Stellar explosion on outer reaches of Universe provides clues about black hole formation

May 07, 2014
Clues about black hole formation
Top left box (a): Image of the field of the GRB121024A captured by the Very Large Telescope (VLT), Chile. The GRB121024A is the point marked by the dotted lines. The glow of the GRB121024A in the image does not correspond to its distance from the Earth. In fact, as can be seen, the GRB121024A is one of the brightest objects in the field, despite being one of the most distant, if not the most distant one, in the image. So the point marked corresponds to the explosion of a star about ~11,000 million years ago when the age of the Universe was only one third of what it is now. General box (b): Artist's impression of the GRB121024A. It is possible to see the jets emerging from the dying star in the center of which a black hole would form. The blue wave spread by the jet represents the circular polarization detected. Acknowledgements: NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center/S. Wiessinger. Credit: UPV/EHU

On 24 October 2012 observatories across the world were alerted about a huge stellar explosion, the GRB121024A. However, only the European Southern Observatory using its Very Large Telescope located in Chile managed to take accurate polarimetric measurements of the phenomenon. The data obtained on that explosion, which took place about 11,000 million years ago, have made it possible to reconstruct how a black hole is formed. The work, which has had the participation of the Ikerbasque researcher Javier Gorosabal, co-director of the Associated Unit with the Institute of Astrophysics of Andalusia/CSIC-UPV/EHU, has been published in the prestigious journal Nature.

There is no other event in the cosmos that can compete in terms of energy and intensity with stellar explosions on the outer reaches of the universe and which are known as LGRBs (Long Gamma-Ray Bursts): in just one second a single GRB can emit as many as hundreds of stars like the Sun during its 10,000-million-year-lifetime.

For the last decade astrophysicists have been in possession of strong evidence that LGRBs occur when the so-called massive stars burst; these are huge stars with masses of up to hundreds of times bigger than that of the Sun and which, moreover, spin rapidly on a rotation axis.

As these stars are massive and spin, they do not explode like a normal star, which does so radially, as a ball does when it deflates, for example. The implosion of these huge stars would produce, according to theoretical models, a huge spinning top, which would turn in the way that water rotates down the plughole of a basin, until a black hole is finally formed. The energy given off by this gigantic explosion would be emitted in two jets displaying a high level of energy and which would be aligned with the rotation axis of the dying star.

What is more, all these have magnetic fields. And these are intensified further if they rotate rapidly, as in the case of the LGRBs. So during the internal collapse of the star towards the central black hole, the magnetic fields of the star would also swirl around the star's . And during the collapse of the star, a powerful "magnetic geyser" would be produced and be ejected from the environment of the black hole that is being formed; the effects of this can be felt at distances of billions of kilometres.

Stellar explosion on outer reaches of Universe provides clues about black hole formation
Image of the GRB121024A captured by means of the polarimeter fitted onto the FORS2 instrument of the VLT. The polarimeter provides two images for each object in the field of vision. The polarized objects appear considerably brighter in one band than in the other. The non-polarized objects, the vast majority, display the same intensity in the upper and lower band. The object indicted by the arrow is the GRB121024A which displayed a circular polarization of 0.6%. Credit: Wiersema et al. 2014, Nature, DOI 10.1038/nature13237.

This complex scenario led one to predict that the light emitted during the explosion of the star must have been circularly polarized as if it were a screw. And that is what, for the first time, the authors have detected in Chile: a circularly polarized light that is the direct consequence of a black hole "recently" created on the outer reaches of the Universe and which has been confirmed by the theoretical model. What is more, an optical circular polarization to such a high degree had never been detected, and nor had one been detected in such a distant source. All this indicates that the GRB121024A is an extraordinary event.

The VLT is one of the largest and best equipped telescopes in the world; it makes use of the exceptional astronomical observation conditions of the Atacama desert. That is why the use of the VLT is very limited and is regulated by a highly competitive process in which every six months an international committee selects the best proposals for observation submitted. So the only way to access these technologically state-of-the-art facilities is by means of powerful international consortia. 27 institutions belonging to 13 countries have participated in the study published by the prestigious journal Nature.

Explore further: ISOLDE sheds light on dying stars

More information: K. Wiersema, S. Covino, K. Toma, A.J. van der Horst, K. Varela, M. Min, J. Greiner, R.L.C. Starling, N.R. Tanvir, R.A.M.J. Wijers, S. Campana, P.A. Curra, Y. Fan, J.P.U. Fynbo, J. Gorosabel, A. Gomboc, D. Götz, J. Hjorth, Z.P. Jin, S. Kobayashi, C. Kouveliotou, C. Mundell, P.T.O'Brien, E. Pian, A. Rowlinson, D.M. Russell, R. Salvaterra, S. Di Serego Alighieri, G. Tagliafferri, S.D. Vergani, J. Eliott, C. Fariña, O.E. Hartoog, R. Karjalainen, S. Klose, F. Knust, A.J. Levan, P. Schady, V. Sudilovsky, & R. Willingale. "Circular Polarization in the optical afterglow of GRB121024A". Nature, 2014, DOI: 10.1038/nature13237

Journal reference: Nature search and more info website

Provided by Universidad del País Vasco

5 /5 (19 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

ISOLDE sheds light on dying stars

Apr 04, 2014

What happens inside a dying star? A recent experiment at CERN's REX accelerator offers clues that could help astrophysicists to recalculate the ages of some of the largest explosions in the universe.

Hardy star survives supernova blast

Mar 20, 2014

(Phys.org) —When a massive star runs out fuel, it collapses and explodes as a supernova. Although these explosions are extremely powerful, it is possible for a companion star to endure the blast. A team ...

A 3-D model of stellar core collapse

May 02, 2014

(Phys.org) —What happens when massive stars collapse? One potential result is a core-collapse supernova. Astronomers can make observations of such events that tell us what is happening on the surface of ...

Black hole makes 'String of Pearls' clusters

Apr 01, 2014

(Phys.org) —Huge young star clusters resembling a string of pearls around a black hole in the centre of a galaxy 120 million light-years away have been discovered by researchers at Swinburne University ...

How fast do black holes spin?

Feb 14, 2014

There is nothing in the Universe more awe inspiring or mysterious than a black hole. Because of their massive gravity and ability to absorb even light, they defy our attempts to understand them. All their ...

Recommended for you

Big black holes can block new stars

25 minutes ago

Massive black holes spewing out radio-frequency-emitting particles at near-light speed can block formation of new stars in aging galaxies, a study has found.

POLARBEAR seeks cosmic answers in microwave polarization

36 minutes ago

An international team of physicists has measured a subtle characteristic in the polarization of the cosmic microwave background radiation that will allow them to map the large-scale structure of the universe, ...

New radio telescope ready to probe

3 hours ago

Whirring back and forth on a turning turret, the white, 40-foot dish evokes the aura of movies such as "Golden Eye" or "Contact," but the University of Arizona team of scientists and engineers that commissioned ...

Exomoons Could Be Abundant Sources Of Habitability

Oct 20, 2014

With about 4,000 planet candidates from the Kepler Space Telescope data to analyze so far, astronomers are busy trying to figure out questions about habitability. What size planet could host life? How far ...

Partial solar eclipse over the U.S. on Thursday, Oct. 23

Oct 17, 2014

People in most of the continental United States will be in the shadow of the Moon on Thursday afternoon, Oct. 23, as a partial solar eclipse sweeps across the Earth. For people looking through sun-safe filters, from Los Angeles, ...

A newborn supernova every night

Oct 17, 2014

Thanks to a $9 million grant from the National Science Foundation and matching funds from the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) collaboration, a new camera is being built at Caltech's Palomar Observatory that ...

User comments : 133

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Bonusje
1 / 5 (13) May 07, 2014
"on outer reaches of Universe" so bigbangbunch?

Then if a universe is 13 billion years old and an explosion was 11 billion years ago then the light of such explosion should have reached us that 11 billion years ago where we were at only 2 billion years distance.

Can bbbunch explain why it delayed 11 billion years then?
IMP-9
4.5 / 5 (8) May 08, 2014
It doesn't say it's at 2 billion light years. I have no idea where you got that from.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) May 08, 2014
Can bbbunch explain why it delayed 11 billion years then?

Inflation.

If the space betwen two objects expands then an event at A will be seen later at B than if the space did not expand.
In extreme cases this means: If the space between A and B expands so that the total expansion adds more space per second than light can traverse per second then B will never see the event at A.

bluehigh
1 / 5 (11) May 08, 2014
Clearly your extreme case does not apply because GRB121024A has been observed.

Furthermore your extreme case is fundamentally flawed. If event A can not be detected by observers B then event A does not exist.

The question bonusje asks remains valid. If for example, 4 billion years ago on Earth a telescope attempted to view this object what would be observed? If light reached Earth only after 11 billion years (due to inflation) then the object would not be observable. How convenient that we observe this object now. It's a narrow window for detection in cosmic time and just happens for us now.

It doesn't say it's at 2 billion light years. I have no idea where you got that from.


13 minus 11 = 2

Preschool?

Hat1208
1 / 5 (6) May 08, 2014
This star exploded when the universe was only 2 billion years old. So the universe, if you subscribe to the expansion theory would have been considerable smaller, wouldn't it?
Bonusje
1 / 5 (11) May 08, 2014
"MP-9not rated yet 3 hours ago
It doesn't say it's at 2 billion light years. I have no idea where you got that from"

I also never will say such but bbbunch does for decades so I just asked now I am Not contained by school anymore.

bbbunch also never accounted for the flaw in 3k background and never calculated all the very massive input of all radiating bodies in like countless trillions Suns and such.

Also 3K is much to coherent for 13 billion years in a 13 billion years Universe. So a point for all Suns. Equalising and coherent stabilising should take much longer than 13 billion years. And then there is 13 billion years of absorbtion by clouds gasses dust bodies?

So bigbang can Not be.

And now they come with quantummechanics einstein darkmatter higgs and have to be Stopped befor they do more damages to the Brains of little Children and Our Wallets

Bonusje
1 / 5 (12) May 08, 2014
Also did you Observe the Hubble Deepspace Images already?

There is zip nothing nada tiniest spot of any hubbleshift where according to hubble theory it should be al atmost in the deepred at least if not at radiofrequencies

So everything is wrong!

Violence and abuse broke Our Souls and We wandered because of that in the dark and created a wrong universe http://samuel-hei...eii-more
Hat1208
2 / 5 (2) May 08, 2014
Where's anti when you need him?
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) May 08, 2014
Furthermore your extreme case is fundamentally flawed. If event A can not be detected by observers B then event A does not exist.

Someone standing at A would beg to differ (or someone within its future cone). The only thing that would be is that B would never be affected by anything at A.

Clearly your extreme case does not apply because GRB121024A has been observed.

As noted: in an extreme case. The situation here is not an extreme case but still a lot of inflation has happened while the light has traversed the intervening space (that is why we can see stuff that happened 13 billion light years ago but are now, that we see them, much further away - and by consequence were much closer when that light started its journey)

How convenient that we observe this object now.

It averages out. If you have x GRBs per year in the entire universe then you can observe x per year (minus a small amount for inflation).
Bonusje
1 / 5 (12) May 08, 2014
But is it not the bbbunch says universe even accelerates so we can assume already atleast nearlightspeed with bang and all the energy of the universe behind it....so we never ever should have seen a glimp of the universe in bbbunch fact? Or they could at least let their lightspeedborder go to repair their looks at it?

Because we CAN see 13 billion years this should mean it can not inflate faster than 2/3 of lightspeed what is about the range of visible light. And then only in deepred.

So all we see is quite an extreme case with bigbang held up.

Infinite Steady State however would Account for everything!
Bonusje
1 / 5 (10) May 08, 2014
"" but still a lot of inflation has happened while the light has traversed the intervening space ""

In that case we would experience chronic colourshift in all star We look at at every moment. That is not obverved.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (11) May 08, 2014
that also makes increased inflation questionable
Hat1208
5 / 5 (6) May 08, 2014
"" but still a lot of inflation has happened while the light has traversed the intervening space ""

In that case we would experience chronic colourshift in all star We look at at every moment. That is not obverved.


What is chronic colourshift?
Hat1208
3 / 5 (1) May 08, 2014
@antialias_physorg

The situation here is not an extreme case but still a lot of inflation has happened while the light has traversed the intervening space

Anti did you mean a lot of expansion has happened or inflation has happened while the light has traversed the intervening space.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) May 08, 2014
In that case we would experience chronic colourshift in all star We look at at every moment. That is not obverved.

We do see redshift. More redshift the further away the star/galaxy is. That is EXACTLY what is observed.

Redshift is due to a combination of expansion, relative motion, and gravitational effects.
Note: you can have stars far away that appear blueshifted if the move faster towards us (accounting for blueshift) than the intervening expansion accounts for redshift.

Anti did you mean a lot of expansion has happened or inflation

Expansion. Translation SNAFU, sorry.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (11) May 08, 2014
"What is chronic colourshift?"

shift toward a specific other radiationcolor like hubbleshift but when accelerating expansion then chronic continuing shift along whole line of lightspectrum and beyond. And that is Not observed.

So No acceleration No darkmatter.

""We do see redshift. More redshift the further away the star/galaxy is. That is EXACTLY what is observed.""

Nope! What old telescopes saw" Hubble spacescope tells whole different story with deepspace material. No redshift seen there all Galaxies in brave lightspectrumrange.

Btw if they cool their scopes to - 200°C also Earthbound scopes will loose redshift.
IMP-9
4.9 / 5 (12) May 08, 2014
13 minus 11 = 2


Yes, why didn't I think of it. Age of the universe - Time since event occurred = distance. No, that's complete rubbish.

There is zip nothing nada tiniest spot of any hubbleshift where according to hubble theory it should be al atmost in the deepred at least if not at radiofrequencies


Nope. spectroscopic flow-up shows quite clearly that there is redshift. The colour of objects tells you very little without detailed analysis. An object can get bluer with redshift depending on the spectrum.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (12) May 08, 2014
I assume at least one would agree with me that IF hubbleshift or inflation would exist it would be absolutely imposssible to see any blue anymore at most distant ranges?
IMP-9
5 / 5 (8) May 08, 2014
And that is Not observed.


Because it is too small to be observed. You can quite easily calculate the change in redshift over time for an object as space expands pushing if further and increasing it's redshift. It is too small to be observed by the instruments that exist today. it will be detectable in 20-30 years with the next generation of radio telescopes and high resolution optical spectrographs. Just because you don't see something doesn't mean it's missing.

No redshift seen there all Galaxies in brave lightspectrumrange.


That is completely untrue. A paper showing photometric redshifts with HST.

http://www.spacet...1219.pdf
Bonusje
1 / 5 (12) May 08, 2014
""An object can get bluer with redshift depending on the spectrum.""

This does Not fit what we talk about. In this case you can Not presume all millions of far distance Galaxies got above lightrange spectrums to make a point. That makes an exception the rule

"Time since event occurred = distance. No, that's complete rubbish."" ?

Bonusje
1 / 5 (12) May 08, 2014
""That is completely untrue. A paper showing photometric redshifts with HST.""

Can Not be. All colors are in known colors. There are from red to white and blue variations in by hubble observed deepspace Galaxies.

Also when a redshift by inflation would be present we were not able to see them by hubblelaw at these distances and they would be far out of visible range by speed. What is it? Some 50Kilometers per second per 123 parsecs? On 13 billion lightyears? Hubble deepspacepictures should have been deeply shifted then and they did Not!
Bonusje
1 / 5 (12) May 08, 2014
""An object can get bluer with redshift depending on the spectrum.""

