upper atmosphere temp

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I was asking how they know galaxies are getting further away. Is it because they are appearing dimmer and dimmer when viewed through a telescope over time?

Google red shift

It means the light is getting dimmer. So your answer to my question is yes.

No. The answer to your question is not "Yes" but is actually rather complicated because it is laden with assumptions that not everybody shares.

Before you address the topic of "how do we know that galaxies are getting further away," you need to check your own religious views and be careful not to let people like Swan, or me, or anyone feed you conclusions under the pretense that they are somehow "observations." You must remember that all of humanity is stuck on planet earth and we simply can't see any more than a negligible portion of a mere flake of a tiny speck of an inconsequential amount of the universe. To say that our observations are "limited" is an understatement.

What we can observe is that there are countless galaxies, each seemingly filled with countless stars. Again, we might be overwhelmed at the countlessness of the celestial bodies we observe, but it would be stupid to presume that what we see is anything more than an insignificant portion of the universe, leaving us to extrapolate the rest.

Focusing on what we can observe, all of it is moving away from everything else in the following way: Grab an uninflated balloon and a Sharpie. Place a handful of dots on the balloon (as "randomly" as you can) and then inflate the balloon. As the balloon is inflating, notice what is happening to the dots. Every dot gets further and further away from every other dot.

Additionally, for indisputable confirmation, any observer can check the "red shift" as Swan suggested above. Your first step should be to perform some quick research into "Doppler effect" and understand the basic principle as it affects sound waves. Once you feel that you have a firm grasp on Doppler effect, research "red shift" and "blue shift." The effects on sound waves apply to all waves, including light waves. Red shift confirms that something is moving away from the observer. If you were to get the right observation equipment, you would be able to see that every single galaxy that we can observe is moving away from us. Not a single one of the countless galaxies is moving towards us.

You will find many people who will tell you that "The expansion is accelerating" and "the acceleration is worse than previously feared" which of course requires/calls for "explanations" which cause every wacko and his brother to invent wild theories of science fiction such as "dark matter." I would warn you that human egos normally take over and presume that the insignificant set of our observations is nonetheless the entirety of the universe, so you will be told, as a matter of fact, that the entire universe has been observed to be expanding at an accelerating rate ... and that crosses the line into being booolsch't, i.e. nothing more than bogus conclusions being pawned off as observations. All anyone can legitimately say is that whatever humans can observe is moving away, just as if everything is on an inflating balloon ... and no, it's not "accelerating."

At this point, I would recommend you get Into the Night's view. His views on the universe differ from mine, but neither of us appreciate the pretenders of the world passing their own personal cosmic religions off as "observations."

If you like to read, I recommend Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" as a good explanation of astrophysics concepts that would greatly benefit your understanding.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Have the actual positions of galaxy shapes observed by a telescope been shown to be moving farther apart?

Or is the conclusion that they are getting farther away just due to the observed decrease in brightness over time?

James_ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Have the actual positions of galaxy shapes observed by a telescope been shown to be moving farther apart?

Or is the conclusion that they are getting farther away just due to the observed decrease in brightness over time?

Hubble based his opinion on the red shift of light coming from galaxies. And yet it is known that galaxies collide with each other. Why Hubble's opinion was accepted because it supports the Big Bang theory. Galaxies colliding suggests otherwise because galaxies should be moving away from each other.

Spongy Iris wrote:Have the actual positions of galaxy shapes observed by a telescope been shown to be moving farther apart?

Spongy Iris wrote: Or is the conclusion that they are getting farther away just due to the observed decrease in brightness over time?

keepit wrote:... some galaxies are moving toward each other despite dark energy.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:Have the actual positions of galaxy shapes observed by a telescope been shown to be moving farther apart?

OK, I noticed your inclusion of the word "shapes," i.e. galaxy shapes.

Am I wasting my time trying to help you understand this?

The red shift is the primary indicator of movement. Using vision to notice movement is akin to watching a tree grow. Did you spend a few minutes boning up on Doppler effect?

