Велики прасак?

[Млађони]

Nisam znao da njutnovi zakoni ne vaze, ja znam da je sila gravitacije drugacija nego sto sada je u samo 1:10⁴⁰ svemir ne bi postojao, ti mozes verovati da je to slucajno.

Naravno da ne vaze. Zato imas newtoniusku hemahniku, kvantnu mehaniku etc.

Koja ignorise cinjenice i dokaze samo da bi opstala vera u teoriju.

Ok, ignorisem cinjenice ajde objasni mi, zasto se galaksije odaljavaju?

Sta u stvari on ovde kaze? da uprkos svim dokazima protiv velikog praska, odbijaju to da prihvate.

Hahahhahahahahahahahah.

Nisam znao da njutnovi zakoni ne vaze, ja znam da je sila gravitacije drugacija nego sto sada je u samo 1:10⁴⁰ svemir ne bi postojao, ti mozes verovati da je to slucajno.

Naravno da bi, samo ne bi u ovom obliku u kom mi poznajemo. Ne bi se formirale galaksije i zvezde ovako.

Btw, ne bi postojao jer posle big banga ne bi uspele da se formiraju galaksije i zvezde.

Zasto koristis argument za koji moras da imas tacnu teoriju BB-a?

Nije ugrozena nego je srusena.

Da be da be evo masovno je napustaju kao titanik koji tone. Svi su se okrenuli idu ili creation science, gde se nauka objasnva PARANORMALNIm i SUPERNATURALNIM.

"Bilo je iznenađujuće pronaći, po prvi put, zvezdu u zabranjenoj zoni, što znači da ćemo morati da ponovo proučimo neke od modela formiranja zvezda", dodala je ona.

Ovo je dokaz protiv big banga isto koliko je i to sto masa univerzuma nedostaje dokaz protiv njutnove teorije gravitacije. Samo tesko to mozes da razumes kad pratis really relly bad science.

[Млађони]

Uf na ovo moram da ti odgovorim.

Sta u stvari on ovde kaze? da uprkos svim dokazima protiv velikog praska, odbijaju to da prihvate.

Ne. Ovde kaze da imaju problema sa takozvanim Redshift quantization

Redshift quantization je hipoteza po kojoj merimo takozvanu udaljenost galaksija.

Ono o cemu on tu prica ne kaze da redshift quantanization nije precizan sistem merenja. On izrazava sumnju prema toj hipotezi ne dokazuje da nije tachna.

Dakle opet, dokazi nisu bitni, bitna je vera u evoluciju. Tome su nasi studenti podlozni sirom zemlje. Podlozni su sistemu verovanja, umesto da ih uce nauci.

Zanimljivo kad ti to kaze covek da postoji nevidljivi cikica koji je stvorio svet od jednom takav kakav jeste, nepromenjiv i vecan, koji svoje teorije moze da objasni samo supernaturalnim i paranormalnim. I onda on prica nekom o verovanju.

Dokazi koji podrzavaju veliki prasak pojavljuju se samo kada su kontradikcije ignorisane.

Ne.

Model velikog praska se konstantno menja, da bi se prilagodio novim podacima.

Da. Kao i svaka druga teorija. Ali sustina ostaje ista.

Model velikog praska ne moze objasniti veliki deo posmatranih dokaza.

Koji npr? Daj mi neki observacioni podatak koji veliki prasak ne moze da objasni? Al da iam veze sa njim.

Da ne spominjem sad da ne postoji ni jedan najmanji dokaz da ortov oblak i kuperov pojas postoje, niti ih mozemo videti, ali to je nauka zar ne? mada meni to zvuci kao verovanje da postoje, bez dokaza, al to je druga prica

Ne razumem oces da kazes da za kuperov pojas ne postoje dokazi?

Astronomi su otkrili 13 milijardi godina staru zvezdu u Mlečnom putu koja ne bi trebalo da postoji, prema fizičkim zakonima koje poznajemo.

Nauka se ne uci i ne dokazuje novinskim clancima vec naucnim clancima.

