[geocentrism] Incorrect Assumptions in Astrophysics
- From: Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 15:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/mgmirkin.htm
Incorrect Assumptions in Astrophysics 06/01/08
Is all well within the field of astronomy, or have astronomers been misled by
their trusting acceptance of a myriad of unproven foundational assumptions
leading to extreme, bizarre (and possibly quite wrong) conclusions?
Image Credit: ScienceCartoonsPlus.com
Reproduced with permission.
In previous commentaries (Ultra Luminous Astronomy 1 and 2), it has been
noted that there has been an increasing trend among astronomers in applying
superlative terms to anomalous astronomical objects, such as "ultra-luminous,"
"beyond bright," "super-massive," among others.
These objects are so labeled due to their extraordinary brilliance, size, and
other attributes. Or are they? On what foundational basis do these
classifications rest? Are they based upon actual measurements of absolute
luminosity, absolute size, or absolute mass? Or are they, on the other hand,
based upon undisclosed assumptions?
In fact, many stars and galaxies are so distant that accurate absolute
measurements of primary properties are nearly or completely beyond humanity?s
current technological capability to assess. As such, several of astronomers' "
absolute" measurements are in fact calculated measurements. They are
extrapolated from related actual data based upon assumptions about how those
data relate to properties that cannot be directly measured.
This, however, leaves astronomers in the unenviable and precarious situation of
having a trust relationship with both the properties that can be directly
measured and the assumptions about how those relate to the properties that
cannot be directly measured.
As an example, astronomers can measure the "apparent luminosity" of stars and
galaxies as received at Earth-based or space-based observatories (how much
light the receiving apparatus was exposed to during a specific interval).
Astronomers do not, however, know the absolute luminosity of the source (how
much light was originally emitted from the source).
In order to calculate "absolute luminosity" (an estimation of the quantity of
light originally emitted from a star or galaxy), astronomers must make
calculations from the "apparent luminosity" based upon assumed distance to the
source.
An article, from Sky and Telescope, appears to recognize the precarious
situation that low-quality estimations of distance put astronomers in:
A bedrock problem in astronomy is simply figuring out how far away things
are. Practically everything else about an object - its true size, its energy
output - all the stuff you have to know to understand it - depends on simply
knowing how far away it is. And even now, the poor quality of many astronomical
distances remains a nagging problem. [Emphasis added]
However, a pitfall exists in the trust relationship astronomers have with
assumptions used to calculate the data. They trust that they understand how to
calculate the distance to an object based upon certain assumptions about
stellar life cycles, color, apparent luminosity, etc.
But the question remains as to whether or not astronomers actually have a valid
model of how to calculate the distance to those objects. One might also ask,
what if they?re wrong? What would the result be in models based upon faulty
assumptions?
In the prior articles mentioned above, it was stated that if the assumed
distance was incorrect it would skew the results of calculations using said
incorrect distance as a foundational assumption. If a normal star or galaxy is
placed much further away than it actually exists due to incorrect assumptions,
calculations based upon the distance will consequently exaggerate its size,
mass, and luminosity. An otherwise "normal galaxy" will be seen as larger,
brighter and more energetic than it actually is. If the incorrect assumptions
are not recognized as such, then astronomers will continue to accept the larger
values and label those objects "ultra-luminous," "super-massive" or otherwise
"anomalous."
Albert Einstein gave the following sage advice:
"Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes
a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction."
Where astronomers currently see anomalous "super-massive" and
"ultra-luminous" objects, we need a touch of genius and a bit of courage (like
those suggested in Einstein?s quote) in order to move in the opposite
direction.
A recent news release based upon data from Hubble exemplifies this principle
perfectly, if inadvertently. It appears that researchers have had to
significantly revise down the distance to a pair of interacting galaxies, from
65 million light years to 45 million light years distant (a 30% reduction in
distance).
[T]he scientists found that the Antennae Galaxies are much closer to us
than previously thought: residing at a distance of 45 million light-years
instead of the previous best estimate of 65 million light-years.
This surprising conclusion also led to the downward revision of calculated
properties of the interacting pair of galaxies, bringing them into line with
more "normal " galaxies / mergers:
The previous larger distance required astronomers to invoke some quite
exceptional physical characteristics to account for the spectacular system:
very high star-formation rates, supermassive star clusters, ultraluminous X-ray
sources etc. The new smaller distance makes the Antennae Galaxies less extreme
in terms of the physics needed to explain the observed phenomena.
For instance, with the smaller distance its infrared radiation is now that
expected of a "standard" early merging event rather than that of an
ultraluminous infrared galaxy. The size of the star clusters formed as a
consequence of the Antennae merger now agree with those of clusters created in
other mergers instead of being 1.5 times as large.
It seems that the astronomers have been forced, by the data, to change the
classification of the galaxies from " ultra-luminous," and "abnormally large"
to "standard in luminosity" and "normal in size, " in line with other galaxies
of similar characteristics assumed to be at their actual distances.
The implications, however, range further afield than this isolated case. If a
single anomalous "ultra-luminous, " "super-massive" entity must be revised
downward back to the "normal" range, what might that say of other
"ultra-luminous," "super- massive" or otherwise "abnormal" / " unexpected"
entities currently requiring a host of "exotic" unproven explanations?
As noted in the prior TPODs, there is something of a raging (if muted) debate
in the sciences over the foundational assumption that underpins much of
astronomy: redshift.
Halton Arp has amassed a collection of strong evidence (published in peer
reviewed journals) that the Hubble relation (redshift ~= recessional velocity
~= distance), which Hubble himself admitted may not be the only viable
explanation, is not the only interpretation of redshift and is not necessarily
mutually exclusive with other interpretations (there may be both an intrinsic
and a cosmological component to redshift, with the intrinsic component being
dominant).
Arp?s assertion is that redshift is primarily a measure of the youth of an
object with relation to other nearby less-redshifted objects, rather than a
measure of its cosmological distance.
If the underpinning assumption of ultra-luminous astronomy (and much of the Big
Bang model) is found to be incorrect, then it may be necessary for astronomers
to radically revise their understanding of the universe. Objects currently
assumed to be "extremely distant," "super- massive," "ultra-luminous," or "
extraordinarily fast" based upon Hubble relation distance assumptions may in
fact be found to be far more local, small, dim, and slow.
It is imperative to once again urge cognizance and caution with respect to the
trust relationships developed with data and astronomers? underpinning
assumptions. If the assumptions turn out to be incorrect, the end results may
suffer from "Garbage In, Garbage Out" syndrome and require significant revision
based upon corrected findings.
Other related posts:
