08h09-BST Wednesday 13 May 2009-CE
Satellite TV news and documentary channels satisfactorily covered the launch of the NASA orbiter-vehicle Atlantis, on its mission to service and upgrade the Hubble telescope in its orbit around Earth.
There are astronomers who now call themselves space scientists. They work at NASA and other institutions such as universities. They design, build, and launch space probes aka robots to travel to Selene (the Moon of Earth) or Mars, or Venus, or other planets.
I heartily admire the work these space scientists, or astronomers, do. As they remotely operate the robotic probes, and as they receive and interpret the data sent back by the robots, these brilliant people do scientifically invaluable essential work. Their whole area of expertise and operation can be called Robotic Spaceflight.
Human Spaceflight is where organic mindkind, called humans in this neck of the matter cloud, journey into space and interact with events, both natural and instigated by themselves. First we sent robots. Soon after, we lofted humans, beginning with spam-in-the-can orbits and lobs around Earth. Both robotic probes and human missions evolved ever-greater sophistication.
But, right since Sputnik 1 in 1957, there has always been PERCEIVED (by astronomers) competition between the Human Spaceflight camp and the Robotic Spaceflight camp for money from governments. This money, by the way, is used to pay the wages of the people building, launching, and operating in government space agencies, their contractors, and in turn THEIR many sub-contractors.
So Robotic Spaceflight people have constantly, and up until very recently consistently, vociferously condemned Human Spaceflight. This is a crass political error, as well as being contrary to the scientific necessity. It only gives, for example in USA, Congress the idea that ALL spaceflight is bad, and they try to cut budgets.
That is why I often sound as if I hate space scientists, or astronomers. All they have to do, in order to stop my being mad at them, is to quit saying bad things about the International Space Station and the planned human colonisation of Selene and Mars.
Both Human AND Robotic Spaceflight specialties are essential, in co-operation, if we on Earth are to extend our knowledge and habitat beyond our home planet…
I am glad that school introduced me to Physics and Chemistry but I can remember very few specifics of it, and, as I am not academically gifted, my involvement with science is limited to watching news and documentary channels on the Eurobird/Sky platform.
I am vaguely interested in the birth and development of matter, also know as (aka), the cosmos; and somewhat interested in the geopolitics of planet Earth; and also quite a lot interested in any intelligent life, aka mindkind, both here in Sol and overseas aka overspace.
I am an enthusiastic fan of both Human Spaceflight and Robotic Spaceflight. But I am NOT a fan of Extra-Solaric Astronomy because most astronomers are wedded to big-bang speculatory extrapolation, aka pseudo-science.
Most professional astronomers seem to believe that the great cloud of matter, which we term the cosmos, is, as a whole entity, expanding. They base this upon the red-shift which we observe far-travelled light to exhibit. I reject this idea. Here, in my non-academic plain person’s words, is why:
The farther away the object is
(from which any given light is generated, or off which the light has bounced)
the farther that light has travelled before it hits our eyeball, and the more towards the red end of the light spectrum the light has shifted, and the less data the image retains.
Obviously, a given stream of light starts out whole. But some of its bits hit bits of stuff which are in the way.
(I am drawing attention, not to planets and stars which are big enough to see, but to the myriad bits so tiny as to be unlit and therefore unseen.)
The surviving light streams on, becoming less populated, and consequently less white and more red, as it goes.
From our point of view as big organic lifeforms, we see nothing, aka space, between the big somethings (planets and stars) and we call it ‘vaccum’. But radiation of all sorts is actually belting through it at various velocities. And to lots of little somethings (dust and particles) it is home.
“We have just as much right to stop a bit of light as have your human eyeballs!” they insist, bitterly!
Any bit of light that makes a hit, gets stopped in its tracks, or kicked aside. The more bits of light that are missing from any given surviving, ongoing stream, the more red-faced and fed-up the rest get.
“There is no point” one of them points out, cleverly.
“Red is my favourite colour” another vouchsafes, brightly.
After 13 billion light years of distance travelled, the last survivour of this particular charge of the light brigade is ker-splatted.
This way of looking at it will have to suffice us until we discover, and name, more aspects of energy/matter. The idiots amongst us can, as always, ego-trip in their belief that they now know almost all.
From between 13 and 15 we receive only non-light radiation. It is handy for scientific purposes, but, for most of us, Caroline and Big-L have it beat for tea break purposes you may be certain.
The folk at 16 billion light years distance from any given source of radiation, light or non-light, know nought of that source. If they are as stupid as the majority of Earth astronomers, they might even deny that anything exists beyond the limit, 15, of what they can sense.
Of course, instruments that are more advanced than those of 2009, and that we might one day place outside System Sol in somewhat less data-drenched space, might be anticipated to extend our sensing of nuance beyond the 13-for-light, 15-for-radio limit.
As astronomers (you, me, some guy or gal with a degree) look in every direction from our human birth-place on planet Earth, of system Sol, in Milky Way galaxy…
noticing that light is coming from objects from distances up to 13 billion light-years in distance from us…
and seeing no reason to believe that we are at the centre of a distribution of things that suddenly ends…
we can conclude that light is not sustainable beyond that distance, and that objects exist outside of outside finite view…
and that the weight of probability is on the side of our opti-sphere
being merely one speck in a hyperly-vaster entity.
Or, if we are the sort that cannot bear to think that unexplained phenomena can exist in our lifetime, we can insist…
that red-shift means that the objects we see in all directions are retreating…
and that what we see is all there is to see, and that we know it all, and that we are really really really clever.
In fact, red-shift (not to be confused with red shirt that I just typed) is far-more-simply explained by concluding that the image is merely deteriorating. The farther an image has travelled, the more it has deteriorated. As it zips along, data gets demoted from the running.
If matter aka the cosmos were truly expanding (which I say it is not) then, over the generations, we should see objects at the 13 billion light-years away spherical edge fade from view.
EDITED 07h00-BST Saturday 06 June 2009-CE
This text is also a Page, Space is bigger than 30, on the sidebar.