Spongy Iris wrote: Or is the conclusion that they are getting farther away just due to the observed decrease in brightness over time?

When did I ever discuss "brightness"?

Read a little on "red shift" and "blue shift" ... but after you read about Doppler effect.

Spongy Iris wrote:Is the red shift (lengthening of light waves, galaxy shapes appearing dimmer)

Nevertheless, stars are made of gas and this gas did manage to clump together.
The planets started out as gas and dust and also managed to clump together.

If you have a valid interpretation of solar and planetary formation, go ahead and present it to the Nobel prize committee, and don't forget to compensate me for encouraging you to receive the prize money.

keepit wrote:
James,
As you know some galaxies are moving toward each other despite dark energy.
This is because the momentum of those galaxies toward each other is more than dark energy's influence.

We only assume it exists because, without it, the behavior of stars, planets and galaxies simply wouldn't make sense.
https://www.space.com/20930-dark-matter.html

n particular Dr. Robitaille has shown that the so-called cosmic microwave background is a delusion and so too the standard gaseous model of the Sun and stars. It is the Sun which now ushers in a paradigm shift of immense importance to science.

Dr. Robitaille has shown that all the observational evidence reveals that the Sun is not gaseous plasma but is composed of condensed matter.

The solar thermal spectrum, for instance, has a Planckian distribution over frequencies. Only condensed matter can produce such spectra because the latter requires a vibrational lattice to produce it.

Gases do not possess a vibrational lattice so it is impossible for gases to produce a thermal spectrum; which is precisely why gases have never been observed to emit thermal spectra in the laboratory.

That the Sun and stars are condensed matter nullifies the gaseous theory of the Sun and stars to which the astronomers and astrophysics are so enamoured. The consequences are cataclysmic for the astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists.

Dr. Robitaille has advanced that the Sun is composed of liquid metallic hydrogen. This model is consistent with all the observational evidence whereas the gaseous model is not.

keepit wrote: I'm far from having any level of expertise about the sun though.

keepit wrote: Could you explain yourself and Dr. R not in the context of gas? Thanx.

Xadoman wrote: Gases do not self compress.

Xadoman wrote:The sun has a clear visible boundarie. It is not gaseous.

Xadoman wrote:

Nevertheless, stars are made of gas and this gas did manage to clump together.
The planets started out as gas and dust and also managed to clump together.

If you have a valid interpretation of solar and planetary formation, go ahead and present it to the Nobel prize committee, and don't forget to compensate me for encouraging you to receive the prize money.

Gases do not self compress. This is a violation of thermodynamics. The mainstream theory about star formation is bunkum.

The sun has a clear visible boundarie. It is not gaseous.

Xadoman wrote:
If stars, which are composed of mostly gas, didn't compress as a result of gravity, what force did compress them into plasma?

Gases do not self-compress. You need a cylinder and piston to compress a gas. Gases always expand to fill a void.

Start here:
https://principia-scientific.com/the-new-sun-phase-shift-of-the-century/

n particular Dr. Robitaille has shown that the so-called cosmic microwave background is a delusion and so too the standard gaseous model of the Sun and stars. It is the Sun which now ushers in a paradigm shift of immense importance to science.

Dr. Robitaille has shown that all the observational evidence reveals that the Sun is not gaseous plasma but is composed of condensed matter.

The solar thermal spectrum, for instance, has a Planckian distribution over frequencies. Only condensed matter can produce such spectra because the latter requires a vibrational lattice to produce it.

Gases do not possess a vibrational lattice so it is impossible for gases to produce a thermal spectrum; which is precisely why gases have never been observed to emit thermal spectra in the laboratory.

That the Sun and stars are condensed matter nullifies the gaseous theory of the Sun and stars to which the astronomers and astrophysics are so enamoured. The consequences are cataclysmic for the astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists.

