Jump to content


Photo

Credibility? It's 'eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe'


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
23 replies to this topic

#21 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 18 July 2012 - 06:18 PM

Could I kindly ask you to pay attention to the details of my posts on this matter and deal with the questions asked?

Sure, you can ask.

I thought you presented the topic as being inaccuracy of estimates..."As concerning the age of the universe...".
I saw the black hole theory stuff as off topic since, a discussion of the validity of that theory has nothing to do with accuracy at all.

I did not post this information in the attempt to prove a young universe.

Then what was your first paragraph presented for?


I posted it so that the readers would realize that evolutionary astronomy cannot always be trusted in their conclusions and the anomalies we see in space do not comport to their theories.

Ther theories are just that, theories.

And, the main topic of my points, is that the phenomenon evidenced by the gamma rays and the bubbles, and the fifteen degree slant, etc...doesn't imply the existence of a black hole, since....

1) The rays are slanted fifteen degrees. which means no magnetic field aligned with an axis exists.
2) The rays are sharp and straight for supposedly 27 million light years, and so, there again, is not black hole field evidenced since the rays aren't bent away from their tragectory as should be the case unless we are supposing the black hole axis is empty of magnetic, and gravitational effects.
3) The bubbles are oriented as if ninety degrees to the plane of the supposed black hole, and they widen, and they appear completely decoupled from the gamma ray effect, so, how is that possible if the magnetic and/or gravitational field axis is so sharp and confining as to make the gamma ray cannons?
4) There is no modulation of the gamma ray jets, which would require a very consistent feeding of the black hole if it were thought to be shattering atomic nucleus' to provide the gamma rays. which consistency is unlikely do to chance gobbling up of nearby stars and matter.
5) The lack of modulation of the gamma ray jets also implies no resonance effects exist in the source of those rays, which seems rather unlikely of any kind of engine.
6) The bubbles and the rays having traveled pretty much the same distance (length of time) as if both phenomenon began at the same moment and are directly related to ignition of the engine.
7) The abberation of the gamma rays at the boundary of the bubbles is odd, since, if the boundary of the bubbles effected a scattering of the gamma rays, and that scattering event occurred at the early point of ignition of the engine, then how come the scattered parts aren't spread out a great distance?
That is, if the rays began when the bubbles began, then the effect on the rays that occurred at the bubble boundary must be thought to hae traveled the whole 27 million years in synch with the travel of the bubble boundary.
Which is not possible if the bubbles and the rays have diverse masses and diverse means of propogation through space.

This is indeed a strange thing.
The boundary effect actually looks as if the bubbles already existed and then, some time later, the rays crossed through the bubbles and reached the boundary.
But, didn't travel much beyond the boundary, if at all, because of the boundary being somehow, a true limitation to gamma ray travel.
Which would imply the bubbles are charged at least at the boundaries, Which, reminds me of how light enters a new dielectric field and immediately is bent on an new trajectory. Which, could possibly explain the gamma rays having a fifteen degree angle off the axis of the bubbles.

That boundary effect needs to be thought on carefully, I think.

I think the black hole theory is nonsense invented to try and reason that some hidden force of nature exists that is powerful enough to produce galaxy structures. And, I suggest that is the same with dark matter, of course.
Whereas, dark energy is an attempt to deny that the redshift of distant starlight is not due to velocity effects.

#22 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 18 July 2012 - 06:24 PM

Sure, you can ask.
I thought you presented the topic as being inaccuracy of estimates..."As concerning the age of the universe...".
I saw the black hole theory stuff as off topic since, a discussion of the validity of that theory has nothing to do with accuracy at all.

Then what was your first paragraph presented for?

There theories are just that, theories.
And, the main topic of my points, is that the phenomenon evidenced by the gamma rays and the bubbles, and the fifteen degree slant, etc...doesn't imply the existence of a black hole, since....