[Млађони]

Ovo je razorno za veliki prasak jer je u potpunoj suprotnosti pretpostavkama velikog praska.

Prosto me molis da ti dovedem neke astronome da te prebiju po guzi, samo sto ne mogu da ih teram da se peglaju sa budalom.

[winux59]

Prosto me molis da ti dovedem neke astronome da te prebiju po guzi, samo sto ne mogu da ih teram da se peglaju sa budalom.

Za sve gore navedeno, jasno mi je da nemas pojma o cemu pricas, za tebe je redshift quantization samo hipoteza? covece to su cinjenice potvrdjene 84.

Nemoj da se zalces za kuperov pojas i ortov oblak, kad ti je sam milos babic na sestodnevu priznao da je njihovo postojanje hipoteticko.

Ili ti mozda imas neki dokaz?

[Млађони]

Za sve gore navedeno, jasno mi je da nemas pojma o cemu pricas, za tebe je redshift quantization samo hipoteza? covece to su cinjenice potvrdjene 84.

tako kaze wikipedia http://en.wikipedia....ft_quantization

A bogami i status joj je takav. E sad sto ti pratis bad science pa ne umes da razlikujes par stvari.

Nemoj da se zalces za kuperov pojas i ortov oblak, kad ti je sam milos babic na sestodnevu priznao da je njihovo postojanje hipoteticko.

Ko je taj milos babic?

Tvoj problem je sto nauku dozvilajvas kao sukob lichnosti Milosa Babica vs neki drugi, ovaj vs onaj.

Nauka ti skroz drugacije radi.

Dok ne predjes preko toga nauku neces skontati. \

Ili ti mozda imas neki dokaz?

Cekaj kakve veze ima postojanje kooperovog pojasa sa istnitoscu teoriju velikog praska?

Svhati druze nauka se ne radi na forumu ova tvoja forumska nauka nadigravanja samnom nista ne postize sem sto mozda ocvrsucuje tebi te tvoje ideje.

Ako te zanima nauka bavi se naukom, ali se prvo uputu sta je to nauka nemoj da krenes od ideje bog postoji, aha evo ovi pricaju o tome kako bog postoji i onda na osnovu toga da utvrdjujes sta je nauka a sta nije.

[winux59]

tako kaze wikipedia http://en.wikipedia....ft_quantization

A bogami i status joj je takav. E sad sto ti pratis bad science pa ne umes da razlikujes par stvari.

Ko je taj milos babic?

Tvoj problem je sto nauku dozvilajvas kao sukob lichnosti Milosa Babica vs neki drugi, ovaj vs onaj.

Nauka ti skroz drugacije radi.

Ha ha hahhaaahahah joj zaboleo me stomak

Kao prvo nemoj da se pravis da nisi cuo za sajt teorijaevolucije.com da sam ja evolucionista mene bi bilo sramota da pitam ko je milos babic.

Drugo jel ti znas sta je nauka?

Nije nauka ono sto kaze wikipedija.

Science is what we can observe test and demonstrate.

dakle nauka je nesto sto mozemo posmatrati, testirati i demonstrovati,

E da li je neko ikada posmatrao evoluciju? naravno da nije jer je to jako spor proces, to je cest odgovor,

Ako se nije posmatrala kako se moze testirati?

a tek demosntrovati?

I tebi je evolucija nauka?

Evolucija je religija.

Dok ne predjes preko toga nauku neces skontati. \

Vidis prava nauka, vidi da su crveni pomaci kvantizovani, to se vidi kroz teleskop. ok? ne treba zato vikipedija, pogledas kroz teleskop, to su cinjenice.

Cinjenica je ako su crveni pomaci kvantizovani to znaci da svemir nije homogen sto dalje znaci da je temelj velikog praska unisten.

I upravo kao sto sam i rekao uprkos dokazim vi niste to u stanju da prihvatite.

Cekaj kakve veze ima postojanje kooperovog pojasa sa istnitoscu teoriju velikog praska?

