Posted on 04/28/2009 8:54:57 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
But many do believe this and I wonder how they would answer my question.
From the smallest particle to the largest galactic formation, a web of electrical circuitry connects and unifies all of nature, organizing galaxies, energizing stars, giving birth to planets and, on our own world, controlling weather and animating biological organisms. There are no isolated islands in an electric universe.
David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill Thunderbolts of the Gods |
The measuring technique is in serious doubt...
Giant solar waves spew more energy than 10 bn atom bombs
and
NOw check post #48...#50...#52...#53...
AND THIS #63.....
&**************************************************
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Oct 01, 2004 Quasar in Front of Galaxy
October 3, 2003: the big bang was proved wrong. Again. And here is the proof (image above). The galaxy, NGC 7319, is a Seyfert 2, which means it is a galaxy shrouded with such heavy dust clouds that they obscure most of the bright, active nucleus that defines a normal Seyfert galaxy. This galaxy has a redshift of 0.0225. The tiny white spot is a quasar either silhouetted in front of the opaque gas clouds or embedded in the topmost layers of the dust. The redshift of the quasar is 2.114.
Why does this prove the big bang wrong? One of the two major foundations of the big bang is that redshift is proportional to distance. That means the larger the redshift of an object, the farther away it must be. The other major foundation of the big bang is that all redshift is a measure of velocity. Again, the larger the redshift of an object, the faster it is moving away from us. Combined, these two foundations become the expanding universe, which can be traced backwards to the big bang.
Look at the picture again. By the big bang principles, this quasar must be billions of light years farther from us than the galaxy, because its redshift is so much larger. And yet the galaxy is opaque, so the quasar must be near the surface of the dust clouds or even in front of them.
Thanks Fred....
Actually not, if the dust clouds have a large enough gravitational field, you may be seeing stars behind the dust cloud, but the light is bent around the gravitational object.
We see this with stars and our Sun.
That would be pretty extreme bending...I didn’t think the effect was that strong....
*******************************EXCERPT****************************
The cosmic distance ladder (also known as the Extragalactic Distance Scale) is the succession of methods by which astronomers determine the distances to celestial objects.
So the light from this gamma-ray burster had quite a ways to go to get to us when the GRB exploded 630 million years later. Now, you might think the light would get to us in 4 or 5 billion years since that supposedly was the size of the universe back then and since, by relativity theory, the speed of light is constant for all observers. However, that does not apply when space itself is being created in between the two points all the while light is traversing the gulf. Thus, it has taken 13 billion years to get here, not 4 or 5 billion.
I'm not a physicist and, like I said, I don't know if I got it exactly right, but that's the best I can do to cobble together the answers I've gotten over the years from various experts. Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.