Of course we can expect that elements far away are same and also same basespectrum as also closer ones we know of. So that also makes your point invalid.
IMP-9
4.6 / 5 (11) May 08, 2014
In this case you can Not presume all millions of far distance Galaxies got above lightrange spectrums to make a point. That makes an exception the rule


It does. And you cannot presume that they don't. Galaxies regularly emit in the ultraviolet, it's by no means an exception. You cannot know it's rest spectrum just by looking at it so you cannot say there is no shift. Spectral follow-up shows it is simply not true. Photometric redshifts from Hubble show it is not true.

"Time since event occurred = distance. No, that's complete rubbish."" ?


That's not what you did though was it? No. If you said it was 11 billion years but no, you subtracted it from the age of the universe. In any case both are wrong. The time it takes would only ever equal the distance when the universe is static, because it's expanding the GRB is much more distant than it was when it emitted that light. It is not 2 or 11 billion light years distant.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (11) May 08, 2014
Also when a redshift by inflation would be present we were not able to see them by hubblelaw at these distances and they would be far out of visible range by speed.


Ah, you didn't even bother to read it without dismissing it. The images were taken in the near-infrared.

Some 50Kilometers per second per 123 parsecs? On 13 billion lightyears?


You haven't even calculated it and you're claiming everything is wrong. Your argument stems purely from ignorance. They are if you would look at the evidence.

Of course we can expect that elements far away are same and also same basespectrum as also closer ones we know of.


No. Broadband spectrum doesn't just depend on elemental abundance. Continuum radiation dominates. You cannot look at an image and claim it's not redshifted when careful measurement says it is.
Hat1208
1.3 / 5 (4) May 08, 2014
@antialias_physorg

Redshift is due to a combination of expansion, relative motion, and gravitational effects.
Note: you can have stars far away that appear blueshifted if the move faster towards us (accounting for blueshift) than the intervening expansion accounts for redshift.

Has it ever been calculated that stars can move faster towards us than the current limits of expansion.

Hat1208
1.5 / 5 (4) May 08, 2014
@IMP-9

Ah, you didn't even bother to read it without dismissing it. The images were taken in the near-infrared.

I cannot find where it says that the images were taken in the near infrared. Is it in the Arxiv document?

Bonusje
1 / 5 (11) May 08, 2014
"I cannot find where it says that the images were taken in the near infrared. Is it in the Arxiv document?"

I rather think IMP9 is scamming around and is of the bbbunch. Things he tells are Not true. I often meet these subsidiary scammers at science sites who are abundant around to torpedo every say against their subsidiary flow of cash and status and want the status quo prolonged in own interests where 53% of all academic diploms are fraud and bought so academic job as highpay mobsector

""You haven't even calculated it and you're claiming everything is wrong. Your argument stems purely from ignorance. They are if you would look at the evidence.""

Yes IMP9 at these distances with such claims I can yes without calculator just by looking at the deepspace images. No hubble present that is!

Bonusje
1 / 5 (10) May 08, 2014

"antialias_physorg5 / 5 (2)
Redshift is due to a combination of expansion, relative motion, and gravitational effects""

Not true and only relative motion I would accept. Because there also does not exist any einstein same hubble deepspace photos tell with light that came after billions of years crispyclear on Earth with no grav distortions what so ever
Bonusje
1 / 5 (11) May 08, 2014
"I cannot find where it says that the images were taken in the near infrared. "

It would be illogic to take em in nir because that would lose most of lightinfo especial on these distances&would diminish IMP9´s points even further.I think IMP9 is a fraud!
Bonusje
1 / 5 (11) May 08, 2014
Just a philosofical idea but did you ever think of einstein and his influence as the kristallnacht of science? Because he is!
IMP-9
5 / 5 (9) May 08, 2014
I cannot find where it says that the images were taken in the near infrared.


Second line of the abstract. You can also see the filters listed, the name tells you it's near infrared. F105W for example is centred on 1.05 microns, also known as approximately the Y near infrared band.

Yes IMP9 at these distances with such claims I can yes without calculator just by looking at the deepspace images.


So you have no idea how large the wavelength shift would be and you have no idea what kind of shift is noticeable to the eye but you maintain something is wrong. That called guessing. I'm afraid science will always trump guesswork in my opinion. Redshift is indeed present, spectral data > guesswork.

http://monoceros....1.0.html
Hat1208
1 / 5 (1) May 08, 2014
@Bonusje

"Not true and only relative motion I would accept. Because there also does not exist any einstein same hubble deepspace photos tell with light that came after billions of years crispyclear on Earth with no grav distortions what so ever".

You will only accept relative motion. Does this mean that there can only be redshift?


Captain Stumpy
4.9 / 5 (11) May 08, 2014
I rather think IMP9 is scamming around and is of the bbbunch
@bonusje
the very first sentence, which runs two lines in the abstract, says this
We present the results of the deepest search to date for star-forming galaxies beyond a redshift z ≃8.5 utilizing a new sequence of near-infrared Wide Field Camera 3 images of the Hubble Ultra Deep Fiel
therefore your comment
Things he tells are Not true
is a blatant lie. perhaps you need to take remedial reading and comprehension? is there a language barrier here? translation from???? what is your first language, maybe we can get Google to translate it for you
Bonusje
1 / 5 (10) May 08, 2014
Btw did any one Notice what I said here:

"What is chronic colourshift?"

shift toward a specific other radiationcolor like hubbleshift but when accelerating expansion then chronic continuing shift along whole line of lightspectrum and beyond. And that is Not observed.

So No acceleration No darkmatter.

Why disregarding this?
Dr_toad
May 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hat1208
4 / 5 (4) May 08, 2014
IMP-9

Thanks not that literate with those kinds of datum.

IMP-9
5 / 5 (5) May 08, 2014
Why disregarding this?


It was answered. It's called redshift drift.

Because it is too small to be observed. You can quite easily calculate the change in redshift over time for an object as space expands pushing if further and increasing it's redshift. It is too small to be observed by the instruments that exist today. it will be detectable in 20-30 years with the next generation of radio telescopes and high resolution optical spectrographs. Just because you don't see something doesn't mean it's missing.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (12) May 08, 2014
What abstract captain stumpy why no link to your abstract?

and " beyond a redshift" can mean anything and possibly calculations of that hubblelaw but per proven definition not taken in infrared...captain stumpy!

What IMP9 concerns just read dialog back for yourself. He talks nonsense.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (12) May 08, 2014
IMP9 "It was answered. It's called redshift drift."

You should get yourself some readinglessons...> it is about absence of acceleration and absence of darkmatter. Nothing spanish here.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) May 08, 2014
What abstract captain stumpy why no link to your abstract?
@bonusje
because the link is ALREADY IN IMP-9's post... see http://www.spacet...1219.pdf for more details
and " beyond a redshift" can mean anything and possibly calculations of that hubblelaw but per proven definition not taken in infrared...captain stumpy!
read what he posted again. this time slow down and go for comprehension, or find a translator.
What IMP9 concerns just read dialog back for yourself. He talks nonsense.
are you related to zephyr? you are talking nonsense

like I said... try READING what he wrote... if English is not your first language, try using Google translate here: https://translate.google.com/
Bonusje
1 / 5 (15) May 08, 2014
Just a philosofical idea but did you ever think of einstein and his influence as the kristallnacht of science? Because he is!


Are you completely insane?


No but hubble deepspacephotos proof einstein is a hoax. Light after 13 billion years through millions of gravityfields arrive crispyclear and focussed. No einstein there no grav or time or lightcoupling anywhere.

Please stay with the Facts!

Also einsteins sunexperiment was already a hoax that even never was repeated. And abused the Suns Corona for his claims.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (12) May 08, 2014
No but hubble deepspacephotos proof einstein is a hoax. Light after 13 billion years through millions of gravityfields arrive crispyclear and focussed. No einstein there no grav or time or lightcoupling anywhere.