1) The rays are slanted fifteen degrees. which means no magnetic field aligned with an axis exists.
2) The rays are sharp and straight for supposedly 27 million light years, and so, there again, is not black hole field evidenced since the rays aren't bent away from their tragectory as should be the case unless we are supposing the black hole axis is empty of magnetic, and gravitational effects.
3) The bubbles are oriented as if ninety degrees to the plane of the supposed black hole, and they widen, and they appear completely decoupled from the gamma ray effect, so, how is that possible if the magnetic and/or gravitational field axis is so sharp and confining as to make the gamma ray cannons?
4) There is no modulation of the gamma ray jets, which would require a very consistent feeding of the black hole if it were thought to be shattering atomic nucleus' to provide the gamma rays. which consistency is unlikely do to chance gobbling up of nearby stars and matter.
5) The lack of modulation of the gamma ray jets also implies no resonance effects exist in the source of those rays, which seems rather unlikely of any kind of engine.
6) The bubbles and the rays having traveled pretty much the same distance (length of time) as if both phenomenon began at the same moment and are directly related to ignition of the engine.
7) The abberation of the gamma rays at the boundary of the bubbles is odd, since, if the boundary of the bubbles effected a scattering of the gamma rays, and that scattering event occurred at the early point of ignition of the engine, then how come the scattered parts aren't spread out a great distance? That is, if the rays began when the bubbles began then the effect on the rays at the boundary it appears that effect traveled with in synch with the travel of the bubble boundary, as if, the bubble and the rays, traveled at the same velocity, which is not possible if the bubbles and the rays have diverse masses and diverse basis for travel.
This is indeed a strange thing. Of course what the boundary effect actually looks like is that the bubbles existed and then some time later the rays reached the boundary of the bubbles but didn't travel much beyond because of the boundary being a true limitation to gamma ray travel.
That boundary effect needs to be thought on carefully, I think.

I think the black hole theory is nonsense invented to try and reason that some hidden force of nature exists that is powerful enough to produce galaxy structures. And, I suggest that is the same with dark matter, of course.
Whereas, dark energy is an attempt to deny that the redshift of distant starlight is not due to velocity effects.


O.K.

#23 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 18 July 2012 - 06:52 PM

Calypsis4,

The last drawing you posted shows the supposed corkscrew effect.
That is again, not at all seen in the either the bubble, or the gamma ray effects. That is what I mean by "modulation."
If a corkscrew effector exists then there should be modulation of the effected masses. And resonance effects I would think as when rocket exhaust exhibits harmonic effects of pulsation due to the engine, the mass of the exhaust gases, and the speed.

I don't understand black holes.
I have gotten the impression in the past that the theorists, when considering the collapse of a great mass, and its intense densification, that they end up claiming that gravity is created beyond what the original amount of mass had. Is that true as a result or am I just getting a vague sense of that notion.

Another thing I have wondered, is how it is thought that any condensing of a large amount of matter into a black hole would cause spin. My intuition is that since all gravitation is aimed at the center of mass that constand bombardment will eventually stop any spin because the newly arriving mass doesn't contain the momentum that a spinning mass originally possessed and conserved and would therefore, add mass that can only add weight without angular momentum. Which is why I don't get how anyone can believe a star ever begins spinning on its own, either since all outside forces are hard to imagine as ever being coordinated in such a way as to cause rotation in any one direction.

#24 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 21 July 2012 - 08:08 AM

Calypsis4,

The last drawing you posted shows the supposed corkscrew effect.
That is again, not at all seen in the either the bubble, or the gamma ray effects. That is what I mean by "modulation."
If a corkscrew effector exists then there should be modulation of the effected masses. And resonance effects I would think as when rocket exhaust exhibits harmonic effects of pulsation due to the engine, the mass of the exhaust gases, and the speed.

I don't understand black holes.
I have gotten the impression in the past that the theorists, when considering the collapse of a great mass, and its intense densification, that they end up claiming that gravity is created beyond what the original amount of mass had. Is that true as a result or am I just getting a vague sense of that notion.

Another thing I have wondered, is how it is thought that any condensing of a large amount of matter into a black hole would cause spin. My intuition is that since all gravitation is aimed at the center of mass that constand bombardment will eventually stop any spin because the newly arriving mass doesn't contain the momentum that a spinning mass originally possessed and conserved and would therefore, add mass that can only add weight without angular momentum. Which is why I don't get how anyone can believe a star ever begins spinning on its own, either since all outside forces are hard to imagine as ever being coordinated in such a way as to cause rotation in any one direction.


Thanks.

But my whole point is that the characteristics and 'behavior' of these stellar objects goes against all evolutionary predictions.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users