Ima veze, ako ne postoji, odakle komete? A cinjenica je da ga niko nije video i da ne postoji jedan dokaz osim hipotetickih da on postoji, i da ortov oblak postoji, dakle nema dokaza da postoji, niko ga nije video, i jel to nauka ili vera? i vi se rugate vernicima koji veruju u boga?

Svemir je imao pocetak.

Dakle ima uzrok svog postojanja, sve sam to nabrojao ko je uzrok i zasto par strana unazad.

a ti veruj i dalje da je nista stvorilo nesto iz nicega. ali nemoj to zvati naukom ok?

[Млађони]

Winuxe, winuxe winuxkse.. apsolutno si u pravu nauka jeste upravo ovo:

Science is what we can observe test and demonstrate.

dakle nauka je nesto sto mozemo posmatrati, testirati i demonstr...

I ovo si u pravu:

\Vidis prava nauka, vidi da su crveni pomaci kvantizovani, to se vidi kroz teleskop. ok?

I onda winuxe kada su naucnic pogledali kroz teleskop da testiraju zadatu naucnu izjavu, a evo ti rezultati tih testova(ajd mi daj dokaze da su lazirani? Ili mi ih mateamticki obradi da nisu tacni?! ):

2002, Hawkins et al. found no evidence for a redshift quantization in the 2dF survey and found using Napier's own guidelines for testing redshift periodicity that none, in fact, could be detected in the sample: Given that there are almost eight times as many data points in this sample as in the previous analysis by Burbidge & Napier (2001), we must conclude that the previous detection of a periodic signal arose from the combination of noise and the effects of the window function.^[24] http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0208117 http://adsabs.harvar...MNRAS.336L..13H

In 2005, Tang and Zhang: ".. used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, [..] and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency. "^[7] http://adsabs.harvar...AcPhH..30...51P

A 2006 historical review of study of the redshift periodicity of galaxies by Bajan, et al., concludes that "in our opinion the existence of redshift periodicity among galaxies is not well established."^[25]

In 2006, Martin Bell and D. McDiarmid, reported: "Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model".^[5] The pair acknowledged that selection effects were already reported to cause the most prominent of the peaks.^[7] Nevertheless, these peaks were included in their analysis anyway with Bell and McDiarmid questioning whether selection effects could account for the periodicity, but not including any analysis of this beyond cursory cross-survey comparisons in the discussion section of their paper. There is a brief response to this paper in a comment in section 5 of Schneider et al. (2007) ^[26] where they note that all "periodic" structure disappears after the previously known selection effects are accounted for.

Dakle od tog trenutka kada je clanak objavljen ne postoji nijedan jedini eksperiment ponovljen koji je dokazao istinitost postavljene hipoteze.

I to je moj winuxe nauka. E sad to sto tebe lazu ovi kreacionisti pa ti mislis da je cim neko sa PhD ispred imena napise clanak da je to automatski i tachno to nazalost ne znam sta da ti kazem. Moraces da slomis srce o tu ledenu stenu hladnog racionalizma.

a ti veruj i dalje da je nista stvorilo nesto iz nicega. ali nemoj to zvati naukom ok?

More goni se i i ti i ovi debili kreacionisti koji ti pune glavu ovim glupostima. Vi ce nekom pricate sta je nauka sta nije, hipoteze objavljujete da su istinite, bez obzira sto kad se stave na test (pogleda kroz telesko) vidi se da nisu.

Pa sto ne uzmu ti tvoji kreacionisti ne pogledaju kroz teleskop i dobiju iste rezultate i objave naucni papir? De je taj papir? Nema ga niti ce da ga ima jer niko od njih ne zeli da bude POCEPAN od strane naucne zajednice, jer ce debunkovanje toga biti lako kao otimanje lizalice od bebe. Kad to urade neka pricaju nesto a dotle nek zacepe usta od te verlabelne dijareje koju stalno seju.

E da li je neko ikada posmatrao evoluciju? naravno da nije jer je to jako spor proces, to je cest odgovor,

Ako se nije posmatrala kako se moze testirati?

a tek demosntrovati?

