The Hubble Ultra Deep Field in 3D

willieofroanoke Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - Again ibiesc shows his true colors. Read slowly so you have a chance of following along. The book in question was published in 1956. When I was 10 years old. So yes, oh my, a children's book. Other college level TEXT BOOKS of the time said the same thing. Funny, ibiesc in some sick effort to discredit the publisher, TimeLife in conjunction with Simon Schuster screams "not a reputable source" You truly are a dick. You'll lie your dumb ass off, say anything rather than admit your wrong.

ibiesc Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - If that's true, tell us which college text it is in so we can check it out. Saying that a childrens book by timelife is not a reputable source is not a claim unique to me. I challenge you to find any scientist that would agree with you that it is a reputable source. that book series is widely known to be riddles with scientific inaccuracies and and writer injected opinions.

willieofroanoke Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - Fact check. (ibiesc and Dirty) according to their channel information claim to be 21 and 26 years old. So anything they heard about what was taught and believed in the 50's, 60's, 70's and part of the 80's comes to them SECOND HAND. I'm 63 years old. I lived it. I have the proof. I'll reveal more if and when it suits my purpose. In fact I have proof science not that far back claimed the universe was less than 2 billion years old.

ibiesc Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - Being older than us gives you absolutely no authority on the events that predate our births and claiming that is true is absolutely absurd. Whoop dee fucking doo, you lived it. you didn't live it as a scientists, I doubt you spent those extra 40 years reading scientific journals. If you have proof, give it otherwise you look like a fool. And regardless you make yet another logical fallacy in assuming that all future arguments must be wrong if a past argument was wrong.

willieofroanoke Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - Keep screaming "reputable source". Well boys, your HERO, father of doppler Red Shift, yeah the dude they named the Hubble Space Telescope after, Pro. Hubble had a MAJOR flaw in his theory... (the caculation of distance) that went UNNOTICED for decades. Another oops. What were you saying about reputable source? Oh, lets not talk about that. LOL!

willieofroanoke Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - Lets not talk about this either.Too embarrassing for you. Your precious doppler red shit isn't accepted fact. Not by a long shot. Many highly respected astrophysicists argue the luminosity measured in Onea supernovae are NOT constant as Hubble's accelerating universe demands. If not, as I said before the yardstick astronmers use to measure time and distance is FAULTY. It would be like measuring off yards in a football stadium with a ruler that called a yard 50 inches.

willieofroanoke Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - Note ibiesc now pretends to be a "scientist". Odd, a few days ago he admitted he's merely a STUDENT with a punny BS degree. Big whoope dee fucking doo kid.

ibiesc Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - I did not claim to be a scientist. I said you're not a scientist. However, although I am a student you could say I'm a scientists because I've done research and have published papers.

ibiesc Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - Again, you are mistaking the red shift with hubbles constant. Look up the doppler effect. The red shift is the doppler effect for light. It is an extremely well establish property of light.

willieofroanoke Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - Stop splitting hairs. You're nothing but a cherry picker. If something suits you, then you treat it one way. If something disproves what you claim, you try to discredit or ignore it. Stop telling me to look up this or that. I was aware of all we are discussing before you were even born kid. Trying to pretend I don't know or understand is a very weak argument that makes you look foolish.

ibiesc Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - But you obviously don't understand. You think that the red shift of light due to the relative velocities of source and observer is something that is in dispute. It is not, therefore you don't understand it.

willieofroanoke Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - For your further eduction it is more correctly called the Cosmological Redshift. In short light from a distant galaxy gets shifted to lower frequencies. This change is called a redshift, causing the galaxies to appear to be moving away from the observer. The equation is νobs = νemit /( 1+ z ) That yields Hubble constant expressed H0, which is the ratio of the IMPLIED velocity to the distance. The distance is then related to the redshift by d = c z/H0, where c is the speed of light.

willieofroanoke Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - Cont 1 The preceived magnitude of a star depends both on it's luminosity and the distance. What you're confused about is the ruler. Since it is the math used to caculate velocities, you don't get what I'm telling you. As usual, you merely babble I don't understand, and pretend what is in dispute doesn't matter just like you pretend not being able to account for WHERE original matter/energy came doesn't matter either. If ANY part of any equation is wrong, then the outcome is wrong.

ibiesc Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - So, exactly like I said, you were mistaking the red shift for the Hubble constant.

willieofroanoke Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - The theory suggests that standard candles (explained earlier) are a constant. This is used to GUESS distances. If that isn't true (many astronomers now suspect it) isn't, you have to go back to square one and start over. JUST LIKE THEY DID BEFORE! This is why two BS artists desperately try to disprove the claim that science a scant 50 years ago used 5 billion verses today's 13.7 billion years as the estimated age of universe. You just can't own up to it.

willieofroanoke Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - Again with the word games.

willieofroanoke Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - You expect me to explain complex theory in 500 characters while all you do is scream I don't understand.

ibiesc Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - The red shift is not a complex theory. I explained it quite thoroughly several days ago. I say that you don't understand because the way you talk about the subject makes it obvious. You consistently mistake completely different phenomenon, you don't understand the definitions scientists use and you make outrageous claims and then refuse to give supporting evidence. It is quite obvious that you don't understand math or science.

willieofroanoke Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - You're engaged in more bullshit spreading. Damn kid have you fogot you admitted you're just some 21 year old wet behind the ears kid? If you enjoy getting laughed at, by all means pretend to be the all knowing professor oh what did you claim, oh... you're a "scientist" because oh yeah you got a BS degree. People ARE rolling on the floor laughing at your arrogance. What is obvious is you can't admit it when you're wrong. Far smarter minds have down through the ages...even Einstein, but not you.

ibiesc Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - I don't claim to be all knowing by any means. However, anyone competent in high school physics can explain the red shift of light, and list a series of experiments that prove its validity. Someone competent in entry level college astronomy can explain to you why the red shift is not the same as hubbles constant.

willieofroanoke Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - You're playing semantics in some vain effort to pump up your ego. Hubble's law (claimed constant explaining the universe's expansion)describes velocity of galaxies receeding from observed point claiming proportional to their distance which is deduced from their redshift. In other words you need a basic understanding of redshift and what it infers is happening. It can be expressed several ways, you having a FAT head always like to infer only you know what it means. I say again, grow up kid.

willieofroanoke Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - Cont 1 The gist of the THEORY is the further away a galaxy is the faster it is moving away from observer. Neither velocities or distances are measured directly for the obvious reason, the distances are too vast. So they are INFERRED. You must have fell asleep in class when the professor should have told you any relation between recessional velocity and redshift depends on the cosmological model adopted which is not established except for small observed redshifts.

willieofroanoke Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - Cont 2 The further away an object the less accurate the distance assigned probably is and we didn't even touch on things between the observer and the object like dust , gas clouds,. which further distort things. Now factor in Hubble's sphere which is the GUESSED region of the universe an observer beyond which objects recede from the observer at a rate greater than the speed of light, due to the expansion of the Universe. This further assumes the universe has expanded at a constant rate.

willieofroanoke Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - I could go on for a few thousand more words and touch on other aspects, but according to ibiesc he babbled this: " I explained it quite thoroughly several days ago." Sure you did kid, keep dreaming.

ibiesc Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - Again, what you're explaining is the hubble constant, not the red shift of light due to the relative velocities of source and observer. these are two different things. Though it is good to see that you've done some reading.