Dr. Robitaille has advanced that the Sun is composed of liquid metallic hydrogen. This model is consistent with all the observational evidence whereas the gaseous model is not.

keepit wrote:
ibd,
You have to improve your manners and also apologize.

Into the Night wrote:

keepit wrote:
ibd,
You have to improve your manners and also apologize.

He doesn't have to apologize for anything.

keepit wrote: ibd, You have to improve your manners and also apologize.

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: ibd, You have to improve your manners and also apologize.

You're full of baloney, keepit. Just lots of semantics.

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: Could you explain yourself and Dr. R not in the context of gas? Thanx.

Could you explain why you believe in dark matter and dark energy when you have absolutely no reason to?

You're full of schytt, keepit.

We only assume it exists because, without it, the behavior of stars, planets and galaxies simply wouldn't make sense.
https://www.space.com/20930-dark-matter.html

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: Could you explain yourself and Dr. R not in the context of gas? Thanx.

Could you explain why you believe in dark matter and dark energy when you have absolutely no reason to?

You're full of schytt, keepit.

We only assume it exists because, without it, the behavior of stars, planets and galaxies simply wouldn't make sense.
https://www.space.com/20930-dark-matter.html

A simpler explanation allows for the intrinsic brightness of stars to be considered using the inverse square law. When a parallax view allows its distance from the Earth to be known then something about the star's mass and gravity can be known.
If dark matter didn't fill the universe then light from distant sources would not have a determined path it followed to the Earth. Aren't you out of 6th grade yet IBDM? I'm asking for a friend.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: Could you explain yourself and Dr. R not in the context of gas? Thanx.

Could you explain why you believe in dark matter and dark energy when you have absolutely no reason to?

You're full of schytt, keepit.

We only assume it exists because, without it, the behavior of stars, planets and galaxies simply wouldn't make sense.
https://www.space.com/20930-dark-matter.html

A simpler explanation allows for the intrinsic brightness of stars to be considered using the inverse square law. When a parallax view allows its distance from the Earth to be known then something about the star's mass and gravity can be known.
If dark matter didn't fill the universe then light from distant sources would not have a determined path it followed to the Earth. Aren't you out of 6th grade yet IBDM? I'm asking for a friend.

Ifm yu um sey um su. umm

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: Could you explain yourself and Dr. R not in the context of gas? Thanx.

Could you explain why you believe in dark matter and dark energy when you have absolutely no reason to?

You're full of schytt, keepit.

We only assume it exists because, without it, the behavior of stars, planets and galaxies simply wouldn't make sense.
https://www.space.com/20930-dark-matter.html

A simpler explanation allows for the intrinsic brightness of stars to be considered using the inverse square law. When a parallax view allows its distance from the Earth to be known then something about the star's mass and gravity can be known.
If dark matter didn't fill the universe then light from distant sources would not have a determined path it followed to the Earth. Aren't you out of 6th grade yet IBDM? I'm asking for a friend.

Ifm yu um sey um su. umm

How old is the universe? How matter is dispersed. This is kind of easy.
It's proportional to the expansion of the universe. Dark matter allows for
the distributive function of matter.

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: Could you explain yourself and Dr. R not in the context of gas? Thanx.

Could you explain why you believe in dark matter and dark energy when you have absolutely no reason to?

You're full of schytt, keepit.

We only assume it exists because, without it, the behavior of stars, planets and galaxies simply wouldn't make sense.
https://www.space.com/20930-dark-matter.html

A simpler explanation allows for the intrinsic brightness of stars to be considered using the inverse square law. When a parallax view allows its distance from the Earth to be known then something about the star's mass and gravity can be known.
If dark matter didn't fill the universe then light from distant sources would not have a determined path it followed to the Earth. Aren't you out of 6th grade yet IBDM? I'm asking for a friend.

Ifm yu um sey um su. umm

How old is the universe? How matter is dispersed. This is kind of easy.
It's proportional to the expansion of the universe. Dark matter allows for
the distributive function of matter.

