but, to just sort of close the door; in a way you could argue....I interpret that as a manifestation of Fear and Uncertainty because if I really had confidence in my Paradigm, I'd put it right out there and say, Well Yes, there is a Bridge there but it's either this explanation or that explanation....but instead to just say it just isn't there, that's a manifestation of Fear, I Think."

 

"You don't get tenor @ University, you don't get promoted, you don't get recognition, by looking too much into unpopular areas".

 

"I remember one famous group, I asked them; how do resolve disagreements amongst yourselves? And the reply was "WE VOTE".  And I thought what a strange thing to do in science....Vote??

 

Margaret Burbidge Astrophysicist (Director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory) comments regarding NGC 4319:

 

"The Theoreticians ought to be really looking @ this Theoretical problem and the Observers ought to be gathering much more data of the sort that we get; but I think they're all a little scared because it's an unpopular subject.  They're worried about their Jobs and they're worried about moving on up the ladder if they're Post Docs."

 

 

And to put the "Cherry on Top"....

 

NGC 7319 and it's QSO:

 

News Article:  http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp

Tech Paper:http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409215

 

How could a galaxy 360 million light years away contain a stellar object 35 billion light years away?  Laughing Out Loud!!

 

 

NGC7319C_zpsfa1ce0f4.jpg   

 

NGC7319B_zpsa2d3db15.jpg

 

 

Source:  http://creation.com/quasar-with-enormous-redshift-found-embedded-in-nearby-spiral-galaxy-with-far-lower-redshift

 

"Quasar with enormous red shift found embedded in a nearby spiral Galaxy with a far lower red shift:  Unsolvable riddle for Big Bang astronomy."This changes the whole view of the universe--big bang astronomy will never be the same...by Dr. John G Hartnett, Australia  12 Jan 2005.

 

So what is the big deal? This is the big deal...

 

'The ejection-of-quasars-from-galaxies interpretation is vigorously rejected by the big bang community.  Obviously this is because it utterly demolishes their key assumption of the genesis of all matter at the big bang.  Also it calls into question many redshift-distances determined by quasar redshifts.  In the section “Alternatives to the big bang” on page 393 of his book,6 Joseph Silk … admits, “Only by disputing the interpretation of quasar redshifts as a cosmological distance indicator can this conclusion be avoided” [my emphasis added]. This is, in fact, the main thrust of Arp’s observations!  They cast enormous doubt on the distribution of galaxies in the universe and the interpretation of big bang expansion models".7

 

 

Martin Lopez Corredoria PhD Astronomer...

 

"Cosmology is not Science".

 

"Don't collaborate with "Chip" Arp because if you do that you will have problems to get a position in such a place, I receive such a Black Mail".

 

 

Who's Running the Show?? ....for now.  Until the Largest Escrow Closing in the History of The Universe comes in the CLOUDS!....HE'S @ The DOOR.

 

 

Praise The LORD!!!!!!

 

 

Thanks for your Attention.  Have a Blessed Day

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the kraken?

 

 

I seen your reply on the main page and started laughing because I knew your question......

 

No Baby Kracken....but it packs a Wallop  :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(To the refuters) Just so there are no misunderstandings, you only have 3 options:

 

 

1.)  Somehow show that ALL Red Shifts are erroneous. By doing this you only confirm the Diagnosis.

 

2.)  Show that All the anomalous Red Shifts are in error and are the same as their respective, Parent/Neighbor Galaxy(s).  The Data are GOT with Multiple Confirmations...Chances are near ZERO for this.

 

3.)  Somehow "SHOW" NO Connection between the Parent/Neighbor Galaxy and each respective Stellar Condensation/Quasar/Luminous Bridge....  (Google Away)  :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(To the refuters) Just so there are no misunderstandings, you only have 3 options:

 

 

1.)  Somehow show that ALL Red Shifts are erroneous. By doing this you only confirm the Diagnosis.

 

2.)  Show that All the anomalous Red Shifts are in error and are the same as their respective, Parent/Neighbor Galaxy(s).  The Data are GOT with Multiple Confirmations...Chances are near ZERO for this.

