Why is NASA still dropping observations down black holes that don't exist?
Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:40 pm
The link description below is to a tale woven to hedge NASA's bets on big bangery
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chan ... tions.html
It's big bang bet hedging... claiming the universe is "not expanding uniformly in all directions" by using data from Chandra observations in a "new way" to measure the differences in velocity rates of radial expansion in all directions of the universe by calculating variance in supposed relationships between hot gases and radiation. Big bangery with Black holes and everything. It has some readily apparent problems.
For example, The data is obtained from marvelous devices, but those devices orbit earth. The conclusions of whatever calculations they make with that data is therefore geocentric. I don't think we have any reason to believe that a big bang originated anywhere near "here,"(or anywhere else) given an apparently boundless universe.
Reading the article linked above, I thought it might be a good subject for Picture of the Day.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chan ... tions.html
It's big bang bet hedging... claiming the universe is "not expanding uniformly in all directions" by using data from Chandra observations in a "new way" to measure the differences in velocity rates of radial expansion in all directions of the universe by calculating variance in supposed relationships between hot gases and radiation. Big bangery with Black holes and everything. It has some readily apparent problems.
For example, The data is obtained from marvelous devices, but those devices orbit earth. The conclusions of whatever calculations they make with that data is therefore geocentric. I don't think we have any reason to believe that a big bang originated anywhere near "here,"(or anywhere else) given an apparently boundless universe.
Reading the article linked above, I thought it might be a good subject for Picture of the Day.