[Marxism] Breaking-Light-Speed l?

Shane Mage shmage at pipeline.com
Mon Sep 26 13:01:59 MDT 2011

> On Sep 26, 2011, at 8:13 AM, Jeff 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...
> Remarkable, coming from someone who has never even heard of Halton  
> Arp!
>>>> 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.
>> ....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.
> "When Cepheids are used as indicators for the distances to nearby  
> galaxies, a necessary assumption is that mass is invariant  
> throughout the universe. But if mass varies with charge, each galaxy  
> —and therefore each star in it —could have a different charge  
> distribution with respect to the intergalactic plasma. Each galaxy  
> could have an idiosyncratic period–luminosity relationship for  
> Cepheids, rendering them unusable for determining distances to other  
> galaxies.
> Halton Arp’s discoveries of connections between high-redshift  
> quasars and low-redshift active galaxies have already brought “ultra- 
> luminous” objects at great distances back to being “normally  
> luminous” objects at much closer distances. The objects may even be  
> “under-luminous” and located at nearby distances. With both redshift  
> and Cepheids thrown into doubt, astronomers are left with no  
> reliable way to determine distances to galaxies."
> --http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/...epheid.htm
>>> 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.
> He can't even read what he just quoted--"a gigantic if."
>> 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"

More information about the Marxism mailing list