 

3.)  Somehow "SHOW" NO Connection between the Parent/Neighbor Galaxy and each respective Stellar Condensation/Quasar/Luminous Bridge....  (Google Away)  :)

 

Isnt that sort of staking the deck?  limiting how things can be refuted? 

 

Will watch the video again, didnt make it all the way through last time.  Between the hour long video and the links it will be some time before this can be responded to.

 

And before I respond to the rest I would like to point the fact that even if nobody here can "refute" your baby kraken it still does not make you right, it means that a group of people with zero astronomers and astrophysicists among the group cannot refute your positions.   If you want to truly impress anyone, post this same thing on the astrophysics forum at physicsforums.com.  If they cannot refute your position, then I will be impressed.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(To the refuters) Just so there are no misunderstandings, you only have 3 options:

 

 

1.)  Somehow show that ALL Red Shifts are erroneous. By doing this you only confirm the Diagnosis.

 

2.)  Show that All the anomalous Red Shifts are in error and are the same as their respective, Parent/Neighbor Galaxy(s).  The Data are GOT with Multiple Confirmations...Chances are near ZERO for this.

 

3.)  Somehow "SHOW" NO Connection between the Parent/Neighbor Galaxy and each respective Stellar Condensation/Quasar/Luminous Bridge....  (Google Away)  :)

 

Isnt that sort of staking the deck?  limiting how things can be refuted? 

 

Will watch the video again, didnt make it all the way through last time.  Between the hour long video and the links it will be some time before this can be responded to.

 

And before I respond to the rest I would like to point the fact that even if nobody here can "refute" your baby kraken it still does not make you right, it means that a group of people with zero astronomers and astrophysicists among the group cannot refute your positions.   If you want to truly impress anyone, post this same thing on the astrophysics forum at physicsforums.com.  If they cannot refute your position, then I will be impressed.

 

 

 

==========================================================================

 

 

Isnt that sort of staking the deck?  limiting how things can be refuted?

 

I thought it was Inherently self-limiting due to the facts of the matter.  However, if I have missed a way or ways to refute the conclusion.... then by all means Rock On.

 

 

Between the hour long video and the links it will be some time before this can be responded to.

 

No Problem, take your time.

 

 

And before I respond to the rest I would like to point the fact that even if nobody here can "refute" your baby kraken it still does not make you right,

 

Yes, understood.

 

If you want to truly impress anyone, post this same thing on the astrophysics forum at physicsforums.com.  If they cannot refute your position, then I will be impressed.

 

Good Suggestion, I will consider it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I found very interesting....

 

 

The Big Bang was first conjured by Abbes Georges Lemaitre a Belgian Mathematician and Catholic Priest...

 

To Alfven, the Big Bang was a myth - a myth devised to explain creation. "I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory," he recalled. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing."

Hannes Alfven PhD (Nobel Prize 1970)

http://tmgnow.com/repository/cosmology/alfven.html

 

So in other words, Lemaitre used his Ideology (and used science as HIS Hermeneutic Filter) to lay the groundwork for his Theory.  I must have missed that Step in the Scientific Method  :huh:

 

 

In January 1933, the Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre traveled with Albert Einstein to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his Big Bang theory, Einstein stood up applauded, and said, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened."

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html

 

 

Well Well, we'll just see about that   :mgdetective:     Although, I think we've seen quite enough already.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hard to believe there aren't any Big Bang/StarLight Distance/Peer Review Defenders out there....

 

 

 

       :shout:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings,

 

My Presupposition:  "Secular" science is evil and is the hand of satan. 

Yet you use science to try to make your point. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings,

 

My Presupposition:  "Secular" science is evil and is the hand of satan. 

 

Yet you use science to try to make your point. 

 

:thumbsup:

 

Beloved There Is Science; The Simple Humble Study Of Dirt And Stuff

 

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Psalms 19:1-3

 

And Then There Is So Called Science

 

And they said, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart. Jeremiah 18:12

 

Which Mocks The LORD Jesus

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

Used By The Willful Blind

 

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. Hebrews 3:12

 

Yes, Used By The

 

The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee. Jeremiah 31:3

 

Lost

 

And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle? Jonah 4:11

 

~

 

Dear One, Which Science

 

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20

 

Which Knowledge

 

For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish. Psalms 1:6

 

Will You Choose

 

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:35-36

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0