HarveyH55 wrote: Only one book you need to read, and clearly states that The Big Guy in the Sky, created heaven and earth, bunch of other cool stuff.

HarveyH55 wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: Could you explain yourself and Dr. R not in the context of gas? Thanx.

Could you explain why you believe in dark matter and dark energy when you have absolutely no reason to?

You're full of schytt, keepit.

We only assume it exists because, without it, the behavior of stars, planets and galaxies simply wouldn't make sense.
https://www.space.com/20930-dark-matter.html

A simpler explanation allows for the intrinsic brightness of stars to be considered using the inverse square law. When a parallax view allows its distance from the Earth to be known then something about the star's mass and gravity can be known.
If dark matter didn't fill the universe then light from distant sources would not have a determined path it followed to the Earth. Aren't you out of 6th grade yet IBDM? I'm asking for a friend.

Ifm yu um sey um su. umm

How old is the universe? How matter is dispersed. This is kind of easy.
It's proportional to the expansion of the universe. Dark matter allows for
the distributive function of matter.

Nonsense. Clocks and calendars were only invented a few thousand years ago. Only one book you need to read, and clearly states that The Big Guy in the Sky, created heaven and earth, bunch of other cool stuff. Norway was never mentioned, probably a mistake...

Never heard of Dr. Robitaille

From 1995-2000, Dr. Robitaille led the design and assembly of the world's first Ultra High Field human MRI scanner. This scanner operates at a magnetic field of 8 Tesla (160,000 times the earth's field at sea level). The 8 Tesla MRI doubled the previous record for magnetic field strength in MRI. Dr. Robitaille has published an editorial work on UHFMRI (Pierre-Marie Robitaille and Lawrence J. Berliner, eds, Biological Magnetic Resonance vol. 26: Ultra High Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Springer, New York, 2006). This work features a preface by Paul Lauterbur (Nobel Prize 2003, Medicine). It was as a result of the findings in UHFMRI (a lower than expected RF power requirement) that Dr. Robitaille became involved in Kirchhoff's Law, Universality, and other aspects of thermal physics.

Swan wrote:British archaeology experts have discovered what they believe to be the world's oldest 'calendar', created by hunter-gatherer societies and dating back to around 8,000 BC.

Swan wrote:The Mesolithic monument was originally excavated in Aberdeenshire, Scotland, by the National Trust for Scotland in 2004. Now analysis by a team led by the University of Birmingham, published today (July 15, 2013) in the journal Internet Archaeology, sheds remarkable new light on the luni-solar device,

Swan wrote: ... which pre-dates the first formal time-measuring devices known to Man, found in the Near East, by nearly 5,000 years.

Swan wrote: The capacity to measure time is among the most important of human achievements

Swan wrote: and the issue of when time was 'created' by humankind is critical in understanding how society has developed.

Swan wrote: Until now the first formal calendars appear to have been created in Mesopotamia c, 5000 years ago.

Swan wrote: But during this project, the researchers discovered that a monument created by hunter gatherers in Aberdeenshire nearly 10,000 years ago appears to mimic the phases of the Moon in order to track lunar months over the course of a year.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:British archaeology experts have discovered what they believe to be the world's oldest 'calendar', created by hunter-gatherer societies and dating back to around 8,000 BC.

Did the article explain why they believe this, or are we supposed to summarily dismiss this article?

Swan wrote:The Mesolithic monument was originally excavated in Aberdeenshire, Scotland, by the National Trust for Scotland in 2004. Now analysis by a team led by the University of Birmingham, published today (July 15, 2013) in the journal Internet Archaeology, sheds remarkable new light on the luni-solar device,

Did the article explain why any rational adult should accept this "new light" or are we supposed to summarily dismiss this article?

Swan wrote: ... which pre-dates the first formal time-measuring devices known to Man, found in the Near East, by nearly 5,000 years.

Does the article present a convincing explanation as to why a rational adult should believe this "dating" or are we supposed to summarily dismiss this article?

