====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
At 18:23 25/09/11 -0400, Shane Mage wrote: > Responding to Shane Mage is almost embarrassing since he is mistaken in several respects and normally I don't waste my time addressing such trash. But I will since there are other people reading this who might pay some credence to a person who speaks as if he has some knowledge, which he doesn't. And I'd add that his (non-) credibility in this matter could reflect on his other comments of a political or historical nature. >> Supernova 1987a was a distance of 166,912 ± 10.1 light years [2] >> from Earth >> when it died... > >A completely specious number based only on the fantasy dogma that >redshift indicates distance. Not only is Hubble's law not a "fantasy dogma," but that is beside the point because galaxies as close as the LMC where this supernova was located are MUCH closer than ones where you would ever use the Hubble relationship to estimate its distance! The distance to such nearby galaxies is best determined, rather, using "standard candles," which are stars with a known intrinsic brightness (so that you can infer their distance from their apparent brightness seen from earth). The best know standard candles are Cepheid variables whose intrinsic brightness can be known from the period of their variability. > The actual distance is totally unknown >and could be much, much less. Well no, but..... >So we learn that the neutrinos did the "impossible"--they arrived >sooner and so travelled faster than the light did! No, see my last post. And also the increase of light took place over a period of hours (and weeks) whereas the entire neutrino emission was limited to a period of seconds. >*If* (a gigantic if) this is true, and the experimental values are >confirmed, the Supernova would have been quite close to us. So Shane is suggesting that this star and the entire Large Magellanic Cloud is hundreds of times closer than we know it is. That would place this other galaxy inside our own galaxy! It would mean that its stars would appear millions of times brighter than they are, and this supernova would have appeared much brighter than Venus. Or alternatively, given the observed brightnesses of stars in the LMC, they are intrinsically millions of times dimmer than is accepted. That would make our sun brighter than any star in the LMC. This is so ridiculous that I'm wasting my time with each word I write. - Jeff It would >be interesting indeed to see the contortions the Astronomical Faithful >would be going through to "save" their General Relativity-based Big >Bang cosmology. > > >Shane Mage > >"scientific discovery is basically recognition of obvious realities >that self-interest or ideology have kept everybody from paying >attention to" ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
