Hi,

O.K. Shameless book promotion here. But THE MYSTERIOUS UNIVERSE really should be of interest to people on this site. Phil Plait was kind enough to read and give feedback on the manuscript, and I'm please to say that it's getting outstanding reviews.

To mark the book's publication, I have a special treat for everyone on this board. An exclusive, one-of-a-kind interview with our very own universe! That’s right. Have you ever wondered how it all started? Come read the amazing insights and unique point of view of Mr. Universe, and I don’t mean Arnold Schwarzenegger. Go here:

http://www.ellenjackson.net/work11.htm

(P.S. It's actually a serious book! But, c'mon, you've got to have a little fun!)

__________________
Ellen Jackson
www.ellenjackson.net

Hi Betsy, I read the beginning pointed to by your link and it seems that the book repeats the old urban legend of expanding universe while the physics tells a different story.

Fun had with merely a brief visit. I shall return when I have more time.

(And, incidentally, what's that buzzing noise above? Do I hear ATM promotion? Nah, couldn't be. We talk mainstream astronomy here. Right?)

Thanks, Ellen. Looks good.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Of course we are. And to push my phd through the mainsteam evaluation board I just changed the title of my phd work to "proving the expansion of universe with physics of dynamical friction of photons" (despite all the obstacles on the part of this phisics that I mentioned making this buzzing noise). Discovering in the process an interesting similarity between contemporary science and contemporary art and seeing in it a sign of new brave world coming to make us all happy forever.

Wow - a title change ought to get it through. Those examiners will fall for it for sure!

They might since otherwise they would have to read more than just the title, abstract and conclusions (as eg. do the editors of scientific journals). They never had time yet to read it through and a principle of induction says it will happen again.

I hope the spelling in your thesis is better than your spelling on BAUT!

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

I'll also have more time and motivation to fix it...

Isn't it interesting that instead of discussing things like astronomy and the universe we discuss things like typos and nobody is really interested in whether the universe is Einstein's or not leaving it to "experts" whose interest in those matters is the same as in this thread... Among a few dozens of "gravitay physicists" in my university I didn't find a single one who would be interested in the issue of expansion. All of them assume that what they are told by mathematicians is true (while math isn't even an exact science). No scientific curiosity among gravity physicists, just opposite to what there is among non gravity physicists. It is not my original observation but Roy Glauber (when he was my physics professor for a while) turned my attention to this fact since it bothered him a lot. In my opinion it is a sign of times: science as art before it is turing into modern, non Popperian science (of course as a "non expert" I have no idea what good science or good art is and my purpose is just to offend artists and scientists most likely envying them their talents).

Modern science like modern art is good since it finally protects scientists against producing bad science as modern art protects artists against producing kitsches since no art can be consdered a kitsch today when museums show kitsches as valuable pieces of art worth thousands, and in some cases millions of dollars. And if a piece of art is sold for a million it is worth million by definition. Scientists finally discovered this truth. Even if it interferes with dicovering more truths. But don't we all just work for money (except ameteurs, "non experts" by definition, of course)...

With increasing redshift, the angular diameter of galaxies decreases as one would expect if they were emitting light from further distances (we see their angular size as an indication of how far away they were when they emitted the light we are now seeing).

But this only holds true for galaxies with redshifts up to z=~1.6. Galaxies with higher redshifts (and dimmer luminosities) show an increase in angular diameter. A dim galaxy at redshift z=5 has a larger angular diameter than a galaxy of the same type with a redshift of z=3, which tells us that the dimmer, higher redshift galaxy was closer to us when it emitted the light we are now seeing than the brighter but lower redshifted galaxy.

For there to be another explanation for increasing redshift that includes no expansion of the universe, galaxies would actually had to have been nearly twice as large in terms of absolute size at z=7 as they were at z=1.5. So, with no expansion, you also have to explain how galaxies dramatically decreased in absolute size, but only for the first 4 billion years of the history of the universe. I'm sure I have mentioned this to you before.

Given that you are apparently not an astrophysicist, I am very glad to hear that you ran your text past a real professional, our very own Bad Astronomer, Phil Plait. Congratulations on getting some good reviews and best of luck with this work.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

You have an exceptionally caustic way of putting things. All of the astrophysicists and cosmologists are conspiring to foist off upon the public an "urban legend"??? Yeah, right. And quit hijacking threads.

Why don't you just give it a rest since you are apparently the only one in the Universe who continues to follow the flawed and discredited ideas that you cannot refrain from injecting into every discussion wherever you go. You may not be a bad sculptor. Why don't you stick with what you're good at?

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Note that JimJast is no longer with us for the very reasons you mentioned!

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

I was supposed to get paid for that interview with more hydrogen and have yet to see any. I can't be fusing stars forever.

Sorry for Andromedas drive-by of the Milky-Way in a few Myr.