I tebi je evolucija nauka?

Kada se kaze nauka se posmatra misli se na dokaze. U slucaju evolucije glavni dokazi su fosili.

Sad ti mozes da mi trazis fosile ali stvarno me mrzi da ti ih trazim pun ti ih je internet.

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

Evo ti ovde par fosila. A ako te zanima dalje trazi sam.

[Млађони]

i josh malo da se uozbiljim i da te udostojim pa da dematujem josh malo ove bullshite kojima te informisu oni bolesnici

A cinjenica je da ga niko nije video i da ne postoji jedan dokaz osim hipotetickih da on postoji,

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evidence+for+kuiper+blet++\&hl=sr&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Evo ti ovde dokaza za kuperov pojas kolko oces.

A sad te winluxe napustan, kontraproduktivno mi je da sedim po forumima i kopam informacije da bi dokazivao drugima nesto u sta sam se odavno uverio kao istinito.

[Млађони]

p.s.

Sto se sajta teorija evolucije tiche znam taj sajt ali nisam pojma imao ko je taj Babic t.j da je on vlasnik sajta. U nauci sam navikao da obracam paznju na ideje ne na imena.,

[winux59]

Winuxe, winuxe winuxkse.. apsolutno si u pravu nauka jeste upravo ovo:

I ovo si u pravu:

I onda winuxe kada su naucnic pogledali kroz teleskop da testiraju zadatu naucnu izjavu, a evo ti rezultati tih testova(ajd mi daj dokaze da su lazirani? Ili mi ih mateamticki obradi da nisu tacni?! ):

Dakle od tog trenutka kada je clanak objavljen ne postoji nijedan jedini eksperiment ponovljen koji je dokazao istinitost postavljene hipoteze.

I to je moj winuxe nauka. E sad to sto tebe lazu ovi kreacionisti pa ti mislis da je cim neko sa PhD ispred imena napise clanak da je to automatski i tachno to nazalost ne znam sta da ti kazem. Moraces da slomis srce o tu ledenu stenu hladnog racionalizma.

More goni se i i ti i ovi debili kreacionisti koji ti pune glavu ovim glupostima. Vi ce nekom pricate sta je nauka sta nije, hipoteze objavljujete da su istinite, bez obzira sto kad se stave na test (pogleda kroz telesko) vidi se da nisu.

Pa sto ne uzmu ti tvoji kreacionisti ne pogledaju kroz teleskop i dobiju iste rezultate i objave naucni papir? De je taj papir? Nema ga niti ce da ga ima jer niko od njih ne zeli da bude POCEPAN od strane naucne zajednice, jer ce debunkovanje toga biti lako kao otimanje lizalice od bebe. Kad to urade neka pricaju nesto a dotle nek zacepe usta od te verlabelne dijareje koju stalno seju.

Kada se kaze nauka se posmatra misli se na dokaze. U slucaju evolucije glavni dokazi su fosili.

Sad ti mozes da mi trazis fosile ali stvarno me mrzi da ti ih trazim pun ti ih je internet.

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

Evo ti ovde par fosila. A ako te zanima dalje trazi sam.

Dakle ili taj hokins ignorise cinjenice kako sto to tvrdi , ili namerno laze.

W Hapier and B Guthre, Quantized redshifts a status report,, Journal Astrophysics and astronomy, 1997:

''... the redshift distribution has been found to be strongly quantized in the galactocentric frame of reference.

The phenomen is easily seen by eye and apparently cannot be ascribed to statistical artifacts,

selection procedure or flawed reduction techniques.''

Tako nek taj hokins stavi naocare drugi put.

,,Russel Humprey PH.D Physics: Tehcnical Journal, 2002

,,Astronomers have confirmed that numerical values of galaxy redshifts are quantized, tending to fall into disctinct groups...

That would mean the galaxies tend to be grouped into conceptual spherical shells concetric aorund our home galaxy.''

[winux59]

Is the Redshift Really quantized?

Setterfield: A genuine redshift anomaly seems to exist, one that would cause a re-think about cosmological issues if the data are accepted. Let’s look at this for just a moment. As we look out into space, the light from galaxies is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. The further out we look, the redder the light becomes. The measure of this redshifting of light is given by the quantity z, which is defined as the change in wavelength of a given spectral line divided by the laboratory standard wavelength for that same spectral line. Each atom has its own characteristic set of spectral lines, so we know when that characteristic set of lines is shifted further down towards the red end of the spectrum. This much was noted in the early 1920’s. Around 1929, Hubble noted that the more distant the galaxy was, the greater was the value of the redshift, z. Thus was born the redshift/distance relationship. It came to be accepted as a working hypothesis that z might be a kind of Doppler shift of light because of universal expansion. In the same way that the siren of a police car drops in pitch when it races away from you, so it was reasoned that the redshifting of light might represent the distant galaxies racing away from us with greater velocities the further out they were. The pure number z, then was multiplied by the value of lightspeed in order to change z to a velocity. However, Hubble was discontent with this interpretation. Even as recently as the mid 1960’s Paul Couderc of the Paris Observatory expressed misgivings about the situation and mentioned that a number of astronomers felt likewise. In other words, accepting z as a pure number was one thing; expressing it as a measure of universal expansion was something else.

It is at this point that Tifft’s work enters the discussion. In 1976, William Tifft, an astronomer from Arizona, started examining redshift values. The data indicated that the redshift, z, was not a smooth function but went in a series of jumps. Between successive jumps the redshift remained fixed at the value attained at the last jump. The editor of the Astrophysical Journal who published the first article by Tifft, made a comment in a footnote to the effect that they did not like the idea, but referees could find no basic flaw in the presentation, so publication was reluctantly agreed to. Further data came in supporting z quantisation, but the astronomical community could not generally accept the data because the prevailing interpretation of z was that it represented universal expansion, and it would be difficult to find a reason for that expansion to occur in “jumps”. In 1981 the extensive Fisher-Tully redshift survey was published, and the redshifts were not clustered in the way that Tifft had suggested. But an important development occurred in 1984 when Cocke pointed out that the motion of the Sun and solar system through space had a genuine Doppler shift that added to or subtracted from every redshift in the sky. Cocke pointed out that when this true Doppler effect was removed from the Fisher-Tully observations, there were redshift “jumps” or quantisations globally across the whole sky, and this from data that had not been collected by Tifft. In the early 1990’s Bruce Guthrie and William Napier of Edinburgh Observatory specifically set out to disprove redshift quantisation using the best enlarged example of accurate hydrogen line redshifts. Instead of disproving the z quantisation proposal, Guthrie and Napier ended up in confirming it. The quantisation was supported by a Fourier analysis and the results published around 1995. The published graph showed over 60 successive peaks and troughs of precise redshift quantisations. There could be no doubt about the results. Comments were made in New Scientist, Scientific Americanand a number of other lesser publications, but generally, the astronomical community treated the results with silence.

If redshifts come from an expanding cosmos, the measurements should be distributed smoothly like the velocity of cars on a highway. The quantised redshifts are similar to every car traveling at some multiple of 5 miles per hour. Because the cosmos cannot be expanding in jumps, the conclusion to be drawn from the data is that the cosmos is not expanding, nor are galaxies racing away from each other. Indeed, at the Tucson Conference on Quantization in April of 1996, the comment was made that "[in] the inner parts of the Virgo cluster [of galaxies], deeper in the potential well, [galaxies] were moving fast enough to wash out the quantization." In other words, the genuine motion of galaxies destroys the quantisation effect, so the quantised redshift it is not due to motion, and hence not to an expanding universe. This implies that the cosmos is now static after initial expansion. Interestingly, there are about a dozen references in the Scriptures which talk about the heavens being created and then stretched out. Importantly, in every case except one, the tense of the verb indicated that the "stretching out" process was completed in the past. This is in line with the conclusion to be drawn from the quantised redshift. Furthermore, the variable lightspeed (Vc) model of the cosmos gives an explanation for these results, and can theoretically predict the size of the quantisations to within a fraction of a kilometer per second of that actually observed. This seems to indicate that a genuine effect is being dealt with here.

One basis on which Guthrie and Napier’s conclusions have been questioned and/or rejected concerns the reputed "small" size of the data set. It has been said that if the size of the data set is increased, the anomaly will disappear. Interestingly, the complete data set used by Guthrie and Napier set comprised 399 values. This was an entirely different data set than the many used by Tifft. Thus there is no 'small' data set, but a series or rather large ones. Every time a data set has been increased in size, the anomaly becomes more prominent.

When Guthrie and Napier's material was statistically treated by a Fourier analysis a very prominent “spike” emerged in the power spectrum, which supported redshift quantisation at very high confidence level. The initial study was done with a smaller data set and submitted toAstronomy and Astrophysics. The referees asked them to repeat the analysis with another set of galaxies. They did so, and the same quantisation figure emerged clearly from the data, as it did from both data sets combined. As a result, their full analysis was accepted and the paper published. It appears that the full data set was large enough to convince the referees and the editor that there was a genuine effect being observed – a conclusion that other publications acknowledged by reporting the results. (Guthrie, B.N.G. and Napier, W.M. 1996Astron. Astrophys. 239: 33)

It is never good science to ignore anomalous data or to eliminate a conclusion because of some presupposition. Sir Henry Dale, one time President of the Royal Society of London, made an important comment in his retirement speech. It was reported in Scientific Australian for January 1980, p.4. Sir Henry said: "Science should not tolerate any lapse of precision, or neglect any anomaly, but give Nature's answers to the world humbly and with courage." To do so may not place one in the mainstream of modern science, but at least we will be searching for truth and moving ahead rather than maintaining the scientific status quo.

[winux59]

i josh malo da se uozbiljim i da te udostojim pa da dematujem josh malo ove bullshite kojima te informisu oni bolesnici

http://scholar.googl...s=1&oi=scholart

Evo ti ovde dokaza za kuperov pojas kolko oces.

A sad te winluxe napustan, kontraproduktivno mi je da sedim po forumima i kopam informacije da bi dokazivao drugima nesto u sta sam se odavno uverio kao istinito.

Ti mislis da ja ne znam da e objavljjuju knjige na tu temu i da ima gomila spekulacija, mogu ti navesti sta je sporno sa kuperovim pojasom, ali vidis da nisi bio u pravu ni sa redshift quantization, cela naucna zajednica o tome govori, e jedino hokins ne vidi jel?

a prelazne fosile daj neki koji nije oboren, to jest ne predstavlja svinjski zub il slicno.

[winux59]

da ne ostanem nesto duzan

The near-universal consensus among secular astronomers is that the Kuiper belt is the source of short-period comets. But the evidence from current observation poses many problems for this theory. First, as Delsanti and Jewitt have admitted, the total mass of the Kuiper belt is severely limited—to ten percent of the mass of the earth, including the masses of Pluto and its moon Charon. Second, the objects known to exist in the Kuiper belt (however many there may be) have diameters of 100 km or greater, far greater than the diameter of any comet head. Third, even the 70,000 objects that Jewitt estimates that the Kuiper belt contains is far fewer than the billion or so objects that would actually be required to supply short-period comets over the presumed 4.5-billion-year age of the solar system.^[14] Fourth, some of these objects, like Pluto, are in orbits that are severely inclined to the ecliptic, totally unlike the short-period comets to which they are supposed to give rise.

Champions of the short-comet theory contend that actual short-period comets result from fragmentation of the large KBOs or else are simply too dim for Earth-based telescopes to observe.

The Oort cloud has not been observed directly (although Sedna, a planetoid discovered in March 2004, might be in the Oort cloud),

Sedna is 1,770 km across, way too big for a cometary body. Calling it an Oort cloud object is a stretch even assuming the Oort cloud exists.

but its presence is well supported based on observations of long-period comets.

The Oort cloud theory is based on observations of long-period comets, so this is Circular Reasoning.

