911review/space

just looking at dark energy "resets the clock of the universe "
??
I have my doubts...

I still dont believe in the big bang, never did.
The "steady state theory" was given up on years ago by many,
but i still subscribe to it.
It explains LOTS that this does not, and make much more sense to me.
"For instance, the CMBR reveals that our early universe was almost perfectly uniform--which is strange"

not strange with the steady-state theory

"At first sight, it seems impossible for the energy density of anything to remain constant, because the expansion of space should dilute it."

also explained by steady-state
----
Also,
if the universe had a physical beginning (a singularity),
then it begs the question that what created it, and what existed before it.
as mentioned here, THIS universe is probably only a small part of
a REAL infinite space.
=========

You might not think that cosmologists could feel claustrophobic in a universe that is 46 billion light-years in radius and filled with sextillions of stars. But one of the emerging themes of 21st-century cosmology is that the known universe, the sum of all we can see, may just be a tiny region in the full extent of space. Various types of parallel universes that make up a grand "multiverse" often arise as side effects of cosmological theories. We have little hope of ever directly observing those other universes, though, because they are either too far away or somehow detached from our own universe.

Some parallel universes, however, could be separate from but still able to interact with ours, in which case we could detect their direct effects. The possibility of these worlds came to cosmologists' attention by way of string theory, the leading candidate for the foundational laws of nature. Although the eponymous strings of string theory are extremely small, the principles governing their properties also predict new kinds of larger membranelike objects--"branes," for short. In particular, our universe may be a three-dimensional brane in its own right, living inside a nine-dimensional space. The reshaping of higher-dimensional space and collisions between different universes may have led to some of the features that astronomers observe today.

From the page: "SATELLITES REVEAL A MYSTERY OF LARGE CHANGE IN EARTH S GRAVITY FIELD Earth s gravity pre-1997 Image 1 Satellite data since 1998 indicates the bulge in the Earth s gravity field at the equator is growing and scientists think that the ocean may hold the answer to the mystery of how the changes in the trend of Earth s gravity are occurring. Before 1998 Earth s equatorial bulge in the gravity field was getting smaller because of the post-glacial rebound or PGR that occurred as a result of the melting of the ice sheets after the last Ice Age. When the ice sheets melted land that was underneath the ice started rising. As the ground rebounded in this fashion the gravity field changed. "The Earth behaved much like putting your finger into a sponge ball and watching it slowly bounce back " said Christopher Cox a research scientist supporting the Space Geodesy Branch at NASA s Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt Md."

Halton Arp's wonderful book Seeing Red is a must read since it is both educational and hard-hitting while being readable and entertaining. Writing eye-opening material in more than one arena, Arp takes on the corruption of good science in academia, government and publishing after giving us great material concerning red shift, the Big Bang, and cosmology. The book Seeing Red can be ordered via the link.

Order Link




Oct 18, 2004
Fingers of God

The big bang theory predetermines the size, the shape and the age of the universe (according to the latest satellite data, it is an expanding sphere 78 billion light years in diameter and 13.7 billion years old.) Because astronomers believe that redshift is a measure of distance, most of the distances of millions of galaxies, quasars, and gamma ray bursts have been distorted. A different interpretation of redshift will imply a much different universe. Halton Arp's research shows that redshift cannot be a measure of distance. The charts above compare a galaxy cluster in Arp's observed universe to the big bang's theoretical universe.

These three diagrams are called "pie charts" because of their resemblance to slices of pie. Our position (the Earth) is at the bottom point in all cases. Distance (away from the Earth) is measured along the straight edges. In the top left image, we show what a galaxy cluster in Arp's universe would look like without the big bang perspective. It is a family of galaxies and quasars and gaseous clouds of mixed redshifts (in the top diagrams, the large dots are low- redshift, the medium-sized dots are medium-redshift, and the small dots are high redshift). At the center, there is a dominant galaxy -- it's usually the largest galaxy, and the galaxy with the lowest redshift of the cluster. This galaxy is surrounded by low-to-medium redshift galaxies, and toward the edges of the cluster we find the highest redshift galaxies, HII regions, BL Lac objects and quasars.