Swan wrote: The capacity to measure time is among the most important of human achievements

Did the creators of this supposed "calendar" stamp the creation date onto it, or were they not actually concerned with measuring time? Maybe it isn't a calendar. Did the article explain why any rational adult should even believe this thing is a calendar?

Swan wrote: and the issue of when time was 'created' by humankind is critical in understanding how society has developed.

Is the article implying, since we don't know when time was 'created' by humankind, that we don't know anything about any societies that developed? After all, it's critical to that understanding, right? Yet somehow we nonetheless know that this is a calendar, as well as everything about the society that created it, including when, exactly, in the unobserved distant past, yes?

Swan wrote: Until now the first formal calendars appear to have been created in Mesopotamia c, 5000 years ago.

... but all that changed when a broke researcher lost his last penny in the FTX Exchange scam and was about to lose his house, when suddenly he had the bright idea of just "making an amazing discovery" which would probably end up covering his remaining mortgage and car payments.

Swan wrote: But during this project, the researchers discovered that a monument created by hunter gatherers in Aberdeenshire nearly 10,000 years ago appears to mimic the phases of the Moon in order to track lunar months over the course of a year.

For the record, I'm calling boooolsch't because Swan, you apparently never have the wherewithal to do so. Never. You will believe whatever anyone tells you to believe about the unobserved distant past, as long as they make sure you have no way to verify any of the narrative.

Swan, this is not a calendar.

You may resume wanking over your eggplants, but only after you take your Abilify.

James_ wrote: A simpler explanation allows for [eye roll] the intrinsic brightness of stars to be considered using the inverse square law. When a parallax view allows its distance from the Earth to be known then something about the star's mass and gravity can be known.

James_ wrote: If dark matter didn't fill the universe then light from distant sources would not have a determined path it followed to the Earth.

James_ wrote: Aren't you out of 6th grade yet IBDM?

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote: A simpler explanation allows for [eye roll] the intrinsic brightness of stars to be considered using the inverse square law. When a parallax view allows its distance from the Earth to be known then something about the star's mass and gravity can be known.

This is correct. I'm with you this far.

James_ wrote: If dark matter didn't fill the universe then light from distant sources would not have a determined path it followed to the Earth.

This is incorrectly worded gibberish, as opposed to correctly worded gibberish. Let's reword your gibberish so that it is correctly worded gibberish:

Since there is no dark matter filling the universe, light from distant sources cannot follow a determined path to the earth.

You see? Now that is correctly worded gibberish.

James_ wrote: Aren't you out of 6th grade yet IBDM?

Nope. I'm still in the 6th grade.

E = h * c / λ = h * f

E = photon's energy
H = Planck constant
C = light's speed
λ = photon's wavelength
F = photon's frequency

Light is a collection of particles, and this formula gives us the single, indivisible quanta of light.
https://www.thefreecalculator.com/physics/photon-energy

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a24076/neutron-star-particles-spring-into-existence/

keepit wrote:
There is evidence for dark matter. There is galaxy rotation parameters which don't make sense without postulating an additional gravitational source to augment gravity. There are a minority of galaxies where the dark matte scenario doesn't make sense though. Some cosmologists have postulated a modified theory of gravity to explain the rotations but their theories don't work with all galaxies. Still, the dark mater hypothesis helps explain galaxy rotations and galaxy formation (which supposedly wouldn't have occurred without help from additional gravity). It is a strange form of matter which is difficult to study.

keepit wrote: There is galaxy rotation parameters which don't make sense without postulating an additional gravitational source to augment gravity.

keepit wrote: There are a minority of galaxies where the dark matte scenario doesn't make sense though.

keepit wrote: Some cosmologists have postulated a modified theory of gravity to explain the rotations but their theories don't work with all galaxies.

keepit wrote: Still, the dark mater hypothesis helps explain galaxy rotations and galaxy formation (which supposedly wouldn't have occurred without help from additional gravity).

keepit wrote: It is a strange form of matter which is difficult to study.