Please stay with the Facts!

Also einsteins sunexperiment was already a hoax that even never was repeated. And abused the Suns Corona for his claims.
this guy has to be a spam bot or a troll bot

IMP-9
5 / 5 (7) May 08, 2014
it is about absence of acceleration and absence of darkmatter


I can read perfectly fine, it isn't about that. The model predicts an effect which so far is too small to be observed. But you claim this is proof that the model is wrong. That is complete nonsense. I think you need a basic course in logic.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (11) May 08, 2014
Captain Stumpy the hubble deepspace pictures were clearly taken in the visible range. There is nothing you can do about that!

Upon that even the Stars in the much nearer foreground have SAME range of emissions so why disregard such clear facts?
Hat1208
2 / 5 (4) May 08, 2014
@Dr Toad

Just a philosofical idea but did you ever think of einstein and his influence as the kristallnacht of science? Because he is!

Are you completely insane?

The completely insane cannot type. Don't ask me how I know that.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) May 08, 2014
Has it ever been calculated that stars can move faster towards us than the current limits of expansion.

Sure. E.g. the Andomeda galaxy is moving towards us quite a bit faster than expansion can increase the distance between it and us. It exhibits blueshift. Eventually it'll crash into the Milky Way.

The further out the less likely this becomes /as the relative speed of an object with earth must be ever greater to get an absolute blueshift). At very far distances redshift due to expansion of the intervening space is dominant. At roughly 4.5 gigaparsec distance the expansion is equivalent to the speed of light. So objecty beyond that (now) are invisible to us and will remain so (not quite true of objects at that range some time ago, as the expansion is accelerating. That 'older' light we can see.)
Bonusje
1 / 5 (13) May 08, 2014
IMP9 oh yez it is about that! what effect? darkmatter acceleration? rubish! Even IF it would exist it would not accelerate the expansion because then darkmatter effect would have been strongest at start of bigbang and had diminshed by now the same as the explosion by gravity. So even with only logic it does not exist
Bonusje
1 / 5 (13) May 08, 2014
antialias I do think Andromeda wil not collide because We are running away with 4000 kilometers a second due North at 90° of Andromeda so 2 million years times 4000 kms maby enough to escape for a Milky Way size Object?
IMP-9
5 / 5 (9) May 08, 2014
Light after 13 billion years through millions of gravityfields arrive crispyclear and focussed.


The light in those images has not passed though a sufficiently strong field in the right location. If you want evidence of lensing look at weak lensing or strong gravitational lenses. Gravitational lensing doesn't defocus light.

Also einsteins sunexperiment was already a hoax that even never was repeated


You are an absolute liar. Gravitational lensing due to the Sun has been measured many many times. Multiple frequencies show it cannot be refraction in the corona.

http://adsabs.har...02...49F
http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.3992
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) May 08, 2014
I do think Andromeda will not collide because We are running away with 4000 kilometers a second

The paths are curving into one another - gravity sees to that. Even if we missed on the first pass it'd eventually get us as there is nothing to pull it away. But every simulation I've seen to date has a very solid hit on the first pass. If you include dark matter the hit seems even more assured.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (11) May 08, 2014
However IMP9 alone hubble deepspace tells you and them are wrong

Facts are No liar!
Bonusje
1 / 5 (12) May 08, 2014
IMP9 "The light in those images has not passed though a sufficiently strong field in the right location. If you want evidence of lensing look at weak lensing or strong gravitational lenses. Gravitational lensing doesn't defocus light.""

YEZZZ IF gravitationel lensing WOULD exist it SURELY WOULD défocus light BECAUSE gravity always IS assymmestic AND SO diverting by distance IF it would exist BUT THAT lensing IS just gas and dustclouds

THAT images can be recieved on Earth IS same time proof lensing is NO gravity but gas and dust because these do not divert as much as assymetric gravity would
Bonusje
1 / 5 (10) May 08, 2014
I do think Andromeda will not collide because We are running away with 4000 kilometers a second

The paths are curving into one another - gravity sees to that. Even if we missed on the first pass it'd eventually get us as there is nothing to pull it away. But every simulation I've seen to date has a very solid hit on the first pass. If you include dark matter the hit seems even more assured.


Also a simulation where Our Milky Way runs away at 90° angle with 4000 kms for 2 million years?
Would like to see that one
Bonusje
1 / 5 (10) May 08, 2014


You are an absolute liar. Gravitational lensing due to the Sun has been measured many many times. Multiple frequencies show it cannot be refraction in the corona.

http://adsabs.har...02...49F


Do you know what layers ionisationlayers and clouds and for certain a Corana can do to radiowaves...and lightwaves?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) May 08, 2014
However IMP9 alone hubble deepspace tells you and them are wrong

Facts are No liar!

@ IMP-9
@ antialias_physorg

given the level of the conversation and the lack of proof/links/data from this poster, I strongly believe this is nothing more than a bot or a Troll just trying to be an idiot in a public comment section.
perhaps the thrill of posting is the payoff for this one, as there is no real substance to his post, nor is there any science that cannot be debunked by high school level physics and a 2 second search anywhere.

have fun guys...
Bonusje
1 / 5 (9) May 08, 2014
I that regard the Sun maby can be used as very mighty lens for long distance radiotelescopes? Scanning the Universe behind it while We run around the Sun?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) May 08, 2014
Also einsteins sunexperiment was already a hoax that even never was repeated.

The Hippacaros probe measured the distortion due to the sun's gravity quite well all over the sky (as expected)
http://en.wikiped..._lensing
Facts are No liar!

Yep. You should try looking at some.

YEZZZ IF gravitationel lensing WOULD exist it SURELY WOULD défocus light BECAUSE gravity always IS assymmestic

Why would gravity be asymmetric? Gravity of an unaccelerating, unrotating object is perfectly symmetric. (And even for an accelerating, rotating object the acceleration/rotation has to be pretty severe for any asymmetry to show up)
Bonusje
1 / 5 (8) May 08, 2014
Okey captain stumpy ...and you are gonna debunk Me ...when...? Please try instead of cheap insults.

Bonusje
1 / 5 (9) May 08, 2014

Why would gravity be asymmetric? Gravity of an unaccelerating, unrotating object is perfectly symmetric. (And even for an accelerating, rotating object the acceleration/rotation has to be pretty severe for any asymmetry to show up)


You are totaly wrong here! As I just explained above about it being per definition assymteric and ONLY can produce assymetic fields. But this is no longer an argument because we estimated already gravity lenses and light gravity couplings do Not exist.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (9) May 08, 2014
Hiparcos measured by using Starlight and positions. So when this was near the Sun and with light touched by the Corona then al measurments are false.

Then another one to think about....so whén gravity of the Sun bends light...why not do we see every day our objects or vision affected when Sun comes up or goed along the Heaven with according changing gravity and pull?

Also why did never any atomic clock had deviations because of the huge daily gravitychanges by the Moon the most influentual gravitychange on dialy basis and No einstein there also anywhere?

Light that traveled 13 billions of years says there is No gravity coupling.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) May 08, 2014
Okey captain stumpy ...and you are gonna debunk Me ...when...? Please try instead of cheap insults.

