Physics of distance measurement Re: distance using telescope magnification Chapt17&18 telescopes as distance measuring tools #487 New Physics #607 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Earlier today, I wrote:
Astronomers should have taken their clues of distance (length) from
microbiology where no-one in microbiology was looney in thinking that
micro-organisms length can be ascertained by something the microbe
sends out. The length of the microbe is ascertained by the
magnification abilities of the microscope. 
Likewise, in astronomy and
cosmology, you have to be a illogical sod 
to think that some inherent
property of the star or galaxy is going to 
tell you the distance
between you and the observed object. If your 
logical, you will know
that the only proper distance measure is the 
magnification ability of
that telescope you are using 
on you and the distance to the object
observed.

Now let me focus on three features of the above comment.
(1) orthogonality of microscope versus telescope
(2) special-relativity of distance measurement from inherent property
or from the instrument in use
(3) if we see something from a telescope, then only that telescope can
tell the distance,
not some disconnected other observation of a shift in wavelength

Let me focus in this chapter on the physics of a distance measurement
in astronomy. A focus as never done before, because I rely on Logic
and the Maxwell equations as axioms. In Old Physics, they relied only
on their laziness and what would be convenient so that they can be
even more lazy. In Old Physics and Old Astronomy, they were hoping and
wishing that a property of an object would exist that would tell
someone looking and peering through a telescope, how far away that
object was from the person looking in the telescope. If you come to
think about that notion, it is a rather silly and vapid notion. Would
the person looking through a microscope be so lazy as to think that
the microbe length is broadcast by the microbe to the viewer in the
microscope? Would the biologist think that the microbe would hold up a
tiny card saying how long in length the microbe was? Would a star or
galaxy emit a redshift wavelength so that the person in the telescope
can tell how far away it was?

A Doppler redshift that is a distance measure violates special
relativity in the idea that the observer with his telescope is a
preferred reference frame so that his distance from
a distant galaxy is given and that an observer on the Andromeda galaxy
would have a different redshift distance to that same distant galaxy.

Special Relativity, which is the Maxwell theory, has no preferred
reference frame and so the Doppler redshift is never a measure of
distance. It is a measure of Compton scattering of light inside a star
that gives the redshift.

So the only way to measure distance in biology of microbes, is not
something inherent to the microbes, but is the microscope
magnification itself. If we see a microbe without and hazy lines or
fuzz, then we have a resolution that gives us the length of the
microbe. Orthogonally, in astronomy, we want distance to the object,
not the length of the object. But in order to find that distance we
have to resolve the image of the length of the star or length of the
galaxy we wish to find the distance to.

We resolve that length by magnification of the telescope we are using
and when we have that crisp image, no fuzz no blur, we simply use the
magnification mathematics to render the distance between us and the
observed object.

In Physics or astronomy, there is no shortcut, no inherent property of
distant objects that will bypass the distance measure. Only the
telescope in resolution is going to provide a distance measure in
physics, otherwise, you throw out the Maxwell theory because it has
special-relativity.

It is natural for scientists to be lazy, to want and wish for some
sign on objects telling them how far away they are. But then you are
no longer a scientist but an illogical boar.

It is also highly illogical to think that when you see a distant
galaxy in the telescope and then run to a different instrument to
measure a redshift, that this different instrument is going to tell
you the distance to the object, when your only tie to the object is
that you see it in the telescope, not this second instrument.
Logically, you need the telescope to pinpoint an object that you are
curious about, so that if you then employ a second instrument to that
object, how would you even know that the second instrument is focused
on the object you saw in the telescope? It is a shame that so many
scientists have the logical abilities of a kindergarten student, and
not what a real scientist must have.

Summary: the only way to measure distance in astronomy and cosmology
to objects we cannot visit, is the measuring tool of the telescope
magnification. The Doppler redshift was never a distance measure, but
only a measure of the degree of Compton scattering of light that
exited distant stars. The mapping of galaxies of Juric and Jarrett
that relies on Doppler redshift is a hoax of science.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

[plutoniu archimede]

ier today, I wrote:


Astronomers should have taken their clues of distance (length) from
microbiology where no-one in microbiology was looney in thinking that
micro-organisms length can be ascertained by something the microbe
sends out. The length of the microbe is ascertained by the
magnification abilities of the microscope. 
Likewise, in astronomy
and
cosmology, you have to be a illogical sod 
to think that some
inherent
property of the star or galaxy is going to 
tell you the distance
between you and the observed object. If your 
logical, you will know
that the only proper distance measure is the 
magnification ability
of

that telescope you are the distance to the object
observed. using 
on you and

Now let me focus on three features of the above comment.

(,

not some disconnected other observation of a shift in wavelength

Physics and Old Astronomy, they were hoping and
wishing that a property of an object would exist that would tell

someonea looking and a peering through a telescope,come to

think about that notion, it is a rather silly and vapid

how far away that
object was from the person looking in the telescope. If you

Let me focus in this chapter on the physics of a distance measurement
in astronomy. A focus as never done before, because I rely on Logic

and the Maxwell equations as axioms. 1) orthogonality of microscope

versus telescope
(2) special-relativity of distance measurement from inherent property
or from the instrument in use
(3) if we see something from a telescope, then only that telescope
can

tell the distanceIn Old Physics, they relied only

on their laziness and what would be convenient so that they can be

even more lazy. In Old notion. Would

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On May 3, 2:28 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

I am testing out the idea that if we apply telescopic magnification
for distance measure, that the local
group of galaxies are not in a cluster formation but are dispersed
further apart. If one bases distance on
redshift, then you have a Virgo supercluster, but if one bases
distance on telescopic magnification then the galaxies of this
supercluster are spread further apart than the purported 110 million
light years.

It is illogical, that the further in distance you go with galaxies,
the increase in clustering to the point where you have walls and then
the Sloan wall. The further in distance one goes should be a thinning
out of clustering, not an increase in clustering.

I have had no luck in finding any atlas that is based on distances
without the redshift. I am sure that some must exist, because there
was a pre-hubble-redshift history.

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/nearsc.html

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/wnearsc.gif

http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~mjuric/universe/all100.gif
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/universe/
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/universe/greatwalls.gif