The image to the right shows what happens if we try to force the same galaxy cluster into a redshift-equals-distance relationship. The cluster becomes distorted. What was once a sphere becomes an elongated bubble. The central dominant galaxy drops to the front of this bubble, followed by a spike of low-to-medium redshift galaxies stretching away from the earth and "bubble and void" of high redshift objects.

Every cluster in the sky does this, like fingers of god pointed at the earth from every direction. The third image is a 90 degree slice of the sky showing all galaxies arranged according to their redshift- determined distances. The Fingers of God distortions show clearly, each representing a single galaxy cluster. (The bubbles and voids are not as clear, because this chart cuts off before it gets to high redshift.) Everything points at the Earth.

Without the redshift-equals-distance distortion, a new picture of galaxy clusters and the universe itself is revealed. The age of the universe is no longer known, because we no longer have a constant expansion to backtrack to a bang. The size is also unknown. Most quasars and some galaxies that we see are closer than we thought they were, because they have been distorted by the Fingers of God. But we have no idea how far the universe stretches beyond our telescopes' limits. We have moved from what has been called "the end of science", where everything has basically been discovered, to "the beginning of a new universe" where almost everything is unexplored territory. What an exciting prospect for science in the 21st century.

If we dont spend enough money on IRAQ, now, we are in an SPACE arms race with CHINA. we are officially broke, and have been for sometime. now goig deeper in debt
Brad
911review.org
------------------
More reading here as well...
PENTAGON PREPS FOR WAR IN SPACE
defensetech.org/archives/000783.html [defensetech.org/archives/000783.html]
----------------------------------

Satellite Killer's Big Impact

There's been immediate fallout -- both physical and political -- from China's satellite killer test.

Debris from the orbital collision has already been spotted, the M-T Milcom blog notes. "As of this writing NORAD has officially cataloged 32 objects... that now pollute a vital area of space (sun-synchronous polar orbit)." The picture to the right is of a few of 'em.

sat_orbits005.jpg"There are over 125 satellites that operate in this portion of space," the M-T blog observes. Those include reconnaissance satellites, like the Lacrosse and Advanced Keyhole orbiters, as well as weather-monitors, like the Defense Meteorological Satellites Program series. In other words, this test directly affects the American military's ability look for terrorist hideouts, and survey a potential battlefield. These are not small matters. "Our space assets are the first asset on the scene," GlobalSecurity.org's John Pike tells the AP. "They are absolutely central to why we are a superpower - a signature component to America's style of warfare."

Frequent Defense Tech commenter Robot Economist, now with his own blog, warns that "this situation has the potential of becoming the next Katyusha rocket or IED problem for the United States." Even the International Space Station could be at risk. That said, RE reminds us that "it is unlikely that [China's] success... translates into any sort of immediately fieldable capability."

If the spotty record of our ground-based missile interceptors demonstrate anything, it is the difficulty of intercepting even predictable space targets... [And] the Chinese had a pretty good handicap on this test.

Robert Farley sees the anti-satellite trial as "first and foremost... a deterrent move aimed at the United States."

The US military isn't completely dependent on spy satellites (in case of war, the Taiwan Straits would be overflown by enough spy and communications aircraft to make the satellites redundant), but destroying them is a way of chipping away at US capability, and thus indicating that China can inflict real costs in case of a US intervention in a militarized China-Taiwan dispute. The public way in which the Chinese have carried out this test, as well as earlier "blinding" tests, and the recent submarine-stalks-carrier debacle indicates to me that they're as serious as possible about showing the US their capabilities, which is key to a deterrent strategy. Also, Chinese anti-satellite capabilities don't have to be targeted against US military satellites; the Chinese may threaten commercial satellites as well, which would help to metastasize the costs of any US intervention.

From the page: "Our base-mad administration now wants to establish a "research base" on the moon by 2020, or so the President proclaimed yesterday. It makes a certain sense actually. At our present pace, the United States will by then have established military bases -- as Chalmers Johnson indicates below %u2013 on just about every possible space left on our planet."

Can the Universe create itself ?
Ive always been interersted in this kinda stuff.
I read a good bit on it years ago.
I was never a proponent of a singular "big bang "
There was a theory about a "steady state" universe,
That theory has been thrown out by most scientists today,
but im not ready to throw it out yet.
this may be the thing that links the two.

you can use this URL...
antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/ [antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/]
to browse photos.
a few pics are lagrge though