OK
read the links
http://adsabs.har...02...49F
http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.3992
http://en.wikiped..._lensing
http://www.spacet...1219.pdf

antialias_physorg and IMP-9 left plenty of data refuting you, to which I added with data from the abstract of a link
either: you cant read
you didn't read it
you cannot understand it
or you're trolling

I suggested the latter given your comments because AA_P and IMP both spell out the reasons you are wrong with clear, concise verbiage and you still attempt to argue the point with absolutely NO data backing you up other than claims and personal conjecture based upon whatever philosophical pseudoscience you are promoting, which is not even clear at this point...
again, I suggest using https://translate.google.com/
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) May 08, 2014
Hiparcos measured by using Starlight and positions. So when this was near the Sun and with light touched by the Corona then al measurments are false
@bonusje
please link the study or the empirical data that shows this information and proves this personal conjecture
Then another one to think about....so whén gravity of the Sun bends light...why not do we see every day our objects or vision affected when Sun comes up or goed along the Heaven with according changing gravity and pull?
try running this through https://translate.google.com/ and giving us a better translation. this is garbled and nonsensical

please feel free to add links to reputable sits and higher learning studies that are peer reviewed proving your points like AA_P and IMP did above. We would love to see what it is you are actually trying to say
Dr_toad
May 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonusje
1.4 / 5 (9) May 08, 2014
No captain stumpy I wil Not comply to your orders. When you have argument put it here at spot as I can also in own words and Stop blowing air.

You are disregarding every of My Arguments so you are done.
My Questions and Remarks are well Explained and Reasonable so Stop playing chickenshit

Up to this point not much of your arguments is left anymore.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) May 08, 2014
When you have argument put it here at spot as I can also in own words and Stop blowing air
@bonusje
look bon-bon, all you had to do was say you didn't understand the papers/links posted and saved everyone a WHOLE lotta time
You are disregarding every of My Arguments so you are done
sorry, bon-bon-Troll, you post stupid, I will follow with links to studies, even though you didn't read the first ones, everyone else will see just how stupid you really are... thanks for playing, bon-bon-troll.

also... I don't give orders. I just suggested you read the links because they addressed your comments. your garbled vitriolic regurgitation is just that: troll-puke

it has NOT been nice talking to ya, troll. but at least we know you are a certified troll now (and that you cant read)

good night, bon-bon-troll
Bonusje
1 / 5 (8) May 08, 2014
But anyway captain stumpy we estimated that none of your theories and claims are valid so a rather fruitfull day to go sleep with. And what do you got to sleep with besides your unscientific childish responses?

Nighynight
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) May 08, 2014
Someone standing at A would beg to differ (or someone within its future cone). The only thing that would be is that B would never be affected by anything at A.
-AA

Yes indeed. So B could never acquire any information as to the existence of A.
What do you call a belief that is unable to be supported by empirical evidence?
Bonusje
1 / 5 (8) May 08, 2014
"What do you call a belief that is unable to be supported by empirical evidence?"

Hmm that sure can exist at acceptable reasonable argumentative logical level BUT worse is to deny FACTS for own secret agenda at expense of others and sabotage others Thoughts and Works to monopolisie and rule and stil call yourselfe scientist or truthfull instead of moneymongering lowlife mobs.

I see that as 1 of the strongest arguments of bigbangbunch. And so many other false and fraud theories and by media propaganda(national geografic hollywood would be scientists) popularised science opinions

I even with argument and epirical ecidence even can not Break thru their unwillingness to accept My Very Obvious and Clear Arguments and they sabotage and bring back everything to their consensus commanded by their interests of which at least 60% is false and fraud!

Scientific fraud is major Worldwide to suck Nations dry of their Money and thru their projects costing many billions each.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (8) May 08, 2014
This mafia mob monopolist spirit and criminals is also only reason not 1 probleem could be solved all the time they rule and even made things worse to can earn even more of it!

They Realy Do damage the Minds of Children for their parasitic existence what they already commit agains Children at schools dumbingdown all into oh and ah yelling devotees and Mind less repeatements of their slavemasters.

These are very much fraud works even all political agenda is fraud with science supporting by false data and fraud all the way. This robs many billions a year a Nation.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (9) May 08, 2014
That ´s why they have Worldwide cybercriminals at most science websites among the Visitors to oppose any Sense and Sanity and even do have propaganda websites to push their agenda and any interests bút Science

And this is going on for 100 years already when it started with monopolist of Your Mind einstein a staged media facade and actor for propaganda and monopoly.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (9) May 08, 2014
These specific group of criminals do infiltrate everywhere there are millions and billions and trillions to catch also in politics in industry in media in law in govs they already have monopolised(also racial) everything and much more.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
Hiparcos measured by using Starlight and positions. So when this was near the Sun and with light touched by the Corona then al measurments are false.

It measured at right angles to the sun. Nowhere near the corona.

If the corona were involved you'd see an entirely different spectrum (as you'd get absorption/emission lines added due to corona gases)
So B could never acquire any information as to the existence of A.
What do you call a belief that is unable to be supported by empirical evidence?

You can get empirical evidence for this, because with accelerating expansion there will be objects that eventually slip beyond our causality horizon (and hence will not be observable anymore). Something that is testable is not a belief but a scientific theory.
In this case the (eventual) absence of evidence will be the proof of the thing.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (9) May 09, 2014
@anti I just say with hiparcos all is open and made some remarks some possibilities what can get wrong. Also it could be reason for imagedistorsion that maby clouds and flares solar emmisions ran through the measurementarea. It can be so many but made a point I can Not accept such data without severe doublecheck where of I have no data.

But it seems just unlikely to Me.

Then also distorsions should have been found along the Moon the Earth the Planets and there are not.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (9) May 09, 2014
"You can get empirical evidence for this, because with accelerating expansion there will be objects that eventually slip beyond our causality horizon""

There IS empirical evidence that inflation DOES NOT exist - the Stars have same colours as when I saw them ten years ago and that is Double evidence increased inflation DOES NOT exist. When the last is NOT Observed then first case also wil be absent.

And of course all things I said above already.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (9) May 09, 2014
Why not Recheck already Known starspectrums from ten or twenty years ago and Compare Spectrums with Now?

IF inflation ALL should be shifted!!!
bluehigh
1 / 5 (5) May 09, 2014
@antialias, anything might happen one day. Your extreme case is not logically or scientifically valid. It's conjecture or worse, just a guess that defies common sense.

If we go down that path then I can suggest that unicorns exist but are prevented from detection and one day something will happen to provide proof. It's testable, you just wait and see!

That's aside from the generally accepted proposition that FTL 'inflation' only occurred for a sub second interval after the BB. If 'inflation' remained FTL we would see nothing!

I would go further in regard to your 'averages out' comment as misinformed but hey .. The Friday night footy is on TV soon. Rugby league. Roosters vs Tigers, should be a good match. Pizza, beer and footy. Life's good.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (9) May 09, 2014
Do You Know how fraudf scientist get to their next new accelerator every time for decades now?

They just hold back several discoveries they already mad with the old ones and base new ideas on that as "theoretical idea" and take with every new accelerator many billions also through their mob compagnies and ..hey viola ...the predicted particle appears...with of course new holdback for the next robbery of many many billions and severe waste of time and Brainpower

They even do not Tell all modern science they robbed from Germany befor in and after war and threw the People after that in a deadstreak just like they now try with us now after decades of utmost massive robbery of knowlegde industry finance rights land ground ownerships in all of the West Europe Britain Scandinavia USA Russia & more and made central bankers azerbeidjan israel china booming with it as they now are. But Ukrain is since 2000 already the so maniest attempt

So where does Science Start and suffering End
Bonusje
1 / 5 (9) May 09, 2014
Even every Integer and Truthfull Scientist that Opposes all these false fraud political and scintific agendas are taken away all the time. So there was serieus Objection against the LHC already who were silenced by media monopoly(rotchildbankers) and til now they discovered Nothing new or interesting where higgs for sure does Not exist
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
just a guess that defies common sense.

Common sense is a product of the environment on Earth. It's not a particularly good idea to rely on it for extreme cases for which it hasn't evolved (comsology, relativity, quantum physics, ... )

If we go down that path then I can suggest that unicorns exist but are prevented from detection and one day

Read what I write. The point is that there are objects we can detect NOW which we will not be able to detect in the future. When that transition happens we will know that they have passed beyond the horizon.
It's like stuff falling into a black hole. Once it crosses the event horoizon you can't detect it anymore. Is it therefore not true that it fell in? The transition from 'being able to detect' to 'not being able to detect' tells you that the event horizon is real.

