Basically, galactic red shift being disproven means that the universe isn't expanding infinitely, because not only is movement not observed but a lack of movement was.
Since the galaxy isn't expanding, there cannot have been a single point of origin. No big bang. Probably THE pre-eminent theory used to push atheism in the 20th century was a lie all along.
How readily does that work when considering whether such a point of origin was static in the first place and/or the resultant universe itself is also static?
It's not to suggest that the galaxy is static, it still rotates observably.
But in a frictionless environment, if there was a common point of origin then acceleration away from the point would be constant and unremitting. Due of course to lack of a contrary force, and such a force would be compressing on a galactic scale which is just ridiculous.
The universe and the galaxy are very different things, and even at the lower end of the two we lack observational data to draw much more of a conclusion about other galaxies than simply that they probably exist.
In any case it's largely irrelevant. We haven't even made it out of our solar system yet, so casting our gaze to other galaxies is largely academic time wasting.
True but it’s fun to imagine the possibilities. Then again that’s what we have sci-fi for. Probably why I love golden age sci- fi due to the spirit of exploration
I saw it in a scientific journal a former employer was subscribed to. I used to do satellite systems engineering so we had a few of those. The DoD space community was in a tizzy about it a while ago.
I need to read up on that
Basically, galactic red shift being disproven means that the universe isn't expanding infinitely, because not only is movement not observed but a lack of movement was.
Since the galaxy isn't expanding, there cannot have been a single point of origin. No big bang. Probably THE pre-eminent theory used to push atheism in the 20th century was a lie all along.
How readily does that work when considering whether such a point of origin was static in the first place and/or the resultant universe itself is also static?
It's not to suggest that the galaxy is static, it still rotates observably.
But in a frictionless environment, if there was a common point of origin then acceleration away from the point would be constant and unremitting. Due of course to lack of a contrary force, and such a force would be compressing on a galactic scale which is just ridiculous.
the gravitational attraction towards the universal center of mass would gradually slow the expansion, but we haven't seen uch a thing.
Ohhh. Ok now I do remember hearing about that. I guess that does make one wonder how big the universe is. Or if it’s one of many universes
The universe and the galaxy are very different things, and even at the lower end of the two we lack observational data to draw much more of a conclusion about other galaxies than simply that they probably exist.
In any case it's largely irrelevant. We haven't even made it out of our solar system yet, so casting our gaze to other galaxies is largely academic time wasting.
True but it’s fun to imagine the possibilities. Then again that’s what we have sci-fi for. Probably why I love golden age sci- fi due to the spirit of exploration
I need some sources that there is insufficient redshift to show universal expansion, because I can't seem to find any and it's a big deal if true.
I saw it in a scientific journal a former employer was subscribed to. I used to do satellite systems engineering so we had a few of those. The DoD space community was in a tizzy about it a while ago.
there is literally nothing about it anywhere on the usual channels. It's odd--if what you remember is true, it ought to be huge news.