Amazing: The Hubble Ultra Deep Field in 3D

[MikeWB]

Whoa... this certainly puts it in perspective!

Tip: Click the fullscreen button to see it in its full glory... and be amazed

[youtube:32fujgn2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVjF_7ensg[/youtube]32fujgn2]

[Free Truth]

Fantastic.

An apparently "empty" section of the sky and it's filled with many galaxies billions of light years away!

Gentlemen, if your research hasn't yet brought you to investigate what is the true heaven, take the time and discover the cosmos. Take the time to really think about it.

Outer space = Ineffable    

I've come to realize it certainly is not a book like the Bible, talmud or any other that the trillionaires--our enemies and targets--live by.
It is science, astronomy and astrology that they revere (and rightfully so).

It is seeming to me that that word that everybody is on about and trying to figure out--God--is the cosmos. Whatever force it was that made the galaxies, now THAT is God.

Yours to discover.

NB: Kaballah may be somewhat of an exception.

[mgt23]

I

've come to realize it certainly is not a book like the Bible, talmud or any other that the trillionaires--our enemies and targets--live by.
It is science, astronomy and astrology that they revere (and rightfully so).

i would add evolution both physical and trancendental to that mix

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Awesome video!

I would also add the Harmonics Theory (with Ray Tomes's perspective):

http://ray.tomes.biz/bigbangbung.html

Geoff - It is also deduced above by two different people (Milo and I) in two different ways, founded on One thing existing Space (Infinite Eternal and Continuous) and matter only interacts with a finite sphere of other matter in Space (our finite spherical universe).

Ray - It does not require that we know whether the universe is finite or infinite in either space or time. I think that Geoff's prejudices as regarding infinite are not bad ones, but we really don't know. At any rate, I think that I can prove that the universe is much more than 10^24 years old and is over 10^23 light years across.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-C ... iverse.htm

Cosmology: Hubble Redshift
The Wave Structure of Matter Explains the Red Shift with Distance with Huygens Principle, not Doppler Shift due to Expanding Universe / Space

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology ... stance.htm

Like many parts of modern physics, famous Jews in the 1920's messed up the Red Shift theory which led to the idea of the massively expanding Universe. The Universe is not "expanding" in the same manner according to the Cosmology of the Harmonics Theory.:

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology ... stance.htm

Explaining Einstein's Famous Cosmological Constant & Further Prediction

We begin with a good summary from Halton Arp on Einstein's famous 'Cosmological Constant (which is really just an assumed anti-gravity force to prevent a finite spherical Universe from gravitationally collapsing).

Like most people, I grew up with the received wisdom that Einstein's General Relativity was so profound and complicated that only a very few people in the world understood it. But eventually it dawned on me that the essential idea was very simple, and it was only the elaboration's that were complicated. The simplest mathematical expression of General Relativity is; G = T
The T represents the energy and momentum of a system of particles. In order to describe their behaviour in great generality, they are considered to be in a space whose geometrical properties (e.g.. curvature of space-time) are described by G. Now the solution to this equation tells us how these particles behave with time. The important feature of this solution is very simple to visualize, either the initial energy is large and the ensemble continues to expand or the energy is small and the ensemble collapses under the force of gravity. This is the unstable universe which distressed Einstein and caused him to introduce the cosmological constant (a special energy term) which just balanced the universe.

But in 1922 the Russian Mathematician, Alexander Friedmann, put forth a solution in which the spatial separations of the particles expanded with time. At first reluctant, Einstein later embraced the expanding universe solution so enthusiastically that he renounced his cosmological 'fudge factor' as 'the greatest blunder of my life'. The Lundmark-Hubble relation was in the air at the time, and it seemed an ideal synthesis to interpret the redshifts of the extragalactic nebulae as the recession velocity of their expanding space-time reference frame. But basically, the theory was that the galaxies at our time were expanding away from each other, and therefore must have all originated in a 'Big Bang'- that is, the universe was created instantaneously out of nothing. (Arp,1998)

Let us now consider Einstein's thoughts on the subject of his famous Cosmological (Anti-Gravity) Constant;
My original considerations on the Structure of Space According to the General Theory of Relativity were based on two hypotheses:
1. There exists an average density of matter in the whole of space (the finite spherical universe) which is everywhere the same and different from zero.
2. The magnitude (radius) of space (finite spherical universe) is independent of time.

Both these hypotheses proved to be consistent, according to the general theory of relativity, but only after a hypothetical term was added to the field equations, a term which was not required by the theory as such nor did it seem natural from a theoretical point of view ('cosmological term of the field equations'). (Einstein, 1961)

Einstein is largely correct with his two hypotheses - his problem was that he had to assume that the universe was finite and spherical (because of Mach's Principle and that matter's mass is finite), and this necessarily meant that gravity would cause it to collapse upon itself. Thus he required a 'cosmological constant' (effectively a repulsive or anti-gravitational force) to prevent the matter in a finite spherical universe from collapsing upon itself. As we have explained, our finite spherical universe is only part of an infinite Space that continues to be filled with an average distribution of matter. Thus this matter external to our universe gravitationally attracts our matter and thus prevents the matter in our universe from collapsing.
This explains Einstein's need for a cosmological constant - but it is not a gravitationally repulsive force as Einstein imagined (and which we do not observe), rather, it is simply the normal gravitational attraction of matter outside our finite spherical universe which prevents our universe from collapsing. Now this leads the Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the WSM to make a very important prediction:
That the motion of distant stars behaves as if there is anti-gravity due to the gravitational influence of matter outside our finite spherical universe.
(Due to our increased powers of observing the distant universe perhaps it is now possible to confirm this prediction. Please email me if you have any information.)