Unicorns aren't detectable now OR in the future. Big difference.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
If 'inflation' remained FTL we would see nothing!

Expansion isn't FTL. Where do you get that idea? The cumulative effect over the entire distance is FTL. But there is no local FTL expansion involved. The distance must be very large for the cumulative effect to reach this magnitude between two observers.
(BTW: Space does not have to adhere to the cosmic speed limit, in any case. It's not a particle)

I would go further in regard to your 'averages out' comment as misinformed

How so?
Bonusje
May 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (5) May 09, 2014
AA, you are confused by your own writing. When you show empirical evidence that due to cumulative FTL 'inflation' of space, some object disappears then I might be impressed. I can't take your imaginary propositions any more seriously than finding a unicorn. In the meanwhile it's 14 nil to the Roosters.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (5) May 09, 2014
The distance must be very large for the cumulative effect to reach this magnitude between two observers.
- AA

If none of the components are > FTL then the cumulative effect can not exceed FTL. It was You that proposed the extreme case of 'inflation' ( or 'expansion' in your muddled terms ) being FTL.

In extreme cases this means: If the space between A and B expands so that the total expansion adds more space per second than light can traverse per second then ...


Well, what can I say. Um ... Debunked as Bonusje says.

24 to 6. The West Tigers just scored.

Hat1208
4 / 5 (4) May 09, 2014
Has it ever been calculated that stars can move faster towards us than the current limits of expansion.
Sure. E.g. the Andomeda galaxy is moving towards us quite a bit faster than expansion can increase the distance between it and us. It exhibits blueshift.

The further out the less likely this becomes /as the relative speed of an object with earth must be ever greater to get an absolute blueshift). At very far distances redshift due to expansion of the intervening space is dominant. At roughly 4.5 gigaparsec distance the expansion is equivalent to the speed of light. So objecty beyond that (now) are invisible to us and will remain so (not quite true of objects at that range some time ago, as the expansion is accelerating. That 'older' light we can see.)

antialias_physorg
does this mean that mankind will only ever be able to view out to 4.5Gpc because of the speed of light restriction on what we can observe? And as a follow up is the particle horizon a calculated amount not observed?
Hat1208
1 / 5 (1) May 09, 2014
@antialias_physorg

If the size of the universe is 100 Gpc would that explain the effects that we observe without the need for dark matter/energy?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) May 09, 2014
does this mean that mankind will only ever be able to view out to 4.5Gpc because of the speed of light restriction on what we can observe?

Yes. (with accelerating expansion that diameter will shrink, too). Unless we find a way to get around the cosmic speed limit and actually go there. Which is not entirely out of the question (e.g. the idea of the Alcubierre drive which neatly sidesteps the FTL problem)
And as a follow up is the particle horizon a calculated amount not observed?
The redshift close to that horizon is extreme. Currently it's just calculated.
If the size of the universe is 100 Gpc would that explain the effects that we observe without the need for dark matter/energy?

Not really. Some form of dark matter is needed for few effects much closer to home. Some form of dark energy is needed for the accelerating expansion.
What they are is still very much speculative beyond that there are definitely effects that mandate their presence.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (7) May 09, 2014
While AA goes into hyperspace nonsense, I will attempt an answer for you Bonusje.

Sol is about 5 billion years old. So given the realistic numbers involved, we are currently maybe approx 6 billion light years after the GRB event and observing the few minutes of this light. This equates to about 2 billion years, when inflation is excluded. Common sense triumphs.

Can bbbunch explain why it delayed 11 billion years then?
- Bonusje

Answer is ... No.

Just smoke and mirrors.

Final score was 27 to 14. West Tigers win.

Hat1208
1 / 5 (1) May 09, 2014
@antialias_physorg

Thank you for your earlier responses. My last question for this lively debate is on inflation. Is it likely that inflation in violation of the cosmic speed limit was possible because it happened before there was any mass in the early universe?

Thanks again!
Bonusje
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
@bluehigh I can not see where you got them stil that 14? Is there stil some I can destroy. Please point out the last open budgetscamming nervewrecks also

btw I think your explanation also cannot be or else it leads to paradoxes as I can see already and the by the budgetthiefs very wanted circle arguments with no end like a dog at own tail as you yourself saw some started tried to start here also.

So Conclusion Only a Steady State Non budget Universe is the Answer to All Questions.

But hey ... then a problem IS Solved...and such earns them thiefs nothing anymore.

It is of Course madness to think a explosion would wait for Our convenience for 11 billion years?
Bonusje
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
So also ALL far away explosions Tell Us the Universe IS Steady State because in a bigbang universe they can Not be
Dr_toad
May 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hat1208
1 / 5 (2) May 09, 2014
@Dr Toad

My last question for this lively debate is on inflation. Is it likely that inflation in violation of the cosmic speed limit was possible because it happened before there was any mass in the early universe?

Space itself has no such speed limit. Early rapid inflation took place when there was matter present.

Do you consider matter and mass to be inter-changeable terms?

Dr_toad
May 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hat1208
1.5 / 5 (2) May 09, 2014
Why not? There is no massless matter that I know of, including neutrinos

Photons have mass?
Rustybolts
1 / 5 (2) May 09, 2014
"There is no other event in the cosmos that can compete in terms of energy and intensity with stellar explosions on the outer reaches of the universe"

There is no POSSIBLE way you can make this assumption. I'm tired of science guessing, there mostly wrong.
Dr_toad
May 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) May 09, 2014
Is it likely that inflation in violation of the cosmic speed limit was possible because it happened before there was any mass in the early universe?

The cosmic speed limit goes for matter and information - not for space itself.

Photons have mass?

Photons have are taken to be massless. They have an equivalent rest mass that is the amount of mass that would be created if you took the energy in the photon and converted it to matter at rest (via E equals m c squared). But photons are never at rest.

(If photons had mass then the relativistic mass increase at c would be infinite. For something to be at the speed of light it must be massless. That's why it's e.g. interesting to find out whether neutrinos have speed c or not - i.e. whether they have a mass or not)

Photons do have an impulse, but that is not a function of mass in this case.

Burnerjack
3 / 5 (1) May 09, 2014
When you have argument put it here at spot as I can also in own words and Stop blowing air
@bonusje
look bon-bon, all you had to do was say you didn't understand the papers/links posted and saved everyone a WHOLE lotta time
You are disregarding every of My Arguments so you are done
sorry, bon-bon-Troll, you post stupid, I will follow with links to studies, even though you didn't read the first ones, everyone else will see just how stupid you really are... thanks for playing, bon-bon-troll.

also... I don't give orders. I just suggested you read the links because they addressed your comments. your garbled vitriolic regurgitation is just that: troll-puke

it has NOT been nice talking to ya, troll. but at least we know you are a certified troll now (and that you cant read)

good night, bon-bon-troll

In a strange, twisted way, this troll was kind of entertaining. Just not in the way he intended.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (5) May 10, 2014
My ..do the bigbangspambots have some open nerves there hanging out in Pain of reduction of profits?

I Think the spambots are not used to Meet Brilliance
Bonusje
1 / 5 (5) May 10, 2014
Because they themselfes are parrots of their masters who told them wrong things. There is No Honor there were Money rules your Mind and Future you bunch help destroying.
Dr_toad
May 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (3) May 10, 2014
My ..do the bigbangspambots have some open nerves there hanging out in Pain of reduction of profits?

I Think the spambots are not used to Meet Brilliance


Dunning-Kruger or psychosis?


I assume one who calls himself dr toad got all neccesary papers and degrees to can estimate that Universe also hehe? Hurry back to your cell they come to administer your precription of the evening against bigbangdelusions! How is kermit doing?
Bonusje
1 / 5 (3) May 10, 2014
btw academics who spray mental diagnoses around to slander intimidate derogate are usual also member of the international pedofilerings of the cabal as you can read on Timeline @Bonusje Today

Also Recognizable by the "rather strange usernames they get for themselfes
Bonusje
1 / 5 (3) May 10, 2014
Very little Example See Comments https://twitter.c...25953024
Bonusje
1 / 5 (3) May 10, 2014
Also Called beria Mind control monsters http://www.scribd...Handbook

Rule by mass Child rapes and druggings through Elementaries Creches and Kindergartens

Whereby ALL political agenda IS falsified to can prey&earn on us!
OZGuy
3.4 / 5 (5) May 10, 2014
Please stop feeding the trolls, it only encourages them. Mark the comments as a 1 and resist the urge to reply to their asinine scribblings as it is exactly what they want you to do.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (3) May 11, 2014
Please stop feeding the trolls, it only encourages them. Mark the comments as a 1 and resist the urge to reply to their asinine scribblings as it is exactly what they want you to do.


Hmm on the other hand it produced a shower of new data. Is that not what oppositionsmashing is about pioneering the Universe understanding Creation and it´s Reality?

A Very Lot of Reality has to do with Psychology Our Perception of Reality

Here we found evil forces and their purpose willingly deforming Our Perception Mind and Understanding who made Brilliance a mental desease and evil a brilliance

Not bad
Bonusje
1 / 5 (2) May 11, 2014


YEZZZ IF gravitationel lensing WOULD exist it SURELY WOULD défocus light BECAUSE gravity always IS assymmestic

Why would gravity be asymmetric? Gravity of an unaccelerating, unrotating object is perfectly symmetric. (And even for an accelerating, rotating object the acceleration/rotation has to be pretty severe for any asymmetry to show up)


You look at gravity both sides of a emitting body I look in this case of lensing at one side and at the geting weaker the more the distance from sourche what makes gravity by definition assymetric or weaker along the line.
IamVal
2 / 5 (4) May 11, 2014
Can bbbunch explain why it delayed 11 billion years then?

Inflation.

If the space betwen two objects expands then an event at A will be seen later at B than if the space did not expand.
In extreme cases this means: If the space between A and B expands so that the total expansion adds more space per second than light can traverse per second then B will never see the event at A.


totally wrong.

light doesn't travel at C relative to anything, it's absolute speed is C.
unless a body is moving faster than the speed of light, light will eventually catch up to it. The faster in the same direction as the light in question, the longer the trip.

I posited this question a while back: if two objects are traveling at 50.00....1 C in opposite directions, do they exist to eachother, and the math resoundingly says yes.

can't say I don't see all of the evidence of and for inflation, but some of the arguments I see seem so circular sometimes.. Like any good scientist I don't tak
IamVal
2 / 5 (4) May 11, 2014
it on dogma that any of these obeservations can't have alternative interpretations, or that our instruments could be flawed because they're built and based on the principles of the physics they're trying to prove.

this thought (why should light have taken 11 billion years to reach us if we were much closer 11 billion years ago) isn't something that can be ignored if inflation happened as stated, and can only have a few specific answers in the model as it's represented.

IamVal
1 / 5 (1) May 11, 2014
btw, I'm not against any of these ideas, least expansion. truth is stranger than fiction. there are too many unanswered questions and too many questions that don't seem to even be asked.
Requiem
5 / 5 (2) May 11, 2014
The discourse on this site has gone to complete shit. Fuck the handful of people who are allowed to constantly shit all over everything, fuck the staff that let it happen, and fuck this site.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (2) May 12, 2014
@IamVal Lightspeed C is NOT absolute.

Only to it´s OWN Sourche it is!

Proof? > If a Lightsourche approaches us then there is shift toward higher colors. > That means more quantumpackets a second arrive - SO FTL!!

And *WEBMASTER it is shame not even 1 A4 Explanation can be put here or else I Could Explain some about inflation.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (3) May 12, 2014
Hey My Comments does not Appear -

@IamVal Lightspeed C is NOT absolute.

Only to it´s OWN Sourche it is!

Proof? > If a Lightsourche approaches us then there is shift toward higher colors. > That means more quantumpackets a second arrive - SO FTL!!

And *WEBMASTER it is shame not even 1 A4 Explanation can be put here or else I Could Explain some about inflation.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (2) May 12, 2014
"" I'm not against any of these ideas, least expansion. truth is stranger than fiction. ""

Truth stranger that fiction yes that is the Case. So Beter instead of all kinds of weary ideas frauds politics pseudosciences it is Better to just Leave Questions Open or unanswered when Not Sure. Or Keep it Openly at Guessing.

In Such Case also More Wiery Ideas Like Infinity in Time and in Space the True Infinity and the Mystery of the big void the nothing the Ethernal Endless Emptiness that the Universe is and the Mystery of Creation and how Can Matter come out of the void the nothing Also Can Have a Sanctuary with frightened mortals who fantasised themselfes a all known and covered and controled but wrong total controlfreak universe and theories. So as I Said psychology is a major player in Our Perception of Reality. And Leaving Questions Open and Enjoy the Awesome Mystery is No blame.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (2) May 12, 2014
And Are We not anyway everyday Confronted with new Things and Situations? So We Can Live with Questions and New Situations and New Encounters. We Do from the Start Anyway! Infinity Makes this Everlasting!
IamVal
5 / 5 (2) May 12, 2014
so, your position is then that
if a body is moving at .5C, and emits a photon in the exact opposite direction of it's momentum, that photon travels at only .5C (or some variant less than C)?....
if so, you're mistaken.

you're mistaking the phenominon of redshifting where the wavelength reduces and we see fewer photon packets per timeframe because the bodies are moving apart. this does not alter the speed at which light travels.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (1) May 12, 2014
Uhm:

"" Lightspeed C is NOT absolute. Only to it´s OWN Sourche it is! Proof? > If a Lightsourche approaches us then there is shift toward higher colors. > That means more quantumpackets a second arrive - SO FTL!! ""

Nothing wrong with that one!

wavelengths do Not reduce. Is coming in FTL- Of course a lightbeam is Not changing frequency

Here you say same as I Do - "light doesn't travel at C relative to anything, it's absolute speed is C" ...

So absolute on it´s own SO from it´s sourche...and SO can differ with any likely receiver.

Or would you like to state it is mysteriously loosing and gaining any speed to can be at C at any random speeding receiver? Then shifts redshifts even would Not exist. So C is absolute toward is´t sourche and relative to any receiver.

Universe in Not einsteinian But Sane!
Bonusje
2.3 / 5 (3) May 12, 2014
Einstein made endless calculating crackpots out of scientists by making both ends of a calculation absolute and have them running up and down in between in endless confusion and quarrels.
Bonusje
2.3 / 5 (3) May 12, 2014
A comment of Mine removed https://sciencex....d=753502

Is there some sensitivity about unicorns involved or what is regarded a offence?
Bonusje
2.3 / 5 (3) May 12, 2014
Hmm not Allowed to Edit within Edittime? What next?

I REALY DO Believe you mistaken Me for a comment whereto I Responded maby was the one offensive. Please Read again and this time Better Not as you think But as I Ment.
Bonusje
2.3 / 5 (3) May 12, 2014
Oh wow what list " comments guidelines " better called holy commandents as new religion?

I was Made to ahem " believe Science is about Facts where anyway most of science is based on believes often of a nature a religion would be ashamed of.

So science got all marks of a religion but the commandments state about religion is forbidden to speak.

Also you should Learn religions have Nothing to do with God but against from their start&purpose of slavery and submission of Nations. Please Beware to Not be the so maniest next force that turns from Truth.
Bonusje
2.3 / 5 (3) May 12, 2014
About science as religion: heisenberg quantummechanics is rubish.

None of them is Proven yet bút though already several new theories derives from them like dark matter higgs and higgsfields zero point energy quantumemanations or spontanious materialisations and a wrong relation of the weak force and nuclear decay and chemical transformation and more of fantasies based on a wrong start that does even Not exist. So quite some new religions based on "by status dictated=religion" believes instead on Facts.