2. If there were no source for new comets to come from, all comets would have the same age. They do not. Some are young and have lots of gasses; others are little more than gravel heaps.

This assumes that comets all start out with about the same composition. Talk.Origins is assuming a particular theory of their origin, and then projecting an age estimate based on that.

1. As of June 2000, more than 250 objects in the Kuiper Belt have been observed directly, and it alone can be the source of short-term comets.

They are called trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs) but there is a trend toward calling them Kuiper Belt objects in the hope that they are that predicted source of short period comets. However TNOs are more like Pluto than comet nuclei.

Most of the objects found are hundreds of kilometers in diameter, while known comet nuclei are less then 20 km in diameter and most are less than 2 km. Even if some TNOs are as small as comet nuclei, it would be odd if only the extremely small ones became comets. And the larger one would last longer, which would balance out the fact that small ones would tend to outnumber large ones. Furthermore, many TNOs are both brighter and redder than comet nuclei.

None of the comets with a maximum age of about 10,000 years go out as far as Neptune. Those that do have a maximum age of about 100,000 years. The only way of placing a comet from the so-called Kuiper Belt into an orbit deep within aphelion deep inside the solar system would be by a slingshot encounter with Jupiter or one of the other planets. Not only is such an event too improbable to be likely to occur before the comet evaporates, but the only such encounter ever known to have occurred resulted in the destruction of the comet. The Kuiper Belt theory predicts that because of the rarity of the needed encounter and the short life expectancy of such comets, most short period comets should have aphelion beyond Neptune's orbit. However, about 60 percent have aphelion of 4-6 AU or about the vicinity of Jupiter.

Just because the supporters of a particular theory give a label to something that is based on that theory does not make it what is predicted by the theory. In this case there are reasons to doubt the interpretation.

,,More goni se i i ti i ovi debili kreacionisti koji ti pune glavu ovim glupostima. Vi ce nekom pricate sta je nauka sta nije, hipoteze objavljujete da su istinite, bez obzira sto kad se stave na test (pogleda kroz telesko) vidi se da nisu.

Pa sto ne uzmu ti tvoji kreacionisti ne pogledaju kroz teleskop i dobiju iste rezultate i objave naucni papir? De je taj papir? Nema ga niti ce da ga ima jer niko od njih ne zeli da bude POCEPAN od strane naucne zajednice, jer ce debunkovanje toga biti lako kao otimanje lizalice od bebe. Kad to urade neka pricaju nesto a dotle nek zacepe usta od te verlabelne dijareje koju stalno seju.,,

Malo si se obrukao sad s ovim a?

[Млађони]

Is the Redshift Really quantized?

Setterfield: A genuine redshift anomaly seems to exi

1 Ja tebi dajem direktne veze za naucne papire ti mi kopiras clanke iz novina. Mogo bi da ih podupris direktnim vezama ka naucnim papirima koji pricaju o tome.

2. To sto si se uhvatioi, za jedno ime pokazuje da nisi procitao sve sto sam ti iskopirao tamo postoji 3 testa tri razlicite stanice sa istim rezultatima

3.Stvarno pokazujes konstatno da ne znash n ista je nauka ni kako radi ni sta je red shift.

1+2+3+ nista korisno od razgovora sa tobom = nema razloga za daljom diskusijom.

[Млађони]

Ti mislis da ja ne znam da e objavljjuju knjige na tu temu i da ima gomila spekulacija, mogu ti navesti sta je sporno sa kuperovim pojasom, ali vidis da nisi bio u pravu ni sa redshift quantization, cela naucna zajednica o tome govori, e jedino hokins ne vidi jel?

Prosto obozavas to "cela naucna zajednica" i tako te termine.

Govore samo oponenti big banga i njihova posmatranja koja si pruzio su debelo razbucana.

Kazem ti nauka se radi preko naucnih radova a ne preko popularistickih knjiga i foruma.

I stvarno me ne interesuje sta ko ima da pise u knjigama, za nauku pogledam naucni papir, njegove rezultate i kritike pa na osnovu toga izvodim zakljucak.