But as chance would have it Einstein found another explanation and thus famously renounced his cosmological constant as 'my greatest mistake'.

Friedman showed that a different hypothesis was natural from a purely theoretical point of view. He realized that it was possible to preserve hypothesis 1 (average density of matter) without introducing the less natural cosmological term into the field equations of gravitation, if one was ready to drop hypothesis 2. Namely, the original field equations admit a solution in which the 'world radius' (radius of the finite spherical universe) depends on time {expanding space}. In that sense one can say, according to Friedman, that the theory demands an expansion of space. (Einstein, 1961)

So Einstein realized that if the universe was expanding (i.e. remove hypothesis 2) then there was no longer any need for his cosmological constant to prevent the universe from collapsing. Now initially Einstein had rejected this idea, but then a remarkable coincidence occurred which caused him to change his mind. Einstein continues;

A few years later Hubble showed, by special investigation of the extra-galactic nebulae, that the spectral lines emitted showed a red shift which increases regularly with distance of the nebulae. This can be interpreted in regard to our present knowledge only in the sense of Doppler's principle, as an expansive motion of the system of stars in the large - as required, according to Friedman, by the field equations of gravitation. Hubble's discovery can, therefore, be considered to some extent as a confirmation of the theory. (Einstein, 1961)

One thing that is very interesting (and disturbing) is how knowledge gets corrupted over time. This particularly applies to the idea that 'Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding'. He did no such thing, Hubble discovered a relationship between redshift and distance - one possible cause of this is the Doppler shift due to matter moving away from other matter (an expanding universe). Now this is a profoundly different thing to say (and it is how a careful scientist like Einstein expresses it), and yet it is simply amazing as to the number of respected scientists who say that Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding (which is not science!)
As Eric Lerner correctly notices;

In one of its several variations the big bang cosmological theory is almost universally accepted as the most reasonable theory for the origin and evolution of the universe. In fact, it is so well accepted that virtually every media article, story or program that touches on the subjects of astronomy or cosmology presents the big bang as a virtual proven fact. As a result, the great majority of the literate populace of the world, including most of the scientists of the world, accepts big bang theory as scientific fact." (Lerner, 1991)

It should be pointed out that Hubble himself was not convinced that red shift was exclusively due to Doppler effect. Up to the time of his death he maintained that velocities inferred from red shift measurements should be referred to as apparent velocities. (Mitchell, 1997)

Below I quote a few scientists who have made this error, simply because I wish to strongly make the point about how we begin to assume things to be true, above and beyond what the observation tells us. (Scientist have a responsibility to be careful, and should clearly recognise the distinction between empirical facts and their further interpretations!)

About 1929 the American astronomer Hubble demonstrated the existence of a strange correlation between distance and speed of the nebulae: they all move outwards, away from us, and with a velocity which increases proportional to the distance. (Born, 1964)

In 1929, Edwin Hubble made the landmark observation that wherever you look, distant galaxies are moving rapidly away from us. In other words, the universe is expanding. This means at earlier times objects would have been closer together. .. Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense." (Hawking, 1988)

Only after the astronomer Edwin Hubble had studied the motions of galaxies and independently discovered that the universe was expanding. (Wertheim, 1997)

It is also important to realize that the modern conception of the 'Big Bang' is that Space itself is expanding, and as the Doppler shift only applies to the motion of matter in Space thus it is unscientific to apply this empirical observation to the expansion of Space. Thus the 'Big Bang' is without both empirical or theoretical foundations, it is, quite simply, not a scientific theory.
In conclusion of this argument we should emphasize two things;
i) That Einstein's Cosmological Constant is largely correct, but is caused by the gravitational forces of matter outside our finite spherical universe (within an infinite Space) which prevents our universe from gravitationally collapsing.
ii) Thus there is no need for an expanding universe, and then they would have realized, from the Spherical Wave Structure of Matter, that the redshift can be correctly calculated from Huygens' Principle and the decreasing wave interactions with distance.

--------

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

When the dust has settled it is clear that what remains is forever different. The redshift is due to changing mass of particles over time. It is not velocity related. Therefore there is no Hubble flow and no start to time. No big bang. No age of the universe problem because some things in the universe seem older than the universe itself. No time problem in forming galaxy clusters and galaxies. No period of time in which the parts of the universe were not in speed of light communication. No Problem with large structures at periodic intervals. All the time in the world for these patterns to slowly build up structure.

This idea of waves in and out of particles was first put forward by de Broglie. Later Wheeler and Feynman almost got to the right answer. They had in and out waves called advance and retarded waves. These ideas are central to the variable particle mass idea promoted by Narlikar, Hoyle and Arp. Wheeler and Feynman just got confused about how a wave knew how to converge on the right location for an event and felt that they needed "waves going back in time" to make it work. Still they accepted this weirdness and went ahead. The correct result is clear and requires no backwards time travelling waves. Physics has to change to accomodate this very clear evidence from cosmology. Particles are just processes and not things. They are no more absolute than anything else in the universe. All particles are standing waves. A standing wave does not have to know where to converge. The "particle" is where the waves converge. It moves about as the point of convergence moves about. There is nothing else than the waves converging. But that is another story.

I guess "God" has a hum....