So you are probably Better of I am No scientist and Have a Clearer View and Have already Debunked about 60% of science´s most popular theories and scientists and Proofen Otherwise. And for Sure Have a Better Religion. (Look up what "religion exactly means)

So Give Us Some Space Please?
Bonusje
2.3 / 5 (3) May 12, 2014
Religion: if that herr einstein would not have been SO burned into your souls by indoctrination and ""seperatist rascist political!!!""" and chronic intrusive propaganda monopoly then maby you yourselfs had Found that there are No gravitylenses but that it is dust and gas...because the FACTS you were made blind of by religious believe Tell That. Also see rabinal protocolls regarding plans with science and religion
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) May 12, 2014
@Bonusje
I was Made to ahem " believe Science is about Facts
this is true, which is likely why you've had a comment removed
If a Lightsourche approaches us then there is shift toward higher colors. > That means more quantumpackets a second arrive - SO FTL!!
if you are under a leaking bucket that drops a known cyclic pattern, say exactly 60 drops per minute, and you are stationary, you will count 60 drops a minute in a steady pattern. If you move away from the source, you count them a little less frequent depending on speed moving away, and the time between drops lengthens. if you approach the bucket, the drops increase in frequency. this is analogous to redshift/doppler effect, so it is NOT FTL, but frequency change due to acceleration towards/away from the source

https://en.wikipe...r_effect

http://physics.ab...ight.htm
Bonusje
3 / 5 (2) May 12, 2014
aijjaijaijaijai caramba captain stumpy

"" if you approach the bucket, the drops increase in frequency. this is analogous to redshift/doppler effect, so it is NOT FTL""

IF SO then I catch more of the light timeline per unit So light DOES come IN faster than it´s C...So FTL!!! C+ a x y or z = < C

Nothing you can do there.

Also I Explained exactly this above already. So Stop harashing Me or they use the comment guidelines on you.
Bonusje
3 / 5 (4) May 12, 2014
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 13, 2014
IF SO then I catch more of the light timeline per unit So light DOES come IN faster than it´s C...So FTL!!! C+ a x y or z = < C
try this link: http://physics.ab...ight.htm
Feel free to check it out. it says
We set up our coordinate system so that the positive direction is from the listener toward the source. So if the source is moving away from the listener, its velocity v is positive, but if it is moving toward the listener, then the v is negative. The listener, in this case, is always considered to be at rest (so v is really the total relative velocity between them). The speed of light c is always considered positive.
The listener receives a frequency fL which would be different from the frequency transmitted by the source fS. This is calculated with relativistic mechanics, by applying necessary the length contraction, and obtains the relationship:
fL = sqrt [(c - v)/(c + v)] * fS
so, its not
harashing
its "correcting"

empirical data wins
Bonusje
1 / 5 (3) May 13, 2014
"empirical data wins"

Data is Innocent but interpretation a whole different Galaxy

As I Showed above

Making Science a raketeering monopolised racial seperatist mafia organisation and lie imago and status together is of course a nontopic...but Sure DOES influence every Data and Road and Soul Science takes.

just Correcting Here
Bonusje
1 / 5 (2) May 13, 2014
captain stumpy:

" by applying necessary the length contraction"

IamVal above already mentioned likewise yours and is already debunked with argument above also.

Again do you realy want to state C is upfront correcting it´s speed to can arrive at any random speeding receivers at C? What would also imply future predicting abilities of that little packet? Secret services and stockmarkets maby have a job for you and your packet.

So your formula is however impressing wrong.

So even linking toward stimpys wont help you here.

Debunked Busted!

Bonusje
1 / 5 (2) May 13, 2014

Here to Complete -

No inflating Universe Here there is!

And THAT IS Yes why a 11 billion year old explosion CAN BE Seen!

http://twitlonger..._1s1o70u

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) May 13, 2014
bonbon-troll posted
Making Science a raketeering monopolised racial seperatist mafia organisation and lie imago and status together is of course a nontopic
garbled off topic nonsense
yours and is already debunked with argument above
you cannot "debunk" empirical & observed data with conjecture. your argument has no basis, no empirical data and no links to studies, whereas mine can be linked/brought up in any reputable physics page (see: http://web.mit.edu/ )
So your formula is however impressing wrong
and we're to take your word on that? please provide links/data/proof from a reputable source... oh, right. you cant. and your "twitlonger" link? it's not reputable NOR empirical
Debunked Busted
sorry but the only debunking done here is your conjecture posts vs real science: and YOU lost!

thanks for showing how ignorance and blatant stupidity can be so prolific and widespread in society when shown empirical data
Bonusje
1 / 5 (2) May 13, 2014
WEBMASTER yourrrrre comment guidelines say lot more but I do not See you Removing captain stumpy for repeated insults slander harashments and disregarding all arguments and Conclusions.

Is there a jewish nazi regime here?
Bonusje
1 / 5 (2) May 13, 2014
""you cannot "debunk" empirical & observed data""

Also - again -for this special visitor a second time: Data ARE INNOCENT - it is you who ´s interpretation is Questioned ...AND..Débunked! Same Data are By Me also Interpreted AND SEE - Whát Brilliance! So you can NOT abuse emperical Data as argument against My Points of View Because I Use the Same!

Youre Not in My Legue in My Class Nowhere near but parroting some wrong things about as cv So bugger of to your own level and chaos! Only I experience from you is that you do not like that. But in that there is No argument.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (2) May 14, 2014
And NOTICE - how many - how many - also on this Site articles and research is linked based and related to that NON existing bigbang theory and how many secundairy theories came from it with AL NO BASE! frightening all science loosing the Road!!
Bonusje
1 / 5 (2) May 15, 2014
Why not Recheck already Known starspectrums from ten or twenty years ago and Compare Spectrums with Now?

IF inflation ALL should be shifted!!!


Yes Recheck - I Bet Not One got shifted!
Bonusje
1 / 5 (2) May 16, 2014
Muhahaha

http://www.dailyg...b1a1970b

"The youngest galaxy found in the XDF existed just 450 million years after the universe's birth in the big bang."
aijaijaij caramba ...so with in such short notice complete Galaxies were made? aijaijaij caramba ... and to say our Earth got half the age of the Universe....aijaijaijai caramba

Posted by: rrf | May 15, 2014 at 02:26 PM
Bonusje
1 / 5 (1) May 16, 2014
I Hope someone in scienceworld left to Can See the Discrepances ?
Bonusje
1 / 5 (2) May 25, 2014
Maby Any that got ultra highspeed cameras Could Film Light from a stationairy Sourche at same time with a parallel Sourche on a Rollerskate and Film the Result? Would Be WOW Maby?

Light Filmed with such cam was like slow sirup.
Bonusje
1 / 5 (1) May 31, 2014
Seems no one of the bbbunch ever used the hubble law

Here to Complete -
http://www.digita...nverter/
13.000.000.000 light years = 3.985.732.963, 968757 parsecs
1 parsec = 3.26 lightyears
Hubble's law (hŭb′əlz)
A law of cosmology stating that the rate at which astronomical objects in the universe move apart from each other is proportional to their distance from each other. Current estimates of the value of this proportion, known as Hubble's constant, put its value at approximately 71 kilometers per second per megaparsec.
71kmps per megaparsec - bbuniverse is 3.985.732.963,96 parsec = 3.986 Mparsec x 71kmpsMpc =
283.006 km second at edge of bbuniverse
NONE of the Galaxys NONE of the Stars We Should have been able to See at these speeds running away because this speed drives all of visible lightspectrum out of range by shift which happens totaly at about 2thirth of lightspeed. What if We hold on to hubblelaw would diminishe the Universe to about 8 to 9 billion Visible lightyears.
Hubble deepspace could NEVER have made it